A comparative evaluation on silent and read-aloud revisions of written drafts
AbstractThis study aimed to explore the effect of silent and read-aloud revision methods on revising the written drafts of students. In the study, 50 fourth-grade university students took part as the participants of the research. The participant students were asked to write two different drafts with 250-300 words each during data collection process. Consequently, they were asked to revise the first text silently and the second one aloud. The drafts written were copied and reviewed by two different experts, and deviations to be corrected or improved were marked on the papers and annotations were added where necessary. Marks and annotations provided by the two experts were recorded on the “form for identifying and classifying the deviations in written texts” previously developed by the researchers. The participants’ self-evaluations of their own texts were recorded on the same form. The data noted on the form were transferred to the statistical program to analyze. Frequency, percentage, mean scores, paired samples t-test were utilized in the data analysis, and p≤.05 was set to be the significance level in the interpretation of the results. The result of the data analysis illustrated that the participants had moderate revision skills; their read-aloud revision as a surface evaluation and their silent revision as a semantic evaluation were found more functional.
Alamargot, D. & Chanquoy, L. (2001). Revising process. In G. Rijlaarsdam (Series Ed.) & D. Alamargot & L. Changuoy, Studies in Writing: vol 9. Through the Models of Writing, (pp. 97-121). Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.
Beal, C. R. (1990). The development of text evaluation and revision skills. Child Development, 61, 247-258.
Bernhardt, S. A. (1988). Text revisions by basic writers: From impromptu forst draft to take-home revision. Research in the Teching of English, 22(3), 266-280.
Berninger, V. W., Whitaker, D., Feng, Y., Swanson, H. L., & Abbott, R. D. (1996). Assessment of planning, translating and revising in junior high writers. Journal of School Psychology, 34(1), 23-52.
Bracewell, R. J., Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1978). The development of audience awareness in writing. Resources in Education, 12, 154-433.
Butterfield, E. C., Hacker, D. J., & Albertson, L. R. (1996). Environmental, cognitive, and metacognitive influences on text revision: Assessing the evidence. Educational Psychology Review, 8(3), 239-297.
Çetinkaya, G., Bayat, N. ve Alaca, S. (2016). Yabancı dil olarak Türkçe öğretim sürecinde yazılı düzeltme geribildirimleri ve öğrencilerin edimsel çıkarımları. Mediterranean Journal of Humanities 6(1), 85-98.
Chanquoy, L. (1997). Thinking skills and composing: Examples of text revision. In J. H. M. Hamers, & M. Overtoom (Eds.), Inventory of European Programmes for teaching thinking (pp. 179-185). Utrecht: Sardes.
Crawdord, L., Lloyd, S. & Knoth, K. (2008). Analysis of student revisions on a state writing test. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(2), 108-119.
Elbow, P. (2010). 12. how does reading aloud improve writing. Emeritus Faculty Author Gallery. 30. Retrieved from https://scholarworks.umass.edu/emeritus_sw/30
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400-414.
Flower, L., Hayes, J.R., Carey, L., Schriver, J., & Stratman, J. (1986). Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication, 37, 16-55.
Goodman, K. S. (1969). Analysis of oral reading miscues: Applied psycholinguistics. Reading Research Quarterly, 5, 9-30.
Gough, P. B. (1972). One second of reading. In J. F. Kavanagh, & I. G. Mattingly (Eds.), Language by ear and by eye (pp. 331-358. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Hartwell, P. (1997). Grammar, grammars, and the teaching of grammar. In V. Villanueva, Jr. (Ed.), Cross-talk in comp theory (pp. 183-212). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Langan, J. (2011). College writing skills. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Limpo, T., Alves, R. & Fidalgo, R. (2014). Childrens’ high-level writing skills: Development of planning and revising and their contribution to writing quality. British Journal of Educational, 84, 177-193. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12020
MacArthur, C. A. (2019). Evaluation and revision. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, M. Hebert (Eds.). Best practices in writing instruction (3rd Edition) (pp. 287-298). The Guilford Press, New York.
Monahan, B.D. (1984). Revision strategies of basic and competent writers as they write for different audiences. Research in the Teaching of English, 18, 288-303.
Moran, M. H. (1997). Connections between reading and successful revision. Journal of Basic Writing, 16(2), 76-89.
Murray, D. (1982). Teaching the other self: The writer’s first reader. College Composition and Communication, 33(2), 140-147.
Parsons, L. (2001). Revising and editing. Canada: Pembroke Publishers Limited.
Roussey, J-Y. & Piolat, A. (2008). Critical reading effort during text revision. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 20(4), 765-792.
Scardamalia, M, & Bereiter, C. (1983). The development ofevaluative, diagnostic and remedial capabilities in children'scomposing. In M. Martlew (Ed.), The psychology of written language: Development and educational perspectives (pp. 67-95). New York: Wiley
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition. In M. C. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 778-803). New York: Collier-Macmillan.
Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378-388.
Tseng, T. J. (2014). The role of reading aloud in EFL writing revision. NCUE Journal of Humanities, 9, 221-252.
Yoder, S. L. (1993). Teaching writing revision: Attitudes and copy changes. Journalism Educator, 47(4), 41-47.
Submission of an article implies that the work described has not been published previously (except in the form of an abstract or as part of a published lecture or academic thesis), that it is not under consideration for publication elsewhere, that its publication is approved by all authors and tacitly or explicitly by the responsible authorities where the work was carried out, and that, if accepted, will not be published elsewhere in the same form, in English or in any other language, without the written consent of the Publisher. The Editors reserve the right to edit or otherwise alter all contributions, but authors will receive proofs for approval before publication.
Copyrights for articles published in International Journal of Curriculum and Instruction are retained by the authors, with first publication rights granted to the journal. The journal/publisher is not responsible for subsequent uses of the work. It is the author's responsibility to bring an infringement action if so desired by the author.