Reading and Writing

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 995–1014 | Cite as

A study of a multiple component feedback approach to substantive revision for secondary ELL and multilingual writers

  • Jessica Singer EarlyEmail author
  • Christina Saidy


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.


Revision Writing Secondary 


  1. 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
  2. Applebee, A. N., Langer, J., & Mullis, I. (1986). The writing report card: Writing achievement in American schools. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.Google Scholar
  3. Atwell, N. (1987). In the middle: Writers reading and learning with adolescents. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.Google Scholar
  4. 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
  5. Barnard, I. (2002). Whole class workshops: The transformation of students into writers. Issues in Writing, 12(2), 124–143.Google Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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
  8. Berg, E. C. (1999). The effects of trained peer response on ESL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 215–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. Bradley, J. (1993). Methodological issues and practices in qualitative research. Library Quarterly, 63(4), 431–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bridwell, L. S. (1980). Revising strategies in twelfth grade students’ transactional writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 14, 197–222.Google Scholar
  12. Butler, J. A., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Investigating instruction for improving revision of argument essays. Written Communication, 28(19), 70–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.Google Scholar
  14. Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 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
  16. Common Core State Standards: National Governors Association and Council of Chief School Officers. (2010). Downloaded from:
  17. 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
  18. Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 400–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  20. Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 481–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Fletcher, R. (2011). Mentor author, mentor texts. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.Google Scholar
  22. Graham, S. (2006). Writing. In P. Alexander & P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 457–478). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  23. Graham, S., & Harris, K. H. (2005). Writing better: Effective strategies for teaching students with learning disabilities. Baltimore, MA: Brooks.Google Scholar
  24. Graham, S., & MacArthur, C. (1988). Improving learning disabled students’ skills at revising essays produced on a word processor self-instructional strategy training. The Journal of Special Education, 22(2), 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007b). What we know, what we still need to know: Teaching adolescents to write. Scientific Studies in Reading, 11, 313–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Hall, C. (1990). Managing the complexity of revising across languages. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 43–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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
  30. Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kain, D. J. (2003). Teacher-centered versus student-centered: Balancing constraint and theory in the composition classroom. Pedagogy, 3(1), 104–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Boyton Cook.Google Scholar
  33. Min, H.-T. (2006). The effects of trained peer review on EFL students’ revision types and writing quality. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(2), 118–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. National Center for Education Statistics. (2011–2012). CCD public school data 20102011, 20112012 school years. Retrieved June 4, 2013, from
  35. Orwell, G. (2003). Shooting an elephant. Penguin, UK.Google Scholar
  36. Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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
  38. 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
  39. 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
  40. Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31(4), 378–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2007. (2007). Retrieved July 1, 2013 from
  42. Torff, B. (2011). Teacher beliefs shape learning for all students. Kappan, 93(3), 21–23.Google Scholar
  43. Yosso, T. J. (2005). Whose culture has capital? A critical race theory discussion of community cultural wealth. Race Ethnicity and Education, 8(1), 69–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EnglishArizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations