Revision and the Pedagogical Implications of Teachers as Digital Writers
Purpose
Revision in the writing process and the teaching of revision in America’s classrooms has been at the forefront of composition research over the past fifty years.
However, little is known about how the teaching of revision in the classroom is impacted by teachers’ familiarity and use of revision in a digital writing environment. Past research efforts have been fragmented to focus on revision or revision pedagogy in isolation, without consideration of how the experience of the teacher as writer might impact their own pedagogy. Further, much of this research is now dated as the ways in which society interacts in digital environments brings forward new idiosyncrasies.
The purpose of this complementarity mixed-method study is threefold and is designed to investigate ways in which: 1) teachers use revision in their own writing; 2) digital writing environments impact revision and revision instruction; and 3) the revision process is implemented into teachers’ classrooms. Therefore, the research questions guiding the study are:

In what ways do teachers of writing use revision in their own writing?
 What are teachers’ perceptions of revision in their own writing and in writing instruction in the classroom?

How do digital writing environments impact revision and its instruction?
Theoretical and Empirical Support for Revision Research
Revision is a central and important part of writing (Murray, 1978; Scardamalia &
Bereiter, 1986). There is considerable variation in the amount of revision that goes on within both expert and inexpert groups of writers (Bridwell, 1980; Faigley & Witte,
1981; Scardamalia & Bereiter, 1986). Overwhelming evidence supports that writers at various ages and various levels of competence make surface and mechanical edits to their writing, often revealing a misguided view of revision as proofreading (Bridwell, 1980;
NAEP & ETS, 1986, Sommers, 1980). More competent writers tend make more significant changes to structures and words within the text than do younger and less competent writers (Sommers, 1980; Lehrer & Comeaux, 1987, Faigley & Witte, 1981).
Research has documented the recursive and problem-solving nature of revision and has described how much writers revise, when they revise, and what kinds of revision operations they make. However, little research has been done to examine how a teacher’s use of revision in their own writing is reflected in the teaching of revision in their classrooms.
Of the writing strategies currently taught in our schools, perhaps the most difficult to teach is revision (Kirby & Liner, 1980; Sneed, 1988). Research exists to show that revisions improve the quality of writing and that students who revise are judged higher in

writing achievement scores, and yet, little emphasis is placed on revision in American public schools. Results of several studies suggest that high school students are rarely asked to revise their work (Applebee, 1981; Graham & Perin, 2007). Studies also suggest that students do very little revision without peer group or teacher support (Emig,
1971; Butler-Nalin, 1984; NAEP, 1977; Nagin, 2006). Historically, findings suggest that feedback can enhance revision, especially if the feedback is focused and part of a wider instructional program (Gere & Stevens, 1985; Graham & Perin, 2007; Nagin, 2006).
Fortunately, successful strategies for teaching writing do exist; yet, they are implemented disproportionately in our classrooms or overwhelming put aside for packaged writing programs (Nagin, 2006).
Many research reports and expert organizations in the field of English Language
Arts stress the importance of teachers of writing being writers themselves. The
Conference on College Composition and Communication of the National Council of
Teachers of English, in their position statement on the preparation and continuing education of teachers of writing, emphasize their belief that at the very minimum,
“teachers need, first of all, experience in writing, and also some theoretical knowledge to guide classroom practice” (NCTE, 2008). The Teachers and Writers’ Collaborative was founded in 1967 with the belief that writers could make a significant and unique contribution to the teaching of writing. The National Writing Project was founded on the belief that the nation cannot improve writing without teachers and administrators who value, understand, and practice writing themselves (Nagin, 2006).
In the classroom, students are more likely to trust the suggestions of a teacher whose writing struggles they have observed (Atwell, 1998). This is a step beyond telling students tales of one’s writing. Wendy Bishop (1999) agrees, stating in her research that she “can no more imagine being a writing teacher who does not write than I can imagine being one who does not read”(p. 14). When teachers begin to write, the inevitably become reflective. Theory shows that teachers’ expectations evolve when they experience the process of writing themselves (Atwell, 1998; Calkins, 1994; Crowe, 1992;
Fletcher, 1993; Gillespie, 1985; Gorrell, 1992; Graves, 1990, Healy, 1992; Kali, 1986;
Macrorie, 1994). The benefits of sharing writing with students are critical, because
“advice carries weight and truth, because I know writing from the inside, and I’ve shown them I do” (Atwell, 1998, p. 26).
Because writing is a social activity, it is critical that teachers also experience writing as writers in a collaborative and social environment. For Donald Graves (1990)
“reading and learning with colleagues” is the key to grow as a professional (p xi). Ralph
Keyes (2003) writes of the fear and anxiety that plagues the writing process and the need for colleagues to share their trepidation with others who have experienced the same misgivings, stating ‘had they known that all writers are anxious...perhaps more discouraged writers would be writing today” (p. 10). Atwell (1998) speaks of understanding writing from the inside. When teachers experience the process of writing, they know the feelings of fear and joy, which their students encounter. Harvey Kali
(1986) explains the importance of writing as teachers as “our feeling of relief in knowing that we have actually and recently experienced what we talk about is considerable” (p.
91).

In addition to these issues, a recent policy research brief published by the National
Council of Teachers of English situates the role of writing within our constantly changing world:
Technological advances, changing workplace demands, and cultural shifts make writing more important than ever, especially because the way we write often predicts academic and/or job success, creates opportunities for civic participation, maintains relationships, and enhances critical thinking
(NCTE, 2008, p. 1)
Technological advances continue to impact classroom instruction in significant ways. Practices in composition continue to evolve and expand, as do demands for higher levels of critical thinking, varied approaches to genre and audience, and increases in writing modalities, particularly within digital writing environments
(Yancey, 2009). In fact, the 2011 NEAP writing assessment requires that 8 th and
12 th
grade students compose with a word processor. With increasing numbers of digital writing environments appearing at lightning speed coupled with increased demands on writing proficiency in digital writing environments, it is difficult to study revision in writing without studying the ways in which digital writing environments impact revision and writing instruction. These environments
(blogs, social networking sites, Nings, Google Docs) allow writers to access and participate more seamlessly and instantaneously within web spaces and to distribute writing to large and widely dispersed audiences. The social collaboration in digital writing environments continues to impact the landscape of writing and writing instruction in significant ways.
Methods
Participants
The accessible population for this national study was a sampling frame of 150 participating sites of the National Writing Project Summer Institute E-Anthology (NWP
E-A). The NWP E-A is designed to introduce sites' new teacher-consultants to the national network of National Writing Project sites, giving summer institute participants the opportunity to post writing-in-progress and get collegial responses from a national readership. Of the participating sites, thirteen sites were randomly selected to participate, yielding approximately 250 study participants. This random sampling was determined by the constraints that the participants (a) post writing to the ‘Open Mic’ forum and
‘Classroom Matters’ forum of the NWP E-A, (b) ask for ‘Press’ or ‘Address’ feedback from NWP E-A participants, and (c) post a revision of the piece to the ‘Open Mic’ forum.
Data
A complementarity mixed-method evaluation design was used for the study
(Greene, 1987; Greene, Caracelli & Graham, 1989; Green & McClintock, 1985; Mark &
Shotland, 1987; Rossman & Wilson, 1985). Data was collected from multiple sources in which qualitative and quantitative analyses were completed. Artifacts and instruments that were collected and analyzed include:


Pre and post survey: The survey will cover demographic information as well as open-ended questions related to the research study goals.

Artifacts including personal and professional writing in all genres submitted by the participants, including subsequent revisions, were analyzed and coded for revision strategies.

A focus group of study participants and follow-up interviews with study participants were held to discuss implementation of revision strategies and digital
 writing environments within classroom settings.
Analysis
Each artifact and data set was analyzed and evaluated using a mixed methods approach. Quantitative data will be analyzed using SPSS

software and the qualitative data was analyzed both with the SPSS predictive text analysis feature as well as through the HyperResearch

software program. Each data set enabled the researcher to identify patterns in teachers’ use of revision in their own writing and in their classroom instruction.
Results and/or substantiated conclusions or warrants for arguments/point of view
Initial results honed from the analysis of data inform the following conclusions:

Many teachers teach revision and don’t realize that they do. Content area teachers, especially in the sciences, claimed to never approach revision within their curriculum when clearly, the idea of revisiting work to make it better is a cornerstone of all scientific thought.
 a significant percentage of participants believe that they are teaching revision, when in fact they are teaching only editing and proofreading strategies. Writing pedagogy has been placed on the back burner for the past ten years with a renewed focus on reading at the secondary level. As such, time on the writing process has been condensed and classroom instruction is centered on editing.
 the division between revision and editing is becoming increasingly blurred as revision becomes increasingly simultaneous. Digital writing environments bring forward a context where the delineation between revision and editing becomes less recognizable as synchronous composition takes place.

Teachers of writing neglect to teach the revision strategies in the classroom that they themselves use in their own writing. Often, teachers revert back to traditional revision activities such as teacher-directed changes on student papers.

Additionally, the use of digital writing environments within the summer institute increased teachers’ willingness to teach and use digital writing environments to teach revision in their own classrooms (See Figure 1).

Use of Digital Environments in the Classroom
Use of Digital
Environments in the
Classroom
Before SI and E-
Anth
After SI and E-
Anth
Figure 1 Use of Digital Environments in the Classroom
Scientific or scholarly significance of the study or work
This research study investigates the ways in which revision is used and taught in
America’s classrooms in order to update the field of research on revision to include the use of revision in digital writing environments. Additionally, the study was developed to expand the professional development opportunities in the areas of revision and revision in digital writing environments. The National Commission on Writing declared in its report,
The Neglected “R”: The Need for a Writing Revolution
, that “writing today is not a frill for the few, but an essential skill for the many” (NCW, 2003). With increasing attention given to learning accountability and school improvement, research-based writing pedagogy is more important than ever before.

References
Applebee, A.N. (1981). Writing in the secondary school: English and the content areas . Urbana,
IL: NCTE.
Atwell, N. (1998). In the middle: New understandings about writing, reading, and learning.
Portsmouth, NH. Heinemann.
Bishop, W. (1999). Places to stand. College Composition and Communication . 51 (p. 14).
Bridwell, L. (1980). Revising strategies in twelfth grade students’ transactional writing. Research in the Teaching of English, 14(3), 107-122.
Butler-Nalin, K. (1984). Process and product: How research methodologies and composing using a computer influence writing. Ph.D. dissertation, Stanford University, United States --
California. Retrieved September 15, 2008, from Dissertations & Theses: Full Text database. (Publication No. AAT 8522118).
Calkins, L.M. (1994). The art of teaching writing . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
College Board (2003). Report of The National Commission on Writing in America’s Schools and
Colleges. Retrieved September 15, 2008 from http://www.writingcommision.org
Crowe, C. (1992). Why write for publication? In K. Dahl (Ed.), Teacher as writer: Entering the professional conversation (pp. 74-80). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Emig, J. (1971). The composing process of twelfth graders (Research Report No. 13). Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Faigley, L. & Witte, S. (1981). Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication ,
32, 400-414.
Fletcher, R. (1993). What a writer needs . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Gere, A.R. & Stevens, R.S. (1985). The language of writing groups: How oral response shapes revision. The acquisition of written language: Response and revision .
Gillespie, T. (1985). Becoming your own expert—teachers as writers. The National Writing
Project Network Newsletter, 8(1), (1-2).
Gorrell, N. (1992). A teacher’s story of renewal. In K. Dahl (Ed.), Teacher as writer: Entering the professional conversation , (pp. 19-33). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools.
Alliance for Excellence in Education.
Graves, D. H. (1990) Discover your own literacy . Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
Greene, J.C. (1987). Uses and misuses of mixed-method evaluation designs . Proposal for the 1988 annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, New Orleans.
Greene, J.C., Caracelli, V., & Graham, W. (1989). Toward a conceptual framework for mixedmethod evaluation designs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis . 11(3), 255-274.
Greene, J.C. & McClintock, C. (1985). Triangulation in evaluation: Design and analysis issues.
Evaluation Review , 9, 523-545.
Healy, M.K. (1992). Writing communities: One historical perspective. In K. Dahl (Ed.), Teacher as writer: Entering the professional conversation.
(pp. 253-260). Urbana, IL: NCTE.
Kali, H. (1986). A writing teacher writes about writing teachers writing (about writing). English
Journal , 75(2), 88-91.
Keyes, R. (2003) The courage to write . New York: Henry Holt.
Kirby, D. & Liner, T. (1980). Revision: Yes, they do it. Yes, you can teach it. English Journal .
69(3), 41-45
Lehrer, R. & Comeaux, M. (1987) A developmental study of the effects of goal constraints on composition . Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association,
Washington, D.C.

Macrorie, K. (1994). Process, product, and quality. In L. Tobin & T. Newkirk (Eds.) Taking stock: The writing process movement in the 90’s
(pp. 31-43). Portsmouth, NH:
Heinemann.
Mark, M.M. & Shotland, R.L. (1987). Alternative models for the use of multiple methods. In M..
Mark & R.L. Shotland (Eds.). Multiple methods in program evaluation: New Directions for Program Evaluation 35, (pp. 95-100). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Murray, D. (1978). Internal revision: A process of discovery. In C. Cooper and L. Odell (Eds.)
Research on Composing: Points of Departure . Urbana, IL: NCTE.
National Assessment of Educational Progress (1977). Write/rewrite: An assessment of revision skills: Selected results from the second national assessment of writing.
National Assessment of Educational Progress & Educational Testing Service (1986). The writing report card: Writing achievement in American schools. Princeton, NJ: National
Assessment of Education Progress.
National Council of Teachers of English (2008) Policy brief on writing. Retrieved www.ncte.org
National Council of Teachers of English, Conference on College Composition and
Communication position statement on the preparation and professional development of teachers of writing (1982). Retrieved from http://www.ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/123789.htm
National Writing Project and Nagin, C. (2006). Because writing matters . San Francisco: John
Wiley & Sons.
Rossman, G.B., & Wilson, B.L. (1985). Numbers and words: Combining quantitative and qualitative methods in a single large-scale evaluation study. Evaluation Review , 9, 627-
643.
Scardamalia, M. & Bereiter, C. (1986). Research on written composition. In M.C. Wittrock (Ed.),
Handbook of research on teaching (3 rd ed., pp. 778-803). New York: Macmillan.
Simmons, J. (2005). Improving college bound writing: The conditions to do it well. English
Journal 94(6), 75-80.
Sneed, J.H. (1988). The teaching of revision: Case studies of three eighth-grade language arts teachers. National College of Education, 1988, 186 pages; AAT 8921518
Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College
Composition and Communication , 31, 378-388.
Yancey, K. (2008). 2008 NCTE Presidential address: The impulse to compose and the age of composition. The National Council of Teachers of English Annual Meeting. Retrieved from www.ncte.org