Rhetorical concerns in a set of ninth grade compositions, optimal revisions and non-optimal revisions

This research investigated the rhetorical concerns ninth grade students used when writing to a persuasive prompt, and the rhetorical concerns they were able to use and declare when asked to revise optimally (Make It Better) and non-optimally (Make It Worse). The study used text analysis on 27 data sets to determine the metacognitive skills and metacognitive knowledge of students asked to write to a high-stakes type prompt. In addition, it sought a connection between metacognitive skills and holistic scores.;The study created a "rhetorical net" culled from revision research, existing high-stakes rubrics, and two pilot studies. Three co-raters and the researcher employed segment change analysis to determine which of twelve rhetorical concerns students used and named. All 27 students used focus and development in their original compositions; only 15 wrote persuasively. The Make It Better/Make It Worse protocol showed student attention to word choice, sentence structure and enhanced development, and three additional students used persuasion when optimally revising and four when non-optimally revising. Students failed to name as many rhetorical concerns as they used, thus showing more metacognitive skill than knowledge. The protocol helped students interact with their texts in a unique way---non-optimally revising---that allowed them to play with language, possibly uncovering new meaning.;Changing length did appear to positively influence holistic scores for the optimal revisions, while changing or enhancing audience negatively impacted scores. Surprisingly, a change in persuasion was not likely to lead to an improved holistic score. Additional research using the protocol with different data may help explain the connections between rhetorical concerns and holistic scores.