the revising processes of sixth-grade writers with and without peer feedback

The Revising Processes of Sixth-Grade Writers with and without Peer FeedbackAuthor(s): Vicki L. Brakel OlsonSource: The Journal of Educational Research, Vol. 84, No. 1 (Sep. - Oct., 1990), pp. 22-29Published by: Taylor & Francis, Ltd.Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/40539679 .

Accessed: 29/08/2014 07:20

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

Taylor & Francis, Ltd. is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The Journal ofEducational Research.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 86.179.165.15 on Fri, 29 Aug 2014 07:20:18 AMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=taylorfrancis

http://www.jstor.org/stable/40539679?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


The Revising Processes of Sixth-Grade Writers With and Without Peer Feedback

VICKI L. BRAKEL OLSON Augsburg College

ABSTRACT The primary purpose of this study was to examine the effect of peer feedback on the quality of student writing and the amount and kind of revision behavior. Ninety- three sixth graders in six intact classrooms wrote and revised six stories, the last one being used as data for this study. Instruction varied across groups in the following manner: RI/PP students received revision instruction and revised stories with a peer; PP students revised stories with a peer but did not receive revision instruction; RI students received revision instruction but revised stories alone; C students had neither revision instruction nor help from peers. Chi-square analysis indicated that revision behavior was influenced by instruction. Quality of writing analysis revealed significant differences across groups on both rough and final drafts. Peer feedback seemed to help students write initially superior rough drafts but was not consistently linked to improvement of content between rough and final drafts. Suc- cessful surface structure editing occurred with or without peer feedback.

process approach to teaching writing has gone beyond being a new and breaking trend as school

districts and textbooks attempt to institute its major prin- ciples. Research that initially brought the ideas of process writing to our attention is also completing a cycle. Case study research of the early 1980s showed in great detail the writing process of selected children (Calkins, 1983; Graves, 1981, 1983). The richness of information pro- vided by those studies obscured their descriptive nature. Recent critics of that research (Barr, 1983; Smagorinsky, 1987) have questioned the generalizations resulting from those case studies. One critic argued that Graves's research is reportage rather than proof of successful use of process writing instruction because only the side that has worked is seen (Smagorinsky, 1987).

By contrast, this study reflects an attempt to systemat- ically manipulate components of process writing under controlled classroom conditions (as controlled as normal classrooms will allow) and in the mode of whole group

instruction. Revision was chosen as a major focus of the study because of recent interest in writing process instruction at the elementary school level (Applebee, 1986). That kind of instruction holds at its core a writing process that includes multiple drafting, with the expectation that revision across drafts will improve writing quality (Barr, 1983). Because of this focus, the immediate question becomes "Can and do elementary-aged children revise their writing?"

Revising as Part of the Writing Process

The case study research of Graves (1981, 1983, 1984) and Calkins (1980, 1983) described in detail the revision behavior of child writers. By the time that those researchers' subjects were in the midelementary grades, the children were using many of the same revision techniques as older writers. Those children added information to their personal narratives, rearranged portions of their stories, and deleted sections that they no longer wanted.

Experimental studies indicated that across Grades 4 through 12, the predominant revision behaviors were mechanical revisions (spelling, punctuation, capitalization, usage) and word-level content revisions (additions, deletions, substitutions, rearrangements) (Bridwell, 1980; Crowhurst, 1983; NAEP, 1978). However, within each grade level, the number and kind of revisions per individ- ual paper varied widely (Bridwell; Crowhurst, 1982). The willingness to revise and the ability to determine when revision was necessary fluctuated among students in Grade 5 (Crowhurst, 1982) and continued to do so in Grades 11 and 12 (Bridwell, 1980; Crowhurst, 1982). Those studies suggested that revision behavior cannot be succinctly "pigeon-holed" and described by grade level.

Address correspondence to Vicki L. Brakel Olson, 4732 Col- fax Avenue, S., Minneapolis, MN 55409.

22



September/October 1990 [Vol. 84(No. 1)] 23

Some students at all levels revised prolifically, whereas others made minimal changes.

But evidence of revision does not necessarily mean ma- ture and practiced application. Bartlett (1982) concluded that children have two obvious difficulties that set their revising apart from older (adult) writers: (a) They are not always able to recognize problems in their own writing, (b) They are not always able to improve writing even when they recognize problems.

Audience awareness: What will present problems for my readers? Every writer has difficulty at one time or an- other determining what to say and how to say it effec- tively. Young writers have even greater hurdles to clear than more experienced writers. The young writers have to figure out not only what to say but also how to write it. Many skills that are automatic for experienced writers re- quire the conscious attention of young ones (Graves, 1983a). Only after the young writers gain automatic control over fluency and mechanical conventions are they able to consciously consider the needs of an audience as they write (Bereiter, 1980). However, young writers have less difficulty locating problems of content and syntax in the writing of others (Bartlett, 1982). This finding suggests the potential helpfulness of peer response during the writing process.

Peer response has appeared as a positive and helpful part of writing workshops at the high school and college level for several years (Carter, 1982; Healy, 1983; Lewes, 1981; Ziv, 1983). Case study results of peer response at the elementary level also are reported as positive (Cal- kins, 1983; Crowhurst, 1979; Weeks & White, 1982). However, despite the many benefits cited for peer response, attempts to link peer response to improved writing quality at a statistically significant level have been less successful (Carter, 1982; Lewes, 1981; Stevens, Madden, Slavin, & Famish, 1987; Ziv, 1983).

Conscious control over language: How can I fix prob- lematic text? Sophisticated language behaviors occa- sionally appear in the language output of young writers, but such behaviors do not appear consistently. Consis- tency requires more cognitive maturity and conscious control over language processes than is possessed by the young (Burtis, Bereiter, Scardamalia, & Tetroe, 1983). Birnbaum (1982) suggested that "If we can specify what [language] behaviors are associated with production of better text, we may be able to promote them through instruction" (p. 257).

Cohen and Scardamalia (1983), operating from the aforementioned assumption in a revision training study of students in Grade 6, asked: Can sixth graders be trained to revise their own text at the idea (content) level? The results of those authors showed that students who received direct instruction in several specific revision strategies did make significantly more idea-level revisions which, in turn, improved the quality of their writing.

In this study I assumed that young writers will have revision problems that are unique to their developmental and experiential levels. Specifically, those writers will have difficulty recognizing audience need and consciously controlling their use of revision strategies. The research just reported suggested two instructional strategies for use in the elementary classroom to increase revision behaviors and improve quality of writing: (a) peer feedback and (b) direct instruction in specific revision strategies.

Overview of Study

Purpose

Classroom teachers, being pragmatists, recognize revision as a potential ally in their struggle to help children become successful writers. In the upper elementary grades where expectations for quality are often high, revision becomes an especially attractive skill.

This study explored the effects of two instructional strategies on the revision behavior and quality of writing of sixth-grade students. Research questions guiding this investigation were as follows: 1. Will type and amount of revision behavior vary signif-

icantly across four different instructional situations? 2. Will quality of writing vary significantly across in-

structional situations? 3. Will quality of writing vary significantly between

rough and final drafts within each instructional situation?

Subjects

The subjects in this study were 93 sixth graders from four different schools within the same middle-class sub- urban school district. Of the 93 students, 49 were girls and 44 were boys. The subjects were members of four heterogeneous instructional groups, one group per school - each group being an intact classroom. Each classroom was informally grouped by classroom teachers at the beginning of the school year to include the existing range of abilities represented in each school; no attempt was made to isolate specific ability groups within the classrooms. All the students within each class received process writing instruction, but not all the students were part of the final analysis. I eliminated some students because they were either fifth-grade children in a combina- tion classroom, or they were sixth-grade students with incomplete sets of writing samples.

Teachers

All of the participating teachers volunteered to be a part of the study. The teachers had a special interest in improving their own writing instruction and were moti- vated to try the materials used in this study. All were vet-



24 Journal of Educational Research

eran teachers with between 13 and 24 years of experience at the time of the study.

Materials

Writing lessons. Six autobiographical writing lessons were developed for this study. Each lesson incorporated a prewriting, drafting, and sharing component similar to the precomposing, composing, and postcomposing components described by Graves (1984). Formal focus on revision occurred during the drafting phase and was structured differently for each of the four instructional groups. As is apparent, I developed those lessons within a linear framework. While recognizing the recursive nature of the writing process (Flower & Hayes, 1981), I operated from the philosopy stated by Humes (1983): "Although these processes are recursive rather than linear, for peda- gogical purposes the activities of planning and revising are easier to present separately. ... As students begin to understand the processes, they can be taught to function recursively" (p. 10).

In all ways but revision, the lessons were the same for each group. I designed the lessons to be taught by classroom teachers in whole group instructional settings. Les- son plans were developed in detail and contained step-by- step directions as well as comments and rationale.

In order to assess revision behavior under optimum conditions, I created writing experiences in which students would have an investment in their stories. The im- portance of writing from topics of personal interest has been documented forcefully and frequently by Graves (1983, 1984). Thus, the writing lessons used in this study were autobiographical in nature. When all of the students completed each of their six stories, the final copies were collected into autobiographical booklets for each child to take home as a keepsake of sixth grade.

Revision lessons. Five direct-instruction lessons were used with two of the four treatment groups. Those lessons focused on specific revision tactics of adding, delet- ing, substituting, paraphrasing, and rearranging information within a text. All five lessons were designed to be taught prior to the autobiographical writing lessons.

The purpose behind the revision instruction was two- fold - to develop and support the idea that text can be revised once it is written and to help students gain conscious control over specific strategies for revising text. The guiding philosophy behind the instruction was that "children [who do not often revise] do not necessarily suffer from a lack of competence but rather a lack of un- derstanding of processes relevant to revision" (Cohen & Scardamalia, 1983).

Unlike some lessons that use highly directive instruc- tions, those revision lessons encouraged divergent responses. The lesson plans included several reminders to teachers that divergent responses were to be modeled, discussed, and valued as long as the revisions fit and improved the text.

Procedures

Instruction. This study was conducted over AVi months under routine classroom conditions. Classroom teachers carried out the prescribed instruction. Students in two of the groups received direct instruction in the use of the five revision tactics prior to starting the autobiographical writing lessons. That instruction occurred approximately twice a week for about 1 month. During that time, the other groups continued with their prescribed language arts program, which focused on grammar and combining sentences. Then all students participated in the six process-based writing lessons. Instruction during the writing lessons varied only at the point of revision. The four instructional situations can be summarized as follows:

Revision instruction/peer partners (RI/PP): Instruc- tion in specific revision strategies was given prior to the use of six process-based writing lessons. During the writing lessons, students met with peer partners to respond to and revise rough drafts.

Peer partner only (PP): No revision instruction was given. During the writing lessons, the students met with peer partners to respond to and revise rough drafts.

Revision instruction only (RI): Instruction in specific revision strategies was given prior to the writing lessons. During the writing lessons, students worked alone to evaluate and revise their rough drafts.

Control: Those students completed the same writing lessons, but they did not receive revision instruction nor did they work with a peer partner to revise their rough drafts. Those participants were given time but no help in revising during the writing lessons.

Because peer collaboration was integral to two of the treatment groups and because of the duration of the study, I attempted to assign treatments on the basis of how the participating teachers normally structured their classrooms. Those teachers who regularly used peer collaboration as a part of their instruction were assigned to instructional situations that incorporated peer collaboration. Treatments not requiring peer collaboration were assigned to teachers who tended to use whole group discussion techniques rather than peer collaboration. So that each treatment was given the best possible chance to succeed, I overruled random assignment of treatment in favor of my more pragmatic method. I hoped that by my action teacher cooperation and enthusiasm would be maintained throughout the course of the study.

Data collection. Data consisted of the rough drafts of lesson 6, collected and copied before and after the formal revising session and the final drafts of the same lesson. Those drafts were used in the analysis of revision behavior and writing quality. I kept session 6 as similar to the previous sessions as possible and returned all original work to the students after copying.




Analysis

Revision behavior. The revision category system in this study was adapted from a system used by Bridwell (1980). That system considered the syntactic levels of revision behavior affecting content of text:

• Single-word level ("Run" is changed to "race.") • Multiple-word level ("In front of my house" is de-

leted from a sentence.) • Sentence level ("I loved my horse very much" is ad-

ded to a paragraph.) • Multiple-sentence level ("Grandma and Grandpa

were waiting for us when we arrived. They had supper ready and our beds all made. Boy were we glad to see them" are rearranged from the beginning of the story to a spot near the middle.) That system also considered types of revision behavior-mechanics, spelling, additions, deletions, substitutions, and rearrangements (referred to as an "order shift" by Bridwell, 1980). All revision types (except mechanics and spelling) could occur at any of the syntactic levels.

Revision categorization was done twice for each student. First, the revised rough draft was read, and all apparent revisions were classified as to type and syntactic level. Second, the rough and final drafts of each paper were compared, word by word. All changes between rough and final drafts were classified and tallied by category. The revision behaviors for each set of rough and final drafts were counted and recorded. Following this procedure, I calculated revisions per 100 words by category for each student. The numbers of students falling within specific ranges of revisions per 100 words were de- termined. Chi-square tests were then used to analyze each type of revision behavior.

As a cross-check on rater reliability, a random sample of 10% of the papers was categorized by a second rater trained to use the category system. Of 344 total revisions, both raters noted 266 revisions, a result of 77% agreement. Of the 266 revisions noted by both raters, 242 were categorized by them in the same way for 91% agreement. Failing to note revision behaviors was a problem for both raters. Those results indicated that numbers of revisions were likely to be underestimated in the analysis of revision behavior but that the categorization system itself could be consistently applied.

Quality of writing. The scale used in this study to analyze writing quality was an adaptation of Cooper's (1977) Personal Narrative Writing Scale. Because the current study involved the writing of students younger than those for whom this scale was originally developed, minor modifications were necessary.

The Personal Narrative Writing Scale considers both rhetorical and surface structure qualities. Rhetorical quality is divided into six subcategories: audience consid- erations, voice, central figure, setting/background, over-

all organization, and theme/topic. Surface structure quality is also divided into six subcategories: wording, syntax, usage, punctuation/capitalization, spelling, and appearance. Internal consistency of this scale was evaluated using Cronbach's alpha (Mehrens & Lehmann, 1973). The results, shown in Table 1, suggest that the rhetorical quality and total quality portions of that scale are reliable as measures of writing quality.

The Personal Narrative Writing Scale was used to evaluate all three writing samples. The preinstructional sample was analyzed first, and each paper was evaluated by two raters. Interrater reliability, as measured by Pearson's r, was relatively low (r = .58). That result prompted a second training session for the raters. Their subsequent efforts produced slightly higher correlations (r = .69) when their results on the postinstructional sample were compared. A third rater evaluated those postinstructional papers that showed two or more subcategories discrepant by more than 2 points (points ranged from 1 to 4, with 4 being high). The third rating was compared with the other two ratings, and the most discrepant of the three was discarded. That process resulted in quality scores that correlated more closely than those obtained by the initial rating process (r = .85), and those scores were used in subsequent quality analyses.

Scores from the preinstructional writing samples were compared across groups using a one-way ANOVA. The results of this analysis as reported in Table 2 indicated statistically significant differences among groups prior to instruction, F = 3.35, p < .02. An objective test of language skills also showed differences among groups that approached statistical significance, F = 2.44, p < .07 (Group means: RI/PP = 38.17; PP = 35.87; RI =

Table 1.- Intentem Consistency of Quality Scale by Treatment Group

Treatment All Rhetorical Surface structure groups items items items

RI/PP .88 .95 .86 PP .91 .90 .77 RI .90 .96 .77 C .89 .93 .67

Table 2- ANOVA of Preinstructional Writing Sample Quality Scores

Source SS df MS F p

Among 4,906.09 3 1,635.36 3.35 .02* Within 39,554.90 81 488.33

Total 44,460.99 84

Note. Group means: RI/PP = 107.79; PP = 94.04; RI = 113.58; C = 109.05. ♦Judged significant atp < .05.




34.28; C = 34.04). Those results indicated the use of analysis of covariance to assess across-group differences for postinstructional samples. The scores from the preinstructional, objective test of language skills correlated most strongly with final quality scores and thus were used as the covariate, N = 89, r = .39, p < .002.

Within-group analysis involved assessing the differences in quality between rough and final drafts of each student. A dependent t test was applied to total quality scores within each group. This same test was also used tö compare the rhetorical quality scores within each group.

Results

Revision Behavior

Amount. Chi-square analysis of all content revisions (additions, deletions, substitutions, rearrangements) made on rough and final drafts indicated significant differences across groups. The majority of students who worked with peer partners revised the content 9 or fewer times per 100 words, whereas the majority of students who worked without peer partners revised content 10 or more times per 100 words (see Table 3). Students in the RI group seemed most discrepant because considerably more students than expected fell into the upper range of revisions per 100 words (see Table 3).

The results for surface structure revision (mechanics, spelling) showed only the C group to have the majority of its students in the upper range of revisions per 100 words (see Table 3). Thus, the majority of the students who worked without peer partners claimed the upper frequency range of revisions per 100 words, whereas RI students dominated in content revisions and C students led in surface structure revisions. Students in both peer-partner groups were striking for their consistent tendency to fall into the lower frequency ranges of revisions per 100 words across all types of revision behavior.

Type. All groups showed a majority of students making more content revisions than surface structure revisions, but the RI group showed this pattern most strongly (see Table 4). Across all groups, the predominant syntactic level for content revisions was word level (67% of all content revisions).

The most frequently used revision types for RI/PP, PP, and C students were mechanical revisions and substitutions. For RI students, substitutions and additions pre- dominated. Between 92 to 99% of all students, regardless of group, made substitutions, additions, and deletions in their stories. Frequency of use seemed to be affected by instructional situation, but the ability to revise using those tactics existed - with or without instruction.

Time of revising. The instructional groups also were contrasted by predominant time of revising, that is, between drafts or during final drafting (see Table 5). Once again, the RI group stood apart from the rest with only

Table 3.- Revision Behavior per 100 Words

Content Surface structure

Groups 1-9 10 or more n 1-9 10 or more n

RI/PP 16 7 23 17 6 23 PP 16 8 24 15 11 26 RI 4 20 24 19 5 24 C 7 11 18 7 11 18

Note, x2 = 17.66; df = 3; p < .05 for content, x2 = 8.72; df = 3; p < .03 for surface structure, p judged significant at p < .05.

Table 4. - Revision Behavior Compared by Frequency of Use

Groups Content Surface structure n

RI/PP 13 10 23 PP 15 9 24 RI 22 1 23 C 11 6 17

Note, x2 = 10.09, df = 3, p < .02. p judged significant at/? < .05.

Table 5.- Comparison of Time of Revising

Groups Rough draft Final draft n

RI/PP 7 14 21 PP 6 19 25 RI 20 4 24 C 8 8 16

Note, x2 = 19.62, df = 3, p < .01. /? judged significant at p < .05.

that group showing a majority of students revising more often between drafts than during final drafting. All other groups showed the majority of students making most of their revisions on the final draft.

Discussion

The first research question asked: Will type and amount of revision behavior vary significantly across four different instructional situations? From the results just reported, three points can be made in answer to that question. First, the two groups revising with peer partners (RI/PP and PP) were more similar than the two groups receiving revision instruction (RI/PP and RI). This result suggests that type and amount of revision behavior may have been influenced more by the use of peer partners than by the revision lessons used in this study.

Second, the groups revising without peer partners (RI and C) revised more often than those who had peer partners (RI/PP and PP). RI students revised content more often, whereas C students revised surface structure more often.

Third, revision instruction of the type used in this study was not needed to elicit substitution, addition, and deletion tactics. Students used those tactics regardless of




instructional situation, leading one to conclude that revision instruction used in this study did not build skills that were unique to those students receiving instruction. How- ever, the emphasis that those tactics received may have caused the RI students to revise content more frequently than the other students did.

Writing Quality

Across-group effects. Analysis of co variance indicated significant differences across groups in quality of writing scores on both rough and final drafts. For total quality scores, students in the RI/PP groups wrote rough and final drafts of significantly higher quality than all other groups (see Tables 6 and 7). Students in the PP group wrote rough and final drafts that ranked second in quality.

When rhetorical quality scores were considered separately, rough and final drafts of the RI/PP groups were again significantly superior to those of all other groups (see Table 8). Although the remaining groups showed no significant differences in rough-draft rhetorical quality, by final drafts the PP group was significantly superior to the RI group.

On the rough draft, the C group scored significantly lower than all other groups on surface structure quality, and the RI group scored significantly lower than the RI/PP group (see Table 8). But by the final draft, no significant differences were found in surface structure quality.

Within-group effects. Rough and final draft quality scores for students in each instructional group were compared using dependent t tests. The results of those t tests are summarized in Table 9.

Those results confirmed that students in all groups were able to significantly improve the surface structure quality of their stories across drafts. According to that finding, the multiple-draft process, where overt concern for surface structure issues is postponed until later in the drafting process, was comfortable for those students regardless of group.

In contrast to surface structure revising, only the PP group was able to significantly improve rhetorical quality. Analysis of revision behavior showed that those students consistently fell in the lower range of revisions per 100 words for all types of revision. Yet, their revising must have been purposeful, targeting with some success the portions of text that needed revising the most.

RI/PP students did not significantly improve rhetorical quality. At least two factors may have been operating in this study. First, the RI/PP teacher evaluated each story as heavily for mechanical accuracy as for communi- cative quality. Students, accustomed to the teacher's high expectations for accuracy, may have focused more attention on perfecting surface structure and less on improving content as they revised. Second, RI/PP students had al- ready written stories of superior quality. The content of

Table 6.- ANCOVA of Total Quality Scores

Source SS df MS F p

Rough draft

Among 10,387.62 3 3,462.54 9.62 .01 Within 29,875.58 83 359.95

Total 40,263.20 86

Final draft

Among 8,784.80 3 2,928.27 8.96 .01 Within 27,114.10 83 326.68

Total 35,898.90 86

Note. Multiple comparison of group means in rough draft: Set 1: RI/PP; Set 2: PP, RI; Set 3: RI, C. Multiple comparison of group means in final draft: Set 1: RI/PP; Set 2: PP, C; Set 3: RI, C.

Table 7. - Co variate, Dependent, and Adjusted Means and Stan- dard Deviations

Covariate Dependent Adjusted Groups M SD M SD M

Rough draft

RI/PP 34.65 5.40 112.87 18.16 114.61 PP 35.87 5.81 98.78 26.81 98.76 RI 38.17 5.31 94.63 17.08 91.26 C 34.28 6.18 82.78 18.41 85.07

Final draft

RI/PP 34.65 5.40 117.26 21.74 119.71 PP 35.87 5.81 106.83 19.09 106.79 RI 38.17 5.31 97.13 21.56 92.40 C 34.28 6.18 97.94 23.25 101.16

Table 8.- Summary of ANCOVA Results of Partial Quality Scores

Post hoc multiple comparisons Draft df F p (adjusted means)

Rhetorical quality

Rough 3, 83 8.39 .02 Set 1: RI/PP (75.75) Set 2: PP (62.68); RI (56.30); C (55.05)

Final 3, 83 12.24 .01 Set 1: RI/PP (78.85) Set 2: PP (68.32); C (62.92) Set 3: C; RI (54.76)

Surface structure quality

Rough 3, 83 7.61 .03 Set 1: RI/PP (38.87); PP (36.08) Set 2: PP; RI (34.96) Set 3: C (30.02)

Final 3, 83 1.11 .35 NSD*

Note, p judged significant at p < .05. ^Adjusted group means: RI/PP = 40.83; PP = 38.47; RI = 37.68; C = 37.76.




Table 9.- Summary of Within-Group Quality Comparisons

Group df t p

RI/PP Total 22 1.58 .06

Rhetorical 22 1.11 .14 Surface structure 22 1.77 .04*

PP Total 25 2.20 .02*

Rhetorical 25 1.81 .04* Surface structure 25 2.22 .02*

RI Total 23 .71 .25

Rhetorical 23 -.14 .44 Surface structure 23 2.29 .02*

C Total 18 2.2 .02*

Rhetorical 18 1.16 .13 Surface structure 18 4.13 .05*

♦Judged significant at/7 < .05.

their stories may not have needed as much revising, and thus significant growth did not occur.

The second and third research questions asked: "Will quality of writing vary significantly across instructional situations?" and "Will quality of writing vary significantly between rough and final drafts within each instructional situation?"

After considering the effects of instructional situation on quality of writing both within and across groups, the following conclusions seem fair. First, peer feedback did seem to have positive effects on quality of writing. The groups receiving peer feedback ranked first and second in terms of writing quality. The PP group improved rhetorical quality scores significantly between rough and final drafts; the RI/PP group did not, but their stories initially were significantly superior. Peer response tnay have helped those students anticipate audience need as well as maintain enthusiasm for the task of writing six autobiographical stories in the full-process mode. This study cannot describe how peer partners helped each other, but it does indicate that help was given and received.

Second, a situation not conducive to productive revising was isolated. The results of the RI instructional situation strongly suggest that students should not be system- atically prompted to apply revision strategies to rough drafts without the benefit of peer feedback. Without feedback, students revised, more, but the quality of writing did not improve; in fact, for the group as a whole, rhetorical quality declined between rough and final drafts. Students may have regarded revision as an end in itself rather than as a means to improve writing for an audience of peers.

Third, for the sixth-grade students in the current study, frequent revising had mixed effects. RI students tended to make more content revisions on both drafts than did students in other groups. The RI participants also had fi-

nal drafts of significantly lower quality than did members of either of the peer-partner groups. By contrast, students in the C group tended to make more surface structure revisions than did students in all other groups. But in this study, the frequent revisions were warranted by the C group's low surface-structure quality scores on the rough drafts. Frequent revisions by the C group allowed them to raise their surface structure quality scores enough to place them on par with other students. Evidently, students in sixth grade who revise alone have greater success in detecting and correcting surface structure problems than content problems. This finding substantiates Bart- lett's (1982) earlier conclusions to the same effect.

Finally, one can conclude from these results that sixth- grade students are able to significantly improve surface structure quality within a multiple-draft process both with and without the benefit of peer feedback. All groups showed significant growth in surface structure quality between drafts, although the C group students improved their papers the most. Peer response did not seem to be absolutely essential for significant improvement of text- based problems of punctuation, capitalization, spelling, usage, and handwriting in the writing of those sixth-grade students.

Summary of Conclusions

Several of the findings of the current study substan- tiate results from previous studies. 1. All groups in this study did most revising of content at

the word level (Bridwell, 1980; Crowhurst, 1982; NAEP, 1978).

2. The RI/PP, PP, and C groups made surface structure revisions and substitutions more often than any other revision type (Mullis, 1985; NAEP, 1978).

3. Those same groups revised more often while drafting than they did between drafts (Bridwell, 1980).

4. Students in the RI group were induced through training and prompting to do more revising of content than was expected (Cohen & Scardamalia, 1983; Matsu- hashi & Gordon, 1985). Results of this study also suggest that direct instruction

in specific revision strategies does not result in improved quality of writing when students revise in isolation. The group that received revision instruction but revised alone (RI) made more content revisions than other groups did but showed a decline in rhetorical quality between rough and final drafts.

Suggestions for Future Research

This study did not include observations of and inter- views with students as they revised. As such, one cannot state with certainty why students responded as they did to the various instructional situations. Additional research with this focus is warranted. A question to consider




might be: Do students focus their revision efforts on problems specified by other students, or do they use a more personal, internally guided system of evaluation to focus their revision?

REFERENCES

Applebee, A. N. (1986). Problems in process approaches: Toward a re- conceptualization of process instruction. In A. R. Petrosky & C. Bar- tholomae (Eds.), The teaching of writing: 85th Yearbook of the Na- tional Society for the Study of Education. Part II, Chicago, IL: NSSE.

Ban, M. (1983). The new orthodoxy about writing: Confusing process and pedagogy. Language Arts, 60(7). 829-840.

Bartlett, E. J. (1982). Learning to revise: Some component processes. In Martin Nystrand (Ed.). What writers know. New York: Academic Press.

Bereiter, C. (1980). Development in writing. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing. Hillsdale, NJ: Law- rence Erlbaum Associates.

Birnbaum, J. C. (1982). The reading and composing behavior of selected fourth and seventh grade students. Research in the Teaching of English, 76(3), 241-260.

Bridwell, L. (1980). Revising strategies in twelfth grade students' trans- actional writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 74(3), 197-222.

Burtis, P. J., Bereiter, C, Scardamalia, M., Stero, J. (1983). The development of planning in writing. In B. Kroll & G. Wells (Eds.), Explo- rations in the development of writing. New York: Wiley.

Calkins, L. (1980). Children's rewriting strategies. Research in the Teaching of English, 14(6).

Calkins, L. (1983). Lessons from a child. Exeter, NH: Heinemann. Carter, R. (1982). By itself, peer group revision has no power. ERIC

Document Reproduction Service No. 226 350 Cohen, E., & Scardamalia, M. (1983). The effects of instructional inter-

vention in the revision of essays by grade six children. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Montreal.

Cooper, C. R. (1977). Holistic evaluation of writing. In C Cooper & L. Odell (Eds.), Evaluating writing: Describing measuring, judging.

Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Crowhurst, M. (1979). Writing workshop: An experience in peer response to writing. Language Arts, 56, 757-762.

Crowhurst, M. (1983). Revision strategies of students at three grade levels. Education Research Institute of British Columbia. (ERIC Doc- ument Reproduction Service No. 238 009)

Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365-387.

. Graves, D. (1981). What children show us about revision. In R. Walshe (Ed.), Donald Graves in Australia. Rozelle, NSW: Australia Primary English Teachers' Association.

Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and Children at Work. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.

Graves, D. (1984). The child, the writing process, and the role of the professional. In A researcher learns to write. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.

Healy, M. K. (1983). Using student writing response groups in the classroom. In M. Myers & J. Gray (Eds.), Theory and practice in teaching of composition: Processing, distancing and modeling. (ERIC Docu- ment Reproduction Service No. 277 515)

Humes, A. (1983). Putting writing research into practice. The Elemen- tary School Journal, 84(1), 3-17.

Lewes, U. E. (1981). Peer evaluation in a writing seminar. (ERIC Docu- ment Reproduction Service 226 355)

Matsuhashi, A., & Gordon, E. (1985). Revision, addition, and the power of the unseen text. In S. Freedman (Ed.), The acquisition of written language: Response and revision. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.

Mehrens, W. A., & Lehmann, I. (1973). Measurement and evaluation in education and psychology. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Mullis, I. V. (1985, May). Writing achievement and instruction results from the 1983-1984 NAEP writing assessment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the International Reading Association, New Orleans.

National Assessment of Educational Progress. (1978). An assessment of revision skills. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 141 826)

Smagorinsky, P. (1987). Graves revisited: A look at the methods and conclusions of the New Hampshire study. Written Communication, 9(9), 331-342.

Stevens, R., Madden, N., Slavin, R., & Famish, A. M. (1987). Cooper- ative integrated reading and composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22(4), 433-454.

Weeks, J. O., & White, M. B. (1982). Peer editing vs. teacher editing: Does it make a difference? (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 224 014)

Ziv, N. (1983). Peer groups in the composition classroom: A Case study. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 229 799)



the revising processes of sixth-grade writers with and without peer feedback

Documents