Study Based on Analysis of Existing Study
Methodist College
English 201

When writing compositions revision is an extremely important part of the process. Revision strategies can help by providing different approaches in terms of spelling and proofreading. Research has shown that people learn and absorb information differently. It is highly probable that when someone writes any type of composition they could benefit from using different revision strategies. In 2011, TEFLL Department, Faculty of Foreign Languages published a research study written by Professors Mojgan Rashtchi and Mojdeh Ghandi titled “Writing Revision Strategies: Do they Enhance Writing Ability”.
The purpose of Professor Rashtchi and Professor Ghandi study was to investigate whether three types of revision strategies peer revision, self-revision enforced by checklist revision as compared to teacher revision have any significant impact on the writing ability of Iranian EFL (English as Foreign Language) learners. (Rashtchi & Ghandi, 2011) They want to impart that revising is an important part of the writing process and that using different revision strategies help produce better written compositions, communication and critical thinking skills. There are copious flaws with this study in their documented methods, results and analysis.
Methods
Participants Participants were selected from a sample of eighty Iranian male and female students between the ages of 19-24. All participants were majoring in English translation at Islamic Azad University and were selected based on convenience sampling. (Rashtchi & Ghandi, 2011) Convenience sampling is when researchers choose subjects that are easily attainable. Meaning, researchers cannot control how appropriate the samples will match the characteristics of the greater population it is intended to epitomize. Using the convenience sampling process researchers narrowed down the students from eighty to seventy-two. The seventy-two students were split into three groups of 23, 23, and 26 (Rashtchi & Ghandi, 2011) which is odd, considering that the seventy-two students could have been split into three groups equally. The same teacher was used for all three groups to keep the variable the same. Classes were held in sixteen week sessions within one semester in ninety minute intervals with a total of nine compositions written. The central element of their instruction included a textbook, and topics assigned were the same for all three classes. (Rashtchi & Ghandi, 2011, p. 69) Reading further into the method section of this research study the information changed from ninety minute sessions to eighty minute sessions and the total number of compositions completed went down from nine to eight. (Rashtchi & Ghandi, 2011, p. 71)
Treatment
The three groups were randomly assigned into two experimental groups and a control group named self-revision group (SRG), peer revision group (PRG), and the teacher revision group (TRG). The SRG and PRG practiced with the help of a guiding checklist while the TRG’s compositions were revised and corrected by the teacher. Each group was allowed to write on eight or nine (since the information in the study is flawed, it is unclear how many compositions were done) topics and the professors included a table showing different topics the teacher was allowed to choose from. Each topic took two sessions to write, revise, and rewrite their compositions. (Rashtchi & Ghandi, 2011) The SRG group was asked to write on the specified topic. Before starting, the group brainstormed with the teacher, used dictionaries, students were allowed to ask questions and bounce ideas off of one another at any time during the sessions. In the revising sessions, students revised their drafts with the help of a checklist. Afterwards, students were asked to rewrite their drafts based on their corrections and when complete, deliver the compositions to the teacher. The teacher would then check the compositions and only underline grammatical mistakes leaving the responsibility for further corrections up to the student. The PRG group followed the same process as the SRG group until the revising step. In the PRG revising process, the students used the same checklist however; students used the checklist to revise their peer’s compositions. Selecting which peer would evaluate their fellow peers paper was done randomly. After the writings were evaluated, students turned the compositions in to the teacher who would then give the students back their original paper asking them to rewrite their compositions using the checklist as a guide. Finally, the papers were turned into the teacher who would then do as before with the SRG group, underline problem points and return to student, leaving further corrections up to the student. (Rashtchi & Ghandi, 2011) The TRG group started the same as the previous two groups until the revising step. In the revising process, the TRG group compositions were only corrected by the teacher in and out of class. The teacher would provide some explanations on the content and organization. The TRG group did not utilize the evaluation checklist, but; the students were allowed to rewrite their compositions after receiving feedback from the teacher. (Rashtchi & Ghandi, 2011)
Results
Professors Rashtchi and Ghandi included seventeen different graphs to document the differences between the three groups. In table 10 professor’s Rashtchi and Ghandi emphasize that a one-way Analysis of Variance test (ANOVA) test was done to determine the statistical significance between the posttest compositions between the two experimental groups and control group. The results show a significant effect of revision strategy enforced by the checklist on the improvement of the Iranian students writing by 9%. (Rashtchi & Ghandi, 2011, p. 73) Following the ANOVA test, professors ran a Scheffe test to further investigate exactly which pair-wise comparisons were significant. The study states that the Scheffe test results can be found in table 12 when in fact the correct results are found in table 11. The Scheffe test concluded that SRG was significantly different from TRG by 0.037%; no significant difference between TRG and PRG which was 0.339%; and no significant difference between SRG and PRG whose difference was 0.549%. (Rashtchi & Ghandi, 2011) Most errors found were compromising verb use in form and subject-verb agreement and syntactical errors compromising organization and capitalization. (Rashtchi & Ghandi, 2011)
Analysis
With the study being immersed with so many flaws, it is difficult to accept the validity of the research study. Their excessive use of abbreviations and the word “significant” was overdone and not used in the correct context. Significant is defined as a noticeably or measurably large amount. (Farlex, 2013) From the professors own analysis and the numerous graphs included in this study there is no noticeably large difference between the three groups. The study does show a minor difference with the students that used the checklist as a guide. The graphs only added to making the study cumbersome and complex. Also, the study does not inform whether or not this was a first time English class for some students or, if students have taken multiple English classes before taking this class. Professors Rashtchi and Ghandi could have benefited from using a checklist and having their study reviewed by their peers. Perhaps then the numerous errors could have been corrected before the study was published to be read by their colleagues and the public.
Proposal for a New Study Focusing on Rashtchi and Ghandi’s study this author would like to propose a more precise study that will evaluate a more diverse, immense group of students to see if the use of revision strategies can in fact improve students writing skills. If a similar study could be done on all incoming freshman in Illinois to assess their level of composition skills, that information would be highly beneficial. By assessing all incoming freshman, teachers can place students into the appropriate classes where students can learn skills such as; Writing strategies: planning, revising, and editing their written products; Summarizing text: students learn procedures for summarizing what they read; Collaborative writing: students to work together to plan, write, edit, and revise their writing; Sentence combining: Explicitly teach students to write more complex and sophisticated sentences; Process writing: Implement flexible, but practical classroom routines that provide students with extended opportunities for practicing the cycle of planning, writing, reviewing their compositions; Prewriting AKA Brainstorming: Students engage in activities prior to writing that help them produce and organize their ideas. (Graham, 2011) Teaching the students these skills will benefit them immensely throughout college and their adult lives.
Methods
Participants Students will be between the ages of fourteen and fifteen, males and females all attending high schools in the state of Illinois. High school students have a total of eight class periods throughout the day. The eight English class periods will be divided into six experimental groups and two control groups for the study, 2 self-revision groups (SRG), 2 peer revision groups (PRG), 2 model revision group (MRG), and 2 teacher revision groups (TRG). The classes will be taught by same teacher, and students will all use the same textbook to keep the variable constant. Classes will be held in 18 week sessions in 45 minute intervals with students turning in a total of nine compositions. Allowing the teacher and students two weeks to work on each composition.
Treatment
Following Rashtchi and Ghandi’s study all students will be allowed to brainstorm, ask each other questions, make outlines, and use dictionaries. The only difference that will occur between the four groups will happen in the revising phase of the study. SRG group’s will revise their drafts using the checklist; rewrite based on corrections made; deliver to the teacher who will check the compositions and underline grammatical mistakes; leaving further corrections up to the students. PRG group’s will revise their peers paper using the checklist; rewrite based on the recommended corrections, deliver corrected compositions to the teacher who will underline grammatical errors only; leaving further corrections up to the students. MRG group’s will revise their writings based on the excellent models provided by the teacher based on what they are expected to write; students will analyze the models; rewrite their compositions; deliver to the teacher who will check the compositions and underline grammatical errors; leaving further corrections up to the students. TRG group’s compositions will only be checked by the teacher both in and out of class; teacher will provide feedback on organization, content, and grammar; students will make corrections based on the feedback received. Once the semester is completed all information collected will be sent to ANOVA first, then to determine the level of improvement during the strategies, a Scheffe test will also be run.
Potential Outcome Potential results would likely show that the SRG and MRG are the two groups that will have the most positive outcome. SRG students would benefit from the checklist and MRG would benefit from having the models to analyze while writing their papers. PRG would likely have mixed results because some students could have a problem with being honest on their fellow student’s papers. In agreement with Rashtchi and Ghandi’s study TRG results will likely be low because receiving comments from the teacher at the end of the writing process does not allow the student’s time to reflect on their compositions.(Rashtchi & Ghandi, 2011)
Conclusion
The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) has frequently been called the “The Nations Report Card.” It is the only national assessment of what America’s students know and can do in various subject areas. (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2008) The last writing test done on eighth grade children in the state of Illinois was 2007. The children were rated into four categories; Below Basic, Basic, Proficient, and Advanced. From the documented results of this assessment 90% of the students were writing at a Basic level. Meaning, students were able to address the tasks appropriately and mostly accomplish their communicative purposes. Their texts should be coherent and effectively structured. Many of the ideas in their texts should be developed effectively. Supporting details and examples should be relevant to the main ideas they support. Knowledge of spelling, grammar, usage, capitalization, and punctuation should be made evident; however, there may be some errors in the texts that impede meaning. (National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2008) Only ten percent of Illinois students enter high school writing at proficient and advanced levels. If this author’s proposed study was implemented to all high school freshmen, teachers would be able to narrow down what revision strategies students would benefit from thus improving, their writing skills. Enabling our students to graduate writing at proficient and advance’s levels would be greatly beneficial to the students, parents, and teachers. Once the freshman become seniors and get ready to graduate the NAEP should give the students a writing assessment and see how much progress the students have made in their four years of learning.

References
Crossman, A. (2013, July 11). Sociology. Retrieved from Sociology.com: http://sociology.about.com/od/Types-of-Samples/a/Convenience-Sample.htm
Farlex. (2013, July 12). The Free Dictionary. Retrieved 2013, from FreeDictionary.com: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/case+study
Graham, A. G. (2011, November). John Hopkins School of Medicine. Retrieved from JHU.edu: http://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/Better/articles/Winter2011.html
National Assessment of Educational Progress. (2008, Feburary). National Assessment of Educational Progress report card. Retrieved from National Assessment of Educational Progress: http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/
Rashtchi, M., & Ghandi, M. (2011). Writing Revision Strategies: Do they Enhance Writing Ability? Man & the Word, 67-80.