11
John F. Marsella
06-Dec-05
ENGL 7809; Technical Editing
Dr. M. Albers
Teaching effective online editing habits
using MS Word Commenting functionality.
John Francis Marsella
University of Memphis
3868 Kelley Cir N
Memphis, TN 38111
(334) 750 6714
18
Teaching effective online editing habits using MS Word Commenting functionality.
Abstract
In this study, data was derived from the comments which undergraduate technical editing students made in an on-line comprehensive editing assignment. Comments were assessed for level of structure, phrasing, and quality. Effective and ineffective on-line commenting habits were observed. Students were found to make a high percentage of paragraph level comments and low percentages of global and sentence level comments. Directives were issued most often. Quantities of good and poor quality comments were relatively similar.
Introduction
As on-line editing becomes more widely used, it is necessary for students in technical writing curriculums to learn effective on-line comprehensive editing habits. Microsoft Word, one of the most popular word-processing tools available today, offers Commenting functionality as well as the Track Changes approach to online editing. Instructors should focus on teaching effective on-line editing practices using the editing tools provided by programs such as MS Word.
Matt Willen (2004) writes that “the primary objective of feedback is to help the writer develop a document that addresses the needs and expectations of its audience,” and this goal is achieved when the editor can not only recognize the problem in the document, but also offer a suggestion as to how to correct it (p.21). Hart (2004) is also a proponent of using comments to clarify the nature of the edit. He suggests making editorial suggestions within comments in MS Word so that the author can easily copy and paste the revisions into the document. Teaching skills and editing strategy such as these are imperative in the classroom setting; applying them to the available technology will better prepare students for a career in the technical communication field. Doing so will promote current technical editing students toward excellence as they advance their careers.
In this study, I investigate the use of the Commenting feature of MS Word by students, in order to isolate the problem-areas most often encountered when performing comprehensive on-line edits. I identify these pitfalls as well as explore the effective editing habits that students frequently illustrate. I will suggest which areas technical editing instructors should concentrate on when teaching on-line editing skills in the classroom. We hope to find a concordance between effective editing techniques among student editors and the results of the data collected.
Collection Framework
The samples for this study were collected from the results of an in-class on-line comprehensive editing assignment, which was administered to eleven (11) students in a section of the undergraduate Technical Editing class (designated ENGL 3602). The students completed the assignment using either Microsoft Word version 2000 or XP on a standard landscape-oriented monitor.
The assignment was based on a 7-page type-written Word document, which had errors on all levels of structure. The entire text was tagged such that MS Word would not automatically check for spelling or grammar, using the Tools > Language > Set Language menu bar option. The assignment was structured as a graded quiz. In order to achieve natural responses to the assignment, the students were only informed that the editing assignment would be graded, but not that it would be used in a research environment.
After collecting the samples, students were presented with the proper Institutional Review Board forms and agreed to participate in the study.
Data Samples
The eleven (11) congruent data samples, when compared superficially, differed dramatically in terms of several factors, designated as the following groups:
I. Level of structure commented on
II. Type of comments
III. Quality of comments
Because of these apparent differences, a coding schema was developed in order to analyze each of these factors in a quantitative fashion. After applying the coding schema, each category of comments was quantified.
Quantity of Comments
The strictly quantitative measure of the number of comments allowed for the possibility of descriptive statistical analysis of the data in several ways. Ratios could be derived, both within each sample-assignment, but more importantly, among all assignments, for the following:
· Level of structure comments to total comments
· Comment type to total comments
· Good quality comments to total comments
Applying the coding schema described below, two coders independently marked every sample and compared their conclusions.
Among the eleven sample assignments, 148 comments were made. Only comments made within the MS Word Commenting “bubbles” were counted; no in-text comments were considered. Several of the students took a more heavy-handed editing approach and attempted to rewrite the document instead of offering suggestions to the authors. Those who used that practice yielded very few comments.
In an effort to ensure inter-coder reliability, the Cohen’s kappa was calculated for the set of codes. This statistical measurement, a description of which is not in the scope of this article, provides a dependable picture of the agreement between the two coders in that Cohen’s kappa accounts for “the agreements that would have agreed by chance” (University of Nebraska). Cohen’s kappa was calculated using Takamoto’s web-based Cohen’s kappa calculator.
Coding Schema
The initial coding schema used a three-tiered approach to gathering pertinent data. As suggested in the section above, group I evaluations focused the level of structure on which the comment was made; group II assessments described the reason for the comment or, the comment-type; group III evaluations considered the quality of the comment. Quantitative measures were derived from data-counts of groups I through III.
Multiple Comments in One Comment Bubble
In some cases, the editor used one comment “bubble” or “box” to house more than one comment. In these situations, each comment was coded independently for level of structure, type, and quality. Often these multiple comments described unconnected problems within the document, although the editor may have sometimes joined multiple comments pertaining to a single paragraph or sentence. These comments are not necessarily of poor quality, but often the editor’s meaning may become muddled within the mash of comments.
**INSERT FIGURE 1 HERE**
Figure 1. Multiple and Singular Comments
Editors made 32 discernable comments (21.2%) within shared “bubbles.” Some editors put 3 comments per bubble, while most editors who commented multiple times in a single bubble made only 2 comments. That one comment shares a bubble with another comment does not necessarily dictate quality, although many of the 32 comments became difficult to understand. Within the 32 bubble-sharing comments, there were 21 poor quality comments (65.6%) and 11 good quality comments (34.4%) found sharing bubbles. Quality of each comment in shared-bubble instances are independent, e.g., if there were three comments in one comment bubble, two may be good quality and one may be poor.
Group I (Level of Structure)
The comprehensive editor must take into consideration not only the document as a whole, the global level, but also lower levels, such as the paragraph and sentence levels. McNeill (2001) and Petersen (2000), among others, agree that the edit should be a multi-tiered process; they suggest starting at higher levels and working down; that is, the top-down editing style.
Optimally, the editor would work through all levels of edit before returning the document to the author for revision. In this study, however, the students were given a 45-minute time-frame in which to complete the substantive, comprehensive on-line editing assignment.
**INSERT FIGURE 2 HERE**
Figure 2. Comments by Structure Level
Of the 151 comments, the global-level was the least-often structure-level commented on: only 9 comments (or, 6.0%) were made on this level. Paragraph-level comments were the predominant structure-level commented on: 111 comments (or, 74.0%) were made on the paragraph-level. Sentence-level comments followed, and not by a small margin: 30 comments (or, 20.0%) were made at the sentence-level.
Global Level
Global level comments appeared in two forms. In the first form, the editor asks the author to consider the audience of the document. Although the editor may indicate only one instance, I feel that these comments constitute an awareness of the global level on the part of the editor. These comments may include asking the author to spell out an acronym and questioning the tone of paragraphs or sentences. The second form of global level commenting dealt with document-wide consistency. The editor notes consistency issues in punctuation, word-choice, reference, and other areas. Again, the editor may indicate only one error, but this awareness proves the editor’s sensitivity to the document as a whole.
Within the global-level, 7 comments (4.7%) were made directing the author to consider the audience, while 2 comments (1.3%) were made asking the author to check consistency on the global level.
Paragraph Level
Paragraph level comments fell into several different categories:
· Need for specific content
· Revising content
· Format and design
· Order of information
· Presentation of information
· Deletion
In the case of need for specific content, the editor specifies that some information is lacking within the paragraph. This information may be as little as a name, but could comprise an entire section. Suggestions concerning the revision of contents differ from the need for specific content in that suggestions for revision assumes that the content is present, but needs to be reworked. The editor may be pointing out redundant information or asking for justification on the inclusion of the content in question. Where format and document design issues are concerned, the editor makes suggestions ranging from proper use of sub-headings to indicating inconsistent structure within and between paragraphs. Editors commented on the order of information within paragraphs as well as among them. This incuded the ostensible order of information within and among paragraphs as well as parallel structuring among sentences. Structural consistency among paragraphs may be called into question under the format and design category. Presentation of information comments dealt with the way in which the information was offered to the reader: the editor suggests information delivery via figures, list-style presentation, and tables. Simplification and integration of separate figures, lists, and tables fall into this category also. Lastly, editors occasionally recommend the deletion of a partial or even entire paragraph, due to needless or redundant information.
Para: Necessary Content / 34 / 22.7%Para: Content / 23 / 15.3%
Para: Format / 8 / 5.3%
Para: Order of Info. / 17 / 11.3%
Para: Presentation of Info. / 21 / 14.0%
Para: Delete Paragraph / 8 / 5.3%
Table 1. Raw and Percentage Data of Paragraph Level Comments by Category.
**INSERT FIGURE 3 HERE**
Figure 3. Paragraph Level Comments by Feature
Within the paragraph level, the most comments were made in reference to the need for specific information: 34 comments (22.7%). Comments relating to paragraph format were low with only 8 comments made (5.3%). There were 17 comments (11.3%) made about the order within and among paragraphs, while paragraph content was commented on in 23 instances (15.3%). Presentation of information within paragraphs drew almost as much attention, with 21 comments (14.0%). Lastly, 8 comments (5.3%) were made suggesting that the author delete a whole paragraph.
Sentence Level
Sentence level comments consisted of several different sets:
· Meaning and clarity
· Grammatical and mechanical
· Revision of sentence
· Word change
· Deletion
In meaning and clarity comments, the editor asks the author to review the sentence for clarity or meaning within the sentence. The editor may indicate the need for more information in order to make the sentence make sense on the sentence level or in context with the paragraph. The editor may also indicate unclear phrasing within the sentence. Editors deal with grammatical and mechanical issues, such as punctuation issues, subject-verb agreement, and verb concord, as well as instances of run-on sentences. Revision of sentence comments suggest the rewriting of an entire sentence and most often stem from clunky or imprecise wording. Sentence revision comments differ from clarity comments in that suggestions for revision tend to deal more with stylistic issues. In some instances, editors suggest a word change. The author may have used a word incorrectly or imprecisely. The editor ideally suggests the preferable word in place of the erroneous one. Sometimes editors recommend that the author delete an entire sentence. This normally occurs when the sentence is redundant or unnecessary.
Sentence: Meaning\Clarity / 15 / 10.0%Sentence: Grammar / 1 / 0.7%
Sentence: Rewrite / 8 / 5.3%
Sentence: Word Choice / 2 / 1.3%
Sentence: Delete Sentence / 4 / 2.7%
Table 2. Raw and Percentage Data of Sentence Level Comments by Category.
**INSERT FIGURE 4 HERE**
Figure 4. Sentence Level Comments by Feature.
Within the sentence level, comments were most often made on the clarity or meaning of the sentence: 15 comments (10%) were made. Grammar was called into question only 1 time (0.7%), while editors suggested sentence level rewrites 8 times (5.3%). Comments on word choice were low, with only 2 comments made (1.3%). In 4 instances (2.7%), the editor suggested deletion of entire sentences.
Group II (Type of Comment)
Hart (2005) writes that “the goal [of editing] is to constantly reinforce the notion that [the editor is] proposing rather than demanding changes” (p. 27). The tone of the comment can determine the author’s opinion of the editor: one harsh sounding comment could cause the author to ignore the editor’s work wholesale. The field of editorial comments is divided into two main types, each with sub-categories:
· Direct Comments
o Question
o Directive
o Comment
o Explaining edit
· Couched Comments
o Directive as question
o Directive as comment
**INSERT FIGURE 5 HERE**
Figure 5. Comments by Main Type
Direct comments openly express the editor’s intent in the comment. These straightforward comments question, direct, offer editorial observation, or explain why the editor has performed a specific edit to the document. Comments phrased as questions ask the author’s intention or solicits justification of the text. Directives instruct the author to make certain changes to the document. Sometimes, the editor makes a comment that has no implication regarding the revision to the text, rather the editor may be simply stating that the sentence or paragraph is well written. Comments explaining edits do just that: the editor has made an edit to the text and uses the comment to justify or rationalize the change.