This research examines the effects of three treatment conditions: 1) observational activity preceding writing, or assignment only; 2) regular revision or no revision; and 3) brief teacher comments or extensive comments. Two pre-tests and two post-tests (all writing samples) were collected from 278 seventh and eighth graders in twelve classes taught by three teachers in two schools. These compositions were coded, mixed randomly together, and scored by three raters who achieved intraclass rater reliabilities for three raters from .95 to .98. Results show significant gains for each instructional set: observational activity with revision, observational activity and no revision, assignment with revision, and assignment and no revision. As predicted, the assignment/no .revision group made the least gains, significantly lower than the observational activity/no revision group. Analysis of covariance of nfean gain scores with IQ as a single covariate revealed significant two-way interactions between instruction and revision and between instruction and comment type. This study examines the effects of stressing three phases of the composing process in the teaching of composition. Two of them, feedback (especially in the form of teacher comments and marks) and revision (as implied in the assignment to write first and second drafts) have been assumed for years to be efficacious. The third, observation of data, is related to invention, which has witnessed a revival of interest over the past two decades. These three variables and their control conditions require explanation. Feedback: The Effects of Teacher Comment Audience response or feedback is ignored in popular studies of the composing process (e.g., Emig, 1971; Pianko, 1979; Perl, 1979). Conditions and goals of the research, namely the necessity for writers to express thoughts aloud as they write in the presence of an observer or recorder, prohibit explicit feedback. Rhetoricians have long been aware of the importance of both predicting probable audience response and attending to actual response. Teachers and pedagogical theorists (e.g., Moffett, 1968) have attended to the need for feedback, and at least one has incorporated Research in the Teaching of English, Vol. 16, No. 3, October 1982
[1]
D. Burton,et al.
EFFECTS OF FREQUENCY OF WRITING AND INTENSITY OF TEACHER EVALUATION UPON HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS' PERFORMANCE IN WRITTEN COMPOSITION.
,
1963
.
[2]
Kenneth L. Pike,et al.
Beyond the Sentence
,
1964
.
[3]
Winnifred F. Taylor,et al.
The Effect of Praise upon the Quality and Quantity Of Creative Writing
,
1966
.
[4]
James Moffett,et al.
Teaching the universe of discourse
,
1968
.
[5]
J. Emig.
The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders
,
1971
.
[6]
Thomas C. Gee.
Students' Responses to Teacher Comments.
,
1972
.
[7]
R. Hausner.
INTERACTION OF SELECTED STUDENT PERSONALITY FACTORS AND TEACHERS' COMMENTS IN A SEQUENTIALLY-DEVELOPED COMPOSITION CURRICULUM.
,
1975
.
[8]
George Hillocks.
Observing and writing
,
1975
.
[9]
G. Hillocks.
The Effects of Observational Activities on Student Writing
,
1979
.
[10]
R. Beach.
The Effects of Between-draft Teacher Evaluation Versus Student Self-evaluation on High School Students’ Revising of Rough Drafts
,
1979,
Research in the Teaching of English.
[11]
Sharon Pianko,et al.
A Description of the Composing Processes of College Freshman Writers
,
1979,
Research in the Teaching of English.
[12]
Helen J. Throckmorton.
Do Your Writing Assignments Work?--Checklist for a Good Writing Assignment.
,
1980
.
[13]
Lillian S. Bridwell,et al.
Revising Strategies in Twelfth Grade Students’ Transactional Writing
,
1980,
Research in the Teaching of English.
[14]
G. Hillocks,et al.
The Responses of College Freshmen to Three Modes of Instruction
,
1981,
American Journal of Education.