Increased number of statements framed as replies:

3) Increased number of statements framed as replies:

Natalie, draft 1, clauses 1-4:

CoP 1) I have a strong belief 2) that a change can be made anywhere, any time. 3) Without a hope for the change, we cannot keep INT 4) living in this wicked world.

Natalie, draft 2, clauses 1-8:

CoP 1) Some people might say 2) that making a change 3) is not possible

4) or even is not useful. CoP 5) I, however, have a strong belief 6) that a change can be made anywhere, any time. 7) Without a hope for the change, we cannot keep INT 8) living in this wicked world.

An acceptable amount of familiarity with the writing guide appears not to be true of every participant. Jackie, for example, makes only short, general statements about the contents of the guide, even though the questions asked for specifics. Assuming that all of the participants have an advanced-level English language proficiency and seeing that the other participants largely understood the requirement of specificity, I must conclude that Jackie, and to a lesser extent, Cher and Helen, had only a cursory understanding of the student writing guide. This is concluded when one sees the unabridged versions of their comments (Appendix II), which, in Jackie’s case, she makes reference to only the beginning of the guide when she points out the difficult parts, whereas Michelle, Natalie, and Lucy, nearly the rest of the students who I suspect read the entire guide, pointed out that the final two parts presented the most difficulty. When one connects this (qualitative) An acceptable amount of familiarity with the writing guide appears not to be true of every participant. Jackie, for example, makes only short, general statements about the contents of the guide, even though the questions asked for specifics. Assuming that all of the participants have an advanced-level English language proficiency and seeing that the other participants largely understood the requirement of specificity, I must conclude that Jackie, and to a lesser extent, Cher and Helen, had only a cursory understanding of the student writing guide. This is concluded when one sees the unabridged versions of their comments (Appendix II), which, in Jackie’s case, she makes reference to only the beginning of the guide when she points out the difficult parts, whereas Michelle, Natalie, and Lucy, nearly the rest of the students who I suspect read the entire guide, pointed out that the final two parts presented the most difficulty. When one connects this (qualitative)

Also, it has become apparent through the course of this study that the principle of global text organization, which is a descriptive category, attested to by the analysis of hundreds of spoken/ written narrative/ expository texts across ages and languages, cannot

be immediately turned and adapted for pedagogical purposes, as was assumed form the outset of this study. It appears that global text quality is a concept that applies to a long developmental sequence of an individual’s later-language acquisition, rather than to a relatively short, one-time instance of draft revision (Berman & Slobin 1994: 593). The measure of global-text production is too broad, it seems, to pertain to changes between individual drafts of writing—or even changes within a semester of a writing course. All of the drafts showed some improvement, but the improvement was too minute to be measured by the levels of global text quality. Breaking up the final three levels of global text quality into dozens of sub-levels, perhaps, may be more appropriate to use as pedagogical measures to be used prescriptively for developing student writers. If this were the case, I could have placed the revised drafts in discrete categories based on the integration of quantifiable features. But, as was the case, the drafts showed improvements be immediately turned and adapted for pedagogical purposes, as was assumed form the outset of this study. It appears that global text quality is a concept that applies to a long developmental sequence of an individual’s later-language acquisition, rather than to a relatively short, one-time instance of draft revision (Berman & Slobin 1994: 593). The measure of global-text production is too broad, it seems, to pertain to changes between individual drafts of writing—or even changes within a semester of a writing course. All of the drafts showed some improvement, but the improvement was too minute to be measured by the levels of global text quality. Breaking up the final three levels of global text quality into dozens of sub-levels, perhaps, may be more appropriate to use as pedagogical measures to be used prescriptively for developing student writers. If this were the case, I could have placed the revised drafts in discrete categories based on the integration of quantifiable features. But, as was the case, the drafts showed improvements

On the participants’ side of the study, it seems a more specific taxonomy of levels-within-levels of global text organization might help students better understand where they stand as writers and give them more concrete goals of where to aim in revising drafts. That is, the broken up levels could be included in the guide with a specific list of features and strategies students could aspire to employ. It seems that another one of the major obstacles not only to revising drafts, but also to understanding the guide, was the section on information units and structure/ overall organization (global text quality). These sections clearly need to be paraphrased and augmented with more examples— negative and positive—to help student readers more immediately apply some of the features of organization and configuration of information units. It may even be the case that removing these sections is warranted because of the assumption that—being originally descriptive categories—mature writers will already employ the strategies of global text organization and information unit usage that Berman observes in advanced writers.

Using the student writing guide and learning some of the rhetorical strategies that skillful writers employ within imagined contexts was an overall positive experience for participants. Overall, they exhibited an increased interest in improving their own writing through the use of the student writing guide. Furthermore, the guide spurred the participants to imagine the writing situation and to compose with this imagined social context in view. Participants benefited overall to learn that writing grows out of a social context in which discourse is employed to meet communicative ends. Regardless of the difficulties participants faced while reading the guide or revising drafts, they appeared to benefit overall by shifting their paradigm of the purpose and practice of writing. A major aim of this study was to give students a tool that enables, empowers, and encourages them to take ownership of their writing as a communicative social practice, and not merely as an exercise done for a teacher. This message seems to have gotten across to participants and made an impression on most of them.

This study also contributes an innovative research design to the field of composition studies. In a technological sphere that is increasingly digitized and where the internet is the normative means for communication and social experience, utilization of websites to collect data, provide information, and get feedback with online questionnaires was not only appropriate, but also was a well-received research protocol by participants who have busy lives and little time-commitment outside of their own work and school schedules. This study was an innovative, student-friendly approach to composition research that the participants found interesting, convenient, and readily useful. Many of the participants indicated that they would like to use the online infrastructure in the future to practice and get feedback on their writing.