The article Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers by Nancy Sommers discusses the different models of the writing process. Her focus primarily is on the revision part of the writing process. In the article, she describes revision as ” a sequence of changes in a composition-changes which are initiated by cues and occur continually throughout the writing of a work” (pg. 380). She presents two other theories of revision from educators Gordon Rohman and James Britton.
- Gordon Rohman’s suggest that the composting process moves
from prewriting to writing to rewriting (“A writer is a man who … puts [his] experience into words in his own mind”-p. 15)
- James Britton’s model of the writing process as a series of stages described in metaphors of linear growth (conception-incubation-production)v
Revision, in Rohman’s model, is simply the repetition of writing; or to pursue Britton’s organic metaphor, revision is simply the further growth of what is already there the “pre-conceived” product. The absence of research on revision, then, is a function of a theory of writing which makes revision both superfluous and redundant, a theory which does not distinguish between writing and speech. (pg.379)
Both theories are modeled on the forms of speech of the writer. In order to properly analyze these theories of writing, Sommers conducts a case study comparing student and adult writers.
The student writers were twenty freshmen at Boston University and the University of Oklahoma with SAT verbal scores ranging from 450-600 in their first semester of composition. The twenty ex-perienced adult writers from Boston and Oklahoma City included journalists, editors, and academics. To refer to the two groups, I use the terms student writers and writers because the difference between these experienced principal two groups is the amount of experience they have had in writing. (pg 380)
These two groups of writers were asked to write three essays and revise it twice for a final product. The results showed that the student writers “did not seem comfortable using the word revision and explained that revision was not a word they used” (pg. 380). The experienced writers, on the other hand, “describe their primary objective when revising as finding the form or shape of their argument” (pg. 384)
Her article further discuss these two models of the revision process and the different approach of both groups of writers. This article is important in the context of teaching writing because it is a very important process that all students must learn and teachers should teach students the best ways to revise their work.
I agree with Serkan’s idea of fake news as a theme for the class group project. I think it is an important part of the class research as well as its opportunity to be creative. We can each present a fake news and discuss its relationship to teaching students in the classroom.