Skip to main content

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

Abstract

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

References

  • 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 

  • 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.

    Article  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).

  • Bradley, J. (1993). Methodological issues and practices in qualitative research. Library Quarterly, 63(4), 431–449.

    Article  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 

  • Butler, J. A., & Britt, M. A. (2011). Investigating instruction for improving revision of argument essays. Written Communication, 28(19), 70–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. (1963). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for research. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cho, Y. H., & Cho, K. (2011). Peer reviewers learn from giving comments. Instructional Science, 39(5), 629–643.

    Article  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.

  • 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.

  • Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32(4), 400–414.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferris, D. (2003). Response to student writing: Implications for second language students. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57(4), 481–506.

    Article  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., & 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.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  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 

  • Hall, C. (1990). Managing the complexity of revising across languages. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 43–60.

    Article  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 

  • Hsieh, H., & Shannon, S. E. (2005). Three approaches to qualitative content analysis. Qualitative Health Research, 15(9), 1277–1288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kain, D. J. (2003). Teacher-centered versus student-centered: Balancing constraint and theory in the composition classroom. Pedagogy, 3(1), 104–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leki, I. (1992). Understanding ESL writers: A guide for teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Boyton Cook.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics. (2011–2012). CCD public school data 20102011, 20112012 school years. Retrieved June 4, 2013, from http://nces.ed.gov/ccd/schoolsearch/.

  • Orwell, G. (2003). Shooting an elephant. Penguin, UK.

  • Paulus, T. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 8, 265–289.

    Article  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 

  • Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31(4), 378–388.

    Article  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 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jessica Singer Early.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Early, J.S., Saidy, C. A study of a multiple component feedback approach to substantive revision for secondary ELL and multilingual writers. Read Writ 27, 995–1014 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9483-y

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11145-013-9483-y

Keywords