Revision Cognitive and Instructional Processes

231 Pages·2004·3.687 MB·English

by  Linda Allal, Lucile Chanquoy (auth.), Linda Allal, Lucile Chanquoy, Pierre Largy (eds.)

Revision
Cognitive and Instructional Processes
STUDIES INWRITING
VOLUME 13
Series Editor:
GertRijlaarsdam,University ofAmsterdam, TheNetherlands
EditorialBoard:
LindaAllal,UniversityofGeneva,Switzerland
EricEsperet, University ofPoitiers, France
DavidGalbraith,Staffordshire University, UK
JoachimGrabowski, University ofHeidelberg, Germany
Ronald Kellogg,St.Louis University, USA
LuciaMason, University ofPadova, Italy
MartaMilian, Universitat AutonomaBarcelona, Spain
SarahRansdell,Florida Atlantic University, USA
LilianaTolchinsky, University ofBarcelona,Spain
MarkTorrance, Staffordshire University, UK
AnniePiolat, University ofAix-en-Provence, France
Paivi Tynjala,University ofJyvdskyla, Finland
CarelvanWijk, Tilburg University, TheNetherlands
Kluwer Academic Publishers continues to publish the international book series
Studies in Writing, founded by Amsterdam University Press. The intended readers
are all those interested in the foundations of writing and learning and teaching
processes inwrittencomposition. The seriesaimsat multipleperspectives ofwriting,
education and texts. Therefore authors and readers come from various fields of
research, from curriculum development andfrom teacher training.Fields of research
covered are cognitive, socio-cognitive and developmental psychology,
psycholinguistics, text linguistics, curriculum development, instructional science.
The series aim to cover theoretical issues, supported by empirical research,
quantitative as well as qualitative, representing a wide range of nationalities. The
series provides a forum for research from established researchers and welcomes
contributionsfromyoungresearchers.
Thetitlespublishedinthisseriesarelistedattheendofthisvolume.
Revision
Cognitive and Instructional Processes
edited by
Linda Allal
University 0/ Geneva, Switzerland
Lucile Chanquoy
University 0/ Nantes, France
Pierre Largy
University 0/ Toulouse Le Mirail, France
SPRINGER SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, LLC
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Title: Revision: Cognitive and Instructional Processes
Editors: Linda Allal, Lucile Chanquoy, Pierre Largy
ISBN 978-94-010-3776-1 ISBN 978-94-007-1048-1 (eBook)
DOI 10.1007/978-94-007-1048-1
A c.I.P. Catalogue record for this book is available
from the Library of Congress.
Copyright © 2004 Springer Science+Business Media New York
Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publisher in 2004
Softcover reprint of the hardcover 1s t edition 2004
All rights reserved. No part of this work may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or
transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying,
microfilming, recording, or otherwise, without the written permission from the Publisher,
with the exception of any material supplied specifically for the purpose ofbeing entered and
executed on a computer system, for exclusive use by the purchaser of the work.
Printed on acid-free paper.
TABLE OFCONTENTS
INTRODUCTION:REVISIONREVISITED
LindaAllal & Lucile Chanquoy
WHATTRIGGERS REVISION? 9
John R.Hayes
PROCESSINGTIMEANDCOGNITIVEEFFORTINREVISION: 21
EFFECTSOFERRORTYPEANDOFWORKINGMEMORYCA-
PACITY
AnniePiolat, Jean-YvesRoussey, Thierry Olive, & Murielle Amada
ORTHOGRAPHICREVISION:THECASEOFSUBJECT-VERB 39
AGREEMENTINFRENCH
Pierre Largy, Lucile Chanquoy,&AlexandraDedeyan
REVISIONINTHECONTEXTOFDIFFERENTDRAFTING 63
STRATEGIES
DavidGalbraith &Mark Torrance
AUDIENCEPERSPECTIVEINYOUNGWRITERS' COMPOSING 87
ANDREVISING. READINGASTHEREADER
DavidR. Holliway & DeborahMcCutchen
REVISIONOFFORMANDMEANINGINLEARNINGTOWRITE 103
COMPREHENSIBLETEXT
AmosVanGelderen & Ron Oostdam
INSIGHTSFROMINSTRUCTIONAL RESEARCHONREVISION 125
WITHSTRUGGLING WRITERS
Charles A.MacArthur, Steve Graham, &Karen R.Harris
INTEGRATED WRITINGINSTRUCTIONAND 139
THEDEVELOPMENT OFREVISIONSKILLS
Linda Allal
EFFECTSOFCOLLABORATIVE REVISIONONCHILDREN'S 157
ABILITYTO WRITEUNDERSTANDABLE NARRATIVETEXTS
PietroBoscolo & KatiaAscorti
COLLABORATIVEREVISION ANDMETACOGNITIVEREFLEC- 171
TION INASITUATION OF NARRATIVETEXT PRODUCTION
YvianeRouiller
THESTUDY OFREVISION ASAWRITING PROCESS AND ASA 189
LEARNING-TO-WRITE PROCESS.TWO PROSPECTIVERE-
SEARCHAGENDAS
GertRijlaarsdam, Michel Couzijn, & Huub Van denBergh
REFERENCES 209
AUTHORINDEX 225
SUBJECT INDEX 231
LISTOFCONTRIBUTORS 235
INTRODUCTION
Revision Revisited
LINDA ALLAL* & LUCILE CHANQUOY**
*University ofGeneva, SWitzerland, **UniversityofNantes, France
Revision is a fundamental component of the writing process. So fundamental that
for some specialists writing is largely a matter of revising, or as Murray (1978)
stated, "Writing isrewriting..." (p. 85).Experience with writing does not, however,
automatically translate into increased skill in revision. Learning to revise is a
lengthy, complex endeavor. Beginning writers do little revision spontaneously and
even experienced writersencounter difficulties in attempting to improve the quality
oftheirtexts(Fitzgerald, 1987).
Althoughrevisionhasbeenextensively dealtwith in thewriting andlearning-to
write literature, this book proposes to "revisit" theory and research in this area
through a series of new contributions. The introduction begins with an overview of
what revision encompasses. It thenexamines two parallel interrogations that under
lie the chapters assembled here, namely: (1) What are the implications of research
on cognitive processesfor instruction in revision? (2) What are the questions raised
by instructional research for the investigation of cognitive processes of revision? A
finalsectionpresentsthechaptersofthisbook.
1. ANOVERVIEWOFREVISION
OurstartingpointwillbeFitzgerald's (1987)definition ofthe activityofrevision:
Revisionmeansmakinganychangeatanypointinthewriting process.It involves iden
tifyingdiscrepancies between intendedtextandinstantiatedtext,deciding whatcouldor
should bechanged inthetext,howtomakedesired changes andoperating, thatis,mak
ingthedesired changes. Changes mayormay not affectmeaning oftext and they may
bemajororminor.(p.484)
2 L. ALLAL &L.CHANQUOY
A substantial number of researchers have proposed additional conceptual distinc
tions which enlargeor refine thisdefinition (see Alamargot&Chanquoy,2001, for a
detailed presentationof major models andassociatedresearch).
Since the introductionofthe wel1-known,hierarchical models ofwriting, starting
with Hayes andFlower (1980), it isgeneral1yaccepted that revision can intervene at
any point in the writing process. The temporal relations between revision and the
other sub-processes of writing - planning and translating or transcribing - can be
characterized in three broad categories (Witte, 1985):(1) pretextual revision, which
affects intentions, plans or mental formulations of text before transcription has oc
curred; (2) on-line revision, which is integrated in the process of transcription and
entails changes made while reviewing a word or group of words that has just been
written;(3)deferredrevision,which takes place once arelativelycompletedraft- of
atext or asizeablepartof atext (e.g.,achapter) - hasbeen written.
Revision has been conceptualized primarily as a problem solving process acti
vated by the identification of "discrepancies between intended text and instantiated
text," as stated by Fitzgerald.This perspective is a central feature ofthe models de
veloped by Hayes and his co-workers (Hayes & Flower, 1980; Hayes, Flower,
Schriver, Stratman & Carey, 1987; Hayes, 1996), as wel1 as of those proposed by
other researchers, such as the CDO (compare- diagnose - operate) model ofBere
iter and Scardamalia (1987),or the procedural model ofButterfield,Hackerand Al
bertson (1996).The pervasiveness of this perspective is evidenced by the fact that
expressions like "problem detection," "problem diagnosis," "problem resolution,"
have often been treated as synonymous with revision. Some researchers have sug
gested, however, that revision may be initiated by discoveries made while writing,
without any prior diagnosis of a problem present in the current instantiated text
(Galbraith, 1992).The wayan idea has been formulated may suggest a new orienta
tion to be given to the text, and thus operate as a bottom-up form ofproactiveregu
lation of what is next written. The orientation taken by emerging text can also lead,
retroactively, tomodificationsofalready written text.
Revision includes a number ofsub-processes that have been defined in various
ways bydifferentauthors (see reviews by Alamargot&Chanquoy,2001; Fitzgerald,
1987). Several main sub-processes are nevertheless present in al1 models, under
varying designations.Revisionentails, first ofal1, anactivity ofreviewing, that is,of
reading or (re)processing existing text or existing mental formulations oftext. Re
viewing general1ytakes place with the aim ofevaluating the adequacyof"textthus
far" with respect to the writer's intentions or in relation to some other reference
(e.g., conventions used in proof-reading for ajournal). Hayes and Flower's (1980)
initial conceptionofreviewing was later expanded to include several different types
ofreading (reading to comprehend, to evaluate, todefine problems:see Hayes et aI.,
1987), and was subsequently reformulated in broader terms as a "text processing"
(Hayes, 1996).
The reviewingprocess leads todecisions regardingactions to betaken.Itmaybe
decided that no action is warranted:A draft is reviewed, reflections are made about
possible changes, but none are final1ycarried out. If, however, a modification is
considered necessary or desirable, several strategies may be used, depending on the
writer's goal. Revision strategies can be classified in two major categories: editing,
REVISIONREVISITED 3
which entails error correction and modifications designed to improve the adequacy
of text without changing its general meaning;and rewriting, which entails transfor
mations of text content (addition or deletion of segments),changes intextorganiza
tion (sequencing of segments), and modifications of the meaning conveyed by a
segment. These two strategies can be combined in a revision process that corrects
errors whileatthesametimetransforming content. The execution ofthese strategies
involves the coordination of the writer's goals with a wide range of knowledge
components (knowledge of content, of text grammar, of syntax, of spelling, etc).
Depending on the writer's degree of expertise, some components intervening in re
vision are activated automatically whereas others require deliberate reflection. The
progressive atomization of basic skills allows the writer to exercise intentional, re
flective control over increasingly complex components.For example, the automati
zation of skill in spelling allows greater investment of the writer's cognitive re
sources in revisions linked to text organization and elaboration of content (Allal,
Betrix Kohler, Rieben, Rouiller Barbey, Saada-Robert, & Wegmuller, 2001;
McCutchen, Covill,Hoyne, & Mildes, 1994).
Although the distinction between internal revision (what the author formulates
mentally) andexternal revision (what is markedon atext) hasexisted forsome time
(Murray, 1978), many researchers have tended to restrict the term revision to the
observed marks written on a text (e.g., Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986). This usage
has been reinforced by the development of various taxonomies of revision focused
on different characteristics of observed changes in text. Most taxonomies (e.g., AI
lal, 2000; Chanquoy, 1997; Faigley & Witte, 1981; Hayes et aI., 1987; Sommers,
1980) propose multidimensional classifications taking into account the meaning
preserving or meaning-transforming nature of a modification, the level oflanguage
affected by the change, the operations used to carry out a revision (addition, dele
tion, substitution, reordering), the effect of the revision (positive,neutral, negative).
Inorder todifferentiate more clearly the overall process of revision from the result
ing products, Allal (2000) suggests using the term "transformation" for the changes
actually carried out. This allows the term revision to keep an inclusive meaning re
ferring to theprocesses which lead or, insomecases, do not lead totransformations
ofexisting text.
Recent research has provided more in-depth specification of the cognitive proc
esses involved in revision, including the role of working memory (McCutchen,
1996; Olive Kellogg & Piolat, 2001), the interaction between cognitive and meta
cognitive factors (Butterfield et aI., 1996;Plumb, Butterfield, Hacker & Dunlosky,
1994), the progressive structuring of linguistic knowledge needed for writing and
revision (Chanquoy & Negro, 1996; Totereau, Barouillet, & Fayol, 1998). Several
chapters inthisbookpursuethese linesofinvestigation.
2. COGNITIVE ANDINSTRUCTIONALPROCESSES INREVISION
This book approaches the relations between the cognitive processes intervening in
revision and the instructional processes brought into play in situations where stu
dents are learning to writeand torevise.This intersection is stilllargely unexplored,
4 L. ALLAL&L. CHANQUOY
but several examples can be given to illustrate the potential fruitfulness of these
complementaryand interactingdirectionsofinquiry.
2.I Implications ofResearch on Cognitive Processesfor Instruction in Writingand
Revision
The development of programs to teach writing and revision, as well as current re
search inthis area, almost always refer tostudies of thecognitiveprocesses involved
in revision. The models developed by Hayes and co-workers and by Bereiter and
Scardamalia are well-known and the research on cognitive processes has had a sub
stantial impact on instructional researchand development. Two significantexamples
of this impact will be mentioned. First and foremost, research has fostered recogni
tion that writing is a complex activity involving several sub-processes that require
specific forms of instructional support. This has led to the development of instruc
tional sequences that provide time for student investment in the different sub
processes (planning, translating, revision) and material (guidelines, examples,
checklists, reminders) designed to facilitate each aspect of writing. In addition, di
rect instruction in cognitive strategies has been incorporated in many instructional
approaches, such as the Self-regulated strategydevelopmentapproach of Harris and
Graham (1996) and the Cognitive strategy instruction in writing, proposed by
Englert(1992).
Asecond exampleofthe influenceofcognitiveprocessresearch on instructional
research concerns the role of individual differences in writing. The importance of
these differences (Berninger, Abbott, Whitaker, Sylvester& Nolen, 1995; Galbraith,
1996; McCutchen et ai, 1994) means that any effective instructional approach needs
to include ways ofidentifying the relevant types ofstudent variation and, more im
portantly, the means ofdealing with this variation.Student differences can be taken
into accountinan instructionalprogrambytwo types of measures:
• compensatory measures, such as providing some students with forms of proce
dural facilitation (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987) that are not needed by other
students;
• proactive, adaptive measures which allow students to make choices among sev
eral procedures for carrying out a writing task (e.g., letting students decide if
they want to revise on-line or in a deferred manner; if they want to plan and
then write, oruse amultipledraftingstrategy,Cf. Galbraith, 1996).
2.2 Implications of Research on Instructional Processes for the Investigation of
CognitiveProcesses inWritingandRevision
Most research on cognitive processes in revision has been conducted with little at
tention paid to the findings of instructional research. This is undoubtedlydue to the
out-dated, but still widespread tendency to considerinstructional research as an "ap
plication" of research on cognitiveprocesses. We believe that instructional research
can in fact provide ideas and raise questions that may provide new directions for
cognitiveprocess research. To illustratethis assertion we willdiscuss two examples.