Running head: APA STYLE OF WRITING · Web viewI began my writing process by being prompted by my Writing 160 professor to generate about a 100 word summary and answer a single question

Running head: THE AVERAGE WRITER 1

The Average Writer

Nick Park

Oakland University

THE AVERAGE WRITER 2

Abstract

The research from this paper was formed with respect to the prior work of Sondra Perl

and Carol Berkenkotter’s think aloud protocol in which I utilize to fill the gap in the research of

how writers write. This research provides the findings of focus levels needed and the

sustainability of focus for an average writer while writing in two modes conceived first by Perl:

reflexive and extensive. This research was surmised through the use of a coded transcription of a

blog assignment provided by Professor Mooty. The codes used were a combination of Perl’s,

one of Perl’s research subjects, Tony Stark, and my own. I also provide analysis of my writing

and the fluidity of it while responding and summarizing in the reflexive and extensive writing

modes. Lastly, I composed inferences of possible ways to make not only my own writing

process, but all writing proficiency levels processes more efficient.


Introduction to the Writing Process

We live in a society where the only way to succeed is through progression. That is

precisely what Sondra Perl was thinking thirty years ago when she first posed the question;

exactly how do poor writers write? Along with codes that can be used by writers of any

proficiency level to analyze their writing process, Perl also concluded a cogent idea that writing

is a recursive process. Progressing further, Carol Berkenkotter set out on a similar quest, but on

the opposite side of the writing spectrum, researching an established writer and his writing

process. The combination of these works has abetted poor writers and extended the limits of

superb writers into realms unforeseen.

Literature Review

In the research of first Perl and later reinforced by Berkenkotter, they both concluded that

writing is likely to be a recursive act through their research using the “think aloud protocol”.

This is quite interesting because they were researching two ends of the writing spectrum

proficiency levels and found both good and poor writers have their own repetitive writing

processes. The aspects that make up these processes are what allow us to distinguish the level of

writer. For example, in Berkenkotter’s research, she found that Donald Murray used a

substantial amount of planning prior to writing. This allowed Murray to formulate his thoughts

into eloquent and powerful ideas. He was also focused on his audience to make sure they would

appreciate his writing. (Berkenkotter, 1981)

In Perl’s research however, the five prospects, including Tony Stark, appropriated a

miniscule amount of time to planning and focused heavily on revision and the “rules” to writing

form. This consequently led to an inability to formulate ideas effectively or efficiently and was

detrimental to inhibiting a fluent writing process. (Perl, 1979)


However, all of this leaves a gap in the research of writers. How do average writers

formulate ideas and write? Maybe if we can learn how average writers write, we can see a trend

in perhaps the amount of planning from poor writers through to established writers and

ultimately find processes to increase the proficiency level of all writers.

The purpose for analyzing my writing is to provide crucial data representing the average

writer and to ultimately fill the gap between the works of Perl and Berkenkotter. I am also

passionate to find how I am able to focus for a substantial period of time. Lastly, I would like to

see if my pauses during writing play a role in making my writing process recursive or if they

mean much more.


Method

I began my writing process by being prompted by my Writing 160 professor to generate

about a 100 word summary and answer a single question on the works of Carol Berkenkotter and

Sondra Perl, called “Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer”

and “The Composing Process of Unskilled College Writers.” I was also instructed to record

myself while answering these questions. This was all to be done and posted as my Blog

assignment 2. Reading these articles was where the bulk of my time was spent on this

assignment as they were quite in depth. Once finished with the reading I then proceeded to start

recording as I answered the questions and summarized the articles.

I initiated my actual writing when I finally had time to get it done in a single sitting. In

order to obtain sufficient data for my writing processes I decided to utilize the CyberLink

YouCam feature on my laptop. This enabled me to analyze what I was vocalizing, my physical

actions while writing and to record time, all in synchronicity. I conducted my research in the

comfort and seclusion of my dorm room, starting my work just shy of eight o’clock on a Tuesday

night. This happens to be relevant due to the fact that on Tuesday’s, I participate in 6a.m.

workouts; meaning I had been working for some time by this point. I intentionally tried to give

myself the best possibility for success by prohibiting all media and Pandora.


Once I finished the writing and recording portion of the project, I was then instructed to

create a transcript of every word spoken, word typed, and anything else that came up in between.

In order to make it easier to understand my writing transcript, I made codes prior to allow myself

to see specifically when I was only talking (T), talking and writing (TW), or going back to the

reading (B2T), etc. These codes were based off of Perl’s preconceived codes and in addition,

some that I created myself. I didn’t code my entire paper as I went along; I just wanted enough

so I could have some context of what the phrases were pertaining to when I was later

interpreting.

While I was in the coding phase I read each phrase and determined which code it was

most comparable to. I tried not to overcomplicate my codes as this would make everything

confusing and uninterpretable. I also shied away from being too vague because then I would

gain nothing from them. Finally, I needed to see if there were any trends in the code or if my

writing is recursive. I was also interested to see how the pauses played a part in my writing

process. Appendix B shows all codes used during the coding process as well as a direct coding

of the transcript.


Results

I have separated my code into paragraphs; the first and third both representing me

summarizing–(Berkenkotter then Perl). And the second is me responding to the question, “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?” I found during the summaries it

was clear I was writing “extensively” and while writing the response, I was in a “reflexive”

writing mode. I could see this especially with the fluency of writing in the pattern of my

reflexive writing.

I found the pattern [Talking & Writing], [Lexical Revision], [Talking & Writing],

[Pause], [Talking &Writing], [Pause]… as seen here. TW—RL—TW—Pause—TW—Pause—

TW—Pause—TW—RL—TW—Pause—TW—Pause—TW—Pause—TW—Pause—TW—

Pause where I was talking and writing, revising lexical issues, such as phrasing, and finally,

pausing to constantly think of the word that will induce another small burst of writing. I am only

able to keep this flow when I write reflexively because I am referring to my own ideas and

connecting them to the two passages. While writing extensively, such as in the summaries, there

was much more time in between writing bursts appropriated to planning and other methods as


noted here. [Repeat Written Work], [Lexical Revision], [General Planning], [Pause], [Back to

Text], [Lexical Revision], [Local Planning], [Talking & Writing] RP&RL—PG—Pause—B2T

—RL—PL—TW (Code in context and with full description in Appendix C). This line portrays

the amount of activity necessary for me to obtain the knowledge and formulate it into an idea

before I can even start to write. It also shows how much less recursive I am when I am writing

extensively.

Something that compares to Tony Stark is the word counts of my first two paragraphs to

the amount of periods I was talking and writing (TW). I wrote 141 words in first summary

compared to 269 words in the question response. The kicker, there was only 1 less talking and

writing period in the first summary—16 to 17—and it took 26 minutes to write each passage.

This information is coupled with 3 actions (Back to Text, Talking & Writing, Pause, etc.) per

minute while writing my summary. On the contrary, I only used 2 actions per minute while

writing reflexively. This information helps reinforce that while writing reflexively my writing

burst were twice as long in text, but it only took 50% more time to type each burst.

During the opening stages of my research I was able to sustain full engagement, but

found after 29 minutes and 15 seconds the distractions commenced, but didn’t increase in

frequency until much later. This first distraction wasn’t because I was losing focus, the webcam

stopped recording so I was forced to fix it. I didn’t hit distractions due to depletion of focus until

approximately an hour into writing. In my experience with writing I have been able to compare

it to my work with math, an area I am highly proficient with. When I am constantly making

progress with math I am able to keep advancing through strenuous problems, but when I become

stumped, I lose focus very quickly. I have also noted that after nearly an hour of math my brain


turns into stew and I have to change subjects. I could see a correlation appearing as I approached

the end of the code I provided. At this point I was writing in the extensive writing mode

meaning the writing was not automatic and definitely strenuous.

Discussion

Although my research is of a single individual, I still believe it provides proclivities of an

average writer that could be useful in the global research of writing processes. I do not believe

that my research alone will fill the gap between the works of Perl and Berkenkotter, but am

confident the college freshman writing level will provide useful input to finding better ways to

cultivate the ability of writers in any proficiency level.

A valuable point I took from my research was the differences in focus levels needed for

reflexive writing compared to extensive writing. A conjecture that could help the efficiency of

students creating responses where they foresee they will be writing in both writing modes is to

begin with the extensive portion then proceed with the reflexive section. This will allow the

writer to complete the most exhausting portion of their work while they are fresh and won’t lose

focus as easily as if it was being left for the concluding portion. In my writing I wrote in the

order extensive, reflexive, extensive, and reflexive. It proved to be efficient for the first two

paragraphs, but when I returned to extensive writing, I wasn’t able to sustain the focus level

necessary. That is why at that point I changed subjects and unfortunately my webcam stubbornly

quit working again. Although I do not have the recorded evidence, when I returned to my

writing it was as though I was recharged and wrote with a similar focus to that of the first two

paragraphs.


Finally, I would love to see how my writing process would look if I was to prepare a

solid outline of my writing prior to commencing. I believe this would instigate a higher level of

fluency in my writing process for both types of writing, especially extensive. I suggest this

because when I was writing extensively, I was forcing myself to plan before each burst instead of

having the plan written out beforehand and therefore allowing for fluidity of writing.


References

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

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

Perl, S, (1979). The composing process of unskilled college writers. Research in the Teaching of

English 13.4 (317-36).


Appendix A

Perl Summary

Sondra Perl in “The Composing Process of Unskilled College Writers,” discusses the writing

works of five people identified as “poor” writers to see how they write and what processes if any

they use when they write. Perl especially notes the work done by one subject named Tony.

After multiple types of tests Perl found that the subjects did not plan very much prior to writing

and they had trouble conceiving ideas that were extensive and needed much less time to write

reflexively with the same word count. She also found that these writers were consistently

recursive in their processes, but their predominance on editing and focusing on trying to abide by

rules they previously learned, but still did not understand hindered their overall ability to write

proficiently. This was due to the fact that their minds were being clouded by rules and

consequently they lost focus on conceiving ideas and planning for future ideas.

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.

When Tony was asked to write extensively he was not able to quickly come up with ideas to talk

subjectively about. He was able to write reflexively because he was able to find connections to

his own life through words he was familiar with, but he assumed the audience was able to


perceive how his connections related to his writing. Perhaps if he had taken more time in

planning Tony could have been more efficient in both modes of writing especially extensive

because he seemed to need more direction in this mode. It makes sense that he would be worse

at writing about something he can’t relate to because then he has no words to build ideas and

connections off of and without these he is unable to find material to write about. I believe with

planning for writing in extensive mode will drop the overall tie in the writing process and close

the gap to the reflexive mode where he seemed to need negligible planning.

Berkenkotter Summmary

In “Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer,” Carol

Berkenkotter discusses the work of Donald Murray as he was the central prospect for research on

writing processes of a good writer. Berkenkotter’s research showed new developments in the

writing process such as sub planning and how writing for most people is likely to be a recursive

act. Meaning they follow a similar process done in a loop such as planning, drafting, editing,

and reviewing. Another idea developed in this research was the idea of reconceiving not seen as

revision, but as another sub-form of planning. During Murray’s verbal processing it was noted

the immense proportion of planning compared to the other aspects of the writing process.

Finally planning and making sure he was aware of his audience both gave substantive direction

to his writing and allowed for fluency.

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?


I saw Murray’s writing process as very in depth and it seemed like an efficient way of writing.

Because there was no comparison to other writers and their processes of writing it is hard to

conclude if this was a highly efficient way or just a good way to write. From experiences in

work and my Eagle Scout Project I have found it best to designate a high proportion of time to

planning because this gives excellent direction to whatever one perceives to accomplish whether

it’s writing a paper or building heavy duty shelving units. Just as in the discourses Murray was

writing there was a small amount of revision needed in my Eagle project backing the idea that

planning saves time in the long run. So for this predominance on planning is something I

completely agree with although when I am struggling to write a paper this often is the area I

failed to fully execute. I also believe I reconceive ideas when I write trying to find a better way

of saying something or even heading in a new direction with an idea. I feel as though I write a

crappy first draft that is probably closer to an up draft because I don’t just let my thoughts come

out at the level of language they first appear. I rework these ideas some to make them a high

level of language and am always trying to write and appease my audiences. Other than the

incubation period of my writing it does not appear that there are a whole lot of differences

between my writing process and Murray’s.


Appendix B

Writing Transcript

(Talking = (T)) I’m going back to the reading trying to summarize Burkenkotter’s work

pretty quickly. About Murray and basically it was about Murray and…uhh… Basically about

his writing processes and what the researcher evaluated through that. Burkenkotter obviously

and from this she… what is this research work called? (TW) In “Decisions and Revisions: The

Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer,” Carol Berkenkotter discusses the work of Murray as

he was… (T)umm…what’s the word? Not diagnosed or tested he was uhh…(TW)the…central

(T)uhh…(TW)prospect for research (edit prior phrase) for writing research. (T)umm…

(Rereading and T) the central prospect for.. no..(editing prior phrase and T) the central prospect

for research on writing processes of a…(T)good or.. I don’t know if I would call it excellent…

(TW)good writer.(T) we’ll say. Umm… (TW)The research (editing prior phrase&T)

Burkenkotter’s research (T)Go back and fix..ok..Umm. (TW)Burkenkotter’s research showed

new….developments.(T) I think I might change that (new developments) later. (TW) in the

writing process such as sub-planning and how writing for most people is likely to be a recursive

act. (T) Umm… (TW) Meaning they follow a similar process done in a loop such as planning,

writing, revision, etc. (Editing grammar&T) Fix some commas. Umm… Going (back to the

reading) to make sure im stating some of the correct criteria this was discussing. (Reading

Burkenkotter’s passage) (T) So planning editing drafting and reviewing not the others. (Editing


prior phrase&W) done in a loop such as planning, editing, drafting and reviewing. (T) Okay.

And… (Reading Burk. Passage) (TW) Another idea developed in this research was the idea of

reconceiving not as (Editing prior phrase&T) not seen as revision (TW) but as another sub-form

of planning. Murray…During the writing process it was noted the immense proportion of

planning compared to the other aspects of the writing process. (Rereading prior lines and

Editing) (T) I think I can write down a couple more thoughts and maybe condense and

consolidate a couple more things uhh.. I have a couple more thoughts to get down…(Back to

reading&T) Wow I spelled Murray wrong… (T) another thing this was talking about is writing

to his audiences so his audiences are important and planning process so he can fluently write

down his thoughts is important. (TW) Planning and making sure he is aware of his audience

both give direction to his writing. (T) I’d say substantive... I’m not sure what substantive means

let’s look it up. It sounds like it would work there. (TW) let’s say substantive direction. (T) That

sounds better. (Reading Burk. Passage&T) Introspection is like thinking or it’s like allowing

yourself to kind of think of your thoughts almost and see where your thoughts are leading to. I

think I’ve about hit all of the main points. And uhh… (Rereading what I wrote) because a big

part of this was the verbal uhh that he is speaking verbally throughout this research so I am

trying to find a good place to insert that information. He was the central prospect…a good

writer… umm… (TW) During Murray’s writing process…(RW)…(T) I don’t want to say

writing process again it’s redundant. Uhh... Other aspects of the…umm…I think I am going to

keep writing process at the end. (Editing&TW) During Murray’s verbal …uhhh… processing…

(Back to reading)…(Editing final sentence) Finally, …(B2R)…(RWT) Finally planning and

making sure he was aware of the his audience both gave substantive direction to his writing

and… (TW) allowed for fluency. (RW)…(Editing) Murray into Donald Murray. He was the


central prospect for research on a good writer. (T) I can condense that I am positive… He was

the umm… (RW)…(Thinking)...(RW)…(Evaluating) Sounds fairly good.

(Reading Question)…(Planning&T) I guess it was interesting how…ummm…(Reading

Question)…(Planning&T) Murray obviously plans a lot which helps him and put it straight into

writing which is good and I would agree with that idea if you start out with a good plan then…

(Distraction) Camera turned off. (TW) I saw Murray’s writing process as very in depth and…

ummm…(T) I’m not sure if it was efficient or not. It could have been efficient But I have

nothing to compare it with. (TW) It seemed like an efficient way to write. (EPP) or an efficient

writing process. (EPP) It seemed like an efficient way of writing. (TW) Because there was no

comparison to other writers and there processes of writing, It is hard to conclude if this is a

highly efficient way to write or just a good way to write. (Thinking)…(Tw) From experiences in

work and my Eagle Scout project, I have….Umm… found it best to designate (thinking)… a

high proportion of time to planning because this gives excellent direction to whatever one

perceives to accomplish whether it’s writing a paper or planning (EPP) or building heavy duty

shelving units. So for this…uhh…umm…predominance on planning is something I completely

agree with. (Thinking)… Although when I am struggling to write a paper this often is the…

uhh… area I failed to fully execute. …Umm…(Thinking)…I also believe I reconceive ideas

when I write trying to find a better way of saying something or even just..uhhh…(B2R) (Looking

up what reconceiving is)…or even heading in a new direction with an idea that…(thinking)…(T)

creates a…(Thinking)…ummm…(Sigh)…(T) well he talked about incubation and he thought he

only took a year or two to write his papers when it really took 4 or 5. So he was really off in the

time he thought it took to produce his works and I’m not actually sure how you would be off by

that much… maybe he was planning for much longer than he realized prior to even coming up


with the idea and that could be included in. (T)Let’s see if we can find some differences

(referring to the question) perhaps (between me and Murray)…(B2T)…umm…(T) Wow his

planning obviously the more you plan the less you have to revise and keep finding new direction

you already found new direction that;s why his revising is so low. Editing was a fair share as

well as evaluating. Lets see what evealuating is categorized by. (Rt)…(T) Okay…umm…(TW) I

feel as though I don’t (EPP) as though I write a crappy first draft that is probably closer to an Up

draft because I don’t just let my thoughts come out at the level of language they first appear.

After some…uhh… reworking I (EPP)…(TW) I rework these ideas some, to make them high

level of language and am always trying to write and appease my audiences…umm..(sigh)…

(RW) (T) seeing if there is more to write. (Editing at Eagle project/Reconceiving perhaps) Just as

in the discourses Murray was writing there was a small amount of revision needed in my Eagle

project, backing the idea that planning saves time in the long run. (TW) Other than the

incubation period of my writing it doesn’t appear that there are a whole lot of differences

between my wring process and Murray’s.

(Reading Pearl to make summary) (T) Her’s was about Tony and I believe 5 poor writers

and discussing uhh how much they plan revise etc. and what type of revisions they were making

and the correlations between these. Going to jot down “extensive” and “reflexive” writing

modes. (TW) Sondra Perl in “The Composing Process of Unskilled College Writers,”

discusses…(B2T and analyzing the graphs)…(Thinking about what I read from graphs)…

(Thinking about recursive process)…(Finding why the writers are poor)..(Planning) Basically

this research is made to show that going to college people aren’t just starting fresh. They aren’t

technically beginners they already have a bunch of misconceived ideas that they are interpreting

incorrectly they are trying to interpret but can’t. These would need to be resolve before moving


on and learning new rules and form for writing. So basically that’s what this is saying. And that

these processes are recursive that these writers have already made and so they keep doing them

until they have resolved all these issues and they (Yawn) have good processes of planning and

then going into writing instead of writing on a whim. Let’s see. (B2T)…(Yawn)… (Looking up

reflexive and extensive)…(T) So there are three aspects of composing. I’m getting tired. Okay

let’s get writing. (TW) discusses the…ummm… (Q) What’s the word? (Distracted) door knock

then I look around and do pull up to get senses flowing. Throw gum away. Get new piece of

gum. Ummm. This is taking a lot longer than normal. Ummm…closing eyes to recharge mind.

(T) Okay. SO this is the (TW) Writing works of 5 …ummm…identified poor writers to see how

they write and what processes if any they use when they write. Perl found...uhh…(B2R to find

what extensive and reflexive mean still stuck on this)…(Talking about when Todd would write

reflexively and extensively) … (Distracted with Magazine) 15 min


Appendix C

Code Meanings

B2T = Back to text = Referring back to the given text

PG = General Planning = organizing one’s thoughts for writing, discussing how one will proceed.

PL = Local Planning = Talking out what idea will come next

Q = Questioning

TW = Talking and Writing simultaneously

T = Talking only

T2W = Talking leading to writing = voicing ideas on the topic, tentatively finding one’s way, but not necessarily being committed to or using all one is sayingPause = a stopping due to thought pertaining to writing or just thinking of a word

RP = Repeat = Repeating what I have written in the previous sentence or paragraph

RL = Revision Lexical = any syntactic revision including adding phrases or deleting

Evaluating= evaluating what I have written to see whether it is good or not

RC = Reconceiving = rethinking an idea to find a better new direction to write D = Distraction

B2T—PG—Q—TW—Pause—Q—T2W—Pause—TW—Pause—TW—Pause—RP—

Pause—RL—Pause—T2W—Pause—TW—Evaluating—Pause—TW—RL—T—Pause—TW—

PG—TW—Pause—TW—RL—Pause—B2T—RL—Pause—B2T—TW—RL—TW—RP&RL

—PG—Pause—B2T—RL—PL—TW—RC—TW—Evaluating—B2T—PL—Evaluating—

Pause—RP—PL—Pause—TW—RP—Pause—PL—Pause—PL—RC—Pause—B2T—TW—

B2T—TW—Pause—TW—RP—Pause—Pause—Pause—RP—Pause—Evaluating


RQ—PG—RQ—Pause—PG—D—TW—Pause—PL—TW—RL—TW—Pause—TW—

Pause—TW—Pause—TW—RL—TW—Pause—TW—Pause—TW—Pause—TW—Pause—

TW—Pause—B2T—TW—Pause—TW—Pause—PL—PG—B2T—Pause—PL—RP—Pause—

TW—RL—TW—Pause—RL—TW—Pause—RP—T—RL—TW

B2T—PG—TW—B2T—PG—Pause—T—B2T—Pause—B2T—PL—T—TW—Q—D

—Pause—T—Pause—D—TW—Pause—TW—Pause—B2T—D

Code Without Color

B2T—PG—Q—TW—Pause—Q—T2W—Pause—TW—Pause—TW—Pause—RP—

Pause—RL—Pause—T2W—Pause—TW—Evaluating—Pause—TW—RL—T—Pause—TW—

PG—TW—Pause—TW—RL—Pause—B2T—RL—Pause—B2T—TW—RL—TW—RP&RL

—PG—Pause—B2T—RL—PL—TW—RC—TW—Evaluating—B2T—PL—Evaluating—

Pause—RP—PL—Pause—TW—RP—Pause—PL—Pause—PL—RC—Pause—B2T—TW—

B2T—TW—Pause—TW—RP—Pause—Pause—Pause—RP—Pause—Evaluating

RQ—PG—RQ—Pause—PG—D—TW—Pause—PL—TW—RL—TW—Pause—TW—

Pause—TW—Pause—TW—RL—TW—Pause—TW—Pause—TW—Pause—TW—Pause—

TW—Pause—B2T—TW—Pause—TW—Pause—PL—PG—B2T—Pause—PL—RP—Pause—

TW—RL—TW—Pause—RL—TW—Pause—RP—T—RL—TW

B2T—PG—TW—B2T—PG—Pause—T—B2T—Pause—B2T—PL—T—TW—Q—D

—Pause—T—Pause—D—TW—Pause—TW—Pause—B2T—D


.

Documents

Running head: APA STYLE OF WRITING · Web viewI began my writing process by being prompted by my Writing 160 professor to generate about a 100 word summary and answer a single question