Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The saliency of existing text as a barrier to revision in the redrafting of college students' written… James, Edwin A. H. 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 J35.pdf [ 12.94MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0078353.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0078353-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0078353-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0078353-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0078353-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0078353-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0078353-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0078353-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0078353.ris

Full Text

THE SALIENCY OF EXISTING TEXT AS A BARRIER TO REVISION IN THE REDRAFTING OF COLLEGE STUDENTS' WRITTEN COMPOSITIONS By EDWIN A.H. JAMES B.A. (hons.) Reading U n i v e r s i t y , 1977 P.G.C.E. U n i v e r s i t y of Exet e r , 1979 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES Department of E n g l i s h Education We accept t h i s t h e s i s as c o n f i r m i n g to the r e q u i r e d standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH August, 1987 (c) Edwin A.H. James, COLUMBIA 1987 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 i t 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(MA^pA^)^ £ck^O?J^<SV\ The University of British Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date )E-6 (3/81) ABSTRACT The t e x t a l r e a d y produced by student w r i t e r s can a c t as a b a r r i e r to r e v i s i o n because the e x i s t i n g t e x t u a l m a t e r i a l can become so s a l i e n t as to prevent w r i t e r s from g e n e r a t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e t e x t . T h i s study i n v e s t i g a t e d the e f f e c t s of a p p l y i n g a r e v i s i o n h e u r i s t i c designed to promote s u c c e s s f u l r e v i s i o n by a l l e v i a t i n g the i n f l u e n c e exerted by s t u d e n t s ' i n i t i a l f o r m u l a t i o n s of t e x t . Inexperienced c o l l e g e w r i t e r s were randomly assi g n e d to two treatment c o n d i t i o n s and asked to produce three d r a f t s of a two-p a r t e x p o s i t o r y composition. The experimental group composed t h e i r second d r a f t s without access to any m a t e r i a l produced a t the d r a f t one stage but then r e c e i v e d back t h i s m a t e r i a l a t the t h i r d d r a f t s t a g e . The c o n t r o l group r e d r a f t e d normally, having access a t a l l times to p r e v i o u s d r a f t m a t e r i a l . R e s u l t s showed t h a t students i n the experimental group produced s i g n i f i c a n t l y longer and b e t t e r q u a l i t y f i n a l d r a f t s with s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n scores than students i n the c o n t r o l group produced. The mean number of idea u n i t s t h a t were r e t a i n e d , removed, or added by students i n e i t h e r group was s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t a t both the second and t h i r d d r a f t s t a g e s . Each p a r t of the assignment was a f f e c t e d d i f f e r e n t l y . S i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s among c o n d i t i o n , grade p o i n t average and w r i t i n g apprehension were not e v i d e n t . i i i These f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e d t h a t t h i s t h r e e-stage r e d r a f t i n g h e u r i s t i c may be a v a l u a b l e technique f o r encouraging s u c c e s s f u l r e v i s i o n of s t u d e n t s ' e a r l y d r a f t s . F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h , p a r t i c u l a r l y r e g a r d i n g how a t e x t communicates i n f o r m a t i o n , would be b e n e f i c i a l to our understanding of the r o l e played by e x i s t i n g t e x t i n s t u d e n t s ' compositions. TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract i i Table of Contents i v List of Tables vi List of Figures x Acknowledgements xi CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION THE PROBLEM PURPOSE OF THE STUDY. ASSUMPTIONS DEFINITION OF TERMS.. LIMITATIONS 1 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY 1 OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY 1 CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE DIFFERENT CONCEPTS OF REVISION . . 1 REVISION BEHAVIOUR EFFECTS OF REVISION COGNITIVE DEMANDS ROLE OF THE UNCONSCIOUS.... TEXTUAL DEMANDS INCREASING TEXTUAL SALIENCY REVISION TAXONOMIES WRITING APPREHENSION... V SUMMARY 63 CHAPTER THREE: PROCEDURES PILOT STUDY i 65 Rationale 65 Design • • 66 Procedures • • • • • • 6? Analysis of Data 69 Results 71 Conclusions^ ~. 74 DESIGN OF THE STUDY 75 Subjects. 76 Treatments 77 INSTRUMENTS USED 78 Writing Assignment 78 Self-Evaluations 82 Writing Apprehension Inventory.. 85 Revision Questionnaire... 88 COLLECTION OF DATA 93 Day One 9 3 Day Two (Treatment Session 1). 94 Day Three (Treatment Session 2) 95 Day Four (Treatment Session 3) ......97 Day Five . 98 SCORING OF DATA 98 Data Preparation -99 Content 99 v i E r r o r Types 123 Q u a l i t y Ratings , 127 ANALYSIS OF DATA 134 D e s c r i p t i v e S t a t i s t i c s 135 C o r r e l a t i o n a l S t a t i s t i c s 135 I n f e r e n t i a l S t a t i s t i c s : T - T e s t s . 135 I n f e r e n t i a l S t a t i s t i c s : ANOVAR 136 I n f e r e n t i a l S t a t i s t i c s : ANCOVAR ....136 SUMMARY ... .137 CHAPTER FOUR: FINDINGS CHARACTERISTICS OF THE- SAMPLE. 140 EFFECT OF TREATMENT ON CONTENTS OF DRAFTS......143 Length of D r a f t s .....143 Contents.. 145 EFFECT OF TREATMENT ON QUALITY RATINGS 159 EFFECT OF TREATMENT ON SELF-EVALUATIONS 161 EFFECT OF TREATMENT ON ERRORS ...167 INFLUENCE OF ACADEMIC ABILITY (GPA) 168 INFLUENCE OF WRITING APPREHENSION (WAI). ...188 INFLUENCE OF REVISION ATTITUDE 192 SUMMARY. 194 CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY AND DISCUSSION SUMMARY 196 Background .....196 Purpose 197 Methods . .198 R e s u l t s ... 203 DISCUSSION 212 Conclusi o n s . 212 - P r a c t i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s . . . . . .221 I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r F u r t h e r Research. 224 REFERENCES 226 APPENDICES. 239 i Appendix A: P a i r s of t y p i c a l d r a f t s from groups i n p i l o t study... ...239 Appendix B: Example of scored W r i t i n g Apprehension Inventory (WAI)......241 Appendix C: Tables of r e s u l t s from s c o r i n g contents i n example d r a f t s . . . . . . . . 244 Appendix D: A n c i l l a r y t a b l e s of s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s e s 247 Appendix E: Tables of r e s u l t s from analyses of c o v a r i a n c e (ANCOVA) ..250 Appendix F: Tables of r e s u l t s from e r r o r a n a l y s i s 256 Appendix G: A n c i l l a r y t a b l e s of analyses of v a r i a n c e (ANOVAR) ....258 Appendix H: Table of r e s u l t s from s c o r i n g R e v i s i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 265 Appendix I: Comments made i n response to the f i n a l q u e s t i o n on the R e v i s i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 266 v i i i LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1: R e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s performed a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s by s u b j e c t s i n p i l o t study... .....72 TABLE 2: A comparison of t e x t u a l changes f o r each group i n p i l o t study.. ^ 73 TABLE 3: The p a r t i c i p a t i o n of s u b j e c t s i n the study 140 TABLE 4: A comparison of students i n the course 141 TABLE 5: A comparison of number of words per d r a f t .144 TABLE 6: Comparison of m a t e r i a l per d r a f t f o r treatment c o n d i t i o n s ( d r a f t 1 - d r a f t 2 ) . . . . . ....146 TABLE 7: Comparison of m a t e r i a l per d r a f t f o r treatment c o n d i t i o n s ( d r a f t 2 - d r a f t 3) 151 TABLE 8: Comparison of m a t e r i a l per d r a f t f o r treatment c o n d i t i o n s (both d r a f t s - d r a f t 3 ) . . . . . . . 153 TABLE 9: Comparison of q u a l i t y r a t i n g s per d r a f t . . . . 160 TABLE 10: Comparison of s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s per d r a f t . . . . 162 TABLE 11: R e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s and q u a l i t y r a t i n g s ; 166 TABLE 12: R e l a t i o n s h i p between f i r s t and t h i r d d r a f t s . . . . . . . 167 TABLE 13: Comparisons of e r r o r s per d r a f t s 170 TABLE 14: ANOVAR e x p l a n a t i o n of v a r i a n c e f o r comparisons per d r a f t of treatment c o n d i t i o n s by hi g h l a n d low GPA ( d r a f t 1 - d r a f t 2) 173 TABLE 15: Table of means f o r ANOVAR f o r GPA ( d r a f t 1 - d r a f t 2) 174 TABLE 16: ANOVAR e x p l a n a t i o n of v a r i a n c e f o r comparisons per d r a f t of treatment c o n d i t i o n s by high and low GPA ( d r a f t 2 - d r a f t 3) 176 TABLE 17: Table of means f o r ANOVAR f o r GPA ( d r a f t 2 - d r a f t 3)'. .178 TABLE 18: ANOVAR e x p l a n a t i o n of v a r i a n c e f o r comparisons per d r a f t of treatment c o n d i t i o n s by high and low GPA (both d r a f t s - d r a f t 3) 180 i x TABLE 19a: Table of means f o r ANOVAR f o r GPA (both d r a f t s - d r a f t 3) f o r c o n d i t i o n 1.. 182 TABLE 19b: Table of means f o r ANOVAR f o r GPA (both d r a f t s - d r a f t 3) f o r c o n d i t i o n 2.. 183 TABLE 20: R e l a t i o n s h i p between w r i t i n g a n x i e t y and other v a r i a b l e s x. 190 TABLE 21: R e l a t i o n s h i p between WAI and other v a r i a b l e s per d r a f t . 192 / X LIST OF FIGURES FIGURE 1: A model of the process of w r i t i n g - a s -r e v i s i o n ( D e l l a - P i a n a , 1978) 21 FIGURE 2: A model f o r r e v i s i o n i n the composition process ( B r i d w e l l , 1980) 22 FIGURE 3: A model of the w r i t i n g process (Nold, 1981)... 24 FIGURE 4: The s t r u c t u r e of a w r i t i n g model (Flower & Hayes, 1981).... , 25 FIGURE 5: A taxonomy of r e v i s i o n s ( F a i g l e y & Witte, 1981) 57 FIGURE 6: The taxonomy of r e v i s i o n s used i n the p i l o t study 70 FIGURE 7: The r e s e a r c h d e s i g n of the present study..... 79 FIGURE 8: The W r i t i n g Apprehension Inventory (WAI). ....86 FIGURE 9: The R e v i s i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 91 FIGURE 10: Example of scored d r a f t 1... . . ....112 FIGURE 11: Example of scored d r a f t 2 . 113 FIGURE 12: Example of scored d r a f t 3. I . . ....114 FIGURE 13: C a t e g o r i e s used f o r coding types of e r r o r s 128 FIGURE 14: Examples of the beginnings of d r a f t s 1 and 2 147 FIGURE 15: The o r i g i n s of s t u d e n t s ' idea u n i t s i n d r a f t 3 ( f o r a l l r h e t o r i c a l c a t e g o r i e s ) i n each group.: 158 FIGURE 16: The r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n s of idea u n i t s i n d r a f t 3 ( f o r a l l r e d r a f t i n g o p e r a t i o n s ) i n each treatment group 158 FIGURE 17: The o r i g i n s of s t u d e n t s ' idea u n i t s i n d r a f t 3 ( f o r a l l r h e t o r i c a l c a t e g o r i e s ) i n each treatment group........ ....186 FIGURE 18: The r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n s of idea u n i t s i n d r a f t 3 ( f o r a l l r e d r a f t i n g o p e r a t i o n s ) i n each treatment group .....187 x i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Throughout a l l phases of t h i s r e s e a r c h , my a d v i s o r , Dr. Joe Belanger, has provided not o n l y i n v a l u a b l e a s s i s t a n c e but a l s o the encouragement t o overcome the - i n e v i t a b l e f r u s t r a t i o n s encountered along the way. I o f f e r him my s i n c e r e g r a t i t u d e f o r h i s support. I g r a t e f u l l y acknowledge a l s o the guidance and co-o p e r a t i o n of the other committee members. Without t h e i r p a t i e n -ce; t h i s p r o j e c t would have remained much l e s s than the worth-while e d u c a t i o n a l endeavour t h a t i t became. P a r t i c u l a r thanks go to Dr. Barbara McDaniel f o r her a s s i s t a n c e with implementing the p i l o t study , and to Howard Eaton, whose i n t e r e s t i n the p r o j e c t was r e f l e c t e d both i n h i s w i l l i n g n e s s t o a l l o w h i s c l a s s e s to be used f o r data c o l l e c t i o n and i n the time he generously devoted to t h i s t a s k . F u r t h e r g r a t i t u d e i s expressed to a l l the students who endured the inconvenience of p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n the study, and to a l l my c o l l e a g u e s at Douglas C o l l e g e who a s s i s t e d with the s c o r i n g of the d a t a . A s p e c i a l thanks i s extended to my parents, who have encouraged me i n a l l t h i n g s worthwhile. Above a l l , to Maureen/ who s e l f -l e s s l y p layed many background r o l e s with such g r a c i o u s t o l e r a n c e , I d e d i c a t e my work. i CHAPTER ONE 1 INTRODUCTION THE PROBLEM R e v i s i o n has come of age. Co n s i d e r a b l e a t t e n t i o n by r e s e a r c h e r s , t h e o r i s t s , and teachers i s now being devoted to t h i s p r e v i o u s l y overlooked aspect of the composing pr o c e s s . As a r e s u l t , our concept of the nature of w r i t i n g r e v i s i o n has been s u b s t a n t i a l l y r e v i s e d i n the past few y e a r s . P r a c t i t i o n e r s i n the classroom have begun to emphasize the r o l e of r e v i s i o n i n the process model of composing and to encourage students to re-see the s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses i n t h e i r t e x t s before a t t e n d i n g to p r o o f r e a d i n g concerns. Students, however, o f t e n experience c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f -i c u l t y with r e v i s i n g t h e i r compositions because they are unable to "re'-see" the dissonance between the ideas they are t r y i n g to express and the sentences they have a l r e a d y w r i t t e n on paper i n the attempt t o express those i d e a s . Researchers s t u d y i n g r e v i s i o n have shown t h a t f a r from i t being the f i n a l stage i n a l i n e a r model of the composing process (Rohman, 1965), r e v i s i o n i s a c t u a l l y an on-going, r e c u r s i v e a c t i v i t y ( P e r l , 1979; Sommers, 1980; F a i g l e y and Witte, 1981). To r e f l e c t t h i s view, composition models (Flower and Hayes, 1981; Nold, 1981) have emphasized the c r u c i a l r o l e of r e v i s i o n and i n -2 d i c a t e d how a c t i v i t i e s such as reviewing and r e t r a n s c r i b i n g t e x t are r e a l l y sub-processes t h a t d r i v e the composing pr o c e s s . More-over, t h e o r i s t s (Elbow, 1973; Murray, 1978; Mandel; 1978) have p o s t u l a t e d t h a t perhaps a l l w r i t i n g i s e s s e n t i a l l y a form of r e -w r i t i n g , where what the w r i t e r wishes to communicate emerges o r g a n i c a l l y through the a c t of w r i t i n g i t s e l f . The testimony of p r o f e s s i o n a l w r i t e r s (Plimpton, 1967; Twigg, 1981) suggests that r e v i s i o n can even be h i g h l y c r e a t i v e p r o c e s s : I don't see w r i t i n g as a communication of something a l r e a d y d i s c o v e r e d , as " t r u t h s " a l r e a d y known. Rather I see w r i t i n g as a job of experiment. I t ' s l i k e any d i s c o v e r y job; you don't know what i s going to happen u n t i l you t r y i t . W i l l i a m S t a f f o r d , quoted by Murray (1978), p. 103 Yet a common lament of w r i t i n g t e a c h e r s i s t h a t students r a r e l y r e v i s e t h e i r compositions without prompting, and that even when students do r e v i s e , they merely tend to e d i t s p e l l i n g , punctuat-ion and other s u r f a c e f e a t u r e s before handing back what amounts to l i t t l e more than r e c o p i e d v e r s i o n s of t h e i r o r i g i n a l t e x t s . I t would appear t h a t p r o f e s s i o n a l w r i t e r s have a n o t i c e a b l y d i f f e r e n t view from t h a t of student w r i t e r s as t o what 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 . To probe t h i s c o n t r a s t i n approaches t o r e v i s i o n , r e s e a r c h e r s have c l o s e l y observed the r e v i s i n g behaviours of experienced and u n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s when composing. To date, t h i s r e s e a r c h has r e -vealed that the c a r d i n a l d i f f e r e n c e between the r e v i s i n g behav-i o u r s of experienced w r i t e r s and u n s k i l l e d ones i s not t h a t the former always make more frequent r e v i s i o n s to t h e i r t e x t s whereas the l a t t e r make no r e v i s i o n s a t a l l (or ve r y few). Rather, experienced w r i t e r s are s u c c e s s f u l l y able to r e v i s e t h e i r work when necessary, whereas u n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s o f t e n cannot make u s e f u l changes to t h e i r t e x t s . Sommers (1980), f o r i n s t a n c e , noted t h a t u n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s o f t e n are q u i t e w i l l i n g to r e v i s e but are unable to achieve any n o t i c e a b l e improvements. They can even t e l l t h a t t h e i r r e v i s i o n s are o f t e n c o u n t e r p r o d u c t i v e , but they are unable to see why. Since u n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s view " t h e i r compositions i n a l i n e a r way as a s e r i e s of p a r t s " , Sommers suggested these w r i t e r s can approach r e v i s i n g o n l y as a process of moving words around once the t e x t has been c r e a t e d . As a r e s u l t , they can achieve some success a t the sentence l e v e l but have no s t r a t e g i e s f o r r e s t r u c t u r i n g the m a t e r i a l i n t h e i r essays or f o r r e a s s e s s i n g the value of the contents of t h e i r i n i t i a l d r a f t s . Students appear to be extremely r e l u c t a n t to change i n any s u b s t a n t i a l way the ideas t h a t they commit themselves to i n the wording of t h e i r o r i g i n a l d r a f t s . One p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the t e n a c i t y with which student w r i t e r s are at t a c h e d t o t h e i r o r i g i n a l words i s t h a t the emerging t e x t i t s e l f may a c t as a b a r r i e r to r e v i s i o n . The t e x t a l r e a d y produced can be so s a l i e n t as to hinder the g e n e r a t i o n of new t e x t . G a r r e t t - P e t t s (1981) used the broad term " c l o s u r e " to i d e n t i f y t h i s f a c e t of a w r i t e r ' s t e x t and d e s c r i b e d i t s psycho-l o g i c a l hold over inexperienced w r i t e r s when composing: 4 Once b a s i c w r i t e r s ' words are on the paper, the w r i t e r s ' i n e f f i c i e n t r e v i s i n g behaviours t r a p them i n t o a maze of concerns t h a t seem, i f not i n i m i c a l t o , a t l e a s t removed from, t h e i r i n i t i a l r h e t o r i c a l i n s p i r a t i o n . The essays become c l o s e d systems, f i x e d and i n v i o l a b l e , (p.3) Moreover, Ruszkiewicz (1982) suggested t h a t student w r i t e r s , faced with a l t e r n a t i v e ways to express t h e i r i d e a s , may s t i l l be u n w i l l i n g to r i s k s u b s t a n t i a l l y a l t e r i n g t h e i r compositions, e s p e c i a l l y i f these w r i t e r s l a c k well-developed s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s : When the a v a i l a b l e c h o i c e s are numerous and the l i k e l i h o o d of success l e s s c e r t a i n , an innate c o n s e r v a t i s m takes h o l d . S t u d e n t s — l i k e most w r i t e r s -- regard what they have produced as an investment. Changes t h r e a t e n t h a t investment. Most w r i t e r s would r a t h e r salvage a sentence a l r e a d y penned than w r i t e a new one, even when composing a new sentence would take l e s s time than r e s h a p i n g the o l d one. (p.146) I f student w r i t e r s lack a p p r o p r i a t e s t r a t e g i e s f o r e f f e c t i n g s u c c e s s f u l r e v i s i o n and are p s y c h o l o g i c a l l y c o n s t r a i n e d by the s a l i e n c y of the e x i s t i n g t e x t , then r e s e a r c h needs to i n v e s t i g a t e to what extent t h i s e x i s t i n g t e x t i n s t u d e n t s ' w r i t t e n composit-ions does a c t as a b a r r i e r t o r e v i s i o n . Furthermore, r e s e a r c h needs to examine whether the use of i n t e r v e n t i o n techniques that i n t e r f e r e with the composing processes of student w r i t e r s can help students to develop r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s . Although B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia (1982) and others have conducted s t u d i e s t h a t used i n t e r v e n t i o n techniques to help young c h i l d r e n overcome the 5 se d u c t i v e powers of t h e i r own t e x t s , l i t t l e r e s e a r c h of t h i s kind has focused on c o l l e g e s t u d e n t s , p a r t l y owing to the absence of any i n t e r v e n t i o n techniques t h a t might help c o l l e g e students to overcome the s a l i e n c y of t h e i r e x i s t i n g t e x t s . One promising technique, however, was suggested by G a r r e t t - P e t t s (1981). A r i s i n g from h i s r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t was the recommendation t h a t i n s t r u c t o r s u t i l i z e a three-phase procedure t h a t encourages students to r e v i s e t h e i r d r a f t s from memory, compare these new d r a f t s with the o l d ones, and then s y n t h e s i z e d i s s o n a n t ideas to a l l o w a s u p e r i o r t h i r d d r a f t t o be produced from the e a r l i e r two. No re s e a r c h e r has so f a r i n v e s t i g a t e d the s u i t a b i l i t y or e f f e c t -iveness of t h i s technique. PURPOSE OF THE STUDY In order to a p p r e c i a t e f u l l y the d i f f i c u l t i e s faced by i n e x p e r i -enced w r i t e r s when attempting r e v i s i o n , we need to ga i n a b e t t e r i understanding of the r o l e played by e x i s t i n g t e x t i n thw a r t i n g s u c c e s s f u l r e v i s i o n . A c c o r d i n g l y , t h i s study i n v e s t i g a t e d the a b i l i t y and w i l l i n g n e s s of c o l l e g e student w r i t e r s to r e v i s e d i f f e r e n t aspects of t h e i r o r i g i n a l t e x t u a l m a t e r i a l when asked t o r e d r a f t t h e i r composit-i o n s . The study focused upon how e x i s t i n g t e x t hinders sub-s t a n t i v e r e v i s i o n s — such as a l t e r a t i o n s to the content, 6 o r g a n i z a t i o n and r h e t o r i c a l purpose of a composition -- but promotes s u p e r f i c i a l r e v i s i o n s , such as a l t e r a t i o n s to s p e l l i n g , word c h o i c e , p h r a s i n g , and mechanical e r r o r s . The study examined how removal of o r i g i n a l t e x t m a t e r i a l a f f e c t e d s t u d e n t s ' a b i l i t y to r e v i s e a t these d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s . The design of the study and the procedures used were chosen i n order to a s c e r t a i n what e f f e c t s the use of the three-phase procedure advocated by G a r r e t t - P e t t s (1981) had on the s u b j e c t s ' r e d r a f t i n g behaviours. In order to i n v e s t i g a t e whether d e c r e a s i n g the s a l i e n c y of t e x t by removing access to i n i t i a l d r a f t s had any i n f l u e n c e on how students handled the task of r e d r a f t i n g t h e i r subsequent d r a f t s , the f o l l o w i n g s p e c i f i c q u e s t i o n s were asked: 1. What are the e f f e c t s of removing access to i n i t i a l d r a f t s on: a) the contents of s t u d e n t s ' d r a f t s ? b) the q u a l i t y r a t i n g s of students* d r a f t s ? c) the s t u d e n t s ' s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s of t h e i r d r a f t s ? d) the s u r f a c e e r r o r s of s t u d e n t s ' d r a f t s ? 2. Are the e f f e c t s of removing access to i n i t i a l d r a f t s i n f l u e n c e d by: a) s t u d e n t s ' o v e r a l l w r i t i n g a b i l i t i e s ? b) students* apprehensions about w r i t i n g ? c) s t u d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s to r e v i s i o n ? 7 In addition, the study was designed to produce results that would indicate what implications the removing of access to i n i t i a l drafts has for our understanding of the d i f f i c u l t i e s that students face when revising. ASSUMPTIONS The researcher made the following assumptions regarding the nature of the study undertaken, the methods employed and the subjects involved. It was assumed that: 1. Students asked to revise their compositions without access to their i n i t i a l drafts would be able to perform this task adequately without finding this intervention unduly inhibiting or unusual. 2. Students would be able to complete each of the various treatment sessions within the two hour period provided by the college's timetable. 3. Sufficient numbers of students would attend a l l data collection sessions to permit adequate s t a t i s t i c a l analysis to be performed without compromising the assumptions of any s t a t i s t i c a l procedure employed. 4. Sets of student drafts would show sufficient magnitude of revision to permit the content analysis employed to provide clear and meaningful results. 8 5. Any a t t r i t i o n of s u b j e c t s experienced d u r i n g the study would be random or due to e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s beyond the r e s e a r c h e r ' s c o n t r o l and would not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t the r e s u l t s o b tained. 6. Students would be w i l l i n g to engage s e r i o u s l y i n producing i n - c l a s s t hree s e t s of d r a f t s f o r the same composition. 7. Students i n both treatment groups would not be s i g n i f i -c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t i n regards to number, sex, academic a b i l i t y , course grade achieved, and w r i t i n g apprehen-s i o n . 8. The s u b j e c t s used i n the study would be randomly as s i g n e d to e i t h e r treatment group and possess the same c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and normal d i s t r i b u t i o n as the pop u l a t -ion from which they were drawn. DEFINITION OF TERMS The l i t e r a t u r e d i s c u s s i n g r e v i s i o n i s b e d e v i l e d by the absence of c l e a r t erminology. A g e n e r a l lack of agreement e x i s t s over what l a b e l s to use to d e s c r i b e how w r i t e r s evaluate t h e i r compositions and make subsequent changes to t h e i r t e x t s . Sommers (1979) examined 15 composition textbooks and d i s c o v e r e d 23 d i f f e r e n t terms used synonymously f o r r e v i s i o n : \ 9 p r o o f r e a d i n g e d i t i n g r e w r i t i n g r e f o r m u l a t i o n r e d r a f t i n g r e c r e a t i n g r e c a s t i n g r e v i e w i n g c o r r e c t i n g p o l i s h i n g remak ing r e a r r a n g i n g r e c h e c k i n g r e t h i n k i n g r e s t r u c t u r i n g remold ing r e d e s i g n i n g rewording r e c o n c e p t u a l i z i n g r e a l i g n i n g reassembling manuscript p r e p a r a t i o n Some of these are protean words with q u i t e d i f f e r e n t connotat-i o n s . R e w r i t i n g , f o r example, i m p l i e s merely a redoing or rec o p y i n g of a t e x t a l r e a d y formulated. In c o n t r a s t , the word r e v i s i o n suggests w r i t e r s are engaged i n a r e - s e e i n g or r e -f o r m u l a t i n g of what they have w r i t t e n but not yet adequately formulated. The e x i s t e n c e of so many d i f f e r e n t l a b e l s suggests t h a t r e v i s i o n i s not a s t r a i g h t - f o r w a r d o p e r a t i o n but comprised of many s u b s i d i a r y a c t i v i t i e s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , r e s e a r c h e r s have not o f t e n taken s u f f i c i e n t care to d e f i n e t h e i r terms or d e l i n -eate p r e c i s e l y what s o r t of r e v i s i o n behaviour concerns them. The e f f e c t of the word " r e v i s i o n " being used as an umbrella term encompassing a number of d i f f e r e n t a c t i v i t i e s i s that we are sometimes hard-pressed to a s c e r t a i n whether each r e s e a r c h e r has been s t u d y i n g the same c o n s t r u c t . For the purpose of t h i s study c e r t a i n key terms were d e f i n e d as f o l l o w s : a) R e v i s i n g r e f e r s to the process of r e - e v a l u a t i n g the q u a l i t y of the contents and t h e i r e x p r e s s i o n i n a piece of w r i t i n g and then c r e a t i n g the d e s i r e d changes e i t h e r by making i n t e r l i n e a r a l t e r a t i o n s to the e x i s t i n g t e x t 10 or by producing a new d r a f t . The outcome of r e v i s i n g i s a s e t of observable d i f f e r e n c e s between t e x t s . b) R e d r a f t i n g r e f e r s s o l e l y to the a c t of producing an a d d i t i o n a l d r a f t or v e r s i o n of a p i e c e of w r i t i n g from an e a r l i e r d r a f t . The a c t of d r a f t i n g i m p l i e s the a c t of r e v i s i n g . The outcome of r e d r a f t i n g i s a new d r a f t which w i l l c o n t a i n at l e a s t some content from the e a r l i e r d r a f t but which w i l l a l s o c o n t a i n some d i f f e r -ences, however s u p e r f i c i a l , i n content or e x p r e s s i o n or both. c) E d i t i n g r e f e r s to the a c t i v i t y of r e - r e a d i n g a d r a f t and performing what are e s s e n t i a l l y o n l y s u p e r f i c i a l r e v i s i o n s . d) P r o f e s s i o n a l w r i t e r s r e f e r s to people who w r i t e f o r a l i v i n g or whose occupations p r i m a r i l y i n v o l v e the task of producing w r i t t e n products. I t i s assumed t h a t a p r o f e s s i o n a l w r i t e r i s a l s o an experienced w r i t e r . e) Experienced w r i t e r s r e f e r s to people whose w r i t i n g ' s k i l l s are h i g h l y developed and who have had c o n s i d e r -able p r a c t i c e with producing a v a r i e t y of w r i t t e n p r o d u c t s . f) Inexperienced or b a s i c or u n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s are here used as synonymous terms. They a l l r e f e r to people whose w r i t i n g s k i l l s are not h i g h l y developed and whose a b i l i t y to produce e f f e c t i v e l y composed w r i t t e n products i s p r e s e n t l y l i m i t e d . 11 g) Student w r i t e r s r e f e r s to people e n r o l l e d i n c o l l e g e composition or E n g l i s h courses. T h i s term does not imply that a l l such students possess the same"writing s k i l l s , composing p r o f i c i e n c y , or l e v e l s of a b i l i t y . h) S ubstantive r e v i s i o n r e f e r s to r e v i s i o n s t h a t a l t e r the t e x t base; t h a t i s , r e v i s i o n s which a f f e c t the degree of i n f o r m a t i o n a t e x t c o n t a i n s . F a i g l e y and Witte (1981, 1984) use the term "meaning change" f o r t h i s type of r e v i s i o n and d i s t i n g u i s h between those changes t h a t a f f e c t the "macrostructure" and the " m i c r o s t r u c t -ure" of a t e x t . i ) S u p e r f i c i a l r e v i s i o n r e f e r s to r e v i s i o n s t h a t do not change the i n f o r m a t i o n a t e x t c o n t a i n s but simply a l t e r s u r f a c e f e a t u r e s of a d r a f t , such as s p e l l i n g , mechan-i c s e r r o r s , and wording. j) Idea u n i t r e f e r s to a t - u n i t (Hunt, 1965) which has been parsed i n t o i t s " t o p i c " and "comment(s)" for the purpose of t r e a t i n g i t as a semantic s t r u c t u r e i n order t h a t the i n f o r m a t i o n c o ntained i n one d r a f t can be compared with t h a t c o n t a i n e d i n another d r a f t . The idea u n i t i s the b a s i c u n i t of content a n a l y s i s used i n t h i s study. k) T o p ic r e f e r s to t h a t p a r t of an idea u n i t which expresses "what the sentence i s about". T h i s i s u s u a l l y the grammatical s u b j e c t of the independent c l a u s e . The term was a p p a r e n t l y f i r s t used' by Hockett (1959) and i s f r e q u e n t l y synonymous with what the Prague School l i n g u i s t s (e.g., Danes, 1974) c a l l a "theme". 1) Comment r e f e r s to t h a t p a r t of an idea u n i t which expresses "what i s s a i d about" the t o p i c . T h i s i s u s u a l l y the grammatical p r e d i c a t e of the independent c l a u s e , plus any m o d i f i e r s . A comment i n c l u d e s the main verb and i t s a u x i l i a r i e s as w e l l as d i r e c t and i n d i r e c t o b j e c t s and complements. Prague School l i n g u i s t s (e.g., F i r b a s , 1974) f r e q u e n t l y use the l a b e l "rheme" f o r t h i s c o n s t r u c t . m) A s s e r t i o n r e f e r s to a comment which has the r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n of being a d i r e c t r e p l y to one pa r t of the q u e s t i o n i n the assignment t h a t students were gi v e n . n) Support r e f e r s to the r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n of a comment i n an idea u n i t which does not d i r e c t l y provide a r e p l y to a p a r t of the assignment q u e s t i o n . Instead i t h a s o the r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n of p r o v i d i n g s u p p o r t i n g e v i d -ence, such as examples, d e t a i l s , reasons, d e s c r i p t i o n s , e t c . Any comment which i s not an a s s e r t i o n w i l l be a support. 13 LIMITATIONS The c o n c l u s i o n s drawn from the r e s u l t s of the study were l i m i t e d by the f o l l o w i n g c o n s i d e r a t i o n s : 1. Only students e n r o l l e d i n one f i r s t - y e a r l e v e l E n g l i s h course at a s i n g l e * community c o l l e g e i n B r i t i s h Columbia were s t u d i e d . 2. The sample s i z e was of n e c e s s i t y r e l a t i v e l y s m a l l owing to the need f o r r e s t r i c t i n g the data c o l l e c t e d to a manageable amount f o r in-depth a n a l y s i s to be c a r r i e d out. 3. R e v i s i o n s performed i n the p r o d u c t i o n of o n l y three d r a f t s of a s i n g l e e x p o s i t o r y composition were; c o l l -e c ted . > 4 . The study was unable to e x e r c i s e c o n t r o l over the f o l l -owing c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s u b j e c t s p a r t i c i p a t i n g : sex, academic a b i l i t y , w r i t i n g apprehension, f a m i l i a r -i t y with the assignment t o p i c , e f f e c t s of p revious i n s t r u c t i o n and u s ual composing or r e v i s i n g s t y l e s . 5. Without the use of pre- and p o s t - t e s t i n g instruments, no d i r e c t c a u s a l r e l a t i o n s h i p between the r e s u l t s obtained and. the treatments a d m i n i s t e r e d c o u l d be e s t a b l i s h e d . Instead, a comparison between the e f f e c t s of d i f f e r e n t treatments was observed and commented upon. 14 SIGNIFICANCE OF THE STUDY Th i s r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t i s the f i r s t documented study of students' r e v i s i o n s to a s e r i e s of three d r a f t s produced under two d i f f e r -ent r e v i s i n g c o n d i t i o n s . T h i s study permitted o b s e r v a t i o n s to be made of both the e f f e c t s of removing access to an e a r l i e r d r a f t and the e f f e c t s of producing a f i n a l d r a f t while having access to two independently produced e a r l i e r d r a f t s . C o n c l u s i o n s were drawn r e g r a d i n g the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the phenomena of c l o s u r e as w e l l as of the p r a c t i c a l i t y of the r e v i s i n g h e u r i s t i c proposed by G a r r e t t - P e t t s (1981). In a d d i t i o n , the o p e r a t i o n a l e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a new procedure f o r a n a l y z i n g the content of students' compositions was examined. The f i n d i n g s of the study, i n consequence, r e p r e s e n t a modest but s i g n i f i c a n t step toward a f u l l e r understanding of the problems and p o t e n t i a l s o l u t i o n s encountered by ine x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s t a c k l i n g r e v i s i o n of e x p o s i t o r y compositions. Moreover, the most s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n of t h i s r e s e a r c h study i s the i n s i g h t i t provided i n t o the r o l e played by t e x t i n c o n f i n i n g and d i c t a t i n g what r e v i s i o n s are performed by c o l l e g e w r i t e r s . By ob s e r v i n g the r e v i s i o n behaviours e x h i b i t e d by these students under the experimental c o n d i t i o n s , not only was a gre a t e r a p p r e c i a t i o n gained of the d i f f i c u l t i e s faced by student 15 w r i t e r s when r e v i s i n g , but a l s o some i n d i c a t i o n of p o s s i b l e a l t e r n a t i v e r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s emerged. As a r e s u l t of t h i s study we are a few steps c l o s e r to understanding the a l l - t o o -common dilemma faced by some st u d e n t s : Once I have w r i t t e n a f i r s t d r a f t , I simply cannot see i t d i s i n t e r e s t e d l y ; I know Ishould but I cannot seem to get ou t s i d e my own p e r s -p e c t i v e . quoted by Thompson (19 78, p.200) OVERVIEW OF THE STUDY Chapter One has provided an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the c u r r e n t study. I t has shown that the purpose of the study was to i n v e s t i g a t e how removing access t o i n i t i a l d r a f t m a t e r i a l a f f e c t s the a b i l i t y of a sample of c o l l e g e students to r e v i s e t h e i r e x p o s i t o r y composit-i o n s . Such a study p r o v i d e s i n s i g h t i n t o the q u e s t i o n of whether the s a l i e n c y of e x i s t i n g t e x t a c t s as a b a r r i e r to r e v i s i o n or not. Chapter Two presents a review of r e l a t e d l i t e r a t u r e to demonst-ra t e how t h i s r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n arose from p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s of the composing process, p a r t i c u l a r l y of the r e v i s i o n behaviours of student w r i t e r s , and how the r e s e a r c h design of the c u r r e n t study u t i l i z e d a r e d r a f t i n g technique proposed by G a r r e t t - P e t t s (1981). 16 In Chapter Three, a d e t a i l e d o u t l i n e of the procedures followed by the r e s e a r c h e r i s g i v e n . T h i s i n c l u d e s a d e s c r i p t i o n of the p i l o t study undertaken and how the r e s u l t s obtained a f f e c t e d the design of the study and the data a n a l y s i s . A f u l l e x p l a n a t i o n of which measuring instruments were used and how data were c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g the experimental treatment s e s s i o n s i s p r o v i d e d , as w e l l as a d e s c r i p t i o n and j u s t i f i c a t i o n of how the contents of students' compositions were scored and s t a t i s t i c a l l y a n alyzed. The f i n d i n g s of the study comprise Chapter Four, which i s organized to p r e s e n t s e p a r a t e l y the r e s u l t s obtained f o r each r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n . Chapter F i v e concludes the i n v e s t i g a t i o n by o f f e r i n g a summary of the complete p r o j e c t , and i t e v a l u a t e s the r e s u l t s by d i s c u s s i n g the c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t can be drawn and the i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r c l a s s -room p r a c t i c e and f u t u r e r e s e a r c h t h a t are suggested by t h i s study. 17 CHAPTER TWO REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE The present chapter presents a review of the methods, f i n d i n g s , and scope of the r e c e n t r e s e a r c h on r e v i s i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y those s t u d i e s which have i n v e s t i g a t e d the r e v i s i n g behaviours of inex-p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s or those s t u d i e s which have i l l u m i n a t e d the v a r i o u s c o g n i t i v e and t e x t u a l demands t h a t a f f e c t a person's a b i l i t y t o r e v i s e . From such a review of the l i t e r a t u r e emerges a background out of which the purpose and d e s i g n of the present study can be understood more i n t e g r a l l y . DIFFERENT CONCEPTS OF REVISION T r a d i t i o n a l l y , r e v i s i o n has been p e r c e i v e d as the a c t of p o l i s h -ing prose to make i t p r e s e n t a b l e to an audience. R e v i s i o n was seen as e s s e n t i a l l y a clean-up o p e r a t i o n performed on an a l r e a d y completed d r a f t . I t amounted to l i t t l e more than w r i t e r s ' r e -reading t h e i r work i n order to d e t e c t and then r e p a i r any flaws i n t h e i r e x p r e s s i o n of i d e a s . Even school t e x t s t h a t employed the term " r e v i s i o n " i n t h e i r t i t l e s , f o r i n s t a n c e Brown and Moore's W r i t i n g through R e v i s i o n (1956) or Morgan's W r i t i n g and  R e v i s i n g (1957), merely a d v i s e d students to c l e a n s e t h e i r w r i t i n g 18 of u n s i g h t l y s p e l l i n g , usage, and mechanics e r r o r s , and to ensure t h a t words and phrases a l r e a d y w r i t t e n were i n f a c t a p p r o p r i a t e to the r h e t o r i c a l task a t hand. \ Some t h e o r i s t s began to upgrade the s i g n i f i c a n c e of r e v i s i o n by f i r m l y i d e n t i f y i n g i t as one of a s e r i e s of d i s t i n c t stages i n the composing process. For example, Rohman (1965) r e f e r s to stages of p r e w r i t i n g - w r i t i n g - r e w r i t i n g , whereas Murray (1978) p r e s e n t s : p r e v i s i o n - v i s i o n - r e v i s i o n . Instead of being mere i e d i t i n g or p r o o f r e a d i n g f o r e r r o r s , r e v i s i o n f o r these w r i t e r s was a s i g n i f i c a n t step i n the p r o d u c t i o n of a p i e c e of composit-io n . They b e l i e v e d that authors do not j u s t make cosmetic changes but a l s o that they engage i n wholesale reworking and r e f o r m u l a t i n g of t h e i r i n i t i a l d r a f t s . Emig (1971) i n her o p e r a t i o n a l d e f i n i t i o n of r e v i s i o n even d i f f e r e n t i a t e d three l e v e l s of t e x t u a l o v e r h a u l : . . . . c o r r e c t i n g i s a s m a l l , and u s u a l l y t r i v i a l , a f f a i r t h a t c o n s i s t s of e l i m i n a t i n g d i s c r e t e 'mechanical e r r o r s ' and i n f e l i c i t i e s . . . . R e v i s i n g i s a l a r g e r task i n v o l v i n g the r e f o r m u l a t i o n of l a r g e r segments of d i s c o u r s e and i n more majorand o r g a n i c ways -- a s h i f t i n p o i n t of view toward the m a t e r i a l i n a p i e c e ; .... R e w r i t i n g i s the l a r g e s t of the t h r e e , o f t e n i n v o l v i n g t o t a l r e f o r m u l a t i o n of a p i e c e i n a l l i t s a s p e c t s ; or the s c r a p p i n g of a g i v e n p i e c e , and the w r i t i n g of a f r e s h one (p.43) Se v e r a l r e s e a r c h e r s , however, have demonstrated t h a t r e v i s i o n ap-pears to be a more ongoing and r e c u r s i v e a c t i v i t y throughout com-posing, r a t h e r than a l a s t stage i n the p r o c e s s . F a i g l e y and 19 Witte (1981), P e r l (1979), Peitzman (1981) and Sommers (1980) a l l observed t h a t experienced w r i t e r s move backwards and forwards when they are composing: to r e - r e a d what they have a l r e a d y w r i t t e n , to assess whether the t e x t meets t h e i r previous expect-a t i o n s , and to search f o r something that might provoke f u r t h e r ideas f o r what could be w r i t t e n next. As a r e s u l t , Sommers (1980) c r i t i c i z e d models of r e v i s i o n t h at view w r i t i n g as a l i n e a r sequence of stages because such models r e l e g a t e r e v i s i o n i n w r i t i n g to occupy the same s u p e r f l u o u s p o s i t i o n i t has i n speech, namely simple e r r o r - c o r r e c t i o n . When speaking, one cannot a l t e r what one says except by adding q u a l i f i c a t i o n s or r e t r a c t -i o n s . In c o n t r a s t , the w r i t t e n word can be r e v i s e d d u r i n g i t s c r e a t i o n , and a w r i t e r i s a c t i v e l y engaged i n r e v i s i n g what i s s a i d as i t i s being formulated. In her study of three c o l l e g e freshmen, Peitzman (1981) observed r e v i s i n g processes by t a p i n g s t u d e n t s ' responses before the students began to w r i t e , d u r i n g breaks i n composing, and a f t e r peer group i n s t r u c t i o n . She n o t i c e d t h a t students began to r e v i s e as e a r l y as a few moments a f t e r the w r i t i n g task had been introduced as w e l l as even a f t e r t h e i r " f i n a l " d r a f t s were completed. A p p r e c i a t i n g t h a t r e v i s i o n i s indeed a r e c u r s i v e process through out composition, other w r i t e r s have adopted a more h o l i s t i c p e r s -p e c t i v e . Some models of the composing process ( B r i d w e l l , 1980; D e l l a - P i a n a , 1978; Flower and Hayes, 1981; Nold, 1981) have a t -tempted i n v a r i o u s ways to d e p i c t composing as an i n t e g r a t i o n of 20 p e r c e p t i o n and r e v i s i o n . For example, D e l l a - P i a n a (1978) suggested t h a t when w r i t i n g a poem: R e v i s i o n i s both the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n or s e n s i n g of something i n a work t h a t does not match what the poet intends or what the poem i t s e l f suggests and the s y n t h e s i s t h a t b r i n g s the w r i t i n g c l o s e r to what i s intended or suggests the way t h a t t h i s might be done. R e v i s i o n i s not 'making a poem b e t t e r 1 , i t i s making the poem more consonant or congruent with one's image of what the piece of w r i t i n g i s intended to accomplish. A poem i s f i n i s h e d when th a t congruency i s accomplish-ed, though perhaps more o f t e n the poem i s abandoned before t h a t goal i s reached, (p. 106) D e l l a - P i a n a ' s model (Figure 1) i s a r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of the process by which such congruency i s a c h i e v e d . I n i t i a l p reconceptions and v i s i o n s of where to s t a r t or what to say guide p r e l i m i n a r y pre-w r i t i n g and/or d r a f t i n g a c t i v i t i e s and provide the background a g a i n s t which the w r i t e r d i s c r i m i n a t e s and e v a l u a t e s the e v o l v i n g t e x t . Observing mismatches between what the w r i t e r intended and what she/he has achieved leads to a f e e l i n g of t e n s i o n and uneasiness t h a t provokes r e v i s i o n of the produced t e x t or the w r i t e r ' s i n i t i a l g o a l s . By l i n k i n g r e v i s i o n to p r e v i s i o n , t h i s model helps to e x p l a i n why H i l l o c k s (1982) was so s u c c e s s f u l a t g e t t i n g students to r e v i s e t h e i r d r a f t s when they had e a r l i e r engaged i n o b s e r v a t i o n a l p r e w r i t i n g a c t i v i t i e s . Another model, B r i d w e l l (1980), presents the c y c l i c a l nature of r e v i s i o n . One can see from B r i d w e l l ' s d e t a i l e d flow c h a r t (Figure 2) t h a t a w r i t e r may conceive and execute a paper without needing to r e v i s e , but more l i k e l y a t some p o i n t the w r i t e r may THE WRITER'S LONG-TERM MEMORY Knowledge of Topic, Audience, and Writing Plans 4 TASK ENVIRONMENT THE RHETORICAL PROBLEM Topic Audience Exigency TEXT PRODUCED SO FAR WRITING PROCESSES PLANNING ORGANIZING GOAL SETTING TRANSLATING REVIEWING EVALUATING REVISING MONITOR 22 FIGURE 2: A model f o r r e v i s i o n In the c o m p o s i t i o n p r o c e s s ( B r i d w e l l , 1980) 4 23 experience some dissonance when she/he has stopped p r o d u c t i o n to re-r e a d or re7scan the t e x t . Depending on whether the w r i t e r wishes to proceed or to a l t e r the t e x t , a range of f u r t h e r bouts of composing and r e v i s i n g may occur. B r i d w e l l p o i n t s out how her diagram o f f e r s some i n s i g h t i n t o how much f r u s t r a t i o n u n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s can experience d u r i n g composition. One can v i s u a l i z e the t o r t u r e s s u f f e r e d by w r i t e r s who c o n t i n u a l l y h a l t p r o d u c t i o n too e a r l y to review t e x t f o r s u r f a c e l e v e l e r r o r s when an o v e r a l l sense of d i r e c t i o n has yet to be d i s c o v e r e d f o r t h e i r composit-i o n s . Indeed, f r u s t r a t i o n may be more c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of e x p e r i e n c i n g dissonance than e i t h e r of these models i m p l i e s , and f r u s t r a t i o n may p a r t l y e x p l a i n why ine x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s are o f t e n u n w i l l i n g to r e v i s e . Nold (1978), when e x p l a i n i n g how r e v i s i o n f u n c t i o n s i n her simple model of the composing process (Figure 3), d e f i n e s r e v i s i o n not as a subprocess of composing i n the same way that a c t i v i t i e s l i k e p l a n n i n g , t r a n s c r i b i n g and reviewing a r e . Instead, r e v i s i o n i s : ....the r e t r a n s c r i b i n g of t e x t a l r e a d y pro-duced. W r i t e r s r e t r a n s c r i b e because they have decided, a f t e r r eviewing t e x t or t h e i r p l a n s , t h a t p o r t i o n s of the t e x t are not what they had intended or not what t h e i r readers need.• But i n order to r e t r a n s c r i b e , w r i t e r s must be able to generate a more a c c e p t a b l e s o l u t i o n . I f they cannot, they w i l l not change t h e i r t e x t . (p. 68) And w r i t e r s are l i k e l y to f e e l f r u s t r a t e d and insecure about t h e i r own w r i t i n g a b i l i t i e s , as Sommers (1980) noted, when they 24 can see something i s not r i g h t with t h e i r t e x t s but are unable to t e l l e x a c t l y what i s wrong. A l l of these models separate the process of r e v i s i o n from the process of t e x t p r o d u c t i o n . R e v i s i o n seems to i n v o l v e the a b i l i t y to compare some aspect of an alre a d y - g e n e r a t e d t e x t , even the a n t i c i p a t e d wording of a t e x t , with a pre c o n c e p t i o n of how the t e x t should, or perhaps might, read. Being a b l e to make com-pa r i s o n s i n t h i s way i m p l i e s not onl y that w r i t e r s are c o g n i t i v e -FIGURE 3 : A model o f t he w r i t i n g p r o c e s s ( N o l d , 1981) . > — > REVIEW .Product's intended e f f e c t •Product's intended meaning .Product's intended audience .Product's intended persona Knowledge of Conventions Text ...Text's e f f e c t ...Text's meaning ...Text's conventions END 25 FIGURE 4 : Tha s t r u c t u r e o f a w r i t i n g model (Flower & Hayes, 1981) Discrimination Preconception and Set • Seeing what the work does or does not do • Initial vision of what the • Seeing what the work work will be • Stylistic preference itself suggests as to what it is about • Intended effect of the work on others Dissonance * Beginnings of the work, e.g., a word, phrase, idea, character,"or feeling • Seeing matches or mismatches between what the work does, what one intends, and what the work itself suggests Tension * Concern with getting the work to do what one intends or what the work itself suggests Reconception • Resolution of the dissonance and tension by: • Revision or change in preconceptions • Revision to get the work to do what is intended • Revision to remove obstacles to a satisfactory resolution 26 l y able to make comparisons but a l s o t h at some ex e c u t i v e or "monitoring eye" i s p a r t of the composing process to permit such judgments to be made. In t h e i r model of the composing process (Figure 4), Flower and Hayes (1981) s p e c i f i c a l l y i n c l u d e such a monitor. They suggest t h a t i t " f u n c t i o n s as a w r i t i n g s t r a t e g i s t which determines when the w r i t e r moves form one process to the next [as he i s compos-i n g ] " (p.374). I t c o n s c i o u s l y assesses whether the t e x t so f a r i s meeting the r h e t o r i c a l problem and whether new p l a n n i n g , t r a n s l a t i n g or reviewing a c t i v i t i e s are c a l l e d f o r . Flower and Hayes e x p l a i n that reviewing i n t h e i r model i s made up of two sub-processes: e v a l u a t i n g and r e v i s i n g . These share "the s p e c i a l d i s t i n c t i o n of being able to i n t e r r u p t any other process and occur a t any time i n the a c t of w r i t i n g " (p.374). The i n t e r r u p t i o n s can be e i t h e r unconscious ones or they can be ones planned by w r i t e r s because they wish to gauge the value of what they have a l r e a d y w r i t t e n . E i t h e r way, the a c t of r e v i s i n g i s s t i l l a r e f o r m u l a t i n g of e x i s t i n g t e x t provoked by a conscious judgment t h a t the present t e x t i s inadequate. But t h i s i s q u i t e a d i f f e r e n t c o n c e p t i o n of " r e v i s i o n " from the n o t i o n advanced two decades e a r l i e r t h a t r e v i s i n g a composition was e s s e n t i a l l y c l e a n s i n g i t of u n s i g h t l y e r r o r s and i n f e l i c i t i e s . 27 REVISION BEHAVIOUR Research evidence i n d i c a t e s t h a t d i v e r g e n t views of r e v i s i o n d e r i v e from and are r e f l e c t e d i n the d i f f e r e n t behaviours of experienced and i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s when r e v i s i n g t h e i r work. O b s e r v a t i o n a l s t u d i e s of w r i t e r s (Emig, 1971; P e r l , 1979; Pianko, 1979a; Sommers, 1980; S t a l l a r d , 1974) r e v e a l t h a t young and i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s h a r d l y r e v i s e t h e i r compositions at a l l . T h e i r r e v i s i n g g e n e r a l l y focuses on merely s u p e r f i c i a l l e x i c a l changes or adjustments to s p e l l i n g and p u n c t u a t i o n . T h i s appears to be true f o r c o l l e g e freshmen (Sommers, 1980) as w e l l as elementary and high s c h o o l w r i t e r s (N.A.E.P., 1977; S t a l l a r d , 1974). In c o n t r a s t , experienced w r i t e r s tend to make more N frequent r e v i s i o n s i n v o l v i n g l a r g e r s y n t a c t i c and t e x t u a l u n i t s ( F a i g l e y and Witte, 1981; Sommers, 1980). Sommers (1980) found that inexperienced w r i t e r s d i d not f e e l com-. f o r t a b l e u s i n g even the word " r e v i s i o n " . They p r e f e r r e d f u n c t -i o n a l phrases, such as Scratch-Out-And-Do-Over-Again or S l a s h i n g -And-Throwing-Out. They approached r e v i s i o n with what Sommers c a l l s "a thesaurus p h i l o s o p h y of w r i t i n g " because they "place a symbolic importance on the s e l e c t i o n and r e j e c t i o n of words as the determiners of success or f a i l u r e f o r t h e i r composing", and so " l e x i c a l changes are the major r e v i s i o n a c t i v i t i e s of these students because economy i s t h e i r g o a l " (p. 381). Beach (1976) found d i f f e r e n c e s i n the way r e v i s e r s and n o n - r e v i s e r s conceived 28 of the value of t h e i r w r i t i n g . Pianko (1979b) e x p l a i n s how b a s i c w r i t e r s are so aware of the inadequacies i n t h e i r t e x t s that they do not f e e l c o n f i d e n t about the outcome of t h e i r e f f o r t s . S i m i l a r l y , P e r l (1979) found t h a t by f o c u s i n g o n l y a t the word l e v e l , u n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s ' attempts a t r e v i s i o n c o u l d i n t e r f e r e with t h e i r t r a n s c r i b i n g . They may get so bogged-down worrying about mechanics and usage e r r o r s t h a t they have t r o u b l e composing sentences. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , these students can come to see the act of rev i e w i n g t h e i r work as punishment (Emig, 1971) because i t seems to i n v o l v e o n l y r e w r i t i n g to remove p r e v i o u s l y undetected e r r o r s . These inexperienced w r i t e r s c o n t i n u a l l y h a l t p r o d u c t i o n too e a r l y to review t e x t f o r s u r f a c e l e v e l e r r o r s when an o v e r a l l sense of d i r e c t i o n has yet to be d i s c o v e r e d . P r o f e s s i o n a l w r i t e r s have a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t view of r e v i s i o n and i t s v a l u e . Murray (1978) presents a long l i s t of quot a t i o n s from famous authors as proof t h a t most experienced w r i t e r s accept r e v i s i o n not onl y as a c e n t r a l . p a r t but a l s o as an enjoyable p a r t of t h e i r c r a f t . He quotes N e i l Simon: "Rewriting i s when p l a y w r i t i n g r e a l l y gets to be fun ... In b a s e b a l l you only get three swings and you're out. In r e w r i t i n g you get almost as many swings as you want; and you know, sooner or l a t e r , y o u ' l l h i t the b a l l " (p.85). 29 Sommers (1980) r e p o r t e d that the e d i t o r s , academics, and j o u r n a l -i s t s i n her study saw r e v i s i o n as a p a r t of the composing process i t s e l f . One s a i d : " i t means t a k i n g a p a r t what I have w r i t t e n and p u t t i n g i t back together a g a i n . I ask major t h e o r e t -i c a l q u estions of my ideas, respond to those q u e s t i o n s and th i n k of p r o p o r t i o n and s t r u c t u r e , and t r y to f i n d a c o n t r o r l i n g metaphor. I f i n d out which ideas can be developed and which should be dropped. I am c o n s t a n t l y c h i s e l i n g and changing as I r e v i s e " (p.384). Much more than p o l i s h i n g the t e x t , r e v i s i o n i s presented here as a r e - s e e i n g of what has a l r e a d y been w r i t t e n , a scanning f o r meaningful and s i g n i f i c a n t ideas t h a t can s t i m u l a t e f u r t h e r t e x t p r o d u c t i o n . Pianko (1979b) c a l l s t h i s "an a c t of r e f l e c t i o n " and r e p o r t s t h a t mature c o l l e g e students i n compari-son to b a s i c w r i t e r s can achieve a more " h o l i s t i c sense of a paper's content and e v o l u t i o n . " (1980) e x p l a i n s how r e f l e c t i o n l e v e l of sentence p r o d u c t i o n : A s k i l l e d w r i t e r quoted by P e r l operates c y c l i c a l l y even at the My d i s j o i n t e d s t y l e of composing i s very s t r i k i n g to me. I almost never move from the w r i t i n g of one sentence d i r e c t l y to the next. A f t e r each sentence I pause to read what I've w r i t t e n , a s s e s s , sometimes e d i t and th i n k what w i l l come next. I o f t e n have to read the s e v e r a l p r eceding sentences a few times as i f to g a i n momentum to c a r r y me to the next sentence. I seem to depend a l o t on the sound of my words and ... while I'm hanging i n the middle of t h i s uncompleted thought, I may a l s o s t a r t e d i t i n g a previous sentence or get an i n s p i r a t i o n f o r something which I want to i n c l u d e l a t e r i n the paper, (p. 363) s 30 Experienced w r i t e r s tend to be p a r t i c u l a r l y conscious of t h e i r audience's needs when r e v i s i n g . Shuman (1982) analyzed how H.G. Wells' t e x t u a l r e v i s i o n s r e v e a l the author c r i t i c a l l y e v aluated h i s f u t u r e audience's need f o r a t r a d e - o f f between s p e c i f i c d e t a i l and c o n c i s e g e n e r a l i z a t i o n when r e - r e a d i n g h i s The O u t l i n e  of H i s t o r y . One w r i t e r , when observed n a t u r a l i s t i c a l l y by a res e a r c h e r (Berkenkotter, 1983), was s u r p r i s e d a t h i s awareness of audience when composing: "My sense of audience i s so s t r o n g t h a t I have to suppress my conscious awareness of audience to hear what the t e x t demands" (p. 171). Walter Ong (1975) t a l k s of w r i t e r s who " f i c t i o n a l i z e t h e i r audiences, c a s t i n g them i n a made-up r o l e and c a l l i n g on them to p l a y the r o l e a s s i g n e d " (p. 17). In an i n t e r e s t i n g study of a s k i l l e d but b l i n d w r i t e r who cou l d not r e v i s e , Gere (1982) found t h a t the s u b j e c t was able to compose without r e v i s i n g p a r t l y because she d e l i b e r a t e l y " v i s u a l -i z e d " a p r e c i s e audience before she commenced w r i t i n g . R e v i s i n g i s seen by experienced w r i t e r s as the c e n t r a l process i n which meaning i s d i s c o v e r e d by s u b s t a n t i a l l y reworking the content and arrangement of i n i t i a l d r a f t s . These d r a f t s are seen j u s t as f i r s t attempts to f i n d a t o p i c or a l i n e of argument (Wright, 1983). As experienced w r i t e r s rework t h i s m a t e r i a l , they e v a l u a t e the p a t t e r n s of o r g a n i z a t i o n and the syntax of. t h e i r prose (Sommers, 1980). For them , a l l w r i t i n g i s viewed as r e w r i t i n g (Murray, 1978), and meaning evolves from the t e x t as w r i t e r s d i s c o v e r i n the t e x t what they r e a l l y want to say -- a 31 process r e f l e c t e d i n E.M. F o r s t e r ' s famous q u e s t i o n : "How do I know what I want to say u n t i l I see what I have s a i d ? " EFFECTS OF REVISION Since s k i l l e d w r i t e r s tend to p r a c t i c e and value r e v i s i o n whereas inexperienced w r i t e r s do not, we might assume t h a t students c o u l d improve the q u a l i t y of t h e i r w r i t i n g i f they le a r n e d to r e v i s e more e x t e n s i v e l y and more o f t e n . Perhaps the m a t u r i t y of w r i t e r s i s l i n k e d to t h e i r a b i l i t y to r e v i s e t h e i r work s u c c e s s f u l l y . S e v e r a l w r i t e r s have attempted to address t h i s q u e s t i o n by i n v e s t i g a t i n g the e f f e c t s of between d r a f t r e v i s i o n on the q u a l i t y of s t u d e n t s ' f i n a l d r a f t s . Buxton (1959) measured s i g n i f i c a n t improvements when students r e -c e i v e d teacher responses and s u p e r v i s e d r e v i s i o n , but he d i d not i s o l a t e the i n f l u e n c e of r e v i s i o n a l a n e . S t a l l a r d (1974) rep o r t e d t h a t "good w r i t e r s " a t high s c h o o l l e v e l made more s i n g l e word, m u l t i p l e word and paragraph changes than a randomly s e l e c t e d group. Bamberg (1978) found that the r e v i s i o n s made by c o l l e g e freshmen d i d r e s u l t i n s u b s t a n t i a l l y improved d r a f t s . The N a t i o n a l Assessment of E d u c a t i o n a l Progress (1977) re p o r t e d t h a t o l d e r and more s k i l l e d high s c h o o l students tended to make more s i g n i f i c a n t changes to t h e i r t e x t s to improve o v e r a l l o r g a n i z a t i o n , tone and content than younger u n s k i l l e d student-32 w r i t e r s . B r i d w e l l (1980) obtained s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s when the r e v i s i o n s made by high s c h o o l students to d r a f t s composed over three days were c a r e f u l l y a n a l y z e d . Students* f i n a l d r a f t s r e c e i v e d higher q u a l i t y r a t i n g s f o r general merit and mechanics than t h e i r i n i t i a l d r a f t s . F i n a l l y , H i l l o c k s (1982) examined the e f f e c t s of o b s e r v a t i o n a l p r e w r i t i n g , teacher comments, and r e v i s i o n on the composing a b i l i t i e s of seventh and e i g h t h g r a d e r s . R e s u l t s showed s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s between p r e w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t i o n and subsequent r e v i s i o n and between pre-w r i t i n g and l e n g t h of teacher feedback, i n d i c a t i n g t h a t focused a t t e n t i o n on p r e w r i t i n g s t r a t e g i e s i s more l i k e l y to r e s u l t i n s u c c e s s f u l r e v i s i o n both d i r e c t l y and i n c o n j u n c t i o n with b r i e f teacher comments. Other r e s e a r c h e r s , however, have found t h a t students* r e v i s i o n s do not always improve t h e i r t e x t s . Hansen (1978) found no d i f f e r e n c e s on measures of p r o o f r e a d i n g , e d i t i n g , and general composition s k i l l s between a c l a s s r e c e i v i n g teacher responses and r e v i s i o n i n s t r u c t i o n and a c o n t r o l group who learned o n l y to c o r r e c t mechanical e r r o r s . Beach (1979), b e l i e v i n g that e x p e r i -enced w r i t e r s used s e l f and p e e r - e v a l u a t i o n to f o s t e r s u c c e s s f u l r e v i s i o n , s t u d i e d three groups of high s c h o o l students -.- one r e c e i v i n g no e v a l u a t i o n , one r e c e i v i n g between d r a f t t e a c h e r -e v a l u a t i o n , and one group completing s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n forms. While the rough and f i r s t d r a f t s of the t e a c h e r - e v a l u a t e d group were judged to have higher "degree of change" r a t i n g s than the 33 other groups, t h i s was only i n one category: support. No s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between groups e x i s t e d on q u a l i t y r a t i n g s . S i m i l a r l y , B a r t l e t t (1982) r e p o r t e d t h a t "Scardamalia, B e r e i t e r , Garstone and C a t t a n i (n.d) found no r e l i a b l e d i f f e r e n c e i n the q u a l i t y of o r i g i n a l and r e v i s e d v e r s i o n s of essays produced by elementary and _ high s c h o o l s t u d e n t s " (p.346). B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia (1982) d e s c r i b e d that i n t h e i r study "there was a s i g n i f i c a n t tendency at grade e i g h t f o r students to change t h e i r compositions f o r the worse" (p.39). Why have i n v e s t i g a t o r s produced such an a r r a y of i n c o n s i s t e n t r e -s u l t s ? One p l a u s i b l e reason might be t h a t r e s e a r c h e r s have had d i f f e r e n t conceptions of what r e v i s i o n i s . For example, n e i t h e r Hansen (1978) nor Buxton (1959) e x p l a i n c l e a r l y what students d i d as r e v i s i o n , beyond having an o p p o r t u n i t y to r e w r i t e t h e i r t e x t s . B r i d w e l l (1980) d i d not d i s t i n g u i s h " i n - p r o c e s s r e v i s i o n " from "between-draft" r e v i s i o n -- a p r a c t i c e which F a i g l e y and Witte (1981) have suggested d i s t o r t s r e v i s i o n because " i t would show th a t D.H. Lawrence, who rewrote h i s novels from the beginning r a t h e r than going back through them making changes, was an i n f r e q u e n t r e v i s e r " (p. 414). S e v e r a l other e x p l a n a t i o n s have been put forward. Gantry (1980) i n h i s review of r e s e a r c h on r e v i s i o n blamed the d i f f e r e n t e v a l u -a t i o n instruments used to measure the d i f f e r e n c e s between students' d r a f t s . But B a r t l e t t (1982) f e l t a more l i k e l y 34 e x p l a n a t i o n l a y at the heart of the r e v i s i o n process i t s e l f . She made the o b s e r v a t i o n : "those s t u d i e s t h a t r e p o r t g a i n i n q u a l i t y seem to i n v o l v e s i t u a t i o n s where r e v i s i o n s are based on the e v a l u a t i o n s of peers or t e a c h e r s . When e v a l u a t i o n s are generated by the w r i t e r s themselves, improvement i n q u a l i t y i s much l e s s l i k e l y . An apparent e x c e p t i o n to t h i s might be B r i d w e l l (1980) where gains were achieved when students r e v i s e d t h e i r own work, but her s u b j e c t s were rea s o n a b l y competent t w e l f t h - g r a d e r s , and she d i d not r e p o r t to what extent these students were a l r e a d y acquainted with r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s . From a d i f f e r e n t p e r s p e c t i v e , Nold (1981) s e v e r e l y c r i t i c i z e d the r e s u l t s r e p o r t e d by the N a t i o n a l Assessment of E d u c a t i o n a l Progress (1977), c l a i m i n g they were based upon f a u l t y assumptions about the nature of r e v i s i o n . She warned r e s e a r c h e r s not to study r e v i s i o n : (1) as the t a i l - e n d of a s e r i e s of w r i t i n g stages, (2) as i f the d i f f i c u l t y of a w r i t i n g task i s i r r e l e v a n t , (3) by a n a l y z i n g j u s t the changes made i n the t e x t , and (4) by r e p o r t i n g raw numbers of r e v i s i o n s . These warnings were echoed by F a i g l e y and Witte (1981) whose r e s e a r c h focused not on counting the number of changes w r i t e r s make, but on d e v e l o p i n g a taxonomy f o r a n a l y z i n g the e f f e c t s of r e v i s i o n changes on meaning. A p p l y i n g t h i s taxonomy i n two separate s t u d i e s , they r e p o r t e d t h a t s u c c e s s f u l r e v i s i o n was i n t r i n s i c a l l y l i n k e d to a w r i t e r ' s a b i l i t y "to b r i n g a t e x t c l o s e r to f i t t i n g the demands of the s i t u a t i o n " (p.411). 35 Inexperienced w r i t e r s are u n l i k e l y to r e v i s e s u c c e s s f u l l y p r e c i s e l y because they lack the necessary composing or l i n g u i s t i c s k i l l s to organize meaning i n t h e i r t e x t s . They tend to plan and r e v i s e l o c a l l y , f i n d i n g i t hard to t u r n what Flower (1979) has c a l l e d w r i t e r - b a s e d prose i n t o reader-based prose. Researchers have begun r e c e n t l y to a p p r e c i a t e t h a t a w i l l i n g n e s s to r e v i s e i s not simply a f u n c t i o n of w r i t i n g m a t u r i t y . F i r s t l y , both F a i g l e y and Witte (1981) and Sommers (1980) found wide v a r i e t y i n the ways s k i l l e d w r i t e r s t a c k l e d r e v i s i o n . Some wrote a complete d r a f t with almost no r e v i s i o n s , some free-wrote d r a f t s q u i c k l y and then r e v i s e d these e x t e n s i v e l y l a t e r , others wrote d r a f t s s l o w l y and ponderously, r e v i s i n g sentences and paragraphs as they went al o n g . B r i d w e l l (1980) found c o n s i d e r a b l e d i f f e r e n -ces i n the number of r e v i s i o n s made by students who r e c e i v e d s i m i l a r q u a l i t y r a t i n g s , and she n o t i c e d one of the hi g h e s t r a t e d d r a f t s had r e c e i v e d o n l y minor changes. Interviews with famous authors (e.g., Twigg, 1981) have r e v e a l e d s i m i l a r v a r i a t i o n s i n the r e v i s i n g behaviours of d i f f e r e n t w r i t e r s . S e l z e r (1983) observed the composing h a b i t s of a t r a n s p o r t a t i o n engineer and found them to be s u r p r i s i n g l y l i n e a r : r e v i s i o n amounted o n l y to s u p e r f i c i a l e d i t i n g a f t e r a s i n g l e d r a f t t h a t had been c a r e f u l l y o u t l i n e d beforehand. 36 Secondly, the number and magnitude of revisions to a text is probably dependent upon many variables such as the format, mode, and d i f f i c u l t y of assignment; as well, the time a l l o t t e d and the reason for writing (Faigley and Witte, 1981) can a l l a f f e c t a writer's a b i l i t y and propensity to revise. Investigations into the effects of writing for d i f f e r e n t audiences or writing in d i f f e r e n t modes (Crowhurst and Piche, 1979; Prentice, 1980) upon the syntactic complexity and content of a student's text have indicated that a b i l i t y to cope with these s i t u a t i o n a l variables when writing is probably developmental. Also, Berkenkotter (1983) warned that close attention should be paid to the setting and context in which re v i s i o n occurs. She found that the composing process of an experienced writer was appreciably affected by environmental factors. The differences, therefore, between the r e v i s i n g behaviours of experienced writers and unskilled ones is not that the former a l -ways make more frequent and more extensive revisions to their texts whereas the l a t t e r make no revisions at a l l or very few. Rather, experienced writers are able to revise successfully their work as necessary, while unskilled writers often cannot make useful changes to their texts. Sommers (1980) noted that unskilled writers were often quite w i l l i n g to revise but were unable to achieve any noticeable improvement. They could t e l l that their revisions were counter-productive, but they were unable to see why. Since they viewed their compositions in a 37 l i n e a r way as a s e r i e s of s tages, Sommers suggested they c o u l d approach r e v i s i o n o n l y as a process of moving words around once the t e x t had been c r e a t e d . As a r e s u l t , they c o u l d achieve some success at the sentence l e v e l , but had no s t r a t e g i e s f o r r e s t r u c -t u r i n g the content of t h e i r essays and a s s e s s i n g t h e i r purpose or t h e i r audience's needs. I r o n i c a l l y , the i n c o n s i s t e n t f i n d i n g s of e a r l i e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n s i n t o the e f f e c t s of r e v i s i o n have helped to emphasize not o n l y how w r i t e r s d i f f e r i n t h e i r r e v i s i n g s t r a t e g i e s , but a l s o how r e -v i s i o n i s a complex f u n c t i o n of the whole composing process. Re-v i s i o n i s not an a c t i v i t y performed at the end of a l i n e a r sequence of w r i t i n g s t a ges. R e v i s i o n i s c l e a r l y more than mere r e w r i t i n g or e d i t i n g . R e v i s i o n i s an i n t e g r a l p a r t of composit-ion i t s e l f , and the success w r i t e r s achieve with r e v i s i o n i s a f u n c t i o n of t h e i r o v e r a l l composing a b i l i t i e s . COGNITIVE DEMANDS Some authors ( K i r b y and L i n e r , 1980; Nold, 1981) have h y p o t h e s i -zed t h a t r e v i s i n g may be a w r i t i n g s k i l l mastered r e l a t i v e l y l a t e i n the development of a w r i t e r because the c o g n i t i v e a c t i v i t i e s r e q u i r e d are so demanding. Drawing on P i a g e t i a n theory, they suggest t h a t the sub-processes i n v o l v e d i n p l a n n i n g and r eviewing (such as a c c e s s i n g ideas from long term memory, t r a n s l a t i n g ideas 38 .into sentences, and assessing the needs of an hypothetical audience) require an advanced le v e l of cognitive development. For instance, Nold (1981) commented that each .of the subprocesses of writing outlined in her model cannot operate c o n c u r r e n t l y — one process "probably overloads processing space" even in the composing of s k i l l e d adults. She suggested that since writers must learn strategies to avoid "overloading" their attention, s k i l l e d writers may be conspicuous by their conscious a b i l i t y to manipulate successfully the demands being made on their attent-ion. Bereiter and Scardamalia (1982) pointed out that since revis i o n requires writers to operate i t e r a t i v e l y -- that is use their own output as new input -- writers need to be able to control s a t i s -f a c t o r i l y t h i s feedback. Unless writers have s u f f i c i e n t mental capacity, the already e x i s t i n g text w i l l predominate. Faced with such a s a l i e n t text, children are hindered from generating alternative language or content. In studies where they d e l i b e r -a t e l y intervened in the composing behaviours of children, Bereiter and Scardamalia attempted to help students overcome the seductive powers of their own texts. They had children write compositions where the children stopped after every sentence to evaluate i t s q u a l i t y -- by choosing from a l i s t of prepared phrases -- and decide on an appropriate course of action. By using t h i s technique of " f a c i l i t a t i v e intervention", Bereiter and Scardamalia managed to force children to do something that the 39 c h i l d r e n r e p o r t e d afterwards they d i d not u s u a l l y do: r e - r e a d what they were w r i t i n g . However, w h i l s t e x t e r n a l e v a l u a t o r s d i d agree with the s t u d e n t s ' own q u a l i t y r a t i n g s of t h e i r work, the e v a l u a t o r s d i d not judge t h a t the r e v i s i o n s a c t u a l l y improved any of the s t u d e n t s ' o v e r a l l t e x t s . None of the n i n e t y students i n the experiment who abandoned a sentence and r e c o n s t r u c t e d another one used a d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e g y from the o r i g i n a l . The f i n d i n g s of follow-up s t u d i e s confirmed t h a t c h i l d r e n appeared to have d i f f i c u l t y r e v i s i n g t h e i r sentences, not so much because they lacked a r e s e r v o i r of s u i t a b l e a l t e r n a t i v e s -- B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia assumed most c h i l d r e n have experienced a s u f f i c i e n t d i v e r s i t y of language forms -- but because they were unable to gain ready access to t h i s r e s e r v o i r . B e r e i t e r and Scardamalia f e l t t h a t c h i l d r e n need to develop conscious c o n t r o l over t h e i r language r e s o u r c e s i n order f o r r e v i s i o n to be successful': Conscious access seems to p l a y a l a r g e r r o l e i n r e v i s i o n than i n o r i g i n a l composition. I f *v the o n l y a l t e r n a t i v e s a v a i l a b l e f o r use are those t h a t come spontaneously to mind, the r e v i s i o n has l i t t l e chance, (p.43) Two r e s e a r c h e r s , on the other hand, have had remarkable success at! g e t t i n g q u i t e young c h i l d r e n to r e v i s e . C a l k i n s and Graves (1979a, 1979b) observed the types and sequence of r e v i s i o n s per-formed by elementary s c h o o l students i n New Hampshire. The data they c o l l e c t e d p r o v i d e s evidence that i f c h i l d r e n are i n i t i a t e d i n t o the realm of r e v i s i n g s t r a t e g i e s by being encouraged to experiment with such a c t i v i t i e s as r e t r a n s c r i b i n g sentences and 40 d r a f t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e beginnings, they can o f t e n r e v e a l s t r o n g p o t e n t i a l . One of the c h i l d r e n , a b r i g h t e i g h t - y e a r - o l d g i r l c a l l e d Andrea, w i l l i n g l y made ex t e n s i v e d e l e t i o n s , a d d i t i o n s , and rearrangements to sentences and paragraphs i n her compositions, r e v i s i n g the t e x t s three to f i v e times a f t e r r e a d i n g them out aloud to peer or teacher audiences. Graves's c o n c l u s i o n , "teachers can p l a y a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n r e l e a s i n g a c h i l d ' s p o t e n t i a l f o r r e v i s i o n s " , has been upheld by the f i n d i n g s of Crowhurst (1982) i n her study of the e x p l o r a t i o n s with r e v i s i o n achieved by grade-seven students i n B r i t i s h Columbia. When given some o p p o r t u n i t y and m o t i v a t i o n to r e v i s e , a l l of the students made some unaided changes; a few students produced q u i t e exten-s i v e ones. N e v e r t h e l e s s , these i n v e s t i g a t i o n s do not c o n t r a d i c t the view t h a t r e v i s i o n i s learned developmentally; they serve to p o i n t out t h a t teachers should devote more time to t e a c h i n g r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s . Teachers a l s o need to c o n s i d e r what contexts are most l i k e l y to help students develop more s o p h i s t i -cated composing s k i l l s . For example, Lamme and C h i l d e r s (1983) observed the use of c o l l a b o r a t i v e composing with young c h i l d r e n , and they found t h a t where an audience was immediately present the c h i l d r e n produced more a c t i v e and c o n t r o l l e d composing than when the audience was a b s t r a c t . Although much r e s e a r c h s t i l l needs to be done i n t h i s area, B a r t -l e t t (1982) confirmed B e r e i t e r and Scardamal i a ' s e a r l i e r conces-s i o n s about the c o g n i t i v e l i m i t a t i o n s of young w r i t e r s when r e v i -41 s i r i g . She conducted a two-year study of the d i f f i c u l t i e s elementary and j u n i o r high s c h o o l students have d e t e c t i n g and c o r r e c t i n g s y n t a c t i c a l anomalies and a m b i g u i t i e s . Her f i n d i n g s i n d i c a t e d t h a t students experience more problems r e p a i r i n g the f a u l t y p a r t s i n sentences than n o t i c i n g that these p a r t s are u n s a t i s f a c t o r y . B a r t l e t t b e l i e v e d the e x p l a n a t i o n might l i e i n the d i f f e r e n c e between the c o m p l e x i t i e s of g e n e r a t i n g f i r s t d r a f t s compared to those of accomplishing t e x t u a l r e v i s i o n . A l t e r a t i o n s to any pa r t of a t e x t are made w i t h i n the c o n f i n e s of tha t t e x t and must a p p r o p r i a t e l y f i t t h a t context i n order to be s u c c e s s f u l . D r a f t i n g i n i t i a l m a t e r i a l , i n c o n t r a s t , o f t e n appears to need h a r d l y any conscious c o n t r o l and does not u s u a l l y i n v o l v e making e v a l u a t i o n s . THE ROLE OF THE UNCONSCIOUS Is producing a t e x t , however, whether a complete d r a f t or a couple of sentences, r e a l l y such a semi-conscious a c t i v i t y ? Does m a t e r i a l appear as i f from nowhere? One cou l d h a r d l y c l a i m t h a t a d r a f t i s made by a c c i d e n t ; but s u r p r i s i n g l y enough, many w r i t e r s t e s t i f y to the a c c i d e n t a l nature by which they formulate t h e i r i d e a s . The d e c i s i o n s to s i t down, pick up the pen, and wri t e on the paper are o b v i o u s l y d e l i b e r a t e enough, but so much of what appears on the paper i s unpremeditated. Since what 42 a r r i v e s f r e q u e n t l y comes so unannounced, composing can be a process of s u r p r i s i n g d i s c o v e r y . C r i t i c s (e.g., F a i g l e y & Witte, 1981) may be s k e p t i c a l of the r e -s u l t s obtained from lengthy a n a l y s i s of t h i n k i n g - a l o u d p r o t o c o l s , but t h i s method of r e s e a r c h has given us some i n s i g h t s i n t o how much of the composing process goes on beneath the l e v e l of our. c o n s c i o u s n e s s . The v e r b a l p r o t o c o l s c o l l e c t e d by Flower and Hayes (1980) r e v e a l t h a t what w r i t e r s do c o n s c i o u s l y i s o n l y a s m a l l p a r t of the process, and that most of the g e n e r a t i n g of ideas i s done spontaneously. Hemingway once joked: " W r i t i n g i s easy. You j u s t s i t at a t y p e w r i t e r and b l e e d . " The t r a d i t i o n a l pedagogy -- which advised students to t h i n k before they wrote, to organize i n advance t h e i r ideas, and to c o n s t r u c t an i n i t i a l o u t l i n e of what t h e i r compositions would c o n t a i n -- has been c r i t i c i s e d by Mandel (1978) because i t was based upon the b e l i e f t h a t a w r i t e r ' s conscious p r e m e d i t a t i o n s cause the f o r m u l a t i o n of ideas. But, he claimed, " w r i t i n g i s not a t r a n s c r i p t i o n of thoughts a l r e a d y held i n the mind"; i n s t e a d " w r i t i n g as an experience i s a mystery, and s t r u c t u r e s of l o g i c and r a t i o n a l i t y pass the time i n the classroom but do not i l l u m i n a t e the mystery." Although i t may not be p o s s i b l e to c h a r a c t e r i z e e x a c t l y where these ideas come from i n our subconscious, i t i s p o s s i b l e to 43 d e s c r i b e how they are made manifest. In the f i r s t p l a c e , the a c t of w r i t i n g i t s e l f provokes the d i s c o v e r y of ide a s . Mandel d e s c r i b e s how when he i s w r i t i n g the words flow, m e t a p h o r i c a l l y as w e l l as l i t e r a l l y , from the pen: ....I become my pen; my e n t i r e organism becomes an e x t e n s i o n of t h i s w r i t i n g imple-ment. Consciousness i s focused i n the p o i n t of the pen. Th i s may sound b i z a r r e ... But i t behooves us to n o t i c e that the mind almost never t h i n k s about the w r i t i n g a c t (as i f tha t d i d n ' t count) and that the mind as o f t e n f o l l o w s the a c t i o n of the pen as precedes i t ... I f the mind t r i e d to c o n t r o l the movement of even the index f i n g e r / the whole w r i t i n g process would come to a s e l f - c o n s c i o u s stop. That much i s c l e a r . (p. 51) Th i s i n t e r a c t i o n between d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of consciousness i s no doubt hard to p i n down e x a c t l y . R e i s i n g (1979) s t r e s s e d t h a t the mind must be regarded as complex and enigmatic, and he b e l i e v e d Mandel o v e r - s i m p l i f i e d our f a c u l t i e s of i n t u i t i o n and c o n s c i o u s -ness. Others, drawing on Vygotskian noti o n s of the intimate r e l a t i o n s h i p between thought and word, make s t r o n g claims about the value of these i n t e r a c t i v e c o g n i t i v e aspects i n w r i t i n g . For example, Irmscher (1979) a s s e r t e d t h a t w r i t i n g l e t s us engage with the world by h e l p i n g us become aware of how our minds r e a l l y p e r c e i v e i t . Emig (1979) argued t h a t s i n c e thought i s born through words, w r i t i n g has unique value as a mode of l e a r n i n g - -so much so t h a t the c o g n i t i v e development of those who never l e a r n to w r i t e may be s e v e r e l y hindered. Besides e l i c i t i n g p e r c e p t i o n from the bowels of our subconscious, the a ct of w r i t i n g i t s e l f a l s o helps to shape and mold those d i s -44 c o v e r i e s by f o r m u l a t i n g them i n t o language. What i s d e l i v e r e d to the pen sometimes comes with a s t o n i s h i n g speed and e x h i b i t s an amazing c l a r i t y . Sudden f l a s h e s of i n s p i r a t i o n o f t e n present poets with whole poems th a t a r r i v e almost a u t o m a t i c a l l y . But more o f t e n , however, t e x t a r r i v e s i n a l e s s a r t i c u l a t e d form, and i t may r e q u i r e c o n s i d e r a b l e m a n i p u l a t i o n before i t s a t i s f a c t o r i l y coheres with what the w r i t e r i n t u i t i v e l y f e e l s . Borrowing the term " f e l t sense" from p h i l o s o p h y , P e r l (1980) d e s c r i b e d these i n t u i t i o n s as " f e e l i n g s or n o n - v e r b a l i z e d p e r c e p t i o n s t h a t surround -the words or to what the words a l r e a d y present evoke i n the w r i t e r . " P e r l argued that the process of t e x t r e f o r m u l a t i o n -- which B r i t t o n (1980) c a l l e d shaping at the p o i n t of utterance -- i s r e a l l y an i n t e g r a t i o n of two component subprocesses. F i r s t l y , the v e r b a l i z a t i o n of thoughts i n v o l v e s a shaping of the i n i t i a l m a t e r i a l p r e c i p i t a t e d by the pen. P e r l gave the l a b e l r e t r o s p e c t i v e s t r u c t u r i n g to t h i s component. She d e s c r i b e d how "when c l o s e l y observed, students appear to w r i t e by s h u t t l i n g back and f o r t h from t h e i r sense of what they wanted to say to the words on the page and back to address what i s a v a i l a b l e to them inwardly." T h i s o s c i l l a t i o n i s o f t e n accompanied by pauses i n which w r i t e r s r e f l e c t on what they have j u s t produced, experience what i s s t i l l vague and wait f o r "an image, a word, or a phrase to emerge t h a t captures the sense they embody." Secondly, the shaping of thoughts i n v o l v e s p r o j e c t i v e s t r u c t u r i n g ; the subsequent task of c r a f t i n g what one has now v e r b a l l y formulated i n t o a p a t t e r n t h a t i s meaningful to o t h e r s . T h i s i s accomplish-45 ed through writers' distancing themselves from the text. Murray put i t thi s way: "Writers perform a s p e c i a l , s i g n i f i c a n t kind of reading when they read their own writing in process." Writers must consciously ignore p r i v i l e g e d information they possess about what they believe the text should say and fathom out instead what the text does in fact say. Together, projective and retrospective structuring comprise "the alternating mental postures that writers assume when they compose." (Perl, 1980) Being so int e r r e l a t e d , they are hard to dist i n g u i s h from each other operationally, but S t a l l a r d (1976) claimed the same is true of "most cybernetic relationships where the relationships promote mutual feedback." Yet without these o s c i l l a t i n g cognitive acts, r e v i s i o n would be impossible. For in practice, they control the process of reviewing, which is the stimulus for re v i s i o n . Revision, then, i s a retranscribing of already generated text material in response to dissonance experienced as a result of either type of these structured reviews. It seems l i k e l y that writers need to develop both subprocesses in order to revise successfully. A lack of proficiency at handling either might well be the source of many students' re v i s i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s . 46 TEXTUAL DEMANDS Central to any description of the process by which writers revise must be the notion that writers are "re-seeing" their texts--that i s , s c r u t i n i z i n g again what they have written and judging whether or not to change their texts. The saliency of the already e x i s t i n g text can be p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t to overcome, espec-i a l l y for unskilled writers. By focusing on surface level concerns too early, basic writers also impede the production of further text. Several studies have explored these problems with c o l l e g e - l e v e l students to see whether st r a t e g i c intervention in the composing process might a s s i s t students to improve th e i r r e v i s i n g a b i l i t i e s . Hays (1981) conducted a study to determine the e f f e c t of audience on student writers' revisions. Comparing the revisions of s k i l l e d and unskilled college writers who had received i n s t r u c t -ion in substantive r e v i s i o n and audience awareness to those who had not, she found that students who had learned to compose with a strong sense of audience and purpose were less concerned with l e x i c a l and s c r i b a l matters and focused more on the ideas that they wished to convey. The improved revising performances of the unskilled writers was p a r t i c u l a r l y s t r i k i n g . Glynn, Brit t o n , Muth, and Dogan (1982), s i m i l a r l y , examined college students' a b i l i t i e s to revise successfully persuasive 47 essays. They manipulated structure demands (sequencing ideas, forming sentences, and , complying with punctuation/ s p e l l i n g mechanics) in students' a b i l i t i e s to generate arguments and to subsequently revise them. They found that when these structure operations were postponed u n t i l later drafts of a document "processing capacity can be focused on the production of persua-sive arguments in simple p r o p o s i t i o n a l - l i k e forms. This focus is achieved with l i t t l e , i f any, loss in the gross st r u c t u r a l q u a l i t y of the f i n a l d r a f t s " (p.56). These experiments confirm the hypothesis that writers must learn cognitive strategies to avoid "overloading" their attention while composing (Flower and Hayes, 1981). Students who attempt to revise l e x i c a l and mechanical elements too soon are l i k e l y to impede the generation of ideas and a f f e c t the overa l l q u a l i t y of their f i n a l d r a f t s . Furthermore, Galbraith (1980) showed that when a student writer separated the audience's requirement for clear presentation of ideas from the author's personal require-ment for expressing ideas on paper, successful rev i s i o n was considerably enhanced. In a case study of the ef f e c t of con-f l i c t i n g goals on a Ph.D. candidate's a b i l i t y to compose her thesis, Galbraith was able to help the student improve substan-tive r e v i s i o n , both by having the student set aside her i n i t i a l d raft and redraft a summary from memory, and by having her freewrite new material inside a time deadline. In both s i t u a t -ions, the demands of presentation and expression were separated. 48 Galbraith's research suggested that where students are unable to revise successfully their i n i t i a l d r a f t s , producing a completely new f i r s t d r aft can breakdown the cognitive and textual demands of r e v i s i n g . The e x i s t i n g text does appear to play a c r u c i a l role in r e v i s i o n , and writers constantly refer to i t . Faigley and Witte (1981), Perl (1979), Peitzman (1981), and Sommers (1980) a l l observed that writers move backward and forwards when they are composing: to re-read what they have already written, to assess whether the text meets their previous expectations, and to search for something that might provoke further ideas for what could be written next. Britton (1975) suggested that writers need to review or scan their text in order that they can retain control over the content and d i r e c t i o n of their emerging texts. In an informal experiment in which Bri t t o n and three colleagues t r i e d writing without scanning and with using worn-out ball-point pens, results indicated that the control gained by scanning a text i s increasingly necessary as the writer tackles more d i f f i c u l t cognitive tasks. Hull and Smith (1981), intrigued by Britton's claims, further i n -vestigated the e f f e c t of c o n t r o l l i n g v i s u a l feedback from a writ-er's text. In an experiment, they immediately removed v i s u a l access to what had already been written by having students write expository essays in i n v i s i b l e ink. Results showed that i n t e r -49 rupting feedback in t h i s , way a c t u a l l y interfered with only one le v e l of cognitive processing. Students had no apparent d i f f -i c u l t y in producing well-formed, r e l a t i v e l y error-free sentences (thus suggesting that sentence production even with expository prose is e s s e n t i a l l y a linear process)/ but they had d i f f i c u l t y managing larger units of discourse. Essays written i n v i s i b l y were shorter in length and mean clause length was s i g n i f i c a n t l y reduced. Blau (1983) in a similar experiment using worn-out ball-point pens even found that the teacher-writers in his study were not only tolerant of the absence of vi s u a l feed- back when composing, but also reported that their concentration was sharpened and their drafts showed enhanced fluency and greater cohesion than normal. Blau was quite mystified by these r e s u l t s . The need to observe what one has written while composing is d i f -ferent from needing to see a f i r s t draft when redrafting. Yet i f removing the exis t i n g text and so preventing rescanning can have such surprising effects on composing a b i l i t i e s , perhaps removing the text of an i n i t i a l draft e n t i r e l y might a s s i s t substantive revision by forcing writers to redraft rather than merely edit their o r i g i n a l texts. Garrett-Petts (1981) conducted an informal experiment to test whether removing access to students' f i r s t drafts would p o s i t i v e -l y a f f e c t the qu a l i t y of the i r subsequent d r a f t s . From a random sample of 70 f i r s t - y e a r university students, an experimental 50 group of 50 and a control group of 20 were formed. A l l students were asked to revise an expository essay they had written immediately e a r l i e r in c l a s s . Whereas the control group had access to f i r s t drafts and notes, the experimental group had to revise their essays from memory. Results indicated that students in the control group performed only minor revisions before handing in their f i n a l copies. In contrast, the pairs of essays produced by students in the experimental group showed from 10 percent to 100 percent differences in content and received higher mean qu a l i t y ratings on their second drafts than those in the control group. Garrett-Petts concluded that "basic writers...are not incapable of extensive and productive r e v i s i o n : the d i s t -racting presence of rough notes and f i r s t drafts simply impedes the re v i s i n g process" (p.14). Despite these rather surprising r e s u l t s , Garrett-Petts' study did not analyze the revisions made by students to their drafts much beyond measuring differences in the drafts* r e f e r e n t i a l content. Furthermore, his study attempted to d i f f e r e n t i a t e between basic and p r o f i c i e n t student writers among f i r s t - y e a r students, rather than with wider differences in writing a b i l i t y . Indeed the pro-cedure by which he distinguished basic from p r o f i c i e n t writers was not reported. Nevertheless, the revising behaviours exhib i t -ed by students in Garrett-Petts' research did support the hypothesis that "Once the f i r s t word is put on paper, the writer establishes a functional d i a l e c t i c , a retrospective interaction 51 that necessarily influences the d i r e c t i o n , the form, and the meaning of the author's o r i g i n a l intent" (p.9). A more detailed analysis of the e f f e c t of removing textual constraints on the revi s i n g behaviours of student writers with more pronounced differences in writing a b i l i t y would seem to'be warranted. , INCREASING TEXTUAL SALIENCY One might suppose that i f the exis t i n g text acts as a barrier to rev i s i o n , then a writer's a b i l i t y to revise successfully, especi-a l l y for substantive r e v i s i o n , would be hindered further by increasing the saliency of the text. No researcher to date has attempted to manipulate text in t h i s fashion, however. How could the saliency of a text be increased? One way would be to transform a handwritten draft into a printed format using a typewriter. If the text f a i t h f u l l y reproduced the o r i g i n a l with a l l errors and content unchanged, the new text would be i d e n t i c a l to the o r i g i n a l except in one s i g n i f i c a n t respect: i t would have undergone a metamorphosis into a more permanent medium. Despite studies of the e f f e c t of using a word-processor to aid rev i s i o n (Bean, 1983; C o l l i e r , 1983) and despite the widespread use of the typewriter by writers when composing, researchers have not examined the eff e c t that a printed medium has upon the 52 composing behaviours of writers. This is unfortunate because many authors describe how a.piece of writing does not appear to be in a " f i n i s h e d " form u n t i l they produce a typed copy (Twigg, 1981). The act of typing a f i n a l version replaces the untidy and dispersed handwritten product with a clean, c r i s p , v i s u a l l y new version, allowing writers to read their texts in the same medium as their readers w i l l . Although surface errors and s t y l i s t i c inconsistencies previously overlooked by the writer may now become prominent, the more serious problems the writer encounter-ed with organizing and expressing material often seem to d i s -appear. Lowenthal (1980), for instance, described how typing a draft can psychologically prevent further r e v i s i o n when the writer doubts the value of any more redrafting: So in despair -- and with r e l i e f -- I have the f i n a l draft re-typed. Perhaps i t w i l l look better when i t i s cleaner. In the end, the adventitious process of arranging a l l the t i d i l y printed words on a s a f e l y proof-read page resolves may of the doubts. Even the wrong words, the badly phrased thoughts, now seem more or less right -- e s p e c i a l l y i f I take care not to re-read them. (p. 387) The communications theories of Marshall McLuhan (1962, 1964) pro-vide some r a t i o n a l explanation for why we react d i f f e r e n t l y to a printed page than to a handwritten one. Behind McLuhan's popular aphorism: "the medium is the message" l i e s his theory that the medium in which information data is presented shapes and condit-ions the message which we receive. He distinguished between what he c a l l s "hot" and "cool" media. A "hot medium is one that 53 I extends one single sense in 'high d e f i n i t i o n * . High d e f i n i t i o n is "the state of being well f i l l e d with data". A cool medium i s one of low d e f i n i t i o n in which the receiver is given only a r e l a t i v e l y meagre amount of information data. McLuhan (1964) characterizes s c r i b a l writing as a cool medium where we are comparatively more a c t i v e l y involved in the process of decoding the transmitted information than when reading printed matter, a hot medium. Believing that a l l media are active metaphors in their power to translate experience into new forms, McLuhan (1962) has examined the long term h i s t o r i c a l e f f e c ts that the invention of the printing press had upon many facets of our culture. He i n d i c a t -ed, for example, how the new technology of the p r i n t i n g press forced people towards uniform s p e l l i n g and a sense of "correct" grammar. The invention of the typewriter, he contended, had a similar e f f e c t upon our perception of the printed page: "the typewriter fuses composition and publication, causing an e n t i r e l y new attitude to the written and printed word" (1964, p.228). If McLuhan's theory i s correct, writers who do not normally compose using a typewriter w i l l tend psychologically to regard a printed draft as a f i n a l copy needing only surface-level r e v i s i o n . The typed version w i l l appear to discourage substantive-level revis ing. 54 REVISION TAXONOMIES Several problems with c o l l e c t i n g and analyzing r e v i s i o n data need to be tackled by any study of revisi o n behaviours. Since re v i s i o n involves making changes to a text, the researcher needs to examine c a r e f u l l y what changes are made at d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s : word, phrase, clause, sentence, multi-sentence, paragraph and whole text. The nets used to catch a writer's revisions obvious-l y need to be fine enough to catch a l l revisions, but not so detailed as to become too cumbersome or confusing. Several taxonomies by d i f f e r e n t researchers (Bridwell, 1980; Faigley and Witte, 1981, 1984; Sommers, 1980; Witte, 1983) have been develop-ed but none completely overcomes the troublesome d i f f i c u l t y of s l o t t i n g a par t i c u l a r r e v i s i o n neatly into one category. A revisio n i s not always a change at simply one l e v e l . For instance, should a rev i s i o n that spans two sentences be treated as two. sentence revisions or one multi-sentence r e v i s i o n or both? The researcher also needs to describe what operations of rev i s i o n she/he observes are performed by the writers in the study. Besides deleting parts of the text, authors add new material and reorganize and rearrange exi s t i n g ideas. Unless the researcher is present to observe the revising a c t u a l l y occurring, the type of operation involved can only be deduced from evidence in the text. As a r e s u l t , i t is not always easy to dis t i n g u i s h what is crossed out from what i s rearranged. Somehow a d i s t i n c t i o n must 55 be drawn between changes made to the text during the act of draft i n g and changes made later during the reviewing of what had e a r l i e r been produced. Since writers revise at d i f f e r e n t times and in d i f f e r e n t ways, the nets used to catch a writer's revisions must be cast out where the revisions are located. Furthermore, i f the researcher wishes to assess how successful these revisions have been, then q u a l i t y ratings of each draft should be obtained to allow for such evaluation and comparison. The task of analyzing the data obtained in r e v i s i o n studies is p a r t i c u l a r l y fraught with d i f f i c u l t i e s . Believing that good writers rewrite more than poor writers, some studies (e.g., N.A.E.P., 1976) have f a l l e n into the trap of merely reporting the raw numbers of revisions made by writers. But raw scores need to be supported by measuring how ef f e c t i v e these revisions were. Perl (1979) found that revisions done by inexperienced writers could make the i r drafts worse than before. It should be rememb-ered that writers change only those parts of a text that they are d i s s a t i s f i e d with. As Bridwell (1980) discovered, some writers can produce f a i r l y successful f i r s t - c o p y that does not require extensive r e v i s i o n and yet i s of high quality. Moreover, there exist many s i t u a t i o n a l variables -- mode of discourse, a n t i c i p a t -ed audience, d i f f i c u l t y of assignment, reason for writing, and time a l l o t t e d -- that can influence a writer's a b i l i t y and propensity to revise. The re s u l t obtained by the N.A.E.P. survey (1976) where seventeen-year-olds revised less than thirteen-year-56 olds i s not so s u r p r i s i n g when one a p p r e c i a t e s that the former age group r e c e i v e d a r e l a t i v e l y simple w r i t i n g assignment t h a t c o u l d e a s i l y be achieved without t h e i r needing to make many r e v i s i o n s t o t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s . Furthermore, not a l l r e v i s i o n changes a f f e c t the t e x t i n the same way. F a i g l e y and Witte (1981) developed a taxonomy (Figure 5) to help d i s t i n g u i s h those a l t e r a t i o n s t h a t a f f e c t the meaning o f , a t e x t from those t h a t leave the meaning unchanged. Such d i s t i n c t -ions are not e a s i l y made because both types of r e v i s i o n s can look remarkably s i m i l a r . Some comma realignments, f o r example, can change the intended meaning, but most commas merely help to d i v i d e up s y n t a c t i c a l u n i t s f o r e a s i e r r e a d i n g . Even i f a change does a f f e c t the meaning of a t e x t , one cannot be c e r t a i n the w r i t e r a p p r e c i a t e d t h a t the meaning had been changed, or th a t t h i s was the d e s i r e d new meaning. F a i g l e y and Witte's taxonomy was based on a d i s t i n c t i o n they made between macro - l e v e l and m i c r o - l e v e l r e v i s i o n s . T h i s d i s t i n c t i o n hinged on "whether new i n f o r m a t i o n [was] brought to the t e x t or whether o l d i n f o r m a t i o n i s removed i n such a way th a t i t cannot be recovered through drawing i n f e r e n c e s " (p. 402). They l a b e l e d the former r e v i s i o n s 'Surface Changes' and the l a t t e r 'Text-Base Changes'. Under Surface Changes they s u b d i v i d e d c o p y - e d i t i n g op-e r a t i o n s (Formal Changes) from changes t h a t paraphrase concepts i n the t e x t but do not a l t e r them (Meaning-Preserving Changes). 57 Under Text-Base Changes, they s u b d i v i d e d r e v i s i o n s that a f f e c t meaning but would not a f f e c t a summary of the t e x t (Micro-s t r u c t u r e Changes) from major r e v i s i o n s that would a f f e c t the " g i s t " of a t e x t (Macro-structure Changes). F a i g l e y and Witte acknowledged the problems inherent i n t h e i r taxonomy. The d i s t i n c t i o n between micro- and macrostructure changes r e s t e d on K i n t s c h & van D i j k ' s t h e o r e t i c a l model (1977) t h a t d e s c r i b e d how a t e x t i s processed by a reader, but F a i g l e y FIGURE 5: Taxonomy of r e v i s i o n s ( F a i g l e y & Witte, 1981) R e v i s i o n Changes Surface Changes Text-Base Changes Formal Changes S p e l l i n g Tense, Number and M o d a l i t y A b b r e v i a t i o n Punctuation Format Meaning-Preserving Changes 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 Permutations D i s t r i b u t i o n s C o n s o i l d a t ions M i c r o s t r u e t u r a Changes 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 Permutations 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 Changes 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 Permutations D i s t r i b u t i o n s C o n s o l i d a t ions 58 and Witte found t h i s theory inadequate "because . i t does not accommodate adequately either.the reader's prior knowledge or the s i t u a t i o n a l context in interpreting discourse" (p.404). In addition, Faigley and Witte admitted that ascertaining whether a revi s i o n should be categorized as a Meaning-Preserving Change or as a Microstructure change was in practice quite d i f f i c u l t . In fact, Witte's (1983) taxonomy of revisi o n had a completely d i f f e r e n t t h e o r e t i c a l o r i g i n and purpose. Based on the Prague School of l i n g u i s t s ' research into the placement of topics in discourse (top i c a l structure), Witte's taxonomy focused on some of the textual causes and effects of re v i s i o n . The present study drew upon Faigley and Witte's o r i g i n a l d i s t -inction between revisions that a f f e c t meaning and those which do not, but i t modified and s i m p l i f i e d their taxonomy. (See Chapter Three). WRITING APPREHENSION The act of composing is frequently carried out in situations that provoke some anxiety in the writer about the strengths and weak-nesses of the emerging product. Over the past decade, research-ers have noticed that some people appear to possess "a d i s p o s i -t i o n a l tendency... to avoid writing and writing-related a c t i v i t -59 i e s " (Daly and Hailey, 1984). This tendency has come to be labeled "writing apprehension" or "writing anxiety". Many studies have examined the nature and influence of this construct and have established associations between anxiety about writing and future academic and occupational decisions (Daly and Shamo, 1976, 1978; M i l l e r and Daly, 1975), between writing apprehension and writers" self-esteem and personalities (Daly and M i l l e r , 1975b; Daly and Wilson, 1983; Daly and Hailey, 1984), as well as between writing apprehension and various performance variables such as scores on standardized tests of writing a b i l i t y and aptitude (Daly, 1978; Daly and M i l l e r , 1975b; Faigley, Daly and Witte, 1981). Some researchers have also examined the success of measures to reduce writing apprehension (Fox, 1980; Powers, Cook and Meyer, 1979). In much of thi s research an instrument c a l l e d the "Writing Appre-hension Inventory" has been employed. This instrument was o r i g i n a l l y developed by Daly and M i l l e r (1975a) to provide an empirically based, standardized measurement of writing anxiety so that i t would be possible to d i f f e r e n t i a t e high-anxiety writers from low-anxiety ones: High apprehensive individuals find writing unrewarding, indeed punishing. Consequently they avoid, i f possible, situations where writing .is required. When placed in such situations they experience more than normal amounts of anxiety. This anxiety is often r e f l e c t e d in their written products and in their behaviours i n , and attitudes about, 60 w r i t i n g s i t u a t i o n s . Low.apprehensives r e p r e -sent the other end of the continuum. They don't mind w r i t i n g , are c o n f i d e n t i n t h e i r a b i l i t i e s to do so, and o f t e n enjoy i t . (Daly and Wilson, 1983) Viewed i n t h i s way, w r i t i n g apprehension i s a continuum with high apprehensives at one end and low apprehensives at the other. A l l w r i t e r s would e x h i b i t a degree of w r i t i n g apprehension; none are e n t i r e l y without any a n x i e t y . The source of t h i s apprehension, however, remains a mystery. We do not yet completely understand what causes some w r i t e r s to experience more a n x i e t y with w r i t i n g than o t h e r s . Some apprehension may stem from w r i t e r s p o s s e s s i n g a damagingly negative s e l f - c o n c e p t about t h e i r w r i t i n g a b i l i t i e s which may be d i s p l a y e d i n a c e r t a i n u n w i l l i n g n e s s to d i s c l o s e ideas or present them to the s c r u t i n y of others ( S e l f e , 1984). The impact of e a r l y unpleasant w r i t i n g experiences i n s c h o o l cannot be r u l e d out, and misconceptions about the nature and process of composing may a l s o make s i g n i f i c a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n s . Most r e c e n t l y , a t t e n t i o n has focussed on s i t u a t i o n a l forms of a n x i e t y . Beach and Eaton (1984) examined the a b i l i t i e s of c o l l e g e freshmen to assess t h e i r own d r a f t s and found t h a t w r i t i n g a n x i e t y was i n f l u e n c e d by such f a c t o r s as the t o p i c i n v o l v e d , the goals of the piece of w r i t i n g , and the audience i d e n t i f i e d . These f i n d i n g s c a l l i n t o q u e s t i o n the assumption that w r i t i n g apprehension i s a d i s p o s i t i o n t h a t does not vary from one w r i t i n g s i t u a t i o n to another. Daly and M i l l e r ' s 61 instrument appears to s u f f e r from making t h i s assumption, and t h e r e f o r e i t s v a l i d i t y would appear to be somewhat compromised. Daly and H a i l e y (1984), however, content t h a t while i t may be tru e t h a t some s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s (e.g., task n o v e l t y and pe r c e i v e d l e v e l of e v a l u a t i o n ) do.promote f e e l i n g s of a n x i e t y they do so i n d i f f e r i n g degrees depending on whether a person i s g e n e r a l l y apprehensive about w r i t i n g or not. H i g h l y apprehensive i n d i v i d u a l s w i l l be more s h a r p l y a f f e c t e d by these v a r i a b l e s than w i l l s l i g h t l y apprehensive i n d i v i d u a l s . Nonetheless, whether w r i t i n g apprehension i s a d i s p o s i t i o n a l tendency or not, w r i t e r s who do s u f f e r any degree of a n x i e t y i n a given s i t u a t i o n are l i k e l y to adopt composing s t r a t e g i e s t h a t could p o t e n t i a l l y reduce the l e v e l of a n x i e t y they experience. They are, consequently, l e s s l i k e l y to review t h e i r t e x t s f o r e r r o r s and weaknesses than are w r i t e r s who experience l e s s w r i t i n g a n x i e t y ; but more i m p o r t a n t l y they are a l s o l e s s l i k e l y to engage i n much r e v i s i o n of any k i n d . T h e i r primary c o n s i d e r -a t i o n w i l l be to t r u n c a t e the w r i t i n g process and be " f i n i s h e d " as soon as p o s s i b l e so long as a "reasonable" product i s produced along the way. Those people who f r e q u e n t l y f i n d themselves i n anxious s i t u a t i o n s when w r i t i n g w i l l tend to develop " e x p e r t i s e " a t t r u n c a t i n g the w r i t i n g process to invoke premature c l o s u r e and thus be r i d of an unpleasant s i t u a t i o n a g a i n and a g a i n . 62 The c o n s t r u c t of w r i t i n g apprehension i s t h e r e f o r e h i g h l y r e l e v a n t when examining w r i t e r s ' a b i l i t i e s and p r o p e n s i t i e s to review and r e v i s e t h e i r i n i t i a l d r a f t s . H i g h l y apprehensive w r i t e r s tend to gain l i t t l e s a t i s f a c t i o n from t h e i r w r i t i n g and tend to av o i d r e c o n s i d e r i n g or r e - e x p r e s s i n g t h e i r t e x t s . L a cking p r a c t i c e and experience with r e v i s i o n , these w r i t e r s are of t e n overwhelmed by the m u l t i p l e and competing demands made on them by d i f f e r e n t d r a f t s , and these w r i t e r s are thus more l i k e l y to make unnecessary, i l l - c o n c e i v e d or poorly-executed r e v i s i o n s even when they do attempt to r e v i s e t h e i r compositions. They o f t e n produce r e v i s i o n s t h a t are worse than t h e i r f i r s t attempts. Indeed, the c o n s t r u c t of w r i t i n g apprehension helps to underscore many of the rec e n t r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s about r e v i s i o n . We should be e s p e c i a l l y aware t h a t whether a w r i t e r i s w i l l i n g to make any r e v i s i o n s to an e a r l i e r d r a f t depends not only on a v a r i e t y of f a c t o r s such as experience, a b i l i t y and a t t i t u d e but a l s o upon the i n t e r a c t i o n of those f a c t o r s i n any given w r i t i n g s i t u a t i o n . The type, q u a n t i t y and e f f e c t i v e n e s s of a w r i t e r ' s r e v i s i o n s t e l l us a great d e a l about how the w r i t e r i s e x p e r i e n c i n g the task a t hand. I n t e r f e r i n g with the experience of composing i s l i k e l y to, a f f e c t the r e v i s i o n s attempted by the w r i t e r . 63 SUMMARY Chapter Two presented a review of the l i t e r a t u r e on r e v i s i o n i n composition, p a r t i c u l a r l y those s t u d i e s which have i n v e s t i g a t e d the r e v i s i n g behaviours of experienced and i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s and s t u d i e s which have explored the v a r i o u s c o g n i t i v e and t e x t u a l demands t h a t a f f e c t a person's a b i l i t y to r e v i s e . The f i n d i n g s of previous r e s e a r c h e r s that are r e l e v a n t to the concerns of the present study can be summarized as f o l l o w s . F i r s t l y , r a t h e r than being the l a s t stage i n a l i n e a r process of composing, r e v i s i o n needs to be examined as a r e c u r s i v e a c t i v i t y t h a t occurs through-out the composing process. Secondly, the d i f f e r e n t r e v i s i n g behaviours observed i n experienced and i n i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s r e f l e c t d i f f e r e n t a p p r e c i a t i o n s of the value and purpose of r e v i s i o n . T h i r d l y , s t u d i e s of the d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s of r e v i s i o n produced by d i f f e r e n t w r i t e r s have r e v e a l e d t h a t the degree and nature of r e v i s i o n s are l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t than the success of those r e v i s i o n s at improving the q u a l i t y of the t e x t . Research needs to focus on the extent to which w r i t e r s improve t h e i r t e x t s by r e v i s i n g them r a t h e r than merely c a t e g o r i z i n g the types of r e v i s i o n s performed. F o u r t h l y , the a c t of r e v i s i n g p l a c e s severe c o g n i t i v e demands on w r i t e r s and the a b i l i t y of w r i t e r s to handle these demands may be developmental. F i f t h l y , w r i t e r s need to develop s t r a t e g i e s f o r l e a r n i n g to d i s t a n c e themselves from t h e i r t e x t s i n order to "see" what they have a c t u a l l y w r i t t e n . S i x t h l y , the e x i s t i n g t e x t produced i n an e a r l y d r a f t appears to 64 p l a y a c r u c i a l r o l e i n d i c t a t i n g what r e v i s i n g a w r i t e r can ach i e v e . The phenomenon of " c l o s u r e " seems to operate when w r i t e r s assess the contents of t h e i r t e x t s , and the s a l i e n c y of the e x i s t i n g t e x t u a l m a t e r i a l can a c t as a formidable b a r r i e r p r e v e n t i n g w r i t e r s from engaging i n s u c c e s s f u l r e v i s i o n . F i n a l l y , the p s y c h o l o g i c a l c o n s t r u c t of w r i t i n g apprehension appears to a f f e c t students* w i l l i n g n e s s and a b i l i t y to r e v i s e t h e i r compositions. 65 CHAPTER THREE PROCEDURES In t h i s chapter a d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n w i l l be presented of the methods used i n the study to a r r i v e at answers to the r e s e a r c h questions which were formulated i n Chapter One and were d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter Two a g a i n s t the background of r e l a t e d r e s e a r c h i n the f i e l d . Before moving to the r e s e a r c h d e s i g n , t h i s chapter d i s -cusses a p i l o t study from which the eventual d e s i g n was develop-ed. Then a f u l l account of the methodology i s gi v e n , i n c l u d i n g the d i f f e r e n t treatments, the s e l e c t i o n of s u b j e c t s , and the instruments chosen. A s e c t i o n d e s c r i b i n g the procedures adopted to c o l l e c t the data i s fo l l o w e d by an account of the manner i n which measures to score the data were developed and a p p l i e d . F i n a l l y , the procedures f o r a n a l y z i n g the data are e x p l a i n e d . PILOT STUDY R a t i o n a l e A p i l o t study was conducted i n order to make a p r e l i m i n a r y i n v e s t i g a t i o n of whether the proposed r e s e a r c h questions were indeed worthy of being pursued i n a f u l l - s c a l e p r o j e c t . Such a study would a l l o w f o r d e t a i l s of the r e s e a r c h methodology to be 66 re-examined i n l i g h t of a p r e l i m i n a r y c o l l e c t i o n of data, and would a l l o w a l s o f o r any p o t e n t i a l d i f f i c u l t i e s to be i d e n t i f i e d . Pes iqn The purpose of the p i l o t study was to i n v e s t i g a t e whether the s a l i e n c y of e x i s t i n g t e x t i n st u d e n t s ' w r i t t e n compositions d i d have an observable e f f e c t on s t u d e n t s ' r e v i s i n g of t h e i r i n i t i a l d r a f t s . The focus of t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y study, t h e r e f o r e , needed to be upon i d e n t i f y i n g the s a l i e n c y of t e x t as an a p p r o p r i a t e v a r i a b l e f o r f u r t h e r study. To t h i s end, i t was decided to employ a design i n which students at d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of w r i t i n g a b i l i t y were asked to r e v i s e t h e i r d r a f t s under two d i f f e r e n t treatment c o n d i t i o n s : Treatment 1: Students r e v i s e d t h e i r i n i t i a l d r a f t s from memory without having access to these i n i t i a l d r a f t s . Treatment 2: Students r e v i s e d t h e i r i n i t i a l d r a f t s while having access i n f r o n t of them to t h e i r i n i t i a l d r a f t s i n a t y p e w r i t t e n format. The purpose of treatment 1 was to i n v e s t i g a t e whether, as G a r r e t t - P e t t s (1981) found, c o l l e g e students not only can r e v i s e s u c c e s s f u l l y t h e i r d r a f t s from memory, but a l s o can produce new d r a f t s t h a t c o n t a i n n o t i c e a b l y d i f f e r e n t c o n t e n t s , i n terms of ideas, o r g a n i z a t i o n and e x p r e s s i o n , than would normally have occur r e d . The purpose of treatment 2 was to a s c e r t a i n whether t y p i n g the d r a f t s d i d i n c r e a s e the s a l i e n c y of the t e x t and thus 67 act as more of a barrier to substantive r e v i s i o n than would have been the case i f students had just had access to their own handwritten o r i g i n a l drafts instead. Lowenthal (1980) observed that typing a draft tends to have the psychological ef f e c t of preventing further rev i s i o n when the writer doubts the value of any more redra f t i n g . Additionally, McLuhan (1964) contended that transforming a handwritten product into a typewritten one creates a change from "cool" to a "hot" medium with correspondingly d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s on the viewer. Procedures For t h i s p i l o t study, two r e l a t i v e l y small composition classes at a medium-sized community college were chosen. Eight students en-r o l l e d in a college preparatory English course and nine students who were taking an adult basic education writing course became group one and group two respectively. Although students could not be randomly selected, they were considered by their i n s t r u c t -ors to be generally representative of their populations. Students in group one received treatment 1. I n i t i a l l y , they were given a f u l l class (2 hours) to write an expository essay on.a topic of their choice for an instructor audience. The students c o l l e c t i v e l y engaged in some . preliminary brainstorming to generate suitable topics, and the instructor asked students who could not come up with topics of their own to write about th e i r attitudes towards a current news event: the p r o v i n c i a l govern-68 merit's w o l f - c o n t r o l p o l i c y . Students were unaware that they would be gi v e n another c l a s s to r e v i s e t h e i r d r a f t s . A l l d r a f t s were c o l l e c t e d at the end of the c l a s s . At the next c l a s s , four days l a t e r , students i n group one were asked to p a i r - o f f and d i s c u s s with t h e i r p a r t n e r s what they had w r i t t e n on t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s p r e v i o u s l y . The purpose of t h i s a c t i v i t y was to a i d students' memory, before the r e v i s i n g commen-ced, of what they had e a r l i e r produced. Any new i n f o r m a t i o n or feedback provided by t h i s peer-response might a l s o provoke students to r e - e v a l u a t e the aim and content of t h e i r i n i t i a l d r a f t s . Students were then asked to r e w r i t e t h e i r compositions from memory, making any r e v i s i o n s or changes they d e s i r e d . These second d r a f t s were c o l l e c t e d and then compared with the e a r l i e r d r a f t s . Students i n group two r e c e i v e d treatment 2. They were given the same i n s t r u c t i o n s , t o p i c , and r h e t o r i c a l s i t u a t i o n as group one, except t h a t when the f i r s t d r a f t s were c o l l e c t e d , t y p e w r i t t e n v e r s i o n s were made. These typed c o p i e s f a i t h f u l l y reproduced the contents of the o r i g i n a l s . At the next c l a s s , one day l a t e r , students i n group two were asked to p a i r - o f f and d i s c u s s with t h e i r p a r t n e r s what they had w r i t t e n on t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s . Students then r e c e i v e d the typed copies and were asked to r e w r i t e t h e i r compositions, using the 69 f i r s t copy as a guide. Students were s p e c i f i c a l l y i n s t r u c t e d t h a t a new manuscript must be produced •-- c o r r e c t i o n s made on the typed copy would not be s u f f i c i e n t . The purpose of t h i s d i r e c t -ion was to ensure t h a t students d i d not opt f o r the l e s s time-consuming task of merely making a l t e r a t i o n s on the typed copy i t s e l f . These second d r a f t s were c o l l e c t e d and compared with the e a r l i e r d r a f t s produced by t h i s group. A n a l y s i s of Data The data c o l l e c t e d were analyzed using a r e v i s i o n taxonomy developed by the r e s e a r c h e r . T h i s instrument represented an attempt to modify and s i m p l i f y the taxonomy used by F a i g l e y and Witte (1981) i n order to a l l o w f o r r e v i s i o n s to be scored under a method developed by B r i d w e l l (1980) whereby the span of t e x t i n v o l v e d i n a change could be accounted f o r as w e l l . The taxonomy used i n the p i l o t study i s d i a g r a m m a t i c a l l y shown i n F i g u r e 6. F a i g l e y and Witte's d i s t i n c t i o n between r e v i s i o n s that a f f e c t meaning and those which do not was maintained, but the former were now r e f e r r e d to as r e v i s i o n s at the macro-level and the l a t t e r as r e v i s i o n s at the m i c r o - l e v e l . Those o p e r a t i o n s which a f f e c t e d the meaning, purpose and viewpoint of the t e x t (macro-level) were thus d i s t i n g u i s h e d from those o p e r a t i o n s t h a t l e f t these a s p e c t s of the t e x t u n a f f e c t e d ( m i c r o - l e v e l ) . 70 A l l of F a i g l e y and Witte's c a t e g o r i e s of r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n - -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 , permutation, d i s t r i b u t i o n and c o n s o l i d a t i o n -- were r e t a i n e d i n order to cover adequately the range of r e v i s i n g behaviours t h a t students attempted. However, these o p e r a t i o n s were then s u b d i v i d e d i n t o the p a r t i c u l a r FIGURE 6: The taxonomy o f r e v i s i o n s used i n the p i l o t s t u d y r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s m a c r o - l e v e l m i c r o - l e v e l 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 Permutations 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 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 Permutations D i s t r i b u t i o n s Conso1idations f e a t u r e s of the t e x t which were a f f e c t e d : words, phrases, c l a u s e s , paragraphs, s p e l l i n g , punctuation, e t c . The number of s u b d i v i s i o n s under each categ o r y of r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n could not be i d e n t i c a l because not a l l f e a t u r e s of a t e x t can be o p e r a t i o n -a l l y r e v i s e d i n the same way. For example, s p e l l i n g can o n l y be s u b s t i t u t e d , not added or d e l e t e d , whereas the f u l l range of t r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s can be performed on c l a u s e s . Table 1 r e v e a l s how each o p e r a t i o n was s u b d i v i d e d f o r the purpose of s c o r i n g 71 r e v i s i o n s . I t should be noted t h a t the sentence was not a s t a b l e s y n t a c t i c u n i t ; many students e r r o n e o u s l y punctuated subordinate c l a u s e s as sentences, and most r e v i s i o n s occurred w i t h i n senten-ces r a t h e r than a c r o s s sentence boundaries. R e s u l t s The data i n d i c a t e d t h a t students e x h i b i t e d c o n s i d e r a b l y d i f f e r e n t w r i t i n g behaviours under each treatment. Students who rewrote t h e i r d r a f t s from memory (group one) tended to produce r e c o g n i z -a b l y d i f f e r e n t d r a f t s i n terms of content, o r g a n i z a t i o n and purpose, 1 even though these students sometimes began t h e i r second d r a f t s with sentences i d e n t i c a l to those i n t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s . The o v e r a l l l e n g t h of these s t u d e n t s ' second d r a f t s was s h o r t e r than f o r f i r s t d r a f t s , while number of s p e l l i n g , punctuation and other s u r f a c e e r r o r s was r e l a t i v e l y unchanged. These students were g e n e r a l l y engaged i n an a c t of producing a new f i r s t d r a f t , r a t h e r than p o l i s h i n g a second d r a f t . In c o n t r a s t , those students who rewrote t h e i r d r a f t s with access only to a typed copy of t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s (group two) made s e v e r a l changes i n some cases to t h e i r t e x t s ' contents, but i n the m a j o r i t y of cases d i d l i t t l e more than recopy t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s l i n e by l i n e , making on l y minor a l t e r a t i o n s . Furthermore, most of the changes concerned s u r f a c e f e a t u r e s o n l y , although some students a m p l i f i e d p o i n t s a l r e a d y made or d e l e t e d r e p e t i t -ious or ambiguous sentences. The e x i s t i n g o r g a n i z a t i o n and 72 contents were l e f t remarkably unchanged. These students appeared to have been b e g u i l e d i n t o a c c e p t i n g the p r i n t e d v e r s i o n s of t h e i r d r a f t s as f i n a l e f f o r t s at d r a f t i n g m a t e r i a l , and they r e s o r t e d merely to e d i t i n g r a t h e r than attempting much subst a n t -ive r e v i s i o n . Two p a i r s of d r a f t s deemed to be t y p i c a l of the r e v i s i o n behav-i o u r s e x h i b i t e d by students i n each group were chosen f o r c l o s e s c r u t i n y . These p a i r s of d r a f t s are presented i n Appendix A. A n a l y s i s of the r e v i s i o n changes performed f o r each p a i r i s provided below i n Tables 1 and 2. Table 1 r e v e a l s t h a t the student from group one made a t o t a l of 474 r e v i s i o n s between both d r a f t s , of which 88 per cent (418) were at the m a c r o - l e v e l . In c o n t r a s t , the student from group two made a t o t a l of only 42 r e v i s i o n s , of which 64 percent were at the m a c r o - l e v e l . However, the m a j o r i t y of changes f o r both students was performed by the o p e r a t i o n s of a d d i t i o n and d e l e t i o n of words. These two op e r a t i o n s accounted f o r over 63 percent of the a l t e r a t i o n s at both l e v e l s f o r both s t u d e n t s . Very few s u b s t a n t i v e changes were made by e i t h e r student to elements of d i s c o u r s e l a r g e r than the phrase, but the student i n group one d i d perform the more complicated r e v i s i o n o p e r a t i o n s (permutat-io n , d i s t r i b u t i o n , and c o n s o l i d a t i o n ) to a s m a l l degree (1.48 7 3 percent of the time) whereas the student i n group two performed none of these o p e r a t i o n s at a l l . Table 2 presents a comparison of changes made to the s u r f a c e f e a t u r e s of both t e x t s f o r each student. Both students reduced the number of words, number of T - u n i t s , number of c l a u s e s and number of words per c l a u s e , but the student i n group one's r e d u c t i o n s are over double the r e s p e c t i v e percentages f o r the student i n group two. N e i t h e r student a l t e r e d the number of paragraphs he had i n each d r a f t , but the student i n group one produced 22 percent more words per T - u n i t i n h i s second d r a f t . TABLE 2 : A c o m p a r i s o n o f t e x t u a l changes f o r each g roup i n the p i l o t s t u d y Group One (memory) Group Two (t e x t ) 1st 2nd % d r a f t d r a f t change 1st 2nd % d r a f t d r a f t change Number of words 215 174 -19 143 130 -9.1 Number of T - u n i t s 15 10 -33 13 12 -7 . 7 Words per T - u n i t 14 . 3 17 . 4 22 11 10 . 8 -1. 8 Number of c l a u s e s 23 21 - 8.7 21 20 -4 . 8 Words per c l a u s e 9 . 3 8 . 3 -10 . 7 6 . 8 £ . 5 -4 . 4 Number of paragraphs 2 2 0 2 2 0 74 Conclusions As expected, students i n group one were able to r e d r a f t t h e i r compositions from memory and produce second d r a f t s t h a t r e f l e c t e d a v a r i e t y of macro-level r e v i s i o n s . However, t h i s r e s u l t was not wholly s a t i s f a c t o r y because the p i l o t study c o u l d not i n d i c a t e whether the l i b e r a t i o n from the t e x t of the f i r s t d r a f t s a c t u a l l y helped students to generate new content which c o u l d be of use to them; f o r example, by being i n t e g r a t e d with the content a l r e a d y produced i n t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s . Consequently, i t was f e l t t h a t the design of the study should be extended to i n c l u d e a t h i r d d r a f t stage, where students r e c e i v e d back t h e i r f i r s t and second d r a f t s and were asked to produce a new d r a f t from these two. To do so would a l l o w the content of the t h i r d d r a f t s to be compared with that of the e a r l i e r two and thus r e v e a l to what extent r e d r a f t i n g from memory had been a u s e f u l h e u r i s t i c p e r m i t t i n g two v e r s i o n s of a composition to be s y n t h e s i z e d i n t o a f i n a l one. This e x t e n s i o n to a t h i r d d r a f t stage was done at the expense of using students a t d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of a b i l i t y . E n e r gies were thus more u s e f u l l y spent i n v e s t i g a t i n g e x a c t l y what d i f f e r e n c e s there were between d i f f e r e n t treatment groups r a t h e r than between d i f f e r e n t a b i l i t y groups. The r e s u l t s of the p i l o t study confirmed t h a t the s a l i e n c y of a typed t e x t was s t r o n g enough to dissuade students i n group two from attempting much s u b s t a n t i v e r e v i s i o n . Nonetheless, the use of a typed t e x t d i d not seem to encourage more m i c r o - l e v e l 75 r e v i s i o n than macro-level r e v i s i o n . T h i s f i n d i n g suggested t h a t t y p i n g the d r a f t s might not be having any g r e a t e r e f f e c t on i n c r e a s i n g the s a l i e n c y of a t e x t than the use of the o r i g i n a l handwritten t e x t s would have had. A typed t e x t d i d not appear to i n v i t e c l o s u r e to occur sooner at the m a c r o - l e v e l ; i t onl y reduced the degree of macro- l e v e l r e v i s i o n s t h a t a student was prepared to make. And even t h i s r e d u c t i o n might be due to the f a c t t h a t students were unaccustomed to having t y p e w r i t t e n v e r s i o n s to r e v i s e from and were unaccustomed to se e i n g t h e i r work i n t y p e s c r i p t . I t seemed dubious t h a t the study would be able to draw any v a l i d c o n c l u s i o n s about the i n f l u e n c e of t e x t upon r e v i s i o n by employing t h i s i n t e r v e n t i o n of g i v i n g students a typed t e x t to r e v i s e from. The design of the study, t h e r e f o r e , was a l t e r e d to e l i m i n a t e t h i s p a r t i c u l a r treatment i n favour of using s t u d e n t s ' o r d i n a r y handwritten d r a f t s . T h i s change allowed f o r a d i r e c t comparison between d r a f t s w r i t t e n from memory and d r a f t s w r i t t e n with access to the p r e l i m i n a r y d r a f t s (and accompanying notes) to be made. DESIGN OF THE STUDY 1 The purpose of the present study, as o u t l i n e d i n Chapter One, was to i n v e s t i g a t e the a b i l i t y of c o l l e g e student w r i t e r s to r e v i s e d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s of t h e i r o r i g i n a l t e x t u a l m a t e r i a l when asked to r e d r a f t t h e i r compositions. The study examined how removal of 76 the o r i g i n a l t e x t a f f e c t e d both the g e n e r a t i o n of second d r a f t s from memory and the p r o d u c t i o n of t h i r d d r a f t s that, represented a s y n t h e s i s of the m a t e r i a l a l r e a d y e x i s t i n g i n the e a r l i e r two d r a f t s . The study observed what e f f e c t s the use of t h i s t h r e e -phase procedure advocated by G a r r e t t - P e t t s (1981) had on l i b e r a t -ing s t u d e n t s ' r e v i s i n g from the onset of c l o s u r e caused by the s a l i e n c y of the e x i s t i n g t e x t u a l m a t e r i a l . Subjects As with the p i l o t study, s u b j e c t s were s e l e c t e d from students a t t e n d i n g a medium-sized community c o l l e g e i n B r i t i s h Columbia. To ensure t h a t no s u b j e c t s form the p i l o t study were i n v o l v e d , a d i f f e r e n t E n g l i s h course was chosen. _ This course, E n g l i s h 106: Studies i n Prose F i c t i o n , i s of f i r s t - y e a r u n i v e r s i t y l e v e l but c a r r i e s no p r e r e q u i s i t e s and i s open to a l l students i n the c o l l e g e who have passed the E n g l i s h Placement T e s t . The course i s intended as an i n t r o d u c t i o n to the a n a l y s i s of l i t e r a r y works f o r students who may or may not have p r e v i o u s l y s t u d i e d l i t e r -a t u r e . The course i s d e s c r i b e d i n the c o l l e g e calendar as f o l l o w s : The focus of t h i s course w i l l be on the study of f i c t i o n a l techniques employed by s e l e c t e d w r i t e r s of the s h o r t s t o r y and the n o v e l , with emphasis on t w e n t i e t h century f i c t i o n . A l l four s e c t i o n s of t h i s course were taught by the same i n s t r -u c t o r , with a combined t o t a l enrollment of 78 st u d e n t s . However, the p e r i o d d u r i n g which data were c o l l e c t e d f e l l t w o - t h i r d s of the way through the semester and so some students had a l r e a d y 77 withdrawn from the course or were no longer a t t e n d i n g r e g u l a r l y . I t was a n t i c i p a t e d , t h e r e f o r e , that f u l l data on a l l s u b j e c t s would not be o b t a i n a b l e because not a l l s u b j e c t s would attend a l l treatment s e s s i o n s . From an i n i t i a l t o t a l of 58, the f i n a l number of s u b j e c t s completing a l l treatment s e s s i o n s was 35. Treatments A l l students e n r o l l e d i n t h i s E n g l i s h course were randomly assigned to e i t h e r of two treatment c o n d i t i o n s : Treatment 1: Session 1: students were gi v e n an unseen assignment and were asked to produce i n c l a s s a d r a f t response. Session 2: students were asked to produce i n c l a s s a second d r a f t from memory without access to t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s . S ession 3: students were given back t h e i r f i r s t and second d r a f t s from the e a r l i e r s e s s i o n s and were asked , to produce a t h i r d and f i n a l d r a f t . Treatment 2: Session 1: students were given the same unseen assignment as i n treatment 1 and were asked to produce i n c l a s s a d r a f t response. Session 2: students were asked to produce i n - c l a s s a second d r a f t response to the given assignment having access to t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s . Session 3: students were given back t h e i r f i r s t and second d r a f t s from the e a r l i e r s e s s i o n s and were asked to produce a t h i r d and f i n a l d r a f t . For both treatment groups, the s e r i e s of three s e s s i o n s was held d u r i n g the two-hour time s l o t a l l o t t e d f o r a standard c o l l e g e 78 c l a s s . Each s e s s i o n followed c o n s e c u t i v e l y from the previous one, a few days a p a r t . At the beginning of the f i r s t s e s s i o n , a l l students were asked to complete the Daly and M i l l e r (1975a) W r i t i n g Apprehension Invent-ory, and at the end of the t h i r d s e s s i o n a l l students were asked to complete the R e v i s i o n A t t i t u d e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e produced by the r e s e a r c h e r . Between d r a f t s , a l l students were asked to s e l f -e v a luate the o v e r a l l q u a l i t y of the d r a f t t h a t they had j u s t produced, using a n i n e - p o i n t s c a l e . The design of the present r e s e a r c h study i s d i a g r a m m a t i c a l l y presented i n F i g u r e 7. INSTRUMENTS USED W r i t i n g Assignment Research to date has not provided a comprehensive understanding of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between choice of assignment t o p i c and s t u -dents* w r i t i n g performance. Emig (1971) i n d i c a t e d t h a t w r i t i n g q u a l i t y and engagement i n the w r i t i n g task were improved when students were able to choose t h e i r own w r i t i n g t o p i c s . Freedman (1981) d i s c o v e r e d that students performed b e t t e r on some t o p i c s than on o t h e r s , and Keech (1982) found t h a t even t o p i c s which appeared to be s i m i l a r c ould make d i f f e r e n t c o g n i t i v e demands on 79 FIGURE 7i The reaeareh d a i i g n a£ the pessent ifeuiy CONDITION 1 CONDITION 2 Day 1 W r i t i n g Apprehension Inventory Day 2 ( s e s s i o n 1) F i r s t D r a f t F i r s t D r a f t S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s Day 3 ( s e s s i o n 2) Second D r a f t Second D r a f t (without access to d r a f t 1} (with access to d r a f t 1) S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s Day 4 ( s e s s i o n 3) T h i r d D r a f t (with access to both d r a f t s ) (with access to both d r a f t s ) S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s Day 4 R e v i s i o n A t t i t u d e Q u e s t i o n n a i r e 80 students and t h a t the same t o p i c might not be i n t e r p r e t e d i n the same way by each student. However, Freedman (1983) r e p o r t e d t h a t although i n d i v i d u a l t o p i c s d i d a f f e c t s t u d e n t s ' essay s c o r e s , the stu d e n t s ' sense of the ease or i n t e r e s t l e v e l of the t o p i c d i d not account f o r t h i s e f f e c t . B r o s s e l l (1983), i n v e s t i g a t i n g whe-ther the s p e c i f i c a t i o n of a f u l l r h e t o r i c a l context f o r a t o p i c promoted essays of higher q u a l i t y , concluded t h a t d i f f e r e n t essay t o p i c s d i d not a f f e c t the q u a l i t y of st u d e n t s ' w r i t i n g i n c l a s s , but that a "moderate" i n f o r m a t i o n l e v e l f o r the t o p i c produced essays of higher q u a l i t y and g r e a t e r l e n g t h than "lower" or "higher" i n f o r m a t i o n l e v e l s f o r the t o p i c . A g a i n s t t h i s background, c o n s i d e r a b l e a t t e n t i o n i n the present study was devoted to d e s i g n i n g the w r i t i n g assignment that students i n both treatment groups would r e c e i v e . Of primary importance to the study was the ensuring of high content v a l i d -i t y , and so the assignment was c o n s t r u c t e d i n f u l l c o n s u l t a t i o n with the r e g u l a r classroom i n s t r u c t o r f o r the course. The assignment was designed to f o l l o w n a t u r a l l y and u n o b t r u s i v e l y from the m a t e r i a l a l r e a d y covered i n the course p r i o r to the c o l l e c t i o n of data. F u l l course c r e d i t was to be given to the assignment as w e l l . Since the study i n v o l v e d a comparison of s t u d e n t s ' r e v i s i n g behaviours under d i f f e r e n t treatment c o n d i t i o n s , i t was c o n s i d e r -ed necessary f o r both groups to be performing i n response to a 81 w r i t i n g t o p i c of the same d i f f i c u l t y and with the same r h e t o r i c a l c ontext. To a l l o w f o r the e f f e c t s of d i f f e r e n t d i s c o u r s e types to be observed, the assignment t o p i c chosen f o r the study i n v o l v e d both a p e r s u a s i v e task and an e x p o s i t o r y task. A moderate amount of i n f o r m a t i o n was s p e c i f i e d i n the assignment, and the r h e t o r i c a l context remained c o n s i s t e n t with that used f o r previous assignments i n the course. The exact wording of the assignment was as f o l l o w s : E x p l a i n Mr. Duffy's degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the death of Mrs. S i n i c o and the consequ-ences f o r him of her death. The assignment r e f e r r e d to c h a r a c t e r s i n a shor t s t o r y which the c l a s s had r e c e n t l y been s t u d y i n g : "A P a i n f u l Case" by James Joyce from h i s c o l l e c t i o n e n t i t l e d D u b l i n e r s (1914). The.story concerns the development and demise of a r e l a t i o n s h i p between Mr. James Duffy, a l o n e l y and t i m i d c l e r k , and Mrs. Emily S i n i c o , the u n f u l f i l l e d wife of a naval c a p t a i n . Although Mr. Duffy c o n s i d -ers f a l l i n g i n love with t h i s woman he has met, he continues to brood on h i s b e l i e f i n "the s o u l ' s i n c u r a b l e l o n e l i n e s s " which soon provokes him to break o f f the a f f a i r . Then one day s e v e r a l years l a t e r he reads i n the newspaper t h a t she has been k i l l e d by a t r a i n when she was c r o s s i n g the t r a c k s . The newspaper r e p o r t i n d i c a t e s , t h a t she had r e c e n t l y become an a l c o h o l i c and was i n the h a b i t of t a k i n g d i r e c t i o n l e s s walks at n i g h t i n the dark. 82 Mr. Duffy i s shocked at learning of her death and has a d i f f i c u l t time wrestling with the g u i l t that he feels regarding her death. The assignment required students to consider Mrs. Sinico's death from the point of view of the protagonist, Mr. Duffy. S p e c i f i -c a l l y , the assignment required students both to persuade their instructor of their judgment of Mr. Duffy's r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for Mrs. Sinico's death and to explain for their instructor what the consequences were for Mr. Duffy of her death as described in t^ he story. Self-Evaluations ^ Research studies (Beach, 1976; 1979; 1984; Sommers, 1980) have revealed a connection between students' a b i l i t y to self-assess the qu a l i t y of their compositions and their willingness to make substantive revisions. Beach (1976), for example, analyzed the taped, open-ended self-assessments by students of their drafts and found that "extensive r e v i s e r s " were better able to define their own intentions and recognize the d i s p a r i t y between their intentions and their drafts than were "non-revisers". In addition, Beach (1979) discovered that twelfth-grade students who rated their drafts more negatively were more l i k e l y to revise than students who rated th e i r drafts more p o s i t i v e l y . These results would suggest that one technique for a s s i s t i n g students to appraise and improve their drafts might be to encourage students to self-assess c a r e f u l l y the strengths and weaknesses o£ 83 these drafts. To this end, Lynch (1982) proposed a self-evaluat-ion guide to be used in conjunction with peer-evaluation and focused-teacher-comment, and Belanger and Rodgers (1983) develop-ed a "Concise Editor's Checklist" to help students focus th e i r r evising a c t i v i t i e s . Encouraging support for the use of such self-assessments was provided by Beach (1984) who found that students receiving instruction in self-assessing were able to make s p e c i f i c revisions to those elements of their texts that had been i d e n t i f i e d as problems on the se1f-assessing forms. There were, however, wide differences in students' individual s e l f -assessing s k i l l s , and some variables, noticeably sex and appre-hension with writing, had s i g n i f i c a n t e f f ects on the number of self-assessing inferences that students made. In keeping with these researchers' suggestions, the present study made use of a simple but d i r e c t measure of students' perceptions of their d r a f t s . The purpose of t h i s measure was to ascertain how students, immediately after completing each drafting session, f e l t about their performance. M i l l e r (1982) has shown that even inexperienced writers are remarkably perceptive about their own composing performances and can rate the qu a l i t y of their compos-itio n s accurately. In the present study, the self-evaluations for each treatment group would be analyzed to determine whether type of treatment was related to the self-assessment per group. Since "successful revision results not from the number of changes a writer makes but from the degree to which revision changes 84 b r i n g a t e x t c l o s e r to f i t t i n g , the demands of the s i t u a t i o n " ( F a i g l e y & Witte, 1981, p.411), students' s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s would help i s o l a t e those students who d i d not perform much r e v i s i o n to t h e i r second d r a f t s because they a l r e a d y c o n s i d e r e d t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s to be reasonably s u c c e s s f u l . Moreover, there i s a tendency f o r s e l f - a s s e s s m e n t s to invoke c l o s u r e prematurely, e s p e c i a l l y forms t h a t focus on the whole t e x t ( r a t h e r than on p a r t i c u l a r aspects of i t ) and e s p e c i a l l y ones t h a t r e q u i r e students to o f f e r h o l i s t i c s c o r e s : A . . . s e r i o u s problem with f o c u s i n g a t t e n t i o n on o n l y the o v e r a l l d r a f t i s t h a t students m i s t a k e n l y assume t h a t a d r a f t should be i n a r e l a t i v e l y complete s t a t e , with the o r g a n i -z a t i o n a l sequence a l r e a d y w e l l d e f i n e d , before they complete the form. Rather than encourage a more r e c u r s i v e a t t i t u d e toward composing, the forms serve to impose a premature o r g a n i z a t i o n on the d r a f t . (Beach, 1984, p. 152) T h i s tendency would enhance the e f f e c t of treatment i n c o n d i t i o n 2 by p r o v i d i n g even more reason f o r those students to regard t h e i r i n i t i a l d r a f t s as " f i n i s h e d " , and i t would not c o u n t e r p o i s e the e f f e c t of treatment 1 i n c o n d i t i o n 1 because i t would help those students to examine the value of the second d r a f t s t h a t they had composed from memory. Consequently, at the end of each composing s e s s i o n , students were asked to e v a l u a t e h o l i s t i c a l l y the o v e r a l l q u a l i t y of the d r a f t s they had j u s t produced, using the f o l l o w i n g n i n e - p o i n t s c a l e : 85 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 awful okay excellent This scale was used because i t provided a simple but robust instrument that was already familiar to students when evaluating their own courses at the end of a semester. In contrast, assigning l e t t e r grades would not have provided a s u f f i c i e n t range of scores for s t a t i s t i c a l comparisons to be made and might also have provoked students to attempt to "second guess" what grade their instructor would assign to their papers. Writing Apprehension Inventory The review of l i t e r a t u r e in Chapter Two revealed that in the past decade many studies have described the phenomenon of writing apprehension and have established associations between anxiety about writing and a va r i e t y of self-esteem and personality dimensions, as well as various performance variables such as scores on standardized tests of writing a b i l i t y and aptitude. Most of t h i s research has employed a measure c a l l e d the Writing Apprehension Inventory which was o r i g i n a l l y developed by Daly and M i l l e r (1975a) to provide an empirically based, standardized i n -strument to d i f f e r e n t i a t e high-anxiety writers from low-anxiety ones (see Figure 8). For Daly and M i l l e r , writing apprehension "refers to a s i t u a t i o n and subject s p e c i f i c i n dividual difference associated with a person's tendencies to approach or avoid s i t u -ations perceived to. p o t e n t i a l l y require writing accompanied by some amount of perceived evaluation" (Daly and Wilson, 1983, 86 FIGURE 8i The W r i t i n g A p p r e h e n s i o n I n v e n t o r y (WAI) (Daly & M i l l e r , 1975a) DALY & MILLER WRITING APPREHENSION INVENTORY (1975) Directions Below are a series of statements about writing. Decide how much you think each statement applies to you, and then circle the appropriate number alongside. These numbers indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statement. Circle only one number for each statement. Some of the statements may seem repetitious. Ignore this and answer each statement separately. Please try to be as honest as possible. Obviously, there are no right or wrong answers to these statements, only your opinions. Thank you. Scale The numbers correspond to the following opinions: 1 2 ? k 5 strongly agree agree uncertain disagree strongly disagree Statements about Writing a) I avoid writing. 1 2 3 U 5 b) I have no fear of my writing being evaluated. 1 2 3 ^ 5 c) I look forward to writing down my ideas. 1 2 3 ^ 5 d) I am afraid of writing essays when I know they will be evaluated. 1 2 e) Taking a composition course is a very frightening experience. 1 2 3 f) Handing in a composition makes me feel good. 1 2 3 ^ 5 g) My mind seems to go blank when I start to work on a composition. 1 2 h) Expressing ideas through writing seems to be a waste of time. 1 2 3 i) I would enjoy submitting my writing to magazines for publication. 1 2 j) I like to write my ideas down. 1 2 3 5 k) I feel confident in my ability to clearly express my ideas. 1 2 3 ** 5 1) I like to have my friends read what I have written. 1 2 3 5 m) I'm nervous about writing. 1 2 3 ^ 5 n) People seem to enjoy what I write. 1 2 3 ^ 5 o) I enjoy writing. 1 2 3 k 5 p) I never seem to be able to clearly write down my ideas* 1 2 3 ^ 5 q) Writing is a lot of fun. 1 2 3 ^ 5 r) I expect to do poorly in composition classes even before I enter them. 1 s) I like seeing my thoughts on paper. 1 2 3 5 t) Discussing my writing with others is an enjoyable experience. 1 2 3 ^ 5 u) I have a terrible time organizing my ideas in a composition. 1 2 3 k 5 v) When I hand in a composition, I know I'm going to do poorly. 1 2 3 ^ 5 w) It's easy for me to write good compositions. 1 2 3 h 5 x) I don't think I write as well as most students in my classes. 1 2 3 ^ 5 y) I don't like having my compositions evaluated. 1 2 3 ^ 5 z) I'm no good at writing. 1 2 3 5 2 3 >* 5 87 p. 327). W r i t i n g apprehension i s a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c t h at a l l people possess although they d i f f e r i n the degree to which they f e e l anxious. Those who are h i g h l y apprehensive about w r i t i n g w i l l f i n d w r i t i n g unrewarding, uncomfortable.and d i f f i c u l t to do. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , they w i l l tend to avoid s i t u a t i o n s t hat are l i k e l y to i n v o l v e any w r i t i n g , or when placed i n those s i t u a t i o n s w i l l experience more than normal degrees of uneasiness or f r i g h t . T h i s a n x i e t y f u n c t i o n s as a major hindrance, reducing the l i k e l i h o o d of t h e i r communicating s u c c e s s f u l l y i n a w r i t t e n form. In c o n t r a s t , those people whose apprehension i s comp a r a t i v e l y low do not mind w r i t i n g , f r e q u e n t l y enjoy i t , and are more l i k e l y to f e e l c o n f i d e n t about t h e i r a b i l i t i e s to communicate on paper. For D a i l y and M i l l e r , w r i t i n g apprehensions i s not l i n k e d to any s i t u a t i o n a l v a r i a b l e s , yet t h i s c o u l d be a s e r i o u s l i m i t a t i o n of t h e i r instrument. Beach and Eaton (1984) found that a w r i t e r ' s a n x i e t y c o u l d vary depending on the t o p i c of an assignment, the goals of a piece of w r i t i n g or the audience i n v o l v e d . However, Daly and H a i l e y (1984) argue t h a t s i t u a t i o n a l f a c t o r s , such as the p e r c e i v e d l e v e l s of e v a l u a t i o n or the n o v e l t y of the task, tend only to a f f e c t h i g h l y apprehensive people more s h a r p l y than low apprehensives. Furthermore, the W r i t i n g Apprehension Inventory i s a u s e f u l s c a l e that has been employed by a wide range of s t u d i e s and has e s t a b l i s h e d "a long t r a c k r e c o r d of r e l i a b i l i t y and v a l i d i t y " (Beach a n d " B r i d w e l l , 1984, p. 228). 88 Against this background, the present study used Daly and M i l l e r ' s Writing Apprehension Inventory as an instrument to measure the writing anxiety of the subjects chosen. The mean scores of each treatment group could be compared to discover whether the groups di f f e r e d in terms of high or low writing anxiety. The redrafting behaviours, quality ratings and writing apprehension scores could be compared to see i f there was any interaction with type of treatment given. If students in condition 1 experienced d i f f i -c u l t y redrafting from memory and then trying to synthesize the contents of their e a r l i e r drafts, the writing apprehension scores would help to explain to what extent this d i f f i c u l t y was related to the ef f e c t of the treatment and to what extent i t was related to the students' own levels of anxiety. (An example of how the instrument was scored is given in Appendix B). Revision Questionnaire Chapter Two reviewed studies by Beach (1976), Perl (1979), Sommers (1980) and Faigley and Witte (1981) which had observed the revising behaviours of s k i l l e d and unskilled writers and found s t r i k i n g differences between these writers' attitudes towards re v i s i o n . For the s k i l l e d writers, revising was a central process of discovering meaning by su b s t a n t i a l l y reworking the contents and organization of i n i t i a l d r a f t s . Unskilled writers, in contrast, tended to see their i n i t i a l drafts as finished products that were revised, i f at a l l , simply by making surface l e v e l or mechanical changes to the existing text. These 89 differences in revising behaviour stemmed from quite d i f f e r e n t perceptions of the value of r e v i s i o n . S k i l l e d writers usually expressed a desire to rework material in their compositions, they accepted r e a d i l y the challenge of r e v i s i o n , and they f e l t confident about t h e i r - a b i l i t i e s to improve the qu a l i t y of their work. On the other hand, unskilled writers usually expressed l i t t l e desire to reformulate t h e i r ideas or rearrange material in their d r a f t s , they seemed to be uncertain or apprehensive about their revising a b i l i t i e s , and they were often unsure whether the revisions they did produce were improvements or not. These research findings indicated that r e v i s i o n aptitude was linked to revis i o n a t t i t u d e . Against t h i s s background, the present research study used a quest-ionnaire to survey the subjects' attitudes towards re v i s i o n . A suitable instrument needed to be designed by the researcher for th i s purpose since no researcher had published in the l i t e r a t u r e to that point any questionnaire focusing upon r e v i s i o n attitudes -- although Polanski (1985), in a study reported after the begin-ning of the present one, did develop a questionnaire with similar objectives and design which he used to measure to what extent an intensive writing program had changed college freshmen's a t t i -tudes toward re v i s i n g their d r a f t s . Figure 9 presents the r e v i s i o n questionnaire developed for the present study. Its purpose was to discern students' perceptions 90 about r e v i s i o n . These responses would be compared with the a c t u a l r e v i s i o n behaviours observed i n s t u d e n t s ' r e d r a f t i n g of t h e i r compositions under the d i f f e r e n t treatments, as w e l l as with the r e s u l t s obtained from' students* s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s , e x t e r n a l e v a l u a t o r s * q u a l i t y - r a t i n g s and the W r i t i n g Apprehension Inventory s c o r e s . I t was assumed t h a t students could be s u f f i c i -e n t l y i n t r o s p e c t i v e about t h e i r a t t i t u d e s towards r e v i s i o n and t h a t these a t t i t u d e s would be r e f l e c t e d i n t h e i r r e v i s i n g behaviours. The r e s u l t s obtained from a d m i n i s t e r i n g the quest-i o n n a i r e c o u l d a l s o provide a c o n t r o l on the e f f e c t s of e i t h e r treatment r e c e i v e d i n the study. Students who expressed u n c e r t -a i n t y or lack of confidence with r e v i s i o n would be l e s s l i k e l y to f i n d the treatment i n c o n d i t i o n 1 l i b e r a t i n g or would be more l i k e l y to experience c l o s u r e a f t e r producing t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s i n c o n d i t i o n 2. The q u e s t i o n n a i r e was c o n s t r u c t e d with a format s i m i l a r to t h a t used by the W r i t i n g Apprehension Inventory to ensure t h a t ~- students were f a m i l i a r ' with the procedure and r a t i n g - s c a l e . Students were asked to read a s e r i e s of statements about aspects of r e v i s i o n and then to c i r c l e a number on a f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e t h a t r e f l e c t e d the frequency- with which these students engaged i n any of the r e v i s i n g a c t i v i t i e s mentioned. The statements about r e v i s i o n used i n the q u e s t i o n n a i r e drew upon previous r e s e a r c h e r s ' f i n d i n g s about how s k i l l e d and u n s k i l l e d REVISION QUESTIONNAIRE Pi rections Below are a series of statements about revising school compositions. Decide how much you think each statement applies to you, and then c i r c l e the approp-riate number alongside. These nurters indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statement. Circle only one number for each statement. Some of the statements may appear repetitious. Ignore this and answer each statement separately. Please try to be as honest as possible. Obviously there are no right or wrong answers to these statements. Thank you. Scale '. The numbers correspond to the following opinions: 1 2 3 4 5 J I I 1 L almost never not usually sometimes usually almost always Statements about Revision i ) In general, I revise my school compositions. 1 2 3 4 5 i i ) I revise my out-of-school compositions. 1 2 3 4 5 i i i ) I revise my in-class compositions. 1 2 3 4 5 iv) I revise my essay answers 1n exams. 1 2 3 4 5 v) Comments from other students who read my writing help me to revise. 1 2 3 4 5 vi) Verbal comments from my teachers help me to revise. 1 2 3 4 5 v i i ) Written comments on my writing from my teachers help me to revise. 1 2 3 4 5 v i i i ) English courses I have taken in the past have helped me learn how to revise. 1 2 3 4 5 ix) I read over my out-of-class compositions before I hand them in. 1 2 3 4 x) I read over my in-class compositions before I hand them i n . 1 2 3 4 5 xi) I read over my essay answers in exams before 1 hand them i n . 1 2 3 4 5 x11) In general, I produce several drafts of a composition before the final copy. 1 2 3 4 6 x111) Hhen I revise a composition, I look carefully at my e a r l i e r drafts. 1 2 3 4 5 xiv) I find revising my writing easy. 1 2 3 . 4 5 xv) When 1 revise, 1 produce a better composition than when I do not revise. 1 2 3 4 5 xvi) I have trouble revising the content of my compositions. 1 2 3 4 5 xv i i ) I have trouble revising the organization of my compositions 1 2 3 4 5 x v i i i ) I have trouble revising the wording of my compositions. 1 2 3 4 5 xix) I have trouble revising s p e l l i n g . 1 2 3 4 5 xx) 1 have trouble revising punctuation. 1 2 3 4 5 xxl) I have trouble revising grammar. 1 2 3 4 5 xxii) I find my I n i t i a l drafts are very unsatisfactory, and so I produce completely new drafts. 1 2 3 4 5 x x i i l ) I find my i n i t i a l drafts need to be rearranged and reorganized Into • new drafts. 1 2 3 4 5 xxiv) I find my i n i t i a l drafts need to be reshaped almost l i n e by l i n e to produce a satisfactory new draft. 1 2 3 4 5 xxv) When I revise my drafts, I am a "censor" concerned with the propriety of how 1 am expressing things on paper. 1 2 3 4 5 xxvi) When I revise my drafts, I am a "copyedltor" reassessing the correctness of my grammar, sp e l l i n g , punctuation, etc. 1 2 3 4 5 xxvii) When I revise my drafts, I am a " r e f i n e r " judging the accuracy of how well I am expressing my ideas. 1 2 3 4 5 Some people think redrafting, revising and editing are different operations. Do you think they are different ? Yes D No Q If you said YES above, explain in the space below how you think they are different from each other: 92 w r i t e r s approached and c a r r i e d out r e v i s i n g t h e i r compositions. These statements focused on e l i c i t i n g responses about students* a t t i t u d e s , f e e l i n g s , o b j e c t i v e s , successes and problems with r e -v i s i n g . A s i n g l e open-ended q u e s t i o n was i n c l u d e d at the end to determine whether students recognized any d i s t i n c t i o n s between the terms " r e d r a f t i n g " , " r e v i s i n g " , and " e d i t i n g " . Space was a l s o provided on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e f o r students to e x p l a i n what these d i s t i n c t i o n s were t h a t they r e c o g n i z e d . Statements ( i ) to ( i v ) focused on what types of w r i t i n g a s s i g n -ment students g e n e r a l l y r e v i s e d . Statements (v) to ( v i i i ) asked to what extent a s s i s t a n c e from other students, w r i t i n g i n s t r u c t -o r s , or previous E n g l i s h courses helped students r e v i s e . The focus of statements ( i x ) to ( x i ) was frequency of p r o o f r e a d i n g as a r e v i s i o n a c t i v i t y , while statements ( x i i ) and ( x i i i ) concen-t r a t e d on the p r o d u c t i o n of more than one d r a f t when composing. The success t h a t students experienced with r e v i s i n g was examined by statements ( xiv) and (xv), with the s p e c i f i c areas t h a t students encountered d i f f i c u l t y with when r e v i s i n g being surveyed by statements ( x v i ) through ( x x i ) . Statements ( x x i i ) to (xxiv) r e t u r n e d to the qu e s t i o n of how much success with r e v i s i n g students t y p i c a l l y experienced -- but t h i s time the c o n c e n t r a t i o n was on i n i t i a l d r a f t s . F i n a l l y , a s e r i e s of d i f f e r e n t r e v i s i n g " r o l e s " i d e n t i f i e d by Schwartz (1983) were presented i n s t a t e -ments (xxv) to ( x x v i i ) . 93 COLLECTION OF DATA The i n s t r u c t o r of the E n g l i s h 106 c l a s s e s was b r i e f e d i n general terms only about the o b j e c t i v e s and methodology of the study. As a r e s u l t , the i n s t r u c t o r c o u l d f e e l s u f f i c i e n t l y informed i n order to implement c o r r e c t l y the d e s i r e d treatments, but would not f e e l any vested i n t e r e s t i n i n f l u e n c i n g the r e s u l t s obtained. Complete c o - o p e r a t i o n from the i n s t r u c t o r was necessary f o r the data c o l l e c t i o n to proceed e f f e c t i v e l y , but the i n s t r u c t o r ' s complete fore-knowledge about the study was not d e s i r a b l e . The i n s t r u c t o r c o u l d then f o l l o w s t r i c t l y the d i f f e r e n t treatment procedures but not be u n n e c e s s a r i l y c o n s t r a i n e d by them from conducting the c l a s s e s i n as normal a manner as p o s s i b l e . From a computer p r i n t - o u t of the c l a s s - l i s t of s t u d e n t s , a l l s t u -dents e n r o l l e d i n E n g l i s h 106 were randomly assi g n e d to e i t h e r of the two treatment c o n d i t i o n s . There were, t h e r e f o r e , an equiva-l e n t number of students i n each treatment i n each s e c t i o n . The c o l l e c t i o n of data at,each of the treatment s e s s i o n s ( c f . , F i g u r e 7) then proceeded as f o l l o w s : Day One Towards the end of a normal c l a s s meeting, students were issued with c o p i e s of the W r i t i n g Apprehension Inventory by the i n s t r -u ctor who asked the students to c o n s i d e r t h e i r a t t i t u d e s towards w r i t i n g i n g e n e r a l and to i n d i c a t e t h e i r responses on the forms pro v i d e d . The d i r e c t i o n s were read aloud to the s t u d e n t s , the use of the s c a l e was demonstrated on the chalkboard, and any q u e r i e s students had about u s i n g the forms were answered. In excess of f i f t e e n minutes was a v a i l a b l e f o r students to complete the form before the i n s t r u c t o r proceeded to the f i n a l a c t i v i t y of t h a t p a r t i c u l a r c l a s s s e s s i o n . A l l forms were c o l l e c t e d by the i n s t r u c t o r . Day Two (Treatment Session 1) At the beginning of the next c l a s s meeting, students were informed that t h e i r next assignment was to be performed that day d u r i n g c l a s s and t h a t t h i s would be c o l l e c t e d i n a t the end of the c l a s s . The i n s t r u c t o r reminded the students of James Joyce's s t o r y , "A P a i n f u l Case", which they had r e c e n t l y been 1 s t u d y i n g , and the i n s t r u c t o r asked the students to compose a w r i t t e n response to the d i r e c t i o n s on the sheet of paper which the i n s t r u c t o r had j u s t given to each student. The d i r e c t i o n s read as f o l l o w s : D i r e c t i o n s We have r e c e n t l y been d i s c u s s i n g the i s s u e s r a i s e d i n "A P a i n f u l Case" i n D u b l i n e r s . E x p l a i n Mr. Duffy's degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the death of Mrs. S i n i c o and the consequ-ences f o r him of her death. Your composition w i l l be c o l l e c t e d i n at the end of the class.. When you have f i n i s h e d , decide how you would r a t e you composition o v e r a l l . Put one number 9 5 from the scale below c l e a r l y at the top of your compositions. 1 2 3 4 5 6 * 7 8 9 awful okay iexcellent The rating that you give your composition w i l l not influence the grade your instructor w i l l issue. Instead the rating w i l l help you see to what extent you are able to assess the ove r a l l merit of your writing. These directions were read aloud to the students, and any queries students had about the assignment were answered. Students were permitted to look up d e t a i l s in the story i f they so desired. Students were not permitted to discuss the assignment with their peers. Students were not informed that they would be given further sessions in which to redraft and revise their composit-ions. Everything was designed to give the impression that t h i s composing session was f i n a l and that students' should produce the best work of which they were capable under these circumstances. At the end of the session, the instructor reminded a l l students to assign a self-evaluation to their papers. The instructor then collected a l l the compositions and ensured that self-evaluations had been provided. Day Three (Treatment Session 2) At the s t a r t of the next class meeting, students were informed that they would be given another class period to reconsider their responses to the assignment given on Day Two. However, half of the class would receive back their i n i t i a l d rafts, while the 96 o t h e r h a l f w o u l d n o t . I n s t e a d t h e l a t t e r s t u d e n t s s h o u l d a t t e m p t t o r e d r a f t t h e i r c o m p o s i t i o n s a s b e s t t h e y c o u l d b u t s h o u l d n o t be a f r a i d o f m a k i n g a l t e r a t i o n s t o i t s c o n t e n t o r o f a d d i n g new c o n t e n t w h e r e v e r t h e y d e s i r e d . I n o r d e r t o p r o v i d e some i n t r i n -s i c m o t i v a t i o n f o r s t u d e n t s i n c o n d i t i o n 1 t o s e r i o u s l y engage i n t h i s t r e a t m e n t s e s s i o n , s t u d e n t s were i n f o r m e d t h a t t h e y w o u l d a l l be r e c e i v i n g back t h e i r two s e t s o f d r a f t s a t t h e n e x t c l a s s when a f i n a l s e s s i o n f o r r e v i s i o n w o u l d be a v a i l a b l e . E v e r y i n d i c a t i o n was g i v e n t h a t t h o s e s t u d e n t s r e c e i v i n g T r e a t m e n t 1 and t h o s e r e c e i v i n g T r e a t m e n t 2 were e n g a g e d i n e q u a l l y u s e f u l and e q u a l l y d e m a n d i n g a c t i v i t i e s . However, no e x p l a n a t i o n o f t h e p u r p o s e f o r t h e s e d i f f e r e n t t r e a t m e n t s was o f f e r e d byj t h e i n s t r u c t o r , and s t u d e n t s who q u e s t i o n e d t h e p r o c e d u r e were t o l d t h a t t h e y w o u l d be i n f o r m e d o f t h e r a t i o n a l e f o r h a v i n g two s e p a r a t e p r o c e d u r e s a f t e r t h e n e x t c l a s s . A l l o t h e r q u e s t i o n s a b o u t t h e i n s t r u c t i o n s were a n s w e r e d by t h e i n s t r u c t o r . S t u d e n t s were p e r m i t t e d once a g a i n t o l o o k up d e t a i l s o f t h e s t o r y i f t h e y w i s h e d . As b e f o r e , s t u d e n t s were n o t p e r m i t t e d t o d i s c u s s t h e i r d r a f t i n g o r d e t a i l s o f t h e a s s i g n m e n t w i t h t h e i r p e e r s . A t t h e end o f t h e s e s s i o n , t h e i n s t r u c t o r a s k e d a l l s t u d e n t s t o award a s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s c o r e f o r t h e i r s e c o n d d r a f t u s i n g t h e same s c a l e a s b e f o r e . The i n s t r u c t o r c o l l e c t e d i n a l l t h e s e c o n d d r a f t s and e n s u r e d t h a t s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s had been a s s i g n e d . 97 Day Four (Treatment Session 3) At t h i s l a s t treatment s e s s i o n , a l l students were given a f i n a l o p p o r t u n i t y to r e d r a f t t h e i r responses to the o r i g i n a l assignment given on Day Two. At the s t a r t of the c l a s s , the i n s t r u c t o r handed back a l l of the f i r s t and second d r a f t s f o r each student i n each treatment group. Students were informed that none of these d r a f t s had been read, c o r r e c t e d , or marked by the i n s t r u c t -or y e t . Instead, students were to use t h i s c l a s s as a f i n a l s e s s i o n f o r producing a f i n a l d r a f t based on t h e i r e a r l i e r two. The i n s t r u c t o r emphasized t h a t students must produce a t h i r d piece of w r i t i n g ; they could' not decide j u s t to hand i n one of t h e i r e a r l i e r d r a f t s a l r e a d y produced. However, i f students merely wanted to recopy what they had w r i t t e n e a r l i e r , then that was up to them. The i n s t r u c t o r d i d advise students to use t h i s t h i r d s e s s i o n w i s e l y though, to evaluate once more the s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses of t h e i r previous responses and to t r y to produce a s u p e r i o r f i n a l d r a f t . The same procedures were followed as per the previous two treatment s e s s i o n s : students were not permitted to d i s c u s s t h e i r d r a f t s or the assignment; students were permitted to use the s t o r y f o r a s s i s t a n c e i f they so d e s i r e d ; and students were requested to award t h e i r d r a f t a s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n based on the same s c a l e as bef o r e . 98 Day F i v e Students r e c e i v e d copies of the R e v i s i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e at the s t a r t of the c l a s s and were asked to spend a few minutes c o n s i d -e r i n g t h e i r a t t i t u d e s towards r e v i s i o n i n g e n e r a l . The i n s t r u c t -or read aloud the d i r e c t i o n s on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e forms, e x p l a i n -ed the use of the s c a l e f o r i n d i c a t i n g responses to the s t a t e -ments on the form, and answered any qu e r i e s that students had. When a l l the R e v i s i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e s were r e t u r n e d , the i n s t r u c t -or i n v i t e d the resear c h e r i n t o the classroom, and the s u b j e c t s were i n v i t e d to share t h e i r r e a c t i o n s concerning the d i f f e r e n t treatment c o n d i t i o n s with the re s e a r c h e r and other s u b j e c t s . F i n a l l y , the re s e a r c h e r thanked the students f o r t h e i r p a r t i c i -p a t i o n and support and l e f t the i n s t r u c t o r to r e t u r n the d r a f t s from a l l three s e s s i o n s to the students along with accompanying comments and grades. SCORING OF DATA The treatment s e s s i o n s produced s e t s of three d r a f t s per student which needed to be scored i n p r e p a r a t i o n f o r data a n a l y s i s . F o l -lowing i s a d e t a i l e d e x p l a n a t i o n of which dependant measures were used, why they were chosen, how they were employed, and how d i f -f i c u l t i e s experienced were overcome. 99 Data P r e p a r a t i o n A l l forms, d r a f t s and scores c o l l e c t e d from s u b j e c t s d u r i n g the data g a t h e r i n g s e s s i o n s were s o r t e d and c o l l a t e d . The number of complete s e t s of data was t a l l i e d f o r each treatment group i n each s e c t i o n . A l l of the data obtained f o r the W r i t i n g Apprehen-s i o n Inventory and the R e v i s i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e were prepared f o r a n a l y s i s but separate r e s u l t s were c a l c u l a t e d f o r (1) a l l s u b j e c t s completing them, and (2) only those s u b j e c t s f o r whom complete s e t s of data were obtained. A l l of the d r a f t s c o l l e c t e d were transformed i n t o typed v e r s i o n s by a p r o f e s s i o n a l t y p i s t . These t y p e w r i t t e n c o p i e s f a i t h f u l l y r e -produced a l l of the contents and e r r o r s c o ntained i n the o r i g i n -a l s . Only those s e t s of d r a f t s were analyzed i n the study; the remaining d r a f t s were used f o r the purpose of t r a i n i n g the q u a l i t y r a t e r s . Content Since the fundamental o b j e c t i v e of the present study was to i n v e s t i g a t e what e f f e c t s each of the d i f f e r e n t treatment c o n d i t -ions had upon the r e s u l t a n t student d r a f t s produced i n each treatment s e s s i o n , a measure was needed t h a t could q u a n t i f y the degree to which the contents of a d r a f t had changed or remained the same r e l a t i v e to the contents of e a r l i e r d r a f t s . 100 Most of the s t u d i e s that have i n v e s t i g a t e d the r e v i s i n g behav-i o u r s of w r i t e r s have concentrated on d e s c r i b i n g those behaviours and comparing them to other aspects of the composing process. Those r e s e a r c h e r s have developed c l a s s i f i c a t i o n systems to c o d i f y the r e v i s i o n s observed when comparing d i f f e r e n t d r a f t s . Sommers (1980) i d e n t i f i e d four d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of t e x t where a r e v i s i o n could occur: word, phrase, sentence, theme; and she i d e n t i f i e d four r e v i s i o n operations that might be made: 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 . S i m i l a r l y , B r i d w e l l (1980) dev i s e d a scheme based upon s y n t a c t i c l e v e l s ( s u r f a c e , l e x i c a l , phrase, c l a u s e , sentence, multi- s e n t e n c e , and t e x t ) which c l a s s i f i e d r e v i s i o n s a c c o r d i n g to the l i n g u i s t i c s t r u c t u r e i n v o l v e d . Both r e s e a r c h e r s were concerned with measuring the frequency with which types of r e v i s i o n s had occur r e d . In c o n t r a s t , F a i g l e y and Witte attempted to develop "a simple, yet robust, system f o r a n a l y z i n g the e f f e c t s of r e v i s i o n on meaning" (1981, p.401), based upon a d i s t i n c t i o n between those r e v i s i o n s that d i d not a f f e c t the meaning of the whole t e x t ( s u r f a c e changes) and those which d i d ( t e x t base changes). T h e i r taxonomy (see F i g u r e 5) r e f l e c t s "whether new i n f o r m a t i o n i s brought to the t e x t or whether o l d in f o r m a t i o n i s removed i n such a way that i t cannot be recovered through drawing i n f e r e n c e s " (p.402). Acknowledging the inherent problems with F a i g l e y & Witte's taxonomy i n p r a c t i c e , the researc h e r r e f i n e d t h e i r procedure i n order to score the data produced i n the p i l o t study. However, si n c e the r e s u l t s of the p i l o t study i n d i c a t e d t h a t the design of 101 the present study should be amended to i n c l u d e the p r o d u c t i o n of three r a t h e r than two d r a f t s , the system f o r q u a n t i f y i n g changes to d r a f t content needed to be r e v i s e d . T h i s turned out to be an arduous and d i f f i c u l t t ask. In the amended design, students, when faced with r e d r a f t i n g t h e i r compositions, were engaged i n a process that allowed them to choose between using e x i s t i n g content (whether a v a i l a b l e d i r e c t l y i n f r o n t of them i n an e a r l i e r d r a f t or r e c a l l e d from memory) or g e n e r a t i n g new content. I t was important, t h e r e f o r e , to employ a measure which d i d not merely count the frequency of r e v i s i o n s but which a l s o took account of (1) to what extent those r e v i s i o n s a f f e c t e d the semantic s t r u c t u r e of the t e x t , and (2) the r h e t o r -i c a l f u n c t i o n -- not the l i n g u i s t i c domain -- of those r e v i s i o n s . Knowing the number of times students a l t e r e d words or sentences was l e s s s i g n i f i c a n t than whether any of those a l t e r a t i o n s a f f e c t e d the amount of i n f o r m a t i o n being presented i n a d r a f t . And knowing that an a l t e r a t i o n had occurred at the word or sentence l e v e l was l e s s important than a s c e r t a i n i n g whether in f o r m a t i o n had a c q u i r e d a new r h e t o r i c a l c h a r a c t e r or not. Moreover, s i n c e students were now producing three d r a f t s r a t h e r than two, a system was needed which could examine how much inf o r m a t i o n and of what type had been c a r r i e d forward i n t o a subsequent d r a f t . For these purposes, F a i g l e y and Witte's a n a l y s i s of r e v i s i o n was inadequate; and, although a r e f i n e d v e r s i o n of t h e i r method (published a f t e r the p i l o t study had been 102 conducted) was applied by them to examine a series of seven drafts collected in a case study of one student writer (Faigley & Witte, 1984), the focus was s t i l l upon cataloguing alterations to drafts made when the e a r l i e r drafts were available to the student- A d i f f e r e n t measure, therefore, would be required to quantify changes made by students who did not have access to an e a r l i e r draft in treatment session two. An exhaustive study of the l i t e r a t u r e revealed that no other re-searcher had devised any other system for analyzing the content of revisions, and no system was available which could assess the effe c t of revisions on the semantic structure of a text or the rh e t o r i c a l function of i t s contents. Consequently, the research-er delved into work conducted in other d i s c i p l i n e s -- text l i n g u i s t i c s , cognitive psychology and reading pedagogy--regarding the semantic relationships among elements in a text. The researcher retraced the evolution of Faigley and Witte's system -- the genesis of which lay in the di r e c t i o n of these d i s c i p l i n e s . For many years, cognitive psychologists and educators, interested in exploring how learning is achieved from reading prose pass-ages, have examined the influence of d i f f e r e n t aspects of the structure of a prose text on which elements of the text are remembered by students (e.g., Anderson, Spiro & Anderson, 1978; Bar t l e t t , 1979; Britton, Glynn, Meyer & Penland, 1982; Glover et 103 a l . , 1981; Meyer, 1975; Kintsch & Yarbrough, 1982; Piche & Slater, 1983; Taylor, 1982). T y p i c a l l y in such studies, students were asked to read a prose passage that had been de l i b e r a t e l y fashioned to exhibit the text structures under investigation. Afterwards, students were told to write down a l l the information they could remember from the passage. By analyzing the resultant r e c a l l protocols, re-searchers were able to draw conclusions about how prose organization a f f e c t s the organization of inform-ation in memory. For example, Glover, Bruning & Plake (1982) showed that i f prose is structured in a manner that highlights i t s central information (superordinate ideas) then s i g n i f i c a n t l y more information is recalled than when main ideas are less d i s t i n c t i v e l y presented. Two major problems have been encounter-ed by t h i s l i n e of research. F i r s t , there is the problem of how to analyze the content structure of text so as to be able to i d e n t i f y variables on which passages are similar or d i f f e r e n t . Second, there is the problem of how to design some r e l i a b l e method of scoring the r e c a l l protocols so as to measure how much of the contents in a passage have been remembered. Both of these problems were analogous to the d i f f i c u l t i e s which the present researcher encountered when trying to measure the effects of d i f f e r e n t treatment conditions on the contents of students' drafts. Investigators of r e c a l l from prose, searching for solutions to these problems, had turned to work done by text l i n g u i s t s and se-104 mantic theorists (Fillmore, 1968; Halliday, 1967; Grimes, 1975; van Dijk, 1977; de Beaugrande, 1980) regarding the function of information in language and how relationships among ideas in prose convey meaning. The re s u l t was not only the development of a method, called propositional analysis, for scoring the content f of r e c a l l protocols, but also a comprehensive prose analysis system that described the semantic structure of the ideas in a passage. The propositional analysis of meaning in a text took on various forms (Crothers, 1972; Kintsch, 1974; Frederiksen, 1975; Meyer, 1975) but e s s e n t i a l l y i t divided passages into "idea units" and their attendant elements. The idea units were coded, using terms borrowed from symbolic l o g i c , as propositions that comprised a predicate term and any concepts related to i t . Thus the sent-ence: "John enjoys a shower" would be rewritten as: "ENJOY, JOHN, SHOWER", where c a p i t a l l e t t e r s are used to emphasize that, i t is the concepts that are being i d e n t i f i e d not just the words that express those concepts. Then a l l the propositions contained in a passage were arranged into a tree diagram that s p a t i a l l y depicted the h i e r a r c h i c a l structure among the ideas in the text. The main idea in a passage was placed at the top of the tree and informat-ion that described or elaborated on thi s main idea was included at lower l e v e l s . Investigations using t h i s sort of analysis found not only that the organizational structure of a passage affects i t s subsequent encoding in memory, but also that i t 10 5 affects the extent to which d i f f e r e n t information is recalled (Meyer, 1975; Thorndyke, 1977; Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978; Freder-iksen, 1975; van Dijk, 1980). This work also lead to the development of a t h e o r e t i c a l model that explains how readers process a text (Kintsch & van Dijk, 1978). It distinguished between concepts in a passage that operate at a macrostructure l e v e l (by providing the central information or " g i s t " of the text) and concepts which operate at a microstructure level (by providing supporting or secondary information). Faigley and Witte's revision taxonomy was derived from this d i s t i n c t i o n . The concept of idea units proposed by propositional analysis had recently been employed by writing research (Benton, Glover & Plake, 1984; Meyer, 1982) and appeared to provide a useful basis for the analysis of draft content to be undertaken in the present study. Unfortunately, propositional analysis in i t s existing format was altogether too cumbersome a procedure for measuring elements of the contents of a draft which might be carried across three d r a f t s . A simpler but nonetheless r e l i a b l e analysis of content was needed. Another area of investigation that has r e l i e d upon the work by text l i n g u i s t s and semantic theorists i s studies regarding information management; that i s , how writers organize the flow of information in their texts. 106 Firbas (1974) and Danes (1974) of the Prague School of l i n g u i s t s and M.A.K. Halliday (1967) in England had developed theories of t o p i c a l structure in extended texts. They focused on the ways in which meaning transcends ordinary sentence boundaries in d i s -course, and they developed procedures for analyzing the cohesive t i e s in text. They chose to focus on the relationship between and among sentences because "they see the structure of our language r i s i n g out of the ideas we express; they therefore analyze sentences not as syntactic units 'generated' out of an innate deep structure, but as syntactic units produced by the ideas that motivate discourse" (Holloway, 1981, p.205). Their analysis of text involves a process of d i v i d i n g the information carried by sentences into two component parts: (1) the section which relays "old" information or information that is already "accessible" to the reader or information that r e f l e c t s the overa l l "topic" of the text; and (2) the section which relays "new" or "not accessible" information which adds to our under-standing of the "topic" of the text by providing supporting ideas, d e t a i l s , examples, further descriptions, etc. There is l i t t l e agreement among l i n g u i s t s as yet regarding which labels to apply to each part of this dichotomy between old/new information carried by a sentence, and various labels are used: topic/comment (Danes, 1974), theme/enunciation (Mathesius, 1928), given/new (Haviland & Clark, 1974), and theme/rheme (Firbas, 1974). However, there is general agreement that old information usually is located toward the beginning of the sentence, new information 107 toward the end; and there is also agreement that often what is new at the end of one sentence often becomes old at the beginning of the next sentence. The topic or theme of the sentence that conveys the old information is usually the grammatical subject and is that part of the sentence which a writer wishes to emphas-ize. For Danes, a l l of the various topics of information carried by sentences are related to the text's "hypertheme" -- the co n t r o l l i n g main idea of the unit of discourse, which is not derived from the text alone but i s formed by the interaction of the information in the text and the reader's own prior knowledge. Witte (1983), seeing such t o p i c a l structure analysis "as a useful tool for studying the textual cues which may prompt revision and for studying the effects of revisi o n on text structure" (p.321), conducted an exploratory study in which he attempted to categor-ize the decisions writers make when revising their texts. He asked 80 students to revise a passage to make i t easier to read and understand but without changing " i t s character as a piece of informative discourse" (p.322). Quality ratings were used to separate the students' drafts into two groups of low and high a b i l i t y , and s i g n i f i c a n t differences in terms of text length, number of sentence topics, means for clause length, mean number of t-units per sentence topic and mean percentage of t-units in sequential progression were found. Witte's study demonstrated how the t o p i c a l structure of a text could be p r o f i t a b l y used as a framework for analyzing the decision-making processes that 108 writers use during r e v i s i o n , but the rather a r t i f i c i a l nature of the revisions performed in th i s study by the students to another person's text was not d i r e c t l y applicable to either the research questions in the present study or the scoring procedures needed. The revisions performed by writers when redrafting the contents of their texts can af f e c t not merely the semantic relationship among elements in the texts but also the r h e t o r i c a l function of these elements. The "old" information from a previous draft may be retained in subsequent drafts but with a d i f f e r e n t r h e t o r i c a l purpose. The information may have been used e a r l i e r to express a i topic or main idea in the text but has later been transformed into a subordinate or supporting idea. A l t e r n a t i v e l y , support for one topic may be reorganized to become support for another topic in the text. Consequently, the researcher needed not only some method of segmenting the semantic structure of students' texts but also a method of categorizing the r h e t o r i c a l function of idea units in students' texts (Larson, 1967). The students in the present study produced expository compositions that presented responses to the assignment question and developed arguments for the positions they had taken. The researcher, therefore, surveyed the l i t e r a t u r e for any potential c l a s s i f i c a t i o n schemes developed by rhetoricians and stemming from their theories of persuasion which i d e n t i f i e d the major features of arguments. However, to date, there has been l i t t l e detailed analysis of the structure of arguments. Toulmin (1958) demonstrated how arguments can be ' 109 t h e o r e t i c a l l y c l a s s i f i e d a c c o r d i n g to the component elements of cl a i m , data, warrant, backing, q u a l i f i e r and r e s e r v a t i o n , and Kneupper (1978) suggested t h a t students may be a s s i s t e d i n l e a r n i n g to develop w r i t t e n persuasions by a p p l y i n g Toulmin's model of argument a n a l y s i s to t h e i r compositions. Nonetheless, Cooper (1983) argued that there e x i s t s such a v a r i e t y of d i f f e r -ent types of persuasive arguments and so many d i f f e r e n t s t r a t e -g i e s f o r developing support f o r a p o s i t i o n taken by a w r i t e r that " i t may be d i f f i c u l t i f not impossible to a r r i v e at one way of d e s c r i b i n g the s t r u c t u r e of p e r s u a s i o n " (p.309), and he c i t e d Rieke & S i l l a r s (1975) who "have demonstrated that even so s t r a i g h t f o r w a r d a type of persuasion as pr o b l e m - s o l u t i o n may take d i f f e r e n t forms, depending on how much the readers know and how much o p p o s i t i o n the w r i t e r might expect from them" (Cooper, 1983, p. 309 ) . C u l l e d from a l l of these aforementioned areas i n the l i t e r a t u r e , the researcher developed a system f o r s c o r i n g the contents of each student's d r a f t s i n order to measure how much of t h i s content was c a r r i e d forward i n t o subsequent d r a f t s . Since the data i n v o l v e d were s i m i l a r to those produced i n r e a d i n g - r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s , the researcher developed a mo d i f i e d v e r s i o n of p r o p o s i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s , whereby a t e x t was segmented i n t o i t s component idea u n i t s . T h i s v e r s i o n drew upon the procedure used by White and Mayer (1980) and d e s c r i b e d by Mayer (1985) where science t e x t was parsed i n t o idea u n i t s u s i n g c l a u s e s as the 110 basic unit of analysis. However, the t-unit, rather than the clause or proposition, was used as the unit of analysis in the present study, following the approach reported by Cooper (1983). In keeping with Danes (1974), each idea unit was sub-divided into "topic" and "comment". In addition, the text structure was analyzed for the r h e t o r i c a l function of each idea unit using a si m p l i f i e d c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system based to some extent on Larson (1967) and Toulmin (1958). Each idea unit was i d e n t i f i e d as either being an "assertion" that stated a position taken by the student in answer to a part of the assignment question, or being a "support" that provided d e t a i l s , examples, descriptions, etc. to argue for the position that had been taken. The scoring proceeded in the following way. Each typed draft was segmented into t-units (Hunt, 1965). A t-unit consisted of one main clause plus any modifiers, complements or substitutes for words in the main clause. Then each t-unit was treated as one "idea-unit" and subdivided into i t s topic and comment(s). The topic consisted of the word or group of words that i d e n t i f i e d "what the sentence was about", that i s , the concept which the rest of the idea unit made reference to. It was usually the grammatical subject of the independent clause. The comment was the group(s) of words carrying information about the topic in the predicate of the independent clause plus any subordinate modi-f i e r s and complements. For example, the sentence "In the afternoon, Mr. Duffy walked home after work" was analyzed as ' . I l l p o s s e s s i n g the t o p i c : " MR. DUFFY" and a comment d i s t r i b u t e d i n two p a r t s : "In the a f t e r n o o n " and "walked home a f t e r work". Fi g u r e s 10-12 show an example of how t h i s process was a p p l i e d to a s e t of three d r a f t s produced by a student i n c o n d i t i o n 2. The t e x t s have been segmented i n t o idea u n i t s whose t - u n i t boundaries are i d e n t i f i e d by double s l a s h marks // and numbered i n brackets for r e f e r e n c e purposes. The t o p i c of each idea u n i t appears i n block c a p i t a l l e t t e r s , and the comment(s) appear as words u n d e r l i n e d . The comment i s sometimes d i s t r i b u t e d i n the idea u n i t among more than one group of words ( f o r example, see F i g u r e 10, idea u n i t 9). Where these groups of words c o n s t i t u t e d separate statements about the t o p i c , they were i d e n t i f i e d as independent comments even i f they were not grammatically indepen-dent u n i t s (see F i g u r e 12, idea u n i t 9). T h i s was o f t e n the case with subordinate c l a u s e s . Where these groups of words were p a r t s of a s i n g l e statement about the . t o p i c , they were i d e n t i f i e d as belonging to the same comment (see F i g u r e 12, idea u n i t 11). These separate comments were d i v i d e d by s i n g l e s l a s h marks /. Then each comment was examined to determine i t s r h e t o r i c a l purpose i n the t e x t and l a b e l e d as belonging to one of the f o l l o w i n g c a t e g o r i e s (based upon the two p a r t s of the assignment, see page 81): A l . : a s s e r t i o n r e l a t i n g to part one of the assignment q u e s t i o n 112 FIGURE 10 s Scoring of example draft 1 Al. (1) MR. DUFFY play s a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n the death of Mrs. S I . S i n i c o . / / (2) THE RELATIONSHIP t h a t these two people had shared made a great change i n each of t h e i r l i v e s . / / (3) When MR. DUFFY SI. SI. met Mrs. S i n i c o f o r the f i r s t time at the Rotunda / he was immediately a t t r a c t e d to her because of her eyes, o v a l face, and bosom.// S I . (4) LONELINESS had been a' p a r t of Mr. Duffy f o r a great d e a l S I . of h i s l i f e // (5) and to him, MRS. SINICO was someone who could f i n a l l y f i l l the gap th a t he had i n h i s l i f e . / / (6) THEIR SI. COMPANIONSHIP began to become more i n t e n s e , while her husband was S I . away f o r long p e r i o d s of time,// (7) and MR. DUFFY became a f r a i d of what might happen i f t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p c o n t i n u e d . / / S I . (8) A f t e r he stopped the meetings, MRS. SINICO got i n t o the h a b i t of d r i n k i n g and c r o s s i n g the t r a i n l i n e s at night from p l a t f o r m to p l a t f o r m -just to occupy her time.// S2. A2. (9) When MR. DUFFY found out of her death,/ he withdrew from the world back onto h i s s t a t e of mind t h a t he had before he met A2. Mrs. S i n i c o . / / (10) HE walked a l l the pla c e s t h a t they had been S2. d u r i n g the time they spent t o g e t h e r , / r e c a l l i n g the p a i n f u l A2. memories.// (11) MR. DUFFY f e l t l i k e he l o s t a piece of h i s  s o u l . / / 113 FIGURE 11 i l e a s i n g sf txamgli d r i f t % Al. (1) MR. DUFFY has a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n the death of Mrs. SI. S i n i c o . / / (2) THESE TWO FRIENDS b u i l t up an intense companionship throughout the l i t t l e time t h a t they had known each SI. o t h e r - / / (3) From the time of t h e i r f i r s t meeting. MR. DUFFY was a t t r a c t e d to Mrs. S i n i c o f o r v a r i o u s reasons i n c l u d i n g her p h y s i c a l appearance. SI. (4) LONLINESS had been a p a r t of Mr. Duffy's l i f e f o r a SI. g reat d e a l of time// (5) but THAT, i t seems, i s what he SI. p r e f e r r e d . / / (6) HE soon found out t h a t h i s l i f e was missing something when he met Mrs. S i n i c o . / / (7) THEIR COMPANIONSHIP SI. SI. became more intense as the days passed.// (3) MR. DUFFY suddenly SI. became a f r a i d of t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p / and d i d n ' t f e e l r i g h t about SI. t a k i n g Mrs. S i n i c o away from her husband.// (9) so HE ended i t . / / SI. (10) A f t e r • t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p had ended, MRS. SINICO went SI. back to d r i n k i n g every day// (11) and at night SHE would jump from p l a t f o r m to p l a t f o r m at the t r a i n l i n e s to occupy her SI. time.// (12) Then the day came where SHE was s t r u c k by a t r a i n  and k i l l e d . / / S2. / A2. (13)' When MR. DUFFY found out about her death/ he once away withdrew from the world back i n t o the s t a t e of mind t h a t he was A2. in before he met Mrs. S i n i c o . / / (14) HE walked a l l the places S2. that they had been t o g e t h e r , / r e c a l l i n g the p a i n f u l memories.// A2. (15) MR.. DUFFY f e l t l i k e he had l o s t a piece of h i s l i f e . / / (16) A2 . ANOTHER THOUGHT t h a t crossed h i s mind was, what i f he hadn't 1.14 (FIGURE 11 continued) broken o f f the r e l a t i o n s h i p ? / / (17) T h i s i s where HIS GUILT A2. 32. s t a r t s to show i t s e l f . / / (18) HE f e l t r e s p o n s i b l e because he was the one th a t had sent her l i f e back i n t o the past, back i n t o S2 . d r i n k i n g and p l a y i n g near the t r a i n l i n e s . / / (19) HE thought  th a t he had sentenced her to a death of shame and denied her l i f e and happiness by ending t h e i r r e l a t i o n s h i p u n t h o u g h t f u l l y . / / \ FIGURE 12 : Scoring of example draft 3 Al. (1) MR. DUFFY d i d p l a y a s i g n i f i c a n t r o l e i n the death of SI. Mrs. S i n i c o . / / (2) THIS PAIR B u i l t up an intense f r i e n d s h i p through the need of each other, d u r i n g the s h o r t time that they had been f r i e n d s . / / (3) From the time of t h e i r f i r s t meeting, SI. MR. DUFFY had been p h y s i c a l l y as w e l l as m e n t a l l y attached to  Mrs. S i n i c o . / / SI. (4) BOTH MR. DUFFY AND MRS. SINICO. shared a common f a c t o r i n t h e i r f r i e n d s h i p , l o n l i n e s s . / / (5) Although Mrs. S i n i c o was SI. married HER HUSBAND was away from home f o r great lengths of SI. SI. time.// (6) While MR. DUFFY had always been a l o n e r , / he was only l o o k i n g f o r a r e l a t i o n s h i p where he wouldn't have to take any r i s k s and get hurt i n the p r o c e s s . / 115 (FIGURE 12 continued) SI. (7) One evening. MRS. SINICO made a s l i g h t pass a t Mr. SI. Duffy.// (8) HE became f r i g h t e n e d at t h i s g e s t u r e / because he SI. ! b e l i e v e d a man and woman coul d n ' t have a f r i e n d s h i p without SI. sexual i n t e r c o u r s e . / / (9) MR. DUFFY immediately broke o f f t h e i r SI. r e l a t i o n s h i p / and, once again, r e t r e a t e d back i n t o h i s " s a f e "  worId.// SI. s i . (10) MRS.. SINICO was broken hearted.// ( l l ) To get back at SI. Mr. Duffy f o r r e j e c t i n g her,/ SHE began to d r i n k everyday.// (12) SI. Maybe HER DRINKING was a l s o away to drown her sorrows.//. (13) SI. SI. While SHE was drunk one day,/ she was s t r u c k by a t r a i n and A2 . '• k i l l e d . / / (14) MR. DUFFY was o b v i o u s l y upset by her death/ but HE A2. j u s t pushed the memories of them out of h i s mind so he could be  a l o n e . / / A2. : a s s e r t i o n r e l a t i n g to p a r t two of the assignment q u e s t i o n 51. : s u p p o r t i n g m a t e r i a l f o r an a s s e r t i o n r e l a t i n g to p a r t one 52. : s u p p o r t i n g m a t e r i a l f o r an a s s e r t i o n r e l a t i n g to p a r t two 116 The v a r i o u s groups of words t h a t comprised a comment were t r e a t e d as p o s s e s s i n g a s i n g l e r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n . In theory, t h i s might not always be n e c e s s a r i l y true f o r e i t h e r an a s s e r t i o n or a support, but, i n p r a c t i c e , students c o n s i s t e n t l y separated t h e i r answers to e i t h e r part of the assignment q u e s t i o n and d i d not attempt to provide a s s e r t i o n s or support f o r both p a r t s of the q u e s t i o n w i t h i n a s i n g l e comment. In F i g u r e s 10-12, the r h e t o r i -c a l f u n c t i o n of a comment i s p l a c e d as a s u p e r s c r i p t above the beginning of a comment. Thi s process of segmenting a t e x t i n t o idea u n i t s and a s s i g n i n g r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n s was performed by the r e s e a r c h e r who needed to e s t a b l i s h c e r t a i n ground r u l e s f o r d e a l i n g with p a r t i c u l a r s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e s : I d e n t i f y i n g Topic (a) The t o p i c occurs as the grammatical s u b j e c t of the inde-pendent c l a u s e , except where the independent cl a u s e c o n s i s t s of a grammatical e x p l e t i v e ( f o r example, " I t was Mr. Duffy who stopped the meetings") or c o n s i s t s of some other i n t r o d u c t o r y main cl a u s e ( f o r example, "The day came where she was s t r u c k by a t r a i n and k i l l e d " , see F i g u r e 11, idea u n i t 12) . (b) Where more than one r e f e r e n c e i s made to a t o p i c i n an idea u n i t , the f i r s t r e f e r e n c e i s t r e a t e d as the t o p i c , even i f 117 t h i s appears i n a subordinate clause ( f o r example, see Fi g u r e 10, idea u n i t 3). (c) A r t i c l e s , a d j e c t i v e s and c o n j u n c t i o n s t h a t accompany the nominatives i d e n t i f y i n g the t o p i c are t r e a t e d as pa r t of the t o p i c ( f o r example, F i g u r e 11, idea u n i t 3). I d e n t i f y i n g Comment (d) The comment occurs as the grammatical p r e d i c a t e of the inde-pendent c l a u s e (except where the independent c l a u s e does not in c l u d e the t o p i c [see (a) above]) along with any modifying phrases or c l a u s e s . (e) Where the comment i s d i s t r i b u t e d i n d i f f e r e n t p a r t s of the idea u n i t , these p a r t s are i d e n t i f i e d as separate comments so long as they are (or can be) separated from the p r e d i c a t e of the independent c l a u s e , are n o n - r e s t r i c t i v e m o d i f i e r s of i t , and make separate statements r e g a r d i n g the t o p i c ( f o r example, F i g u r e 12, idea u n i t 9). (f) The subordinate c o n j u n c t i o n s , c o o r d i n a t e c o n j u n c t i o n s and c o n j u n c t i v e adverbs w i l l be excluded from the comment where they f u n c t i o n as (or introduce) n o n - r e s t r i c t i v e elements. (g) R e l a t i v e pronouns, subordinate c o n j u n c t i o n s and v e r b a l s that 118 introduce r e s t r i c t i v e phrases or c l a u s e s are in c l u d e d i n the same p a r t of a comment; so are a l l p r e p o s i t i o n a l phrases. (h) Medial punctuation w i t h i n idea u n i t s i s ignored except where i t c l e a r l y p rovides a s y n t a c t i c f u n c t i o n ( f o r example, F i g u r e 10, idea u n i t 10). I d e n t i f y i n g R h e t o r i c a l F u n c t i o n ( i ) A comment i s scored as being an a s s e r t i o n i f i t i s a d i r e c t r e p l y to one or other p a r t s of the assignment q u e s t i o n and i s presented i n a d e c l a r a t i v e sentence. ( j ) A comment i s scored as being a support i f i t i s not an a s s e r t i o n . C o n s i d e r a b l e p r a c t i c e on d r a f t s produced by students without com-p l e t e data was c a r r i e d out to t e s t the r e l i a b i l i t y of the segmenting procedure. Nonetheless, problems were encountered. Using the t - u n i t as the boundary between idea u n i t s was hampered by the f a u l t y punctuation of students. Many fragments were encountered which were o b v i o u s l y intended to be s y n t a c t i c a l l y independent s t r u c t u r e s . Compound pre d i c a t e s , were encountered that d i d not c o n t a i n c o - o r d i n a t e i n f o r m a t i o n . Sometimes, whether a r e l a t i v e c l a u s e was intended to be r e s t r i c t i v e or n o n - r e s t r i c t -ive was extremely d i f f i c u l t to determine. Furthermore, a s s i g n i n g 119 the l a b e l of a s s e r t i o n or support was d i f f i c u l t sometimes because the wording was vague or had only t a n g e n t i a l r e l e v a n c e to any part of the assignment. Students' arguments sometimes d r i f t e d i n t o incoherence or extreme muddiness. The r e s e a r c h e r attempted to develop a c o n s i s t e n t procedure for d e a l i n g with these problems i n s i t u and made notes for l a t e r r e f e r e n c e . To ensure not only that the coding procedure was r e l i a b l e but had been c o n s i s t e n t l y a p p l i e d , the r e s e a r c h e r i n v i t e d a c o l l e g e i n s t r u c t o r with c o n s i d e r a b l e r e s e a r c h experience to r e p l i c a t e the r e s u l t s obtained so f a r . S e v e r a l hours of i n i t i a l t r a i n i n g using the d r a f t s of students with incomplete data was followed by s e v e r a l hours d i s c u s s i n g problems encountered and a p p l i c a t i o n s of the ground r u l e s e s t a b l i s h e d e a r l i e r by the r e s e a r c h e r . A random sample of 15 percent of the data was then scored by t h i s check coder and a r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of 0.89 was c a l c u l a t e d . D i s c r e p a n c i e s were analyzed and found to r e s i d e mostly i n the a s s i g n i n g of r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y with r e s p e c t to l a b e l i n g idea u n i t s as e i t h e r a s s e r t i o n s or support f o r p a r t 2. Next, the more d i f f i c u l t task of comparing the idea u n i t s present i n s t u dents' d r a f t s was conducted. The comments of each idea u n i t i n a d r a f t were compared to the comments of the idea u n i t s appearing i n the next d r a f t f o r that student. The comparison r e q u i r e d t h a t each comment i n both d r a f t s be catalogued as belonging to one of the f o l l o w i n g o p e r a t i o n s : 120 e x i s t i n g i n e a r l i e r d r a f t and r e t a i n e d i n l a t e r d r a f t e x i s t i n g i n e a r l i e r d r a f t but absent i n l a t e r d r a f t not e x i s t i n g i n e a r l i e r d r a f t but present i n l a t e r d r a f t e x i s t i n g i n e a r l i e r d r a f t but r e a s s i g n e d to a d i f f e r e n t r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n i n l a t e r d r a f t Where more than one comment e x i s t e d i n an idea u n i t , each was scored s e p a r a t e l y . A comment was deemed to be " r e t a i n e d " i f the same or s i m i l a r words were g e n e r a l l y used i n the subsequent d r a f t or i f a new idea u n i t provided a paraphrase of an o l d one. A comment was counted as "removed" i f no e x p l i c i t evidence of i t s contents e x i s t e d i n the new d r a f t . Where i t s contents might be implied or h i n t e d , e s p e c i a l l y where background i n f o r m a t i o n s u p p l i e d by the reader might permit such an i n f e r e n c e to be made, the comment was s t i l l deemed to have been removed. I t was necessary to be so r e s t r i c t i v e i n order to ensure r e l i a b i l i t y between readers whom otherwise might vary g r e a t l y i n " t o l e r a t i n g " d i f f e r e n t i m p l i c a t i o n s t h a t any s i n g l e comment might evoke. A "new" comment was the converse s i t u a t i o n to a removed one: no previous evidence of i t s e x i s t e n c e could be l o c a t e d i n the e a r l i e r d r a f t . F i n a l l y , a comment was scored as " r e a s s i g n e d " i f Retained Removed New Reassigned : 121 i t was present i n both d r a f t s but had taken on a d i f f e r e n t r h e t o r i c a l purpose i n the l a t e r d r a f t . Appendix C Table 1 presents the r e s u l t s of the s c o r i n g procedure between d r a f t 1 and d r a f t 2 f o r the example d r a f t s shown i n F i g u r e s 10-11. S i m i l a r l y , Appendix C Table 2 shows the r e s u l t s of comparing d r a f t 2 and d r a f t 3 f o r the example d r a f t s shown i n F i g u r e s 11-12. The f i n a l stage of s c o r i n g the manipulation of contents was a comparison between students' e a r l i e r d r a f t s and t h e i r f i n a l d r a f t s . As before, each comment was catalogued as belonging to one of the f o l l o w i n g o p e r a t i o n s : Both d r a f t s : e x i s t i n g i n both e a r l i e r d r a f t s and r e t a i n e d i n the f i n a l d r a f t D r a f t 1 only : e x i s t i n g i n d r a f t 1 and r e t a i n e d i n the f i n a l d r a f t but absent from d r a f t 2 D r a f t 2 o n l y : e x i s t i n g i n d r a f t 2 and r e t a i n e d i n the f i n a l d r a f t but absent from d r a f t 1 New : not e x i s t i n g i n e i t h e r d r a f t 1 or d r a f t 2 but present i n the f i n a l d r a f t Reassigned : e x i s t i n g i n e i t h e r d r a f t 1, d r a f t 2 or both d r a f t s but present i n the f i n a l d r a f t assigned to a d i f f e r e n t r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n than i t s l a s t , e a r l i e r appearance 122 The results obtained from th i s aspect of the scoring procedure are presented for the example drafts in Appendix C. Table 3-. Comparing a l l students' sets of drafts in the aforementioned manner was a time-consuming task which required considerable patience and alertness in order to scan text looking for similar expressions of content. To. ensure r e l i a b i l i t y , the researcher spent several hours of mutual t r a i n i n g with the same check coder as before, learning to catalogue comments appropriately and using as practice the drafts from students for whom complete data had not been obtained. Disagreements were discussed and argued before the researcher and / check coder f e l t that s u f f i c i e n t "meeting of minds" existed. It became apparent that the scoring .procedure developed by the researcher represented an adequate but far from perfect mechanism for gauging the amount of content^ transferred from draft to d r a f t . A much more refined procedure would have had more a p p l i c a b i l i t y to other types of writing produced under d i f f e r e n t circumstances but would also have been even more arduous to construct and would have required consider-ably more tr a i n i n g using a larger number of scorers. For the purposes of. t h i s study, a r e l a t i v e l y simple quantitative measure would s u f f i c e so long as high levels of consistency and r e l i -a b i l i t y were maintained. As before, the researcher scored the sets of students' drafts and then, when finished, invited the check coder to extract at random 15 percent of the sets upon 123 which the procedure was r e p l i c a t e d . These independent scores were r e v e a l e d by Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n s to possess i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of 0.87. Almost a l l of the d i s c r e p a n -c i e s , when s c r u t i n i z e d , were found to l i e i n mistakes or e r r o r s t h a t e i t h e r coder had made. Very few disagreements on the 'true' c ategory t h a t a comment belonged to were found. E r r o r Types Teachers of u n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s have long been concerned with h e l p i n g students e r a d i c a t e the numerous " e r r o r s " to be found i n t h e i r s t u dents' compositions. In rec e n t y e a r s , a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of s o p h i s t i c a t e d a t t e n t i o n has been d i r e c t e d toward understanding why students make e r r o r s , what p a t t e r n s e x i s t i n these e r r o r s , , and how e f f e c t i v e remediation can be achieved (e.g Laurence, 1975; K r i s h n a , 1975; H a l s t e d , 1975; Shaughnessy, 1977; K n o l l & Schafer, 1978; Bartholomae, 1980; Dauite, 1981; W i l l i a m s , 1981; H i l l o c k s , 1984; Belanger, 1985). Sev e r a l s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s from the l i t e r a t u r e provided the r a t i o n a l e f o r i n c l u d i n g i n the present study an a n a l y s i s of the e r r o r s remaining i n the d r a f t s of students. F i r s t , i n her a n a l y s i s of the e r r o r p a t t e r n s d i s p l a y e d i n four thousand E n g l i s h placement essays, Shaughnessy (1977) found t h a t e r r o r s were o f t e n made not as a r e s u l t of c a r e l e s s n e s s or i r r a t i o n a l i t y but because of d e l i b e r a t e but misguided c h o i c e s . If the number and type of 124 e r r o r s produced by students appears to be r e l a t e d to students' thought processes when w r i t i n g , then a n a l y z i n g the e r r o r s produced i n d i f f e r e n t d r a f t s w i l l provide i n s i g h t s i n t o how students are engaging i n d i f f e r e n t r e v i s i n g behaviours. Secondly, as re p o r t e d i n Chapter Two, much evidence has emerged to i n d i c a t e t h a t many u n s k i l l e d w r i t e r s see r e v i s i o n as a " c l e a n s i n g of e r r o r s " from t h e i r e a r l i e r d r a f t s and that they engage i n l i t t l e s u b s t a n t i v e r e v i s i o n (e.g Beach, 1976; P e r l , 1979; Sommers, 1980 ).. Having students engage i n r e d r a f t i n g without access to t h e i r o r i g i n a l d r a f t s i s l i k e l y to d i s l o c a t e t h i s tendency and for c e students to concentrate on other compos-ing a c t i v i t i e s . By s t u d y i n g the e r r o r s produced i n d i f f e r e n t d r a f t s by students i n each treatment group, the re s e a r c h e r intended to a s c e r t a i n to what extent d i f f e r e n t approaches to e r r o r c o r r e c t i o n had been taken by members i n each group. F i n a l l y , there appears to be a r e l a t i o n s h i p between the l i m i t s of short-t e r m memory and the occurrence of e r r o r s . Daiute (1981) analyzed 450 syntax e r r o r s produced by c o l l e g e students and found the c o n s t r a i n t s of s h o r t term memory a f f e c t e d s t u dents' a b i l i t y to compose m u l t i - c l a u s e sentences without making e r r o r s . E r r o r s were f r e q u e n t l y caused by students miscombining phrases or cl a u s e s so t h a t these overlapped or were f r a c t u r e d . The students encountered p r o c e s s i n g d i f f i c u l t i e s as memory of an e a r l i e r s y n t a c t i c s t r u c t u r e faded d u r i n g completion of the new m u l t i -c l a u s e . 0 125 Since the present study required students in both treatment groups to produce f i n a l drafts- in the presence of two i n i t i a l d r afts, pressure on short term memory was exacerbated as students sought to synthesize material encoded in varying syntactic structures in the e a r l i e r drafts.. Analyzing the errors produced would offer some insight into the problems encountered by students at the th i r d draft stage. As e a r l i e r researchers have noted, "the greatest obstacles to error analysis are the sheer variety of errors and the fuzzy boundaries of some error categories" (Cooper et a l . , 1984, p.24). For example, Sloan (1977) studied 2000 freshmen compositions that had been marked by over 50 teachers only to find wide v a r i a t i o n in what was considered to be an "error" with such features as s p e l l i n g , pronoun case, pronoun agreement, comma use, and sentence fragments. Some items were erroneously marked wrong when they were in fact "correct" and some "errors" indicated merely personal preferences. Accordingly, the present study strove to. est a b l i s h a clear delineation of what constituted an error and to employ a consistent scoring procedure. Based on the e a r l i e r error analyses of Diederich (1974), Shaughn-essey (1977), and Cooper et a l (1984), the present study re-s t r i c t e d the' number of error categories to a representative minimum number of common errors in usage, s p e l l i n g and sentence structure. Figure 13 presents these categories along with 126 examples of each e r r o r type. Each u n d e r l i n e d p o r t i o n would have been scored as a s i n g l e e r r o r . To ensure t h a t o n l y e r r o r s which were f a m i l i a r enough to students (and hence stood a chance of being avoided) were counted, the r e -searcher c o n s u l t e d the handbook recommended to the students- by the i n s t r u c t o r of the course. Only e r r o r s i d e n t i f i e d and e x p l a i n e d i n t h i s handbook (Marston, 1983) were scored i n s t u d e n t s ' d r a f t s . In a d d i t i o n , a standard c o l l e g e d i c t i o n a r y of Canadian E n g l i s h (Avis et a l . , 1973) was used as the a r b i t e r of s p e l l i n g e r r o r s . A word was scored as m i s s p e l l e d i f i t d i d not appear l i s t e d at a l l , whether as a p r e f e r r e d s p e l l i n g or not. As with the procedure.used i n the content a n a l y s i s i n the present study, the r e s e a r c h e r examined each typed v e r s i o n of each d r a f t f o r e r r o r s , c a t e g o r i z e d them, c a l c u l a t e d e r r o r s per 100 words, and t a l l i e d the r e s u l t s . The d r a f t s were examined i n random order without i d e n t i f i c a t i o n . To ensure the r e l i a b i l i t y of t h i s s c o r i n g procedure, a c o l l e g e i n s t r u c t o r with c o n s i d e r a b l e experience marking f i r s t year essays was i n v i t e d to s e l e c t at random 15 percent (16 d r a f t s ) of the scored data and to r e p l i c a t e the procedure followed by the r e s e a r c h e r . I n i t i a l t r a i n i n g was provided beforehand by the r e s e a r c h e r demonstrating a s c o r i n g f o r f i v e d r a f t s produced by students f o r whom incomplete s e t s of d r a f t s e x i s t e d . S p e c i f i c problems with s c o r i n g were d i s c u s s e d and the precedents followed by the r e s e a r c h e r were presented. 127 F o r e x a m p l e , many s t u d e n t s f r e q u e n t l y i d e n t i f i e d t h e c h a r a c t e r s i n t h e s t o r y b y t h e i n i t i a l o f t h e i r names ( e . g . , M r s . S . ) . T h i s was c o u n t e d a s a s p e l l i n g e r r o r . The a b s e n c e o f t h e c o m p l i m e n t -a r y s a l u t a t i o n "Mr." b e f o r e a n i s o l a t e d surname was s c o r e d a s a m i s s i n g a b b r e v i a t i o n u n d e r c a t e g o r y 3. A m i s s i n g p e r i o d a f t e r s u c h a s a l u t a t i o n was s c o r e d a s an end p u n c t u a t i o n e r r o r . An o m i t t e d v e r b a u x i l i a r y ( e . g , "He a f r a i d o f h i m s e l f . " ) was c l a s -s i f i e d a s a n o m i t t e d word r a t h e r t h a n a v e r b t e n s e e r r o r . P r o b l e m s w i t h words b e i n g i n f a u l t y p a r a l l e l s t r u c t u r e ( e . g . , "He w a l k e d home, e a t s s u p p e r and went t o bed e a r l y . " ) were s c o r e d a s a s i n g l e e r r o r f o r e a c h g r o u p o f p a r a l l e l e l e m e n t s . When t h e c h e c k c o d i n g was c o m p l e t e , a r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t was o b t a i n e d f r o m a P e a r s o n p r o d u c t - m o m e n t c o r r e l a t i o n f o r a l l e r r o r s c a t e g o r i e s f o r b o t h s e t s o f p a p e r s . The i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i -a b i l i t y was f o u n d t o be 0.944, i n d i c a t i n g a s u f f i c i e n t l y l o w e r r o r v a r i a n c e e x i s t e d b e t w e e n b o t h s c o r e r s . Q u a l i t y R a t i n g s I n o r d e r t o d e t e r m i n e t h e e f f e c t s o f d i f f e r e n t t r e a t m e n t c o n d i t -i o n s on t h e q u a l i t y o f e a c h s e t o f s t u d e n t s ' d r a f t s , a s s e s s m e n t o f o v e r a l l w r i t i n g q u a l i t y f o r e a c h d r a f t was n e e d e d . S t u d e n t s ' s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s w o u l d i n d i c a t e how t h e s t u d e n t s r a t e d t h e q u a l i t y o f t h e i r own d r a f t s b u t s c o r e s o b t a i n e d f r o m e x p e r i e n c e d e v a l u a t o r s e x t e r n a l t o t h e s t u d y and u s i n g t h e same s c a l e o f measurement w o u l d p r o v i d e i n d e p e n d e n t a s s e s s m e n t s o f q u a l i t y , ^ FIGURE 13 : C a t e g o r i e s used f o r coding types of e r r o r s 1- S p e l l i n g - words m i s s p e l l e d (The systum was corupt) - nonstandard or missing apostrophes ( I t s not her's but her husbands r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ) End P u n c t u a t i o n - nonstandard or missing p e r i o d s (Mr. Duffy was not at home He was at the s t a t i o n ) - nonstandard or m i s s i n g q u e s t i o n marks ( o b l i g a t o r y ] (Did he know the s t r e e t . Was he i n a strange p l a c e . ) - nonstandard or missing q u o t a t i o n marks (She s a i d , what i s your business ? before he could ...) 3. Omitted or Repeated Words - words omitted from normal syntax (She walked t r a c k s . ) - words w r i t t e n twice immediately together (She t r i e d to to b e l i e v e him.) - m i s s i n g a b b r e v i a t i o n s (Mr. Duffy opened h i s arms to S i n i c o . ) 4. C a p i t a l i z a t i o n - m i s s i n g c a p i t a l l e t t e r s [ o b l i g a t o r y ] ( he met m r s . s i n i c o i n d u b l i n t h a t Saturday night.) - nonstandard placement or use of c a p i t a l l e t t e r s (At F i v e o 1CLock she Departed.) 5. Verb Tense and Agreement - nonstandard or m i s s i n g endings (He f i q h t e d with h i m s e l f over lose her.) - i n c o n s i s t e n t s h i f t s i n tense (She wants to t r y to convinced him.) - nonstandard agreement with s u b j e c t (His t r o u b l e were a l l over then.) 129 (FIGURE 13 continued) 6. M i i i i l Punefeuatien - nonstandard or mis s i n g commas [ o b l i g a t o r y ] (Nonetheless Mr. Duffy walked home ate supper and...) - unnecessary commas [gross e r r o r s ] (She, wanted to succeed, by h e r s e l f . ) - nonstandard or missing brackets/dashes (The problem h i s s e l f i s h n e s s then became apparent.) - nonstandard or m i s s i n g colons/dashes (She o f f e r e d what he needed love.) - nonstandard or mis s i n g hyphens (He c o u l d n ' t stomach a pa r t time r e l a t i o n s h i p . ) 7. Word Usage - nonstandard use of pronoun forms (She and him waited together alone.) - nonstandard use of a d j e c t i v e forms (He f e l t worser by the minute.) - nonstandard use of adverb forms (The t r a i n h i t her sudden.) - m i s l e a d i n g use of double negatives (She hadn't demanded nothing at a l l . ) - f r a c t u r e d idioms (Mr. Duffy was an expert f o r l o n e l i n e s s . ) 8. Sentence S t r u c t u r e - sentence fragments [ r h e t o r i c a l l y impotent] ( A f t e r the end of the c o n c e r t . She walked home...) - comma s p l i c e s or run-on sentences (Mrs. S i n i c o was upset and Mr. Duffy never c a l l e d her.) - words i n i n a p p r o p r i a t e s y n t a c t i c order (Mr. Duffy f o r r e s p o n s i b l e was not her death.) - f a u l t y c o - o r d i n a t i o n (Her husband was a s a i l o r and he met Mr. Duffy.) ( - f a u l t y s u b o r d i n a t i o n (She was alone but which she couldn't stand.) ^ 130 (FIGURE 13 continued) - f a u l t y p a r a l l e l c o n s t r u c t i o n (He kept indoors, avoided people and was reading h i s books. ) which could not. only be compared to students' own e v a l u a t i o n s but a l s o be compared to other dependent v a r i a b l e s i n the study. As many reviewers have pointed out (e.g., McColly, 1970; Coffman, 1971; Charney, 1984; Belanger, 1985), t r y i n g to o b t a i n v a l i d and r e l i a b l e assessments of the q u a l i t y of p i e c e s of w r i t i n g has f o r many years been a d i f f i c u l t t a s k, fraught with snags and p i t -f a l l s : Study a f t e r study demonstrated t h a t readers who evaluate w r i t i n g samples apply widely v a r y i n g standards. Under normal rea d i n g c o n d i t i o n s , even experienced teachers of w r i t i n g w i l l d i s a g r e e s t r o n g l y over whether,a given piece of w r i t i n g i s good or not, or which of the two w r i t i n g samples i s b e t t e r . (Charney, 1984, p.67) To t r y to improve t h i s s i t u a t i o n , r e s e a r c h e r s have devised e v a l u -a t i o n instruments and procedures which can produce more j u s t i f i -a ble r e s u l t s . P a r t i c u l a r success was achieved using h o l i s t i c r a t i n g s obtained from c a r e f u l l y chosen and t r a i n e d e v a l u a t o r s : When r a t e r s are. from s i m i l a r backgrounds and when they are t r a i n e d with a h o l i s t i c s c o r i n g guide -- e i t h e r one they borrow or de v i s e f o r themselves on the spot -- they can achieve n e a r l y p e r f e c t agreement i n choosing the b e t t e r of a p a i r of essays; and they can achieve s c o r i n g r e l i a b i l i t i e s i n the high 131 eighties and low nineties on their summed scores from multiple pieces of a student's writing. (Cooper, 1977, p.19) The procedure of h o l i s t i c , rating produces a swift, impressionist-ic judgment of the overall writing qu a l i t y of a sample of writing according to some previously agreed on c r i t e r i a . Despite questions raised by Charney (1984) about the claimed v a l i d i t y and r e l i a b i l i t y of thi s method, h o l i s t i c rating is regularly used by testing agencies such, as the U.S. Educational Testing Service (ETS) and i s soon to be ,used throughout North America for scoring essays produced for the General Educational Development (GED) Grade 12 Equivalency Examination. Moreover, researchers f r e -quently use h o l i s t i c rating to compare the effects of d i f f e r e n t classroom teaching methods (e.g., Sanders & L i t t l e f i e l d , 1975; Metzger, 1978; Hilgers, 1980; C l i f f o r d , 1981; Hi l l o c k s , 1982). To ensure appropriate consistency of results without compromising ease and p r a c t i c a l i t y of application, writers such as McColly (1970), Diederich (1974), and Cooper (1975) outlined detailed procedures for using h o l i s t i c ratings and offered advice and warnings regarding the preparation of samples for scoring, the selection of q u a l i f i e d raters, the tr a i n i n g and c a l i b r a t i n g of raters, and the procedures for dealing with discrepancies between raters. The methods used by the present researcher to obtain quality ratings for students' drafts were based c a r e f u l l y upon these suggestions emanating from the l i t e r a t u r e on h o l i s t i c scoring in order to ensure that r e l i a b l e results were obtained. 132 A l l of the separate drafts obtained from each treatment session were coded and typed in order to conceal the i d e n t i t y of the writers and to avoid students' handwriting and neatness a f f e c t i n g raters judgments (Markham, 1976). • •. ' . • v Following Diederich (1966, 1974), two raters were chosen to assess h o l i s t i c a l l y each draft by,'.the technique named General Impression Marking, where "the rater simply scores the paper by deciding where the paper f i t s within the range of papers produced for that assignment or occasion" (Cooper, 1975, p.12). Two college instructors were selected as competent'raters. Both had over f i f t e e n years experience teaching college composition courses and marking expository essays similar to those produced by students in the present study (cf. McColly, 1970). Several hours of i n i t i a l t r a i n i n g were conducted by the research-er . The drafts produced by students who did not attend a l l treatment sessions were used as practice material. Raters were asked to score a preliminary sample of drafts using the same nine-point scale that the students had used for their s e l f -evaluations. Raters were asked, to provide scores that r e f l e c t e d the o v e r a l l merit exhibited in each draft and were asked not to spend more than, three minutes considering each d r a f t . These scores were then compared and studied. Raters discussed the features of each draft that had influenced the scores given and disagreements were argued and r e s o l v e d . Half of the remaining d r a f t s were then scored independently by the r a t e r s and the r e s u l t s compared. Where d i s c r e p a n c i e s e x i s t e d , the re s e a r c h e r continued the t r a i n i n g s e s s i o n by asking both r a t e r s to r e c o n s i d -er the scores given and to provide second s c o r e s . R a t e r s . d i d not know where the d i s c r e p a n c y l a y or how l a r g e i t was. P i n a l scores were then t a l l i e d and an i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of 0.84 was c a l c u l a t e d u sing the Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n technique. Where scores were not i d e n t i c a l , a l l d r a f t s were then s t u d i e d again by the r a t e r s . D i s c u s s i o n of each d r a f t continued u n t i l a l l r a t e r s reached agreement on a f i n a l s c o r e . The remaining h a l f of the d r a f t s was s u b d i v i d e d again and r a t e r s produced independent s c o r e s , a c h i e v i n g i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of 0.87. The l a s t group of d r a f t s were scored and i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of 0.93 was achieved. F i n a l l y , nine d r a f t s were s e l e c t e d which represented each of the nine p o s s i b l e s c o r e s . These were to f u n c t i o n as models to which r a t e r s could r e f e r i f u n c e r t a i n about what score to a t t r i b u t e to any p a r t i c u l a r d r a f t they might encounter. The r a t e r s agreed that these models would be more u s e f u l to them as a guide than a " r u b r i c " or l i s t of f e a t u r e s . S c o r i n g of the d r a f t s to be used i n subsequent data a n a l y s i s then proceeded as be f o r e , except t h a t where d i s c r e p a n c i e s e x i s t e d of l a r g e r than one p o i n t on the r a t i n g s c a l e the r e s e a r c h e r followed the procedure advocated by D i e d e r i c h (1974). Rather than r e t u r n 134 d r a f t s to the r a t e r s , or average the d e v i a t i o n i n the s c o r e s , the r e s e a r c h e r acted as a t h i r d r a t e r and provided a new score f o r each d r a f t which c o r r o b o r a t e d one of the r a t e r s ' judgments. T h i s was s u b s t i t u t e d f o r the d e v i a n t s c o r e . The r a t e r s produced agreements on 96 out of the 105 d r a f t s , r e q u i r i n g the r e s e a r c h e r to c o r r o b o r a t e scores f o r 9 d r a f t s , and thus producing f i n a l i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of 91.4 percent. Throughout these procedures used f o r o b t a i n i n g q u a l i t y r a t i n g s f o r s t u d e n t s ' d r a f t s , the r a t e r s were o p e r a t i n g independently i n separate rooms without access to each other's s c o r e s . The r a t e r s r e c e i v e d the d r a f t s i n a c o l l e c t i o n arranged i n random order using a t a b l e of random numbers. The d r a f t s d i d not i n d i c a t e e i t h e r the s t u d e n t s ' names or the treatment s e s s i o n i n which the d r a f t s had been produced. ANALYSIS OF DATA A f t e r s c o r i n g the data on measures of idea u n i t s , r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n , e r r o r types and q u a l i t y r a t i n g s , a l l of the data c o l l e c t e d i n the study were coded and prepared f o r s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s u sing the SPSSX package at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia Computing Centre. 135 Five techniques were employed for this s t a t i s t i c a l analysis of the data: 1. Descriptive S t a t i s t i c s In order to compare the anticipated differences of central tendency and v a r i a b i l i t y between the data c o l -lected for each group of subjects in the sample, the means and standard deviations of the raw scores for each variable were calculated per treatment condition. 2. Correlational S t a t i s t i c s To describe the strength of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between certain variables, the bivariate c o r r e l a t i o n coef-f i c i e n t was calculated per treatment condition using the Pearson (zero-order product moment) cor r e l a t i o n for quantitative linear r e l a t i o n s h i p s . S i g n i f i c a n t relationships were anticipated between the following variables based on raw scores: grade point average, writing apprehension, self-evaluations, q u a l i t y ratings, number of words, and number of errors per 100 words. 3. I n f e r e n t i a l S t a t i s t i c s : t-Tests To determine the s t a t i s t i c a l significance l e v e l of d i f -ferences between the means of each treatment group, t -1 tests for group means between independent samples were calculated for each variable. Two t a i l e d tests were used with the alpha l e v e l of significance set at 0.05. 136 4. I n f e r e n t i a l S t a t i s t i c s : ANOVAR For the purpose of determining i f s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -ferences e x i s t e d between the mean number of idea u n i t s (and t h e i r r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n s ) f o r each treatment c o n d i t i o n , the scores per d r a f t were sub j e c t e d to a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (ANOVAR). Since both academic a b i l i t y (GPA) and a n x i e t y with w r i t i n g (WAI) were a n t i c i p a t e d to i n f l u e n c e the d i f f e r e n c e s between group means, two se t s of two way f a c t o r i a l designs were used to measure whether i n t e r a c t i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t between treatment c o n d i t i o n and grade p o i n t average and between treatment c o n d i t i o n and w r i t i n g a n x i e t y . The w i t h i n s u b j e c t f a c t o r s f o r each s e t of analyses of va r i a n c e were r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n s of the idea u n i t s , grouped by the type of r e d r a f t i n g o p e r a t i o n performed on them per d r a f t . The l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e f o r r e j e c t i n g the n u l l h ypothesis was s e t a t 0.05. 5 • I n f e r e n t i a l S t a t i s t i c s : ANCQVA In order to determine i f s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t e d between the mean scores of each treatment group on v a r i a b l e s of q u a l i t y r a t i n g s , s e 1 f - e v a l u a t i o n s , number of words, and number of e r r o r s per 100 words when the i n f l u e n c e s of the mean scores f o r e a r l i e r d r a f t s were c o n t r o l l e d , a n a l y s i s of covar i a n c e (ANCOVA) was used with a completely cro s s e d d e s i g n . Sets of I 137 . analyses for draft 3 were computed using scores on draft 1 and then scores on draft 2 as covariates. As with the analyses of variance outlined above, the s t a t i s t i c a l significance of interactions were measured between treatment condition and grade point average and between treatment condition and writing apprehension. The l e v e l of significance was set at 0.05. For a l l of the above s t a t i s t i c a l analyses of the data, only the data co l l e c t e d for those subjects, in each treatment condition who had completed a l l treatment sessions could be used (n = 35). However, s t a t i s t i c s and tests of significance for sex, grade point average and writing apprehension were calculated for. subjects who did not complete a l l treatment sessions (n = 23). These calculations permitted the researcher to gauge whether experimental mortality created a confounding variable which would influence results and thus a f f e c t the strength of conclusions that could be drawn. SUMMARY Chapter Three has presented a detailed explanation of the method-ology employed by the researcher while conducting the present study. The chapter began by describing the p i l o t study performed to investigate the worth of the research questions and the sound-138 ness of the experimental d e s i g n . The subsequent amended design, along with the choice of measures, and the procedures by which the data were c o l l e c t e d over a f i v e day p e r i o d , were then presented. The reader was provided with an e x p l a n a t i o n of how the data were prepared and how each dependent v a r i a b l e was scored, i n c l u d i n g the r a t i o n a l e f o r each procedure used. The chapter concluded with a plan of the s t a t i s t i c a l techniques employed to analyze the data. A p r e s e n t a t i o n of the f i n d i n g s of the study along with i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these r e s u l t s i s provided i n the f o l l o w i n g chapter. 139 CHAPTER FOUR J .' FINDINGS The f i n d i n g s of the study are presented i n t h i s chapter, c a t e g o r -i z e d s e p a r a t e l y by the r e s e a r c h questions t h a t were presented e a r l i e r i n Chapter One. Tables that summarize the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s of the data are provided and, where a p p r o p r i a t e , i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the f i n d i n g s are o f f e r e d i n order to a l l o w a c l e a r p i c t u r e to emerge of how the s u b j e c t s responded to the d i f f e r e n t treatments. Reference i s made to f e a t u r e s i n the data observed by the r e s e a r c h e r , e s p e c i a l l y where these o b s e r v a t i o n s help to r e f l e c t and support the s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s or where these o b s e r v a t i o n s i d e n t i f y f e a t u r e s of the data t h a t f e l l o u t s i d e the scope of the s t a t i s t i c a l t e c h niques. Sample s e t s of stud e n t s ' d r a f t s t h a t are r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of high and low academic a b i l i t y subgroups (as measured by grade p o i n t average) f o r each treatment c o n d i t i o n have been i n c l u d e d i n the appendices, along with a n c i l l a r y t a b l e s of the s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s . The chapter begins by c o n s i d e r i n g the o v e r a l l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the s u b j e c t s i n the sample. 140 CHARACTERISTICS OF THE SAMPLE The subjects of the study were students enrolled in a f i r s t - y e a r English course at a community college and were randomly assigned from a l l four sections of the course into two treatment condit-ions. Complete data were collected from a t o t a l of 35 students with a balanced number from each treatment group: 17 in condition one and 18 in condition two. A further 23 students participated in the study but were unable to provide complete sets of data because they were absent on one or more days of the data c o l l e c t -ion. Table 3 below shows the extent of attendance by students in the study: Table 3: The p a r t i c i p a t i o n of s u b j e c t s i n the study Day A c t i v i t y Attendance Day 1 Writing apprehension inventory 52 Day 2 Treatment session (1) 42 Day 3 Treatment session (2) 41 Day 4 Treatment session (3) 38 Day 5 Revision questionnaire 39 Total n = 58 Total n with complete data = 35 The importance to the study of consistent attendance over the five day period of data c o l l e c t i o n was impressed upon students at the outset, but i l l n e s s , prior commitments, and unforeseen personal circumstances conspired to create an experimental mortality of 39 percent. The instructor of the course reported \ 141 that none of these students i n d i c a t e d to him t h a t any aspects of the study had l e d to absence from c l a s s ; moreover, the i n s t r u c t o r commented t h a t such an attendance p a t t e r n was normal f o r a f i r s t year course which i n c l u d e d s i n g l e mothers, s h i f t workers and out-of-town commuters who were o f t e n unable to guarantee much more than e r r a t i c attendance. Table 4 r e v e a l s t h a t those who d i d not provide complete data were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from those who d i d , and t h e r e f o r e they d i d not appear to compromise the r e s u l t s of the study. The number from each treatment c o n d i t i o n who d i d not f u l l y p a r t -i c i p a t e i n the study remained e q u i v a l e n t (11, 12) and t h e i r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s as a group were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from the group a t t e n d i n g a l l days i n terms of grade p o i n t average, f i n a l grade achieved f o r the course and w r i t i n g apprehension. T h i s suggests t h a t d i f f e r e n t r e s u l t s would have not been found had these students attended a l l days. TABLE 4 : A c o m p a r i s o n o f s t u d e n t s i n the c o u r s e Complete Data Incomplete Data C o n d i t i o n 1 C o n d i t i o n 2 C o n d i t i o n 1 C o n d i t i o n 2 T o t a l 17 18 11 12 Male 9 10 5 7 Female 8 8 6 5 OPA 4.88 5.28 4.91 5.33 Grade 2.29 2.39 2.09 2.25 WAI 87.41 87.17 87.00 83.35 ) 142 Mention should also be made here of an additional 30 students who had registered in the course, but who did not attend at a l l during the data c o l l e c t i o n period. Of these, 21 students had o f f i c i a l l y withdrawn already from the course. As Table 4 shows, thi s group of students received r e l a t i v e l y low grades for the course but possessed r e l a t i v e l y high grade point averages. The instructor of the course offered the opinion that t h i s finding merely represented the tendency of many able students to withdraw from f i r s t - y e a r courses to which they may not be suited and to transfer to other courses early in the semester. As Table 4 shows, the 35 students who did participate f u l l y in the experiment possessed the following c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Grade point averages (4.88, 5.28) and course grade scores (2.29, 2.39) were s l i g h t l y lower for subjects in treatment condition 1, who also claimed to be s l i g h t l y less apprehensive about writing (87.41, 87.17), but none of these differences was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.05 le v e l of/confidence. Although s l i g h t l y more males than females were included, t h i s was true for both treatment groups, and no s i g n i f i c a n t correlations were found between sex and grade point average or writing apprehension (see Appendix D). F i n a l l y , the instructor of the course observed no difference with the interest or e f f o r t displayed by students under either treatment, and, since the marks achieved on the assignment would count towards students' f i n a l course grades, 143 students had the same motivation to perform well as would normally ex i s t for other assignments they tackled in school. EFFECT OF TREATMENT ON CONTENTS OF DRAFTS Length of Drafts A comparison of the o v e r a l l lengths of the sets of drafts (see Table 5) reveals that under both treatment conditions second drafts tended to be somewhat longer in t o t a l number of words than f i r s t d r a f t s , the greater mean gain being achieved by students in condition 1 (the students not having access to i n i t i a l text in draft 2) who then showed a further increase in length for their t h i r d d r a f t s , whereas in condition 2 (the students who redrafted normally) t h i r d drafts were noticeably shorter than either of the e a r l i e r d r a f t s . The net r e s u l t , however, was a completely d i f f e r e n t pattern overa l l for each group. Students in condition 1 increased the mean length of their compositions almost 36 percent by steady increments per d r a f t . In contrast, students in condition 2 decreased their mean composition lengths by 16 percent o v e r a l l despite a 7 percent r i s e in number of words at the second-draft stage. The difference between the group means for draft 3 was s t a t i s t i -c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t at,the 0.05 l e v e l of confidence. This d i f -ference had been anticipated since students in condition 1 had 144 a v a i l a b l e to them two independently produced e a r l i e r d r a f t s . Faced with the s i t u a t i o n of having to s y n t h e s i z e m a t e r i a l from each of these d r a f t s , students would l i k e l y tend to i n c l u d e m a t e r i a l from both r a t h e r than j e t t i s o n m a t e r i a l a l r e a d y com-posed . A s m a l l number of students (n=4) produced much longer TABLE 5: Comparison O f 1 number of words per d r a f t C o n d i t i o n 1 C o n d i t i o n 2 X SD X SD • DF T Prob D r a f t 1 214.12 52.21 240.78 67.55 33 -1 . 30 0.202 D r a f t 2 252.18 82.94 257.28 9 2.21 33 -0 .10 0.917 D r a f t 3 291.59 143.80 202.11 73.70 24 2 . 30 0.031* ( * p < .05 ) t h i r d d r a f t s than the group mean (291.59.) -- one even as long as 682 words -- and t h i s i s r e f l e c t e d i n the much higher standard d e v i a t i o n obtained (143.80). The steady i n c r e a s e a t each stage was a f f e c t e d by the r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t lengths of t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s (214.12) compared to the f i r s t d r a f t s produced i n i t i a l l y under i d e n t i c a l circumstances by those students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 (240.78). The f a c t t h at c o n d i t i o n 2. a l s o i n c r e a s e d the l e n g t h of t h e i r second d r a f t s (257.28) tends to minimize the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the i n c r e a s e achieved i n d r a f t 2 by c o n d i t i o n 1. The i n -creased lengths of second d r a f t s perhaps r e f l e c t the understand-able tendency f o r ine x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s to add m a t e r i a l and not 145 d e l e t e i t when they have been i n s t r u c t e d to r e d r a f t a composition r a t h e r than to merely r e v i s e the t e x t of an e x i s t i n g one. Close examination of the contents of each d r a f t was needed to provide a c l e a r e r p i c t u r e of what was o c c u r r i n g a t , t h e second and t h i r d d r a f t s t a g e s . Contents The f i r s t p a r t of t h i s examination was to compare the contents of s t u d e n t s ' f i r s t d r a f t s , with t h e i r second d r a f t s i n order to a s c e r t a i n whether idea u n i t s were r e t a i n e d , removed, new, or r e a s s i g n e d . Table 6 presents t h i s comparison and c l a s s i f i e s the idea u n i t s by t h e i r r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n ( a s s e r t i o n s or support) fo r each p a r t of the assignment q u e s t i o n (part 1 or p a r t 2). The p a t t e r n s e v i d e n t from the t a b l e r e v e a l t h a t , whereas students i n both c o n d i t i o n s had i n c r e a s e d the length of t h e i r second d r a f t s , the r e d r a f t i n g o p e r a t i o n s o c c u r r i n g under each c o n d i t i o n were performed to d i f f e r e n t e x t e n t s . Ten of the 16 comparisons were s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.05 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e . As would be expected, students i n c o n d i t i o n 1, not having access to the content of t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s , removed f a r more mean idea u n i t s of most r h e t o r i c a l types than students i n c o n d i t i o n 2, who c o ncentrated on r e t a i n i n g idea u n i t s or adding a few new ones. Apart from the s m a l l number of idea u n i t s r e a s s i g n e d (which was true f o r both c o n d i t i o n s ) , students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 removed on average h a r d l y any of the idea u n i t s t h a t had a l r e a d y e x i s t e d i n 146 t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s . C o n s i s t e n t with the phenomenon of c l o s u r e , they appear to have been seduced by the s a l i e n c y of t h e i r e x i s t i n g t e x t s and could break away from i t s hold over them onl y to add new m a t e r i a l . In c o n t r a s t , students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 were n o t i c e a b l y l i b e r a t e d from the c o n s t r a i n t s t h a t could be exerted by the t e x t produced i n t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s . While the mean TABLE 6 : C o m p a r i s o n o f m a t e r i a l per d r a f t f o r t r e a t m e n t c o n d i t i o n s BETWEEN FIRST AND SECOND DRAFTS C o n d i t i o n 1 C o n d i t i o n 2 X SD X SD DF T Prob A s s e r t i o n s ( p a r t i ) S u p p o r t S u p p o r t r e t a i n e d 0 , .41 0 . 62 1, . 33 0. . 69 33 -4 . 17 0, .001* removed 1, .35 1 . . 37 0 , . 39 0 . , 50 20 2 . ,74 0 , . 013* new 1, . 29 0 . 77 0 , . 56 0. , 62 33 3. ,14 0 , .004* reass igned 0 . , 00 0 . , 00 0 , .00 0, , 00 33 0 . , 00 1. . 000 ; ( p a r t 1) r e t a ined 2. . 53 1. .67 5, . 56 2 . 01 33 -4 . 84 0 , .001* removed 4 . 88 2, . 40 1. . 72 1. , 81 33 4 . ,42 0 . , 001* new 6 . . 71 2 , .93 4 , . 28 2 , .85 33 2. .49 0. . 018* re a s s i g n e d 0 . 00 0 . ,00 0 . 00 0 . ,00 33 0 . ,00 1, ,000 ons ( p a r t 2) r e t a i n e d 0, .82 1. .02 2, .22 1. .70 28 -2. .97 0, . 006* removed 2 , .18 1, .33 0 , .67 0 . 91 33 3 . 94 0 . , 001* new 4 , .06 1, . 52 1, . 89 1, . 49 33 4 . 26 0 , . 001* reass igned 0 . 06 0 . 24 0 , .06 0, .24 33 0 . 04 0 , .968 : ( p a r t 2) r e t a i n e d 0. . 53 0 . 72 1, .67 1. .53 24 -2 . 83 0 , . 009* removed 0 . 94 0 , 83 0 , . 56 0 . , 86 33 1. . 35 0 , .185 new 2 , .71 2 . ,11 1, .94 1. .98 33 1, .10 0 , . 280 reass igned 0 . . 00 0 , 00 0 , .06 0 . ,24 33 -0 . 97 0 , .339 (* p < .05) 147 FIGURE 14 : Examples o f t he b e g i n n i n g s o f d r a f t s 1 and 2 STUDENT FROM CONDITION 1 F i r s t Draft Mr. Duffy has a very small amount of responsi-b i l i t y for the death of Mrs. Sinico except in his own conscience. While one i s not to be blamed for the actions of others, he can blame himself for his motives or the underlying weakness which may have resulted i n d i r e c t l y in another's misfortune. Mr. Duffy is stricken with a r e a l i z a t i o n of his s e l f i s h , isolated existence at the death of Mrs. Sinico and feels remorse for the part he may have played in i t . Second Draft Mr. Duffy at f i r s t feels no r e s p o n s i b i l i t y for the death of Mrs. Sinico; his i n i t i a l reaction is disgust at her weakness in allowing herself to sink so low. He feels degraded even by association with such a person. When he begins to consider his memory of her in contrast to thi s new image he has formed, however, he ' sees a pattern in her deterioration in which he may hold some r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . STUDENT FROM CONDITION 2 F i r s t draft Mr. Duffy is almost wholly responsible for Mrs. S's death. It is his rej e c t i o n of Mrs. Sinico that leads to her drinking and eventually, her death (sui c i d e ) . Mrs. S plays a part in her death because she commits suicide and she is in a marriage that does not s a t i s f y her. Her l i f e is fine with her u n t i l Mr. Duffy enters. He gives Mrs. S someone to talk to, discuss ideas with, and then he takes i t away. He does not remove himself slowly but rips himself from her. Second Draft Mr. Duffy is almost wholly to blame for her death. His r e j e c t i o n of Mrs. Sinico is the cause of her drinking and eventually her death (su i c i d e ) . Before Mr. Duffy enters the picture, Mrs. Sinico's l i f e is calm and peaceful but he changes that. He gives her something, a person to talk to, discuss ideas with, and then he takes i t away. He does not even take i t slowly but just r i p s himself from her. 148 lengths of second drafts were almost i d e n t i c a l for each condition (252.18, 257.28), students in condition 1 added almost the same number or more idea units than those retained by students in condition 2 for each r h e t o r i c a l function. Clearly, quite d i f f e r e n t sets of drafts were being produced under each condition, as is demonstrated in the examples provided in Figure 14 which shows the beginnings of both drafts by represent-ative students from each condition. The student in Condition 1 has begun his answer, to part one of the assignment in draft 2 in a wholly d i f f e r e n t manner with d i f f e r e n t meaning to that which began his f i r s t d r a f t . The student in condition 2, however, e s s e n t i a l l y transfers the idea units of his f i r s t draft into his second almost verbatim with idea units that support the same assertion already made in draft 1. In terms of r h e t o r i c a l functions, more redrafting a c t i v i t y occurred in connection with support for part 1 of the assignment than for any other category --. although the contents of a l l categories were affected to some degree. The"- highest mean number of idea units that were added under condition 1 (6.71) and removed (4.88) occurred here, as well as the highest mean number of idea units retained under condition 2 (5.56). An explanation of this, finding may l i e in the nature of the role played by di f f e r e n t parts of the assignment question i t s e l f (reproduced below): 149 Part 1: E x p l a i n Mr. Duffy's degree of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r the death of Mrs. S i n i c o . . . P a r t 2: and the consequences f o r him of her death. Examination of the s t u d e n t s ' t e x t s produced i n d r a f t 2 showed th a t students under both c o n d i t i o n s found Part l . t o be a concept-u a l l y harder task to which they devoted more of t h e i r papers. Part 1 r e q u i r e s students to present a moral judgment and to argue i t s v a l i d i t y . P a r t 2 merely r e q u i r e s a r e t e l l i n g of the conse-quences the p r o t a g o n i s t s u f f e r s . In the s h o r t s t o r y under d i s c u s s i o n , James Joyce i s concerned with p o r t r a y i n g the c h a r a c t -er development of Mr. Duffy from a somewhat unappealing misan-t h r o p i c r e c l u s e (who i s so shocked by the depth of f e e l i n g he experiences f o r Mrs. S i n i c o t h a t he suddenly breaks o f f t h e i r romantic attachment) to a sad, t r a g i c , r e m o r s e f u l f i g u r e at the c l o s e of the s t o r y . He reproaches h i m s e l f f o r a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y he f e e l s f o r her a c c i d e n t a l death -- which he has chanced to see r e p o r t e d i n the l o c a l newspaper as caused by her being, h i t by a t r a i n while out drunkenly wandering on the t r a c k s one n i g h t . While Mr. Duffy might f e e l m o r a l l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r her death, i t i s an open and d i f f i c u l t q u e s t i o n as to whether he should f e e l t h i s . way. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , students i n both c o n d i t i o n s spent most of t h e i r time r e d r a f t i n g the support provided as evidence f o r h i s r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (or lack of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y ) f o r her death. I n t e r e s t i n g l y , though, the removal of d r a f t 1 i n c o n d i t i o n 1 tended to encourage students to provide s i g n i f i c a n t l y more new a s s e r t i o n s (not merely support) f o r t h i s p a r t of the q u e s t i o n 150 than f o r students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 and more new a s s e r t i o n s f o r p a r t 2. The e f f e c t of removing access to d r a f t 1 has tended to inc r e a s e the l i k e l i h o o d t h a t students might change the p o s i t i o n s they adopt and not only j u s t the idea u n i t s marshalled i n t h e i r support. Turning to a comparison between d r a f t 2 and d r a f t 3, presented i n Table 7, the extent to which the contents of d r a f t 3 r e f l e c t e d the t e x t s produced e a r l i e r i n d r a f t 2 was examined. At t h i s t h i r d d r a f t stage, both treatment groups had both of t h e i r e a r l i e r d r a f t s a v a i l a b l e to them. Here students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 r e t a i n e d s l i g h t l y fewer idea u n i t s i n a l l r h e t o r i c a l c a t e g o r i e s than students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 (thus c o n t i n u i n g the p a t t e r n created, between d r a f t 1 and 2) although t h i s was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g -n i f i c a n t o n l y f o r "support-part 1" (t:2.17, df:33, p:<0.05). On the other hand, 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 c o n d i t i o n s f o r the mean number of idea u n i t s removed, except f o r a s s e r t i o n s - p a r t 2 (t:2.62, df:33, p:<0.05). The most notable d i f f e r e n c e , s i g n i f i c a n t f o r a l l r h e t o r i c a l c a t e g o r i e s , was the mean number of idea u n i t s t h a t were new, e s p e c i a l l y f o r a s s e r t -i o n s - p a r t 1 (t:4.52, df:33, p:<0.05) where c o n d i t i o n 1 produced an average of 1.2 more idea u n i t s per student (means:1.53, 0.33) but with wider v a r i a t i o n per student (S.D..0.94, 0.59). As be f o r e , few i f any students engaged i n r e a s s i g n i n g the r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n of t h e i r idea u n i t s . 151 TABLE 7i Cempaiisen §£ mattsiil pes i i a f t f§£ treatment conditions BETWEEN SECOND AND THIRD DRAFTS C o n d i t i o n 1 C o n d i t i o n 2 X SD X SD DF T P r o b Assertions (part 1) Support Support r e t a i n e d 0 . 94 0, .75 1, .33 0, .69 33 - 1 . ,62 0. .115 r emoved 0 . 53 0. ,62 0 . ,44 0 ,  51 33 0.. , 44 0 , ,662 new 1. .53 0 , .94 0, .33 0 , .59 33 4 ,  52 0 , .001* r e a s s i g n e d 0 . ,06 0 , 24 0. ,00 0, .00 33 1. ,03 0. ,311 : (part 1) > r e t a i n e d 3, . 06 1, .48 4 . 50 2, .33 33 -2 , .17 0 , .037* removed 4. . 29 3 , .10 4 , ,11 2 , .74 33 0 . ,19 0 , .854 new 6 . 47 4 , .14 2, .94 2 , .26 25 3, .10 0 , .005* r e a s s i g n e d 0, .18 0 . , 39 0, ,11 0 , .32 33 0 . , 54 0. .59 4 ons (part 2) r e t a i n e d 2. .12 1, .58 2, . 39 1, .50 33 -0 . 52 0, . 605 removed 2. ,59 1. .91 1. ,11 1, .41 33 2 . ,62 0 . , 0 1 3 * new 3 . 24 2 , . 39 1. .00 1, . 24 24 3 , .45 0 , .002* r e a s s i g n e d 0 . , 00 0 . 00 0 ,  06 0 , .24 33 -0 . ,97 0. , 339 : (part 2) r e t a i n e d 1, .71 2 , . 26 2 , . 00 2, . 06 33 -0 . 40 0 , .689 r emoved 1, ,18 1. . 13 •1. , 56 1, ,38 33 -0 . , 89 0 .  382 new 2 . 24 2, .11 0 . , 89 0, .90 21 2. ,43 0, , 024* r e a s s i g n e d 0 ,  06 0 , .24 0 ,  06 0, .24 33 0, ,04 0 , ,968 (* p < .05 ) Apparently,»students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 were much more w i l l i n g t o c o n t i n u e t h e i r p a t t e r n o f a d d i n g new m a t e r i a l e v e n when t h e y had a c c e s s t o b o t h o r i g i n a l d r a f t s . The l a b e l "new", h o w e v e r , i s m i s l e a d i n g . I n T a b l e 7, new i d e a u n i t s may be o n l y i d e a u n i t s t h a t were new t o d r a f t 2 b u t w h i c h had a l r e a d y e x i s t e d i n d r a f t 1. To o b t a i n a c l e a r p i c t u r e o f what s t u d e n t s had been d o i n g when p r o d u c i n g t h e i r f i n a l d r a f t s , t h e r e s e a r c h e r n e e d e d t o s t u d y 152 the composition of t h i r d drafts in r e l a t i o n to beth e a r l i e r d r a f t s ; that i s , to . ascertain where the idea units present in draft 3 had come from. Table 8 reveals the findings of that analysis. Two d i s t i n c t trends are r e f l e c t e d in Table 8. F i r s t l y , students in both conditions tended to devote similar proportions of their t h i r d drafts to d i f f e r e n t parts of the assignment question. More idea units were expended as support-part 1 than for any other r h e t o r i c a l category. In addition, for both treatment groups, more idea units were functioning as assertions for part 2 than for part 1. Secondly, however, students in condition 1 produced f i n a l drafts that had idea units of s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t origins than those of students in condition 2 (although t h i s was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t at 0.05 for new material, owing to the wide v a r i a t i o n encountered within both conditions: the standard deviations being larger than the means in a l l categories for new idea u n i t s ) . The f i r s t trend extrapolates the patterns evident e a r l i e r in Table 6 for the comparison between draft 1 and draft 2. The second trend c l a r i f i e s the misleading impression found e a r l i e r in Table 7 comparing draft 2 with draft 3. Both trends require some interpretation. 153 TABLE 8 : Comparison of material per draft for treatment : conditions \ BETWEEN BOTH DRAFTS AND DRAFT 3 C o n d i t i o n 1 C o n d i t i o n 2 X SD X SD DF T Prob Assertions (part 1) both d r a f t s 0 . 47 0 .62 1. 22 0 .65 33 -3 . 49 0 . 001* d r a f t 1 onl y 0.59 0 . 51 0 .11 0 .32 33 3 .34 0 . 002* d r a f t 2 onl y 1.12 0.70 0.22 0.43 33 4 .61 0 . 001* new 0 . 71 0.92 0.28 0. 58 33 1 .66 0 . 106 reass igned 0.00 0.00 0.00 0 . 00 33 0 . 00 1. 000 Support (part 1) both d r a f t s 1.00 0.79 2. 89 1.68 25 -4 .30 0 . 001* d r a f t 1 o n l y 1. 53 1.46 0 .11 0 .32 18 3 .91 0 . 001* d r a f t 2 onl y 3 .82 2.90 1.94 1.51 24 2 . 38 0 . 025* new 1.88 2 . 40 1.61 1.82 33 0 . 38 0 . 707 reass igned 0.12 0 . 33 0.11 0 .32 33 0 .06 0 . 953 Assertions (part 2) both d r a f t s 0.76 0 .83 1. 83 1. 54 26 -2 . 57 0 . 016* d r a f t 1 o n l y 0.94 0 . 75 0 .22 0 .55 33 3 . 26 0 . 003* d r a f t 2 onl y 1.82 1.38 0.72 0.96 33 2 .76 0 . 009* new 1.24 1.86 0.67 0.91 23 1 .14 0 . 265 reass igned 0.00 0 . 00 0 .00 0.00 33 0 .00 1. 000 Support (part 2) both d r a f t s 0.29 0 .59 1.44 1.38 23 -3 . 24 0 . 004* d r a f t 1 o n l y 0 . 47 0 . 62 0 .06 0.2 4 20 2 . 57 0 . 018* d r a f t 2 o n l y 1.35 1.90 0 .44 0.62 19 1 .88 0. 076 new 1.00 1.77 0 .67 0 .84 23 0 . 71 0. 488 reass igned 0 . 06 0 . 24 0.11 0 .32 33 -0 . 54 0 . 594 (* p < .05 ) * Table 8 shows t h a t a g r e a t e r p r o p o r t i o n of mean idea u n i t s f o r both c o n d i t i o n s have the r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n of s u p p o r t i n g p a r t 1 of the assignment. The h i g h e s t mean f o r c o n d i t i o n 1 (3.82) as w e l l as the hi g h e s t mean f o r c o n d i t i o n 2 (2.89) f a l l i n t h i s 154 category -- a l b e i t with d i f f e r e n t o r i g i n s . I f students i n t h e i r second d r a f t s found the task of p r o v i d i n g argumentative proof (to support t h e i r a s s e r t i o n s f o r p a r t 1) to be a c o n c e p t u a l l y demanding task to which they devoted most of t h e i r r e d r a f t i n g e n e r g i e s , then the same concern seems to have predominated when producing t h e i r t h i r d d r a f t s . Another e x p l a n a t i o n perhaps might be t h a t they found t h i s aspect of the assignment to be e a s i e r to perform than p r o v i d i n g new evidence of the consequences of Mrs. S i n i c o ' s death f o r Mr. Duffy ( i . e . , s u p p o r t - p a r t 2 ) . Her death occurs towards the end of the s t o r y , and the reader i s l e f t to i n f e r from James Joyce's denouement much of what the probable consequences might have been f o r Mr. Duffy. Indeed, most of the r e d r a f t i n g performed on the contents of p a r t 2 occurred i n r e s p e c t to the a s s e r t i o n s r a t h e r than t h e i r support. The tendency was f o r students to a l t e r idea u n i t s s t a t i n g what the consequences f o r Mr. Duffy were: students appeared to r e t h i n k t h e i r p o s i t i o n s more than they r e c o n s i d e r e d the evidence t h a t supported those p o s i t i o n s . The example of a c o n d i t i o n 1 s t u -dent's second and t h i r d d r a f t s below shows that the same idea u n i t s c o u l d be r e t a i n e d to support d i f f e r e n t a s s e r t i o n s : Second d r a f t A f t e r Mrs S i n i c o had d i e d Mr. Duffy r e a l i z e d t h a t he loved her. He s a i d one human had loved him and he had denied her l i f e because he d i d n ' t love her back. He would never love someone again as much as he had loved her . T h i r d d r a f t Her death caused him to want to f o r g e t her and to l i v e a l o n e l y l i f e . He had been i n love once and i t 155 hadn't worked out because he hadn't returned the l o v e . He wanted j u s t to f o r g e t her. The second trend d i s p l a y e d i n Table 8 bears more d i r e c t l y on the concerns of the present study and confirms the f i r s t hypothesis (see Chapter One) t h a t the two treatment c o n d i t i o n s would have d i f f e r e n t e f f e c t s on the contents of s t u d e n t s ' d r a f t s . The o r i g i n s of idea u n i t s i n d r a f t 3 show n o t i c e a b l y d i f f e r e n t p a t t e r n s per treatment. Understandably, the t h i r d d r a f t s of students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 possessed s i g n i f i c a n t l y fewer mean idea u n i t s which had appeared i n both e a r l i e r d r a f t s than d i d those t h i r d d r a f t s of c o n d i t i o n 2. T h i s was true f o r a l l r h e t o r i c a l c a t e g o r i e s . While students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 tended r e g u l a r l y to r e d r a f t idea u n i t s with the same meaning throughout a l l three d r a f t s , students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 produced i n d r a f t 2 (when access to d r a f t 1 was not p o s s i b l e ) c o n s i d e r a b l y l a r g e r mean numbers of idea u n i t s t h a t had not e x i s t e d i n t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s . T h i s was true f o r a l l r h e t o r i c a l c a t e g o r i e s -- except s u p p o r t - p a r t 2, where, d e s p i t e d i s t i n c t l y d i f f e r e n t means (1.35, 0.44), the t value of 1.88 f e l l j u s t o u t s i d e the confidence l i m i t s of 0.05 due to wide v a r i a n c e of scores w i t h i n both treatment groups. I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g that students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 d i d not simply r e j e c t m a t e r i a l produced i n t h e i r second d r a f t s and merely r e v e r t to what they had s a i d i n d r a f t 1. Instead they chose to r e t a i n a l a r g e r mean number of idea u n i t s t h a t had e x i s t e d only i n . d r a f t 2. A l l r h e t o r i c a l c a t e g o r i e s r e f l e c t e d t h i s behaviour, with approximately twice as many idea u n i t s having t h e i r o r i g i n s i n d r a f t 2 as those o r i g i n -a t i n g from d r a f t 1. For example, the g r e a t e s t d i f f e r e n c e appears under s u p p o r t - p a r t 1 where a mean of 3.82 idea u n i t s was t r a n s f e r r e d from d r a f t 2 only, a g a i n s t a mean of 1.53 idea u n i t s coming from d r a f t 1 only. The same p a t t e r n , though, obtains f o r c o n d i t i o n 2, and once more i n a l l r h e t o r i c a l c a t e g o r i e s . For su p p o r t - p a r t 1, f o r example, c o n d i t i o n 2 students i n c l u d e d over seventeen times more mean number of idea u n i t s from d r a f t 2 onl y (1.94) than from d r a f t 1 onl y (0.11). Nonetheless, t h i s p a t t e r n of g e n e r a t i n g new m a t e r i a l i n d r a f t 2 t h a t i s l a t e r i n c o r p o r a t e d i n t o d r a f t 3 i s c l e a r l y more pronounced f o r students i n treatment 1, and t value s are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t f o r treatment groups i n a l l r h e t o r i c a l c a t e g o r i e s (except s u p p o r t - p a r t 2 which l a y outs i d e the confidence l i m i t s of 0.05). The r e l a t i v e l y high values f o r new m a t e r i a l noted before i n Table 7 are evident again i n Table 8. Students i n both treatment groups appear to have chosen to r e t a i n new m a t e r i a l generated i n d r a f t 2, and t h i s was overwhelming the case f o r students i n c o n d i t i o n 1. Presumably they f e l t t h a t t h i s new m a t e r i a l d i d come c l o s e r to meeting the demands of the task at hand and was of s u p e r i o r q u a l i t y . To d i s c o v e r whether or not the e x t e r n a l r a t e r s judged the q u a l i t y of stud e n t s ' d r a f t s to have indeed improved, the q u a l i t y r a t i n g s per d r a f t were analyzed. Before p r e s e n t i n g those f i n d i n g s , a b r i e f summary of the f e a t u r e s of the r e s u l t s so f a r i s provided below. 157 In summary, the e f f e c t of the treatments on the contents of students* d r a f t s was found t o be ext e n s i v e (see F i g u r e s 15 and 16). The mean lengths of d r a f t s under c o n d i t i o n 1 showed a net incremental g a i n while a net decrease of somewhat smal l e r magnitude occurred to the len g t h of d r a f t s under c o n d i t i o n 2. In d r a f t 2 the mean number of idea u n i t s (of a l l r h e t o r i c a l c a t e g o r -i e s ) r e t a i n e d under c o n d i t i o n 2 was s i g n i f i c a h t l y g r e a t e r than those f o r c o n d i t i o n 1, where st u d e n t s , n a t u r a l l y enough, removed or added s i g n i f i c a n t l y more idea u n i t s when not having access to t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s . C o n s i d e r a b l y more a t t e n t i o n was paid by a l l students, but e s p e c i a l l y by those i n c o n d i t i o n 2, to r e d r a f t i n g the contents of t h e i r support to pa r t 1 of the assignment. As the summary bar graph i n F i g u r e 16 p o r t r a y s , p r e c i s e l y the same preoccupation with idea u n i t s f o r su p p o r t - p a r t 1 continued i n t o d r a f t 3. The idea u n i t s i n d r a f t 3, as expected, c o u l d be t r a c e d back to both d r a f t s s i g n i f i c a n t l y more o f t e n under c o n d i t i o n 2. Fi g u r e 15 shows how students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 had not ca s t a s i d e the idea u n i t s produced i n d r a f t 2 but i n c o r p o r a t e d more of them i n t o d r a f t 3 than they d i d f o r idea u n i t s produced i n d r a f t 1 and to a s i g n i f i c a n t l y g r e a t e r extent than students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 had. 158 F i g u r e 15: The o r i g i n s of st u d e n t s ' idea u n i t s i n d r a f t 3 ( f o r a l l r h e t o r i c a l c a t e g o r i e s ) i n each treatment group 50 40 percent mean 30 20 10 51 illlfilili 13 18 43 25 23 22 Cond -1 Cond 2 Both O r a f t l D r aft2 New Reass. d r a f t s o n l y o n l y O r i g i n of idea u n i t s i n d r a f t 3 Fi g u r e 16: The r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n s of idea u n i t s i n d r a f t 3 ( f o r a l l r e d r a f t i n g o p e r a t i o n s ) i n each treatment group 50 40 percent of mean 30 20 10 0 15 44 45 25 23 WIIH! I l i i ! •'lifiiSi :0 Klil ' liill i IPJIIIJII! ''illliiiii 'jjiiiiimijlliii ; HinittiH 16 ii Cond 1 Cond 2 A n t 1 iupp 1 Ai§t 2 lupp 2 R h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n of idea u n i t s i n d r a f t 3 159 EFFECT OF TREATMENT ON QUALITY RATINGS Using the s c o r i n g procedures o u t l i n e d e a r l i e r i n Chapter Three, independent e v a l u a t i o n s of the o v e r a l l q u a l i t y f o r each student's d r a f t were obtained with an i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y of 91.4 percent. The range of p o s s i b l e converted scores was from a minimum of 10 to a maximum of 90. The mean scores per d r a f t from these e v a l u a t i o n s are presented i n Table 9 together with the t values computed to determine s i g n i f i c a n c e at the 0.05 l e v e l f o r the d i f f e r e n c e s between the means per c o n d i t i o n . Mean scores f o r d r a f t 1 show t h a t students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 were ra t e d higher than students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 (42.94, 37.22) although t h i s d i f f e r e n c e d i d not reach s i g n i f i c a n c e at the 0.05 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e . In d r a f t 2, no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was detected a l s o , means per c o n d i t i o n being almost equal (42.35, 41.94). The e f f e c t of removing access to d r a f t 1 f o r students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 was a minute decrease i n mean q u a l i t y r a t i n g f o r d r a f t 2 (42.94-42.35). Yet students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 were able to produce second d r a f t s of somewhat s u p e r i o r q u a l i t y (37.22 - 41.94), suggesting e i t h e r that they found having access to t h e i r e a r l i e r d r a f t s to be b e n e f i c i a l . By d r a f t 3, however, 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 had emerged (t:3.38, df:33, p:<0.05). Students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 had improved t h e i r s cores by an average of over 14 p o i n t s , whereas the o v e r a l l q u a l i t y of compositions i n c o n d i t i o n 2 had remained s t a t i c , producing a s l i g h t decrease over d r a f t 2 160 but s t i l l a modest increase over draft 1. The indication here appears to be that students in condition 1 were able to benefit from their treatment far more than students in condition 2. This benefit occurred exclusively at the f i n a l treatment stage when both independently produced e a r l i e r drafts were returned to these students. Table 9 : Comparison of q u a l i t y r a t i n g s per d r a f t Condition 1 Condition 2 X SD X SD DF T Prob D r a f t 1 42 . 94 10. 16 37.22 9 .27 33 1. 74 0 . 091 D r a f t 2 42. 35 12. 52 41.94 8 .77 33 0 . 11 0 .911 D r a f t 3 56. 47 15. 59 41.11 11 .06 33 3. 38 0 .002* (* p < .05 ) Nonetheless, the i n i t i a l difference in q u a l i t y ratings between students in condition 1 and condition 2 required that the s t a t i s t i c a l procedure analysis of covariance be used to adjust the scores of draft 3 in l i g h t of differences on draft 1. The results of th i s technique are presented in Appendix E. A s i g n i f i c a n t main ef f e c t was found for students' t h i r d draft scores (F:16.82, d f : l , p:<0.05). In addition, no s i g n i f i c a n t interactions between condition and grade point average (F:1.39, d f : l , p:>0.05) nor between condition and writing apprehension (F:2.62, d f : l , p:>0.05) were found. Consequently, the effect of 161 the treatment upon qual i t y ratings seems to have produced s i g n i f i c a n t differences between conditions for draft 3 scores. It appears that students in condition 1 found themselves unable to produce any better quality drafts in draft 2 than they had in draft 1, but when they had both drafts available, they were able to select material from each one and synthesize idea units to produce superior f i n a l compositions. On the other hand, students in condition 2 did not benefit at a l l (in terms of overall scores achieved) from the chance to redraft their papers a second time. EFFECT OF TREATMENT ON SELF-EVALUATIONS Subjects in the study provided self-evaluations of the overall q u a l i t y of the i r drafts immediately after completing each d r a f t . They used the same nine-point scale as the qu a l i t y raters did. The researcher anticipated that data would indicate how students perceived that the qu a l i t y of their compositions had evolved, and, i n d i r e c t l y , how students had f e l t about the d i f f e r e n t treatments they experienced. The comparison between the mean evaluations per draft presented in Table 10 reveals s i g n i f i c a n t differences between conditions for draft 1 (t:2.37, df:33, p:<0.05), where condition 1 had the larger mean score (51.47, 41.66). No s i g n i f i c a n t difference exists between mean scores for draft 3 where both groups rate 162 themselves almost e q u a l l y superior. (61.47, 65.00) over a l l t h e i r d r a f t s . I n t e r p r e t i n g these f i n d i n g s i s f r a u g h t , however, with d i f f i c u l t i e s a r i s i n g out of a lack of i n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y . There i s no guarantee t h a t students i n e i t h e r c o n d i t i o n were r e a c t i n g to the same f e a t u r e s i n t h e i r t e x t s , and students may w e l l not have been using c o n s i s t e n t c r i t e r i a . The s i g n i f i c a n c e of these mean d i f f e r e n c e s between c o n d i t i o n s may be s p u r i o u s . More v a l i d i t y may l i e i n comparing the between-draft changes s i n c e i n d i v i d u a l s perhaps may be assumed to be a p p l y i n g s i m i l a r c r i t e r i a a c r o s s t h e i r own d r a f t s . U n f o r t u n a t e l y , there are widely acknowledged problems (see Borg & G a l l 1979, pp.589'-593) a s s o c i a t e d with the l e g i t i m a c y of change scores as v a r i a b l e s because they may be s u s c e p t i b l e to the i n f l u e n c e of a " c e i l i n g e f f e c t " , may be confounded because of " r e g r e s s i o n to the mean", or may be a f f e c t e d by " i n e q u a l i t y of i n t e r v a l s " i n the s c o r i n g instrument. TABLE 10: Comparison of self-evaluations per draft C o n d i t i o n 1 C o n d i t i o n 2 X SD X SD DF T Prob Draft 1 51. 47 11. 96 41 .66 12 . 49 33 2 . 37 0 . 024* Draft 2 45. 88 17 . 34 59 . 72 14 .40 33 -2 . 57 0 . 015* Draft 3 61. 47 14. 37 65 .00 13 .93 33 -0 . 74 0 . 465 (* p < .05 ) 163 Nonetheless, i f compared to the qu a l i t y ratings presented in Table 11, the differences between means in draft 1 (42.94, 37.22), e a r l i e r noted by raters, is r e f l e c t e d in students' own evaluations (51.47, 41.66). In their later d r a f t s , however, students do not seem to have reacted the same way to the qu a l i t y of their drafts as the raters d id. In draft 2, students in condition 1 f e l t less sure of the benefits derived from removing their f i r s t d r a f t s , assessing a mean decrease (51.47 - 45.88), yet did corroborate the o v e r a l l gain between their f i r s t and t h i r d drafts by voting themselves a huge improvement in draft 3, f i n i s h i n g up with mean gains (from 51.47- to 61.47) that were of the same order as those issued by the raters (from 42.94 to 56.47), even though they tended to i n f l a t e the magnitude of scores for a l l drafts, as did students in condition 2. For condition 2, the overall gain from f i r s t to t h i r d drafts per-ceived by students i s considerably greater (from 41.66 to 65.00) than the small overa l l gain offered by the raters (from 37.22 to 41.11). In addition, these students awarded themselves a higher mean score on draft 3 than students in condition 1 did (61.47, 65.00) while the f i n a l scores of the raters (56.47, 41.11) assessed students in condition 1 much higher. The analysis of covariance employed to control the influence of differences in draft 1 self-evaluations confirmed the trends evident in Table 10 (see Appendix E). For draft 3 scores, a main effe c t (F:4.39, df:1, p:<0.045) was barely s i g n i f i c a n t at 0.05 164 for the differences between mean self-evaluations. But, for draft 2 scores, a s i g n i f i c a n t and larger main e f f e c t was revealed (P:15.30, d f : l , p:<0.001). To some extent these results merely r e f l e c t a common phenomenon faced by a l l students: they tend to feel their work is more worthy than others appear to recognize. However, the findings are more revealing than that. F i r s t , they support the e a r l i e r interpretation for the i n i t i a l differences found by raters between conditions on draft 1. Students in condition 2 appear to have received a lower mean score on draft 1 because the qua l i t y of t h i s d r a f t was i n f e r i o r -- and they knew i t . Having started behind, so to speak, they had more ground to make up and may have injected much more e f f o r t into producing their second drafts than students in condition 1 did, who c l e a r l y f e l t far worse about their second drafts (compared not only to condition 2 but also to their own draft 1 scores). Condition 2 students, perhaps believing that their e f f o r t s had paid o f f , gave themselves a mean rating for draft 2 that represented a gain approaching twenty points; i . e . , two grades higher on the nine-point scale. There was a carry-over ef f e c t too. Given the chance to redraft their compositions one more time, they perceived a further, but lower, increase in qu a l i t y — none of which was apparent to the external raters, however. 16 5 Secondly, the f i n d i n g s r e v e a l t h a t students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 r a t e d the improvement i n t h e i r compositions as o c c u r r i n g e x c l u s i v e l y between d r a f t 2 and d r a f t 3, a g r e e i n g with the r a t e r s . T h i s f i n d i n g appears to c o n f i r m the hypothesis t h a t students are not o n l y able to accommodate the m a t e r i a l produced i n independent d r a f t s , but a l s o t h a t students can s u c c e s s f u l l y s y n t h e s i z e t h i s m a t e r i a l i n t o a new d r a f t of s u p e r i o r q u a l i t y . At the same time, however, such students may underestimate the value of the second d r a f t a f t e r completing, i t , perhaps because the i n t e r v e n t i o n technique of removing access to the e a r l i e r d r a f t provokes momentary a n x i e t y and reduces s e l f - c o n f i d e n c e . A student who produces a r easonably good i n i t i a l d r a f t i s not l i k e l y to f e e l c e r t a i n t h a t another one of even comparable q u a l i t y could be composed again from s c r a t c h . In f a c t , the students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 tended to be q u i t e i n a c c u r a t e when judging the q u a l i t y of t h e i r second d r a f t s as Table 11 demonstrates. There was almost no c o r r e l a t i o n ( r : .0474) between t h e i r s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s and the s cores from the q u a l i t y r a t e r s . Whatever the cause of the low s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s f o r d r a f t 2, the e f f e c t was not l a s t i n g , and c o n d i t i o n 1 s t u d e n t s ' s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s f o r d r a f t 3 d i d c o r r e l a t e s i g n i f i c a n t l y with the e x t e r n a l r a t e r s ' scores fo r d r a f t 3. Another p o s s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n i s that s i n c e students wrote t h e i r s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s onto t h e i r d r a f t s r a t h e r than on separate paper, students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 may have f o r g o t t e n not o n l y what the q u a l i t y of t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s was l i k e (when producing d r a f t 2) 166 but may a l s o have f o r g o t t e n what q u a l i t y r a t i n g they had g i v e n . Students in. c o n d i t i o n 2 were able to r e f r e s h t h e i r memories each time,, i f necessary. In h i n d s i g h t , the r e s e a r c h e r r e a l i z e d that having a l l students t r a n s c r i b e t h e i r s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s onto separate forms would have e l i m i n a t e d t h i s confounding v a r i a b l e . TABLE 11: Relationship between self-evaluations and quality ratings C o n d i t i o n 1 r prob C o n d i t i o n 2 r prob Draft 1 . 3607 .077 . 5760 .006* Draft 2 . 0474 . 428 . 4938 .019* Draft 3 . 5001 . 020* .5728 .006* (* p < .05 ) . Table 11 c o n t a i n s one unusual f i n d i n g though. The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t f o r d r a f t 1 ( r : .3607) d i d not show any s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s and q u a l i t y r a t i n g s f o r c o n d i t i o n 1. C l o s e r examination of f i r s t d r a f t s , however, r e v e a l e d that i n f a c t t h i s low c o r r e l a t i o n may have been the r e s u l t of s e v e r a l s t u d e n t s ' s e l f - d e p r e c a t i n g l y o f f e r i n g themselves lower scores t h a t they deserved. F i v e students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 e v a l u a t e d t h e i r own d r a f t s as worth over 2 grades l e s s than the scores they r e c e i v e d from the e x t e r n a l r a t e r s . T h i s tendency was not apparent i n subsequent d r a f t s and accounts 167 for the fact that no s i g n i f i c a n t c o r r e l a t i o n once more was found between students' self-evaluations for draft 1 and draft 3 (see Table 12) for students in condition 1 (r: .3876) but a s i g -n i f i c a n t l y strong c o r r e l a t i o n did exist for condition 2 (r: .7270). TABLE 12: Relationship between f i r s t and third drafts Condition 1 Condition 2 r prob r prob Self-evaluations .3876 .062 . 7270 .001* Quality ratings .5923 .006* . 7636 .001* (* p < .05 ) The reason fiv e students chose to give themselves such low scores for draft 1 remains unaccounted for. The answer may l i e perhaps in a combination of random s t a t i s t i c a l anomalies and low i n t e r -rater r e l i a b i l i t y among students. Another possible explanation may be that students were reacting d i f f e r e n t l y to errors in their texts or that their evaluations were based to a d i f f e r e n t extent on the existence of errors than the scores of the raters were. EFFECT OF TREATMENT ON STUDENTS' ERRORS As explained in Chapter Three, students* drafts were scrutinized for number of errors per draft by the researcher, and a check 168 coder v e r i f i e d the r e l i a b i l i t y of the scores by a c h i e v i n g a r e l i a b i l i t y c o e f f i c i e n t of .944 on a random sample of 15 per cent of the d r a f t s . Scores were obtained f o r the f o l l o w i n g e r r o r types per d r a f t : s p e l l i n g , end p u n c t u a t i o n , omitted words, c a p i t a l l e t t e r s , verbs, medial punctuation, usage, and sentence s t r u c t u r e e r r o r s . The r e s e a r c h e r a n t i c i p a t e d t h a t students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 would tend to concentrate on r e v i s i n g s u r f a c e f e a t u r e s of t h e i r d r a f t s , e d i t i n g p e r c e i v e d errors,, r a t h e r than attempt more s u b s t a n t i v e r e v i s i o n s when r e d r a f t i n g . On the other hand, the i n t e r v e n t i o n of removing access to f i r s t d r a f t s i n c o n d i t i o n 1 was intended p a r t l y to prevent students from being able to focus on mere e d i t i n g and thus coerce them i n t o c o n s i d e r i n g the s u b s t a n t i v e content of t h e i r d r a f t s . Comparisons between the scores per c o n d i t i o n f o r each d r a f t , however, r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s at a l l . Table 13 shows t h a t the mean t o t a l number of e r r o r s was lower on d r a f t 1 f o r c o n d i t i o n 1 than f o r c o n d i t i o n 2 (13.29, 19.11) but t h i s f e l l s h o r t of s i g n i f i c a n c e (t:-1.82, df:33, p:>0.078); a s i m i l a r p a t t e r n was e v i d e n t on d r a f t 2 ( t : -1.01, df:33, p:>0.319). Since the mean l e n g t h of; both f i r s t and second d r a f t s was longer f o r c o n d i t i o n 2 s t u d e n t s , the comparison provided by computing the number of e r r o r s per 100 words has more v a l i d i t y . Here, though, no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found fo r any d r a f t . The f a i l u r e to r e j e c t the n u l l hypothesis each time suggests t h a t the d i f f e r e n t treatments had l i t t l e e f f e c t on 169 the number of errors produced or removed. Moreover, errors per 100 words remained f a i r l y constant across a l l drafts x for both conditions despite the variations in the mean number of words produced. This suggests that increases, or decreases in length tended not to a f f e c t the number of errors produced or removed. Students* a b i l i t y to avoid errors in condition 1 does not appear to have been hindered by their being required to synthesize two d i f f e r e n t drafts at the f i n a l stage in draft 3, where these students produce the same mean errors per 100 words as for draft 1 (6.53). The small increase at the second draft stage (7.66) may be due to increased anxiety experienced by the lack of access to their f i r s t d r a f t s . Or i t may be that they wrote more sentences which invited errors to be made. In condition 2, students do not appear to have been assisted at a l l by having the opportunity to redraft twice their compositions and even show minute increases o v e r a l l (8.05 - 8.46 - 8.25). In addition, comparisons between conditions on each error type (see Appendix F) showed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences at a l l per d r a f t . The p r o f i l e of errors existing in each draft (see Appendix F) remained constant across drafts as well. This p r o f i l e reveals no unexpected v a r i a t i o n among the frequency of errors per type. For example, more s p e l l i n g errors were com-mitted than any other type of error, while c a p i t a l l e t t e r errors were the least present. 170 TAIL! I l l e©fflglli§©n§ e i g§g S u i t C o n d i t i o n 1 C o n d i t i o n 2 X SD X SD DP T Prob T o t a l e r r o r s D r a f t 1 13 . 29 8 . 36 19 .11 10 . 41 33 -1. 82 0 . 078 D r a f t 2 18.18 10 . 42 22 . 06 12 .14 33 -1. 01 0 . 319 D r a f t 3 18.88 13 . 75 16 .72 10 .42 33 0. 53 0 . 603 T o t a l words D r a f t 1 214.12 52. 21 240 . 78 67 .55 33 -1. 30 0 .202 D r a f t 2 252.18 82 . 94 257 .28 92 . 21 33 -0 . 10 0 .917 D r a f t 3 291.59 143. 80 202 . 11 73 .70 24 2 . 30 0 .031* E r r o r s /100 words D r a f t 1 6 . 53 4. 41 8 .05 3 .62 33 -1. 12 0 . 269 D r a f t 2 7.66 4. 33 8 . 46 3 .24 33 -0 . 62 0 . 538 D r a f t 3 6 . 53 3. 55 8 .25 3 .78 33 -1. 39 0 .175 (* P < .05 ) INFLUENCE OF ACADEMIC ABILITY (GPA) To determine i f student a b i l i t y i n f l u e n c e d the r e s u l t s of the main a n a l y s e s , i n t e r a c t i o n s between the treatment and the students' grade p o i n t averages were computed. O v e r a l l academic a b i l i t y was measured by o b t a i n i n g the cumulative grade p o i n t 171 averages (GPA) t h a t each student had achieved p r i o r to e n r o l l i n g i n the course. The r e l a t i v e l y small number of s u b j e c t s i n the study r e q u i r e d t h a t each treatment group be s u b d i v i d e d i n t o c a t e g o r i e s of "high" and "low" GPA f o r , s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . S u b d i v i s i o n i n t o three c a t e g o r i e s (high, middle and low) would have been more m e t h o d i c a l l y sound s i n c e grade p o i n t average i s more l i k e l y to be normally' r a t h e r than b i m o d a l l y d i s t r i b u t e d . However, such a s u b d i v i s i o n was not f e a s i b l e i n t h i s study because i t would have r e s u l t e d i n empty c e l l s d u r i n g the s t a t i s t -i c a l a n a l y s i s which would have aborted the computer c a l c u l a t i o n s . The s u b d i v i s i o n i n t o high and ; low a b i l i t y ranges was achieved using the c u t - o f f p o i n t of the o v e r a l l sample mean (2./34). Students with GPA scores above t h i s value were co n s i d e r e d "high" (n = 9 and 11) and students s c o r i n g the mean or below were l a b e l l e d "low" (n = 8 and 7) ." The r e s u l t s of the analyses of v a r i a n c e are presented i n Tables 14 through 19. The between-subject measures were idea u n i t s of a l l r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n s (e.g., s u p p o r t - p a r t 1 r e t a i n e d between d r a f t 1 and d r a f t 2) and w i t h i n - s u b j e c t measures were c o n d i t i o n and GPA. The aim was to attempt to e x p l a i n the v a r i a n c e i n the scores between treatment groups f o r s u c c e s s i v e d r a f t s t h a t has been noted e a r l i e r i n the c u r r e n t chapter. Table 14 shows the analyses f o r the contents of s t u d e n t s ' second d r a f t s when compared with t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s . S i g n i f i c a n t main 172 effects were found for number of idea units retained by students (F:18.47, d f : l , p:<0.001), number removed (F:23.41, d f : l , p:< 0.001), and number of idea units added (F:13.55, d f : l , p:<0.001). These findings confirm that students in condition 1 found that not having access to their f i r s t drafts provoked them to produce quite d i f f e r e n t contents for th e i r second drafts in comparison to students in condition 2. This tendency does not appear to have favoured one academic a b i l i t y group over the other since no s i g n i f i c a n t interactions were found to exist between condition and GPA for any of the redrafting operations — although an interesting difference appears to exist in condition 2 that i s not r e f l e c t e d by ANOVAR: high GPA students added more support-part 1 (5.18) than low GPA students did (2.86) and added more support-part 2 (2.64) than low GPA students did (0.86); in addition, they removed fewer assertions-part 2 (0.27) than the low GPA group did (1.29). ANOVAR seems to have, ignored these differences because similar ones exist between subgroups in condition 1. No s i g n i f i c a n t interactions appear to have operated between condition, GPA and measure ( r h e t o r i c a l functions) -- except in the case of idea units removed, where the n u l l hypothesis came very close to being rejected at the 0.05 le v e l (F:2.59, df:3, p:<0.058) which suggested that students of d i f f e r e n t a b i l i t i e s may have been removing d i f f e r e n t types of material. From the c e l l means in Table 15, the explanation appears to be that 173 TABLE 14 : ANOVAR e x p l a n a t i o n o f v a r i a n c e f o r c o m p a r i s o n s per d r a f t o f t r e a t m e n t c o n d i t i o n s by h i g h and l o w GPA RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRAFT 1 AND DRAFT 2 o p e r a t i o n sum of squares DF Prob R e t a i n e d main e f f e c t 81.014 i n t e r a c t i ons: cond & GPA 3.568 cond & measure 25.240 cond & GPA & measure 1.068 1 3 3 18.466 0 . 813 8 .737 0.370 0.001* 0 . 374 0.001* 0 .775 Removed main e f f e c t 7.279 i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond & GPA 0.056 cond & measure 32.725 cond & GPA & measure 10.589 1 3 3 23.406 0 . 018 7 .997 2 . 587 0.001* 0 . 893 0.001* 0 .058 Mew main e f f e c t .93.954 i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond & GPA 7.904 cond & measure 23.556 cond & GPA & measure 3.530 1 3 3 13.545 1.139 3.037 0 .455 0.001* 0.294 0.033* 0 . 714 R e a s s i g n e d main e f f e c t 0.003 i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond & GPA 0.003 cond & measure 0.016 cond & GPA & measure 0.016 1 3 3 0.131 0.131 0 . 236 0.236 0 . 720 0 . 720 0 .871 0 . 871 (* p < .05 ) 174 TABLE 1§| Table ©f Meani £SE ANOVAR f e i GPA RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRAFT 1 AND DRAFT 2 Condition 1 Low GPA High GPA Combined (n=17) X (n=8) X (n=9) X SD Assertions (part 1) r e t a i n e d 0.375 0.444 0 . 412 0 .618 removed 2 .250 0 . 556 1.353 1 . 367 new .1.500 1.111 1.294 0 .772 reass igned 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 • 0 Support (part 1) r e t a ined 2.500 2 . 556 2 . 529 1 .663 removed 4.750 . 5.000 4 .882 2 . 395 new 6 . 500 6 .889 6 . 706 2 .932 reass igned 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 0 . 0 Assertions (part 2) r e t a i n e d 1.000 0 . 667 0 . 824 1 .015 removed 2.250 2.111 2 .176 1 . 334 new 3.G25 4 . 444 4.059 1 .519 r e a s s i g n e d 0.0 0.111 0 . 059 0 .243 Support (part 2) r e t a ined 0 . 250 0 .778 0 . 529 0 . 717 removed 1.375 0.556 0.9 41 0 .827 new 2.375 3 . 000 2 . 706 2 .114 rea s s i g n e d 0.0 0 . 0 0.0 0 .0 Condition 2 Low GPA High GPA Combined (n=18) X (n=7) X ( n = l l \ i x SD Assertions (part 1) r e t a i n e d 1.000 1.545 1.333 0 .686 removed 0 . 571 0 .273 0 . 389 0 . 502 new 0. 571 0.545 0 . 556 0 .616 reass igned 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 , Support (part 1) r e t a i n e d 5.429 5.636 5. 556 2 . 007 removed 2.429 1. 273 1,722 1 .809 new 2 .857 5.182 4 . 278 2 .845 r e a s s i g n e d 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 .0 Assertions (part 2) r e t a i n e d 1.8 57 2.4 55 2.222 1 . 700 removed 1.286 0 . 273 0 . 667 0 .907 new 1.143 2.36 4 1.889 1 . 491 reass igned 0 . 0 0.091 0 . 056 0 .23 Support (part 2) r e t a i n e d 0 . 714 2 . 273 1.667 1 .53 4 removed 0 . 714 0 .455 0.556 0 .856 new 0.857 2 .636 1.944 1 .984 rea s s i g n e d 0.0 0.091 0.056 0 .236 17.5 c o n d i t i o n 1 students of low a b i l i t y removed more a s s e r t i o n s - p a r t 1 (2.25) than high a b i l i t y students d i d (0.56) and i n c o n d i t i o n 2 students of low a b i l i t y removed more su p p o r t - p a r t 2 (1.38) than high a b i l i t y students d i d (0.56). More s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s e x i s t , however, between c o n d i t i o n and measure f o r idea u n i t s t h a t were r e t a i n e d (F:8.74, d f : 3 , p:<0.001), removed (F:8.00, d f : 3 , p:<0.001) and new (F:3.04, df : 3 , p:<0.033), i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the d i f f e r e n t treatment c o n d i t -ions had not a f f e c t e d a l l r h e t o r i c a l aspects of the assignment e q u a l l y . On the r i g h t hand s i d e of Table 15, the means f o r combined high and low groups per c o n d i t i o n r e v e a l t h a t c o n d i t i o n 1 students r e t a i n e d mostly s u p p o r t - p a r t 1 (4.88) and added new idea u n i t s i n a l l r h e t o r i c a l c a t e g o r i e s , but mostly i n support-p a r t 1 (6.71). C o n d i t i o n 2 students a l s o focused most of t h e i r a t t e n t i o n on s u p p o r t - p a r t 1, where they r e t a i n e d the most (5.56), removed the most (1.72) and added the most (4.28). These f i n d i n g s support the r e s u l t s f o r the contents of d r a f t s presented e a r l i e r i n Table 6 about which the suggestion was made th a t the more c o n c e p t u a l l y d i f f i c u l t p a r t of. the assignment was part 1, and students were l i k e l y , even i n c o n d i t i o n 2, to devote more of t h e i r e n e r g i e s to r e d r a f t i n g t h e i r s u p p o r t i n g arguments here. Table 16 r e v e a l s c o n f i r m a t i o n of e a r l i e r f i n d i n g s f o r the r e -l a t i o n s h i p between the contents of d r a f t 3 when compared to the 176 TABLE l i t ANOVAR explanation of vaiianee fes e©mpaEi§en§ p@£ d r a f t of treatment c o n d i t i o n s by high and low GPA RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRAFT 2 AND DRAFT 3 o p e r a t i o n sum of squares DF * F Prob Retained main e f f e c t 8.139 1 1 .618 0 . 213 i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond & GPA 4 .847 1 0 .964 0 . 334 cond & measure 11.142 3 1 .983 0 .122 cond & GPA & measure 4. 457 3 .0 . 793 0 . 501 Removed main e f f e c t 5.729 1 0 .930 0 . 342 i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond & GPA 10.455 1 1 . 697 0 . 202 cond & measure 15.358 3 2 . 083 0.108 cond & GPA & measure 1.300 3 0 .176 0.912 New main e f f e c t 135.130 1 14 .231 0.001* i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond & GPA 25.865 1 2 . 724 0.109 cond & measure 23.424 3 3 . 472 0 . 019* cond & GPA & measure 31.279 3 4 .636 0.005* Reassigned main e f f e c t 0.018 1 0 . 257 0 . 616 i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond & GPA 0 .043 1 0 .622 0.436 cond & measure 0.120 3 0 . 680 0 . 567 cond & GPA & measure 0.149 3 0 . 843 0.474 (* p < .05 ) contents of d r a f t 2. S i g n i f i c a n t F values were obtained [ only f o r the o p e r a t i o n of i n c l u d i n g new m a t e r i a l . A s i g n i f i c a n t main 177 e f f e c t (F.14.23/ d f : l , p:<0.001) i n d i c a t e d that students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 produced a g r e a t e r number of idea u n i t s of a l l r h e t o r i c a l c a t e g o r i e s i n d r a f t 3 not having t h e i r o r i g i n i n d r a f t 2 than students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 d i d . Again, o n l y one s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n between c o n d i t i o n and measure was found, t h i s time f o r new m a t e r i a l (F.3.47, d f : 3 , p:<0.019). The c e l l means i n Table 17 show both c o n d i t i o n s adding new m a t e r i a l mostly f o r s u p p o r t - p a r t 1, but c o n d i t i o n 1 students provided new idea u n i t s f o r a s s e r t i o n - p a r t 1 (1.53) to a much gr e a t e r extent than c o n d i t i o n 2 students d i d (0,. 33), and s i m i l a r -l y c o n d i t i o n 1 students were a c t i v e l y d r a f t i n g new m a t e r i a l of s u p p o r t - p a r t 2 (2.24) much more than c o n d i t i o n 2 students were (0.89). The i n t e r a c t i o n between c o n d i t i o n , GPA and measure was found to be more s i g n i f i c a n t though (F.4.64, df : 3 , p:<0.05). From Table 15, the e x p l a n a t i o n appears to r e s i d e i n the f a c t t h a t i n C o n d i t i o n 1, the low GPA subgroup added over h a l f as many new idea u n i t s of s u p p o r t - p a r t 2 as the high GPA subgroup d i d (1.38, 3.00) and j u s t under h a l f as many fewer idea u n i t s of support-p a r t 1 (4.50, 8.22). In c o n d i t i o n 2, the low GPA subgroup added over s i x times as much new m a t e r i a l f o r a s s e r t i o n - p a r t 1 as the high subgroup (2.29, 0.36). I, I I n t e r p r e t a t i o n of these f i n d i n g s i s p r o b l e m a t i c because "new" m a t e r i a l here cannot r e a l l y be s a f e l y assumed to be new: i t may 178 TABLE 17i T a b l e ef M§an§ f§g ANOVAR fee SPA RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRAFT 2 AND DRAFT 3 Condition 1 Low GPA High GPA Combined (n = 17) X (n=8) X (n=9) X SD Assertions (part 1) r e t a ined 1.125 0.778 0.941 0 .748 removed 0.625 0 .444 0 . 529 0 .624 new 1.375 1.667 1.529 0 .943 r e a s s i g n e d 0.125 0 . 0 0 .059 0 .243 Support (part 1) r e t a i n e d 2.875 3 . 222 3 .059 1 . 478 removed 4 . 500 4 .111 4 . 294 3 . 098 new 4 . 500 8 .222 6 .471 4 .140 re a s s i g n e d 0 .125 0 . 222 0.176 0 . 393 Assertions (part 2) r e t a i n e d 2.125 2 .111 2.118 1 . 576 removed 3.375 1.889 2 . 588 1 .906 new 3 . 375 3.111 3 . 235 2 .386 reass igned 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 Support (part 2) r e t a i n e d 1.000 2.333 1.706 2 .257 removed 1. 500 0 . 889 1.176 1 .131 new 1.375 3 .000 2 .235 2 .107 re a s s i g n e d 0 .125 0 . 0 0 .059 0 .243 Condition 2 Low GPA High GPA Combined (n = 18) X (n=7) X (n=ll) 1 X SD Assertions (part 1) r e t a i n e d 1. 000 1.545 1.333 0 .686 removed 0 . 286 0 . 545 0.444 - 0 .511 new 2 . 286 0 . 364 0 .333 0 . 594 rea s s i g n e d 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 Support (part 1) r e t a i n e d 4 . 571 4 . 455 4 . 500 2 . 333 removed 3 . 571 4 . 455 4 .111 2 .742 new 3 . 714 2.455 2.944 2 .261 reass igned 0.0 0.182 0.111 0 .323 Assertions (part 2) r e t a i n e d 1. 571 2 .909 2 . 389 1 . 501 removed 1.143 1.091 1. I l l 1 . 410 new 1. 429 0 . 727 1.000 1 .237 reass igned 0 .143 0 . 0 0 .056 0 . 236 Support (part 2) r e t a i n e d 0 . 429 3.000 2.000 2 .058 removed 1.143 1.818 1.556 1 .381 new 0 . 714 1. 000 0 . 889 0 .900 reass igned 0 . 0 0.091 0.056 0 . 236 179 only r e p r e s e n t m a t e r i a l i n d r a f t 3 which d i d not e x i s t i n d r a f t 2 but may have a l r e a d y been present i n d r a f t 1. Thus, an a n a l y s i s of the o r i g i n s of each idea u n i t i n d r a f t 3 was needed i n order to determine whether GPA subgroups had r e d r a f t e d d i f f e r e n t l y from each other to produce d r a f t 3. Indeed, Table 18 r e f u t e s the n o t i o n t h a t GPA subgroups i n e i t h e r c o n d i t i o n were adding new m a t e r i a l i n d r a f t 3 and not merely o l d m a t e r i a l from d r a f t 1. ' N e i t h e r main e f f e c t s nor i n t e r a c t i o n s were s i g n i f i c a n t f o r new m a t e r i a l i n d r a f t 3. The c e l l means i n Table 19a r e f u t e the e a r l i e r d i f f e r e n c e s f o r c o n d i t i o n 1 on new m a t e r i a l i n s u p p o r t - p a r t 1 and s u p p o r t - p a r t 2. In f a c t , the g r e a t e s t v a r i a t i o n f o r new m a t e r i a l e x i s t s f o r c o n d i t i o n 1 i n the a s s e r t i o n - p a r t 2 c a t e g o r y where low GPA students i n c l u d e d twice as many new idea u n i t s as high GPA students (1.75, 0.78), a p p a r e n t l y because high gpa students were a l r e a d y s a t i s f i e d with t h e i r m a t e r i a l i n t h i s p a r t of the d r a f t and were more content to t r a n s f e r idea u n i t s from t h e i r second d r a f t s than low GPA students were (2.11, 1.75). Moreover, the v a l u e s obtained f o r new m a t e r i a l i n a l l r h e t o r i c a l c a t e g o r i e s i s much lower f o r both GPA subgroups of c o n d i t i o n 1 i n Table 18 than i n Table 16. The "new" m a t e r i a l was l a r g e l y " o l d " m a t e r i a l from d r a f t 1.. 180 TABLE ISi ANOVAR a x p l a n a t i e n ©f vaeiang§ f§g eempaiiieng p i s draft of treatment conditions by high and lowGPA RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BOTH DRAFTS AND DRAFT 3 op e r a t i o n sum of squares. DF F Prob Both Drafts main e f f e c t 43.053 1 22 . 505 0 .001* i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond & GPA 6 .108 1 2 .909 0 . 098 cond & measure 8 .158 .3 3 .670 0 .015* cond & GPA & measure 6 . 870 3 3 .091 0 .031* Draft 1 Only main e f f e c t 19 . 297 1 27 . 760 0 . 001* i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond & GPA 1.352 1 1 .944 0 .173 cond & measure 5.160 3 5 .025 0 . 003* cond & GPA & measure 2 . 311 3 2 .251 0 .088 Draft 2 Only main e f f e c t 50.352 1 14 . 894 0 . 001* i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond & GPA 2 . 235 1 0 .661 0 .422 cond & measure 5.188 3 1 .026 0 . 385 cond & GPA & measure 4 . 534 3 0 .897 0 .446 Mew main e f f e c t 4 . 404 1 0 . 765 0 . 389 i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond & GPA 0 . 260 1 0 . 045 0 .833 cond & measure 0.851 3 0 .249 0 .862 cond & GPA & measure 4 .847 3 1 . 419 0 . 242 Reassigned main e f f e c t 0 . 006 1 0 . 079 0 . 780 i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond & GPA 0.001 1 0 . 009 0 .927 cond & measure 0 . 019 3 0 . 156 0 .926 cond & GPA & measure 0 . 014 3 0 .112 0 .953 (* p < .05 ) 181 For c o n d i t i o n 2, Table 19b t e l l s a somewhat d i f f e r e n t s t o r y . The c e l l means f o r both GPA subgroups for new m a t e r i a l i n a l l c a t e g o r i e s have d e c l i n e d l e s s , i n d i c a t i n g that students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 d i d i n f a c t produce n o t i c e a b l e q u a n t i t i e s of new idea u n i t s i n d r a f t 2, mostly as they continued to w r e s t l e with a c h i e v i n g s a t i s f a c t o r y support f o r p a r t 1 of the assignment. The much higher q u a n t i t i e s f o r the low GPA subgroup n o t i c e d i n Table 17 f o r s u p p o r t - p a r t 1 have d i s s i p a t e d somewhat but s t i l l r e g i s t e r i n Table 19b twice as many idea u n i t s as f o r the higher a b i l i t y group (2.43, 1.09). This imbalance holds true f o r a s s e r t i o n s -p a r t 2 as w e l l . The most l i k e l y e x p l a n a t i o n appears to be t h a t the high GPA subgroup i n c o n d i t i o n 2 had a l r e a d y generated m a t e r i a l which they were s a t i s f i e d with i n d r a f t 2 f o r these p a r t s of the assignment. Means f o r d r a f t 2 o n l y m a t e r i a l i n Table 19b a f f i r m t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n : the high GPA subgroup exceeds the low GPA subgroup f o r s u p p o r t - p a r t 1 and a s s e r t i o n s - p a r t 2. T h e r e f o r e , the same phenomenon as was found f o r c o n d i t i o n 1 i s o p e r a t i n g f o r c o n d i t i o n 2 and i t may r e p r e s e n t a developmental d i f f e r e n c e : lower a b i l i t y students seem to be t a k i n g longer to s a t i s f y the needs of these p a r t s of the assignment, thus c o n f i r m -ing the e a r l i e r s p e c u l a t i o n of the r e s e a r c h e r about the higher l e v e l of conceptual d i f f i c u l t y t h a t these p a r t s of the assignment r e q u i r e d . The remainder of Table 17 confirms, the f i n d i n g s of Table 14. S i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s between c o n d i t i o n s were found f o r 182 TABLE ISa I Tablf i of ffltang f@£ ANOVAR £er QPA f©£ g@n£ifei@n 1 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BOTH DRAFTS AND DRAFT 3 Condition 1 Low GPA High GPA Combined (n=17) X (n=8) X (n=9) X SD Assertions (part 1} both d r a f t s 0.375 0. 556 0 .471 0 .624 d r a f t 1 only- 0 . 500 0.667 0 . 588 0 . 507 d r a f t ,2 onl y 1.250 1. 000 1^ 118 0 . 69 7 new 0 .875 0 . 556 0.706 0.920 reass igned 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 Support (part 1) both d r a f t s 1.125 0 . 889 1.000 0.791 . d r a f t 1 on l y 0.750 2 . 222 1.529 1. 463 d r a f t 2 on l y 2 .625 4 .889 3.824 2 . 899 new 1.875 1.889 1.882 2 . 395 re a s s i g n e d 0.125 0.111 0 .118 0.332 Assertions (part 2) both d r a f t s 0 . 875 0 . 667 0 . 765 0.831 d r a f t 1 o n l y . 0.875 1.000 0.941 0.748 d r a f t 2 on l y 1. 500 2.111 1.824 1. 380 new 1.750 0 .778 1.235 1.855 re a s s i g n e d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Support (part 2) both d r a f t s 0 .250 0.333 0 . 294 0.588 d r a f t 1 o n l y 0 .375 0 . 556 0.471 0.624 d r a f t 2 o n l y 0.750 1.889 1. 353 1.902 new "0.875 1.111 1.000 1.768 re a s s i g n e d 0.125 0 . 0 0 .059 0 .243 183 TABLE 19b : T a b l e o f Means f o r ANOVAR f o r GPA f o r c o n d i t i o n 2 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BOTH DRAFTS AND DRAFT 3 C o n d i t i o n 2 Low GPA H i g h GPA Combined (n=18) / X (n=7) X (n=ll) X SD A s s e r t i o n s ( p a r t 1) both d r a f t s 0 .857 1.455 1.222 0.647 d r a f t 1 onl y 0.143 0 . 091 0 . I l l 0.323 . d r a f t 2 o n l y 0.143 0 . 273 0 . 222 0 .428 new 0.143 0 . 364 0 . 278 0.575 reass igned 0.0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 S u p p o r t ( p a r t 1) both d r a f t s 3 . 286 2 .636 2 .889 1.676 d r a f t 1 onl y 0.0 0 .182 0 . I l l 0.323 d r a f t 2 onl y 1.571 2 .182 1.944 1.514 new 2 .429 1.091 1.611 1. 819 reass igned 0.143 0 . 091 0 . I l l 0 . 323 A s s e r t i o n s ( p a r t 2) both d r a f t s 0 .857 2 . 455 1.833 1.543 d r a f t 1 onl y 0 .143 0.273 0.222 0.548 d r a f t 2 o n l y 0. 571 0 . 818 0 . 722 0.958 new 1.000 0 .455 0 .667 0.907 reass igned 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0.0 , S u p p o r t ( p a r t 2) both d r a f t s 0. 429 2 . 091 1.444 1.381 d r a f t 1 onl y 0.0 0 . 091 0 .056 0 .236 d r a f t 2 onl y 0.0 0 . 727 0 . 444 0 . 616 new 0 . 714 0 .636 0.667 0.840 reass igned 0.143 0.091 0 .111 0 .323 m a t e r i a l t h a t had e x i s t e d before i n both d r a f t s (F.20.51, d f : l , p:<0.001) i n d r a f t 1 only (F.27.76, d f : l , p:<0.001) and d r a f t 2 only (F.14.89, d f : l , p:<0.001). There were no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r -a c t i o n s between GPA and c o n d i t i o n , but i n t e r a c t i o n s between c o n d i t i o n and measure were s i g n i f i c a n t f o r m a t e r i a l i n d r a f t 1 184 only (F:5.03, df:3, p:<0.003) and material in both drafts (F:3.67, df:3, p:<0.015). From Tables 19a and 19b, the combined group means show that' while students in each condition mostly retained from both drafts t h e i r support for part 1, condition 2 students retained proportionally more ' support-part 2 than condition 1 who were more l i k e l y to retain assertions-part 2 from both d r a f t s . To explain t h i s , the s i g n i f i c a n t interaction among condition, GPA and measure for both drafts (F:3.09, df:3, p:<0.031) provides clues. The means for GPA subgroups in Tables 19a and 19b portray d i f f e r e n t patterns per condition. Students in each a b i l i t y group show l i t t l e v a r i a t i o n between each other's mean scores for assertions-part 2 (0.88, 0.67) or for support-part 2 (0.25, 0.33). Much more noticeable v a r i a t i o n exists in condition 2's a b i l i t y groups for the same categories of material: on assertions-part 2, the high a b i l i t y subgroup retained approx-imately twice as many idea units as the lower a b i l i t y subgroup (2.46, 0.86). This again supports the notion that high GPA students in condition 2 found the opportunity to revise their paper twice to be rather u n f r u i t f u l as far as their assertions in part 2 were concerned. C e l l means for support-part 2 show the same picture for the high GPA subgroup, but reveal also that the low GPA subgroup did not manage to say very much at a l l in answer to t h i s part of the assignment and revised very l i t t l e : no student in t h i s subgroup had redrafted a single idea unit in draft 1 for th i s category u n t i l a r r i v i n g at draft 3 where some new material is appearing (0.71). 185 I t seems, t h e r e f o r e , that a developmental trend d e f i n i t e l y e x i s t s between treatments and t h a t the p a t t e r n i s r e f l e c t e d to some degree i n d i f f e r e n c e s between GPA subgroups. F i g u r e 17 sum-marizes g r a p h i c a l l y t h i s t rend emerging from the ANOVAR f i n d i n g s . Students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 appeared to f i n d the removal of d r a f t 1 l i b e r a t e d them from the s a l i e n c y of t h e i r e a r l i e r t e x t and they were able to produce u s e f u l new m a t e r i a l i n d r a f t 2 that was l a t e r used i n d r a f t 3. Lower a b i l i t y students continued to produce more new m a t e r i a l i n d r a f t 3 e i t h e r because they had " l e a r n e d " to be more experimental from the treatment or because much of t h e i r new m a t e r i a l i n d r a f t 2 needed f u r t h e r reworking. Higher a b i l i t y students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 d i d not continue to generate as much new m a t e r i a l i n d r a f t 3 (although s t i l l more new m a t e r i a l than e i t h e r group i n c o n d i t i o n 2), p o s s i b l y because they were a l r e a d y s a t i s f i e d with much of the newly generated m a t e r i a l produced i n d r a f t 2. In c o n t r a s t , students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 continued to r e d r a f t much the same m a t e r i a l that had been there i n i t i a l l y i n t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s . But the f u r t h e r r e d r a f t i n g s e s s i o n s were not redundant. Although q u a l i t y r a t i n g s f o r t h i r d d r a f t s d i d not show s i g n i f i c a n t improvements f o r these stud e n t s , the students d i d r e p o r t higher s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s and they appear to have been w i l l i n g to generate some new m a t e r i a l . T h i s was e s p e c i a l l y t r u e f o r the lower a b i l i t y subgroup, who, probably unhappy with the q u a l i t y of t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s , t r i e d to generate a l t e r n a t i v e idea u n i t s . 186 FIGURE 1 7 : The o r i g i n s o f s t u d e n t s ' i d e a u n i t s i n d r a f t 3 ( f o r a l l r h e t o r i c a l c a t e g o r i e s ) i n each t r e a t m e n t g roup 50 40 percent /of mean 30 20 10 51 13 43 25 2 3 2 2 18 1 1 B o t h D r a f t ! D r a f t 2 New R e a s s . d r a f t s o n l y o n l y O r i g i n of idea u n i t s i n d r a f t 3 Cond 1 Cond 2 The summary F i g u r e 18 r e v e a l s t h a t most of t h i s a c t i v i t y was o c c u r r i n g almost e x c l u s i v e l y f o r low GPA students of c o n d i t i o n 2 i n the domain of support f o r p a r t 1 of the assignment -- a tre n d r e f l e c t e d i n a l l a b i l i t y groups ac r o s s c o n d i t i o n s . Yet the a c t of r e d r a f t i n g had encouraged low a b i l i t y students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 to pay more a t t e n t i o n to t h e i r assessment of Mr. Duffy's respons-i b i l i t y f o r Mrs. S i n i c o 1 s • d e a t h i n t h e i r a s s e r t i o n s - p a r t 1, and had encouraged high a b i l i t y students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 to devote more energy to s p e c u l a t i n g on the consequences f o r Mr. Duffy of her death, i n t h e i r support to par t 2 of the assignment. O v e r a l l , these f i n d i n g s lend credence to the theory that the 187 s a l i e n c y of t e x t may be overcome by producing a f r e s h new d r a f t and t h a t t h i s might be e s p e c i a l l y u s e f u l to low a b i l i t y students who tend to experience c l o s u r e e a r l y and become bogged down i n c o n c e p t u a l l y d i f f i c u l t p a r t s of an assignment. High a b i l i t y students may not r e q u i r e a h e u r i s t i c i n order to e f f e c t important t e x t u a l r e v i s i o n s but the technique can s t i l l be b e n e f i c i a l to them. FIGURE 18: The r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n s of idea u n i t s i n d r a f t 3 ( f o r , a l l r e d r a f t i n g o p e r a t i o n s ) i n each treatment group 50 40 percent of mean 30 20 10 44 45 15 25 23 Cond 1 Cond 2 Asst 1 Supp 1 As s t 2 Supp 2 R h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n of idea u n i t s i n d r a f t 3 188 INFLUENCE OF WRITING APPREHENSION (WAI) Since the treatment experienced by students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 i n v o l v e d the i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g y of removing access to f i r s t d r a f t s , i t was hypothesized t h a t students who tended to f e e l p a r t i c u l a r l y apprehensive i n general about w r i t i n g might f i n d t h i s i n t e r v e n t i o n e s p e c i a l l y u n s e t t l i n g . Consequently, a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e and covariance were computed i n order to t e s t f o r the e x i s t e n c e of any s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s between c o n d i t i o n and w r i t i n g apprehension across the dependant v a r i a b l e s under i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n the study. As o u t l i n e d i n Chapter Three, l e v e l s of g e n e r a l a n x i e t y with w r i t i n g were measured by the W r i t i n g Apprehension Inventory (WAI) of Daly & M i l l e r (1975), and students with high a n x i e t y were d e f i n e d as those p o s s e s s i n g scores above the c o l l e c t i v e mean of 87.29 f o r a l l s t u d e n t s , while those s c o r i n g t h i s or below were con s i d e r e d to possess low a n x i e t y . The r e s u l t a n t numbers of students i n each c e l l were more e q u i v a l e n t than had been obtained f o r s u b d i v i s i o n s by GPA ( c o n d i t i o n 1: low n = 8, high n = 9; c o n d i t i o n 2: low n = 9, high n = 9). The r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s e s , s u r p r i s i n g l y , were a l m o s t . i d e n t i c a l for WAI subgroups to those t h a t had been found f o r GPA subgroups. The ANOVAR (see Appendix G) r e v e a l e d the same s i g n i f i c a n t main e f f e c t s as i t had e a r l i e r done f o r GPA subgroups and the same 189 s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s between c o n d i t i o n and measure ( r h e t o r i -c a l f u n c t i o n ) per d r a f t . Indeed, occasions where the ANOVAR f o r GPA had produced i n t e r a c t i o n s which approached s i g n i f i c a n c e r e c e i v e d reduced p r o b a b i l i t y values when the ANOVAR was repeated fo r WAI subgroups, due to the more balanced c e l l numbers f o r c o n d i t i o n 2. This was a l s o true f o r i n t e r a c t i o n s between c o n d i t i o n , WAI and measure. S i m i l a r l y , no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t -ions between c o n d i t i o n and WAI were found, except f o r m a t e r i a l i n d r a f t 3 th a t had o r i g i n a t e d from d r a f t 1 onl y (F:6.24, d f : l , p:<0.018). The c e l l means (Appendix G) r e v e a l e d the source of the i n t e r a c t i o n to l i e i n c o n d i t i o n 1, where low WAI students had r e t a i n e d much l e s s d r a f t 1 onl y m a t e r i a l f o r su p p o r t - p a r t 1 (0.75, 2.22), i n d i c a t i n g , unexpectedly, t h a t the more apprehen-s i v e students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 had been more w i l l i n g to l a y a s i d e idea u n i t s i n d r a f t 1 when composing d r a f t 2. Analyses of covar i a n c e f o r WAI subgroups, performed to c o n t r o l v a r i a t i o n between c o n d i t i o n s i n d r a f t 1, f o r q u a l i t y r a t i n g s , ) s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s , number of words, and number of e r r o r s per 100 words, a l s o produced s i m i l a r r e s u l t s as had been c o l l e c t e d from the analyses of covar i a n c e f o r GPA. No i n t e r a c t i o n s between c o n d i t i o n and WAI were found f o r any v a r i a b l e . Such i d e n t i c a l r e s u l t s f o r WAI h i n t e d t h a t WAI subgroups and GPA subgroups were composed of the same students. The s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s presented below i n Table 20 draw the 19 0 connection c l o s e r between these v a r i a b l e s . For c o n d i t i o n 1, r = .7350 (p:<0.001); f o r c o n d i t i o n 2, r = .6133 (p:<0.003). I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t not on l y i s r higher f o r students i n c o n d i t i o n l ' s GPA, but a l s o higher f o r t h e i r course grades achieved at the end of the semester, with almost twice the r e l a t i o n s h i p between t h i s grade and WAI as f o r students i n c o n d i t i o n 2. TABLE 20: Relationship between writing anxiety and other variables C o n d i t i o n 1 C o n d i t i o n 2 r prob r prob Sex .0164 Course grade .8363 Grade p o i n t average .7350 (* p < .05 ) .475 -.1422 .287 .001* .4671 .025* .001* .6133 .003* When c o r r e l a t i o n s were c a l c u l a t e d between WAI and other v a r i a b l e s (see Table 21), the same tr e n d c o n t i n u e d . S i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s e x i s t e d between WAI and the q u a l i t y r a t i n g s on a l l d r a f t s , again with stronger r e s u l t s f o r c o n d i t i o n 1 students. The more apprehensive students scored higher r a t i n g s f o r t h e i r compositions at each stage than l e s s apprehensive students; however, no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between WAI and s e l f -e v a l u a t i o n s was found. N e i t h e r d i d these students produce longer 191 d r a f t s s i n c e no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p i n e i t h e r c o n d i t i o n e x i s t e d between WAI and number of words. Se v e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s f o r these s u r p r i s i n g r e s u l t s are p l a u s -i b l e : (1) Students i n t h i s study may not have completed the WAI a c c u r a t e l y or t r u t h f u l l y . They may have viewed i t as "busy work" or as being of t r i v i a l r e l e v a n c e to t h e i r course. (2) Students i n both c o n d i t i o n s may have b e l i e v e d themselves to be more apprehensive than they a c t u a l l y were. They may not "enjoy" w r i t i n g , and the WAI instrument may r e g i s t e r t h e i r r e l u c t a n c e to wr i t e as " a n x i e t y " . (3) Students who are apprehensive about w r i t i n g may adopt a more " s e r i o u s " a t t i t u d e towards t h e i r f i r s t year E n g l i s h c o u r s e s . They may feel" more apprehensive about w r i t i n g assignments i n these courses. (4) The more d i l i g e n t and hard-working student may report more apprehension than he a c t u a l l y has. On the other hand, the suggestion that the WAI i s not a v a l i d measure of apprehension seems u n l i k e l y s i n c e i t has been widely employed s i n c e i t s i n c e p t i o n by Daly and M i l l e r i n 1975 and has gained wide r e s p e c t as a v a l i d and r e l i a b l e i n s t r u -ment . 192 TABLE 21: Relationship between WAI and other variables per draft C o n d i t i o n 1 r pr ob C o n d i t i o n 2 r prob Quality ratings D r a f t 1 .5222 .016* .5254 .013* D r a f t 2 .7561 .001* . 5187 .014* D r a f t 3 .7311 . 001* . 5434 .010* Self-evaluations D r a f t 1 . 356 7 .080 .1026 .343 D r a f t 2 .2171 .201 .3203 . 097 D r a f t 3 .2074 .212 .28 57 .125 Words per draft D r a f t 1 .1256 . 316 . 0428 . 433 D r a f t 2 .1765 .245 . 0753 . 383 D r a f t 3 . 2201 .198 i 0965 .352 (* p < .05 ) / INFLUENCE OF REVISION ATTITUDE The instrument developed by the re s e a r c h e r to measure students' a t t i t u d e s toward r e v i s i o n and toward d i f f e r e n t aspects of i t s r o l e f o r them i n the composing process was administered to the students on the l a s t day of data c o l l e c t i o n . The re s e a r c h e r 193 anticipated that i t might indicate whether s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n -ces existed between students in the two conditions in their attitudes about r e v i s i o n . If such differences were found, they might confound the results obtained in the study for d i f f e r e n t treatment conditions. Results c l e a r l y indicated that both treatment groups, however, shared the same range of attitudes and opinions. No s i g n i f i c a n t differences were found on the twenty-eight items on the question-naire, except for v i (t:2.49, df:27, p:<0.019) and x x v i i ( t : -2.31, df:33, p:<0.027). The former may be dismissed as probably a s t a t i s t i c a l anomaly due to random differences. The l a t t e r occurs as the l a s t item on the questionnaire, where students were asked to indicate whether they believed redrafting, revising and editing are d i f f e r e n t operations. More students in condition 1 answered "yes" to t h i s question than students in condition 2 did (7, 4). Since the questionnaire was completed" by students a f t e r the treatment sessions (and no control for the ef f e c t of t r e a t -ment existed) t h i s difference between conditions may r e f l e c t an influence of the treatment in condition 1. Students may have been provoked by the treatment to reconsider th e i r attitudes to d i f f e r e n t aspects of r e v i s i o n . At the end of the questionnaire form, space was provided for students to append comments c l a r i f y -ing their answers to question x x v i i i . These comments have been reproduced in Appendix H. While the d i s t i n c t i o n s between redrafting, r e v i s i n g and editing that students a r t i c u l a t e d were 194 not coherent some of the time, they do r e f l e c t a c o n s i s t e n t b e l i e f t h a t e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g are o p e r a t i o n s that E@due§ r a t h e r than add m a t e r i a l to t h e i r t e x t s . These students seem to d i s p l a y the same a t t i t u d e s to r e v i s i o n t h a t other r e s e a r c h e r s have found p r e v a l e n t among inexperienced w r i t e r s (e.g., Perl,1979; Sommers,1980; F a i g l e y & Witte,1981). SUMMARY Chapter Four has presented the f i n d i n g s of the study c a t e g o r i z e d a c c o r d i n g to the r e s e a r c h questions i n v o l v e d . Tables t h a t summarize the s t a t i s t i c a l a nalyses have been provided along with e x p l a n a t i o n s of the s i g n i f i c a n t r e s u l t s . Reference has been made to supplementary t a b l e s t h a t present a n c i l l a r y s t a t i s t i c a l r e s u l t s and which have been placed i n Appendices D through H. In g e n e r a l , the f i n d i n g s c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t the r e d r a f t i n g done by students i n the two treatment c o n d i t i o n s was s i g n i f i c a n t -l y d i f f e r e n t i n terms of idea u n i t s r e t a i n e d , removed, and added i n d r a f t 2 and d r a f t 3. Students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 produced f i n a l d r a f t s of s i g n i f i c a n t l y longer lengths and r e c e i v e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher q u a l i t y r a t i n g s f o r these f i n a l d r a f t s than students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 d i d . Although students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 re p o r t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s f o r d r a f t 1, they gave s i g n i f i c a n t l y lower s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n scores than students i n 195 c o n d i t i o n 2 f o r t h e i r second d r a f t s , and no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f -ference was found between c o n d i t i o n s f o r s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s on d r a f t 3. R e s u l t s f o r number of e r r o r s per 100 words showed no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e between c o n d i t i o n s on any of the d r a f t s . The i n t e r a c t i o n s t e s t e d between dependant measures per c o n d i t i o n and both grade p o i n t average and w r i t i n g apprehension r a r e l y achieved s i g n i f i c a n c e . S i m i l a r l y , the i n f l u e n c e of a t t i t u d e s towards r e v i s i n g was s i g n i f i c a n t on only 2 out of 28 v a r i a b l e s . Some e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r these r e s u l t s were suggested where ap-p r o p r i a t e , but a more d e t a i l e d d i s c u s s i o n of the c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t emerged from the r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s and of t h e i r p o t e n t i a l i m p l i c a t i o n s i s o f f e r e d i n Chapter F i v e . 196 CHAPTER FIVE SUMMARY and DISCUSSION The present chapter i s d i v i d e d i n t o two p a r t s . F i r s t , a b r i e f summary of the purpose, methodology and r e s u l t s i s gi v e n . Second,; the c o n c l u s i o n s that can be drawn from the study along with t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r p r a c t i c a l a p p l i c a t i o n s and fu t u r e r e s e a r c h are d i s c u s s e d . SUMMARY Background Despite r e v i s i o n being an ongoing r e c u r s i v e a c t i v i t y ( P e r l , 1979; Sommers, 1980; F a i g l e y & Witte, 1981), v students tend not to r e v i s e t h e i r compositions without prompting. They r a r e l y view r e v i s i o n as an i n t e g r a l p a r t of the composing process and o f t e n reduce i t s s i g n i f i c a n c e to the c l e a n s i n g of e r r o r s . When inexperienced w r i t e r s do r e v i s e , they are f r e q u e n t l y unable s u c c e s s f u l l y to improve the q u a l i t y of t h e i r t e x t s because they have not developed e f f i c i e n t or e f f e c t i v e r e v i s i n g behaviours t h a t can permit them to t u r n w r i t e r - b a s e d prose i n t o reader-based prose (Flower, 1980). While the c o g n i t i v e demands i n v o l v e d i n the a c t of r e v i s i n g may be ,a s i g n i f i c a n t f a c t o r , teachers of 197 w r i t i n g may be able to a s s i s t students l e a r n r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s by employing h e u r i s t i c techniques i n the classroom. G a r r e t t -P e t t s (1981), b e l i e v i n g that the s a l i e n c y of an a l r e a d y produced t e x t may a c t as a b a r r i e r to s u c c e s s f u l r e v i s i o n of i t s conte n t s , proposed a r e d r a f t i n g technique c o n s i s t i n g of producing a f i r s t d r a f t , d i s c a r d i n g i t , producing a second d r a f t , and then compos-ing a t h i r d d r a f t as a s y n t h e s i s of the previous two. Such a technique might prevent the phenomenon of c l o s u r e o p e r a t i n g so e a r l y on and permit students to "re-see" t h e i r v e r b a l i z a t i o n s of the ideas they are t r y i n g to express. Purpose To i n v e s t i g a t e the extent to which the s a l i e n c y of o r i g i n a l t e x t u a l m a t e r i a l does a c t as a b a r r i e r to s u c c e s s f u l r e v i s i o n , t h i s r e s e a r c h study examined how the removal of o r i g i n a l t e x t u a l m a t e r i a l a f f e c t e d s t u dents' a b i l i t i e s to r e d r a f t t h e i r e x p o s i t o r y compositions. S p e c i f i c a l l y , the study focussed on what e f f e c t s the removal of access to i n i t i a l d r a f t s had on the contents of students' d r a f t s , the presence of s u r f a c e e r r o r s , e x t e r n a l r a t i n g s of q u a l i t y , and st u d e n t s ' own s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s of t h e i r d r a f t s . The study a l s o sought to determine whether these e f f e c t s were i n f l u e n c e d by students' a b i l i t i e s with w r i t i n g , t h e i r apprehensions about w r i t i n g or t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward r e v i s i o n . The o v e r a l l aim was to o b t a i n an improved understanding of the problems encountered by inexperienced w r i t e r s t a c k l i n g r e v i s i o n 19 8 and to t e s t the u s e f u l n e s s o f . G a r r e t t - P e t t ' s three d r a f t proced-ure as a r e d r a f t i n g h e u r i s t i c . METHODS P i l o t Study A p i l o t study was conducted i n order to e s t a b l i s h whether the proposed r e s e a r c h questions and methodology were w e l l conceived and whether a f u l l - s c a l e p r o j e c t was j u s t i f i e d . A t o t a l of 17 students e n r o l l e d i n two l e v e l s of b a s i c w r i t i n g courses at a community c o l l e g e were asked to d r a f t and r e v i s e an e x p o s i t o r y composition under two d i f f e r e n t c o n d i t i o n s . The e i g h t students at the advanced l e v e l were asked i n the second s e s s i o n to r e d r a f t t h e i r i n i t i a l d r a f t s from memory without access to these e a r l i e r d r a f t s . In c o n t r a s t , the nine students i n the more elementary c l a s s were given t y p e w r i t t e n -copies of t h e i r i n i t i a l d r a f t s and were asked to produce a second d r a f t ; I t was hypothesized t h a t removing access to the f i r s t d r a f t would l i b e r a t e students i n Group One from the s a l i e n c y of t h e i r t e x t s and f a c i l i t a t e the p r o d u c t i o n of an improved second d r a f t . In a d d i t i o n , . i t was hypothesized t h a t t y p i n g the i n i t i a l d r a f t s i n Group Two would inc r e a s e the s a l i e n c y of these s t u d e n t s ' t e x t s and invoke c l o s u r e e a r l i e r , r e s u l t i n g i n second d r a f t s t h a t contained only super-f i c i a l d i f f e r e n c e s from the f i r s t d r a f t s . The r e s u l t s g e n e r a l l y confirmed these assumptions but were not wholly s a t i s f a c t o r y . 199 Removal of the f i r s t d r a f t s d i d cause students to produce remarkably d i f f e r e n t contents i n t h e i r second d r a f t s , but whether t h i s treatment was b e n e f i c i a l c o u l d not be determined without a s k i n g students to attempt to s y n t h e s i z e both d r a f t s i n t o a t h i r d . Typing the t e x t provoked l e s s v a r i a t i o n i n the contents of the second d r a f t s , but i t d i d not encourage more s u p e r f i c i a l r e v i s i o n than s u b s t a n t i v e r e v i s i o n . Research Design In view of the experience gained from the p i l o t study, an amended design was developed f o r the main p r o j e c t . C o n s i d e r a b l e amend-ments were made to focus more s h a r p l y the study's purpose, to introduce a wider range of measures, and to e l i m i n a t e extraneous elements. A l a r g e r number of s u b j e c t s was chosen but a l l were e n r o l l e d i n the same course. The treatments were extended to i n c l u d e a t h i r d d r a f t i n g stage but t y p i n g the d r a f t s was e l i m i n - ' ated. The i n t r o d u c t i o n of q u a l i t y r a t i n g s from e x t e r n a l e v a l u a t -ors as w e l l as s t u d e n t s ' s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s was augmented by i n c l u d i n g measurements of the s u b j e c t s ' w r i t i n g apprehension and a t t i t u d e s towards r e v i s i o n . C o l l e c t i o n of Data Students e n r o l l e d i n s e c t i o n s of a f i r s t - y e a r c o l l e g e E n g l i s h course were randomly assigned per s e c t i o n to e i t h e r of two t r e a t -ment groups. Both groups r e c e i v e d the same treatment except 200 d u r i n g the second s e s s i o n . The c o l l e c t i o n of data spanned a f i v e day p e r i o d as f o l l o w s : Day 1: Students were asked to complete the Daly and M i l l e r (1975a) W r i t i n g Apprehension Inventory toward the end of a r e g u l a r c l a s s s e s s i o n . Day 2: (Treatment Session 1 ): Students were given the whole c l a s s p e r i o d to do an assignment a s k i n g them to respond to a s h o r t s t o r y t h a t they had r e c e n t l y s t u d i e d i n c l a s s . At the c o n c l u s i o n of the c l a s s students were asked to a s s i g n a h o l i s t i c r a t i n g f o r the q u a l i t y of t h e i r compositions. Day 3: (Treatment S e s s i o n 2): Students were asked to r e d r a f t t h e i r p r evious compositions, and then at the c o n c l u s i o n of the c l a s s to a s s i g n a new q u a l i t y r a t i n g f o r t h i s second d r a f t . Day 4: (Treatment S e s s i o n 3): Students were asked to produce a f i n a l d r a f t of t h e i r compositions. A l l students r e c e i v e d back a l l of t h e i r p r evious d r a f t s . Students were r e q u i r e d to a s s i g n another q u a l i t y r a t i n g at the c o n c l u s i o n of the c l a s s . Day 5: Students were asked to complete the R e v i s i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e . A l l s e s s i o n s were conducted by the r e g u l a r i n s t r u c t o r f o r the course. Students performed a l l d r a f t i n g i n c l a s s . The a s s i g n -ment c o n s i s t e d of a two-part q u e s t i o n which asked students to compose an e s s a y - s t y l e response. They were asked whether they b e l i e v e d the p r o t a g o n i s t i n a short s t o r y had been r e s p o n s i b l e f o r another c h a r a c t e r ' s death and to e x p l a i n what the consequen-ces'of t h a t person's death were f o r the p r o t a g o n i s t . A t o t a l of 58 students p a r t i c i p a t e d i n aspects of the study and complete s e t s of data were obtained f o r 35 of these s t u d e n t s . The two treatment groups were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t on the indepen-dent v a r i a b l e s of sex, grade p o i n t average, course grade, and / 201 w r i t i n g apprehension. There were a balanced number of s u b j e c t s i n each treatment group. S c o r i n g of Data An amended v e r s i o n of the taxonomy developed by F a i g l e y and Witte (1981) was used to analyze the r e v i s i o n s made by students i n the p i l o t study. The use of a three-stage d r a f t i n g procedure i n the main study, however, produced d r a f t s which r e q u i r e d a d i f f e r e n t s c o r i n g system. Since an exhaustive l i t e r a t u r e search c o u l d not l o c a t e any s u i t a b l e e x i s t i n g system, a procedure was developed by the r e s e a r c h e r to measure how much of the contents i n students' i n i t i a l d r a f t s was c a r r i e d forward i n t o t h e i r subsequent d r a f t s . T h i s procedure was based on the p r o p o s i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s t h a t Mayer (1985) used to score r e a d i n g r e c a l l p r o t o c o l s , and the procedure drew upon the work done with t e x t bases by l i n g u i s t s such as van D i j k (1977) and Danes (1974). A l l d r a f t s were typed and then parsed i n t o idea u n i t s using the t - u n i t as the s y n t a c t i c boundary between idea u n i t s . Each idea u n i t was then s u b - d i v i d e d i n t o i t s " t o p i c " and "comment(s)". The r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n of each idea u n i t was coded as being e i t h e r an " a s s e r t i o n " or "support" to one p a r t of the assignment q u e s t i o n . Then the comments of each idea u n i t i n each student's f i r s t d r a f t were compared with those i n the student's second d r a f t , as w e l l as the comments i n the second d r a f t s compared with those i n the t h i r d d r a f t s , before f i n a l l y the comments i n the 202 t h i r d d r a f t s were compared with those i n the previous two d r a f t s . A c l e a r p i c t u r e of how much i n f o r m a t i o n had been c a r r i e d forward, added, or d e l e t e d at each d r a f t i n g stage thus emerged. The typed d r a f t s were a l s o scored f o r the number of s u r f a c e e r r o r s with s p e l l i n g , p unctuation and word usage. The r e s u l t s obtained from the W r i t i n g Apprehension Inventory, R e v i s i o n Q u e s t i o n n a i r e , and students' s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s were t a b u l a t e d . F i n a l l y , two e x t e r n a l r a t e r s were t r a i n e d to evaluate h o l i s t i -c a l l y the d r a f t s and provide q u a l i t y r a t i n g s based on general impressions (Cooper, 1977). I n t e r - r a t e r r e l i a b i l i t y was e s t a b -l i s h e d ( D i e d e r i c h , 1974) and a check-coder was used to review the s c o r i n g procedures used (1) to segment the t e x t s i n t o idea u n i t s , (2) to compare d r a f t s , and (3) to determine the s u r f a c e e r r o r s per d r a f t . A n a l y s i s of Data A f t e r the data were scored on measures of idea u n i t s , r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n , e r r o r types and q u a l i t y r a t i n g s , a l l of the data were coded and prepared f o r s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s . The main s t a t i s t i -c a l techniques used were (1) Pearson product-moment c o r r e l a t i o n s between grade p o i n t average, w r i t i n g apprehension, s e l f - e v a l u a t -i o n s , q u a l i t y r a t i n g s , number of words and number of e r r o r s per 100 words; (2) a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e (ANOVAR) c a l c u l a t i o n s to determine s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the mean number of idea u n i t s (and t h e i r r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n s ) f o r each treatment 203 c o n d i t i o n and to t e s t f o r i n t e r a c t i o n s between c o n d i t i o n and grade p o i n t average (GPA) and between c o n d i t i o n and w r i t i n g apprehension (WAI); and (3) a n a l y s i s of cova r i a n c e (ANCOVA) c a l c u l a t i o n s to determine s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between mean scores of each treatment group on v a r i a b l e s of q u a l i t y r a t i n g s , s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s , number of words and number of e r r o r s per 100 words when scores on e a r l i e r d r a f t s were c o n t r o l l e d , and to t e s t f o r i n t e r a c t i o n s between c o n d i t i o n and GPA and between c o n d i t i o n and WAI. For a l l s t a t i s t i c a l techniques, alpha was set as 0.05 fo r r e j e c t i n g the n u l l h y p o t h e s i s . R e s u l t s Complete data were c o l l e c t e d from a t o t a l of 35 students with a balanced number from each treatment group: 17 i n c o n d i t i o n one and 18 i n c o n d i t i o n two. A f u r t h e r 23 students p a r t i c i p a t e d i n the study but were d i d not provide' complete s e t s of data because they were absent on one or more days of the data c o l l e c t i o n . However, those who d i d not provide complete data were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from those who d i d , and t h e r e f o r e they d i d not appear to compromise the r e s u l t s of the study. The r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s f o r le n g t h of d r a f t s showed t h a t second d r a f t s tended to be somewhat longer i n t o t a l number of words than f i r s t d r a f t s , the g r e a t e r mean gai n being achieved by students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 who then showed a f u r t h e r increase i n 204 length f o r t h e i r t h i r d d r a f t s , whereas i n c o n d i t i o n 2 t h i r d d r a f t s were n o t i c e a b l y s h o r t e r than both e a r l i e r d r a f t s . Students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 i n c r e a s e d the mean len g t h of t h e i r compositions almost 36 percent by steady increments per d r a f t . In c o n t r a s t , students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 decreased t h e i r mean composition lengths by 16 percent o v e r a l l d e s p i t e a 7 percent r i s e i n number of words at the second d r a f t stage. The d i f f e r -ence between the group means f o r d r a f t 3 was s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t a t the 0.05 l e v e l of c o n f i d e n c e . Students a l t e r e d the contents of t h e i r d r a f t s i n v a r i o u s ways and the r e d r a f t i n g o p e r a t i o n s o c c u r r i n g under each c o n d i t i o n were performed to d i f f e r e n t extents throughout the p r o d u c t i o n of the three d r a f t s . In t h e i r second d r a f t s , students i n c o n d i t i o n 1, not having access to the content of t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s , removed f a r more mean idea u n i t s of most r h e t o r i c a l types than students i n c o n d i t i o n 2, who concentrated on r e t a i n i n g idea u n i t s or adding a some new ones. Apart from the small number of idea u n i t s r e a s s i g n e d (which was true f o r both c o n d i t i o n s ) , students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 removed on average h a r d l y any of the idea u n i t s t h at had a l r e a d y e x i s t e d i n t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s . 205 In c o n t r a s t , students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 were n o t i c e a b l y l i b e r a t e d from the c o n s t r a i n t s t h a t c o u l d be exerted by the t e x t produced i n t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s . While the mean lengths of second d r a f t s were almost i d e n t i c a l f o r each c o n d i t i o n , students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 added almost the same number or more idea u n i t s than those r e t a i n e d by students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 f o r each r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n (e.g., a s s e r t i o n s to pa r t one of the assignment). In terms of r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n s , more r e d r a f t i n g a c t i v i t y occurred i n connection with support f o r pa r t 1 of the assignment than f o r any other category. Examination of the students* t e x t s produced i n d r a f t 2 showed that students under both c o n d i t i o n s found Part 1 to be a concept-u a l l y harder task to which they devoted more of t h e i r papers. Students i n both c o n d i t i o n s spent most of t h e i r time here r e d r a f t i n g the support provided as evidence f o r t h e i r a s s e r t -i o n s . However, the removal of d r a f t 1 i n c o n d i t i o n 1 tended to encourage students to provide s i g n i f i c a n t l y more new a s s e r t i o n s (not merely support) f o r t h i s p a r t of the q u e s t i o n than f o r students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 and more new a s s e r t i o n s f o r pa r t .2. The e f f e c t of removing access to d r a f t 1 tended to in c r e a s e the l i k e l i h o o d t h a t students might change the p o s i t i o n s they adopted. The most notable d i f f e r e n c e between treatment c o n d i t i o n s , s i g n i f i c a n t f o r a l l r h e t o r i c a l c a t e g o r i e s , was the mean number of idea u n i t s t h a t were new, e s p e c i a l l y f o r a s s e r t i o n s - p a r t 1 where 206 c o n d i t i o n 1 s t u d e n t s p r o d u c e d an a v e r a g e o f 1.2 more i d e a u n i t s p e r s t u d e n t t h a n s t u d e n t s i n c o n d i t i o n 2 d i d . I n t h i r d d r a f t s , two d i s t i n c t t r e n d s were r e f l e c t e d . F i r s t l y , s i m i l a r t o t h e r e s u l t s f o r d r a f t 2, s t u d e n t s i n b o t h c o n d i t i o n s t e n d e d t o d e v o t e s i m i l a r p r o p o r t i o n s o f t h e i r t h i r d d r a f t s t o d i f f e r e n t p a r t s o f t h e a s s i g n m e n t q u e s t i o n . More i d e a u n i t s were e x p e n d e d a s s u p p o r t - p a r t 1 t h a n f o r a n y o t h e r r h e t o r i c a l c a t e -g o r y . I n a d d i t i o n , f o r b o t h t r e a t m e n t g r o u p s , more i d e a u n i t s were f u n c t i o n i n g a s a s s e r t i o n s f o r p a r t 2 t h a n f o r p a r t 1, and most o f t h e r e d r a f t i n g p e r f o r m e d on t h e c o n t e n t s o f p a r t 2 o c c u r r e d w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e a s s e r t i o n s r a t h e r t h a n t o t h e i r s u p p o r t . S t u d e n t s a p p e a r e d t o r e t h i n k t h e i r p o s i t i o n s more t h a n t h e y r e c o n s i d e r e d t h e e v i d e n c e t h a t s u p p o r t e d t h o s e p o s i t i o n s . S e c o n d l y , h o w e v e r , s t u d e n t s i n c o n d i t i o n 1 p r o d u c e d f i n a l d r a f t s t h a t had i d e a u n i t s o f s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t o r i g i n s t h a n t h o s e o f s t u d e n t s i n c o n d i t i o n 2. The t h i r d d r a f t s o f s t u d e n t s i n c o n d i t i o n 1 p o s s e s s e d s i g n i f i -c a n t l y f e w e r mean i d e a u n i t s w h i c h had a p p e a r e d i n both e a r l i e r d r a f t s t h a n d i d t h o s e t h i r d d r a f t s o f ' c o n d i t i o n 2. T h i s was t r u e f o r a l l r h e t o r i c a l c a t e g o r i e s . W h i l e s t u d e n t s i n c o n d i t i o n 2 had t e n d e d r e g u l a r l y t o r e d r a f t i d e a u n i t s w i t h t h e same m e a n i n g t h r o u g h o u t a l l t h r e e d r a f t s , s t u d e n t s i n c o n d i t i o n 1 had p r o d u c e d i n d r a f t 2 (when a c c e s s t o d r a f t 1 was n o t p o s s i b l e ) c o n s i d e r a b l y 207 l a r g e r mean numbers of idea u n i t s that had not e x i s t e d i n t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s . Students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 d i d not simply r e j e c t m a t e r i a l produced i n t h e i r second d r a f t s and merely r e v e r t to what they had s a i d i n d r a f t 1. Instead they chose to r e t a i n a l a r g e r mean number of idea u n i t s that had e x i s t e d o n l y i n d r a f t 2. A l l r h e t o r i c a l c a t e g o r i e s r e f l e c t e d t h i s behaviour, with approximately twice as many idea u n i t s having t h e i r o r i g i n s i n d r a f t 2 as those o r i g i n -a t i n g from d r a f t 1. Students i n both treatment groups appeared to have chosen to r e t a i n new m a t e r i a l generated i n d r a f t 2, and t h i s was overwhelmingly the case f o r students i n c o n d i t i o n 1. This new m a t e r i a l seemed to came c l o s e r to meeting the demands of the task at hand and appeared to be of s u p e r i o r q u a l i t y . For q u a l i t y r a t i n g s , mean scores f o r d r a f t 1 show that students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 were r a t e d s l i g h t l y higher than students i n c o n d i t i o n 2, although t h i s d i f f e r e n c e was not s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t . In d r a f t 2, no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e was a l s o d e t e c t e d , means per c o n d i t i o n being almost equal. The e f f e c t of removing access to d r a f t 1 f o r students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 was a very smal l decrease i n mean q u a l i t y r a t i n g f o r d r a f t 2. Yet students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 were able to produce second d r a f t s of somewhat s u p e r i o r q u a l i t y , suggesting t h a t they found having access to t h e i r e a r l i e r d r a f t s to be b e n e f i c i a l . By d r a f t 3, however, 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 had emerged. Students 208 in condition 1 improved their scores by an average of over 14 points, whereas the overall q u a l i t y of compositions in condition 2 had remained s t a t i c , producing a s l i g h t decrease over draft 2 but s t i l l a modest increase over draft 1. Students in condition 1 appeared to benefit from their treatment far more than students in condition 2. This benefit occurred exclusively at the f i n a l treatment stage when both independently produced e a r l i e r drafts were returned to these students. For self-evaluations, s i g n i f i c a n t differences between conditions were found for draft 1, where condition 1 had the larger mean score. No s i g n i f i c a n t difference existed between mean scores for draft 3 where both groups rated themselves almost equally superior over a l l their d r a f t s . The potential lack of i n t e r -rater r e l i a b i l i t y between students, however, tends to compromise the v a l i d i t y of these p a r t i c u l a r findings. When compared to quality ratings, the differences between means in draft 1, e a r l i e r noted by raters, was refl e c t e d in students' own evaluations. In their later drafts, however, students did not seem to have reacted the same way to the qual i t y of their drafts as the raters did. In draft 2, students in condition 1 f e l t less sure of the benefits derived from removing their f i r s t d r a f t s , assessing a mean decrease over their draft 1 scores, yet these students did corroborate the overall gain between their f i r s t and t h i r d drafts awarded by the raters and because, they 209 gave themselves a l a r g e improvement f o r t h e i r scores i n d r a f t 3, f i n i s h i n g up with mean gains t h a t were of the same order as those issued by the r a t e r s , even though a l l students i n the study tended to i n f l a t e the magnitude of the scores f o r t h e i r d r a f t s . For c o n d i t i o n 2, the o v e r a l l gain from f i r s t to t h i r d d r a f t s p e r c e i v e d by students was not onl y much gr e a t e r than the small o v e r a l l g a i n o f f e r e d by the e x t e r n a l r a t e r s but had these students awarding themselves a higher mean score on d r a f t 3 than students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 d i d i n d i r e c t c o n t r a s t to the f i n a l s cores given by the r a t e r s . ANCOVA confirmed t h a t the f i n d i n g s were not due to the i n i t i a l d i f f e r e n c e s between c o n d i t i o n means i n d r a f t 1. The r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s of s u r f a c e e r r o r s i n stu d e n t s ' d r a f t s r e v e a l e d no s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s at a l l between c o n d i t i o n s f o r mean number of e r r o r s per 100 words i n each d r a f t . The d i f f e r e n t treatments appeared to have had l i t t l e e f f e c t on the number of e r r o r s produced or removed, and i n c r e a s e s or decreases i n len g t h tended not to a f f e c t the number of e r r o r s produced or removed. Students' a b i l i t y to av o i d e r r o r s i n c o n d i t i o n 1 d i d not appear to have been hindered by t h e i r being r e q u i r e d to s y n t h e s i z e two d i f f e r e n t d r a f t s at the f i n a l stage i n d r a f t 3. The small i n c r e a s e a t the second d r a f t stage may have been due to increased a n x i e t y experienced by the lack of access to t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s . In c o n d i t i o n 2, students d i d not appear to have been a s s i s t e d at a l l by having the o p p o r t u n i t y to r e d r a f t twice t h e i r compositions and even showed very small increases overall in number of errors per 100 words. In addition, comparisons between conditions on each error type showed no s i g n i f i c a n t differences per draft. The p r o f i l e of errors e x i s t i n g in each draft remained constant across drafts as well and revealed no unexpected v a r i a t i o n among the frequency of errors per type. ANOVAR confirmed that students in condition 1 found that not having access to their f i r s t drafts provoked quite d i f f e r e n t contents to be produced for their second drafts in comparison to students in condition 2. This tendency did not appear to have favoured one academic a b i l i t y group over the other since no s i g n i f i c a n t interactions were found between condition and GPA for any of the redrafting operations. However, a developmental trend existed between treatments and the pattern was r e f l e c t e d to some degree in differences between GPA subgroups. A l l students in condition 1 appeared to find the re-moval of drafts liberated them from the saliency of the text in their f i r s t drafts and they were able to produce useful new material in draft 2 that was later used in draft 3. Lower a b i l i t y students continued to produce more new material in draft 3 e i t h e r because they had "learned" to be more experimental from the treatment or because much of their, new material in draft 2 needed further reworking. Higher a b i l i t y students in condition 1 did not continue to generate as much new material in draft 3 211 (although s t i l l more new m a t e r i a l than e i t h e r group i n c o n d i t i o n 2), probably because they were a l r e a d y s a t i s f i e d with much of the newly generated m a t e r i a l produced i n d r a f t 2. In c o n t r a s t , students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 continued to r e d r a f t much the same m a t e r i a l t h a t had been there i n i t i a l l y i n t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s . But the f u r t h e r r e d r a f t i n g s e s s i o n s were not redundant f o r students i n c o n d i t i o n 2. Although q u a l i t y r a t i n g s f o r t h i r d d r a f t s d i d not show s i g n i f i c a n t improvements , f o r these students, the students d i d r e p o r t higher s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s and they appeared to have been w i l l i n g to generate some new m a t e r i a l . T h i s was e s p e c i a l l y true f o r the lower a b i l i t y subgroup, who, probably unhappy with the q u a l i t y of t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s , t r i e d to generate a l t e r n a t i v e idea u n i t s . Most of t h i s g e n e r a t i o n of a l t e r n a t i v e contents occurred almost e x c l u s i v e l y f o r low GPA students of c o n d i t i o n 2 i n the domain of support f o r pa r t 1 of the assignment -- a trend r e f l e c t e d i n a l l a b i l i t y groups ac r o s s c o n d i t i o n s . Yet the a c t of r e d r a f t i n g had encouraged low a b i l i t y students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 to pay more a t t e n t i o n to t h e i r a s s e r t i o n s f o r pa r t 1, and had encouraged high a b i l i t y students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 to devote more energy to t h e i r support to p a r t 2 of the assignment. ANCOVA confirmed almost i d e n t i c a l r e s u l t s f o r WAI subgroups as those found f o r GPA subgroups. No s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s between c o n d i t i o n and w r i t i n g apprehension were found except f o r m a t e r i a l i n d r a f t 3 that had o r i g i n a t e d from d r a f t 1 on l y where low WAI students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 r e t a i n e d much l e s s d r a f t 1 only m a t e r i a l f o r s u p p o r t - p a r t 1 than high WAI students d i d . S i m i l a r -l y , the ANCOVA performed to c o n t r o l v a r i a t i o n s i n d r a f t 1 scores ( f o r q u a l i t y r a t i n g s , s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s , number of e r r o r s per 100 words) l o c a t e d no s i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s between c o n d i t i o n and WAI f o r any v a r i a b l e . However, s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s between WAI and GPA were found f o r both c o n d i t i o n s i n c o n t r a s t to the r e s u l t s obtained by pr e v i o u s r e s e a r c h e r s . For a t t i t u d e s toward r e v i s i o n , s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s were found between treatment c o n d i t i o n s on only 2 out of the 28 items on the q u e s t i o n n a i r e . Students' comments r e g a r d i n g d i s t i n c t i o n s among the terms r e v i s i n g , r e d r a f t i n g , and e d i t i n g r e f l e c t e d a c o n s i s t e n t b e l i e f shared by students i n both c o n d i t i o n s t h a t e d i t i n g and r e v i s i n g are o p e r a t i o n s that reduce r a t h e r than add m a t e r i a l to a d r a f t . DISCUSSION Conclus ions From the r e s u l t s obtained i n t h i s r e s e a r c h p r o j e c t , the f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u s i o n s can be drawn r e g a r d i n g the r o l e played by the s a l i e n c y of e x i s t i n g t e x t as a b a r r i e r to s u c c e s s f u l r e v i s i o n . 213 When asked to produce a s e r i e s of new d r a f t s f o r the assignment, students under both treatment c o n d i t i o n s were able to i n c r e a s e the o v e r a l l mean lengths of t h e i r d r a f t s and to improve s i g n i f i -c a n t l y the mean q u a l i t y r a t i n g s t h a t they obtained. In c o n t r a s t to the r e l u c t a n c e shown by inexperienced w r i t e r s attempting r e -v i s i o n i n other s t u d i e s ( P e r l , 1979; Sommers, 1980; G a r r e t t -P e t t s , 1981), the f i r s t - y e a r c o l l e g e students i n the present study were both w i l l i n g and able to engage i n s u c c e s s f u l r e v i s -i o n . Despite other r e s e a r c h e r s having found t h a t inexperienced w r i t e r s tended to view r e v i s i n g as merely a process of e r r o r -d e t e c t i o n and c o r r e c t i o n , the students i n t h i s study d i d not appear to concentrate on a t t e n d i n g to s u r f a c e e r r o r s , which showed no s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a t i o n s between d r a f t s or between c o n d i t i o n s . A l t e r n a t i v e l y , t h i s f i n d i n g c o u l d have been caused by students' attempting to e d i t e r r o r s i n t h e i r t e x t s yet e i t h e r being unable to l o c a t e them or determine what was needed to c o r r e c t them. The s u b s t a n t i v e changes, however, made to the contents of students' d r a f t s i n d i c a t e otherwise. Students i n both c o n d i t i o n s attempted notable a l t e r a t i o n s to the mean number of idea u n i t s i n a l l r h e t o r i c a l c a t e g o r i e s i n both d r a f t 2 and d r a f t 3. Students i n both c o n d i t i o n s continued to generate new m a t e r i a l f o r a p p r o x i -mately one quarter of the t o t a l contents of t h e i r t h i r d d r a f t s . Moreover, students i n both c o n d i t i o n s appear to have b e l i e v e d 214 t h a t t h e i r r e d r a f t i n g behaviours were p r o d u c t i v e because they r e p o r t e d l a r g e improvements i n s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s o v e r a l l . S t r i k i n g and wide-ranging d i f f e r e n c e s , however, between the r e -d r a f t i n g behaviours of students i n the treatment groups were found. The removal of f i r s t d r a f t s provoked students i n c o n d i t -ion 1 to produce second d r a f t s t h a t r e f l e c t e d e x t e n s i v e l y d i f f e r e n t c o n t e n t s . They removed or added s i g n i f i c a n t l y more idea u n i t s i n a l l r h e t o r i c a l c a t e g o r i e s i n d r a f t 2 than students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 who r e t a i n e d many more of the idea u n i t s p r e v i o u s -l y e x i s t i n g i n t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s . The lack of access to d r a f t 1 d i d not n e c e s s a r i l y produce b e t t e r q u a l i t y m a t e r i a l i n the second d r a f t s of students i n c o n d i t i o n 1, but i t was d i f f e r e n t m a t e r i a l and i t was not of s i g n i f i c a n t l y worse q u a l i t y . Without access to the t e x t u a l m a t e r i a l t h a t they had e a r l i e r produced, these students seemed to be f o r c e d to re-express t h e i r ideas using new p h r a s i n g and a t the same time were able to r e l y upon l i t t l e more than the memory of the words they had p r e v i o u s l y used. While one cannot conclude t h a t the absence of the f i r s t d r a f t s compelled students to r e c o n s i d e r t h e i r ideas, i t d i d r e q u i r e them to seek a r e - e x p r e s s i o n of t h e i r idea u n i t s , which probably encouraged some students to d i s c o v e r d i f f e r e n t approaches and s t r a t e g i e s f o r answering the assignment q u e s t i o n . C e r t a i n l y , the removal of f i r s t d r a f t s t e m p o r a r i l y l i b e r a t e d students from the p o t e n t i a l l y " c l o s e d " systems of t h e i r t e x t s to a g r e a t e r extent than f o r students i n c o n d i t i o n ,2, who appeared to be more s u s c e p t i b l e to. 215 succumbing to the s a l i e n c y of t h e i r e x i s t i n g t e x t s . The s i g n i f i -cant lower s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s awarded by students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 perhaps h i n t s that they found t h i s l i b e r a t i o n a l e s s - t h a n -comfortable s i t u a t i o n to be i n . Understandably, they may w e l l have f e l t unable to produce s u p e r i o r d r a f t s i n t h i s c o n d i t i o n , whereas students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 probably f e l t much more c o n f i d e n t about t h e i r a b i l i t y to improve the q u a l i t y of t h e i r compositions i n d r a f t 2. The most i n t e r e s t i n g r e s u l t s emerge at the f i n a l d r a f t stage when both treatment groups r e c e i v e d back t h e i r e a r l i e r d r a f t s to produce a t h i r d and f i n a l d r a f t . Despite having given themselves lower r a t i n g s f o r t h e i r second d r a f t s , students i n c o n d i t i o n 1 d i d not c a s t a s i d e the new idea u n i t s produced i n t h e i r second d r a f t s ; i n s t e a d , these students responded to the o p p o r t u n i t y to s y n t h e s i z e the contents of both d r a f t s 1 and 2. They were able to e v aluate some of the s t r e n g t h s and weaknesses of both d r a f t s and not onl y amalgamate and i n c o r p o r a t e ideas from both d r a f t s i n new ex p r e s s i o n s of t h e i r p o s i t i o n s , but a l s o produce improved compositions i n the process as measured by q u a l i t y r a t i n g s , a c h i e v i n g s i g n i f i c a n t l y higher mean scores than f o r t h e i r other d r a f t s and higher mean scores than f o r students i n c o n d i t i o n 2. G a r r e t t - P e t t s ' s b e l i e f that t h i s three-phase r e d r a f t i n g technique might provide, a u s e f u l h e u r i s t i c appears to have been confirmed for t h i s sample of students on t h i s p a r t i c u l a r assignment. The technique seems to have been s u c c e s s f u l p r e c i s e l y because i t 216 extended to a t h i r d draft where the effect of closure caused by the saliency of existing text was operating on two versions of the compositions. Students in condition 1, having produced noticeably d i f f e r e n t texts in draft 2, seemed to be provoked into noticing how d i f f e r e n t the contents in their drafts were and therefore were apparently compelled to choose between the d i f f e r e n t expressions of their ideas in both of them. While students in such a s i t u a t i o n could have been p a r t i c u l a r l y prone to increased apprehension about their writing a b i l i t i e s , the students in condition 1 appeared to accept the challenge offered by these e a r l i e r drafts and to have found strategies both for coping with the increased cognitive demands that t h i s revising environment made and for coping with the increased verbal dexterity required to manipulate the textual demands that synthesizing the ideas from separate sources entailed. Quite why and how they were able to perform these strategies as a res u l t of this intervention technique is not c l e a r . No causal connection could be detected by t h i s study and one seems unlikely anyway. Removing drafts does not teach new r e v i s i o n strategies to students. Instead, a more plausible explanation is that the technique f a c i l i t a t e d a "latent revising p o t e n t i a l " to emerge: ....the act of comparing the two drafts distances writers from their products. And i f , in turn,unskilled writers are asked to synthesize their two dr a f t s , they experience a r h e t o r i c a l distance approximating that of their more s k i l l e d colleagues; that i s , [they] experience both the freedom to generate ideas and the freedom to assess how those ideas relate or clash with one another. In essence, the three phase procedure ... 217 allows the b a s i c w r i t e r s to experience and to p r a c t i c e a p a t t e r n of r e v i s i o n t h a t i s drawn from the r e v i s i o n processes of p r o f i c i e n t w r i t e r s . ( G a r r e t t - P e t t s , 1981, p.15) Since many r e s e a r c h e r s have i n d i c a t e d t h a t i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s are not incapable of r e v i s i o n but j u s t lack s t r a t e g i e s t h a t a l l o w these students to b r i n g about s u c c e s s f u l r e v i s i o n s , i t may be t h a t i n e x p e r i e n c e d w r i t e r s a c t u a l l y "possess" those s t r a t e g i e s but are unable to access them because these students are pre-occupied with other aspects of composing or are "prevented" from using those s t r a t e g i e s because t e x t u a l c o n s t r a i n t s are so s a l i e n t . The achievement of the r e d r a f t i n g technique used i n t h i s study would appear to have been i t s c a t a l y t i c nature i n s t r u c t u r a l l y d i r e c t i n g s t u d e n t s ' a t t e n t i o n s away from the i n h i b i t i n g l y c l o s e d system of the wording i n t h e i r i n i t i a l t e x t s (and away from mere e d i t i n g of those words) toward more product-ive r e v i s i o n of the o r g a n i z a t i o n and development of the ideas t h a t those words were attempting to express. The technique provoked students i n t o u t i l i z i n g r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s t h a t they posses but are normally r e l u c t a n t (or unable) to use. The technique may have provoked students to perform p r e c i s e l y t h at r e - s e e i n g of t h e i r t e x t s which p r o f i c i e n t w r i t e r s c l a i m i s the vantage p o i n t from which they are able to t a c k l e s u c c e s s f u l r e v i s i o n . Being able to d i s t a n c e o n e s e l f from the s a l i e n c y of one's t e x t i s not o n l y a necessary f i r s t s tep i n the r e v i s i o n process, i t i s a l s o the domain i n which the process operates. The three-phase technique not o n l y compels students to d i s c r i m i n -218 ate between a l t e r n a t i v e t e x t u a l m a t e r i a l , i t a l s o provides them with some p o t e n t i a l a l t e r n a t i v e m a t e r i a l as w e l l . I t mimics the " p r o j e c t i v e s t r u c t u r i n g " t h a t P e r l (1980). suggested was the d e f i n i n g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of the r e v i s i o n process^ In c o n t r a s t , the students i n c o n d i t i o n 2 were able to achieve some measure of success by f o l l o w i n g t h e i r "normal" approach to r e v i s i o n and were able to u t i l i z e the p r o d u c t i o n of s u c c e s s i v e d r a f t s to make a l t e r a t i o n s to content; yet these students exaggerated g r e a t l y the b e n e f i t s d e r i v e d from t h i s approach and were n o t i c e a b l y bound more u n p r o d u c t i v e l y to the i n i t i a l e x p r e s s i o n s of t h e i r ideas as formulated i n t h e i r f i r s t d r a f t s . P a r t i c u l a r mention should be made of the f i n d i n g s from t h i s study which c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e d t h a t the value of t h i s r e d r a f t i n g technique i s not l i m i t e d to the higher a b i l i t y student or to the student who experiences l i t t l e a n x i e t y with w r i t i n g . S i g n i f i c a n t i n t e r a c t i o n s were r a r e l y found i n the data a n a l y s i s on any -measures f o r the i n f l u e n c e of grade p o i n t average or w r i t i n g apprehension. Moreover, the h i g h l y s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a -t i o n between GPA and WAI c a s t s some doubt on the relevance of the c o n s t r u c t of w r i t i n g apprehension f o r a l l students as measured by the WAI. Some f i r s t - y e a r c o l l e g e students of higher than average academic s t a n d i n g may s t i l l r e p o r t themselves to be h i g h l y apprehensive about w r i t i n g perhaps because they underestimate the w r i t i n g a b i l i t i e s t h a t they have or because they are beginning to a p p r e c i a t e how t h e i r s c h o l a s t i c achievement depends on f u r t h e r 219 improvement of t h e i r composing s k i l l s . Conversely, lower a b i l i t y students may appear to be l e s s apprehensive with w r i t i n g because the questions on the WAI instrument e l i c i t uninformed or u n r e a l -i s t i c responses from them. An i n t e r e s t i n g f i n d i n g from t h i s study was the extent to which s u r f a c e e r r o r s were not s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t e d by e i t h e r t r e a t -ment. Whereas students i n both c o n d i t i o n s d i d r e v i s e the e r r o r s i n t h e i r d r a f t s , the d i f f e r e n c e between the number of e r r o r s per 100 words was not s i g n i f i c a n t between c o n d i t i o n s f o r any of the d r a f t s and the p r o f i l e of types of e r r o r s committed per d r a f t by students i n each c o n d i t i o n remained constant. Students' a b i l i t y to a v o i d e r r o r s i n c o n d i t i o n 1 does not appear to .have been hindered by t h e i r being r e q u i r e d to s y n t h e s i z e two d i f f e r e n t d r a f t s at the f i n a l stage i n d r a f t 3. Moreover, the "normal" r e v i s i n g o c c u r r i n g i n c o n d i t i o n 2 does not appear to have a s s i s t e d students to d e t e c t and c o r r e c t e r r o r s . The r e d r a f t i n g technique examined i n t h i s study appears to have ge n u i n e l y focused a t t e n t i o n on content r a t h e r than on e r r o r s and encouraged students to attempt s u b s t a n t i v e r a t h e r than s u p e r f i c i a l r e v i s i o n s to t h e i r d r a f t s . A t t e n t i o n i n t h i s study was d i r e c t e d toward a n a l y z i n g the extent to which s t u d e n t s ' r e d r a f t i n g s a f f e c t e d the r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n of comments w i t h i n each d r a f t . Students i n both treatment con-d i t i o n s c o n c e n t r a t e d more of t h e i r r e d r a f t i n g energies on 220 a l t e r i n g idea u n i t s r e l a t i n g to the f i r s t h a l f of the assignment q u e s t i o n , p a r t i c u l a r l y adding or changing the supports they provided f o r t h e i r a s s e r t i o n s here. The p r o p o r t i o n s of a l l the idea u n i t s i n d r a f t 3 t h a t were s u p p o r t - p a r t 1 accounted f o r almost h a l f of a l l the idea u n i t s present i n t h i r d d r a f t s f o r both c o n d i t i o n s . Since t h i s p a r t of the assignment q u e s t i o n was more c o n c e p t u a l l y demanding because i t asked students to argue f o r a moral judgment, the r e d r a f t i n g techniques used by the students i n both groups appear to have provided students with the o p p o r t u n i t y to continue to w r e s t l e with t h e i r f o r m u l a t i o n of t h e i r ideas f o r t h i s d i f f i c u l t aspect of the assignment. Moreover, d i f f e r e n c e s between high and low GPA subgroups per c o n d i t i o n i n d i c a t e d trends t h a t favoured the environment c r e a t e d by c o n d i t i o n 1; t h e r e f o r e , the s a l i e n c y of t e x t may invoke c l o s u r e to a p a r t i c u l a r l y pronounced degree when students are t a c k l i n g c o n c e p t u a l l y demanding t a s k s . The p r o d u c t i o n of a f r e s h d r a f t may be e s p e c i a l l y u s e f u l to low a b i l i t y students who tend to experience c l o s u r e e a r l y and become bogged down i n c o n c e p t u a l -l y d i f f i c u l t p a r t s of an assignment. High a b i l i t y students may not r e q u i r e a h e u r i s t i c i n order to e f f e c t important t e x t u a l r e v i s i o n s , but the technique can s t i l l be b e n e f i c i a l to them. F i n a l l y , the s c o r i n g procedure developed by the r e s e a r c h e r enabled the contents of t e x t s to be d e s c r i b e d , coded and compar-ed. I t provided a r e l a t i v e l y s impler method of t e x t a n a l y s i s than the more formal process provided by p r o p o s i t i o n a l a n a l y s i s , and 221 i t s u i t e d the l i m i t e d requirements of t h i s study. However, the d i f f i c u l t i e s experienced by the r e s e a r c h e r and the check coder with a s s i g n i n g r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n to idea u n i t s i n d i c a t e d that a more e x t e n s i v e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n system may be needed to do j u s t i c e to the range of r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n s that comments can possess. P r a c t i c a l I m p l i c a t i o n s The c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t are j u s t i f i e d by the f i n d i n g s of t h i s study may be l i m i t e d because the sample was drawn onl y from f i r s t - y e a r c o l l e g e students i n one community c o l l e g e who performed i n - c l a s s one e x p o s i t o r y w r i t i n g assignment i n response to a s h o r t s t o r y . Nonetheless, s e v e r a l important i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r the i n s t r u c t i o n of r e v i s i o n a r i s e from the study. The study suggests that teachers of w r i t i n g composition, p a r t -i c u l a r l y at the c o l l e g e l e v e l , need to recognize t h a t i n e x p e r i -enced student w r i t e r s are b e t t e r able to produce s u c c e s s f u l t e x t u a l r e v i s i o n s to t h e i r d r a f t s than i s commonly assumed, whatever these students' l e v e l s of a b i l i t y or degrees of w r i t i n g apprehension a r e . Yet many students are u n l i k e l y to a p p r e c i a t e t h a t they can perform these r e v i s i o n s because the students are hindered by r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s that are too l i m i t e d , too i n e f f e c t i v e and too s u s c e p t i b l e to the e f f e c t s caused by the s a l i e n c y of t h e i r own i n i t i a l e x pressions of content. To encourage students to develop more p r o d u c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s , teachers do not appear to need to i n s t r u c t students about those 222 more p r o d u c t i v e s t r a t e g i e s nor do they appear to need to "waste" v a l u a b l e classroom time demonstrating what the p r o d u c t i v e r e v i s i o n behaviours of experienced w r i t e r s are or how these behaviours are achieved. Rather . students seem to have l a t e n t a b i l i t i e s to develop a p p r o p r i a t e r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s and teachers should l a y a s i d e more classroom time i n which students p r a c t i c e e x t e n s i v e r e d r a f t i n g and r e v i s i n g of t h e i r compositions and teachers should experiment with d i f f e r e n t f a c i l i t a t i v e i n t e r -v e n t i o n techniques t h a t can "unlock" these l a t e n t r e v i s i n g a b i l -i t i e s of t h e i r s t u d e n t s . The three-phase r e d r a f t i n g procedure advocated by G a r r e t t - P e t t s (1981) would appear to be one very p r o f i t a b l e h e u r i s t i c t h a t can intervene i n the composing processes of student w r i t e r s . I t s c e n t r a l value appears to l i e i n i t s a b i l i t y to l i b e r a t e students from the i n h i b i t i n g s a l i e n c y of the t e x t s t h a t students have a l r e a d y produced i n t h e i r i n i t i a l d r a f t s . The phenomenon of c l o s u r e appears to exert a s t r o n g f o r c e t h a t r e s t r a i n s i n e x p e r i -enced students from drawing upon whatever l a t e n t r e v i s i n g a b i l i t i e s they possess. Such students lack the confidence to engage i n s u b s t a n t i a l a l t e r a t i o n s to a l a r g e extent because they lack the experience of being able s u c c e s s f u l l y to "re-see" what they are t r y i n g to express and v i c e v e r s a . The technique of producing a new second d r a f t can provoke students to "re-see" t h e i r e x p r e s s i o n s of t h e i r ideas and to compare the e f f e c t i v e n e s s of the d i f f e r e n t e x p r e s s i o n s i n the two d r a f t s . This h e u r i s t i c 223 may be a p a r t i c u l a r l y potent remedy for students who appear to f a l l v i c t i m to the s a l i e n c y of t h e i r t e x t s e a r l y on, c l a i m i n g they cannot "see" how they could express t h e i r ideas d i f f e r e n t l y . In a d d i t i o n , the technique may be e s p e c i a l l y r e l e v a n t f o r students t a c k l i n g c o n c e p t u a l l y d i f f i c u l t p a r t s of assignments, where a v a r i a t i o n of t h i s technique might u s e f u l l y be a p p l i e d by a s k i n g students to attempt l o c a l i z e d r e d r a f t i n g of only the troublesome p a r t s of the assignment. The f i n d i n g s produced by t h i s study c o n f i r m the d i s t i n c t i o n s o f t e n made by t h e o r i s t s t h at r e v i s i n g , r e d r a f t i n g and e d i t i n g are d i f f e r e n t o p e r a t i o n s which do not always occur as separate a c t i v i t i e s or stages i n the p r o d u c t i o n of a d r a f t . The success of t h i s r e d r a f t i n g technique would seem to be l i m i t e d to substan-t i v e - l e v e l a l t e r a t i o n s to the e x p r e s s i o n of contents i n a composition.. Teachers wishing to provoke students i n t o n o t i c i n g and improving ( t h e s u r f a c e e r r o r s i n d r a f t s should look to other i n t e r v e n t i o n techniques that are designed to a f f e c t the p e r c e p t-u a l problems i n v o l v e d i n t h a t aspect of w r i t i n g (e.g., see Bartholomae, 1980). R e d r a f t i n g should not be confused with e d i t i n g . Indeed, s i n c e students appear to be confused about d i f f e r e n c e s between these o p e r a t i o n s , teachers of w r i t i n g may need to be e s p e c i a l l y c a r e f u l to convey and i l l u s t r a t e the d i f f e r e n c e s . 224 Implications for Further Research The present study was e s s e n t i a l l y exploratory in nature. Whatever i t suggests about the nature of the saliency of existing text in a piece of writing and how t h i s saliency can act as a barrier to e f f e c t i v e r e v i s i o n needs to be v e r i f i e d and further explored by subsequent research. The phenomenon of closure appears to be an e s p e c i a l l y relevant concern that researchers interested in the constraints that hinder writers' composing processes should examine in more detailed studies. Questions that need answering are (1) exactly how does closure operate? (2) which aspects of a text are most susceptible to i t s effects? and (3) what techniques other than the one used in the present study can a s s i s t writers to overcome i t s effects? Moreover, we may need to obtain a more informed appreciation of how a text can act as a closed system before we can begin to answer these questions. * If students do possess latent revising a b i l i t i e s that are not re a d i l y apparent either to students or to their instructors, then more attention should be paid to examining how experienced students have learned to acquire conscious control over their a b i l i t y to "re-see" their texts and how such control may have been developmentally achieved. The rel a t i o n s h i p between stu-dents' reading and writing a b i l i t i e s may be a p a r t i c u l a r l y p r o f i t a b l e area for further investigation, e s p e c i a l l y studies 225 that examine the extent to which poor rea d i n g s t r a t e g i e s a f f e c t s t u d ents' a b i l i t i e s to reread c r i t i c a l l y the contents of t h e i r own t e x t s . The three-phase r e d r a f t i n g procedure examined i n t h i s study i s but one of s e v e r a l h e u r i s t i c d e v i c e s that might be used to provoke students to "re-see" the contents of t h e i r d r a f t s . Experiments measuring the success of t h i s technique f o r other types of w r i t i n g and with d i f f e r e n t l e v e l s of w r i t i n g a b i l i t y are needed. In a d d i t i o n , r e s e a r c h e r s should d e v i s e , explore and experiment with other f a c i l i t a t i v e i n t e r v e n t i o n s t r a t e g i e s t h a t could be p r o f i t a b l y employed i n the classroom. F i n a l l y , the e x t e n s i v e work being done i n other f i e l d s of r e s e a r c h to develop systems and procedures f o r d e s c r i b i n g t e x t s needs to be a p p l i e d more c l o s e l y to r e s e a r c h i n composition. Much more a t t e n t i o n should be given by composition s t u d i e s to d e v i s i n g a p p r o p r i a t e and robust systems f o r c l a s s i f y i n g the f e a t u r e s of t e x t s . In p a r t i c u l a r , the r h e t o r i c a l f u n c t i o n of elements w i t h i n a t e x t i s r i c h with r e s e a r c h p o s s i b i l i t i e s . How students decide to r e v i s e . a t e x t i s l a r g e l y dependent on t h e i r understanding of the t e x t . We may not be able to a p p r e c i a t e the d i f f i c u l t i e s those students have with understanding t h e i r t e x t s without a deeper understanding of how t e x t s f u n c t i o n as systems t h a t convey i n f o r m a t i o n . 226 REFERENCES Anderson, R.C., S p i r o , R.J. ?< Anderson, M. C. 1978. Schemata as s c a f f o l d i n g for the r e p r e s e n t a t i o n of i n f o r m a t i o n i n connected d i s c o u r s e . American E d u c a t i o n a l Research J o u r n a l . 15, 433-440. A v i s , W.S., Drysdale, P.O., Gregg, R.J. & S c a r g i l l , M.H. 1973. The Gage Canadian D i c t i o n a r y . Toronto: Gage E d u c a t i o n a l P u b l i s h i n g L t d . Bamberg, B. 1978. Composition i n s t r u c t i o n does make a d i f f e r e n c e : a comparison of c o l l e g e freshmen i n r e g u l a r and remedial E n g l i s h c l a s s e s . Research i n the Teaching of  E n g l i s h . 12, 47-59. Barthoiomae, D. 1980. The study of e r r o r . Col1eqe Composition  and Communication. 31, 253-270. B a r t l e t t , B.J. 1979. T o p - l e v e l s t r u c t u r e as an o r g a n i z a t i o n a l -s t r a t e g y for r e c a l l of classroom t e x t . D.A.I. 39, 6641-A. B a r t l e t t , E.J. 1982. L earning t o r e v i s e s some component proce s s e s . In T. 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 s c o u r s e. Academic P r e s s . Beach, R. 1976. S e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s t r a t e g i e s of e x t e n s i v e r e v i s e r s and n o n - r e v i s e r s . C o l l e g e Compositon and Communication. 27, 160-163. Beach, R. 1979. The e f f e c t s of between-draft teacher e v a l u a t i o n versus student s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n on high school students' 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, 111-120. Beach, R. & B r i d w e l l , L.S. (ed. ) 1984. New D i r e c t i o n s i n Composition Research. New York: G u i l f o r d Press. Beach, R. & Eaton, S. 1984. F a c t o r s i n f l u e n c i n g s e l f - a s s e s s i n g and r e v i s i n g by c o l l e g e freshmen. In R. Beach & L.S. B r i d w e l l , fed.) New D i r e c t i o n s i n Composition Research. New York! G u i l f o r d P r e s s . Bean, J.C. 1983. Computerized word-processing as an a i d to r e v i s i o n . Col 1eqe Composition and Communication. 34, 146-148. Bel anger, J . 1985. C o n f l i c t between mentor and judges being f a i r and being h e l f u l i n composition e v a l u a t i o n . E n g l i s h Q u a r t e r l y . 18, 79-92 \ 227 Bel anger, J . ?< Rodger s, D. 1983. Revise! r e v i s e ! a check l i s t and classroom procedures. E n g l i s h Quarterly,, 12, 20-27. Benton, S.L., Glover, J.A., ?•< Plake, B.S. 1984. Employing adjunct a i d s to f a c i l i t a t e e l a b o r a t i o n i n w r i t i n g . Research  i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h . 18, 189-200. B e r e i t e r , C. & Scardamalia, M. 1982. From Conversation t o composition: the r o l e of i n s t r u c t i o n i n developmental process. In R. Glaser (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 d a l e , N.J.: Erlbaum. Berkenkotter, C. 1983. D e c i s i o n s and r-evisions: the p l a n n i n g 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 . Col 1eqe Composit ion  and Communication. 34, 156-169. Blau, S. 1983. I n v i s i b l e w r i t i n g : i n v e s t i g a t i n g c o g n i t i v e processes i n composition. C o l l e g e Composition and Commun i c at i on. 34, 297-312. B r i d w e l l , L.S. 1980. 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 st 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  Teaching of E n g l i s h . 14. 201-213. B r i t t o n , B.K., Qlynn, S.M., Meyer, B.J. F. 8<Penland, M.J. 1982. E f f e c t s of t e x t s t r u c t u r e on use of c o g n i t i v e c a p a c i t y during r e a d i n g . Journal of E d u c a t i o n a l Psychology. 74, 51-61. -B r i t t o n , J.L. 1971. The composing processes and the f u n c t i o n s of w r i t i n g . In C. Cooper and L. O d e l l (ed.) Research on  Composing; P o i n t s of Departure. Urbana, 111.; N.C.T.E. B r i t t o n , J.L. 1980. Shaping at the p o i n t of u t t e r a n c e . In A. Freedman & I. P r i n g l e (ed.) R e i n v e n t i n g the R h e t o r i c a l  T r a d i t i o n . U n i v e r s i t y of C e n t r a l Arkansas: L & S Books. B r i t t o n , B.K. & Black, J.B. (ed.) 1985. Understanding  E x p o s i t o r y Text: A T h e o r e t i c a l and P r a c t i c a l Handbook  for A n a l y z i n g Explanatory Text. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.s Lawrence Erlbaum. B r i t t o n , J.L.',. Burgess, T. , M a r t i n , N. , Mcleod, A., & Rosen, H. 1975. The Development of W r i t i n g A b i l i t i e s (11-18). London: Macmillan E d u c a t i o n . B r o s s e l l , G. 1983. R h e t o r i c a l s p e c i f i c a t i o n i n essay examination t o p i c s , C o l l e g e Composition and Communication. 45, 165-173 Brown, W.L. & Moore, J.E. 1956. W r i t i n g Through R e v i s i o n . New Yorks Harcourt, Brace & Co. 228 B u t l e r , S. The b r i d g e t o r e a l w r i t i n g s t e a c h i n g e d i t i n g s k i l l s . E n g l i s h Q u a r t e r l y . 16, 40-48. Buxton, E.W. 1959. An experiment t o t e s t the e f f e c t s of w r i t i n g frequency and guided p r a c t i c e upon s t u d e n t s ' s k i 11 i n w r i t i n g e x p r e s s i o n . A l b e r t a Journal of E d u c a t i o n a l Research. 5, 91-99. C a l k i n s , L. & Graves, D. 1979a. What c h i l d r e n show us about r e v i s i o n . Language A r t s . 56, 312-319. C a l k i n s , L. ?< Graves, D. 1979b. 1 Andrea l e a r n s t o make w r i t i n g -hard. Language A r t s . 56, 569-576. Charney, D. 1984. The v a l i d i t y of using h o l i s t i c s c o r i n g t o e v a l u a t e w r i t i n g s a c r i t i c a l overview. Research i n the  Teaching of E n g l i s h . 18, 65-81. / C l i f f o r d , J . 1981. Composing i n stages: the e f f e c t s of a c o l l a b o r a t i v e pedagogy. Research i n the Teaching of E n g l i s h , 15, 37-54. Coffman, W.E. 1971. On the r e l i a b i l i t y of r a t i n g s of essay examinations i n E n g l i s h . Research i n the Teaching of  E n g l i s h . 5, 24-36. C o l l i e r , R.M. 1983. The word processor and r e v i s i o n s t r a t e g i e s . Col 1eqe Composi t i on and Communi cat i o n . 34, 149-155. Cooper, C.R. 1975. Measuring growth i n w r i t i n g . E n g l i sh  J o u r n a l . 64, 111-120. Cooper, C.R. 1977. H o l i s t i c e v a l u a t i o n of w r i t i n g . In C. Cooper & L. Ode l l (ed.) E v a l u a t i n g W r i t i n g . Urbana, 111.: N.C.T.E. Cooper, C.R. 1983. Procedures for d e s c r i b i n g w r i t t e n t e x t s . . In P. Mosenthal, L. Tamor ?< S.A. Walmsley (ed. ) Research on  Writings P r i n c i p l e s and Methods. New Yorks Longman. Cooper, C.R., Cherry, R., Copley, B., F l e i s c h e r , S., P o l l a r d , R., S a r t i s k y , M. 1984. Studying the w r i t i n g a b i l i t i e s of a u n i v e r s i t y freshman c l a s s : s t r a t e g i e s from a case study. In R. Beach & L.S. Bridw (ell (ed.) New D i r e c t i o n s i n Composition Research. New York: G u i l f o r d Press. C r o t h e r s , E . J . 1975. Memory s t r u c t u r e and the r e c a l l of d i s c o u r s e . In F r e e d l e , R.O. & C a r r o l l , J.B. (ed.) Language Comprehension and the A c q u i s i t i o n - of Knowledge. Washington,DC,s Winston. 229 Crowhurst, M. 1980. Syntactic complexity and teachers' quality ratings of narrations and arguments. Research in Teaching  of English. 14, 223-231. Crowhurst, M. 1982. Grade Seven Writers Explore Revision. Highway One. Spring, 11-23. Crowhurst, M. S< Piche, G.L. 1979. Audience and mode of discourse e f f e c t s on syntactic complexity in writing at two grade le v e l s . Research in the Teaching of English. 13, 101-109. Daiute, CA. 1981. Psycholinquistic foundations of the writing process. Research in the Teaching of English. 15, 5—22. Daly, J.A. 1978. Writing Apprehension and writing competency. Journal of Educational Research, 72, 10-14. Daly, J.A. & Hailey, J.L. 1984. Putting the s i t u a t i o n into writing research: state and disp o s i t i o n as parameters of writing apprehension. In R. Beech & L.S. Bridwell <ed.) New Directions in Composition Research. New York! Guilford Press. Daly, J. A. 2< M i l l e r , M.D. 1975a. The empirical development of an instrument to measure writing apprehension. Research  in the Teaching of English. 9, 272 - 289. Daly, J.A. & M i l l e r , M.D. 1975b. Further studies in writing apprehension! SAT scores, success expectations, willingness to take advanced courses, and sex differences. Research in  the Teaching of English. 9, 250-256. Daly, J.A. & Shamo, W. 1976. Writing apprehension and occupational choice. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 49, 43-49. Daly, J. A. ?< Shamo, W. 1978. Academic decisions as a function of writing apprehension. Research in the Teaching of English. - 12, 119-126. Daly, J. A. ?< Wilson, D.A. 1983. Writing apprehension, s e l f -esteem, and personality. Research in the Teaching of  Engli sh. 17, 327-341. Danes, F. <ed.> 1974. Papers on Functional Sentence Perspective. The Hague: Monton. de Beaugrande, R. 1980. Text, Discourse, and Process! Toward a  Mu l t i d i s c i piinary Science of Texts. Nor wood, N.J.! Ab1e x Publishing Co. 230 Del 1a-Piana, 6.M. 1978. Research s t r a t e g i e s for the study of r e v i s i o n processes i n w r i t i n g poetry. In C. Cooper & L. Ode l l (ed.) Research on Composing: P o i n t s of Departure. Urbana, 111.; N.C.T.E. D i e d e r i c h , P.B. 1966. How t o measure growth i n w r i t i n g a b i l i t y . E n g l i s h J o u r n a l , 55, 435-449. D i e d e r i c h , P.B. 1974. Measuring Growth i n E n g l i s h . Urbana, 111.; N.C.T.E. Elbow, P. 1973. W r i t i n g Without Teachers. New York; Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Emig, J . 1971. The Composipq Processes of Twelfth Graders. N.C.T.E. r e s e a r c h r e p o r t no. 13. Urbana, 111.: N.C.T.E. F a i g l e y , L. Daly, J.A. & Witte, S. 1981. The e f f e c t s of w r i t i n g apprehension on w r i t i n g performance and competence. Journal  of E d u c a t i o n a l Research. 75, 16-21. F a i g l e y , L. ?< Witte, S. 1981. A n a l y z i n g r e v i s i o n . Col lege Composition and Communication. 32, 400-413. F a i g l e y , L. & Witte, S. 1984. Measuring the e f f e c t s of r e v i s i o n s on t e x t s t r u c t u r e . In R. Beach & L.S. B r i d w e l l (ed.) New  D i r e c t i o n s i n Composition Research. New York; G u i l f o r d Press. F i l l m o r e , C.J. 1968. The case for case. In E. Bach & R.T. Harms <ed.> U n i v e r s a l s i n L i n g u i s t i c Theory. New York; H o l t , Rinehart & Winston. F i r b a s , J . 1974. Some asp e c t s of the Czechoslovak approach to problems i n f u n c t i o n a l sentence p e r s p e c t i v e . In F. Danes (ed>. ) Papers on F u n c t i o n a l Sentence P e r s p e c t i v e . The Hague: Mouton. F l a n i g a n , M.C. ?< Menendez, DiS. 1980. P e r c e p t i o n and change: t e a c h i n g r e v i s i o n . C o l l e g e E n g l i s h . 41, 19-37. Flower, L.S. 1980. Writer-based proses a c o g n i t i v e b a s i s for problems i n w r i t i n g . C o l l e g e E n g l i s h . 42, 256-266. Flower, L.S. ?< Hayes, J.R. 1980. The c o g n i t i o n of d i s c o v e r y ; d e f i n i n g a r h e t o r i c a l problem. C o l l e g e Composition and  Communication. 31, 21-32. Flower, L.S. 2< Hayes, J.R. 1981. The c o g n i t i v e p rocess theory of w r i t i n g . C o l l e g e Composition and Communication. 32 365-387. 231 Frederiksen, C.H. 1975. Representing l o g i c a l and semantic structures of knowledge acquired from discourse. Coqnitive  Psychology. 7, 371-458. Freedman, A. ?< I. Pringle, 1980. Writing in the college years: some indices of growth. College Composition and  Commun i c at i on. 31, 312-320. Freedman, S.W. 1981. Influences on evaluators of expository essays: beyond the text. Research in the Teaching of  Engli sh. 15, 245-255. Freedman, S.W. 1983. Student c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and essay test writing performance. Research in the Teaching of English. Fox, R. 1980. Treatment of writing apprehension and i t s e f f e c t s on composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 39-49. Galbraith, D. 1980. The effect of c o n f l i c t i n g goals on writings a case study. V i s i b l e Language. 15, 364-375. Gantry, L.A. 1980: Textual r e v i s i o n : a review of the research. Southwest Regional Laboratory Technical Note. TN. 2-80/11 Los Alamitos, Cal.s SWRL. Garrett-Petts W. 1981. Revision — an analysis of the revision strategies of college writers. ERIC document, ED 199-760. Gee, T.W. 1985. Drafting and revising processes in grade twelve students' examination writing. English Quarterly, Summer, 82-87. Gere, A.R. 1982. Insights from the bl i n d : composing without re v i s i n g . In R.A. Sudol (ed.) Revising: New Essays for  Teachers of Writing. Urbana, 111.:' N.C.T.E. Glover, J.A., Bruning, R.H. ?< Plake, B.S. 1982. Distinctiveness of encoding and r e c a l l of text materials. Journal of  Educational Psychology. 74, 522-534. Glover, J. A., Plake, B.S., Roberts, B. , Zimmer, J.W. ?< Palmere, M. 1981. Distinctiveness of encodings the e f f e c t s of paraphrasing and drawing inferences on memory from prose. Journal of Educational Psychology. 73, 736-744. Glynn, S. M. , Br i tton, B.K., Muth, K.D., 8< Dogan, N. 1982. Writing and revising persuasive documents: cognitive demands. Journal of Educational Psychology. 74, 557-567. Grimes, J.F. 1975. The Thread of Discourse. The Hague:1 Mouton. 232 Halsted, I. 1975. Putting error in i t s place. Journal of Basic  Writing. 1, 72-86. Halliday, li.A.K. 1967. Notes on t r a n s i v i t y and theme (part two). Journal of L i n g u i s t i c s . 3, 199-244. Hansen, B. 1978. Rewriting i s a waste of time. College English. 39, 956-960. / Harris, M. 1978. Evaluation: the process for r e v i s i o n . Journal  of Basic Writing. 1, 82-90. Harris, M. 1983. Modelings a process method of teaching. College English. 45, 74-84. Haviland, S.E. & Clark, H.H. 1974. What's new? Acquiring new information as a process in comprehension. Journal of  V e r b a l Learning and V e r b a l Behaviour. 13, 512-521. Hawkins, T. 1980. Intimacy and audience: the relationship between revision- and the soc i a l dimension of peer tutoring. Col 1eqe Enq1i sh. 42, 64-68. Hays, J.N. 1981. The effect of audience considerations upon the revisions of a group of basic writers and more competent junior and senior writers. ERIC document, ED 204-802. Hilgers, T. 1980. Training college composition students in the use of freewriting - and problem-solving h e u r i s t i c s for rhe t o r i c a l invention. Research in the Teaching of English. 14, 293-307. Hill o c k s , G. j r . 1982. The interaction of ins t r u c t i o n , teacher comment, and revision in teaching the composing process. Research in the Teaching of English. 16, 261-278. Hill o c k s , G. j r . 1984. What works in teaching compositions a meta-analysis of experimental treatment studies. American  Journal of Education, 93, 133-170. Hoekett, C. 1959. A Course in Modern L i n g u i s t i c s . New Yorks Macmillan. Hull, G.A. & Smith, W.L. 1981. Examining the function of visual feedback in text production. ERIC document, ED 213-255. Hunt, K. W. 1965. Grammatical structures written at three grade  le v e l s . Research Report No. 3, Champaign, 111.: N.C.T.E. Irmscher, W.F. 1979. Writing as a way of learning and developing. College Composition and Communication. 30, 240-233 244. Joyce, J. 1914. Dubliners. London: Jonathan Cape. (Reprinted in Penguin Modern Cl a s s i c s edition, 1974). Keech, C. 1982. Unexpected directions of change in student writing performance. (Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York). Kintsch, W. 1974. The Representation of Meaning in Memory. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.s Erlbaum. Kintsch, W. %>. van Dijk, T.A. 1978. Toward a model of text comprehension and pr.oduction. Psychological Review, 85, 363-394. Kintsch, W. & Yarborough, J.C. 1982. Role of rhe t o r i c a l structure in text comprehension. Journal of Educational  Psychology, 74, 828-834. Kirby, D.R. & Liner, T. March 1980. Revision: yes, they do i t -yes, you can teach i t . Enq1ish Journa1, March, 41-45. Kneupper, C.W. 1978. Teaching argument: An introduction to the Toulmin model. College Composition and Communication, 29, 237-241. Knoll, B.M. ?< Schafer, J.C. 1978. Error-analysis and the teaching of composition. Col 1ege Composi t i on and Commun i c at ion. 29, 219-227. Krishna, V. 1975. The syntax of error. Journal of Basic  Wr i t i ng, 1, 43-49. Lamme, L.L. & Childers, N.M. 1983. The composing processes of thr-ee young chi 1 dren. Research in the teaching of English. 17, 31-49. Larson, R.L. 1967. Sentences in action; A technique for analysing paragraphs. Col 1ege Compos i t i on and Commun i c at ion, 18, 16-22. Laurence, P. 1975. Error's endless trains why students don't perceive errors. Journal of Basic Writing, 1, 23-42. Lowenthal, D. 1980. Mixing l e v e l s of r e v i s i o n . V i s i b l e  Language, 15, 383-387. Lynch, D. 1982. Easing the process: a strategy for evaluating compositions. College Composition and Communication. 33, 234 lie Colly, W. 1970. What does educational research say about the judging c i f writing a b i l i t y ? The Journal of Educational  Research, 64, 148-156. McLuhan, M. 1962. the Gutenberg Galaxy. New York! New American Library. McLuhan, M. 1964. Understanding Media; The Extensions of Man. New York; McGraw H i l l . Mandel, B.J. 1978. Losing one's mind; learning to write and edit. College Composition and Communication, 29, 362-368. Mandel, B.J. 1980. The writer writing i s not at home. College  Communication and Composition. 31, 370-377. liarkham, L. 1976. Influences of handwriting quality on teacher evaluation of written work. American Educational Research  Journal. 13, 277-283. Mathesius, V. 1928. On l i n g u i s t i c characterology with i l l u s t r a t i o n s from Modern English. Reprinted in J. Vaehek (ed. ) A Prague School Reader in L i n g u i s t i c s . Bloomingdale IN; Indiana University Press (1964). Mayer, R.E. 1985. Structural analysis of science prose: can we increase problem-solving performance? In B.K. Britton and J.B. Black, (ed.) Understanding Expository Text; A  Theoretical and P r a c t i c a l Handbook f o r Analyzing  Explanatory Text. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum. Metzger, E. 1978. Measuring growth in college writing. Journal  of Basic Writing. 1, 71-81. Meyer, B.J.F. 1975. The Organization of Prose and i t s E f f e c t s  on Memory. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Co. Meyer, B.J.F. 1982. * Reading research and the composition teacher: the importance of plans. College Composition and  Commun i cat ion. 33, 37-49. M i l l o w writers evaluate their own writing. Col 1eqe Composi t i on and Communi cat i on. 33, 176-183. Morgan, W.S. 1957. Writing and Revising. Toronto: Macmillan Company. Murray, D.M. 1978. Internal r e v i s i o n : a process- of discovery. In C. Cooper and L. Ode!1 (ed.) Research on Composing:  Points of Departure. Urbana, 111.: N.C.T.E. Murray, D.M. 1982. Teaching the other s e l f : the writer's f i r s t 235 reader. College Composition and Communication. 33, 140-147. Murray, D.M. 1983. Response of a laboratory rat — or, being protoco1ed. Col 1ege Composi t i on and Communi cat i on, 34, 169-172. National Assessment of Educational Progress, 1977. Write/ rewrites an assessment of revision s k i l l s . Writing report no. 05-W-04. Denver Colleges N;A.E.P. Nold, E.W. 1981. Revising. In C.H. Frederiksen ?< J.F. Dominic (ed.> Writings The Nature. Development and Teaching of  Written Communication. Vol. 2. H i l l s d a l e , N.J.s Erlbaum. O'Hare, F. 1971. Sentence Combininqs Improving Student  Writing Without Formal Grammar Instruction. N.C.T.E. research report no. 15. Urbana, 111. N.C.T.E. Ong, W. 1975. The writer's audience i s always a f i c t i o n . Proceedings of the Modern Language Association. 90, 11-17. Peitzman, F. 1981. The composing processes of three college freshmen: focus on r e v i s i o n . ERIC document, ED 211-972. Perl, S. 1979. The composing processes of unskilled writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 13, 317-336. Perl, S. 1980. Understanding composing. Co 11 ege Composition and  Communi cat i on. 31, 363-370. Pianko, S. 1979a. A description of the composing processes of college freshmen writers. Research in the Teaching of  English. 13, 5-22. Pianko, S. 1979b. Reflections a c r i t i c a l component of the composing process. College Composition and Communication. 30, 275-278. Piche, G.L. 8< Slater, W.H. 1983. Predicting learning from texts a comparison of two procedures. Journal of Reading Behaviour, 15, 43-57. Plimpton, 6. (ed..'> 1967. Writers at Works The Paris Review  Interviews. Fourth Series. New York: The Viking Press. Polanski, V.G. 1985. Freshmen comp. students increase h e u r i s t i c use of early drafts. English Quarterly. Summer, 96-106. Powers, W. , Cook, J. A. ?< Meyer, R. 1979. The effect of compulsory writing on writing apprehension. Research in the  Teaching of English. 13, 225-230. P r e n t i c e , W.C. 1980. The e f f e c t s of intended audience and feedback on the w r i t i n g s of middle grade p u p i l s . Unpublished d i s s e r t a t i o n , D.A.I., 41, 3. Primeau, R. 1974. F i l m - e d i t i n g and the r e v i s i o n p r o c e s s : student as s e l f - e d i t o r . Col 1ege Composition and Communication, 25, 405-410. R e i s i n g , R.W. 1979. Counter statement s a response t o EuJ. Mandel's "Losing one's minds l e a r n i n g t o w r i t e and e d i t " . C o l l e g e Composition and Communication, 30, 315—316. Rieke, R.D. ?< S i l l a r s , M.D. 1975. Argumentation and the D e c i s i o n  Making Process. New York: Wiley. Rohman, D.G. 1965. P r e w r i t i n g : the stage of d i s c o v e r y i n the wr i t i ng pr oc ess. Col 1ege Composi t i on and Commun i c at i on, May, 106-110. Ruszkiewicz, J . J . 1982. R e v i s i o n and r i s k . In R.A. Sudol <.'ed. ) R e v i s i n g ! New Essays for Teachers of W r i t i n g . Urbana, Ill.'s N.C.T.E. Sanders, S.E. & L i t t l e f i e l d , J.H. Perhaps t e s t essays can r e f l e c t s i g n i f i c a n t improvement i n freshman compositions r e p o r t on a s u c c e s s f u l attempt. Research i n the Teaching of  E n g l i sh. 9, 145-153. Schwartz, M. 1983. R e v i s i o n p r o f i l e s ! p a t t e r n s and i m p l i c a t i o n s . C o l l e g e E n g l i s h , 45, 549-558. S e l f e , C.L. 1984. The p r e d r a f t i n g processes of four h i g h - and four low-apprehensive w r i t e r s . Research i n the Teaching of  E n g l i sh« 18, 45-64. S e l z e r , J . 1983. The composing processes of an engineer. C o l l e g e Compositon and Communication, 34, 178-187. Shaughnessy, M.P. 1977. E r r o r s and E x p e c t a t i o n s ! A Guide for the Teacher of Basic W r i t i n g . New York: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y Press. Shuman, R.B. 1982. 'H.6. Wells' The O u t l i n e of H i s t o r y : a study i n r e v i s i o n . In R.A. Sudol (ed.) R e v i s i n g ;  New Essays for Teachers of W r i t i n g . Urbana, 111.: N.C.T.E. Sloan, G. 1977. The wacky world of theme-marking. Composi t i on and Communi cat i on, 28, 370-373. Col 1ege 237 Sommers, N.I. 1979. The need for theory in compositor) research. College Composition and Communication. 30, 46-49. Sommers, N.I. 1980. Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers;. College Comp os i t i on and  Commun i c at i on, 31, 378-388. S t a l l a r d , C.K. 1974. An analysis of the writing behaviour of good student writers. Research in the Teaching of  Engli sh, 8, 206-218. Taylor, B.M. 1982. Text structure and children's comprehension and memory for expository material. Journal of Educational  Psychology. 74, 323-340. Thompson, G.J. 1978. Revisions nine ways to achieve a disinterested perpective. College Composition and  Commun i c at i on. 29, 200-218. Thorndyke, P.W. 1977. Cognitive structures in comprehension and memory of narrative discourse. Cognitive Psychology. 9, 77-110. Toulmin, S. 1969. The Uses of Argument. Cambridge: University Press. Twigg, A. 1981. For Openers: Conversations with Twenty- Four  Canadian Writers. Maderia Park, B.C.: Harbour Publishing. van Dijk, T.A. 1977. Text and Contexts Explorations in the Semantics and Pragmatics of Discourse. London: Longman. van Dijk, T.A. 1980. Macrostructuress An i n t e r d i s c i p l i n a r y study  of global structures in discourse. interaction. and  cogni t i on• H i l l s d a l e , N.J.s Erlbaum. Williams, J.M. 1981. The phenomenology of error. Col 1ege  Compdsi t i on and Communi cat i on. 32, 152-168. Witte, S.P. 1983. Topical structure and rev i s i o n : an exploratory study. Col 1ege Composition and Communication. 34, 313-341. Wright, B. 1982. How I,wrote "Fat Chance". College English, 44, 258-264. Zoellner, R. 1969. Talk-writes a behavioral pedagogy for composition. College English. 30, 267-320. A P P E N D I C E S 239 APPENDIX A: p a i r s of t y p i c a l d r a f t s from groups i n p i l o t study Condition 1 Student FIRST DRAFT HOW I CHARACTERIZE PEOPLE I c h a r a c t e r i z e people by h i s / h e r manners of behaviour. The a t t i t u d e he/she shows towards me, makes me f e e l e i t h e r comfort-a b l e , by the p a t t e r n used. I cannot t o l e r a t e f o r long a nervous behaviour because i t i n t u r n makes me f e e l nervous. The f a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n on h i s or her face t e l l s me i f he/she i s i n a bad mood, good mood or otherwise. I have n o t i c e d a great d e a l of misplaced f a c i a l e x p r e s s i o n , but at the same time understand i t ; Becuase I have been i n t h a t s t a t e myself; i t j u s t i n d i c a t e s t h a t a poor communication p a t t e r n w i l l most l i k e l y take p l a c e . Lack of v ocabulary to i s a s i g n of probably poor communication. With, which, I have had a great d e a l of experience; A person can u s u a l l y see how much education the i n d i v i d u a l has had by the f i r s t few statements. And from what type of background he came. Another way I c h a r a c t e r i z e a person i s by the c l o t h i n g s t y l e and c o l o u r c o - o r d i n a t i o n , along with h a i r s t y l e . To me i t takes p l a c e s people i n d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s . For example, some people i n t a l e n t e d an area such as A r t or Science -- whatever, and at the same time lack t a l e n t or p r i o r i t y "I'm not sure what?" i n areas such as h a i r s t y l e . People are d i f f e r e n t and much the same a l s o . SECOND DRAFT HOW I CHARACTERIZE PEOPLE I c h a r a c t e r i z e people i n many d i f f e r e n t ways. F i r s t by the tone of v o i c e which i s high, medium or low. For example, I always come to a complete h a u l t , when I hear someone " Y e l l ! "Get out of there 1 " Because the high v o i c e cause my b r a i n to r e a c t as a car would to a red l i g h t , STOP!" The second way I c h a r a c t e r i z e people i s by t h e i r manners Which i s s i m i l a r to the p i t c h of v o i c e , because both must be s u i t e d to the s i t u a t i o n . My next c h a r a c t e r i z a t i o n i s vocabulary. Vocabulary shows me how much education the i n d i v i d u a l has and from what invironment she or he came from. Next I c h a r a c t e r i z e people by the a c c e s s o r i e s she/he wears i t demonstrates to me, f o r example, a long necklace that he or she has a high image of one s e l f : And the way people walk h o l d i n g t h e i r , possure u p r i g h t or downwards shows me i f they are happy or not. Body languages i s the best way I c h a r a c t e r i z e people because movements are hidden s e c r e t s i f I watch c l o s e l y . 240 (APPENDIX A continued) Condition 2 Student FIRST DRAFT WOLF KILL My f e e l i n g s are on the wolf k i l l are n e g a t i v e . There are many d i f f e r e n t ways that nature w i l l c o n t r o l the in c r e a s e d amount of w o l f s . One way that the k i l l e r s c o uld get r i d of the wolfs i s to t r a n q u i l i z z e the wolfs and take then to d i f f e r e n t p l a c e s i n B.C. K i l l i n g the wolfs i n c o l d blood one a f t e r another i n q u i t e u n f a i r . I f humans have a r i g h t to l i v e so do the wolfs and they were here before man! I f e e l there should be more c o n s i d e r a t i o n before they s t a r t k i l l i n g animals mabe take i t to the supeam c o u r t ! Man has r i g h t s then so should animals because man i s an animal and they have r i g h t s so should the woulfs. Although the wolfs are k i l l i n g trapped animals i n t r a p s they havent got safways to go to or corner s t o r e s so when food comes along they have no c h o i c e ! SECOND DRAFT WOLF KILL My f e e l i n g s on the wolf k i l l are very n e g a t i v e . One way the k i l l e r s c o u l d decrease the amount of wolfs i s , to t r a n q u i l i z e the wolfs and s a f e l y t r a n s p o r t them to d i f f e r e n t areas i n B.C. K i l l i n g the wolfs i n c o l d blood one a f t e r another i s q u i t e u n f a i r . I f humans have a r i g h t to l i v e so do the wolfs and they were here before man. I f e e l there should be more c o n s i d e r a t i o n before they s t a r t k i l l i n g animals and p o s s i b i l y take i t to the supreme c o u r t . Man has r i g h t s then so should animals because man i s an animal and they have r i g h t s so should w o l f s . Although the wolfs are k i l l i n g trapped animals i n tr a p s they haven't got safeways to go to or corner s t o r e s so when food comes along they have no c h o i c e . 241 APPENDIX B: S c o r i n g the w r i t i n g apprehensien inventory (WAX) The f i g u r e below i s a copy of the W r i t i n g Apprehension Inventory t h a t was given to a l l students at the f i r s t s e s s i o n . I t asks students to read some statements about w r i t i n g i n general and then to c i r c l e a number from a f i v e - p o i n t s c a l e t h a t r e f l e c t s the degree to which students agree or d i s a g r e e with these statements. Scores f o r w r i t i n g a n x i e t y were obtained u s i n g the method o u t l i n e d by Daly and M i l l e r (1975a). Each of the statements (a) through (z) i s l a b e l e d p o s i t i v e (+) or negative (•-),• r e p r e s e n t i n g whether i t i s a statement c o n s i s t e n t with p o s s e s s i n g w r i t i n g a n x i e t y or not. The sum of a student's responses to a l l p o s i t i v e statements i s then c a l c u l a t e d , as w e l l as the sum of responses to a l l negative statements. A constant of 78, which r e f l e c t s the score of a completely u n c e r t a i n student (3 X 26), i s used f o r e s t a b l i s h i n g the w r i t i n g a n x i e t y score by means of the f o l l o w i n g equation: W r i t i n g apprehension .= 78 + sum of p o s i t i v e responses - sum of negative responses. The higher the s c o r e , the g r e a t e r the degree of w r i t i n g apprehen-s i o n experienced by the student. The range of p o s s i b l e scores spans a low of 26 to a high of 130. To c a l c u l a t e the student's score,the responses on the s c a l e to the r i g h t of each statement are added together f o r a l l p o s i t i v e statements, i n d i c a t e d on the l e f t , to give a t o t a l of 45. f 242 Example e£ s c a r e d i n v e n t o r y 4 a) b) c) .4 d) e) — f) 4 s) 4 h) — i) j 1 J ^  k) 1) 4- m) n) o) 4 p) — q> -t r) — a) — t) u) •4 v) w) -4 x) 4 y) 4 z) DALY & MILLER WRITINQ APPREHENSION INVENTORY (1975) Directions Below are a scries of statements about writing. Decide how much you think each statement applies to you, and then cirole the appropriate number alongside. These numbers indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statement. Circle only one number for each statement. Some of the statements may seem repetitious. Ignore this and answer each statement separately. Please try to be as honost an possible. Obviously, there are no right or wrong answers to these statements, only your opinions. Thank you. ^ Scale The numbers correspond to the following opinions! •' 1 2 3 't 5 . i • 1 i i strongly agree agree uncertain disagree strongly disagree Statements about Writing I avoid writing. 1 2 3 ^ 5 I have no fear of my writing being evaluated. 1 2 3 5 I look forward to writing down my ideas. 1 2 (^ ) 4 5 I am afraid of writing essays when I know they will be evaluated. 1 ^) 3 k 5 Taking a composition course is a very frightening experience. 1 2 3 5 Handing in a composition makes me feel good. 1 2 3^^ ) 5 My mind seems to go blank when I start to work on a composition. 1 2 3 (flP 5 Expressing ideas through writing seems to be a waste of time. 1 2 3 CO 5 • I would enjoy submitting my writing to magazines for publication. 1 2 5 5 I like to write my ideas down. 1 2 3 *t 5 I feel confident in my ability to clearly express my ideas. 1 2 h 5 I like to have my friends read what I have written. 1 3 5 I'm nervous about writing. 1 2 3 (^5 People seem to enjoy what I write. 1 3 k 5 , I enjoy writing. 1 (£) 3 <* 5 I never seem to be able to clearly write down my ideas. 1 2 3 5 Writing is a lot of fun. 1 2 ( 3 ) A 5 I expect to do poorly in composition classes even before I enter them. 1 2 3 (j*) '. I like seeing my thoughts on paper. 1 (2) 3 ^ . 5 Discussing my writing with others is an enjoyable experience. 1 2 3^^  k 5 1 have a terrible time organising my ideas in a composition. 1 3 5 When I hand in a composition, I know I'm going to do poorly. 1 2 3 5 It's easy for me to write good compos"itiono. 1 *Z 3 5 I don't think I write as well as most students in my classes. 1 2 h 5 I don't like having my compositions evaluated. 1 j^p 3 ** 5 I'm no good at writing. 1 2 3 ( X ) 5 Sum of responses to pos i t ive statements = 45 Sum of responses to negative statements = 37 Writing apprehension score = 78 + 45 - 37 = 86 243 Si m i l a r l y , the t o t a l responses for negative statments yields 37. The writing apprehension score is calculated as 86, indicating a student with s l i g h t l y higher anxiety than the mean score of 79.28 reported by Daly and M i l l e r (1975a) for their sample. 244 AfPINBIX 88 f a f e i i g §i i i S U i l g i£©m §§6r4ni g©nfe§nls i f i example d r a f t s TABLE l i Comparison l of the idea u n i t s i n example d r a f t s 1 and 2 D r a f t 1 D r a f t 2 No. Funct . Operation No. Funct Operation 1. A l . r e t a i n e d to (1) 1. A l . r e t a i n e d from (1) 2. SI. removed 2 . SI. new 3a. SI. r e t a ined to (3) 3. SI. r e t a ined from (3a-b) 3b. SI. r e t a i n e d to (3) 4 . SI. r e t a i n e d from (4) . 4 . SI. r e t a ined to (4) 5. SI. new 5. SI. removed 6 . SI. new 6 . SI. r e t a ined to (7) " 7. SI. r e t a ined from (6) 7 . SI. r e t a i n e d to (8a) 8a . SI. r e t a i n e d from (7) 8 . SI. r e t a i n e d to (10-11) 8b. SI. new 9a . S2 . r e t a i n e d to (13a) 9 . SI. new 9b. A2 . r e t a i n e d to (13b) 10 . SI. r e t a ined from (8) 10a . A2. r e t a i n e d to (14a) 11. SI. , r e t a i n e d from (8) 10b . S2 . r e t a ined to (14b) 12 . SI. new 11. A2. r e t a ined to (15) . 13a . S2. r e t a ined from (9a) 13b . A2. r e t a ined from (9b) 14a . A2. r e t a ined from (10a) 15. A2 . r e t a ined from (11) 16 . . A2. new i 17 . A2 . new 18 . S2 . new 19 . S2 . new 245 (APPENDIX C continued) TABLE 2 : Comparison of the idea u n i t s i n example d r a f t s 2 and 3 D r a f t 2 No. Funct. Operation D r a f t 3 No. Funct. Operation 1. A l . r e t a i n e d to (1) 1. A l . 2. SI. r e t a i n e d to (2) 2. SI. 3. SI. r e t a i n e d to (3) 3. SI. 4. SI. r e t a i n e d to (6a) 4. SI. 5. SI. removed 5. SI. 6. SI. removed 6a. SI. 7. SI. removed 6b. SI. 8a. SI. r e t a i n e d to (8a) 7. SI. 8b. SI. removed 8a. SI. 9. SI. r e t a i n e d to (9a) 8b. SI. 10. SI. r e t a i n e d to ( l l b - 1 3 a ) 9a. SI. 11. SI. removed 9b. SI. 12. SI. r e t a i n e d to (13b) 10. SI. removed 11a. SI. r e a s s i g n e d to (9b) l i b . SI. removed 12. SI. removed 13a. SI. removed 13b. SI. 17. A2. removed 14. A2. 18. S2. removed 15. A2. 19. S2. removed 13a. S2 13b. A2 14a. A2 15 16 . A2 A2 r e t a i n e d from (1) r e t a i n e d from (2) r e t a i n e d from (3) new new v r e t a i n e d from (4) new new r e t a i n e d i n (8a) new r e t a i n e d from (9) r e a s s i g n d from (13b) new new r e t a i n e d from (10) new r e t a i n e d from (10) r e t a i n e d from (12) new new 246 (APPENDIX C continued) TABLE 3: O r i g i n s oi the i d i i t u n i t e i n t x i i m p l i d e a l t 3 D r a f t 3 D r a f t 1 D r a f t 2 No. Funct . Operation No. No. 1. A l . both d r a f t s 1. 1. 2. SI. d r a f t 2 only 2 . 3 . SI. both d r a f t s 3a-b. 3 . 4 . SI. new 5 . SI. d r a f t 1 only 6 . 6a . SI. both d r a f t s 4 . 4 . 6b. ' SI. new 7 . S i . new 8a . SI. both d r a f t s 7 . 8a . 8b. S i . new 9a . SI. d r a f t 2 only 9 . 9b. SI. reass igned 9b. 13b. 10 . SI. new 11a . SI. new l i b . SI. both d r a f t s 8. 10 . 12 . SI. new 13a . SI. both d r a f t s ~* 8 . 10 . 13b . SI. d r a f t 2 only 12 . 14. A2. new 15. A2. new 247 APPENDIX D: A n c i l l a r y t a b l e s of s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s S y n t a c t i c complexity (words per T-Unit) C o n d i t i o n 1 X SD C o n d i t i o n 2 X SD DF T Prob D r a f t 1 16.02 3 . 71 15.41 3.00 33 0.54 0.595 D r a f t 2 14 . 89 3.70 14 .64 4.17 33 0.19 0.848 D r a f t 3 16 . 67 4 .14 14 .87 3.14 33 1.46 0.15 R e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s and q u a l i t y r a t i n g s C o n d i t i o n 1 C o n d i t i o n .2 r prob r prob D r a f t 1 .3607 .077 , .5760 .006* Dr a f t 2 .0474 .428 .4938 .019* D r a f t 3 .5001 .020* i5728 .006* (* s i g n i f i c a n t at alpha 0.05) (APPENDIX D continued) Relationship between errors /100 words and quality ratings C o n d i t i o n 1 C o n d i t i o n 2 r pr ob r prob D r a f t 1 -.6295 . 003* -.1739 . 245 Dr a f t 2 -.5162 .017* -.1181 320 Dr a f t 3 -.5914 . 006* -.3605. .071 (* s i g n i f i c a n t at alpha 0.05) Relationship between number of words and number of errors C o n d i t i o n 1 C o n d i t i o n 2 r pr ob r prob D r a f t 1 . 0109 . 483 .4764 .023* D r a f t 2 .2625 . 154 . 7203 001* D r a f t 3 .6813 .001*. . 6940 .001* (* s i g n i f i c a n t at alpha 0.05) Relationship between errors /100 words and QPA C o n d i t i o n 1 C o n d i t i o n 2 r prob r prob D r a f t 1 -.4542 .034* .2891 .122 Dr a f t 2 -.4607 . 031* . 1706 . 249 D r a f t 3 -.4557 .033* . 0975 . 350 (* s i g n i f i c a n t at alpha 0.05) (APPENDIX D continued) R e l a t i o n s h i p between q u a l i t y r a t i n g s and words pee d e a l t C o n d i t i o n 1 C o n d i t i o n 2 r prob r prob - D r a f t 1 .3167 .108 .5790 .006* D r a f t 2 .2338 .183 .5748 .006* D r a f t 3 .5448 .012* .6045 .004* (* s i g n i f i c a n t at alpha 0.05) R e l a t i o n s h i p between s e l f - e v a l u a t i o n s and words per d r a f t C o n d i t i o n 1 C o n d i t i o n 2 r prob r prob D r a f t 1 .0703 .394 .4859 .020* D r a f t 2 -.1489 .284 .4545 .029* D r a f t 3 .4736 .027* .5259 .012* (* s i g n i f i c a n t at <alp)ia 0.05) / 250 APPENDIX E : Tables of r e s u l t s from analyses of covar i a n c e (ANCOVA) ANCOVA e x p l a n a t i o n o f v a r i a n c e f o r comparisons per d r a f t of treatment c o n d i t i o n s by h i g h and low GPA DRAFT 2 : COVARIATE DRAFT 1 Se l f - ! No. o Vari a n c e Sum of Sauares DF F S i q .ty r a t i n g s c o v a r i a t e 2224.2G5 •1 105.509 0.001 main e f f e c t 51.797 1 2..457 NS i n t e r a c t i o n 147.053 1 6.976 .013 e x p l a i n e d 3181.847 4 37.733 .001 r e s i d u a l 632.439 30 - -•Evaluations c o v a r i a t e 89.658 1 4.654 .039 main e f f e c t 2943.712 1 15.296 .001 i n t e r a c t i o n 1.954 1 .010 NS e x p l a i n e d 4236.639 4 5.504 .002 r e s i d u a l 5773.361 30 - -if Words c o v a r i a t e 101481.356 1 21.679 .001 main e f f e c t 4669.932 1 0.998 NS i n t e r a c t i o n 563.324 • 1 0.120 NS e x p l a i n e d 114255.888 4 6.102 .001 r e s i d u a l 140434.284 30 - -if E r r o r s c o v a r i a t e 250.813 1' 33.083 .001 main e f f e c t 0.226 1 33.083 .001 i n t e r a c t i o n 1.458 1 0.192 NS e x p l a i n e d 256.562 4 8.460 .001 r e s i d u a l 227.443 30 - -(APPENDIX E continued) ANCOVA e x p l a n a t i o n of v a i l a n c e f o r comparisons per d r a f t of treatment c o n d i t i o n s by h i g h and low GPA DRAFT 3 : COVARIATE DRAFT 1 V a r i a n c e Sum of Squares DF S i g Q u a l i t y r a t i n g s c o v a r i a t e main e f f e c t i n t e r a c t i o n e x p l a i n e d r e s i d u a l 3811.765 1239.752 102.280 5817.586 2210.985 1 1 1 4 30 51.720-16.822 1.388 19.734 0.001 0.001 NS 0.001 S e l f - E v a l u a t i o n s c o v a r i a t e main e f f e c t i n t e r a c t i o n e x p l a i n e d r e s i d u a l 1466.151 631.560 59.499 2381.998 4315.145 1 1 1 4 30 10.193 4.391 0.414 4.140 0.003 0.045 NS 0.009 No. of Words c o v a r i a t e main e f f e c t i n t e r a c t i o n e x p l a i n e d r e s i d u a l 2535.041 85566.821 765.240 110569.379 382607.193 1 1 1 4 30 0.199 6.709 0.060 2.167 NS 0.015 NS NS No. of E r r o r s c o v a r i a t e ' main e f f e c t i n t e r a c t i o n e x p l a i n e d r e s i d u a l 310.793 3.409 0.960 316.106 154.387 1 1 1 4 30 60.392 0.663 0.187 15.356 0.001 NS NS 0.001 (APPENDIX E continued) ANCOVA e x p l a n a t i o n of v a r i a n c e f o r eonparlBene p e l d r a f t of treatment c o n d i t i o n s by h i g h and low WAI DRAFT 2 : COVARIATE DRAFT 1 Va r i a n c e Sum of Squares DF S i g Q u a l i t y r a t i n g s c o v a r i a t e main e f f e c t i n t e r a c t i o n e x p l a i n e d r e s i d u a l 2224.265 131.505 123.453 2797.456 1016.830 1 1 1 4 30 65.624 3.880 3.642 20.634 0.001 NS NS 0.001 S e l f - E v a l u a t i o n s c o v a r i a t e main e f f e c t i n t e r a c t i o n e x p l a i n e d r e s i d u a l 895.658 3125.502 3.954 4170.762 5839.238 1 1 1 4 30 4.602 16.058 0.020 5.357 0.040 0.001 NS 0.002 No. of Words c o v a r i a t e main e f f e c t i n t e r a c t i o n e x p l a i n e d r e s i d u a l 101481.356 3981.708 1008.944 106559.840 48130.331 1 1 1 4 30 20.552 0.806 0.204 5.395 0.001 NS NS 0.002 No. of E r r o r s c o v a r i a t e main e f f e c t i n t e r a c t i o n e x p l a i n e d r e s i d u a l 250.813 0.503 1.694 254.928 229.077 32.847 0.006 0.222 8.346 0.001 NS NS 0.001 (APPENDIX E continued) ANCOVA e x p l a n a t i o n of v a r i a n c e f o r comparisons per d r a f t of treatment c o n d i t i o n s by high and low GPA DRAFT 3 : COVARIATE DRAFT 2 V a r i a n c e Sum of Squares DF S i q Q u a l i t y r a t i n g s c o v a r i a t e main e f f e c t i n t e r a c t i o n e x p l a i n e d r e s i d u a l 4368.810 1998.588 1.714 6370.554 1658.017 1 1 1 4 30 79.049 36.162 0.031 28.817 0.001 0.001 NS 0.001 S e l f - E v a l u a t i o n s c o v a r i a t e main e f f e c t i n t e r a c t i o n e x p l a i n e d r e s i d u a l 1562.640 37.110 40.790 1764.317 4932,826 1 1 1 4 30 9.504 0.226 0.248 2.683 0.004 NS NS 0.05 ' No. of Words c o v a r i a t e main e f f e c t i n t e r a c t i o n e x p l a i n e d r e s i d u a l 141132.120 77090.239 4445.983 227019.014 266157.557 1 1 1 4 30 15.9908 8.689 0.501 6.397 0.001 0.006 NS 0.001 No. of E r r o r s c o v a r i a t e main e f f e c t i n t e r a c t i o n e x p l a i n e d r e s i d u a l 196.919 13.366 3.423 213.867 256.626 1 1 1 4 30 23.020 1.562 0.400 6.250 0.001 NS NS 0.001 (APPENDIX E continued) ANCOVA e x p l a n a t i o n of v a r i a n c e f o r comparisons per d r a f t of treatment c o n d i t i o n s by high and low VAI DRAFT 3 : COVARIATE DRAFT 2 V a r i a n c e Sum of Squares DF S i q Q u a l i t y r a t i n g s c o v a r i a t e main e f f e c t i n t e r a c t i o n e x p l a i n e d r e s i d u a l 4368.810 1930.811 17.462 6398.330 1630.241 1 1 1 4 30 80.396 35.531 0.321 29.436 0.001 0.001 NS 0.00 S e l f - E v a l u a t i o n s c o v a r i a t e main e f f e c t i n t e r a c t i o n e x p l a i n e d r e s i d u a l 1562.640 22.329 2.936 1765.862 4931.282 1 1 1 4 30 9.506 0.136 0.018 2.686 0.004 NS NS 0.050 No. of Words c o v a r i a t e main e f f e c t i n t e r a c t i o n e x p l a i n e d r e s i d u a l 141132.120 72118.291 6484.150 230258.768 262917.803 1 1 1 4 30 16.104 8.229 0.740 6.568 0.001 0.007 NS 0.001 No. of E r r o r s c o v a r i a t e main e f f e c t i n t e r a c t i o n e x p l a i n e d r e s i d u a l 196.919 12.214 0.006 247.322 223.171 1 1 1 4 30 26.471 1.642 0.001 8.312 0.001 NS NS 0.001 (APPENDIX E continued) 255 ANCOVA e x p l a n a t i o n of v a r i a n c e f o r comparisons per d r a f t of treatment c o n d i t i o n s by high and low WAI DRAFT 3 : COVARIATE DRAFT 1 Va r i a n c e Sum of Squares DF F S i g Q u a l i t y r a t i n g s c o v a r i a t e 3811.765 1 45.201 0.001 main e f f e c t 955.400 1 11.329 0.002 i n t e r a c t i o n 220.821 1 2.619 NS e x p l a i n e d 5498.700 4 16.301 0.001 r e s i d u a l 2529.872 30 - -S e l f - E v a l u a t i o n s c o v a r i a t e 1466.151 1 9.994 0.004 main e f f e c t 693.400 1 4.727 0.038 i n t e r a c t i o n 0.289 1 0.002 NS e x p l a i n e d 2296.258 4 3.913 0.011 r e s i d u a l 4400.885 30 - -No. of Words c o v a r i a t e 2535.041 1 0.193 NS main e f f e c t 78059.417 1 5.952 . 0.021 i n t e r a c t i o n 9264.635 1 0.706 NS e x p l a i n e d 99732.011 4 1.901 NS r e s i d u a l 393444.560 30 - -No. of E r r o r s c o v a r i a t e 310.793 1 64.889 0.001 main e f f e c t 3.268 1 0.682 NS i n t e r a c t i o n 0.609 1 0.127 NS e x p l a i n e d 326.804 4 17.058 0.001 r e s i d u a l 143.689 30 256 APPENDIX F: T a b l i l ef e i i u l t i fe©ffl a n a l y i i i Comparisons Of errors per draft for treatment conditions C o n d i t i o n 1 C o n d i t i o n 2 E r r o r type X SD X SD DF T Prob Spelling d r a f t 1 4 . 00 3 . 32 5.0 5 4 . 33 33 -0 . 81 0 .426 . d r a f t 2 5. 76 3 . 67 6 .17 4 . 29 33 -0 . 30 0 .768 d r a f t 3 5 . 82 4.60 5.06 4 . 54 33 0 . 50 0.623 End Punc. d r a f t 1 2 . 47 4 . 29 4.17 5. 19 33 -1. 05 0 . 301 d r a f t 2 4 . 18 5.81 5. 06 6 . 72 33 -0 . 41 0 .682 d r a f t 3 4 . 59 8 .14 3 . 50 5. 94 33 0 . 45 0 .653 Omitted Words d r a f t 1 0 . 65 1.00 1.89 3 . 27 20 -1. 54 0.140 d r a f t 2 1. 88 3 .06 2 . 22 2 . 84 33 -0 . 34 0 .735 d r a f t 3 1. 47 2.8 6 1.94 3 . 10 33 -0 . 47 0 .643 Capital Letters d r a f t 1 0 . 18 0 . 39 . 0.28 0 . 58 33 -0 . 61 0 . 549 d r a f t 2 0 . 35 0 .79 0 .44 1. 20 33 -0 . 27 0.792 d r a f t 3 0 . 24 0 .44 0 .06 0 . 25 33 1. 53 0.137 Verb Errors d r a f t 1 . 1. 00 1. 32 1. 56 1. 29 33 -1. 26 0 . 218 d r a f t 2 1. 18 1.47 1. 56 2. 09 33 -0 . 62 0.541 d r a f t 3 1. 29 1.16 1.44 1. 15 33 -0 . 39 0 . 703 Medial Punc. d r a f t 1 2 . 94 2.30. 3 .78 3. 15 33 -0. 89 0 . 379 d r a f t 2 2 . 59 2 .12 3 . 39 2 . 57 33 -1. 00 0 . 324 d r a f t 3 3. 88 2.78 2 . 56 1. 50 24 1. 74 0.094 Usage Errors d r a f t 1 0 . 82 0.95 1. 28 1. 02 33 -1. 36 0 .182 d r a f t 2 1. 35 2 . 09 1.94 1. 70 33 -0 . 92 0 . 363 d r a f t 3 1. 00 ,•1.14 1.33 1. 03 33 -0. 80 0 .429 Sentence Struct. d r a f t 1 1. 24 1.79" 1.06 1. 39 33 0 . 33 0 .741 d r a f t 2 0 . 94 1.20 1. 28 1. 71 33 -0 . 67 0 . 507 d r a f t 3 0 . 59 0.94 0 . 83 0 . 79 33 -0 . 8 4 0 .407 4.41 8.05 3.62 33 -1.12 0.269 4.33 8.46 3.24 33 -0.62 0.538 3.55 8.25 3.78 33 -1.39 0.175 Errors/100 words d r a f t 1 6.53 d r a f t 2 7.66 d r a f t 3 6.53 \ 257 (APPENDIX F continued) E r r o r p r o f i l e s f o r each c o n d i t i o n ( a l l d r a f t s teofithil) E r r o r types: 1. s p e l l i n g 5. verbs 2. end pun c t u a t i o n 6. medial p u n c t u a t i o n 3. omitted words 7. usage 4. c a p i t a l l e t t e r s 8. sentence s t r u c t u r e 30 Percent of t o t a l 20-e r r o r s 10-31 CONDITION 1 22 19 8 7 2 6 5 1. 2. 3. 4 . 5 . 6. 7. 8. E r r o r types CONDITION 2 30 29 Percent of t o t a l 20-e r r o r s 17 11 10 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. S. 7. 8. E r r o r types APPENDIX 0 : A n c i l l a r y t a b l e s o f a n a l y s e s o f v a r i a n c e (ANOVAR) 2 5 8 ANOVAR explanation §i v«Une§ iei @oif§fi§§n§ ptf d r a f t of treatment c o n d i t i o n s by high and l o v VAI RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRAFT 1 AND DRAFT 2 op e r a t i o n sum of squares DF F Prob Retained main e f f e c t 91.200 1 20.675 0.001* i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond & WAI 5.910 1 1.340 0.256 cond & measure 23.899 3 8.367 0.001* cond & WAI & measure 0.812 3 0.284 0.837 Removed main e f f e c t 79.457 1 22.779 0.001* i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond & WAI 0.046 1 0.013 0.909 cond & measure 36.512 3 8.392 0.001* cond & WAI & measure 3.209 3 0.738 0.532 New main e f f e c t 80.007 1 10.204 0.003* i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond & WAI 0.007 1 0.001 0.977 cond & measure 21.455 3 2.741 0.048* cond & WAI & measure 3.462 3 0.442 0.723 Reassigned main e f f e c t 0.007 1 0.313 0.580 i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond & WAI 0.007 1 0.313 0.580 cond S measure 0.020 3 0.313 . 0.816 cond 4 WAI s measure 0.128 3 1.983 0.122 (APPENDIX a eenfeinuei) Table of Means f o r ANOVAR f o r VAI RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BOTH DRAFTS AND DRAFT 3 C o n d i t i o n 2 Low VAI High VAI Combined (n=18) X (n=9) X (n=9) X SD A s s e r t i o n s ( p a r t Support ( p a r t 1) A s s e r t i o n s ( p a r t Support ( p a r t 2) 1) both d r a f t s d r a f t 1 o n l y d r a f t 2 o n l y new r e a s s i g n e d both d r a f t s d r a f t 1 o n l y d r a f t 2 o n l y * new re a s s i g n e d 2) both d r a f t s d r a f t 1 o n l y d r a f t 2 o n l y new r e a s s i g n e d both d r a f t s d r a f t 1 o n l y d r a f t 2 o n l y new r e a s s i g n e d 1.000 1.444 0.222 0.0 0.222 0.222 0.111 0.444 0.0 0.0 r . 3.111 2.667 0.111 0.111 1.889 2.000 2.667 0.556 0.111 0.111 1.222 2.444 0.333 0.111 0.778 0.667 0.889 0.444 0.0 0.0 0.889 2.000 0.111 0.0 0.444 0.444 0.556 0.778 0.111 0.111 1.222 0.647 0.111 0.323 0.222 0.428 0.278 0.575 0.0 0.0 2.889 1.676 0.111 0.323 1.944 1.514 1.611 1.819 0.111 0.323 1.833 1.543 0.222 0.548 0.722 0.958 0.667 0.907 •0.0 0.0 1.444 1.381 0.056 0.236 0.444 0.616 0.667 0.840 0.111 0.323 (APPENDIX 0 c o n t i n u e d ) Table of Means f o r ANOVAR f o r WAI RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BOTH DRAFTS AND DRAFT 3 C o n d i t i o n 1 Low VAI High VAI Combined (-n=l7) X (n=8) X (n=9) X SD A s s e r t i o n s ( p a r t 1) both d r a f t s 0.500 0.444 0.471 0.624 d r a f t 1 o n l y 0.500 0.667 0.588 0.507 d r a f t 2 o n l y 1.250 1.000 1.118 0.697 new 0.625 0.778 0.706 0.920 r e a s s i g n e d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Support ( p a r t 1) both d r a f t s 1.375 0.667 1.000 0.791 d r a f t 1 o n l y 0.750 2.222 1.529 1.463 d r a f t 2 o n l y 2.875 4.667 3.824 2.899 new 1.750 2.000 1.882 2.395 r e a s s i g n e d 0.0 0.222 0.118 0.332 A s s e r t i o n s ( p a r t 2) both d r a f t s 1.000 0.556 0.765 0.831 d r a f t 1 o n l y 0.750 1.1U 0.941 0.748 d r a f t 2 o n l y 1.625 2.000 1.824 1.380 new 1.250 1.222 1.235 1.855 r e a s s i g n e d 0.0 0.0 . 0.0 0.0 Support ( p a r t 2) both d r a f t s 0.250 0.333 0.294 0.588 d r a f t 1 o n l y 0.375 0.556 0.471 0.624 d r a f t 2 o n l y 0.875 1.778 1.353 1.902 new 0.500 1.444 1.000 1.768 r e a s s i g n e d 0.0 0.111 0.059 0.243 261 (APPENDIX G eehtinued) ANQVAS expUna£i§n §1 v§fi§ni@ tet §§mf§fi§§fl§ pef d r a f t of treatment c o n d i t i o n s by hi g h and low WAI RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN BOTH DRAFTS AND DRAFT 3 op e r a t i o n sum of squares DF F Prob Both D r a f t s main e f f e c t 50.823 i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond S WAI 6.524 cond & measure 5.862 cond & WAI & measure 2.539 1 22.946 0.001* 1 2.945 0.096 3 2.425 0.071 3 1.050 0.374 D r a f t 1 Only main e f f e c t i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond & WAI cond S measure cond & WAI & measure 19.184 4.083 5.106 1.904 29.293 6.235 . 4.892 1.824 0.001* 0.018* 0.003* 0.148 D r a f t 2 Only main e f f e c t i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond S WAI cond 4 measure cond & WAI & measure 48.225 4.336 5.162 4.256 13.054 1.174 0.987 0.814 0.001* 0.287 0.403 0.489 New main e f f e c t i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond i WAI cond & measure cond & WAI & measure 5.327 6.010 0.492 7.741 0.935 1.055 0.159 2.503 0.341 0.312 0.924 0.064 Reassigned main e f f e c t i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond & WAI cond & measure cond & WAI & measure 0.007 0.061 0.020 0.074 0.092 0.825 0.168 0.617 0.764 0.371 0.918 0.606 (APPENDIX 0 c o n t i n u e d ) Table of Means for ANOVAR fet VAI RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRAFT 1 AND DRAFT 2 C o n d i t i o n 1 Low VAI High VAI Combined (n=17) X (n=8) X (n=9) X SD A s s e r t i o n s ( p a r t 1) r e t a i n e d 0.500 0.333 0.412 0.618 removed 1.625 1.111 1.353 1.367 'new 1.375 1.222 1.294 0.772 r e a s s i g n e d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Support ( p a r t 1) r e t a i n e d 2.625 2.444 2.529 1.663 removed 4.625 5.111 4.882 2.395 new 6.750 6.667 6.706 2.932 r e a s s i g n e d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A s s e r t i o n s ( p a r t 2) r e t a i n e d 1.125 0.556 0.824 1.015 removed 2.125 2.222 2.176 1.334 new 3.750 4.333 4.059 1.519 r e a s s i g n e d 0.0 0.111 0.059 0.243 Support ( p a r t 2) r e t a i n e d 0.375 0.667 0.529 0.717 removed 1.250 0.667 0.941 0.827 new 2.125 3.222 2.706 2.114 r e a s s i g n e d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 C o n d i t i o n 2 Low VAI High VAI Combined (n=l8) X (n=9) X (n=9) X SI A s s e r t i o n s ( p a r t 1) r e t a i n e d 1.000 1.667 1.333 0.686 removed 0.444 0.333 0.389 0.502 new 0.667 0.444 0.556 0.616 r e a s s i g n e d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Support ( p a r t 1) r e t a i n e d 5.444 5.667 5.556 2.007 removed 1.889 1.556 1.722 1.809 new 4.000 4.556 4.278 2.845 r e a s s i g n e d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A s s e r t i o n s ( p a r t 2) r e t a i n e d 2.111 2.333 2.222 1.700 removed 0.667 0.667 0.667 0.907 new 2.111 1.667 1.889 1.491 r e a s s i g n e d 0.111 0.0 0.056 0.236 Support ( p a r t 2) r e t a i n e d 0.889 2.444 1.667 1.534 removed 0.444 0.667 0.556 0.856 new 1.222 2.667 1.944 1.984 r e a s s i g n e d 0.0 0.111 0.056 0.236 (APPENDIX Q eenfeinutd) 263 ANOVAR e x p l a n a t i o n of v a r i a n c e f o r comparisons per d r a f t of treatment c o n d i t i o n s by high and low VAI RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRAFT 2 AND DRAFT 3 op e r a t i o n sum of squares DF F Prob R e t a i n e d main e f f e c t . 12.963 1 2.391 0.132 i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond 4 WAI 0.990 1 0.183 0.672 cond & measure 8.175 3 1.463 0.230 cond & WAI & measure 9.186 3 1.643 0.185 Removed main e f f e c t 4.552 1 0.727 0.401 i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond & WAI 3.259 1 0.520 0.476 cond 4 measure ' 17.068 3 2.331 0.079 cond 4 WAI & measure 1.526 3 0.208 0.890 Nev main e f f e c t 145.021 1 15.608 0.001* i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond 4 WAI 38.132 1 4.104 0.051 cond 4 measure 28.594 3 4.383 0.006* cond 4 WAI 4 measure 43.631 3 6.688 0.001* Reassigned main e f f e c t 0.009 1 0.129 0.722 i n t e r a c t i o n s : cond 4 WAI 0.056 1 0.841 0.366 cond 4 measure 0.079 3 0.468 0.706 cond 4 WAI 4 measure 0.248 3 1.458 0.231 (APPENDIX 0 continued) Table ef Means fee ANOVAR in VAI RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN DRAFT 2 AND DRAFT 3 C o n d i t i o n 1 Lov VAI High VAI Combined (n=17) X (n=B) X (n=9) X SD A s s e r t i o n s ( p a r t 1) r e t a i n e d 1.000 0.887 0.941 0.748 removed 0.750 0.333 0.529 0.624 new 1.250 1.778 1.529 0.943 r e a s s i g n e d 0.125 0.0 0.059 0.243 Support ( p a r t 1) r e t a i n e d . 3.000 3.111 3.059 1.478 removed 4.625 4.000 4.294 3.098 new 4.750 8.000 6.471 4.140 r e a s s i g n e d 0.0 0.176 0.393 0.333 A s s e r t i o n s ( p a r t 2) r e t a i n e d 2.125 2.111 2.118 1.576 removed 3.250 2.000 2.588 1.906 new 3.500 3.000 3.235 2.386 r e a s s i g n e d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Support ( p a r t 2) r e t a i n e d 1.000 2.333 1.706 2.257 removed 1.375 1.000 1.176 1.131 new 1.250 3.111 2.235 2.107 r e a s s i g n e d 0.0 0.111 0.059 0.243 C o n d i t i o n 2 Lov VAI High VAI Combined (n=18) X (n=9) X (n=9) X SD A s s e r t i o n s ( p a r t 1) r e t a i n e d 1.000 1.667 1.333 0.686 removed 0.556 0.333 0.444 0.511 new 0.333 0.333 0.333 0.594 r e a s s i g n e d 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Support ( p a r t 1) r e t a i n e d 5.000 4.000 4.500 2.333 removed 3.778 4.444 4.111 2.742 new 4.222 . 1.667 2.944 2.261 r e a s s i g n e d 0.111 0.111 0.111 0 J 2 3 A s s e r t i o n s ( p a r t 2) r e t a i n e d 1.556 3.222 2.389 1.501 removed 1.556 0.667 1.111 1.410 new 1.333 0.667 1.000 1.237 r e a s s i g n e d 0.111 0.0 0.056 0.236 Support ( p a r t 2) r e t a i n e d 1.333 2.667 2.000 2.058 removed 1.444 1.667 1.556 1.381 new 0.889 0.889 0.889 0.900 r e a s s i g n e d 0.0 0.111 0.056 0.236 265 APPENDIX H : Table of r e s u l t s from s c o r i n g r e v i s i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e Compar isons of responses to r e v i s i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e Question # C o n d i t i o n 1 X SD C o n d i t i o n 2 X SD DP l T Prob i 3 .88 0 .93 3 . 77 0 . 73 33 0 . 37 0 . 713 i i 3 . 35 1 . 27 2 .78 1. .00 33 1 . 49 0 , .146 i i i 3 .00 0 .87 3 . 00 1, .03 33 0 .00 1. . 000 i v 2 .82 1 . 32 2 . 61 0 , .98 33 0 . 53 0 , . 601 V 3 . 29 1 .11 3 .11 0 , .90 33 0 .54 0 , .594 v i 4 .65 0 .49 4 .06 0 , . 87 27 2 . 49 0 , .019* v i i 4 .65 0 .49 4 . 61 0 , .61 33 0 . 19 0 . , 849 v i i i 3 . 53 1 .28 2 .94 1, .11 33 1 .45 0 . 157 i x 4 . 41 0 .87 4 . 22 0 , . 88 33 0 .64 0 , . 526 X 4 .12 0 . 86 4 .33 0 , .84 33 -0 .75 0 , . 458-x i 4 .18 1 . 02 4 . 00 0 , .91 33 0 .54 0 , .591 x i i 3 .82 1 .02 3 . 50 1, .04 33 0 .93 0 . 359 x i i i 3 .65 0 .93 3 .94 0 , . 87 33 -0 .98 0 . 337 x i v 2 .82 0 . 88 2 . 61 0 , .98 33 0 . 67 0 . 506 XV 4 .24 1 .03 3 .61 0 . 98 33 1 .84 0 , .075 xv i 3 . 24 1 .09 3 .22 1, .00 33 0 .04 0 . 971 x v i i 3 . 00 1 .12 3 . 06 0 . 87 33 -0 .16 0 . 870 x v i i i 2 .94 1 .20 3 .00 0 . 91 33 -0 .16 0 . 870 x i x 2 . 29 1 . 53 2 .00 1. .24 33 0 .63 0 . , 535 XX 2 . 41 0 . 77 2 .11 0 , .45 33 0 .77 0 . , 446 xx i 2 . 47 1 .13 2 . 39 1. . 09 33 0 .22 0 . ,829 x x i i 2 . 82 0 .81 2 . 67 0 , .49 26 0 .69 0 , 496 xx i i i 3 .24 1 . 09 3 .28 0 . 90 33 -0 .13 0 . ,900 xx i v 2 . 29 1 . 05 2 . 39 0 , . 61 25 -0 . 33 0 , .748 xxv 3 . 47 0 . 80 3 . 61 1, . 15 33 -0 . 42 0 . , 678 xxvi 3 .59 1 .23 3 . 56 0 , .92 33 0 . 09 0 , .929 xxvi i 3 .82 0 .73 3 .67 0 . 91 33 0 . 56 0 . , 578 xxvi i i 1 . 41 0 . 51 1 . 78 0 . 43 33 -2 . 31 0 . 027* (* - s i g n i f i c a n t at alpha of 0.05) 266 APPENDIX I i Comments mads In £§apens§ to tha f ina l queatien on the r e v i s i o n q u e s t i o n n a i r e Redrafting i s when I throw the idea out totally and start again from scratch. Revising i s when I keep the same thesis but restructure sentences. Editing i s when I take out sentences that are irrelevant or unnecessary. When you are redrafting - rewriting, concerning yourself with punctuation only interrupts your concentration. Correcting and polishing the last draft before i t i s to be typed i s the best method. Redrafting i s rewriting and changing content; revising i s correcting sentences or paragraphs; and editing i s correctings spelling, changing words and punctuation. Editing i s going thru the essay and correcting a l l grammar, spelling and punctation errors, while redrafting i s rearranging the order in which you present your ideas and revising i s updating or changing your thoughts on the essay topic. Refining - i s the last thing you do - cleaning up the very minute details. Revising - i s what we do when we get our f i r s t draft back with the ma.jor  corrections marked out. Improving on major corrections. - redrafting means over-starting (rewriting) the entire work (or most of i t ) - revising means concentrating on a specific area - editing means chopping off the excess fat and polishing editing deals with grammar, punctuation etc. redrafting deals with how the ideas work ( i f they work) revising deals with how the ideas come across 267 (APPENDIX I continued) r e d r a f t i n g - redoing the essay r e v i s i n g - changing around the essay e d i t i n g - t a k i n g out e r r o r s and unnecessary words i s when the content of the d r a f t i s changed to b e t t e r express i d e a s i s when the grammar, s p e l l i n g , and punctuation are c o r r e c t e d . r e d r a f t i n g i s p r a c t i c a l l y s t a r t i n g again, with the same ideas and making a rough copy again l i n e by l i n e . ; r e v i s i n g i s changing the wording and expression, making sure that everything makes sense. e d i t i n g i s checking grammar, s p e l l i n g , punctuation \ R e d r a f t i n g to me means preparing a new o u t l i n e , and improving major paragraph order, to b e t t e r the body of my composition. R e v i s i n g i s a n a l y z i n g each sentence f o r coherence and importance. E d i t i n g i s more concerned w i t h grammatical e r r o r s , such as improper punctuation e t c . R e d r a f t i n g i s changing the major ideas of an essay R e v i s i n g i s changing the evidence backing up your main p o i n t s E d i t i n g i s checking f o r s p e l l i n g , punctuation and grammar. r e v i s i n g -e d i t i n g -Re d r a f t i n g can mean redoing the whole paper. R e v i s i n g can mean doing a paragraph or change paragraph order. Changing punctuation. E d i t i n g i s l e a v i n g out words or punctuation. R e v i s i n g + e d i t i n g are v i r t u a l l y the same. 268 (APPENDIX I continued) I think that each of these steps must be done seperatly in order to write the paper to the best of your a b i l i t y . Redrafting i s like rough work - you get a l l your ideas done and don't worry about order or sequence. Once you have this done then you are ready to organise and put your thoughts in their best order to get your point across. Lastly you edit i t for mistakes and overall appearance but you can't do this before the other two because i f you did you'd have nothing to work with. Redrafting i s the changing of basic ideas and format of organization. Revisal arranges the ideas and points i n a coherent manner and adds other relative material. Editing i s the f i n a l analysis for correct spelling, punctuation and'word usage. Editing - condensing to make more clear Revising - rewriting including new material or ideas Redrafting - reorganizing material redrafting i s to redo an original outline revising, i s to change and correct editing i s to select, arrange & compile thoughts 

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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0078353/manifest

Comment

Related Items