Research Report: Better Writers: Writing Center Tutoring and the Revision of Rough Drafts

Bell, James H.

doi:10.1080/10790195.2002.10850133

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although any bifurcation may be artificial, for purposes of analysis and coding, we operationalized HOCs as discussions concerning thesis, development, organization, and style; we operationalized LOCs as discussions regarding sentence-level issues including word choice, citation information, grammar, and mechanics. The taxonomy of revision changes suggested by Bell (2002) was adopted while operationalizing HOCs and LOCs.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Intersections between Tutorial Engagement, Directive Feedback, and Critical Reflection

Nash

Dawson²,

Gülözer³

2018

DW/R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A handful of research studies have investigated the effect of writing centre tutorials on subsequent revisions. This classroom-based study adds to that research by reporting results from a collaborative study between a composition professor and a writing centre tutor. The aim of the study was to examine the influence of writing centre tutorials on immediate student revisions as well as final drafts. The analysis was extensively framed by the Vygotskyan sociocultural model of language and cognitive development with an emphasis on tutor-student engagement as reciprocal interaction which include directive feedback and consequential revision. This study employed a qualitative design with students in a sophomore-level core composition course. Participants attended a writing centre session concerning their major writing assignment. Data triangulation included analysis of assignment drafts, observation notes, and tutorial transcripts. Findings revealed that students attended to feedback that was directive and straightforward. Additionally, students did not attend to citation feedback unless it was direct and explicit. Furthermore, students sometimes overgeneralized and misapplied the feedback. The findings highlight the impact of individual learner factors as well as the results of directive feedback on revisions.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Subsequent writing centre studies continued to investigate the relationship between writing centre sessions and revision. However, the results were often either inconclusive or limited (Bell, 2002;Goldstein & Conrad, 1990;Mackiewicz & Thompson, 2013;Patthey-Chavez & Ferris, 1997;Prithvi & Coffin, 2012;Weigle et al, 2004;Williams, 2004).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intersections between Tutorial Engagement, Directive Feedback, and Critical Reflection

Nash

Dawson²,

Gülözer³

2018

DW/R

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other studies that take a multimethod approach to understanding student writing were used to develop the analytic framework (e.g. Bell 2002;Christie and Dreyfus 2007;Haswell 1988Haswell , 2000Prosser and Webb 1994;Storch and Tapper 2009). An analytic approach grounded in systemic-functional linguistics (SFL) was chosen (e.g.…”

Section: The Analytical Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring the outcomes of individualised writing instruction: a multilayered approach to capturing changes in students' texts

Borg¹,

Deane²

2011

Teaching in Higher Education

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a highly competitive higher education environment where resources are limited, educators are increasingly concerned with providing evidence for the effectiveness of teaching interventions including one-to-one writing support. This article offers a model for analysing the changes in student writing as a result of individualised writing instruction. The multilayered approach to textual analysis proposed here concentrates on five aspects of academic writing that students need to master during the first year of tertiary level education. The model is illustrated with reference to a first year student's assignment. The application of the model allows for a systematic description of changes students make to their draft assignments, and the evaluation of whether these changes were consonant with the topics discussed during tutorials. The rationale for measuring student revisions is both to inform teaching and tutorial practice, and to provide valuable information for senior managers seeking to identify effective ways of enhancing students' academic literacies. Student writing in higher educationThe quality of students' writing in higher education concerns both academics and others interested in the sector. Although employers value literacy highly and the closely related area of communication skills, these are among the areas in which the gap between employers' expectations and their satisfaction with graduates' abilities is greatest (Archer and Davison 2008). Academics, too, regularly despair at the writing capabilities of their students (e.g. Dann 2009;Lamb 2009). Yet writing is central to the learning experience of a university and it is a crucial means of assessment. Students who do not master disciplinary practices are unlikely to succeed on their course or potentially in their professional practice after graduation. For these reasons and others, universities have a responsibility to support the development of students' academic literacies. This can be approached in different ways including embedded disciplinary support or generic study skills teaching. Either approach can be provided by central units or by subject academics as part of the degree. This article focuses on supplemental writing support offered by a writing centre, which is centrally funded but, being based on one-to-one tuition, seeks to reflect disciplinary cultures and practices.

show abstract

“…Still, a few researchers have attempted to connect conferences to improved writing outcomes. Bell (2002) suggested that ''better writers have better writing processes or more usable knowledge of conventions or both, and a manifestation of this improvement is often better written products'' (p. 6). Bell found that students working with peer tutors and a professional tutor focused mainly on surface-level changes (i.e., changes that leave meaning intact).…”

Section: Consultant-student Conferencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relying on Writing Consultants

Mackiewicz

2011

Journal of Business and Technical Communication

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Colleges of business grapple with a perceived lack of quality in their graduates' professional writing and recognize students' need to learn disciplinary discourses. This article describes the motivation, design, and preliminary outcomes of a business-writing prototype at Auburn University. Writing consultants trained in business communication worked with one class on a substantial writing project. They provided conferencing and written feedback, greatly lowering the faculty workload. Student surveys and informal interviews indicate that students, faculty, and consultants were satisfied with this prototype program.

show abstract

Research Report: Better Writers: Writing Center Tutoring and the Revision of Rough Drafts

Cited by 11 publications

References 9 publications

Intersections between Tutorial Engagement, Directive Feedback, and Critical Reflection

Intersections between Tutorial Engagement, Directive Feedback, and Critical Reflection

Measuring the outcomes of individualised writing instruction: a multilayered approach to capturing changes in students' texts

Relying on Writing Consultants

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About