McDermott

Kelly McDermott
Professor Jim Henry
ENG 405
April 2, 2016
Meta-Commentary
I selected revision as the topic of my research because I wanted to learn more about it
after reading Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers. Before
reading the article, I considered my own ideas for the process of revision to be the same as my
peers with the assumption that they performed meaningful revisions like how the experienced
writers were described. This assumption may not have been necessarily accurate and upon my
further reflection of how similar my revisions used to be to what was described by the student
writers, I realized how much it has changed since I started college. I remember from my high
school days that we were instructed to turn in drafts and perform peer reviewing with classmates,
but the revisions I made were often surface level. The refinement of my ideas as well as changes
to the overall structure of my essay that I make in my revision process now has caused me feel
more satisfied with my writing. The prospect of researching a topic connecting technology with
revision was also enticing as we are currently living in a time where technology is so deeply
embedded within many aspects of our daily life.
A challenge I encountered along the way was the lack of current research on revision and
word processors. Many of the studies on the subject I found preceded the invention of the
internet, the mouse and the creation of the most commonly used word processing software by
students today: Microsoft Word. These features that are considered standard components of a
computer have influenced their current usage by consumers making research that didnt include

McDermott

these components return results that werent accurate representations of its present use. After
hours of researching, I was able to find a few articles of current research on the subject, but it
had become apparent to me that research on revision and word processors was a short lived fad
that seemed to have lost the interest of most researchers before the turn of the twenty first
century. The prospect of having a device that was more efficient than a typewriter and that was
able to perform multiple functions had become commonplace. With software, user interface or
the physical design of a device significantly altering the way people use their technology yearly
or within a decade of a previous version, I believe it is getting harder for researchers to keep up
with the changes when conducting research related to the subject of technology. It is possible that
research into collaboration using online word processors has taken the place of revision and word
processors research as there are more recent published studies pertaining to this subject.
The image of myself that I hoped to create in my readers minds is that of an expert who
is knowledgeable of revision practices and current studies on the subject. I seek this image
because it shows that I went through an extensive research process to select the articles I choose
and they present in-depth research relating to revision. In addition, the high level vocabulary and
complex sentence structures of my writing also help contribute to the image I want to portray.
My intended audience are my peers, professor and any individuals who are interested in the
subject of revision. My assumptions are that they have a basic knowledge of revision and are
able to differentiate between editing as well as global revision. The way I have specifically
targeted this audience is by including articles that assume that the reader has background
knowledge of revision. The approach I have taken to the assignment is to present various articles
concerning different areas where revision practices are being utilized. After reading my piece, I

McDermott
want my audience to better understand revision and to feel like they can help student writers
understand that the revision process is more than simply editing.

McDermott

A Compilation of Present-Day Research on Revision

Kelly McDermott
April 2, 2016
Introduction
This annotated bibliography focuses on a broad range of topics related to revision and its
possible applications within the context of the writing center. The references are ordered in a way
that those unfamiliar with revision can read about a general overview of different scholarly and
student perspectives on the subject before going into more specific applications in various areas
of study. The references selected in this annotated bibliography were also chosen based on the
currency of their research as other articles related to the revision preceded current technological
innovations that have influenced its practice in the digital age.

Haar, Catherine. "Definitions and Distinctions." Revision: History, Theory, and Practice. Ed.
Alice Horning and Anne Becker. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor, 2006. 10-24. The WAC
Clearinghouse. Parlor Press, LLC and WAC Clearinghouse. Web. 5 Mar. 2016.
The chapter provides an overview of different perspectives on revision, citing from
scholars of various disciplines and discussing how conventional classroom beliefs influences its
instruction. It also describes how a students own perspective of revision is shaped by the beliefs
of the instructor. The classroom beliefs are further divided into four common conventions: (1)
revision as correction; (2) revision as growth, development, and discovery; (3) revision as
rhetorical goal-setting and function; (4) revision as assertion of identity, whether personal,
political, or aesthetic (15). These conventions are generally praised by Haar when each part acts
as a defining characteristic of the revision process as a whole. However, the convention of

McDermott

revision as a means of correction was considered as being the most problematic when used
exclusively by instructors and students alike due to its focus on surface level revisions such as
spelling and grammar. Other chapters of the book are referenced within the text in order to direct
readers towards a more comprehensive perspective of revision. Haar concludes that teacher
instruction in the diverse nature of the revision process is imperative to students in order to help
them develop into better writers. This conclusion mirrors what was discussed by Nancy
Sommers in her article, Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers
as she also mentions how the current revision practices being taught to student writers are not
adequately helping them understand how to revise.

Moore, Ashley. ""But I'm Already Done!": Early Closure and the Student Writer." The Writing
Lab Newsletter 7 - 8 38 (2014): 14-15. A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship. TWENTY SIX
DESIGN LLC., 1 Mar. 2014. Web. 5 Mar. 2016.
Moore discusses early closure, a phenomenon where a student regards an essay as
being completed after the drafting stage or when fulfilling paper requirements despite the need
to make changes on the global and sentence level. A survey conducted by Moore of fifty-one
students showed that a majority had adopted the early closure belief. They also believed that
revision was equivalent to editing, making the task optional. The three strategies she advises
writing tutors to employ in order to prevent or help student writers overcome early closure are:
(1) getting students to understand an assignments purpose from a pedagogical viewpoint; (2)
discussing the writing process as being nonlinear; and (3) having explanations be understood by
a student writer using everyday language. Student writers equating revision as only word

McDermott

choice substitution and editing were observations also made by Nancy Sommers, showing how
important instruction is to teaching writers about the revision process.

Feltham, Mark, and Colleen Sharen. "What Do You Mean I Wrote A C Paper?" Writing,
Revision, And Self-Regulation." Collected Essays On Learning And Teaching 8.(2015): 111-138.
ERIC. Web. 23 Feb. 2016.
This essay is a collaboration between a professor in Management and Leadership and a
professor in English and Communication. They conducted the study with seventeen female
participants in a thirteen week second-year undergraduate course in order to determine whether a
student held a fixed or growth mindset of their writing skills and whether a student with a fixed
mindset could be changed through instructional interventions. During the study, students were
given various means of instructional interventions such as library workshops discussing research
strategies, classroom discussion about the writing process, and instruction in revision strategies.
Participants were also given a pre-test and post test to document any changes in the mindset of
their writing process over the course of the study. The results showed that students benefitted
from the instructional interventions as the quality of the essays improved from the drafting stage
and the number of students increased in regards to adopting a belief in a growth mindset of their
writing process. The authors also suggested a possible link between students who self-relegate
and revision, but no evidence from the study supported this link. The observations of student
writers holding a perception of revision that extends only to correction within a set of
predetermine rules by Nancy Sommers is very similar to the fixed mindset described by the
authors and shows how there are still concerns by higher education instructors in how revision is
being taught.

McDermott

Sze, Celine. "A Case Study of the Revision Process of a Reluctant ESL Student Writer." TESL
Canada Journal 19.2 (2002): 21-36. TESL Canada. Web. 5 Mar. 2016.
The author studied the revision process of an eleventh grade ESL high school student in
Vancouver whose lack of motivation for learning English had caused him to avoid writing in the
language. The study discusses the types of revisions he performed, their frequency in the drafting
stage, and the influence of teacher commentary had on his revision of two writing assignments.
The result of the study showed that (1) the students revisions focused on editing concerns that
were within the capacity of the writer to fix; (2) the familiarity of the topic did not increase the
possibility of better writing; and (3) teacher feedback motivated revision. The author encouraged
more research needed to be done on ESL writers and revision in addition to evaluating the
effectiveness of current school practices when it comes to assisting ESL writers. This observation
of more research into ESL writers was also noted by Paul Kei Matsuda in his article
Composition Studies and ESL Writing: A Disciplinary Division of Labor and shows that
despite a significant amount of time elapsing between each articles publishing there are still not
enough resources available to assist ESL writers.

Williams, Jessica. "Tutoring and Revision: Second Language Writers in the Writing Center."
Journal of Second Language Writing 13.3 (2004): 173-201. ELSEVIER. Web. 5 Mar. 2016.
The author conducted a study involving five college freshman L2 writers and four writing
tutors that considered whether the tutors actions or recommendations within the writing center
setting influenced the revisions made by L2 writers on the work they brought in. The study had
various research questions such as: (1) what kinds of revisions did L2 writers make in terms of

McDermott

scale; (2) whether the revisions were made from being addressed in a session or not; (3) whether
the tutors behavior during a session influenced the L2 writer to revise or not; and other similar
questions. The study contains excerpts of the conversations that occurred between the uniquely
pseudonym named writers and their tutor in addition to analysis of how each writer supported
some of their results. The author concluded that: (1) the suggestions brought up by the tutors
were often the focus of L2 writers in the revision process after the session; (2) L2 writers that
negotiated suggestions made by the tutor made better revisions; and (3) notes made by L2 writers
during the session increased the likelihood of those revisions appearing in the final product.
Matsuda states in his article that it is impossible for a single solution to apply to all ESL writers,
which helps reinforce the findings of the current study as a variety of methods were determined
to be successful in helping ESL writers.

Waes, Luuk Van, and Peter Jan Schellens. "Writing Profiles: The Effect of the Writing Mode on
Pausing and Revision Patterns of Experienced Writers." Journal of Pragmatics 35.6 (2003): 82953. ELSEVIER. Web. 5 Mar. 2016.
The authors conducted a study to determine if the time spent on actions such as pausing
and revision affected forty experienced writers when writing using a word processor or using pen
and paper. Each writing approach was recorded during the two-to-three-hour testing period with
special attention to the number of pauses, time spent pausing, and the nature of the pause by
writers. The result of the study determined that writers using computers tended to make smaller
repeated revision or formulation pauses throughout paper construction, making the writing
process more recursive when compared to writers using pen and paper. In addition, the longer
pauses observed by writers using computers were more consistent throughout the writing process

McDermott

than those by pen and paper writers as they tended to spend the most time in the planning stage.
The study concluded that the medium in which a writer chose to compose affected their writing
process. The recursive nature of the revision process was discussed by Sommers as a significant
aspect of an experienced writers approach to revision. From the findings of the current study, it
can be suggested that revising on the computer may help writers performing more meaningful
revisions.

Dave, Anish M., and David R. Russell. "Drafting and Revision Using Word Processing by
Undergraduate Student Writers: Changing Conceptions and Practices." Research in the Teaching
of English 44.4 (2010): 406-34. JSTOR. Web. 24 Feb. 2016.
The authors conducted a survey of one hundred twelve undergraduates who regularly
used computers to write and revise their writing in order to determine how their ideas on revision
were changed by word processors. The study specifically determined what students defined as a
draft, whether the number of drafts connected to revision, how the different types of revision
were affected by using word processors, and printings influence on revision. The results of the
study showed that students still believed exclusively editing was adequate revision. In addition,
instructors needed to rethink the practice of requesting multiple drafts and printing drafts because
not all students viewed it as a sign to make global revisions. The authors also believe instructors
need to teach students about global revisions instead of expecting it through standard writing
practices. Sommers repeats the sentiments of the authors in her article about the importance of
instruction in encouraging students to make meaningful revisions.

McDermott 10
Conard-Salvo, Tammy, and John M. Spartz. "Listening to Revise: What a Study about Text-toSpeech Software Taught Us about Students Expectations for Technology Use in the Writing
Center." The Writing Center Journal 32.1 (2012): 40-59. ERIC. Web. 5 Mar. 2016.
The authors discuss their failed study of using Kurzweil, a text-to-speech software meant
to help students make higher order revisions, as a means of evaluating technology use in the
writing center. Their failed study also allowed them to see how software adoption by students is
influenced by the modeling of writing tutors. In their study, the authors expected students to be
able to easily pick up new software with limited tutorial due to the prevalence of technology use
today. This expectation was shown to be false as students made little effort to learn how to use
the software despite written resources being readily available to them. The authors conclude that
software integration in writing sessions presents an opportunity for hybrid learning that allows
students to apply what they learned about an assistive technology to their own writing outside of
a session. No specific recommendations for how to go about it are described, but the authors
state that technology should be integrated into sessions and not act as a replacement for the
services provided by writing tutors.

Conclusion
From my research, it is evident that instruction in the diverse aspects of the revision
process is imperative to students developing into better writers. In addition, instruction on global
revision is needed because student writers may not see the necessity to revise on this scale when
tasked by instructors to print multiple drafts of a paper due to its change in meaning in the digital
age. Suggestions made by writing tutors and instructors play a significant role in the types of
corrections made by ESL writers and writers in general, which shows how regarded the opinions

McDermott 11
of individuals with more knowledge of the subject are to the way student writers create their own
definitions of revision. With the growing number of individuals using the medium of word
processors or technology to compose and revise, it is also becoming more important for
researchers to determine how writers can best utilize them. The writing center stands within a
middle ground of instructors and student writers, making the role writing tutors play important in
helping student writers understand their own ideas and how to effectively convey them to their
audience.

Major Topic: Revision

Introduction
The tables below illustrate concepts and implications that writing tutors should be aware
of when helping writers during the revision process. These ideas may contradict with other
scholarly beliefs, observations and practices, so it is encouraged that readers be skeptical of the
assertions while keeping an open mind to the findings of current research.
Classroom Perspectives of Revision
Subtopics or
Definition
Concepts
Commonly seen as the fix-it-up plan involving
correction of grammar, spelling, word-usage, mechanics
and other mistakes. This view of revision becomes
Revision as
problematic when it is asserted that there is only one
Correction
single, acceptable form of English language to which
every writer must conform and for every purpose (Haar
17). This revision perspective has its origins in currenttraditional rhetoric.
Revision as
Revision involves not only changes to the written work,
Growth,
but also changes within the writers themselves in
Development,
occurrences related to their actions, work habits, and
and Discovery mental events. The writing process becomes recursive,
making actions of composition and revision
indistinguishable. This perspective has its origins in the
process-centered approach to revision.

Tutoring Implications
Ideas on revision have more
than one way of being learned
or understood by instructors
and in turn the students they
teach. Writing tutors should be
able to recognize these
different ideas in order to
initiate a conversation about
larger concepts of revision
such as global revision and a
nonlinear approach to revising.

McDermott 12

Revision as
Rhetorical GoalSetting and
Function

Writers think about revision in terms of what work the

document accomplished or its function for a particular
discourse community (18). They also consider
appropriate personae when composing and revising. This
perspective also has its origins in process-centered
revision, but has an emphasis on rhetoric.

Revision as
Assertion of
Identity, whether
Personal,
Political, or
Aesthetic

Writers view revision as undermining and challenging

assumptions, philosophies, or practices and then remaking
them (20). Motivated writers may also profoundly care
about their declaration of self, ideas and philosophy.
This perspective connects to postmodernism (20).

The Mindset of the Writer

Subtopics or
Concepts

Early Closure

Fixed Mindset

Definition

An experience in which a student

writer considers their essay as being
completed or finished after the
draft stage in the writing process or
when a papers requirements are
fulfilled. The writing tutor helping the
student writer recognizes that global
and/or sentence level revisions are
needed.

Learners with a fixed mindset may

determine themselves to be either
smart or inadequate. Smart
learners consider assessments as a risk
to their identity or intelligence, while
inadequate learners believe that their
sense of inadequacy is unchangeable.
Both types of learners are likely to

Tutoring Implications
When working with writers who are experiencing
early closure, writing tutors should:
1. Discuss the assignments purpose from a
pedagogical viewpoint (i.e. why it was
assigned by the teacher or what the
teacher hopes students will learn by
assigning it)
2. Discuss the nonlinear nature of the writing
process
3. Make explanations in regards to their
writing in everyday language (i.e. the
sandwich metaphor when discussing
introductory statements and explanations
of a direct quote).
The mindset of the writer in regards to how they
view learning will influence their willingness to
revise and the progress made in a session.

McDermott 13

Growth Mindset

quit when faced with a challenge and

less likely to work harder to succeed.
Learners with a growth mindset are
more likely to work hard, to persevere
in the face of failure, and to selfregulate.

ESL Writers and Revision

Subtopics or
Definition
Concepts
ESL writers will usually revise their work
Focus of a Session
based on what is focused on in the tutoring
session, (but it is not always guaranteed.)
Explicit Advice

Surface-Level
Problems

Written Comments

Resistant Writers

Issues should be addressed explicitly rather

than implicitly because it increases the
comprehensibility of advice given.
Surface-level problems (i.e. grammar and
lexical choices) are more likely to be revised
by ESL writers than text-based problems (i.e.
organization, explanation and analysis) when
brought up in a session due to the ease of
correction. (For example, adding a comma or
missing verb vs. rewriting a whole paragraph.)
ESL writers who took down
suggestions/explanations during a session are
more likely to have them appear in their
subsequent drafts.
ESL writers who resist suggestions or
provided minimal/non-verbal backchannel
(i.e. cues that show a person is present in a
conversation and that they understand what is
being discussed) during a session are less
likely to have revisions related to what was
discussed appear in subsequent drafts.

Tutoring Implications
Make sure what is focused on is
helpful to the writer.
Most ESL writers will not understand
non-directive feedback. Make sure
explanations are clear and understood
by the writer.
Surface-level problems should not be
the focus of the session. Ensure that
explanations to text-based problems
are understood by the writer and
memorable.
Encourage ESL writers to write down
what is discussed during a session.

Ensure that ESL writers participate in

the session and understand what is
being discussed. Justify feedback
given to resistive writers.