Skip to content
2018
Volume 50, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 0007-8204
  • E-ISSN: 1943-2216

Abstract

This article describes the results of a study that examined middle school students’ written revisions as well as attitudes and perceptions regarding revision when paired with transmediation. Existing research on revision is thin on transmediation’s affordances and students’ voices regarding revision. Situated within a social semiotic, multimodal literacy framework, this article addresses how students began to see revision’s purpose and process as more meaningful and substantive as a result of transacting with their transmediated objects during a flash fiction unit of study.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.58680/ee201829733
2018-07-01
2024-03-03
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Albers P. (2001) Literacy in the arts. Primary Voices K–6, 9(4), 3–9.
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Baer A. L. (2008) Creating a shared definition of good and bad writing through revision strategies. Middle School Journal, 39(4), 46–53.
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Bardine B. A. Fulton A. (2008) Analyzing the benefits of revision memos during the writing and revision process. The Clearing House, 81(4), 149–154.
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Batchelor K. E. (2012) In a flash: The digital age’s influence over literacy. InBatchelor B. Ed Cult pop culture: From the fringe to the mainstream (pp.77–88). Westport, CT: Praeger.
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Batchelor K. E. King A. (2014) Freshmen and five hundred words: Investigating flash fiction as a genre for high school writing. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 58(2), 111–121.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Bazalgette C. Buckingham D. (2013) Literacy, media and multimodality: A critical response. Literacy, 47(2), 95–102.
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Beason L. (1993) Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(4), 395–422.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Berghoff B. (2007) Taking an aesthetic stance toward teaching and assessment. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39(7), 1–12.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bustle L. S. (2004) The role of visual representation in the assessment of learning. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(5), 416–423.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Chanquoy L. (2001) How to make it easier for children to revise their writing: A study of text revision from 3rd to 5th grades. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 15–41.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Charmaz K. (2006) Constructing grounded theory: A practical guide through qualitative analysis. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Clark S. (2012) Guiding the noticing: Using a dramatic performance experience to promote tellability in narrative writing. The Clearing House, 85(2), 65–69.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Clyde J. A. (1994) Lessons from Douglas: Expanding our visions of what it means to “know.”. Language Arts, 71(1), 22–34.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Cope B. Kalantzis M. (2009) “Multiliteracies”: New literacies, new learning. Pedagogies: An International Journal, 4, 164–195.
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Cowan K. Albers P. (2006) Semiotic representations: Building complex literacy practices through the arts. The Reading Teacher, 60(2), 124–137 10.1598/RT.60.2.3
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Deely J. (1990) Basics of semiotics. Bloomington: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Dunn P. A. (2001) Talking, sketching, moving: Multiple literacies in the teaching of writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Dyson A. H. (1986) Transitions and tensions: Interrelationships between the drawing, talking, and dictating of young children. Research in the Teaching of English, 20(4), 379–409.
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Eco U. (1976) A theory of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  20. Ehrenworth M. (2003) Looking to write: Students writing through the visual arts. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Eisner E. W. (1997) Cognition and representation: A way to pursue the American dream?Phi Delta Kappan, 78(5), 349–353.
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Eisner E. W. (2002) The arts and the creation of mind. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Faigley L. Witte S. P. (1981) Analyzing revision. College Composition and Communication, 32, 400–414.
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Fitzgerald J. Markham L. R. (1987) Teaching children about revision in writing. Cognition and Instruction, 4(1), 3–24.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Flower L. Hayes J. R. Carey L. Schriver K. Stratman J. (1986) Detection, diagnosis and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication, 37(1), 16–55.
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Fueyo J. (1991) Reading “literate sensibilities”: Resisting a verbocentric writing classroom. Language Arts, 68(8), 641–648.
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Gallas K. (1994) The languages of learning: How children talk, write, dance, draw, and sing their understanding of the world. New York: Teachers College Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Gee J. P. (2012) Social linguistics and literacies: Ideology in discourse. (2nd ed.). New York: Falmer.
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Glaser B. G. Strauss A. L. (1967) The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Gray E. C. (2006) Children’s use of language and pictures in classroom inquiry. Language Arts, 83(3), 227–237.
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Haar C. (2006) Definitions and distinctions. InHorning A. Becker A. Eds Revision: History, theory, and practice (pp.10–24). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Halliday M. A. K. (1978) Language as a social semiotic. Baltimore, MD: University Park Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Harste J. C. (2015) Transmediation: What art affords our understanding of literacy. Paper presented at The Literacy Research Association conference. Dallas: TX.
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Hillocks G. (1982) The interaction of instruction, teacher comment, and revision in teaching the composing process. Research in the Teaching of English, 16(3), 261–278.
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Hillocks G. (2007) Narrative writing: Learning a new model for teaching. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Hoyt L. (1992) Many ways of knowing: Using drama, oral interactions, and the visual arts to enhance reading. Reading Teacher, 45(8), 580–584.
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Hull G. A. Nelson M. E. (2005) Locating the semiotic power of multimodality. Written Communication, 22(2), 224–261.
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Humphris R. (2010) Developing students as writers through collaboration. Changing English, 17(2), 201–214.
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Keen J. (2010) Strategic revisions in the writing of Year 7 students in the UK. The Curriculum Journal, 21(3), 255–280.
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Leland C. H. Harste J. C. (1994) Multiple ways of knowing: Curriculum in a new key. Language Arts, 71(5), 337–345.
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Masih T. L. (2009) In pursuit of the short short story: An introduction. InMasih T. L. Ed Field guide to writing flash fiction: Tips from editors, teachers, and writers in the field (pp.XI–XXXVIII). Brookline, MA: Rose Metal Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  42. McQuitty V. (2012) Process writing instruction in elementary classrooms: Evidence of effective practices from the research literature. Paper presented at The Literacy Research Association conference. San Diego: CA.
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Merriam S. B. (2009) Qualitative research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Mlynarczyk R. W. (1996) Finding grandma’s words: A case study in the art of revising. Journal of Basic Writing, 15(1), 3–22.
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Muldoon A. (2009) Revision: Debunking the myth of the enlightened teacher versus the resistant student writer. College Teaching, 57(2), 67–71.
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Murray D. M. (2004) The craft of revision. (5th ed.). Boston: Wadsworth.
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Patthey-Chavez G. G. Matsumura L. C. Valdes R. (2004) Investigating the process approach to writing instruction in urban middle schools. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 47(6), 462–477.
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Peirce C. S. (1935 Hartshorne C. Weiss P. Eds Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce, 2). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Perl S. (1990) Understanding composing. InJohnson T. R. Ed Teaching composition. (3rd ed 140–148). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s.
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Ranker J. (2007) Designing meaning with multiple media sources: A case study of an eight-year-old student’s writing processes. Research in the Teaching of English, 41(4), 302–434.
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Scardamalia M. Bereiter C. (1983) The development of evaluative, diagnostic, and remedial capabilities in children’s composing. InMartlew M. Ed The psychology of written language: A developmental approach (pp.67–95). London: John Wiley.
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Semali L. M. Fueyo J. (2001) Transmediation as a metaphor for new literacies in multimedia classrooms. Reading Online, 5(5).
    [Google Scholar]
  53. Short K. G. Kauffman G. (2000) Exploring sign systems within an inquiry system. InGallego M. A. Hollingsworth S. Eds What counts as literacy: Challenging the school standard (pp.42–61). New York: Teachers College Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Sidelnick M. A. Svoboda M. L. (2000) The bridge between drawing and writing: Hannah’s story. Reading Teacher, 54(2), 174–184.
    [Google Scholar]
  55. Siegel M. (1984) Reading as signification.. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
    [Google Scholar]
  56. Siegel M. (1995) More than words: The generative power of transmediation for learning. Canadian Journal of Education, 20(4), 455–475.
    [Google Scholar]
  57. Smagorinsky P. Coppock J. (1994) Cultural tools and the classroom context: An exploration of an artistic response to literature. Written Communication, 11(3), 283–310.
    [Google Scholar]
  58. Smede S. D. (2000) Interior design: Revision as focus. English Journal, 90(1), 117–121.
    [Google Scholar]
  59. Smith F. (1981) Myths of writing. Language Arts, 58(7), 792–798.
    [Google Scholar]
  60. Smith F. (1983) Reading like a writer. Language Arts, 60(5), 558–567.
    [Google Scholar]
  61. Sommers N. (1980) Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31(4), 378–388.
    [Google Scholar]
  62. Sommers N. (1982) Responding to student writing. College Composition and Communication, 33(2), 148–156.
    [Google Scholar]
  63. Street B. (2003) What’s “new” in new literacy studies? Critical approaches to literacy in theory and practice. Current Issues in Comparative Education, 5(2), 1–14.
    [Google Scholar]
  64. Suhor C. (1984) Towards a semiotics-based curriculum. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 16(3), 247–257.
    [Google Scholar]
  65. Sumida A. Y. Meyer M. A. (2006) T4 = teaching to the fourth power: Transformative inquiry and the stirring of cultural waters. Language Arts, 83(5), 437–449.
    [Google Scholar]
  66. Sze C. (2002) A case study of the revision process of a reluctant ESL student writer. TESL Canada Journal, 19(2), 21–36.
    [Google Scholar]
  67. Witte S. P. (1983) Topical structure and revision: An exploratory study. College Composition and Communication, 34(3), 313–341.
    [Google Scholar]
  68. Wolf S. A. (2006) The Mermaid’s Purse: Looking closely at young children’s art and poetry. Language Arts, 84(1), 10–20.
    [Google Scholar]
  69. Yagelski R. (1995) The role of classroom context in the revision strategies of student writers. Research in the Teaching of English, 29(2), 216–238.
    [Google Scholar]
  70. Youngquist J. Pataray-Ching J. (2004) Revisiting “play”: Analyzing and articulating acts of inquiry. Early Childhood Education Journal, 31(3), 171–178.
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.58680/ee201829733
Loading
/content/journals/10.58680/ee201829733
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error