Carolyn Plumb

Text Revision: Detection and Correction of Errors.

In 2 experiments, independent measures of detection and correction of text errors were examined. In Session 1, Ss tried to detect spelling, grammatical, and meaning errors in a text; in Session 2, Ss tried to correct the same errors in workbooklike exercises. Errors were classified according to whether they were detected in Session 1 and whether they were corrected in Session 2. With the exception of spelling errors, knowledge of how to correct an error was necessary but not sufficient for detection. For spelling error detection, knowledge of how to correct may be both necessary and sufficient. In Experiment 2, detection of meaning errors was manipulated by having Ss answer comprehension questions, surface questions, or no questions. Both question groups detected nearly twice as many meaning errors as the no-question group. Questioning had no effects on detection of spelling or grammatical errors.

Error correction in text: Testing the processing-deficit and knowledge-deficit hypotheses

Previous research has shown that writers and editors of all ages and abilities have trouble correcting errors in texts. In this study, we were interested in discovering whether people do not correct these errors mainly because (1) they do not have the knowledge to correct them, or because (2) even though they do have the knowledge to correct the errors, they do not use it. The first case would point to aknowledge deficit, or a deficit at the cognitive level; the second case would point to aprocessing deficit, or a deficit at the metacognitive level. The study compared the number and type of implanted errors corrected by high school and college subjects working on two different texts under three different conditions. We found that, for both ages, the biggest stumbling block in correcting errors was not the knowledge of how to correct them, but rather a failure to detect them: They did not use their available knowledge to find the errors. This processing deficit may be the result of a dearth of available error-finding strategies, or knowledge may not be activated because of lack of motivation or because of a failure to perceive the nature of the task.

Using portfolios to evaluate service courses as part of an engineering writing program

Assessing the efficacy of technical communication service courses is a complex task, yet it is a task that service course providers should embrace as an opportunity to learn more about student and faculty needs and to update and improve curricula. This assessment has become more immediate for many educators because of ABET 2000 (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology), a comprehensive revamping of the way engineering programs are accredited. ABET 2000 criteria require that engineering programs provide evidence of the efficacy of all instruction, including communication. When the new ABET criteria were released, we had already begun a comprehensive evaluation of not only our service courses but also the total writing experience of engineering students at the University of Washington. This paper gives a theoretical rationale for a portfolio evaluation project and describes a directly applicable structure and procedure for such a project.

A successful process for developing performance-based outcomes for engineering student writing assessment

Summary form only given. Faculty, student, and industry representatives met in a series of four workshops in autumn 1999 to develop performance based writing outcomes for the College of Engineering at the University of Washington. During the workshops, participants used the contents of portfolios of student writing collected over a two-year period to help them gain a better understanding of student writing experiences while in the college. Discussions brought to light a number of important issues related to engineering writing and the teaching of writing in an engineering context. The workshops culminated in a two-part set of writing outcomes for students graduating from the college. Faculty representatives are now working with other members of their respective departments to determine which courses and which writing within these courses will be used to assess student competency in these outcomes.

What Can Technical Writers Learn from Good Conversation

This article first reviews the role of oral and written discourse within social constructionist theory. The author discusses both the differences and the similarities between oral and written discourse and suggests that writers emphasize the similarities rather than the differences since the implicit rules of conversation have much to offer to the technical writer. In order to apply these conversational principles, however, technical writers need to alter their attitudes toward their audiences. The article concludes with an example of how the principles of conversation can be applied to the process of writing instructions.