Revision of Public Information Brochures on the Basis of Reader Feedback

Abstract

The literature on formative text evaluation pays scant attention to the revision phase following data collection. This article describes a small-scale experiment in which five professional writers were asked to revise brochure fragments on the basis of feedback from readers. The feedback consisted of readers' comments, selected from the results of a pretest of the brochures, regarding their acceptance of the information and their appreciation of text elements. Despite the wide variety of solutions that resulted, some interesting tendencies were found: In response to problems with factual acceptance, writers often decided to add information; in response to problems with normative acceptance, they often chose to substitute material; and in response to appreciation problems, they either deleted the problematic passage or substituted a different phrase.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bridwell, Lillian S.

“Revising Strategies in Twelfth Grade Students' Transactional Writing.”

Research in the Teaching of English 14 (1980): 197-222.

Do You Know? Do You Care? Rijswijk, Neth.: Bureau Alcohol Information Plan, 1990.

Do You Know? Do You Care? De Tien Meest Gestelde Vragen over Alcohol [The Ten Most Asked Questions about Alcohol]. Rijswijk, Neth.: Bureau Alcohol Information Plan, 1993.

Dumas, Joseph S. , and Janice C. Redish . A Practical Guide to Usability Testing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1993.

Faigley, Lester , and Stephen Witte . “Analyzing Revision.” College Composition and Communication 32 (1981): 400-414.

Fitzgerald, Jill . “Research on Revision in Writing.” Review of Educational Research 57 (1987): 481-506.

Flower, Linda , et al.

“Detection, Diagnosis, and the Strategies of Revision.”

College Composition and Communication 37 (1986): 16-55.

Hawisher, Gail E.

“The Effects of Word Processing on the Revision Strategies of College Freshmen.”

Research in the Teaching of English 21 (1987): 145-159.

Hayes, John R. , et al.

“Cognitive Processes in Revision.”

Advances in Applied Psycholinguistics. Ed. Sheldon Rosenberg . Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1987. 176-240. Vol. 2 of Reading, Writing and Language Processing.

10.

Hill, Charles A. , David L. Wallace , and Christina Haas . “Revising On-Line: Computer Technologies and the Revising Process.” Computers and Composition 9 (1991): 83-109.

11.

Hubbard, Scott E.

“A Practical Approach to Evaluating Test Results.”

IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 32 (1989): 283-288.

12.

Ik Vrij Veilig of Ik Vrij Niet [Safe Sex or No Sex]. Utrecht, Neth.: STD Foundation, 1993.

13.

Jansen, Carel , and Michaël Steehouder . “Forms as a Source of Communication Problems.” Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 22 (1992): 179-194.

14.

Jong, Menno de. “Pretesting Public Information Brochures.” Diss. University of Twente, forthcoming.

15.

Jong, Menno de , and Peter Jan Schellens . “Reader-Focused Text Evaluation: An Overview of Goals and Methods.” JBTC 11 (1997): 402-432.

16.

Jong, Menno de , and Peter Jan Schellens . “Towards a Valid Design for Pretesting and Revising Leaflets.” Functional Communication Quality. Ed. Luuk Van Waes , Egbert Woudstra , and Paul van den Hoven . Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 1994. 104-114.

17.

Schriver, Karen A. Document Design as Rhetorical Action. Utrecht, Neth.: Utrecht University, Faculty of Arts, 1995.

18.

Schriver, Karen A. . “Plain Language through Protocol-Aided Revision.” Plain Language: Principles and Practice. Ed. Erwin R. Steinberg . Detroit, MI: Wayne State University Press, 1991. 148-172.

19.

Swaney, Joyce H. , et al.

“Editing for Comprehension: Improving the Process through Reading Protocols.”

Plain Language: Principles and Practice. Ed. Erwin R. Steinberg . Detroit MI: Wayne State University Press, 1991. 173-203.

20.

Waes, Luuk van . “The Influence of the Computer on Writing Profiles.” Studies of Functional Text Quality. Ed. Henk Pander Maat and Michaël Steehouder . Atlanta, GA: Rodopi, 1992. 173-186.