Show simple item record

Response and revision: Informing the writer's process.

dc.contributor.authorMcClure, Lisa Jane
dc.contributor.advisorBailey, Richard W.
dc.date.accessioned2020-09-09T03:08:30Z
dc.date.available2020-09-09T03:08:30Z
dc.date.issued1988
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/2027.42/161998
dc.description.abstractWhen we ask our students to use our comments to revise we assume that they can read and interpret texts--the texts they have written and the texts we have written. Furthermore, we assume they know how to translate our texts into acts upon their texts to effect appropriate changes. Considering the difficulty of the respective tasks, we should be amazed that students revise at all in response to our comments. In fact, previous research has suggested the fruitlessness of this venture. This dissertation poses the general question, "What do students do with what we say?" Do they use our comments? If so, how and when do they use them? When do they not revise, and why not? Do they reject our comments? Do they underst and them? Do they know how to use them? Why has research suggested that what should be a valuable teaching tool is so ineffective? By profiling the response-revision processes of four University or Michigan students, this study presents evidence that suggests our students do try to accomodate our responses. However, not only are our comments often unfocused and ill-formed, our students are ill-equipped to receive and use them. Four factors interfere with the response-revision processes of our students: (1) the discrepancies between the actual status of the text and the students' recognition of that status; (2) the discrepancies between the problems students recognize in their texts and the problems they have strategies for remedying; (3) a limited conception of revision; and , (4) poor motivation intensified by a current pedagogy which asks them to accept dual audiences and dual teacher roles. Improving our commentary alone will not improve our students' writing and revising processes. We also need to improve our students' abilities to receive those responses. This study suggests a two-fold approach: (1) we must develop a well-defined set of principles for governing our response practices; and , (2) we must increase our students' knowledge of language, texts, and the writing process.
dc.format.extent226 p.
dc.languageEnglish
dc.titleResponse and revision: Informing the writer's process.
dc.typeThesis
dc.description.thesisdegreenamePhDen_US
dc.description.thesisdegreedisciplineLanguage arts
dc.description.thesisdegreedisciplineCurriculum development
dc.description.thesisdegreegrantorUniversity of Michigan
dc.subject.hlbtoplevelEducation
dc.contributor.affiliationumcampusAnn Arbor
dc.description.bitstreamurlhttp://deepblue.lib.umich.edu/bitstream/2027.42/161998/1/8906976.pdfen_US
dc.owningcollnameDissertations and Theses (Ph.D. and Master's)


Files in this item

Show simple item record

Remediation of Harmful Language

The University of Michigan Library aims to describe library materials in a way that respects the people and communities who create, use, and are represented in our collections. Report harmful or offensive language in catalog records, finding aids, or elsewhere in our collections anonymously through our metadata feedback form. More information at Remediation of Harmful Language.

Accessibility

If you are unable to use this file in its current format, please select the Contact Us link and we can modify it to make it more accessible to you.