John Ashley
Prof. Vazquez
ENC 1101
28 November 2020
Writing Process Task 3 – Part 1
Berkenkotter and Neto take a major focus towards the writing and composing processes
of different people and the many strengths and weaknesses of each person when they write.
The main way they approached their study was through the “talk-aloud” protocol, where the
person they researched talked about what they were thinking of when writing. This was used to
analyze the composing and revision processes when it came to writing.
Neto’s study takes a focus on himself and how someone who speaks two languages
compares to an experienced and non-experienced writer. When it comes to the writing
process, this study notes many different distractions, strengths, and weaknesses he faces and
has, such as the “tug of war” between his two languages where some words and phrases take
longer to translate due to them not having a real translation (784). He takes the information
and data he acquired to transform his process and reduce distractions, while keeping benefits
from certain parts of his process.
On the other hand, Berkenkotter’s study was used as a comparison to Neto’s results, but
she focused on an experienced writer named Donald Murray. There were three stages where
he would record himself in his own setting, be given a specific task and time to write, and then
be visited by Berkenkotter. After taking the notes and results from these three stages, she
breaks down his composing and planning process, as well as the problems that existed during
the study. She takes many quotes from Murray and explains what it shows about his process,
such as Murray’s most substantive changes being when he turned his thoughts towards the
audience (843). There were also many other details about the process that were noted, such as
his sub-goals, the alternation between incubation and sudden ideas or planning, and Murray’s
evaluation of his own writing.
These studies focus on two very different people, but end up showing the many minor
decisions, details, and steps each writer takes during planning, drafting, editing, and reviewing.
They breakdown the thought process during each phase, or stage of the study that give us
information about how some problems or situations that influence how people respond, or
what weaknesses they face that can be improved. Both studies were very important and help
us recognize the complexity of a person’s thinking process when writing as well as the
weaknesses and strategies that go into it.
Writing Process Task 3 – Part 2
The two readings by Berkenkotter and Neto gave me a lot of information on how the
writing and composing process works and the ways you can change and improve the efficiency
when writing. They break down a lot of information and details about a person’s writing
processes and the problems they encountered, and this helped me recognize my own processes
and problems.
Neto takes a focus on his own process as a bilingual writer compared to experienced
and inexperienced writers. This was important for my project when it came to explaining
examples relating to it and also recognizing some of my own weaknesses and distractions that I
have. With the focus of my project being on the concept of translingual communication, I had
used my relationship between the languages of Tagalog and English as an example. Neto’s
study also takes a focus on two languages and he mentions how he experienced many
difficulties and benefits when writing, and one major difficulty was the “tug of war” and
untranslatable concepts between some languages (784). He explains the shift he has between
thinking in one language and having to find a way to translate and write it in English, and the
way he explains this difficulty helped me explain the concept and importance of translingual
communication, as well as why both languages, or multiple languages could be used more
easily when some things weren’t translatable.
Neto used Berkenkotter’s study to compare composing processes and Berkenkotter also
takes a major focus on the writing and planning process, but towards an experienced writer.
She breaks down the processes and many sub-processes taken, and her analysis helped me
break down my own process. Being able to be aware of your own habits when it comes to
drafts and writing, or the limitations you may face were both great points to take note of for
the project and any future projects.
Being aware of your audience, how much time you spend on certain parts of essays, and
your limitations or weaknesses are just some of the notes I took that can help me improve on
my own writing processes. These studies helped me evaluate what I’m able to change to
improve, as well as what benefits and strengths I already have.
WORKS CITED
Berkenkotter, Carol. “Decisions and Revisions: The Planning Strategies of a Publishing Writer.”
Writing About Writing: A College Reader. 3rd edition, edited by Elizabeth Wardle and Doug
Downs, Benford St. Martin’s, 2016, 830-846
Neto, Alcir. “Tug of War: The Writing Process of a Bilingual Writer and His Struggles.” Writing
About Writing: A College Reader. 3rd edition, edited by Elizabeth Wardle and Doug Downs,
Benford St. Martin’s, 2016, 774-785
