• Facebook Profile
  • Twitter Profile
  • RSS Feed

Eli on Twitter

  • Thanks to all the #cwcon folks who came to our panel! Keep an eye out for more on our Writing Research API in the near future.
  • RT @ahhitt: ELI Qs: What are characteristics of highly-rated feedback? What genres do people use? What revision strategies lead to impro ...
  • RT @anetv: In Eli, the real progress in student writing can be shown thru reviewing, not just their own writing. #cwcon
  • RT @MikeRTrice: API key to expanding Eli. Second cool software application from MSU this year pushing API involvement from the field. #cwcon
  • RT @anetv: Eli developers want to release an API for the software so that we can massage our own data from classes. Very exciting! #cwcon
  • Remember - come see @billhd and @mcleodm3 talk about me as a research tool in Session F, Caldwell G111, from 10-11:15! #cwcon
  • Attending #cwcon ? Come see @billhd and @mcleodm3 talk about Eli in Session F, Caldwell G111, tomorrow at 10am! http://t.co/i5Yqrjwl

Post Categories

Study: Majority of Students Focus on Lower-Order Concerns When Reviewing

posted on October 31st, 2011 by Jeff Grabill

Dave, Anish, and David R. Russell. “Drafting and Revision Using Word Processing by Undergraduate Student Writers: Changing Conceptions and Practices.” Research in the Teaching of English (May 2010). (pdf)

In Dave and Russell’s study, “an aggregate of 64.3% of students reported that their revision generally consisted of revising specific words or sentences and proofreading” (p. 417). This finding is consistent with other research on revision with computers and suggests, say Dave and Russell, that writing with computers doesn’t by itself facilitate more global and effective revision.

With respect to the tools for writing available to teachers and students in instructional situations, Dave and Russell argue that both writing pedagogy and the tools for supporting pedagogy are behind what social software and related technologies now make possible. One implication of this insight is that “perhaps the way to get students to do more global revision is to teach them to do it,” an insight reinforced by a study by Reynolds and Bonk (1996), who found that students “did more global revision after receiving metacognitive prompts on planning and revising” (Dave & Russell, 2010, p. 428).