“The Will to Revise: Commenting, Revision, and Motivation in College Students”
by Elizabeth Bracey | Xchanges 9.1
Methodology
This work aims to assess the motivation of students to revise their writing and explores the possibility of commenting style as a producer of motivation in students. Students of varying college-level education who attended online appointments through John Jay College of Criminal Justice’s writing center were evaluated. Students worked with a tutor via an online chat room and email exchange, and all gave their consent to participate in a study on student writing. All students had English as a first language and were enrolled in courses that were writing-intensive.
A survey was administered to students both before and after a tutoring session to assess their concerns with writing, their perceived strength of their writing, and their perceived need for a session. Students were also asked about other sources of motivation, including grades, graduation, interest, and relevance to major. In order to assess their perceptions of the need for help, students were asked to indicate whether or not the writing center visit was required for a class, whether or not their professors had recommended that they see a tutor, or whether or not they had come because they had concerns about their writing.
After their surveys were analyzed, students were categorized into “grammar motivated” and “content motivated” groups or “grammar unmotivated” and “content unmotivated” groups. These groupings were based on self-reported levels of motivation to attend the writing center, students’ particular concerns about their work, and students’ perceived need for assistance.
Students who made online appointments emailed their work and were then asked to correspond either through a chat mechanism or via email to discuss their work after reviewing comments. In response to Sommers’s suggestion that teacher comments focus too much on correcting sentence-level errors without explanation, comments were modified so that grammar errors were explained instead of corrected. Comments also included suggestions for perceived lapses in logic, coherence, and other global-level writing problems.
A minimum of two drafts of each student’s work were assessed for level of revision after initial contact with the tutor. The levels of revision were categorized several ways: “grammar only” (corrections to grammar or syntax only), “cut and paste” (literally moving portions of the paper to different sections), and “concept modification” (making ideas more coherent or strengthening logical connections). After assessing students’ feedback, revisions, and placements, students’ post-session responses were evaluated to determine what role their motivation may have played in the quality of their revision.