Kimmie Meunier

04/22/18 Commented [KM1]: This feels

ENGL 16 unfinished. I would like to add my own
Literary Exploration #2 positionality before diving into this
Lueck litearcy self-study. I would add adjust the
Literature Review of the “Think-Aloud” Protocol end of this paragraph to say:
Intro

This paper seeks to better comprehend my writing process through applying the code
Without a definitive rubric for what
presented in Sondra Perl’s 1979 piece entitled “The Composing Process of Unskilled Writers” constitutes “unskilled” versus “skilled”
(Perl, 1979). In recent years, scholars have attempted to understand individual writing processes, writers it’s difficult to place myself in
rather than the writing product for a multitude of reasons (Perl, 1979; Rose, 1980; Berkenkotter, relation to Pearl’s code. While
1983; Murray, 1983). Some of these scholars geared their research towards how to effectively Berkenkotter (1983) and Murry (1983)
analyze and teach writing to students (Perl, 1979, Rose, 1980). However, some studies prove that Perl’s model for observing,
constructed an ambiguously defined binary of “unskilled” versus “skilled” writers (Perl, 1979),
deconstructing, and understanding the
restricting the application of Perl’s code and analytical process to those who belong to the vague
category. However, a study emerged in which scholars analyzed a published author writing process can apply to published
(Berkenkotter, 1983; Murray, 1983), proving that Perl’s model for observing, deconstructing, scholars of writing, this study is an
and understanding the writing process could be applied to experienced authors. intervention bridging the binary “skilled”
and “unskilled” scale. Thus, before
Method presenting my own writing, it is essential
to know my credentials: I am a 21 year-
In order to effectively analyze my writing style, I first needed a room of my own. In an
old, white, middle-class woman from
attempt to remove distractions from the writing process, I reserved a library room 006 for one
hour on a Friday morning. Using Camtasia video software, I recorded my computer screen for 60 northern Connecticut. I was educated in
minutes as I attempted to orient myself around the subject. The film captured the beginning public schools for the first 14 years of my
stages of the paper. Then, I saved the video for further analysis. A week later, I reviewed the life. Then, I attended private boarding
tape, using writing studies scholar, Sondra Perl’s code (Perl 1979). The code is available as school for 4 years. I am at the end of my
appendix A. I amended the code in using “(Interrupted)” at times when distractions came up on third year at a private university, Santa
the computer. This option was not available in the original code. The code was then analyzed to Clara, in the South Bay of the greater San
observe patterns in the writing process, in order to bring my own results into a larger
conversation in writing studies discourse surrounding composition. Francisco area. I identify as someone who
enjoys writing, preferring poetry and
creative writing over business memos
Results and persuasive argumentation.

I used Perl’s code, including my own amendment, for first 30 minutes of the Camtasia As I’ve begun positioning myself, I notice
film. This was enough time to see a pattern in the writing process. For reference, the results of
the other sources that could be
this “think-aloud” protocol appear under Appendix B.
The “think-aloud” protocol revealed three distinct sections in the 30-minute coded contributed to this piece. While the
Camtasia film. The first section (0:00- 0:10) involved the planning stages, where I read sources I have elected have held this
directions, ask questions, interpret answers, and talk aloud in order to move towards writing. The literary exploration to its 4 page limit, I
most commonly coded action in the “think-aloud” protocol was a type of planning, whether I see an opportunity to expand this piece.
planned generally or locally (8 times in the first 10 minutes). This planning was often surrounded This literacy exploration could be an ...
by TW, signifying a tendency to talk (aloud) and then write, and was the second most
prevalent code used in the first section of the paper (7 times in the first 10 minutes). An action of Commented [KM2]: This is a fun Virginia
Wolf joke. Hehe.
writing, such as TW, W(writing silently), and TW (talking while writing) was coded upwards
of 13 times throughout the first third of the data set, the code did not allow for qualitative data, Commented [KM3]: I would like to
such as emphasizing how much writing took place during the coded writing action. expand this point as well.
The second phase of the writing session (0:11-0:22) is categorized by the bookended
code “(Interrupted).” Between these two brackets, the first stages of re-planning, re-reading
While Perl’s article fails to define the
sentences, and editing grammar, diction, and syntax took place. Some form of writing (TW,
TW, W,) took place more than double the time in the previous section (31 times). However, there binary of “skilled” versus “unskilled”
was more uses of other codes, such as Q, I, Rd, Ead, and Egr. writers which she references, Murray
The third, and final distinct section of code (0:23-0:30) is categorized by significantly expresses concern of “experienced
more editing, re-reading, and interpreting topics in order to better understand them. During this writers” becoming “too polished” from
section, some form of editing (Ead, Edel, or Egr) was coded 10 times. This means that the ratio writing and studying their processes with
of writing coded compared to time in the first section was slightly lower than the ratio of coded Perl’s code (Murray 1983). He states, “ I
editing to time in the last section of the paper (~1.3 : 1.4).
Some form of codes 1-15 numbered in Appendix A were used throughout the 30 minute worry a bit about the patterns that this
coding process in the first half of the Camtasia video recording. However, the code did not afford research revealed have been laid down in
for certain parts of the writing process, nor did it provide insight into what was produced. my long-term memory…I worry that the
experienced writer can become too glib,
Analysis and Discussion too slick, too professional, too polished—
can, in effect, write too well” (Murray
The first section of the “think-aloud” protocol highlights the beginning stages of planning
1983). Perhaps this code is only meant
and free-write that was later corrected in the subsequent two sections. The TW recorded is
indicative of the talking I do to myself during writing. Throughout each section TW is a for those who fall into that mucky milieu:
frequent pattern. It is unclear if what was voiced, something that was not a part of the code, was the precarious space between “skilled”
indicative of my writing process, or a writing process under the conditions of video recording and “unskilled.” Nonetheless, Murray
with the Camtasia. The feeling of begin watched by the video software somewhat distorted what cautions against the “too slick, too
I was saying. This is a concern among other scholars, such as Murray who writes about the professional” writing. For him it seems
constraints of “laboratory conditions” and “time” (Murray 1983). While Murray was okay with like the experience of writing, like the
his self-conscious feelings, justifying his statement in saying that he was “practicing a craft, not
product itself, will not and should not be
performing magic” (Murray 1983), I do not share the same sentiments. This points to some of the
limitations inherent in Perl’s code. perfect.
It may appear that writing took place throughout the entire time, the code only showing
moments of questioning, editing, and writing. The inability to code both qualitative and After making this point, I could expand
quantitative data limits the analysis. My code seems as if some form of writing consumed the this paper to include Joseph William’s
entire process, but without the Camtasia video, people reading this data will not know that not article “Phenomenology of Error.” In
much was actually written during this hour writing session. Additionally, this code does not conjunction with Murray’s insistence on
speak to how well-written, clear, or relevant our writing was towards the paper. It only shows
habits in writing, which scholars believe point towards writing skill (Perl, 1979), but this
preserving the imperfections of writing,
evidence is not conclusive given the limited definition for “skilled” versus “unskilled” writers. Williams argues that errors are almost
Perl’s code could also use some expansion. Murray speaks of “bathroom epiphanies,” impossible to avoid. Additionally, some
when he would step away from the piece and come back with new ideas (Murray, 1983). I would errors are culturally acceptable, and in
also like to add “(Interrupted)” to the code. In light of the technological advancements since abiding by conventional grammar rules,
1979, distractions are far more likely to happen, and less likely to be ignored. Interruption in the the phrases would sound more wrong
writing process also bookended a distinct section of writing, suggesting that the interruptions
than right (Willaims 1981). He uses
caused some pivot in the writing process. Since it seems imperative that the process happens on
the computer and with only one editor, an aspect which was problematic for Murray Winston Churchill's famed example: "This
is the sort of bloody nonesense up with
which I will not put." In highlighitng a ...
(Berkenkotter 1983), a code which accounts for the evolution of technology would result in a
more accurate depiction of the writing process. Commented [KM4]: In my revision of
this piece, I would expand this statement
to include:

This part of the code should not be

considered in deeming someone a
“skilled” versus “unskilled” writer. These
interruptions are not deviant from, but
rather an integral part of the writing
process. Murray categorized his moments
of interruption as “bathroom epiphanies”
(Murray 1983). The moments, were also
coded as moments of introspection.
Thus, I have amended Perl’s code with
“(interrupted),” but noted that these
instances sparked a new pattern of
writing. Thus interruptions, or “bathroom
epiphanies” are not simply a part of the
writing process, but integral to it.
Appendix A.
Appendix B.

PL,Rd,T W, T W,WS, I, TW, W, TW, PL., Ra, PLL, Rs, T W, PL, I, re, T
__ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ __
1 2 3 4

W, Rs, Rd, Rs, I, PL, T W, TW, I, PL, PLL, T W, I, PL, Q,Q,Q,

__ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __
5 6 7 8

TW, W, TW,W Rd, (interrupted), TW, W, TW, PLL, TW, T W

__ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ __ ___ __ __ __
9 10 11 12

TW T W, W, Q, I, TW, W, Q, TW, TW, W W, TW, Egr, I, TW

__ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ ____ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
13 14 15 16

W W, T W, TW, Q, T W, TW, Ra-b, T W, W, Eadd

__ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ ____ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
17 18 19

W, TW, W, TW, Q, TW, TW, Rs, Q, T W ,(interrupted), Ra,

__ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ ____ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
20 21 22

T W, W W, Ra, A(-), Eadd, Eadd, Ra-b, I, Q, TW, W, Errg,

__ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ ____ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
23 24

Eadd, W, I, Eadd, Ra-b, Eadd,(A+), W, TW, Eadd, TW, Q, I, TW, W,

__ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ ____ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
25 26

Eadd, Ra,I, Eadd, Ra,Eadd, TW, I, T W, PL, PL, PL, Q, I,

__ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ __ ____ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __ __
27 28
TW I, TW, W, W, W,
__ __ __ __ _ __ __ __ __ __ __
29 30
 Work Cited

Berkenkotter, Carol. “Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer.”
College Composition and Communication 34.2 (1983):156-69. Print.
Murray, Donald M. “Response of Laboratory Ray—or, Being Protocoled.” College Composition
and Communication 34.2 (1983): 169-72. Print.
Perl, Sondra. “The Composing Process of Unskilled College Writers.” Research in the Teaching
of English 13.4 (1979): 317-36. Print.
Rose, Mike. “Rigid Rules, Inflexible Plans, and the Sifting of Language: A Cognitive Analysis
of Writer’s Block.” College Composition of Communication 31.4 (1980):389-401. Print.