Effects of procedural support on revision of text

Abstract

This study examined how the use of procedural support in the context of a peer group could improve the revision behaviours of eleven and twelve year old children. An intervention programme required students to record goals for their text prior to writing. The subsequent draft was then read by a peer reviewer who tagged the text with numbers corresponding to a set of evaluative statements. The reviewer was also asked to make a response in terms of the goals of the writer as well as raise five questions about the text. Using the evaluative numbering and the peer editor's comments, the writer then made revisions to the draft. Data was collected from first drafts and second drafts on five writing occasions as well as a post-intervention occasion some seven weeks later. The data recorded the quantity and scope of revisions and the processes implied by particular changes to text. Additional data was gathered from think aloud protocols, interviews with teachers and students, and transcriptions of peer conferences. The quality of the students' writing was also assessed and the children's attitude towards the intervention was measured by way of a Likert scale. A range of results emerged from comparing the revision behaviour of the intervention group with that of a comparison group: 1. Specific revision behaviours (replacement, addition, or deletion of material to better achieve communication goals, and editing for language and mechanics) were emphasised differently over the two drafts regardless of the intervention. 2. The main emphasis of the revision process was on surface features of text, frequently at the word level. The intervention group was able to sustain higher levels of attention to surface features across drafts. 3. Over the course of the study, the intervention shifted students to making modifications to drafts earlier in the composing time frame. 4. Direct references to the text made in the peer conferences were more likely to bring about change in a peer's draft than other types of comments. 5. Holistic judgments of the children's texts indicated that the intervention did not improve text quality although other measures indicated that the children in the intervention group were going about the process of revision differently. 6. Children enjoyed revising work with a peer and had a perception that doing so produced a better quality text. The report of the project concludes by suggesting that the use of procedural support in a cooperative learning environment would seem to have numerous advantages for the writing programme.