The aim of the investigation is to portray a composite picture of the native and
non-native expert and novice writers' composing and revising processes as they wrote
an argumentative essay in English. Analyses of the experienced and novice writers'
revision processes served to answer four main questions posed at the beginning of the
experimental study: 1. When did revisions occur during the composing process? 2.
Were there any similarities and differences in the categories of revision the subjects
employed? 3. Were there any similarities and differences in the techniques the subjects
employed? and 4. Were there any similarities and differences in the purposes of the
subjects' revisions? These questions were also posed to compare the native and nonnative
expert writers and the native and non-native novice writers.
The results indicate that the native and non-native experienced and novice
writers in this study made changes in the first and second writing sessions, in the four
writing cycles, and in the combinations pre-draft/first draft and between draft/final draft,
although they revised to different extends. Both writer groups coincided in their
preference for the word level over the surface, phrase, clause, sentence, paragraph and
global levels. The experienced subjects, however, revised at the higher discourse levels
more often than the novice writers did. No important differences were concluded
between both writer types in the techniques used for revising. Per purposes of revision,
both the expert and novice writers revised with an informational purpose in mind,
although they differed in their preference for the rest of purposes of revision: while the
expert writers made higher proportions of meaning revisions, the novice showed a
tendency for formal changes. Further comparisons indicate there were also similarities
between both types of writers: the unskilled writers in this study were also aware of the
need for making content revisions. Indeed, they made some attempts at improving
meaning through sentence, paragraph and global revisions, although they failed to
achieve success.
The native and non-native experienced subjects coincided in their preference for
the word level across drafts and writing sessions. The rest of the levels occurred in
descending order as the discourse level ascended from the word to the global level.
Global changes were often avoided as they needed more cognitive effort. They also
showed interest for the surface level, although they seemed to have the cognitive ability
to manage form and content at the same time. Additions and substitutions of
information prevailed over the rest, since the writers hardly ever deleted to start again.
Despite the similarities between the native and non-native expert writers, further
comparisons reveal that the native expert subject showed more concern with meaning,
while the non-native were worried about grammatical correctness, which may be due to
the greater emphasis that they receive in L2 writing classes. Also, the subjects displayed
different revision patterns, which supports the belief that there is no single revision
pattern resulting in successful prose.
The native novice subjects made higher percentages of final version revisions,
while the non-native were more inclined to making premature revisions, coupled with
large numbers of revisions in an attempt to reduce the cognitive load that revising
entailed on their minds. The pre-draft, between-draft and the combinations of drafts
were virtually of no importance and, thus, the writers did not go back and forth between
their essays and outlines to add changes or to check how well the drafts matched their
outlines. Yet, both writer types redirected their attention to meaning towards the latest
stages of writing and, therefore, they were not insensitive to revision at the higher
discourse levels, contrary to the beliefs commonly held for novice writers.

El objetivo de esta investigación es describir los procesos de escritura y
aprendizaje de escritores nativos y no nativos expertos e inexpertos mientras escribían
un texto argumentativo en inglés. El análisis de los procesos de revisión de los
escritores experimentados y menos experimentados sirven como punto de partida para
contestar cuatro preguntas principales: 1. ¿Cuándo se dan las revisiones en el proceso de
escritura? 2. ¿Hay similitudes y diferencias en las categorías de revisión que los
participantes usaron? 3. ¿Hay similitudes y diferencias en las técnicas que los
participantes emplearon? 4. ¿Hay similitudes y diferencias en los propósitos de las
revisiones de los participantes? Estas mismas preguntas se plantearon para observar las
similitudes y diferencias entre los escritores experimentados nativos y no nativos y entre
los escritores no experimentados nativos y no nativos de inglés.
Los resultados indican que los escritores expertos y no expertos nativos y no
nativos de este estudio hicieron cambios en las dos sesiones de escritura, en los cuatro
ciclos de escritura, así como en las combinaciones guion/primer borrador y borrador
intermedio/borrador final aunque revisaron en diferente medida. Los escritores
experimentados, sin embargo, revisaron a niveles discusivos más altos con más
frecuencia que los menos experimentados, aunque los menos expertos no son
completamente inconscientes de la necesidad de hacer revisiones de significado.
Los escritores experimentados y menos experimentados nativos y no nativos
coincidieron en su preferencia por la revisión a nivel de la palabra en todos los
borradores y sesiones de escritura. No hicieron cambios que afectaran la estructura
global del texto puesto que implicaban un mayor esfuerzo cognitivo. A pesar de las
similitudes los escritores expertos nativos mostraron un mayor interés por el
significado, mientras los no nativos se preocuparon de la corrección gramatical de sus
textos.
Los escritores nativos no expertos hicieron un mayor número de revisiones en el
borrador final que los no nativos menos experimentados, mientras éstos revisaron en
fases demasiado avanzadas del proceso de escritura además de hacer un gran número de
ellas en un intento de reducir la carga cognitiva que revisar imponía en sus mentes.
Ambos se centraron en la comunicación de significado en las fases finales de escritura.