Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer by Carol Berkenkotter
Berkenkotter uses the IMRD format as well as the CARS model in her published piece Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer in ways that are not exactly clear to the naked eye. Readers have to dissect the piece and really think. IMRD format stands for Introduction, Method(ology), Results, Discussion. IMRD is used for research papers to separate each portion of the paper, making it easier on the eyes, and overall more of an organized piece. Berkenkotter’s introduction to the piece uses the CARS model. The CARS model is a specific form of writing in the introduction portion of a process/research paper. CARS is an acronym standing for “Create A Research Space.” An example of Berkenkotter using model 1 of the CARS Model is shown when she says “To date there are no reported studies of writers composing in natural (as opposed to laboratory) settings that combine thinking-aloud protocols with the writers’ own introspective accounts,” (Berkenkotter 1983, 2). The author is introducing the claim that needs to be focused on, and connecting the dots with other studies that have been completed. She uses model 2 in her sentence, “There remains, however, the question: to what extent can a writer’s subjective testimony be trusted?” (Berkenkotter 1983, 2). Berkenkotter is seen here identifying the gap, where the issue lies. She is seen using model three when she says “These protocols have been examined to locate the thoughts verbalized by the subjects while composing, rather than for the subjects’ analysis of what they said,” (Berkenkotter 1983, 2). She introducers her plan to fill the gap in research. Berkenkotter discusses her methodology in research, which discusses the approach she took to perform the methods she chose. She discussed the three stages of each experiment, explaining what Murray had done and her observations. Her results discuss a table consisting of the statistics of what Murray was writing about. It’s interesting that Berkenkotter does not label the last portion of her piece with “Discussion,” but nevertheless, she still discusses what she learned, how it will affect those around us, and why people should be interested.
Response of a Laboratory Rat – or, Being Protocoled by Donald M. Murray
As the title clearly states, this is Donald M. Murray’s response to the lab that was done based off his writing. Instead of labeling each section of his piece verbally, (i.e., using the IMRD format) with Introduction, Method, Results, and Discussion, (https://eng2020.chrisfriend.us/wp-admin/post.php?post=2944&action=edit) . Instead, he is seen numbering each section. His introduction portion is relatively shorter than Berkenkotter’s. I found it unclear whether Murray intended to use the CARS model or not in his introduction. It was challenging for me to identify models used, if any. He shares his first impression of Berkenkotter expressing her wanting to do this experiment, and how he was interested. His last sentence of the introduction states, “When Carol Berkenkotter asked me to run in her maze I gulped. but I did not think I could refuse,” (Murray 1983, 1). I also found it unclear which portion of his numbered essay correlated to which part of the IMRD format. In his second paragraph, Murray is honest in saying how brutal the protocol was. Throughout the essay, Murray shares what he was feeling while all these studies were being done, while Berkenkotter shares the more statistical and factual work. Murray gives a list of things that surprised him during the study, and concludes with referring to Berkenkotter as a “colleague,” rather than a “researcher.” He closes this piece by sharing his gratitude that the study was done.
Leave a Reply