Sandstrum 1

Process and Revision: The Struggle and Assistance of Procrastination

My preparation for writing a paper might seem repetitive to others, but it works for me

because I am reviewing my paper continuously during each step. When I receive an essay

prompt, I go home and make a mind map in my room in complete silence. I start with the

essay topic and try to find various connections between the main foci and, depending on the

prompt, interdisciplinary associations of the paper. My typical period of incubation is a few days

because I like to see if there is anything from the following class discussions that I can add to my

thoughts. Following the mind map and incubation period, I then start handwriting a skeleton

outline with topic sentences and my primary evidence from the text that we are reading in class

on paper while listening to New Orleans Brass music. This type of music is upbeat, energetic,

but calming in a way that helps me focus.

After I have written my outline based on the rubric given, I type my outline on my

computer in a blank document and add more detail to my topic sentences that come to my mind.

I take that typed outline and form my essay around it by adding in analysis and more detail. I like

to start handwriting things because I am able to quickly jot down any initial ideas from my head

onto paper. I transfer the handwritten words to a blank document on my computer as a way to

review my ideas. By reviewing my ideas, I am able to add anything I think is missing. I

sometimes prefer to write my conclusion first, so I know where my paper should end. If I can see

the connections to the end, then writing the filler information is easier for me to do. I try to come

up with topic sentences that connect with each other and relate to my thesis and conclusion. By

having these transitions and connections already built into my paper, I can focus on the content

and analysis. The specific type of outline I use is called the sentence outline. Plung, who has

published and edited several papers on technical writing, analyzed hundreds of undergraduate
 Sandstrum 2

students and their writing strategies to understand which type of outline is the most beneficial.

Plung states, the sentence outline makes the interrelationship of logic and rhetoric more

apparent. This gives the technical writer the opportunity to evaluate the presentation in a fuller,

clearer light, (pp. 8). I prefer to write down sentences when doing my outline rather than a

couple of words for sections because I can easily assemble my essay. The content is already

there.

When I am actually writing my essay, I prefer to stay locked in my room while listening

to music. I can write large sections of my paper at a time; however, while I am writing in large

sections, I have the habit of constantly checking my grammar and spelling to the point where I

use the defense mechanism of rationalization to tell myself that even though I might be wasting

time, this constant editing is necessary to have a perfect paper. While discussing a similar issue

in Tug of War, Neto states, If I connect with my audience, then my conversation would have a

greater impact than obeying every grammatical rule. (pp. 784). Connecting with my audience

should be the primary concern when writing because even though having correct grammar is

beneficial, it should not be a hindrance when I am writing. I tend to get syntactic dissonances

which is another hinderance when I write (Perl, 1979). I get absorbed in syntax and if I am

saying the things I want to say correctly, thus leading to writers block.

When I revise my paper, I tend to get feedback from peers that can tell me if I am being

repetitive or not sounding clear enough. When they make comments, I go back and review the

comments and make changes on my computer when I feel it is necessary. Kinsler (2009)

conducted research that analyzed traditional teacher feedback on their writing versus

unstructured, where roles and activities within each role are specified, peer-group feedback. A

problem she found with traditional teacher feedback was that the student writers become
 Sandstrum 3

dependent on the teacher to perform most of the regulatory and reflective functions desired in the

learner (pp. 27). With structured peer-group feedback, the listeners learning was significantly

enhanced when listeners were instructed to monitor the recallers text summarizations for clarity,

completeness, and ways to facilitate memorizations (pp. 28). I tend to find structured peer

feedback more helpful than teachers feedback because when two people are working on the

same task, they are able to compare their writing to each others and see areas where both can

improve. With that being said, I do prioritize editing over revising because I was always taught

in my previous English classes in high school that if I do not have perfect grammar, spelling, and

punctuation, then my ideas will not be received or taken seriously by the audience. When

addressing the plausible causes of writers block, Rose (1980) states, if a rule conflicts with

what is sensible or with experience, reject it. (pp. 791). For example, in this paragraph, there

was a sentence that was three lines long. I felt that it was necessary to combine clauses in one

sentence for elaboration purposes. Every time I write type a sentence, I automatically reread the

sentence scanning for grammatical and punctuation issues. Since I tend to write lengthy

sentences by using multiple clauses that can seem like I run-on sentence, I have to ensure that I

use the correct punctuation and words in order to not confuse my audience. Because I

overanalyze my sentences, I sometimes get off topic. In The Phenomenology of Error, Williams

comments on the problem of hyperfocusing on grammatical issues by stating, when we read for

content, semantic structures constitute the field of attention; letters for the most part recede

from our consciousness (pp. 817). Williams says that if you read for content, you will pay

attention to the overall content of the paper, rather than if you read for letters (spelling and

grammatical errors), you will not pay attention to the meaning of the paper.
 Sandstrum 4

To improve my personal writing process, I could conduct research early about the essay

topic before going into a new unit. By doing this, I can incorporate background knowledge as I

plan my essay. I could also clarify any issues and concerns before constructing my rough draft

and to avoid being blindsided, or hit unexpectedly, by a paper. I am guilty of procrastination, but

I tend to thrive on pressure and stress because I have no choice but to do the task at hand. I enjoy

planning and organizing, but I usually do not leave enough time for me to efficiently plan and

organize my writing; therefore, I should start working earlier. Another issue I deal with is when

the exigence of a paper goes from answering the question or demonstrate the learning goals to

writing for the sake of a grade. Grant-Davie (1997), when addressing the rhetorical situation and

its constituents, states that exigence is the matter and motivation of the discourse (pp. 491). If I

do not have the motivation to write a paper for my discourse, then this hinders my ability to write

an essay.
 Sandstrum 5

Works Cited

Grant-Davie, K. (1997). Rhetorical situations and their constituents. E. Wardle and D. Downs

(Eds.) Writing about writing: A college reader. (pp. 487-507). Boston: Bedford/St.

Martins.

Kinsler, K. (2009). Structural peer collaboration: Teaching essay revision to college students

needing writing remediation. Cognition and Instruction, 7(4), 303-321, doi:

10.1207/s153269007042

Perl, S. (1979). The composing processes of unskilled college writers. E. Wardle and D. Downs

(Eds.) Writing about writing: A college reader. (pp. 740-770). Boston: Bedford/St.

Martins.

Plung, D. (1982). The advantages of sentence outlining. Technical Communication, 29(1), 8-11.

Retrieved from http://www.jstor.org/stable/43095499

Rose, M. (1980). Rigid rules, inflexible plans, and the stifling of language. E. Wardle and D.

Downs (Eds.) Writing about writing: A college reader. (pp. 789-800). Boston:

Bedford/St. Martins.

Neto, A. S. (2014). Tug of war. E. Wardle and D. Downs (Eds.) Writing about writing: A college

reader. (pp. 805-819). Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.

Williams, J. (1981). The phenomenology of error. E. Wardle and D. Downs (Eds.) Writing about

writing: A college reader. (pp. 805-819). Boston: Bedford/St. Martins.