L. Chanquoy – författare

ERICESPERET University of Poitiers, France Denis Alamargot and Lucile Chanquoy's book offers a vivid and original presenta­ tion of main trends in the research field devoted to writing. First, it provides both young and senior scientists with a comparative view of current theoretical models of composition, with different levels of reading made available: each element of these models is clearly situated in its historical context, and scrutinized in its further evo­ lution. Second, this well documented theoretical analysis of writing mechanisms is checked against empirical data extracted from a lot of updated experimental studies; and lack of necessary data is thought to be underlined and defined when noted. Following the usual description of writing phases initially proposed by Hayes and Flower, the first part of this book presents planning, translating and revision processes and compares them to other researchers' conceptions (from Bereiter and Scardamalia, to Kellogg or Galbraith). Such presentations of isolated models do ex­ ist in literature; but the present work really gives a good comparative analysis of components inside each of models, in a clear and cumulative way; a fine-grained ob­ servation of differences between similarly-looking models is also performed.

This work provides both young and senior scientists with a comparative view of current theoretical models of text production. Models are clearly situated in their historical context, scrutinized in their further evolution with a fine-grained observation of differences between models. Following the description of writing phases initially proposed by Hayes and Flower (1980), the first part of the book presents planning, translating and revising processes and compares them to other researchers' conceptions. The second part is devoted to the cognitive functioning of writing. Decisive issues are examined, such as the management of different processes, the role of working memory in text writing and the characteristics of the development of writing expertise. To conclude this presentation, two researchers in this field, John R. Hayes and Ronald T. Kellogg, have been invited to react to analyses developed in the book and to complete the presentation of their own model. This book should be useful to people working in teaching of writing or studying this specific human activity.

Revision Revisited LINDA ALLAL* & LUCILE CHANQUOY** *University ofGeneva, SWitzerland, **UniversityofNantes, France Revision is a fundamental component of the writing process. So fundamental that for some specialists writing is largely a matter of revising, or as Murray (1978) stated, "Writing is rewriting..." (p. 85). Experience with writing does not, however, automatically translate into increased skill in revision. Learning to revise is a lengthy, complex endeavor. Beginning writers do little revision spontaneously and even experienced writers encounter difficulties in attempting to improve the quality of their texts (Fitzgerald, 1987). Although revision has been extensively dealt with in the writing and learning-to­ write literature, this book proposes to "revisit" theory and research in this area through a series of new contributions. The introduction begins with an overview of what revision encompasses. It then examines two parallel interrogations that under­ lie the chapters assembled here, namely: (1) What are the implications of research on cognitive processes for instruction in revision? (2) What are the questions raised by instructional research for the investigation of cognitive processes of revision? A final section presents the chapters of this book.

Revision Revisited LINDA ALLAL* & LUCILE CHANQUOY** *University ofGeneva, SWitzerland, **UniversityofNantes, France Revision is a fundamental component of the writing process. So fundamental that for some specialists writing is largely a matter of revising, or as Murray (1978) stated, "Writing is rewriting..." (p. 85). Experience with writing does not, however, automatically translate into increased skill in revision. Learning to revise is a lengthy, complex endeavor. Beginning writers do little revision spontaneously and even experienced writers encounter difficulties in attempting to improve the quality of their texts (Fitzgerald, 1987). Although revision has been extensively dealt with in the writing and learning-to­ write literature, this book proposes to "revisit" theory and research in this area through a series of new contributions. The introduction begins with an overview of what revision encompasses. It then examines two parallel interrogations that under­ lie the chapters assembled here, namely: (1) What are the implications of research on cognitive processes for instruction in revision? (2) What are the questions raised by instructional research for the investigation of cognitive processes of revision? A final section presents the chapters of this book.

ERICESPERET University of Poitiers, France Denis Alamargot and Lucile Chanquoy''s book offers a vivid and original presenta­ tion of main trends in the research field devoted to writing. First, it provides both young and senior scientists with a comparative view of current theoretical models of composition, with different levels of reading made available: each element of these models is clearly situated in its historical context, and scrutinized in its further evo­ lution. Second, this well documented theoretical analysis of writing mechanisms is checked against empirical data extracted from a lot of updated experimental studies; and lack of necessary data is thought to be underlined and defined when noted. Following the usual description of writing phases initially proposed by Hayes and Flower, the first part of this book presents planning, translating and revision processes and compares them to other researchers'' conceptions (from Bereiter and Scardamalia, to Kellogg or Galbraith). Such presentations of isolated models do ex­ ist in literature; but the present work really gives a good comparative analysis of components inside each of models, in a clear and cumulative way; a fine-grained ob­ servation of differences between similarly-looking models is also performed.