Amanda Hemmingsen
Reviving Revision
Bartholomae, David, and Peter Elbow. “Response to Bartholomae and Elbow.” College Composition and Education 46.1 (1995): 84-92. JSTOR. Web. 31 October 2012.
Bartholomae, in comparing his pedagogy with Elbow, comes to some interesting lines of inquiry about teaching writing. Some of the questions that he explores are where the teaching moment, or where the learning moment in the writing process is. Bartholomae claims that this moment is in revision, when we challenge the thinking that occurs in the piece to transform, based on outside responses (be they the teacher, something they’ve read, or a peer). In revision, we have the opportunity to push students outside of their comfort zones as thinkers and social beings. In revision we can ask them to specify and enliven their writing. Elbow’s response to Bartholomae details Elbow’s complex vision and defense of free-writing. Understanding Elbow’s stance on free-writing is useful in successful implantation in our own classrooms, and it helps inexperienced to understand multiple ways in which we can teach our students to “re-see” their own writing.
Bishop, Wendy, ed. Elements of Alternate Style: Essays on Writing and Revision. Boynton/Cook Publishers: Portsmouth, 1997. Print.
This collection of essays is divided into three parts and an appendix: “Invitation to Alternate Styles,” “Invitations to Risk-Taking, Play and Radical Revision,” “Issues in Writing to Alternative Styles” and “Teaching and Learning Ideas.” While I think all are useful in complexifying our conceptualization of writing, the second section and the appendix seem most relevant to revision theory and application. Kim Haimes Korn’s essay in this section, “Distorting the Mirror: Radical Revision and Writers’ Shifting Perspectives” is especially relevant. She discusses revision as invention, discussing Bishop’s term, radical revision, and offering activities that are born of her revision pedagogy, such as asking students to rewrite an earlier essay so that either style, content or format is shifted. This assignment supports her belief that involving writers in different thinking processes broadens perspectives (89). Wendy Bishop’s essay, “Reading, Stealing, and Writing Like a Writer” offers an excellent introduction into how developing our reading skills develops our writing skills. Evaluating other writers leads to a better evaluation of our own writing, asking how they were successful allows us to imitate their techniques.
Lunsford, Angela. “Cognitive Development and the Basic Writer.” College English 41.4 (1979): 38-46. JSTOR. Web. 24 October 2012.
This piece breaks down an aspect of what basic writers don’t understand: abstraction and transference. While she does not talk extensively about revision, I feel a quick rundown of what students are and aren’t capable of is important context for discussing revision. Revision involves being able to think abstractly about one’s own writing, and recognizing that students simply aren’t capable of this helps clear up the misconception that students are lazy, or aren’t listening. She also outlines a couple of in-class activities that she has used successfully to teach transference of abstract thought and to move from that into revising.
Mohr, Marian M. Revision: The Rhythm of Meaning. Boynton/Cook Publishers Inc.: New Jersey 1984. Print.
Mohr combines her classes’ comments on what revision means with classroom activities and a breakdown of the results of her experiments in encouraging revision. Through her work, she’s come to recognize that you can’t so much teach revision as encourage students to revise. Her chapters, “The Goals of Revision,” “Reactive Revision,” “Active Revision” and “The Model in the Classroom” are particularly relevant to my line of inquiry. Her sections, “Suggestions to the Writer” and “Suggestions for the Classroom” offer concrete descriptions that are useful in designing one’s own revision paradigm. Though this book is older, the in-class experience that Mohr brings into her book makes this very relevant and useful.
Newkirk, Thomas, ed. Nuts and Bolts: A Practical Guide to Teaching College Composition. Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.: Portsmouth, 1993. Print.
One of the most valuable aspects of this book is its introduction, “Locating Freshman English,” which describes the history of the conceptualizations of freshman composition. Also, the chapters “Conferences and Workshops: Conversations on the Writing Process,” by Rebecca Rule, and “Evaluation as Acts of Reading, Response, and Reflection,” by Elizabeth Chisen-Strater are useful in thinking about revision. Rule talks about the discomfort that writers, especially student writers feel in talking about their papers, and goes through why moving through this discomfort is important, and offers detailed strategies in workshopping and conferences to aid students to move towards generating, listening to, and applying constructive criticism. Chisen-Strater talks about the grading process, and how it affects students’ perception of the course and of their own writing. Her exploration of her own untangling of the mystery of assigning grading, and some theoretical framework is incredibly useful for beginning teachers. She says that we need to “understand this tangled web of evaluation and response as we approach our students’ writing.
Sommers, Nancy. “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers.” College Composition and Communication 31.4 (Dec 1980): 378-88. JSTOR. Web. 24 October 2012.
This piece is so heavily drawn upon in the conversation on revision that I felt it was important to include (although of course it stands in this bibliography on its merit, not on the perception of its merit). Sommers challenges the notion that revision is a distinct aspect of the process, something that can be seen in Flower’s cognitive process model (but that isn’t so recursive as that model). Sommer’s notion of revision as the concept that helps to distinguish writing from speech is incredibly important, especially in an age of social media, where the lines between speech and writing are blurrier than ever. She calls on Barthes to explain that revision is a reshaping of ideas, something that has changed the entire conversation on writing of the last 30 years. Knowing Sommer’s definition of the revision process, “as a sequence of changes in a composition-changes which are initiated by cues and occur continually throughout the writing of a work” is critical to entering or listening to the conversation on revision (380). Her research into revision has been crucial in moving the conversation on revision forward.
Sun, Lulu C.H. “Re-Viewing and Teaching Revision.” The English Journal 78.3 (Mar 1989): 87-88. JSTOR. Web. 24 October 2012.
Beginning with a quick run through of Sommer’s seminal piece on revision, Sun examines the body of research on revision, noting in particular that students generally do not understand revision as a process in the same way that expert writers do. They do not see revision as revising towards refining meaning, but more often, as fiddling with word choice and syntax. Students like the skills and strategies necessary for valuable revision practices. Sun then lists six tactics to be used in the classroom to help students gain the necessary skills and strategies. What is most helpful about her list is that she directly sources these edicts to other’s research, allowing one to begin with her text as a general guide and then moving to more expert sources on specific methods for teaching or utilizing revision in the classroom. I included her piece because it is straight to the point, easily digestible, and offers an excellent starting place for someone looking to refine his or her revision practices in the classroom.
Underwood, Jody S. and Alyson P. Tregido. “Improving Student Writing Through Effective Feedback: Best Practices and Recommendations.” Journal of Teaching Writing 22.2 (2005). Web. 24 October 2012.
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/teachingwriting/article/viewFile/1346/1295
Underwood and Tregido review the literature on feedback and draw conclusions in order to recommend best practices. They acknowledge students must be receptive and read the feedback before said feedback can have any effect. They look at student’s assessment of how helpful both directive and facilitative feedback are and current research on these practices (81). Control of the paper is another issue that they raise in their review. Comments should not be based on a Platonic Ideal text, but on the discrepancy between what students were trying to do and what they actually produced, an important distinction. Perceptions of the teacher also effects the quality of feedback, which the authors cover in their article: “the role that the teacher plays socially and politically is very important” (84). Students prefer positive as well as specific feedback, which is important to keep in mind when attempting to communicate based on your goals as a teacher. This practical outline based on current research will be very useful in discussing concrete plans for teaching students to revise.
Wallace, David L. and John R. Hayes. “Redefining Revision for Freshman.” Research in the Teaching of English 25.1 (Feb 1991). JSTOR. Web. 24 October 2012.
After summarizing recent research on revision practices, Wallace and Hayes explain the results of their research based on the inquiry: “can freshman carry out global revision successfully if they are instructed to do so?” (56). This creates a distinction between “doing revision” and “doing global revision” in the hopes to discover if one framing term guides students toward better work than another. Of course, for this to work, students have to already be capable in some regards of understanding the task of revision in the first place, which is hard to quantify. For their study, they asked students to revise a text, half of the students were given 8 minutes of instruction on global revision, while the other half was asked simply to revise.( Expert writer reads through whole text before making changes, novice begins revising immediately.) This study shows that it is possible to encourage students to revise for global issues through instruction, although it does not show that they continue to practice this, or that they can apply this to their own writing. This study examines one small but crucial aspect of approaching revision in FSE, which will be useful in my discussion of revision practices. This article also gears toward the practical application of current understanding of communicating revision practices to students effectively.
Welch, Nancy. Getting Restless. Boynton/Cook Publishers. Portsmouth: New Hampshire, 1997. Print.
Welch uses both a feminist and psychoanalytic approach to discussing revision. She divides her attention between revision work in a writing center, undergraduate composition classrooms and a graduate writing project for K-12 teachers, but this is still very applicable in the First Year classroom, which she also makes connections, too. She works to identify areas of comfort and of discomfort in revision in order to better understand the process. Writing 10-20 years after the flurry of research on revision, she works to revise how teachers/educators/etc. think about what it means to revise, and how to apply this new meaning of revision to the teaching of writing. Her chapters, “Rethinking Revision in Writing Instruction,” “Revising a Writer’s Identity” and “Toward an Excess-ive Theory of Revision” will be particularly useful in my exploration of revision. “Revising a Writer’s Identity” is useful in that it reevaluates what her expectations as a teacher are in looking at a portfolio, and what expectations her students have or identify as they reflect on their portfolio work. The “Excess-ive” chapter has a lot of outside sources that could be useful in following up on. This chapter also makes a worthwhile distinction about the divide between ourselves as living an expression of our self, and between ironing our expression out in order to make it more appropriate for a public. This book is particularly useful in opening up avenues of thought and discussion about revising, in getting the dialogue going, and offering useful sources and background on revision in its theoretical history.
Reviving Revision
Bartholomae, David, and Peter Elbow. “Response to Bartholomae and Elbow.” College Composition and Education 46.1 (1995): 84-92. JSTOR. Web. 31 October 2012.
Bartholomae, in comparing his pedagogy with Elbow, comes to some interesting lines of inquiry about teaching writing. Some of the questions that he explores are where the teaching moment, or where the learning moment in the writing process is. Bartholomae claims that this moment is in revision, when we challenge the thinking that occurs in the piece to transform, based on outside responses (be they the teacher, something they’ve read, or a peer). In revision, we have the opportunity to push students outside of their comfort zones as thinkers and social beings. In revision we can ask them to specify and enliven their writing. Elbow’s response to Bartholomae details Elbow’s complex vision and defense of free-writing. Understanding Elbow’s stance on free-writing is useful in successful implantation in our own classrooms, and it helps inexperienced to understand multiple ways in which we can teach our students to “re-see” their own writing.
Bishop, Wendy, ed. Elements of Alternate Style: Essays on Writing and Revision. Boynton/Cook Publishers: Portsmouth, 1997. Print.
This collection of essays is divided into three parts and an appendix: “Invitation to Alternate Styles,” “Invitations to Risk-Taking, Play and Radical Revision,” “Issues in Writing to Alternative Styles” and “Teaching and Learning Ideas.” While I think all are useful in complexifying our conceptualization of writing, the second section and the appendix seem most relevant to revision theory and application. Kim Haimes Korn’s essay in this section, “Distorting the Mirror: Radical Revision and Writers’ Shifting Perspectives” is especially relevant. She discusses revision as invention, discussing Bishop’s term, radical revision, and offering activities that are born of her revision pedagogy, such as asking students to rewrite an earlier essay so that either style, content or format is shifted. This assignment supports her belief that involving writers in different thinking processes broadens perspectives (89). Wendy Bishop’s essay, “Reading, Stealing, and Writing Like a Writer” offers an excellent introduction into how developing our reading skills develops our writing skills. Evaluating other writers leads to a better evaluation of our own writing, asking how they were successful allows us to imitate their techniques.
Lunsford, Angela. “Cognitive Development and the Basic Writer.” College English 41.4 (1979): 38-46. JSTOR. Web. 24 October 2012.
This piece breaks down an aspect of what basic writers don’t understand: abstraction and transference. While she does not talk extensively about revision, I feel a quick rundown of what students are and aren’t capable of is important context for discussing revision. Revision involves being able to think abstractly about one’s own writing, and recognizing that students simply aren’t capable of this helps clear up the misconception that students are lazy, or aren’t listening. She also outlines a couple of in-class activities that she has used successfully to teach transference of abstract thought and to move from that into revising.
Mohr, Marian M. Revision: The Rhythm of Meaning. Boynton/Cook Publishers Inc.: New Jersey 1984. Print.
Mohr combines her classes’ comments on what revision means with classroom activities and a breakdown of the results of her experiments in encouraging revision. Through her work, she’s come to recognize that you can’t so much teach revision as encourage students to revise. Her chapters, “The Goals of Revision,” “Reactive Revision,” “Active Revision” and “The Model in the Classroom” are particularly relevant to my line of inquiry. Her sections, “Suggestions to the Writer” and “Suggestions for the Classroom” offer concrete descriptions that are useful in designing one’s own revision paradigm. Though this book is older, the in-class experience that Mohr brings into her book makes this very relevant and useful.
Newkirk, Thomas, ed. Nuts and Bolts: A Practical Guide to Teaching College Composition. Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc.: Portsmouth, 1993. Print.
One of the most valuable aspects of this book is its introduction, “Locating Freshman English,” which describes the history of the conceptualizations of freshman composition. Also, the chapters “Conferences and Workshops: Conversations on the Writing Process,” by Rebecca Rule, and “Evaluation as Acts of Reading, Response, and Reflection,” by Elizabeth Chisen-Strater are useful in thinking about revision. Rule talks about the discomfort that writers, especially student writers feel in talking about their papers, and goes through why moving through this discomfort is important, and offers detailed strategies in workshopping and conferences to aid students to move towards generating, listening to, and applying constructive criticism. Chisen-Strater talks about the grading process, and how it affects students’ perception of the course and of their own writing. Her exploration of her own untangling of the mystery of assigning grading, and some theoretical framework is incredibly useful for beginning teachers. She says that we need to “understand this tangled web of evaluation and response as we approach our students’ writing.
Sommers, Nancy. “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers.” College Composition and Communication 31.4 (Dec 1980): 378-88. JSTOR. Web. 24 October 2012.
This piece is so heavily drawn upon in the conversation on revision that I felt it was important to include (although of course it stands in this bibliography on its merit, not on the perception of its merit). Sommers challenges the notion that revision is a distinct aspect of the process, something that can be seen in Flower’s cognitive process model (but that isn’t so recursive as that model). Sommer’s notion of revision as the concept that helps to distinguish writing from speech is incredibly important, especially in an age of social media, where the lines between speech and writing are blurrier than ever. She calls on Barthes to explain that revision is a reshaping of ideas, something that has changed the entire conversation on writing of the last 30 years. Knowing Sommer’s definition of the revision process, “as a sequence of changes in a composition-changes which are initiated by cues and occur continually throughout the writing of a work” is critical to entering or listening to the conversation on revision (380). Her research into revision has been crucial in moving the conversation on revision forward.
Sun, Lulu C.H. “Re-Viewing and Teaching Revision.” The English Journal 78.3 (Mar 1989): 87-88. JSTOR. Web. 24 October 2012.
Beginning with a quick run through of Sommer’s seminal piece on revision, Sun examines the body of research on revision, noting in particular that students generally do not understand revision as a process in the same way that expert writers do. They do not see revision as revising towards refining meaning, but more often, as fiddling with word choice and syntax. Students like the skills and strategies necessary for valuable revision practices. Sun then lists six tactics to be used in the classroom to help students gain the necessary skills and strategies. What is most helpful about her list is that she directly sources these edicts to other’s research, allowing one to begin with her text as a general guide and then moving to more expert sources on specific methods for teaching or utilizing revision in the classroom. I included her piece because it is straight to the point, easily digestible, and offers an excellent starting place for someone looking to refine his or her revision practices in the classroom.
Underwood, Jody S. and Alyson P. Tregido. “Improving Student Writing Through Effective Feedback: Best Practices and Recommendations.” Journal of Teaching Writing 22.2 (2005). Web. 24 October 2012.
http://journals.iupui.edu/index.php/teachingwriting/article/viewFile/1346/1295
Underwood and Tregido review the literature on feedback and draw conclusions in order to recommend best practices. They acknowledge students must be receptive and read the feedback before said feedback can have any effect. They look at student’s assessment of how helpful both directive and facilitative feedback are and current research on these practices (81). Control of the paper is another issue that they raise in their review. Comments should not be based on a Platonic Ideal text, but on the discrepancy between what students were trying to do and what they actually produced, an important distinction. Perceptions of the teacher also effects the quality of feedback, which the authors cover in their article: “the role that the teacher plays socially and politically is very important” (84). Students prefer positive as well as specific feedback, which is important to keep in mind when attempting to communicate based on your goals as a teacher. This practical outline based on current research will be very useful in discussing concrete plans for teaching students to revise.
Wallace, David L. and John R. Hayes. “Redefining Revision for Freshman.” Research in the Teaching of English 25.1 (Feb 1991). JSTOR. Web. 24 October 2012.
After summarizing recent research on revision practices, Wallace and Hayes explain the results of their research based on the inquiry: “can freshman carry out global revision successfully if they are instructed to do so?” (56). This creates a distinction between “doing revision” and “doing global revision” in the hopes to discover if one framing term guides students toward better work than another. Of course, for this to work, students have to already be capable in some regards of understanding the task of revision in the first place, which is hard to quantify. For their study, they asked students to revise a text, half of the students were given 8 minutes of instruction on global revision, while the other half was asked simply to revise.( Expert writer reads through whole text before making changes, novice begins revising immediately.) This study shows that it is possible to encourage students to revise for global issues through instruction, although it does not show that they continue to practice this, or that they can apply this to their own writing. This study examines one small but crucial aspect of approaching revision in FSE, which will be useful in my discussion of revision practices. This article also gears toward the practical application of current understanding of communicating revision practices to students effectively.
Welch, Nancy. Getting Restless. Boynton/Cook Publishers. Portsmouth: New Hampshire, 1997. Print.
Welch uses both a feminist and psychoanalytic approach to discussing revision. She divides her attention between revision work in a writing center, undergraduate composition classrooms and a graduate writing project for K-12 teachers, but this is still very applicable in the First Year classroom, which she also makes connections, too. She works to identify areas of comfort and of discomfort in revision in order to better understand the process. Writing 10-20 years after the flurry of research on revision, she works to revise how teachers/educators/etc. think about what it means to revise, and how to apply this new meaning of revision to the teaching of writing. Her chapters, “Rethinking Revision in Writing Instruction,” “Revising a Writer’s Identity” and “Toward an Excess-ive Theory of Revision” will be particularly useful in my exploration of revision. “Revising a Writer’s Identity” is useful in that it reevaluates what her expectations as a teacher are in looking at a portfolio, and what expectations her students have or identify as they reflect on their portfolio work. The “Excess-ive” chapter has a lot of outside sources that could be useful in following up on. This chapter also makes a worthwhile distinction about the divide between ourselves as living an expression of our self, and between ironing our expression out in order to make it more appropriate for a public. This book is particularly useful in opening up avenues of thought and discussion about revising, in getting the dialogue going, and offering useful sources and background on revision in its theoretical history.