東華大學圖書館 |

Language: English

Help

回圖書館首頁

手機版館藏查詢

Back

Switch To: Labeled | MARC Mode | ISBD

Linked to FindBook

Google Book

Amazon

博客來

Response and Revision in College Composition : = A Mixed Methods Analysis of Teachers' and Consultants' Influence on Student Writers' Revision Activity.

Record Type:	Electronic resources : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Response and Revision in College Composition :/
Reminder of title:	A Mixed Methods Analysis of Teachers' and Consultants' Influence on Student Writers' Revision Activity.
Author:	Hardin Marshall, Laura.
Description:	1 online resource (530 pages)
Notes:	Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-11, Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertations Abstracts International84-11A.
Subject:	Pedagogy. -
Online resource:	http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30493527click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9798379574536

Response and Revision in College Composition : = A Mixed Methods Analysis of Teachers' and Consultants' Influence on Student Writers' Revision Activity.
Hardin Marshall, Laura.

Response and Revision in College Composition :A Mixed Methods Analysis of Teachers' and Consultants' Influence on Student Writers' Revision Activity. - 1 online resource (530 pages)

Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-11, Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--Saint Louis University, 2023.

Includes bibliographical references

Responding to student writers and their work is a staple of composition instruction, and there are numerous guides that offer educators advice on response strategies. However, such guides are often based on untested theories or assumptions about the effectiveness of those strategies, with little data-driven evidence of whether they work as hoped or intended. Furthermore, much research of response and/or revision is conducted in language-learning contexts or focus only on response provided by teachers and/or in-class peers. This project therefore presents a mixed-methods analysis of teachers' and writing consultants' response strategies and college writers' revision activity in composition-learning contexts at Saint Louis University to discover what and/or whose comments result in revision attempts. Surveys, rough drafts (with responder comments), and final drafts were collected and analyzed. Findings revealed that responders fell into three categories: instructors (classroom composition pedagogy/experience only), consultants (writing center pedagogy/experience only), or cross-trained (both forms of pedagogy/experience). These differences in training correspond with differences in response strategies. Additionally, writers acted on comments at different rates, with instructors' comments resulting in the lowest rates of attempt (42% on average) with consultants and cross-trained responders' comments resulting in much higher rates (63% and 61% respectively). These and other findings indicate that writing center pedagogy has considerable influence on writers' revision activity. Most importantly, though, student writers are still developing response and revision literacy, and current response and pedagogical practices are not always explicitly directed at improving those literacies. Teachers, consultants, and writing program/writing center administrators can improve student writers' understanding of response and revision through targeted interventions, especially ones that exercise metaresponse: engaging writers in thinking about and responding to response.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2023

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9798379574536Subjects--Topical Terms:

2122828
Pedagogy.
Subjects--Index Terms:

Composition instructionIndex Terms--Genre/Form:

542853
Electronic books.

Response and Revision in College Composition : = A Mixed Methods Analysis of Teachers' and Consultants' Influence on Student Writers' Revision Activity.
LDR:03564nmm a2200409K 4500 001 2362095
005 20231027103232.5
006 m o d
007 cr mn ---uuuuu
008 241011s2023 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9798379574536
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI30493527
035 $a AAI30493527
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ $d NTU
100 1 $a Hardin Marshall, Laura. $3 3702798
245 1 0 $a Response and Revision in College Composition : $b A Mixed Methods Analysis of Teachers' and Consultants' Influence on Student Writers' Revision Activity.
264 0 $c 2023
300 $a 1 online resource (530 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertations Abstracts International, Volume: 84-11, Section: A.
500 $a Advisor: Lynch, Paul.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.)--Saint Louis University, 2023.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a Responding to student writers and their work is a staple of composition instruction, and there are numerous guides that offer educators advice on response strategies. However, such guides are often based on untested theories or assumptions about the effectiveness of those strategies, with little data-driven evidence of whether they work as hoped or intended. Furthermore, much research of response and/or revision is conducted in language-learning contexts or focus only on response provided by teachers and/or in-class peers. This project therefore presents a mixed-methods analysis of teachers' and writing consultants' response strategies and college writers' revision activity in composition-learning contexts at Saint Louis University to discover what and/or whose comments result in revision attempts. Surveys, rough drafts (with responder comments), and final drafts were collected and analyzed. Findings revealed that responders fell into three categories: instructors (classroom composition pedagogy/experience only), consultants (writing center pedagogy/experience only), or cross-trained (both forms of pedagogy/experience). These differences in training correspond with differences in response strategies. Additionally, writers acted on comments at different rates, with instructors' comments resulting in the lowest rates of attempt (42% on average) with consultants and cross-trained responders' comments resulting in much higher rates (63% and 61% respectively). These and other findings indicate that writing center pedagogy has considerable influence on writers' revision activity. Most importantly, though, student writers are still developing response and revision literacy, and current response and pedagogical practices are not always explicitly directed at improving those literacies. Teachers, consultants, and writing program/writing center administrators can improve student writers' understanding of response and revision through targeted interventions, especially ones that exercise metaresponse: engaging writers in thinking about and responding to response.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2023
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Pedagogy. $3 2122828
650 4 $a Higher education. $3 641065
650 4 $a Rhetoric. $3 516647
653 $a Composition instruction
653 $a Feedback
653 $a Metaresponse
653 $a Response strategies
653 $a Revision activity
653 $a Writing center
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 lcsh $3 542853
690 $a 0681
690 $a 0456
690 $a 0745
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 783688
710 2 $a Saint Louis University. $b English. $3 1677763
773 0 $t Dissertations Abstracts International $g 84-11A.
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=30493527 $z click for full text (PQDT)