There is plenty of study on the actual process of writing, but not much emphasis has been put on the revision of it. Most writing processes follow linear paths, advising authors to compose in stages. Unlike speech, where revision is only an afterthought, it is a continual sequence of changes made to writing, even during composition. The term “revision” is a general term used in the education system that attributes to specific activities of rewording. Students often look for excessive repetition and stop revising when it seems as if no rules have been broken. Experienced writers differ from students because their goal of revising is to shape or form their entire argument. They also consider many more levels such as readership, discovering meaning, and recognizing recursiveness.
I can understand why the importance of revision is often forsaken because the education of writing does not make it a priority of study. In schools, it is drilled to follow the linear process of composition. Revision is only thought of as going back and correcting grammatical errors to follow rules. Revision allows authors to rediscover their argument and can often enhance or strengthen their writing much more so than their original thesis.
I like your summary in that it is concise and covers the basic points of the article. The difference between student writers and experienced writers and their utilization of revision is quite profound. I agree that the linear process of composition is essentially the only process taught in schools so it is nearly impossible for the revision process to be fully understood. Because it is so deeply rooted within education, the entire concept of writing and purpose may need to be reevaluated. Do you think the revision process could be more instilled in lower level schooling so that it becomes undoubtedly necessary in the writing process?
ReplyDelete