III Using Small Groups to Develop Editing Skills

Writers who are competent editors are more likely to communicate effectively than writers who are not good editors. The ability to edit - to correct surface-level errors - contributes to strong writing. Often, however, students fail to correct such errors because they don't see them, or they don't know how to correct them, or both. The following exercise is designed to help students identify errors and correct them. The exercise emphasizes the importance of the editing phase in the process. Any effort to help student writers improve error-laden sentences raises two questions: (1) Can we teach our students to do good editing by teaching grammar? and (2) Will good editing result in improved writing? Hillocks says, Given the findings of research on process, we cannot expect study to contribute much to the quality of writing (1987). Hartwell says, For me the issue was settled ... with the conclusion offered by Richard Braddock, Richard Lloyd-Jones, and Lowell Schoer in 1963. `In view of the widespread agreement of research studies based upon many types of students and teachers, the conclusion can be stated in strong and unqualified terms: the teaching of formal has a negligible or ... even a harmful effect on improvement in writing' (1985). In the minds of many, however, such research has not settled the issue. Hartwell observes, Seventy-five years of experimental research has for all practical purposes told us nothing. The two sides are unable to agree on how to interpret such research. Studies are interpreted in terms of one's prior assumptions about the value of teaching grammar: their results seem not to change those assumptions.... It would seem unlikely, therefore, that further experimental research, in and of itself, will resolve the issue. Any experimental design can be nitpicked, any experimental population can be criticized, and any experimental conclusion can be questioned or, more often, ignored. In fact, it may well be that the question is not open to resolution by experimental research (1985, p. 106). In some instances, the same research has been used to both defend and reject as an aid to developing good skills (Hartwell, 1985, p. 107). Whatever research may show about the relationship between and ability, any instructors teach in their classrooms. Such teachers may or may not be familiar with the research on this subject, but they firmly believe that is important to the development of good skills. A study we conducted suggests the desirability of intentionally teaching editing skills in conjunction with (Stoddard and Bell, 1991). Another study in process shows that teaching and editing improves the editing skills of student writers. In this study, the mean score on an editing dependent variable for students in a grammar/editing group was 28.9; and the mean score in a nongrammar/nonediting group was 18.1 - a highly significant difference (Stoddard, Bell, & Perry, 1993). From our teaching of and editing skills, we presently draw at least the following conclusions: 1. When students understand terminology, we can communicate effectively with them in discussing errors the individual student makes in his or her writing. 2. Students who study and editing almost universally feel these activities are among the most-beneficial things done during a business-communication course. 3. Definitions of grammar instruction vary widely. The most-beneficial approach to seems to be an eclectic one involving a minimal number of the most frequently used and abused rules and principles of usage. Editing is one facet of that eclectic approach. …