Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-jn8rn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T12:48:54.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A self-questioning strategy to increase young writers' revising processes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Colette Daiute  and
John Kruidenier
Colette Daiute*
Affiliation:
Harvard University
John Kruidenier
Affiliation:
Harvard University
*
Colette Daiute, Graduate School of Education, Harvard University, Larsen Hall, 4th Floor, Cambridge, MA 02138
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Researchers who study the writing process have found that beginning writers do little spontaneous revising of their own texts. This study explores the possibility that beginning writers do not revise because they do not read their own writing. The assumption behind the study is that explicit self-questioning strategies would engage young writers in reading their texts; thus they would become more active revisers. The experimental intervention is a question-prompt computer program (added to a word processing program) that guides the 11 to 16-year-old subjects to examine their own writing by asking themselves questions about their texts. This process was intended to engage the subjects in reading the text closely and revising more extensively. Analyses of the number and nature of revisions indicate that self-reflective question-prompts engage students in reading their texts and lead to significant changes in revising strategy.

Type
Articles
Information
Applied Psycholinguistics , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 1985 , pp. 307 - 318
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. From conversation to composition: the role of instruction in the developmental process. In Glaser, R. (Ed.), Advances in instructional psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: 1982.Google Scholar
Bridwell, L. S. Revising by student writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 1981.Google Scholar
Brown, A. L., Bransford, J. D., Ferrara, R. A., & Campione, J. C. Learning, remembering, and understanding. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), The handbook of child psychology. J. H. Flavell & E. M. Markman (Eds.), Cognitive Development, 1983, 5, 77–150.Google Scholar
Calkins, L.Children's rewriting strategies. Research in the Teaching of English, 1980, 331–341.Google Scholar
Calkins, L. M.Lessons from a child: On the teaching and learning of writing. Exeter, NH: Heineman, 1983.Google Scholar
Daiute, C.Psycholinguistic foundations of the writing process. Research in the Teaching of English 1981, 5–22.Google Scholar
Daiute, C.The effects of automatic prompting in young writers. Interim reports to the Spencer Foundation, 1981. 1982. 1983.Google Scholar
Daiute, C. Can computers stimulate writers' inner dialogues? In Wresch, W. (Ed.), A writer's tool: the computer in composition instruction. Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English, 1984.Google Scholar
Daiute, C. Rewriting, revising, and recopying. Paper presented at the meeting of the AERA, New Orleans, April 1984.Google Scholar
Daiute, C. Do writers talk to themselves? In Freedman, S. (Ed.), The acquisition of written language. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, in press.Google Scholar
Daiute, C., & Kruidenier, J.Strategies for reading one's own writing. Unpublished manuscript, 1984.Google Scholar
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. Revision. Paper presented at the meeting of the NCTE, Cincinnati, 1980.Google Scholar
Flavell, J. H. Metacognitive aspects of problem solving. IN Resnick, L. B. (Ed.), The nature of intelligence. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1976.Google Scholar
Flower, , & Hayes, , A cognitive process theory of writing. College composition and communication, 1981, 32, 365–388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Graves, D.Writing: Teachers and children at work. Exeter, NH: Heinemann, 1983.Google Scholar
Hayes, J. R. Processes in revision. Paper presented at the meeting of the AERA, New Orleans, 1984.Google Scholar
Perl, S.The composing process of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 1979, 13, 317–336.Google Scholar
Sommers, N.Revision strategies of student writers and experienced writers. CCC, 1980, 31, 378–388.Google Scholar
Welty, E.One writer's beginnings. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press,Google Scholar