SQR 3

Estevan Trejo
ENG 1301.28
Trang Phan
09/13/2010

Summary – Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers
A widely under researched aspect of the writing process is the process of revision (Sommers 378). Many believe the reason for this is because the majority of current writing models that are being taught to students, both in elementary and in high school, view revision as a separate, secluded process reserved for the end of a literary work (378). Research has shown that student writers generally view the revision process as a time to go back and reword any words they feel to be “not good enough” or “too typical” (381). The fear of vocabulary repetition is greater to them than the fear of idea repetition, and they essentially have a “thesaurus philosophy of writing” when it comes time to revise (381). On the other hand, experienced writers, people who are not conditioned to think and write a uniform way every time, view their main objective while revising to be finding the form and shape of their argument (384). Rather than being focused on which words are used, the concern becomes strengthening the core ideas behind the words. They may cross out a section, rewrite a statement, or rearrange a whole paragraph in order to do so (384). It is a reoccurring process throughout the entire writing. The end result of which is a precise and coherent paper that is truly of the author’s creation.

Question: How do student writers view revision? Why?

Response:
As described in Nancy Sommers article, “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers”, the predominant concern student writers had during the revision process was vocabulary repetition (Sommers 381). They viewed revision as a time to “go back and reword”, often with thesauruses on hand (381). The problem with this arises from the fact that they usually overlook bigger priorities such as idea repetition. All too often do they simply rearrange words which ultimately just restate the same ideas (382). Many scholars, including Nancy Sommers, believe these problems can be attributed to the model of writing the students are using (382). They believe that when the student is forced to fit the mold criteria of a composing model, such as the Plan/Write/Revise model, their creativity and natural thought patterns are disrupted (383). Essentially, if the P/W/R model was not holding the student writers back, Nancy Sommers and her colleagues agree the students would produce much more intelligible and cohesive papers (383). As a current student writer, I would certainly have to agree with them.