TRA CỨU
Các bộ sưu tập
Skip Navigation Links.
Thư mục - Vốn tư liệu
‘Nothing too major’

‘Nothing too major’ : how poor revision of writing may be an adaptive response to school tasks

 Oliver, Lucy
 2019
 p. 363-378 English
Learning methodPedagogyEditingRevisionReviewingWriting
Tác giả CN Oliver, Lucy
Nhan đề ‘Nothing too major’ : how poor revision of writing may be an adaptive response to school tasks / Lucy Oliver
Thông tin xuất bản 2019
Mô tả vật lý p. 363-378
Tóm tắt This multicase study explores students’ understandings about revision in the light of successive findings that they typically revise their texts little and at superficial levels. Students’ limited revising has been variously explained, both in terms of cognitive-metacognitive factors and restrictive school models. Few studies, however, have examined students’ thinking about revision. This investigation considers the impact students’ concepts of purpose have on their revising and the extent to which perceived expectations and school routines inform the scope of their achievement. One-to-one observations of writing, post hoc interviews and analyses of students’ texts were repeated over the course of an extended classroom writing task. Findings suggest that whilst students’ definitions of revision were narrow and their text changes primarily superficial, they did not necessarily lack the understanding or skill to revise more effectively. Able writers explicitly chose an instrumental approach, attributing limited revision to tightly-prescribed and time-controlled tasks. They perceived a dichotomy between school purposes and more authentic possibilities. The study highlights the contextualised nature of students’ decision-making and argues that poor revision may be an adaptive response to school requirements rather than an innate limitation.
Thuật ngữ chủ đề Learning method-Revision
Từ khóa tự do Pedagogy
Từ khóa tự do Editing
Từ khóa tự do Revision
Từ khóa tự do Reviewing
Từ khóa tự do Writing
Nguồn trích Language and education- Vol. 33-No 4/2019
MARC
Hiển thị đầy đủ trường & trường con
TagGiá trị
00000000nab#a2200000ui#4500
00156692
0022
004D06523B0-54D2-4428-915A-44F5ECB23591
005202007220951
008081223s2019 vm| vie
0091 0
035[ ] |a 1456366026
039[ ] |a 20241128114129 |b idtocn |c 20200722095156 |d huongnt |y 20191004110913 |z thuvt
041[0 ] |a eng
100[1 ] |a Oliver, Lucy
245[1 0] |a ‘Nothing too major’ : |b how poor revision of writing may be an adaptive response to school tasks / |c Lucy Oliver
260[ ] |c 2019
300[ ] |a p. 363-378
520[ ] |a This multicase study explores students’ understandings about revision in the light of successive findings that they typically revise their texts little and at superficial levels. Students’ limited revising has been variously explained, both in terms of cognitive-metacognitive factors and restrictive school models. Few studies, however, have examined students’ thinking about revision. This investigation considers the impact students’ concepts of purpose have on their revising and the extent to which perceived expectations and school routines inform the scope of their achievement. One-to-one observations of writing, post hoc interviews and analyses of students’ texts were repeated over the course of an extended classroom writing task. Findings suggest that whilst students’ definitions of revision were narrow and their text changes primarily superficial, they did not necessarily lack the understanding or skill to revise more effectively. Able writers explicitly chose an instrumental approach, attributing limited revision to tightly-prescribed and time-controlled tasks. They perceived a dichotomy between school purposes and more authentic possibilities. The study highlights the contextualised nature of students’ decision-making and argues that poor revision may be an adaptive response to school requirements rather than an innate limitation.
650[1 4] |a Learning method |x Revision
653[0 ] |a Pedagogy
653[0 ] |a Editing
653[0 ] |a Revision
653[0 ] |a Reviewing
653[0 ] |a Writing
773[0 ] |t Language and education |g Vol. 33-No 4/2019
890[ ] |c 1 |a 0 |b 0 |d 2
Tài liệu số
1