Chapter 16: Revising Sentences
In Chapter 16, Revising Sentences, the authors offer up five lessons to teach students to improve their writing skills at the sentence level through revising.
In designating an entire chapter to revision, the authors have separated it from the rest of the writing process and exemplified perfectly the linear model that Nancy Sommers criticizes in her essay, Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers as being problematic (1980). Sommers said "In these linear conceptions of the writing process revision is understood as a separate stage at the end of a process--a stage that comes after the completion of a first or second draft and one that is temporarily distinct from the prewriting and writing stages of the process" (1980). This is precisely what is exemplified in Language Network, which has placed this chapter second to last in the section titled "The Writing Process". Sommers believes that revision should play a bigger role in the writing process than it does as exemplified in Language Network, in such a linear manner. Her belief is rooted in her own academic research. Sommers came to some conclusions from a study she conducted on the revision strategies of novice and expert writers. From her analysis, she identified in her article four different ways that student writers engage with revision: deletion, substitution, addition, and reordering (1980). These four strategies of revision are wholly embedded in the content of this chapter.
All five lessons in this chapter give exercises that are focused on the sentence structure, making the tittle of the chapter quite appropriate. The problem that Sommers would find with this is that presenting these exercises in the way that the author seems to suggest, as a chapter all by itself and with practice exercises to tie up each lesson that are likewise limited to the sentence level, student writers will unavoidably be limited in their understanding about revision. In her study, she found that novice writers, by and large, were "aware of lexical repetition, but not conceptual repetition," and that by assuaging the lexical problems, bigger problems within their drafts would go entirely unrecognized. Sommers would suggest that teaching sentence revision in this way would cause students to understand revision "as requiring lexical changes but not semantic changes" (1980).
In designating an entire chapter to revision, the authors have separated it from the rest of the writing process and exemplified perfectly the linear model that Nancy Sommers criticizes in her essay, Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers as being problematic (1980). Sommers said "In these linear conceptions of the writing process revision is understood as a separate stage at the end of a process--a stage that comes after the completion of a first or second draft and one that is temporarily distinct from the prewriting and writing stages of the process" (1980). This is precisely what is exemplified in Language Network, which has placed this chapter second to last in the section titled "The Writing Process". Sommers believes that revision should play a bigger role in the writing process than it does as exemplified in Language Network, in such a linear manner. Her belief is rooted in her own academic research. Sommers came to some conclusions from a study she conducted on the revision strategies of novice and expert writers. From her analysis, she identified in her article four different ways that student writers engage with revision: deletion, substitution, addition, and reordering (1980). These four strategies of revision are wholly embedded in the content of this chapter.
All five lessons in this chapter give exercises that are focused on the sentence structure, making the tittle of the chapter quite appropriate. The problem that Sommers would find with this is that presenting these exercises in the way that the author seems to suggest, as a chapter all by itself and with practice exercises to tie up each lesson that are likewise limited to the sentence level, student writers will unavoidably be limited in their understanding about revision. In her study, she found that novice writers, by and large, were "aware of lexical repetition, but not conceptual repetition," and that by assuaging the lexical problems, bigger problems within their drafts would go entirely unrecognized. Sommers would suggest that teaching sentence revision in this way would cause students to understand revision "as requiring lexical changes but not semantic changes" (1980).
An Overview of the Lessons
The authors of Language Network have designed these lessons by providing examples of problem sentences that need correcting and showing how and why they need correcting. Their emphasis on revision at a sentence level depicts exactly what theorist Richard Fulkerson describes as "sentence-length formalists" in his essay, Four Philosophies of Composition (1979). He explains that in the classroom of a teacher that embraces a formalist pedagogy, students will study "errors of form--in order to avoid the" (1979). This is precisely what the entire chapter does throughout the lessons by offering up minimalist exercises, or examples of how to revise only at the sentence level. Each lesson has a broad title that proposes a genre for the problems students may encounter in their sentences. Each of these genres is broken down into subheadings that explain the multiple, but similar, problems students might encounter within that genre. For example, Lesson 2: Combining Sentences exhibits three subheadings: 1) "Combining Whole Sentences," 2) "Combining Sentence Parts," and 3) "Adding Information with Who, That, and Which." The authors of Language Network never suggest that the ideas in the sentences need revising in relation to each other to create a cohesive text, each sentence stands alone. The checklist at the end of the chapter provides only questions for the writer to ask himself about the sentences that make up his writing: "Can I improve my sentences by ...?" The authors' aim by constructing their text in this manner is to teach minimal skills for revision. In this chapter, the authors fail to remind students where these exercises will come in handy in the writing process that opened this section of the text in Chapter 12. Furthermore, the authors' discussion of revision in Chapter 12 only briefly mentions sentence-level revision. Unless this section is taught either directly before or after the lesson on revision in chapter 12, there is a very real possibility that the usefulness for these exercises will be misinterpreted by students. Ultimately, it is up to the teacher to maximize student learning and the usefulness of the material that the authors have provided in chapter 16.
The authors of Language Network have designed these lessons by providing examples of problem sentences that need correcting and showing how and why they need correcting. Their emphasis on revision at a sentence level depicts exactly what theorist Richard Fulkerson describes as "sentence-length formalists" in his essay, Four Philosophies of Composition (1979). He explains that in the classroom of a teacher that embraces a formalist pedagogy, students will study "errors of form--in order to avoid the" (1979). This is precisely what the entire chapter does throughout the lessons by offering up minimalist exercises, or examples of how to revise only at the sentence level. Each lesson has a broad title that proposes a genre for the problems students may encounter in their sentences. Each of these genres is broken down into subheadings that explain the multiple, but similar, problems students might encounter within that genre. For example, Lesson 2: Combining Sentences exhibits three subheadings: 1) "Combining Whole Sentences," 2) "Combining Sentence Parts," and 3) "Adding Information with Who, That, and Which." The authors of Language Network never suggest that the ideas in the sentences need revising in relation to each other to create a cohesive text, each sentence stands alone. The checklist at the end of the chapter provides only questions for the writer to ask himself about the sentences that make up his writing: "Can I improve my sentences by ...?" The authors' aim by constructing their text in this manner is to teach minimal skills for revision. In this chapter, the authors fail to remind students where these exercises will come in handy in the writing process that opened this section of the text in Chapter 12. Furthermore, the authors' discussion of revision in Chapter 12 only briefly mentions sentence-level revision. Unless this section is taught either directly before or after the lesson on revision in chapter 12, there is a very real possibility that the usefulness for these exercises will be misinterpreted by students. Ultimately, it is up to the teacher to maximize student learning and the usefulness of the material that the authors have provided in chapter 16.
Lesson 1: Revising Problem Sentences
The authors break the topic of problem sentences down into three categories: 1) Tightening Content; 2) Improving Stringy Sentences; and 3) Reducing Overload Sentences. Tightening content has to do with the deletion of repetitious phrases, adding clarification, or substituting simpler words for "unnecessary phrases". Improving stringy sentences has to do with correcting run-on sentences. Reducing Overload Sentences involves reducing the use of descriptors and modifiers that can be distracting to the reader and increasing clarity.
1. Tightening Content
The authors suggest that problems at the sentence level can cause confusion for the reader, models one example, and suggest three ways of cleaning up the content of sentences in order to avoid confusing the reader.
2. Improving Stringy Sentences
The authors defines a stringy sentence as "a sentence that goes on for too long without showing that the ideas in the sentence are related." The author then illustrates an example, then provides five strategies for revising Stringy sentences.
3. Reducing Overload Sentences
The authors define an overload sentence as "a sentence with too many descriptive words," and says that this can be distracting to the reader. The author then models one example, and then provides three strategies to revise overload sentences.
The lesson concludes with a single practice exercise that instructs students to revise a two-sentence passage.
this practice exercise proves that our authors consider revision a process by itself. The fact that the text provides such trite exercises and does not suggest that the strategies be applied to whole essays fails in two ways. First, the students cannot possibly get enough practice at these skills by completing just one exercise, so it can be concluded that the authors of the text either don't believe that tenth graders have a great deal of trouble with sentence level composition, or that the teachers will address it using other resources if they do need extra practice after reviewing the lesson content. The lesson itself is so trite that it does not promote a thorough understanding of the concept. This chapter seems to exist only to provide teachers with a reminder that these are issues that students will need practice in.
The authors break the topic of problem sentences down into three categories: 1) Tightening Content; 2) Improving Stringy Sentences; and 3) Reducing Overload Sentences. Tightening content has to do with the deletion of repetitious phrases, adding clarification, or substituting simpler words for "unnecessary phrases". Improving stringy sentences has to do with correcting run-on sentences. Reducing Overload Sentences involves reducing the use of descriptors and modifiers that can be distracting to the reader and increasing clarity.
1. Tightening Content
The authors suggest that problems at the sentence level can cause confusion for the reader, models one example, and suggest three ways of cleaning up the content of sentences in order to avoid confusing the reader.
2. Improving Stringy Sentences
The authors defines a stringy sentence as "a sentence that goes on for too long without showing that the ideas in the sentence are related." The author then illustrates an example, then provides five strategies for revising Stringy sentences.
3. Reducing Overload Sentences
The authors define an overload sentence as "a sentence with too many descriptive words," and says that this can be distracting to the reader. The author then models one example, and then provides three strategies to revise overload sentences.
The lesson concludes with a single practice exercise that instructs students to revise a two-sentence passage.
this practice exercise proves that our authors consider revision a process by itself. The fact that the text provides such trite exercises and does not suggest that the strategies be applied to whole essays fails in two ways. First, the students cannot possibly get enough practice at these skills by completing just one exercise, so it can be concluded that the authors of the text either don't believe that tenth graders have a great deal of trouble with sentence level composition, or that the teachers will address it using other resources if they do need extra practice after reviewing the lesson content. The lesson itself is so trite that it does not promote a thorough understanding of the concept. This chapter seems to exist only to provide teachers with a reminder that these are issues that students will need practice in.
This is the general format for each lesson in this chapter. Each lesson is broken down into no more than two or three subheadings that are very brief and give few examples of the problem sentences that need correcting. The lesson provides only one exercise for application of the skill. It can be concluded that the authors believe that by tenth grade, these skills should not be new but just need reviewing. Depending on students' prior knowledge, this may not be an appropriate text to teach revision strategies, but it depends on how much work the teacher is willing to do to find other resources to support the text in the event that more practice on sentence revision in needed for students to acquire a working understanding of the material.