- Perl claims asks whether the writing processes of
unskilled writers can be "analyzed in a
systematic, replicable manner" (17). Does
this seem like a reasonable question to you? Does
it seem like a question that she should be able
to answer? Why or why not? What difficulties do
you think this problem poses?
- How will this study differ from the ones that
preceded it? (What made this study significant
enough to be included in this volume?)
- Does the design of the study, as described on
pages 18 and 19, seem that Perl has created a
situation in which she can effectively gather
information about the composing process? Does
having the researcher assume "a
non-interfering role" seem to you an
adequate safeguard against too many outside
influences? What do you think about the directive
that the writer was to "compose aloud"?
- Does it seem plausible to you that the coding
process could result in an accurate description
of what happened in a particular composing
session? Can you think of other ways that this
might be done besides direct observation and the
analysis of an audiotape that was made during the
writing session? (Think of some ways that
computer technology or video cameras could be
used here.)
- What is miscue analysis and how does Perl use it
in her study?
- What does Perl's use of the words
"decoding" and "encoding"
language say about her assumptions about how
reading and writing work?
- Does Tony (one of her subjects) seem similar in
some ways to your 103 students? What does her
analysis of Tony show about unskilled writers?
- What does Perl's analysis of the three parts of
the composing process suggest about what needs to
be emphasized in writing courses? What should NOT
happen in the course of the students' writing
instruction?
- Does it make sense to you for Perl to claim that
the students wrote from "an egocentric point
of view"?
- What do you think is the most important
implication to be drawn from this study?
|