Link to Reaction Paper: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DkXEo7ws_45VHBjtCRUfZd7ph3aDnjzdUkS2r6S_xNE/edit?usp=sharing

Link to Presentation: https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1APK7-cNT4FBvHRYkhEXcFVkynS63HoS3eGDNIhVO65Q/edit?usp=sharing

These materials were synthesized to the sounds of Nujabes’ 2003 album Metaphorical Music.

I really enjoyed these articles, as they made me reflect on how I revise and how I’d like to approach this topic in my teaching. Here are my thoughts.

Sommers

• I found the overlap between speaker and writer quite interesting. To me, these are completely different spheres that can intersect but don’t have to. It never occurred to me how intertwined the two can be, as I tend to view them as completely separate entities.
• I find Britton’s theory that writing is a linear experience to be fundamentally flawed. It definitely isn’t linear; rather, it’s a continuous cycle that, some might argue, never truly ends.
• Barthes’s acknowledgment that speech is ‘irreversible’ (which is debatable) highlights the distinct differences between speech and writing. This brings me back to my thoughts about why the overlap between the two is being discussed.
• “By staging revision after enunciation, the linear models reduce provision in writing, as in speech, to no more than an afterthought.” (pg. 379). Herein lies the problem: as the article continues, it highlights one of the issues in teaching. Revision isn’t encouraged enough and is often taught as an afterthought in classrooms.
• “When we must revise, when the very idea is subject to recursive shaping by language, then speech becomes inadequate.” (pg. 379). ‘Inadequate’ is a strong word, but it suggests that speech may not be sufficient for conveying certain messages. I find it fascinating that revision serves as the dividing line between the two. Can we truly define speech? I believe it can be revised. Even when writing for speech, mistakes can occur, requiring backtracking. So what exactly constitutes speech?
• SAT Verbal scores, what even is that?
• “The predominant concern in these definitions is vocabulary.” (pg. 381). I can certainly understand why this is a primary concern for college students, especially freshmen. There’s a narrative that, in order to be seen as informed, one must be equipped with jargon. Students want to sound polished and appeal to their audience, the professor, so they are naturally drawn to vocabulary.
• “The aim of revision, according to the students’ own description, is therefore to clean up speech; their logic suggests that the redundancy of speech is unnecessary in writing because writing, unlike speech, can be reread.” (pg. 381). While one must exercise discretion, repetition—within reason—is essential to writing, as it serves as an anchor and helps convey the message. This highlights another aspect that needs to be taught more effectively in classrooms. With sound judgment, students should not fear repeating an idea if it enhances the story.
• “By rewording their sentences to avoid lexical repetition, the students solve the immediate problem but blind themselves to issues on a textual level; although they are using different words, they are sometimes merely restating the same idea.” (pg. 382). This is an issue I often see as a teacher, and I’m guilty of it at times myself—though I do recognize and edit it during revision.
• “If students feel inspired, if the writing comes easily, and if they don’t get stuck on individual words or phrases, then they say that they cannot see any reason to revise. Because students do not view revision as an activity in which they modify and develop perspectives and ideas, they feel that if they know what they want to say, there is little reason for making revisions.” (pg. 382). If I’m honest, I’m guilty of this. It’s not that I think I’m the most amazing or prolific writer, but, as the quote mentions, when I feel confident, I don’t feel compelled to engage in formal revision. I tend to just edit as I go, rather than writing multiple drafts.
• “This results, in part, from the fact that students have been taught another version of the linear model of composing, which emphasizes using a thesis statement as a controlling device in their introductory paragraphs.” (pg. 382). I vividly remember being taught this as well. Having personally experienced it, I believe this approach can stifle a student’s ability to explore other directions. Sometimes it feels like once you solidify your thesis, there’s no wiggle room, and you just have to see it through.
• I agree that students generally aren’t taught the skills to troubleshoot when writing. Whether it’s revising or composing, many students hit a wall and don’t know how to address the issue. While peer assistance and teacher guidance can help in the moment, they don’t equip students with the tools they need for the long run.
• “They have abstracted the standards of a reader, and this reader seems to be partially a reflection of themselves, functioning as a critical and productive collaborator—a collaborator who has yet to love their work.” (pg. 385). When writing, I often don’t consider the reader. Audience awareness is incredibly important, so this is definitely something I need to work on. In the past, I would write for an audience of one, but as I’ve grown, I’ve become more secure in my voice. I tend to write what I feel and hope that others appreciate it.
• “It is a sense of writing as discovery—a repeated process of beginning over again, starting anew—that the students failed to have.” (pg. 387). Writing as discovery is an important framework that all teachers should implement in their classrooms. If students were taught that writing and revision are about discovery and are ongoing processes, perhaps they wouldn’t feel so hesitant and lost when engaging in them.

Witte

• “Revising is a slow, arduous, laborious, and complex task in which one must reflect over time on the piece of writing and the changes that might be needed.” (pg. 34). This notion that revision is so grueling often repels students. We can acknowledge the work that revision requires without giving it such a negative connotation, as this won’t motivate students to engage with it any more than they do now.
• I loved the brief excerpt on the National Writing Project (NWP). I had no idea it was so expansive and included Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
• “Feedback is given by E-A participants on the writing posted based on the type of feedback requested from the participant: Bless, Address, or Press.” (pg. 36). It’s always frustrating when people provide unsolicited advice or comment on things you didn’t want feedback on. Sometimes, you seek specific guidance, so I love that they offer these targeted options.
• “In the spring of 2009, an initial draft of the pre- and post-survey was distributed to 15 area K-12 classroom teachers not in the study population.” (pg. 39). It’s great that they sought outside feedback to ensure they were conducting the best surveys possible.
• “Survey results clearly indicate that many E-A study participants did not understand the differences between revision and editing. While some participants likened revision to fixing a car and editing to painting it, a significant number believed that revision and editing were the same process or did not acknowledge revision at all, defaulting to a common definition of proofreading as editing.” (pg. 40) “Ultimately, if teachers are confused about what revision is and what purpose it serves, so too will students.” (pg. 47) It’s concerning that teachers are unclear on this topic. We are teaching the next generation how to write, so our understanding of revision and editing is critical to their future writing endeavors. As the quote suggests, students will be at a deficit if we, as educators, lack clarity.”
• I was happy to see that more time was dedicated to revision after the institute.
• Studies like this are crucial for educators’ development because teachers need opportunities for reflection to assess whether they are teaching effectively and using the most current and relevant information. Hopefully, those who read this study will also take the time to evaluate how—and if—they are properly teaching revision.
• I liked that they encouraged digitalization in the classroom. It’s important, especially since it’s the future. Technology isn’t going anywhere, so we should embrace it and find ways to use it for our benefit and that of the students.
• “Teachers find that many factors affect students’ attitudes about revision, but one specific influencing factor is their teachers’ attitudes toward the revision process. Teachers must show respect for revision; they must practice in their own writing what they advocate as important to their students and vice versa.” (pg. 49). This principle applies to anything—if teachers aren’t enthusiastic and respectful about a subject, students won’t be either.