Professional editing strategies used by six editors

被引:32
作者
Bisaillon, Jocelyne [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Laval, Quebec City, PQ G1K 7P4, Canada
关键词
revision process; detection strategies; problem-solving strategies in writing; authentic writing task; linear process;
D O I
10.1177/0741088307305977
中图分类号
G2 [信息与知识传播];
学科分类号
05 ; 0503 ;
摘要
Identifying the approach used by those revision experts par excellence-that is, professional editors-should enable researchers to better grasp the revision process. To further explore this hypothesis, the author conducted research among professional editors, six of whom she filmed as they engaged in their practice. An analysis of their work approach strategies showed their detection strategies to consist in anticipating errors and in comparing the author's text with the editor's knowledge, which appears in a range of states: certitude, uncertainty, and ignorance. Furthermore, the participating editors used problem-solving strategies to automatically solve more than half of the problems encountered in the text. Otherwise, they used immediate or postponed strategies. This description of professional editors in action opens a number of avenues for the further research and development of in-class instruction of self-revision and professional editing.
引用
收藏
页码:295 / 322
页数:28
相关论文
共 27 条
[1]  
Alam D. S., 2001, Maternal and child nutrition in rural Bangladesh: special reference to the effect of dietary fat supplementation on vitamin A status, P1
[2]  
[Anonymous], REVISION PROFESSIONN
[3]  
[Anonymous], REVISION REVISITED
[4]  
[Anonymous], 2004, Revision cognitive and instructional processes
[5]  
BISAILLON, 2005, REVISER TRAVAIL APPR
[6]  
BISAILLON J, 2003, SEM CIRAL U LAV QUEB
[7]  
BISAILLON J, 2006, 10 INT C EARLI SPEC
[8]  
BISAILLON J, 2007, IMPROVING PRODUCTION, P77
[9]  
BREOKKAMP H, 1996, WRITING RES THEORIES, P170
[10]   Environmental, cognitive, and metacognitive influences on text revision: Assessing the evidence [J].
Butterfield, EC ;
Hacker, DJ ;
Albertson, LR .
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY REVIEW, 1996, 8 (03) :239-297