Berkenkotter and Murray Reading Response

In “Decisions and Revisions” and “Response of a Laboratory Rat—or, Being Protocoled”, Carol Berkenkotter and Donald M. Murray, in their respective articles, illustrate for other academics the benefits of studying a writer outside the laboratory in a naturalistic setting. They note the interesting discoveries they make in the writing process through this naturalistic study, namely the dominance of planning over revising, and the cyclical relationship between the two.

            Berkenkotter chooses an unorthodox approach to conducting research about writing by choosing to study an accomplished writer in a naturalistic setting. Conventional writing studies, usually conducted in a constrained time period in an artificial, laboratory setting, can not hope to observe the depth of planning involved in the revision of am experienced writer left to his own compository process. This is because writing is a highly social process, as Greene mentions in his article. Berkenkotter’s findings correlate with Greene as well as with what Michael Kleine’s assertion, in his article“What is it We Do When We Write Articles Like This—And How Can We Get Students to Join Us?”, that all writing is associated with discourse. Berkenkotter, in her representation of Murray’s verbal cues during his revision/planning processes, shows Murray using language as a tool to evaluate and reconsider how best to tell his message to his audience. He is highly aware of those who will read his writings and wants to carry on the conversation as best he can.

 

Pre-reading Exercise

            Like many people, I have my own little rituals when it comes time to write a paper. After I do many other household chores in an attempt to procrastinate, I settle down on my bed or at a table and begin the long process of writing and revising. I will drink water like a dying man in the desert, and consequently take several trips to the little writers’ room. I will often break up the writing and take a shower or brush my teeth. These give me much needed breaks within the writing process without really taking my mind off the writing.

 

Questions for Discussion and Journaling

1)      Though I found Murray’s writing processes to be somewhat old-fashioned, even eccentric, I did note that those proclivities allowed him to spend an especially large amount of time planning for an article. Yet his planning does not stop there. The recursive nature of his writing process allows him to return again and again to the planning stage. Though I do think I spend a considerable amount of time planning at the beginning of my work, I do not believe my writing process doubles back on planning quite as often as Murray’s does.

2)      Berkenkotter was astounded to find that Murray spent so much time planning and so little time revising. This is, of course, due to the interplay between revision and revising, and how so often revision turns into more planning for Murray.

 

Meta Moment

The “talk aloud” method, though apparently a popular research tool for some time, is new to me. I think if I verbalize my decision making process whilst I am writing I might be able to better solidify in my mind my plans for writing and revision.

 

            These two articles gave two very interesting views on the same research experiment, and I found the package as a whole to be entertaining as well as informative. The insight these articles give on the writing process of an experienced writer in a naturalistic setting allows scholars to both rethink the way they write as well as research