A study of a multiple component feedback approach to substantive revision for secondary ELL and multilingual writers
- 685 Downloads
This mixed method investigation included a quasi-experiment examining if revision instruction enhanced the substantive revising behavior of 15 English language learner (ELL) and multilingual 10th grade students enrolled in an English class for underperforming students in comparison to 14 non-ELL and multilingual students from the same class who did not receive such instruction. The study also involved a qualitative analyses of the revisions made by students from both groups to more fully describe the type and frequency of substantive revisions made. In terms of the quasi-experiment, students in the treatment group made more Developing Argument revisions than the control group. The qualitative analysis revealed the specific moves students made in their revision work to develop argument including: utilizing text, personal opinion, interpreting text, extending argument, and asking a question. Theoretical and educational implications of the findings are discussed.
KeywordsRevision Writing Secondary
- Applebee, A. N., & Langer, J. A. (2011). A snapshot of writing instruction in middle schools and high schools. English Journal, 100(6), 14–27.Google Scholar
- Applebee, A. N., Langer, J., & Mullis, I. (1986). The writing report card: Writing achievement in American schools. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
- Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writers reading and learning with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.Google Scholar
- Ball, A. F. (2006). Teaching writing in culturally diverse classrooms. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), The handbook of writing research (pp. 293–310). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Barnard, I. (2002). Whole class workshops: The transformation of students into writers. Issues in Writing, 12(2), 124–143.Google Scholar
- Bazerman, C. (1997). The life of genre, the life in the classroom. In H. Ostrom (Ed.), Genres and writing: Issues, arguments and alternatives (pp. 19–26). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
- 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 Press.Google Scholar
- Bourdieu, P. (1984). Distinction: A social critique of the judgment of taste (R. Nice, Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press (original work published 1979).Google Scholar
- Bridwell, L. S. (1980). Revising strategies in twelfth grade students’ transactional writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 197–222.Google Scholar
- Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
- Cho, K., Schunn, C. D., & Kwon, K. (2011). Learning writing by reviewing in science. In Proceedings of the 8th international conference on computer supported collaborative learning, pp. 141–143.Google Scholar
- Common Core State Standards: National Governors Association and Council of Chief School Officers. (2010). Downloaded from: http://www.corestandards.org/ELA-Literacy.
- Compton-Lilly, C. (2009). The development of habitus over time. WCER Working Paper No. 2009-7. Madison: University of Wisconsin–Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research. Retrieved May 3, 2013, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingPapers/papers.php.
- Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Fletcher, R. (2011). Mentor author, mentor texts. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
- Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Graham, S., & Harris, K. H. (2005). Writing better: Effective strategies for teaching students with learning disabilities. Baltimore, MA: Brooks.Google Scholar
- Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007a). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools—A report to the Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellence in Education.Google Scholar
- Green, J. L., Camilli, G., Elmore, P. B., & Grace, E. (Eds.). (2006). Handbook of complementary methods in education research. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
- Harklau, L., & Pinnow, R. (2009). Adolescent second-language writing. In L. Christenbury, R. Bomer, & P. Smagorinsky (Eds.), Handbook of adolescent literacy research (pp. 126–139). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Boyton Cook.Google Scholar
- National Center for Education Statistics. (2011–2012). CCD public school data 2010–2011, 2011–2012 school years. Retrieved June 4, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/.
- Orwell, G. (2003). Shooting an elephant. Penguin, UK.Google Scholar
- Prior, P. (2006). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), The handbook of writing research (pp. 54–66). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
- Rogers, L. A., & Graham, S. (2008). A meta-analysis of single subject design writing intervention research. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4), 879.Google Scholar
- Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Written composition. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 778–803). New York: Macmillan.Google Scholar
- The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2007. (2007). Retrieved July 1, 2013 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2007/2008468.pdf.
- Torff, B. (2011). Teacher beliefs shape learning for all students. Kappan, 93(3), 21–23.Google Scholar