Chelsea Hunter

Professor Wolcott
ENC 1101
21 September 2014
Writing Process
Countless writers have studied the writing process in order to better understand
and improve the natural steps we take in composing a paper. Although they all commonly
agree on the importance of the study, there are several different opinions and
perspectives. For example, Paul Prior, a renowned English professor at the University of
Illinois made a large impact on the writing community with his book
Writing/Disciplinarity: A Sociohistoric Account of Literate Activity in the Academy.
According to Prior, We can only understand where texts come from in terms of their
authorship and social contexts as well as their content and textual organization by
careful tracing of their histories (p. 520). Prior believes the historical and social context
of the writing is the most important tool to creating a writing piece (Prior 520). In
contrast, Sondra Perl wanted to take a different approach and studied primarily unskilled
writers in her published article called The Composing Processes of Unskilled College
Writers. Perl thought that the most important tool is to utilize the unique writing process
by unskilled writers as opposed to writers with previous experience (617). These unique
approaches to the writing process urged me to perform a think-aloud protocol, which
showed me a view into my writing process I had never seen before and taught me how I
could improve my writing, such as by cutting distractions and using constructive
criticism to steer me back in the right direction.

Writers have debated over the best way to analyze the writing process for years.
Although I have found the best way to fully understand your writing process is to do the
think aloud protocol on yourself. I participated in the think aloud protocol during the
homework of a Sondra Perl discussion. This entire procedure took 2 hours of recording
and 30 minutes of analyzing. I recorded my think aloud process while I read the article
and wrote the discussion. Then, I identified each thought as an observation (O), criticism
(Cr), planning (P), distraction (Di), self-criticism (SC), question (Q), complaint (Co),
excuse (Ex), opinion (Op), read aloud (RA), and editing (E). I also categorized SC, Ex,
Co as a negative and the rest identifiers as a positive. After looking over all of the
information I assumed two claims.
Firstly, I noticed while reading every distraction was quickly followed by
negatives, such as self-criticism, excuses, and complaints. I can see why this happened
and understand it is most likely because I criticize myself for taking breaks and getting
distracted so easily. This situation can be beneficial if used in a productive tone. If I use
productive self-criticism instead of a complaint, it can work to motivate me towards
reading more and how to become distracted less. As opposed to using an excuse or a
complaint after a distraction would discourage me from continuing reading, causing me
to become even more distracted.
Secondly, I realized while writing that when I did become distracted it would take
me twice as long to get back on track. It seemed like more work to try and continue
writing, which discouraged me from trying to start up again so quickly. This could
possibly be fixed by designating break times instead of trying to finish it all in one night

(as I had done). I suppose it could have also been avoided by removing all distractions
from the room.
This think-aloud protocol truly provided me with a first person view into my
writing process and how I can improve my writing, such as by cutting distractions and
using constructive criticism to steer me back in the right direction. This experiment also
showed me my different habits while reading an article versus writing the summary to the
article. But most importantly, I am able to learn from my personal writing habits and am
able to decipher a solution for myself rather than reading about a strangers experiments
and listening to their assumed solutions.

Citation Page

Prior, Paul. "Tracing Process: How Texts Come into Being." Writing About Writing: A
College Reader. 2nd ed. Wardle, Elizabeth and Doug Downs. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martin's, 2014. 492-526. Print.

Perl, Sondra. The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers. Writing About
Writing: A College Reader. 2nd ed. Wardle, Elizabeth and Doug Downs. Boston:
Bedford/St. Martins, 2014. 615-639. Print.

From Hannah Simon

To Chelsea Hunter
One of the first questions Chelsea asked was if her grammar was correct and throughout
the whole essay it was. I think her paper is a sufficient length but I would add a little
more detail about the authors studys. You relied on the cars model and covered all of the
points that needed to be covered. Your whole essay was very good. After reading it I can
see that you understand your writing process and what needs to be done to improve it.
Your thesis was clearly stated and showed that you learned from your observations
during the writing process. I think you should double check the APA format on how to
cite things and try to revise the first sentence in the 5th paragraph. Your essay was
organized and easy to read!

To Chelsea Hunter
From Catherine Vallorani
One of the questions Chelsea wanted answered was about the CARs model, which
I can tell she followed quite well. I can see where you established your niche. The
organization of your paper was very good. Your thesis was unconventionally written but I
really liked that aspect of your paper. You should fix your citations, to either all APA or
MLA format. MLA format is (last name, page number). Also MLA format for the header
is first name and last name, professor's name, the class (enc 1001), the date, and lastly the
title should be centered. I think your paper is long enough, but if you feel it should be
longer you could add more outside information about other studies that are similar to
yours.