Variation in Writing Conference Influence on Revision: Two Cases

Abstract

The purpose of the study was to describe the influence of conferences on revision knowledge and revision activity for an initially knowledgeable first-grade reviser and a relatively naive one. Using both quantitative and descriptive analyses, data from three baseline points and seven conference points were summarized. At conference information collection points, the children wrote, groups conferenced, children were interviewed about potential revisions, and students revised. At baseline points, there were no conferences. For analyses, we (a) read all of the writing and transcripts of interviews and conferences; (b) determined quality of first and last draft of each composition; (c) coded conference talk; (d) traced comments between conferences, interviews, and revisions carried out; (e) calculated counts of revisions the children talked about in interviews and revisions they carried out; and (f) reviewed the teacher's observations about the two children's behavior in the classroom. Conference influence was variable, both within and across children. Further, dramatic differences were noted between the two children in conference influence, with only the initially naive writer profiting significantly from conferences and evidencing clear developmental progress in revision.The purpose of this study was to describe the influence of conferences on revision knowledge and revision activity for an initially knowledgeable first-grade reviser and for a relatively naive one. The present study was a follow-up to prior research (Fitzgerald & Stamm, 1990) in which we examined the influence of conferences on 16 first-graders' revision. Earlier, we concluded that conferences did influence revision for many children, but that the influence was mediated by entrylevel revision knowledge and activity and writing level. For the present study, we tried to further describe how conference influence differed for different kinds of writers by looking in-depth at the revision development of 2 of the 16 children 22Journal of Reading Behavior who participated in the earlier study-one whose initial revision knowledge and activity were relatively low and one whose knowledge and activity were relatively high.Revision was defined as making changes at any point of writing (before, during, and/or after pen meets paper). It involves (1) detecting mismatches between intended and instantiated text, (b) deciding how changes could or should be made, and (c) actually making changes (cf. Beach, 1984;Fitzgerald, 1988;Fitzgerald & Markham, 1987;Flower & Hayes, 1981). The first two aspects of revision (detecting mismatches and deciding how to make changes) are knowledge components of revision, distinguished from the third aspect (making changes) which is actual revision activity. This definition of revision is highly consistent with the problemsolving view of writing as delineated by Flower and Hayes (1981), in which authors set goals for their pieces, check their work against those goals to detect problems, make decisions about where and how change...

Can Conferences and Modelling Strategies Improve Students’ Interest and Achievement in Essay Writing?

“…Bayraktar (2013) and Partth (2014) contend that during writing conferences students discuss and share ideas about their written essays. This finding corroborates the finding by Fitzgerald and Stamm (1992) who found that writing conference stimulates revision even among beginning writers. A similar finding has been reported by Jasmine and Weiner (2007) who found that the post-survey after intervention favoured participants who were taught using writing workshops, a form of writing conference.…”

“…Through the process, the student gets even example words to use. The findings on achievement in writing are also similar at the same time a bit different from those of Fitzgerald and Stamm (1992), Jasmine and Weiner (2007) and Chia (2016). Fitzgerald and Stamm (1992) focused on the revision component of the writing process.…”

“…Fitzgerald and Stamm (1990) after examining the influence of conferences of 16 first graders' revision concluded that conferences did influence revision for children. Two years later, they maintained that writing conferences represent one promising means of stimulating revision activity even for beginning writers (Fitzgerald & Stamm, 1992). As already noted, writing conferences can take diverse forms.…”

“…The instruments were supported with mini-lesson plans designed by the researchers following the four recommended steps by . For Experimental Group 1, the lesson plans were guided by the framework presented in Fitzgerald and Stamm (1992) allowing students to write on the topic of their choice. Two days later, the students met to discuss at least four of the essays and one or two days later, they made their revisions before presenting the final draft for assessment.…”

Research in Writing, Preschool Through Elementary, 1983-2003

“…With teacher support, some first grade children are able to make meaningful revisions to their texts (Fitzgerald & Stamm, 1992). By second grade they can use content and genre knowledge (Perez, 2001) and are able to revise for surface and semantic errors (Cameron, Edmunds, Wigmore, Hunt, & Linton, 1997) but their revisions tend to focus more on mechanics than on meaning, and meaning-based revisions tend to involve only small units of text (Fitzgerald, 1987).…”