Both Barnum and H.L. Mencken are said to have made the depressing observation that no one ever lost money by underestimating the intelligence of the American public. The remark has worldwide application. But the lack is not in intelligence, which is in plentiful supply; rather the scarce commodity is systematic training in critical thinking.
Carl Sagan, Broca's Brain

One area that my colleagues and I are discussing more actively these days is how to monitor student revision processes when computer-assisted writing often leaves no "paper trail." Since many of us developed composition pedagogy during the days of Macrorie, Elbow, and the Bay Area Writing Project, we continue to stress that students need to develop their compositions out of pre-writing strategies, get a sense of audience through the peer reader process, and realize the necessity of revision rising out of workshops and feedback from peers and teachers alike. All of these "process" levels are part of the composition concepts that many of us believe in. But how does the composition instructor "monitor" these processes when computer-assisted writing accomplishes these functions with add/delete key strokes that leave no lasting traces on the submitted draft? How can we develop a sense of the value of revision during the early stages of writing – those pre-teacher-evaluation stages – when what is submitted is a pristine, double-spaced set of pages with proper margins and minimal spelling errors?

I have struggled with this dilemma for several years. What I am offering here is not the answer. But it is my current stage in the search for a viable process. Perhaps it can offer a springboard for those of you who are also searching for alternative ways to assist students to develop the sense that revision is a part of writing, not a punishment for writing.

My current revision practices developed out of a series of graduate level courses in critical thinking but was further refined after reading an article by Hansman and Wilson discussing the teaching of writing in computer-assisted classrooms ("Teaching Writing in Community Colleges: A Situated View of How Adults Learn to Write in Computer-Based Classrooms" Community College Review (26) No.1). This caused me to begin to examine a frustration that had developed out of my sense that computer-facilitated "instant editing" was leaving me out of the "loop"; that I could no longer see how a student was moving through the process of turning ideas/free writing into a reasoned, audience-appropriate piece of work. So I had to develop a new strategy for teaching process-based composition using current computer technology.

The first concept that I wanted to bring to this charge was my belief that all good writing demands critical thinking. According to Hansman and Wilson, computer-assisted writing helps students create a more objective attitude toward their own work. Objectivity is clearly needed if students are to revise based on critical assessments of their own writing. Next, I was faced with the problem of developing a strategy for producing an atmosphere in which students looked at their own work not only through peer review but also with a self-review.

My current process goes something like this. Students receive their writing assignment. Before the composition is due in class for peer review, they generate ideas and begin to write. I require them to save their earliest draft and any pre-workshop draft(s) that have substantive changes (they save these drafts simply by adding numbers in series to the file name: tale1, tale2, etc). After peer review, they continue to make any wanted/needed changes, creating further files as major revisions are made. I advise early in the semester that students should also make personal notes for each draft documenting what changes were made and why. When the student is prepared to turn in a folder (either on disk or in hard copy) for my evaluation, a further series of steps takes place. In this folder, the student places each of the drafts numbered to indicate the order in which they were produced. Preceding this series of drafts, the student prepares what I have labeled a "self-critique." In this critique, I ask the student to take a critical look at the drafts as they were produced. For the initial draft, I want an explanation of how the rough draft was created (free writing, language choices, selection of details for the audience, etc.). Then, for the subsequent drafts, I ask students to discuss what changes were made to the previous version and, most importantly, why the student felt those changes would improve the composition. The student must then do at least a minimal amount of critical observation of the writing which has been produced. I have seen that the critiques show evidence of increased critical thinking about the writing process in most instances. Some of the average to poor critiques have been reproduced here, errors included. While some seem to concentrate more on form than content, that focus shifts as most students begin to think more carefully about how they write and why. The critique includes students’ comments about revision stratigies on the sequential writing assignments.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

These three critiques show typical student writing problems. The first gives little explanation of the process, shown by such wording as "put the story down" and "arranged some words." I usually write notes on this type of critique asking how the student got the initial words to come out on paper or requesting that the student specify the paragraph in which words were re-arranged. The second critique shows a student more concerned with form than content. Here, I might ask the student how he or she went about organizing and why columns made the paper look more appropriate. This might lead to a conversation about the student’s need to control words and might help the student write more freely in subsequent papers. The critique shows a student who is more comfortable with the writing process. The student still needs to be more specific about where changes were made, but such concepts as "better flow" and "changed the ending to make it more interesting" indicate the student is well on the way to more complex writing strategies.

In addition to individual suggestions, I would talk with this class about the need to focus on content before any technical revision, and I would also do additional work with pre-writing and revision strategies now that they have completed their initial assignment.

Second Assigned Paper

Draft Two:

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

This set of critiques shows a better use of critical thinking. Critiques one and two indicate that the students are beginning to write with a sense of "outside" readers shown by comments such as "sentences didn’t run very smooth" and "suggestions I received in class . . . let my girlfriend read it aloud to me." Also, both indicate more sense of revision and the need for explaining not only what was done but why. The third critique shows a student consciously working for the reader, losing a sense of absolute ownership and becoming, instead, more interested in how the material would be received: "make it more interesting. . .grab my readers. . . rearranged practically the whole essay." These are not usually changes made for teachers; these are changes made with a growing consciousness of audience.

At this point, I would then begin to discuss reader levels---diction, bias, concepts that could only be developed when students are ready to write for others.

Third Assigned Paper

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The first two critiques indicate writers who are becoming more confident of their individual writing processes. Both writers seem to be developing comfortable pre-writing strategies and using peer feedback to help with revision. Interestingly, writer one still feels more comfortable with pen and paper in the early stages, "a fourth and first typed version," while writer two has moved out of the classroom and is inviting feedback from co-workers. Both writers are showing less need for classroom structure. However, writer two is still perhaps too concerned with grammatical errors in the early stages; I would likely discuss this during conference. The most alarming comments come from writer three who still seems too involved with the appearance of the material. My probable reaction, if several students showed this concern for form over content, would be to bring in some of my own work in its rough stages and talk about my need to get ideas down before using spellcheck, worrying about commas and other technical concerns.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

All three of these critiques show improved critical thinking. There is a sense of audience and an awareness of audience needs. There is also a developing objectivity: "I realigned my paragraphs better to make my quotes work with my ideas," "added a clearer thesis," "I could be more persuasive." These students are seeing a need for revision; they are developing the ability to stand back from their creations and view them as beginnings rather than completed products.

If most papers in a class have progressed to this point, then my comments to individuals and to the class will begin to focus on even more positives than before. I will discuss the strengths of their papers, in order to show them how they have matured and become more sophisticated in their sense of audience or word choice.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

In this final set, the writers can be seen to have moved beyond many of the simplistic or unformed critical concepts of the first critiques. They are now discussing how to get "the reader’s attention," making the writing "more effective," and "adding headings and subheadings," not because of a need for form per se, but these techniques were incorporated so that "the reader could better follow the points I was making." Words were "bolded" or peer readers were used, not to follow the teacher’s directions, but rather because the writer felt that strategy would be of help in creating the connection between writer and reader.

For now, this "self critique" strategy is working in my writing classes. Most students have been pleased with the results of this initial "experiment." The students who are seriously working toward improving their writing complete the course with a valuable portfolio of five essays which they can review at all stages of development, analyzing what revision strategies produced the best results. I have been pleased as well. Although the process of evaluating a series of drafts in progress rather than one completed draft for each student has initially doubled the time needed to grade a set of papers, I have found that student work shows a clear improvement as the writers realize the entire process is being evaluated, not just the final product. The result is that much less time is needed for comments near the end of the semester as the techniques used for both grammar correction and composition revision have usually become much more sophisticated. These changes, I feel, are a result of students being required to think not only about form and content but also about why they are or are not making changes. One other advantage, for me, is that by reviewing their self-critiques, I can readily tell if the composition concepts that I have presented to the class have been understood or if I need to review before the next assignment.

These ideas are not the solution to revising the methods of revision in a computer-assisted classroom. They are not suitable for every computer-based English class. But they are a beginning for me.

After many years of teaching around the U.S., Helen Wilson has finally settled in southwest Virginia and teaches at Virginia Highlands Community College where the use of computer-assisted writing software has been a new and interesting challenge.