{"id":58,"date":"2022-04-28T19:06:32","date_gmt":"2022-04-28T19:06:32","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppcc5\/?post_type=chapter&#038;p=58"},"modified":"2022-05-04T21:51:23","modified_gmt":"2022-05-04T21:51:23","slug":"higher-order-concerns","status":"publish","type":"chapter","link":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppcc5\/chapter\/higher-order-concerns\/","title":{"raw":"Higher Order Concerns","rendered":"Higher Order Concerns"},"content":{"raw":"<b style=\"color: #373d3f;font-family: 'Cormorant Garamond', serif;font-size: 1.602em\">Introduction<\/b>\r\n\r\nRegardless of writers\u2019 levels of experience or areas of expertise, many struggle with revision, a component of the writing process that encompasses everything from transformative changes in content and argumentation to minor corrections in grammar and punctuation. Perhaps because revision involves so many forms of modification, it is the focus of most scientific writing guides and handbooks. Revision can be daunting; how does one progress from\u00a0<strong><em>initial drafts<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0(called \u201crough drafts\u201d for good reason) to a polished piece of scholarly writing?\r\n\r\nDeveloping a process for revision can help writers produce thoughtful, polished texts and grow their written communication skills. Consider, then, a systematic approach to revision, including strategies to employ at every step of the process.\r\n\r\n<strong>A System for Approaching Revision<\/strong>\r\n\r\nGenerally, revision should be approached in a top-down manner by addressing\u00a0<strong><em>higher-order concerns<\/em>\u00a0<em>(HOCs)<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0before moving on to\u00a0<strong><em>lower-order concerns (LOCs)<\/em><\/strong>. In writing studies, the term \u201chigher order\u201d is used to denote major or global issues such as thesis, argumentation, and organization, whereas \u201clower order\u201d is used to denote minor or local issues such as grammar and mechanics.<a id=\"return-footnote-222-1\" class=\"footnote\" title=\"McAndrew DA, Registad TJ. Tutoring writing: a practical guide for conferences. Portsmouth (NH): Boynton\/Cook; 2001.\" href=\"https:\/\/composingourselvesandourworld.pressbooks.com\/chapter\/6-1-revising-vs-proofreading\/#footnote-222-1\" aria-label=\"Footnote 1\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[1]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0The more analytical work of revising HOCs often has ramifications for the entire piece. Perhaps in refining the argument, a writer will realize that the discussion section does not fully consider the study\u2019s implications. Or, a writer will try a new organizational scheme and find that a paragraph no longer fits and should be cut. Such revisions may have far-reaching implications for the text.\r\n\r\nDedicating time to tweaking wording or correcting grammatical errors is unproductive if the sentence will be changed or deleted. Focusing on HOCs before LOCs allows writers to revise more effectively and efficiently.\r\n\r\n<strong>Revision Strategies<\/strong>\r\n\r\nBearing in mind the general system of revising from HOCs to LOCs, you can employ several revision strategies.\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li><strong>Begin by evaluating how your argument addresses your rhetorical situation<\/strong>\u2014that is, the specific context surrounding your writing, including the audience, exigence, and constraints.<a id=\"return-footnote-222-2\" class=\"footnote\" title=\"Bitzer L. &quot;The rhetorical situation.&quot; Philos Rhetoric 1968; 1 (1): 1-14.\" href=\"https:\/\/composingourselvesandourworld.pressbooks.com\/chapter\/6-1-revising-vs-proofreading\/#footnote-222-2\" aria-label=\"Footnote 2\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[2]<\/sup><\/a>\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>For example, you may write an article describing a new treatment. If the target journal\u2019s audience comes from a variety of disciplines, you may need to include substantial background explanation, consider the implications for practitioners and scholars in multiple fields, and define technical terms. By contrast, if you are addressing a highly specialized audience, you may be able to dispense with many of the background explanations and definitions because of your shared knowledge base. You may consider the implications only for specialists, as they are your primary audience. Because this sort of revision affects the entire text, beginning by analyzing your rhetorical situation is effective.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n \t<li><strong>Analyze your thesis or main argument for clarity.<\/strong><\/li>\r\n \t<li><strong>Evaluate the global organization of your text by writing a reverse outline.<\/strong>\u00a0Unlike traditional outlines, which are written before drafting, reverse outlines reflect the content of written drafts.\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>In a separate document or in your text\u2019s margins, record the main idea of each paragraph. Then, consider whether the order of your ideas is logical. This method also will help you identify ideas that are out of place or digressive. You may also evaluate organization by printing the text and cutting it up so that each paragraph appears on a separate piece of paper. You may then easily reorder the paragraphs to test different organizational schemes.<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<h2><strong>Reverse Outline video<\/strong><\/h2>\r\n[embed]https:\/\/youtu.be\/1hutF4fq5H0[\/embed]\r\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\r\n\r\n<strong>Licenses and Attributions<\/strong>CC LICENSED CONTENT, ORIGINAL<em>Composing Ourselves and Our World,\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0Provided by: the authors. License:\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/\">Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)<\/a>CC LICENSED CONTENT INCLUDEDRevision and Adaptation. Provided by: Lumen Learning. License: CC BY: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)This chapter contains an excerpt from\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/writingspaces.org\/essays\/reflective-writing-and-the-revision\">Reflective Writing and the Revision Process: What Were You Thinking?<\/a>\u00a0by\u00a0 Sandra Giles,Writing Commons, and is used under Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 license.Revision Strategies. Authored by: Kristin Messuri. Located at: http:\/\/pulmonarychronicles.com\/index.php\/pulmonarychronicles\/article\/view\/263\/662. Project: Pulmonary Chronicles. License: CC BY: Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0).Post-Draft Outline. Authored by: Alexis McMillan-Clifton. Provided by: Tacoma Community College. Located at: http:\/\/prezi.com\/ilic1tcomvne\/?utm_campaign=share&amp;utm_medium=copy&amp;rc=ex0share. License: CC BY: AttributionMULTIMEDIA CONTENT INCLUDED\r\n<ul>\r\n \t<li>Video 1:\u00a0 \u00a0licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.5) (http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/b\u2026). It is attributed to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Writing Center,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/1hutF4fq5H0\">Reverse Outline<\/a>\u00a0 by UNC<\/li>\r\n<\/ul>\r\n<\/div>\r\n<div>Works Cited<\/div>\r\n<div>Anson, Chris M. \u201cTalking About Writing: A Classroom-Based Study of Stu- dents\u2019 Reflections on Their Drafts.\u201d Smith and Yancey 59\u201374.<\/div>\r\nBishop, Wendy. \u201cLife Writing.\u201d English Department. Florida State Univer- sity, Tallahassee, FL. Summer 2002. Lecture.\r\n\r\nCheng, Xiaoguang, and Margaret S. Steffenson. \u201cMetadiscourse: A Tech- nique for Improving Student Writing.\u201d\u00a0<em>Research in the Teaching of English<\/em>\u00a030.2 (1996): 149\u201381. Print.\r\n\r\nHoward, Rebecca Moore. \u201cApplications and Assumptions of Student Self- Assessment.\u201d Smith and Yancey 35\u201358.\r\n\r\nO\u2019Neill, Peggy. \u201cReflection and Portfolio Workshop.\u201d Humanities Division. Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College, Tifton, GA. 25 January 2000. Lecture, workshop.\r\n\r\nSmith, Jane Bowman. \u201c\u2018Know Your Knowledge\u2019: Journals and Self-Assess- ment.\u201d Smith and Yancey 125\u201338.\r\n\r\nSmith, Jane Bowman, and Kathleen Blake Yancey, eds.\u00a0<em>Self-Assessment and<\/em>\u00a0<em>Development<\/em>\u00a0<em>i<\/em><em>n<\/em>\u00a0<em>W<\/em><em>r<\/em><em>i<\/em><em>t<\/em><em>i<\/em><em>ng<\/em><em>:<\/em>\u00a0<em>A Collaborative Inquiry.\u00a0<\/em>Cresskill, NJ: Hampton, 2000. Print.\r\n\r\nSommers, Jeffrey. \u201cBehind the Paper: Using the Student-Teacher Memo.\u201d <em>College Composition and Communication\u00a0<\/em>39.1 (1988): 77\u201380. Print.\r\n\r\n\u2014. \u201cEnlisting the Writer\u2019s Participation in The Evaluation Process.\u201d\u00a0<em>Journal<\/em>\u00a0<em>of<\/em>\u00a0<em>T<\/em><em>e<\/em><em>a<\/em><em>ch<\/em><em>i<\/em><em>ng<\/em>\u00a0<em>Wr<\/em><em>i<\/em><em>t<\/em><em>i<\/em><em>ng<\/em>\u00a04.1 (1985): 95\u2013103. Print.\r\n\r\nWinegardner, Mark. Personal interview. 3 February 2003.\r\n\r\nYancey, Kathleen Blake, and Jane Bowman Smith. \u201cReflections on Self-Assessment.\u201d Smith and Yancey 169\u201376.\r\n\r\n<hr class=\"before-footnotes clear\" \/>\r\n\r\n<div class=\"footnotes\">\r\n<ol>\r\n \t<li id=\"footnote-222-1\">McAndrew DA, Registad TJ. Tutoring writing: a practical guide for conferences. Portsmouth (NH): Boynton\/Cook; 2001.\u00a0<a class=\"return-footnote\" href=\"https:\/\/composingourselvesandourworld.pressbooks.com\/chapter\/6-1-revising-vs-proofreading\/#return-footnote-222-1\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 1\">\u21b5<\/a><\/li>\r\n \t<li id=\"footnote-222-2\">Bitzer L. \"The rhetorical situation.\" Philos Rhetoric 1968; 1 (1): 1-14.\u00a0<a class=\"return-footnote\" href=\"https:\/\/composingourselvesandourworld.pressbooks.com\/chapter\/6-1-revising-vs-proofreading\/#return-footnote-222-2\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 2\">\u21b5<\/a><\/li>\r\n<\/ol>\r\n<\/div>","rendered":"<p><b style=\"color: #373d3f;font-family: 'Cormorant Garamond', serif;font-size: 1.602em\">Introduction<\/b><\/p>\n<p>Regardless of writers\u2019 levels of experience or areas of expertise, many struggle with revision, a component of the writing process that encompasses everything from transformative changes in content and argumentation to minor corrections in grammar and punctuation. Perhaps because revision involves so many forms of modification, it is the focus of most scientific writing guides and handbooks. Revision can be daunting; how does one progress from\u00a0<strong><em>initial drafts<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0(called \u201crough drafts\u201d for good reason) to a polished piece of scholarly writing?<\/p>\n<p>Developing a process for revision can help writers produce thoughtful, polished texts and grow their written communication skills. Consider, then, a systematic approach to revision, including strategies to employ at every step of the process.<\/p>\n<p><strong>A System for Approaching Revision<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Generally, revision should be approached in a top-down manner by addressing\u00a0<strong><em>higher-order concerns<\/em>\u00a0<em>(HOCs)<\/em><\/strong>\u00a0before moving on to\u00a0<strong><em>lower-order concerns (LOCs)<\/em><\/strong>. In writing studies, the term \u201chigher order\u201d is used to denote major or global issues such as thesis, argumentation, and organization, whereas \u201clower order\u201d is used to denote minor or local issues such as grammar and mechanics.<a id=\"return-footnote-222-1\" class=\"footnote\" title=\"McAndrew DA, Registad TJ. Tutoring writing: a practical guide for conferences. Portsmouth (NH): Boynton\/Cook; 2001.\" href=\"https:\/\/composingourselvesandourworld.pressbooks.com\/chapter\/6-1-revising-vs-proofreading\/#footnote-222-1\" aria-label=\"Footnote 1\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[1]<\/sup><\/a>\u00a0The more analytical work of revising HOCs often has ramifications for the entire piece. Perhaps in refining the argument, a writer will realize that the discussion section does not fully consider the study\u2019s implications. Or, a writer will try a new organizational scheme and find that a paragraph no longer fits and should be cut. Such revisions may have far-reaching implications for the text.<\/p>\n<p>Dedicating time to tweaking wording or correcting grammatical errors is unproductive if the sentence will be changed or deleted. Focusing on HOCs before LOCs allows writers to revise more effectively and efficiently.<\/p>\n<p><strong>Revision Strategies<\/strong><\/p>\n<p>Bearing in mind the general system of revising from HOCs to LOCs, you can employ several revision strategies.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><strong>Begin by evaluating how your argument addresses your rhetorical situation<\/strong>\u2014that is, the specific context surrounding your writing, including the audience, exigence, and constraints.<a id=\"return-footnote-222-2\" class=\"footnote\" title=\"Bitzer L. &quot;The rhetorical situation.&quot; Philos Rhetoric 1968; 1 (1): 1-14.\" href=\"https:\/\/composingourselvesandourworld.pressbooks.com\/chapter\/6-1-revising-vs-proofreading\/#footnote-222-2\" aria-label=\"Footnote 2\"><sup class=\"footnote\">[2]<\/sup><\/a>\n<ul>\n<li>For example, you may write an article describing a new treatment. If the target journal\u2019s audience comes from a variety of disciplines, you may need to include substantial background explanation, consider the implications for practitioners and scholars in multiple fields, and define technical terms. By contrast, if you are addressing a highly specialized audience, you may be able to dispense with many of the background explanations and definitions because of your shared knowledge base. You may consider the implications only for specialists, as they are your primary audience. Because this sort of revision affects the entire text, beginning by analyzing your rhetorical situation is effective.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<li><strong>Analyze your thesis or main argument for clarity.<\/strong><\/li>\n<li><strong>Evaluate the global organization of your text by writing a reverse outline.<\/strong>\u00a0Unlike traditional outlines, which are written before drafting, reverse outlines reflect the content of written drafts.\n<ul>\n<li>In a separate document or in your text\u2019s margins, record the main idea of each paragraph. Then, consider whether the order of your ideas is logical. This method also will help you identify ideas that are out of place or digressive. You may also evaluate organization by printing the text and cutting it up so that each paragraph appears on a separate piece of paper. You may then easily reorder the paragraphs to test different organizational schemes.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2><strong>Reverse Outline video<\/strong><\/h2>\n<p><iframe loading=\"lazy\" id=\"oembed-1\" title=\"Saylor.org ENGL002: &quot;Reverse Outline&quot;\" width=\"500\" height=\"375\" src=\"https:\/\/www.youtube.com\/embed\/1hutF4fq5H0?feature=oembed&#38;rel=0&#38;rel=0\" frameborder=\"0\" allowfullscreen=\"allowfullscreen\"><\/iframe><\/p>\n<div class=\"textbox shaded\">\n<p><strong>Licenses and Attributions<\/strong>CC LICENSED CONTENT, ORIGINAL<em>Composing Ourselves and Our World,\u00a0<\/em>\u00a0Provided by: the authors. License:\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/by\/4.0\/\">Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)<\/a>CC LICENSED CONTENT INCLUDEDRevision and Adaptation. Provided by: Lumen Learning. License: CC BY: Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0)This chapter contains an excerpt from\u00a0<a href=\"http:\/\/writingspaces.org\/essays\/reflective-writing-and-the-revision\">Reflective Writing and the Revision Process: What Were You Thinking?<\/a>\u00a0by\u00a0 Sandra Giles,Writing Commons, and is used under Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 license.Revision Strategies. Authored by: Kristin Messuri. Located at: http:\/\/pulmonarychronicles.com\/index.php\/pulmonarychronicles\/article\/view\/263\/662. Project: Pulmonary Chronicles. License: CC BY: Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International (CC BY-SA 4.0).Post-Draft Outline. Authored by: Alexis McMillan-Clifton. Provided by: Tacoma Community College. Located at: http:\/\/prezi.com\/ilic1tcomvne\/?utm_campaign=share&amp;utm_medium=copy&amp;rc=ex0share. License: CC BY: AttributionMULTIMEDIA CONTENT INCLUDED<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li>Video 1:\u00a0 \u00a0licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.5 Generic (CC BY-NC-ND 2.5) (http:\/\/creativecommons.org\/licenses\/b\u2026). It is attributed to the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Writing Center,\u00a0<a href=\"https:\/\/youtu.be\/1hutF4fq5H0\">Reverse Outline<\/a>\u00a0 by UNC<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<div>Works Cited<\/div>\n<div>Anson, Chris M. \u201cTalking About Writing: A Classroom-Based Study of Stu- dents\u2019 Reflections on Their Drafts.\u201d Smith and Yancey 59\u201374.<\/div>\n<p>Bishop, Wendy. \u201cLife Writing.\u201d English Department. Florida State Univer- sity, Tallahassee, FL. Summer 2002. Lecture.<\/p>\n<p>Cheng, Xiaoguang, and Margaret S. Steffenson. \u201cMetadiscourse: A Tech- nique for Improving Student Writing.\u201d\u00a0<em>Research in the Teaching of English<\/em>\u00a030.2 (1996): 149\u201381. Print.<\/p>\n<p>Howard, Rebecca Moore. \u201cApplications and Assumptions of Student Self- Assessment.\u201d Smith and Yancey 35\u201358.<\/p>\n<p>O\u2019Neill, Peggy. \u201cReflection and Portfolio Workshop.\u201d Humanities Division. Abraham Baldwin Agricultural College, Tifton, GA. 25 January 2000. Lecture, workshop.<\/p>\n<p>Smith, Jane Bowman. \u201c\u2018Know Your Knowledge\u2019: Journals and Self-Assess- ment.\u201d Smith and Yancey 125\u201338.<\/p>\n<p>Smith, Jane Bowman, and Kathleen Blake Yancey, eds.\u00a0<em>Self-Assessment and<\/em>\u00a0<em>Development<\/em>\u00a0<em>i<\/em><em>n<\/em>\u00a0<em>W<\/em><em>r<\/em><em>i<\/em><em>t<\/em><em>i<\/em><em>ng<\/em><em>:<\/em>\u00a0<em>A Collaborative Inquiry.\u00a0<\/em>Cresskill, NJ: Hampton, 2000. Print.<\/p>\n<p>Sommers, Jeffrey. \u201cBehind the Paper: Using the Student-Teacher Memo.\u201d <em>College Composition and Communication\u00a0<\/em>39.1 (1988): 77\u201380. Print.<\/p>\n<p>\u2014. \u201cEnlisting the Writer\u2019s Participation in The Evaluation Process.\u201d\u00a0<em>Journal<\/em>\u00a0<em>of<\/em>\u00a0<em>T<\/em><em>e<\/em><em>a<\/em><em>ch<\/em><em>i<\/em><em>ng<\/em>\u00a0<em>Wr<\/em><em>i<\/em><em>t<\/em><em>i<\/em><em>ng<\/em>\u00a04.1 (1985): 95\u2013103. Print.<\/p>\n<p>Winegardner, Mark. Personal interview. 3 February 2003.<\/p>\n<p>Yancey, Kathleen Blake, and Jane Bowman Smith. \u201cReflections on Self-Assessment.\u201d Smith and Yancey 169\u201376.<\/p>\n<hr class=\"before-footnotes clear\" \/>\n<div class=\"footnotes\">\n<ol>\n<li id=\"footnote-222-1\">McAndrew DA, Registad TJ. Tutoring writing: a practical guide for conferences. Portsmouth (NH): Boynton\/Cook; 2001.\u00a0<a class=\"return-footnote\" href=\"https:\/\/composingourselvesandourworld.pressbooks.com\/chapter\/6-1-revising-vs-proofreading\/#return-footnote-222-1\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 1\">\u21b5<\/a><\/li>\n<li id=\"footnote-222-2\">Bitzer L. &#8220;The rhetorical situation.&#8221; Philos Rhetoric 1968; 1 (1): 1-14.\u00a0<a class=\"return-footnote\" href=\"https:\/\/composingourselvesandourworld.pressbooks.com\/chapter\/6-1-revising-vs-proofreading\/#return-footnote-222-2\" aria-label=\"Return to footnote 2\">\u21b5<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"author":65,"menu_order":10,"template":"","meta":{"pb_show_title":"on","pb_short_title":"","pb_subtitle":"Lumen Learning","pb_authors":[],"pb_section_license":""},"chapter-type":[],"contributor":[],"license":[],"class_list":["post-58","chapter","type-chapter","status-publish","hentry"],"part":3,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppcc5\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/58","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppcc5\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppcc5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/chapter"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppcc5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/65"}],"version-history":[{"count":5,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppcc5\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/58\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":166,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppcc5\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/58\/revisions\/166"}],"part":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppcc5\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/parts\/3"}],"metadata":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppcc5\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapters\/58\/metadata\/"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppcc5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=58"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"chapter-type","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppcc5\/wp-json\/pressbooks\/v2\/chapter-type?post=58"},{"taxonomy":"contributor","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppcc5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/contributor?post=58"},{"taxonomy":"license","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/pressbooks.ccconline.org\/ppcc5\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/license?post=58"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}