Author’s Comment—David L. Wallace
Uloženo v:
| Název: | Author’s Comment—David L. Wallace |
|---|---|
| Autoři: | Michele L. Matchett, Richard E. Young, Cynthia Cochran, Thomas Hajduk, Maggie McCaffrey, John R. Hayes |
| Zdroj: | Reading Empirical Research Studies: The Rhetoric of Research ISBN: 9781315044620 |
| Informace o vydavateli: | Routledge, 2020. |
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Témata: | 4. Education |
| Popis: | This study began as a conversation. As we tossed around some ideas for doing a study together, Dick (John Richard Hayes) and I found a mutual interest in task definition. The effect of task definition on revision was one of the items on Dick’s list of research issues waiting to be investigated. Dick’s interest had been piqued by an earlier study that had been abandoned and some previous work on revision (Hayes, Flower, Schriver, Stratman, & Carey, 1987) that had called attention to substantial differences between the basic approaches and strategies that expert and novice writers brought to revision. For me, the question was largely one of application. Given the differences between experts’ and novices’ basic understanding of revision, what should the reseacher do about it? We decided that we wanted to try to nail down the impact of task definition on teaching revision; over the course of a couple meetings we set up a simple experiment. |
| Druh dokumentu: | Part of book or chapter of book Other literature type |
| Jazyk: | English |
| DOI: | 10.4324/9781315044620-38 |
| Přístupová URL adresa: | https://www.taylorfrancis.com/chapters/edit/10.4324/9781315044620-38/author-comment%E2%80%94david-wallace-john-hayes-richard-young-michele-matchett-maggie-mccaffrey-cynthia-cochran-thomas-hajduk |
| Přístupové číslo: | edsair.doi.dedup.....f40acbdb1f9eafea5bdf81cf256c537d |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
Nájsť tento článok vo Web of Science | Abstrakt: | This study began as a conversation. As we tossed around some ideas for doing a study together, Dick (John Richard Hayes) and I found a mutual interest in task definition. The effect of task definition on revision was one of the items on Dick’s list of research issues waiting to be investigated. Dick’s interest had been piqued by an earlier study that had been abandoned and some previous work on revision (Hayes, Flower, Schriver, Stratman, & Carey, 1987) that had called attention to substantial differences between the basic approaches and strategies that expert and novice writers brought to revision. For me, the question was largely one of application. Given the differences between experts’ and novices’ basic understanding of revision, what should the reseacher do about it? We decided that we wanted to try to nail down the impact of task definition on teaching revision; over the course of a couple meetings we set up a simple experiment. |
|---|---|
| DOI: | 10.4324/9781315044620-38 |