Reading and Writing

, Volume 21, Issue 1–2, pp 131–151 | Cite as

The effects of content and audience awareness goals for revision on the persuasive essays of fifth- and eighth-grade students

  • Ekaterina Midgette
  • Priti Haria
  • Charles MacArthur
Article

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to investigate the effects of revising goals focused on content and audience awareness on the persuasive writing of fifth- and eighth-grade students. Students were randomly assigned to three different goal conditions: a general goal; a goal to improve content; and a goal to improve content and communication with an audience. Final drafts of essays were scored for elements of persuasive discourse relevant to content and audience and for overall persuasiveness. Students in the audience goal group were more likely than both other groups to consider opposing positions and rebut them. Students in both the content and audience goal groups wrote essays that were more persuasive than essays by students in the general goal group. The results also indicate that eighth-grade students wrote more persuasively than fifth-grade students and that girls wrote more persuasively than boys.

Keywords

Argument Audience Goals Revision Writing 

References

  1. Applebee, A. N., Langer, J. A., Mullis, I. V. S., & Foertsch, M. A. (1990). Learning to write in our nation’s schools: Instruction and achievement in 1988 at grades 4, 8, and 12. Princeton, NJ: Education Testing Service.Google Scholar
  2. Beach, R., & Friedrich, T. (2006). Response to writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 222–234). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  3. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  4. Black, K. (1989). Audience analysis and persuasive writing at the college level. Research in the Teaching of English, 23, 231–249.Google Scholar
  5. Boscolo, P., & Ascorti, K. (2004). Effects of collaborative revision on children’s ability to write understandable narrative texts. In L. Allal, L. Chanqouy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 157–170). Boston, MA: Kluwer.Google Scholar
  6. Brassart, D. G. (1992). Negotiation, concession, and refutation in counterargumentative composition by pupils from 8 to 12 years old and adult. Argumentation, 6, 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butterfield, E. C., Hacker, D. J., & Albertson, R. L. (1996). Environmental, cognitive, and metacognitive influences on text revision: Assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 3, 239–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  9. Coirier, P., Andriessen, J., & Chanquoy, L. (1999). From planning to translating: The specificity of argumentative writing. In J. Andriessen, & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundation of argumentative text processing (pp. 1–28). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  10. DiPardo, A., & Freedman, S. W. (1988). Peer response groups in the writing classroom: Theoretic foundations and new directions. Review of Educational Research, 58, 119–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ferretti, R. P., MacArthur, C. A., & Dowdy, N. S. (2000). The effects of an elaborated goal on the persuasive writing of students with learning disabilities and their normally achieving peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 694–702.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57, 481–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fitzgerald, J., & Stamm, C. (1990). Effects of group conferences on first graders’ revision in writing. Written Communication, 7, 96–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Flower, L. S., & Hayes, J.R. (1980). The dynamics of composing: Making plans and juggling constraints. In L. W. Gregg, & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive processes in writing (pp. 31–49). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  15. Golder, C., & Coirier, P. (1994). Argumentative text writing: Developmental trends. Discourse Processes, 18, 187–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Graham, S., MacArthur, C. A., & Schwartz, S. (1995). Effects of goal setting and procedural facilitation on the revising behavior and writing performance of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 230–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Graves, D. (1983). Writing: Teachers and children at work. Exeter, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  18. Greenwald, E., Persky, H., Campbell, J., & Mazzeo, J. (1999). National assessment of educational progress: 1998 report card for the nation and the states. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  19. Hayes, J. R. (2004). What triggers revision? In L. Allal, & L. Chanquoy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 9–20). Norwell, NJ: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  20. Hayes, J. R., Flower, L. S., Schriver, K. A., Stratman, J., & Carey, L. (1987). Cognitive processes in revision. In S. Rosenberg (Ed.), Advances in psycholinguistics: Vol.2. Reading, writing, and language processing (pp. 176–240). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Holliway, R. D., & McCutchen, D. (2004). Audience perspective in young writers’ composing, revising. In L. Allal, L. Chanquoy, & P. Largy (Eds.), Revision: Cognitive and instructional processes (pp. 157–170). Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.Google Scholar
  22. Inch, E. S., & Warnick, B. (2002). Critical thinking and communication: The use of reason in argument (4th ed.) Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  23. Kanaris, A. (1999). Gendered journeys: Children’s writing and the construction of gender. Language and Education, 13, 254–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. MacArthur, C. A. (2007). Best practices in teaching evaluation and revision. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 141–162). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  25. MacArthur, C. A., Schwartz, S. S., & Graham, S. (1991). Effects of a reciprocal revision strategy in special education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research, 6, 201–210.Google Scholar
  26. Maki, H. S., Voeten, M. J. M., Vauras, M. S. M., & Poskiparta, E. H. (2001). Predicting writing skill development with word recognition and preschool readiness skills. Reading and Writing: An interdisciplinary Journal, 14, 643–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Matsuhashi, A., & E. Gordon (1985). Revision, addition, and the power of unseen text. In S. Freedman (Ed.), The acquisition of written language: Response and revision. (pp. 236–249). Norwood, NJ, Ablex.Google Scholar
  28. McCutchen, D., Francis, M., & Kerr, S. (1997). Revising for meaning: Effects of knowledge and strategy. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 667–676.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Nussbaum, E. M., & Kardash, C. M. (2005). The effects of goal instructions and text on the generation of counterarguments during writing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 157–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Persky, H., Daane, M., & Jin, Y. (2003). The nation’s report card: Writing. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  31. Piolat, A., Roussey, J., & Gombert, A. (1999). The development of argumentative schema in writing. In J. Andriessen, & P. Coirier (Eds.), Foundation of argumentative text processing (pp. 117–136). Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Pritchard, R. J., & Honeycutt, R. L. (2007). Best practices in implementing a process approach to writing. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 28–49). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  33. Rieke, R. D., & Sillars, M. O. (2001). Argumentation and critical decision making (5th ed.). New York: Longman.Google Scholar
  34. Roen, D. H., & Willey, R. J. (1988). The effects of audience awareness on drafting and revising. Research in the Teaching of English, 22, 75–85.Google Scholar
  35. Roussey, J. Y., & Gombert, A. (1996). Improving argumentative writing skills: Effect of two types of aids. Argumentation, 10, 283–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Stoddard, B., & MacArthur, C. A. (1993). A peer editor strategy: Guiding learning-disabled students in response and revision. Research in Teaching of English, 27, 76–103.Google Scholar
  37. Willingham, W. W., Cole, N. S., Lewis, C., & Leung, S. W. (1997). Test performance. In W. W. Willingham, & N. S. Cole (Eds.). Gender and fair assessment (pp. 55–126). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  38. Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., Kuperis, S., Corden, M., & Zelmer, J. (1994). Teaching problem learners revision skills and sensitivity to audience through two instructional modes: Student-teacher versus student-student interactive dialogues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 78–90.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, Inc. 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ekaterina Midgette
    • 1
  • Priti Haria
    • 1
  • Charles MacArthur
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EducationUniversity of DelawareNewarkUSA

Personalised recommendations