Type and quality of revisions made by students between first and final drafts of a state writing test were scored using a revision taxonomy. Scorers categorized revisions first by unit (e.g., word, phrase, sentence), and then by type (e.g., addition, substitution, spelling). They then evaluated the impact of each revision on the readability of the final draft as “improved,” “decreased,” or “neutral.” Descriptive analyses revealed three major findings. First, in terms of unit changes, word revisions were the most prevalent (approximately 40%) across students in Grades 5 and 8. Second, when coding for type of revision, substitutions accounted for approximately 45% of all revisions, while revisions classified as “additions” had the most positive impact on students' final drafts (i.e., positively impacting readability 66% to 76% of the time). An interesting third finding was the relationship between rate of writing and score on the writing test: Students in special education with Individualized Education Programs goals in writing made approximately the same number of revisions per 100 words as students in the general population but wrote 100 words less, on average.
Beal, C.R. (1987). Repairing the message: Children's monitoring and revision skills. Child Development, 58, 401–408.
2.
Beal, C.R. (1990). The development of text evaluation and revision skills. Child Development, 61, 247–258.
3.
Berninger, V.W. (2000). Development of language by hand and its connections with language by ear, mouth, and eye. Topics in Language Disorders , 20(4), 65–84.
4.
Bridwell, L.S. (1980). Revising strategies in twelfth-grade students' transactional writing. Research in the Teaching of English , 14, 197–222.
5.
Butterfield, E.C., Hacker, D.J., & Plumb, C. (1994). Topic knowledge, linguistic knowledge, and revision processes as determinants of text revision. In J. S. Carlson (Series Ed.) & E. C. Butterfield (Vol. Ed.), Advances in cognition and educational practice: Vol. 2. Children's writing: Toward a process theory of the development of skilled writing (pp. 83–143). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
6.
Clare, L., Valdes, R., & Patthey-Chavez, G.G. (2000). Learning to write in urban elementary and middle schools: An investigation of teachers' written feedback on student compositions. Los Angeles: University of California, Center for Research on Evaluation , Standards, and Student Testing.
7.
Colorado Department of Education. (2005). Fact sheet for writing: Unit for student assessment. Retrieved October 1, 2006, from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdeassess/documents/csap/frameworks/CSAP_factsheet_06_wrtg.pdf
8.
Daiute, C. (1985). Do writers talk to themselves? In S. W. Freedman (Ed.), The acquisition of written language: Response and revision (pp. 133–159). Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
9.
Daiute, C., & Kruidenier, J. (1985). Special issue: The psycholinguistics of writing. Applied Psycholinguistics, 6, 307–318.
10.
De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (1997). Strategy instruction in planning: Effects on the writing performance and behavior of students with learning difficulties. Exceptional Children, 63, 167–181.
11.
Delaware Department of Education. (2006). Delaware student testing program: Frequently asked questions. Retrieved October 1, 2006, from http://www.doe.k12.de.us/aab/FAQ_2006.pdf
12.
Faigley, L., & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400–414.
13.
Fitzgerald, J. (1987). Research on revision in writing. Review of Educational Research, 57, 481–506.
14.
Flower, L., & Hayes, J.R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.
15.
Flower, L., Hayes, J.R., Carey, L., Shriver, K., & Stratman, J. (1986). Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision . College Composition and Communication, 37, 16–55.
16.
Gersten, R., & Baker, S. (2001). Teaching expressive writing to students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Elementary School Journal, 101(3), 251–272.
17.
Goldberg, G.L., Roswell, B.S., & Michaels, H. (1995–1996). Can assessment mirror instruction? A look at peer response and revision in a large-scale writing test. Educational Assessment, 3, 287–314.
18.
Graham, S. (1997). Executive control in the revising of students with learning and writing difficulties. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 223–234.
19.
Graham, S., & Harris, K.R. (1994). The role of self-regulation in the writing process . In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learning and performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 203–228). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
20.
Graham, S., MacArthur, C., & Schwartz, S. (1995). Effects of goal setting and procedural facilitation on the revising behavior and writing performance of students with writing and learning problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 230–240.
21.
Hillocks, G., Jr. (2002). The testing trap: How state writing assessments control learning. New York: Teachers College Press.
22.
MacArthur, C., & Graham, S. (1987). LD students composing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. Journal of Special Education, 21, 22–42.
23.
MacArthur, C.A., Graham, S., & Schwartz, S. (1991). Knowledge of revision and revising behavior among students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly , 14, 61–73.
24.
Matsumura, L.C., Patthey-Chavez, G.G., Valdés, R., & Garnier, H. (2002). Teacher feedback, writing assignment quality, and third-grade students' revision in lower- and higher-achieving urban schools . Elementary School Journal, 103, 1–25.
25.
Moss, P.A., Cole, N.S., & Khampalikit, C. (1982). A comparison of procedures to assess written language skills at grades 4, 7, and 10. Journal of Educational Measurement, 19, 37–47.
26.
National Assessment of Educational Progress. ( 1986). The writing report card: Writing achievement in American schools. Princeton, NJ: Author.
27.
Perez, S.A. (2000). Revising during writing in a second grade classroom . Educational Research Quarterly, 25(1), 27–32.
28.
Rohman, D.G., & Wlecke, A.O. (1964). Pre-writing: The construction and application of models for concept formation in writing. East Lansing : Michigan State University.
29.
Scardamalia, M., & Bereiter, C. (1983). The development of evaluative, diagnostic and remedial capabilities in children's composing. In M. Marlew (Ed.), Psychology of written language: A developmental and educational perspective (pp. 67–96). New York: John Wiley.
30.
Stoddard, B., & MacArthur, C.A. (1993). A peer editor strategy: Guiding learning-disabled students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 76–103.
31.
Tindal, G., & Parker, R. (1989). Assessment of written expression for students in compensatory and special education programs. Journal of Special Education, 23, 169–183.
32.
Troia, G.A., & Maddox, M.E. (2004). Writing instruction in middle schools: Special and general education teachers share their views and voice their concerns . Exceptionality, 12(1), 19–37.
33.
Whitaker, D., Berninger, V., Johnston, J., & Swanson, L. (1994). Intraindividual differences in levels of language in intermediate grade writers: Implications for the translating process. Learning and Individual Differences, 6, 107–130.
34.
Wolf, D.P. (1993). Assessment as an episode of learning. In R. E. Bennett & W. C. Ward (Eds.), Construction versus choice in cognitive measurement (pp. 213–240). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
35.
Wong, B.Y.L., Butler, D.L., Ficzere, S.A., & Kuperis, S. (1996). Teaching low achievers and students with learning disabilities to plan, write, and revise opinion essays. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 197–212.
