Perl's article is a summary of unskilled writers' case studies. The subjects were to compose outloud to externalize their thought process, and then go through open-ended interviews on their perception and memories of writing. A code was developed to copmpose different levels/variations of talking, writing, reading or a combination. These intricate, scary looking codes that look like nonsense actually record things such as the amount of time in prewriting, strategies, time spent per sentence, and time between sentences. This showed how students wrote, not why.
Miscue's writing process says that reading is psycholinguist. The behavior of oral reader as interaction between language and though was examined in the Tony case. Tony's data showed consistent trends in his writing including editing, pauses and repitition. I wondered if the author should have incorporated more than one test subject because the lone Tony case may be too small a sample for a convincing argument. I'm sure other subjects of unskilled writers would be similar though. Anyway, Tony would voice complete sentences when he only wrote partial sentences. He didn't see what was missing from the text.
All of the students showed prewriting, writing and edition in sequential pattern that were recognizable. The end of the article gave advice for teachers.
The Sommers article looked at revising for skilled students and experienced writers. The current wrting models are moving away from revision and we see a linear trend with the students. The linear model is first inner speech, then meaning of words and finally put in words, leaving out revision. This differs from the Murray model of writing as a process: prewriting, writing, REVISION. The revision is a separate stage in the linear model. The case of 20 freshman showed revisions mainly in deletion, subtraction, addition and reordering. The freshman didn't use the word "revision" because that's what teachers said. They opted for "do over, reviewing, redoing, markkng out, slashing." A problem and limitation on these students was in writing the introduction and thesis first, it restricts development and possible change in the paper.
Experienced writers found form and shape of an argument in revising which is a constant process. Considering the potential reader also helps shape revision. Unlike the students whose revisions were mainly on sentence structure, the experienced writers made changes on all levels and is non-linear. The experienced writers is more of a seed than a line, first considering what to say, then structuring the argument beneath the surface.
The experienced writers way of revising is more mature because it takes more time. I think student writers focus on sentence structure rather than writing two drafts because new drafting and limitless revisions is time consuming and thought provoking. In the non-linear model you may start with one thesis and end up with a completely changed focus, and that's okay! It may be better, I think, because that means you have put real thought into a subject,enough to change your mind and therefore write a more convincing paper. I wonder if Murray's thoughts on revision would be mostly linear, like the students, or "seed-like"?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I enjoyed the way you summarzied these studies. Like a fine toothed comb, you seem to be effectively pulling out the knots of the misunderstood- clearing the focus as you go. You've made good observations. They are yelling at me now so I have to go.
Post a Comment