STRUCTURE
15. Edit—the revision of spelling, punctuation, capitalization,
penmanship—after meanings and purpose are met. Writers are not unconcerned with the surface structure of their texts. However, they usually wait until meanings and purposes have been met before conventions become the focus. Because revisions to meanings frequently result in the changing of words, sentences, and paragraphs, it usually is not worth the writer's time and energy to be overly concerned with conventions too early in the process.
his belief that the questions were not helping him accomplish what he wanted to achieve.
What she was asking m e . . . mostly wasn't what I wanted. But I needed to answer her. I had to think real, real fast. So, I just made some stuff up, but I just don't like it (Labbo, Hoffman, & Roser, 1995, p. 167).
These two vignettes bring to mind a cartoon that a colleague recently shared with me. In the cartoon, a student is talking with the teacher about her struggles with writing. The student notes that she is attempting to write about what she knows—a common instructional maxim—but that all she knows is the writing workshop! I think the cartoon unfortunately captures our all too frequent fetish with methods (Bartolome, 1994) at the expense of the learner.
Although the focus here has been on the teacher's instruction, in all likelihood the teacher learned many of these process strategies from teacher educators like myself. Too often in our attempts to help students manage the writing process, we take the process from them. If strategy instruction is to be effective, it must provide students with a range of options from which they can draw when needed.
Brainstorming, for example, can certainly serve as an effective strategy when we
are searching for ideas about which we can write. So too can consulting various reference materials, published stories, and talking with friends and family. Simi- larly, talking with others about a draft can lead to significant improvements if these
"others" try to help us to carry out what we want to accomplish. Also effective, however, is putting the draft aside and coming back to it later. The point here is that our instruction should open rather than constrain possibilities for our students (Glasswell, Parr, & McNaughton, 2003; Kucer, 1995, 1998).
Comparable cautions apply to the use of computer technology for promoting writing as well. Many factors impact the relationship among author, computer, composing, and the final product (Farnan & Dahl, 2003) and care should be taken when generalizing about the impact of computers on writing (Leu, 2000; Reinking
& Bridwell-Bowels, 1996). In some cases, the quality as well as the quantity of computer-based writing has been found to be higher than writing by hand (Kamil et al., 2000). Daiute (2000) suggested that computers can reduce the burdens on short-term memory through the use of the thesaurus for word alternatives as well as spell check and the ease of correction. Such technology allows writers to focus their energies on generating and organizing ideas. Revision procedures, however, need to be demonstrated to the students; otherwise they may not occur. Daiute found that younger writers frequently simply added new information to the end of the text, rather than embedding the information where it made most sense. The same phenomenon has been found to occur when students write by hand (Kucer, 1995).
In order to illustrate the dynamic transactions that actually occur during the writing process, a number of these transactions are briefly discussed through the use of a draft by a proficient adult writer (see Table 8.3). The writer is addressing the question, "Who is more sensitive to their environment or world, children or adults?" As previously noted, this writing prompt was developed by Shaughnessy (1977) as she worked with struggling writers at City College in New York City. In this case, the author has written the text on the left side of the page and recorded her thought processes on the right. Each thought process is numbered for ease of reference.
In examining the behaviors of the writer, it is interesting to note when ideas were accessed during the process. The writer indicates that she immediately began thinking about the topic and her stance when the assignment was given (1,2). She drew from her background relevant knowledge and brainstormed and recorded how both children and adults are sensitive to their worlds (3). The writer then used this list not only to decide who is more sensitive, but also to guide her actual engagement with the process (7). The list provided a framework into which she could arrange her meanings. However, ideas are not only discovered before writing is initiated; they also are encountered throughout the drafting of the text (5, 8).
Some of these potential ideas were recorded in the margins of the text (12) and their appropriateness evaluated.
As well as assessing the relevance of potential meanings, the writer also mon- itored the meanings that had been generated in print. She reread portions of her
Text Writing Behavior and Reasons
When asked the question who is more sensitive to their world, children or adults, I was a bit stumped. However, after careful contemplation, I believe children are more sensitive to the world around them for several reasons, mainly because of their innocence.
Children are innocent. They go through their world without any judgements because they haven't learned any yet.
They are young and view their world without any judgements that adults have.
For example, often you won't hear a child describe another person using race as a characteristic.
They will say he has brown hair or wears glasses or is funny but seldom will they say he is white or black. Once a student of mine couldn'tfind
If they do use skin color to describe a person they use color words that are a lot more descriptive than white and black.
(1) I began thinking about the topic as soon as the assignment was given.
(2) I think about the topic when I go to sleep, walk to the subway, or when I'm at work.
(3) I made a list of how children are sensitive and adults are sensitive. I found children to be the more powerful argument based on my list.
-aso
(4) As I begin writing I reread what I have written to see if it makes sense.
(5) As I write new thoughts about the subject form in my mind that I consider using.
(6) In the middle of writing I stop and think of other words to add.
(7) As I'm writing the draft I check over my list.
(8) One thought led to another—jogged a memory.
(continued on next page)
Text Writing Behavior and Reasons For example, a student of mine couldn'tfind her swim instructor
at swim lessons. I asked her to describe the person to me. I asked her questions like if the instructor was male or female, dark hair or light hair, and when I asked about skin color she told me he was pink. Well, it ended up that he was absent that day but anyway she used descriptive adjectives other than using the generalized race words black or white. He wasn't part of a group.
He was pink.
Another reason I feel children are more sensitive to the world around them is that they are very curious and are always asking questions.
And they don't hold back. They ask about what they see and they are honest in giving answers.
They tell you if they don't like something children let you know about it. It is not because they aren'tsensitive to their
environment in the way that means they don't respect it, but the fact that they are aware of what's around them so honestly is indication that they are in fact are sensitive to their environment.
(9) I go back over my text and edit.
(10) Reread my data to see where I left off.
(11) Combined two ideas together in one paragraph.
(12) I write notes in margin about the text.
(13) This previous section doesn't make a whole lot of sense but I know what I want to say—work on this to make it clear.
aware of who all that is going on around them except for the part that pertains to them. Children are active and are curious to take in all that is around them. They are eager to explore and this makes them more sensitive to their environment. Adult's aren't often eager to explore because they are usually concerned with what is immediately around them.
When asked the question whether adults or children are more sensitive to their environment I feel children are I feel because of their innocence, curiosity, and honesty make them so much more aware of the world around them.
They live freely and eagerly exploring all that'saround them rather than focusing on things that immediately pertain to them.
(15) I write notes in margin.
(16) Work on conclusion to make it stronger.
oo
essay to see if they made sense (4) and realized that a previous section of text was in need of revision (13). At certain points, the writer decided to delay revision. She knows what she wants to say but not necessarily how to say it (13) and "write[s]
everything down first" (14). Later, she plans to return and make the necessary revisions. Although editing is part of the process (9), it is clear that the writer is first attempting to get the meanings right with herself before worrying about the surface structure (Flower, 1979). Finally, the writer reread not only to assess her ideas; rereading was also employed to reorient herself in relation to the text (10) as well as for editing purposes (9).
Evolving Cognitive Text World and Surface Structure
As with reading, writing involves the generation of an "in-head" world of meaning, the deep structure of ideas constructed in the writer's mind. Accompanying and paralleling this meaning is the surface structure, the marks the writer puts on the page. In the best of all possible worlds, there is a one-to-one correspondence between the cognitive text and the surface structure; that is, what the writer desires to articulate is actually represented in the written language on the page. However, it is this very attempt to align the deep and surface structures that writers often find challenging. What the writer wants or intends to say may not be captured by what is actually stated. That is, a disruption or discontinuity exists between intention and reality. We saw this phenomenon with the proficient writer who knew what she wanted to say but also knew that she had not been successful in articulating it (13).
The disruption between surface and deep structures can be as simple as writing the wrong word or letter for what was intended. More frequently, the tension derives from the writer not having full control over the ideas—content, form, or both—
to be expressed or from encountering difficulty finding the appropriate language with which to articulate the ideas. Further complicating this relationship between surface and deep structure is the fact that by attempting to gain control over the ideas to be expressed or by articulating meaning through language, new ideas may be unearthed. This process of discovery does not mean, however, that writers do not attempt to generate a global framework of meaning into which their ideas can be embedded. It simply means that writing involves more than extending the previous sentence and that this global framework is constantly being modified and updated as necessary.
One way in which writers monitor and evaluate the degree of alignment between their intentions, cognitive meanings, and the surface level text is through the process of reading. The reading of the written text produced so far serves as an orienting device, providing writers with feedback as to where they have been and where they might be going. In a very real sense, the evolving text becomes part of the context of situation. It shapes the options available to the writer and places constraints on those meanings and structures that subsequently may find expression.
Because the writer is attempting to produce a text that reflects continuity (i.e., informativity, logic, coherence, intentionality, situationality, intertextuality), new ideas that are discovered through the process of reading must either fit within the established discourse or summon forth revisions. Revisions may involve the text constructed so far, the text that is anticipated, or both. A common response of writers to the need to revise is through the use of notes that document necessary changes. Interestingly, the focus of these notes may vary depending on the mode of composing. Writers who are composing with pencil and paper have been found to make more elaborate revision notes. They frequently used lines, arrows, and other graphics to highlight the structure and organization of the text. In contrast, the notes of writers composing on computers tended to be linguistic in nature and focused on content (Haas, 1991). Haas also found that it was easier for writers to maintain coherence in hand-written drafts than on computer screens. The author was able to more easily look from page to page to evaluate if the text "hung together." On the computer screen, it was more difficult to move from page to page and writers had to print their drafts in order to get a sense of the overall coherence of their texts.
Potentially, such alterations—whether by hand or on screen—may continue almost endlessly as the writer attempts to get meanings right with himself or herself and with the audience. As noted by Pearson (1989), however, we usually never really finish a text; rather, we just simply decide to stop.
AN EXAMINATION OF PROFICIENT AND NONPROFICIENT WRITERS
At this point in our discussion, it would be useful to examine the in-process be- haviors of proficient and less proficient writers. In contrast to reading, teachers rarely observe their students as they write. Teacher understanding of writing tends to be product-oriented, and evaluation occurs after student engagement with the process is complete. The evaluation of written products through the use of such measures as holistic and analytical assessments is certainly a valuable component of teaching and learning. However, just as valuable is a consideration of how the product came to be, a consideration of the processes in which the writer engaged to produce the written artifact.
Tables 8.4 and 8.5 contain the writings and reflections of two intermediate elementary students, Crystal and LaSonja, respectively. The first is that of a fairly proficient writer; the second represents a writer who is struggling. The topics were selected by the students and as each composed, her unfolding text was videotaped.
After the initial draft was complete, the video was played for the student. The tape was stopped at each point where the writer had paused or engaged in some sort of revision, such as crossing out a word or rereading a portion of the text. The student was then asked to discuss why she had paused or engaged in the revision. Read through each table and compare and contrast the in-process behaviors of the two writers.
Text Behavior and Reasons Space
A long time ago in the year (1) 1900 a family from earth went to space. They were a very nice and healthy family.
They stayed there (2) until the year (3) 1957. They were there a long time. T-her (4) Their names were Janet, (5) Bob, Lisa, (6) Michael. (7) I went along with them also. While we were there we changed.
All of the girls (8) I had only one eye and a happy face. (9) And all the men had two eyes and a sad face. They saw this big machine. They didn't know what it was. So they went to some of the people there. They told him it was a machine that do lots of things. (10) It lets you see down to earth-. (11) It gives you food (12) and water. "What about clothes?"
(13) said Lisa. The man said, "We dew (14) don't wear clothes." (15) (16) We ate and drank water and visited our new fe (17) friends. We discovered new things in space. (18) Then we were ready to go. (19) Then it was the year 1957.
Whe (20) We got home in the year (21) 1960. We were still ew (22) We changed back to ourselves. Everything looked the same. We went to our house and rested.
(1) "A long time ago" didn't make sense to her when related to the year 1900 but she didn'twant to start over.
(2) Forgot how to spell "until."
(3) Wasn'tsure what year to choose.
Almost put 1976 but wanted something before she was born.
(4) Started to write "there" when she wanted the possessive "their."
(5) Couldn'tthink of a boy's name.
(6) Was trying to think of another boy's name.
(7) Was thinking of what she, as a character in the story, should do;
whether she should go along with them in space or not.
(8) Started to put "change" but wanted to put how they had changed.
(9) Stopped to think how she was going to include the machine in the story. (10) Stopped to think of possible things the machine could do.
(11) Stopped to think of what the machine could do and crossed out the comma because she wanted to put "it"
and you can't put "it" after a comma.
Also stated that she was making a lot of mistakes in her writing.
(12) Wanted to think of more things the machine could do but couldn'tthink of anything else.
(13) Was thinking of who said the quote.
(14) Started to misspell "don't."
(15) Went back and put in quotation marks because the man was talking.
(16) Stopped but did not know why.
(17) Started to misspell "friends."
(18) Stopped to decide if the family should discover more things, talk some more, or go home.
(19) Went back and read the beginning of her story to find out in what year they left for home so she could be consistent.
184