There Needs to be a Revision in How
Revision is Taught to Students
According
to researchers Debra Myhill and Susan Jones, “Theoretical conceptualizations of
the revision process recognize that revision is a complex process that occurs
at every stage of the writing process and that it is not merely a posttextual
production activity.” The importance of a student revising his or her own piece
of writing is commonly taught in high school English classes. However, is this
vital lesson actually getting through to the students? Is there a further need
to change the education of revision to students so that they will be able to
revise more effectively? I have reviewed the findings by Myhill and Jones in
their article titled “More Than Just Error Correction: Students’ Perspectives
on Their Revision Processes During Writing,” which is about students’
viewpoints of their own revision techniques. Where previous studies have simply
explored the processes of student revision, due to the information I have
gathered, I will emphasize the need for an alteration in the way revision is
taught to students. Myhill and Jones interviewed multiple secondary school
students from England, while I interviewed one college student from the United
States. Moreover, in my study, my primary mode of investigating will be through
discourse analysis, where unlike most of the writing studies articles, I will
take cultural influences and the values my subject possesses which affect her
answers. Lastly, while I support their thoughts on a change in writing
education, I want to use my data to show how their hypothesis is
supported.
Literature Review
Debra
Myhill and Susan Jones wrote their article titled “More Than Just Error
Correction: Students’ Perspectives on Their Revision Processes During Writing.”
Composed after a two-year study on “students’ linguistic and compositional
process,” the article examines 34 students about their revision process through
interviews completed after the students wrote an assignment during an English class. What the
researchers had found was that most of the students believed revision was done
after their writing was completed and that they were not merely correcting surficial
mistakes, but were actually using several techniques to revise their writing as
a whole (Myhill, 3).
Following a brief review of previous studies, the “Method” section began with an explanation that this process was the second phase of a larger study involving a detailed linguistic analysis of writing from a sample of 360 students. The sample of 34 students observed and interviewed for this stage came from that previous group. All the 34 students came from four different secondary schools in England, had similar ethnicities, had diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, and were the ages of 14 to 16 (Myhill, 8). First, the students were observed as they wrote a classroom assignment and Myhill and Jones observed the behavior of the students, such as when they were writing and pausing. Next, the students were interviewed in the classroom and this procedure involved the students talking about their composition processes and why they did certain things as they wrote. Finally, the researchers compiled their information and coded all their material to effectively sort through it to find what was most useful to their study of revision (Myhill, 12).
In the “Findings” section, all the data was categorized into specific sections, divided by seven overall themes and eleven overall codes that all involved the way students revised. Taking into account all the material, Myhill and Jones then elaborated on the themes and codes that were mentioned by the students the most.
The last section of the article was titled “Discussion.” This was the part where the researchers provided a conclusion for their entire study. First, they explained the focus of their study, students’ perspectives of their own writing and revision process, and how they intend to expand on it in the future. Second, they describe how most writers revise their work by looking at their writing overall and they refer back to some of the studies that they cited in their literature review that adhere to what their study had shown. For instance, they referred to how Allal said writing was a “post-textual production.” Third, they showed how their data contradicted with some of the research they had cited. For example, Hayes said that students primarily revise to simply fix surficial errors, while Myhill and Jones found that majority of the students revised for a plethora of reasons. Next, the researchers expound on how the students’ comments were the primary vehicle for understanding how their minds worked as they revised. Lastly, they concluded their study by three possible effects on education that their research had.
One, that students should be taught to revise at every step in the writing process, not just after they have completed a piece of writing. Two, there needs to be more understanding of the self-thought that goes on as a student writes, not only for the teacher’s sake, but the students too. Thirdly, by fixing the errors in education and reviewing more of the metacognitive processes that go on, there could be a link to better solving students’ “dissatisfaction problems” with their own writing (Myhill, 19-21). Though this article dove deep into the opinions of revision in students, I conducted my research differently.
Following a brief review of previous studies, the “Method” section began with an explanation that this process was the second phase of a larger study involving a detailed linguistic analysis of writing from a sample of 360 students. The sample of 34 students observed and interviewed for this stage came from that previous group. All the 34 students came from four different secondary schools in England, had similar ethnicities, had diverse socioeconomic backgrounds, and were the ages of 14 to 16 (Myhill, 8). First, the students were observed as they wrote a classroom assignment and Myhill and Jones observed the behavior of the students, such as when they were writing and pausing. Next, the students were interviewed in the classroom and this procedure involved the students talking about their composition processes and why they did certain things as they wrote. Finally, the researchers compiled their information and coded all their material to effectively sort through it to find what was most useful to their study of revision (Myhill, 12).
In the “Findings” section, all the data was categorized into specific sections, divided by seven overall themes and eleven overall codes that all involved the way students revised. Taking into account all the material, Myhill and Jones then elaborated on the themes and codes that were mentioned by the students the most.
The last section of the article was titled “Discussion.” This was the part where the researchers provided a conclusion for their entire study. First, they explained the focus of their study, students’ perspectives of their own writing and revision process, and how they intend to expand on it in the future. Second, they describe how most writers revise their work by looking at their writing overall and they refer back to some of the studies that they cited in their literature review that adhere to what their study had shown. For instance, they referred to how Allal said writing was a “post-textual production.” Third, they showed how their data contradicted with some of the research they had cited. For example, Hayes said that students primarily revise to simply fix surficial errors, while Myhill and Jones found that majority of the students revised for a plethora of reasons. Next, the researchers expound on how the students’ comments were the primary vehicle for understanding how their minds worked as they revised. Lastly, they concluded their study by three possible effects on education that their research had.
One, that students should be taught to revise at every step in the writing process, not just after they have completed a piece of writing. Two, there needs to be more understanding of the self-thought that goes on as a student writes, not only for the teacher’s sake, but the students too. Thirdly, by fixing the errors in education and reviewing more of the metacognitive processes that go on, there could be a link to better solving students’ “dissatisfaction problems” with their own writing (Myhill, 19-21). Though this article dove deep into the opinions of revision in students, I conducted my research differently.
Methods
The first procedure for collecting
data for this study was a face-to-face interview with my subject, who from this
point forward shall be referred to as A. She is a twenty year old woman who is
currently studying Psychiatric Rehabilitation at a four-year university in New
Jersey. A was specifically chosen due to her second semester sophomore
education level and for her ample amount of college writing experience, as she
often writes papers for classes while pursuing her degree.
The interview was conducted in the location of A’s choosing: her favorite local Barnes and Noble store, in a back corner where she enjoys reading in hidden solitude. The questions I asked were based around revision and her experience with it through her high school years and college up to this point and in multiple classroom subjects and genres. A copy of the questions can be found in Appendix A. As we spoke, I recorded the interview on my Smartphone and the entire recorded amounted to roughly twenty-one minutes.
The next process was reviewing the audio recording and transcribing the entire interview on a Microsoft Word document. In the transcription, I referred to myself as H, and as stated previously, my subject was labelled as A. The whole document was nine pages single-spaced. From there, I read over the transcript multiple times and selected excerpts that best fit my study’s focus. Next, using discourse analysis, I analyzed the data points that I had selected. The following section contains my findings and analysis of them.
The interview was conducted in the location of A’s choosing: her favorite local Barnes and Noble store, in a back corner where she enjoys reading in hidden solitude. The questions I asked were based around revision and her experience with it through her high school years and college up to this point and in multiple classroom subjects and genres. A copy of the questions can be found in Appendix A. As we spoke, I recorded the interview on my Smartphone and the entire recorded amounted to roughly twenty-one minutes.
The next process was reviewing the audio recording and transcribing the entire interview on a Microsoft Word document. In the transcription, I referred to myself as H, and as stated previously, my subject was labelled as A. The whole document was nine pages single-spaced. From there, I read over the transcript multiple times and selected excerpts that best fit my study’s focus. Next, using discourse analysis, I analyzed the data points that I had selected. The following section contains my findings and analysis of them.
Data and Discussion
Just as revision is a practice that happens all throughout the writing process, analyzing the data I collected also ended up being a trial and error process of exploration as I dug further and further into my transcript. Ultimately, the interview yielded surprising
results. Before I talked with A, I had a completely different focus for this
study; however, after our interview, I knew my focus was clear. Due to the ways
that A described revision and the need that she felt for revision to be taught
earlier in her education, I now feel there is a need to change the way
revision is taught to students.
To begin, Excerpt 1 is about how A defined revision. Revision means different things to different people, so I felt it was vital to know how A defined the term.
To begin, Excerpt 1 is about how A defined revision. Revision means different things to different people, so I felt it was vital to know how A defined the term.
Excerpt
1: Revision Means to Fixing it Up to What it Need to Be
H – // Um, how
would you define revision in your own words?
A – Hmmm, if I
had to define revision, I would say that revision could be, um, looking at all
the mistakes of your paper, whether they be like spelling, grammatical, or
anything else and making sure that they are all corrected and like how they
need to be. Like as I made the analogy before, like it’s kinda like putting
make-up on your paper. Like you’re fixing up every little correction and just
making it the best it can be. Yep.
In her answer, A feels that revision
is finding all the mistakes and “fixing” them to how they “need to be”. She
also refers to a comparison that she had made earlier in the interview in which
A said, "I revise people’s papers and like I think it’s kind of exciting to do because
your paper in general could be really good, but like you’re kind of just adding
make-up to it to make sure that it’s perfect." In this excerpt, she likened revising her writing to putting on make-up, in which you correct
every flaw and “make it the best it can be.” What is interesting is that she
does not specify what her “fixing up” up entails. She does not elaborate on if
she looks at her audience, purpose, organization, or even lexicon. All she
mentions is that she finds the mistakes in spelling and grammar, yet her
explanation alludes to more. In addition, A does not explain the requirements
of what a piece of writing “needs to be.” She uses much vague language and
generalizations. That omission of detail can mean that A was not taught the
proper terminology for revision. This finding leads to the second topic, in
which A makes a notable inconsistency.
In Excerpts 2 and 3, I ask A about when she was first taught revision and how she was taught in high school. Through her answers to these two questions, A contradicts herself.
In Excerpts 2 and 3, I ask A about when she was first taught revision and how she was taught in high school. Through her answers to these two questions, A contradicts herself.
Excerpt
2 & 3: Self-Contradiction
Excerpt
2: First Taught Revision
H – (Laughter)
Um, so when did you first like learn about revision?
A – Honestly, this is gonna be really
embarrassing, but like in high school, I never revised any of my stuff. I kinda
just handed it in and I didn’t care. Um, my freshman year of college I learned
my revision and like taking the time to actually go print things out and relook
at it over again. Freshman year of college (Laughter) That’s sad.
Excerpt
3: Revision Taught in High School
H – Okay, um.
How did your high school English teacher tell you to revise?
A – Um, it
depends on the one that you—what I was talking about because like every single
year each one would be of a different kind of intensity. But my senior year, my
um AP like College Writing teacher, who was like English teacher technically,
she taught us to do the same thing like that I learned my freshman year of
college, but I didn’t listen. She told me to also, like print out a couple of
times, look it over, like go talk to my parents about it. Like read it out to
them and stuff, but that’s all they really went into detail.
In
Excerpt 2, A talks about how she didn't learn revision until her freshman year
of college and how she finds that to be "sad," as in a shame. She
also says how “embarrassing” it is that in high school she never revised her
work and simply handed it in because she didn't care. This plays on the
cultural story that high school students aren't serious about schoolwork. In
addition, she reveals a bit of her revision process by explaining how her
college professor taught her to "print things out and relook at it over again."
What is contradictory is in a later question.
When I ask her about learning revision in high school, A admits that she was "taught" it, but that she “didn’t listen.” However, when she eventually did learn to revise in college, she used the word "learn." The deliberate use of these two different words for something that seemingly means the same thing expresses the exact opposite--they are two different words for a reason. A may have been taught to revise by a teacher in high school; however, she did not learn it herself until college. Not only does it make a high point in my data, but it also raises questions. Was it the way A was taught revision in high school that was wrong or perhaps she was not serious about schoolwork in high school to retain the knowledge? It is possible that when she enrolled in college, she became more of a responsible student and followed everything the professors told her. Despite A taking the blame, by confessing that she did not listen, I believe the cause of her lack of proper revision education until college to be different. I feel that her high school teacher did not explain revision as clearly as her college professor did. Whether it is because of the former or latter, both causes would result the same effect.
Even if A was careless about her education in high school, lessons about revision should capture the students’ attention so that they will care about what they are learning. Yet, if the college professor explained the process in a more understandable way, then again, high school education of revision in writing has to change. Although at the time of asking these questions, I did not know this was where my interview would take my focus, A stepped in and introduced the new topic that I had not even thought of towards the end of our talking.
At the conclusion of the interview, I had asked A if there was anything about revision that we had not talked above that she felt important to mention. Although I was expecting her to say no, she declared the need to teach revision at an earlier education level.
When I ask her about learning revision in high school, A admits that she was "taught" it, but that she “didn’t listen.” However, when she eventually did learn to revise in college, she used the word "learn." The deliberate use of these two different words for something that seemingly means the same thing expresses the exact opposite--they are two different words for a reason. A may have been taught to revise by a teacher in high school; however, she did not learn it herself until college. Not only does it make a high point in my data, but it also raises questions. Was it the way A was taught revision in high school that was wrong or perhaps she was not serious about schoolwork in high school to retain the knowledge? It is possible that when she enrolled in college, she became more of a responsible student and followed everything the professors told her. Despite A taking the blame, by confessing that she did not listen, I believe the cause of her lack of proper revision education until college to be different. I feel that her high school teacher did not explain revision as clearly as her college professor did. Whether it is because of the former or latter, both causes would result the same effect.
Even if A was careless about her education in high school, lessons about revision should capture the students’ attention so that they will care about what they are learning. Yet, if the college professor explained the process in a more understandable way, then again, high school education of revision in writing has to change. Although at the time of asking these questions, I did not know this was where my interview would take my focus, A stepped in and introduced the new topic that I had not even thought of towards the end of our talking.
At the conclusion of the interview, I had asked A if there was anything about revision that we had not talked above that she felt important to mention. Although I was expecting her to say no, she declared the need to teach revision at an earlier education level.
Excerpt 4: Teach Revision Earlier!
H – Okay, sounds
good. Um, is there anything that we haven’t talked about with revision that you
feel like that you want to add? Any topic?
A – Uh, uhhh. Just about how like I think it should
probably be taught at an earlier age. Like I think in high school it should be
taken a lot more seriously so that way it isn’t just something you learn when
you’re in college. Like people would get into way better colleges if they knew
that beforehand. Like they could have written way better essays. Like unless
you were at home and your mother was like an English major, you’re not gonna
know how to do all those revision things or unless you went to like some
preparatory school in like the richest place ever. So I think it should be
taught at an earlier age.
Though it took a moment of thought to
express the words, A eventually reveals her belief that revision should be
taught at an earlier age. Next, she says
that it should be “taken more seriously” in high school. Therefore, again she
mentions that it was taught in high school, but not in a significant manner.
Then, A says that she believes that students would get accepted into “ way
better colleges” if they were taught revision earlier. This gives a small look
into the value that A has in revision. With this one change, a course of a
person’s future can change—the college he or she attends. Finally, A states
that as the education in revision is now, only those high school students with
an English major mother at home or who are in a rich prep school know the proper
revision techniques. In the last statement, two cultural stories are mentioned.
First, that English majors are good at revising. However, this is not the case.
Every person is different, as is his or her writing and revision techniques.
Paradoxically, some English majors do not revise at all, while some Biology
majors are obsessive about their revision strategies. A degree does not make a
respectable writer, the time and effort a person takes in perfecting his or her
writing does. Secondly, that rich, preparatory schools give a better education.
What is interesting about this is, in the interview, in an excerpt not
included, A mentioned that she went to a private, rigorous Catholic high
school. If her logic is correct, would not she herself know the best revision
methods before college? A contradicts herself for a second time. Despite the
possible mistakes in her answer, A dove into a topic that I had not considered.
After that, I wanted to know more of her opinion on how revision at an earlier
age could help students.
Excerpt
5: The Benefits of Revision
At this point, A
and I were openly conversing. However, she took the time to explain more
benefits of revision.
A – Especially
for SATs and stuff because they comes up like a year later! You have to be
ready for everything. Um, I don’t know about HSPAs because I didn’t go to a
public school. I don’t know if there’s any writing with that, but I’m sure that
would help. I’m sure if there’s a reading section or something else, by knowing
writing skills, you’re going to be able to pick out things and reading is a lot
easier also. It’s not only just the writing, so.
A further illustrates all students that
can be helped from a better revision education by listing benefits of revision
at an earlier age. It will help standardized tests and even the SATs, which can
be helpful when applying for college. She also believes it helps with critical
reading, not just writing. A mentions that if one knows the correct way to write,
he or she will be able to select certain elements that are asked about on
tests. This topic was an aspect that had escaped my observation of revision.
However, after letting A explain all the ways that revision can help a student
just by teaching it earlier, I feel it is clear that an entire alteration of
how revision is taught could all the more beneficial.
Conclusion
To
conclude, this study supports the suggestion for a need to change the way students are taught
revision in high school in the hopes that they will retain the skills more
effectively for future use. Where Myhill and Jones studied a trend in the revision
methods of students, this study examines the shortcomings in one student’s
revision experience. Due to this work being merely a case study of one student,
further research would need to be conducted with students from multiple
regions, age groups, and education levels to truly prove the hypothesis. If time and accessibility would have
permitted, I would have liked to have interview multiple, more diverse students, survey
students to monitor the connections in problems of revision education, and I
would have liked to include a few teachers in my study to see their
perspectives on the issue. This is simply an introduction into an issue currently plagueing writing studies. Research in the future would prove the need for specific analysis.
Work Cited
Myhill, D., and S. Jones. "More Than Just Error
Correction: Students' Perspectives on Their Revision Processes During
Writing." Written Communication 24.4 (2007): 323-43. Print.
