Researching the Process

Corbin, Michelle, Pat Moell, and Mike Boyd. ”Technical editing as quality assurance: adding value to content. (Applied Theory).” Technical Communication 49.3 (August 2002): 286(15). Academic OneFile. Gale. Eastern Michigan University. 5 Oct. 2007 
<http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.emich.edu/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE>.

Summary

This is a very long article, so I will attempt to hit all the major points without going into too much detail; otherwise this summary will be five-pages long, and that is just too darn much for anyone to handle right now.

Basically, these researchers (Michelle Corbin, Pat Moell, and Mike Boyd) are comparing software testing and technical editing in order to show how the levels-of-edit systems can help to add “value to content” well before the product is released. The “quality assurance” comes through content editing, and this shows that “technical editors add value to the information development process and help to give users the quality content that they deserve” (287). 

After the initial introductory pages that outline what they are going to study and why, the researchers begin to explain software testing, and then they compare it to technical editing. It is fascinating how similar they are, and I began to draw comparisons with children’s nonfiction editing, which I discuss further in the Pertaining to Project section of this paper.

It is difficult to explain all of their comparisons in full detail, but I would like to point out some of quotes I found most interesting. They are normally discussing editing at the comprehensive level, though they do point out that the “lower” levels are just as important, as well.

–“[E]ditors can catch structural flaws early in the development cycle, thus improving quality and reducing costs, because additions and changes are not perpetuated within an already flawed structure” (290). This quote is meaningful because it puts into perspective how important a technical editor can be, and it also shows how important it is to get a detail-oriented, well-qualified editor to evaluate work.

–“Technical editors must know how each information deliverable fits with the others, and they must know the users and how those users work with the software” (291). What the researchers are describing here is user-centered editing, and this directly pertains to my project. I also like how they mention multiple users, though I don’t think they were meaning that there is more than one type of user; there is just more than one user. Though this means it doesn’t fit perfectly with my project, it still lends proof that editors, technical or otherwise, act in place of the user and keep the user(s) in mind at all times in the editing process.

–“Technical editors cannot replace the usefulness of actual usability testing; however, they can stand in for the users by becoming the ‘first users’ of the information” (293). This quote backs up the previous quote: Editors continually have the users in mind, even going so far as to stand in their place when using the table of contents and index. Children’s nonfiction editors do this, as well, though they step into the shoes of a third grader versus technical editors, who may be looking at the product through the eyes of an adult professional. Nonetheless, user-centered editing and design are an imperative part of the levels of edit.

This all ties back to quality assurance because the editors are continually making decisions that will affect the outcomes of the product. When they engage in comprehensive editing, they are providing a service not written into their job description—they are acting as user, editor, designer, and writer, all the while making sure the product published is of the highest quality. When they begin their part of the process with comprehensive editing, they are ensuring that no mistakes are left unchanged. They are saving their company time and money. What CEO wouldn’t love that?

In the end, this article is part handbook for technical editors and part advocate for the technical editor as a crucial part of the publishing process. It has a lot of viable information for the technical editor, technical writer, and company in need of this quality assurance. 

Pertaining to Project

I chose to look at two articles on opposite ends of the spectrum for a reason—I wanted to start making connections between children’s nonfiction and publishing and between children’s nonfiction editing and technical editing, which user-centered design theories have already been applied to. I will make the connection between them all soon enough.

This article is pertinent to my project because it is helping me to make those connections between kid lit editing and tech editing. I have to admit that they are very similar. This will make the connections between the user-centered design theories and kid lit editing a lot easier. I am already seeing how I can apply user-centered design theories to editing. 

Technical editing and kid nonfiction editing have many similarities. The technical editor is the designer of the document, and kid editing is the same. “‘The technical editor is an advocate for the language, the company, the writers, and, most importantly, for the users’” (288). This is also true for children’s nonfiction editors, and, again, being an advocate for the users is the most important aspect of their overall advocacy. Kid nonfiction editors act as user during the editing process, and that can mean stepping into the shoes of the teacher, librarian, or student.

Though this article doesn’t directly say, “We’re applying user-centered design theories to technical editing,” that is what they are basically doing, through the levels of edit. I had never thought to use the levels of edit, which I am now well-versed in thanks to my Technical Editing class, which I took last winter. Though simple and made for the sciences, the levels of edit can be modified for different situations, and they be useful in my study. I will keep this in mind as I progress through the planning parts of the project.

Palmer, Rosemary G., and Roger A. Stewart. “Nonfiction trade book use in primary grades.” The Reading Teacher 57.1 (Sept 2003): 38(11). Academic OneFile. Gale. Eastern Michigan University. 7 Oct. 2007
<http://find.galegroup.com.ezproxy.emich.edu/itx/start.do?prodId=AONE>.

Summary

The researchers, Palmer and Stewart, had completed a study of middle-grade classes (I’m assuming grades 5–8) and their use of nonfiction in the classroom in 1998. They wanted to look further at this topic, so they studied primary-grade classes and their use of nonfiction in the classroom in an elementary school in the Pacific Northwest of the United States, though they do quote from a study set in the United Kingdom a few years previous.

Their goals were to look at if nonfiction was being used, if it was being used effectively, and how students respond to nonfiction—do they like it; do they seek it out during their weekly 30-minute library time and during the daily Drop Everything And Read (DEAR) time, which lasted 20 minutes; and how do they use the nonfiction?

Palmer and Stewart first explained how they studied nonfiction use at this elementary school (Walnut Elementary), and by outlining their methodology, I began to see how careful and thorough they were in their study. This is important when they begin to make declarations in their conclusion. They observed the students’ library time, their DEAR time, interviewed the teachers and school librarian, interviewed a set of students and used these students in a brief focus group, and analyzed library checkout patterns.

Their conclusions include the following:

–The nonfiction materials that were provided for the students were normally at inappropriate reading levels. Many students looked at the pictures and didn’t read the text because the terms were too large and/or complicated. Many teachers were unaware of the abundance of age-appropriate, quality nonfiction available to them. Also, many of the teachers did not have enough funding to purchase new books for their classrooms.

–The use of the nonfiction was teacher centered, as the teacher was the “information broker” (42). Because the materials were at inappropriate reading levels, the students could not read them on their own, so the teacher had to read the books aloud and then interpret the readings. They helped students who tried to read the texts on their own, and they continually acted as interpreters. The students did very little independent learning.

–Not only were the provided nonfiction materials written for higher reading levels, heavy concept loads were dumped on the students by either the curricula standards or the teachers, as well. Third-grade students were covering the solar system when the U.S. National Science Standards state this topic is appropriate for grades 5–8. Again, because of these complexities, the learning practices became teacher centered.

Their final conclusions and reflections contain a vision of classrooms filled with books that are reading appropriate and students reading and comprehending on their own. They also see families reading nonfiction together and not just enjoying fiction.

They also state that “[d]uring DEAR time, teachers wanted children to read and not just look at pictures, so they encouraged fiction reading” (45). Basically, teachers and librarians are put between a rock and a hard place, and “they did the best they could with their limited resources and knowledge of what was available” (45).

The researchers also outline three factors that need to be taken into consideration by teachers and administrators when making nonfiction available to students and as requirements in the classroom:

1. “[A]vailability and accessibility are key variables”(46) when choosing nonfiction to provide in the classroom. Make it reading-appropriate and provide more topics that students of that age might be interested in.

2. “[T]eachers need knowledge about informational books, including how to find and use them effectively” (46) The researchers had discovered that the only teachers they interviewed that knew about the nonfiction books available to their students and how to effectively use them in the classroom were teachers who had attended a nonfiction workshop put on by a publisher and those who had graduated within the last 5 years or continue their education.

3. “[T]eacher training is an important factor” (46) because the teachers they observed didn’t attempt to seek out more reading-appropriate nonfiction. They would just read it aloud to the student or help them. Or, worse, they would just let the students look at the pictures without reading any of the text.

Finally, Palmer and Stewart outline several research topics that should be pursued to flesh out this and other studies that have been completed along this line. They include looking at Accelerated Reader programs, why primary-grade teachers love or hate nonfiction, and “the effect of nonfiction on young children’s literacy development” (47).

Pertaining to Project

This article (which I just happened upon while researching for information on children’s nonfiction publishing) is a veritable goldmine of information about nonfiction in the classroom, which is especially important to my project because I will be looking at how to create a “quality” series. This article basically outlined what a good series is: effective, clear, and reader-friendly. Its language also needs to be reading-appropriate while containing more in-depth information. It also seems important to teachers to have accompanying worksheets and supplemental information, which I know many publishers provide.

I highlighted a great deal in this article, and I am excited to start looking more at how teachers use (or, more appropriately, don’t use) nonfiction in the classroom. I think these points are valid in my attempt to seek out a definition for “quality” when it relates to children’s nonfiction—single titles or in series.