Revision Strategies Of Student Writers And Experienced Adult Writers Pdf

  • and pdf
  • Tuesday, May 11, 2021 8:26:54 PM
  • 1 comment
revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers pdf

File Name: revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers .zip
Size: 15939Kb
Published: 11.05.2021

Include Synonyms Include Dead terms. Download full text. To describe and analyze the revision processes of a group of college freshmen and a group of experienced adult writers, eight freshman students and seven experienced adult writers were asked to write three compositions, rewrite each composition two times, suggest revisions for a composition written by an anonymous author, and be interviewed three times. The students wrote their compositions in a class as a regular class activity while the adults wrote their compositions in their own homes or in their offices. Writing tasks consisted of expressive, explanatory, and persuasive writing.

Revising revising and a focus on double vision in drafting

Download this Handout PDF. Are your paragraphs clearly and seamlessly connected? Are any of your sentences confusing? But before you get into the details of phrases and punctuation, you need to focus on making sure your argument is as strong and persuasive as it can be. This page provides you with eight specific strategies for how to take on the important challenge of revising an argument. The best way to begin re—seeing your argument is first to stop seeing it. Set your paper aside for a weekend, a day, or even a couple of hours.

Of course, this will require you to have started your writing process well before your paper is due. But giving yourself this time allows you to refresh your perspective and separate yourself from your initial ideas and organization. When you return to your paper, try to approach your argument as a tough, critical reader.

Reread it carefully. Maybe even read it out loud to hear it in a fresh way. Let the distance you created inform how you now see the paper differently. This strategy combines the structure of a reverse outline with elements of argument that philosopher Stephen Toulmin detailed in his influential book The Uses of Argument. Detailing these core elements of your argument helps you see its basic structure and assess whether or not your argument is convincing. This will also help you consider whether the most crucial elements of the argument are supported by the evidence and if they are logically sequenced to build upon each other.

Main claim : Machines are making workers obsolete, and while this has the potential to disrupt and seriously damage American society, if handled strategically through governmental guidance, it also has the potential of helping us to live more communal, creative, and empathetic lives. Sub—claim : The disappearance of work would radically change the United States.

Sub—claim : This is because work functions as something of an unofficial religion to Americans. Sub—claim : Technology has always guided the U. Sub—claim: But now technology may be taking over our jobs. Refutation: The same was once said about the horse. It was a key economic player; technology was built around it until technology began to surpass it.

This parallels what will happen with retail workers, cashiers, food service employees, and office clerks. Counter—argument: But technology creates jobs too. Refutation: Yes, but not as quickly as it takes them away.

Sub—claim : There are three overlapping visions of what the world might look like without work:. Consumption —People will not work and instead devote their freedom to leisure. Evidence: polling data Sub—claim : But they need them. Evidence: statistics and academic studies Sub—claim : Future leisure activities may be nourishing enough to stave off this guilt.

Communal creativity —People will not work and will build productive, artistic, engaging communities outside the workplace. Sub—claim: This could be a good alternative to work. Evidence: personal experience and observation. Contingency —People will not work one big job like they used to and so will fight to regain their sense of productivity by piecing together small jobs. Sub—claim : The internet facilitates gig work culture. Evidence: examples of internet-facilitated gig employment.

Evidence: This worked in Youngstown. Evidence: This worked for Germany. Refutation: Government should pay people to do something instead of nothing via an online job—posting board open up to governments, NGOs, and the like. Sub—claim : There is a difference between jobs, careers, and calling, and a fulfilled life is lived in pursuit of a calling.

Evidence: personal experience and observations. In building arguments we make assumptions either explicitly or implicitly that connect our evidence to our claims. To identify your assumptions, return to the claims and evidence that you outlined in response to recommendation 2. Are they acknowledged in my argument? If not, do they need to be? Often you will not overtly acknowledge your assumptions, and that can be fine.

In these situations, it can be valuable to clearly account for some of your assumptions within your paper and maybe even rationalize them by providing additional evidence. Just as you should think about what your readers know, believe, and value as you consider the kinds of assumptions you make in your argument, you should also think about your audience in relationship to the kind of evidence you use.

Given who will read your paper, what kind of argumentative support will they find to be the most persuasive? Are these readers who are compelled by numbers and data?

Would they be interested by a personal narrative? Would they expect you to draw from certain key scholars in their field or avoid popular press sources or only look to scholarship that has been published in the past ten years?

Return to your argument and think about how your readers might respond to it and its supporting evidence. It is about intentionally pushing against your own ideas. Reread your draft while embracing a skeptical attitude. This kind of reading can also help you think about how you might incorporate or strengthen a counter—argument.

In this case, dissonance can be understood as the tension that exists between what you want your text to be, do, or sound like and what is actually on the page.

One strategy for re—seeing your argument is to seek out the places where you feel dissonance within your argument—that is, substantive differences between what, in your mind, you want to be arguing, and what is actually in your draft.

A key to strengthening a paper through considering dissonance is to look critically—really critically—at your draft. Some possible sources of dissonance might include:. Perhaps you need to add material or qualify something to make your argumentative claim more nuanced or more contextualized. Maybe your revision can involve openly acknowledging and justifying the dissonance.

Sommers claims that whether expert writers are substituting, adding, deleting, or reordering material in response to dissonance, what they are really doing is locating and creating new meaning. Let your recognition of dissonance within your argument lead you through a process of discovery. As you think about revising your argument, consider adopting one of these four strategies.

Generalization often takes the form of sweeping introduction statements e. Is my evidence connected to a particular time, place, community, and circumstance? Inserting new content is a particularly common revision strategy. But when your focus is on revising an argument, make sure your addition of another source, another example, a more detailed description, or a closer analysis is in direct service to strengthening the argument. Adding material may be one way to respond to dissonance.

It also can be useful for offering clarifications or for making previously implicit assumptions explicit. Adding something new in one place will probably influence other parts of the paper, so be prepared to make other additions to seamlessly weave together your new ideas. For Fulwiler, switching is about radically altering the voice or tone of a text—changing from the first—person perspective to a third—person perspective or switching from an earnest appeal to a sarcastic critique.

When it comes to revising your argument, it might not make sense to make any of these switches, but imaging what your argument might sound like coming from a very different voice might be generative. Re—visioning how your argument might come across if the primary voice, tone, and perspective was switched might help you think about how someone disinclined to agree with your ideas might approach your text and open additional avenues for revision.

But, as with switching, even reflecting on the possibilities of a genre or modality transformation can be useful in helping you think differently about your argument. How would he need to alter his focus and approach if it was a policy paper or a short documentary? Imagining your argument in a completely different context can help you to rethink how you are presenting your argument and engaging with your audience. Sometimes the best thing you can do to figure out how your argument could improve is to get a second opinion.

Of course, if you are a currently enrolled student at UW—Madison, you are welcome to make an appointment to talk with a tutor at our main center or stop by one of our satellite locations. But you have other ways to access quality feedback from other readers. You may want to ask someone else in your class, a roommate, or a friend to read through your paper with an eye towards how the argument could be improved.

Be sure to provide your reader with specific questions to guide his or her attention towards specific parts of your argument e. Be ready to listen graciously and critically to any recommendations these readers provide.

Fulwiler, Toby. Ramage, John D. Bean, and June Johnson. Writing Arguments: A Rhetoric with Readings, 8th ed. Sommers, Nancy. Thompson, Derek.

Accessed 11 July Toulmin, Stephen. The Uses of Argument. Updated ed. This is an accordion element with a series of buttons that open and close related content panels. Interpreting Writing Assignments from Your Courses. Generating Ideas for Your Paper. Developing Strategic Transitions. Revising an Argumentative Paper.

revision strategies of student writers and experienced adults writers

Yet, they still fail the class. Many of these students are on their way to becoming practiced writers but require additional assistance to move beyond a definition of revision consisting solely of editing and proofreading strategies. To support such students, I created a voluntary, spring-semester, Composition I course foregrounding both lower- and higher-order revision practices in which students could continue to work on previous assignment drafts from fall. In a three-year, mixed methods, case study involving an experimental course-design model, students enrolling in a Composition I class focused on revision strategies demonstrated both positive revision-related drafting and course outcomes, according to findings. The results of this study have implications for teaching revision in first-year composition. Her forthcoming publications concern student veterans and writing program administration.

We examine how high school students use W-Pal feedback to revise essays in two different contexts: a typical approach that emphasizes intensive writing practice, and an alternative approach that offers less writing practice with more direct strategy instruction. Results indicate that students who wrote fewer essays, but received W-Pal strategy instruction, were more likely to make substantive revisions that implemented specific recommendations conveyed by the automated feedback. Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF. Skip to main content. This service is more advanced with JavaScript available. Advertisement Hide.

Summary This reading was about methods of revising papers. The author of it compared the definitions and revision processes of students to that of experienced adult writers. The author also discusses the lack of research on revision. The author believes that the reason for this is because the current models of the writing process have directed attention away from revision Sommers The author then continues to say that the models are linear and the writing processes are separated into discrete stages. Revision is the key difference between speech and writing because with speech, revision is an afterthought, but with writing, the possibility of revision distinguishes the written text from speech Sommers

Feedback and Revising in an Intelligent Tutoring System for Writing Strategies

Authors wishing to include figures, tables, or text passages that have already been published elsewhere are required to obtain permission from the copyright owner s for both the print and online format and to include evidence that such permission has been granted when submitting their papers. Any material received without such evidence will be assumed to originate from the authors. Quick jump to page content. Published: Feb 3,

Download this Handout PDF. Are your paragraphs clearly and seamlessly connected? Are any of your sentences confusing?

A writing process describes a sequence of physical and mental actions that people take as they produce any kind of text. Writing processes are highly individuated and task-specific; they often involve other kinds of activities that are not usually thought of as writing per se talking, drawing, reading, browsing, etc. In , Donald M. Murray published a brief manifesto titled "Teach Writing as a Process Not Product", in which he argued that English teachers' conventional training in literary criticism caused them to hold students' work to unhelpful standards of highly polished "finished writing". Within a decade, Maxine Hairston was to observe that the teaching of writing had undergone a "paradigm shift" in moving from a focus on written products to writing processes.

Revising revising and a focus on double vision in drafting

Writing process

Бринкерхофф слабо вскрикнул: - Этот червь откроет наш банк данных всему миру. - Для Танкадо это детская забава, - бросил Джабба.  - Нашим главным стражем была система Сквозь строй, а Стратмор вышвырнул ее в мусорную корзину.

Он попробовал ее успокоить: - Джабба, похоже, совсем не волнуется. - Джабба - дурак! - прошипела. Эти слова его удивили. Никто никогда не называл Джаббу дураком, свиньей - быть может, но дураком -. - Свою женскую интуицию ты ставишь выше ученых степеней и опыта Джаббы в области антивирусного программирования. Она взглянула на него с холодным презрением. Бринкерхофф поднял руки в знак капитуляции.

Revising an Argumentative Paper

 - Ни вчера, ни. Бринкерхофф пожал плечами: - Быть может, ребята заняты сложной диагностикой. Мидж покачала головой: - Настолько сложной, что она длится уже восемнадцать часов? - Она выдержала паузу.

 Побойся Бога, Мидж. Я же сказал тебе… - Но это была не Мидж. Джабба удивленно заморгал.  - Соши. Соши Кута, тонкая как проволока, весила не больше сорока килограммов.

Feedback and Revising in an Intelligent Tutoring System for Writing Strategies

1 Comments

  1. Diana E. 20.05.2021 at 16:57

    Amrutha spoken english in telugu pdf mary jones cambridge international a as level biology revision guide pdf