Writing Processes at the University Level: Pre-Medical Science Majors

Goals of the Study:

With all of the recent research on the topic of writing, I have continued on the path of studying
writing techniques and habits. With enlightening research from Paul Prior and Sandra Perl, I
seek to shed light on the processes of writing of pre-medical science majors at large
universities. The research on the writing process has proven to be sound. In the following study
I will demonstration the processes of writing for pre-medical science majors. The medical field
requires a great deal of professional writing, the following analysis will allow major universities
to better prepare their students for their field of study.

Design:
This study took place at the University of Central Florida during the fall 2014 semester. The
student was selected in his ENC 1101 course. To collect the data the student was required to
read a paper and write a discussion post based off of a piece from Sandra Perl, The Composing
Process of Unskilled College Writers. The student was required to speak aloud their thoughts
as the progressed. The students thoughts were transcribed and coded which will be discussed
in further reading. To ensure the accuracy of the transcription the student was recorded
through the reading and writing process.

Coding:
The coding is used to help researchers describe the composition processing. Sondra Perl, a
professional on the scholarship of teaching outlined the following reasoning behind the coding
process. 1) Standardization, 2) Categorical, 3) Concise, 4) Structural, 5) Diachronic. (Perl, 1979)
The methods of coding were based of the transcriptions taken from the student being studied.
The codes encompass in total what the student had said a loud. The codes along with their
explanations can be found below.
1. [PL] Planning: What comes next?
2. [C] Commenting: Sighing, making comments or judgments on topic.
3. [I] Interpreting: Rephrasing the topic.
4. [A] Assessing: Judging ones writing
5. [Q] Questioning: Asking Questions on topic.
6. [R] Reread: Rereading writing or book
7. [E] Editing: Editing ones work
8. [D] Distraction: Time taken away from reading or writing.
9. [REL] Relating: Relating topic to ones own life.
10. [BO] Bored: Showing signs of boredom.

Transcription:
Q/FM/D/C/W/RR/W/C/RR/RR/E/PL/D/E/C/W/RR/W/FR/M/C/C/W/C/W/RR/E/PL/A/RR/C/Q
W/RR/W/C/RR/E/PL/RR/E/PL/D/W/C/REL/W/A/D/RR/E/PL/C/W/RR/W/RR/E/PL/A/D/W/C/RR/
RR/E/PL/Q/RR/W/C/RR/RR/E/PL/D REL/C/FR/M/A/C/C/W/RR/C/W/RR/ED/C/C/C/A/C

Analysis:
Using Sandra Perls [1-5] explanations of coding one can decipher the transcribed codes. From
the transcriptions there has been a clear pattern that can be discerned from this category of
writers. The repetition though a series of stages, starting with the First Stage: Writing,
Rereading then Writing again. The Second Stage: Rereading, Editing then Planning. These two
stages occur back to back each and every time, without fail. There was a Third Stage which falls
between every stage, which involves a series of commenting, assessing and questioning.
In these three stages we can clearly Patterns like these can bring to light the way pre-medical
science majors work through the writing process. When assessing the writing the student
paused often to reread and/or edit the previously written sentence or sentences. Anne Lamott,
an American novelist in Shitty First Drafts wrote about how writers should approach fist
drafts. (Lamott, 1994) In here paper she pressed the issue of a writer fully writing through the
first draft of the paper without any editing interruptions. She believed that the editing process
can take away from the overall quality of the final paper.
We asked the student to compare their writing pattern with what Lamott spoke about in her
paper. The student explained that writing without stopping and assessing ones writing, and
planning the next step in the paper would be difficult. I believe that the student may be on to
something. In Lamotts writing, could rereading and planning fit into her hypothesis on writing?
Without understanding fully what you have written how can a writer continue with the writing
process? With the data analysis of this study I believe that writers have intermediate steps in
writing. Using the speak aloud method you can begin to understand with greater accuracy the
processes.

Implications for teaching and research:

As far as science majors and other pre-medical students are concerned writing occurs ever
seldom during their undergraduate course work. In the professional field as medical doctors

and researchers, science majors write papers often. How do these student s bridge the gap
from English courses that are required during undergraduate course work? Further research
into the topic could allow teachers and advisors to better construct scientific literature courses
and course catalogues to better suit the needs of these students.
As for the future of education, studies like these will reshape and mold the model of modern
education. This study shows that the generalization of education will be soon out dated. When
students have different ways of learning a generalized education is inefficient. Individualizing
education will provide further enhancements and speed up the immersion in education.
Understanding how student can learn most efficiently and learning to correct the errors
properly will not only boost educational statistics, but it will also provide and extreme boost in
the countrys economy overall.

Problems and Further research:

One problem with the Think Aloud research method used, was trying to get the student to
speak what they were thinking and not an abridged versions of their thoughts. Having these
condensed versions of thought may skew the date on the student thought process. Along with
altering the date the process of condensing thoughts then speaking them aloud may have
interfered with the students natural writing process. For a student who does not normally
think aloud during their writing may be further distracted as they proceed through their paper
and research.
Another problem with the research was the computer used to do the recording. The camera
and microphone are not the best quality. When I re-watched the recording there was a lot of
background noises and it was difficult to discern ever word that was spoken. This may be for
some missing patterns in the data. Fortunately, I was able to make out the majority of the
words and phrases spoken allowed.
With only one discussion post which required very few drafts is difficult to analysis. Further
examples of writing over a longer period of time would be more useful in terms of data
collection. As I work through this class I will be weary of my finding from this paper to see if my
findings are true for more than just discussion postings.
As technology progresses so will the research and information studies like these will be able to
tell us. In further research one could design a program to be able to record the writers
inscription as they proceed in their writing. Having this technology could make the data like the
writing, editing and rereading more accurate in their findings. Unfortunately the distraction of
speaking out loud may not be controlled for until psychology can further its understandings on
brain activity during the writing process.

Bibliography:
Lamott, Anne. "Shitty First Drafts." 1994. Writing About Writing. By Elizabeth Wardle and Doug
Downs. 2nd ed. Boston: Leasa Burton, 2014. 527-31. Print.
Perl, Sondra. "The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers." 1979. Writing About
Writing. By Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs. 2nd ed. Boston: Leasa Burton, 2014. 615-39.
Print.