John F. Marsella
09-Mar-16
ENGL 7809; Technical Editing
Dr. M. Albers
Teaching effective online editing habits
using MS Word Commenting functionality.
John Francis Marsella
University of Memphis
3868 Kelley Cir N
Memphis, TN 38111
(334) 750 6714
Teaching effective online editing habits
using MS Word Commenting functionality.
ABSTRACT
In this study, data was derived from the comments which undergraduate technical
editing students made in an on-line comprehensive editing assignment. Comments were
assessed for level of structure, phrasing, and quality. Effective and ineffective on-line
commenting habits were observed. Students were found to make a high percentage of
paragraph level comments and low percentages of global and sentence level comments.
Directives were issued most often. Quantities of good and poor quality comments were
relatively similar.
INTRODUCTION
As on-line editing becomes more widely used, it is necessary for students in
technical writing curriculums to learn effective on-line comprehensive editing habits.
Microsoft Word, one of the most popular word-processing tools available today, offers
Commenting functionality as well as the Track Changes approach to online editing.
Instructors should focus on teaching effective on-line editing practices using the editing
tools provided by programs such as MS Word.
Matt Willen (2004) writes that “the primary objective of feedback is to help the
writer develop a document that addresses the needs and expectations of its audience,”
and this goal is achieved when the editor can not only recognize the problem in the
document, but also offer a suggestion as to how to correct it (p.21). Hart (2004) is also a
proponent of using comments to clarify the nature of the edit. He suggests making
2
editorial suggestions within comments in MS Word so that the author can easily copy and
paste the revisions into the document. Teaching skills and editing strategy such as these
are imperative in the classroom setting; applying them to the available technology will
better prepare students for a career in the technical communication field. Doing so will
promote current technical editing students toward excellence as they advance their
careers.
In this study, I investigate the use of the Commenting feature of MS Word by
students, in order to isolate the problem-areas most often encountered when performing
comprehensive on-line edits. I identify these pitfalls as well as explore the effective
editing habits that students frequently illustrate. I will suggest which areas technical
editing instructors should concentrate on when teaching on-line editing skills in the
classroom. We hope to find a concordance between effective editing techniques among
student editors and the results of the data collected.
COLLECTION FRAMEWORK
The samples for this study were collected from the results of an in-class on-line
comprehensive editing assignment, which was administered to eleven (11) students in a
section of the undergraduate Technical Editing class (designated ENGL 3602). The
students completed the assignment using either Microsoft Word version 2000 or XP on a
standard landscape-oriented monitor.
The assignment was based on a 7-page type-written Word document, which had
errors on all levels of structure. The entire text was tagged such that MS Word would not
automatically check for spelling or grammar, using the Tools > Language > Set
Language menu bar option. The assignment was structured as a graded quiz. In order to
3
achieve natural responses to the assignment, the students were only informed that the
editing assignment would be graded, but not that it would be used in a research
environment.
After collecting the samples, students were presented with the proper Institutional
Review Board forms and agreed to participate in the study.
DATA SAMPLES
The eleven (11) congruent data samples, when compared superficially, differed
dramatically in terms of several factors, designated as the following groups:
I.
II.
III.
Level of structure commented on
Type of comments
Quality of comments
Because of these apparent differences, a coding schema was developed in order to
analyze each of these factors in a quantitative fashion. After applying the coding schema,
each category of comments was quantified.
QUANTITY OF COMMENTS
The strictly quantitative measure of the number of comments allowed for the
possibility of descriptive statistical analysis of the data in several ways. Ratios could be
derived, both within each sample-assignment, but more importantly, among all
assignments, for the following:



Level of structure comments to total comments
Comment type to total comments
Good quality comments to total comments
Applying the coding schema described below, two coders independently marked
every sample and compared their conclusions.
4
Among the eleven sample assignments, 148 comments were made. Only
comments made within the MS Word Commenting “bubbles” were counted; no in-text
comments were considered. Several of the students took a more heavy-handed editing
approach and attempted to rewrite the document instead of offering suggestions to the
authors. Those who used that practice yielded very few comments.
In an effort to ensure inter-coder reliability, the Cohen’s kappa was calculated for
the set of codes. This statistical measurement, a description of which is not in the scope
of this article, provides a dependable picture of the agreement between the two coders in
that Cohen’s kappa accounts for “the agreements that would have agreed by chance”
(University of Nebraska). Cohen’s kappa was calculated using Takamoto’s web-based
Cohen’s kappa calculator.
CODING SCHEMA
The initial coding schema used a three-tiered approach to gathering pertinent data.
As suggested in the section above, group I evaluations focused the level of structure on
which the comment was made; group II assessments described the reason for the
comment or, the comment-type; group III evaluations considered the quality of the
comment. Quantitative measures were derived from data-counts of groups I through III.
Multiple Comments in One Comment Bubble
In some cases, the editor used one comment “bubble” or “box” to house more
than one comment. In these situations, each comment was coded independently for level
of structure, type, and quality. Often these multiple comments described unconnected
problems within the document, although the editor may have sometimes joined multiple
comments pertaining to a single paragraph or sentence. These comments are not
5
necessarily of poor quality, but often the editor’s meaning may become muddled within
the mash of comments.
**INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE**
Figure 1. Multiple and Singular Comments
Editors made 32 discernable comments (21.2%) within shared “bubbles.” Some
editors put 3 comments per bubble, while most editors who commented multiple times in
a single bubble made only 2 comments. That one comment shares a bubble with another
comment does not necessarily dictate quality, although many of the 32 comments became
difficult to understand. Within the 32 bubble-sharing comments, there were 21 poor
quality comments (65.6%) and 11 good quality comments (34.4%) found sharing
bubbles. Quality of each comment in shared-bubble instances are independent, e.g., if
there were three comments in one comment bubble, two may be good quality and one
may be poor.
Group I (Level of Structure)
The comprehensive editor must take into consideration not only the document as a
whole, the global level, but also lower levels, such as the paragraph and sentence levels.
McNeill (2001) and Petersen (2000), among others, agree that the edit should be a multitiered process; they suggest starting at higher levels and working down; that is, the topdown editing style.
Optimally, the editor would work through all levels of edit before returning the
document to the author for revision. In this study, however, the students were given a
6
45-minute time-frame in which to complete the substantive, comprehensive on-line
editing assignment.
**INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE**
Figure 2. Comments by Structure Level
Of the 151 comments, the global-level was the least-often structure-level
commented on: only 9 comments (or, 6.0%) were made on this level. Paragraph-level
comments were the predominant structure-level commented on: 111 comments (or,
74.0%) were made on the paragraph-level. Sentence-level comments followed, and not
by a small margin: 30 comments (or, 20.0%) were made at the sentence-level.
Global Level
Global level comments appeared in two forms. In the first form, the editor asks
the author to consider the audience of the document. Although the editor may indicate
only one instance, I feel that these comments constitute an awareness of the global level
on the part of the editor. These comments may include asking the author to spell out an
acronym and questioning the tone of paragraphs or sentences. The second form of global
level commenting dealt with document-wide consistency. The editor notes consistency
issues in punctuation, word-choice, reference, and other areas. Again, the editor may
indicate only one error, but this awareness proves the editor’s sensitivity to the document
as a whole.
Within the global-level, 7 comments (4.7%) were made directing the author to
consider the audience, while 2 comments (1.3%) were made asking the author to check
consistency on the global level.
7
Paragraph Level
Paragraph level comments fell into several different categories:






Need for specific content
Revising content
Format and design
Order of information
Presentation of information
Deletion
In the case of need for specific content, the editor specifies that some information
is lacking within the paragraph. This information may be as little as a name, but could
comprise an entire section. Suggestions concerning the revision of contents differ from
the need for specific content in that suggestions for revision assumes that the content is
present, but needs to be reworked. The editor may be pointing out redundant information
or asking for justification on the inclusion of the content in question. Where format and
document design issues are concerned, the editor makes suggestions ranging from proper
use of sub-headings to indicating inconsistent structure within and between paragraphs.
Editors commented on the order of information within paragraphs as well as among them.
This incuded the ostensible order of information within and among paragraphs as well as
parallel structuring among sentences. Structural consistency among paragraphs may be
called into question under the format and design category. Presentation of information
comments dealt with the way in which the information was offered to the reader: the
editor suggests information delivery via figures, list-style presentation, and tables.
Simplification and integration of separate figures, lists, and tables fall into this category
also. Lastly, editors occasionally recommend the deletion of a partial or even entire
paragraph, due to needless or redundant information.
Para: Necessary Content
34
22.7%
Para: Content
23
15.3%
8
8
5.3%
Para: Order of Info.
17
11.3%
Para: Presentation of Info.
21
14.0%
8
5.3%
Para: Format
Para: Delete Paragraph
Table 1. Raw and Percentage Data of Paragraph Level Comments by Category.
**INSERT FIGURE 3 HERE**
Figure 3. Paragraph Level Comments by Feature
Within the paragraph level, the most comments were made in reference to the
need for specific information: 34 comments (22.7%). Comments relating to paragraph
format were low with only 8 comments made (5.3%). There were 17 comments (11.3%)
made about the order within and among paragraphs, while paragraph content was
commented on in 23 instances (15.3%). Presentation of information within paragraphs
drew almost as much attention, with 21 comments (14.0%). Lastly, 8 comments (5.3%)
were made suggesting that the author delete a whole paragraph.
Sentence Level
Sentence level comments consisted of several different sets:





Meaning and clarity
Grammatical and mechanical
Revision of sentence
Word change
Deletion
In meaning and clarity comments, the editor asks the author to review the
sentence for clarity or meaning within the sentence. The editor may indicate the need for
more information in order to make the sentence make sense on the sentence level or in
9
context with the paragraph. The editor may also indicate unclear phrasing within the
sentence. Editors deal with grammatical and mechanical issues, such as punctuation
issues, subject-verb agreement, and verb concord, as well as instances of run-on
sentences. Revision of sentence comments suggest the rewriting of an entire sentence
and most often stem from clunky or imprecise wording. Sentence revision comments
differ from clarity comments in that suggestions for revision tend to deal more with
stylistic issues. In some instances, editors suggest a word change. The author may have
used a word incorrectly or imprecisely. The editor ideally suggests the preferable word
in place of the erroneous one. Sometimes editors recommend that the author delete an
entire sentence. This normally occurs when the sentence is redundant or unnecessary.
15
10.0%
Sentence: Grammar
1
0.7%
Sentence: Rewrite
8
5.3%
Sentence: Word Choice
2
1.3%
Sentence: Delete Sentence
4
2.7%
Sentence: Meaning\Clarity
Table 2. Raw and Percentage Data of Sentence Level Comments by Category.
**INSERT FIGURE 4 HERE**
Figure 4. Sentence Level Comments by Feature.
Within the sentence level, comments were most often made on the clarity or
meaning of the sentence: 15 comments (10%) were made. Grammar was called into
question only 1 time (0.7%), while editors suggested sentence level rewrites 8 times
(5.3%). Comments on word choice were low, with only 2 comments made (1.3%). In 4
instances (2.7%), the editor suggested deletion of entire sentences.
10
Group II (Type of Comment)
Hart (2005) writes that “the goal [of editing] is to constantly reinforce the notion
that [the editor is] proposing rather than demanding changes” (p. 27). The tone of the
comment can determine the author’s opinion of the editor: one harsh sounding comment
could cause the author to ignore the editor’s work wholesale. The field of editorial
comments is divided into two main types, each with sub-categories:


Direct Comments
o Question
o Directive
o Comment
o Explaining edit
Couched Comments
o Directive as question
o Directive as comment
**INSERT FIGURE 5 HERE**
Figure 5. Comments by Main Type
Direct comments openly express the editor’s intent in the comment. These
straightforward comments question, direct, offer editorial observation, or explain why the
editor has performed a specific edit to the document. Comments phrased as questions ask
the author’s intention or solicits justification of the text. Directives instruct the author to
make certain changes to the document. Sometimes, the editor makes a comment that has
no implication regarding the revision to the text, rather the editor may be simply stating
that the sentence or paragraph is well written. Comments explaining edits do just that:
the editor has made an edit to the text and uses the comment to justify or rationalize the
change.
Comment: as Question
16
10.6%
Comment: as Directive
78
51.7%
11
Comment: as Comment
9
6.0%
Comment: Explaining Edit
4
2.6%
Comment: Directive as Question
16
10.6%
Comment: Directive as Comment
28
18.5%
Table 3. Comments by Type
**INSERT FIGURE 6 HERE**
Figure 6. Comments by Type
Direct comments made up 107 (70.9%) of the 148 total comments. Editors posed
only 16 comments (10.6%) as questions, whereas they phrased 78 comments (51.7%) as
directives. Editorial observations, or “pure” comments showed up 9 times (6.0%), while
explanations of edits only occurred 4 times (2.6%).
Couched, or indirect, comments are those in which the editor uses a more passive
approach to suggesting the proposed edit. In cases where a directive is posed as a
question, the author phrases the comment in an interrogative fashion, although the intent
and tone is that the author ought to make the change. The directive may also be posed as
a comment. In this rather passive-aggressive editorial approach, the editor makes a
superficially offhanded comment about the text, hoping that the author will understand
the editor’s intent and perform the proper revision.
Editors used indirect, or couched, comments in 44 instances (29.1%) of the 148
total. The editors presented directives as questions 16 times (10.6%), while they used the
“pure” comment as a directive 28 times (18.5%).
12
Group III (Quality of Comments)
As Willen (2004) mentioned, editorial quality rests in the ability of the editor to
recognize the problems and make clear, understandable suggestions as to revision. In
many instances, the difference between what could be considered a good editorial
comment and a poor comment is a simple matter of clarity; in other instances, it is the
editor’s skills (or lack thereof) at identifying problems. Comment quality is a binary
assessment: comments are either good or poor.
Good quality comments are clear, direct, and, if followed, should produce positive
results for the document. These comments are necessary and understandable. Poor
quality comments are muddled, unnecessary, or ineffectual; a poor comment will not
benefit the document and may, in some cases, degrade the quality of the document if
followed.
Of the 151 total comments, 79 (or, 52.3%) were good quality, while 72 (or,
47.7%) were of poor quality.
Quality: Good Quality Comment
79
52.3%
Quality: Poor Quality Comment
72
47.7%
Table 4. Comments by Quality
**INSERT FIGURE 7 HERE**
Figure 7. Comments by Quality.
Cohen’s kappa
Cohen’s kappa will be calculated upon completion of the study. A summary of
the results as well as figures will appear in this section
13
CONCLUSION
Willen suggests teaching guidelines for commenting to students of technical
communication, and, that a specific protocol should be introduced so that they can
comment effectively and with purpose (2004). It is necessary for instructors of technical
communication, and those who teach technical editing, to direct students toward effective
editing habits so that future editor-author relationships may be as efficient and smooth as
possible. Implementing protocols that advocate top-down editing style, proper tone
within comments, correct use of on-line editing features, and the informed proposal of
revisions will help today’s students become effective and, perhaps, more personable
members of the technical community in years to come.
FURTHER RESEARCH POSSIBILITIES
There are multiple avenues that can be taken in order to research the
effectiveness of undergraduate student editorial work and its link with MS Word
commenting functionality. The first possibility is to give the same assignment to the
group of students who enroll in the technical editing undergraduate class the next
semester that it is offered; another possibility is to offer one group of students two similar
documents, one for on-line editing and one for hard-copy editing, and compare the
differences between the two methods of editing. These two possible studies offer
different research potentials, but either study would prove useful in the research of online
editing instruction in undergraduate classes.
14
REFERENCES
Willen, Matt (2005). Teaching Effective Feedback Skills. [Electronic Version]. intercom,
April 2004, 21-22.
Hart, Geoffrey (2004). Helping Authors Work with You. [Electronic Version.] intercom,
July/August 2004, 38.
Hart, Geoffrey (2005). Softening the Blow: Taking the Sting out of Editorial and Other
Reviews. [Electronic Version.] intercom, September/October 2005, 25-7.
McNeill, Angie (2001). Technical Editing 101. [Electronic Version.] intercom, December
2001, 10-11.
Petersen, Judy (2000). Minimizing Your Turnaround Time. [Electronic Version.]
intercom, March 2000, 9-11.
University of Nebraska Dept. of Psychology (n.d.). "Cohen's Kappa." Retrieved
November 20, 2005 from
http://www-class.unl.edu/psycrs/handcomp/hckappa.PDF
Takamoto, Joetsu (n.d.). University of Education, Niigata, Japan "Computing Cohen's
kappa Value", Retrieved November 20, 2005 from
http://www.kokemus.kokugo.juen.ac.jp/service/kappa-e.html
15
FIGURES
Multiple
Comments
32
22%
Singular
Comments
116
78%
Figure 1. (Above)
Global
9
6%
Sentence
28
19%
Para.
111
75%
Figure 2. (Above)
16
40
34
35
30
24
25
20
20
17
15
8
10
8
5
el
et
io
n
D
Pr
es
en
ta
ti o
n
of
In
fo
rd
er
N
O
Fo
rm
at
on
te
nt
C
ec
es
sa
ry
C
on
te
nt
0
Figure 3. (Above)
16
15
14
12
10
8
7
6
4
4
2
1
1
0
Meaning and
Clarity
Figure 4. (Above)
Grammar
Rew rite
Word Choice
Deletion
17
Couched
Comments
29.7%
Direct
Comments
70.3%
Figure 5. (Above)
80
75
70
60
50
40
30
20
16
9
10
4
0
Question
Directive
Figure 6. (Above)
Poor
70
47%
Figure 7. (Above)
Good
78
53%
Comment
Explain Edit
18