oliviamayhodgewrt160.files.wordpress.com · web viewwhile collecting the data, perl noted every...

Running Head: AN ANALYSIS OF THE WRITING PROCESS 1

An Analysis of the Writing Process

Olivia Hodge

Oakland University

AN ANALYSIS OF THE WRITING PROCESS

Abstract

This paper discusses the research performed by Sondra Perl and Carol Berkenkotter in

which they studied the writing process of unskilled and skilled writers, respectively. I will focus

specifically on the recursive property of writing that both Perl and Berkenkotter refer to.

Additionally, this paper discusses a study that I conducted in which I analyzed my own writing

process, in order to discover information about the writing process of a college student. The

purpose of this paper is to describe the findings of these researchers and to connect them to my

own findings, in order to come up with a comprehensive conclusion about the writing process of

a college-level writer.

2


An Analysis of the Writing Process

I have never paid attention to how I write; what I wrote-the content- has always been the

most important focus. Experiments have been conducted throughout the years in order to learn

more about the writing process. In class, we reviewed two such studies, conducted by Carol

Berkenkotter and Sondra Perl. These experiments focus on how writers write and how their

writing processes contributes to the final product. For the purposes of this paper, I conducted a

study that forced me to pay attention to my own writing process and how I write. The content of

my writing became unimportant as the process of my writing became my focus.

Literature Review

In 1978, a researcher named Sondra Perl conducted a study in which the writing styles of

five unskilled college writers were analyzed in depth. The study sought to answer the following

questions: “(1) How do unskilled writers write? (2) Can their writing processes be analyzed in a

systematic, replicable manner? and (3) What does an increased understanding of their processes

suggest about the nature of composing in general and the manner in which writing is taught in

the schools?” (Perl 1978, p. 192). As a result of the study, Perl developed what is called the “read

aloud protocol,” in which writers would voice their every thought while writing, in order to fully

understand their thinking during the writing process. The five writers composed in five different

sessions; in the first four they were given one hour to compose one of four writing samples using

the “read aloud protocol,” and in the fifth session they were interviewed by a researcher. The

samples included both personal, or reflexive, and impersonal, or extensive, writing. Perl studied

the patterns she found in the writing samples, recordings, and interviews, and compiled a list of

codes that described the different phases of the writing process. By using these codes, Perl could

determine the amount of time spent prewriting, planning, writing large groups of sentences,

3


writing individual sentences, pausing, and editing. Perl also analyzed the mannerisms of the

writers while planning, writing, and editing (Perl 1978, p. 198). Perl used these codes to label the

transcripts and deduce the amount of time spent on each aspect.

A similar study was conducted by Carol Berkenkotter in 1981. Like Perl, Berkenkotter

was interested in learning more about the prewriting and editing processes of composing.

Berkenkotter chose a different subject, however, and conducted her study on a “very skilled and

verbal writer” (Berkenkotter 1981, p. 219). She chose a writer named Donald M. Murray to be

her case study. Berkenkotter studied hours of Murray’s written and audio work and came up with

percentages for the time he spent planning, revising, and editing. Berkenkotter did not use the

coding technique that Perl used, but she was still able to deduce the percentages of time spent on

each aspect of Murray’s writing process. Both Perl and Berkenkotter came to the conclusion that

the writing process is recursive, in other words, it is a continual and cyclical process of thinking,

writing, then editing, and repeating.

In class, we studied the work of Perl, who studied amateur writers, and Berkenkotter,

who studied a professional writer, but we did not study the work of any researcher who analyzed

the writing processes of first or second-year college students. This gap in the research became

our focus for our project on “autoethnography.” I conducted a study on myself and compared my

findings to the findings of Perl and Berkenkotter, in order to discover if my writing technique

was also recursive, and if their research findings were also applicable to college-level writers. I

sought to discover whether or not the writing process is the same for all skill levels of writers,

and if it is a continual cycle of thinking, writing, and editing.

4


Methods

Before conducting my own research, I had to read and become familiar with the research

of both Perl and Berkenkotter. After examining each of their essays, I began using the “read

aloud protocol,” and recorded myself thinking by I turning on a recording device and voicing my

thoughts. I decided to start writing about the Berkenkotter essay because that was the clearest in

my mind. I immediately analyzed what I had just read in the essay and interpreted it into a one-

sentence summary in my own words. This thought led to the opening sentence of my essay. I

began talking and writing at the same time; each thought led to a sentence. Because of my

inadequate planning, I found I had to revise my work quite a bit. I exchanged words and re-

ordered sentence structures, but kept the same original thought. I continued this interpreting,

talking while writing, and editing process throughout the first part of my essay. Occasionally, I

would reread the part I had just written, and this act of rereading would spark a new thought in

my mind. I would reread and comment on the words, and then continue to write as thoughts

came into my head. I had to go back to the original text on a few occasions and review certain

details such as the spelling of names or the exact wording that the author used.

When I had finished summarizing Berkenkotter’s research, I had to answer the prompt

question given to us by our Professor. I went back to the directions and reread the question I had

decided to answer. I immediately began talking and writing at the same time in order to get all

my thoughts on paper. I labeled this section of my transcript “writing burst,” because I had half a

dozen sentences that essentially flowed from one to the next without a pause. I went back and

edited this section before deciding it was perfectly worded.

Next, I began summarizing the Perl essay. Once again, I interpreted this second

essay into a one-sentence summary to organize my thoughts and to give me a starting point. I

5


continued talking and writing simultaneously in another writing burst. When I paused to review

my work, I commented that the word count was only seventy-eight words and that I needed to

keep writing. Again, I interpreted the essay into my own words to try to get more ideas on what

to write. This time, however, my method did not work. I had to reread what I had previously

written to gain inspiration. When I had finished rereading I decided I needed to do some global

planning and decide what to write next. I reread my first paragraph a second time and revised a

few words, then began talking and writing according to my plan. I did this for a few sentences,

then went back and reread and revised a few sentences. Then I began talking while writing in a

writing burst and finished with a comment about my writing.

With my summary completed, I needed to answer another of the prompt questions. I

reviewed the question I had decided to answer, and started talking while writing as ideas came to

me. I had to look back and review the Perl essay to find out the exact wording she used, and

while reviewing I got an idea of what to write next. I interpreted this new information and

thought about how I could use it to answer the question. I began talking while writing once

again. At this point, I decided I had written strong sentences, but that they needed to come later

in my answer, so I revised the organization of my paragraph and began talking while writing

again. I continued talking while writing, with the occasional comment or revision, until I had

finished my thoughts.

Results

After conducting my research, I concluded that my own writing process was, in fact,

recursive. I noted a recurring pattern of talking, rereading, and editing throughout my work. I

compared my research results to the research results of both Perl and Berkenkotter and came to

the conclusion that all writing is a recursive process, regardless of the skill level of the writer.

6


This was not my only conclusion, however, as I also discovered a few things about my writing

process.

I found that I spent the majority of my time talking while writing. I planned little, wrote a

great deal, and then edited what I had written. After coding and analyzing my transcript, I

realized that I only spent about ten percent of my time planning, either globally or locally. As a

result, I found that I spent about forty percent of my time editing my work. Perhaps if I had spent

more time planning, I would have spent less time editing. The other half of my time was spent

writing and talking at the same time. Perl’s subject of study, an unskilled writer named Tony,

also spent the majority of his time editing (Perl 1978, p. 202).

I noted that I did not get distracted while writing. This is because I had set a timer on my

phone in an attempt to finish the assignment quickly. I was determined to get the assignment

done before I had to leave for work, and I could not afford to lose time to any distractions. By

eliminating all distractions, I was able to focus and finish my writing quickly and efficiently.

I also found that I only needed nine categories to code my transcript- global planning,

interpreting what I had read, talking while writing, reading the question I needed to answer,

lexical revision, organizational revision, rereading what I had already written, commenting on

my work, and asking questions. I noticed a repeating pattern of interpreting, planning, writing,

reviewing, revising, rereading, commenting, and back to interpreting. This drew me to the

conclusion that my writing process is recursive and cyclical.

Discussion

They key to credible research is solid evidence, answered questions, and replication. The

research of both Perl and Berkenkotter sought to answer the questions of how writers write,

whether their process can be analyzed and replicated, and whether understanding one’s own

7


writing process has an impact on the final product. After conducting their experiments, they

discovered that the writing process could be analyzed and replicated. Because their studies are

able to be replicated, I was able to perform the same experiment and come to the same

conclusion.

By conducting this study on myself, and by reviewing the studies that my fellow students

have conducted on themselves, I have come to the conclusion that both Perl and Berkenkotter

came to; the process of writing is not a linear one, but a recursive one (Perl 1978). No piece of

writing begins and ends in one continual burst of ideas and words. The process of writing is a

process. It has a beginning and an end, but it also has a series of repeating steps in between. The

writing process is the same for every skill level. It is a recursive, continual process of planning,

writing, and editing.

8


References

Berkenkotter, C, (1983). Decisions and revisions: The planning strategies of a publishing

writer. College Composition and Composition 34.2 (156-69).

Perl, S. (1978). The composing processes of unskilled college writers. In E. Wardle & D.

Downs (Eds.), Writing About Writing. (pp. 191-217). Boston: Bedford/St. Martin.

9


Appendix A: Blog 2

Carol Berkenkotter, a researcher, was curious about the recursive writing process of

writers. She met a writer named Donald M. Murray at a conference and decided to ask him to be

her “lab rat” in her study. He agreed in order to learn more about his own writing processes.

Berkenkotter collaborated with Murray in a comprehensive study that detailed his own

writing techniques, using his own recordings of himself talking while he was working throughout

the day. The study assigned different writing tasks, each with a different audience. Berkenkotter

studied Murray’s audio recordings as well as his rough drafts and notes in his “day book.”

What Berkenkotter found most notable in her study was the way Murray recorded not

only his revisions and thoughts about his writing, but also his “thinking plans.” That is to say, he

would talk about the direction his writing was going and made plans on how to get those points

across to his audience.

My impression of Murray’s writing process is that he is careful and plans out his writing

meticulously, using many detailed notes. He spends a significant amount of time planning his

writing, and seemingly less time actually writing or dictating his writing to his wife.

My writing process, on the other hand, is much more spontaneous and less planned. I,

personally, spend more time writing and revising than I do planning my writing. It is more

important for me to get every thought out on paper and see where it can take me, than it is to

have those thoughts be perfectly worded. Overall, my writing style is carefree, while Murray’s

seems more thoughtful.

The Perl essay described the study performed by Sondra Perl in which she scientifically

observed five college writers who she deemed to be “unskilled” in writing.” This study was

performed meticulously and encompassed all the steps of the writing process. One of the goals of

10


this study was to “devise a tool for describing the movements that occur during composing” (Perl

194).

While collecting the data, Perl noted every word that came out of the writers’ mouths as

they were writing, as well as the words they actually wrote. She noted the pauses in speech and

in writing, as well as the time spent prewriting and editing, and compiled several lists from this

data. When Perl analyzed the data from the written portions of the students’ work, the tape

recordings and their interview transcripts, she came up with a composing process that is:

“standardized, categorical, concise, structural, and diachronic.”

One of the unskilled writers that Perl studied was an ex-marine named Tony. She noted

that Tony’s writing process while writing about his own experience, which is called reflexive

mode, was much more fluent than when he was writing in extensive mode, or less personal.

Tony spent less time planning when writing reflexively and produced more words overall than

when writing extensively. This difference makes sense to me because it is generally easier to

write about my own experiences than it is to speculate and write extensively. This is because my

memories and experiences help me think of things to write about.

Appendix B: Transcript

Setting: Thursday morning, sitting at my desk in my room.

Ok so the Berkenkotter essay was about this woman who’s a researcher who met this guy…

So, Carol Berkenkotter, or whatever, a researcher, was curious about the writing styles? Of

different people. That doesn’t sound right. Of different people. (pause)

She met a writer named Mr. Murray at a conference and decided to ask him to be her quote lab

rat in an experiment, not experiment, study about the processes of writers. (pause)

11


Uummmm…. (rereading article) She said he was… um… he was hesitating, took a deep breath

and agreed to learn more about his writing process.

Ok so she met a writer named Mr. Murray at a conference and decided to ask him to be her lab

rat in a study about the processes of writers. He agreed, in order to learn more about his own

writing processes. (pause)

Umm.. (rereading article)

Berkenkotter, or whatever, how do you spell that? Berkenkotter collaborated with Murray in a

comprehensive study about… study on? That detailed his own writing techniques by using, or

not by using, techniques comma using his own recordings of himself talking while he was

writing. The study used different, the study assigned different writing assignments? I’ll have to

change that. Each with a different audience and…. Each with a different audience. Berkenkotter

studied the recordings, Murray’s recordings as well as… Murray’s audio recordings as well as

his rough drafts and notes in his quote day book.

What Berkenkotter found most notable in her study was the way murray recorded not only his

revisions in thought about his writing, but also his thinking process? I think she said… but also

his… thinking plans.

Ok, so Carol Berkenkotter was curious about the writing styles of different people, no not about

different people, but the writing process of… the recursive writing process of writers. She met a

writer named Mr. Murray. Wait what’s his name? (rereading article) umm Donald M. Murray.

Named Donald M. Murray at a conference and decided to ask him to be her lab rat in a study

about the processes of writers. He agreed, in order to learn more about his own writing

processes. Berkenkotter collaborated with murray in a comprehensive study that detailed his

own writing techniques using his own recordings of himself talking while he was talking, that

12


should say while he was working. Throughout the day. The study assigned… The study assigned

different writing tasks, each with a different audience. Berkenkotter studied Murray’s audio

recordings as well as his rough drafts and notes in his daybook. Alright, so that is to say, he

would talk about the direction his writing was going and made plans on how to get those points

across to his audience. Alright so now my summary’s done and now I have to answer the

question. (rereading directions) The question is: what is What was your impression of Murray’s

writing processes as they’re described here? How do they compare to yours? What do you do the

same or differently?

My impression of Murray’s writing process is that he is careful and plans out his writing

meticulously taking many detailed notes and…umm… many detailed notes I guess. He spends a

significant amount of time… planning his writing and …

My writing process on the other hand is much more spontaneous and less planned. I

personally… spend more time writing and revising than I do planning my writing. It is more

important for me to get every thought out on paper and see where it can take me than it is to

have those thoughts be perfect… perfectly worded.

Overall, my writing style can be… my writing style is carefree. While murray’s is more

thoughtful. Ok.

Sigh ok so the perl essay, not essay, what’s it called? I guess essay. The Perl essay ummm

described the (pause) study performed by, what’s her name? (rereading article) Sondra Perl in

which she observed, she scientifically observed unprofessional, ummm what word does she use

to describe the writers? (rereading article) Ummmmm… unskilled. Five unskilled college

writers. Ok wait, she scientifically observed five college writers who she deemed to be quote

unskilled. This study was performed meticulously and encompassed all the steps of the writing

13


process. She noted ever word that came out of the writers’ mouths as they were writing as well

as the words they actually wrote. She noted the pauses in speech and in writing and analyzed the

meanings of all of these things. (pause) (checks word count) and that is 78 words so I need more

words. She scientifically observed five college writers who she deemed to be unskilled, in

writing? (rereading article) Yeah in writing. This study was performed meticulously and

encompassed all the steps of the writing process. She noted every word that came out of the

writers’ mouths as they were writing as well as the words they actually wrote. She noted the

pauses in speech and in writing and analyzed the meanings of all of these things. Well I could

talk about, like, the meanings… (pause) wait so she noted the pauses in speech and in writing

and also the time spent prewriting and editing and analyzed the meanings…and analyzed the

time… she noted the pauses in speech and in writing and also the time spent prewriting and

editing and compiled a list… several lists… from this data. She discovered. What did she

discover? (pause) (rereading article) ok so umm… um the goal of this study was to, or one of the

goals, one of the goals of this study was to quote devise a tool for describing the movements that

occur during composing. (checking page number) Perl page 104. Ok, she noted, ok so, when,

when Perl analyzed the data from the writing, written, from the written, what, mumbling, from

the written portions of the students’ work, mumbling, the tape recordings and their interview

transcripts, she noted ( pause) no, that’s a good sentence but I need that later, ok yeah so “she

discovered,” take that out, while collecting the data, Perl noted every word that came out of the

writers’ mouths as they were writing as well as the words they actually wrote. She noted the

pauses in speech and in writing, as well as the time spent prewriting and editing, and compiled

several lists from this data. When Perl analyzed the data from the written portions of the

students’ work, the tape recordings and their interview transcripts, she came up with a

14


composing process that is quote standardized, categorical, concise, structural, and diachronic.

Ok, so theres my summary. How many words? 149. Ok, perfect.

Ok so now I’m gonna answer the question and the question is: (rereading directions) Perl notes

that Tony’s writing process and resulting text were markedly different when he was writing

about his own experience and when he was trying to write less personally. Describe this

difference and explain whether it makes sense to you. Ok so, one of the unskilled writers that

Perl studied was an ex-marine named Tony. She noted that Tony’s writing process while writing

about his own experience, which is called, what is that called, uummmmm (pause) (rereading

article), reflexive mode, (pause) sooo… which is called reflexive mode. She noted that Tony’s

writing process while writing about his own experience, which is called reflexive mode, was

(pause) much more fluent than when he was writing in extensive mode, or less personal. (pasue)

the actual increase in word count for reflexive mode was 149. According to Perl. Ok, so,

(rereading article) so, he spent more time prewriting than writing in extensive mode (pause)

more words with less planning also (reading). Im gonna delete that last sentence and say, Tony

spent less time planning when writing reflexively and produced more words overall than when

writing extensively. This change, well not change, this difference makes sense to me because it is

generally easier to write about your own, ones own experiences, nah I can do first person

because its an essay, my own experiences than it is to speculate and write about, and write

extensively. This is because, sigh, my memory and experiences help me think of things to write

about. Perfect. Ok I’m done.

Appendix C: Coding Abbreviations

[GP]: global planning

[I]: interpreting

15


[TW]: talking while writing

[Rq]: reading question

[RL]: revision (lexical)

[RO]: revision (organizational)

[R]: rereading

[C]: commenting

[Q]: questioning

Appendix D: Coded Transcript

[I]-[TW]-[TW]-[C]-[TW]-[RL]-[I]-[R]-[TW]-[C]-[TW]-[RO]-[TW]-[C]-[R]-[TW]-[TW]-[RL]-

[TW]-[C]-[TW]-[R]-[RL]-[TW]-[Q]-[R]-[TW]-[R]-[C]-[TW]-[C]-[Rq]-[TW]-[C]-[TW]-[WB]-

[TW]-[RL]-[C]-[I]-[Q]-[TW]-[Q]-[R]-[WB]-[TW]-[C]-[I]-[R]-[R]-[GP]-[RL]-[Q]-[TW]-[C]-

[TW]-[TW]-[C]-[RO]-[R]-[TW]-[WB]-[C]-[Q]-[C]-[GP]-[Rq]-[TW]-[Q]-[TW]-[I]-[RO]-[TW]-

[RL]-[TW]-[C]-[TW]-[RL]-[TW]-[C]-[TW]-[C]

16

oliviamayhodgewrt160.files.wordpress.com · web viewwhile collecting the data, perl noted every...

Documents