Visualizing Revision: Leveraging Student-Generated Between-Draft Diagramming Data in Support of Academic Writing Development

• Allal, L., Chanquoy, L., & Largy, P. (2004). Revision cognitive and instructional processes: Cognitive and instructional processes. New York: Springer. doi:10.1007/978-94-007-1048-1.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Allison, P. (2009). Be a blogger: Social networking in the classroom. In A. Herrington, K. Hodgson, & C. Moran (Eds.), Teaching the new writing: Technology, change, and assessment in the 21st century classroom (pp. 75–91). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Alvermann, D. E., Boothby, P. R., & Wolfe, J. (1984). The effect of graphic organizer research on fourth graders’ comprehension and recall of social studies text. Journal of Social Sciences Research, 8, 13–21.

  Google Scholar 

• Andrade, G. H. (2001). The effects of instructional rubrics on learning to write. Current Issues in Education, 4(4), 1–21. Retrieved from http://cie.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/cieatasu/article/view/1630.

• Anfara, V. A., Brown, K. M., & Mangione, T. L. (2002). Qualitative analysis on stage: Making the research process more public. Educational Researcher, 31, 28–38.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Applebee, A., & Langer, J. (2006). The state of writing instruction in America’s schools: What existing data tell us. Albany, NY: Center on English Learning and Achievement, University at SUNY, Albany. http://www.albany.edu/cela/reports.html.

• Atwell, N. (2014). In the middle: A lifetime of learning about writing, reading, and adolescents (3rd ed.). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

  Google Scholar 

• Ausubel, D. (1963). The psychology of meaningful verbal learning. New York, NY: Grune & Stratton.

  Google Scholar 

• Ausubel, D. (1978). In defense of advance organizers: A Reply to the critics. Review of Educational Research, 48, 251–257.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Ausubel, D., Novak, J., & Hanesian, H. (1978). Educational psychology: A cognitive view. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

  Google Scholar 

• Beach, R., & Friedrich, T. (2006). Response to writing. In C. Macarthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 222–234). New York, NY: Guilford.

  Google Scholar 

• Beason, L. (1993). Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 395–422.

  Google Scholar 

• Beck, S. W. (2009). Individual goals and academic literacy: Integrating authenticity and explicitness. English Education, 41, 259–280.

  Google Scholar 

• Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  Google Scholar 

• Berkenkotter, C. (1981). Understanding a writer’s awareness of audience. College Composition and Communication, 32, 388–391.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Boothby, P. R., & Alvermann, D. E. (1984). A classroom training study: The effects of graphic organizer instruction on fourth graders’ comprehension. Reading World, 23, 325–339.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Carroll, J. A. (1991). Drawing into meaning: A powerful writing tool. English Journal, 80, 34–38.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Cetina, K. K. (1999). Epistemic cultures: How the sciences make knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Cho, K., & MacArthur, C. (2010). Student revision with peer and expert reviewing. Learning and Instruction, 20, 328–338.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., Abd-El-Khalick, F., & Bagley, E. (2013). Science in writing: Learning scientific argument in principle and practice. E-Learning and Digital Media, 10, 420–441.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Cope, B., Kalantzis, M., & Magee, L. (2011). Towards a semantic web: Connecting knowledge in academic research. Cambridge: Woodhead.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Dalton, D. W., & Hannafin, M. J. (1987). The effects of word processing on written composition. The Journal of Educational Research, 80, 338–342.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• De La Paz, S., & Graham, S. (2002). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills, and knowledge: Writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 687–698.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• de Smet, M. J. R., Broekkamp, H., Brand-Gruwel, S., & Kirschner, P. A. (2011). Effects of electronic outlining on students’ argumentative writing performance. Journal of Computer Assisted learning, 27, 557–574. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2729.2011.00418.x.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Delyser, D. (2003). Teaching graduate students to write: A seminar for thesis and dissertation writers. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 27, 169–181. doi:10.1080/03098260305676.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Driver, R., Newton, P., & Osborne, J. (2000). Establishing the norms of scientific argumentation in classrooms. Science Education, 84, 287–312.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Dybdahl, C. S., Shaw, D. G., & Blahous, E. (1997). The impact of the computer on writing: No simple answers. Computers in the Schools, 13, 41–53. doi:10.1300/J025v13n03_05.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Dyson, A. H. (2006). On saying it right (write): “Fix-its” in the foundations of learning to write. Research in the Teaching of English, 41, 8–42.

  Google Scholar 

• Ellis, M. J. (2011). Peer feedback on writing: Is online better than on-paper? Journal of Academic Language and Learning, 5(1), A88–A99.

  Google Scholar 

• Emerson, R. M. (1995). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Emig, J. (1977). Writing as a mode of learning. College Composition and Communication, 28, 122–128.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Engelmann, T., & Hesse, F. W. (2010). How digital concept maps about the collaborators’ knowledge and information influence computer-supported collaborative problem solving. International Journal of Computer Supported Collaborative Learning, 5, 299–319.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Flower, L., & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32, 365–387.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Flower, L., Hayes, J. R., Carey, L., Schriver, K., & Stratman, J. (1986). Detection, diagnosis, and the strategies of revision. College Composition and Communication, 37, 16–55.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Gee, J. P. (2004). Language in the science classroom: Academic social languages as the heart of school-based literacy. In E. W. Saul (Ed.), Crossing borders in literacy and science instruction (pp. 13–32). Arlington, VA: NSTA Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Gee, J. P. (2005). An introduction to discourse analysis: Theory and method (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.

  Google Scholar 

• Gere, A. R., & Abbott, R. D. (1985). Talking about writing: The language of writing groups. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 362–385.

  Google Scholar 

• Godley, A., DeMartino, S., & Loretto, A. (2014). Peer review of writing in high school: Relationships between peer feedback, reviewing peers’ essays, and revision practices. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Philadelphia, PA, USA.

• Goldberg, A., Russell, M., & Cook, A. (2003). The effect of computers on student writing: A meta-analysis of studies from 1992 to 2002. The Journal of Technology, Learning and Assessment, 2, 1–52.

  Google Scholar 

• Grotzer, T. (2009). Learning to reason about evidence and explanations: Promising directions in education. In E. Callan, T. Grotzer, J. Kagan, R. E. Nisbett, D. N. Perkins, & L. S. Shulman (Eds.), Education and a civil society: Teaching evidence-based decision making (pp. 51–74). Washington, DC: American Academy of Arts and Sciences.

  Google Scholar 

• Halverson, E. R., & Magnifico, A. M. (2013). Bidirectional artifact analysis: A method for analyzing digitally mediated creative processes. In R. Luckin, S. Puntambekar, P. Goodyear, B. L. Grabowski, J. Underwood, & N. Winters (Eds.), Handbook of design in educational technology (pp. 406–415). New York, NY: Routledge.

  Google Scholar 

• Hayes, J. R. (1996/2001). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In E. Cushman, E. R. Kintgen, B. M. Kroll, & M. Rose (Eds.), Literacy, a critical sourcebook (pp. 172–198). Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin (reprinted from The Science of Writing, by M. Levy and S. Ransdell, Eds., 1996, Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates).

• Hayes, J. R., & Chenoweth, N. A. (2006). Is working memory involved in the transcribing and editing of texts? Written Communication, 23, 135–149.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written composition: new directions for teaching. New York: National Conference on Research in English.

• Huang, J., White, R. W., & Dumais, S. (2011). No clicks, no problem: Using cursor movements to understand and improve search. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (pp. 1225–1234). New York, NY, USA.

• Kalantzis, M., & Cope, B. (2012). Literacies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Kittle, P. (2008). Write beside them: Risk, voice, and clarity in high school writing. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

  Google Scholar 

• Kline, S. M. (2015). Unequal and inequitable: Re-mediating literacy online in two language arts classes. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. Chicago, IL, USA.

• LeCompte, M. D., & Preissle, J. (1993). Ethnography and qualitative design in educational research (2nd ed.). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Lessard-Clouston, M. (1995). Revision in ESL writing tutorials: A case study. ELI Teaching: A Journal of Theory and Practice, 19, 20–28.

  Google Scholar 

• Limpo, T., Alves, R. A., & Fidalgo, R. (2014). Children’s high-level writing skills: Development of planning and revising and their contribution to writing quality. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(2), 177–193.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• MacArthur, C. A. (2006). The effects of new technologies on writing and writing processes. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 248–262). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Magnifico, A. M., & Halverson, E. R. (2012). Bidirectional artifact analysis: A method for analyzing creative processes. In J. van Aalst, K. Thompson, M. J. Jacobson, & P. Reimann (Eds.), The future of learning: Proceedings of the 10th international conference of the learning sciences (pp. 276–280). Sydney: International Society of the Learning Sciences.

  Google Scholar 

• Magnifico, A. M., Woodard, R. L., & McCarthey, S. J. (2014). A Bakhtinian framework for understanding teachers’ initiating texts, peer response, and revision. Paper presented at the Literacy Research Association annual conference, Marco Island, FL, USA.

• McCutchen, D. (2000). Knowledge, processing, and working memory: Implications for a theory of writing. Educational Psychologist, 35, 13–23.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Myhill, D., & Jones, S. (2007). More than just error correction: Students’ perspectives on their revision processes during writing. Written Communication, 24, 323–343. doi:10.1177/0741088307305976.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Negretti, R. (2012). Metacognition in student academic writing: A longitudinal study of metacognitive awareness and its relation to task perception, self-regulation, and evaluation of performance. Written Communication, 29, 142–179. doi:10.1177/0741088312438529.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Newkirk, T. (2014). Minds made for stories: How we really read and write informational and persuasive texts. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

  Google Scholar 

• Novak, J. D. (2010). Learning, creating and using knowledge: Concept maps as facilitative tools in schools and corporations. New York, NY: Routledge.

  Google Scholar 

• Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The theory underlying concept maps and how to construct and use them: Report from the Institute for Human and Machine Cognition. Technical report no. IHMC CmapTools 2006-01 Rev 2008-01. http://cmap.ihmc.us/docs/theory-of-concept-maps.

• Novak, J. D., & Gowin, D. B. (1984). Learning how to learn. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Olmanson, J., & Abrams, S. S. (2013). Constellations of support and impediment: Understanding early implementation dynamics in the research and development of an online multimodal writing and peer review environment. E-Learning and Digital Media, 10, 357–377.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Pea, R., & Kurland, D. (1987). Cognitive technologies for writing. Review of Research in Education, 14, 277–326.

  Google Scholar 

• Pinto, M., Fernandez-Ramos, A., & Doucet, V. (2010). Measuring students’ information skills through concept mapping. Journal of Information Science, 36, 464–480.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Prior, P. (2008). A sociocultural theory of writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 54–66). New York, NY: The Guilford Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Prior, P., & Hengst, J. (2010). Exploring semiotic remediation as discourse practice. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.

  Book  Google Scholar 

• Reynolds, S. B., & Hart, J. (1990). Cognitive mapping and word processing: Aids to story revision. The Journal of Experimental Education, 58, 273–279.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Rice, D., Ryan, J., & Samson, S. (1998). Using concept maps to assess student learning in the science classroom: Must different methods compete? Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 35, 1103–1127.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Rijlaarsdam, G., & van den Bergh, H. (2006). Writing process theory. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research (pp. 41–53). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Romrell, D., Kidder, L. C., & Wood, E. (2014). The SAMR model as a framework for evaluating mlearning. Online Learning, 18(2). Retrieved from http://olj.onlinelearningconsortium.org/index.php/olj/article/view/435/105.

• Scholes, R., & Comely, N. R. (1985). The practice of writing. New York, NY: St. Martin’s.

  Google Scholar 

• Sommers, N. (1980). Revision strategies of student writers and experienced adult writers. College Composition and Communication, 31, 378–388.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Spandel, V. (2006). In defense of rubrics. English Journal, 96, 19–22.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Spradley, J. P. (1980). Participant observation. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

  Google Scholar 

• Strauss, A. L., & Corbin, J. M. (1998). Basics of qualitative research. Los Angeles, CA: Sage.

  Google Scholar 

• Sturm, J. M., & Rankin-Erickson, J. L. (2002). Effects of hand-drawn and computer-generated concept mapping on the expository writing of middle school students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 17, 124–139.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Tergan, S.-O. (2005). Digital concept maps for managing knowledge and information. In S.-O. Tergan & T. K. Berlin (Eds.), Knowledge and information visualization (pp. 185–204). Tübingen: Springer.

  Chapter  Google Scholar 

• Van Gog, T. (2007). Data collection and analysis. In D. Jonassen, M. J. Spector, M. Driscoll, M. D. Merrill, & J. van Merrienboer (Eds.), Handbook of research for educational communications and technology. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  Google Scholar 

• Weiss, R. S. (1994). Learning from strangers: The art and method of qualitative interview studies. New York, NY: Free Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Witte, S. D. (2013). Preaching what we practice: A study of revision. Journal of Curriculum and Instruction, 6, 36.

  Article  Google Scholar 

• Wolcott, H. F. (2005). The art of fieldwork (2nd ed.). Walnut Creek, CA: Altamira Press.

  Google Scholar 

• Woodard, R. L., Magnifico, A. M., & McCarthey, S. J. (2013). Supporting teacher metacognition about formative writing assessment in online environments. E-Learning & Digital Media, 10, 442–469.

• Zheng, B., Lawrence, J., Warschauer, M., & Lin, C.-H. (2014). Middle school students’ writing and feedback in a cloud-based classroom environment. Technology, Knowledge and Learning, 20, 201–229. doi:10.1007/s10758-014-9239-z.

  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references