Revising Strategies Instruction and EFL Writing

吳越

Abstract：Based on researches on writing process， it is evident that revision has a long history in the field of composition and it is an indispensable part of the writing process.However， revision has long been a weak point in English teaching and learning. The paper tries to introduce the studies on revision strategies instruction on the basis of second language acquisition theories.

Key words：revision strategy； strategy instruction； EFL writing

中圖分類號(hào)：H315.9 文獻(xiàn)標(biāo)識(shí)碼：A 文章編號(hào)：1672-1578（2016）05-0001-02

1 Revising in writing process

The process approach of writing emerged in the late 1960s and early 1970s in L1 writing as a response to the traditional product views of writing that focused on form rather than on meaning， and on the finished text rather than on the process in which writing took place （Wang，2007：61）. According to Williams（2005：77）， a process approach “stresses on the overlapping stages of writing， such as planning drafting， revising and editing”. Since then， many scholars investigate writing as a process.

Empirical research into L2 composing processes emerged in 1980s， influenced by the investigation of L1 composing processes. Zamel‘s study（1983） shows that L2 writers composing in the same way as L1 writers do. The limitation of his finding is that the sampling size is too small， and the subjects are“advanced ESL students whose writing proficiency levels may differ from those at the EFL Chinese context” （Wang， 2008）. Silva （1993） ‘s comparative empirical research suggests that although L1 and L2 writing are similar in their broad outlines， there are also manydifferences drawn from the intuition of ESL writers， and ESL writing practitioners. He finds out that the L2 composing is more constrained， more difficult and less effective. He also finds out the L2 writers reviewed， reread and reflected on their written texts less， and they have more difficulty and were less able to revise intuitively.

It is difficult to give an explicit detailed definition of revision， but the characteristic of revision can be conclude implicitly according to Fitzgerald （1987）：

Revision means making any changes at any point in the writing process， it involves identifying discrepancies between intended and instantiated text， deciding what could or should be changed in the text and how to make desired changes， and operating， that is， making the desired changes.

A new perspective on revision was prompted by the process writing approach. The new model believes that the writing is recursiveness （Flower &Hayes， 1981）. This belief shed new lights on revision in the following aspects： one is that the revision could occur at any time in the composing process， before， during， and after putting pen to paper since the subprocesses could be embedded； the other is revision means more than making minor editorial， it can be viewed as both surface and meaning-based， and both microstructure and macrostructure-related， that is， not only can the lexical and syntactic levels of written text be corrected， but also the meaning of the text can be corrected （Kintsch & Van Dijk， 1978； Nold， 1979）.

To sum up， revision is an important and indispensable part of writing process， and detection， diagnosis， and operation in turn constitute the revision process. Revision can be occurred at any time and any point of writing process， and the changes in written text should not be constraint in lexical and syntactical level， that is， the content of the text can also be changed.

2 Studies on Revising Strategy

According to Petric， et al， writing strategies are defined as “actions or behaviors consciously carried out by writers in order to make their writing more efficient” （based on Cohens definition of learner strategies， 2000：10-11）.Research evidence indicates that revising strategies do improve the structure and quality of students papers.

Revising strategy refers to the selection and execution of correction ordering procedure based on the given state of revisers knowledge， involving essentially two levels of the revising activity of revisers overall representation of what he/she is supposed to do and of the linguistic aspects he/she must monitor （e.g. Daitute， 1989； Flower et al， 1986； Kurth， 1987； Matsuhash &Gordon， 1985） and the execution of revising， viewed either as the punctual solving of a given problem（e.g. Scardamalia & Bereiter， 1985； Flower et al.， 1986）.

Empirical studies related to the revising strategies also conducted abroad and at home. A more recent review of 72 studies into L2 writing （Silva，1993） shows that the L2 writing process involves less planning and reviewing. He concludes that L2 writing is fundamentally different from L1 writing and that a theory of L2 writing is needed to explain the specifics of the writing process.

In China， studies on writing strategy is rare， even rarer is the study on revising strategies. Wang Yuehua and Sui Hui（2004） argue that writing strategies include framing， coherence and developing good writing habit. They discuss each strategy in details， for example， developing good writing habit includes practicing writing at a fixed time， imitating and revising

Huang Ying and Chen Jianping（2006） investigate 185 students with equal English proficiency to explore the present situation of students use of writing strategy and relationship between strategy use and English writing ability. They find out that the students unwilling to use revising strategy and dont want to ask teacher and the peer for feedback. However， the study is limited in that it is less convinced for that the subject are all chosen from technology school.

To sum up， lots of studies have been carried out on revising strategy， however， there is still some blank to be filled. The studied mentioned above are either put in the background of second language acquisition or related to the effect of strategies only. Revising strategy training in college students level can seldom be seen.

3 Studies on Writing Strategy Training and its Limitation

Cohen （1998： 67） defined strategy training as “explicitly teaching students how to apply language learning and language use strategies”（Wang： 2008）. Oxford et al （1990） and Cohen （1998） are representatives in advocating the facilitating effects of training. Oxford claims that strategy training can enhance both the process of language learning and the product of language learning， whereas Cohen believed that learning will be facilitated with the explicit training （Wang： 2008）.

Empirical studies of writing strategy training are represented by Macaro（2001）s study of writing strategy instruction. He divided six French classes of secondary school students in England into experimental and control group randomly， using pretest and post-test， questionnaire and interview to conduct his study. He found that strategy instruction do facilitate students grammatical performance and make students less dependent on teachers.

Sasaki（2004） conducted a longitudinal study of three and half years to investigate whether instruction in writing processed make changes in students English writing behavior. He uses various instruments and the study shows that after the instruction of revising and planning strategy， students do have improvement in their English writing proficiency. The limitation of the study lies in that she sample size is too small， besides， the classification of EFL and ESL is not so clear.

In China， Wu Jin and Zhang Zaixin（2000） investigate 91 English major students through experimental means and a questionnaire involving two hundred and six students including both English major and non-English major on the basis of connectionism， proving that the feasibility of implementing planning instruction in writing process.

Wang Yuwen（2007） conducts a study of writing strategy instruction of 79 graduate students to investigate the effects of writing strategy instruction on students writing performance and the difference between planning strategy instruction and revising strategy instruction. After nine weeks of instruction， she finds that the writing strategy instruction can facilitate students writing proficiency and the effect of revising strategy instruction is more evident than the planning strategy instruction. The study shed new lights on the instruction of students writing strategy instruction in spite of the training time is relative limited.

The limitation of the previous study lies in the following aspects： first， rare studies of writing strategy instruction are conducted. Pilio （2003） find that only three out of 55were concerned with writing strategy instruction. Second， most study of the instruction employing only one perspective approach either an experimental approach or a correlational approach. The third limitation is that the sample size is relative small to convince their findings. Last but not least， none of the EFL research investigated the effects of revising strategy instruction at the graduate level， and the students application of revising strategy.

4 Conclusion

To sum up， it is evident that writing is a recursive process involving the sub-processes such as planning， drafting and revising. The paper briefly introduces the development of writing strategies construction， with the elaboration of writing process， writing strategies and strategies training. It could shed lights for the language teachers in their writing teaching and also facilitates the students in their learning. The further studies of writing strategies instruction should be focus on the empirical studies of different levels of EFL students.

References：

[1] Bereiter，C. & Scardamalia， M. The Psychology of Written Composition. Hillsdal，NJ： Lawrence Erlbaum Associates， 1987.

[2] Cohen，A.D. Studying Second Language Learning Strategies： How do We Get the Information？Applied Linguistics，1984（5）.

[3] Fitzgerald， I. Research on Revision in Writing. Review of Educational Research， 1987.

[4] Hayes， J. R and Flower， L.S. Identifying the Organization of Writing Processes. In L.

[5] Petric， B. & Czarl， B. Validating a Writing Strategies Questionnaire [J]. System.2003.

[6] Polio， C. Research on Second Language Writing： an

Overview of what We Investigate and How. In B. Kroll（ed.） exploring the dynamics of second language writing（pp.35-65） Cambridge university press， 2003.

[7] Sasaki， M A Multiple-data Analysis of the 3.5-year Development of EFL Student Writers. Language Learning， 2004.

[8] Silva， T. Toward an Understanding of the Distinct Nature of L2 Writing： The ESL Research and its Implications. TESOL Quarterly， 1993 （27）.

[9] Rubin， J. What the“Good Language Learner” Can Teach Us. TESOL Quarterly，1975（9）.

[10] Williams， J. Tutoring and Revision： Second Language

Writers in the Writing Center. Journal of Second Language Writing， 2004（13）.

[11] Williams， J. Teaching Writing in Second and foreign

Language classrooms. The McGraw Hill Copanies， 2007.

[12] Zaml， V. Teaching Composition in the ESL Classroom： What We can Learn from Research in the Teaching of English. TESOL Quarterly， 1976（10）.

[13] 黃穎，陳建平.大學(xué)生英語(yǔ)課外寫(xiě)作策略研究[J].外語(yǔ)世界， 2006（2）.

[14] 蔣家平.提高學(xué)生的英語(yǔ)寫(xiě)作能力[J].外語(yǔ)界，1995（4）.

[15] 王穎.反饋與英語(yǔ)寫(xiě)作[M].山東：山東大學(xué)出版，2007.

[16] 王月華，隋慧.淺談寫(xiě)作策略在英語(yǔ)學(xué)習(xí)中的運(yùn)用[M].廊坊師范學(xué)院學(xué)報(bào)，2004（1）.

[17] 王玉雯.非英語(yǔ)專業(yè)碩士生英語(yǔ)寫(xiě)作策略培訓(xùn)及其效果[J].

《學(xué)位與研究生教育》，2007（1）.

[18] 王玉雯. 英語(yǔ)寫(xiě)作策略培訓(xùn)及效果研究[M].北京：外文出版社，2008.

[19] 吳錦，張?jiān)谛?我國(guó)英語(yǔ)教學(xué)中的主要問(wèn)題[J].外語(yǔ)教學(xué)與研究，1995（4）.