We as a class established via the class readings that writing is a process and not a product as it had been before the 1960s. (Murray, 1972; Perl, 1979; Flowers and Hayes, 1981; Berkenkotter and Murray, 1983). We also established that composition is an extensive process that can be studied, interpreted, and improved: “Most important, the writer’s protocols shed new light on the great and small decisions and revisions that form planning. These decisions and revisions form an elaborate network of steps as the writer moves back and forth between planning, drafting, editing, and reviewing” (Berkenkotter and Murray). Our thoughts are continuous and cannot go be reversed, unlike the backspace key. Though we can return to what we previously contemplated, the ideas cannot be erased from memory. The community of people who study composition is interested in researching how the process is done for certain groups of people, “skilled” and “unskilled” as Perl referred to them, to determine the differences that define successful versus unsuccessful composition. The “think-aloud” technique is widely accepted as an excellent tool for investigating how an individual composes. The results can then be analyzed individually to uncover the person’s writing techniques and decide whether they are successful or not.
After the first class session, we were tasked with thinking aloud the assignment that we had been given. The literary exploration was not due the next class period, but the think-aloud technique was useful for beginning to unwrap the topic that we had been given. While we were starting to draft, we were required to record both our running stream of thoughts and our writing as we went along on Camtasia, a recording software. The software recorded the voice and the computer screen in real time. Personally, I began by opening the notes that I had taken on the readings and responding to whatever questions they evoked. I recorded my session in my bedroom, which is quiet and isolated so that I could think in peace. As I deliberated on how I would begin to write on the subject, I voiced all the thoughts running through my head and typed when an idea came to me. The process was awkward and stilted, but the recording produced interesting evidence when it came time to analyze.
The most obvious result in my coding sheet was the abundance of silent moments. These halts to my thinking process were not because I was thinking about what to say, but rather because my thoughts had stopped altogether. Because I knew that I was being recorded, even if I was the only person who would ever see it, my thoughts were jumbled and wooden. Also, most of my planning was followed by some sort of comment. I know that at times I talk to myself and when I do, I tend to comment on whatever I said; it was interesting to see that I do the same thing in my head. Every couple of minutes I reread the question to make sure that I was still on the right track and to see if any new interpretations arose after my recent writing. Most of my writing, though, happened after a moment of silence when I could let the information sink in.
The most prominent conclusion that I came to from my results was that thinking aloud stunts my writing process, mostly because of the added pressure from the recording session. As Donald M. Murray summarized, “The one-hour protocol was far worse than I had expected… I have gone through other research experiences, but in this case, I felt stronger than I ever had the need to perform. That was nothing that the researcher did. It was a matter of the conditions. I had a desperate desire to please” (Berkenkotter and Murray, 231). He then references a psychology study in which the test study is willing to inflict pain on others to be released from the situation. That was a very apt description of what the writing process felt like. When a person is given a time limit or even a restrictive prompt, it is much more difficult to write freely; the desire to fit within the boundaries overrides the creative instinct. Though I had the freedom to write about anything that I wished, it was still incredibly difficult to formulate thoughts because I knew that I was being recorded and needed to do my best work.
Most of my classmates concluded that though the think-aloud session was difficult, it became easier as time went on. I don’t agree. The session did not get easier for me as time went on because it goes against my preformed writing practices to speak while writing. The hardest part of this process was remembering to speak at all. Like Tony, one of Perl’s test subjects, I am very concerned with the editing aspect of composition. Unless I have a long train of thought, I go back to the prior sentence to check the grammar and spelling after every period. This slows me down quite a bit as I don’t have the opportunity to form a writing flow; I am too concerned with crossing my t’s and dotting my i’s. This is an issue that I face each time I write, not only when I am being recorded. The composition process is not the same for everyone; if it were, the answers to this issue would have already been found. The think-aloud technique pushes the writer to understand how they compose, but it also brings to light some critical contextual aspects that Perl overlooks in her laboratory setting. For some, thinking aloud helps to ease the writing process, but for others, it only slows it down. Just as Flowers and Hayes refuted in response to Perl’s paper, context plays a vital role in “skilled” composition.
Works Cited
Berkenkotter, Carol. “Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer.” College Composition and Communication 34.2 (1983): 156-69. Print.
Flower, Linda, and John R. Hayes. “A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing.” College Composition and Communication 32.4 (1981): 365-387. Print.
Murray, Donald M. “Response of a Laboratory Rat- or, Being Protocoled.” College Composition and Communication 34.2 (1983): 169-172. Print.
Murray, Donald M. “Teach Writing As a Process Not a Product.” (1972). Print.
Perl, Sondra. “The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers.” Researching In the Teaching of English 13.4 (1979): 317-36. Print.
Appendix A
