Sommers

QDJ Page 587

1. Sommers says that the language students use to describe revision is about vocabulary, suggesting that they "understand the revision process as a rewording activity". How is that different from the way she argues that revision should be considered?
- Students tend to "revise" by swapping out certain words with words that might sound more intelligent, or by restructuring sentences. I feel Sommers thinks the revision process should be spent restructure the argument; moving entire paragraphs, whatever it may be, around so that the paper flows and gets the point across. Also, that revision never has a deadline. Revisions should be made as many times as a paper needs in order to achieve its goal.

3. In her introduction and in analyzing students' descriptions of revision, Sommers focuses quite a lot on the difference between speech and writing. In your words, what is she saying that difference is between the two, and why is this difference relevant to how we understand revision?
- Once something is spoken, it cannot be revised as it can in writing. Sommers believes this is the wrong way to view revision. Students are taught that writing and speaking are two separate things. In total honesty, I do not understand any of her explanations about the importance of the study, or, to answer the question here, why it is important to differentiate between speech and writing.

5. What do you think Sommers means when she says that for experienced writers, revision is based on a non-linear theory in which a sense of the whole writing both precedes and grows out of an examination of the parts? What does she mean by "the whole writing"? What does it mean for writing processes to be non-linear (not a straight line of progress from the beginning to the end)? And why do you think that experienced writers see writing as a non-linear but student writers tend to see writing as linear (pre-write -> write -> edit)?
- For experienced writers, revision is not something that comes after the draft. Revision takes place throughout the entire writing process. Non-linear theory is based upon writing whatever comes to mind around the subject, and through revision, decided what stays, what goes, and what is missing to make a complete work. Students see writing as a linear process simply because it's easier for them. It's much easier to fit a writing assignment in their schedule when they can break down the process, piece by piece.

7. Sommers' research, she says, makes her believe that student revision practices don't reflect a lack of engagement, "but rather that they do what they have been taught to do in a consistently narrow and predictable way." Where do you think students got the idea that they should see writing as transcribing and revising as changing words? Does this match with what you have been taught about writing and revising? if not, what has been different in your experience?
- When writing becomes assigned homework in school, students hate it. It's time consuming, usually boring, sometimes stressful, and always done at the last minute. There are a select few who enjoy it, but maybe that has to do with ignoring the teacher? Teachers would often tell students what they wanted to hear, or whatever they could say that made writing sound easy. We were taught how to write a paper in a very formulaic fashion: intro paragraph, three main topics, and a closing paragraph that repeats the message in the intro. After the writing process is through with, start revising by replacing an frequently used words with synonyms and more descriptive words. That's how I was taught to write, as were many others. I assume that was the easiest way to teach a class of students that had no other choice but to be in school.

 635 words. Confirmed using www.wordcounter.net