UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Revisions in expressive and persuasive compositions by ninth grade writers of superior and randomly selected… Barber, Robert Ennis 1987

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1987_A8 B37.pdf [ 6.58MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078318.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078318-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078318-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078318-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078318-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078318-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078318-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078318-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078318.ris

Full Text

REVISIONS IN EXPRESSIVE AND PERSUASIVE COMPOSITIONS BY NINTH GRADE WRITERS OF SUPERIOR AND RANDOMLY SELECTED ABILITY By ROBERT ENNIS BARBER B.Ed., U n i v e r s i t y o f B r i t i s h C olumbia, 1980 A MASTER'S THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES (Department o f Language E d u c a t i o n ) We a c c e p t t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f o r m i n g t o the r e q u i r e d s t a n d a r d THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA A p r i l 1987 fc) R o b e r t E. B a r b e r , 1987 MASTER OF ARTS i n In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of the requirements for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library shall make it freely available for reference and study. I further agree that permission for extensive copying of this thesis for scholarly purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by his or her representatives. It is understood that copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain shall not be allowed without my written permission. Department of l A ^ U * ^ ^MiX^VcyA The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 DE-6(3/81) i i ABSTRACT T h i s r e s e a r c h d e s c r i b e s the r e v i s i o n s made i n e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a -s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s by f i f t e e n s u p e r i o r and f i f t e e n randomly s e l e c t e d g r a d e n i n e s t u d e n t s . Each s t u d e n t wrote f o u r p a p e r s : a rough d r a f t o f an assignment d e s i g n e d t o e l i c i t an e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n ; two t o f o u r days l a t e r , a r e v i s i o n o f the e x p r e s s i v e f i r s t d r a f t ; a rough d r a f t o f an assignment d e s i g n e d t o e l i c t a p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n ; and, f i n a l l y , a r e v i s i o n o f the p e r s u a s i v e f i r s t d r a f t . A l l the r e v i s i o n s made by the s t u d e n t s were s c o r e d u s i n g a taxonomy o f r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s . Three r e -s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s g u i d e d the a n a l y s i s t o d e t e r m i n e whether t h e r e were d i f -f e r e n c e s i n the number and k i n d o f r e v i s i o n s between t h e e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g modes, between the s u p e r i o r and randomly s e l e c t e d a b i l i t y g r o u p s , or between t h e f i r s t and second d r a f t s . Few s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found among the v a r i -a b l e s measured. Both a b i l i t y groups r e v i s e d e x p r e s s i v e w r i t i n g i n much the same ways. About t h r e e q u a r t e r s o f r e v i s i o n s i n both w r i t i n g modes i n v o l v e d s m a l l u n i t s o f t e x t s . Over h a l f were s u r f a c e r e v i s i o n s o f s p e l l -i n g , t e n s e , number or m o d a l i t y , a b b r e v i a t i o n , p u n c t u a t i o n or f o r m a t . One t h i r d were meaning p r e s e r v i n g changes t h a t d i d not a f f e c t the meaning o f the t e x t . In p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g , the s u p e r i o r a b i l i t y group made s i g n i f i -c a n t l y fewer r e v i s i o n s . Both a b i l i t y g r o u p s , w r i t i n g i n b o t h modes, p e r -formed about t h r e e q u a r t e r s o f a l l r e v i s i o n s d u r i n g the second w r i t i n g s e s s i o n w h i l e working on t h e second d r a f t . The r e s u l t s o f t h i s r e s e a r c h o f f e r l i t t l e e v i d e n c e o f mode o r a b i l i t y r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n the number o r k i n d o f r e v i s i o n s performed on sample essays. Other than fewer r e v i s i o n s i n persuasive w r i t i n g by s u p e r i o r s t u -dents, no c o n s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n was found between r a t e s or kinds of r e v i s i o n and a b i l i t y scores. Few w r i t e r s were observed to use r e v i s i o n e f f e c t i v e l y to reformulate and improve compositions as do mature, experienced w r i t e r s . Most r e v i s i o n s performed by t h i s n i n t h grade sample d e a l t with surface d e t a i l s . At t h i s age l e v e l , i t appears, r e v i s i o n i s used as a surface and word e d i t i n g process performed at the end of a w r i t i n g p r o j e c t . i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF TABLES v i i LIST OF FIGURES v i i i L IST OF GRAPHS i x ACKNOWLEDGEMENT x Chapter 1. A STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM 1 Re s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n s and R e l a t e d H ypotheses 6 D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms 8 2. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE 10 The Composing P r o c e s s 10 C o g n i t i v e Development i n the Composing P r o c e s s 16 Research on R e v i s i o n 24 R e v i s i o n C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Systems 28 Summary 37 3. DESIGN AND PROCEDURES 41 Re s e a r c h D e s i g n 41 D e s c r i p t i o n o f the Sample 41 P r o c e d u r e s 42 4. FINDINGS 51 I n t r o d u c t i o n 51 Q u e s t i o n 1 51 V C h a p t e r Page 4. Q u e s t i o n I I 61 Q u e s t i o n I I I 64 Other F i n d i n g s 67 5. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS 70 D i s c u s s i o n o f R e s u l t s 70 Q u e s t i o n I . Mode and R e v i s i o n 71 Q u e s t i o n I I . The E x p r e s s i v e Mode and W r i t i n g Q u a l i t y 73 Q u e s t i o n I I I . The P e r s u a s i v e Mode and W r i t i n g Q u a l i t y 75 C o n c l u s i o n s 78 Assumptions and L i m i t a t i o n s 79 REFERENCES 82 APPENDICES A. E x p r e s s i v e Assignment and S c o r i n g Guide 89 B. P e r s u a s i v e Assignment and S c o r i n g G u i d e 90 C. Q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r S t u d e n t S u b j e c t s 91 D. G e n e r a l G u i d e l i n e s f o r C o o p e r a t i n g T e a c h e r s 92 E. Taxonomy o f R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n s 95 F. D e c i s i o n R u l e s f o r S c o r i n g R e v i s i o n s 96 G. P r o c e d u r e s f o r S c o r i n g R e v i s i o n s 104 H. R e l i a b i l t y S c o r e C a r d 106 I. Sample S c o r i n g Sheet f o r R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n s 107 J . Sample S t u d e n t E s s a y I l l K. Condensed Data f o r S u p e r i o r and Randomly S e l e c t e d Sample, N = 30 114 v i LIST OF TABLES Page 3.0 I n t e r - R a t e r R e l i a b i l i t y f o r the A b i l i t y Measure 46 4.1 Means and S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s i n the Number o f R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n s p e r 100 Words i n E x p r e s s i v e and P e r s u a s i v e C o m p o s i t i o n s 52 4.2 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , Number o f R e v i s i o n s per 100 Words x 2 ( A b i l i t y Groups) x 2 (Modes) x 2 ( O c c a s i o n s ) 53 4.3 Mean Number o f R e v i s i o n s a t F i v e Spans i n E x p r e s s i v e and P e r s u a s i v e C o m p o s i t i o n s by S u p e r i o r and Randomly S e l e c t e d W r i t e r s 54 4.4 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e : Spans o f R e v i s i o n s x 2 ( A b i l i t y Groups) x 2 (Modes) x 2 ( O c c a s i o n s ) x 2 ( L e v e l s ) 55 4.5 F r e q u e n c i e s o f R e v i s i o n s a t T h r e e O p e r a t i o n L e v e l s i n E x p r e s s i v e and P e r s u a s i v e C o m p o s i t i o n s 58 4.6 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e : Mean Number o f R e v i s i o n s a t Three L e v e l s o f R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n s x 2 ( A b i l i t y Groups) x 2 (Modes) x 2 ( O c c a s i o n s ) 60 4.7 F r e q u e n c i e s o f R e v i s i o n s a t Three L e v e l s o f R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n s i n E x p r e s s i v e C o m p o s i t i o n s by S u p e r i o r and Randomly S e l e c t e d Groups 64 4.8 F r e q u e n c i e s o f R e v i s i o n s a t T h r e e L e v e l s o f R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n s i n P e r s u a s i v e C o m p o s i t i o n s by S u p e r i o r and Randomly S e l e c t e d Groups. 66 4.9 Means, S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s , and Range V a l u e s f o r T o t a l Words per D r a f t A t Two A b i l i t y L e v e l s , S u p e r i o r and Randomly S e l e c t e d 68 4.10 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e : Number o f Words x 2 ( A b i l i t y Groups) x 2 (Modes) x 2 ( O c c a s i o n s ) , Dependent V a r i a b l e i s the Number o f Words W r i t t e n a t Each O c c a s i o n 69 v i i LIST OF FIGURES Page 2.1 S t r u c t u r e o f the W r i t i n g Model 12 2.2 Sommer's (1978a) R e v i s i o n C l a s s i f i c a t i o n System 30 2.3 F a i g l e y & W i t t e ' s (1981b) R e v i s i o n C l a s s i f i c a t i o n System 3 3 LIST OF GRAPHS F r e q u e n c i e s o f R e v i s i o n s a t Three R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n s i n E x p r e s s i v e and P e r s u a s i v e C o m p o s i t i o n s by S u p e r i o r and Randomly S e l e c t e d A b i l i t y Groups ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The work d e s c r i b e d h e r e would n o t have been done w i t h o u t t he a d v i c e and s u p p o r t o f Dr. M a r i o n Crowhurst, and the p a t i e n c e and encouragement i L o i s B a r b e r . 1 CHAPTER 1 A Statement o f the Problem T h i s r e s e a r c h i n v e s t i g a t e s t h r e e g e n e r a l q u e s t i o n s about t he number and k i n d s o f r e v i s i o n s made i n c o m p o s i t i o n s by n i n t h grade w r i t e r s . F i r s t , do n i n t h grade w r i t e r s who r e c e i v e s u p e r i o r q u a l i t y r a t i n g s from e x p e r i -enced j u d g e s r e v i s e t h e i r c o m p o s i t i o n s d i f f e r e n t l y from randomly s e l e c t e d p e e r s ? Second, does t he mode o f w r i t i n g , e x p r e s s i v e o r p e r s u a s i v e , c o r -r e l a t e w i t h d i f f e r e n t numbers o r k i n d s o f r e v i s i o n ? T h i r d , does r e v i s i o n b e h a v i o r v a r y w i t h t he o c c a s i o n , whether f i r s t o r second d r a f t , o f the w r i t i n g ? I n t e r e s t i n r e v i s i o n i s based on r e s e a r c h e v i d e n c e t h a t r e v i s i o n c a n make i m p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s t o mature, e f f e c t i v e w r i t i n g a b i l i t y . The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n i n t r o d u c e s t h r e e g e n e r a l a r e a s o f r e s e a r c h , and the b a s i s t h e y p r o v i d e f o r the problem under i n v e s t i g a t i o n . Background T h r e e b r a n c h e s o f w r i t i n g p r o c e s s r e s e a r c h l e d t o t h i s s t u d y o f r e v i s i o n i n t h e p e r s u a s i v e and e x p r e s s i v e w r i t i n g o f n i n t h grade s t u d e n t s . The f i r s t i n v e s t i g a t e s t he w r i t i n g p r o c e s s g e n e r a l l y , d e s c r i b i n g what w r i t e r s do and d e v e l o p i n g t h e o r y about how w r i t i n g i s done. A second b r a n c h o f i n q u i r y d e a l s w i t h t he development o f c o g n i t i v e c a p a c i t i e s n e c e s s a r y t o w r i t i n g , t r a c i n g t he p r o c e s s by which language s p e a k e r s c an become e f f e c t i v e w r i t e r s . A t h i r d , s p e c i a l i z e d a r e a o f w r i t i n g p r o c e s s r e s e a r c h i s f o c u s s e d on the r e v i s i o n component o f the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s , i n v e s t i g a t i n g t h e n a t u r e and f u n c t i o n o f r e v i s i o n , and d e v e l o p i n g methods of q u a n t i f y i n g and c l a s s i f y i n g r e v i s i o n . 2 S i n c e the c a s e s t u d y r e s e a r c h o f J a n e t Emig i n 1971, r e s e a r c h on composing has s h i f t e d from the f i n i s h e d p r o d u c t t o the p r o c e s s by which w r i t i n g i s p r o d u c e d . A growing body o f r e s e a r c h i n v e s t i g a t e s the com-p l e x i t y o f the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s , s e e k i n g t o a c c o u n t f o r the i n t e r a c t i o n among i t s component p a r t s (Cooper & O d e l l , 1978; Emig, 1971; Flower & Hayes, 1981a; P e r l , 1978; P i a n k o , 1977). With the s h i f t i n r e s e a r c h i n t e r e s t from p r o d u c t t o p r o c e s s , t h e r e has been an e v o l u t i o n o f t h e o r e t -i c a l and r e s e a r c h models o f the w r i t i n g a c t . T r a d i t i o n a l models, d e r i v e d from t h e o r i e s o f r h e t o r i c , d e s c r i b e d w r i t i n g as p r o c e e d i n g i n d i s t i n c t l i n e a r s t a g e s . Of many s e t s o f terms t h a t have been used t o d e l i n e a t e s t a g e s i n w r i t i n g , Rohman's (1965) p r e w r i t e , w r i t e , r e w r i t e ; B r i t t o n , B u r g e s s , M a r t i n , McLeod & Rosen's (1975) c o n c e p t i o n , i n c u b a t i o n and  p r o d u c t i o n ; and Murray's (1978) p r e v i s i o n , v i s i o n and r e v i s i o n have been i n f l u e n t i a l i n both r e s e a r c h and c l a s s r o o m p r a c t i c e . D e p a r t i n g from l i n e a r models, r e s e a r c h o b s e r v a t i o n s o f w r i t e r s a t a wide range o f ages and l e v e l s o f e x p e r i e n c e have l e d t o the development o f a model o f w r i t i n g which emphasizes the t h i n k i n g p r o c e s s t h r o u g h which w r i t e r s produce t e x t , r a t h e r than the development o f the p r o d u c t . The components o f a p r o c e s s model i n c l u d e such c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s as p l a n n i n g , g o a l s e t t i n g , t r a n s l a t i n g p l a n s i n t o w r i t t e n t e x t , r e v i e w i n g , and e v a l u a t -i n g t e x t as i t i s prod u c e d (Flower & Hayes, 1981a, p. 367). W r i t i n g p r o -c e s s e s a r e u n d e r s t o o d t o form a h i e r a r c h i c a l system which i s r e c u r s i v e — r a t h e r than l i n e a r — i n t h a t any component o f the system can o c c u r or r e c u r a t any p o i n t (Flower & Hayes, 1981a; Sommers, 1978, 1979). R e v i s i o n — r e v i e w i n g , e v a l u a t i n g , and ch a n g i n g w r i t t e n t e x t — h a s been i d e n t i f i e d as the component o f the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s t h a t admits r e c u r s i o n i n t o the system 3 (Flower & Hayes, 1981a; Murray, 1978; N o l d , 1979, 1981; Sommers, 1978, 1980). Research i n d i c a t e s t h a t t h e r e i s no n e c e s s a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p between w r i t i n g a b i l i t y and the use o f any p a r t i c u l a r r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g y o r s t y l e (Beach, 1976; D i e t e r i c h , 1976; Emig, 1971; F a i g l e y & W i t t e , 1981a). T h e r e a r e , however, d i f f e r e n c e s i n the way a b l e w r i t e r s and poor w r i t e r s use r e v i s i o n . L e s s a b l e w r i t e r s make p r e d o m i n a n t l y c o s m e t i c o r s i n g l e word changes, c o n c e n t r a t i n g on the s u r f a c e d e t a i l s o f t h e i r w r i t i n g ( B r i d w e l l , 1979, 1980; F a i g l e y & W i t t e , 1981a; P e r l , 1978; P i a n k o , 1979; Sommers, 1978, 1980; S t a l l a r d , 1974). F o r e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s r e v i s i o n can c o n t r i b u t e t o a c r e a t i v e d i s c o v e r y p r o c e s s i n which w r i t e r s r e - t h i n k t h e i r work ( D e l l a - P i a n a & Endo, 1977; Murray, 1978; Sommers, 1980). Re-v i s i o n can f u n c t i o n as the t o o l t h a t b r i n g s a d e v e l o p i n g t e x t i n t o c o n s o -nance w i t h what the w r i t e r knows about h i s or her t o p i c , a u d i e n c e , and p l a n s ( F a i g l e y & W i t t e , 1981a; Flower & Hayes, 1980, 1981a, 1981b; Sommers, 1980) . E x p e r i e n c e a p p e a r s t o e n a b l e w r i t e r s t o use r e v i s i o n w i t h g r e a t e r f l e x i b i l i t y (Nold, 1979, 1981; Sommers, 1979). The problems o f q u a n t i f y i n g and c l a s s i f y i n g r e v i s i o n have been ad-d r e s s e d by the f o u r r e s e a r c h e r s upon whose work the p r e s e n t s t u d y i s most d i r e c t l y based. Sommers (1978, 1980) and B r i d w e l l (1979, 1980) d e v e l o p e d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n schemes which i d e n t i f y r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s , such as a d d i n g , d e l e t i n g , s u b s t i t u t i n g , and r e - r o r d e r i n g t e x t ; the l e n g t h o f the t e x t t h a t has been changed, from a s i n g l e word o r l e s s t o m u l t i - s e n t e n c e u n i t s ; and the o c c a s i o n upon which the change was made, f o r example, t o the f i r s t or second d r a f t . B r i d w e l l ' s d e t a i l e d system was based on seven l e v e l s o f i n c r e a s i n g l y complex l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e s . F a i g l e y & W i t t e (1981a) modi-f i e d B r i d w e l l ' s scheme t o a n a l y z e how r e v i s i o n s a f f e c t the meaning o f the 4 t e x t . Working w i t h e x p e r i e n c e d a d u l t and i n e x p e r i e n c e d s t u d e n t w r i t e r s , F a i g l e y and W i t t e found t h a t e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s f r e q u e n t l y r e v i s e d l a r g e u n i t s o f t e x t t h a t a f f e c t e d t h e o v e r a l l " g i s t " o r m a c r o s t r u c t u r e o f the t e x t . C r owhurst ( p e r s o n a l communications, 1983b) dropped t he macro-s t r u c t u r a l l e v e l from t he c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system because her s u b j e c t s i n g r a d e s 5, 7 and 11 t y p i c a l l y made no r e v i s i o n s a t t h i s l e v e l . F o l l o w i n g C r o w hurst, t he r e v i s i o n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme adopted f o r the p r e s e n t s t u d y (see Appendix E) i s e s s e n t i a l l y t h a t o f B r i d w e l l (1980). The Problem A number o f r e s e a r c h e r s and o b s e r v e r s o f w r i t i n g have t h e o r i z e d about t h e r o l e o f r e v i s i o n and d e s c r i b e d the r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s o f w r i t e r s a t v a r i o u s s t a g e s o f m a t u r i t y . But o n l y t he f o u r r e s e a r c h e r s mentioned above ( B r i d w e l l , 1979; C r o w h u r s t , p e r s o n a l communications and 1983b; F a i g l e y & W i t t e , 1981a; Sommers, 1979, 1980) have a t t e m p t e d a s y s t e m a t i c d e s c r i p t i o n and a n a l y s i s o f r e v i s i o n . F i f t h , s e v e n t h , e l e v e n t h , and t w e l f t h g r a d e r s , c o l l e g e freshmen, upper c l a s s m e n , and a d u l t e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s have been i n v e s t i g a t e d . To c o n t r i b u t e t o t h i s s e r i e s , the p r e s e n t s t u d y i n v e s t i g a t e s the r e v i s i o n b e h a v i o r o f n i n t h g r a d e r s . Some t h e o r y (Murray, 1978; N o l d , 1981) and r e s e a r c h e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t s t h a t e f f e c t i v e w r i t e r s ' r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s a r e d i f f e r e n t from t h o s e o f l e s s a b l e w r i t e r s ( B e r e i t e r & S c a r d a m a l i a , 1980; B r a c e w e l l , S c a r d a m a l i a & B e r e i t e r , 1978; B r i d w e l l , 1979, 1980; F a i g l e y & W i t t e , 1981a; Sommers, 1978b, 1980). The p r e s e n t s t u d y seeks t o q u a n t i f y the d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e v i s i o n b e h a v i o r between n i n t h g r a d e r s r e c e i v i n g h i g h q u a l i t y r a t i n g s and a randomly s e l e c t e d group. 5 C o g n i t i v e - d e v e l o p m e n t a l w r i t i n g r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g , d e f i n e d as an e f f o r t t o i n f l u e n c e an a u d i e n c e by r e a s o n and a r g u -ment, i s more d i f f i c u l t f o r i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s than the more f a m i l i a r e x p r e s s i v e o r n a r r a t i v e mode. Young w r i t e r s seem t o l a c k a w e l l - d e v e l o p e d schema f o r w r i t i n g p e r s u a s i v e l y , p a r t l y from l a c k o f e x p e r i e n c e w i t h gen-e r a t i n g language w i t h o u t a p a r t n e r ( B e r e i t e r & S c a r d a m a l i a , 1982), and p a r t l y from l a c k o f e x p e r i e n c e w i t h the mode ( B e r e i t e r & S c a r d a m a l i a , 1982; Crowhurst, 1983a; M a t s u h a s h i , 1981) . The impact o f mode on r e v i s i o n i s a d d r e s s e d i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y by comparing the number and k i n d s o f r e v i s i o n s i n p e r s u a s i v e v e r s u s e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s . F i n a l l y , i d e n t i f y i n g when r e v i s i o n t a k e s p l a c e poses a p r o b l e m i n w r i t i n g t h e o r y . The t r a d i t i o n a l approach t o r e v i s i o n i n s t r u c t i o n has been •copy e d i t i n g ' a t t h e end (Sommers, 1978). Y e t , s k i l l e d w r i t e r s d i s p l a y a wide range o f approaches t o r e v i s i o n (Flower & Hayes, 1981a; Murray, 1978; P l i m p t o n , ed., 1963, 1967, 1976). U n s k i l l e d young w r i t e r s can become so e n t a n g l e d i n s u r f a c e ' r e v i s i o n s ' t h a t t h e y produce v e r y l i t t l e w r i t i n g ( B r i d w e l l , 1980; P e r l , 1979). The o c c a s i o n upon which r e v i s i o n s a r e p e r -formed a r e s c o r e d i n the p r e s e n t s t u d y t o d e s c r i b e how n i n t h grade w r i t e r s a p p o r t i o n t h e i r r e v i s i o n a c t i v i t y . How do n i n t h g r a d e r s r e v i s e ? Do h i g h l y r a t e d w r i t e r s r e v i s e d i f -f e r e n t l y from randomly s e l e c t e d n i n t h g r a d e r s ? Are t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s i n the ways t h e s e groups r e v i s e p e r s u a s i v e v e r s u s e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s ? When i s the r e v i s i n g done? These a r e the problems u n d e r t a k e n i n the p r e s -ent s t u d y , as d e t a i l e d i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . 6 R e s e a r c h Q u e s t i o n s and R e l a t e d Hypotheses The r e a r e t h r e e independent v a r i a b l e s i n t h i s r e s e a r c h : the w r i t i n g  q u a l i t y o f the c o m p o s i t i o n s , as d e t e r m i n e d by the r a t i n g s o f t h r e e j u d g e s ; the mode, as d e t e r m i n e d by a s s i g n m e n t s d e s i g n e d t o e l i c i t e i t h e r e x p r e s s i v e o r p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g ; and t h e two o c c a s i o n s upon which r e v i s i o n s were s c o r e d . There a r e two dependent v a r i a b l e s i n t h i s r e s e a r c h : the f i r s t i s the number o f r e v i s i o n s o f v a r i o u s k i n d s as c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g t o a t a x -onomy o f r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s . The taxonomy (Appendix E) q u a n t i f i e s t h r e e g e n e r a l c a t e g o r i e s o f r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s . 1. Three l e v e l s o f r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s which r e c o r d the s y n t a c t i c c o m p l e x i t y o f a change and the impact o f t he change upon the meaning o f the a l t e r e d t e x t . L e v e l 1 m e c h a n i c a l o p e r a t i o n s a r e a p p l i e d t o t h e f o r m a t o f the t e x t and do not i n v o l v e changes o f words o r meaning. L e v e l 2 meaning p r e s e r v i n g o p e r a t i o n s p a r a p h r a s e t e x t w i t h o u t a l t e r i n g the meaning. L e v e l 3 t e x t base o p e r a t i o n s a l t e r the mean-i n g o f the t e x t . 2. F i v e spans, which measure the l e n g t h o f the a l t e r e d t e x t . 3. Two o c c a s i o n s f o r r e v i s i o n d u r i n g the w r i t i n g s e s s i o n s . The second dependent v a r i a b l e i s the l e n g t h o f the f i r s t and second d r a f t s as measured by a word c o u n t . Three s e t s o f r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s , each w i t h f o u r s p e c i f i c h y p o t h e s e s , have g u i d e d the a n a l y s i s o f the i n t e r r e l a t i o n -s h i p s among the v a r i a b l e s . I . Mode and r e v i s i o n . Are t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s between r e v i s i o n s made i n e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s ? Hypotheses: 1. There w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the t o t a l number o f r e v i s i o n s per 100 words between e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s . 7 2. There w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the span o f r e v i s i o n s between ex-p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s . 3. T h e r e w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the f r e q u e n c i e s o f r e v i s i o n s a t t h r e e l e v e l s — m e c h a n i c a l , meaning p r e s e r v i n g , and t e x t b a s e — b e t w e e n e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s . 4. There w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the f r e q u e n c i e s o f r e v i s i o n s a t two  o c c a s i o n s upon which r e v i s i o n s can be made, between e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a -s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s . I I . The e x p r e s s i v e mode and w r i t i n g q u a l i t y . In e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , a r e t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s i n the r e v i s i o n s o f s u p e r i o r v e r s u s randomly s e l e c t e d w r i t e r s ? H y p o t h e s e s: 1. There w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the t o t a l number o f r e v i s i o n s per 100 words between e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by the s u p e r i o r v e r s u s the randomly s e l e c t e d group. 2. T h e r e w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the span o f r e v i s i o n s between ex-p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by the s u p e r i o r v e r s u s the randomly s e l e c t e d group. 3. T h e r e w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the f r e q u e n c i e s o f r e v i s i o n s a t t h r e e l e v e l s between e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by the s u p e r i o r v e r s u s the randomly s e l e c t e d group. 4. T h e r e w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the f r e q u e n c i e s o f r e v i s i o n s a t two o c c a s i o n s between e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by the s u p e r i o r v e r s u s the randomly s e l e c t e d group. 8 I I I . The p e r s u a s i v e mode and w r i t i n g q u a l i t y . I n p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , a r e t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e r e v i s i o n s o f s u p e r i o r v e r s u s randomly s e l e c t e d w r i t e r s ? H y p o t h e s e s ; 1. There w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e t o t a l number o f r e v i s i o n s p e r 100 words between p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by t h e s u p e r i o r v e r s u s t h e randomly s e l e c t e d g r o u p . 2. There w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e span o f r e v i s i o n s between p e r -s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by t h e s u p e r i o r v e r s u s t h e randomly s e l e c t e d g r o u p . 3. There w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e f r e q u e n c i e s o f r e v i s i o n s a t t h r e e l e v e l s between p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by t h e s u p e r i o r v e r s u s t h e randomly s e l e c t e d g r o u p . 4. There w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e f r e q u e n c i e s o f r e v i s i o n s a t two o c c a s i o n s between p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by t h e s u p e r i o r v e r s u s t h e randomly s e l e c t e d g r o u p . D e f i n i t i o n o f Terms The a u d i e n c e i s t h e r e a d e r ( s ) whom a w r i t e r i s a d d r e s s i n g i n a com-p o s i t i o n . D r a f t i s d e f i n e d as a l l t h e w r i t i n g p e r f o r m e d d u r i n g a w r i t i n g s e s -s i o n . T h i s i n c l u d e s a l l t h e c o n t i n u o u s t e x t , m a r g i n a l and i n t e r l i n e a r n o t a t i o n s , but e x c l u d e s l i s t s o r o u t l i n e s . O c c a s i o n s a r e t h e p o i n t s i n t h e f o u r w r i t i n g s e s s i o n s a t w h i c h r e v i -s i o n s were p e r f o r m e d . A l l r e v i s i o n s p e r f o r m e d d u r i n g t h e f i r s t e x p r e s s i v e w r i t i n g s e s s i o n and t h e f i r s t p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g s e s s i o n were s c o r e d as 9 O c c a s i o n 1. A l l r e v i s i o n s p e r f o r med on f i r s t d r a f t s d u r i n g the second w r i t i n g s e s s i o n s ; d i f f e r e n c e s between the f i r s t d r a f t s and the second d r a f t s , b u t n o t n o t e d on the f i r s t d r a f t s ; and a l l r e v i s i o n s o f the second d r a f t on the second day were s c o r e d as O c c a s i o n 2. The e x p r e s s i v e mode i s w r i t t e n d i s c o u r s e c l o s e t o the s e l f , v e r b a l -i z i n g p e r s o n a l c o n s c i o u s n e s s ( B r i t t o n e t a l . , 1975). (See Appendix A f o r the assignment used i n t h i s study.) The p e r s u a s i v e mode i s a form o f t r a n s a c t i o n a l d i s c o u r s e d e v o t e d t o an e f f o r t t o i n f l u e n c e the a u d i e n c e ( r e a d e r ) t o a c c e p t the w r i t e r ' s p o s i -t i o n on a t o p i c by r e a s o n and argument ( B r i t t o n e t a l . , 1975). (See Appendix B f o r the as s i g n m e n t used i n t h i s study.) R e v i s i o n i s d e f i n e d as any change or n o t a t i o n o f the need f o r a change i n the s u c c e s s i v e d r a f t s ( B r i d w e l l , 1979, p. 1 3 ) . S p e c i f i c t y p e s o f r e v i s i o n a r e f u r t h e r d e f i n e d i n the Taxonomy o f R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n s (Appendix E) and D e c i s i o n R u l e s f o r S c o r i n g R e v i s i o n s (Appendix F ) . L e v e l s o f r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s p r o v i d e a measure o f the c o m p l e x i t y o f changes, whether m e c h a n i c a l , meaning p r e s e r v i n g , o r t e x t base, and t h e i r impact on the meaning o f the a l t e r e d t e x t . The span i s t h e l e n g t h o f the u n i t o f t e x t changed i n a r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n . (See Appendix E.) S u p e r i o r w r i t e r s a r e t h e f i f t e e n s u b j e c t s o f the p r e s e n t s t u d y who r e c e i v e d t h e h i g h e s t combined w r i t i n g q u a l i t y s c o r e s from t h r e e t r a i n e d r a t e r s . Randomly s e l e c t e d s u b j e c t s were chosen from the sample, a f t e r t h e S u p e r i o r group had been i d e n t i f i e d , by p i c k i n g s u b j e c t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n numbers w i t h a t a b l e o f random numbers. 10 CHAPTER 2 Review o f the L i t e r a t u r e The r e v i e w o f the l i t e r a t u r e i s p r e s e n t e d i n t h r e e s e c t i o n s , d e t a i l i n g the b a s i s i n r e s e a r c h f o r the q u e s t i o n s a d d r e s s e d by the p r e s e n t s t u d y . I n the f i r s t s e c t i o n a t h e o r e t i c a l model o f the composing p r o c e s s i s o u t l i n e d , w i t h s t u d i e s o f the r o l e o f r e v i s i o n i n w r i t i n g and s t u d i e s o f the r e l a -t i o n s h i p s between c o g n i t i v e development and the composing p r o c e s s . In the second s e c t i o n r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s on r e v i s i o n a r e r e v i e w e d . The t h i r d s e c -t i o n d e s c r i b e s systems f o r c l a s s i f y i n g r e v i s i o n s i n w r i t t e n c o m p o s i t i o n , as d e v e l o p e d by Sommers (1978), B r i d w e l l (1980), F a i g l e y and W i t t e (1981a) and Crowhurst ( p e r s o n a l communications and 1983b). The Composing P r o c e s s S t u d i e s o f r e v i s i o n form a s p e c i a l i z e d b r a n c h o f the l a r g e r body o f r e s e a r c h on w r i t i n g . In the p a s t decade, the f o c u s o f w r i t i n g r e s e a r c h has s h i f t e d from the w r i t t e n p r o d u c t toward the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s . T h i s s e c t i o n o u t l i n e s p r o c e s s models o f w r i t i n g . D e f i n i t i o n s o f r e v i s i o n a r e p r e s e n t e d and t h e o r i e s o f the f u n c t i o n o f r e v i s i o n i n composing a r e r e v i e w e d . E a r l y r e s e a r c h on the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s sought u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f how p e o p l e w r i t e as opposed t o how s t a n d a r d s f o r w r i t t e n t e x t s might b e s t be t a u g h t (Emig, 1971; F l o w e r and Hayes, 1980; G r a v e s , 1974; Sommers, 1978). T r a d i t i o n a l models o f w r i t i n g were based on the s e q u e n t i a l development o f r h e t o r i c a l d i s c o u r s e , and d i v i d e d the a c t o f w r i t i n g i n t o t h r e e d i s c r e t e , l i n e a r s t a g e s : p l a n n i n g ; w r i t i n g ; r e v i s i n g the t e x t ( B r i t t o n , 1978; Buxton, 1958; Flower and Hayes, 1981a; Gr a v e s , 1975; Murray, 1978; N o l d , 11 1979; Rohman, 1965; Sommers, 1979). Terms used t o d e s c r i b e l i n e a r s t a g e s i n w r i t i n g i n c l u d e Rohman"s (1965) p r e w r i t e , w r i t e , and r e w r i t e ; B r i t t o n , B u r g e s s , M a r t i n , McCleod and Rosen's (1975) c o n c e p t i o n , i n c u b a t i o n , and  p r o d u c t i o n ; and Murray's (1978) p r e v i s i o n , v i s i o n , and r e v i s i o n . W h i l e t h e terms used by d i f f e r e n t w r i t e r s f o r the t h r e e components o f w r i t i n g v a r y , t h e i r common b a s i s i s the d e v e l o p i n g t e x t i t s e l f , the p r o d u c t . P r o c e s s r e s e a r c h d e p a r t e d from the p r o d u c t and f o c u s e d on the w r i t e r , a s k i n g what knowledge and c o g n i t i v e c a p a b i l i t i e s a r e needed f o r w r i t i n g t o p r o c e e d . A u s e f u l model o f the composing p r o c e s s , s u p p o r t e d by r e c e n t w r i t i n g r e s e a r c h and t h e o r y b u i l d i n g , i s the c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s t h e o r y o f Flower and Hayes (1981a, p. 370). T h e i r model (see F i g u r e 2.1) c o n s i s t s o f t h r e e major e l e m e n t s , each f u r t h e r s u b - d i v i d e d i n t o p r o c e s s e s o f composing. Flower and Hayes' model i s based upon e x t e n s i v e a n a l y s i s o f w r i t e r s ' t h i n k i n g - a l o u d p r o t o c o l s , t h r o u g h which Flower and Hayes i d e n t i f i e d a s e t o f c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s i n which t h e i r s u b j e c t s engaged w h i l e w r i t i n g (Flower and Hayes, 1980, 1981a, 1981b, 1981c; Hayes and F l o w e r , 1980). W r i t i n g p r o c e s s e s , the c e n t r a l elements i n Flower and Hayes' model, a r e i d e n t i f i e d as p l a n n i n g , t r a n s l a t i n g , and r e v i e w i n g under the c o n t r o l o f a m o n i t o r . These t h r e e s u b - p r o c e s s e s seem t o s u g g e s t the t h r e e d i s -c r e t e , l i n e a r s t a g e s o f p r o d u c t - b a s e d w r i t i n g t h e o r y , such as Murray's (1978) p r e v i s i o n , v i s i o n , and r e v i s i o n . In the c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s model, however, p l a n n i n g , t r a n s l a t i n g , and r e v i e w i n g a r e terms f o r mental p r o -c e s s e s , which i n t e r a c t i n a h i e r a r c h i c a l s t r u c t u r e , t h a t i s , a s t r u c t u r e i n which the p a r t s a r e n o t f i x e d i n a r i g i d o r d e r (1981a, p. 375). The i n t e r a c t i o n o f w r i t i n g p r o c e s s e s i s r e c u r s i v e , d e f i n e d by Flower and Hayes (1981a, pp. 367, 375, 387) as the c a p a c i t y t o o c c u r and r e c u r a t any p o i n t 12 TASK ENVIRONMENT THE RHETORICAL PROBLEM T o p i c A u d i e n c e E x i g e n c y TEXT PRODUCED SO FAR t THE WRITER'S LONG-TERM MEMORY Knowledge o f T o p i c , A u d i e n c e , and W r i t i n g P l a n s WRITING PROCESSES PLANNING ORGANIZING GOAL SETTING TRANSLATING REVIEWING EVALUATING REVISING MONITOR F i g u r e 2.1. S t r u c t u r e o f the w r i t i n g model, p. 370). From Flower and Hayes (1981a, i n the o v e r a l l composing p r o c e s s . R e v i s i n g , f o r e'xample, can be embedded i n p l a n n i n g , as a w r i t e r a l t e r s p l a n s i n r e s p o n s e t o o t h e r c o n s t r a i n t s or o p p o r t u n i t i e s ; l a t e r , r e v i s i n g can o c c u r embedded i n g o a l s e t t i n g , and so on. The arrows i n F i g u r e 1 do not i n d i c a t e t h a t i n f o r m a t i o n f l o w s i n a p r e d i c t a b l e c i r c u i t as i n a f l o w - c h a r t ; Flower and Hayes c a u t i o n : T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s c r u c i a l because such a f l o w - c h a r t i m p l i e s the v e r y k i n d o f s t a g e model a g a i n s t which we wish t o argue. One o f the c e n t r a l p r e m i s e s o f the c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s t h e o r y p r e s e n t e d here i s t h a t w r i t e r s a r e c o n s t a n t l y , i n s t a n t by i n s t a n t , o r c h e s -13 t r a t i n g a b a t t e r y o f c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s as th e y i n t e g r a t e p l a n -n i n g , remembering, w r i t i n g , and r e r e a d i n g . (p. 387). The components o f the Flowe r and Hayes model a r e d e f i n e d i n the f o l -l o w i n g s e c t i o n . The mo n i t o r r e p r e s e n t s a w r i t e r ' s d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g c a p a -b i l i t y , the " e x e c u t i v e mechanism" ( B e r e i t e r & S c a r d a m a l i a , 1980, p. 35) t h a t o v e r s e e s the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s e s , d e t e r m i n i n g when t o s w i t c h from p l a n -n i n g t o t r a n s l a t i n g , then t o r e v i e w i n g , and so on. The c o m p l e x i t y o f w r i t -i n g t a s k s i s too g r e a t f o r even a s k i l l e d w r i t e r ' s immediate a t t e n t i o n , and must be s u b d i v i d e d o v e r t i m e . Without a mo n i t o r t o " o r c h e s t r a t e " the a p p r o p r i a t e c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s , a w r i t e r ' s f u l l range o f s k i l l s c a n n o t be u t i l i z e d ( B e r e i t e r & S c a r d a m a l i a , 1980; B r i d w e l l , 1979; Flower & Hayes, 1981a; N o l d , 1981; Shaughnessy, 1977). Flowe r and Hayes d e f i n e p l a n n i n g as the f o r m a t i o n o f an " i n t e r n a l r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the knowledge t h a t w i l l be used i n w r i t i n g " (p. 372). P l a n n i n g i n v o l v e s g e n e r a t i n g i d e a s from the w r i t e r ' s memory, o r g a n i z i n g the i d e a s i n t o a m e a n i n g f u l s t r u c t u r e , and s e t t i n g p r o c e d u r a l and s u b s t a n -t i v e g o a l s f o r the w r i t i n g . In o t h e r s t u d i e s (1980), Flower and Hayes argue t h a t g o a l s e t t i n g c o n t r i b u t e s t o the c r e a t i v e power o f w r i t i n g be-cause g o a l s a r e g e n e r a t e d , o r g a n i z e d , and r e v i s e d t h r o u g h o u t the composing p r o c e s s . T r a n s l a t i n g i s the p r o c e s s o f g e t t i n g a w r i t e r ' s i n t e r n a l r e p r e s e n t a -t i o n o f i d e a s i n t o language. N o t i n g t h a t t r a n s l a t i n g i s a complex t a s k , Flower and Hayes c i t e t h e f i n d i n g s o f Shaughnessy (1977) and B e r e i t e r and S c a r d a m a l i a (1980, 1981) on the k i n d s o f c o g n i t i v e d i f f i c u l t i e s t r a n s l a t i n g imposes upon i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s and c h i l d r e n , l i m i t i n g the a t t e n t i o n t h e y c an dev o t e t o w r i t i n g p r o c e s s e s o t h e r than t r a n s l a t i n g , such as p l a n -14 n i n g and r e v i e w i n g t h e i r t e x t . Reviewing i s the p l a n n e d or spontaneous p r o c e s s i n which w r i t e r s r e r e a d , e v a l u a t e , and r e v i s e t h e i r t e x t . R e v i e w i n g o r r e v i s i n g a r e n o t l i m i t e d t o w r i t t e n t e x t , Flower and Hayes have f o u n d , but e x t e n d t o p l a n s , o r g a n i z a t i o n , g o a l s , and even t h e problems which w r i t e r s have s e t f o r them-s e l v e s . They f u r t h e r note t h a t the " s u b - p r o c e s s e s o f r e v i s i n g and e v a l u -a t i n g , a l o n g w i t h g e n e r a t i n g , s h a r e the s p e c i a l d i s t i n c t i o n o f b e i n g a b l e t o i n t e r r u p t any o t h e r p r o c e s s and o c c u r a t any time i n the a c t o f w r i t i n g " (p. 374) . R e v i s i n g i s d e f i n e d , t h e n , as a system o f c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s , i n c l u d i n g r e r e a d i n g , e v a l u a t i n g , r e v i e w i n g , and g e n e r a t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s , t h a t can be a c t i v a t e d whenever a w r i t e r e v a l u a t e s h i s or her w r i t t e n t e x t or p l a n n i n g , and f e e l s " d i s s o n a n c e " ( D e l l a - P i a n a , 1978; Sommers, 1978) be-tween h i s o r her d e v e l o p i n g s o l u t i o n and the demands o f h i s or her r h e t o r -i c a l problem. The Task Environment c o n s i s t s o f the r h e t o r i c a l p r o b l e m t h a t the w r i t e r needs t o s o l v e , i n c l u d i n g the t o p i c , a u d i e n c e , and the e x i g e n c y , o r s i t u a t i o n r e q u i r i n g a c t i o n . Once s t a r t e d , a w r i t e r must a l s o d e a l w i t h the c o n s t r a i n t s and o p p o r t u n i t i e s g e n e r a t e d by the w r i t t e n t e x t . F l o w e r and Hayes p o i n t o u t t h a t , l i k e g o a l s , the problems w r i t e r s s e t t h e m s e l v e s a r e b a s i c t o the s u c c e s s o f the composing p r o c e s s : P e o p l e o n l y s o l v e the problems they d e f i n e f o r t h e m s e l v e s . I f a w r i t e r ' s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f her r h e t o r i c a l p r o b l e m i s i n a c c u r a t e or s i m p l y u n d e r d e v e l o p e d , then she i s u n l i k e l y t o ' s o l v e ' o r a t t e n d t o the m i s s i n g a s p e c t s o f the problem. The w r i t e r ' s l o n g term memory i n c l u d e s knowledge o f the problem, t o p i c , a u d i e n c e , and g e n e r a l w r i t i n g p l a n s t h a t a r e a p p l i c a b l e t o the p r o b -15 lent. These a r e the raw m a t e r i a l s o f the w r i t e r ' s r e s p o n s e t o the problem, shaped i n the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s by p l a n n i n g , g o a l s e t t i n g , o r g a n i z i n g , and the c o n s t r a i n t s o f t r a n s l a t i n g , r e v i e w i n g , e v a l u a t i n g , and r e v i s i n g . Working from a model o f the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s which i s s i m i l a r t o Flower and Hayes' (1981a, F i g u r e 1 ) , N o l d (1981) s t r e s s e s the need f o r w r i t e r s t o t a k e t he r o l e o f t h e i r a u d i e n c e i n the r e v i e w i n g p r o c e s s . N o l d n o t e s t h a t w r i t e r s ' r e v i e w p r o c e s s e s a r e l i m i t e d by t h e i r p l a n s , sense o f a u d i e n c e , and p e r s o n a o r v o i c e . W r i t e r s need t o be a b l e t o r e a d t h e i r t e x t s f o r mean-i n g i n o r d e r t o be a b l e t o d e t e c t d i s s o n a n c e ; problems f o r t h e i r a u d i e n c e ; or o p p o r t u n i t i e s , when the t e x t i s "even b e t t e r than i n t e n d e d " (p. 74) . N o l d a s s e r t s t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s must t a k e c a r e t o a v o i d f o u r f a l s e a s -sumptions when i n v e s t i g a t i n g r e v i s i n g . The f i r s t a s sumption i s " t h a t r e -v i s i o n i s a one-time p r o c e s s t h a t o c c u r s a t the end o f a w r i t i n g s e s s i o n " (p. 7 4 ) . As has been seen, r e v i s i n g i s b e t t e r d e f i n e d as a system o f c o g -n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s t h a t o c c u r and r e c u r t h r o u g h o u t composing. The second a s s u m p t i o n i s t h a t "the d i f f i c u l t y o f the t a s k makes no d i f f e r e n c e i n the w r i t e r s ' d i s c e r n i b l e r e v i s i o n " (p. 7 5 ) . As w i l l be d e t a i l e d i n a f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n on c o g n i t i v e development, t a s k d i f f i c u l t y has been found t o a f f e c t s e v e r a l composing b e h a v i o r s . The t h i r d assumption i s t h a t " e v i d e n c e from the t e x t i s the o n l y d a t a needed i n a n a l y z i n g r e v i s i n g b e h a v i o r s " (p. 7 6 ) . N o l d a r g u e s t h a t we must ask w r i t e r s why they made changes i n o r d e r t o be a b l e t o make c o n f i d e n t a n a l y s e s o f the re a s o n s b e h i n d t h e i r r e v i s i n g . N o l d ' s f o u r t h and f i n a l c a u t i o n i s t h a t " r e p o r t i n g raw numbers o f r e v i -s i o n s " (p. 77) i s n o t h e l p f u l u n l e s s t h e r e i s a way t o measure the e f f e c -t i v e n e s s o f the r e v i s i n g . In summary, Flower and Hayes' p r o c e s s model o f w r i t i n g , based on 16 o b s e r v a t i o n s o f working w r i t e r s , r e v e a l s a system o f c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s — p l a n n i n g , t r a n s l a t i n g and r e v i e w i n g , c o n t r o l l e d by a m o n i t o r — i n t e r a c t i n g w i t h the w r i t e r ' s memory o f p e r t i n e n t knowledge and a t a s k e n v i r o n m e n t , i n c l u d i n g the w r i t i n g p roblem and the d e v e l o p i n g t e x t . The m e n t a l p r o -c e s s e s needed f o r w r i t i n g i n t e r a c t r e c u r s i v e l y , w i t h o u t a f i x e d o r d e r , as w r i t e r s move from one p r o c e s s t o a n o t h e r . A s k i l l e d w r i t e r i s a b l e t o a p p o r t i o n h i s o r her a t t e n t i o n e f f e c t i v e l y among the v a r i o u s c o g n i t i v e demands o f the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s o v e r time ( B r i d w e l l , 1979; Sommers, 1980). As w i l l be seen i n the n e x t s e c t i o n , the a b i l i t y t o manage the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s may be both a l e a r n e d s k i l l and dependent upon d e v e l o p m e n t a l c a p a c i t i e s . C o g n i t i v e Development and the Composing P r o c e s s In t h i s s e c t i o n , r e s e a r c h on the c o g n i t i v e - d e v e l o p m e n t a l d i f f i c u l t i e s o f the composing p r o c e s s a r e o u t l i n e d , w i t h emphasis on the s p e c i a l d i f f i -c u l t i e s o f r e v i s i o n . I t i s s u g g e s t e d t h a t r e v i s i o n r e q u i r e s the d e v e l o p -ment o f an i n v e n t o r y o f s p e c i f i c t h i n k i n g s k i l l s . R e s e a r c h i s a l s o r e -viewed which i n v e s t i g a t e s the c o g n i t i v e developments s u p p o r t i n g the a b i l i t y t o w r i t e f o r d i f f e r e n t p u r p o s e s , such as n a r r a t i v e or p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g . As c h i l d r e n b e g i n t o w r i t e , they l a c k what B e r e i t e r and S c a r d a m a l i a (1980) c a l l " e x e c u t i v e c o n t r o l " o f the composing p r o c e s s . In o r d e r t o t e a c h w r i t i n g e f f e c t i v e l y , i t i s i m p o r t a n t t o u n d e r s t a n d what makes i t d i f f i c u l t f o r c h i l d r e n t o c o n t r o l composing ( B a r t l e t t , 1982; B e r e i t e r and S c a r d a m a l i a , 1980; Flower and Hayes, 1981a; N o l d , 1981). E v e r y c h i l d who l e a r n s t o speak has d emonstrated f o r m i d a b l e language l e a r n i n g c a p a c i t i e s . What d i f f e r e n t c a p a c i t i e s a r e needed t o l e a r n t o w r i t e ? What s p e c i a l c a p a -17 b i l i t i e s might r e v i s i o n r e q u i r e ? These q u e s t i o n s have r e c e i v e d r e s e a r c h a t t e n t i o n as c o g n i t i v e p s y c h o l o g i s t s and c o m p o s i t i o n r e s e a r c h e r s have a p p l i e d a c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s model o f composing t o r e s e a r c h on the d e v e l o p -ment o f mastery o f the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s . In t h e i r a n a l y s i s o f the t r a n s i t i o n from c o n v e r s a t i o n t o c o m p o s i t i o n , B e r e i t e r and S c a r d a m a l i a (1980) s u g g e s t , t h r o u g h a s e r i e s o f r e l a t e d s t u d i e s , t h a t spoken language s k i l l s a r e not s i m p l y adapted t o the s p e c i a l ' d i a l e c t ' o f w r i t i n g . Making the t r a n s i t i o n from spoken t o w r i t t e n l a n -guage r e q u i r e s l e a r n i n g a new system o f s k i l l s , t h e y argue, because spoken language depends upon the s u p p o r t o f a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p a r t n e r — c o n v e r s a -t i o n a l c u e s , memory prompts, g o a l s e t t i n g , c h a l l e n g e s — s u p p o r t which i s removed when one i s w r i t i n g . A new system o f language p r o d u c t i o n i s needed which can f u n c t i o n autonomously r a t h e r than i n t e r a c t i v e l y . B e r e i t e r and S c a r d a m a l i a i d e n t i f y f o u r s k i l l s which must be l e a r n e d t o make the t r a n s i -t i o n from i n t e r a c t i v e t o autonomous language p r o d u c t i o n : 1. t o keep g o i n g w i t h o u t a t u r n - t a k i n g c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p a r t n e r ; 2. t o s e a r c h one's memory s y s t e m a t i c a l l y f o r p e r t i n e n t knowledge o f the t o p i c ; 3. t o l e a r n d i s c o u r s e schema t h a t a r e autonomous, t h a t i s , do not r e q u i r e a p a r t n e r t o h e l p d e f i n e c o m p l e t e n e s s ; 4. t o l e a r n t o be a c r i t i c a l r e a d e r o f one's own t e x t , t o e v a l u a t e what has been w r i t t e n w i t h o b j e c t i v i t y . By s u p p o r t i n g each o f t h e s e f o u r s k i l l s i n t u r n w i t h one o f a s e r i e s o f p r o c e d u r a l f a c i l i t a t i o n i n t e r v e n t i o n s , B e r e i t e r and S c a r d a m a l i a found t h a t c h i l d r e n wrote more, used more v a r i e d c o n t e n t , p l a n n e d l a r g e r u n i t s o f t e x t ; used a g r e a t e r number and v a r i e t y o f t e x t e l e m e n t s , such as r e a s o n s 18 and examples, i n o p i n i o n e s s a y s ; and made a c c u r a t e e v a l u a t i o n s o f f a u l t s when r e v i s i n g t h e i r own w r i t i n g . The p r o c e d u r a l f a c i l i t a t i o n , B e r e i t e r and S c a r d a m a l i a a s s e r t , e n a b l e s c h i l d r e n t o p e r f o r m a t h i g h e r l e v e l s be-cause i t r e d u c e s s p e c i f i c d i f f i c u l t i e s , as l i s t e d above, t h a t t h e y have w i t h w r i t i n g , thus f r e e i n g a t t e n t i o n and knowledge f o r b e t t e r s o l u t i o n s t o w r i t i n g problems. R e v i s i o n i s "one o f the main t h i n g s t h a t d i s t i n g u i s h e s c o m p o s i t i o n from c o n v e r s a t i o n " ( B e r e i t e r and S c a r d a m a l i a , 1980, p. 35) . S u c c e s s f u l r e v i s i o n appears t o be i m p o r t a n t i n the composing o f e x p e r t s ( B a r t l e t t , 1982; B e r e i t e r and S c a r d a m a l i a , 1980; B r i d w e l l , 1979; F a i g l e y and W i t t e , 1979a; Murray, 1978; Sommers, 1978). B e r e i t e r and S c a r d a m a l i a i d e n t i f y two s k i l l s n e c e s s a r y f o r r e v i s i n g : the a b i l i t y t o s w i t c h between g e n e r a t -i n g t e x t and e v a l u a t i n g what has been w r i t t e n ; and the c a p a c i t y t o overcome the e x i s t i n g t e x t , i n o r d e r t o g e n e r a t e a l t e r n a t i v e language or s e a r c h one's memory f o r d i f f e r e n t c o n t e n t . They r e p o r t a s e r i e s o f s t u d i e s which t e s t the development o f r e v i s i o n s k i l l s . In one, c h i l d r e n i n g r a d e s 4, 6, and 8 r e a d t h e i r own c o m p o s i t i o n s . A f t e r each s e n t e n c e , s u b j e c t s were o f f e r e d a c h o i c e among an a r r a y o f c a r d s on which were w r i t t e n e v a l u a t i v e and d i r e c t i v e p h r a s e s d e s i g n e d t o f a c i l i -t a t e r e v i s i o n , such as "I t h i n k t h i s c o u l d be s a i d more c l e a r l y , " and " I ' d b e t t e r say more" (p. 3 8 ) . A t a l l t h r e e g r a d e s , the c h i l d r e n ' s c h o i c e s o f e v a l u a t i v e p h r a s e s a g r e e d w i t h t h o s e o f a s e m i - p r o f e s s i o n a l w r i t e r . A t the s e n t e n c e l e v e l , the c h i l d r e n ' s changes were f o r the b e t t e r , but the o v e r a l l q u a l i t y o f t h e i r c o m p o s i t i o n s remained u n a f f e c t e d . When c h i l d r e n chose t o " c r o s s t h i s s e n t e n c e o u t and say i t i n a d i f -f e r e n t way" (p. 4 0 ) , t h e r e was no c a s e among 90 s u b j e c t s i n which a r e a l l y 19 new f o r m u l a t i o n o f the same i d e a was p r o d u c e d . S i n g l e words were changed, m a t e r i a l was added o r d e l e t e d , a c o m p l e t e l y new message was s u b s t i t u t e d , o r t h e s e n t e n c e was d i v i d e d i n t o two s h o r t e r ones. From t h i s and r e l a t e d s t u d i e s , B e r e i t e r and S c a r d a m a l i a c o n c l u d e t h a t c h i l d r e n have d i f f i c u l t y o vercoming t h e e x i s t i n g , c o n c r e t e t e x t t o g e n e r a t e new language. T h i s d i f f i c u l t y c o n t r i b u t e s t o the l i m i t a t i o n s o f c h i l d r e n ' s r e v i s i o n of w r i t t e n t e x t s . In an a n a l y s i s o f the d i f f i c u l t i e s o f r e v i s i o n f o r b e g i n n i n g w r i t e r s , B a r t l e t t (1982) f o c u s e d on t h r e e a s p e c t s o f the r e v i s i o n t a s k : d e t e c t i o n , by c o m p a r i s o n , o f d i s c r e p a n c i e s between the e x i s t i n g t e x t and e x t e r n a l knowledge, such as the w r i t e r ' s i n t e n d e d meaning o r p l a n ; i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f the problem d e t e c t e d by c o m parison and e v a l u a t i o n ; and c o r r e c t i o n o f the p e r c e i v e d d i s s o n a n c e o r m i s t a k e . B a r t l e t t n o t e d t h a t no s i n g l e c a p a b i l i t y , such as c o m p a r i s o n , f u l l y a c c o u n t s f o r r e v i s i o n s k i l l . E m p h a s i z i n g the s p e c i a l k i n d o f r e a d i n g r e q u i r e d f o r e f f e c t i v e r e v i s i o n , B a r t l e t t h y p o t h e -s i z e d t h a t s t u d e n t w r i t e r s may f a i l t o d i s c r i m i n a t e between i n f o r m a t i o n a v a i l a b l e t o t h e i r a u d i e n c e i n t h e i r t e x t and the w r i t e r s ' p r i v i l e g e d knowledge. T h i s r e c a l l s an o b s e r v a t i o n o f Murray (1978): W r i t e r s p e r f o r m a s p e c i a l , s i g n i f i c a n t k i n d o f r e a d i n g when th e y r e a d t h e i r own w r i t i n g i n p r o c e s s . W r i t e r s must a c h i e v e a detachment from t h e i r work t h a t a l l o w s them t o see what i s on the page, no t what th e y hope w i l l be on the page. (p. 95) B a r t l e t t h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t young w r i t e r s would more r e a d i l y d e t e c t r e f e r -e n t i a l a m b i g u i t i e s i n t e x t s by o t h e r s than i n t h e i r own, s i n c e t h e s e p r o b -lems i n t e x t s by o t h e r s a r e n o t s c r e e n e d by p r i v i l e g e d knowledge. In one s t u d y , B a r t l e t t ' s f o u r t h and f i f t h grade s u b j e c t s wrote a n a r -20 r a t i v e and r e v i s e d i t one week l a t e r . One week a f t e r r e v i s i n g t h e i r own n a r r a t i v e s , the c h i l d r e n e d i t e d e i g h t s h o r t e x p e r i m e n t a l p a r a g r a p h s w r i t t e n by a n o t h e r group o f c h i l d r e n . The e x p e r i m e n t a l t e x t s had been s e l e c t e d f o r examples o f s y n t a c t i c a n o m a l i e s and r e f e r e n t i a l a m b i g u i t i e s . B a r t l e t t found t h a t c h i l d r e n were much b e t t e r a t d e t e c t i n g t h e s e t y p e s o f e r r o r s i n the t e x t s o f o t h e r s t h a n t h e y were i n t h e i r own. Because c h i l d r e n were a b l e t o d e t e c t problems i n o t h e r s ' t e x t s , B a r t l e t t s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e i r f a i l u r e t o do so on t h e i r own i s not due t o l a c k o f knowledge about ambi-g u i t y or s y n t a c t i c anomaly, but r a t h e r t h e i r i n a b i l i t y t o " i n h i b i t the use o f p r i v i l e g e d knowledge when r e v i e w i n g t e x t " (p. 352). In a second s t u d y , B a r t l e t t a n a l y z e d the r e v i s i o n s o f e i g h t e x p e r i -m e n t al t e x t s , s e l e c t e d f o r examples o f d o u b l e r e f e r e n t problems, by 60 above average and 60 below average w r i t e r s , 20 o f each i n g r a d e s f i v e t h r o u g h seven. The purpose was t o i n v e s t i g a t e t he c a p a c i t y o f above- and below-average w r i t e r s t o d e t e c t and c o r r e c t d o u b l e r e f e r e n t p r o b l e m s . S t u d e n t s were found t o d e t e c t the problems f a i r l y w e l l , but t h e i r a t t e m p t s t o c o r r e c t them were seldom s u c c e s s f u l . B a r t l e t t s u g g e s t s t h a t c h i l d r e n ' s " d i f f i c u l t i e s a r e due i n l a r g e p a r t t o t h e i r d i f f i c u l t i e s g e n e r a t i n g and c o - o r d i n a t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n about two s e t s o f ambiguous noun p h r a s e s " (p. 359) . A t h i r d s t u d y a d d r e s s e d t he problem o f r e f e r e n t i a l a m b i g u i t y by p r o -v i d i n g 20 s i x t h and 19 s e v e n t h g r a d e s u b j e c t s w i t h s i x e x p e r i m e n t a l t e x t s t o r e v i s e , t h r e e w i t h d o u b l e r e f e r e n t problems l i k e t h o s e i n the p r e v i o u s s t u d y , t h r e e w i t h added i n f o r m a t i o n about c h a r a c t e r names. With names as a i d s , s t u d e n t s were a b l e t o c o r r e c t r e f e r e n t i a l problems w i t h s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r s u c c e s s . From t h i s , B a r t l e t t c o n c l u d e s t h a t d e t e c t i n g r e f e r e n t i a l 21 problems i n v o l v e s s k i l l s such as c o m parison and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n ; w h i l e c o r r e c t i n g them i n v o l v e s g e n e r a t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s and a t t e n d i n g t o two c o - o r d i n a t e d noun p h r a s e s . B a r t l e t t ' s p o i n t i s t h a t e f f e c t i v e r e v i s i o n i n v o l v e s an a r r a y o f s k i l l s , i n c l u d i n g s p e c i a l i z e d r e a d i n g , d e t e c t i o n , c o m p a r i s o n , the g e n e r a -t i o n and r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f a l t e r n a t i v e s , p h y s i c a l t e x t r earrangement, and c o n t e n t i n t e g r a t i o n . W i t h o u t s u g g e s t i n g t h a t a complete a c c o u n t o f the s k i l l s needed f o r r e v i s i o n has been a c h i e v e d , B a r t l e t t a s s e r t s t h a t " r e v i -s i o n i s a complex and d i f f i c u l t p r o c e s s , d i s t i n c t from g e n e r a t i o n o f f i r s t -d r a f t t e x t i n i t s t a s k demands and i t s development" (p. 363). J u s t as r e v i s i o n r e q u i r e s the development o f an i n v e n t o r y o f s p e c i f i c s k i l l s , so may the a b i l i t y t o w r i t e f o r a v a r i e t y o f p u r p o s e s . B r i t t o n e t a l . (1975) have d e f i n e d a s e t o f w r i t i n g p u r p o s e s s t a r t i n g w i t h e x p r e s s i v e w r i t i n g and i n c l u d i n g the t r a n s a c t i o n a l and the p o e t i c . E x p r e s s i v e w r i t i n g i s d e f i n e d as " c l o s e t o the s e l f , r e v e a l i n g the s p e a k e r , v e r b a l i z i n g h i s c o n s c i o u s n e s s . . . r e l a t i v e l y u n s t r u c t u r e d " (p. 3 8 ) . As B e r e i t e r and S c a r d a m a l i a (1980) have shown, e x p r e s s i v e o r s t o r y - t e l l i n g w r i t i n g i s the e a s i e s t type f o r young and i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s because many o f the m e ntal p r o c e s s e s r e q u i r e d a r e s u p p o r t e d by s k i l l s a l r e a d y l e a r n e d i n spoken language.. P e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g i s d e f i n e d by B r i t t o n e t a l . (1975) as language i n which "an attempt i s made t o i n f l u e n c e a c t i o n , b e h a v i o r , and a t t i t u d e by r e a s o n and argument o r o t h e r s t r a t e g y " (p. 39). I t r e q u i r e s the use o f b e h a v i o r s and knowledge t h a t c a n n o t be adapted from spoken language ( B e r e i t e r and S c a r d a m a l i a , 1980). S e v e r a l r e s e a r c h s t u d i e s s u g g e s t t h a t p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g i s more d i f f i c u l t t h a n e x p r e s s i v e w r i t i n g f o r young and i n e x p e r i e n c e d s t u d e n t s . 22 The two modes c a n be compared i n terms o f F l o w e r and Hayes' (1981a) model o f the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s t o i n d i c a t e how spoken language s k i l l s might s u p p o r t e x p r e s s i v e b ut n o t p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g . I n e x p r e s s i v e d i s c o u r s e , t h e w r i t e r ' s l o n g - t e r m memory i s s u p p o r t e d by h i s or her e x p e r i e n c e o f an ev e n t i n h i s o r her own p a s t , s i n c e h i s o r her memory c o n t r i b u t e s knowledge of t he t o p i c and a c h r o n o l o g y which can h e l p o r g a n i z e p l a n s . T h i s s u p p o r t e x t e n d s t o t h e t a s k e n v i r o n m e n t, d e f i n i n g t he t o p i c and the e x i g e n c y — t h e need t o t e l l a s t o r y . The w r i t i n g p r o c e s s e s o f p l a n n i n g , o r g a n i z i n g , and g o a l s e t t i n g a r e s i m i l a r l y g i v e n a s t r u c t u r e by the f a m i l i a r scheme o f o r a l s t o r y t e l l i n g , t h e c h r o n o l o g y o f the ev e n t and the w r i t e r ' s p u r p o s e s i n t e l l i n g t h e s t o r y . R e v i e w i n g , e v a l u a t i n g , and r e v i s i n g a r e s u p p o r t e d a l s o , as the w r i t e r i s a b l e t o check the t e x t w r i t t e n so f a r a g a i n s t h i s or her memory o f the e v e n t . F i n a l l y , as B e r e i t e r and S c a r d a m a l i a (1980) p o i n t o u t , s t o r y - t e l l i n g o f t e n e n t i t l e s a speaker t o a ' l o n g - t u r n ' i n c o n v e r s a t i o n . In p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g , the scheme o f an o r a l argument c a n n o t be adapted t o w r i t i n g . Many o f the s u p p o r t s from spoken language d e t a i l e d above a r e removed. U n l i k e n a r r a t i v e , an argument i s n o t n e c e s s a r i l y s t r u c -t u r e d by c h r o n o l o g y . M a t e r i a l from the w r i t e r ' s memory i s not u s u a l l y o r g a n i z e d by h i s o r her e x p e r i e n c e o f an e v e n t . The w r i t i n g p r o c e s s e s o f p l a n n i n g , o r g a n i z i n g , and g o a l s e t t i n g c a n n o t depend upon the f a m i l i a r schemes o f o r a l s t o r y - t e l l i n g , c h r o n o l o g y , or the w r i t e r ' s need t o t e l l a s t o r y . When r e v i e w i n g , e v a l u a t i n g , and r e v i s i n g , t he w r i t e r has no c l e a r l y d e f i n e d event a g a i n s t which t o check the d e v e l o p i n g t e x t . F i n a l l y , ' l o n g -t u r n s ' a r e u n u s u a l i n o r a l arguments. Each c o n v e r s a n t depends upon the o t h e r f o r c h a l l e n g e s which a i d g o a l s e t t i n g , memory prompts, and even the 23 o n g o i n g d e f i n i t i o n o f the t o p i c . Young w r i t e r s l a c k a w e l l - d e v e l o p e d schema f o r p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g , p a r t l y from the need t o d e v e l o p new c o g n i t i v e s k i l l s beyond what th e y have l e a r n e d i n spoken language ( B e r e i t e r & S c a r d a m a l i a , 1980), and p a r t l y from l a c k o f e x p e r i e n c e w i t h the t r a n s a c t i o n a l and g e n e r a l i z i n g d i s c o u r s e . M a t s u h a s h i (1981) used her r e s e a r c h s u b j e c t s ' pause t i m e s w h i l e w r i t i n g as a measure o f the c o m p l e x i t y o f the c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s p r e c e d i n g each u n i t o f t e x t . She o b s e r v e d l a r g e d i f f e r e n c e s i n the pause times r e q u i r e d f o r r e p o r t i n g ( n a r r a t i v e ) v e r s u s g e n e r a l i z i n g and p e r s u a d i n g d i s c o u r s e t y p e s : G uided by y e a r s ' l o n g f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h a s c r i p t f o r n a r r a t i v e s o f p e r s o n a l e x p e r i e n c e , John moves c o n f i d e n t l y ahead . . . . How-e v e r , u n l i k e h i s ease w i t h p e r s o n a l n a r r a t i v e , John's d i f f i -c u l t i e s w i t h the s t r u c t u r e o f e x p l a n a t o r y d i s c o u r s e a r e o n l y t o o a p p a r e n t . I t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t John l a c k s an i n t e r n a l s c r i p t f o r g e n e r a l i z i n g , a s c r i p t l i k e t h a t o f a c o n f i d e n t p r o f e s s i o n a l , (p. 129) B r i t t o n e t a l . (1975) found t h a t when w r i t e r s a r e t r y i n g t o p e rsuade o r g e n e r a l i z e , they pause an average o f f i v e seconds l o n g e r per T - u n i t t h a n when r e p o r t i n g or n a r r a t i n g . In a s t u d y o f p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g a t g r a d e s 5, 7, and 11, C r owhurst (1983b) found t h a t e l e v e n t h g rade w r i t e r s used s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer n a r r a -t i v e s e n t e n c e t y p e s , and s l i g h t l y more g e n e r a l i z i n g s e n t e n c e t y p e s , than the younger w r i t e r s . E l e v e n t h grade w r i t e r s e x h i b i t e d g r e a t e r c o n t r o l o f the p e r s u a s i v e mode, w h i l e s e v e n t h and f i f t h g r ade w r i t e r s tended t o s l i p i n t o n a r r a t i v e o r r e p o r t i n g d i s c o u r s e . Crowhurst s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e s e d i f f e r e n c e s i n e l e v e n t h g r a d e r s ' and f i f t h and s e v e n t h g r a d e r s ' p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s may be c o n t r i b u t e d t o by the younger w r i t e r s ' l a c k o f f a m i l i -a r i t y w i t h the p e r s u a s i v e mode; by the g r e a t e r need f o r a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l 24 r e s p o n d e n t i n p e r s u a s i v e d i s c o u r s e , and the need f o r c o n v e r s a t i o n a l t u r n s , as o b s e r v e d by B e r e i t e r and S c a r d a m a l i a (1982); and by the " f l i g h t , by the younger s t u d e n t s , from the h e a v i e r c o g n i t i v e demands o f w r i t i n g i n the p e r s u a s i v e mode" (Crowhurst, 1983b, p. 7 ) . These f i n d i n g s s u p p o r t t h o s e o f e a r l i e r r e s e a r c h by Crowhurst (1980) and Crowhurst and P i c h e (1979) , t h a t p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g p l a c e s g r e a t e r demands upon w r i t e r s ' s y n t a c t i c r e s o u r c e s than does n a r r a t i o n . One o f the p r i n c i p a l g o a l s o f the p r e s e n t s t u d y i s t o i n v e s t i g a t e whether r e v i s i o n b e h a v i o r w i l l a l s o d i f f e r between e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g . R e s e a r c h on R e v i s i o n The p r e s e n t s t u d y i s based on the s p e c i a l i z e d b r a n c h o f w r i t i n g p r o -c e s s r e s e a r c h which has f o c u s e d on r e v i s i o n . The r e v i e w o f t h i s r e s e a r c h c o m p r i s e s two s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t s e c t i o n d e a l s w i t h r e s e a c h on r e v i s i o n i n the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s from the g r o u n d - b r e a k i n g work o f Emig (1971) t o t h a t o f Sommers (1978). The second s e c t i o n d e t a i l s the f o u r s t u d i e s which form the immediate b a s i s f o r the p r e s e n t s t u d y , w i t h an emphasis on methods of c l a s s i f y i n g r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s . Emig (1971) o b s e r v e d l i t t l e r e v i s i o n i n her c a s e s t u d y o f the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s e s o f e i g h t t w e l f t h g r a d e r s . I t i s t o be n o t e d , however, t h a t she d i d not a l l o w time f o r r e v i s i o n , and her s u b j e c t s ' normal w r i t i n g b e h a v i o r may have been d i s r u p t e d by composing a l o u d . In an e a r l y c a s e s t u d y o f the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s o f a "competent" t w e l f t h grade w r i t e r , M i s c h e l (1974) o b s e r v e d l i t t l e r e f o r m u l a t i o n ( c o r r e c t i n g , r e v i s i n g , o r r e w r i t i n g ) (p. 309) i n the w r i t i n g o f h i s s u b j e c t , who ex-p r e s s e d a s t r o n g d i s l i k e f o r making m u l t i p l e d r a f t s . L i k e some o f Emig's 25 s u b j e c t s , M i s c h e l ' s t w e l f t h g r a d e r d e s c r i b e d r e v i s i n g as 'punishment work'. In a comparison o f the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s e s o f good and a verage t w e l f t h grade w r i t e r s , S t a l l a r d (1974) found s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the number o f r e v i s i o n s o f m u l t i p l e word u n i t s o f t e x t , p a r a g r a p h s , s i n g l e words, and i n the p e r c e n t a g e o f w r i t e r s r e v i s i n g t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s . "Good" s t u d e n t w r i t e r s , as d e f i n e d by the t o p t e n p e r c e n t o f about 150 who wrote a s t a n -d a r d i z e d e s s a y t e s t , s c o r e d h i g h e r on the above v a r i a b l e s t h a n an a v e r a g e group, randomly s e l e c t e d from the same p o p u l a t i o n . "Good" w r i t e r s a l s o s p e n t more time w r i t i n g , r e - r e a d i n g , and c o n t e m p l a t i n g t h e i r p a p e r s , and e x p r e s s e d a c o n c e r n w i t h the purpose o f t h e i r w r i t i n g — w h i c h was i n the p e r s u a s i v e m o d e — t h r o u g h o u t the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s . In a s t u d y o f the composing a c t s o f c o l l e g e freshmen, P i a n k o (1977, 1979a) found t h a t no major r e v i s i o n s or r e f o r m u l a t i o n s were made; most s t u d e n t s s i m p l y r e c o p i e d , making p r e d o m i n a n t l y m e c h a n i c a l and some word and s e n t e n c e changes. Her f i n d i n g s a r e s u p p o r t e d by P e r l (1978, 1979) who, i n a c a s e s t u d y o f the composing p r o c e s s o f f i v e u n s k i l l e d c o l l e g e w r i t e r s , found t h a t her s u b j e c t s ' p r e d o m i n a n t l y m e c h a n i c a l and word r e v i -s i o n s f a i l e d t o improve the q u a l i t y o f t h e i r w r i t i n g . The N a t i o n a l Assessment o f E d u c a t i o n a l P r o g r e s s ( R i v a s , 1977) examined the d e v e l o p m e n t a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e v i s i o n among n i n e , t h i r t e e n and s e v e n -t e e n y e a r o l d s t u d e n t w r i t e r s . Data on r e v i s i o n s made by a sample o f 2,500 w r i t e r s a t each grade l e v e l were c o l l e c t e d i n one s e s s i o n o f w r i t i n g d u r i n g which f i f t e e n minutes were a l l o w e d f o r a f i r s t d r a f t and t h i r t e e n minutes f o r r e v i s i o n . Because o f the s h o r t time a l l o w e d , B r i d w e l l (1979, p. 32) q u e s t i o n s whether t h i s assignment c o u l d r e v e a l the f u l l range o f the sub-j e c t s ' r e v i s i o n b e h a v i o r s . The f i n d i n g s were f u r t h e r weakened by a f a i l u r e 26 t o g i v e e q u i v a l e n t a s s i g n m e n t s t o a l l g r o u p s . The s e v e n t e e n y e a r o l d s wrote a l e t t e r o f c o m p l a i n t , w h i l e t he younger groups wrote a s c i e n c e r e -p o r t about the moon. N o l d (1981), i n her c r i t i q u e ( c i t e d above) o f t h i s s t u d y , a s s e r t s t h a t t h e moon r e p o r t was much more d i f f i c u l t t h a n the l e t t e r a s s i g n m e n t . The N.A.E.P. s t u d y found t h a t 60 p e r c e n t o f n i n e y e a r o l d s , 78 p e r c e n t o f t h i r t e e n y e a r o l d s and 68 p e r c e n t o f s e v e n t e e n y e a r o l d s attempted some typ e o f r e v i s i o n . Most o f t h e r e v i s i o n s f e l l i n t o one o f t h r e e c a t e g o r i e s : s u b s t i t u t i n g words; a d d i n g o r d e l e t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n ; or a t t e n d i n g t o m e c h a n i c a l c o n v e n t i o n s ( R i v a s , 1977, p. 27). The r e s e a r c h e r s noted t h a t n i n e and t h i r t e e n y e a r o l d w r i t e r s seldom attempted t o r e v i s e the o v e r a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e i r p a p e r s . B r a c e w e l l , S c a r d a m a l i a , and B e r e i t e r (1978) asked s t u d e n t s i n g r a d e s f o u r , e i g h t , and tw e l v e t o r e v i s e f o r c l a r i t y , c o n v i n c i n g n e s s , i n t e r e s t , and m e c h a n i c a l improvement. They found t h a t grade f o u r w r i t e r s made no changes, grade e i g h t w r i t e r s made d e t r i m e n t a l changes, w h i l e grade twelve w r i t e r s made some improvements. T h i s f i n d i n g r e c a l l s those o f Shaughnessy (1977) and P e r l (1978) t h a t i n e x p e r i e n c e d a d u l t w r i t e r s become so c o n c e r n e d w i t h s u r f a c e r e v i s i o n as th e y w r i t e t h a t the ' e r r o r - h u n t i n g ' d i s t r a c t s them from the t a s k o f g e t t i n g t h e i r i d e a s i n t o words, d e g r a d i n g t he q u a l i t y o f t h e i r w r i t i n g . C a l k i n s (1980), working w i t h c h i l d r e n , n o t e s t h a t b e g i n n e r s have t r o u b l e m a i n t a i n i n g a p l a n f o r r e v i s i o n . C h i l d r e n ' s d i f f i c u l t i e s i n -t e g r a t i n g new c o n t e n t i n t o t h e i r growing t e x t s , b o t h p h y s i c a l l y and concep-t u a l l y , i n h i b i t e f f e c t i v e r e v i s i o n f o r c h i l d r e n . In a d e t a i l e d e x a m i n a t i o n o f the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s e s o f seven y e a r o l d c h i l d r e n , Graves (1975) r e p o r t e d no r e v i s i o n b e h a v i o r . In a l a t e r s t u d y , Graves (1979) o b s e r v e d t he development o f w r i t i n g b e h a v i o r s among s i x t e e n 27 c h i l d r e n o v e r a two y e a r p e r i o d . H a l f o f the c h i l d r e n were o b s e r v e d from age s i x t o seven, h a l f from age e i g h t t h r o u g h n i n e . I n i t i a l l y , the younger group wrote w i t h o u t r e v i s i o n o f any k i n d , l a t e r l e a r n i n g t o r e v i s e f o r " f e e l i n g s " (p. 1 4 ) . I n v e n t e d s p e l l i n g s and s i g h t words were changed among e i g h t and n i n e y e a r o l d s . Toward the end o f the p r i m a r y y e a r s , Graves found a d e c l i n e i n r e v i s i o n . He h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t many c h i l d r e n a c h i e v e a l e v e l o f competence a t which t h e y have mastered h a n d w r i t i n g and s p e l l i n g t e c h n i q u e , and a r e a b l e t o w r i t e s c h o o l a s s i g n m e n t s e a s i l y w i t h o u t r e v i -s i o n . C a l k i n s (1980) d e s c r i b e d p r i m a r y s c h o o l w r i t e r s r e v i s i n g w r i t t e n work i n the same way t h e y might change a p a i n t i n g o r b u i l d i n g b l o c k s . O l d e r c h i l d r e n d e v e l o p e d r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s s p e c i f i c t o w r i t i n g . L i k e G r a v e s , C a l k i n s o b s e r v e d t h a t o v e r t r e v i s i o n may d e c l i n e w i t h i n c r e a s i n g w r i t i n g s k i l l i n r e s p o n s e t o s c h o o l demands f o r speed and n e a t n e s s . In summary, r e s e a r c h on r e v i s i o n has s u g g e s t e d a d i s t i n c t i o n between the t h e o r e t i c a l p l a c e o f r e v i s i o n i n the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s o f a s k i l l e d w r i t e r , and the a c t u a l r o l e o f r e v i s i o n f o r s t u d e n t w r i t e r s . P a r t o f t h i s i s a c o g n i t i v e d e v e l o p m e n t a l phenomenon: f u l l c o n t r o l o f the w r i t i n g p r o -c e s s r e q u i r e s p r a c t i c e and the s k i l l e d management o f an a r r a y o f i n t e r -r e l a t e d s k i l l s . In p a r t t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n grows o u t o f the way r e v i s i n g i s t a u g h t i n s c h o o l s as t i d y i n g up o r as copy e d i t i n g a t the end o f a w r i t i n g t a s k , o f t e n p e r c e i v e d by s t u d e n t s as punishment f o r n o t h a v i n g w r i t t e n e f f e c t i v e l y i n the f i r s t p l a c e (Appleby, Lehr & A n t e n , 1981; Emig, 1971; M i s c h e l , 1974; P i a n k o , 1977; Sommers, 1978). As w i l l be seen i n the f o l -l o w i n g s e c t i o n , r e s e a r c h has not r e v e a l e d a " b e s t way' t o r e v i s e : t h e r e i s no n e c e s s a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s and w r i t i n g s k i l l . As Sommers (1980, p. 387) and B r i d w e l l (1979, p. 69) p o i n t o u t , w r i t e r s can 28 o n l y a t t e n d t o a l i m i t e d range o f demands. In the c y c l e s o f the composing p r o c e s s , w r i t i n g a b i l i t y may i n c l u d e the c a p a c i t y t o a p p o r t i o n a t t e n t i o n e f f e c t i v e l y among s e q u e n t i a l demands. R e v i s i o n may n o t have a n e c e s s a r y r o l e i n e f f e c t i v e w r i t i n g , but s k i l l e d w r i t e r s have been shown t o h a n d l e r e v i s i o n d i f f e r e n t l y than i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s . The i s s u e s o f the r e l a -t i o n s h i p between w r i t i n g a b i l i t y and r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s , and t h a t o f the r e l a t i o n s h i p between v a r i o u s p u r p o s e s f o r w r i t i n g (modes) and r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s , a r e t a k e n up i n the s t u d i e s r e v i e w e d i n the next and f i n a l s e c t i o n o f t h i s c h a p t e r , i n a d d i t i o n t o the e f f o r t s o f r e s e a r c h e r s t o d e v e l o p an a c c u r a t e method o f q u a n t i f y i n g r e v i s i o n a c t i v i t y . R e v i s i o n C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Systems S y s t e m a t i c r e s e a r c h on the r e v i s i o n component o f the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s r e q u i r e s a r e l i a b l e and comprehensive system f o r c l a s s i f y i n g r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s . The f o u r r e s e a r c h e r s whose work i s r e v i e w e d here have worked on the development o f c l a s s i f i c a t i o n schemes. W h i l e each has a s p e c i f i c purpose i n mind, t h e r e i s a common t h r e a d i n t h e i r e f f o r t s . The r e v i s i o n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme and some o f the methodology adopted f o r the p r e s e n t s t u d y were s y n t h e s i z e d from the work o f t h e s e f o u r r e s e a r c h e r s . Sommers In a c a s e s t u d y o f r e v i s i o n i n the composing p r o c e s s e s o f e x p e r i e n c e d and i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s , Sommers (1978; 1980) o b s e r v e d the composing p r o c e s s e s o f her s u b j e c t s i n a sample o f w r i t i n g s i n the e x p r e s s i v e , ex-p l a n a t o r y , and p e r s u a s i v e modes, i n c l u d i n g t h e i r r e v i s i o n s o f an e x p e r i -m e n tal t e x t , and t h r o u g h i n t e r v i e w s about t h e i r w r i t i n g . Sommers sought 29 t o d e v e l o p a t h e o r y o f the r o l e o f r e v i s i o n i n the composing p r o c e s s by comparing the r e v i s i o n b e h a v i o r s o f e x p e r i e n c e d and i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s (1978, p. 27). By a n a l y z i n g t h e r e v i s i o n s made i n t h e i r d r a f t s , and t o an e x p e r i m e n t a l t e x t , Sommers found t h a t s t u d e n t w r i t e r s r e v i s e a t the word  l e v e l . In c o n t r a s t , e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s make most changes a t the s e n t e n c e  l e v e l and make a l a r g e r number o f changes o v e r a l l . Through a n a l y s i s o f i n t e r v i e w s w i t h her s u b j e c t s , Sommers d e v e l o p e d a s c a l e o f c o n c e r n s i n response t o which w r i t e r s make changes i n t h e i r d r a f t s . I n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s were found t o r e v i s e i n c o m p l i a n c e w i t h t e a c h e r - b a s e d r u l e s r a t h e r t h a n i n r e s p o n s e t o " s p e c i f i c problems i n the t e x t " (p. 383) . E x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s r e v i s e t o s a t i s f y t h r e e c o n c e r n s : t o f i n d s t r u c t u r e ; t o s a t i s f y the needs o f t h e i r a u d i e n c e ; and t o r e s o l v e d i s s o n a n c e between what has been w r i t t e n and what the w r i t e r i n t e n d e d t o say (pp. 384, 385). Sommers a s s e r t s t h a t r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s depend upon a w r i t e r ' s t h e o r y o f what r e v i s i o n i s (1980, pp. 383, 386). The d i f f e r e n c e s between e x p e r i e n c e d and i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s ' c o n c e p t s o f r e v i s i o n r e f l e c t t h e i r approach t o the composing p r o c e s s as a whole: i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s t r y t o f o l l o w a l i n e a r p r o c e d u r e , such as the p l a n n i n g , w r i t i n g , r e v i s i n g paradigm o f t r a d i t i o n a l l i n e a r models o f the w r i t i n g a c t , w h i l e e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s have a " h o l i s -t i c p e r s p e c t i v e " and use r e v i s i o n as a " r e c u r s i v e p r o c e s s . . . w i t h d i f -f e r e n t l e v e l s o f a t t e n t i o n and d i f f e r e n t agenda f o r each c y c l e " (p. 386). Sommers' system o f c l a s s i f y i n g r e v i s i o n i n c l u d e s f o u r r e v i s i o n  o p e r a t i o n s — d e l e t i o n , s u b s t i t u t i o n , a d d i t i o n , and r e - o r d e r i n g . Four l e v e l s o f changes a r e i d e n t i f i e d — w o r d , p h r a s e , s e n t e n c e , and theme (the extended s t a t e m e n t o f one i d e a ) . Sommers' s u b j e c t s wrote t h r e e d r a f t s , and she i d e n t i f i e d the o c c a s i o n f o r r e v i s i o n s i m p l y by f i r s t , s e c o n d , o r t h i r d 30 d r a f t . F i n a l l y , by a s k i n g w r i t e r s what c o n c e r n prompted t h e i r changes, Sommers d e v e l o p e d a s c a l e o f c o n c e r n s f o r each w r i t e r . Where an i n e x p e r i -enced w r i t e r ' s p r i m a r y c o n c e r n might be f i n d i n g the r i g h t words, an e x p e r i -enced w r i t e r might be c o n c e r n e d w i t h the o v e r a l l form o f h i s o r her e s s a y . Sommers' c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme, F i g u r e 2.2, i s s i m i l a r t o but s i m p l e r than t h a t o f B r i d w e l l (1979, 1980), d i s c u s s e d below. O p e r a t i o n 1. D e l e t i o n 2. S u b s t i t u t i o n 3. A d d i t i o n 4. R e - o r d e r i n g L e v e l o f Change 1. Word 2. Phrase 3. Sentence 4. Theme (the extended s t a t e m e n t o f one idea) S c a l e o f W r i t e r ' s C oncern D r a f t ( d e v e l o p e d from p r o t o - 1. F i r s t c o l s o f i n t e r v i e w s w i t h w r i t e r s ) 2. Second 1. P r i m a r y 3. T h i r d 2. Secondary 3. T e r t i a r y F i g u r e 2.2. Sommers' (1978) R e v i s i o n C l a s s i f i c a t i o n System. B r i d w e l l W i t h the s p e c i f i c aim o f p r o v i d i n g a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system f o r e r r o r s and r e v i s i o n s , B r i d w e l l c o n d u c t e d a c a u s a l - c o m p a r a t i v e s t u d y o f r e v i s i n g s t r a t e g i e s i n the t r a n s a c t i o n a l w r i t i n g o f t w e l f t h g rade s t u d e n t s . S t u -d e n t s o f mixed a b i l i t y were asked t o w r i t e and r e v i s e a t r a n s a c t i o n a l e s s a y f o r an a u d i e n c e o f p e e r s . B r i d w e l l d e v e l o p e d a system f o r c l a s s i f y i n g r e -v i s i o n changes and used i t t o a n a l y z e the changes her s u b j e c t s made t o t h e i r p a p e r s . Her r e v i s i o n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system i d e n t i f i e s seven l e v e l s o f i n c r e a s i n g l y l a r g e l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e s . Up t o t e n r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s a r e i d e n t i f i e d a t each l e v e l . Three s t a g e s f o r r e v i s i o n a r e s c o r e d : (1) 31 i n - p r o c e s s , f i r s t d r a f t ; (2) between d r a f t s , second day; and (3) i n -p r o c e s s , second d r a f t . C o l o r e d pens were used t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e between r e v i s i o n s t a g e s . T h r e e c o d e r s a c h i e v e d 84 p e r c e n t agreement u s i n g B r i d w e l l ' s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system t o code r e v i s i o n s o f 100 randomly s e l e c t e d s e t s o f f i r s t and second d r a f t s . To examine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e v i s i o n and w r i t i n g q u a l i t y , B r i d w e l l a p p l i e d an a n a l y t i c q u a l i t y s c a l e m o d e l l e d on t h a t o f D e i t e r i c h (1974, c i t e d i n B r i d w e l l , 1980). Both f i r s t and second d r a f t s were t y p e d t o e l i m i n a t e h a n d w r i t i n g and c o s m e t i c v a r i a b l e s . Three t r a i n e d r a t e r s s c o r e d e s s a y s on g e n e r a l m e r i t , mechanics, and t o t a l q u a l i t y . I n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y ranged from 89 p e r c e n t t o 97 p e r c e n t . S u r f a c e and word l e v e l r e v i s i o n s t o t a l l e d 56 p e r c e n t o f the r e v i s i o n f r e q u e n c i e s . J u s t o v e r h a l f o f the r e v i s i o n s a t a l l l e v e l s — 5 2 p e r c e n t — were made i n - p r o c e s s t o the second d r a f t , w h i l e 31 p e r c e n t were made i n - p r o c e s s t o the f i r s t d r a f t , and 17 p e r c e n t between d r a f t s . There was some tendency f o r the f r e q u e n c y o f l a r g e r u n i t s o f t e x t t o i n c r e a s e i n second d r a f t s . Second d r a f t s were r a t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y h i g h e r i n q u a l i t y t h a n f i r s t d r a f t s . A s i g n i f i c a n t n e g a t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n was found between s u r f a c e l e v e l r e v i s i o n s t o i n - p r o c e s s d r a f t s and q u a l i t y r a t i n g s . The p a p e r s w i t h the h i g h e s t q u a l i t y r a t i n g s c o n t a i n e d more b e t w e e n - d r a f t r e v i -s i o n s a t a l l l e v e l s ( e x c e p t s u r f a c e ) t h a n p a p e r s w i t h lower r a t i n g s . The l o w e s t q u a l i t y second d r a f t s a l s o c o n t a i n e d many m u l t i p l e - s e n t e n c e s u b s t i -t u t i o n s , which B r i d w e l l i n t e r p r e t e d as i n s t a n c e s o f r e w r i t i n g w i t h o u t r e r e a d i n g the f i r s t d r a f t s . The t e n l e a s t r e v i s e d p a p e r s were among the s h o r t e s t and r e c e i v e d lower q u a l i t y r a t i n g s . The t e n most r e v i s e d were among the l o n g e s t , but r e c e i v e d a range o f q u a l i t y r a t i n g s . 32 B r i d w e l l c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e r e a r e d i f f e r e n c e s i n the r e v i s i o n s t r a t e -g i e s o f more and l e s s a b l e w r i t e r s i n her sample o f t w e l f t h g r a d e r s , both i n the amount and e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f t h e i r r e v i s i o n . More a b l e w r i t e r s a r e more l i k e l y t o make between d r a f t r e v i s i o n s . L e s s a b l e w r i t e r s a r e more l i k e l y t o add new chunks o f w r i t i n g . B r i d w e l l n o t e s t h a t "some s u c c e s s f u l s t u d e n t s had i n t e r n a l i z e d many w r i t i n g c o n v e n t i o n s which e n a b l e d them t o p r o d uce r e l a t i v e l y s u c c e s s f u l d r a f t s w i t h few r e v i s i o n s , w h i l e o t h e r s among t h o s e w i t h h i g h r a t i n g s were among the s t u d e n t s who r e v i s e d most f r e -q u e n t l y " (1980, p. 218). L e s s s u c c e s s f u l w r i t e r s , on the o t h e r hand, r e -v i s e d i n two g e n e r a l ways. Some r e - c o p i e d t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s w i t h few changes, w h i l e o t h e r s " l a b o r e d t h r o u g h hundreds o f s p e l l i n g and p u n c t u a t i o n changes w h i l e w r i t i n g " (1980, p. 218). Thus, w h i l e r e v i s i o n can improve w r i t i n g , " e r r o r - h u n t i n g " can impede a w r i t e r ' s p r o g r e s s . One o f B r i d w e l l ' s s u b j e c t s r e v i s e d 118 t i m e s w h i l e p r o d u c i n g a 466 word e s s a y t h a t r e c e i v e d one o f the l o w e s t q u a l i t y r a t i n g s i n the sample (1980, pp. 215, 218). F a i g l e y and W i t t e B u i l d i n g on the r e s e a r c h o f Sommers (1978), B r i d w e l l (1979, 1980), and Flower and Hayes (1980), F a i g l e y and W i t t e (1981a) a p p l i e d a r e f i n e d v e r s i o n o f B r i d w e l l ' s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system i n two s t u d i e s comparing the r e v i s i o n b e h a v i o r s o f i n e x p e r i e n c e d s t u d e n t s , advanced s t u d e n t s , and e x p e r t a d u l t w r i t e r s . T h e i r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system d i f f e r s from Sommers' and B r i d w e l l ' s i n t h a t i t d i s t i n g u i s h e s "between r e v i s i o n s t h a t a f f e c t the meaning o f the t e x t and t h o s e t h a t do n o t " (1981, p. 401). T h i s d i s t i n c -t i o n i s made on the b a s i s o f "whether new i n f o r m a t i o n i s b r o u g h t t o the t e x t o r whether o l d i n f o r m a t i o n i s removed i n such a way t h a t i t c a n n o t be 33 r e c o v e r e d t h r o u g h drawing i n f e r e n c e s " (p. 402). A t e x t - b a s e (meaning-changing) r e v i s i o n may be s u p e r f i c i a l l y s i m i l a r t o a s u r f a c e r e v i s i o n t h a t does n o t change meaning. F a i g l e y and W i t t e h y p o t h e s i z e d t h a t r e v i s i o n s which change the meaning o f the t e x t i n v o l v e more complex c o g n i t i v e o p e r a -t i o n s t h a n r e v i s i o n s which do n o t change the meaning o f the t e x t . To f u r t h e r d i s t i n g u i s h between major and minor meaning changes, F a i g l e y and W i t t e adapted c o n c e p t s from t e x t l i n g u i s t i c s and c o g n i t i v e p s y c h o l o g y on r e a d i n g comprehension ( K i n t s c h & Van D i j k , 1978; K i n t s c h & V i p o n d , 1979; Vi p o n d , 1980). Meaning changes a r e d e s c r i b e d a t two l e v e l s : a macro-s t r u c t u r e , "a s e r i e s o f l a b e l s f o r s e c t i o n s o f the t e x t " (1981, p. 404) which summarize and " a f f e c t t h e r e a d i n g o f o t h e r p a r t s o f the t e x t " (p. 405); and a m i c r o s t r u c t u r e , which i n c l u d e s " a l l c o n c e p t s i n a t e x t . . • (even t h o s e which c an be i n f e r r e d ) " (p. 404). The purpose o f F a i g l e y and W i t t e ' s r e f i n e m e n t s t o the r e v i s i o n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system i s t o p r o v i d e r e l i a b l e c a t e g o r i e s t h a t a r e m u t u a l l y e x c l u s i v e , and t o a c c o u n t f o r d i f f e r -i n g d e g r e e s o f se m a n t i c c o m p l e x i t y a t f o u r l e v e l s o f r e v i s i o n changes as i t e m i z e d i n F i g u r e 2.3. R e v i s i o n Changes S u r f a c e Changes T e x t - B a s e Changes F o r m a l M e a n i n g - P r e s e r v i n g M i c r o s t r u c t u r e M a c r o s t r u c t u r e S p e l l i n g T ense, Number and M o d a l i t y A b b r e v i a t i o n P u n c t u a t i o n Format A d d i t i o n s D e l e t i o n s A d d i t i o n s D e l e t i o n s A d d i t i o n s D e l e t i o n s S u b s t i t u t i o n s P e r m u t a t i o n s D i s t r i b u t i o n s C o n s o l i d a t i o n s S u b s t i t u t i o n s P e r m u t a t i o n s D i s t r i b u t i o n s C o n s o l i d a t i o n s S u b s t i t u t i o n s P e r m u t a t i o n s D i s t r i b u t i o n s C o n s o l i d a t i o n s F i g u r e 2.3. F a i g l e y & W i t t e ' s R e v i s i o n C l a s s i f i c a t i o n System (1981b, p. 403). 34 Study #1. U s i n g p r o c e d u r e s and a w r i t i n g assignment s i m i l a r t o B r i d w e l l ' s (1979, 1980), F a i g l e y and W i t t e c o l l e c t e d samples o f an e x p o s i -t o r y e s s a y w r i t t e n i n two d r a f t s by i n e x p e r i e n c e d s t u d e n t s , advanced s t u -d e n t s , and e x p e r t a d u l t w r i t e r s . T h e i r f i n d i n g s s u p p o r t t h o s e o f Sommers (1978) and B r i d w e l l (1979, 1980) t h a t i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s c o n c e n t r a t e on s u r f a c e changes, w h i l e more advanced w r i t e r s use a br o a d e r range o f r e v i -s i o n s t r a t e g i e s . E x p e r t a d u l t s made fewer r e v i s i o n s per one thousand words than e i t h e r group o f s t u d e n t s , but t h e i r r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s were e v e n l y d i s t r i b u t e d o v e r the f o u r l e v e l s . T h i s f i n d i n g formed the b a s i s o f F a i g l e y and W i t t e ' s second r e v i s i o n s t u d y , d e s c r i b e d i n the nex t s e c t i o n . The t h r e e groups d i f f e r e d i n the f r e q u e n c i e s o f r e v i s i o n s a t each s t a g e : ex-p e r t a d u l t s and advanced s t u d e n t s made more r e v i s i o n s i n t h e i r i n - p r o c e s s f i r s t d r a f t s , w i t h the g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e i n meaning-changing r e v i s i o n s . C i t i n g Flower and Hayes (1980), F a i g l e y and W i t t e a t t r i b u t e t h e s e d i f f e r -ences t o more a b l e w r i t e r s ' p r a c t i c e o f p a u s i n g t o r e r e a d and r e v i s e as they w r i t e f i r s t d r a f t s (p. 407). The groups a l s o d i f f e r e d s h a r p l y i n the t y p e s o f r e v i s i o n s made between d r a f t s , w i t h e x p e r t s a t t e n d i n g t o meaning changes w h i l e s t u d e n t groups d e a l t p r e d o m i n a n t l y w i t h s u r f a c e changes. The more a b l e w r i t e r s r e v i s e d t h e i r f i n a l d r a f t s f o r s u r f a c e e r r o r s w h i l e i n -e x p e r i e n c e d s t u d e n t s made few r e v i s i o n s o f any k i n d t o t h e i r f i n a l d r a f t s . Study #2. Because t he v a r i e t y o f r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s used by e x p e r t a d u l t s made comparisons w i t h l e s s a b l e w r i t e r s d i f f i c u l t i n t h e i r f i r s t s t u d y , F a i g l e y and W i t t e asked t h e i r sample o f e i g h t e x p e r t a d u l t w r i t e r s t o r e v i s e c o p i e s o f the f i r s t d r a f t s t h a t t h r e e i n e x p e r i e n c e d s t u d e n t s had w r i t t e n . The e x p e r t s ' changes were compared w i t h t h o s e which the i n e x p e r -i e n c e d s t u d e n t s had made i n t h e i r second d r a f t s (p. 409). In r e v i s i n g the 35 s t u d e n t s ' d r a f t s , 65 p e r c e n t o f the e x p e r t s ' r e v i s i o n s a l t e r e d the macro-s t r u c t u r e o f the t e x t . The m a c r o s t r u c t u r a l o p e r a t i o n s the e x p e r t a d u l t s used were p r e d o m i n a n t l y a d d i t i o n o f new m a t e r i a l , c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f one or more u n i t s o f t e x t i n t o a s i n g l e u n i t , or d i s t r i b u t i o n o f c o n t e n t from a s i n g l e u n i t o f t e x t i n t o two or more u n i t s , c h a n g i n g the meaning o f the t e x t . I n t h e i r d i s c u s s i o n , F a i g l e y and W i t t e emphasize t h a t t h e i r method o f q u a n t i f y i n g r e v i s i o n i s based upon s e m a n t i c s — t h e meaning o f the t e x t — r a t h e r than the l e n g t h o f the l i n g u i s t i c u n i t t h a t i s r e v i s e d . I n e x p e r i -enced w r i t e r s , e x c e s s i v e l y c o n c e r n e d w i t h s u r f a c e changes, seldom used r e v i s i o n t o d e v e l o p the meaning o f t h e i r t e x t s . F a i g l e y and W i t t e a s s e r t , however, t h a t the d i v e r s i t y o f the ways i n which e x p e r t w r i t e r s r e v i s e p r e -c l u d e s any p r e s c r i p t i o n s about the v a l u e o f r e v i s i o n s k i l l s i n the d e v e l o p -ment o f w r i t i n g a b i l i t y . They s u g g e s t a number o f s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s , o t h e r than w r i t i n g a b i l i t y , t h a t a f f e c t the volume and type o f r e v i s i o n changes, i n c l u d i n g the purpose o f the w r i t i n g , the w r i t e r ' s f a m i l i a r i t y w i t h the t a s k , the a u d i e n c e , and the l e n g t h o f the t a s k . "So i m p o r t a n t a r e t h e s e v a r i a b l e s t h a t w r i t i n g s k i l l might be d e f i n e d as the a b i l i t y t o respond t o them" (p. 411). F a i g l e y and W i t t e s t r e s s the d i s t i n c t i o n be-tween the volume o f r e v i s i o n and i t s e f f e c t i v e n e s s . Y e t , a t l e a s t f o r p r a c t i c e d w r i t e r s , F a i g l e y and W i t t e b e l i e v e t h a t r e v i s i o n i s an i n t e g r a l p a r t o f the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s , c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o i n v e n t i o n and r e s p o n s i v e -ness t o a u d i e n c e . Crowhurst U s i n g a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n scheme adapted from t h a t o f B r i d w e l l , Crowhurst 36 ( p e r s o n a l communications, 1983b) a n a l y z e d the r e v i s i o n s made i n e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s by f o u r t e e n good and f o u r t e e n average w r i t e r s i n g r a d e s f i v e , s e ven, and e l e v e n . Crowhurst sought t o d e t e r m i n e i f t h e r e were d i f f e r e n c e s among the t h r e e g r a d e s , or between good and average w r i t e r s , i n t h e number and k i n d s o f r e v i s i o n s made, and whether r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s v a r i e d between the e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a s i v e modes. U s i n g the p r o c e d u r e s and w r i t i n g a s s i g n m e n t s upon which the p r e s e n t s t u d y i s based, Crowhurst had her s u b j e c t s w r i t e f i r s t d r a f t s under c o n t r o l l e d c l a s s r o o m c o n d i t i o n s , t h e n r e v i s e them a few days l a t e r . R e v i s i o n s were c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g t o seven l e v e l s : 1. f o r m a l 2. word 3. p h r a s e 4. c l a u s e 5. s e n t e n c e 6. m u l t i s e n t e n c e 7. t e x t , i n v o l v i n g major changes between d r a f t s . L e v e l s 2 t h r o u g h 6 i n c l u d e d s i x r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s : 1. a d d i t i o n 2. d e l e t i o n 3. s u b s t i t u t i o n 4. p e r m u t a t i o n , o r r e arrangements 5. d i s t r i b u t i o n s , i n which m a t e r i a l i n one t e x t segment i s d i v i d e d i n t o more than one segment 6. c o n s o l i d a t i o n , i n which m a t e r i a l i n two or more t e x t segments i s condensed i n t o one. 37 In her a n a l y s i s , Crowhurst dropped t e x t l e v e l r e v i s i o n s because so few were used by her s u b j e c t s , and d i d not s e p a r a t e l y a n a l y z e the s i x o p e r a t i o n s . The p u r p o s e s o f C r owhurst's s t u d y were t h r e e f o l d : f i r s t , t o i n v e s t i g a t e whether r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s would d i f f e r among f i f t h , s e v e n t h , and e l e v e n t h g r ade w r i t e r s ; second, whether r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s might d i f f e r w i t h a b i l -i t y ; and t h i r d , whether r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s might v a r y w i t h the mode o f the w r i t i n g . C r o whurst found l i t t l e e v i d e n c e o f age, a b i l i t y , or m o d e - r e l a t e d d i f -f e r e n c e s i n r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s . Good s t u d e n t s a t g rade e l e v e n made fewer f o r m a l r e v i s i o n s , and more r e v i s i o n s a t o t h e r l e v e l s , than average s t u -d e n t s . Grade f i v e w r i t e r s made more f o r m a l r e v i s i o n s t h a n grade e l e v e n s t u d e n t s , but a t o t h e r l e v e l s , grade f i v e s t u d e n t s r e v i s e d much the same way as grade e l e v e n s t u d e n t s . C u r i o u s l y , s t u d e n t s a t grade seven r e v i s e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s than the o t h e r two age g r o u p s . L i k e B r i d w e l l , and F a i g l e y and W i t t e , Crowhurst found g r e a t v a r i a b i l i t y i n the ways i n which w r i t e r s a t a l l ages and b o t h a b i l i t y g roups r e v i s e d , r e d u c i n g the l i k e l i -hood o f s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among v a r i a b l e s . N o t i n g f u r t h e r t h a t t h e r e seems t o be l i t t l e r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e v i s i o n and w r i t i n g a b i l i t y , e s p e c i a l l y among the lower g r a d e s , Crowhurst s u g g e s t s t h a t r e v i s i o n s h o u l d be t a u g h t as p a r t o f the composing p r o c e s s , but c a u -t i o n s a g a i n s t a t t i t u d e s t h a t view change as good i n and o f i t s e l f . Summary In an i d e a l i z e d model o f the composing p r o c e s s , such as Flower and Hayes' (1981a), r e v i s i o n i s d e f i n e d as a system o f c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s , i n c l u d i n g r e - r e a d i n g , e v a l u a t i n g , g e n e r a t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s , and r e v i e w i n g . 38 F o r s k i l l e d w r i t e r s , r e v i s i n g i s a r e s p o n s e t o d i s s o n a n c e between a d e v e l -o p i n g s o l u t i o n and the demands o f the r h e t o r i c a l p r o b l e m t h a t t h e y have i d e n t i f i e d f o r t h e m s e l v e s . Not l i m i t e d t o w r i t t e n t e x t , r e v i s i o n can extend t o p l a n s , o r g a n i z a t i o n , g o a l s e t t i n g , and even the r h e t o r i c a l p r o b l e m i t s e l f , o c c u r r i n g and r e c u r r i n g t h r o u g h o u t the composing p r o c e s s . The r e s e a r c h r e v i e w e d here has shown, however, t h a t u s i n g r e v i s i o n e f f e c t i v e l y r e q u i r e s the development o f an a r r a y o f c o g n i t i v e c a p a c i t i e s and s p e c i f i c s k i l l s . W r i t e r s must be a b l e t o r e a d t h e i r t e x t e v a l u a -t i v e l y , w i t h s e n s i t i v i t y t o how t h e i r a u d i e n c e might u n d e r s t a n d i t ( B a r t l e t t , 1982; B e r e i t e r & S c a r d a m a l i a , 1980; Murray, 1978; N o l d , 1981). They must be a b l e t o compare t h e t e x t w i t h t h e i r p l a n s , g e n e r a t i n g a l t e r -n a t i v e s o l u t i o n s when needed, and i n t e g r a t i n g new c o n t e n t — n e c e s s a r i l y a b s t r a c t because i t has n o t y e t been t r a n s l a t e d from i d e a s t o w o r d s — i n t o a c o n c r e t e e x i s t i n g t e x t ( B a r t l e t t , 1982; B e r e i t e r & S c a r d a m a l i a , 1980). B e g i n n i n g w r i t e r s need t o l e a r n t o produce language autonomously, w i t h o u t the s u p p o r t s a v a i l a b l e when t a l k i n g ( B e r e i t e r & S c a r d a m a l i a , 1980). R e v i s i n g i s a d i f f e r e n t t a s k from f i r s t d r a f t w r i t i n g , r e q u i r i n g d i f f e r e n t s k i l l s , more d i f f i c u l t i n s e v e r a l ways f o r i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s ( B a r t l e t t , 1982; B e r e i t e r & S c a r d a m a l i a , 1980; N o l d , 1981). F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s i t i s h y p o t h e s i z e d i n the p r e s e n t s t u d y t h a t a b l e w r i t e r s , t h o s e who r e c e i v e d h i g h e r q u a l i t y s c o r e s , would r e v i s e i n d i f f e r e n t ways from a randomly s e l e c t e d group. In s i m i l a r ways, p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g has been shown t o be more demand-i n g t h a n e x p r e s s i v e w r i t i n g . Many o f the mental p r o c e s s e s r e q u i r e d by e x p r e s s i v e w r i t i n g a r e s u p p o r t e d by s k i l l s l e a r n e d i n spoken language ( B e r e i t e r & S c a r d a m a l i a , 1980). An o r a l argument, however, depends upon 39 the i n t e r a c t i o n o f a c o n v e r s a t i o n a l p a r t n e r , w h i l e w r i t t e n arguments must be s u s t a i n e d autonomously. Young w r i t e r s l a c k a scheme t o s u p p o r t the p e r -s u a s i v e mode ( B e r e i t e r & S c a r d a m a l i a , 1980; C r o whurst, 1983a; M a t s u h a s h i , 1981). In the p r e s e n t s t u d y i t was supposed t h a t more a b l e s t u d e n t w r i t e r s would d i f f e r from a randomly s e l e c t e d group i n t h e i r r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s f o r w r i t i n g p e r s u a s i v e and e x p r e s s i v e p r o s e . The c o g n i t i v e d i f f i c u l t i e s o f r e v i s i o n might l e a d one t o e x p e c t t h a t i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s would r e v i s e i n s i m p l e ways, d e a l i n g w i t h s m a l l e r f o r m a l c o r r e c t i o n s and word l e v e l changes, because o f l i m i t s i n t h e i r c a p a c i t y t o a t t e n d t o more complex changes. R e s e a r c h i n t o the r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s o f w r i t e r s a t a broad range o f ages s u p p o r t s t h i s e x p e c t a t i o n . In a d d i t i o n , r e v i s i o n i s o f t e n t a u g h t as a s i m p l e p r o c e s s , l i m i t e d t o f o r m a l c o r r e c t i o n s and word c h o i c e s , as the l a s t s t e p b e f o r e w r i t i n g i s handed i n t o the t e a c h e r (Appleby e t a l . , 1981; Emig, 1971; M i s c h e l , 1974; P i a n k o , 1977; Sommers, 1978). In t h i s way i n s t r u c t i o n can r e i n f o r c e the d e v e l o p m e n t a l d i f f i c u l t i e s o f r e v i s i o n f o r s t u d e n t w r i t e r s . There i s p r e s s u r e on s t u d e n t s t o master the f o r m a l r e q u i r e m e n t s o f s c h o o l w r i t i n g i n o r d e r t o be a b l e t o produce a c c e p t a b l e t e x t s q u i c k l y and n e a t l y w i t h a minimum o f e r r o r s ( B r i d w e l l , 1979; C a l k i n s , 1979; G r a v e s , 1979). The q u e s t i o n o f how w r i t i n g a b i l i t y might i n f l u e n c e r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s i s i n v e s t i g a t e d i n the p r e s e n t s t u d y . Q u a n t i f y i n g r e v i s i o n a c t i v i t y a c c u r a t e l y i s a b a s i c r e q u i r e m e n t o f s y s t e m a t i c r e s e a r c h on r e v i s i o n . R e v i s i o n can i n v o l v e a l t e r i n g s y n t a c t i -c a l l y complex chunks o f language. R e c o r d i n g r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s a c c u r a t e l y has been u n d e r t a k e n by o n l y f o u r r e s e a r c h e r s . The p r e s e n t s t u d y i s based upon t h e i r work. Sommers (1978, 1980) c o n t r i b u t e d both t h e o r e t i c a l and 40 m e t h o d o l o g i c a l p r o g r e s s i n her s t u d y o f r e v i s i o n i n the composing p r o c e s s e s o f c o l l e g e freshmen and e x p e r i e n c e d a d u l t w r i t e r s . B r i d w e l l (1979, 1980) r e f i n e d and r a t i o n a l i z e d a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system f o r r e v i s i o n , d e m o n s t r a t -i n g t h a t i t c o u l d be used t o d e s c r i b e the r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s o f a l a r g e sample o f w r i t i n g c o m p r e h e n s i v e l y . F a i g l e y and W i t t e (1981a) f u r t h e r r e -f i n e d B r i d w e l l ' s scheme by i n t r o d u c i n g t h e o r i e s o f comprehension from t e x t l i n g u i s t i c s and r e a d i n g p s y c h o l o g y . Crowhurst ( p e r s o n a l communications, 1983b) d e v i s e d the s t u d y which the p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h seeks t o r e p l i c a t e , w i t h the d i f f e r e n c e t h a t her s u b j e c t s ranged from grade f i v e t o g r a d e e l e v e n . 41 CHAPTER 3 D e s i g n and P r o c e d u r e s R e s e a r c h D e s i g n T h i s r e s e a r c h d e s c r i b e s the r e v i s i o n s made i n e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a -s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s by t h i r t y n i n t h grade s t u d e n t s . The s t u d e n t s were d i -v i d e d i n t o two g r o u p s ; f i f t e e n were judged t o be s u p e r i o r i n w r i t i n g a b i l -i t y , f i f t e e n were randomly s e l e c t e d i n r e g a r d t o w r i t i n g a b i l i t y . D i f f e r -ences i n the number and k i n d o f r e v i s i o n s were i n v e s t i g a t e d a c r o s s t h r e e v a r i a b l e s : w r i t i n g q u a l i t y ; w r i t i n g mode; and the o c c a s i o n upon which r e v i s i o n was done. The pu r p o s e s o f the s t u d y i n c l u d e the d e s c r i p t i o n o f a sample o f n i n t h g r a d e r e v i s i o n i n o r d e r t o c o n t r i b u t e t o knowldge o f the p l a c e o f r e v i s i o n i n the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s , and an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p o f r e v i s i o n b e h a v i o r w i t h w r i t i n g q u a l i t y , mode and o c c a s i o n . The r e s u l t i n g d a t a were a n a l y z e d u s i n g an a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e (BMDP2V, 1983). D e s c r i p t i o n o f the Sample S t u d e n t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the s t u d y were 132 n i n t h grade s t u d e n t s e n r o l l e d i n f i v e E n g l i s h c l a s s e s t a u g h t by f o u r t e a c h e r s i n two s c h o o l s i n Richmond, B r i t i s h C o l u m b i a . D u r i n g the w i n t e r o f 1982, complete s e t s o f r e v i s e d e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s were c o l l e c t e d from s e v e n t y -f i v e s u b j e c t s . One c l a s s was e x c l u d e d because the t e a c h e r d i d not comply w i t h s t a n d a r d i z e d c o l l e c t i o n p r o c e d u r e s . Other i n d i v i d u a l s were e x c l u d e d because t h e i r e s s a y s were i n c o m p l e t e . F i n a l l y , s t u d e n t s who s t a t e d on a q u e s t i o n n a i r e t h a t E n g l i s h was not t h e i r n a t i v e language were e x c l u d e d 42 because d i f f i c u l t i e s w i t h E n g l i s h may have d i s r u p t e d t h e i r r e v i s i o n b e h a v i o r . The f i n a l d r a f t s o f each s e t o f s e v e n t y - f i v e e s s a y s were t y p e d v e r -b a t i m , e x c l u d i n g s t u d e n t s ' names. Three t r a i n e d r a t e r s w i t h h i g h s c h o o l E n g l i s h t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e r a t e d the e s s a y s . The f i f t e e n i n d i v i d u a l s r e c e i v i n g t h e h i g h e s t t o t a l q u a l i t y s c o r e s were s e l e c t e d f o r the s u p e r i o r w r i t i n g q u a l i t y group. (The complete p r o c e d u r e i s d e s c r i b e d under the h e a d i n g , D e f i n i t i o n and Measurement o f V a r i a b l e s . ) A second group o f f i f t e e n was randomly s e l e c t e d from the r e m a i n i n g s i x t y u s i n g a t a b l e of random numbers. The r e s u l t i n g sample (N = 30) o f p a i r s o f e s s a y s was a n a l y z e d f o r r e v i s i o n . P r o c e d u r e s The W r i t i n g A s s i g n m e n t s The w r i t i n g a s s i g n m e n t s were d e s i g n e d t o d i f f e r e n t i a t e between 'easy' and 'demanding' w r i t i n g t a s k s , on the assumption t h a t c h i l d r e n w r i t e most e a s i l y when a b l e t o adapt o r a l language s k i l l s , such as s t o r y - t e l l i n g , t o w r i t i n g ( B e r e i t e r & S c a r d a m a l i a , 1980; B r i t t o n e t a l . , 1975; S c a r d a m a l i a , 1981). The e x p r e s s i v e assignment was 'easy' because i t p e r m i t t e d the c h i l -d r e n t o use a r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e s t o r e o f memory, about which the c h i l d r e n were l i k e l y t o want t o t e l l . F u r t h e r , as B e r e i t e r and S c a r d a m a l i a p o i n t o u t i n "From C o n v e r s a t i o n t o C o m p o s i t i o n " (1980), a w r i t t e n n a r r a t i v e e a s e s the demands o f p r o d u c i n g language w i t h o u t a r e s p o n d e n t because c h i l d r e n a r e accustomed t o t a k i n g ' l o n g t u r n s ' when t e l l i n g s t o r i e s i n c o n v e r s a t i o n ; c h r o n o l o g i c a l o r d e r p r o v i d e s a framework; and t h e r e i s a w e l l - d e v e l o p e d s e t o f r u l e s g o v e r n i n g how a s t o r y s h o u l d be t o l d . 43 The e x p r e s s i v e a s s i g n m e n t . The c l a s s r o o m t e a c h e r s a d m i n i s t e r e d p r i n t e d a s s i g n m e n t s t h a t r e a d : A l l o f us have had u n f o r g e t t a b l e e x p e r i e n c e s , e x p e r i e n c e s t h a t we remember f o r y e a r s . I t may have been something sad t h a t hap-pened, or something funny, or something e m b a r r a s s i n g , o r some-t h i n g t h a t made us f e e l v e r y proud and happy. Thi n k o f an u n f o r g e t t a b l e e x p e r i e n c e t h a t you have had. D e s c r i b e what happened and how you f e l t so t h a t your t e a c h e r w i l l u n d e r s t a n d why you remember i t so c l e a r l y . T r y t o w r i t e a t l e a s t one page. The p e r s u a s i v e assignment had been used i n e a r l i e r s t u d i e s w i t h s t u -d e n t s i n g r a d e s 6, 10 and 12 (Crowhurst & P i c h e , 1979; Crowhurst, 1980) . The a d m i n i s t r a t i o n o f the assignment was begun by showing a c o l o r s l i d e o f an e l e m e n t a r y c l a s s r o o m i n which a boy i s about t o s h o o t a rubber band. The p r i n t e d assignment r e a d : Imagine t h a t t h i s i s your c l a s s . T h i s i n c i d e n t o c c u r r e d w h i l e a s u b s t i t u t e t e a c h e r was t e a c h i n g . You a r e a member o f a committee chosen by the c l a s s t o d e c i d e on punishments f o r s t u d e n t s who break the r u l e s o f the c l a s s . Your t e a c h e r i s a l s o on the com-m i t t e e . D e c i d e what you t h i n k s h o u l d happen t o the boy i n the p i c -t u r e . Your t a s k i s t o t r y t o c o n v i n c e your t e a c h e r t h a t your o p i n i o n i s r i g h t . D e s c r i b e the punishment and g i v e a l l the r e a s o n s you c a n t h i n k o f f o r g i v i n g t h a t punishment. T r y t o w r i t e a t l e a s t one page. I t was f e l t t h a t t h e p e r s u a s i v e assignment might be more d i f f i c u l t f o r n i n t h g r a d e r s because i t r e q u i r e d the development o f an argument w i t h s e v e r a l r e a s o n s , w i t h o u t any prompts from a r e s p o n d e n t , and a g o a l - d i r e c t e d memory s e a r c h f o r c o n t e n t t o s u p p o r t the argument ( B e r e i t e r & S c a r d a m a l i a , 1980). W r i t i n g S e s s i o n s The p a r t i c i p a t i n g t e a c h e r s were i n s t r u c t e d i n c o n d u c t i n g the w r i t i n g 44 s e s s i o n s a c c o r d i n g t o a s t a n d a r d i z e d g u i d e . Each t e a c h e r r e c e i v e d a s t e p -b y - s t e p p r o c e d u r a l g u i d e (see Appendix D), a p r i n t e d assignment s h e e t f o r each o f the a s s i g n m e n t s (see A p p e n d i c e s A and B ) , and a s e t o f r u l e d book-l e t s f o r s t u d e n t w r i t i n g . The use o f b l u e b a l l p o i n t pens on the f i r s t day and g r e e n pens on t h e second d i s c r i m i n a t e d between the two w r i t i n g s e s -s i o n s . The w r i t i n g a s s i g n m e n t s were g i v e n d u r i n g r e g u l a r c l a s s meeting t i m e s . Each c l a s s had two s e s s i o n s d e v o t e d t o the p e r s u a s i v e assignment and two s e s s i o n s d e v o t e d t o t h e e x p r e s s i v e a s s i g n m e n t . D u r i n g t he f i r s t s e s s i o n each c l a s s wrote a f i r s t d r a f t o f the p e r -s u a s i v e assignment. Three or f o u r days l a t e r the s t u d e n t s ' f i r s t d r a f t s were r e t u r n e d t o them and t h e y were i n s t r u c t e d t o r e v i s e t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s and w r i t e a second d r a f t . The f i r s t d r a f t o f the e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n was w r i t t e n d u r i n g t he t h i r d s e s s i o n , and i t s r e v i s i o n and second d r a f t p r o d u c e d d u r i n g the f o u r t h s e s s i o n . S t u d e n t s were g i v e n ample space on t h e i r w r i t i n g paper f o r r e v i s i n g . Each w r i t i n g s e s s i o n was f o r t y m i nutes l o n g . S t u d e n t s were i n s t r u c t e d t o make changes by c r o s s i n g o u t n e a t l y — w i t h o u t e r a s i n g o r u s i n g w h i t e - o u t — s o t h a t r e v i s i o n s c o u l d be d e c i p h e r e d . T h e r e were no w r i t t e n o r v e r b a l comments by the t e a c h e r on any d r a f t s . D u r i n g r e v i s i o n s e s s i o n s , t e a c h e r s i n s t r u c t e d t h e i r s t u d e n t s t o make any changes which they thought would improve the f i r s t d r a f t s . C l a s s i f y i n g and S c o r i n g R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n s The r e s e a r c h e r and a t r a i n e d a s s i s t a n t i d e n t i f i e d and r e c o r d e d a l l r e v i s i o n s o f t h e s u b j e c t s ' two d r a f t s f o r each assignment. (See Appendix I f o r sample s c o r e sheet.) The r e v i s i o n s were c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g t o a Taxonomy o f R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n s ( d e s c r i b e d i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n ) and a 45 s e t o f D e c i s i o n R u l e s (Appendix F) f o r a p p l y i n g t he Taxonomy. F i v e p a p e r s were randomly s e l e c t e d from each a b i l i t y group f o r r e l i a b i l i t y t e s t i n g . The r e s e a r c h e r and a s s i s t a n t b o t h s c o r e d t h e s e t e n p a p e r s , a c h i e v i n g a p e r c e n t a g e agreement o f 81.6 p e r c e n t on c l a s s i f y i n g r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s . I n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r s c o r i n g t he r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s the r e s e a r c h e r and a s s i s t a n t c o u n t e d the words i n each d r a f t . S e n t e n c e s , as p u n c t u a t e d by the s t u d e n t s , were numbered t o f a c i l i t a t e i d e n t i f y i n g s c o r e d r e v i s i o n s . (See Appendix J f o r sample s t u d e n t essay.) In the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n , each o f t he v a r i a b l e s which were s c o r e d and used i n a n a l y s i s i s d e f i n e d . D e f i n i t i o n and Measurement o f V a r i a b l e s The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n i s o r g a n i z e d a c c o r d i n g t o the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s and r e l a t e d h y p o t h e s e s . Each v a r i a b l e i s d e f i n e d . The method o f o b t a i n i n g s c o r e s i s d e s c r i b e d . Mode. Ther e a r e two modes o f w r i t i n g i n t h i s r e s e a r c h , d e t e r m i n e d by ass i g n m e n t s d e s i g n e d t o e l i c i t e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a s i v e e s s a y s . The de-t a i l s o f the as s i g n m e n t s were p r e s e n t e d under the he a d i n g w r i t i n g a s s i g n -ments (page 4 3 ) . A b i l i t y . To i d e n t i f y t h e s u p e r i o r s u b j e c t s i n the sample, the e s s a y s were r a t e d f o r q u a l i t y . A l l the f i n a l d r a f t s from t he raw sample o f 75 were t y p e d v e r b a t i m . The s t u d e n t s ' names were r e p l a c e d w i t h an i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number. Thre e r a t e r s w i t h h i g h s c h o o l E n g l i s h t e a c h i n g e x p e r i e n c e were t r a i n e d t o r a t e t he e s s a y s a c c o r d i n g t o c r i t e r i a p r e s e n t e d i n A p p e n d i c e s A and B. A f t e r a r a t e r had r e a d a l l 75 e s s a y s i n one mode, he or she a s -s i g n e d a s c o r e from 1 t o 4 t o each paper by s o r t i n g them i n t o f o u r p i l e s . A s c o r e o f 1 r a t e d t he e s s a y as one o f the 15 wo r s t p a p e r s i n the mode, 46 w h i l e a s c o r e o f 4 r a t e d the e s s a y as one o f the 15 b e s t p a p e r s i n the mode. A s c o r e o f 2 i n d i c a t e d low average work f o r grade n i n e , w h i l e 3 i n -d i c a t e d h i g h a v e r a g e . R a t i n g s were based upon c r i t e r i a o f c o n t e n t , s e n t e n c e  s t r u c t u r e , v o c a b u l a r y , o r g a n i z a t i o n and c o h e r e n c e . R a t i n g s o f e x p r e s s i v e w r i t i n g c o n s i d e r e d t h e development o f the w r i t e r ' s v o i c e , w h i l e r a t i n g s o f p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g c o n s i d e r e d the development o f w e l l - o r g a n i z e d arguments. The t h r e e r a t e r s ' s c o r e s f o r each e s s a y were summed, and each s t u -d e n t ' s combined s c o r e s f o r the two modes were computed. The f i f t e e n s t u -d e n t s who a c h i e v e d the h i g h e s t combined s c o r e s were s e l e c t e d f o r the s u p e r i o r group. T h i s l e f t 60 s u b j e c t s from whom a second group o f f i f t e e n was randomly s e l e c t e d u s i n g a t a b l e o f random numbers. R e l i a b i l i t y o f the A b i l i t y Measure Mean p e r c e n t i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y f o r the a b i l i t y measure was 89.9 p e r c e n t f o r the s u p e r i o r group, and 85 p e r c e n t f o r the randomly s e l e c t e d group. The d a t a a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 3.0. T a b l e 3.0 I n t e r - R a t e r R e l i a b i l i t y f o r the A b i l i t y Measure A b i l i t y Group/Mode Mean A b i l i t y S c o r e S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n o f A b i l i t y S c o r e P e r c e n t I n t e r - R a t e r R e l i a b i l i t y Mean P e r c e n t R e l i a b i l i t y f o r A b i l i t y Group S u p e r i o r E x p r e s s i v e 10.46 1.55 .89 .899 P e r s u a s i v e 11.06 1.22 .909 Randomly S e l e c t e d E x p r e s s i v e 7.46 2.38 .84 .85 P e r s u a s i v e 6.73 1.94 .86 N = 30. 47 O c c a s i o n s . I n i t i a l l y , f o u r o c c a s i o n s were i d e n t i f i e d and s c o r e d : 1. i n - p r o c e s s r e v i s i o n s o f the f i r s t d r a f t s , made i n b l u e i n k ; 2. r e v i s i o n s o f the f i r s t d r a f t made d u r i n g the second and f o u r t h w r i t i n g s e s s i o n s , when f i r s t d r a f t s were r e t u r n e d , e a s i l y i d e n t i f i e d be-cau s e t h e y were w r i t t e n i n g r e e n i n k ; 3. r e v i s i o n s between d r a f t s , t h a t i s , a d i f f e r e n c e between the f i r s t and second d r a f t s n o t n o t e d on the f i r s t d r a f t ; and 4. i n - p r o c e s s r e v i s i o n s o f the second d r a f t s . To s i m p l i f y t h e a n a l y s i s by r e d u c i n g the l a r g e numbers o f v a r i a b l e s , t he f o u r o c c a s i o n s d e f i n e d above were c o l l a p s e d i n t o two: 1. o c c a s i o n 1, a l l r e v i s i o n s performed i n the f i r s t w r i t i n g d r a f t w r i t i n g s e s s i o n s ; 2. o c c a s i o n 2, a l l r e v i s i o n s performed d u r i n g t he second d r a f t w r i t i n g s e s s i o n s , d e f i n e d a o c c a s i o n s 2, 3 and 4 above. Word c o u n t . The number o f words i n the f i r s t and second d r a f t s o f b o t h modes was r e c o r d e d . On the f i r s t d r a f t s , s c o r e r s c o u n t e d e v e r y word w r i t t e n i n b l u e i n k , e x c l u d i n g m a t e r i a l c r o s s e d o u t i n b l u e and any marks made i n g r e e n , b ut i n c l u d i n g any m a t e r i a l c r o s s e d o u t i n g r e e n , because g r e e n pens were used o n l y d u r i n g the second s e s s i o n s . On the second d r a f t s , s c o r e r s c o u n t e d e v e r y t h i n g w r i t t e n i n g r e e n , e x c e p t m a t e r i a l c r o s s e d o u t i n g r e e n . Number o f r e v i s i o n s . The r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s were c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g t o a taxonomy o f r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s . The development o f the taxonomy i s d e s c r i b e d i n Chapte r 2, pp. 36-37. The taxonomy i s summarized i n Appendix E. The method o f c l a s s i f y i n g r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s i s d e t a i l e d i n t h e d e c i s i o n r u l e s , Appendix F. Each k i n d o f r e v i s i o n i s d e f i n e d 48 b r i e f l y below. The taxonomy d i s c r i m i n a t e s among t h r e e l e v e l s o f r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s : 1.0 M e c h a n i c a l changes a r e a p p l i e d t o the f o r m a t o f the t e x t and do n o t i n v o l v e changes o f words or meaning. Seven m e c h a n i c a l r e v i s i o n s were s c o r e d : 1.01 s p e l l i n g ; 1.02 c o n d i t i o n e d changes o f t e n s e , number o r modal-i t y ; 1.03 a b b r e v i a t i o n ; 1.04 p u n c t u a t i o n ; 1.05 p a r a g r a p h or o t h e r f o r m a t i n g changes; 1.06 g r a p h i c and i l l e g i b l e changes; and 1.07 c o p y i n g e r r o r s w h ich i n a d v e r t e n t l y a l t e r the t e x t , such as a c c i d e n t a l l y d e l e t i n g a word. 1.1 Meaning p r e s e r v i n g r e v i s i o n s p a r a p h r a s e t e x t , i n one o f s i x o p e r -a t i o n s s p e c i f i e d below, w i t h o u t i n t r o d u c i n g , a l t e r i n g , or d e l e t i n g i n f o r m a -t i o n t h a t c a n n o t be i n f e r r e d o r r e c o v e r e d by the r e a d e r : 1.11 a d d i t i o n ; 1.12 d e l e t i o n ; 1.13 s u b s t i t u t i o n ; 1.14 p e r m u t a t i o n , o r r e arrangements o f t e x t ; 1.15 d i s t r i b u t i o n o f m a t e r i a l i n one t e x t segment i n t o more than one t e x t segment; and 1.16 c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f m a t e r i a l from two or more t e x t segments i n t o one t e x t segment. 1.2 T e x t base r e v i s i o n s i n t r o d u c e , d e l e t e o r a l t e r i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t c a n n o t be. i n f e r r e d o r r e c o v e r e d by the r e a d e r . T e x t base r e v i s i o n o p e r a -t i o n s o c c u r i n the same s i x c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s s p e c i f i e d f o r meaning p r e s e r v -i n g r e v i s i o n s above. Span, the l e n g t h o f the u n i t o f t e x t a f f e c t e d by a r e v i s i o n , was r e c o r d e d f o r each s c o r e d r e v i s i o n . S i x spans were s c o r e d : 1. g r a p h i c , r e v i s i o n s a f f e c t i n g l e s s than a word, such as s l i p s o f the pen and a c c i d e n t a l d e l e t i o n s ; 2. l e x i c a l changes i n v o l v e s i n g l e words; 3. p h r a s a l r e v i s i o n s i n v o l v e more than one word, w i t h o u t both a f i n i t e s u b j e c t and a f i n i t e v e r b ; 49 4. c l a u s a l r e v i s i o n s i n c l u d e both a f i n i t e s u b j e c t and a f i n i t e v e r b ; 5. s e n t e n c e r e v i s i o n s were s c o r e d as p u n c t u a t e d by the s u b j e c t ; 6. m u l t i - s e n t e n c e r e v i s i o n s i n v o l v e d chunks o f t e x t g r e a t e r than one s e n t e n c e i n l e n g t h . To s i m p l i f y the a n a l y s i s , g r a p h i c and l e x i c a l spans were c o l l a p s e d , l e a v i n g f i v e spans. I t i s a l s o noteworthy t h a t a l l r e v i s i o n s a t l e v e l 1, mechani- c a l , i n v o l v e d e i t h e r g r a p h i c o r l e x i c a l spans, and were t h e r e f o r e s c o r e d a t span 1. S t a t i s t i c a l A n a l y s i s The s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s o f the d a t a c o l l e c t e d was c o n d u c t e d d u r i n g A ugust o f 1985 a t the U n i v e r s i t y o f M a s s a c h u s e t t s computing c e n t e r i n Amherst, u s i n g the B i o - M e d i c a l BMDP2V a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e (1983). S c o r e s used were from a condensed v e r s i o n o f the raw d a t a as p r e s e n t e d i n Appen-d i x K. Four a n a l y s e s were performed as d e t a i l e d below. 1. Number o f words. An a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e w i t h a 2 ( a b i l i t y groups) x 2 (modes o f w r i t i n g ) x 2 ( o c c a s i o n s ) mixed d e s i g n was p e r f o r m e d . The dependent v a r i a b l e s were the number o f words w r i t t e n a t each o c c a s i o n . 2. R e v i s i o n s per 100 words. An a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e w i t h a 2 ( a b i l -i t y groups) x 2 (modes o f w r i t i n g ) x 2 ( o c c a s i o n s ) mixed d e s i g n was p e r -formed. The dependent v a r i a b l e s were the number o f r e v i s i o n s per 100 words o f t e x t , a t each o c c a s i o n , a s c o r e o b t a i n e d by d i v i d i n g the t o t a l number o f r e v i s i o n s performed by the number o f words w r i t t e n a t each o c c a s i o n . F o r example, i f 25 r e v i s i o n s were performed and 334 words were w r i t t e n , 25 d i v i d e d by 3.34 (hundreds o f words) = 7.485 r e v i s i o n s per 100 words. 50 3. T e x t spans o f r e v i s i o n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . An a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e w i t h a 2 ( a b i l i t y groups) x 2 (modes o f w r i t i n g ) x 2 ( o c c a s i o n s ) x 2 ( l e v -e l s o f r e v i s i o n s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s ) x 5 (spans o f r e v i s i o n s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s ) mixed d e s i g n was p e r f o r m e d . The dependent v a r i a b l e s were the mean numbers o f r e v i s i o n s p e r f o r m e d a t each span o f l e v e l s 2 (meaning p r e s e r v i n g ) and 3 ( t e x t - b a s e ) . L e v e l 1 (mechanical) r e v i s i o n s were e x c l u d e d from t h i s a n a l y -s i s because m e c h a n i c a l r e v i s i o n s a l l have a g r a p h i c / l e x i c a l span and would have d i s t o r t e d t h e a n a l y s i s i f i n c l u d e d . 4. L e v e l s o f r e v i s i o n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s . An a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e w i t h a 2 ( a b i l i t y groups) x 2 (modes o f w r i t i n g ) x 2 ( o c c a s i o n s ) x 3 ( l e v e l s o f r e v i s i o n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s ) mixed d e s i g n was p e r f o r m e d . The dependent v a r i -a b l e s were the mean numbers o f r e v i s i o n s performed a t each o f t h r e e l e v e l s o f r e v i s i o n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , summed a c r o s s t he f i v e spans a t l e v e l s 2 and 3. 51 CHAPTER 4 F i n d i n g s I n t r o d u c t i o n T h i s s t u d y o f a sample o f r e v i s i o n i n c o m p o s i t i o n s by n i n t h grade w r i t e r s i n v e s t i g a t e s t h e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p o f r e v i s i o n b e h a v i o r w i t h w r i t i n g a b i l i t y , mode and o c c a s i o n . F i r s t and second d r a f t s o f e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s were c o l l e c t e d from 75 n i n t h grade s t u d e n t s i n t h r e e c l a s s e s . The e s s a y s were r a t e d f o r q u a l i t y , and the f i f t e e n h i g h e s t r a t e d s t u d e n t s were s e l e c t e d as the s u p e r i o r a b i l i t y group. F i f t e e n s t u -d e n t s were randomly s e l e c t e d from the r e m a i n i n g 60, and the r e s u l t i n g sam-p l e o f 30 p a i r s o f e s s a y s was s c o r e d f o r r e v i s i o n a c c o r d i n g t o a taxonomy of r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s . The raw d a t a were condensed t o reduce t he number o f v a r i a b l e s , and the r e s u l t i n g s e t o f measures on an a r r a y o f 69 v a r i a b l e s was a n a l y z e d w i t h an a n a l y s i s o f v a r i a n c e (BMDP2V, 1983). The f o l l o w i n g r e p o r t on the f i n d i n g s i n c l u d e s r e s u l t s on each o f the r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s and r e l a t e d h y p o t h e s e s , w i t h a d d i t i o n a l f i n d i n g s on e s s a y l e n g t h . I . Mode and r e v i s i o n . Are t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s between r e v i s i o n s made i n e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s ? H y p o t h e s i s 1.1: There w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the t o t a l number o f r e v i s i o n s p er 100 words between e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s . When t h e mean numbers o f r e v i s i o n s per 100 words were summed f o r both o c c a s i o n s and a b i l i t y g r o u p s , the mean f o r e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s was 12.97, w h i l e t he mean f o r p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s was 12.75, not a s i g n i f i -c a n t d i f f e r e n c e . The f i n d i n g s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 4.1, wh e r e i n the 52 Table 4.1 Means and Standard Deviations of the Number of Revision Operations per 100 Words i n Expressive and Persuasive Compositions Mode Occasion Superior Group Revisions per 100 words (St. Dv.) Random Group (St. Dv.) Mean of Groups Percent of T o t a l , Each Occasion 4.35 (2.84) 3.67 (3.15) 4.01 Expressive Percent of T o t a l , 2 Groups .54 .46 .31 8.21 (4.11) 9.71 (4.17) 8.96 Percent of T o t a l , 2 Groups .46 .54 .69 Sum of 2 Occasions 12.56 13.38 12.97 Percent of T o t a l , Each Group .48 .52 1.00 2.53 (1.98) 4.28 (4.25) 3.40 Persuasive Percent of T o t a l , 2 Groups .37 .63 .26 7.20 (3.21) 11.49 (4.69) 9.35 Percent of T o t a l , 2 Groups .38 .62 .73 Sum of 2 occasions 9.73 15.77 12.75 Percent of To t a l , Each Group .38 .62 1.00 Percent of T o t a l , Both Modes .44 .56 1.00 N =» 30 53 means c i t e d above a r e found under "Mean o f Groups, Sum o f 2 O c c a s i o n s . " The A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e i s p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 4.2, on the l i n e t i t l e d "Mode." T a b l e 4.2 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e , Number o f R e v i s i o n s per 100 Words x 2 ( A b i l i t y Groups) x 2 (Modes) x 2 ( O c c a s i o n s ) S ource d f Mean Square F T a i l P r o b a b i l i t y 1. A b i l i t y Group 1 88.58 3.64 .0667 E r r o r 28 24.33 2. Mode 1 .374 .05 .8241 Mode x Group 1 51.09 6.87* .0140 E r r o r 28 7.43 3. O c c a s i o n 1 839.44 60.72** . 0000 O c c a s i o n x Group 1 41.89 2.86 .1019 E r r o r 28 14.65 4. Mode x O c c a s i o n 1 7.45 1.08 .3079 Mode x O c c a s i o n x Group 1 .23 .03 .8553 E r r o r 28 6.91 * p < .05 ** p < .001 N = 30 H y p o t h e s i s 1.2: Th e r e w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the span o f r e v i s i o n s between e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s . More r e v i s i o n s were made i n e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s than i n p e r s u a -s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s a t a l l f i v e spans o f t e x t . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e , w h i l e s i g -n i f i c a n t (F (4, 112) = 4.49, p < 0.001, see l i n e 10, T a b l e 4.4) i s 54 Table 4.3 Mean Number of Revisions at Five Spans in Expressive and Persuasive Compositions by Superior and Randomly Selected Writers Node Super ior Random Span: Sum of Occasion + Level Mean (Rev./ Percent 100 of Total Words) Mean (Rev./ Percent 100 of Total Words) Average of Two Groups Mean (Rev./ Percent 100 of To t a l Words) Expressive 1 9. 05 .50 5. 32 .43 7. 19 .46 (6. 28) (5. 75) (5. 96) 2 4. 52 .25 3. 45 .20 3. 99 .26 (3. 14) (2. 68) (3. 37) 3 3. 05 .17 2. 12 .17 2. 59 .17 (2. 14) (2. 27) (2. 20) 4 0. 99 .05 0. 99 .08 0. 99 .06 (0. 63) (1. 07) (0. 77) 5 0. 38 .03 0. 40 .03 0. 39 .05 (0. 38) (0. 40) (0. 39) Total 17. 95 1.00 12. 20 1.00 15. 54 1.00 (12. 56) (13. 38) (12. 97) (Mean) (3. 60) (2. 45) (3. 03) 1 3. 98 .54 4. 85 .48 4 . 41 . 51 (5. 25) (7. 57) (6. 50) 2 1. 85 .25 2. 19 .22 2. 02 .23 (2. 43) (3. 47) (2. 43) 3 1. 19 .16 2. 12 .21 1. 65 . 19 (1. 55) (3. 31) (2. 42) 4 0. 39 .05 0. 72 .07 0. 55 .06 (0. 48) (1. 10) (0. 77) 5 0. 00 .00 0. 13 .01 0. 06 .007 (0. 16) (0. 09) Total 7. 41 1.00 10. 01 1.00 8. 69 1.00 (9. 73) (15. 77) (12. 75) (Mean) (1. 48) (2. 00) (1. 74) Persuasive N » 30 55 a c c o u n t e d f o r by the g r e a t e r l e n g t h o f the e x p r e s s i v e e s s a y s . As was seen above, t h e r e was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the number o f r e v i s i o n s p er 100 words. The d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e v i s i o n s among the f i v e spans was s i m i l a r i n both w r i t i n g modes. About h a l f t he r e v i s i o n s i n v o l v e u n i t s o f t e x t o f one word o r l e s s , 46 p e r c e n t i n the e x p r e s s i v e and 51 p e r c e n t i n the p e r -s u a s i v e e s s a y s . R e v i s i o n s o f p h r a s e s a c c o u n t e d f o r 26 and 23 p e r c e n t , r e s p e c t i v e l y . In e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , 17 p e r c e n t o f r e v i s i o n s were o f c l a u s e s , v e r s u s 19 p e r c e n t i n p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g . L e s s than 10 p e r c e n t o f r e v i s i o n s i n e i t h e r mode were a t s e n t e n c e or m u l t i - s e n t e n c e spans. The g r e a t e r numbers o f r e v i s i o n s a t s m a l l e r spans o f t e x t was s i g n i f i c a n t (F (4, 112) = 52.05, p < .001, see l i n e 9 ) . The r e s u l t s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 4.3, and the A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e i s summarized i n T a b l e 4.4. T a b l e 4.4 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e : Spans o f R e v i s i o n s x 2 ( A b i l i t y Groups) x 2 (Modes) x 2 (O c c a s i o n s ) x 2 ( L e v e l s ) S ource d f Mean T a i l Square F P r o b a b i l i t y 1. A b i l i t y Group 1 1.84 .35 .556 E r r o r 28 5.187 2. Mode 1 31.04 13.66*** .0009 Mode x Group 1 13.02 5.73* .0236 E r r o r 28 2.27 3. O c c a s i o n 1 163.53 45.83*** .0000 O c c a s i o n x Group 1 .90 .25 .6180 E r r o r 28 3.56 56 T a b l e 4.4, c o n t i n u e d S ource d f Mean Square T a i l P r o b a b i l i t y Mode x O c c a s i o n Mode x O c c a s i o n x Group E r r o r 1 1 28 4.44 2.70 1.16 3.81 2.32 .0610 .1386 5. L e v e l L e v e l x Group E r r o r 1 1 28 95.77 .44 1.57 60.71*** .28 .0000 .6012 6. Mode x L e v e l Mode x L e v e l E r r o r x Group 1 1 28 9.18 3.52 1.24 7.38 2.83 .0112 .1030 7. O c c a s i o n x L e v e l O c c a s i o n x L e v e l x Group E r r o r 1 1 28 30.40 .04 1.60 18.90*** .03 .0002 .8745 8. Mode x O c c a s i o n x L e v e l 1 .90 1.09 Mode x O c c a s i o n x L e v e l x Group 1 .14 .17 E r r o r 28 .82 .3045 ,6834 Span Span x Group E r r o r 4 4 112 72.87 1.62 1.39 52.06*** 1.16 .0000 .3329 10. Mode x Span Mode x Span x Group E r r o r 4 4 112 4.13 3.01 .92 4.49** 3.26* .0021 .0143 11. O c c a s i o n x Span O c c a s i o n x Span x Group E r r o r 4 4 112 15.59 .21 1.67 9.29*** .13 ,0000 9713 12. Mode x O c c a s i o n x Span 4 .17 .24 Mode x O c c a s i o n x Span x Group 4 .48 .66 E r r o r 112 .73 .9151 .6209 57 T a b l e 4.4, c o n t i n u e d S o urce d f Mean Square T a i l P r o b a b i l i t y 13. L e v e l x Span L e v e l x Span x Group E r r o r 4 4 112 47.22 .95 1.14 41.16*** .84 .0000 .5049 14. Mode x L e v e l x Span Mode x L e v e l x Span x Group E r r o r 4 4 112 2.46 4.90 .96 2.57* 5.11*** .0420 .0008 15. O c c a s i o n x L e v e l x Span 4 9.99 9.84*** .0000 O c c a s i o n x L e v e l x Span x Group 4 .09 .10 .9837 E r r o r 112 1.01 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 N = 30 H y p o t h e s i s 1.3; T h e r e w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the f r e q u e n c i e s o f r e -v i s i o n s a t t h r e e l e v e l s — m e c h a n i c a l , meaning p r e s e r v i n g , and t e x t - b a s e — between e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s . There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the two modes i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e v i s i o n s among the t h r e e l e v e l s . In e x p r e s s i v e w r i t i n g , l e v e l 1 m e c h a n i c a l r e v i s i o n s a c c o u n t e d f o r 51 p e r c e n t o f the t o t a l . I n p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g , changes a t the meaning p r e s e r v i n g l e v e l c o m p r i s e d 32.9 p e r c e n t o f the t o t a l , v e r s u s 36.4 p e r c e n t i n e x p r e s s i v e w r i t i n g . T e x t base r e v i s i o n s a c c o u n t e d f o r almo s t e x a c t l y the same p e r c e n t a g e o f the t o t a l i n b o t h modes, 12.5 and 12.6 p e r c e n t r e s p e c t i v e l y . These d a t a a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 4.5, and i l l u s t r a t e d i n Graph 4.1. The A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e i s summarized i n T a b l e 4.6. 58 T a b l e 4.5 F r e q u e n c i e s o f R e v i s i o n s a t T h r e e R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n L e v e l s i n E x p r e s s i v e and P e r s u a s i v e C o m p o s i t i o n s R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n L e v e l s Mode 1. 2. 3. Sum i- Meaning „ _ o f 3 M e c h a n i c a l „ . T e x t Base P r e s e r v i n g L e v e l s R e v i s i o n s per 100 Words 13.23 9.44 3.24 25.94 E x p r e s s i v e 31.63 22.60 7.80 62.03 P e r c e n t o f T o t a l .51 .364 .125 1.00 R e v i s i o n s p er 100 Words 13.87 8.39 3.21 25.50 P e r s u a s i v e 20.98 12.67 4.86 38.51 P e r c e n t o f T o t a l .54 .329 .126% 1.00 N = 30 59 Graph 4.1 F r e q u e n c i e s o f R e v i s i o n s a t Thre e R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n L e v e l s i n E x p r e s s i v e and P e r s u a s i v e C o m p o s i t i o n s by S u p e r i o r and Randomly S e l e c t e d A b i l i t y Groups M o d e / R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n L e v e l s o S u p e r i o r T o t a l R e v i s i o n s * Random T o t a l R e v i s i o n s + S u p e r i o r and Random T o t a l R e v i s i o n s E x p r e s s i v e 1. M e c h a n i c a l 2. Meaning P r e s e r v i n g 3. T e x t Based o P e r s u a s i v e 1. M e c h a n i c a l o * + 2. Meaning P r e s e r v i n g * o + 3. T e x t Based * o + 1 1 1 1 1 I L_ Mean T o t a l 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n s N = 30 60 T a b l e 4.6 A n a l y s i s o f V a r i a n c e : Mean Number o f R e v i s i o n s a t Thr e e L e v e l s o f R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n s x 2 ( A b i l i t y Groups) x 2 (Modes) x 2 (O c c a s i o n s ) S o urce d f Mean Square F T a i l P r o b a b i l i t y 1. A b i l i t y Group E r r o r 1 28 56.80 38.59 1.47 .2352 2. Mode 1 346.14 16.50 .0004*** Mode x Group 1 66.74 3.18 .0853 E r r o r 28 20.97 3. O c c a s i o n 1 1280.67 54.31 .0000*** O c c a s i o n x Group 1 .02 .00 .9743 E r r o r 28 23.58 4. Mode x O c c a s i o n 1 23.00 2.53 .1230 Mode x O c c a s i o n x Group 1 .225 .02 .8762 E r r o r 28 9.096 5. L e v e l 2 754.22 31.38 .0000*** L e v e l x Group 2 15.70 .65 . 5242 E r r o r 56 24.03 6. Mode x L e v e l 2 34.17 3. 51 .0366* Mode x L e v e l x Group 2 11.73 1.21 .3072 E r r o r 56 9.74 7. O c c a s i o n x L e v e l 2 76.59 7.26 .0016** O c c a s i o n x L e v e l x Group 2 6.10 .58 .5639 E r r o r 56 10.55 8. Mode x O c c a s i o n x L e v e l E r r o r 2 2 56 3.21 .58 16.61 2.97 5.58 . 5651 .0592 61 T a b l e 4.6, c o n t i n u e d S o u r c e d f Mean Square F T a i l P r o b a b i l i t y 9. Mode x O c c a s i o n x L e v e l x Group 2 16.61 2.97 .0592 E r r o r 56 5.58 * p < .05 ** p < .01 *** p < .001 N = 30 H y p o t h e s i s 1.4: There w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the f r e q u e n c i e s o f r e v i s i o n s a t the two o c c a s i o n s upon which r e v i s i o n s were s c o r e d , between e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s . S i g n i f i c a n t l y more r e v i s i o n s were performed a t o c c a s i o n 2 than a t o c c a s i o n 1, F (1, 28) = 60.72, p < 0.001; see T a b l e 4.2, l i n e 6. In e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s more than t w i c e as many changes, 8.96 or 69 p e r c e n t , were made a t o c c a s i o n 2, v e r s u s 4.01 or 31 p e r c e n t a t o c c a s i o n 1. In p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g t h e r e was a l a r g e r d i f f e r e n c e i n the number o f r e -v i s i o n s p er 100 words a t the two o c c a s i o n s ; 9.35 o r 73 p e r c e n t a t o c c a s i o n 2, and 3.40 or 26 p e r c e n t a t o c c a s i o n 1. There were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -ences i n the f r e q u e n c i e s o f r e v i s i o n s by o c c a s i o n a c r o s s the two modes nor the two a b i l i t y g r o u p s . The f i n d i n g s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e s 4.1 and 4.2. I I . The e x p r e s s i v e mode and w r i t i n g q u a l i t y . In e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , a r e t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s i n the r e v i s i o n s o f s u p e r i o r v e r s u s randomly s e l e c t e d w r i t e r s ? 62 H y p o t h e s i s I I . 1 ; There w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the t o t a l number o f r e v i s i o n s per 100 words between e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by t h e s u p e r i o r v e r s u s t h e randomly s e l e c t e d group. T h e r e were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between t he mean r e v i s i o n s p er 100 words i n the e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s o f s u p e r i o r v e r s u s randomly s e -l e c t e d w r i t e r s . The s u p e r i o r group made 12.56 changes p er 100 words, w h i l e the randomly s e l e c t e d group made 13.39, o r 52 p e r c e n t o f the t o t a l f o r b o t h g r o u p s . T h e r e was a s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n (F (1, 28) = 6.87, p < 0.05; see T a b l e 4.2, l i n e 3) between mode and a b i l i t y g r o u p s , but t h i s i s a c -co u n t e d f o r by the d i f f e r e n c e s i n t h e i r performance on p e r s u a s i v e compo-s i t i o n s , as w i l l be seen. H y p o t h e s i s I I . 2 : T h e r e w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the span o f r e v i s i o n s between e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by the s u p e r i o r v e r s u s the randomly  s e l e c t e d group. T h e r e were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the span o f r e v i s i o n s be-tween e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by the s u p e r i o r v e r s u s t he randomly s e l e c t e d group. Both a b i l i t y groups made about h a l f t h e i r r e v i s i o n s t o one word or s u b - l e x i c a l u n i t s o f t e x t . Changes i n v o l v i n g p h r a s e s a c c o u n t e d f o r about 25 p e r c e n t o f bo t h groups' e x p r e s s i v e r e v i s i o n s , w h i l e c l a u s e l e n g t h changes c o m p r i s e d 17 p e r c e n t f o r both g r o u p s . The sen t e n c e and m u l t i -s e n t e n c e spans made up 8 p e r c e n t o f the s u p e r i o r group's changes, and 11 p e r c e n t o f the random g r o u p ' s . There was a s i g n i f i c a n t t h r e e way i n t e r -a c t i o n o f mode by span by group (F (4, 112) = 3.26, p < .05; see T a b l e 4.4, l i n e 1 0 ) , but t h i s complex i n t e r a c t i o n i s p a r t i a l l y a c c o u n t e d f o r by the s m a l l e r number o f changes made by the s u p e r i o r group i n t h e i r p e r -s u a s i v e w r i t i n g , not by any d i f f e r e n c e i n the d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e v i s i o n s 63 among the f i v e spans i n e x p r e s s i v e w r i t i n g . The r e s u l t s a r e summarized i n T a b l e 4.3. H y p o t h e s i s I I . 3 ; There w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the f r e q u e n c i e s o f r e v i s i o n s a t t h r e e l e v e l s between e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by the s u p e r i o r v e r s u s the randomly s e l e c t e d group. The s u p e r i o r g r o u p r e v i s e d more a t each o f the t h r e e r e v i s i o n o p e r a -t i o n l e v e l s when w r i t i n g e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s than t he randomly s e l e c t e d group. A t the m e c h a n i c a l l e v e l , t h e s u p e r i o r group made a mean o f 17.93 changes when summed a c r o s s both o c c a s i o n s , 49 p e r c e n t o f the t o t a l f o r the e x p r e s s i v e a s s i g n m e n t , c o n t r a s t e d w i t h 13.7 (53 p e r c e n t ) f o r the randomly s e l e c t e d group. A t the meaning p r e s e r v i n g l e v e l t h e s u p e r i o r group made 13.47 (38 p e r c e n t ) , v e r s u s 9.13 (35 p e r c e n t ) ; w h i l e a t the t e x t base l e v e l t he s u p e r i o r group made 7.8 r e v i s i o n s (13 p e r c e n t ) v e r s u s 3.2 (12 p e r c e n t ) f o r t h e randomly s e l e c t e d group. The d i f f e r e n c e s i n the ways t h a t the two a b i l i t y groups d i s t r i b u t e d r e v i s i o n s among the t h r e e l e v e l s were not s i g -n i f i c a n t . The r e s u l t s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 4.7 and Graph 4.1. H y p o t h e s i s I I . 4 ; There w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the f r e q u e n c i e s o f r e v i s i o n s a t two o c c a s i o n s between e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by the s u p e r i o r v e r s u s t he randomly s e l e c t e d group. In t h e i r e x p r e s s i v e e s s a y s , the s u p e r i o r group d i d more r e v i s i n g (31 p e r c e n t ) a t o c c a s i o n one than d i d the randomly s e l e c t e d group (26 p e r c e n t ) . The d a t a a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 4.1. 64 T a b l e 4.7 F r e q u e n c i e s o f R e v i s i o n s a t T h r e e L e v e l s of R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n s i n E x p r e s s i v e C o m p o s i t i o n s by S u p e r i o r and Randomly S e l e c t e d Groups R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n L e v e l s A b i l i t y Groups 1. 2. 3. „ Sum f o r M e c h a n i c a l „ . T e x t Base Group P r e s e r v i n g S u p e r i o r R e v i s i o n s per 100 Words 6.15 4.77 1.63 12.56 Mean R e v i s i o n s 17.93 13.47 4.6 36.01 P e r c e n t o f T o t a l .49 .38 .13 1.00 Random R e v i s i o n s per 100 Words 7.09 4.68 1.6 13.38 Mean R e v i s i o n s 13.7 9.13 3.2 26.03 P e r c e n t o f T o t a l .53 .35 .12 1.00 N = 30 I I I . The p e r s u a s i v e mode and w r i t i n g q u a l i t y . In p e r s u a s i v e composi-t i o n s , a r e t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s i n the r e v i s i o n s o f s u p e r i o r v e r s u s randomly  s e l e c t e d w r i t e r s ? H y p o t h e s i s I I I . l : There w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the t o t a l number o f r e v i s i o n s per 100 words between p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by the s u p e r i o r v e r s u s the randomly s e l e c t e d group. In p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , the s u p e r i o r group made s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer r e v i s i o n s per 100 words than the randomly s e l e c t e d group: a mean o f 4.86, or 38 p e r c e n t o f the t o t a l p e r s u a s i v e r e v i s i o n s , v e r s u s 7.88 or 62 p e r c e n t . T h i s d i f f e r e n c e between the means a c c o u n t s f o r the s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between mode and a b i l i t y groups (F (1, 28) = 6.87, p < 0.05), 65 which was mentioned on page 61 and p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 4.2, page 53. The d a t a a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 4.1, page 52. H y p o t h e s i s I I I . 2 : There w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the span o f r e v i s i o n s between p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by t h e s u p e r i o r v e r s u s the randomly  s e l e c t e d group. In t h e i r p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , the s u p e r i o r group p e r f o r m e d fewer r e v i s i o n s a t a l l f i v e spans o f t e x t than the randomly s e l e c t e d group. Of t h e s e , a l a r g e r p e r c e n t a g e were r e v i s i o n s o f p h r a s e s , s i n g l e words, o r sub-l e x i c a l u n i t s : 79 p e r c e n t v e r s u s 70 p e r c e n t . A c o r r e s p o n d i n g l y s m a l l e r p e r c e n t a g e o f the s u p e r i o r group's changes were a t the c l a u s e span, a mean o f 1.19 (16 p e r c e n t ) v e r s u s the randomly s e l e c t e d group's 2.12 (21 p e r -c e n t ) . The randomly s e l e c t e d group a l s o made more changes a t the s e n t e n c e (0.72) and m u l t i s e n t e n c e (0.13) spans than the s u p e r i o r group (0.39 and 0.00 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . H y p o t h e s i s I I I . 3 : There w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the f r e q u e n c i e s o f r e v i s i o n s a t t h r e e l e v e l s o f r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s between p e r s u a s i v e com-p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by the s u p e r i o r v e r s u s the randomly s e l e c t e d group. There were d i f f e r e n c e s i n the ways t h a t the two a b i l i t y g r o u p s d i s t r i b u t e d t h e i r r e v i s i o n s among the t h r e e l e v e l s o f r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s i n t h e i r p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g . The randomly s e l e c t e d group made a h i g h e r p e r c e n t a g e o f t h e i r r e v i s i o n s a t l e v e l s 2 (38 p e r c e n t ) and 3 (14 p e r c e n t ) than the s u p e r i o r group (28 and 11 p e r c e n t r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . The randomly s e l e c t e d group a l s o made more changes per 100 words a t each o f the t h r e e l e v e l s o f r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s , 7.56 v e r s u s 5.94 a t the m e c h a n i c a l l e v e l ; 5.99 v e r s u s 2.72 a t the meaning p r e s e r v i n g l e v e l ; and 2.21 v e r s u s 1.07 a t the t e x t base l e v e l . In sum, 62 p e r c e n t o f a l l the r e v i s i o n i n t h i s sample 66 o f n i n t h grade p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g was performed by the randomly s e l e c t e d group. The d a t a a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 4.8, below, and Graph 4.1, page 58. T a b l e 4.8 F r e q u e n c i e s o f R e v i s i o n s a t T h r e e L e v e l s o f R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n s i n P e r s u a s i v e C o m p o s i t i o n s by S u p e r i o r and Randomly S e l e c t e d Groups A b i l i t y Groups R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n L e v e l s M e c h a n i c a l Meaning T e x t P r e s e r v i n g Base Sum f o r Group P e r c e n t o f T o t a l , 2 Groups S u p e r i o r R e v i s i o n s per 100 Words 5.94 P e r c e n t o f T o t a l . 61 2.72 .28 1.07 .11 9.73 1.00 38 Random R e v i s i o n s per 100 Words 7.56 P e r c e n t o f T o t a l .48 5.99 .38 2.21 .14 15.77 1.00 .62 1. 00 N = 30 H y p o t h e s i s I I I . 4 : T h e r e w i l l be d i f f e r e n c e s i n the f r e q u e n c i e s o f r e v i s i o n s a t the two o c c a s i o n s between p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s w r i t t e n by the s u p e r i o r v e r s u s the randomly s e l e c t e d group. B o t h a b i l i t y g r o u p s d i d a p p r o x i m a t e l y 75 p e r c e n t o f t h e i r r e v i s i n g i n p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g a t o c c a s i o n 2. The d a t a a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 4.1. Other F i n d i n g s C o m p o s i t i o n L e n g t h S t u d e n t s i n the s u p e r i o r group wrote s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o n g e r composi-t i o n s i n both modes, F (1; 28) = 24.04, p < .001. E x p r e s s i v e e s s a y s were 67 s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o n g e r t h a n p e r s u a s i v e e s s a y s , F (2; 28) = 29.45, p < .001; and d r a f t s i n b o t h modes were s i g n i f i c a n t l y l o n g e r a t o c c a s i o n 2, F ( 1 ; 28) = 7.60, p < .01, w i t h t h e e x c e p t i o n o f t h e s u p e r i o r g r o u p ' s second d r a f t s o f p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , w h i c h were o n l y a mean o f 1.1 words l o n g e r t h a n t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s . The d a t a r e l e v a n t t o c o m p o s i t i o n l e n g t h i s p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e s 4.9 and 4.10. 68 Table 4.9 Means, Standard Deviations, and Range Values for Total Words per Draft at Two Ability Levels, Superior and Randomly Selected Ability Level/ Mode Occasion Mean words per Draft Mean for Mode Standard Deviation Range of Words per Draft Mean Number of Words Summed Across 4 Drafts Standard Deviation Superior Expressive Persuasive Randomly Selected Expressive Persuasive 276.2 290.3 194.7 195.8 197.3 201.6 127.6 132.3 283.2 195.2 199.5 129.9 82.5 86.2 51.3 47.9 47.8 49.2 38.5 42.2 143-425 146-428 106-286 120-266 115-261 103-269 70-207 60-213 239.3 164.7 51.4 40.2 N » 30 (60 essays) 69 T a b l e 4.10 Number o f Words, 2 ( A b i l i t y Groups) x 2 (Modes) x 2 (O c c a s i o n s ) Dependent V a r i a b l e i s t h e Number o f Words W r i t t e n a t Each O c c a s i o n Source df Mean Square F T a i l P r o b a b i l i t y 1. A b i l i t y Group E r r o r 1 28 166805 6937 24.04** .0000 2. Mode 1 185968 29.45** .0000 Mode x Group 1 2557 .41 .5297 E r r o r 28 6314 3. O c c a s i o n 1 1104 7.60* .0102 O c c a s i o n x Group 1 73 .51 .4825 E r r o r 28 145 4. Mode x O c c a s i o n 1 294 1.82 .1882 Mode x O c c a s i o n x Group 1 340 2.10 .1583 E r r o r 28 161 * p < .05 ** p < .001 N = 30 70 CHAPTER 5 D i s c u s s i o n and C o n c l u s i o n s D i s c u s s i o n o f R e s u l t s The d i s c u s s i o n o f r e s u l t s i s o r g a n i z e d a c c o r d i n g t o the t h r e e r e -s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s w i t h r e l a t e d h y p o t h e s e s , and i n t e r p r e t e d i n r e l a t i o n t o t h o s e s t u d i e s , r e v i e w e d i n C h a p t e r 2, which formed the b a s i s f o r t h i s r e s e a r c h . As w i l l be s een, few s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found among the v a r i a b l e s measured. The f i r s t g e n e r a l r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n was whether the mode o f w r i t i n g , e x p r e s s i v e or p e r s u a s i v e , c o r r e l a t e d w i t h d i f f e r i n g numbers or k i n d s o f r e v i s i o n s ? About t h r e e q u a r t e r s o f r e v i s i o n s i n w r i t i n g i n b o t h modes were t o u n i t s o f t e x t o f the p h r a s e span or s m a l l e r . Over h a l f o f a l l the r e v i s i o n s were a t the m e c h a n i c a l l e v e l , i n v o l v i n g s p e l l i n g ; t e n s e , number or m o d a l i t y ; a b b r e v i a t i o n , punc-t u a t i o n ; f o r m a t t i n g or the c o r r e c t i o n o f g r a p h i c e r r o r s . About one t h i r d o f a l l the r e v i s i o n s were a t t h e m e a n i n g - p r e s e r v i n g l e v e l , i n v o l v i n g changes o f a d d i t i o n ; d e l e t i o n ; s u b s t i t u t i o n ; p e r m u t a t i o n ; d i s t r i b u t i o n or c o n s o l i d a t i o n o f t e x t w i t h o u t e f f e c t i n g the meaning o f the w r i t i n g . But the o n l y v a r i a t i o n i n numbers or k i n d s o f r e v i s i o n t h a t c o r r e l a t e d s i g n i f -i c a n t l y w i t h mode was, as d e t a i l e d below, t h a t the s u p e r i o r group made fewer changes i n p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g . The second g e n e r a l r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n was whether a sample o f n i n t h g r ade w r i t e r s who r e c e i v e d s u p e r i o r q u a l i t y r a t i n g s from e x p e r i e n c e d judges r e v i s e d t h e i r c o m p o s i t i o n s d i f f e r e n t l y from randomly s e l e c t e d p e e r s ? The f i n d i n g o f the p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h was t h a t the s u p e r i o r a b i l i t y group r e v i s e d p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y l e s s t h a n the randomly s e l e c t e d group, 71 and the r e v i s i o n s were d i s t r i b u t e d i n s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t ways among the f i v e spans o f t e x t . The t h i r d g e n e r a l r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n was, were t h e r e d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e v i s i o n b e h a v i o r a t the two o c c a s i o n s — f i r s t and second d r a f t — f o r w r i t i n g ? T h r e were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s i n numbers or k i n d s o f r e v i s i o n a t the two o c c a s i o n s . Both a b i l i t y g r o u p s , w r i t i n g i n b o t h modes, performed about t h r e e q u a r t e r s o f a l l r e v i s i o n s d u r i n g the second w r i t i n g s e s s i o n . I . Mode and R e v i s i o n . The g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e between the e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a s i v e modes i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y was i n e s s a y l e n g t h . E x p r e s s i v e e s s a y s had a mean l e n g t h o f 241 words, c o n t r a s t e d w i t h a mean l e n g t h o f 163 words f o r p e r s u a s i v e e s s a y s . Ths s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e (F (1, 28) = 29.95, p < .001; see T a b l e 4.10, page 69) a c c o r d s w i t h o t h e r r e s e a r c h on s t u d e n t w r i t i n g which has found t h a t the e x p r e s s i v e mode encourages g r e a t e r f l u e n c y ( B e r e i t e r and S c a r d a m a l i a , 1982; C r o w h u r s t , 1983a, M a t s u h a s h i , 1981). W i t h t h e g r e a t e r number o f words, a l a r g e r t o t a l number of r e v i s i o n s was performed i n e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s . But when a d j u s t e d by computing the number o f r e v i s i o n s per 100 words, the d i f f e r e n c e between modes becomes n e g l i g i b l e . F u r t h e r m o r e , when the d i f f e r e n c e s i n r e v i s i o n b e h a v i o r between the two a b i l i t y groups i n p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g a r e masked by t a k i n g the mean o f the two a b i l i t y g r o u p s , r e v i s i o n b e h a v i o r f o r the sample as a whole was found t o be a l m o s t e x a c t l y the same f o r e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g . The ways i n which r e v i s i o n s were d i s t r i b u t e d among the f i v e spans o f t e x t , the t h r e e l e v e l s o f r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s and the two o c c a s i o n s d i d not d i f f e r s i g n i f i c a n t l y by mode. The s l i g h t d i f -72 f e r e n c e s t h a t were fou n d a r e d e t a i l e d below. H y p o t h e s i s 1.1, mode and r e v i s i o n s per 100 words. When mean numbers o f r e v i s i o n s per 100 words were summed f o r both o c c a s i o n s and a b i l i t y g r o u p s , t h e r e were no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the means. E x p r e s -s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s were r e v i s e d a mean o f 12.97 times per 100 words, w h i l e the mean f o r p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s was 12.75 r e v i s i o n s per 100 words. (See T a b l e 4.1, page 52.) Crowhurst (1983b) found t h a t her s u b j e c t s showed no tendency t o r e v i s e more i n the p e r s u a s i v e than i n the e x p r e s s i v e mode. The f i f t h , s e v e n t h and e l e v e n t h grade s u b j e c t s o f Crowhurst's r e s e a r c h were r e s p o n d i n g t o the same a s s i g n m e n t s under the same e x p e r i m e n t a l c o n d i t i o n s , i n t he same s c h o o l system, as were the n i n t h grade s u b j e c t s o f the p r e s e n t s t u d y . H y p o t h e s i s 1.2, mode and span o f t e x t . The r e v i s i o n s made i n ex-p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s were d i s t r i b u t e d among the f i v e spans o f t e x t i n e s s e n t i a l l y the same way. A s l i g h t l y g r e a t e r p e r c e n t a g e o f r e v i s i o n s were a t t h e g r a p h i c / l e x i c a l span (51 p e r c e n t ) i n p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g than i n e x p r e s s i v e (46 p e r c e n t ) , but the d i f f e r e n c e was too s m a l l t o s u p p o r t a s s e r t i o n s about d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n s o f r e v i s i o n spans a t the two modes. ( P l e a s e see T a b l e 4.3, page 54.) H y p o t h e s i s 1.3, mode and r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n l e v e l s . The r e v i s i o n s made i n e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s were d i s t r i b u t e d among the t h r e e l e v e l s o f r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s i n n e a r l y i d e n t i c a l ways. In e x p r e s -s i v e w r i t i n g , s l i g h t l y more (36.4 p e r c e n t v e r s u s 32.9 p e r c e n t ) o f r e v i s i o n s were a t the m e a n i n g - p r e s e r v i n g l e v e l , w h i l e i n p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g s l i g h t l y more (54.4 p e r c e n t v e r s u s 51 p e r c e n t ) o f r e v i s i o n s were a t the m e c h a n i c a l l e v e l . These s m a l l d i f f e r e n c e s were n o t , however, s t a t i s t i c a l l y 73 s i g n i f i c a n t . H y p o t h e s i s 1 .4, mode and r e v i s i o n o c c a s i o n s . T h e r e was a s l i g h t t e n d e ncy f o r more r e v i s i o n s a t o c c a s i o n 2 i n p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s : 73 p e r c e n t v e r s u s 69 p e r c e n t i n e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , but t h i s d i f f e r e n c e was n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . ( P l e a s e see T a b l e 4.1, page 52). In both modes about t h r e e q u a r t e r s o f a l l r e v i s i o n was p e r f o r m e d a t o c c a s i o n 2, a f i n d i n g which s u p p o r t s o t h e r r e s e a r c h i n which s t u d e n t s have been found t o l e a v e r e v i s i o n u n t i l l a s t . Sommers (1978, 1980) o b s e r v e d t h a t s t u d e n t w r i t e r s t h o u g h t o f r e v i s i o n as a f i n a l " r e w o r d i n g " p r o c e s s , as c o n t r a s t e d w i t h e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s who r e v i s e d more i n e a r l y d r a f t s , and r e v i s e d i n r e s p o n s e t o more v a r i e d c o n c e r n s . B r i d w e l l (1980) r e p o r t e d t h a t 69 p e r c e n t o f the r e v i s i o n s i n her s t u d y o f t w e l f t h grade w r i t i n g were pe r f o r m e d d u r i n g the second w r i t i n g s e s s i o n . Crowhurst (1983b) found t h a t s i g n i f i c a n t l y more r e v i s i o n s were made on o c c a s i o n 2, but t h a t mode had no i n f l u e n c e on t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n o f r e v i s i o n s between o c c a s i o n s . In summary, t h i s sample o f n i n t h grade w r i t e r s r e v i s e d e x p r e s s i v e and p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g i n much the same way. As i n those s t u d i e s o f s t u d e n t w r i t i n g c i t e d above, most r e v i s i o n s i n the p r e s e n t s t u d y i n v o l v e d m e c h a n i c a l o p e r a t i o n s t o s m a l l u n i t s o f t e x t , and were performed l a t e i n t h e w r i t i n g p r o c e s s . C o m p o s i t i o n s i n the e x p r e s s i v e mode were l o n g e r than t h e p e r s u a s i v e , but when the numbers o f r e v i s i o n s were computed per 100 words, the d i f f e r e n c e s were s m a l l . I I . The e x p r e s s i v e mode and w r i t i n g q u a l i t y . The s u p e r i o r group r e v i s e d t h e i r e x p r e s s i v e w r i t i n g i n much the same way as d i d the randomly s e l e c t e d a b i l i t y group. A g a i n , t h e r e were d i f f e r e n c e s i n e s s a y l e n g t h , w i t h the 74 s u p e r i o r group a v e r a g i n g 283.2 words per d r a f t o f e x p r e s s i v e w r i t i n g , 84 words per d r a f t more than the randomly s e l e c t e d group's average o f 199.5 words per d r a f t (see T a b l e 4.9, page 68). But, as i n the p r e v i o u s ques-t i o n , t h e r e was l i t t l e d i f f e r e n c e when the number o f r e v i s i o n s was computed per 100 words o f w r i t i n g . The s l i g h t d i f f e r e n c e s i n the ways the two a b i l i t y groups r e v i s e d e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , and d i s t r i b u t e d r e v i -s i o n s among t h e f i v e spans o f t e x t , the t h r e e l e v e l s o f r e v i s i o n o p e r a -t i o n s , and the two o c c a s i o n s , a r e d e t a i l e d below. H y p o t h e s i s I I . 1, e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , w r i t i n g a b i l i t y , and  r e v i s i o n s . The s u p e r i o r group made a p p r o x i m a t e l y one l e s s r e v i s i o n per 100 words i n e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s than the randomly s e l e c t e d group, 12.56 v e r s u s 13.39. T h i s d i f f e r e n c e i s t o o s m a l l t o w a r r a n t any c o n c l u -s i o n s about t h e i n f l u e n c e among the s u b j e c t s o f t h i s r e s e a r c h o f w r i t i n g a b i l i t y on r e v i s i o n b e h a v i o r i n e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s . H y p o t h e s i s I I . 2 , e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , w r i t i n g a b i l i t y , and t h e  span o f r e v i s i o n s . There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e i n the ways t h a t r e v i s i o n s were d i s t r i b u t e d among the f i v e spans o f t e x t by the two a b i l i t y g r oups i n e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s . As the f i n d i n g s o f Sommers (1978), B r i d w e l l (1979, 1980), F a i g l e y and W i t t e (1981b), and Crowhurst ( p e r s o n a l communication, 1983b) l e a d one t o e x p e c t , both groups made about h a l f t h e i r changes t o one word o r s u b - l e x i c a l spans o f t e x t . Phrase and c l a u s e span changes c o m p r i s e d about 42 p e r c e n t , w h i l e s e n t e n c e and m u l t i - s e n t e n c e spans r e p r e s e n t e d l e s s t h a n 10 p e r c e n t o f the t o t a l . H y p o t h e s i s I I . 3 , e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , w r i t i n g a b i l i t y , and the  t h r e e l e v e l s o f r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s . In e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , the d i f f e r e n c e s i n the ways the two a b i l i t y groups d i s t r i b u t e d r e v i s i o n s among 75 the t h r e e l e v e l s o f r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s were not s i g n i f i c a n t . About h a l f o f both group's changes were a t the m e c h a n i c a l l e v e l , a p p l i e d t o the form a t o f t h e t e x t w i t h o u t c h a n g i n g words or meaning. A l i t t l e more than a t h i r d o f b o t h group's r e v i s i o n s were a t the m e a n i n g - p r e s e r v i n g l e v e l , p a r a p h r a s -i n g t e x t w i t h o u t c h a n g i n g meaning. T e x t base r e v i s i o n s , which a l t e r the meaning o f the t e x t , c o m p r i s e d the r e m a i n i n g 12 p e r c e n t . H y p o t h e s i s I I . 4 , e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , w r i t i n g a b i l i t y , and t h e  two o c c a s i o n s . Both groups d i d about 70 p e r c e n t o f t h e i r r e v i s i n g a t o c c a s i o n 2. As was n o t e d under H y p o t h e s i s 1.4, page 72, t h i s f i n d i n g s u p p o r t s t h o s e o f Sommers (1978, 1980), B r i d w e l l (1980) and Crowhurst (1983b), t h a t s t u d e n t w r i t e r s l e a v e r e v i s i o n u n t i l l a s t . There was no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between the a b i l i t y groups i n the amount o f r e v i s i o n done a t each o c c a s i o n . I I I . The p e r s u a s i v e mode and w r i t i n g q u a l i t y . In p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , the s u p e r i o r group made s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer r e v i s i o n s per 100 words than the randomly s e l e c t e d group. While p e r f o r m i n g a mean o f t h r e e fewer r e v i -s i o n s per 100 words, t h e s u p e r i o r group wrote a mean o f 65 more words per e s s a y than the randomly s e l e c t e d group. The f i n d i n g s o f the p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h agree w i t h B r i d w e l l (1980) , who r e p o r t s t h a t the t e n e s s a y s w i t h the h i g h e s t q u a l i t y r a t i n g s were r e v i s e d a mean o f 7.63 times per 100 words, w h i l e t he t e n w i t h the l o w e s t q u a l i t y r a t i n g s were r e v i s e d more, a mean o f 8.96 times per 100 words (1980, pp. 216-217). B r i d w e l l ' s s u b j e c t s were w r i t i n g i n the t r a n s a c t i o n a l mode. B r i d w e l l , F a i g l e y and W i t t e , Crowhurst and the p r e s e n t r e s e a r c h e r have a l l o b s e r v e d g r e a t v a r i a b i l i t y i n t h e ways w r i t e r s w i t h i n v a r i o u s age and a b i l i t y g roups r e v i s e , and even 76 t h e r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s o f a g i v e n i n d i v i d u a l w r i t i n g a t d i f f e r e n t t i m e s or i n d i f f e r e n t modes. T h i s v a r i a b i l i t y r e d u c e s the l i k e l i h o o d o f s t a t i s -t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s among v a r i a b l e s . F o r t h e s e r e a s o n s the d i f f e r e n c e s found i n the r e v i s i o n o f p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s a r e r e p o r t e d w i t h c a u t i o n . H y p o t h e s i s I I I . l , p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , w r i t i n g a b i l i t y , and  r e v i s i o n s . In p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , the s u p e r i o r group p e r f o r m e d a mean o f 4.86 r e v i s i o n s per 100 words, c o n t r a s t e d w i t h the randomly s e l e c t e d group's mean o f 7.88. These r e s u l t s a r e summarized i n T a b l e 4.2, page 53, on the l i n e t i t l e d P e r s u a s i v e , Mean o f 2 o c c a s i o n s . C o n s i d e r i n g the s m a l l sample of o n l y 15 i n d i v i d u a l s i n each a b i l i t y g roup, t h e r e was the p o s s i -b i l i t y o f a few i n d i v i d u a l s w i t h e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y h i g h o r low s c o r e s skewing the sample means. However, a s c r u t i n y o f the condensed raw d a t a (Appendix K) r e v e a l e d g e n e r a l l y c o n s i s t e n t b e h a v i o r . Among t h i s sample o f n i n t h grade w r i t e r s , t h e n , t h e s u p e r i o r group were a b l e t o produce a l o n g compo-s i t i o n i n r e s p o n s e t o an assignment d e s i g n e d t o e l i c i t an argument w i t h r e l a t i v e l y few r e v i s i o n s . T h i s f i n d i n g r e c a l l s G r a v e s ' (1979) and C a l k i n s ' (1980) o b s e r v a t i o n s t h a t o v e r t r e v i s i o n may d e c l i n e w i t h i n c r e a s i n g w r i t i n g s k i l l i n r e s p o n s e t o c l a s s r o o m demands f o r speed and n e a t n e s s . The r a n -domly s e l e c t e d group wrote s h o r t e r arguments, and r e v i s e d them n e a r l y t w i c e as f r e q u e n t l y , and, as d i s c u s s e d below, the r e v i s i o n s were d i s t r i b u t e d d i f f e r e n t l y among the f i v e spans. H y p o t h e s i s I I I . 2 , p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , w r i t i n g a b i l i t y , and the  span o f r e v i s i o n s . In p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , the randomly s e l e c t e d group had a s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t tendency t o r e v i s e l o n g e r spans o f t e x t . The s u p e r i o r group made 9 p e r c e n t more changes a t the p h r a s e , word, or 77 s u b - l e x i c a l spans, 5 p e r c e n t fewer a t the c l a u s e span, and s l i g h t l y fewer a t t he s e n t e n c e and m u l t i s e n t e n c e spans. The f i n d i n g s a r e summarized i n T a b l e 4.3, page 54. These f i n d i n g s , w h i l e not c o n c l u s i v e beyond t h i s sample o f grade n i n e s t u d e n t s , a r e c o n t r a r y t o the o b s e r v a t i o n s o f such r e s e a r c h e r s as Sommers (1978, 1980), B r i d w e l l (1979, 1980), and F a i g l e y and W i t t e (1981) t h a t l e s s s k i l l f u l w r i t e r s t e n d t o l i m i t t h e i r r e v i s i o n t o t he s u r f a c e o f t h e i r w r i t i n g . I t may be t h a t t he more a b l e n i n t h g r a d e r s were a b l e t o compose an argument w i t h a f a c i l i t y t h a t e n a b l e d them t o a v o i d some o v e r t r e v i s i o n s on paper. H y p o t h e s i s I I I . 3 , p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , w r i t i n g a b i l i t y , and the  t h r e e l e v e l s o f r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s . W h i l e n o t s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t , the f i n d i n g s on r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n l e v e l s p a r a l l e l t h o s e on the spans o f r e v i s i o n s . The random group r e v i s e d more a t l e v e l 2, m e a n i n g - p r e s e r v i n g , and l e v e l 3, t e x t base, than the s u p e r i o r group. The r e s u l t s a r e p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 4.8 and Graph 4.1, pages 66 and 58. A g a i n , t h i s i n d i c a t e s a s l i g h t tendency on the p a r t o f the s u p e r i o r group t o a v o i d some o v e r t r e v i s i o n — t h e y p r o d u c e d o n l y 38 p e r c e n t o f the t o t a l r e v i s i o n s t o p e r s u a -s i v e w r i t i n g by bo t h a b i l i t y g r o u p s — w h i l e r e s t r i c t i n g t h e i r r e v i s i o n t o s u r f a c e changes. H y p o t h e s i s I I I . 4 , p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , w r i t i n g a b i l i t y , and the  two o c c a s i o n s . Both a b i l i t y g roups d i d about 75 p e r c e n t o f t h e i r r e v i s i n g i n p e r s u a s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s a t o c c a s i o n 2. The r e s u l t s a re p r e s e n t e d i n T a b l e 4.1. These f i n d i n g s a r e i n a c c o r d w i t h most s t u d i e s o f s t u d e n t r e v i s i o n , which have found t h a t when i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s r e v i s e a t a l l , t h e y g e n e r a l l y c o n c e n t r a t e on the f i n a l d r a f t . 78 C o n c l u s i o n s The r e s u l t s o f t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y o f f e r l i t t l e e v i d e n c e o f mode and a b i l i t y r e l a t e d d i f f e r e n c e s i n the number and k i n d s o f r e v i s i o n s p e r f o r m e d on sample e s s a y s . The s u p e r i o r a b i l i t y group r e v i s e d p e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g l e s s t h a n t he randomly s e l e c t e d group, perhaps because t h e i r g r e a t e r f a c i l -i t y w i t h the mode, as e v i d e n c e d by the g r e a t e r l e n g t h o f t h e i r arguments and t h e i r h i g h e r q u a l i t y s c o r e s , e n a b l e d them t o a v o i d some o v e r t r e v i s i o n . In e x p r e s s i v e c o m p o s i t i o n s , the two a b i l i t y g roups performed a l m o s t i d e n -t i c a l l y . Both a b i l i t y g roups d i d most o f t h e i r r e v i s i o n s a t o c c a s i o n 2. In a c c o r d w i t h t he f i n d i n g s o f B r i d w e l l (1980), Crowhurst (1983b), F a i g l e y and W i t t e (1981a), and Sommers (1980), c o n s i d e r a b l e v a r i e t y i n r e v i s i o n b e h a v i o r s was found w i t h i n g r o u p s . I n d i v i d u a l s from b o t h a b i l i t y g roups produced e s s a y s w i t h l a r g e numbers o f r e v i s i o n s , see, f o r example A l b a n e s e (ID 43020) from the s u p e r i o r grop and P i n k e r t o n (ID 43013) from the random group (Appendix K ) . A t one extreme o f t h i s grade n i n e sample a r e an a c c o m p l i s h e d few who have mastered some s c h o o l w r i t i n g f o r m u l a e : good h a n d w r i t i n g , and an a b i l i t y t o w r i t e l o n g e r p a p e r s i n the a s s i g n e d mode; w i t h few o v e r t r e v i s i o n s . A t the o t h e r extreme a r e a few who a r e s t r u g g l i n g w i t h language s k i l l s : they make many changes, e s p e c i a l l y a t the g r a p h i c a l / l e x i c a l span and the m e c h a n i c a l l e v e l , but t h e i r r e v i s i o n s do not seem t o be e f f e c t i v e . However, o t h e r than t he d i f f e r e n c e s i n p e r s u a s i v e r e v i s i o n , no c o n s i s t e n t r e l a t i o n was found between r a t e s o f r e v i s i o n and a b i l i t y s c o r e s . Few w r i t e r s i n t h i s sample were o b s e r v e d t o use r e v i s i o n e f f e c t i v e l y t o r e f o r m u l a t e and improve t h e i r e s s a y s as do mature, e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s ( F a i g l e y and W i t t e , 1981a; Sommers, 1978). Most r e v i s i o n s performed by 79 t h i s n i n t h grade sample d e a l t w i t h s u r f a c e d e t a i l s . As B r i d w e l l (1980, p. 218) p o i n t s o u t , r e v i s i n g and r e v i s i n g s u c c e s s f u l l y a r e not n e c e s s a r i l y r e l a t e d . N i n t h g r a d e r s i n both a b i l i t y groups r e v i s e d most a t the g r a p h i c / l e x i c a l span, t he m e c h a n i c a l / f o r m a l l e v e l o f r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s , and a t the second o c c a s i o n . A t t h i s age l e v e l , i t a p p e a r s , t h e r e i s a s t r o n g t endency t o see r e v i s i o n as a s u r f a c e and word e d i t i n g p r o c e s s t h a t t a k e s p l a c e a t the end o f a w r i t i n g p r o j e c t . A s sumptions and L i m i t a t i o n s The major assumption o f t h i s s t u d y f o l l o w s t h a t o f B r i d w e l l (1979) t h a t knowledge o f what s t u d e n t s a c t u a l l y do i n the name o f " r e v i s i o n " w i l l be u s e f u l i n the development o f e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l p r a c t i c e s . T h i s a s s u m p t i o n i s i n a c c o r d w i t h t h e w i d e s p r e a d s h i f t from an i n t e r e s t i n the f i n i s h e d p r o d u c t t o the i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the p r o c e s s by which w r i t i n g i s pro d u c e d . Sommers (1978) o b s e r v e s t h a t p r e c o n c e i v e d i d e a s i n t e x t b o o k s and t r a d i t i o n a l t e a c h i n g about the n a t u r e o f r e v i s i o n a r e not based upon e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h and s u g g e s t s t h a t an a c c u r a t e d e s c r i p t i o n o f r e v i s i o n b e h a v i o r i s n e c e s s a r y t o form a b a s i s f o r a t h e o r y o f r e v i s i o n . A second a s s u m p t i o n i s t h a t the s t u d y o f s c h o o l - s p o n s o r e d w r i t i n g i s o f v a l u e i n the development o f e f f e c t i v e i n s t r u c t i o n a l programs f o r com-p o s i t i o n . A p plebee (1981) p o i n t s o u t t h a t the q u a l i t y o f a s t u d e n t ' s e x p e r i e n c e o f w r i t i n g depends l a r g e l y upon the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the t a s k imposed. The " d i f f i c u l t y " o f composing a note t o a f r i e n d c a n n o t be com-p a r e d t o t h a t o f w r i t i n g an e s s a y i n s c h o o l . S c h o o l - s p o n s o r e d w r i t i n g such 80 as t h a t a s s i g n e d i n t h i s r e s e a r c h i s o f i n t e r e s t t o r e s e a r c h e r s because i t i s t h e o n l y k i n d o f w r i t i n g t h a t many s t u d e n t s do, and i t i s an i m p o r t a n t medium f o r i n s t r u c t i o n . The major l i m i t a t i o n o f t h i s s t u d y i s t h a t some r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s a r e n o t pe r f o r m e d on paper and c a n n o t be d e t e c t e d by the i n s t r u m e n t s employed (Nold, 1981a). Problems o f sample s e l e c t i o n and time p r o h i b i t t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f i n s t r u m e n t s which might y i e l d more r e l i a b l e measures o f non-paper r e v i s i o n s , such a s the i n t e r v i e w method used by Sommers (1978), the p r o t o c o l a n a l y s i s used by F l o w e r and Hayes (1980), or t h e v i d e o t a p e and i n t e r v i e w approach employed by M a t s u h a s h i (1981). B r i t t o n e t a l . (1975) i d e n t i f y t h r e e k i n d s o f r e v i s i o n : 1. the c o r r e c t i o n o f m e c h a n i c a l e r r o r s ; 2. changes i n the c o n c e p t t h a t t he w r i t e r i s e x p r e s s i n g ; and 3. changes o f t h e e x p r e s s i o n t o match the c o n c e p t t h a t the w r i t e r i s t r y i n g t o e x p r e s s . The measures employed i n the p r e s e n t s t u d y do not d i s c r i m i n a t e between changes o f the c o n c e p t and changes o f the e x p r e s s i o n t o f i t the c o n c e p t . B r i d w e l l (1979) n o t e s t h a t t h i s i s a weakness o f d e s c r i p t i v e r e s e a r c h which a t t e m p t s t o i n f e r a p r o c e s s from a p r o d u c t . The a s s o c i a t i o n between r e v i s i o n b e h a v i o r and the q u a l i t y o f w r i t i n g , as measured i n t h e p r e s e n t s t u d y by g e n e r a l w r i t i n g a b i l i t y , may be weak-ened by the tendency, o b s e r v e d i n a p i l o t s t u d y by Crowhurst w i t h the a s s i s t a n c e o f t h i s r e s e a r c h e r , and by o t h e r s ( B r i d w e l l , 1979, p. 25; C a l k i n s , 1979, p. 23; Murray, 1978, p. 92; N o l d , 1981) o f a b l e w r i t e r s t o a v o i d some o v e r t forms o f r e v i s i o n . When a w r i t e r does not r e v i s e on paper, one ca n n o t assume t h a t no r e v i s i o n i s b e i n g done. P r o t o c o l a n a l y -s i s , perhaps combined w i t h o b s e r v a t i o n s of the pauses and r e - s c a n n i n g s t h a t w r i t e r s p e r f o r m w h i l e w r i t i n g ( M a t s u h a s h i , 1981), might c o n f i r m t h a t t h o s e 81 who do not r e v i s e on paper are a c t u a l l y making changes before p u t t i n g t h e i r thoughts i n t o words. F i n a l l y , the data on mode would be more r e l i a b l e i f the sequence i n which subjects undertook the expressive and persusasive tasks were d e t e r -mined randomly. 82 REFERENCES Applebee, A . N . & o thers . A study of w r i t i n g i n the secondary s c h o o l . F i n a l Report . Resources i n Educat ion , ERIC ED 197 347, 1980. Applebee, A . N . , Lehr , F . & Anten, A . Learning to wri te i n the secondary schoo l : how and where. E n g l i s h J o u r n a l , 1981, 70 (5), 78-82. B a r t l e t t , E . J . Learning to r e v i s e : Some component processes . In M. Nystrand (ed.) What w r i t e r s  know: The language, process , and s t r u c t u r e of  w r i t t e n d i scourse . New York, Academic, 1982. Beach, R i c h a r d . The e f f ec t s of between-draft teacher eva lua t ion versus student s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n on high school s tudents ' r e v i s i n g of rough d r a f t s . Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h 13 (2), 1979, 111-119. Beach, R i c h a r d . S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s t ra teg i e s of extensive r e v i s e r s and n o n - r e v i s e r s . Col lege  Composition and Communication 27, 1976, 160-64. B e r e i t e r , C . & Scardamalia , M. From conversat ion to composit ion: The r o l e of i n s t r u c t i o n i n a developmental process . In R. Glasser (ed.) Advances i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l psychology, V o l . 2 . , H i l l s i d e , NJ: Erlbaum, 1980. Berkenkotter , C a r o l . Decis ions and r e v i s i o n s : The planning s t r a t e g i e s of a p u b l i s h i n g w r i t e r . Co l l ege Composition and Communication 34 (2), 156-68, 1983. BMDP S t a t i s t i c a l Software, Inc. BMDP2V Ana lys i s of Variance and Covariance with Repeated Measures. Regents of the U n i v e r s i t y of C a l i f o r n i a , Los Angeles , CA, 198 3. Bracewe l l , R . J . , Scardamal ia , M . , and B e r e i t e r , C. The development of audience awareness i n w r i t i n g . Resources i n Educat ion , Oct . 1978, ERIC ED 154 433. B r i d w e l l , L . S . Rev i s ing processes i n twel f th grade s tudents ' t r a n s a c t i o n a l w r i t i n g . Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , Univ . of Georgia , 1979. B r i d w e l l , L.S. R e v i s i n g s t r a t e g i e s i n t w e l f t h grade s t u d e n t s ' t r a n s a c t i o n a l w r i t i n g . Research i n the  Te a c h i n g of E n g l i s h , 1980, 14 ( 3 ) , 107-122. B r i t t o n , J . , Burgess, T., M a r t i n , N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. The development o f w r i t i n g a b i l i t i e s  (11-18). London: M a c m i l l a n E d u c a t i o n , 1975. Brown, R. N a t i o n a l assessments o f w r i t i n g a b i l i t y . In C.H. F r e d e r i k s e n and J.F. Dominic (eds.) W r i t i n g : The n a t u r e , development and t e a c h i n g o f  w r i t t e n communication. V o l . 2. H i l l s d a l e NJ: Erlbaum, 1981. C a l k i n s , L.M. C h i l d r e n ' s r e - w r i t i n g s t r a t e g i e s . Research i n t h e t e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h 14 (4), 1980, 331-341. Cooper, C h a r l e s R. & Matsuhashi, Ann. A t h e o r y o f  the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s . In The Psychology o f W r i t t e n Language. M. Martlew, ed. C h i c h e s t e r : John W i l e y & Sons, 198 3. Cooper, C. & O d e l l , L. E v a l u a t i n g w r i t i n g . Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1977. Cooper, C. & O d e l l , L. Research on composing. Urbana, I L : NCTE, 1978. Crowhurst, M. P e r s u a s i v e w r i t i n g a t grades 5, 7, and 11: A c o g n i t i v e developmental p e r s p e c t i v e . American Ed. Researchers Assoc. M o n t r e a l , A p r i l , 19 83a. Crowhurst, M . R e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s o f students a t t h r e e grade l e v e l s . F i n a l r e p o r t . ERIBC Vancouver B.C., 19 83b, Resources i n E d u c a t i o n , ERIC ED 238 009. Crowhurst, M. S y n t a c t i c c o m p l e x i t y i n n a r r a t i o n and argument a t t h r e e grade l e v e l s . Canadian J o u r n a l  o f E d u c a t i o n , 1980, 5_, 6-13. Crowhurst, M. & P i c h e , G.L. Audience and mode of d i s c o u r s e e f f e c t s on s y n t a c t i c c o m p l e x i t y i n w r i t i n g a t two grade l e v e l s . Research i n the  Teaching o f E n g l i s h , 1979, 13, 101-110. 84 D e l l a - P i a n a , G.M. Research s t r a t e g i e s f o r the study o f r e v i s i o n p r o c e s s e s i n w r i t i n g p r o c e s s e s . In C.R. Cooper & Lee O d e l l , ( e d s . ) , Research on composing:  P o i n t s o f d e p a r t u r e . Urbana, I L : NCTE, 19 78, pp. 105-134. D e l l a - P i a n a , G.M. & Endo, G.T. W r i t i n g as r e v i s i o n . Annual meeting o f American E d u c a t i o n a l Research A s s o c i a t i o n , New York, i y 7 7 . D i e t e r i c h , P.B. Measuring growth i n w r i t i n g . Urbana, IL : NCTE, 1974. D i e t e r i c h , P.B. Reply t o R i c h a r d Beach. C o l l e g e  Composition and Communication, 28, 1976. Draper, C. Peer r e v i s i o n . Paper p r e s e n t e d a t c o n f e r e n c e o f t h e Canadian C o u n c i l of Teachers o f E n g l i s h , Univ. of B.C., 1981. Elbow, P. W r i t i n g w i t h o u t t e a c h e r s . London, O x f o r d U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s , 1973. Emig, J . The composing p r o c e s s of t w e l f t h g r a d e r s . Urbana, IL: NCTE Research Report, 19 71. Emig, J . Non-magical t h i n k i n g : p r e s e n t i n g w r i t i n g d e v e l o p m e n t a l l y i n s c h o o l s . In F r e d e r i k s e n , C.H. & Dominic, J . F . (eds.) W r i t i n g : the a t u r e  development and t e a c h i n g o f w r i t t e n communication. H i l l s d a l e , "NJ: Erlbaum, 19 81 F a i g l e y , L. & S k i n n e r , A. W r i t e r s ' p r o c e s s e s and w r i t e r s ' knowledge: A review of r e s e a r c h . T e c h n i c a l Report #6. Texas Univ., A u s t i n , 19 82. ERIC ED 225-149. F a i g l e y , L., & W i t t e , S. A n a l y z i n g r e v i s i o n . C o l l e g e  Composition and Communication 32, 400-414, 1981a. F a i g l e y , L. & o t h e r s . The r o l e of w r i t i n g a pprehension i n w r i t i n g performance and competence. Annual meeting, American E d u c a t i o n a l Research Assoc., A p r i l , 1981b. Flower, L. & Hayes, J . A c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s t h e o r y o f w r i t i n g . C o l l e g e C omposition and Communications 32, 365-387, 1981a. Flower, L. & Hayes, J . The c o g n i t i o n o f d i s c o v e r y . C o l l e g e Composition and Communications 1980, 31, 21-32. Flower, L. & Hayes, J.R. P l a n s t h a t guide the composing p r o c e s s . In F r e d e r i k s e n , C.H. & Dominic, J. F . (eds.) W r i t i n g ; the nature, development and t e a c h i n g  o f w r i t t e n communications. H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum, 19 81b. F r e d e r i k s e n , C.H. & Dominic, J . F . (eds.) W r i t i n g : the  n a t u r e , development and t e a c h i n g o f w r i t t e n  communication"! V o l . 2~. H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum, 1981. Gentry, L. T e x t u a l r e v i s i o n . Resources i n E d u c a t i o n , 1980, ERIC ED 192-355. G l a s e r , R. (ed.) Advances i n i n s t r u c t i o n a l p s y c h o l o g y . V o l . 2. H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum, 19 82. Graves, D.H. A case stu d y o b s e r v i n g the development o f p r i m a r y c h i l d r e n ' s composing, s p e l l i n g and motor b e h a v i o r s d u r i n g the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s . F i n a l Report. New Hampshire Univ. Durham. Resources i n E d u c a t i o n , 1981, ERIC ED 218 653. Graves, D.H. An e x a m i n a t i o n o f the w r i t i n g p r o c e s s e s of s e v e n - y e a r - o l d c h i l d r e n . Research i n the  T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h 1975, 9, 227-241. Grobe, G. S y n t a c t i c m a t u r i t y , mechanics and v o c a b u l a r y as p r e d i c t o r s o f q u a l i t y r a t i n g s . Research i n  the T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h 15 (1), 75-85, Feb. 1981. Hayes, J.R. & Flower, L. I d e n t i f y i n g the o r g a n i z a t i o n of w r i t i n g p r o c e s s e s . In C o g n i t i v e Processes i n  W r i t i n g , Gregg, L.W. & S t e i n b e r g , E. (eds.) H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc., 19 80. K i n t s c h , W., & Van D i j k , T.A. Toward a model o f t e x t comprehension and p r o d u c t i o n . P s y c h o l o g i c a l  Review 1978 85, 363-394. K i n t s c h , W., & Vipond, D. Reading comprehension and r e a d a b i l i t y i n e d u c a t i o n a l p r a c t i c e and p s y c h o l o g i c a l t h e o r y . In L.G. M i l s s o n ( e d . ) , P e r s p e c t i v e s on memory r e s e a r c h . H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum, 19 79. K r o l l , B. R e w r i t i n g a complex s t o r y f o r a young r e a d e r : The development o f audience-adapted w r i t i n g s k i l l s . Research i n the T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h 1 9 8 5 , 19 (2), 120-39. Matsuhashi, A. E x p l o r a t i o n s i n the r e a l - t i m e p r o d u c t i o n o f w r i t t e n d i s c o u r s e . In M. N y s t r a n d ( e d . ) , What  w r i t e r s know: The language, p r o c e s s , and s t r u c t u r e  o f w r i t t e n d i s c o u r s e . New York: Academic, 1982. M atsuhashi, A. P ausing and p l a n n i n g : The tempo of w r i t t e n d i s c o u r s e p r o d u c t i o n . Research i n the  T eaching o f E n g l i s h 1981, 15 ( 2 ) , 113-134. Monahan, B. R e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s o f b a s i c and competent w r i t e r s as they w r i t e f o r d i f f e r e n t a u d i e n c e s . Research i n the T e a c h i n g of E n g l i s h , 1984, 18 (3), 288-303. Murray, D.M. I n t e r n a l r e v i s i o n : A p r o c e s s of d i s c o v e r y . In C. Cooper and L. O d e l l ( e d s . ) , Research on  composing: P o i n t s o f d e p a r t u r e , 84-104. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1978. Murray, D. Teach th e m o t i v a t i n g f o r c e o f r e v i s i o n . The E n g l i s h J o u r n a l , 67, 1978, 56-60. Nold, E. R e v i s i n g . In C.H. F r e d e r i k s e n & J . F . Dominic (eds.) W r i t i n g : The n a t u r e , development, and  t e a c h i n g o f w r i t t e n communication. ( V o l . 2) H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Erlbaum, 1981. Nold, E. R e v i s i n g : Toward a t h e o r y . Conference on C o l l e g e Composition and Communication, M i n n e a p o l i s . A p r i l 19 79. Nystrand, M. (ed.) What w r i t e r s know: The language,  p r o c e s s , and s t r u c t u r e o f w r i t t e n d i s c o u r s e . New York: Academic, 19 82. O d e l l , L. & Cooper, C. Procedures f o r e v a l u a t i n g w r i t i n g . C o l l e g e E n g l i s h , 42, 35-43. 1980. P e r l , S. The composing p r o c e s s o f u n s k i l l e d c o l l e g e w r i t e r s . Research i n the T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h , 13, 317-336, 1979. P e r l , S. U nderstanding composing. C o l l e g e Composition  and Communication, 31, 363-369, 1980. P e r l , S.A. F i v e w r i t e r s w r i t i n g : Case s t u d i e s o f the composing p r o c e s s e s o f u n s k i l l e d c o l l e g e w r i t e r s . Ph.D. D i s s e r t a t i o n , NYU 1978. P i a n k o , S. A d e s c r i p t i o n o f t h e c o m p o s i n g p r o c e s s e s o f c o l l e g e f r e s h m a n w r i t e r s . R e s e a r c h i n t h e  T e a c h i n g o f E n g l i s h , 1 3 , 5-22. 1 9 7 9 a . P i a n k o , S. The c o m p o s i n g a c t s o f c o l l e g e f r e s h m a n w r i t e r s : A d e s c r i p t i o n . D o c t o r a l D i s s e r t a t i o n , R u t g e r s U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 7 . P i a n k o , S. R e f l e c t i o n : A c r i t i c a l c o m p o n e n t o f t h e c o m p o s i n g p r o c e s s . C o l l e g e C o m p o s i t i o n a n d  C o m m u n i c a t i o n , 30, 2 7 5 - 7 8 , 1 9 7 9 b . R i v a s , L. N a t i o n a l a s s e s s m e n t o f e d u c a t i o n a l p r o g r e s s . W r i t e / r e w r i t e : An a s s e s s m e n t o f r e v i s i o n s k i l l s . W a s h i n g t o n , DC: U.S. G o v e r n m e n t P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , 1 9 7 7 . S c a r d a m a l i a , M. How c h i l d r e n c o p e w i t h t h e c o g n i t i v e demands o f w r i t i n g . I n F r e d e r i k s e n , C.H. & J . F . D o m i n i c ( e d s . ) W r i t i n g : t h e n a t u r e , d e v e l o p m e n t ,  a n d t e a c h i n g o f w r i t t e n c o m m u n i c a t i o n . V o l . 2~. H i l l s d a l e , N J : E r l b a u m , 19 8 1 . S c a r d a m a l i a , M., & B e r e i t e r , C. The d e v e l o p m e n t o f e v a l u a t i v e , d i a g n o s t i c , a n d r e m e d i a l c a p a b i l i t i e s i n c h i l d r e n ' s c o m p o s i n g . I n M. M a r t l e w ( e d . ) , The p s y c h o l o g y o f w r i t t e n l a n g u a g e : A d e v e l o p m e n t a l  a p p r o a c h . L o n d o n : J o h n W i l e y & S o n s , 1 9 8 3 . Sommers, N a n c y . R e v i s i o n i n t h e c o m p o s i n g p r o c e s s , A c a s e s t u d y o f c o l l e g e f r e s h m a n a n d e x p e r i e n c e d a d u l t w r i t e r s . D o c t o r a l d i s s e r t a t i o n , B o s t o n U n i v e r s i t y , 1 9 7 8 . Sommers, N. R e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s o f s t u d e n t w r i t e r s a n d e x p e r i e n c e d a d u l t w r i t e r s . C o l l e g e C o m p o s i t i o n  a n d C o m m u n i c a t i o n , 31 ( 4 ) , 3 7 8 - 8 8 . D e c . 1 9 8 0 . S t a l l a r d , C.K. A n a n a l y s i s o f t h e w r i t i n g b e h a v i o r o f g o o d s t u d e n t w r i t e r s . R e s e a r c h i n t h e T e a c h i n g  o f E n g l i s h , 8_, 1 9 7 4 , 2 0 6 - 2 1 8 . S t a u f f e r , R.G. D i r e c t i n g t h e r e a d i n g - t h i n k i n g p r o c e s s . New Y o r k : H a r p e r & Row, 19 7 5 . S u d o l , R.A. R e v i s i n g , new e s s a y s f o r t e a c h e r s o f w r i t i n g . U r b a n a , I L : NCYE. E R I C ED 2 1 8 - 6 5 5 . Van D i j k , T.A. Semantic macrostruc.tures and knowledge frames i n d i s c o u r s e comprehension. In J u s t , M. & P. C a r p e n t e r ( e d s . ) , C o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s i n  comprehension. H i l l s d a l e , NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. BF 325 587, 1977. Vipond, D. M i c r o - and macroprocesses i n t e x t comprehens i o n . J o u r n a l o f V e r b a l L e a r n i n g and  V e r b a l B e h a v i o r , 1980, 19, 276-296. Appendix A  E x p r e s s i v e Assignment and S c o r i n g Guide A. Assignment: (To be r e a d a l o u d by the teacher) A l l o f us have had u n f o r g e t t a b l e e x p e r i e n c e s , e x p e r i e n c e s t h a t we remember f o r y e a r s . I t may have been something sad t h a t happened, or something funny, o r something em b a r r a s s i n g , o r something t h a t made us f e e l v e r y proud and happy. Think o f an u n f o r g e t t a b l e e x p e r i e n c e t h a t you have had. D e s c r i b e what happened and how you f e l t so t h a t your t e a c h e r w i l l u nderstand why you remember so c l e a r l y . T r y t o w r i t e a t l e a s t one page. B. S c o r i n g Guide 1. C r i t e r i a : - Content: cogency, su b s t a n c e . - Sentence s t r u c t u r e : v a r i e t y , a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s , f l a v o r . - V o c a b u l a r y : v a r i e t y , a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s , f l a v o r . - O v e r a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n and coherence. - W r i t e r ' s v o i c e : f l a v o r , a u t h e n t i c i t y . 2. R a t i n g s : 1 = I n f e r i o r work f o r grade n i n e . 2 = Low average. 3 = High average. 4 = S u p e r i o r work; the f i f t e e n b e s t essays i n the sample. 3. P l e a s e w a i t to e n t e r s c o r e s on t a l l y s h e e t u n t i l a l l n a r r a t i v e s have been r a t e d . Appendix B  Persuas ive Assignment and Scor ing Guide A . Assignment: (To be read aloud by the teacher) Imagine that t h i s i s your c l a s s . Th i s i n c i d e n t occurred while a subs t i tu te teacher was teach ing . You are a member of a committee chosen by the c las s to decide on punishments for students who break the ru le s of the c l a s s . Your teacher i s a l so on the committee. Decide what you th ink should happen to the boy i n the p i c t u r e . Your task i s to t r y to convince your teacher that your op in ion i s r i g h t . Describe the punishment and give a l l the reasons you can th ink of for g i v i n g that punishment. Try to wr i t e at l e a s t one page. B. Scor ing Guide 1. C r i t e r i a : - Content: cogency, substance. r- Sentence s t r u c t u r e : v a r i e t y , appropriateness , f l a v o r , punctuat ion . - Vocabulary: v a r i e t y , appropriateness , f l a v o r , s p e l l i n g . - O v e r a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n and coherence. - Arguments: number, persuasiveness , o r g a n i z a t i o n and cohesion. 2. Rat ings: 1 = I n f e r i o r work for grade n ine . 2 = Low average. 3 = High average. 4 = Super ior work; the f i f t e e n best essays i n the sample. 3. Please wait to enter scores on t a l l y sheet u n t i l a l l arguments have been r a t e d . Appendix C  Q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r Student S u b j e c t s NAME GRADE AGE TEACHER'S NAME BIRTH DATE SEX ( c i r c l e one) MALE FEMALE Was E n g l i s h the f i r s t language you l e a r n e d t o speak? ( c i r c l e one) YES NO I f not, a t what age d i d you l e a r n t o speak E n g l i s h ? 92 Appendix D G e n e r a l G u i d e l i n e s f o r C o o p e r a t i n g Teachers I. G e n e r a l G u i d e l i n e s 1. B e g i n n i n g i n the week o f February 8, f o u r assignments a r e t o be done. The o r d e r o f assignments i s : a. F i r s t d r a f t o f argument. b. R e v i s i o n and f i n a l d r a f t o f argument. c. F i r s t d r a f t o f a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l e x p e r i e n c e . d. R e v i s i o n and f i n a l d r a f t o f a u t o b i o g r a p h i c a l e x p e r i e n c e . In each c a s e , the r e v i s i o n i s t o be done on e i t h e r the t h i r d o r t h e f o u r t h c a l e n d a r day  a f t e r t h e f i r s t d r a f t . 2. F i r s t d r a f t s a r e t o be done i n i n k (b l u e o r bl a c k ) on double s h e e t s o f paper; r e v i s i o n s and f i n a l d r a f t s ( i . e . , a l l work done on the second and f o u r t h days) a r e t o be done i n green i n k w i t h the pens p r o v i d e d . 3. P l e a s e s t r e s s t h a t they must not e r a s e o r white out. They may make changes by c r o s s i n g o u t . P l e a s e watch t o see t h a t they obey t h i s i n s t r u c t i o n . I w i s h t o study t h e i r r e v i s i o n s and must be a b l e t o read what they wrote o r i g i n a l l y i n o r d e r t o know what changes they made. 4. P l e a s e do not t e l l them t h a t I am s p e c i f i c a l l y i n t e r e s t e d i n t h e i r r e v i s i o n s . 5. I f you wish t o respond t o thes e p i e c e s o f w r i t i n g , c o u l d you make xerox c o p i e s o f them b e f o r e g i v i n g them to me. I need the o r i g i n a l s . I I . G u i d e l i n e s f o r F i r s t D r a f t s (Days 1 and 3) 1. D i s t r i b u t e t o each s t u d e n t one double s h e e t o f paper and one a s s i g n m e n t / i n f o r m a t i o n s h e e t . 2. Ask s t u d e n t s t o f i l l i n i n f o r m a t i o n on a s s i g n m e n t / i n f o r m a t i o n sheets and to w r i t e name on top r i g h t - h a n d c o r n e r o f sh e e t o f l i n e d paper. ( I n f o r m a t i o n needed on Day 1 only.) 93 3. On Day 1 ( i . e . , argument assignment) p r o j e c t the s l i d e p r o v i d e d . 4. Do not d i s c u s s the assignment o r g i v e any h e l p a s i d e from making s u r e t h a t each s t u d e n t can r e a d i t and understand i t . 5. Give t h e f o l l o w i n g i n s t r u c t i o n s t o s t u d e n t s : a. You a r e d o i n g t h i s w r i t i n g not o n l y f o r me b u t a l s o f o r someone o u t s i d e the s c h o o l who i s i n t e r e s t e d t o know how n i n t h g r a d e r s w r i t e . b. W r i t e i n i n k on a l t e r n a t e l i n e s o f a l t e r n a t e pages o f the double s h e e t o f paper ( i . e . , w r i t e on page 1, page 3, and page 4, but n o t on page 2 ) . c. T h i s i s the f i r s t d r a f t ; you w i l l have a chance t o r e v i s e and e d i t i t on a n o t h e r day. No w r i t i n g i s to be done except on  the s h e e t o f paper p r o v i d e d . d. Do not e r a s e o r white o u t . Make any changes you wish by c r o s s i n g o u t n e a t l y and w r i t i n g above. 6. A l l o w 40 minutes f o r the w r i t i n g . 7. C o l l e c t c o m p o s i t i o n s and a s s i g n m e n t / i n f o r m a t i o n s h e e t s a t the end o f the p e r i o d . I I I . G u i d e l i n e s f o r E d i t i n g (Days 2 and 4) 1. D i s t r i b u t e t o s t u d e n t s t h e f o l l o w i n g : a. T h e i r f i r s t d r a f t . b. Another double s h e e t o f paper. c. One s i n g l e s h e e t o f l i n e d paper. d. A green pen. 2. T e l l s t u d e n t s t o f i t the second s h e e t of l i n e d paper around t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t so t h a t they have an e i g h t - p a g e b o o k l e t . 3. T e l l them: 94 a. To make any changes t o t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t t h a t they t h i n k w i l l improve i t , u s i n g the b l a n k pages i n t h e i r b o o k l e t i f they need t o . b. To w r i t e t h e i r f i n a l d r a f t on the s i n g l e s h e e t o f paper p r o v i d e d , w r i t i n g on e v e r y l i n e . G i v e an e x t r a s h e e t i f needed. c. S t r e s s t h a t a l l work on t h i s day i s t o be done i n green, and t h a t n o t h i n g i s t o be e r a s e d o r w h i t e d o u t . IV. P l e a s e r e t u r n to me a l l m a t e r i a l s , o r i g i n a l s o f f i r s t and f i n a l d r a f t s , i n f o r m a t i o n sheets f i l l e d out on f i r s t day. 95 Appendix E  Taxonomy o f R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n s 1. L e v e l s o f R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n s 1.0 S u r f a c e o p e r a t i o n s 01 s p e l l i n g 02 c o n d i t i o n e d 03 a b b r e v i a t i o n 04 p u n c t u a t i o n 05 paragraph and o t h e r format 06 g r a p h i c and i l l e g i b l e 07 c o p y i n g e r r o r 1.1 Meaning P r e s e r v i n g o p e r a t i o n s 11 a d d i t i o n 12 d e l e t i o n 13 s u b s t i t u t i o n 14 p e r m u t a t i o n 15 d i s t r i b u t i o n 16 c o n s o l i d a t i o n 1.2 Text-Base o p e r a t i o n s 21 a d d i t i o n 22 d e l e t i o n 23 s u b s t i t u t i o n 24 p e r m u t a t i o n 25 d i s t r i b u t i o n 26 c o n s o l i d a t i o n 2. T e x t Span ( l e n g t h o f o p e r a t i o n s ) 2.1 l e x i c a l 2.2 p h r a s a l 2.3 c l a u s a l 2.4 sentence 2.5 m u l t i - s e n t e n c e 3. O c c a s i o n o f o p e r a t i o n s 3.1 o c c a s i o n 1: i n p r o c e s s f i r s t d r a f t . 3.2 o c c a s i o n 2: to f i r s t d r a f t i n green pen; between f i r s t and second d r a f t s w i t h no change to the f i r s t ; and i n p r o c e s s second d r a f t . 96 Appendix F  D e c i s i o n Rules f o r S c o r i n g R e v i s i o n s 1. D e c i s i o n r u l e s , d e f i n i t i o n s and examples, o r g a n i z e d a c c o r d i n g t o the l e v e l s o f r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s (Appendix E ) . 1.0 S u r f a c e O p e r a t i o n s S u r f a c e o p e r a t i o n s a re a p p l i e d t o the format o f the t e x t and do not i n v o l v e changes o f words o r meaning. 01 S p e l l i n g i n c l u d e s c a p i t a l i z a t i o n and changes of l e t t e r s i n which the r e a d e r can t e l l t h a t no change i n meaning was made. 01 s p e l l i n g does no t i n c l u d e e r a s u r e s o r i l l e g i b l e c r o s s - o u t s , g r a p h i c e r r o r s , o r m o r p h o l o g i c a l l y c o n d i t i o n e d changes. See below. 02 C o n d i t i o n e d changes o f t e n s e , number o r  m o d a l i t y which do not r e f l e c t t he morphology or syntax o f o t h e r changes. In Permutations, D i s t r i b u t i o n s , and C o n s o l i d a t i o n s (see d e c i s i o n r u l e s f o r thes e o p e r a t i o n s below), do n o t s c o r e s e p a r a t e l y c o n d i t i o n e d p u n c t u a t i o n , c a p i t a l i z a t i o n , c o n j u n c t i v e s , c o - o r d i n a t e s and/or m o r p h o l o g i c a l / s y n t a c t i c changes when thes e a re the means by which the l a r g e r r e v i s i o n s a re a c h i e v e d o r i f they a r e r e q u i r e d by the l a r g e r r e v i s i o n s . example 1. ...but when I would come home... ex. 2. ...but when I came home... 02/no s p a n / o c c a s i o n ex. 3. . . . a l l our pe t s was s i c k . . . ex. 4. . . . a l l our pe t s were s i c k . . . 02/no s p a n / o c c a s i o n 03 A b b r e v i a t i o n : expansions o f o r c o n t r a c t i o n s t o a b b r e v i a t e d forms. 04 P u n c t u a t i o n : added t o , s u b s t i t u t e d , o r d e l e t e d from the t e x t ; except i n those cases where a change i n p u n c t u a t i o n i s c o n d i t i o n e d by a n o t h e r change, e.g. when a l a r g e r r e v i s i o n r e q u i r e s t h a t a p e r i o d be s u b s t i t u t e d f o r a comma, the change i n p u n c t u a t i o n i s n o t s c o r e d s e p a r a t e l y . 97 example 5. . . . a l l day my p a r e n t s . . . ex. 6. . . . a l l day. My p a r e n t s . . . 04/no s p a n / o c c a s i o n ex. 7. . . . a l l day. My p a r e n t s . . . ex. 8. . . . a l l day my p a r e n t s . . . 04/no s p a n / o c c a s i o n 05 Paragraph and o t h e r format: a new l i n e and i n d e n t added to o r d e l e t e d from the t e x t ; o r o t h e r f o r m a t t i n g d e v i c e s such as a numbered l i s t o f p o i n t s added t o o r d e l e t e d from the t e x t . 06 G r a p h i c and i l l e g i b l e changes i n c l u d e o v e r - w r i t i n g o r c r o s s - o u t s , s l i p s o f the pen r e q u i r i n g s u b s t i t u t i o n s , and c o r r e c t i o n s i n which the r e a d e r cannot t e l l what the o r i g i n a l c h a r a c t e r was t o have been. G r a p h i c changes ar e m e c h a n i c a l e r r o r s , n ot s i g n i f i c a n t as r e v i s i o n s . I f the word can be rea d w i t h o u t c o n t e x t cues, s c o r e as a 12 d e l e t i o n . example 9 . —/wt~ ex. 10. ex. ll.-fl+i. ^*&a&» ex. 12. U/rr^k — • /$.***XtkXt<*-ex. 13. ^U^£f-ex. 14. -thaJr £ t h a t j _ ex. 15. farrnt^r^.ftcL £watchedj ex. 16. j j 3 0 ^ —* k ° x 3 I l l e g i b l e e r a s u r e s and c r o s s - o u t s , i n which t h e r e a d e r cannot determine what s p e c i f i c o p e r a t i o n has been performed, a r e a l s o s c o r e d as 06. 0 7 Copying e r r o r : an a c c i d e n t a l d e l e t i o n from o r r e p e t i t i o n i n the f i n a l d r a f t , i n d u c i n g e r r o r . 1.1 Meaning P r e s e r v i n g o p e r a t i o n s Meaning p r e s e r v i n g o p e r a t i o n s paraphrase t e x t , i n one o f s i x o p e r a t i o n s s p e c i f i e d below, w i t h o u t i n t r o d u c i n g , a l t e r i n g o r d e l e t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t cannot be i n f e r r e d o r r e c o v e r e d by the r e a d e r . F o r example: example 17. ...cannot be r e c o v e r e d o r i n f e r r e d by the r e a d e r . ex. 18. ...cannot be r e c o v e r e d by t h e r e a d e r ' s i n f e r e n c e . The t e x t i n ex. 17 has been r e a r r a n g e d w i t h o u t a f f e c t i n g i t s meaning. Meaning i n t e x t , the Text Base, i s d e f i n e d as a sequence o f p r o p o s i t i o n s c o n t a i n i n g a p r e d i c a t e o r case r e l a t i o n s h i p and one o r more arguments. ( F a i g l e y & W i t t e , 19 81a) 11 A d d i t i o n r a i s e s t o the s u r f a c e what would be i n f e r r e d , e x c l u d i n g a d d i t i o n s o f words, such as c o o r d i n a t i n g c o n j u n c t i o n s , which a r e r e q u i r e d by o t h e r changes. example 19. . . . b l o a t e d w i t h p r i d e t h a t I might need g l a s s e s , ex. 20. . . . b l o a t e d w i t h p r i d e to admit t h a t I might... s c o r e a s : 11/3/0* n u l l example 21. . . . a l l day. My p a r e n t s . . . ex. 22. . . . a l l day and my p a r e n t s . . . s c o r e a s : 16/6/0. The a d d i t i o n o f and, and the d e l e t i o n o f the p e r i o d and the c a p i t a l M a r e subsumed under the l a r g e r r e v i s i o n . example 23. A week l a t e r I had a dreaded appointment w i t h the person I l e a s t wanted to meet, an o p t o m e t r i s t . ex. 24. A week l a t e r I had an appointment t h a t I dreaded; my f i r s t e n counter w i t h the o p t o m e t r i s t . s c o r e as: 15/3/0 *Note: a l l s c o r i n g uses the f o l l o w i n g n o t a t i o n . The f i r s t number i d e n t i f i e s the r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n , i n t h i s case a d d i t i o n , 11. The second number i d e n t i f i e s the t e x t span of the r e v i s i o n , i n t h i s case a c l a u s e , 3. The t h i r d number i d e n t i f i e s the o c c a s i o n o f the r e v i s i o n , shown as a z e r o i n t h i s case as the o c c a s i o n i s not b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d . dreaded ...the person I l e a s t wanted 14/2/0 to meet. 22/3/0 11/3/0 04/0/0 . . .my f i r s t e n c ounter... dreaded ; 12 D e l e t i o n r e q u i r e s the r e a d e r t o i n f e r o r r e c o v e r what had been e x p l i c i t . example 25. Then one day, caught t o t a l l y o f f - g u a r d . . . ex. 26. Then, caught t o t a l l y o f f - g u a r d . . . s c o r e as 12/3/0 n u l l example 27. C r i s s y had c u r l y w hite f u r and the c u t e s t l i t t l e paws. ex. 28. C r i s s y had c u r l y w hite f u r . She had the c u t e s t l i t t l e paws. s c o r e as 15/5/0 13 S u b s t i t u t i o n ; a word o r words t h a t r e p r e s e n t the same concept a r e t r a d e d , o r a noun o r verb phrase i s s u b s t i t u t e d f o r a pronoun form o r v i c e v e r s a . No new i n f o r m a t i o n i s i n t r o d u c e d , d e l e t e d o r a l t e r e d t h a t cannot be i n f e r r e d o r r e c o v e r e d by t h e r e a d e r . example 29. We went to the pound and had-a-4eek. ex. 30. We went t o the pound and l o o k e d around. s c o r e as 13/3/0 14 Perm u t a t i o n : rearrangements or rearrangements w i t h s u b s t i t u t i o n s . The s u b s t i t u t i o n s a r e noted s e p a r a t e l y u n l e s s p a r t of the rearrangement. example 31. . . . i n the morning f i r s t t h i n g . ex. 32. . . . f i r s t t h i n g i n the morning the f o l l o w i n g day. s c o r e as 14/3/0 ...the f o l l o w i n g day. 11/3/0 ex. 33. Susan w i l l have the s a t i s f a c t i o n t h a t h e r r o l e i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s im p o r t a n t as a pe r s o n , ex. 34. Susan w i l l have the s a t i s f a c t i o n t h a t h e r r o l e as a human b e i n g i n t h i s s i t u a t i o n i s r e c o g n i z e d . s c o r e as 14/4/0 pe r s o n human b e i n g 13/2/0 r e c o g n i z e d i m p o r t a n t 13/2/0 15 D i s t r i b u t i o n : m a t e r i a l i n one segment i s passed i n t o more than one segment, w i t h o u t a f f e c t i n g the meaning of the t e x t . A word can 100 be r e w r i t t e n as a phrase, example 35. f o l l o w e d r a n a f t e r me; a phrase can be r e w r i t t e n as a c l a u s e , ex. 36. dreaded one one t h a t I dreaded; a c l a u s e can be r e w r i t t e n as a sentence, ex. 37. f o u r p a i r s l a t e r I . . . I have had f o u r p a i r s s i n c e ; and f i n a l l y a sentence can be r e w r i t t e n i n t o two or more se n t e n c e s , ex. 38. I s a t t h e r e q u i e t l y because our t e a c h e r . . . ex. 39. I s a t t h e r e q u i e t l y , l i s t e n i n g t o the l a u g h t e r . Our... s c o r e as: 15/5/0 . . . l i s t e n i n g t o the l a u g h t e r . 21/3/0 I f a sentence i s r e w r i t t e n i n t o two sentences by the a d d i t i o n o f a p e r i o d and a c a p i t a l ^ I t i s not s c o r e d as a d i s t r i b u t i o n , but as a s i n g l e 04 p u n c t u a t i o n change. example 40. I have not seem them t h a t o f t e n they came t o Canada b e f o r e I was b o r n . ex. 41. ...them t h a t o f t e n . They came to Canada, s c o r e a s : 0 4/0/0 I f a sentence i s r e w r i t t e n i n t o two sentences by t h e d e l e t i o n o f a c o o r d i n a t e c o n j u n c t i o n , i t i s s c o r e d as a d i s t r i b u t i o n . example 42. I t w i l l get the i d e a d r i l l e d i n t o h i s mind not t o do i t a g a i n and i t w i l l be s e v e r e enough. ex. 43. i t a g a i n , and I t w i l l be s e v e r e enough... s c o r e a s : 15/5/0 In some cases where m a t e r i a l i n one segment i s d i s t r i b u t e d i n t o two o r more segments, the change i s too t r i v i a l t o be s c o r e d as a 15 d i s t r i b u t i o n , f o r example i n 44 and 45 the 101 expanded m a t e r i a l i s redundant: example 44. f o r HAe-fciiae-beiftg. ex. 45. f o r a w h i l e , not f o r l o n g though... s c o r e as: 13/2/0 ex. 46. . . . h i s sandbox... ex. 47. ...my f r i e n d ' s sandbox... s c o r e as: 13/2/0 16 C o n s o l i d a t i o n : m a t e r i a l i n two o r more t e x t segments i s c o l l e c t e d i n t o one segment. T h i s o p e r a t i o n i s the i n v e r s e o f 15 d i s t r i b u t i o n . The t e x t span o f c o n s o l i d a t i o n s i s determined by t h e span of t h e t e x t b e f o r e the change i s made, f o r example ex. 48. We showed Ne s t o r t h i n g s . I t s t a r t e d t o l e a r n , ex. 49. We s t a r t e d t o t r a i n him. s c o r e as: 16/6/0. Subsumes 14 and 13 r e v i s i o n s ex. 50. Ne s t o r s t a r t e d to l e a r n t h i n g s t h a t we showed i t . ex. 51. We s t a r t e d t o t r a i n him. s c o r e a s : 16/5/0, a two c l a u s e sentence has been c o n s o l i d a t e d t o one c l a u s e . I f two sentences a r e c o n s o l i d a t e d i n t o one by d e l e t i n g a p e r i o d and a c a p i t a l , the change i s s c o r e d as 04 p u n c t u a t i o n , not c o n s o l i d a t i o n , f o r example: ex. 52. One morning I went to see how he was, he was s h a k i n g even more. My mom had t o wrap... ex. 53. One morning I went to see how he was, he was s h a k i n g even more my mom had t o wrap... s c o r e as: 04/0/0. I f two sentences a r e c o n s o l i d a t e d i n t o one by adding a c o o r d i n a t i n g c o n j u n c t i o n , and d e l e t i n g a p e r i o d and a c a p i t a l , s c o r e as a c o n s o l i d a t i o n , e.g. ex. 54. I c r i e d a l l day. My p a r e n t s o f f e r e d me... ex. 55. I c r i e d a l l day and my p a r e n t s o f f e r e d me... s c o r e as: 16/6/0. 102 C o n s o l i d a t i o n s versus d e l e t i o n s : i f a segment o r segments i s d e l e t e d w i t h o u t 1) l e a v i n g a remnant, o r 2) c a u s i n g a change i n syntax, s c o r e as a d e l e t i o n : example 56. B e f o r e I went, I phoned the d o c t o r , ex. 57. I phoned the d o c t o r , s c o r e as: 12/4/0 (or 22/4/0 i f b e f o r e I went cannot be i n f e r r e d o r r e c o v e r e d by the r e a d e r ) . ex. 58. While he was h u r r y i n g t o the s t o r e , he... ex. 59.. H u r r y i n g t o the s t o r e , he... s c o r e a s : 16/4/0 because a remnant o f the c l a u s e i s l e f t . 1.2 T e x t base o p e r a t i o n s i n t r o d u c e , d e l e t e or a l t e r i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t cannot be i n f e r r e d o r r e c o v e r e d by the r e a d e r . I n f e r e n c e s are d e f i n e d as non-e x p l i c i t t e x t - b a s e , e.g. a sequence o f p r o p o s i t i o n s c o n t a i n i n g a p r e d i c a t e o r case r e l a t i o n s h i p and one or more arguments, which the r e a d e r must s u p p l y . F o r i n s t a n c e , i n a s t o r y about a g i r l ' s i n i t i a t i o n t o wearing g l a s s e s : example 60. f o u r p a i r s l a t e r the phrase o f g l a s s e s i s i n f e r r e d by the r e a d e r . I f the phrase o f g l a s s e s were added, d e l e t e d , o r s u b s t i t u t e d w i t h s p e c t a c l e s , these changes would be s c o r e d as M e a n i n g - P r e s e r v i n g . I f d e s c r i p t i v e m a t e r i a l about the g l a s s e s , such as example 61. r o s e - t i n t e d , w i t h s c a r l e t frames was added, d e l e t e d o r s u b s t i t u t e d f o r o t h e r a d j e c t i v a l m a t e r i a l o f a s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t c h a r a c t e r , these changes would be s c o r e d as M i c r o s t r u c t u r a l Text-Base, because the r e a d e r cannot i n f e r o r r e c o v e r such a d j e c t i v a l m a t e r i a l . F o r i n s t a n c e , examples 62 and 6 3 d i f f e r a t the M e a n i n g - P r e s e r v i n g l e v e l , w h i l e sentences 64 and 65 d i f f e r a t the M i c r o s t r u c t u r a l Text-Base l e v e l : example 62. I have had f o u r p a i r s s i n c e , ex. 63. Four p a i r s of g l a s s e s l a t e r . 103 ex. 64. I have had f o u r p a i r s s i n c e , ex. 65. Four p a i r s o f r o s e - t i n t e d , s c a r l e t - f r a m e d g l a s s e s l a t e r . 104 Appendix G Procedures f o r S c o r i n g R e v i s i o n s I. Procedures A. Numbering sentences i n e s s a y s 1. Number a l l sentences i n t h e f i r s t d r a f t , s t a r t i n g w i t h the t i t l e , i f any, as sentence #1. Use a f i n e p o i n t r e d b a l l pen. 2. Sentence i s d e f i n e d as p u n c t u a t e d by t h e w r i t e r . In cases where t h e r e i s no p u n c t u a t i o n , number T - u n i t s . (A T - u n i t i s an independent c l a u s e p l u s any dependent c l a u s e s o r elements embedded w i t h i n i t . ) (Hunt, 1977, pp. 91-104) . 3. Each sentence o f T - u n i t s e p a r a t e d by a double v e r t i c a l b a r , e.g. 4. Number a l l sentences i n the 2nd d r a f t , s t a r t i n g w i t h the t i t l e , i f any, as sentence number x + 1, where x i s the l a s t number o f the f i r s t d r a f t . In o t h e r words, sentence numbering i s c o n t i n u o u s through a l l d r a f t s . When s c o r i n g , changes t o sentences which o c c u r i n two o r more d r a f t s w i l l be i n d i c a t e d by two o r more numbers i n the sentence number column o f the s c o r i n g s h e e t . (See sample s c o r i n g sheets.) B. Word Counts 1. F i r s t d r a f t : count e v e r y t h i n g w r i t t e n i n b l u e o r b l a c k , e x c l u d i n g m a t e r i a l c r o s s e d out i n b l u e or b l a c k , and e x c l u d i n g any marks i n g r e en. 2. Second d r a f t ( s ) : count e v e r y t h i n g w r i t t e n i n green, e x c l u d i n g m a t e r i a l c r o s s e d out i n green. 3. Leave s u p e r s c r i p t counts a t 50 word i n t e r v a l s , u s i n g a f i n e r e d b a l l pen. C. S c o r i n g p r o c e d u r e s 1. There a r e f o u r o c c a s i o n s f o r r e v i s i o n changes i n t h i s study: 105 a. i n p r o c e s s f i r s t d r a f t b. . t o f i r s t i n green (day two) c. from f i r s t t o second (between d r a f t s ) d. i n p r o c e s s second d r a f t 2. S c o r i n g o c c a s i o n 1 a. r e a d f i r s t d r a f t ( b l u e o r b l a c k ink) b. note and c a t e g o r i z e r e v i s i o n s b e f o r e s c o r i n g c. s c o r e a l l o c c a s i o n 1 changes. 3. S c o r i n g o c c a s i o n s 2 and 3 a. note and c a t e g o r i z e r e v i s i o n s a t o c c a s i o n 2 (green i n k on f i r s t d r a f t ) b e f o r e b e g i n n i n g s c o r i n g b. s c o r e a l l o c c a s i o n 2 changes c. r e a d second d r a f t (green ink) comparing to f i r s t d. n o te and c a t e g o r i z e r e v i s i o n s a t o c c a s i o n 3, d i f f e r e n c e s between d r a f t s , b e f o r e b e g i n n i n g s c o r i n g e. s c o r e a l l o c c a s i o n 3 changes. 4. S c o r i n g o c c a s i o n 4 a. note a l t e r a t i o n s t o green i n k i n green in k on f i r s t d r a f t . These a r e o c c a s i o n 4 changes. b. read second d r a f t , n o t i n g and c a t e g o r i z i n g r e v i s i o n s a t o c c a s i o n 4 b e f o r e s c o r i n g c. s c o r e a l l o c c a s i o n 4 changes. 5. P r o o f r e a d i n g s c o r i n g a. g i v e the essay a r e s t b. check your s c o r i n g , f i r s t by s c a n n i n g the e s s a y , then c h e c k i n g the s c o r e s h e e t . 106 A p p e n d i x H R e l i a b i l i t y S c o r e C a r d ESSAY #_ STUDENT_ A) TOTAL R E V I S I O N S SCORED BY RATER I = B) TOTAL R E V I S I O N S SCORED BY RATER I AND I I =_ C) TOTAL R E V I S I O N S SCORED BY RATER I I = TOTAL REVISIONS "A" + "C" + "D" B x 100 % AGREEMENT D E) TOTAL OPERATIONS SCORED BY BOTH RATERS ( o u t o f "B") = % AGREEMENT E X 100 = D Appendix I Sample S c o r i n g Sheets f o r R e v i s i o n O p e r a t i o n s 2 3 0 0 3 / 3 •4 5 II 5 / 7 -4 7 2-1 108 2 2 of / f 11 I t /5 «?/ cu - £ - ^ 7 o </ fh / 5 u ii °i OH . / • •'/ - v ' i >' / • ') y'' / 109 •ss^/^2^lL ^ - T ^ ' THeMVeictzi s^Tid/j^ Ozs&yv^/L to , • > ^5 f 0 1« J O S S . - . , \U£fcL« I I CODING SHEET - REVI510II 198? STUDENT NAME: \kj*AA*xl/Co ESSAY I: 2'SaBS\ worm (i) 3t~7 uortb (2)334 12. LEVEL OCCASION TEXT SPAN 1 2 3 4 s MECHANICAL 01 ' 1 1 1 Z 1 J | 02 1 2 » 3 0 03 1 7 2 S 3 1 04 1 (o 1 2 il 3 IZ. LrH-l 05 1 1 '* 2 14-3 K 11 04 1 ic III 2 17 3 m 07 1 rt 2 *• 3 21 I NEANING PRCS. n i S*. At 24- 25 2£. ? "** £7 So ?l 1 57 34 3f SC. 12 38 31 +a « 44 4-5 1 * So sn » 1 St SI , 57 •>« O o III 1 « A* LEVEL | u OCCASION TEXT SPAN 1 im /SI 2 3 A 5 17. 3 77 *o 15 1 RT. 2 »7 16 <?£ 1 16 j ( 2 3 |o7 1 J i l t TEXT-BASE 21 HZ 117 I Z l i l l 1 22 17.7 I | % ^ IS1 23 l 14? ^_ 1 24 > 1 1*5-7 1 \cl t u.l 170 25 1 , \7Z. 2 1-77 3 2< ! 187 HZ 3 H7 2CC Appendix J 112 ,c*zn l i r a p pa55 OA 4svc\ 4m? . J w ^ c£^{j±jen. a n d S t a r * l f e d , / ^ L - c b d . s t a f t y . P H L A ^ J b u t * 'he. ^ U d f ) 1 - ^ - f c v ! K . p t 3 e i u o t x p o t . h i t ) h r x p o \ j c r - m y ! , f n o p V \ p \ C * j y r n - c - ( j p a n d t t o r + g d M ^ J K 1 ^ l ^ o ^ r c ^ 3cr<2dn.na. 'fOu ^ a c / „ ft cxo7^ p5tf<L ,da:woe ^ c ^ c ' . - i x ^neVy kisi^L tr i^v\^d')a-rC action u~ ^< ^ £ G O / C ; bur dad u^no' r t i a - r C a c t ^ n , w - f h dews > r o V>>8w faxV -£w<t i r ^ s c^aJ'r\oj m g . U.I-! ; J i / v * . oue<C S a , . . , ^ - . v X , ^ ^ Fd'Q^ of f^rrdJ of So i r sWJ^&^lsV fit \Qf^Su\i hef^j •? < -7 217 J 23C031 I t ua8 ten years ago a t about 5:30 p.m. 1*11 never f o r g e t the day. I uas f o u r years o l d going on f i v e . We were a l l s t a n d i n g around our food c l u s t e r e d campsite w i t h another f a m i l y we uere camping u i t h , when I decided I had to go to the outhouse. New, b e i n g o n l y f c u r years a i d , I wouldn ' t go alone (and i t s a g o o d t h i n g I d i d n ' t ) , so my dad took my hand and uie both t r o t t e d l e i s u r e l y dour the road, u i t h no h e s i t a n c e , not t h i n k i n g once about the bear's den ue hed to pass on the way down t h e r e . A l l of a sudden, wide-eyed and s t a r t l e d , my dad stooped. He looked kinda funny, I thounht ( a t the t i m e ) . I asked h i m what uas the ma t t e r , but he wouldn't t a l k . He j u s t put h i s hand over my mouth, p i c k e d me up, and s t a r t e d w a l k i n g , backwards. I t uas only then t h a t I saw the bear. I s t a r t e d screaming. My dad turned around u i t h me and r a n . t'hen ue got to the camp s i t e , everyone seemed to sense the problem. They a l l t o o k immediate a c t i o n , u i t h my dad'e f r i e n d r u s h i n g everyone i n t o the camper. My mom took refuge i n the t e n t , out o f 3 h e e r p a n i c , but my dad ( u i t h me s t i l l i n h i s arms) ushered her out and i n t o the camoer w i t h everyone e l s e . I was the l a s t one i n , and when I took a look back the bear was knocking down the t e n t a n d he was s t a n d i n g an h i s h i n d l e g s . My d a d y a n k e d me up i n t o t h e camper and slammed the door. The hear was t e r r o r i z i n g our campsite, e a t i n a i l l the food t h a t was around. He made m a s s i v e n o l e s i n our c a n v a s t e n t a r c t o t a l l y wrecked t h n c a m n n r ^ u r d . Thank god we ue.-e safe i n s i d e t h e camper. A f t e r the b e a r was f i n i s h e d u i t h i t ' s r e i g n o f t e r r o r ( o r so i t seemed to ue) he l e f t , f u l l b e l l v a n d a l l . Lie s i n w l v come out of the camper and s t a r t e d oacving t o qo h o m e . '.'E h a v e n ' t camped there s i n c e . 114 Appendix K Condensed Data f o r S u p e r i o r and Randomly S e l e c t e d Sample, N = 30 Key to V a r i a b l e Names ID: s t u d e n t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n number. F i r s t two d i g i t s = c l a s s number. T h i r d through f i f t h digits=number i n c l a s s , from raw sample. Md: mode o f w r i t i n g . 1 = e x p r e s s i v e . 2 = p e r s u a s i v e . QC: o c c a s i o n f o r r e v i s i o n . Oc 1 = f i r s t s e s s i o n , Oc 2 = second s e s s i o n a t each mode. RV/C: r e v i s i o n s p e r 100 words. Wds: number o f words counted a t each w r i t i n g s e s s i o n . Qual: s t u d e n t s q u a l i t y s c o r e s — a p p l i e s t o second d r a f t s o n l y . R e l i : i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y i n s c o r i n g r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s . Computed f o r 33% of the sample, f i v e i n each a b i l i t y group. l e v e l : r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s : 1 = me c h a n i c a l ; 2 = meaning p r e s e r v i n g ; 3 = t e x t - b a s e . span: l e n g t h o f t e x t u n i t r e v i s e d . 1 = g r a p h i c / l e x i c a l ; 2 = phrase; 3 = c l a u s e ; 4 = sentence; 5 = m u l t i -sentence . Number o f R e v i s i o n s appear i n columns 8—18, by mode and o c c a s i o n . Superior A b i l i t y Group Name: hendricks ID: 2 3 0 0 3 level I 1 2 3 Nd Oc Rv/C wds Qual Reli span I 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 | 1 1 1.3 3 1 7 12 8 5 . 7 1 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 2 7.5 334 12 8 5 . 7 110 4 3 1 0 0 2 0 3 2 o ; 2 1 0.9 1 0 6 10 66.6 I 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 2 6.7 120 10 66.6 I 2 0 2 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 ! Name: roy ID: 23007 level 1 2 3 1 Nd Oc Rv/C wds Qual Reli span 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 i 1 1 2.3 175 7 9 2 . 9 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 2 5.3 1 9 0 7 9 2 . 9 5 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 ! 2 1 2.2 183 12 75.0 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 4.4 183 12 7 5 . 0 1 2 2 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 1 Name: tnclaren ID: 4 3 0 3 4 level 1 2 3 nd Oc Rv/C Wds Qual Reli span 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1.1 188 a 6 4 .3 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 10.6 189 a 6 4 . 3 1 3 4 5 1 0 4 0 1 1 0 2 1 3.0 168 12 9 9 . 9 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 8.8 1 5 9 12 9 9 , 9 4 3 3 2 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 Name: albanese ID: 4 3 0 2 0 • level I 1 2 3 Nd Oc Rv/C wds Qual Reli span I 1 I 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 i 1 1 1.8 2 7 9 11 I 2 | 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 3 . 2 302 11 1 18 1 14 4 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 1 2 1 1.4 286 12 I 3 1 o 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 15.8 247 12 1 21 ! 8 1 2 1 0 3 0 2 1 0 ! Name: morgensen ID: 43035 level nd oc Rv/C wds Qual Reli span | 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 ! l l 4.7 253 11 .... 1 6 2 0 1 0 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 2 15.3 274 11 .... ! 14 9 4 5 1 0 1 3 3 2 0 1 2 1 2.9 242 10 .... I 3 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 11.0 264 10 ! 12 7 1 3 1 0 2 0 2 1 0 1 Name: ikegami ID: 43008 level | 1 2 3 1 Hd Oc Rv/C Wds Qual Reli span | 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 | 1 1 9.4 159 10 72.0 110 4 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 I 2 4.2 165 10 72.0 1 4 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 2.3 171 10 87.5 | 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 6.3 174 10 87.5 1 8 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 I Name: pearson ID: 23006 level I 1 2 3 1-Hd Oc Rv/C Wds Qual Reli span I 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 6.3 143 8 82.4 ! 8 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ', 2 4.8 146 8 82.4 1 4 1 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! 2 1 4.9 225 11 85.0 110 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4.0 226 11 85.0 | 7 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 Name: mcguire ID: 43033 level I 1 2 3 1 Hd Oc Rv/C Wds Qual Reli span 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 . 1 2 3 4 5 | 1 1 5.6 251 11 .... 110 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 8.3 241 11 .... 1 14 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 i 0 o 1 2 1 0.5 196 12 .... 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 8.4 203 12 114 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 Name: laude ID: 43031 level | 1 2 3 Hd Oc Rv/C Wds Qual Reli span | 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 8.5 284 11 1 4 9 5 2 0 1 0 2 0 1 0 2 14.0 357 11 120 7 7 2 1 0 0 5 6 1 1 2 1 7.6 131 10 I 5 4 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 2 8.3 132 10 1 8 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Name: wong ID: 33020 level 1 2 3 Hd Oc Rv/C Wds Qual Reli span 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 ! 1 1 5.7 297 11 a 6 2 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 ; 2 4.7 321 11 4 a 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 0 : 2 1 1.9 211 11 ' 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 i 2 3.9 228 11 6 l 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 Name: mathot ID: 33014 level I 1 2 3 i Nd Oc Rv/C wds Qual Reli span I 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 : 1 1 2.8 317 12 | 5 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 4.7 319 12 | 7 4 3 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 i 2 1 1.6 245 12 I 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 6.1 244 12 111 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! Name: miller ID: 33015 level 1 1 2 3 Nd Oc Rv/C Wds Qual Reli span I 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2.4 425 11 1 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 4.9 428 11 111 9 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0.0 183 12 1 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9.2 184 12 110 4 1 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 118 Name: otremba ID: 33017 level I 1 2 3 Md Oc Rv/C wds Qual Reli span I 1 | 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 6.5 383 11 121 I 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 12.2 392 11 |23 |12 3 6 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 2 1 4.9 144 a — ! 5 1 -0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 5.5 145 8 — 1 4 I 3 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Naae. horn 10: 33008 level 1 2 3 1 Md Oc Rv/C Wds Qual Reli span 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 i 1 1 0.3 338 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 2.9 345 12 2 1 4 0 0 0 1 2 0 0 0 1 2 1 1.2 162 12 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 5.5 163 12 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Naae: groat ID: 33005 level I 1 2 3 1 Md Oc Rv/C wds Qual Reli span I 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5- 1 1 1 6.6 334 11 111 5 1 0 0 o 1 0 3 1 0 ' 2 10.5 352 11 127 5 1 0 0 2 0 1 1 0 0 1 2 1 2.6 268 12 1 6 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 2 4.1 266 12 1 9 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 Randomly Selected Ability Name: westerlaken ID: 23010 level Nd Oc Rv/C Wds Qual Reli span I 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 o.a 261 7 50.0 1 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 5.6 269 7 50.0 J10 2 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 2 1 3.6 168 11 70.6 | 2 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 14.8 189 11 70.6 115 4 4 1 0 0 0 1 3 0 0 Name: yee 1 0 : 2 3 0 1 1 level 1 2 3 ! nd Oc Rv/C Wds Qual Reli span 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 0.9 216 7 1 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 2 a.6 232 7 2 4 2 7 1 0 1 0 2 1 0 i 2 1 1.0 207 7 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 2 5.2 213 7 7 0 2 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 ! Name: Johnston 1 0 : 3 3 0 1 0 level 1 1 2 3 ! Hd Oc Rv/C wds Qual Reli span I 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 ; 1 1 4.8 210 7 8 7 . 1 I 6 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 ; 2 8.8 217 7 8 7 . 1 ! 11 3 2 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0 : 2 1 7.5 106 7 9 2 . 0 1 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i 2 7.5 107 7 9 2 . 0 1 6 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ! Name: cock ID: 33004 level I 1 1 2 3 nd Oc Rv/C wds Qual Reli span I 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 ! 1 1 2.3 260 10 8 2 . 2 ! 2 ! 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 2 13.4 269 10 82.2 1 14 i l l 4 4 1 1 0 1 0 0 0- i 2 1 1.6 125 5 8 3 . 3 ! 1 11 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 4 . 0 107 5 83.3 | 2 ! 6 2 1 0 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 Name: davis ID: 4 3 0 2 2 level 1 1 2 3 nd Oc Rv/C wds Qual Reli span 1 ! 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 0.5 193 5 90.0 • 0 i 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 • 2 12.3 146 5 9 0 . 0 5 1 3 6 1 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 2 1 0.0 130 10 95.2 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 13.7 153 10 95.2 2 113 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 3 0 Name; pi nicer ton ID: 43013 level Md Oc Rv/C wds Qual Reli I span i 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 3 4 5 | 1 1 6.9 189 9 99.9 112 I 1 0 0 0 0 1 o 0 0 0 0 1 2 13.5 200 9 99.9 121 1 4 0 0 1 0 1 o 0 1 0 0 I 2 1 16.7 84 5 70.8 i l l | 1 2 0 0 0 i o 0 0 0 0 i 2 10.5 86 5 70.8 ! 6 ! 2 0 0 0 0 : 1 0 0 0 0 ! mmm a* al •••>«•• imm Name: bowley ID: 43001 I level i 1 i 2 3 Md Oc Rv/C Wds Qual Reli ! span ! 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 ! 1 2 3 4 5 ! 1 1 4.2 191 7 .... 8 I 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 i 2 11.9 201 7 114 , 2 4 0 0 0 i 3 0 0 1 0 i 2 1 3.7 162 6 i 6 | 0 0 0 0 0 i o 0 0 0 0 ! 2 13.4 164 6 113 I 7 1 0 0 0 l 0 0 1 0 0 1 •ntjanfjnaanananarjana man •anal Naae: Copland ID: 43004 | level ! 1 2 ' 3 Md Oc Rv/C wds Qual Reli | span ! 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5. 1 1 1 4.6 153 9 ! 4 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 11.8 153 9 ! 11 5 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 l 2 1 1.5 130 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 i 2 5.0 141 6 ! 2 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 1 Name: junio ID: 43030 I level 1- 2 3 ! Md OC Rv/C wds Qual Reli | span 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 1 5.4 130 9 3 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 17.7 198 9 6 4 6 3 3 2 0 3 5 3 o i-2 1 3.3 151 7 2 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 16.1 161 7 4 0 4 4 4 1 0 3 5 1 0 : Nam*. . amman ID: 4 3 0 2 7 level 1 2 1 3 nd oc Rv/C wds Qual Reli span 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 3 4 5 | 1 1 3.5 115 6 .... 2 0 2 0 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 5.8 103 6 4 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 1 2 1 4.3 70 3 .... 3 0 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 ! 2 18.3 60 3 2 3 0 2 0 0 : 1 2 1 0 0 ! Name: shim ID: 4 3 0 1 7 level 1 2 ! 3 nd Oc Rv/C Wds Qual Reli span 1 1 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 3 4 5 ; X 1 2.1 236 11 .... 3 2 0 0 0 0 i 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4.2 236 11 5 3 1 1 0 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 3.9 77 6 1 1 0 0 0 0 ! 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 7.4 81 6 5 0 0 0 0 0 | 0 1 0 0 0 1 Name: hdwells ID: 4 3 0 2 6 level I 1 2 1 3 I nd oc Rv/C wds Qual Reli span I 1 1 2 3 4 5 I 1-2 3 4 5 ! l l 2.1 143 4 .... I 1 2 0 0 0 0 1 o 0 0 0 0 I 2 5.6 144 4 I 2 1 3 2 0 0 I o 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 3.3 90 8 | 3 0 0 0 0 0 1 o 0 0 0 0 1 2 16.5 115 8 | 5 5 3 1 0 0 1 0 1 4 0 0 1 Name: lafond ID: 33011 level | 1 2 1 3 1 Hd Oc Rv/C wds 'Qual Reli span | 1 1 2 3 4 5 ! 1 2 3 4 5 | 1 1 12.9 170 3 .... 117 2 2 0 0 0 !' 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 13.3 173 3 .... 1 20 0 0 2 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 9.9 111 6 1 8 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 16.7 108 6 .... 1 9 3 1 2 0 1 ! 0 0 1 1 0 1 122 Name• moore 10: 33016 level 1 2 i 3 1 nd Oc Rv/C Wds Qual Reli span 1 1 . 2 3 4 5 1 1 2 3 4 5 | 1 1 2.0 254 11 3 2 0 0 0 0 | 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 3.3 240 11 2 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 4 0 0 0 i 2 1 2.0 148 7 2 1 0 0 0 0 ! 0 0 0 0 0 i 2 6.1 148 7 2 5 0 2 0 0 I 0 0 mmm 0 0 0 , Name: parker 10: 33018 i level i 1 2 3 nd oc Rv/C Wds Qual Reli | span ! 1 I 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 l l 2.1 239 7 ! S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 9.9 243 7 110 5 1 0 1 1 1 3 2 0 0 2 1 1.9 155 7 1 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 7.2 152 7 i a 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078318/manifest

Comment

Related Items