An Analysis of Student Comments in Comprehensive Editing

Applied ResearchAn Analysis of Student Comments inComprehensive EditingMichael J. Albers and John F. MarsellaAbstractPurpose: A substantial skill in comprehensive editing is the ability to writeconstructive comments to the author. This study provides a view into how studentsmake comments during a comprehensive edit of a technical document.Method: Undergraduate technical editing students performed a comprehensive editof a report. Data were derived from the editorial comments students made during theedit. Comments were coded for level of the comment (global, paragraph, or sentence),phrasing of the comment, and quality of the comment. A total of 132 comments werecoded.Results: Both effective and ineffective commenting habits were observed. Studentswere found to make a high percentage of paragraph-level comments and a lowpercentage of global and sentence-level comments. Most of the comments wererated as useful to an author. Looking at specific problem areas, most students missedcommenting on four major problems within the text. The students seemed to be usinga linear editing style of simply moving through the document from beginning to end,rather than using a top-down editing style or multiple passes.Conclusions: When given instructions to perform a comprehensive edit, moststudents made comments that addressed global and paragraph-level issues, ratherthan sentence-level or copyediting issues. However, the overall quality and usefulnessof the comments varied widely. As part of improving both writing and editingskills, technical communication pedagogy needs to focus more on overall documentstructure and how to structure sections within a document.Keywords: comprehensive editing, editing comments, editing pedagogy, editor-authorrelationshipPractitioner’sTakeaway• Technical communication pedagogyneeds to better focus on improvingstudents’ ability to develop editorialcomments that communicateproblems and potential solutions.• Teaching students how to performa comprehensive edit requiresteaching a focus on analyzing adocument’s global structures andwriting useful comments.• If student editors and manynonprofessional writers work withsimilar levels of editorial skill,assuming similar levels of editingexperience, the quality of thecomments will vary widely andhave a paragraph-level focus ratherthan a focus on higher leveldocument structure.52 Technical Communication l Volume 58, Number 1, February 2011

Applied ResearchAlbers and MarsellaIntroductionTechnical text creation occurs as a joint effort betweenthe writer and the editor, with the editor tasked withensuring that the author’s text is “complete, accurate,correct, comprehensible, usable and appropriate forthe readers” and giving the writer “ways to make thedocument easier for readers to understand and use”(Rude, 2006, p. 12). Thus, we can, at a high level,define an editor’s job as ensuring that the writer’s viewof the content matches the reader’s view and the realisticcommunication uses of the text. Teaching students howto edit in a manner that achieves this match requiresteaching comprehensive editing. A substantial skill incomprehensive editing is the ability to write constructivecomments to the author. Although this is a valuable skill,there seems to be no research into the type or qualityof comments students actually make while performingcomprehensive edits. Without understanding how theymake comments, we cannot know if we need to adjustpedagogy to improve their commenting ability or whattype of changes may be required.The research may also provide a view into howcomments are made on workplace documents bythe nontechnical editors reviewing texts. In manyways, a technical review of a document acts as a formof comprehensive edit. Student editors and manynonprofessional writers will be working with similarlevels of editorial skill. They have misconceptions aboutthe editing (or review) process and lack a full knowledgeof the language to express their concerns. Engineers,programmers, and other nonprofessional writers areconstantly tasked with reviewing documents. Thequality of the review and comments varies, but I do notknow of any in-depth analysis of how they comment.This work could provide an interesting point ofcomparison between working professionals and students.Literature Review“One of the most crucial tasks of the technicalcommunicator is to provide information that users needby carefully selecting the right mix of content and thendeveloping, arranging, and presenting it effectively forthe audience” (Hayhoe, 2002, p. 398). Developinga text that provides that information in an effectivemanner often requires interacting with an editor whoworks at the comprehensive and organizational level. Forthe editor to be an effective member within the writingprocess, those editorial comments need to writtensuch that the author can both understand them and bewilling to act upon them (Albers, 2005). For example, instudies looking at the interaction of editors and softwareengineers, Walkowski (1991) and Winsor (1993) bothfound that these software engineers more than to havetheir work copyedited. They expect a comprehensiveedit with useful suggestions on how to improve theirtext, including ideas on how to reorganize it.Willen (2004) writes that “the primary objective offeedback is to help the writer develop a document thataddresses the needs and expectations of its audience”(p. 21). This goal is achieved when the editor not onlyrecognizes problems in a document, but also offerssuggestions about how to correct them. Eaton Brewer,Portewig, and Davidson. (2008ab) highlight the needfor good-quality comments, since they found thatabout 72 percent of comprehensive edit comments arefollowed. Since authors follow such a high percentageof comments, there is a substantial risk of poor-qualitycomments damaging a document if the author blindlyfollows them. Poor-quality comments can also damagethe editor-author relationship by causing the author tolose respect for the editor.Ensuring that the editor works well with the authorrequires that the editor make good comments. Not aparticularly easy task, since as Lanier (2004) points out,“authors may easily become offended and feel that theyare being criticized rather than helped by the editors.Making sure that authors are content with the editingprocess is important for establishing a good collaborativerelationship” (p. 526). Multiple articles have offeredadvice on how to write those suggestions, although, withonly a few exceptions (primarily work by Eaton and hercolleagues), these studies provided minimal empiricalevidence supporting their advice.Comments need to focus on improving the text tomeet the reader’s needs, and not personal preferences(Allen & Voss, 1998).Comments should be structured to include therational for the change: what is wrong with the text andwhat can be done to fix it (Gerich, 1994). Hart (2004)stresses using comments to clarify the nature of theedit, rather than simply changing text. Authors need aVolume 58, Number 1, February 2011 l Technical Communication 53

Applied ResearchAn Analysis of Student Comments in Comprehensive Editing“payoff statement” that explains why they should followthe suggestion, as opposed to just giving an editorialdirective (Eaton et al., 2008ab).• Comments need a context (Mackiewicz, 2005).Authors will interpret them based on both wordingof the comment itself and how they see it fittingwithin the text. Perceptions of whether thecomment is useful or positive/negative are highlydependent on the context.• Comments should be phrased as suggestionsrather than directions to the author (Zimmerman& Taylor, 1999). As a limitation on their advice,Zimmerman and Taylor focus on copyediting ratherthan comprehensive editing, where a copyeditmark’s appropriateness tends to be more black andwhite than a comprehensive edit comment. On theother hand, non-native English-speaking authorsseem to need directives rather than suggestionsbecause they experience problems parsing asuggestion’s true underlying intent (Riley &Mackiewicz, 2003).• Authors prefer comments phrased as questionsrather than commands (Dragga & Gong 1989;Eaton, et al., 2008ab). However, Mackiewicz andRiley (2003) suggest using questions only when theeditor’s actual purpose is inquiry.• Comments should help ensure that the documentconforms to the house style, yet they must not doso at the expense of the author’s voice (Allen &Voss, 1998). Of course, with both the movementto highly collaborative group-written documentsand the movement toward dynamic text generationusing technologies such as XML, the author’s voicemay have to be substantially modified to fit with therelated text by other authors (Albers, 2000).The preceding list points out that comments workbest as suggestions or questions, with an underlyingassumption that they are perceived as more politeand less demanding. Although this question has beenexamined in the context of non-native English-speakingauthors, work with native English-speaking authorsis not as extensive (Eaton et al., 2008ab). Riley andMackiewicz (2003) say that directness is preferred topoliteness since suggestions or questions make it harderfor non-native speaker to parse the editor’s intent.Comments form a substantial factor incomprehensive editing, which tends to be describedas a multilevel process (Anderson, Campbell, Hindle,Price, & Scasny, 1998; Buren & Fuehler, 1980). Editingtextbooks (Rude, 2005; Samson, 1993) suggest startingat higher levels and working down; that is, the top-downediting style. The comprehensive editor must considernot only the document as a single entity, but also thecoherence, structure, and style of lower levels, such asthe paragraph and sentence levels. An editor is expectedto identify any place within a document where any ofthese writing elements break down and make commentsthat guide the author in fixing the problems.A substantial part of comprehensive editing isproviding the author with a set of comments forimproving the text. The ability of editors to makeeffective comments will strongly influence the strengthof the editor-writer relationship (Farkas & Poltrock,1995; Mackiewicz & Riley, 2003). Understanding whyan editorial change was made or is being suggestedcan increase the likelihood of the author accepting thesuggestion. On the other hand, authors did not likeeditors who undertook to rewrite the text because “itsounds better” or who made edits that changed themeaning (Gerich, 1994). Thus, developing effectivecommenting skills should be explicitly taught within atechnical editing course.The need for good comments is addressed in everyediting textbook, but it is typically placed in terms ofenhancing editor-author relationships, rather than interms of producing quality comments. This creates aserious problem, as pointed out by Grady, Mayweather,Davis, and LaPlume. (2004):Indeed, editing texts are full of instructions tostudents on how to foster good editor/authorrelationships. However, students often report theirsurprise at the difficulty of actually choosing theright tone when writing and speaking to authorsand how much they learn about the languageof negotiation when conducting editor/authorconferences (p. 429).A question thus arises of how adept students are atmaking comments as they perform a comprehensiveedit. Assuming—as seems to be apparent from theliterature—that the ability to make comments is54 Technical Communication l Volume 58, Number 1, February 2011

Applied ResearchAlbers and Marsellavital for editors, technical editing courses need toexplicitly focus on teaching this skill in both readingand in-class discussions. As part of learning toperform a comprehensive edit, students need tolearn the following:• How to make effective comments. The commentsneed to be diplomatic, provide adequate detail,and explain the issue in enough depth to justify thesuggested change.• How to focus comments on the main problemswithin the text. Student editors need to learn tosee the higher level text problems and to clearlycommunicate those problems to an author.In this study, we investigate the comments madeby students during a comprehensive edit. By identifyingthe type and quality of the comments, we have abaseline on which to begin understanding how to betterteach commenting in comprehensive editing. Exploringthe typical editing difficulties students exhibit allowsus to suggest to technical editing instructors whichareas to concentrate on when teaching comprehensiveediting skills.MethodsMaterialsThe assignment was to perform a comprehensiveedit of a seven-page Word document, which was arecommendation report comparing two electricalengineering textbooks. The purpose of the report wasto enable a faculty committee to select a textbook for anintroduction to electrical engineering course. The textwas created by combining and rewriting reports createdfrom a student report assignment into a single report.The document had errors on all levels of structure.The text contained copyedit-level errors (grammar andpunctuation errors) in number and type, which wereconsistent with a typical student-written paper. Thecoursework on comprehensive editing had stressedignoring copyediting errors until the major structuralissues were fixed. Students were not expected to performa copyedit as part of this study. Instead, they were told tofocus the editing on improving the higher level problemswith the text.The samples for this study were collectedfrom the results of a graded comprehensive editingassignment that was administered to 11 students in anundergraduate technical editing class. The assignmentwas completed by two students at a time in theresearcher’s office. The students worked separately ontwo computers using Microsoft Word XP on a standardlandscape-oriented monitor. There was a 45-minutetime limit for completing the assignment. TechSmith’sMorae was used to create a screen video of the entireediting session. We acknowledge that the time limitposes a potential experimental confound and understandthat many editors would prefer to print out the reportto read before editing it. However, we also acknowledgethe reality of how students tend to privilege finishingan assignment over doing it “by the book.” Most ofthe students completed the assignment before timeexpired, and none asked about printing it (a printer wasavailable).All of the students were English majors, witha concentration in professional and technicalcommunication. The editing class is structured as thesecond course in the concentration sequence. Althoughthe introduction to technical communication course isnot a prerequisite, most of the students had completedit. The assignment was structured as a graded assignmentgiven at the end of the unit on comprehensive editing,which occurred about three quarters of the way throughthe semester. Previous class assignments included bothin-class and graded assignments on comprehensiveediting, which included online editing using MicrosoftWord. None of the students exhibited any difficultieswith Word’s track changes and comments features.The University of Memphis Institutional ReviewBoard approved the study, and students signed theapproved release to use the assignment for researchpurposes.Coding the CommentsThe students’ comments were coded, but not theirinline revisions to the text, since the study’s purposewas to examine comments. Except for the studentswho attempted to rewrite the text, essentially all inlinerevisions were copyedits. The copyediting tended to bemarking glaring errors and did not capture the majorityof the copyedit-level problems.Volume 58, Number 1, February 2011 l Technical Communication 55

Applied ResearchAn Analysis of Student Comments in Comprehensive EditingThe coding schema was iteratively developed (Corbin& Strauss, 2007; Creswell, 2003). It was based on thethree levels of edits (global, paragraph, and sentence) andpossible comment types within each level. The codingschema is described below. We started with a codingschema based on our expectations of what should bemarked in the text and through the iterative processdeveloped one that reflects actual student comments.Categories in which we expected to see comments but didnot do not appear in the final schema. In this study, wewere focused on what the students did comment on andnot what they missed. We do acknowledge that futurework needs to examine the types of editing issues studentstypically overlook.Two coders independently marked all of thecomments in the 11 samples. After the two coders hadindependently scored all the papers, they met, discussedtheir reasoning, and adjusted the coding so each paperhad one set of codes, which was used for the analysis.We defined a comment as a block of text relatedto a single idea or concept. In some instances a singlecomment contained multiple phrases or sentences. Tables1, 2, and 3 show example comments which we consideredone comment, although many have multiple sentences. Intwo cases, the editor used one Word comment “bubble”to house more than one comment. In these cases, eachcomment was coded independently.The coding schema analyzed three factors. Eachcomment was coded for three different attributes.• Level of structure commented on (global, paragraph,or sentence)• Type of comment (direct or indirect)• Quality of comment (good or poor)Besides coding the edited document, we reviewedthe Morae recordings for each subject. The video was notcoded, but was used as support for the findings on thecomments. Our initial review of the Morae recordingsfound few actions specifically associated with makingspecific comments, such as scrolling up/down beforemaking the comment. The recordings could have beenuseful for an overall analysis of how students approachediting, but that was outside the study’s scope.Within each of the attributes, the following set ofcodes was used.Level of Comment Based on a top-down editingstructure (Rude, 2005; Samson, 1993), the commentswere coded based on the level of change they reflected:global, paragraph, or sentence. Within each of these threegroups, the specific type of comment was also coded.Tables 1–3 show examples of each type of coding.GlobalWhole documentSection levelGlobal wordchoiceParagraphNeed for specificcontentRevising contentOrder ofinformationFormat and designPresentationSuggestions on document-wideconsistency, structural,or organizational issues.Suggestions on section-wideconsistency, structural, ororganizational issues.Suggestions on wordingproblems that needed to beaddressed throughout thedocument.Suggestions that pointedout that specific contenteither is missing or should beadded to better develop theargument.Suggestions that assumedthe content was present butneeded to be reworked. Theeditor may be pointing outredundant information orasking for justification onthe inclusion of the content inquestion.Suggestions that addressedthe order of informationwithin paragraphs.Suggestions that addressedthe proper use of subheadingsor indicated inconsistentformatting structure.Suggestions that addressedthe way information waspresented: the editor suggestsinformation delivery via lists,figures, and tables.56 Technical Communication l Volume 58, Number 1, February 2011

Applied ResearchAlbers and MarsellaDeletionSentenceMeaning andclarityGrammaticalRevision ofsentenceWord changeDeletionSuggestions thatrecommended the deletionof partial or even entireparagraphs owing to needlessor redundant information.Suggestions that asked fora revision of the sentencefor clarity or meaning. Theeditor may indicate the needfor more information inorder to have the sentencemake sense in the context ofthe paragraph.Suggestions that askedfor grammatical andmechanical changes, such aspunctuation issues, subjectverbagreement, or run-onsentences.Suggestions that askedfor a rewrite of an entiresentence, which oftenstemmed from poor flow orimprecise wording. Sentencerevision comments differfrom meaning and claritycomments in that suggestionsfor revision tend to deal morewith stylistic issues.Suggestions that asked forword changes. The authormay have used a wordincorrectly or imprecisely.Suggestions that ask fordeleting an entire sentence.This normally occurs whenthe sentence is redundant orunnecessary.Type of CommentThe phrasing of the comment can affect how theauthor perceives it and how it influences the editorauthorrelationship (Dragga & Gong 1989; Eaton etal., 2008ab; Riley & Mackiewicz, 2003; Zimmerman& Taylor, 1999). The comments were coded as director indirect, with subclassifications that reflect thecomment’s content.Direct CommentsQuestionDirectiveCommentExplaining editIndirect CommentsDirective asquestionDirective ascommentPhrased as a question toask the author’s intentionor solicits justification ofthe text.Phrased to openly expressthe editor’s intent and offersdirect editorial observation.It instructs the author tomake specific changes tothe document.Phrased to have noimplication regarding arevision to the text. Forexample, the editor maybe simply stating that thesentence or paragraph iswell written.Phrased as a justificationor rationalization of aneditorial change.Phrased in an interrogativefashion, although the intentand tone is that the authorshould make the change.Phrased as a superficiallyoffhanded comment aboutthe text, but with an intentand tone that the authorshould make the change.Quality of CommentComments were coded as either good or poor basedon how understandable or usable they were withrespect to making text changes. As Willen (2004)mentions, editorial quality rests with the editor’s abilityto recognize problems and make clear, understandablesuggestions for revisions. In many instances, thedifference between a good comment and a poor onewas a matter of clarity; in other instances, it was theVolume 58, Number 1, February 2011 l Technical Communication 57

Applied ResearchAn Analysis of Student Comments in Comprehensive Editingeditor’s skills (or lack thereof) at identifying andexplaining problems.For this coding, comment quality was a binaryassessment: good or poor.Good Clear, direct, and, if followed, shouldproduce positive results for the document.Poor Muddled, unnecessary, or ineffectual; a poorcomment will not benefit the document andmay in some cases degrade the quality of thedocument if followed. A poor comment wasnot always a wrong or misplaced comment,but the wording was not sufficient orappropriate for a writer to effectivelyact upon it.We acknowledge that a finer grained evaluation ofthe comment quality would have been preferable; butfor this exploratory study, the comments did not lendthemselves to a finer grained coding. In addition, thefinal metric of comment quality would be how well ithelps an author modify the text. Since this an editingexercise and the edits were not returned to an author, wewere not able to make that judgment. Instead, as coders,we had to make that judgment for an imagined author.Finally, we were more concerned with the poor/notpoor split. That judgment was easier to make since thepoor comments tended to have little usable content. Forexample, if the comment said “this paragraph is vague,”how was an author suppose to revise the paragraph whennothing explains what aspects are vague?ResultsAmong the 11 sample assignments, 132 commentswere made. Nine students finished the assignmentto their satisfaction within the 45-minute time limit.Two students took a more heavy-handed approach andattempted to rewrite the document instead of offeringsuggestions to the authors. As a result, they only workedwith the first 25% to 30% of the document before theend of the 45 minutes.The number of comments per person ranged from 3to 23. The lowest three (3, 4, and 6 comments) includedthe two students who rewrote the text rather, and onewho made mostly single-word changes within the text.After these three students, the number of commentsjumped to a range of 10–23, with 6 of the 11 studentsmaking 10–16 comments.We did not test for statistical significance becauseof the small number of subjects. Instead, we tied thecoding back to specific editing examples to help revealsome specific problems that should be directly addressedin teaching comprehensive editing.“How to edit” articles and textbooks typically advisereading over the entire document before making anyedit marks. In this study, five of the 11 students lookedthrough the document first; however, four of those fivespent only one to two minutes looking over the text.Obviously, this means they could not have accomplishedmore than briefly skimming it. One student spentalmost five minutes reading the text. Three students(including the two who did a rewrite rather than an edit)used a very linear editing style that started at the top ofthe document and moved down with minimal scrolling.The other students scrolled up and down many times,obviously comparing between sections, before makingcomments. On the other hand, all students edited thedocument in a single pass; no one used the approachadvocated by editing articles and discussed in class ofperforming multiple passes through the document andlooking for specific items on each pass.The Morae videos showed that most students werescrolling up and down throughout the editing process,so we assume they were working to maintain a mentalimage of the overall context of the specific paragraphthey were editing.Summary of the CodingOf the 132 comments collected, the global level wasthe least commented on: only 11 comments (8%) weremade on this level (Figure 1). Paragraph-level commentswere the predominant level, with 81 comments (62%).There were 40 sentence-level comments (30%).Global Level Six students (54%) made at leastone global comment (maximum was three comments),for a total of 11 global comments (Figure 2). Withinthe global level, eight comments address section-levelissues (Table 1). Although the number of section-levelcomments looks encouraging, half of them identified theneed to expand the conclusion.58 Technical Communication l Volume 58, Number 1, February 2011

Applied ResearchAlbers and MarsellaExcluding the global comments about theconclusion, there was no consistent placement of globalcomments within the text. Some of the comments,while global, tended to not provide usable guidance. Forexample, “Introduction is vague. Be more specific,” tellsthe author the introduction is vague without providingany feedback on why the editor feels it is vague or howto improve it.Paragraph Level More than half the commentswere paragraph-level comments. The breakdown by typeis shown in Figure 3. Of the 68 paragraph comments,53 directly addressed content or presentation (Table 2).Figure 1. Comments by levelFigure 2. Global-level comments by typeSentence Level More than half of the sentence-levelcomments dealt with sentence meaning (14 times) orasked for a rewrite to make the content clearer (9 times)(Figure 4). Table 3 shows that grammar was called intoquestion onlyonce, word choice 10 times, and sentence rewrites 9times. This puts half of the sentence level edits at thecopyedit level.In general, based on the ratios of paragraph-tosentence-leveledits and the extent of comprehensivesentence-level edits, the students clearly remainedfocused on comprehensive editing issues and avoidedsimply performing a copyedit. On the other hand,because copyediting revisions were made in-line withthe text and this study looked only at the comments,copyedits were not analyzed as part of the coding.Type of Comment Hart (2005) writes that “thegoal [of editing] is to constantly reinforce the notionthat [the editor is] proposing rather than demandingchanges” (p. 27). Mackiewicz and Riley (2003) discussthe importance of politeness and also mention thatindirect comments are typically perceived as more polite.The comment’s tone can determine the author’s opinionof the editor: One harsh-sounding comment couldcause the author to ignore the editor’s work wholesale.Editorial comments can be divided into two main types:direct comments and indirect comments. With directcomments, the editor is directing the author to make arevision, while with indirect comments, a more passiveapproach is used, with the intent that the author willmake revisions as the editor intended.Volume 58, Number 1, February 2011 l Technical Communication 59

Applied ResearchAn Analysis of Student Comments in Comprehensive EditingDirect comments made up 99 (75%) of the 132comments (Table 4). Of those, 19 comments wereposed as questions. Editors used indirect comments in33 instances. Most students made at least one indirectcomment; typically 10%-30% of the comments by eachstudent were indirect. Explanations of edits occurredonly 12 times. It seems that students consideredtheir edits to be self-explanatory and not requiringjustification. Most edit explanations were justifyingdeletions or word changes.Quality of Comments Poor comments tended tobe of minimal use to an author needing informationabout what to actually change, such as “repetitious” and“begin under Criteria.” They also included page layoutcomments that were not appropriate at this stage ofediting, such as pointing out orphaned sentences.A few students made most of the poor-qualitycomments (24 total) (Table 5). Three students madea total of 14 comments rated as poor. The studentby-studentbreakdown for those three is as follows: 5comments with 4 rated as poor, 10 comments with 5rated as poor, and 16 comments with 5 rated as poor.Figure 3. Paragraph-level comments by typeTable 1. Global-level comment examplesComment type Number ExamplesSection level 8 • Give an Executive Summary of the analysis.• After the chart, you need to write a brief conclusion and give arecommendation. Sum up all the information that you just presentedin the chart.Whole document 2 • You were too passive in your analyses of this book. Consider going back andbeing fair and concise in your evaluation.Global word choice 1 • You need to stay in the same tense. Is it past or present?60 Technical Communication l Volume 58, Number 1, February 2011

Applied ResearchAlbers and MarsellaAlso, the two students who did a rewrite had a total ofseven comments, with five rated as poor.Figure 4. Sentence-level comments by typeTable 2. Paragraph-level comment examplesIdentifying Major Problem AreasIt appears that most of the students grasped the basicconcept of how to perform a comprehensive edit andcan make solid, constructive comments. Ignoringthe students who tried to rewrite rather than editthe text, we found that most of the others produceda consistently high number of comments that werebasically of good quality.However, in addition to the ability to constructgood comments, learning to edit includes developingthe ability to spot major problems within the text.A group of editors working on the same documentshould produce a relatively consistent set of edits. Atthe very least, most (if not all) of the major problemswithin the document should be marked. That situation,however, was not evidenced in this study. In reviewingComment type Number ExamplesNecessary content 21 • List the criteria. Why make the reader wait?• This topic was not mentioned in your introduction at all. Either insert itinto the introduction or delete it.Content 15 • This is a lot of information to put into this report. Is this necessary foryour audience?• Your language turns toward a lay audience in this paragraph. Consideradding more information about the book instead of making it so passive.Format 3 • Use subheadings for each of the books.• Make white space between level 1 titles and the previous text smaller.Order of information 17 • Organization and layout should be first as it is in the evaluation section.• It seems more logical to discuss the chapter beginning before the end.• Should this paragraph be made to fit in the first paragraph?Presentation of information 18 • I would suggest a list.• You could also use a table to address some form of organization criteria.Delete paragraph 7 • I would assume that the only people who would be reading this analysisare the college faculty and staff members. They know the process theygo through every year. Just get straight to your evaluation.• This section should be deleted since it isn’t necessary and does notfollow the report format.Volume 58, Number 1, February 2011 l Technical Communication 61

Applied ResearchAn Analysis of Student Comments in Comprehensive Editingthe comments, a lack of consistency in pointing outsignificant problems was noted. The specific problemsfound tended to not be the major problems, but rather arandom collection of problems, which varied by student.To explore this further, we examined the commentsmade about four significant problem areas (Table 6).In general, most of the students missed any onespecific problem. Fewer than half the students noticedeach of these major problems within the text. Onestudent noticed all four problems, and three othersnoticed three problems (interestingly, these three allmissed the Equivalent Circuit section problem).DiscussionThe results of the study have significance for teachingthe comprehensive editing segments of a technicalediting course.We, as technical editing instructors, must directstudents toward effective editing habits, such as a topdownediting style. The lack of global-level comments,when coupled with the failure to gain an overview ofthe document before beginning to edit, may reveal thatthey are not using a top-down editing style. Instead,students seem to be using a linear editing style ofsimply moving through the document from beginningto end. Additional support for that assumption camefrom the Morae video, which showed that only onestudent reviewed the entire document before startingto edit. The others all started reading/editing from thebeginning without gaining an understanding of whatthe document contained. Granted, top-down editingis covered in essentially all editing classes, but perhapsthe discussion can be combined with working throughspecific global-level examples to help the studentscontextualize its advantages.It appears from the linear editing style and the factthat the majority of comments were at the paragraphlevel that the students focus on working with the text atthe paragraph level rather than considering how thoseparagraphs fit together within a section or a document.A possible explanation is that students have had minimalexposure to writing text that is divided into sections.Table 3. Sentence-level comment examplesComment type Number ExampleMeaning\clarity 14 • Not defined—should be defined in the second sentence if using theacronym.• Why was this a disadvantage?Grammar 1 • Should circuits be plural here?Rewrite 9 • Too many sentences are beginning with “the book.”• This phrase sort of belittles the reader.• You should reword this sentence. It is unclear whether you mean the lackof important concepts was a disadvantage or the lack of color conceptswas a disadvantage.Word choice 10 • Be consistent. In the first paragraph you were specific about whichcircuit course.• You should avoid using the word “good” since it is too vague.Delete sentence 6 • The background information is unnecessary.• This sentence should not be here because organization and layout arenot discussed in this paragraph.62 Technical Communication l Volume 58, Number 1, February 2011

Applied ResearchAlbers and MarsellaAlmost all of their academic writing has been long proseparagraphs in texts with no headings, often composedin a single (or minimal number of) draft(s). In addition,students typically have not seen real edited documents.Their worldview of comments is the comments we, asinstructors, make on their papers. Unfortunately, from atechnical editing viewpoint, academic paper commentsand technical editor comments are very different. Earlyin the semester, it may be worthwhile to discuss thisdifference in writing comments, explain the reasoning,and specifically point out how the goals of grading astudent paper and editing a technical document differ.A significant area of concern is the failure toconsistently identify the major problems within theTable 4. Type of comment examplesComment type Number ExampleDirect comment:DirectiveDirect comment:QuestionDirect comment:CommentDirect comment:Explaining editIndirect comment:Directive as questionIndirect comment:Directive as comment64 • Insert a bulleted list of your criteria here.• Make white space between level 1 titles and the previous text smaller.19 • There is not enough information given about the background. Why arethese the chosen books to be evaluated?• How is the complexity reasonable for the students? Are the students ableto follow the material with understanding?4 • These criteria for figures are not always covered exactly in evaluation.• The following paragraphs are just restating the tables.12 • This is already stated in the introduction paragraph.• The word “problems” is ambiguous. You should use “exercises” to makeyour meaning more specific.5 • Shouldn’t this paragraph be in the criteria section?• Should this paragraph be made to fit in the first paragraph?28 • This sentence should not be here because organization and layout arenot discussed in this paragraph.• A teacher for this course should know this already. It seems like you’retalking down.Table 5. Quality of comment examplesComment type Number ExampleGood quality 108 • The comments given as examples in tables 1, 2, and 3 of this article wereall rated as good quality.Poor quality 24 • Repeats first paragraph.• Not needed.• Move this section up to the previous page.• Need stronger conclusion than tables.Volume 58, Number 1, February 2011 l Technical Communication 63

Applied ResearchAn Analysis of Student Comments in Comprehensive Editingtext. Fixing many of the problems identified in thestudents’ comments would not significantly improve thedocument’s ability to communicate information. Willen(2004) suggests teaching guidelines for commentingto technical communication students, and that aspecific protocol should be introduced so that they cancomment effectively and with purpose. Also, it is hardto write or teach a guideline that addresses global-levelissues without either being too vague to be practical(such as “ensure that the sections form a coherentwhole”) or being written for a specific document typeand context (proposals for company X). Use of editingchecklists may help, although typically checklists seemto be used as a “have I done everything” referenceconsulted at the end of the editing project. More thanteaching students to follow a checklist, course pedagogyneeds to help the students internalize what wouldappear on a checklist. This is an interesting catch-22 forteaching, since helping students internalize a checklistTable 6. Consistency of identifying problem areasProblem areaLists and graphics(The text had no lists or graphics. Muchof the analysis lent itself to bullet listsand summary tables. Also, the qualityof the book’s graphics were mentioned,but examples were not given.)Evaluation Criteria section(This section was written as a singlelong paragraph containing multipletopics.)Equivalent Circuit section(Other sections evaluated each bookin a separate paragraph; this sectioncombined the evaluation into one paragraph.)Conclusion(Conclusion was two tables, with noparagraphs interpreting the tables andrecommendation.)Students whocommented5435requires repetition and working in class with documentslong enough to contain global issues. Yet limited classtime severely restricts students from working withdocuments of sufficient length.Classroom ImplicationsThe student editors seem to have a grasp of paragraphlevelskills; Figure 3 shows that more than half of thecomments dealt with content issues. Based on thisfactor, students seem to be able to evaluate contentat the paragraph level, but not at a higher level. Thestudents created comments aimed at the paragraphlevel, rather than creating comments that addressed thehigher levels of the text and placing those commentsinto the context of the overall text. Or perhaps theyhad noticed the section-level problem, but had wordedthe editing comments at the lower level of giving direct“fix this” comments. This study was unable to discernthe mental processes and logic the students used whendeciding to write a comment. Discussions in which theyhave to justify why the comment was written as it wascould prove beneficial, since they would expose how thestudent was actually seeing the problem. Editors andwriters both need to understand the more general textproblems, rather than just give or receive specific “fixit” comments. Unless the comment inspires the writerto see the bigger problem, the writer might not see therelevance of the comment.Bereiter and Scardamalia (1987) point out thatcomposing pushes the writer almost to the point ofcognitive overload. We have no doubt (although thisstudy did not measure it) that editors also work veryclose to cognitive overload. If the students sufferedcognitive overload, it would have led to tasks beingdropped—reducing the scope of problems looked for—and lowered editing quality. Emphasizing the need formultiple passes through a document (which none of thestudents did) should reduce overall cognitive workload.At some level, the lack of multiple passes may be relatedto students’ developing editing skills. Just as a beginningwriter tries to write a single draft document, onlyexperienced editors and writers understand the needfor multiple drafts. Stressing multiple-pass editing forclass assignments should also help address the problemof lack of consistency. With an edit pass focused on asmaller set of edits, the student should be able to spotproblems more easily. How to teach multipass editing64 Technical Communication l Volume 58, Number 1, February 2011

Applied ResearchAlbers and Marsellain a manner that motivates students to use it remains anopen question.In general, improving comment quality shoulditself enhance the editor-author relationship. Theoverall tone of the comments in this study wouldnot hurt an editor-author relationship; none of themwere phrased as an attack on or were demeaning tothe author. But too many of the comments noted inthis study only partially addressed the problem andwould leave the author wondering what the editorreally wanted. For example, a comment of “Should thisparagraph be made to fit in the first paragraph?” failsto explain why the editor believes it should fit into thefirst paragraph. The need for a “payoff statement” thatexplains the reasoning behind the suggestion shouldbe a part of learning to write comments (Eaton etal., 2008ab). A potential in-class exercise may be toshow a paragraph with editorial comments and discussproblems with the comments and how to improve them.As a lead-in to discussing those comments, a discussionof what an author wants regarding a comment is helpful,since it will prime the students to evaluate the commentsfrom an author’s viewpoint.Global Comments The type and quality of theglobal comments can provide an indication of a student’soverall editing ability.As instructors, we can examine the student’s globalcomments to obtain a feel for how well the student islearning to view editing as a task performed on a textas an integrated whole. For example, most of the globalcomments noted in this study were specific to a sectionand never worked to connect sections. Likewise, weas educators need to consider whether the students’comments are simply reflecting what is emphasizedin class. Most of the global comments were aboutconsidering audience, but we need to question whetherthe students are really internalizing the need to consideraudience or simply feel they must make some sort ofcomment about audience. The quality and wording ofthe comments can directly reflect this internalization.If the course has emphasized other areas that areproblematical in the document but not reflected in thecomments, we need to examine how the material isbeing taught to determine why.Connecting the global comments with overallstudent performance, we found the students who madethe global comments were the students who performedhigher overall. At one level it would seem obvious thatthe better students would demonstrate a higher levelview of editing. But, more important, this also providesa means of tracking students’ development as editors.Over the course of a semester, the number of globalcomments should increase. Students tend to split intotwo groups: those who see the problems but cannotexplain them and those who still need help identifyingthe problems. Both groups are developing as editorsbut are at different stages in that development and needdifferent types of help.In the first group, there are students who areseeing the problems but need help communicatingthe suggested changes. Typically, they make commentsthat make sense to themselves but lack sufficient detailfor someone else to act upon, or they know what theproblem is but cannot figure out how to explain it.Either way, they need help in clearly saying what theywant to say. The second group of students needs helpgrasping the higher level editing concepts. They seemto rely on their writing ability and give good paragraphleveladvice, but fail to consider how to connect theparagraphs into a cohesive text. Here, there exists aforest-and-tree problem, with the student needing helpto see that the forest matters as much as the trees. Oneexercise I have found that works is to do a paragraphleveloutline of the text. The problem areas and lack ofcohesion tend to jump out when each paragraph hasbeen condensed to a phrase.ConclusionWe are encouraged by the fact that most of thecomments addressed global and paragraph-level issues,rather than sentence-level or copyediting issues. Onthe other hand, the quality of comments varied widely.Thus, we need to consider how to improve the students’ability to develop comments that clearly communicateproblems and potential solutions to an author. Ofcourse, this should be an overall objective of any writingor editing class.It seems that students understand how to make goodcomments; however, students are not consistent in theirediting and cannot consistently spot major problems ina text. At one level, this may be because students are stilldeveloping skills as writers and editors. But this situationalso means we as educators need to include more classVolume 58, Number 1, February 2011 l Technical Communication 65

Applied ResearchAn Analysis of Student Comments in Comprehensive Editingwork, both before students reach the editing class andduring the editing class, on how to consider overalldocument structure and how to structure sections withina document. Editing skills are not divorced from writingskills, but rather are an essential extension of them.LimitationsThe small sample size clearly prohibits making anygeneral claims. Also, the work was done as a timedquiz. If given more time, some of the students mighthave written more comments or expanded on the onesthey did write. However, since many of them finishedbefore the time limit, that may or may not be a factor.A comparison with the same assignment done as takehomework should prove interesting.Future WorkThis study looked only at a snapshot of students’ editingskills. We need to examine changes in their commentingability during the semester-long development of theirediting skills. A comparison study of beginning versusend of the semester or editing unit would be helpful.Obviously, regardless of the starting point, both poorand good students should improve over time. However,we need to understand the actual progress sequencewithin that improvement so we can make pedagogicaladjustments to increase it. We need a clearer pictureof which skills a developing editor develops first andwhich lag.We need to consider how to better teach editing forglobal issues and overall document structure. We need tobetter understand how to instruct writing high-qualitycomments and editing for larger structural (global)problems in a text. Students can identify paragraph-levelproblems but are very inconsistent with global issues.Performing a comprehensive edit could, at onelevel, be considered making revision decisions abouta text. If people are revising their own text, obviouslythey then make the change. When editing anotherperson’s text, rather than making the change, the editormust create a clear and useful comment explaining theproblem and potential solutions. This brings up thequestion of whether or not an editor’s ability to performa comprehensive edit is related to that person’s abilityto revise texts. Thus, the editor faces two challenges.First, the problem must be identified and, second, theproblem must be communicated to the author. Writingand revising texts at a whole-document and section levelare skills students are still developing, but one that isessential to their future work as professional technicalcommunicators. The sample size of students and theextent of this study were too small to be able to drawany conclusions about relationships between revisingand editing ability, but this remains an importantresearch question that should be pursued. The answerscould help shape classroom discussions on topics such asorganizing texts and writing style.ReferencesAlbers, M. J. (2000). The technical editor and documentdatabases: What the future may hold. TechnicalCommunication Quarterly, 9, 191–206.Albers, M. J. (2005). The future of technicalcommunication: Introduction to this special issue.Technical Communication, 49, 267–272.Allen, L., & Voss, D. (1998). Ethics for editors:An analytical decision-making process. IEEETransactions on Professional Communication, 41,58–65.Anderson, S. L., Campbell, C. P., Hindle, N., Price, J.,& Scasny, R. (1998). Editing a web site: Extendingthe levels of edit. IEEE Transactions on ProfessionalCommunication, 41, 47–57.Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychologyof written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Buren, R. V. & Buehler, M. F. (1980). The levels of edit(2nd ed.). Pasadena, CA: Jet Propulsion Lab.Corbin, J. M., & Strauss, A. C. (2007). Basics ofqualitative research: Techniques and procedures fordeveloping grounded theory (3rd ed.). ThousandOaks, CA: Sage.Creswell, J. (2003). Research design: Qualitative,quantitative, and mixed methods approaches.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Dragga, S., & Gong, G. (1989). Editing: The design ofrhetoric. Amityville, NY: Baywood Publishing.Eaton, A., Brewer, P., Portewig, T., & Davidson,C. (2008a). Comparing cultural perceptions of66 Technical Communication l Volume 58, Number 1, February 2011

Applied ResearchAlbers and Marsellaediting from the author’s point of view. TechnicalCommunication, 55, 140–166.Eaton, A., Brewer, P., Portewig, T., & Davidson, C.(2008b). Examining editing in the workplace fromthe author’s point of view: Results of an onlinesurvey. Technical Communication, 55, 111–139.Farkas, D., & Poltrock, S. (1995). Online editing,mark-up models, and the workplace lives of editorsand writers. IEEE Transactions on ProfessionalCommunication, 38, 110–117.Gerich, C. (1994). How technical editors enrich therevision process. Technical Communication, 41,59–70.Grady, H., Mayweather, E., Davis, B., & LaPlume, A.(2004). Strategies for working with authors: Howto foster productive author-editor relationships.Proceedings of the 51st Annual STC Conference(pp. 428–435). Arlington, VA: STC.Hart, G. (2004). Helping authors work with you.Intercom, 51(7), 38.Hart, G. (2005). Softening the blow: Taking the stingout of editorial and other reviews. Intercom, 52(8),25–27.Hayhoe, G. (2002). Core Competencies: The essence oftechnical communication. Technical Communication,49, 397–398.Lanier, C. (2004). Electronic editing and the author.Technical Communication, 51, 526–536.Mackiewicz, J. (2005). Hinting at what they mean:Indirect suggestions in writing tutors’ interactionswith engineering students. IEEE Transactions onProfessional Communication, 48, 365–376.Mackiewicz, J., & Riley, K. (2003) The technical editoras diplomat: Linguistic strategies for balancingclarity and politeness. Technical Communication, 50,83–94.Riley, K. & Mackiewicz, J. (2003). Resolving thedirectness dilemma in document review sessionswith nonnative speakers. IEEE Transactions onProfessional Communication, 46, 1–16.Rude, C. D. (2005). Technical editing (4th ed.). NewYork, NY: Pearson.Samson, D. (1993). Editing technical writing. New York,NY: Oxford.Walkowski, D. (1991). Working successfully withtechnical experts—From their perspective. TechnicalCommunication, 38, 65–67.Willen, M. (2004). Teaching effective feedback skills.Intercom, 51(4), 21–22.Windsor, D. (1993). Owning corporate text. Journal ofBusiness and Technical Communication, 7, 179–195.Zimmerman, D., & Taylor, C. (1999). Technicaleditors: Are we our own worst enemies? Strategiesfor working with authors Proceedings of the 46stAnnual STC Conference (pp. 351–354). Arlington,VA: STC.About the AuthorsMichael J. Albers is an associate professor at EastCarolina University (ECU), where he teaches in theprofessional writing program. In 1999, he completedhis PhD in technical communication and rhetoricfrom Texas Tech University. Before coming to ECU, hetaught for 8 years at the University of Memphis. Beforeearning his PhD, he worked for 10 years as a technicalcommunicator, writing software documentation andperforming interface design. His research interestsinclude designing information focused on answeringreal-world questions and online presentation of complexinformation.John F. Marsella received degrees from The CulinaryInstitute of America in Hyde Park, New York (AOS,Culinary Arts) and Auburn University in Auburn,Alabama (B.A., English Literature; Creative Writing).He is currently studying biological sciences at theUniversity of Colorado in Fort Collins, Colorado,pursuing of candidacy for a Professional VeterinaryMedicine program.Manuscript received 19 November 2009; revised 22 October2010; accepted 5 January 2011.Volume 58, Number 1, February 2011 l Technical Communication 67