This week, I would not actually reflect that reading Carol Berkenkotter’s “Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer” was refreshing and easy to navigate. In the article, Berkenkotter reflects upon the repetitive processes and hoops in which reporters had jumped through to collect samples that depicted, very simply, what writers think while conducting their work. The last pages of the article are from the author that this experiment of sorts was based on– Donald M. Murray. His section of the article was a magnifying glass –of sorts– that let the reader of Berkenkotter’s work into his processes and wrapped up with his conclusions of how effective he believed the experiment was in terms of its goal and what part he took in concluding a successful experiment and report.
The entire way through this article, it was difficult to follow. Berkenkotter used many words to describe a single train of thought. Unsurprisingly, the point that she fought for was obscured by her lack of concise vocabulary. The parts I could understand were breakthroughs that she found through research that she then fleshed out and set to explain. Because of related discussions we have had, I was able to fill in the gaps where Berkenkotter did not– or rather, had filled in the gaps, but with complexities that detracted from the readability–in my opinion– between her analyses. With regard to Donald M. Murray and his subsequent reflections, it felt as though he was given a prompt– much like a high school freshman would be. It may very well be his default structure, but it sounded as if he was answering open-ended questions instead of offering a real glimpse of his thoughts in a more creative light.
As for the method being discussed, I have doubts that this is a reputable way to receive the data points that could be helpful. The pressure that being given a prompt already induces is then amplified sitting among reporters that are lurking in the distance relying on a tape measure. Layers of worry might overtake a participant in this study as they navigate what to say, how to write their ideas, and even how their thinking presents itself on record. It is evident to me that this was very much a starter approach to solving the issue of cognitive ability during the writing process. Advancements have preceded that time and now other ways exist to pinpoint the same results– or even better results.
Leave a Reply