Close
About
FAQ
Home
Collections
Login
USC Login
Register
0
Selected
Invert selection
Deselect all
Deselect all
Click here to refresh results
Click here to refresh results
USC
/
Digital Library
/
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
/
00001.tif
(USC Thesis Other)
00001.tif
PDF
Download
Share
Open document
Flip pages
Contact Us
Contact Us
Copy asset link
Request this asset
Transcript (if available)
Content
WRITING APPREHENSION AND ANTI-WRITING: A NATURALISTIC STUDY OF COMPOSING STRATEGIES USED BY COLLEGE FRESHMEN Linda Ann Bannister A Dissertation Presented to the' FACULTY OF THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY (.Engli sh) August 1982 UMI Number: DP23087 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. Dissertation Publishing UMI DP23087 Published by ProQuest LLC (2014). Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106- 1346 UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA THE GRADUATE SCHOOL UNIVERSITY PARK LOS ANGELES. CALIFORNIA 90 0 0 7 Fh.b, £ '83 %A/ This dissertation, written by ..... LINDA Am..BANNISTER................ under the direction of h&r.... Dissertation Com mittee, and approved by all its members, has been presented to and accepted by The Graduate School, in partial fulfillm ent of requirements of the degree of D O C T O R O F P H I L O S O P H Y Dean DISSERTATION COMMITTEE Chairman 0 For M ix ! Acknowledgment s I am delighted to he done with dissertating, a happy conclusion 'that would not have been reached had it not been for a number of good friends. My parents' support (moral, emotional, and financial) made .graduate school possible; they were my mainstays. During this, my most arduous composing effort, Betty Bamberg was both guide and aid. •I will always remember her steadfast reminder, "the end is in sight." The suggestions and advice of the other members of my committee, I ;Ross Winterowd and Walter Fisher;were most appreciated. Mike Rose' iwas responsible for a-"recharge" just when I needed it; his insight 'and criticism were invaluable. Cindy Trawick typed the dissertation— three times. And since ,she is neither secretary nor typist, her work was a great gift. Ad ditional typing was done by Lynn}, McDonald and Katherine .Moss, who :pitched in when the going got impossible. I appreciate the holistic ;scoring done by Bob Child, Tony Gifford, Bonnie Melchior, Margaret j * . - . Morgan,' and Becky Williams. ’ I am grateful to Phillip Anderson for making it as easy as ipossible for me to work as often as possible during the last weeks. r Becky Williams was thoughtful and kind at just the right moments, f ' and Gary Davenport and Rusty Rogers made me laugh when I didn't think I l , I could. And finally, and always, my thanks to Michael Wills. TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES LIST OF TABLES Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION ............. Statement of the Problem ......... The Product to Process Paradigm Shift Research Activity on the Composing Process (Stage Models) . . . . . Research Activity on the Composing ■ Process. (Recursive Models) . . . Studies Focusing on Components of the Composing Process .......... Language as Transaction ...... A Working Model of the Composing Process ......... Research on Writing Apprehension . . Research on Apprehension in General Research on Creativity ........... 2 PURPOSE . " . O F THE. RESEARCH PROJECT *'.... Previous Lack of Attention to Out-of-Class Writing ...... Previous Lack of Attention to Manner and Progress of Composing Previous Lack of Attention to Planning/Pre—Writing Components Preliminary Composing Process Study (JL9T51 . Which Generated Initial Questions .......... Research Hypothesis. ........... . Chapter 3 METHODOLOGY .................................... 6 3 Description of Naturalistic and Ethnographic Approach .................. ■ . 63 Limitations of Previous Studies . . ' ...... 6k Justification of Methodological Approach ...... 6j Data Collection Methods and Instruments Used . . . 71 Description of.Pilot Studies for Instrument Development ................. jk Subject Selection Process . ................... 75 Sequence of Data Collection ................... 76 How the Data was Analyzed ........... 78 k ANALYSIS OF THE DATA ............................. 8l The High and Low-Apprehensive Writers .......... 8l Holistic Scoring of Student Essays ............. 83 Planning Time Questionnaire Results .......... 86 Discussion of Results of Content Analysis ..... 101 Case Studies . . . . . 12k The Low Apprehensive's. ................... 12k The High Apprehensives ....................... l6k Discussion of Case Studies . . ......... 196 5 CONCLUSIONS: THE APPREHENSION PARADOX ....... 202 Apprehension and Planning ................. 202 Anti-Writing 207 Idea-Forging Apprehension and Extrinsic Apprehension ..................... 208 . • 6 THEORETICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS ; OF THE RESEARCH ............. . . . . . ........ 210 How Composing Process Theory Might be Altered by This Research ................ . 210 How the Model Might be Altered ......... 211 | Writing Apprehension and the ; Teaching of Writing ................. 213 Future Research Needs ......................... 2l6 .NOTES .218 BIBLIOGRAPHY 225 j 'APPENDICES DALY'S WRITING APPREHENSION MEASURE ................. . 237 ■ WRITING ATTITUDES AND EXPERIENCES QUESTIONNAIRE .... 239 A SELF-APPRAISAL OF YOUR OWN WRITING PROCESS .......................... ..... 2^0 ! PLANNING-TIME QUESTIONNAIRE (ACTIVITIES YOU ENGAGE IN BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY BEGIN WRITING AN ASSIGNMENT).................. 2kh DAILY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .................... . . . 21+6 , CONTENT ANALYSIS FORM FOR INTERVIEW DATA ........... 21*7 ' v. - "-A...,-. \ * I LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 Augustine's Model of the Composing Process ........ 29 ' 2 Flower and Hayes' Composing Process Model ......... 31 i 3 Generating Subprocess Model ............. 31 1 + Flower and Hayes' Composing Process Model (Original) ................................ 211 5 Flower and Hayes' Composing Process Model (Revised) ............................. . 211 LIST OF TABLES Table 1 Writing Apprehension Scores . . . ................ 82 2 Holistic Grading Results ....................... 8i t 3 Planning Time Questionnaire Totals (Eight-Day Period) .......... 86 k Individual Planning Hours Over Eight-Day Period ............................. 91 5 Planning Time Questionnaire, Day One ............ 95 6 Planning Time Questionnaire, Day Two 96 ' 7 Planning Time Questionnaire, Day Three ...... 97 8 Planning Time Questionnaire, Day F o u r ......... . 98 . 9 Planning Time Questionnaire, Day F i v e... 99 I 10 Planning Time Questionnaire, Day Six ............ 100 11 Planning Time Questionnaire, Day Seven ...... 101 12 Planning Time Questionnaire, Day Eight . 102 13 Generally Positive and Negative Responses to Writing ....................... lOl ; lb Generally Positive and Negative 1 Responses to Writing hy' Individuals ...... 105 Combined Low and High ApprehensivesJ ' Responses-by Content Analysis, Form ; Categories 15 • General Attitudes ■ ' ..................... 107 ! 16 Fears'/Anxieties: Confidence . . . ............. 109 t * 17 Planning Behavior ...... ................ 113 ’ 18 Considering Features of the Assignment......... Il6 19 . Text Generation ...................... . . . . 118 ' 20 Reviewing Text ............................. 120 21 Post-Writing Behavior . ...................... 122 . ; Chapter I I INTRODUCTION AND REVIEW OF THE RESEARCH ! It has been said that pedagogy is at the heart of composing > process research.Concern with teaching techniques and methodolo- i i gies has always played a significant role in inspiring and just ifying research on composing. To that end researchers have attemp-. ‘ted to build general models of'the composing process-theoretical j constructs reflecting writing practices. The rationale behind I . such model-building is simple: if we understand how composing ; works, then we can better communicate its intricacies to those who' are having difficulty composing. (As Ross Winterowd puts it, there is nothing more practical than a good theory.) Difficulties i with such theoretical constructs become immediately apparent, how- j ever. There is a body of evidence (and a strong conviction among process theorists) that maintains that composing is idiosyncratic, and therefore resists generalization. ,-It might be argued that a I model of the composing process must be broad enough to account for 5 I all idiosyncratic' manifestations or it would not be realistic. J But any model so broad to allow for the behavior of all writers ! might be too general to be useful. This, then, is the dilemma I of the composing process researcher: to investigate to what degree i I iif any, people employ common composing strategies (for the purpose I of model construction), and to discover what means of transmit ting useful strategies to those who lack them exist. i p ^ Most composing process studies have been descriptive and the behaviors that have been observed and recorded, are, in large part, responsible for the current theories of composing. But, of j course, there are many aspects of composing; the most significant i I | ones,' in fact, are not directly observable. I am speaking of the I cognitive processes involved in composing. For data in these areas I we rely heavily on speculation and inference offered by both re- i ! searcher and subject. If we agree with Pat Hartwell's statement ) 3 that thinking and writing are interinanimate, then we cannot ■ i help but address thinking when we speak of writing. Cognitive i processes in writing have received a great deal of attention in i 1 recent composing process research, but the amount of evidence and | observation that has been amassed and the number of hypotheses I , that have been tested are small when one considers the complexity i ■ ■ ; of human thought processes. Individual composing strategies must i be studied in number and in detail to validate claims researchers j are making and to refine the models they propose. Furthermore, I " ' . | any and all influences (.to whatever degree we 'can measure them) on individual composing strategies need to be investigated so that developing process models approach adequacy. Students do not compose or think in a vacuum; composing process models should !therefore reflect the varieties of composing strategies and their I i causes— not only from individual to individual, but also within l , individuals. i This study explores one important influence on individual i : composing strategies: writing apprehension. The importance of U j writing apprehension has been demonstrated by previous research; i i but the ways in which apprehension affects composing strategies ■has not been explored. To study these effects, I have adapted I , ethnographic methods to study the composing process in out-of- : class writing assignments and have focused my investigation on ; the planning component of composing to discover what influence i , apprehension has on it. Few studies have addressed the planning I component specifically and none the effect of writing apprehension I on planning. The theoretical framework that guides the study holds that t | composing is a process, not always smooth and regular, often er- , ratic and interrupted; that attitudes about writing affect wri- i I ting processes and practices; and that writers profit by an exam- ! I ination of their own writing processes. My study describes r I selected composing process phenomena related to apprehension and hypothesizes about the sources of some-of the aforementioned "ir regularity." In other words, I am interested in those factors l I i 3 I !influencing the manner and progress of the planning component of l » I the Composing process. i j Previous research in composing and in cognitive processes l ! has provided the relevant groundwork for any study that seeks to !modify our understanding of the composing process. The notion of i : looking at writing as a process is really relatively new, and ' only in recent years hhve composition teachers making textbook i selections begun to find a few process-based texts. Product- i j centered-texts, texts that assume composing is a "wholly conscious, antiseptically efficient act...(when) ’ it is often a sloppy and J inefficient procedure for even the most disciplined and long- ! writing of professional a u t h o r s , still enjoy widespread pop-' • j ularity. There are relatively few textbooks that do not assume I - ' 1 that composition proceeds in a mechanical, lock-step fashion. Teaching composition by focusing on written products demands less | of instructors and students because it can ignore writers and all I | their accompanying idiosyncrasies. Sheridan Baker’s The Complete Stylist and Handbook is a typical product-based text that includes i j the following checklist: ! 1. Thesis stated in one sentence? 1 2. Thesis at end of first paragraph? 3. Thesis clearly evident throughout paper? b. Each paragraph begun with topic sentence? | 5. Each with transitional tag? j 6 . Paragraphs four or five sentences long? j 7. Your best point last? , I 8. Conclusion an inverted funnel? Baker's checklist tests the student's application of a typically frigid set of rules that characterize product-tased approaches to i • _ !composition. i In an article aptly titled "The Dismantling of Process in Composition Texts," Mike Rose discusses fifteen current texts he f \ thinks represent static approaches to the composing process. He ;found the following rigid prescriptions: I \ If you can't list at least six points (for any topic) ' then select another topic. ' Every word in your essay must lead the reader back to your thesis. ; The clearest and most emphatic place for your thesis sentence is at the end— -not at the beginning— of the | (introductory) paragraph. i This is the basic principle for organizing the middle ! ■ of your essay. Save the best for last. It's as sim- j pie as that. (supported with a little chart presum- ably to add scientific clout) Nearly all good papers begin with what the writers think is least important (though perhaps catchy) and work up to what they consider most important. You will need to make at least two drafts before sub- . mitting any paper. In the first place, outlines freeze most writers. Begin (your essay) with a simple sentence. 1 A thesis should not be written in figurative language. | Do not inject a new idea into your concluding paragraph.,; !Rose argues that the product-based text's structure "expresses ,an ultrarational spirit more appropriate to analytic logic than * 8 ito composing." His findings are supported by such notable rhetoricians as Richard Ohmann who deplores the textbook that treats student writing ahistorically.^ The product-based approach to understanding and teaching composition has enjoyed a long-standing and hallowed position, but growing criticism and research has resuited in a paradigm I shift from product to process. Cooper and Odell (1978) offer ■ an account of the change in perspective when they compare the i "objectivism" of the sixties with the current student-r-centered focus of instruction, illustrating that teachers of composition ; have become aware that instruction'”should be going on throughout .the writing act and not just as commentary on an end product. ♦ Composition theorists Barrett and Kroll assert that the philo sophical reasons for this paradigm shift in the teaching of 'composition and reasons for the rise of descriptive process 'models are illuminated by a revolution in psychological theory, i The tradition of the behaviorist and the logical empiricist was ,to investigate in terms of observable behavior. This led to a t >belie# that the traditional approach (studying writing exclu sively through the product— the written artifact) was justified ■ because that "behavior" is the only one the writing teacher has access to. Empiricism demanded an observable chunk of data, and the student essay was just that— a chunk of data to be as- [ sessed. When cognitive-developmental psychology appeared, an I I alternate tradition developed— one within whose boundaries : ■ j i process theories of composition rest. The new research focus i j is on the mind, the way a person knows and has come to know the jworld, rather than on strictly observable behavior. Cognitive I ; theory has a developmental base in that it emphasizes sequential 6 ■steps through which mature intelligence emerges. It posits i ! that human beings actively construct their knowledge by inter- i • !acting, assimilating, and accommodating frith their environment, iIn other words, the cognitive psychologist shifts focus from the product to the process, positing an underlying cognitive structure j to explain observable behavior.'*'® Rohman and Wlecke' s "Pre-Writing’ : . The Construction and Appli- l cation of Models for Concept Formation in Writing" (196*+) was the first study to describe writing as a process, showing-continuous change through time like organic growth, but not until the work of researchers like Haig (The Composing Process of Twelfth Graders, ,1971), Stallard ("An Analysis of the Writing Behavior of Good , Student Writers," RTE, 197*0, Flower and Hayes ("Problem-Solving .(Strategies and the Writing Process," CE 1977) , Perl ("Composing jProcesses of Unskilled College Writers," RTE 1979), Pianko ("A jDescription of the Composing Processes of College Freshman Writers, |RTE 1979), and Sommers ("Revision Strategies of Student Writers | and Experienced Adult Writers,"'- CCC 1980) 'did writing viewed'as a jprocess gain pedagogical importance. These important theorists I i ; merit a closer look, with particular attention paid to their no- } tions about planning (or pre-writing), since that is my s'tudy's ' focus. 1 t Early theorists of writing as a process formulated a "stage" | (model. Rohman and Wlecke posited a three-stage composing process model consisting of pre-writing, writing, and re-writing. Basical ly, in their model, everything before putting pen to paper is pre writing, and everything after is writing or re-writing. Rohman's primary interest was in the pre-writing' stage because, he argued, it was crucial to the success of any writing that occurs later, and , because it was seldom given the attention it deserved. In their re search, project, Rohman and Wlecke explore pre-writing as a stage of (discovery where the writer "assimilates" his. subject. They isolated and described the principle of this assimilation and defined it. as a ; writer setting out in apparent ignorance of - what she is groping -for or trying to say, yet recognizing it when she finds it. It's as if ' the writer knew her subject all along, but needed a heuristic process to discover it. ' Rohman and Wlecke employed three pre-writing methods' ■ to help students, assimilate a subject: the keeping of a journal, ' the practice of principles derived from religious, meditation, and the use of analogy. Their study developed a course emphasizing pre- writing, and their students' essays showed a statistically significant superiority to essays produced in control selections. But more im- ■ portantly for composition theory, Rohman and Wlecke's work shifted the focus from end-product to the process the student underwent. The j stage emphasis that they placed on their model is understandable ( given the assumptions, on which their work was based: a. Thinking must be distinguished 'from writing. b. In terms of cause and effect, thinking precedes writing. (my underlining)' c. Good thinking can produce good writing; and, con versely, without good thinking, good writing is im possible. • - ; d. Good thinking does not always lead to good writing; but bad thinking can never lead to good writing. e. A failure to make a proper distinction between 'thinking* and writing has led to a fundamental misconception which undermines so many of our best efforts in teaching writing: if we train students how to recognize an example of good prose ('the rhetoric of the finished word'), we have given them a basis on which to build their own writing abili ties. All we have done, in fact, is to give them standards to judge the goodness or badness of their finished effort. We haven't really taught them how to make that effort.^ The composing stages Rohman and Wlecke posited in 19^ set a pre cedent for succeeding composition researchers, and other stage models, essentially differing only in terminology, arose. For example, in The Development of Writing Abilities 11-18 by James Britton et al, a chapter called "The Process of Writing" discusses three stages of writing: conception, incubation , and production. Conception, the way a writer explains to himself what he must do, is completed when the writer knows that he is going to write and has formed an idea of what is expected of him. The incubation stage is a planning period where the writer considers and rejects ideas, and the production stage is when the writer actually writes and rewrites. The parallels between Britton and Rohman and Wlecke are clear, though Britton's model devotes two stages to the time before words are written on the page. Interestingly, Britton points out in his discussion that it’s difficult, in retrospect, to separate the three stages. And he cautions us to remember that no matter how writing in production shapes thought and modifies our conception (.and it is important to notice that it does), pre- 1 P writing cannot,he ignored. Britton, therefore, not only departs from a product approach, hut also recognizes the significance of the pre-writing stage. Another example of a composing process model that employs stages is the one developed by Donald Murray for the 1975 Buffalo Conference on Researching Composing (.later published in. Cooper. and Odell' s Research on Composing, 1978). He proposes three new-terms to describe composing: prevision, vision and revision. Murray explains: "Of course, writing will, at times, seem to skip over one part of the writing process and linger on another, and the stages of the process also overlap. The writing process is too ex perimental and exploratory to be contained in a rigid definition; writers move back and forth through all stages of the writing pro cess as they search for meaning and then attempt to clarify.it... I am convinced, however, that most writers most of the time pass through the following distinct stages.". Murray's stage model is clearly a transitional one; the implications for a new model with out "distinct" stages are obvious. Like Rohman and Wlecke, and Britton, Murray was a composing process theorist with a model that would be considerably refined as research continued. Janet Emig's seminal work, The Composing Process of Twelfth ; Graders, 1971, was the first case study of student writers. Its ' chief value perhaps is its assumption that "persons, not mechan- .isms" compose. Emig. hoped, to capture a "process in process" with « her case study, and in so doing provided probably the first con vincing data for a process theory model. Emig formulated four hy potheses about eight twelfth graders’ accounts of their writing and their writing behavior: 1. Twelfth grade writers engage in two modes of composing — reflexive and extensive— characterized by processes of different lengths with' different clusterings of components. ■’ i n ' 2. These differences can be ascertained and characterized through having twelfth-grade writers compose aloud— that Is, attempting to externalize their processes of composing. 3. In the composing process of twelfth-grade writers, an implied or an explicit set of stylistic principles governs the arrangement and selection of components— lexical, syntactic,, rhetorical, imagaic. U. For twelfth-grade writers extensive writing occurs chiefly as a school-sponsored activity; reflexive, as a self-sponsored activity. ; The crucial distinction in this study is between what are presented here as the two dominant modes of composing among older secondary- school students: the reflexive and the extensive. The reflexive mode is defined as the mode that focuses upon the writer's thoughts and feelings concerning his experiences; the chief audience is the : writer himself; the domain explored is often the affective, the style is tentative, personal, and exploratory. The extensive mode is defined as the mode that focuses upon the writer's conveying a message of a communication to another; the domain explored is usu ally the cognitive; the style is assured, impersonal, and often reportorial. Emig found that reflexive, or self-sponsored writing, is a longer, more complicated process with much more attention • given to pre-writing, continuity (students stop and start at dis cernible moments) and the aesthetic merit of their work. In the reflexive mode, students are not operating under an imposed time limit and tend to allow themselves more time to think before wri ting. "Able student writers voluntarilty do little or no formal written prefiguring, such as a formal outline, for pieces of school- sponsored writing of 500 or fewer words. For self-sponsored wri-' ting, especially the writing of poetry, the students in the sample lk do no written prefiguring. Emig cautions us that this doesn't mean the students do not operate from a plan, because when ques tioned immediately before writing, almost all of the features and components of the students' work seemed present. Like Rohman, Emig stresses the importance of prewriting, particularly in the reflexive mode. Prewriting in this mode is longer because the re flexive writer's "engagement with the field of discourse is at once committed and exploratory. The self is the chief audience— or oc casionally a trusted peer...the (extensive writer's) attitude toward the field of discourse is often detached and reportorial. Adult others, notably teachers, are the chief audience for extensive 1 writing.Thus the context of writing (including audience, pur pose and setting) influences the attitudes toward and time spent in writing. Emig recommends that teachers develop a wider range of writing possibilities for their students by including the reflexive mode in teaching rather than oversimplifying writing by implying that the extensive mode, with its formalized, criticizable^ product is the only method of composition. Here data imply that composition teachers are more interested in a product they can criticize rather ■ than a process they can help initiate and sustain, and that changes 'need to be made in teacher priorities and methods, and in compo sition texts. Emig's data reveals a sequence of acts that characterize the writing process, but argues that writing is not strictly an assem bly line operation. • She implies that the process of writing is a : series of discoveries or "steps" which come in response to a par ticular situation, not in any unalterable order. It seems as if at the moment of conception of the stage model.of the composing pro cess, qualifiers that denied strict stages in the model were men- , tioned. In 191k, C. K. Stallard noted that "analyses of the processes ' of writing are"limited to a small number of studies, most of which 1 do not come to grips with the problem-of cognitive processes. It is difficult to observe and analyze cognitive activity of any kind; there is a tendency to view all creative activity with rev erent awe and attribute mystical characteristics to it.""^ In order to begin debunking some of this awe and mysticism, Stallard studied fifteen high school seniors who were "good" writers Chased on the STEP Writing Test) and compared them with fifteen, randomly selected, average seniors. He found that good writers spent more time pre^wr^i'tlhgf and, were 'flower, writers' In''gen> eral, frequently contemplating, re-reading and revising what they had written. Hypothesizing a link between contemplation and con ceptualization, Stallard concluded that "writing may in itself be an act of perceptualization and conceptualization...The repeated behavior of contemplating the evolving message suggests the writer feels the need to take note of what is evolving on the page., to ' "1 Q experience it for himself" Stallard's study is significant in that it substantiates some of the earlier claims, like Emig’s, that composing is a process that, evolves peculiarly and individually rather than in an orderly, uniform way as product theory had suggested. The work of Rohman, Emig, and Stallard represents the ear liest gropxngs for an adequate process model. More recently, Flower and Hayes, the best known of present researchers who'have been seeking to modify existing stage models, have developed a model that incorporates the notions of flexibility and simultaneity only hinted at by previous research and theory. In a chapter of Cognitive Processes in Writing, they argue that considering com posing as a series of discrete stages creates composing process models that are inadequate. Stage process models have little to say about the act of writing itself because they are based not on a study of the process of writing but on the product. One suspects that they separate thinking (pre-writing) and writing into separate stages because from the outside observer's point of view thinking and writing clearly differ: one mode creates a product whereas the other only produces troubled brows. And yet, the experience of writers rarely supports this tidy sequencing of stages. * The alternately backward and forward movement writers experience while composing, and the frequent simultaneity or overlap of the stages researchers previously articulated, resulted in a new the-, oretical model, the recursive model, which refined the earlier stage.model. When Rohman and Wlecke wrote that thinking and writing must be distinguished, they did not, I think, imply that thinking and writing could not go on at the same time, nor that once writing was begun thinking was over. Emig and Stallard's work clearly * S lays groundwork for a recursive model. In light of the "stage" models I have discussed', Flower and Hayes'claim that stage process models are based on a study of the product and hence have little to say about the act of writing, may be too restrictive. There is no doubt, however, about the importance of recursiveness in under standing the writing process as the inadequacy of viewing composing ^as a series of discrete steps has "been demonstrated by a number of important studies. Sondra Perl undertook a detailed description of the composing processes of. unskilled college writers to discover what patterns, if any, existed. Her tables of coded composing behaviors revealed ;that students displayed consistent composing behavior; pre-writing, writing, and editing appeared in sequential patterns that were rec ognizable across writing sessions' and across students. This is not ^to say, however, that any pattern is fixed, for Perl noted recursive movements at many points during the composing process. Composing isn't linear; it’s a "retrospective structuring" which, Perl ex plains, occurs when a writer returns to substrands of the whole processes, or subroutines Cshort successions of steps that yield results on which the writer draws in taking the next set of steps); t and, by virtue of these substrands and routines, moves forward. :The process of retrospective structuring is based on "felt sense"— iimages, words, ideas, and vague feelings. Writers who are pausing, going back and repeating key words are really waiting, paying atten- 1tion to what is vague and unclear. Perl says they are drawing on their felt experience and waiting for an image or a word that captures this "sense" they have. Her description of the process follows: Once we have worked at shaping, through language, what is there inchoately, we can look at what we have written to see if it adequately captures what we intended. Often at this moment discovery occurs. We see>something new in our writing that comes upon us as a surprise. We see in our words a further structuring of the sense we began- with and we recognize that in those words we have discovered something new about ourselves and our topic. Thus when we are successful at this process, we end up with a pro duct that teaches us something, that clarifies what we know (.or what we knew at one point only implicitly), and that lifts out or explicates or enlarges our experience. In this way, writing leads to discovery. Perl's study offers us one of the clearest descriptions of the thinking component of composing. Stage models saw the discovery of ideas and plans as occurring before actual writing takes place and labeled that period as "pre-writing." However, the prefix "pre" is no longer appropriate is we agree that this "discovery" can occur throughout composing, indeed because of composing. Resear chers such as Flower and Hayes refer to "planning" or the "planning component" of composing since this term can be used to refer to any time prior to, during, Cor even after writing) when thoughts about the writing itself and its progress are generated. However, some of the research in the following discussion continues to use "pre- writing" and I have not altered these references. Sharon Pianko's "Description of the Composing Processes of' College Freshman Writers" described the composing processes of freshman writers to discover differences between remedial and tra ditional writers. The student writers■she studied were given five • writing assignments.over a period of five weeks. They wrote in an IT 'enclosed room, other students were present, the writing had to he completed in one afternoon, and they were videotaped at least once. Pianko observed several composing behaviors: pre-writing (what occurs from the moment writers receive the assignment until they put their first, words on paper), planning (the setting of paramet- i ers, general or specific, for the composition to be written; plan- ' ning behavior can be mental, written, or both), composing (what occurs during the writing of the text including pausing— a break in the actual writing for the purpose of thinking (filled) or for diversion (unfilled), rescanning— a rereading of a few words or sentences, and when writers may revise and/or contemplate what-'-, . they're writing). The next major behaviors observed were rereading (rereading the entire script to see what has been accomplished), stopping (when students think they have written all they can)con- 21 templating the finished product, and handing in of the product. ) Pianko found that pre-writing behavior was brief (mean pre-writing time was 1.26 minutes) and that most of the planning was done men- ■ tally. All subjects did the bulk of their planning during composing She further concluded that an underdeveloped composing process, a I lack of ability to reflect on what is being written, is character- I istic of poor writers. Most significant for the developing pro cess model, Pianko’s study illustrated that the composing behaviors she observed functioned simultaneously and recursively. In a later article, "Reflection:.- A Critical Component of the Composing Process," Pianko again took up the key issue of reflection and noted that the act of reflection, which is "behaviorally manifested as pauses and rescannings and heretofore ignored as a component of the composing process, is the singlemost significant aspect of the composing process revealed by this study. it is reflection which stimulates the growth of consciousness in students about the numerous mental and linguistic strategies they command and about the many lexical, syntactical, organizational choices they make— 22 many of which occur simultaneously— during the act of composing."-~ Pianko*s attention to reflection is especially important, because it is an activity that in this study'may be incorporated -under the general heading of planning. Nancy Sommers, whose research.has focused on revision, has' also argued effectively against linear models of composition and - ‘ . 23 calls a linear model Cor strict stage model), a parody of writing. Her conclusion is based on a comparative study of the revision strat egies of student writers and experienced adult writers, in which she concluded that revision strategies of experienced writers are really part of the process of discovering meaning. For student writers, writing is translating thought to the page and when they revise they make lexical, but not semantic, changes. This is, she hypothesizes, because students have been taught a linear model of composing— they use a thesis statement as a controlling device in their introductory paragraphs. Since they usually write .thesis statements and introductory paragraphs before they have ; discovered -what they want to say, this close attention to the the sis statement and the linear model restricts idea development and possible change of ideas. They are stifled almost before they have begun. Experienced writers, on the other hand, use revising to • find the shape of their argument; first drafts are unfocused attempt to feel their way. One experienced writer she studied said, "I have learned from experience that I need to keep writing a first .draft until I figure out what I . want to say." Sommers noted that . experienced writers' theories of revision seem to operate holistical ly and recursively.' The experienced writers see their revision process as a recursive process— a process with significant recurring activities— with different levels of attention and different agenda i , for each cycle. During the first revision cycle their attention is primarily directed towards narrowing the topic and delimiting their I ideas. At this point, they are not as concerned as they are later . about vocabulary and style. The experienced writers explained that ’ they get closer to their meaning by not limiting themselves too : early to lexical concerns. As one writer commented to explain her revision process, a comment inspired by the summer 1977 New York , | power failure: "I-feel like Con Edison cutting off certain states to keep the generators going. In first and second drafts, I try . to cut off as much as I can of my editing generator, and in a third ;draft, I try to cut off some of my idea generators, so I can make ; 2k .sure that I actually finish the essay." Sommers’ findings add to the growing stockpile of "recursive" model evidence, and her work is especially important in demonstrating the existence of a planning component throughout composing. Revision is just that— a re-vision or re-seeing of text, and that re-seeing affects, chan nels , and is_ planning.. These investigations into the composing process in its entire ty or attempts to create a process model are complemented hy a num ber of more particularistic studies. These studies zero in on more specific aspects of composing in an attempt to further delimit the ■ process. Recent studies that have dealt exclusively with pre-writing behavior are very rare, but there are several that concentrate on text generation and revision. Donald Murray has gathered some illum inating anecdoctal evidence from the comments and writings of sev eral professional authors and concludes that there are five stages in pre-writing: resistance to writing, increasing amount of infor- I mation and concern-about a subject, awareness of audience and dead lines, rehearsal, and writing. Of the five stages, he posits that ' rehearsal for writing is 'the most interesting. Productive writers i , are in a constant state of rehearsal; usually an unwritten mental | dialogue begins rehearsal and it evolves into informal notes, lists, outlines, titles, leads, ordered fragments— all sketches of what may be written later. For the experienced-writer, pre-writing heads toward closure, 'or a way to handle a diffuse and/or overwhelming collection of data. Murray mentions eight principle signals to which writers respond: genre, point of view, voice, news, line, image, pattern, and problem. The title of Ms study, "Write Before Writing," is revealing. Although the "writ'ing" that goes on before writing may not involve pen or paper, it involves the perceptual and conceptual behavior of the writer. . Although Murray has restric ted himself to the planning that goes on during pre-writing, he provides us with some interesting descriptions of that composing component. We may speculate that much of what he describes can go on during writing as well. Ann Matsuhasi's exhaustive catalog of student writing behavior captured on video tape, "Pausing and Planning: The Tempo of Writ ten Discourse Production,"‘ explored the influence of discourse pur pose on text generation. In her study, Matsuhasi.hypothesized that pausing during writing offers clues to the cognitive planning pro- , cesses of four skilled high school students who each wrote for three different purposes: to report, to persuade, and to general ize. She found that persuasion and generalization were more time- consuming . than reporting and that they required a global overview rather than the step-by-step process of reporting. More important ly, she demonstrated that highly abstract sentences (ones where ideas were'- being altered or expanded) required much' more planning ■ time than those sentences that add support or detail. Matsuhasi found an overall mean pause of*U.35 seconds. Since all the pauses she measured were during composing, and not before, her research validates the assumptions and intuitions of many theorists who have speculated about why writers pause. In 1980 Lillian Bridwell reported the results of an analysis of 6,129 revisions in' 100 twelfth graders' essays both during compo sing and between drafts. She found surface and word level revisions to be most frequent, and four times as many of them occurred at in-process stages as between drafts. The patterns that emerged suggest the students wrote to find out what they had to say and how to say it. Bridwell notes: That the writers revised substantially more during the in-process, stage implies that they were more inclined to alter what they had written as they were evolving, a draft than, when they re-read a completed draft. This inclination could be accounted for either (l) by a commitment to the content and form of expression once the immediate task was over, ive., once the students had man aged to produce a draft, and/or (2) by the exploratory and tentative nature of in-process development of the essay. This latter interpretation provides support for the explanations of writing and the revising process as 'writing to discover what one has to say.' During stops in the writing process, the writer rescans and rereads. In so doing he verifies or perceives dissonance; veri fication results in termination or continuation, while dissonance leads to a decision to change, stop or con tinue without alteration. According to Bridwell, this recursive, looping process occurs til all dissonance is resolved or the writer just stops. The perception of and response to dissonance is surely one of the most influential, jrecurring events in'composing. How. dissonance affects planning and what forms the dissonance may take are potentially vital issues for the study of writing apprehension. Bridwell also noted important differences "between better and poorer writers. Some of the better . writers' had internalized conventions-which enabled them to produce high quality.drafts with few revisions, while others who wrote well were among those who revised most. Poorer, writers either revised i little or only at surface levels. Another researcher who has focused on the revision process is | Richard Beach, who studied the self-evaluation behavior of extensive revisers who revised for content and form and of non-revisers— those , t who revised just for mechanics. Beach's informal study drew on 26 juniors and seniors, at the University of Minnesota who wrote drafts • and then taped self-evaluations after each draft. He noted that of- : ten the students' concepts of revising reflected teacher and text book conceptions of revising as final polishing of wording and mechanics. He argued that revision ought to be, more properly, holistic. Writing is, as one of his students put it, a thinking process in ink, and substantive revision necessitates running the text back through for another look; changes in thought, as well as I 1 changes in spelling, may occur. i * ' ■ The body of composing process research to date shows a rapid ; evolution from early beliefs that writing was a predictable affair. | The traditional text "book assumes that there is a step-by-step, • linear development of written communication and that once students 1 have been given these "plans" for writing, all their composing , problems, will he solved. This model assumes a constantly forward- 1 moving progress and, more importantly, that a writer always knows . what he wants to say before he begins writing. The product-based model does not account for a change of plan in mid-composition or for .the backward motion that often characterizes writing.• Research into the composing process during the last twenty years has established the complex, non-mechanical nature of the composing process. The t pedagogical result of this new view of composing has been to empha- , size the process of writing rather than the finished product, to establish a supportive classroom environment, and to develop a work- . shop setting where the instructor is more collaborator than evalua- , tor Can indirect teaching role). As part of a research project I ! conducted at■Queens College, CUNY, John Clifford created two compo- i sition courses, an experimental course and a control course that reflect this change in teaching philosophy. His table titled "A Comparison of Treatments" neatly illustrates the difference between the old and new methods. Experimental Control , 1. Writing was considered a 1. Only finished products were process that encouraged considered; assignments meaning to evolve were turned in, evaluated ; as drafts were written in • and-returned for optional i response to feedback. revision. • 2. Instructors were facilitators, 2. Instructors were teachers resources, model writers and and evaluators, learners. 3. The text was the writing generated by the class. k. The class sat in three groups . of six: ■ 5. Students collaborated with each other and the instructor. 6. There was no pre-teaching; instruction occurred'during the composing and in response to inquiries. . 7. Authority was shared. ■ 8. The primary audience was the writer's group. 3. Commercial texts were used for examples, drills .and reference. U. Students sat in rows. 5. The instructor was the sole, teacher. 6. Instructors set up guide lines for organizing, dev eloping and editing compo sitions . 7. The instructor was the sole authority. 8. The audience was the instructor. ; 9- Revision was an on-going pro cess at each stage of composing. 10. Revised student essays were put into folders ungraded. ‘ Evaluation was determined by an elected class committee that read each folder holis- tically before assigning grades. 9. Revision occurred after the paper was submitted. 10. Instructors made correc tions and suggestions, ; wrote a brief overall ’ summary, and assigned a ; letter grade to each piece , of work. These were aver aged for a final grade. ; Ross Winterowd's statement in 1976 that our knowledge about the ' composing process was primitive*^ remains applicable today; there are : many gaps in our understanding of how writing works. For example, ; there has been very little research in the area of pre-writing, in j influences on an individual's manner and progress in composing, and 26 ,on environmental and/or historical factors that affect writing. . The recursive nature of the process has been adequately demonstrated in recent years, hut recursiveness, as the principal component of an ;adequate composing process model, is even now being added to. A new. theoretical base has been posited and studies that support it :are close at hand. I am speaking of descriptions of the writing process drawing on modern linguistics, speech act theory, and read- • * . -ing theory, and based on language as transaction. In "The Language Transaction," Winterowd defines writing or>a text as a set of in structions for constructing a meaning. According'to'Winterowd, "lit- 1eracy is profoundly transactive. Transactive in the relatively 'trivial sense that a writer creates a text endowed with a potential for meaning, and that a reader must construct that meaning from ■ ; signals that make up the text, but transactive also in a deeper [sense: the writer creates the reader, and the reader recreates the ' 28 .writer." The idea that the composing process is a transaction modifies the recursive process model in that it emphasizes the reci procity of the writing act. This new. focus of study incorporates ' audience or reader in a way mentioned primarily in the work of the i linguist, speech act theorist or reading theorist.^ As Louise Phelps ‘ explains: < ' The comprehension of meaning in written discourse thus I involves a correlation between cognitive acts and a text, ; in which there is an indeterminate though not unlimited | degree of freedom on the part of the reader. From this point of view, an instance of written language is a high ly complex set of cues which mediate between acts: the writer's act of interpreting or construing meaning as directed by the text.^O The study of the construction, projection, arid apprehension of meaning in the transaction that is language is.the most current approach to understanding the composing process. Dorothy Augustine has constructed a model that uses some of. the prevailing philosophy of language (like that voiced by Winterowd and Phelps) very graph ically. Her view of composing is one which is "synonomous'^wihli every aspect of invention. For indeed the writer must invent everything— reader (pathos), himself (.ethos) and the subject matter (logos). . . in short, the writer's job is to compose the tacit presuppositions which.he and the reader bring to their present and future under standing of each other and the subject matter which is being com- 0*1 municated. The concept of writing as a language transaction is explicit in her statement and her model. Augustine's model repre sents the complexity, circuitousness, and infinite variety of any one composing process, or "psycholinguistic guessing game" as she calls it. The key aspect of her model (based on modern linguistics) focuses on the cognitive process that is the writing process. In her own words, "any user of the language (writer/speaker/reader) operates in two dimensions simultaneously, the surface representa- OO tion and the underlying form." Augustine1s model follows: S U B J E C ! (X ) to he com posed C o m m u n ic a tio n u n in te llig ib le m a tch \D J U S T re la tio n sh ip s f m e a n in g !, m eanings, and p e rfo rm a tiv e stance P R E S U P P O S E ! IO N I p erspe ctive of addresser to X (m e a n in g o f X i ) p r e s u p p o s i t i o n I perspective o f addressee to X (m ea ning o f Xs CHOOSE p e rto rm a tn e stance: assert advise I (re p o rt (t<) you).. addressee s lo n g -te rm possible a tc h m e m o r v o f im age m e d iu m -te rm m e m o r\ addresser CHOOSE fo rm o r m ode lo ng -te rm m e m o rv o f p a rtic u la r and general audiences self-im age lo n g -te rm m e m o rv o f X FIX INTENTION l est a p p ro p riateness o f re la tio n s h ip s m e d iu m -te rm m e m o n addresser CHOOSE style code C O M P A R E i (.m a tch J E N C O D E F IX F R A M E R ecall m e a n in g i and m eanings ((I assert) m e d iu m -te rm m e m o ry (I a d v is e )). m a tch o f m ost choices & d ju s t- m ents c o m m u n ic a tio n u n in te llig ib le POSSIBLE MATCH o f c o m m u n ic a tio n cliches: o ld news I in te n tio n j V and fra m e / ✓ T C O M M U N I C A T I O N O F N E W S n e w m eaning fo r \ a dju st form m e m o rv Figure 1: Augustine's Model of the Composing Process Augustine's model looks very much like a computer programmer's flow chart. Depending on the individual writer, the situation, and the audience, different routes would he used to arrive at "communi cation of news." Augustine's sophisticated process model is state- of-the-art realism, hut it is sometimes difficult'to view the writing process globally within:" its. complex interrelations. - - The work of Linda Flower and John Hayes on the composing pro cess has resulted in a model that, integrates hoth global processes and composing suhprocesses. Flower and Hayes' process model of -composing accounts for the writer's memory, the writer's audience, a I ’variety of composing subprocesses (planning, translating, review ing), and the task environment outside the writer. In addition to their model reflecting the composing process in its entirety, Flower and Hayes have also constructed additional models., expansions that reflect particular subprocesses of the pro- .cess including the planning component. Within that component, the model they have constructed to reflect "generating" is important since it is during the generating component of composing that wri ters concentrate on discovering ideas for writing. It is important to note that Flower and Hayes do not consider how factors other than memory and the writing assignment affect or modify planning ’and generating. An examination of the Flower and Hayes’ models, which follow, shows that the two factors that feed into the plan- , ning component are the Writer's Long Term Memory (Knowledge of Topic-,- JKnowledge of Audience, Stored Writing Plans) and the Writing Assign ment (Topic, Audience, Motivating Cues). The components I am most 33 .interested in in the more inclusive model have heavy borders. THE WRITER'S LONG TERM MEMORY Knowledge of Topic Knowledge of Audience Stored W riting Plans TASK ENVIRONMENT W RITING ASSIGNMENT TEXT Topic PRODUCED Audience SO FAR M otivating Cues PLA N N IN G z ORGANIZING i - a: GOAL LU SETTING TRANSLATING T R E V IE W IN G REAOING I EDITING MONITOR Figure 2: The/;SQjhppsirig'"Process Model GENERATING F A IL SUCCEED Y E S NOT USEFUL NO ELEMENT E X IT USETUL CONSIDER NOTE NO YES G O A L* GENERATE Y E S ^ G O A L * GENERATE? EVALUATE R E TR IE VE D RETRIEVED ELEM ENT »CURRENT MEMORY PROBE CURRENT MEMORY RETRIEVE USING PROBE MEMORY PROBE WITH REPLACE CURRENT NEW PROBE Figure 3: Generating Subprocess Model E X IT ! Flower and Hayes1 have developed the fullest model "based on a recursive view of composing. Since it is the most inclusive, ac- ■ counting for more influences on composing and composing subprocesses than any other model, it is best-suited for use in this study. For example, the Flower and Hayes’ model considers'writinggin the con text of the task environment, which includes the writing assignment and the "text produced so far." This text-in-progress component iss ; particularly important because it incorporates the current theory ■ that writing evolves in response to what has just appeared on the , page and that writers respond to what they have just produced and re viewed. Flower and Hayes' model also accounts for the interaction between writer and audience as well as writer and text. The re- ■ search hasrshown that both of these interactions are crucial to an 'understanding of composing. .And lastly,'the Flower and Hayes' model, ; which is constructed like a flow chart , accounts for the backward .or looping motion that characterizes writing. . In "Problem Solving Strategies and the Writing Process" Flower • and Hayes described writing behavior through protocol analysis Ctaped transcripts of writers asked to compose out loud), discover- 1 ing that some writers have very few thinking techniques to call on .while writing. Writing as problem-solving is the foundation for I . . the Flower and Hayes' model. In "The Cognition of Discovery: De- j fining a Rhetorical Problem," they outline the philosophy that lies !behind their problem-solving or discovery techniques. As they des- icrihe what is involved in the process of discovery we can visualize ;various components of their model. "A writer in the act of discovery t is. hard at work searching memory, forming concepts, and forging a new structure of ideas, while at the same time trying to juggle all the constraints imposed by his or her purpose, audience and language itself."^ Referring back to the writing model's three major divi sions. Ctask environment, long-term memory of the .writer and the wri- .ting process itself) the observer can imagine the writer at work, ■simultaneously recognizing (or failing to recognize) and dealing with iCor failing to deal with) topic, audience, the text produced thus far, goals, plans, editing concerns and so on. Put in these terms, it seems remarkable that writing happens,at all. The number of vari ables. that figure into the. composing-’ process are perhaps infinite and complexly interwoven, hence the models within models Flower and :Hayes have created. ! In summary, Flower and Hayes have posited a cognitive process ;theory of writing based on their belief that the process of writing 1 is best understood as a set of thinking processes which writers orchestrate during composing. These processes are hierarchical and highly embedded— any process might be embedded in any other. This embedding of an entire process within itself is recursiveness. In ,addition, composing is goal-directed and a network of goals grows :as a writer writes. Writers create goals by generating both high i ' level and supporting sub-,goals-, by' changing goals or e'stablishing new goals based on what they have learned by writing. Writing as discovery, writing as problem-solving, writing, as a recursive pro- ,cess, writing as an audience-directed phenomenon— all of these def initions, and others, are possible within the framework of the Flower tand Hayes' model. Yet with all the possibilities for a rich des cription and analysis of composing provided here, there are still ’ some unexplored issues. It is evident from the pedagogical sugges tions that Flower and Hayes make (setting up goals, brainstorming, freeing ideas, constructing for an audience, etc.) that the writer's attitudes toward writing in general and toward a particular assign ment are not taken into account. The composing process theory and research I have mentioned have , provided us with much information about writing and how it works," ; but there are three other research- areas that have also generated ■ theory and data pertinent to my study: research on writing appre- ; hension, research on apprehension in general and research on creativ- ! ity. I have relied heavily on the work of John Daly and Lynn Bloom, two important, names in writing apprehension research, in creating ; JDy definitions and directing my own work. These researchers have been concerned with proving the existence of writing apprehension, demonstrating its considerable influence, and showing how appre- |hensive writers differ from non-apprehensive writers. Since developing an empirically-based, standardized, Likert- . 'type questionnaire that identifies apprehensive writers, John Daly has completed nearly a dozen studies on aspects of writing apprehen- :sion. He has studied writing apprehension as a predictor of such diverse phenomena as message intensity, occupational choice, academic decisions, and writing competency. Daly's work is important in understanding the depth and breadth of the influence of writing apprehension— both of which are considerable. His research validates the general importance of apprehension as a factor in the composing process. He defines apprehension as a learned response. The highly apprehensive writer expects, due to a history of aversive responses, negative evaluations for writing attempts. This expectation likely becomes self-fulfilling. Fearing aversive consequences the high apprehensive writer avoids writing. . Avoidance of writing leads to less prac tice which in turn should result in lower evaluations... The attitude an individual holds towards the act of writing clearly affects both how he or she will write and how others will evaluate that writing.35 Results of Daly's first important study were reported in "Appre hension of Writing as a Predictor of Message Intensity," where he found that high apprehensives encoded significantly less intense : (intensity defined as.language indicating degree and direction of ;distance from neutrality) messages than did low apprehensives. Basing his study on the findings of psychologists'Burgoon, Jones, ,and Stewart, who demonstrated that people placed under cognitive !stress produce less intense communication, Daly concluded that high •apprehensives experienced more cognitive stress when placed in an ; active encoding situation. In a later" study (.Daly and Miller 1975b) he found that SAT scores did not correlate with apprehension (both good and poor scorers were apprehensive), and that high apprehensives had much lower success expectations, were much less willing to take advanced writing courses, felt much less successful about past wri ting courses and were more often male. Daly and Miller'concluded . . .that a predisposition towards writing may not be effectively mea sured by standard aptitude tests; attitudinal variables are not , accounted for in aptitude tests. Daly and Shamo (l976) found that ; high apprehensives chose jobs with few writing requirements and that (academic decisions were a function of writing apprehension (1978); high apprehensives chose majors with few writing requirements. In , , f The Effects of Writing Apprehension on Message Encoding" (l977)» Daly found that high apprehensives encode messages lower in per ceived quality and write significantly less words. Daly demonstrat- ed'that writing apprehension and behaviors associated with it could serve as important determinants of teacher judgments— high appre- . hensives, students who wrote, unwillingly-.or anxiously, were evalu ated less favorably (.1979). Furthermore, students with high appre- ! hension performed significantly'worse than students with low apprehension on an objective writing skills test (1978b) and also on essay tests (Faigley, Daly, and Witte, 1981). . And finally, Daly and Wilson (.1981) found that writing apprehension and general self esteem are inversely related. This mass of data demonstrates the depth and the breadth of the influence of writing apprehension with regard to a number of other behaviors and events. Daly shows that writing apprehension is important in decision-making as well as performance and is gen erally correlated with a poor self-image. It is important to note that Daly's research points exclusively at the negative effects of apprehension on writing. Among the most important of Daly's con tributions to the study of writing apprehension is his notion that there are two basic kinds of apprehension (Daly and Hailey, 1980): dispositional and situational (very much like the trait-state dis tinction in psychology). He explains that some people are more apprehensive than others in enduring ways. His. questionnaire tests for this prevailing, more or •■less steady set of attitudes toward writing. This trait-like phenomenon, which is person-specific and ignores situations that a person might be in, is dispositional.appre hension. Situational apprehension is temporary and related to a specific set of events. The dispositionally low-apprehensive may be situationally apprehensive from time to time, and it is possible for a dispositionally high apprehensive person to be comfortable 'in certain situations. Daly posits five parameters of situations (evaluation, conspicuousness, ambiguity, novelty, and prior exper ience) as variables that may affect writing apprehension. The first variable implies that the greater level of perceived evaluation •present in the writing situation, the greater the apprehension. Peo ple in situations where evaluation is an important part of the writing ' task are much more anxious than they would be when no evaluation was 1 attached to the task. The second variable, novelty, has to do with .people feeling more apprehensive in unfamiliar writing, situations,. Previous experience often means strategies for coping have been de- , vised. Uncertainty lessens the likelihood of such.strategies. The situation's perceived ambiguity is the third variable.' Clarity in what is demanded creates less apprehension. When people don't know what is expected they are more likely to be apprehensive. Perceived ; conspicuousness, the fourth variable, relates to the visibility of ; the writing produced. When people feel others will view their work they are more apprehensive; privacy makes people less apprehensive. The fifth variable, previous experience, has to do with previous ; efforts on similar tasks. When they are successful, writers approach I : with less fear than when they have not been previously successful. j These five variables surrounding a writing task might be, singly 1 or in concert, responsible for ensuing apprehension. And repeated t experiences may ultimately result in dispositional apprehension. Discovering what factors, contribute to apprehension is necessary before specifying the operation and effects Of that apprehensive state--one task my study hopes to accomplish. But there is a con spicuous absentee, from Daly's five variable list. Psychological inquiry has demonstrated that there is a considerable amount of ap prehension and worry associated with discovering ideas in general, as my discussion of apprehension in general will demonstrate. "Plan ning" apprehension is another parameter that must be explored. The second important name in writing apprehension research is Lynn Bloom, who has made several informal studies of apprehensive writers in order to offer pedagogical advice to teachers with appre hensives in their classrooms. Bloom's most comprehensive study is titled "The Composing Processes of Anxious and Non-Anxious Writers: A Naturalistic Study." Through an anecdotal method (informal ques tioning, observation, and self-analysis of students), she discovered that some of the common problems (.for anxious writers) were the lack • of structured writing times, procrastination, and distractions. The writers who overcame their problems often needed help only in organ izing their writing tasks into discrete steps or in budgeting their time. Bloom's practical advice is based on a common sense, approach; she observed what worked and what didn't with her writing students. Bloom offers sound pedagogical advice, but her study does not des-r cribe how apprehension figures into cognitive processes related to (writing. Again, Her assumption is that apprehension is always to "be ! discouraged, remedied, even eradicated. In fact some of her case I studies were drawn from students who were enrolled in workshops to reduce writing apprehension. She notes that when teachers record naturalistic observations of writers at work, they invite self-evalu ation by anxious writers. These writers are encouraged to modify .work habits to streamline the writing process, decrease apprehension ;and "maybe even enjoy writing." She mentions that writing apprehen- i sion "plagues" between 10-25 percent of college students and cate- 'gorizes these students as intransigents (those who do not and will , not writing anything), intermediates (.those who can be helped to do some kinds of writing, but not others), and the fully responsive Cthose who will eventually write anything, often with gusto). Bloom ' recommends thoughtful teaching, an encouraging atmosphere, and upbeat i comments on papers— counters to previous bad experiences with writing. 'In her comparison study with non-apprehensive writers, she found t i that they (.non-apprehensives) enjoy what they're doing, are more Jpurposeful, and control how they behave as well as what they write. Bloom's conclusion gives the best picture of her philosophy of .writing apprehension: Thus an examination of the varied composing processes ; of anxious and non-anxious writers can tell us a great deal : about writing that is useful both theoretically and peda- gogically. It can show discrepancies between the writer's ; perception of the effectiveness of his composing process ! and the reality, or it can reaffirm their congruence. It t can show anxious writers how to work more efficiently and' effectively, which should help them to. enjoy writing more fully. It can reinforce the capabilities and control of anxious and non-anxious writers alike. In such control lies maturity, the,"aim of any education. £ All of Bloom’s work focuses on pedagogy-— what we can do to help apprehensive writers write more fluently. In addition to the seminal work done by Daly and Bloom there are two other studies on apprehension worthy of mention. Roy Fox i compared the effects of traditional . ' . ( ’ control)/and workshop*f(,experimen tal) instruction on writing apprehension. He hypothesized that high apprehensives in the experimental group would report a significant ireduction in apprehension (measured by pre and post Writing Appre- hension Test Scores (Daly and Miller, 1975') ) and that the control i : group would retain original levels of apprehension. Fox also hy pothesized that the experimental group would score significantly higher than the control group on post-test compositions and would also write longer compositions than the control group. He found that students’ fear of writing can be significantly reduced using either ! method, but that it occurred at’a faster rate in the experimental ‘ workshop. Also the experimental treatment produced writing at least as proficient, but not .more proficient than the writing produced ; by conventional instruction. These results are interesting because ' they suggest that if the type of instruction is not a significant i factor in reducing apprehension, perhaps it is also not a significant :factor in initiating apprehension as well. Fox concludes by cau tioning us not to indoctrinate students with false or sugar-coated notions about their own abilities as a means of reducing apprehen sion. It is possible that a reduction of apprehension accomplished ; through that method may not only be immoral (as Fox says), but "also self-defeating if we pay attention to psychological research on anxiety. Another pertinent study in apprehension is one conducted by , speech communication researcher Michael Hyde. Although oral commun ication anxiety (variously called stage fright, reticence, unwilling . ness to communicate and communication apprehension) is not synony mous with writing apprehension, there are some undeniable relation ships between.the two. These connections make it reasonable to consider Michael Hyde's work in speech communication along with . Daly’s, Bloom’s, and Fox’s. Hyde conducted an phenomenological investigation of the experience of - apprehension. He notes that most research emphasizes a cause-and-effect relationship between appre- ‘ hension and communicative ability; the more anxious the person the ! less likely he will perform acceptably. Presupposing a phenomenon ; as a cause when studying its effects presents a problem, according to Hyde, and clouds the ontological nature of the phenomenon. Appre 1 hension may not be a cause of communication problems, but may be a , reaction to one’s perception of such problems. Hyde's claim is that studying communicative problems to put an end to apprehension i Is. useful, but still avoids the apprehension itself. In order to examine exactly what anxiety is, Hyde uses an ontological analysis based on Heidegger's Being and Time. Heidegger's! "Dasein" (Being- , There or. Being-ln-the-World). is the focus of Hyde's analysis, in ■ which, he concludes that in-'anxiety Dasein confronts the issue of |what, it means to be. Anxiety is.not part of this "being." One , . .. . ■ cannot be cured of that which does not yet exist and an apprehen- l , sive person is. threatened by nothing real, but only the future pos sibilities which the person can become. But if anxiety can be turned into fear (assuming the anxiety hasn't yet been associated with a specific fear) then it can be avoided, changed, or condi tioned against. Another approach, for treating anxiety, centers on ;ontological awareness, or illustrating that the experience, of anxiety * is an inevitable occurrence of human existence. In other words, facing facts ameliorates anxiety. Hyde's recommendations reflect 'phenomenological truths, but they, like- those of Bloom,' Daly, and ! Fox, operate on the assumption that apprehension is an illness ! needing to be cured. • Writer's block, although not synonymous, with writing appre- 1hension, may be one of its outcomes. Therefore, it is important to mention recent research here. Xn a very thorough and insight- ; ful research study, Mike Rose explores "The Cognitive Dimension of ; Writer's Block: An Examination of University Students." He notes , at the outset that "even though writer's "block is a familiar, even popular notion, it is one of the least studied dysfunctions of the composing process . .. . writer's "block has never "been the object of the educator's scrutiny; it -is perceived as a mysterious, amorphous : emotional difficulty, not as a delimitable problem that can be anal yzed, and then remedied through instruction and tutorial programs. Rose's medical metaphor is not by chance— he views a blocker as a ’ writer in ill-health, and blocking as a sickness that interrupts iwriting. Rose describes two conditions of blocking: editing pre- * i ■maturely and lacking interpretive and writing strategies for dealing . with complex material. But those conditions' aren't all that separated the blockers from the non-blockers. Rose says, "It wasn't skill; that was held fairly, constant? The^answer (to what separated bloc- i . kers from non-blockers) could've rested in the emotional realm-^- anxiety, fear of evaluation, insecurity, etc. Or perhaps blocking i in some way resulted from variation in cognitive style. Perhaps, I ■ too, blocking originated in and typified a melding of emotion and , cognition not unlike the relationship posited by Shapiro between o D , neurotic feeling and neurotic thinking." Rose's comments on block ing are important to a study of writing apprehension for two reasons: | he attempts to find differences between blockers and non-blockers, I and since blocking is one possible manifestation of apprehension, ■ such a distinction is valuable; secondly, he identifies activities : that are non-productive ones in blockers, providing me with a means 'of examining apprehensive writers who are, perhaps, unproductive for similar reasons, and most importantly, for identifying appre- hensives who do not exhibit blocker's non-productive behavior and are still-not writing. > The research in writing apprehension shows there are environ- . mental, motivational, sociological, and emotional variables that come into play in creating apprehension. This complex and common ■ phenomenon is explained exclusively in a negative light by the wri ting apprehension researcher.- The overwhelming belief, to date, ; that apprehension is self-defeating behavior needs examination, particularly in light of modern theories of anxiety and creativity. Writing apprehension, though a uniquely conceived and mani fested attitude with equally unique accompanying behavior, is closely related to a fundamental human emotion— anxiety. One body of theory sees the major source of man's anxiety to be his conscience; people ’ acquire a system of what they know to be right and wrong. When this internal censor-clashes with unconscious desires and impulses, the personality is divided— apprehension, tension, and restlessness oc curs . Another theory holds that the most important source of anxiety I is the disapproval, or fear of disapproval of others, particularly 39 : those most important in an adult's life. All theorists agree that ‘ anxiety is generalized and extended. People learn to fear not only the stimulus, but the circumstances within which it is experienced , and can “ become anxious even when such behavior is unwarranted. Daly has drawn on a distinction made "by psychological theory when he distinguishes between dispositional and situational writing appre-. hension. State anxiety (a transitory state characterized by sub jective, consciously perceived feelings of tension that may vary in intensity and fluctuate over time) and trait anxiety (a rela- ’ tively stable individual difference in anxiety proneness; high trait ! persons have state anxiety more.often) have been identified. (And perhaps most important, it has been found that even a single suc- . I | _ 0 cess experience affects anxiety favorably.) This theory provides , a framework within which individual anxiety variables may be clas- i sified and suggests the interrelationships among them. Anxiety • may operate out of control, and in some cases it does. But man's ‘attempts to alleviate anxiety are considerable and often effective. Psychologists have noted displacement, dissociation, identification, ■ internalization, projection, rationalization, reaction formation, . regression, repression, sublimation and substitution as mechanisms i ! by which the individual attempts to relieve anxiety. The most com- ' mon is repression. Though not subject to"conscious recall, that j which has been repressed retains force and drive and may continue — - 1+1 ■ ' to influence the anxious individual unconsciously. I This battery of defense mechanisms indicates that anxiety is i an emotion to be avoided at all costs. All of the apprehension i i I ! i h 6 , research I have presented points at the ill or debilitating effects , of anxiety, but that is an incomplete picture of the role anxiety plays in human behavior. It is true that anxiety can be maladap- , tive. The compensatory responses of anxious human beings may be i insufficient and severe. Unpleasant mental and physiological ■effects (palpitation, sweating, pallor, vertigo, headache, chest : pain, nausea, cramps, tremors, sleeplessness, weakness, etc. ) may 'occur. But under most conditions and in most people anxiety plays a natural compensatory role that has adaptive advantages. In Phen omenology and Treatment of Anxiety, W.E. Fann notes that "It f; T’ 'b : (anxiety) is the basis for caution, for the pause to consider, for the comparison of objectives and capabilities. It has a role in the .regulation and application of drive, of motivation or aspirations. It also plays a central role in the protection of our ego’ , pur k2 • ’self.’ Too little anxiety may be as serious as too much anxiety." Psychologist E.E. Levitt has found that cognitive processes are usually inhibited, retarded or otherwise disadvantageous^ affected , by strong emotions like anxiety, but that moderately intense anxiety ' U3 . energizes the organism and improves performance. The idea that ; anxiety has a'motivational or "drive" aspect is a popular one. Al- ; though anxiety may be uncomfortable or even painful, it is often t ' purposeful behavior, goading the anxious individual to seek out j the sources of danger to eliminate it. As researcher C.H. Branch |observes, "In moderate degree, anxiety can be termed a constructive \ I UU ■force, serving to increase alertness and effort." Even more sig nificant is a possible direct link between anxiety and creativity. A few theorists have carried the philosophical speculation even further, suggesting that-anxiety, or emotional mal adjustment in the general sense, produces creativity . . . . - anxiety is a Janus-headed creature that can impel man to ■ self-improvement, achievement, and competence, or can dis tort and impoverish his existence and that of his fellows. The distinction appears to be a sheer matter of degree, of I intensity, as it is with many other phenomena of human life. The urgent need is to acquire the knowledge to util ize anxiety constructively, to be its master and not its slave. 5 The "distortion and impoverishment of existence" Levitt speaks of might very possibly be manifested somewhat less dramatically, but no less realistically in the situation of the usually capable writer who cannot write or writes very incompetently when overly anxious. An- ;xiety's deleterious effects are clearly as powerful as its advanta geous ones— according to current psychological theory degree is the ; key factor. Harmful anxiety can operate in a snowballing fashion; ' "if the cues associated with the anxiety reaction, either cognitive ■ or physiological, are themselves interpreted as danger signals, then additional anxiety is evoked, and a spiral or cyclical effect may ' U6 ' . occur." It is not difficult"to imagine the plight of the writer . , who, when faced with an impending assignment, is cued by thoughts ' of deadlines, grades, teacher expectation, misunderstanding of assign ment , inability to measure-up to personally set standards and a host j of other causes, and perpetuates his anxiety indefinitely until ! complete paralysis results. It has been said'that to allay the ^highly unpleasant emotion of anxiety, man consciously employs var ious mechanisms. These defense or avoidance mechanisms can break or perpetuate the cycle. A question is raised by the paradoxical debilitating/facilitating effects of anxiety on performance. To . what extent is anxiety (.the kind of anxiety a writer with writing apprehension feels) useful? As mentioned earlier, a fairly well-developed model of the ' composing process exists, but this model does not account for the ■ phenomenon of writing apprehension (that research has shown to ex- i ist). In order to explore the relationship between apprehension : and composing, especially its effect on the planning process, a few comments on creativity, research are pertinent’ . Some hypotheses about human creativity may shed light on the : relationship between apprehension and composing. However most of 1 the work done on the creative process is predominantly self-analytic, perhaps because creativity is such an extraordinary process that transcends the normal psychological formula of stimulus-response. Writers, rhetoricians, and psychologists have all speculated about the nature of creative thought; a combination of their views proves il- I ■ laminating. "The true method of discovery is like the flight of an aero- i plane. It starts from the ground of a particular observation; it 1 makes a flight into the thin air of imaginative generalization; and - it again lands for renewed observation rendered acute by rational il'7 • • • • interpretation. ■ Alfred Worth Whitehead's metaphor about the creative process is generally accepted in most schools of creative psychology. But there are variations on the theme of observation- Iinspiration-interpretation. One of the most commonly accepted"is ■ that articulated in four stages by Graham Wallas in The Art of Thought. The first is Preparation, a time of exposure and inves tigation in the broadest sense of the word. It includes intense, immediate immersion in a topic, in addition to all the various and • sundry experiences a person brings with him to a creative act simply by living. The second is a stage where the person does not con- : sciously think about an idea or topic, but it is, theoretically, .mulled over in his head by his subconscious, hence the term "Incu bation. " Illumination, the third stage, is the "eureka" phase of the : creative process and is described as an -involuntary act where the l * person experiences a sudden subliminal-uprush as the idea emerges. In the final stage, Verification, the validity of the idea is tested, ' and the idea itself Is reduced to .exact form. A ratio between the , creative process and the writing process can be postulated on the I basis of this data. I I | i Preparation: The writer experi ences or recollects an experience. Pre-Writing Incubation: The experience floats grows, and changes in his subconscious. Illumination: An idea for a story, poem, novel, etc. flashes into his conscious. Writing 8 s Re-Writing Verification: The idea is trans lated into words, revised, (number of revisions may vary), and a final copy is generated. The only criticism I would offer of such a ratio is that by de fining stages in the writing process1 and/or the creative process we necessarily admit to a linear, temporal process. To assume that the composing process is a series of discrete steps is inaccurate.■ Since writing and thinking proceed simultaneously, each acting upon the other, we can hypothesize that Preparation, Incubation, and Illumin ation go on while writing is in progress and in a cyclical fashion. Often the creative stages overlap and telescope. With a simple or familiar topic or problem, an idea or a solution may come as quickly as awareness of the topic of problem. The creative process is just as fluid and recursive as the writing process. And of course, since writing is. a creative process that is quite reasonable. In deed, Young, Becker and Pike use the exact stages Wallas' posits as stages in their process of inquiry that is writing in Rhetoric: ' Discovery and Change (1970). There is, in their words, a "comjblex „U8 : interrelationship of discovery and writing— truth and word. Young, Becker, and Pike offer a very interesting description of the onset of the process of inquiry (which may he regarded as hoth a writing and .creative process). They talk about the "tensions" with- , in the writer herself. This tension or uneasiness has a number of icauses, but common among all is a perceived inconsistency, or ineom- 1 patibility, or inadequacy, or something paradoxical or in opposition I ■to something else. .If the uneasiness growing out of the incompati bility or inadequacy is powerful and insistent, the person seeks - ' . understanding and resolution of the uneasiness. There is then, a ‘ drive to resolve tension. That aspect of creativity is particularly ■ significant when examining the behavior of the tense, apprehensive writer. Maslow describes this tension associated with creativity in a : discussion of self-actualizing people (Rothenberg and Hausman, 1976). Self-actualizing creative individuals do not cling to the familiar, nor do they need certainty and safety; they can be when the situation . calls for it, comfortably chaotic, vague, doubtful, indefinite, un certain— all'df'which can be desirable in art, science and life. "Thus it comes about that doubt, tentativeness, uncertainty, with the consequent necessity for abeyance of decision, which is for most ! a torture, can be for some a pleasantly stimulating challenge, a 'high spot in life father than a low. Maslov's mention of a "neces- • « ■sity for abeyance of decision" may he a crucial factor in describing the period before writers begin writing. • Author John Ciardi. characterizes the psychology of writing as a "groping." He describes the process "introspectively as without [ end, in time the good, writer will acquire not only, a sense of groping i for but a sense of having groped to: he begins to know when he has 50 finally reached whatever he was reaching for." D. Gordon Rohman I ' says of Ciardi's claim, "The paradox gives us an important clue to the principle of pre-writing: writers set out in apparent ignorance of what they are groping for; yet they recognize it when they find it. In a sense they knew all along, but it took some sort of heur istic process to bring it out. When it is out, they have discovered their subject; all that's left is the writing of it."'’ 1 A more con crete way of looking at this groping is the analogy invented by Young, Becker and Pike (1970) who suggest that we imagine thinking I about a minor incident, a blown fuse in the house where we are living. As you poke around in the dark for a candle and an extra fuse, you 'remember a four hour power failure during a storm earlier in the year ( and recall reading about a blackout in the east a few years ago. So . you consider writing a paper illustrating that society is dangerously i 1 dependent on electricity. The thinker Young, Becker, and Pike des- f I cribe has been groping for something; his mind has worked like a i | pinball machine, zinging back and forth from one memory/experiential I mode to another, when unexpectedly, "eureka," he may have an idea! * r |Viewing writing as a creative process functioning in this way is 'agreeable to current creative theory and sheds light on the role of the subconscious in writing. The' associational groping much creati- ! vity theory is based on may be directly related to the tension asso ciated with apprehension. .Perhaps the mbst fascinating aspect of .creativity is discussed in The Creativity Question (Rothenberg and? Hausman, 1976). Creativity is complicated-, difficult to fathom, and .markedly different from all phenomena that can be explained by look ing at their causes. The paradox of creativity is this: that which .is newly created is in some way familiar and has commonality with previous experiences, but at the same time that which is newly cre ated is radically new and in some way unfamiliar. A creative act ■cannot be predicted from a knowledge of precedent, nor can it be ■hypothesized from ideals or hoped-for outcomes. Creativity is, by definition, undetermined and cannot be explained by traditional mod-; / , •els, but it can be "made intelligible" by recognizing that creativity ' ,is paradoxically determined and undetermined. The possibility of ' ■ assigning specific conditions . during creativity is dependent upon descriptions and self-analysis of persons engaged in or remembering ‘ 52 ; .creative acts. Therefore, a phenomenological approach in which an j I .observer is aware of the effects of his preconceptions and biases, and focuses on the context of a creative act would be most productive in examining the proposition that apprehension, tension and creativity i ! are related. j 1 This review of composing process research (illustrating the para digm shift and the recursive, transactive-.nature of the new model), .research defining the scope of and in attempting to dispel writing apprehension, the research on human anxiety, and the speculations and observations of creativity theorists indicate a number of rich interrelationships. In summary, the review of research suggests that writing apprehension may paradoxically have a debilitating and fa cilitating influence on the composing process, and that apprehension may be related to discovery in the planning component of the writing process. I Chapter II PURPOSE OF THE RESEARCH PROJECT This project is, in part, a response .to the need for case study, questioning and observation of writers writing expressed by Cooper and Odell in Research on Composing (.1978). It differs from most ' composing process studies in that, it will focus on writing being 53 done outside the classroom. Almost all composing research-has been conducted in artificial, controlled settings where writers can be observed first-hand. This type of research attempts to validate hy- ■ potheses by observations and experiments without interference of out- I side variables., thereby insuring "clarity" and "purity" of behavior. . Basically, then, the method is scientific and as such has been con ducted in the laboratory (..enclosed classroom or observation room) | where control of outside influences is possible. Of course, con- . trolled settings are not the normal setting for composing behavior. ■ Most often student writers are not participating in an experiment in an enclosed room, but are writing at their own discretion and in a j setting of their own choosing. In order to get a more complete pic- i ture of typical composing behavior, we must go outside the controlled . ) conditions imposed by scientific method. That is not to say that 'the previous research is invalid, hut, more properly, incomplete. |Studies are needed that investigate students writing as they really do, in natural environments, uncontrolled by the researcher. The i •context of at-home, non-impromptu, academic writing is where most student composing goes on, and we need to know how students compose :in actual settings. : In addition to expanding composing process research by moving ■outside of controlled settings, this study attempts to validate and/ or contribute to an existing composing process model (Flower and Hayes, 198l). The study is,:'in effect, testing the adequacy, of the .Flower and Hayes' model (s-) in out-of-class writing to see where and how apprehension affects their model(s). The study's focus on wri ting apprehension seeks to demonstrate that apprehension influences • processes and strategies, a proposition that has been discussed I (.Bloom, Daly, Rose) but has not yet been adequately supported or explored. Ho research has attempted to integrate the concept of ■'writing apprehension into a model of the composing process. A reli able model of the composing process should reflect factors involved in the preparation for and the initiation of writing, and those fac tors that determine the manner and progress of the composing process, particularly the planning component. What influences the pace at which a writer works, the work she accomplishes before she stops, and the number of stops she makes are issues that a full “description of the writing process must address. For example, we have data about how’ ,often writers pause (Matsuhasi, 1981) inpontrolled settings where the longest pause is usually a matter of seconds or minutes. How- ■ever, in a natural s'etting, writers may "pause" for an entire day. In natural settings, the nature of the pausing, the factors involved . * * ' in getting started, and perhaps more importantly, the conditions ■ r .necessary for beginning to write in the first place are unclear. Daly has offered substantial proof that writing apprehension is .widespread and causes certain behavior and performance, but little 1 has been done to investigate how writing apprehension affects wri- ;ting processes. Many textbook authors are aware of and have com- ’mented on the difficulty of the writing act and the fear of writing many students possess. In fact, the paucity of writing-apprehension- as-related-to-the-composing-process studies.contrasts dramatically 1 with anecdotal evidence of.writing apprehension. The Writers At I Work series, for example, offers a wealth of complaint and exclama tion about apprehension and its effects. As Mike Rose points out, : a diagnosis of writing apprehension is usually an affective explana tion for why writers have difficulty writing (Rose, 198la). The' direct effects on composing Cif any) writing apprehension has, and . whether these effects can be described and measured and in what ways they modify, constrain, or aid the writing process are unknown. Since human attitudes are such, powerful determiners of human actions, more attention is merited, especially since teaching writing more effectively is the purpose of composition research. Nearly all of the available research is based on observation of students’.behavior.while writing or on students' commentary about what they do as they write, so a great proportion of the additions .and/or alterations .to. the developing model of the composing process have focused on that period of time between the first mark that is made on the page and the'time the last is rendered. Consequently, ■text production and revision have received substantial attention in the research, but very little has been done that addresses the plan ning component of the composing process. What writers experience and how they behave before writing begins (pre-writing) and what sort of planning (.if .any) occurs here is a relatively untapped research area. Probably the most important study that does address pre-writing and planning is Mike Rose’s (l98l). He found that most of his blockers .and non-blockers spent a good deal of time (usually several min utes) in such activity, noting that there is a point past which plan ning becomes dysfunctional. Many researchers (Emig 1971, Pianko 1979, Matsuhasi 1981) have noted a very brief pre-writing time, but, like Rose’s, all of these studies took place in controlled settings. What characterizes pre-writing and planning behavior in an uncon trolled setting is still undetermined. Further, planning also oc curs during text production and revision and the influence of writing apprehension on these planning components is also a focus of this research. Since planning is a process difficult to pinpoint in terms of its nature, duration, and occurrence, it is not surprising that little work has teen done in this area. But the -overwhelming im portance of planning in the initiation and completion of the writing process makes it crucial that we understand how it functions. This project investigates to what extent writing apprehension functions as a block or as an incentive, either impeding or facilitating the completion of a writing assignment. , A more precise description of how apprehension functions before, during and even after composition will be offered. The results of the research will add to the work done by Perl, Sommers, and Flower and Hayes, who have completed case studies on student writers and have posited composing process models that at tempt to elucidate basic processes. In 1975 I conducted a prelimin ary study that examined the composing processes of 25 freshmen at the University of Southern California by concentrating on three crucial aspects of the writing act: the physical environment of the act, the conscious processes the writer engages in, and ‘ hypotheses; about the subconscious processes involved in composing. The inter relations of these three aspects were the basis of a hypothesis positing a new phase in the composing process— anti-writing, a per iod when students actively and often productively engaged in not- writing. Anti-writing may be thought of as a defense or avoidance mechanism— a mechanism which may ultimately break or perpetuate the no-writing cycle. That hypothesis, though it has undergone var ious changes and refinements, is essentially the one that this re search project is testing. Answering the following questions, which grew out of that early hypothesis, is further and more specific "elucidation of basic processes." Cl) Do collegerfreshmen whose attitudes reveal high writing appre hension display behavior before, during, and after the writing ' act that contrasts with the behavior of freshmen whose attitudes reveal low writing apprehension? (2) How long do students spend planning before they begin writing when they are completing out-of-class writing assignments? Is there a difference between high and low apprehensive writers? (.3) What is the function of extended planning in out-of-class writing assignments for high and low apprehensive writers? 00 How does writing apprehension affect planning during text pro duction and revision? C5) What role does writing apprehension play (either detrimental or beneficial) in the composing process? That is, how does it affect the composing process', and should- the developing model * . . ‘ % of the composing process be altered to accommodate the role of writing apprehension? (6) Finally, what pedagogical implications do the findings have for the composition-' teacher? The question my project seeks to answer is "basically this: Is there ia productive connection between the writing process, the creative process, and writing apprehension? The research projects in writing apprehension, though relatively small in number and scope, uniformly point at a debilitating or non-functional affect of apprehension on , writing. My project will either validate or amend this finding. Chapter III METHODOLOGY The general approach of this study is naturalistic and ethno graphic: naturalistic in that it attempts to study the composing process in an unartificial realistic environment and ethnographic in that it uses (in a modified way) the anthropological technique of participant-observer. This approach was born out of a realization that very often', composing process experiments or studies are dis torted by influences other than those which were the focus of the study. In other words, the experimental situation— the classroom or .laboratory— was a setting in its own right with dynamics and influ ences on behavior. Scientific controls prevent us from looking at writing in a lifelike context. Responses of subjects in such set tings cannot help but be influenced by the subjects’ own awareness of the setting and acknowledgement of the special nature of the setting. Furthermore-, the role of the experimenter in a study can be a powerful influence, possibly distorting the subjects' behavior if the exper- _imenter calls undue attention to herself. Subjects can become 1 suspicious of the intent of the research, act in ways they think are ■appropriate, believe that they have a personal relationship with ! I 63 [the experimenter, and desire a positive evaluation. All of these 'factors can surface in a research setting that strictly separates tsubject and researcher, or allows them to get too close to one another Such a situation can shape behavior extraneous to the research and interfere with its results. The participant-observer avoids much, of ■ the desire for positive evaluation that accompanies traditional ex perimentation by becoming an integrated part of the study, a parti cipant in a very real sense, who shares the situation the subject finds himself in. This shared activity helps dispel the subject’s feelings that he, is performing for someone who will eventually rate . or evaluate him in addition to his performance. In my study the r researcher is also a writing teacher, a writing teacher who is more "coach" than evaluator. To paraphrase Donald Murray, a teacher' in ’ this role treats the student with respect in order that the student ; may respect his own-efforts (Murray, 1980). The writing teacher directs, encourages, even collaborates in a student's effort to cre ate. This sharing allays most of the.stress associated with the student's perception that the self rather than the product is being evaluated. ; Stephen Wilson, a researcher who has done important work in 'ethnographic techniques points out that "behavior is significantly | influenced by the settings in which it occurs. It is essential to 1 study psychological events in natural settings. Divergent findings result when the same phenomenon Is studied in the laboratory .... t Human behavior is complexly influenced by the context in which it i occurs. Any research-plan which takes the-actors but of the natur alistic setting may negate those forces and hence obscure its own 5J4 understanding. So even though uncontrolled settings may be a fuzzy labyrinth of influences, they provide us with research done in .context,.and in the words of ethnomethodologists Guba and Mishler, "context must be seen as a resource for understanding rather than 55 an enemy.of understanding. In order to examine composing processes in a natural setting, the naturalistic, ethnographic research method was chosen. Some modifications, however, were adopted in order to create writing sit uations that were most lifelike. These modifications are discussed ' later along with a description of the data collection process. Some of the constraints previous researchers have Imposed on 'the writing process during the gathering of data (i.e. an enclosed room, (Perl, 1979) observation cameras, (.Matsuhasi, 1981) and no grades (Pianko, 1979) ) are necessary for certain kinds of experi mental ' validity , but they can create artificiality and perhaps even . falsify the writing situation. Results produced in such situations I may be distorted or inaccurate. Almost all composing process research has been conducted in artificial, controlled settings where writers can be observed first- ( hand. Video-tape machines switch on as students begin to write 'things down, ; interviewers tape students composing aloud, the rise and fall of a stylus is electronically measured. The student who sits in a classroom (for an hour or so) with a videotape machine over her shoulder and an electric pen in her hand and writes an essay is probably not exhibiting her most typical composing beha vior. Most real writing does not go on in such a setting, yet' much of the support for the latest composing process theory is drawn from research conducted in "unnatural" environments. Previous composing process studies have observed behavior and the researchers then draw inferences, or ask writers to verbalize their processes (either during or immediately after) and draw in ferences from these introspections. The cognitive processes they have attempted to elucidate cannot be directly measured so what students say and do while writing or what they say about their wri ting is the only available evidence. My study draws on what student writers have,said or inferred about their writing, but my research environment has allowed students to comment with as few research related distractions as possible. College composition, done at the student's discretion in a natural environment, must be investigated if we are to sensibly address the kind of composing behavior most students exhibit most often— behavior that occurs particularly when they write outside the classroom. Moreover, the bulk of the previous research focuses on writers actually writing. Research.has observed student writers only during 66 • the physical act of composing. Confining writing research to oh- ' serving the student making marks on the page is scientifically reli able, hut it fails to describe the act of composing in its entirety. Covering only the time during which black squiggles begin to appear and then cease appearing is an incomplete vision of the process. The early stage models assigned tremendous importance to pre-writing, ■ but by isolating pre-writing from writing and re-writing, stage models didn’t accurately represent the recursiveness and constant • discovery writers experience. So, in fact, writing researchers face two problems: how to effectively get at recursive cognitive pro cesses during writing, and secondly, Can even more difficult area), how to get at what the writer does before he writes. In an artifi cial environment, there is very little pre-writing. Most artificial studies show students begin to write immediately (.Perl 1979, Pianko 1979, Matsuhasi 1981, Emig 1971), except Mike Rose’s Cl98l) whose subjects pre-wrote for periods up to twelve minutes, 38 seconds long. ' In a realistic writing environment Cout-of-the-laboratory) much time ’ is spent in pre-writing— cognitively and behaviorally— before the writer writes, and what happens to the writer then and what the wri ter does then is heretofore unexamined. Student writers in controlled - environments have very little time elapse from start to finish, while ■ composing. In "uncontrolled" environments the time factor is pro- . bably very different and much elongated. When I searched for a 67! 'research method that would account for out-of-class .writing, pre writing and/or planning "before and during composing and would have as few intrusions as possible on the composing process, I found that I had to modify the ethnographic participant-observer approach. Being { present during a student’s out-of-class writing would have been dif ficult to arrange and would have caused perhaps’ even more distrac- ' tions than a researcher in a classroom. Researchers and teacher- observers (who in one. sense are like spies) are expected, almost fixtures, in the classroom environment. A researcher in the dorm .or the student center, or whatever the scene of.out-of-class writing, would be extraordinarily distracting. So I was not a part of the : context; I allowed the behavior to occur in its usual context and 1 obtained reports bn it. More specifically, I chose to interview students within eight to twelve hours after they finished composing. Since the composing went on for a week more-or-less (interruptions varied with each student), I.was still a participant-observer be cause I was present in between the actual writing from its inception to completion, and I did observe students during those periods of I not writing. I rejected the Flower and Hayes' speaking aloud pro tocols in favor of retrospective reporting because they (protocols) : would have demanded an in-class writing situation and because, al- ; though the writer who talks while composing provides the researcher i with a prompt, detailed flow of the writer's thought, the influence 68 'of the writer’s voice and the presence of the observer/audience i !while the writer is writing are intrusions on his-normal writing pro- I cess. Emig's classic case study of twelfth grade writers was based on an analysis of students asked to compose aloud while their com- ■ments were tape-recorded, but some of her most interesting data was collected by asking about students' recollections of earlier writing experiences. As Hayes and Flower point out much information would be lost by subjects giving retrospective accounts, but asking sub jects to report information that theyihormaliy--would not have:1 con sidered while performing can seriously disrupt that performance. CHayes and Flower, in press).. Since both research methods, retro spective reports and protocol analysispresent problems for accur ate data collection, I chose the method most suitable for an out-of- class writing situation: retrospective reports. Case studies conducted by means of post hoc interviews offer the most unobtrusive representation of cognitive and behavioral | processes. Content analyses of case study material offers the possibility of generalizing about and extrapolating patterns. Ques tionnaires are efficient for large numbers of students and render , objective tallies of responses. (.They do, of course, fail to catalog idiosyncratic behavior.) Quantitative and qualitative examinations of student-produced texts alone are incomplete, but accompanied by i the student’s own retrospective commentary they offer significant' 69 data about the writing act itself. Self-reports- are not always ac curate because not all composing phenomena are accessible to the writer's observation, of course, but there is a possibility of gain ing important additional data when the act being remembered occurred under natural conditions. In a retrospective questioning method, subjects can be encouraged to explore introspectively; the inability ,to reach the subconscious except through speculation is true of either method, hut at least with .my method those speculations will be based on activity uninterrupted by an observer. In a review of current composing research methodologies, Wancie Atwell (.1982) notes the heavy reliance on self-reports, explaining that many researchers (i.e. Emig, Odell, Goswami) regularly conduct interviews with students in order to design curricula based on students' conceptions of writing rather than teachers' preconceived notions.. \Even~though self-reports- may be inaccurate due to an inability to describe cognitive pro cesses with, absolute certainty, they are a rich source of student attitudes and conceptions about composing. Methodologies like those discussed above offer information to the researcher that is invaluable. Looking exclusively at a stu dent's output is infinitely inferior to looking at the process he used to get there. Tracing a process yields much more data about composing; most aspects of the process are not observed if we look ■ only at the product, but process-tracing is a much less certain 7 . 0 method of inquiry. Because none of the aforementioned naturalistic methods are thorough in and of themselves, X decided a multimethodological ap proach was most sound, and that an attempt must be made to collect data before, during and after the physical act of writing had oc- - curred. A brief outline of. the data collection methods I used to accomplish this follows: 1. Administered Daly's Wxiting Apprehension Measure;, selected four high-apprehensive and four low-appre- hens i ve student s.. 2. Assigned "My Composing Process" paper to be written out of class. Subjects were asked to examine their composing environment and their consciously executed composing behavior. Students were asked to speculate on the subconscious aspects of their writing processes. 3. Administered "Writing Attitudes and Experiences" questionnaire. Short essay answers required. I j - . Administered "A Self-Appraisal of Your>;0wn Writing Process" CSolving Writing Problems, L. Flower, (,198l). Short essay answers required. 5. Assigned "Invent a Myth to Explain a Natural Occur rence" paper to be written out of class and turned in with accompanying notes and rough drafts. This paper was due one week from the date it was assigned. 5a. 20-30 minute, daily interview with each subject during l J ■ week-long composing period of essay described in number five. 5b. Distributed "Activities You Engage in Before You Ac tually Begin Writing" to subjects-. ; Students were given one form for each day of the week-long composing period of the essay described in number five and were. * 1 asked to complete it at the end of each day. Step number one accomplished subject- selection. Steps two,' three, and four gathered anecdotal attitude information. Step five provided an out-of-class writing assignment for composing process study. Steps 5a and 5b provided data for a self-report content analyses and a "planning-time" study respectively. V The study was conducted over two semesters£of^reshjpah composi tion. Subjects were selected based on their scores on the Daly : Writing Apprehension Measure, an empirically based, standardized ’ instrument. This 26-item questionnaire, though admittedly only a . measure of students’ conscious feelings, about their apprehension of : writing (or the lack of it), was a useful way to identify and locate , students who knew, or believed themselves to be, apprehensive about , writing. Daly’s instrument has been tested in an impressive number of related studies (Daly and Miller 19T5ab, Daly and Shamo..l9?6, ! Daly and Shamo 1978, Daly 1978) that support its viability and ac curacy. Within my naturalistic examination of the composing process, :this measure provided a continuum that I have hypothesized will af fect individual composing strategies. The intensity of apprehen sion revealed by Daly's instrument will be compared with the self- reports of recollected, behavior during composing and with the stu- ; dents' comments about writing in general. The self-reports (interview data) were analyzed by means of a content analysis form designed to measure behavior common to appre hensive and non-apprehensive writers. This form is a series of categories that fall under two broad headings: negative attitudes toward writing or negative behavior before, during, and after writing, and positive attitudes -toward.writing or positive behavior before, , during* and after writing. The content analysis form also accounts for students' positive and negative recollections about past writing experiences. Other data, consisting of students' written commentary about their writing attitudes-and practices, and a "My Composing Process" . assignment were analyzed as anecdotal sources of information. The students' performances on the writing assignment "Invent a Myth to ■ Explain a Natural Occurrence" were given a holistic score by six i I composition instructors at the University of Central Arkansas (four ! faculty and two graduate assistants). Data were also collected’ by means of a "planning-time'- questionnaire (Activities You Engage in Before You Actually Begin Writing) that students administered them selves at the end of each day during the eight days (Friday to Fri day) given to complete writing. These data were quantitatively 'assessed. Two pilot studies were conducted to develop the interview ques tions Cdesigned to elicit self-reports), the planning-time question naire and the content analysis. In 1979, interviews with fifteen Los Angeles Southwest College Students were conducted and taped to test the value of the interview questions. The planning-time ques tionnaire was tested with over fifty 1980 summer session freshmen at the University of Southern California. The content analysis form was developed through a series of three trial analyses, each of one ‘ high-apprehensive writer-and one low-apprehensive writer. General revisions of all the above data collection methods were made in order to elicit influence-free reportage, specific measures of types of l ■ planning and planning time, and reflections of both apprehensive and non-apprehensive attitudes in writers identified as apprehensive and , non-apprehensive by Daly. Copies of the final interview questions, the planning-time questionnaire and the content analysis form, along 1 with the anecdotal data collection devices and Daly's measure are . included in the appendix. A brief overview of the subject selection process, the .collection . of data and the analysis of the data will bring the study into isharper focus. An announcement given to my first semester freshman English classes at the University of Central Arkansas in the Fall ' of 1980 introduced the forthcoming study of their composing pro cesses. Interested students received the following explanation. In order to collect data for a study on the composing processes •of freshmen at UCA, students would anonymously respond to a ques tionnaire Cstudent-invented code names were used) that elicited in formation on some of their feelings about writing. The responses to the questionnaire would not affect the grades they would receive in Communication X CUCA’s first semester composition course), nor would the results he reported in any way that destroyed their anon- . ymity. Seventy-seven freshmen responded to the Daly Apprehension Measure. All students in my classes '(both those who were interes- ■ ted in the study and those who were not) then completed an assignment titled "My Composing Process."' Students were not yet informed that . this paper would he in any way connected with the study. That ended the data collection for the ’first semester. At the beginning of the second semester, 27 of the original 77 1 who answered the Daly questionnaire were enrolled in Communication II. These students were offered a release from one assignment that I was to he given during the semester if they-would participate in a study on the composing process. • The scores on the Daly Measure ! were used to categorize those who were interested. Daly's appre hension continuum runs from 26 to 130, the higher the score, the higher the apprehension. A score of 26 indicates an absence of anxiety about writing.' Based on-this continuum, eight students were selected, four high apprehensives and four low apprehensives, two men and two women in each, group of four. Permission from these students was then obtained to use the composing process paper they had written the first semester as a part of the data for the study. They were again assured their anon ymity would be preserved and.that their participation in the study would neither advantageously or disadvantageously affect their grades. The eight students were then given two weeks to complete two sets of questions Csee numbers three and four in the data collection out line) designed to elicit their attitudes toward writing and a personal history of their writing experiences. Short essay answers were re quested. Next, the students were assigned a paper to be written out of class: "Invent a Myth to Explain a Natural Occurrence." This assignment required the student to engage in both the explanatory and narrative modes— to create a non-factual explanation for some thing that occurs in nature. Research was not required, though during class discussion prior to the assignment several myths that various cultures have .invented were mentioned. This assignment demanded invention of the "purest," perhaps most common variety. The writers did not merely analyze available information, or "invent" a method of presentation for some information or common knowledge. 'Nor were they inventing "arguments" necessary for persuasion. They were asked to "make up a story," to test their imaginative powers hy imposing a connection on two things never before connected. Since I was interested in the relationship between apprehension and inven tion, this assignment, which demanded creativity of this sort, seemed ideally suited. This assignment was given on a Friday and was due the following Friday. During the eight-day period that the students were allowed to write, each of the eight visited me for 20-30 min utes a day for the purpose of an interview to elicit self-reports on ;their composing processes as they progressed. Students were not in terviewed on .Saturday and'Snnday due to scheduling difficulties (.sev eral would be leaving the campus). The Monday interview, therefore, included the previous Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. These inter views, which were tape-recorded, produced the self-reports that were • to be analyzed from Written transcripts with, the content analysis i form. Also during the eight-day period, students were asked to com- iplete, immediately before bedtime each evening, the planning-time form which surveyed how they spent their non-writing time that may or may not have been related to the assignment. These forms were turned in at the outset of ■each interview., .the following-day. The ' students turned in their papers during the last:interview together 'with their notes and rough drafts. This completed the collection ! of the data. T-T: . The analysis of the data was conducted over a period of several months. First, the students' essays were holistically graded "by six English faculty members hased on the following criteria for the essay 1. An idea that is clearly stated and effectively nar- / " r " r ' \ rated and that specifically addresses the topic assigned: "Invent a flfyth to Explain a Natural Occurrence." 2. A systematic plan of organization. 3. Adequately developed paragraphs which include rel evant, concrete examples and details that advance the narrative. k. Effective transitions that advance the narrative. 5. A clear connection between the myth that has been invented and a natural occurrence. 6. Mature sentences which are clearly constructed. 7. ¥ords that are appropriate and precise. 8. Mechanics and usage which conform to standard written English. A high passing essay had a clearly stated idea,'fulfilled the assign ment, had a clear narrative sequence with transitions, varied sen tence length, appropriatevword, choice, fresh figurative language, more-than-ordinary ideas, correct use of punctuation, good spelling, and good syntax and grammar. (J+ points) A passing essay had minor weakness in statement of the idea, minor inattention to the assignment (slightly vague or off the topic), minor weakness in sequence of the narrative, lacked one or two tran sitions , sentence length relatively varied, minor weakness in word choice, some fresh figurative language, fairly insightful ideas, a few punctuation errors, a minor weakness in spelling and minor weak nesses in syntax and grammar Cone or two types of errors). (3 points) A low passing essay had some major weakness in statement of the idea, some major departure from the purpose of the assignment, a major weak ness in the sequence of the narrative, lacked several transitions, extensive reliance on one type of sentence, some major weakness in word choice, ordinary figurative language, ordinary or somewhat, ob- , vious ideas, some major punctuation errors, several spelling errors and some major weaknesses in syntax and grammar (several types of errors). (_2 points) i ; A failing essay exhibited failure to state an idea clearly, failure to address the - assignment, no sequence in the narrative, an absence ' of transitions, complete lack of sentence variety, poor diction, en tirely simple and obvious ideas, poor, punctuation and spelling, and i poor grammar and syntax. Cl point) Basic Guidelines A four point narrative = Very good, satisfies all requirements. A three point narrative = Good, satisfies many requirements. A two point narrative = Fair, satisfies a few requirements. A one point narrative = Poor, fails to satisfy any requirements. The results of the holistic scoring were tabulated and tabled, as were the data collected in the planning-time questionnaire. The content analysis form with seven headings (general attitudes,- fears/ anxieties: confidence, planning behavior, considering features of the assignment, text generation, reviewing the text, and post-writing behavior) was used to catalog the interview data; Anecdotal evi dence was gleaned from the "My Composing Process" assignment and the two sets of questions on writing attitudes and writing history. Analyses of this data will be presented in the following chapter. Chapter IV ANALYSIS OF THE DATA The data collected from the Daly Writing Apprehension Measure, the holistic scoring, the planning-time questionnaire, and the con tent analysis will he presented in tables and discussed in terms of group trends for high, apprehensives and low apprehensives before the individual case studies are discussed. The eight student writers who participated in the study were all freshmen at the University of Central Arkansas and were between seven teen and nineteen years of age. They were selected from a pool of 77 students who all. completed the Daly Writing Apprehension Measure. The group mean (.77 students} on Daly's scale, which ranges from 26 Clow) to 1-30 (high)/, .was 69.70. ‘ This compares with the mean score Daly reported (79.28) from a sample of l6l students (Daly 1975); The median score of the total population on which my study drew was 67. The subjects selected and their scores follow In table one. Low Apprehensives Bobby 27 Jeff 37 Haley 53 . Debbie 56 ^3.25 Mean Score High Apprehensives - Greg 82 Rhonda 83 Lisa 90 Phillip 102 89.25 Mean Score Table 1: Writing Apprehension Scores Although the range of high apprehensive scores is not as close to the upper end of Daly’s measure, they represent some of the highest scores in the total population of 77. Over 50% of the scores in the total sampling fell between 59 and 75. The highest anxiety re corded in the entire sampling was Phillip’s (.102) and the lowest was Bobby’s (27). Although some of the students selected had scores that were not dramatically high (.Greg = 82) or dramatically low (.Debbie = 56), they fall within the upper twenty per cent and lower ten per cent of the sampling. The mean of the low apprehensives' scores was U3.25, representing very low apprehension, and the mean of the four high apprehensives' scores was 89.25, representing high apprehension for the sampling hut only moderately high apprehension based on Daly's scale. The proximity of some of the scores to the sampling mean (Debbie = 56, sampling mean = 69-TO, difference -13.70 Greg = 82, sampling mean = 69.70, difference +12.30) will be con sidered with respect to the content analyses. A table reflecting the holistic scoring of the eight students' written products follows this chart of number equivalents for grades Holistic Grading Scale A = High Pass 3 = Pass. 2 = Low Pass. 1 = Fail f (Table is on page '■§%. ) . Low Apprehensives Grader #1 #2 #3 #h #5 #6 Mean Bobby 3 u 2 3 k 3 2.83 Jeff 1 3 2 2 2 1 1.83 Haley 3 ’ 3 3 3 2 3 2.83 Debbie 3 3 k k 2 Group 3 3.17 Mean 2.67 ' High Apprehensives Grader #1 #2 #3 #b #5 #6 Mean Greg 2 2 1 2 2 2 1.83 Rhonda 1 2 3 3 1 3 2.17 Lisa 3 h 3 k 2 k 3.33 Phillip 3 1 2 1 1 2 1.67 Group Mean 2.25 Table 2: Holistic Grading Results The group mean of both high and low-apprehensive writers fall be tween 2 Clow pass) and 3 Cpass), with the low apprehensives scoring slightly higher (+.1*2). This indicates that for this sampling of eight there is slightly less than .5 difference in scores between the two groups. The highest score received by a low-apprehensive writer was 3.17, while the highest high-apprehensive writer's score was 3.33. The low score in the low?-apprehensive group was 1.83, while the high-apprehensives' lowest score was 1.67. In this sample of eight writers there is an example of a poor writer who was a low apprehensive and a better writer who was a high apprehensive. The planning time questionnaire .(Activities You Engage in Before You Actually Begin Writing an Assignment) results for the eight-day period for all eight subjects are tabled below: the totals of both low and high-apprehensive writers, appear in each category. The total number of low-apprehensive responses are found in the LA columns.. The total number of high-apprehensive responses are found in the HA columns. Blank categories received no responses. The categories representing activities before writing and the "time spent" values in the original form completed by students (see ap pendix for a copy of this form) have been collapsed for the purposes of this table. For example * talking to classmates, roommates, parents etc., was collapsed under the heading "Talking to Others." Responses of 30 minutes, one hour and more,than one hour were tal lied under the "time spent" column of More Than 15 Minutes. I Planning-Time Que st i onnaire Date: U/3/81 - U/10/81 Activities Before Writing Time Spent in Minutes Less than 5 10-15 More than 15 LA HA LA HA LA HA Talking to Others 38 18 11 15 2 u Writing Related to the Assignment f k H 3 6 9 Worrying About the Assignment 12 10 5 5 ' 5 13 Miscellaneous Acti vities to Get Ideas a. Thinking about the assignment 11 l -k 5 ■u 8 b. all others ' 12 3 6 8 T ' 6 Library Research 1 - 1 Deciding to Work at Another Time 10 13 ■ 2 ■ ' ' necessary Activity Unrelated to the Assignment 2 9 1 Table 3: Planning-Time Questionnaire Totals (8-day period) There are several activities engaged in hy both low-apprehensive ,and high-apprehensive writers where comparisons yield interesting ;results. The low-apprehensive writers reported that they talked about their assignment for minutes or less a total of 38 times, while the-:.high apprehensives talked 5: 7 ' minutes or less , . $8.'* > times. At the 10-15 minute level, . high apprehensives talked : y . * , 15; • times while low apprehensives talked v^ ll/ j times . The low i apprehensives seemed to talk more frequently for briefer periods of time, and when the time period increased, so did, comparatively, the talking about the assignment on the part of the high apprehensives. The total lower figure, 37, for high apprehensives (low apprehensives had a total of 52 reports of talking about the assignment) may be a result of a high apprehensives’ general fear of evaluation (they may perceive even talking to their peers or teachers about ah im pending assignment as a threatening situation, particularly if they, do not understand the assignment or don’t have an idea for an assign ment). This would be reasonable if we followed Daly’s hypothesis about uncertainty and evaluation as causes of apprehension and if we assumed apprehension and reticence go hand in hand. However, the high apprehensives engaged in nearly as many (10) short-term conver sations with "friends" (one of the subcategories on the original form) as the low apprehensives; perhaps of all the categories (class mates, roommates, parents, friends, teachers), friends are the least threatening. More important is to notice that both low and- high apprehensives engaged in talking ahout the assignment and that talking is one type of planning activity. The total number of times high apprehensives talked with someone about the assignment was 37 compared with 52 times for the low apprehensives. A more accurate observation is probably that low apprehensives in this study planned (or "felt out" an assignment), more often through talking than did high apprehensives. Another important category i.s "worrying about the assignment." Both high and low apprehensives worried about the assignment fre quently for brief periods (high apprehensives - 10 times for 5 minutes; low apprehensives - 12 times for 5 minutes). At 10-15 minutes, the high, and low apprehensives. were neck and neck at 5 times each. But, as the time span increases so do the number of times the high apprehensives worry. High apprehensives worried 13 times for 15 minutes or more compared with low apprehensives at 5 times. There is no absolute measure to determine whether or not worry is productive or unproductive, yet "worry" may be one way of describing the tension associated with mulling over an idea that is not yet totally formed, in addition to the more usual anxiety of impending deadlines, etc. In fact, Debbie, one of the low appre- hensives, wrote in the "worry" category ."trying to create ideas," which may have indicated she was worried about her inability to create ideas, or that she was trying-to create, by worrying. One of the most significant categories in the planning-time questionnaire may be "thinking about the assignment," which is tabled under "Mis cellaneous Activities to Get Ideas." Low apprehensives thought about the assignment ’-yirA'. times for • , 5 ' . ' ' minutes or less while high ap prehensives thought about the assignment only once for r 3- .-minutes. At 10-15 minutes, the figures are nearly equal for high (5 times) and low (A times) apprehensives, while twice as many high appre hensives thought about the assignment for more than 15 minutes as did low apprehensives. Low apprehensives reported thinking about an assignment for brief periods many more times than did high appre hensives. This phenomenon might be explained by a general--reluctance on the part of high apprehensives in this study to actively focus on the topic until they are ready and until they have a longer block of time to which, they can devote their thoughts about the assignments. This is borne out by the fact that the longer thinking periods of the high apprehensives occurred later in the seven-day periods a fact that will be illustrated by the daily planning tables which follow shortly. It might also indicate that the low apprehensives thought for shorter periods because they could generate ideas more quickly. The last category where significant numbers were recorded is "Deciding to work on the assignment at another time." Deciding to work on the assignment at another time seemed to be a decision that ! was made rather quickly. Most responses fell in the ./5 - minutes 'or less slot: high apprehensives = •^.3,': fcV> low apprehensives = ' 1 0 ' . With very few exceptions these decisions were made during the first three to four days of the seven-.day period when there was still •time to postpone. There were two exceptions to the brief decision making time. Two high-apprehensive writers spent more than 15 min- • utes deciding to work another time; both of these decisions were made later in the week when less time to postpone was available, indicating the difficulty of making such a decision and explaining the relatively lengthy time it took to make it. The fact that both high and low- apprehensive writers postpone writing suggests that no writer, whether confident or fearful, is ready to write immediately. Some time is necessary, a waiting period, for a writer to prepare to write. Sev- ! eral theorists (Rohman and Wlecke 196k, Murray 1978) have noted the importance of an incubation period, substantiating this claim. Although in themselves most of the other categories aren't * , ; significant, together they represent much" time spent in planning acti- ■ vity of some kind before writing begins. Both high and low; appre hensives jotted down ideas, listened to music, read, daydreamed, watched T.V., etc. to "get ready to write" or to "try to get ideas," activities classified in the table as "Miscellaneous Activities to Get Ideas." Together the high and low apprehensives tallied 95-75 57 , > hours of planning time including ' A ' ~i7'r ~ 'hours of doing things they had to do, hut that were not necessarily related to the writing assignment." Since most writers engage in tasks that are not writing- related as an excuse for not-writing (other school or house work) this category was designed to elicit reports of such behavior. Spread over the eight-day period, an average of 1.5 hours a day were spent planning for the assignment by both groups. The low apprehensives planned for 1+8.75- total hours over the eight-day period and the high apprehensives planned, for 1+7.0 total hours, for an average of 1.52 hours per day for the low apprehensives and 1.1+7 hours per day for the high apprehensives. The proximity of the average daily planning time for high and low apprehensives seems to indicate that equal amounts of planning time were required by high and low apprehensives in this study. However, a closer look at the individual scores may prove illuminating. Low Apprehensives Bobby 5.00 Jeff 9.25 Haley 5.00 Debbie 29-50 High'Apprehensives Greg 1+.50 Rhonda 7-25 Lisa 3.25 Phillip 32.50 Table 1 + : Individual Planning Hours over Eight-day Period With two exceptions, all subjects planned for less than -;10' '.hours per eight-day period. Debbie and Phillip spent three or more .times as many hours planning as the other students; Debbie’s daily average was 3.69 hours and Phillip’s was k.06 hours. Debbie is a low apprehensive according to Daly’s instrument and Phillip is a high apprehensive, so it is to be expected that the difference in their planning times would be as significantly different as are other variables (..message intensity etc.) for high versus low apprehensives. The results suggest, however, that planning time is more idiosyncratic and not necessarily related to apprehension. Examining the remaining six subjects' planning time reveals a mean planning time for low ap prehensives of 6.h2 and 5*00 for high apprehensives, suggesting that low apprehensives plan slightly more often. Spread over the eight- . day period, the planning time is .63 hours (37.8 minutes) per day for •the high apprehensives and .80 hours per day (,U8 minutes) for the low 'apprehensives. This table illustrates that there are four students ; Ctwo low apprehensives and two high) who spend between '3 and 5 ; | hours planning, two students Cone low and one high) who spend between 1 ■ .7.'and 9 • hours planning and two students Cone low and one high) : who spend about >' ,30}'" hours planning. Thus the total amount of time is probably idiosyncratic and not strongly related to apprehension. ; : I It does show, however,- that all students spend far more time planning • than controlled studies suggest. 92 j The category in Table 0 3 ^ titled "Necessary Activity Unre lated to the Assignment" was originally designed to identify avoi- ;dance behavior. However, interviews with students who completed the form revealed that they rarely perceived such activity as active avoidance, but rather as unavoidable, duty-bound activity. Inter- ■ views also revealed that more often students did not record what they considered avoidance behavior because they deemed it an inap propriate response. Although this category was designed to elicit reports of avoidance activity, activities that were not related to * the assignment cannot necessarily be pidgeonholed as avoidance time, since the student who reported going to work may or may not have been, for example, going reluctantly. Since the content of the forms students had completed were not discussed during interviews, it was not possible to determine whether or not the student who didn't write 'because she had gone to her job was using her job as a convenient | excuse not to write. And of course, the apprehensive student who flipped through a magazine for an hour may not have really been plan- , ning although he reported it as an assignment-preparatory activity. But, the content analyses reveal that students did engage in acti- ■ vity that was not assignment-related purposefully and- did report that activity, so there is no reason to believe that any student would report planning time that was actually avoidance time. In addition, ' this distinction between planning time and avoidance time may have been a false one, since it is difficult to determine whether or not students who were consciously avoiding were subconsciously planning. The planning time questionnaire results suggest that both low and high apprehensives plan rather regularly from the moment an as signment is given, but that the number of planning occasions increases dramatically as an assignment draws nearer. The case studies should reveal what the nature of the planning time was for both groups, determining whether high apprehensives'‘planning time was as fruit ful as low apprehensives' planning time. • • . * V ' ' * " * Tables ■ through I l'12tQ show those planning activities that were reported each day by both low and high-rapprehensive writers. The low-apprehensive writers' responses are found in the LA columns, while the high-apprehensives' are found in the HA columns. Planning-Time Questionnaire Date: U/3/81- ' . Activities Before Writing Time Spent in Minutes Less than 5 10-15 More than 15 LA HA LA HA LA HA Talking to Others 8 2 1 5 Writing Related to the Assignment 1 Worrying About the Assignment 2 3 1 1 Miscellaneous Acti vities to Get Ideas a. Thinking about the assignment 2 1 2 b . all others 1 1 2 Library Research Deciding to Work at Another Time 3 1 1 Necessary Activity Unrelated to the Assignment 2 Table 5: Planning-Time Questionnaire, Day One Planning-Time Questionnaire Date: -U/U/81 Activities Before Writing Time Spent in Minutes Less than 5 ‘ 10-15 More than 15 LA HA LA HA LA HA Talking to Others 7 1 1 Writing Related to the Assignment 1 Worrying About the Assignment 2 1 1 1 Miscellaneous Acti vities to Get Ideas a. Thinking about the assignment 1 1 b. all others 1 1 1 Library Research Deciding to Work at Another Time 1 ' 1 + Necessary Activity Unrelated to the Assignment 1 Table 6: Planning-Time Questionnaire, Day Two * Planning-Time Questionnaire ■ s . Date: U/5/81 Activities Before.Writing 'Time Spent in Minutes Less than 5 10-15 More than 15 LA IiA' LA IIA LA HA Talking to Others 6 3 l Writing Related to the Assignment 2 Worrying About the Assignment 1 2 1 ' ’ ■ 1 Miscellaneous Acti vities to Get Ideas a. Thinking about the assignment ' '3 1 b. all others 1 1 2 Library Research Deciding to Work at Another Time 2 3 Necessary Activity Unrelated to the Assignment ' ■ 3 ' 1 Table 7: Planning-Time Questionnaire, Day Three t I _________ . [-97 : Planning-Time Questionnaire I Date: U/6/81 Activities Before Writing Time Spent in Minutes Less ‘ than 5. 10-15 More than 15 LA HA' LA HA LA HA Talking to Others 5 . b 3 b Writing Related to the'Assignment 2 1 2 ' Worrying About the Assignment 2; l 2 2 Miscellaneous Acti vities to Get Ideas a. Thinking about the assignment ' ‘ 2 i: 2 b. all others 5 1 3 2 Library Research •Deciding to Work at Another Time 1 3 Necessary Activity Unrelated to the Assignment 1 2 Table 8: Planning-Time Questionnaire, Day Four Planning-Time Questionnaire Date: U/7/81__________ Activities Before Writing Time Spent in Minutes Less than 5 '10-15 More than 15 LA HA LA HA LA HA Talking to Others 3 2 12 __ 2 Writing Related to the Assignment ■ ■ ■ ' 1 : 1 3 Worrying About the Assignment 1 2 1 1 Miscellaneous Acti vities to Get Ideas a.. Thinking about the assignment 1 1 1 1 ■ b. all others 1 1 Library Research Deciding to Work at Another Time 2 1 Hecessary Activity Unrelated .to the Assignment 1 Tatle 9: Planning-Time Questionnaire, Day Five Planning-Time Questionnaire Date: ^/8/8l______ Activities Before Writing Time Spent in Minutes Less than 5 10-15 More than 15 LA HA LA . HA LA IIA Talking to Others • 3 3, 3 2 1 1 ' Writing Related to the Assignment 1 1 > ‘3 ■ ' 1 Worrying About the Assignment 2 1 1 1 ' 3 Miscellaneous Acti vities to Get Ideas a. Thinking about the assignment .... 1 2 2 1 1 b. all others 2 3 1 Library Research Deciding to Work at Another Time 1 1 1 Necessary Activity Unrelated to the Assignment 1 Tahle 10: Planning-Time Questionnaire, Day Six Planning-Time Questionnaire Date: L/9/81 Activities Before Writing Time Spent in Minutes Less than 5 10-15 More than 15 LA HA LA ‘ HA LA HA Talking to Others 2 2 2 1 Writing Related to the Assignment 1 3 1 Worrying About the Assignment 2 1 2 1 3 Miscellaneous Acti vities to Get Ideas a. Thinking about the assignment 1 1 2 1 1 b. all others k 1 1 2 3 Library Research Deciding to Work at Another Time Necessary Activity Unrelated to the Assignment 1 Tahle 11; Planning-Time Questionnaire, Day Seven Planning-Time Questionnaire Date: U/10/81_________ Activities Before Writing Time Spent in Minutes Less than 5 10-15 More than 15 LA HA • LA HA LA ’ HA Talking to Others 1 4 2 Writing Related to the Assignment Worrying About the Assignment 2 1 1 I Miscellaneous Acti vities to Get Ideas a. Thinking about the assignment b. all others t ' i - ' l' Library Research • • Deciding to Work at- Another Time Necessary Activity Unrelated to the Assignment I ' I Table 12: Planning-Time Questionnaire, Day Eight Tables {?&■ through 12.^ vividly demonstrate a pattern of planning activity. There is a flurry of planning, manifested primarily as talking about the assignment and deciding to postpone work, on the day an assignment is given. Planning activity slackens slightly for the next couple of daysand then begins to build toward another flurry of activity two to three days before the assignment is due. This finding corresponds with patterns of student attention to assign ments that I have observed and hypothesized about since I have been teaching composition; this then is merely confirmation of a common ly held belief about students' attention to assignments. However, it is also evidence that students planned throughout most of the eight-day period and did not "ignore" the assignment up until the last available writing night. The interview sessions revealed that most students, high, and low apprehensives alike, postponed writing until later in the week, but did considerable planning every day. A waiting period is clearly evidenced by this behavior for both groups, but the high apprehensives did most of .their planning later in the. week, and planned for longer blocks of time. Excluding the dubious category "Necessary Activity Unrelated to the Assignment," the last time column (more than 15 minutes) contains a total of k-2 reports by highr-apprehensive writers, while the low apprehensives reported planning more than 15 minutes a total of 2k times. When consider ing the responses of an hour or more recorded on the original form :(which was divided into categories of 5 minutes or less, 10-15 min utes, 30 minutes, 'Ti: hour and more than r. hour) the high appre hensives reported 22 times, while the low apprehensives reported 1*+ times, a figure that is substantially less. The content analysis' form provided yet another picture of the subjects' planning time as well as' positive and negative attitudes and behavior towards writing. The responses for each group of four * . students that fell under the two general headings of the content analysis form, positive attitudes and behavior, and negative atti- c Q tudes and behavior, were tabulated and are shown in the following table. Negative Positive Difference Low Apprehensives 171 19^- +23 High Apprehensives 280 88 -192 Table 13: Generally Positive and Negative Responses to Writing The content.analysis generally supported Daly's Writing Apprehension Measure. The four high-apprehensive writers had significantly more negative responses than positive ones, and the four low apprehensives had more positive responses than negative responses (though the mar gin of difference was much slimmer). It is significant that the low apprehensives had 6l.l% of the number of negative responses reported ' by the high apprehensives, while the high apprehensives had only k^.k% of the positive responses reported by the low apprehensives. What this means is that the low apprehensives reported much more neg ative feeling (and negative behavior) about writing than one might expect in light of the previous research. The source of these neg- ; ative feelings and behavior may be a "state" apprehension, a situa tion where these normally dlspositionally low apprehensive writers ' exhibited more apprehension than normal. Another possible explanation might be that Daly’s instrument does not account for all manifesta- i tions of writing apprehension. Examining the individual responses . may provide an answer. Low Apprehensives Lib''- Negative Positive Bobby Jeff Haley Debbie 55 32 38 k6 52 52 66 2k Greg Rhonda Lisa Phillip High Apprehensives Negative ■ Positive 66 12 36. -30 26 10k 20 Difference -3 -4-20 4-28 -22 Difference -5k -6 -U8 -8U Table lU: Generally Positive and Negative Responses to Writing by Individuals ; The low-apprehensive writers were expected to exhibit more pos itive than negative responses, and as a group, they did. But there were two exceptions to this expectation: Debbie, who responded neg- .atively 22 more times than she did positively, and less significantly, ■ Bobby, who responded 'V'S.y more times negatively than he did posi- I ■ tively. Again, the answer may lie in a "state" apprehension asso ciated with this particular assignment. The case study should reveal whether Debbie’s abnormally high number of negative responses were "state" related, or whether some other factor was involved. Bobby, whose Daly score was 27, made 55 negative comments, during his inter view sessions and 52 positive comments. Bobby’s interviews may * 'reveal the source of his high number of negative responses. ' The data shows that even low''apprehensive writers have a lot of , negative feelings toward writing. From one-third to one-half of their total comments are negative. Thus apprehension about writing, as revealed by behavior and expression of feelings is almost as of- , ten reported as the positive behavior and feelings reported by low ' apprehensives. Still, the high apprehensives have a much higher pro portion (with the exception of Rhonda) of negative responses— 75- 80%. The question the case studies should help answer is how these negativeofeelings or apprehension.affect the composing process. The combined responses of all eight subjects appear by content analysis categories in the following tables. Low apprehensives' responses are found under the LA columns. High apprehensives' responses are found under the HA columns. Each category found in the original form completed hy student subjects (seven total) -will appear in a separate table. Both past and present are accounted for. Negative responses are found after single letters, while positive responses are found after prime letters.. ' " 1. GENERAL ATTITUDES Past Present LA HA LA . HA Ga) Negative attitudes about writing 3 6 2 12 u p Positive attitudes about writing 28 ■6 u> General School Pressure 11 10 u p Lack, of General School Pressure Go 1 Pressure from a specific assignment l 6 6 Lack of pressure from a specific assignment Gd) Negative Attitude about revision 2 l (dp) Positive Attitude about revision Table 15: Combined Low and High Apprehensives' Responses by Content Analysis Form Categories— Category One: General Attitudes Under category one of the content analysis form, "General Atti tudes," four subcategories, and their opposites, appear. Subcategory (a) Negative attitudes about.writing and its companion (a^) Positive attitudes about writing, revealed expected results. The high appre hensives- had more negative attitudes'about writing, and the low ap prehensives more positive attitudes. In general, there were far few er comments on past experiences, so I . will focus, on responses in the present unless the data indicates.' otherwise. It is significant that both, groups "crossed-over," that is they expressed feelings associa ted with the other group: low apprehensives reported negative feel ings and high apprehensives expressed positive feelings. This was true of most categories, illustrating the frequent ambivalence of students' feelings toward writing. Proportions are, however, most revealing. Eighty—two per cent of the positive statements in this category were made by low apprehensives and . 6 O' per cent of the negative statements were made by high apprehensives. Both, low and high apprehensives felt nearly identical amounts of general school pressure (subcategory b) and pressure from a specific assignment (jsub- category c). Pressure from sources, other than the writing assignment on which the study is based seemed to be a universal. This pressure might have easily compounded writing apprehension, unless the writer was able to isolate himself from outside influences while writing, a feat that seems unlikely. Comments about subcategory (,d)_ will be made later in connection with reported revision. 2. FEARS/ANXIETIES: CONFIDENCE Past Present LA HA LA HA (a) Fear of evaluation 1 5 12 23 (ax) Not afraid of or looks forward to evaluation 1 10 2 (b) Fear of making errors 3 3 6 15 cv Synt ac t i c ally confident Cel As signment unc ert ainty 2 2 13 14 Sure about the assignment (d) Pressure from need to complete assignment lb 25 Cd ) • Absence of pressure 2 1 Cel Situational apprehension 3 1 8 ' • 18 Ceil Absence of situational apprehension 2 T 7 , ' - Cfl Dispositional apprehension 2 10 (Sjl Absence of disposi tional apprehension 3 1 t I | Table l6: Combined Low and High Apprehensives’ Responses by Content Analysis Form Categories— Category Two: Fears/Anxieties: Confidence 109- , Category two, "Fears/Anxieties: Confidence,” included six sub- t 1 categories. Fear of evaluation (subcategory a) was expressed a total of 23 times "by high apprehensives and 12 times hy low apprehensives, while only -'2 _ • high apprehensives and 10 low apprehensives looked ; forward to evaluation. Twice as much fear of evaluation is then, a fair assessment of high apprehensives as compared with low. This supports. Daly's finding that fear of evaluation is one of the para- ; meters of writing apprehension. "Fear of making errors, a subcategory ♦ : Cbl that has to do primarily with grammar and mechanics, included a ' ■ similar response ratio. A total of 15 responses were tallied for the high apprehensives, while, low apprehensives tallied 6. No. student reported being" syntactically or grammatically confident, which in dicates that students are rather more unsure than not about their proof-reading skills’ . The' fear of making errors is most probably : related to students' experiences with red-penned papers, but there ; is also the possibility that the fear of error is related to gen eral uncertainty or insecurity about things they know will be exposed to the scrutiny of others. In general, high-apprehensive writers i expressed much, more concern about making errors. Assignment uncer tainty (.subcategory cl was felt by nearly equal numbers of low (.131 and high- ClU) apprehensives., and no student reported being sure about 1 the assignment. Since the assignment demanded a fair amount of ! creativity, therein may lie the explanation. That which requires j invention of "the new" is almost always surrounded by an atmosphere of uncertainty. However, it may also "be the case that the assignment was inadequately explained. In either case, being unsure about the assignment was a common response by both groups, indicating that part of apprehension about writing is rooted in uncertainty. Sub category d, pressure from the need to complete the assignment, was reported 25 times by high apprehensives and lU times by low appre hensives, while an absence of pressure was reported twice by low ap prehensives and once by high apprehensives. Since substantial num bers. of both, groups felt pressure, it can be safely assumed that pressure regularly accompanies writing, but more often with high- apprehensive writers. Situational and dispositional apprehension (.subcategories e and f). are significant because they reveal that there "was some situational apprehension associated with- this assignment ( . . 8 reports from the low apprehensives and 1 . 8 from the high, apprehen sives) that may account for some of the low apprehensives' negative ^ responses. But the number of responses C81 is. not high, enough to account for all of the apprehension experienced by low apprehensives in this study, particularly when there are , ' ■ . 7. . ' • ' / reports of an absence of situational apprehension on the part of the low apprehensives. The situational apprehension reported by high apprehensives was evi denced in more than two times as many reports as the low apprehen sives, a response that is probably typical for a high apprehensive. Whether or not this situational apprehension is related to the cre ative nature of the assignment will be explored in ’ the individual case studies. Dispositional apprehension was reported 10 times by high-apprehensive writers, while low apprehensives reported only an absence of dispositional apprehension and that on 3 occasions. This data supports Daly's Writing Apprehension Measure; high apprehensives tend to carry apprehension about writing with them in all situations. But, low apprehensives are not always low apprehensives; their appre hension .may increase in response to the demands of an immediate wri ting occasion. This rise in apprehension on the part of low appre hensives may be related to specific assignments '(.situational appre hension), but my data suggests that, apprehension is- a general phen omenon associated with writing of the academic variety. As a writer rises to a writing occasion, so rise’ s , his writing apprehension. 3. PLANNING BEHAVIOR Past Present LA HA LA HA Ca) Delaying Starting to Write to Plan 1 8 8 Ui) Starting Immediately Without Planning 3 1 2 (b) Avoiding Thinking about and plan ning for the paper 3 18 20 tbi) Thinking and plan ning for the paper 21 Cc) Unable to concentrate or focus on topic, or difficulty in find—^ ^ ihg.' ideas 2 21 ( V Brainstorming Ease, surplus of ideas 16 Table IT: Combined Low and High Apprehensives' Responses by Content 1 Analysis Form Categories— Category Three: Planning Behavior The third category in the content analysis form, "Planning Be havior," was crucial in this study. "Delaying starting to write to I plan" was reported 8 times by both high and low apprehensives, indi- * eating that both groups reject "starting immediately without plan- : ; ning" as a writing strategy. In fact, only 2 high-apprehensive < i 113- ,responses and 1 low-apprehensive response was recorded in that sub- category (a^). This is further, evidence for the notion that delay is 'a significant part of the composing process. Subcategory b, "Avoid- 'ing thinking about and planning for the paper" and subcategory b^ "Thinking and planning for the paper" are also important clues for ‘ .the. planning behavior of high and low-apprehensive writers. Figures . for both groups in subcategory b were very close. EightjdefTt low- - ? apprehensive reports of avoiding thinking were made as compared with . 20 high-apprehensive reports. Forty-one reports of thinking and plan ning for the paper were made by low apprehensives, while high appre- . hensives reported 21 occasions of thinking and planning. The proxi- i mity of reports of avoidance by both groups indicates that all wri ters actively engage in not thinking about or planning for writing. This conscious decision to remain aloof may be a-manifestation of what . psychologists call repression. It is important to remember that that which has been repressed retains force and .may continue to exert in fluence subconsciously. If that is the case with these student wri ters, then their avoidance may have been yet' another way of incuba ting their thoughts about the impending writing assignment. The high, reports of active thinking and planning (.although low apprehen sives reported considerably more than high apprehensives). indicate that student writers devote a good deal of effort to planning. It is. even more significant that most of the "avoidance" reports were made early in the week and the "active" reports came later. It may !be that avoidance precedes engagement in the writing act for the pur- •pose of preparation. It is easy to visualize a writer "gearing up" for a writing.task, getting ready to write, not diving in immediately. That was the experience of all eight subjects, regardless of their apprehension level as measured by Daly's instrument. Subcategory c, "Unable to concentrate or focus on topic, or difficulty in finding •ideas" was overwhelmingly reported by high apprehensives (21), while c^, "Brainstorming ease, surplus of ideas," was exclusively repor ted by low apprehensives (.1 6). These findings suggest that appre hension may act as a debilitator for high apprehensives and that these •writers may be experiencing some type of writer's block. i i 5 k. CONSIDERING FEATURES OF THE ASSIGNMENT Past Present LA HA LA HA (a) Di ffi culty 1 5 (a1) Ease 1 3 2 (b) Novelty 1 1 3 <h> Familiarity 1 .1 (c) Interest level low 2 8 h (cx) Interest level high 5 l (d). Dislikes personal experience as signments Cd1) Enjoys personal experience assignments .k 3 (e) Dislikes creative topics 1 ( - el} - Enjoys creative ’ topics 3 ■7 (f) Dislikes analytic" topics 2 2 3 7 (.f,) Enj oys analyt i c topics Table 18: Combined Low and High Apprehensives' Responses by Content Analysis Form Categories— Category Four: Considering Features of the Assignment 116' . Category four, "Considering Features-.of the Assignment," was 'based on Daly's findings about variables that affect apprehension and on Emig's case study work. Here I attempted to discover how much apprehension was related to types of assignments or types of writing. > More high-apprehensive reports about .the assignments ' difficulty were ■ made C5l, but reports of ease were made by nearly equal numbers of both groups: high apprehensives.'2, low- apprehensives 3. . Some of the situational anxiety was then specifically assignment related. The 'novelty (_b) and/or familiarity Cbp). of the> assignment was not strong ly reported. The highest response came from the high apprehensives who reported novelty 3 times. But in the subcategory („c) of interest level, 5 low-apprehensive reports o.f low interest were made, and 1 high apprehensive report was made. High interest was reported 8 times by low apprehensives and U times by high apprehensives. The low interest level indicated by low apprehensives may account for some of their discomfort. That more high apprehensives reported high ' I ■ interest rather than low interest is probably related to their topic preferences. Results from the next three subcategories, "dislikes personal experience assignments," "dislikes creative topics/enjoys . creative topics," "dislikes analytic topics/enjoys analytic topics," ; clarify the interest level reports. Seven high-apprehensive writers reported enjoying creative topics, and since this assignment was a "creative" topic that provides a likely explanation for their high ; , i .interest. Both groups strongly preferred personal or creative topics over analytic topics supporting Emig's case study finding that "re flexive" writing is usually preferred over "extensive" writing by students. The analytic mode seems to provide the most difficulty for students perhaps because it usually requires more than a super ficial understanding of a text or an idea. 5. TEXT GENERATION Past Present LA HA LA HA (a) Problems generating first sentence, paragraph 3 1 5 16 Ca-L) Ease in generating first sentence', paragraph 2 l‘ 3 (bl False starts, stops 3 1 9 ( V Consistent, even generation 1 15 5 ( . 0 5 . Interruption with other activities 5 13 10 Cep). Uninterrupted production 1 2 Table 19: Combined Low and High. Apprehensives' Responses by Content Analysis Form Categories— Category Five: Text Generation I Category five, "Text Generation" is largely concerned with pro- !blems writers encounter while writing. "Problems generating the first sentence or paragraph," subcategory a, were predominantly re ported, by high apprehensives Cl6 times), as were "Palse starts, stops" (9 times). The low apprehensives reported "Consistent, ,.even exces sive generation" 15 times, .'indicating that in this study high appre hensives had more difficulty getting going and keeping going. There t were, however, several "cross-over" reports, suggesting that other ■ variables besides apprehension nay influence writing behavior. Al- ; most equal numbers— 13 low-apprehensive and lOthigh-apprehensive 'writers, reported instances of "interruption with other activities." The probable purposes of such behavior are many.. Perhaps the writers were recharging, or achieving distance, or had temporarily run dry, or had simply run out of time. Whatever the cause, out-of-class writing is not, according to this data, a smooth process or an order ly operation. Writers seem to alternate between generation of ideas and words, and temporary blockage of ideas and words. The high, ap- ' prehensives were stymied more often but the low apprehensives also had problems. It's almost as if a writer feeds on his own writing, , but occasionally he serves himself up an undigestable chunk and he chokes., sputters, maybe even stops.. Eventually, however, he either tries another chunk, discarding the original, or he changes it into : something he can digest, or breaks it down into a smaller chunk, but ' somehow he goes on. This metaphor for planning during text genera- { r ■' . • ; tion simplifies -a very complex process; nevertheless, in varying ■ degrees and with varying results, it is a process all writers in the I study went through. 6. REVIEWING TEXT Past Present LA HA LA HA ta). ■Not rereading initial draft or sections Ca-jJ Rereading initial draft or sections 1 •1 1 Cb) Not evaluating own efforts <v Evaluating own efforts 2 3 6 Lc) -Not seeking others' evaluations of draft Lcll Seekings others' evaluations of draft 6 i t Id). Not revising text on basis of evaluation 2 Ldj) Revising text 1 3 T Table 20: Combined Low and High Apprehensives' Responses by Content Analysis Form Categories— Category Six: Reviewing Text j "Reviewing the Text" was a category that fit least comfortably i in the negative/positive poles I established. Almost no subjects re- I 'ported not rereading the initial draft or not evaluating tifeirjdwn/ef- forts or not seeking others.' evaluation, or not revising the text (negative subcategories); almost all responses came in the positive ; subcategories (a^, b^, cq, d^)„. It is difficult to say if that ab sence of responses in the negative subcategories is the result of complacency or over-confidenee, or really reflects an absence of nega- ■ tive feeling toward revision. All reports in this category reflected active reviewing of the text by both high and low apprehensives, though more low apprehensives more frequently evaluated their own efforts. This might be related to a general reluctance on the part of high apprehensives to show their work for fear of a negative reaction,, i but it must be noted that' high-apprehensive reports of seeking others’ evaluation were tallied, which weakened this claim. Seven reports of revision wereimade by high apprehensives (.3 by low appre- . hensives), but the case studies revealed that generally this was not the sort of substantive "re—vision" Sommers speaks of, but simply attention to spelling and mechanics. This corresponds with the high apprehensives' fear of error reported in Category two. It seems as jthough little planning took place in the revision of these students, ► (that little was done by low apprehensives) probably because, as is the case with most students, they did not understand what revision beyond polishing was, or did not know how to revise. [ In the "attitudes toward revision" sub.categori.es (Category One, ; subcategories (dl and (d-^X ) , only high apprehensives reported negative, 'attitudes about revision (subcategory d), and all of those were re lated to an inability to meet the perceived demands of an instructor. The low apprehensives who responded positively about revision were largely referring to the satisfaction that comes with "polishing" activity. Few of the subjects reported engaging in substantive re- ' vision (those who did were low apprehensives)— editing seemed to be their primary revision tactic. 7. POST-WRITING BEHAVIOR Past Pre sent LA HA LA HA Ca)_ Dissatisfied with. final product • 1 1 . h (a ) . Happy with, final product 5 16 3 (b). Relief that assign ment is completed 2 3 6 10 (b^) Unrelieved that assignment Is completed 1 Table 21: Combined Low and High Apprehensives' Responses by Content Analysis Form Categories— Category Seven: Post-Writing Behavior ' The last category, "Post-Writing Behavior," concerns attitudes 'expressed "by writers once the assignment is completed. The k high- 1 apprehensive reports of "being "dissatisfied with the final product" ;contrasted vividly with 16 reports of "being happy with the final pro- ‘ duct given "by low apprehensives (.only 3 high-apprehensive reports of happiness). Only low apprehensives recalled feeling happy with their , final product in the past (.5). Relief that the assignment was com- , pleted was felt "by "both groups (more often "by high apprehensives (10) than by low apprehensives ( . 6 ) . ). According to Daly, the low appre- ihensives1 elation is probably related to some positive past experi ences with writing and the high apprehensives’ lack.of this joy is trelated to unfortunate or negative experiences. Likewise, the high ■apprehensives are more relieved that the assignment is over because ■ it has, been, theoretically, more painful for' them. At least part of this claim is probably true, but the fact that low apprehensives also report relief is support for the hypothesis that writing is,, to a degree, painful for all writers. Perhaps any discovery process is | painful. The pain may be a manifestation of apprehension or it may 'be heightened by excessive apprehension, but if we accept that the pain is necessary, then the apprehension may be necessary as well. i The high-apprehensive writers' performance suggests that their appre hension may be due to other factors in addition to fear of evaluation. , Much of the data collected in the content analysis points at some shared "negative" behavior and attitudes, as well as shared "positive" “ behavior and attitudes. The content analysis revealed two trends in the feelings and actions of high and low-apprehensive writers. Some thing in the writing process appears connected with or dependent upon "negative" activity. Both- groups expressed a difficulty with writing and an avoidance of writing, suggesting that a simple division into two camps, apprehensive and non-apprehensive, is an oversimplification of responses to an essentially paradoxical act— paradoxical in that writing is often a love-hate affair. Second, “ both groups postponed writing for relatively long periods of time. They, like weight lif ters, circled the “ bar, readied themselves by waiting. This waiting period before composing begins may be a crucial part of the process. The case studies, which follow,, will further examine these possibili ties. ^ The Low-Apprehensive Writers Case #1 - Bobby Bobby is an eighteen-year-old Speech Major with an ACT score of fourteen. His G.P'.A. was: 73.Q69 at. the end of his freshman year. His interview sessions were always fast-paced and he was frequently exu berant. A highly associational thinker, he often' let a question lead him to some past event or current passion. He was always excited about what he was saying, and his unflagging energy carried over to the classroom where he was a frequent and vigorous participant in class, discussions. He scored 27 on the Daly Writing Apprehension ; Measure on a scale of 26-130, arid reported f 5 ' . ' hours of planning :during the eight-day period. The myth Bothy wrote follows. No al terations in his original text, spelling or punctuation have been made. ’Tis the Season At the beginning of time, Zeus (.King of the Gods)- assinged every maiden and knight in the heavens a particular thing to rule over down on earth. As time passed, maidens and knights were -born to the ones already there. At the age of 106 these maidens and knights were eli gible to become a God or Goddess. ; When 'Tis,. daughter of Zyphire and Xevious was 106 she was- very ' sad, because all the maidens in the land were Goddesses, and all the knights were Gods, except for her. Sure it was her opportunity to become a Goddess, but everything for a God or Goddess to rule over ! appeared to be taken, so what was there for poor 'Tis to do. Each and everyday 'Tis would look down on the earth below to find something to be Goddess of, and as each day progressed poor 'Tis ■ became bluer and bluer, because she couldn't find anything to rule t • over. After many months of depression, 'Tis decided she was going to : kill"; herself, because she wasn't a Goddess. Before she attempted . to do the actual killing she thought about' her life, and how it had I effected her. Besides thinking about her life, she also looked down 125 on the earth at it's many people. For the first time in a long time she thought about the people and how they effected her life. Just then a thought occured to 'Tis, that during the months of December through February everybody on earth sits around stuffing their faces, doesn't exercise, and just lays around. And during March through May people start coming out of their shell by exer cising, eating healthier foods, and taking notice in their bodies. Then during June trough August people continue to exercise more, stay outside more, and eat less food. But then during September through November the people start exercising less, loafing off, and eating more. Then of course the cycle repeats itself. At that exact moment, not only did 'Tis come back to reality, but she also knew knew that she was going to be Goddess of four breaks. She went to Zeus to tell him that she wanted to be Goddess of four breaks. Zeus said that it would be fine, but instead of four breaks it will be seasons. So 'Tis was known as the Goddess of the Seasons. She called the four seasons summer, fall, winter, and spring. Summer, because it's a happy word and that's the time of the year people are the happiest. Fall, because people start falling back into old habits and patterns. Winter, because it's like a white sheep— everybdy doing the same thing instead of being different like a black sheep. And finally spring, because people start springing back into action again. Not only was ’Tis happy, but so was all the maidens and knights up in the heavens. The people on the earth were just as happy as the Gods and Goddesses. .And to this day 'Tis is remembered every year between December and January. At this time, not only do you hear Merry Christmas and Happy New Year, but you also hear 'Tis the Season. Bobby's myth received a score of 2.83, slightly above the mean for the low apprehensives. Most of the graders praised his origina lity and inventiveness, but found his mechanics and grammar rather poor. Graders reported being torn between a desire to reward his creativity and to "punish" his frequent lack of basic skills. This explains a holistic scoring range from high- pass CM to low pass ( . 2) for Bobby. The "My Composing Process" paper, the written replies to the "Writing Attitudes and Experiences" questionnaire, and to Linda Flo wer’s questionnaire, "A Self-Appraisal of Your: Own Writing Process" provide some interesting information about each subject's writing. Bobby tells about his first experience with writing a research paper in his essay titled "Composing itfyself.". He writes of how he came to choose a topic: In March of 1980, Ms. Carol Burgett told her fourth per iod English class they had six weeks to complete their re search papers. Upon -saying this she handed out a list of British Authors in which the class could choose from. As I glanced down the list I noticed close to the bottom of the sheet of paper the name Dylan Thomas. I sat their at my desk and contemplated on where I had heard the name be fore. Thinking back, I recalled a play I had seen the pre vious month - Under Milk Wood by Dylan Thomas. At that exact moment I knew I had my research topic. Why? Because it was on a topic that I could relate to from a past ex perience . Bobby's associational method of topic selection was almost effort less in this situation, requiring little concentration or weighing of advantages and disadvantages. He writes,'however, less smoothly. "Wait!" "A good s.ong just came on the radio."---- "Whew!" "Boy, does that feel better." When ever I write I always listen to the radio. If a good song comes on while I'm writing,'•■then I'll get up, look in my mirror, comb, my hair, then dance, just to relieve some of the ten sion built up from concentrating so much. Other than the radio, I. will not tolerate any other disturbances. Bobby says he will not tolerate any other disturbances, but he him self has engineered several: mirror-gazing, hair—combing, dancing— all "just to relieve some of the tension." He does not explore fur ther the tension he reports, as being caused by concentration, but he considers it necessary to relleye the tension by interrupting the process and engaging in some other activity. The interruptions may not exclusively be caused by. tension, however. Bobby breaks off writing "If a good song comes on," an indication that periodic breaks are a part of his composing process and not necessarily related to any one event during writing, like a block or a problem. i Bobby mentions in his introduction that "This has got to be I the hardest writing assignment I've had to write in my entire life." i iIntrospection was harder than "doing research." This is a key to •Bobby's method; he says he writes from outlines and always gets going by using a definition or a quote. Relying on words or groups of words as triggers is a technique Flower and Hayes recommend in their writing as problem-solving techniques. Bobby, who has been making use of this -technique, finds it harder to use in the "My Composing Process" pa per. After some manipulation, he manages to include a quote from Ben- ■ jamin Franklin (."He that composes himself is wiser than he that com— 'poses books.") and a definition of the word "process." He mentions , on more than one occasion that the way he writes is in "a set pattern," ' so his attempts to make any assignment fit his. pattern are under standable. He closes with, "writing is an art and a way to get away * from it all," a statement that reveals some of his reverence for, and ' pleasure in, writing. Bobby did not turn in short essay answers to the two question- : naires. He said he kept forgetting to do them and when pressed for J ’ ; an explanation, said he didn't really have the time. The many acti- i vities. occupying his time that Bobby mentions in his interview ses sions indicate he was. truthful, and not simply avoiding the ques- ! • tionnaires. However, it may be argued that they didn't interest ■ him sufficiently or he would have made time to respond. i 129, ! Bobby’s interview sessions were among the longest I taped. His ' answers were full of bits of personal history, and some of the in- ' formation asked for In the short essay questions was elicited through i the interviews. 1 i Four general questions were asked during the first interview session: Cl) What was your first reaction to the assignment? ( . 2 ) . What have you done since the assignment was given? (3) What deter- . mines your feelings toward, writing? and (JO How would you rate your fear of writing on a scale of one to ten? Other questions grew, out of individual subject's responses and varied from subject to subject. Bobby's first reaction to the assignment was one of dismay— "another English paper"— because he felt that school work was piling up on him. He doesn't generally feel this pressure after he begins writing. "After I . start working on it, I like it and I : like to write down my ideas and once I . get going I . like what I . write and I . like ■ i to find more research on it..." Bobby is the kind of writer whose ; pleasure increases with the doing; anticipation is less pleasant. "At first I . thought it would be boring but after we started discus sing it in class. ..I, thought this might be interesting, so I've been i I thinking about ideas." He reports jotting things down, but not "ac tually working on the paper Itself." Bobby considers idea generating J to be separate from writing, but a necessary prefatory activity. He thought while the class discussion was. underway and reported that ! most of his ideas were mentioned by the instructor or his classmates, ' 130 ■so somewhat discouraged, he "blew it .off" over the weekend, reminding [himself that it was due in only one week. Asked if the due date t 'bothered him, Bobby said, "I like to feel under pressure a lot of times because that's just what keeps me going. The more things I have (.to do}., the more pressure I have on me, I guess, the more will power I. have to get things done." Bobby's dependence on pressure is a key to his attitude toward writing. He sees writing as a chal lenge, one more obstacle to hurdle, but finds some joy in the hurd- iling. He rated his fear of writing as. a two. "I'm not absolutely fearless, but there's in everybody...just that slight bit of, maybe not confidence, but you know the problem is just thinking of the 'topic. That's about the only fear I have. Once I find the topic...," he shrugged and smiled. Bobby's apprehension is not rooted in the •physical act of writing; that comes easily. He is afraid of not being able to invent a useable idea. Bobby's need to find an idea served to sharpen his powers of observation. He reports becoming very aware of his surroundings, and found himself unconsciously searching and [finding ideas in unlikely places. "Today I was just walking into [Health, and Safety class and the wind just blew me and I thought, 'Boy, that sounds like a good topic!'...and then last night I was looking up at the sky and usually when I. look at the moon it' s a full moon or almost a full moon, but I. guess it was an eighth of a moon, it was .real small...it was the edge of a moon and I. thought, 'Well, that .would be a neat thing to write about too!' Normally I wouldn't even ■look at the moon unless it was full, hut then I just happened to look up..."' Bobby felt pretty good ahout those experiences because they gave him ideas. His constant searching and reassessment of ideas is evidenced in his final product, which concerns neither of these topics. The second day of interviews focused on the following ques tions: (_l).Did you do anything since yesterday on your paper? (eb question that was also asked each subsequent day). (2) What is the .most difficult aspect of composing for you? (.3) What is the easiest ‘part of writing? What is your primary concern when you are com- ;posing? Bobby continued to describe incubation of his ideas. While jogging he reports, "...all of a sudden it just clicked on me that I had this paper to do and here’s a good topic right here, the dark- ■ ness and stillness, and it just kind of sent chills down me while I [was running and I didn't concentrate on my running, 1.concentrated; on the paper, which made me feel real good because I didn't get real ; tired...I was relaxed and I think I . could even run-another three miles." Again, however, "darkness and stillness" were rejected in favor of another idea. Bobby spoke more than any other subject of constantly developing his ideas. He said the,most difficult aspect ■ of composing was getting the first sentence on the page and that "the easiest part is writing the rest." A constant concern was his grammar and he found it absolutely necessary to take frequent breaks I 1 to "relieve tension." On the third day the interview focused on (l) Do you like to. ’write? (2) How do you get ideas for writing? (3) How do you manage to get started? (b) Do you worry about anything when you write? (.5) Do you ever procrastinate? Bobby described two more* incidents ■that inspired him: seeing a lawn being mowed and looking out the window during a bible study class. He spoke of enjoying writing po etry and articles for his high school yearbook. Writing is "an easy way to get away from everything and release some tension." He ex- . plained that the right environment and the- right time were necessary , for him to begin writing. So, legs crossed Indian styie, with coke . in hand and a radio in the background,;Bobby writes, but not until . the day before the assignment— two days before at the most— "I like , to put it off because of the pressure.” The fourth interview, which centered on the following questions, Cl) "Tell me about you and ■ writing; what experiences have you had? and (2) What things do you recall about learning to write?", was a crucial one for Bobby. Up until that day, Thursday, he had not put pen to paper. He planned to write his paper that evening. Discussing the previous evening's work, he said he had some free time and thought he would start his ■ paper. But, "i. had a test to study for too. I decided to go ahead and study for the test (.1 had math, problems to do too), but I ended up talking the whole time and X had a fraternity meeting at 10:30 and ; I . just said, 'Well, blow it off until tomorrow'...! always just wait until the last minute. I . started worrying about it late last night, 133 but I’ll get it done.” Bobby said most of his writing gets done in 'a similar fashion. He said he had been involved in yearbook, speech, ,drama,;and debate, and all he had influences on his writing and 'helped his confidence. He "loves to write," but he doesn’t like to write before he’s ready. j In the fifth interview session the following questions were asked: (1) Has this survey made you think about your writing any ■ differently? ( . 2 ) . What did you do differently on this assignment? (.3) How do you feel now. that it's over? Bobby wrote and typed his paper in its entirety on the previous night (Thursday). "I kept put ting it off and putting it off...I thought about it, but said, 'Well, I'll clean my room.' So I . cleaned my room. And then the dishes needed to be washed, so I washed the dishes. Then I said, 'I need to / wash my clothes,' so I . washed my clothes. Then I started working on W paper. I tried to do everything but write the paper. It was not , that I didn't want to, it's just that I wasn't in the mood to write ' the paper. After I . got to writing it, it was. all right.” Bobby ■ reported several breaks during writing: an hour of jogging, a 30- minute shower, a 10—minute’snack and "a couple of other breaks, ; probably about three ■ hours altogether."’ . When asked if he stopped because he was stuck he said, "No, ideas kept coming into my head, but I would just stop to relieve some of.the -tension, and maybe while I . was gone I could extend the idea and get the perfect wording that I . was trying to think of." Bobby's choice pf the words "extend i the idea" is very interesting "because it implies he took breaks, in part, to play with or mull over his ideas, to develop them to their limits. When asked if the interviews made him self-conscious he an- ■ swered, "Usually I don’t think about the paper itself too much until t 1 it comes right down to the deadline, but knowing I had to come to these meetings made me realize what X was doing a lot more." Bobby felt good about his final product and mentioned that he wasn't too -worried about his grade. ! Discussion Most of Bobby's "negative" comments (35 total) had to do with the pressure he felt, his fear of evaluation and of making errors, ! and his frequent interruptions and delays. Bobby’s description of his writing process was'dependent on two recurring variables, the ; constant building of. pressure before writing and the relief of ten— j sion during writing. Bobby is an'example of the kind of writer who ; plans, by delaying. He entertains many .ideas in the course of his prolonged "pre-writing" and doesn't seem to be able to write until sufficient pressure has built up. (.The large number of ideas he gen- ! erated for this paper casts some doubt on his report of just five ; hours planning time.) Some of the pressure he speaks of is no doubt related to the impending deadline, but his real problem is discover ing just the right topic— therein lies the real pressure. Once the | "writing day" has finally arrived for Bobby he engages in some last ; minute avoidance by doing household chores, but finally he is ready and he writes. The actual writing is not a start-to-finish opera tion; he breaks frequently to relieve tension .and "extend ideas." : Bobby's apprehension, which is rooted in the pressure and tension of forging ideas, is of a different character than the apprehension posited by Daly. What has usually been labeled debilitating in some ( writers has. purpose in Bobby’s , writing. Bobby scored the lowest on Daly's, scale. Low apprehensiyes, do have apprehension, but it may be focused in useful ways. Bobby's, planning time, which, is very long in comparison with most of the other subjects, seems related to his : apprehension or uncertainty about his topic. He creates and rejects many ideas until finally he must choose. In all probability, Bobby i ’ • ■might have gone on planning if his due date had not arrived. For- . tunately, he had conditioned himself-to be ready to write when it , was necessary that he write. His low apprehension score is'a reflec tion of his fervor for .writing; his moments of high apprehension ; during the task reflect his planning strategy.' I Case #2 - Jeff Jeff is an eighteen-year-old Physical Science Major with an ACT score of 23. Jeff had a 2.875 G.P.A. after his freshman year. He [ , ; is very much involved in theatre and his fraternity; therefore, his J interview sessions were rescheduled or postponed frequently, but he j was always cheerful and eager to talk when we did finally get together. Jeff was academically undisciplined, hut bright and often made insightful comments in class. Jeff scored 37 on Daly's Writing Apprehension Measure (Scale 26-130) and reported 9-5 hours of plan ning during the eight-day period of the study. The myth Jeff wrote is printed below. A HURRICANE The hurricane is a very turbulent natural occurrence that hap pens because of the disagreement between a couple of the great Greek gods. Poseidon, the god of the sea, at many times during the year likes to be cocky and have his way. He does things like asking the great Greek god Atlas, who is the-ruler of the land, to raise the sides of the shore so a few of his. buddies and he could play a lit tle water polo. Really dumb things. Atlas can only disagree to such- trivial demands. -He .has. a set, of rules ordered'by ' Zeus, who is the god of all Greek gods, to live by. If he does not follow these set of codes, then his employment could be terminated. Poseidon, at first talks with Atlas about his demands and the land god just laughs it off. Over a period of time,- Poseidon get annoyed at Atlas' facetious giggle. Warning Atlas that he will take revenge for his negligence of his authorative commands. Atlas just sluffs the sea good off, and goes about his business. He has to worry about other summer activities. At this point Poseidon calls upon his buddies, the gods of the wind and rain. He plans his attack with- them. Waiting for the right moment, Poseidon and his gang start [the attack. Calling upon the winds, he orders them to start their i " itremendous assault. -Starting on the clouds, who are friends to Atlas, ithey haunt them for their help. Refusing their needs, they try to run, hut are overtaken hy the winds and’ . ‘ have to succomb to their needs. Continuing their march to the land, they pick up the rains .and increase their power for the attack. Gaining strength, they yell i ■their threatening blow to Atlas. Being caught by surprise, the only ’thing that Atlas can do is to ride the storm out. Atlas summons ■Hermes, the messenger, to get word to Zeus at.Mount Olympus. Poseidon i 'continues his tortures on Atlas and his kingdom. ; Zeus hearing Atlas' cry for help, calls his golden chariot to rescue his servant. As Poseidon is ready for the kill, Zeus jumps in the eye of the hurricane to greet Poseidon. Forcing Poseidon to give in, Zeus with, his -golden chariot clears the sky of all the evil | impurities, and sets things back to normal. "Jeff's myth received a score of 1.83, which was .81+ below the :mean for the low apprehensives. One grader really enjoyed Jeff's inarrative and called it entertaining, but most focused on his gram- '.matical difficulties, and sometimes awkward diction and poor syntax. ‘Jeff's, scores, ranged from pass ( 3 ) . . . to fail Cl) with most of the ' graders giving him a low pass. I Jeff's responses, to the three anecdotal evidence instruments : C"My Composing Process" paper, Writing Attitudes and Experiences I ■ i Questionnaire, Flower's Questionnaire) were revealing. Titled "A Patented Process," Jeff's composing process paper provides a neat description of how he perceives his composing strategy: When first given an assignment, I get worried'. Things go through my head. Stupid things like, '"Oh no," or '"'Will I make an A? . I sure hope I do." A more common thought is "I can’t do this," or "This is crazy." After all the pre liminary hull, I try to develop a seed of’-thought so I i can ponder it awhile. If I can*t think -of anything good to write about I . start to worry. When it comes down to the last few days before deadline, my "panic button" goes . off, and I . put mys.elf into high gear. - A lot of times my- best thoughts come to me' during this time. • ' Jeff calls his early distress "preliminary b u l l " . ; ' ' : the real worry -comes with not being able to think of an idea. Under this "panic" as he describes it, some of his best ideas are born, a process very similar to the one Bobby undergoes. Jeff goes on to talk about starting directly on a rough draft after he has "grasped" his subject. He also speaks of sometimes wishing that he had an outline because at times his "subject is not ready" and he scratches out a lot or starts over many times. He goes through "moods or phases" while writing, ;but comments that whatever the mood, he will not stop writing til he finishes. This "non-stop" method is not really as uninterrupted as .Jeff thinks, because he then says: "If one were to glance at my ,rough draft after its completion, he would see doodles are my thoughts , i ! that I . am not able to put down on paper at the time. These are es- ; sential in my style of writing. I . can use them to let off tension and : pressure." The tension and pressure Jeff feels are, he says, mostly , > because of the deadline he faces. In answer to one of Flower's ' 139j questions, he tells of doing papers under pressure or a tight time constraint because of his other classes and extracurricular acti vities like pledging a fraternity and stage-managing a play. He men tions sometimes having difficulty generating his beginning sentence and paragraph and also having trouble concentrating with noise and activity going on around him. The primary problem Jeff says he has with writing is "finding the time to dedicate himself to it," because when he has the time, he rather enjoys it. In the first interview (.see appendix for a list of daily’ inter view. questions), Jeff talked about how easy he thought the assignment was going to be and how he wasn't worried. "I. felt that the idea that came to me would work pretty well." He talks about'"trying to figure out what to write" in a disinterested way: "I thought about it a little bit, not .much; I. talked tora couple of friends, and. told them I had to do the assignment, and it never did bother me because it wasn't due til a week later." Jeff toyed with his idea for very brief periods over the week-end. It was on Monday that "it came to me in little spurts what I'm going -to write." On the previous Friday he said he had immediately decided what to do, but after a while "it didn't sound too good and it was just .what I'd thought of at that if time." He reports periodic thinking and'additional ideas appearing up until Wednesday— all in all 9-25 hours of planning. "I've got it down to a couple of ideas and one of them I've got that we used in.class, and it keeps coming back to me like it's the one I want to do, but |I'm trying to hold it off. I'm trying to work up this other one. ‘ ‘I'm trying to make myself develop the idea and put in some hack-* .ground." Jeff is doing a lot of conscious incubation; he tells him- .self he must develop his idea. The hardest thing for Jeff to do is his introduction, which he says he "tests" before going on. It's got to please me first, and if it doesn't then I keep going back...the rest of my paper depends on it be cause if I'm pleased with- it then the rest of it will fall in place... If-my' idea isn't developed, then I. have to de velop while I write. Now there's lots of times I forget stuff,- so I jot things down (J.n the margins) or doodle (in the margins). Whenever there's a lull moment in think ing then I doodle around and goof off...and after a while I can come back and finish it...it's a lot easier to come back after (a. break!. Jeff's doodling and goofing off while.writing is in progress are. in response to "lulls." After removing himself from the writing act, he is able to write with renewed vigor. He says he quits outright very rarely, but needs to "goof-off" occasionally to "get ready" ;again. Generally the body of Jeff's paper is the easiest part for him to write; he feels the least pressure here. Once he has an idea he usually can create support for it rather quickly: when he can't,' ■he reports that there's something wrong with his idea and he has to ; I "play with it" some more. Jeff's primary concern while composing'is | i : whether or-not his. work will be "enjoyable to-the reader." He also ;mentioned- grades and deadlines,- remarking that "sometimes it's better !to haye tension on you to keep you going and pull you through instead ! ♦ ! i ! • i lHl : !of "being lazy and slide through. . .then when it’s over with, the load’s off your hack." The tension Jeff mentions figures rather im- iportantly in his writing process; it's something he needs to get and keep going. Perhaps that explains, his tendency to wait until an assignment is nearly due to write. He'also says: "Well, I don’t ■like to do an assignment unless I'm really ready for it. If I’m ready to do it, then I'll do it, but if I’m not, I don't like to ‘force myself." Jeff could not remember many times when he had to :"force" himself to write since he was usually able to "cook-up some ideas after a few days or so." Jeff did not begin writing until the night before his narrative was due. He reports thinking about getting started the previous night, but stopping to "wonder if he was doing it right" and deciding -he "wasn't really ready to get into it and go after it" and ending 'up going to bed. This is a pattern established when Jeff was in high school. His early experiences with writing were generally positive ■ because he could make his. teachers laugh- and got A's and B's even though most of his papers were "rush jobs." He recalls a teacher who I .was. a strict grammarian, famous for giving F’s, that he "won over" , with the "little twists off humor I put in." He .enjoys >6 ' c f e r p b ' s i i ; i ( D n ' ’ ;in college as well, reporting that his errors-don't bother him too much: , "I make boo—boos but everybody does-. If I really,.sat down and took ;.my time...but if I . took .my time it would be boring." Jeff has been I :considering switching to an English major: "I thought about majoring !in it,' but there ain't much to do but be a teacher. I^don't want to he no teacher." Jeff was almost jubilant in his last session. "I really feel great about this one. This is the best one (all semester). It just came. (.I'm). Proud as a Peacock. . .but I felt worried about it while I was doing it because I didn't know if I was going to finish it by 11:30 p.m,; " (when his fraternity pledge meeting was scheduled). Jeff' said the time slot in .which he had decided to write probably influ enced his composing process, which' seemed to complete itself very rapidly on this occasion. Jeff described it as though he was gushing out words uncontrollably, but they "sounded great" nonetheless. When 'asked if he changed anything' about hi’ s writing process because of the interview sessions he said, "Not really, because I'm the kind of guy 'that writes, whenever it feels right, I have no set pattern. You might say that X do, but really I. don't. Whenever I’m ready I . go, go, go."'- 'Jeff rated his apprehension 2 on a scale of 1-10 for this assignment, .reporting worry only when his. time was running out. "I. liked doing this stuff, (.it was) pretty heat." 1 Discussion The content analysis revealed that Jeff made 32 negative com ments and 52 positive ones. He was generally;quite self-confident, and the apprehension that he felt had primarily to do with the im pending deadline he faced and not being sure of his idea. That fear 'was quickly remedied when Jeff actually began writing— he produced almost a torrent of words. That may be'part of the reason for Jeff's poor score.in the holistic grading; His. writing was full of errors, yet he thought it excellent. Jeff's writing steadily improved when he slowed down long enough to proofreadi but during.this study he was a good example of a poorer writer who was a.low apprehensive. ; Jeff's normally low apprehension can be attributed to some successful . experiences, with, writing and a usually rapid and satisfying idea- getting process. He mentioned on several occasions not wanting to : write til he was "ready," his readiness determined by how much he .had "developed" his. idea and how soon the paper was due. He needs some time to "ponder his seed of thought" and only then does he feel ■like it's time to begin. Jeff reports, finding his best ideas when he is panicked, providing additional evidence for the hypothesis that I ;apprehension may be productive at certain times during the composing .process. Jeff feels he uses his apprehension to his own best advan tage, but those who scored his. essays, .might suggest that his enormous .relief and elation upon completion might well be tempered with a lit- !tle more worry if that is what is necessary for him to renew his ef- ■ forts,, and revise. : The doodles and jottings in the margin Jeff speaks of are also •important because they are a clue to his planning during composing. i He rejects outlines in favor of a planning-in-process method, going I Iback to the doodles as triggers when needed. Jeff's "lulls" are l t : lUU not cause for particular alarm; he- merely "goofs off" for a while and then can begin writing with little strain later. This indicates that 'he has worked out a rather effective composing strategy, rarely block ing or giving-up. His negative comments are .directly related to his ;discovery of'Ideas; they disappeared from'his answers once he had a handle on his topic. His relatively high' number of reports of planning •time prior to writing ( : § , v 25 hours), are a reflection of■ his nearly constant striving to discover just the fight idea, and that striving ’ was. not particularly pleasant for Jeff, but it was ultimately most . satisfying. 1 Case #3 - Haley Haley is a seventeen-year-old undeclared major with an ACT score .of 16. Her' G.P1A. was 2.j60 at the end of her freshman year. Her interview sessions were clearly an interesting way for her to spend >some time. She enjoyed being asked questions about herself and an swered most with gusto. Haley was not quite as active a participant in classroom discussion, seemingly holding back until she was sure of ■her answer or felt confident it would be well-received. Haley scored 53 on the Daly■instrument Cscale 26—130) and reported 5 hours of planning during the eight-day period, a planning time that was the ileast time reported by a low apprehensive. Haley’s myth follows: 1^5 | "Why'The Oceans Are Salty" Up in the heavens thousands'of years ago, lived the god of the oceans, Seasar, and his beautiful daughter, Alantus. Seasar was an old man that was quiet selfish and unfair because he had brainwashed !his innocent daughter into believing that the only happiness she would I have was to always stay by his side in their kingdom. Because Seasar * * was so infatuated with*her innocence and beauty, he wanted her to love lonly him and Alantus.was so naive that she did as he wished. Everyday Seasar'brought Alantus beautiful sea .shells, corals of ■magnificient color, and perfect sand dollars which kept her very con tent and satisfied with her life. She knew, only of the love she felt for her father. Ohq day a young handsome messager came to Seasar bringing distur bing news about one of his oceans that caused him to go away for two .weeks . When Alantus saw the'messager she sensed a beautiful feeling 'of loye that she had never felt before. While Seasar was away, the two fell madly in love and wanted to ■ become married. When Seasar returned Alantus told her father of her new happiness and how they wished to be married soon with his bles sings. Naturally Seasar went into a jealous rage forbidding such a thing to happen and promised to drown this man if she ever saw him 'again. Alantus did as. he ordered for fear of what he .might do but :everyday and night she cried her salty tears into Seasar's oceans 'below. i Soon all the oceans that were once crystal clear became full of isalt. Alantus realized what a selfish man her father had been to her. Now Seasar knew that he wasn't .enough to make Alantus happy so he permitted the two lovers to become married. Now when we taste the salty oceans, we can remember all the pain .a person will go through to be with the one he loves. Haley's holistic grading result was 2.8-3, .16 above the group .mean of 2.67. With, the exception of a single grader, Haley received all passes ( . 3 ) on her narrative. The grader who gave her a low pass .(.2} remarked that Haley's essay was "O.K., but sort of ordinary." hMost", of the graders found her writing rather better than average and generally free from errors.(Several did mention, however, her problem ,with commas,.'), The concensus was that her essay was not spectacularly ;creative, but was certainly acceptable. Haley's composing process paper, "Understanding the Way I Write," is a very straightforward account of how she responds to writing as- .signments. When I get an assignment to write-a-paper, my mind usually goes in a short state of panic, especially if it is a in side class assignment. I really like to put alot of thought into a paper before even attempting to write it. It is. real ly hard for me to’ come up with quick ideas and write them. I have gone for days and never really come up with any thing good to write about, then maybe I'll be driving down the road or about to doze off and- bam, ideas start popping •in my head. I always try to, write them down on a scratch piece of paper immediately while they are still fresh in my mind. I later use them in writing. Sometimes when I for get about the subject and just stop worrying, ideas start coming across. I hate to be pressed for time. I'm trying to train myself for writing when I'm under pressure. ; Haley's statement that she has. gone for days and has not been able ,to come up with anything "good" is important in understanding her com posing process. Her implication is that she comes up with some ideas, but they are then evaluated and rejected. The ideas she can work with .are not.the product of conscious, concentration, but seem to spring i up spontaneously. She says that when she just forgets and stops worrying, ideas come across. Being pressed for time is unpleasant I ^and she expresses a need to train, herself to write under pressure. ■Haley's description'of idea-getting seems to follow a pattern of dis comfort/worry followed by release/generation; her ideas do not come during times of pressure but only after she'.lias willed herself to • "forget" her-subject. Haley closes with "I have never been totally •confident on my wfithings" (sic). Her typing error may be more apt than she would be willing to admit, because Haley, who "love(s) to ■ write," finds the idea-generating process, at least until she has an ,idea, frustrating and painful. In her. short essay answers to the questionnaires, (which ran 8 handwritten pages),, Haley reports writing every day of the week and enjoying most of it. The most difficult thing for her to do is to ."come up with a good subject...I always have a little trouble get ting started but once I. have a general idea on what I'm doing, I can 'usually sit down and write away." Later she says she often thinks of "all sorts of ideas, but they're not just right." She particularly dislikes subjects she knows little about or doesn't understand and •would rather write about herself or current events. But whatever the ^subject, she insists, "I enjoy writing, but writing requires a lot of- time and thinking on my part and sometimes I don't enjoy writing when I. don't have this time. I don't like to be pressured on the spot to write a paper." Time and the pressures associated-with not enough time again figure into this student's description of her writing be- •havior. Haley spends a good deal of time incubating her ideas, but r • V ’ * once she has them she "usually write(s) in one sitting because once I. 'get started I don't like to stop the chain of thought. Once I start I can't stop." The planning Haley does while writing seems to be in stantaneous; she requires no breaks, no distancing. It is important to note that Haley does write under pressure oc- 'casionally, "because it helps to motivate me," but she prefers "time to gather my thoughts and ideas before writing. I usually don't put 'a PaPer off til the last minute. I. don't write it right away, but I. .never put It out of my mind. I’ m always trying to get ideas in my head..." Haley concludes that it's hard for her to write, but she gets satisfaction from her efforts. In her first interview Haley reported being excited about the writing assignment and said she had been thinking about it, "but I can't think of anything right now." On this occasion and others be fore the first session Haley indicated thinking about the assignment, I i lb9 mulling it over but not generating anything• "creative" j-ust yet. "I've been thinking about it, different ideas and I’ve thought of ideas but I can't think of a good story yet." She again commented on the difficulty she has in forcing her ideas. "When I . make myself have to think about something, like I have to think about this right now, I . usually can't think of anything good. It usually just comes to me when I'm really not pressured that much." Haley rated her apprehension about this, assignment as a "four or a five" primarily because she hadn't yet decided on a topic. "'What am I.going to write on?' I wanted to write on snow maybe, and I have ‘ all-these ideas, but I can't decide how to..., you know, what story to use. I just keep saying 'What am I going to do?' I'm still, kind of looking forward to it." Haley then again mentioned that getting star ted was the hardest part for her. "Once I have the idea and every thing in .my head, I can write aw.ay usually. It's just the getting istarted that's the toughest." This "getting started" is related to coming up with the "idea" for Haley, the insight or focus that will generate the discourse. Her "not—writing" in order to incubate usu ally has positive results. Haley began writing her rough draft on the evening following the ifirst interview— she was the earliest of the low apprehensives to be- 1 gin writing. She described sitting in her room thinking and she "just ■started coming up with ideas," and wrote straight through for 30-UO '.minutes, because she "had an idea of the whole paper" in her head. ' I ‘ ____. _ . . . 150 But her thinking process prior to writing was not so streamlined. "I had a lot of breaks. I’d come up with one. idea, and then I’d kind of come to a blank spot, then I'd start thinking about something else and I . would come up with another idea. Some ideas didn't even relate ■to each other. I . just kind of got different ones. I'd get up and do -.things in between." Haley reported listening to the radio and watch^ ing TV as she was thinking, but that her ide’ as came from "just think- 'ing real hard." During the third interview Haley said she hadn't written any more, ■but that she was still thinking about her paper. Most of her thinking .was. reconsideration of what she had written, for" example, deciding to change her ending. Haley's writing is not an extremely arduous under- |taking,-but she does jnention ar.nagging doubt about whether or not. she' s - doing it right'." "I. always worry if I'm doing it right or not. I'm afraid that I'm not giving the reader what he wants, and I'm just not sure of myself until I have the paper done- and I read back over it •and then I see that it's not that bad." Some of Haley's uncertainty .is. allayed by consideration of her final product. * 1 Haley usually adheres to a planned time for beginning writing; |she doesn't always write the "whole thing,"'but she doesn't "keep putting it off" indefinitely. She commented that she sometimes likes deadlines because they "get you on the ball" and that once she gets going she doesn't have much trouble; she even enjoys it. The (•,_ Irougfi^draft she wrote early was polished the evening before the papery was due and Haley reported finishing in just-over U5 minutes. This was >a typical procedure for Haley. She reported writing her papers with as much facility in high school. "I've always felt pretty sure about my writing. In high school.I always made real good grades on my papers. I can't ever remember making an F or anything, I've always felt pretty good about it...it's. always been pretty easy. I just really haven't ever dreaded doing it much...but I'm afraid to write on something I . don't know anything about." Haley's good attitude toward writing was nurtured by these early successes, yet she men tions being afraid when faced with, the unknown. This is much like the tense feeling she describes when talking about trying to get a '"good" idea. Haley reported feeling good and glad she was finished in her last session. Gapsulizing her entire experience she said: "There jwas. a time when I . worried about it when I..had some ideas but I. could n't think of a good story. I. worried about that then, I thought about it a lot then, and I'Couldn't thinkr of a story. I . could come up with, and every time I . could think, of something I . was afraid it " ' r . •wasn't good enough to write about. So one night I worried about it ;until I . got a general idea, and after that I didn't worry much." Further conversation revealed that Haley's connotations when she used ;the word "worry" are different from the usually unproductive behavior ,we associate with, worry. Haley was actively engaged in searching her .ideas, concentrating and focusing on the topic. She creates and re- . jects until she comesnup with what she feels will work. Her ten- sioniis at a peak until this "general idea" has arrived. ' Discussion The negative comments (38 total) that Haley made and that were .recorded on the content analysis form overwhelmingly dealt with two •issues: her difficulty in finding the "right idea" or a "good idea" . and her uncertainty about whether she had "done it right." She con sciously delays starting to write in order to plan and finds this period the most distressing in her writing process. Once her ideas ;have been forged, her apprehension drops off rapidly and is almost non-existent as she writes her rough draft. Any lingering doubts are 'dispelled as she reads the draft, which with minor alterations, is usually very satisfying to her. Haley reported' a dozennoccasions ! prior to writing when she considered her topic, and she rejected sev eral ideas before hitting just the right one. But this happened very ;early in the week, much earlier than the other low apprehensives be- .gan their writing. But, the pattern is the same— apprehension is highest when the topic has yet to be selected. She doesn’t find pres sure to be facilitating as do the previous subjects and so avoids put- 'ting off beginning to write. (Bather than stretch out her planning, Haley shortened it; her 5 hours of reported planning went on in only 'two to three days.) And then Haley continued to think about her ideas .after she had completed her rough draft, double-cheeking them1 , making sure they were "right." Haley's apprehension is rooted in the unknown and as such is a classic fit in the psychologist's theoretical mold. Once she "knows," her apprehension is dispelled and only resurfaces for brief periods in which she checks herself, making sure she did, •in fact, really know. Haley's distress was fruitful; she produced an idea she could live with. Case - Debbie Debbie is a nineteen-year-old Pre-Veterinary major with an ACT score of lU. At the end of her freshman year she had a 2.750 G.P.A. She was rather more subdued during her interview sessions than the. •other low apprehensives, but she was very attentive and seemed con cerned about making sure her answers were complete and honest. Debbie rarely spoke in class, but when she did her comments were lucid and 'intelligent. She was eager to participate in this project, explain ing that she hoped it would help her become a better writer. Debbie scored 56 on Daly's Writing Apprehension Measure (26-130 scale) and ■reported a very high number of planning hours, 29.5 for the eight-day 'period. Debbie's myth is reprinted without alteration below. Cynthia and Narcissus \ 1 Cynthia was the goddess of beauty-and-love. Since she was full of such beauty, Zeus, the ruler of all gods, created two seasons to express the perfection and pureness she possessed- He created spring and summer, a time when infants were "born. And the trees, along with the grass, blossomed and grew as if trying to touch the sky, providing fruit and food to nourish the babes. There were flowers covering the hills and valleys like a rainbow. The spectrum of colors covered the ground like plus velvet. The soil was black and fertile, and the grass was as green as the sea. The flowers and berries were as red as blood and blue as the sky. At the beginning of spring when everything was in full blossom, Cynthia was in,the meadow watching the water flow over the glistening rocks. Suddenly she saw the reflection of a most handsome face. In stantly she fell in love with the beauty and felt sure she was dream- ■irig. But, when her eyes moved toward the sky, she saw a prince. As- .tonished by each others beauty they fell madly in love with each other ‘For the next thirty-one weeks the two young lovers spent every minute of the day together. Then one day when Cynthia and the handsome vi- * .prince, Narcissus, were strolling by the stream where they had pre viously met, they were overcome by darkness. No longer could you hear the birds chirp or see the sparkle in the stream. Out of the .darkness came a being, clothed in dark robes which exposed nothing ex cept evil peering eyes. Narcissus with unflinching courage, drew his sword, and prepared to protect Cynthia. The creature suddenly flung out a sword from the cape and struck the princes' hand, the sword fell .to the ground and the creature stabbed Narcissus in the heart. As 'Narcissus collapsed to the ground and the beast soared into the sky, ■still holding the weapon dripping in blood, the crimson blood was sprinkled onto the leaves. Thus Zeus created the fall season when all ,the leaves change their colors red because of the burning love Narcis sus held in his heart for Cynthia. Overcome with sorrow, Cynthia held in her heart a feeling of :nothingness. Because of this, all the plush grass died and the leaves withered from the trees. All the flowers went to sleep and the ani- jmals took shelter for the long, cold and bitter winter ahead in Cyn thia's heart. Debbie's myth received the-highest score among the low apprehen- sives. Most graders gave her a pass (3), but two graders found her .work to be exceptional and graded her a high pass (U). These two gra- ,ders in particular mentioned Debbie's use of figurative language and 'her nearly error-free prose (however, incorrect comma use was noted). The description in Debbie's myth was applauded by all graders except 'one (the grader who gave her a low pass ( . 2) . ), and her essay was ranked 'number one or number two in the entire sampling by all but one grader. Debbie describes a writing process in her "My Composing Process" 'paper that centers on a core of activity a short time prior to a due date. "A few days before the paper is due, I get a little nervous. ■ So I . sit down with my snack, which acts' as a filler for the time that ■my mind goes blank, and write out my rough draft before I get so .frantic that I forget all my thoughts." Nervous, anticipating her mind will go "blank, and frantic that she might forget ideas, Debbie sits down to write her paper. Unlike the other low apprehensives, who describe'the actual writing as generally easier, Debbie's comment • .makes her. sound very uncomfortable while writing. In contrast is her. description of a relatively calm, idea-generating phase. "After I am assigned a topic, it sparks a light, and it■ ■ stays on until I find the switch to turn it off. The idea that I find to turn off the light can come from television, radio, magazines, .books or even a simple comment that you (the teacher) or someone else makes." Debbie's metaphor is very interesting. She likes the idea-getting process to be a burning light, switched on by an assignment; under its glow a writer cannot rest until an idea is born,-and then the light- is doused and the-yriter can write. Debbie's metaphor doesn't carry the overt irritation or discomfort her description* of the physical' act of writing does. In the self-appraisal of her writing process, Debbie says she doesn't like to write, but she doesn't dislike it either. She speaks of breaking up her writing time if her assignment is more than two pages long because "long papers tend to bore me," but cautions us' that writing isn't really too bad when she has a "set" idea. Perhaps the lack of a set idea is what caused the tension while writing Debbie described in her composing process paper. Support for this may be found in her statement that she "hate(s) pressure due to a test or a 'paper I'm not prepared for, or doing a paper at the last minute when ;I don't have time to think or concentrate." Then Debbie complains of not being able to write "efficiently" or sometimes "what I write -doesn't make sense." At these times, we may hypothesize, Debbie's ; I ‘light is still burning. Debbie revealed in her first interview session that the myth' as- ! i signment was already giving her difficulty. She reports thinking "Oh no!" when the assignment was announced because "I like Greek mythology 'and stuff, but having to create something, I’m not very creative when > it comes to stuff like that because it seems so far off. You have to try to take some object and make it into something else. I thought, .'I'm.going to have trouble with this. It's going to be hard.'" When ,asked if that was her general reaction to a paper she said, "No, it . 'was because it was on that topic." She explained that she usually responds with placid resignation, only concerned about when she could fit it into her schedule. "But this assignment," Debbie said, "had me ‘ i fspooked." Debbie's reaction to this particular paper is a perfect ex- ■ ample of situational anxiety; in fact, she was the only writer (..low or • ’high apprehensive).'who reported she^ disliked creative topics. In a ■"normal" assignment, she explains.,. "I just start thinking about it. I " • - ' -I ■ think, about it when I'm. not doing anything. I. just catch myself think- ( ing topics, you know, my three points I'm going to have in my paper. j , ■ . . . ( |It's not hard for me, it's just more or less what I think about some- \ 'thing instead of this...this'making something up." Debbie rated her J apprehension with regard to this assignment, a six (..one = totally ' .confident, ten = petrified). Debbie says she usually gets ideas as soon as the assignment is given and will even begin jotting them down ■as the teacher is explaining, hut this time was different. "I couldn't think of anything and it scared me and I guess that's why I didn't think of it very much over the weekend." Debbie avoided think ing about her paper because she had no ideas and she did not intend to think about it until she got home— "I'm just going to put it off til 'I get there." She felt sure everything would be all right "once I got started." At our second interview Debbie said she "didn't want to do it (work on her paper) at first, but after I started, it was kind of fun. I didn't have any ideas what I. was going to do it on, but I had to get it going, get some thoughts so I could be thinking about it and try to arrange it in my head, what I wanted to write about...move up and expand on it some so I've got a little bit of an idea." Debbie did get '"a little bit of an idea" more quickly than she anticipated, but only after considerable effort. "I wanted to do something about the sea- ■ i sons or how the months were arranged or something like that. I was 'thinking about taking each month and, you know,' where it's Christmas and have something to do with the birth and on Valentine's day have something to do with love and make a story out of that." She reported flipping through her English book, Baker's The Complete Stylist and Handbook and having a date catch her eye. That seemed to be the turn- ! 'ing point for Debbie. When asked what was easiest about writing, she 159 ■said "Creating different ideas. I have a hunch of different ideas hut I don't...like I was thinking of one, of putting the seasons on a hig wheel, a huge wheel and when it turns, all the different parts. [But I mean that's alright, hut I don't know what to do with it. I mean I come up with a hunch of different little ideas hut I don't know what to do with them." Debbie's difficulty lies in her inability to readily focus and direct her ideas, to "set" them, as she puts it. That was her higgest problem with this assignment, channeling her 'thoughts so that she had something workable and able to he expanded. Dehhie's settling on the seasons as a general topic did not come easily however. "When I got home, I planned to do it right then. I kept ‘ putting it off and putting it off and it kept coming hack so I said, ,'I've gotta do this, I've gotta do this.* Finally, I went in there and did it; it took me til about three hours later, so all that time ;it was in my mind." Debbie spent a lot of time trying to avoid thinking about her idea, hut "all that time" it was- in her mind. Her .avoidance became incubation. At her third interview Debbie reported no further progress on ■ her paper. "I thought I would wait and do it some other time. I * need more time." We then talked about whether or not she enjoyed ■writing. "Well I like to, but I.don't.do it as a hobby, for fun." i ' rWhen asked whether she ever had trouble getting ideas, she vascil- jlated: "Yeah, sometimes. Ho, I don't either. If I just sit down .and do it I don't have trouble. If I just keep putting it off and (putting it off then it gets to me." Procrastination seems to "bother I (Debbie more than the work involved, but she likes to have plenty of I I time in which to prepare and so often ends up procrastinating. When asked, "How do you feel when you've got a paper due?" she replied, "I wish you'd give me a due date and then let me do it later." Debbie .said she wished she had more time, because there were days when she - .just did not feel like writing. In fact she left the session saying i "she didn’t feel like writing that night, but had scheduled an hour ;and a half to work on her paper. 1 Debbie's fourth interview was very short;'she seemed agitated be- 1 cause she hadn't worked on her paper and she knew she had only one ! I ' ■ ''more night if she was to finish on time. Debbie did write her paper the night before it was due in about 2 and \ hours. She said she fi- : nally "knew what she was going to write about, so the last of it, the 'writing, was easy." She didn't write straight through, however. "We ♦ -have this book on Greek Mythology and I got started reading it and j read for about 1 and hours, , just getting ideas, and then I star-; |ted writing, and when I'd get stuck I'd go through there and just 'read. It would give me ideas." Debbie felt good about her paper. ; ! { ■ "I like it. I want everybody to-read it. Well, used to when I'd j { ' 'finish writing a paper, I'd forget them as soon as I'd turned them in. i ;But this paper I'll remember, because I nevep had a chance to really ; ibe imaginative and.create stuff. I've never written a paper like that ; I - . i ibefore." When asked to rate her experience again, Debbie gave it a ten (10 = apprehension, fear, nervousness), "mostly because it was ■hard to get started, but once I finally got started I didn't want to quit. I wrote and wrote and wrote." Debbie reported that her most 'anxious moment as a writer came while doing her myth, because she had never been asked to "create" before and it was a traumatic but intense- lylshtlsfying/experience. "When I started writing I spilled my whole ;effort onto the page. When I would look at my ideas I had seriously i jotted down,the thoughts came slowly, but the sensory imagery was as if I I had exactly planned what I wanted to write. I wrote straight through and didn't look back at what I had written until I was completely finished. I couldn't believe it when I read, it, it really sounded igood. I only had to make a few minor changes in the rough draft to type it directly onto the completed copy." Debbie's writing experience with her myth contrasts sharply with the way she perceived her writing process in her composing pro- ,cess paper. Getting an idea proved to be her most difficult task, writing it down was almost effortless. iDiscussion i Debbie made a much higher number of negative responses than pos itive ones C-U6, +2U) and planned a reported 29.5 hours, both;a^typ- 1 ical low apprehensive responses.. She was the highest- scoring low 'apprehensive on Daly's scale. Her proximity to the mean of my sam- j • • . ■ . . pling was insignificant for her general’ disposition .towards writing. [That is, she was a true low apprehensive, but her apprehension was quite a bit higher during this assignment. As her interview sessions Revealed, in all probability both of these unusual responses were due to a disproportionately high situational anxiety. It was this par ticular assignment that affected Debbie so strongly. Normally, she said writing was an almost matter-of-fact business, with little strain involved. For this assignment Debbie did an extraordinary amount of trying to think (and not always productively). Once she had an idea •she again procrastinated and did not write til the last possible mo ment. Debbie's avoidance had trapped her; she simply could not bring ■herself to begin. When Debbie finally started, her distress flooded 'over her and washed itself away like a dam breaking. Then her writing became almost a celebration. The single highest number of "avoiding thinking about and planning for the paper" reports for any low apprehensive were made by Debbie. 'But that large amount of.negative"behavior resulted in a very good, piece of writing— one of Debbie's best efforts that semester. Most , of Debbie'.s apprehensive behavior had to do with planning before she ■wrote, with finding an idea and then focusing it so she could work ,with it. If Debbie had forced herself to begin writing before this long waiting period the results might have been noticeably different and probably inferior. The challenge of creation required a lot of preparatory behavior, much of it anguish: perhaps, in Debbie's case, | |a necessary anguish. She built, up an incredible amount of resistance for a low apprehensive writer (quite a "bit more than Bobby and Jeff) .and was in danger of letting it overcome her instead of what did, in fact, happen. Debbie's generally low dispositional apprehension sky rocketed because of situational apprehension. Debbie is an example of a writer who came very close to not turning in her essay or turning in ,an inappropriate response to the assignment. Fortunately, she was able to "find the switch" and "turn off the light" and write. ■ The High-Apprehensive Writers Case #1 - Greg | Greg is an eighteen-year-old Computer Science major. He had no f ACT score. At the end of his freshman year he had earned a 2.107 •G.P.A. He was very cheerful and cooperative during his interview sessions, and was one of the most gregarious of the high apprehen sive writers. He participated regularly in class, usually anecdot- !ally, and seemed eager to share his "composing process story" with me. He said he was honored to'be a participant in the study. Greg scored 82 on the Daly Writing Study, of Apprehension Measure (26- 130 scale) and reported ^.5_ . hours of planning during the eight-day period. Greg's myth follows without alteration. ' (Untitled) i The unleashing of the power of tidal waves was a result of a tviolent fight between two brothers, Odeepius, god of the sea and Bob, god of the land. The fight took place long ago during the hottest summer of his tory. Due to the intensity of the heat Bob and Odeepius got together and set up a huge beach party. They decided that they could use the ;iand to play games such as hunt the lion, or fight the gladiator, and ;use Odeepius' sea to swim in as means to cool off from the games. Finally the date of the party arrived and the festivities began. \ Everyone ate drank and played games all day long, after they'had fin- ,-ished playing they went for a swim to cool off. As the evening pro gressed Bob started messing around with Odeepius' girlfriend, which ■didn't bother him at first, but Bob'kept it up and ended up getting |Odeepius mad. i ; Bob finally managed to get Odeepius' firlfriend, but he ended UP getting more than he bargained for. Since Odeepius had lost his girlfriend he decided to return to the sea, but before leaving he • swore that he would get even with Bob for what he had done. From that day forward, every time that Bob is'having an exce- •tionally good time Odeepius sends him a tidal wave for revenge. Greg's myth received a 1.83, below the group mean. Five of the six graders gave Greg a low pass (2), and one grader gave him a .fail (l). Most graders commented-on Greg's rather weak connection between his myth and the natural occurrence he chose (tidal waves). iHe was also criticized on the basis of his lack of .development, and pertinent description, . One grader described it as an "uninteresting, bare-bones effort." Although generally acceptable in terms of syntax and grammar, Greg's essay was not graded highly primarily because of !its "lack of content." j Greg begins his composing process paper with "Writing a paper ■has always been a problem for me, because I always wait until the last minute to do it. I do not do it on purpose, but every time I try to write a paper something else comes up." Greg is easily dis- ,tracted from his work and mentions a long string of people and acti- .vities that might interfere with his writing: friends, TV, chores, ;noise in general, a bad mood, a sunny day. "After I've been assigned a paper I often think of times I could do it, like if I am out run- • ning around I will say 'I should be home writing my paper.'" But ; Greg's good intentions often go unfulfilled; his "philosophy of com munication" appears to be restricted to oral communication. "When ;it comes to writing I do not get very excited. Writing to me is like reading, a total waste of time. I feel that people should live their lives and not spend a lot of time doing either one. Itthink I feel 'this way because I am the type of person that likes to keep on the found much purpose or value in written communication (whether pro duced or read) and that feeling no doubt makes selecting another activity when it and writing are the options almost a certainty. Greg finally writes to satisfy grades and deadlines, and then only. He ; talks of his idea-getting process rather briefly: "I do not really have a moment of inspiration. I have to think on something for a long time before it comes to me. I do not think I have a moment of : inspiration because I always wait to the last minute to write my paper. Even though I wait that long to write it I think about it .constantly from the day it is given, and have my idea long before I write it on paper." Greg’s discussion of his idea-generating is im portant because he says he thinks about it constantly, that it stays ■'in his mind whatever he does, implying a conscious act most student I writers would find difficult, if not tedious to perform. His plan- 1 ;ning and thinking are qualitatively different from the low apprehen- sives who actually tested and discarded possible topics. Still, Greg :needs a waiting period before he can put pen to paper, reporting that .he is unable to write as soon as an assignment is given. Greg mentioned that he does no writing.other than school-related composition and does that' under duress. He had some problems com pleting the short-essay questions (Flower's Self-Appraisal, and the Writing Attitudes and Experiences Questionnaire) and turned in a list of one-word answers scattered with short phrases or fragments of sentences. His answers reflected the attitudes revealed in his [composing process paper. Greg's first interview centered on his response to the assign ment. His immediate reaction was: "I was trying to think of, right then, was trying to think of a myth that I could write. When you were talking about myths that we knew, I was trying to, like, take parts of different myths and trying to put them together to make up i my own." Greg's instantaneous problem-solving technique did not pro duce results immediately, but he was not as distressed about working : on this assignment and was willing to.keep trying. "It seemed like it would be pretty much fun to me. When I have to write about stuff and use my imagination and stuff, that, you know, probably wouldn't everrhappen. That sounded like fun." Greg goes on to say that given , the nature of the assignment it wouldn't be a "hard one" and he ’thought he could meet the deadline. He then outlined a work schedule |he had made that he thought he could follow.. "I'll work on it just a little bit at a time through the week, thinking, and like, the night 'before it's due I'll write it and type it that night." Greg said 'that in general writing was a fearful situation and he liked to have !as little to do with it as possible. When asked what bothered him most about writing he said, "The idea of putting down my own ideas and thoughts and having somebody else read it. It doesn't bother me for people reading it or grading it, except I'm always worried about whether I spelled this right, whether I . said this right. You know, I always think that somebody's going to read my paper and laugh, you iknow, at some word." Greg's apprehension seems to fit Daly's des- :cription of the typically anxious writer. I asked Greg if he had be gun following his plan yet, if he had begun thinking of his ideas. ; "Well I've thought about it. Not really an idea; I've kind of been thinking about it. I been trying to line up that schedule so I can .work around stuff that I have to do this week like a test, studying for that, trying to fit in some times where I can work on it. I ■haven't really done anything on ideas." Greg's failure, early on, to adhere to his schedule is an example of his typical avoidance of wri- ; ting. He said it didn't bother him that he didn't have a good solid tidea yet, but if he "didn't have one by Thursday night at 9:30 I ;might start to sweat." Greg is confident that he can produce what is . t ; ^expected and that he should not "dive right in." "It seems like the longer I put it off, the more ideas I can come up with when I sit ; down to write. I can put them together and sometimes it doesn't ex actly help because if I don't have enough ideas for the paper or j ! don't get them put together, I won't have time to fix it before the next day. A lot of times it does that if I put it off." Greg fur- , ther explained that he meant that not having enough ideas or not having, I ideas that "fit together" was just as bad as not having any at all. ; ■ Greg said the only-way'he could generate sufficient ideas for a paper ! * . ’ . 5 ■was to "think for most of the time.and write at the end." t [ s l S I ' j I I I i ; \ ' l69' ! During the mid-week interviews (Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday) jGreg reported that getting ideas was the hardest part of the composing 'process for him— he typically writes 5 or 6 before he gets one he likes. And often, "You'll be trying to write the first line, and 'Boy, I'm hungry,’ so you'll go eat, and then, 'Hey, there's a good .show on TV, and maybe I'll watch that.' But once I really get started ,1 keep going." Again Greg is speaking of his difficulty in actually ‘ beginning writings; it is much easier to postpone or avoid writing. A constant concern he has while writing once he has begun the task, is his "correctness." "You know, comma-splices and spelling and stuff. • And the grade; those are the most important and if it’s not correct you won't get a good grade." '.-Greg's fear of evaluation is rooted in ; a fear of making errors, a common complaint 'of the typically high- apprehensive writer. But writing is not a totally joyless task. I just know that the paper has to be done...so I - sit down. I've got a wild imagination, and I imagine stuff; usually it's stuff I’ve been thinking about for. a while. But I have to think about my ideas right before I put them down on paper and the one I like best'is the one I start with. After I've got all that stuff out of the way and I'm ready to write it that's when I start feeling best about writing a paper. ‘Focusing his ideas or finding an appropriate connection between them -seems to be the most difficult part of writing for Greg and, we may deduce, where some of his most serious apprehension rests, but once I ■he has an idea he progresses with relative ease. < k ; Greg's recounting of his history concerning writing is blunt. i ■"I plumb flat hated to do it, but in college you're writing more papers and you're used to it and it’s a lot easier." Sustained prac tice has made writing an easier task for Greg hut there are aspects that still "bother him, notably evaluation, which keeps surfacing again and again in his statements. Depending on the paper that"I wrote, if I think I had done.a good.joh on my paper, the hest that- I can and.got everything how I wanted it, it-doesn't bother me at all, hut if they' tell me I've done something wrong I learn some thing, hut if I wrote down something and reread it and reread it and there's no way I’can make'it any better hut I don't like the way it is, then I-don't like for it to he graded because I can just tell what's going to come hack on the paper because I already know what's wrong with it. I know it's not going to help me out anyway. Greg wrote and typed his paper the night before it was due in | about 3 hours. He reported "feeling great. I was relieved." When asked if the survey had influenced him he replied, "This is the way -:i'd normally go about writing a paper. This survey has made me notice ,when I think about the paper. Normally I'll he thinking about it hut inot worrying about it." Asked to summarize his entire composing process Greg said, "I put 'it off, I don't really hate writing, it's just that I find it hard to sit down and...I cannot stand to read. I find it hard to sit down | and read or I . don't even watch that much. TV. I like to be on the go , and’stay busy. I . do a lot of work. I'd cut the grass before I'd ;read a book. That's just the way I am." ■Discus si on The bulk of Greg’s negative responses fell in three areas: fear ,of evaluation, pressure from the. need to.complete the assignment, and avoiding thinking about and planning for the paper.- Specifically, 'this makes him a classic high-apprehensive writer, but Greg's discus sion of his time before he begins to write suggests some additional facets - of his planning time.-,’ -Greg reported one of the lowest totals of planning time over the eight-day period, k.5 hours. Most of his h.5 hours, occurred very late'in the week after he had been devoting a lot: of time to considering how he might best spend the time he had ■not been writing. Greg admits he wasn't thinking about his assignment until 3 or k days after it was given, but also says on several occa sions that he thinks constantly after the assignment is given. This discrepancy might be explained if we take note of the distinction |Greg makes between thinking about an impending assignment but not gen erating ideas, and thinking about an idea that will direct his wri- ■ting, a process that he reports immediately prior to writing. The 'first kind of thinking is probably non-productive worry; the second kind is probably productive focusing. Greg's planning time was not ■fruitful initially, but eventually, his "imagination went wild" and he was able to write. Since procrastination is a normal course of action for Greg, we can take him at his word— he is not ready to "dive :right in." The avoidance Greg engages in is, he says, because he ! i i I i 172 doesn’t like to write; it's inactivity, a waste of time tetter spent 1 doing something. But an examination of his interview responses re veals something else. Greg decided it was not easy to get an idea for a-paper, and what's more, once"he had one, he still had no guaran tees, it still may he rejected. This combination of possible ill effects ought to make writing thoroughly unpleasant for Greg, but ,he still seems to derive some small satisfaction from it. Greg's apprehension about writing did not keep him from comple- 'ting his assignment; in fact, it was probably responsible for its completion. The pressure he felt because of the deadline caused him, 'eventually, to write, but he did not write.until the night before .the due date and he did not report selecting or even considering any ‘ideas until that time. Case #2 - Rhonda Rhonda is an eighteen-year-old Physical Education major with an ■ACT score of 13. At the end of her freshman year she had a 2.733 |G.P.A. Rhonda's interview sessions were sometimes a bit shorter than most of the other subjects'. She seemed to want to "get it over .with," not necessarily because it was uncomfortable for her, but be- 1 cause she had "other things to do." Rhonda did not participate reg ularly in class, but she did comment occasionally and was more likely to volunteer her disagreement with what was being discussed- than to (Offer factual information. She scored 83 (26-130 scale) on the Daly Writing Apprehension Measure and reported 7*25 hours of planning 'during the eight-day period. Rhonda's myth follows: i ; Whirling Winds One of the most powerful of all Greek gods who live on earth is Zane, the god of wind. Zane's only true love is his daughter Zanea. Zane did not want his daughter to do anything hut spend her time helping him. One of the very few times when Zanea was away from her father she met a young man and they began to talk. Immediately she ■felt love for this gentleman and he for her. When she finally re- 'turned back to her father that day he could see the sparkle in her .eyes and he knew there would be trouble. During the following week* -he found his daughter was drifting away from him more and more and he did not like this at all. When this had gone on for about eight .days Zane knew he. must do something to keep his daughter with him, so, that night, while Zanea was asleep he sent whirling winds to destroy this mans home and to take his life. When Zanea awoke and discovered what had happened she was deeply crushed and felt perhaps her father had not" known he was destroying her' love. For a few-days Zanea spent all her time with her father. She asked him one day if I she could go out for a walk, he-told her it*was,alright, knowing her I tlove had been killed. While she was walking through a field she saw jsome children playing and began to join in. She became attached very !quickly to the children, just as she had to the man she had loved. j-And just like with her love the whirling, rough, winds came and de stroyed her new friends home and land. She realized then that her i .father was responsible but it would do no good to argue or to leave :home because he would destroy wherever she went to. She spends months at a time with her father and isn't heard from, but, about two months I * 'out of a year, when she tries to get out and make friends. Every time she does the final results are the same, the whirling, rough, winds .of a tornado! Rhonda's myth was holistically scored 2.17, .08 below the group bean for the high apprehensives. Her scores ranged from a fail (l), given by two graders to a pass (.3), given by three graders. The gra- •ders were divided in the opinions of Rhonda's. myth. -Those who failed ■her found the myth she wrote "hard to believe," and "weak in concept." i Of course.it may be argued that all nyths are hard to believe, but it was the opinion of the graders that the story she created was not sensibly developed. They commented on her occasional errors in syn tax and lack of paragraphs. Those who passed Rhonda's myth found it '"not brilliant but acceptable" and noted that her sentence structure ;was more often correct than not. I Rhonda begins her composing process paper by saying, "Writing is l jnot an easy thing to do." She spends most of her paper explaining 'that writing is hard because it's a lot of work. She was trained in ;the outline-note card-three rough drafts model of composing and finds lit a time-consuming and often tedious task. Her discussion of guide- i * i * 1 .lines and research sounds like a traditional textbook discussion, over all of which hangs a pall of drudgery. She does mention that her "idea-getting process is not quite so rigid. I feel I get my best ideas for writing when I am relaxed and do not have a lot of pressures on my mind. I often find if I just sit down, and try to start thinking of ideas for. my paper, I start dreading having to write the paper. I think how stupid my paper will probably be and that I ! will make a bad grade on it anyway so I find myself writing just anything. If I relax and just let the ideas come to me instead of pressuring myself, I find I feel better about writing and I usually make a better grade. ' Just relaxing and letting the ideas come is a very different pro cedure from the almost automation-like process mentioned in connection with writing. She is not nearly' as* sure of herself when she is thinking of ideas to use in her writing. . On just about every paper I write I will choose_atsub ject and just about when I begin I think "ha, this -idea may be easier to write about" or "maybe this subject will be more interesting" and I know more about it. Then, till I finish, I wonder if I' shouldn-'t have done one-of my other choices. - ! Rhonda's uncertainty seems to be present until she finishes. ‘We don't know if it is disp&lled because' she has now run out of ’chances to change her mind or if she really is satisfied. Rhonda's process is almost pre-ordained; .she will not allow herself to change ideas in mid-stream, to stray from her guidelines, to invent as she ;composes. This is the kind of behavior Mike Rose identifies as characteristic of students who suffer from writer's block. . Rhonda says she enjoys writing about her "family, friends, sports l land feelings," because she "know(s) a lot about them." She gets stuck less often when writing on subjects she is familiar with. Get ting stuck is a feeling Rhonda finds very irritating and that irri gation seems to come frequently when she writes, particularly in her ."outline." "My most anxious moment as a writer is getting down on paper all the ideas that are floating around in my head so I see how they fit together and know how much workvit>will be to put them into a paper.." Rhonda likes to work from a written outline of her thoughts. She doesn't like the prospect of having to do research to .supplement her ideas because she prefers that the ideas come from herself,.. ...because then I am for sure what I am speaking of and do not have to use "guess work" to put together my paper. But i writing my first thoughts down on paper is definitely my most anxious moment. It is just a relief knowing that I • have spent time thinking about the subject and that I do : have ideas to write down. Rhonda is happiest when her paper follows a sequence she has set I ,up beforehand and she is not confused or dissatisfied by unexpected ,developments. t Rhonda's first interview session revealed some more of her dis taste for the unknown. After the assignment was given Rhonda said she felt like saying, "I don't even know what she's talking about. •Just like, I can't do anything like that. I knew what they were, but when you first said that, I couldn't think of any and I didn't ;know what you were talking about..." After class discussion Rhonda ‘felt "better. "It was okay after-you explained some more". . '.first I think 'I can't do this,' 'I'll never do it,' 'I'm going to have to get tons of help,' hut if I understand it- I don't worry ahout writing it if I know what I'm doing. If- I know everything and understand ; everything." Rhonda then talked ahout how she liked to get things done right away hut reported that she didn't start thinking ahout her paper ser iously until the Sunday after the assignment was given (two days ‘later). "I don't really enjoy it, hut I don't hate it; I just knew ,1 had to. I worry ahout getting it done I guess, so that's why I ■started thinking." She recalls the sequence of her planning. I thought ahout it a little.hit (on Friday) and I talked to my mom, told her what I had to do, what it had to he on. She asked if I had anything and I said, "no not really" hut I was thinking ahout something. I didn't really have anything in mind. And then Saturday I really didn't think ahout it at all. Last night I got off work kind of late and I knew that I had to do it, and I did it when I got home from work and I laid down and I knew I had to get this done because I had some stuff to do so before I went to- bed I just kind of got this idea in my mind. I don’t even know why, I just wanted to think ahout something to write ahout just then, so before I went to sleep, I just told myself kind of an outline of the whole story of what I wanted to tell, you know, just brief, hut I just did it right before I went to sleep. I was already in bed and everything, ! Rhonda seems to be forcing herself to come up with an idea by 'telling herself she has to do it. Once she has done that, she has '"the worst part over" with. Just getting my ideas seems to he the .'hardest part.. .Once I've decided it's pretty much over, the hard part, I decide on one thing and stick to it." Rhonda writes relatively rapidly and then engages in the most concentrated effort at gathering reinforcement/criticism of any of ■the high-apprehensive writers. "Usually I let my mom-read and my 'little sister and sometimes a . friend, in case I left anything out, little mistakes I don't see." Rhonda's revisions-usually proceed .from comments gathered from these informal, friendly editors, but •she mentioned that most of her.worry is centered on her idea rather than grammar because if she can't find something "she really-wants to do, then my paper's no good." Rhonda' finished her paper on Thursday morning before her fourth interview; she was the only high apprehensive to have completed it !ahead of time. She said she "just wanted to get it finished and I .was glad when I got it done. This paper didn't worry me as bad as some." She ranked her anxiety over the paper as a 3 on a scale of 1-10, rather less troublesome than most papers she's written. She I tmentioned that it was "probably easier because I just sat down and ■ got my idea all at once;. I didn't have to think very long." |Discussion Most of Rhonda's negative commentary focused on the pressure she felt from the need to complete the assignment and an inability 'to find an idea. She had nearly as many positive comments as [negative ones (-36, +30), however, and that may he traced to her f ^relatively speedy generation of an idea. Uncertainty forms the basis ■of Rhonda’s apprehension. Once she knows what .she is doing, once she i has an outline from which to work most of her discomfort disappears. .Occasionally it resurfaces when an alien idea intrudes on the familiar. ■ 'territory she has mapped out for herself, but in most instances she is able to ward off the intruder long enough to finish writing. Rhon- ■ da planned for only a brief period and then suspended planning inde- ; finitely. This need for order and certainty that Rhonda rushes to- j i ■ward is the point at which she can begin feeling good about her wri- ! ting. It happened early in this assignment and, therefore, she was ■fairly well satisfied with her work. Rhonda intimated that usually it doesn’t happen quite so quickly. She mulls over an idea and some times cannot tell herself to "sit down and do it." At times like .these the pressure and the apprehension increase. Rhonda says she t ialways has been able to write something, but she doesn’t always have j ■enough time to make it something good. if j !Case #3 - Lisa . ! Lisa is an eighteen-year-old Chemistry major with an ACT-score ' ;of 26. Her grade point average at the end of her freshman year was. 3.5^. . She was a very reticent interviewee, offering usually very i ; brief replies. In fact, many of her answers were confined to a yes j , jor no. Lisa never spoke in class unless asked a direct question, > -'so I was surprised that she volunteered for the study. Lisa scored ( ;90 on Daly’s Writing Apprehension Measure (26-130 scale) and repor- i ted 3.25 hours of planning during the eight-day period. Her xnyth ,follows: "Lost Riches" Long, long ago, when gods roamed the earth, lived in the skies, 'and played in the seas, there lived a bird more beautiful than you can imagine. It was also the mightiest of birds, so mighty, that it :could fly high enough to touch the sky. They were pleasing to the eye,, and of the gods, Athena admired them most. 1 One day a group of them.decided to fly to Mount Olympus. This had never been done before, and a few of them were skeptical as to - 'whether it could be done or not. They gave it their best shot how- ;ever, and some of them made it.' After such a long trip, they were famished. So they looked around for something to eat. Upon seeing Athena’s orchard of golden applesthey devoured every single apple. .When Athena found out about it, she was hurt 5 because they had been ’her favorites. But that didn't stop her from..cursing them. Running to the middle of the garden, she' screamed, "Hence forth, from this day on you shall not fly. You will be fat and ugly. So ■ugly that you must hide your head in the ground. And you shall.be called Lost Riches, because of the riches you have lost." Then she ; sent them back to earth with feathers flying. People were amazed that such an ugly bird could, exist, and they 'iasked'*it what it was called. The birds, not knowing how to speak jwell, told them that they were called ostriches. Prom that day for ward, they buried their heads in the sand to keep from being seen. ■ Lisa's north received the highest score among the high apprehen- sives, and among the sampling as a whole as well— 3.33, 1.08 points above the mean. Her essay was ranked number one or number two by all- graders. Most graders commented on Lisa's lucid, error-free prose ■and applauded the easily apprehended sequence of her narrative. Two .mentioned that her myth was clever and that the play-on-words in her title was inventive. The grader who gave her a two found her myth "boring, but acceptable." : Lisa titled her composing process paper "Unpardonable Sin." The 'sin she is speaking of is the creating of a boring paper, which is, ■for Lisa, a terrible black mark on her record. She explains why writing is so fraught with so many negative possibilities. attitude toward writing is not bad. I enjoy writing i when it is for my personal pleasure, but when I have to write for a grade I panic.' Writing a composition is dif- ! ficult for me because I don’t know my audience, however j with fiction I know my audience very well as I am writing for myself. When writing fiction, I have as many ideas as i there are grains of sand on the beach. For me, compositions i are an entirely different matter. I seem to have as many ideas as there are beached whales in the Antartic. t t ; Sorting through a multitude of ideas is not Lisa's problem. "My multitude- ’ .is usually one or two worthwhile thoughts." She says that jmost of her ideas come to her after she's turned a paper in, hut 'during an assignment they -elude her. * In her questionnaire answers, Lisa remembered that she had only ‘ written two. papers in High school and."they were both terrible exper iences." The focus of her study had been grammar and she -carried away J . ifrom that experience a chronic worry about ‘ her grammar, despite high grades in most of her high school and college writing. Lisa says she has "never found a subject that was truly easy to write on, particu larly because it's so hard to get started." Lisa says that once she .gets started she likes to write a piece from beginning to end in one sitting. "If I have to get up and leave, when I come back, I find I .can't pick up my train of thought. I usually start over with a dif ferent idea." In answer to Flower's question, "are any of these prob lems ones you frequently have?" 1. Getting started: Getting the whole paper ordered in your head before you write. Getting a beginning paragraph. Getting a first sentence. Sitting down to write. Turning on the flow of creative ideas. Lisa answered that she had trouble with all of these areas and that ,of any aspect of writing a paper, finding an idea was the most dif- ;ficult. ; Lisa's first interview session was characterized by a eonsider- - able amount of timidity on her part. That too was her reaction to jthe assignment: "I thought it was going to he hard, maybe fun, hut ; mostly hard. I wasn't anxious to get started." When asked if that was her general reaction to a paper she said, "I'm anxious ahout it and I like to get it over with as soon as possible, hut I usually wait until the last two or three days...usually I have so many things to do and I just keep putting it off. Once I get started it's not so hard." She went on to say that the myth assignment was the only paper she'd ever had mixed feelings ahout— she usually hated paper assignments outright and completely. Lisa finds the source of her dislike for writing in its special character. "I make good grades in everything.. That's just something that I do, I guess writing is different, though, from other things, because it's something like, in math you can memorize and just spit it hack out, hut in writing, it is different. I don't know how to say it." She also feels uncomfortable with, writing because she "never got fa lot of practice." Lisa ended her first session by saying that .she "didn't have the slightest idea" what she could write ahout and she postponed thinking until Monday morning when she "wrote down a few ideas." She did'that because it was on Monday morning that she realized, "Friday I had the weekend but.now the weekend's gone and I 'haven't done anything.. So now I've only got like four or five days... il'm kind of anxious because I don't have any good ideas yet...hut I will definitely have an idea by the end of the day." When Lisa came "back for her next session she did have an idea. 1 'She told about something coming into her head after she "read up on :it .(mythology) to get ideas. After that I just sit down and think 'ahout it until something happens." She explained that she had made a ! list of natural occurrences and then "started writing down all kinds < ' ■ of weird things to explain them." Lisa said she thought that the idea she had probably would be-the one she would use in her final draft,.. "Some of the time I end up writing'it and. starting over and doing something completely different." For Lisa getting a good idea that will last throughout her writing process is the most difficult part of writing; the easiest is the writing itself. We closed the ,session with a discussion of what her primary concern is while com- i posing. Lisa altered the question so that she could talk about some- i ’thing that had been bothering her. "Immediately after I'm done I'm ;relieved, but then before I turn it in I start getting worried and * ;i'm worried until I get it back. That's my primary concern. I start ’thinking about things I wrote; I kind of forget what I did and I don't know if it's right or not." This after the fact uncertainty was im portant to Lisa, but when I asked the question again a little later i 'she said her primary concern was not knowing if her idea was good. She feels this way particularly when she has to force her ideas to come. The idea she had forced on this occasion was "not a real good idea, but I'll try to write on it and if I can't get something good (down, then I’ll think of something else." During the third interview Lisa reported that she was "going 'to start on the idea that I had at first, then I threw it out and I sat down and I wrote the whole mess in a half hour." The idea Lisa •chose was one she had jotted down before, but ruled out initially ■and then she picked it up again. She reported not being totally sat isfied, but confident that it was better than her first idea. The whole mess she spoke of was . a rough draft of her idea and "how it fit in with the assignment. I wanted to make sure." At her fourth in terview Lisa told of'-how she took the "mess" and worked it into a .paper. At first she was stymied.. "I sat there and I just couldn't get anything to come out.' I was just thinking and thinking and I'd write something down and finally something came out. I had to think about it a lot." Lisa was very frustrated about not being able, to :start, but she had convinced herself that tonight was the night and 'her paper had to be written. She describes the events that led her :to the actual writing. "I just got home. I had been out driving around. I was going to work on it earlier but a friend called and I went out with her instead. When I came home I said, 'I have to write i ,it tonight because I know I'm not going to write it tomorrow because ■I'm going to be out tomorrow too.' So I had to write it." Lisa ap proached her writing assignment with little enthusiasm, but a pro found sense of duty. She feels bound to her task, but finds it a not quite reasonable undertaking. "It’ 's something that after you get 'through, with, it, you don't know what kind of grade you're going to !get on it, like I can get up from a chemistry test and know whether t ,1 did good or bad on it, but when I turn in a paper, I don't have any ‘idea what I've done until I get it back. It's the uncertainty." Lisa turned her paper in on Friday and commented that this paper wasn't as bad as some she had done and woud rate it about a b ' or a 5 on a 1-10 scale (l = totally confident, 10 =7 very uncertain and afraid). She said that the more practice she gets the less apprehen sive she is, and this assignment in particular was easier because she could "make the whole thing up; it didn't have to be on any set idea." Lisa foresaw writing getting easier because she "wouldn't be in a lot :of courses where I'll have to write and that'll make it a lot easier." Lisa's tongue-in-cheek comment about future writing represents her attitude in general that she would rather not write at all. Discussion Lisa's negative comments C. 7 * 0 . outweighed positive ones (.26) by a sizeable margin despite the fact that, all things considered, this assignment wasn't too difficult for her. Lisa is an example of a very competent writer with high apprehension. Her apprehension is not re lated to bad experiences in the past; she has always received superior evaluations of her work. Her apprehension seems focused on two things: her inability to get a good idea and her uncertainty about an idea's value once she has committed it to paper. She is achieve ment oriented and is anxious about receiving a good grade. That ^uncertainty showed up in a total of eleven comments ahout her fear of evaluation. Lisa's fine record has not "been enough to give her con fidence ahout her writing; for her writing is still an undefined, .uncertain quantity. She can never he sure of her writing results .like she is sure of the outcome of a chemical formula. It is the 'character of writing that scares Lisa and part of that character is .found in the world of propositions and ideas, of things tentative and shakeahle. The world of facts is a much safer prospect. Lisa's [general suspicion ahout writing causes her to avoid it for a time, hut eventually she approaches it much like she would a math problem; she grits her teeth and tells herself that she will produce her paper [right then and there. It is no wonder Lisa complains of difficulty in generating her first sentence. It is often hy sheer force of will that she does. An activity that requires much strain and is still ■uncertain in its outcome is a very uncomfortable one, and that's a close approximation of how Lisa views writing. t There are lots of negative feelings involved in Lisa's composing. •Like the other high apprehensives she was more reluctant to focus on her topic and when she did she was not easily satisfied with her .work. In Lisa's case, a written product of-some merit (though it was i * • ;evaluated less favorably than other assignments she .completed for 'her composition course) was, produced hut only after other ideas had (heen considered and rejected. She just wasn't confident that her t 'first idea would work and until she finally told herself that her I ;paper must be done "tonight," she continued worrying and avoided wri- i jting. Lisa's uncertainty led her through a rather rigorous planning •period, though a compressed one (3.25 hours), and eventually she wrote. ■ ■It's difficult to say if Lisa was really ready or she just told her self she was. In either case, her decision came after forced and .concentrated consideration. ■Case - Phillip : Phillip is an eighteen-year-old.music major. He did not take the ACT examination. At the end of his freshman year he had a 2.828 G.P.A. Phillip was very vocal in his interview sessions and took ^great care in explaining exactly what he had done. On two occasions he spoke from notes he had jotted down about his activities. He was the most enthusiastic and loquacious of the. high apprehensives, a characteristic that,was evidenced by his regular classroom partici- ‘ pation. Phillip scored- 102 -on.the Daly Writing Apprehension Measure f * ,(..26-130 scale), the highest apprehension recorded in my entire ori ginal sampling-of 77* Phillip also reported the highest number of 'planning hours of all eight subjects: 32.5- hours for the eight-day j I period. Phillip's myth follows: i TULIPCEOUS Once a year the great goddess Tulipceous visits the earth to lay her magical eggs across the "beautiful green earth. Her eggs are the ;shape and size of a chicken egg except for one end of the egg is a i little more pointed than the other. The color is not white "but is i -brown and hard much like a potato. She comes and buries her eggs in the ground, weeks and weeks pass and a mysterious green finger appears from the ground. In time a blister opens, and the beautiful petals are seen in an assortment of red, purple, yellow,.and orange colors. ,And the Flower is formed. i i ; Phillip received a score,of 1.6?, .58 below the mean for the high apprehensives. There was a wide diversity of opinion about Phillip’s ’myth. Three of the six graders 'failed his myth because"of its lack of development and problems in syntax. But two graders gave it a low ‘pass (2) and one gave it a pass (.3), commenting on its inventiveness ,and "lyrich quality." The general concensus was that Phillip’s idea * 'is potentially a very good one, but his final product was too brief ito adequately fulfilThthe assignment. Phillip's essay oh his composing process, with one exception, read like a textbook description of what the typical American college paper should be. He offered very little specific information that would identify him or separate him in any way from the masses of wri- ! Iting students. The one statement Phillip made that was even remotely .personal was that he tries to "get his ideas down fast, because he ; 4 jis afraid he might lose them." This fear of losing his ideas is an emotion Phillip generally feels throughout writing. In his short es say answers Phillip says he usually tries to plan ahead and do his paper in advance because he is afraid he may not get an idea and then if a deadline approaches he has even less chance of getting one. He 'also prefers to write while watching T.V. so that when he has trouble • with an idea he can watch T.V. for a while and•"collect his thoughts." Phillip says he can very often get"a "creative idea" this way, but then getting it on paper is a problem. Phillip gets'stuck frequently while writing and in order to help himself get going again he talks to ■ •someone about his paper and in explaining it to them can help himself. Phillip worries about his final product and seems to think he has not done an assignment correctly almost every time he hands a paper in. l He also mentioned that coming up with the required length is a pro- i blem; whatever it is he can only seem to generate about half of what ; :is expected. j | | ; Phillip's reaction to the myth assignment as reported in his j first interview was one of confused horror. "Oh Ho! Oh. God! Why me?" He said his general attitude towards paper writing was the at- ' ' titude he had toward this assignment, namely that it was a punishment. He reports trying to think of a story but being unable to and that "it ‘seems like it (the assignment) was with me all day." Phillip said he ' » knew he was going to have trouble with this one. With this, he said, j | "You got to come up with, an idea and do it yourself. It's easier for ; * ■ 1 I ... , . . . . . v . . ______ . . . _______ . . . ' ______ !me to write about things that have happened in my life, or situa tions. With this, I can't go to an encyclopedia and copy things out." Phillip tried the encyclopedia tactic and also thumbed through ■a series of children's books over the weekend but "couldn't find a i 'thing." That long, fruitless effort made Phillip "totally pissed and frustrated." Phillip seemed to think that the writing assignment .was an intrusion on his life. "Saturday night I was laying in" bed, in bed, trying to sleep...and that's when I got a basic idea." Phil lip tried to write down what he had thought of. "I counted my words, ;I have 82 words and I've got to come up with 150 more or so. God!" Phillip's word-counting goes back to his high-school days when he often had assignments to do that were a required length. "That made me insecure. I could never make it turn out to be the right .amount." We ended the session with Phillip commenting that he felt a lot better now "because I've got an idea on it, the basic story." : At his second interview Phillip reported that he hadn't done anything on his paper except decide to do it the next night. We l talked about the hardest part of writing for Phillip and he unhes- .itatingly said, "getting started, getting that first idea." When I asked him if it was the blank page that intimidated him he grasped the idea firmly and said, "Yeah it might be, maybe if I start out with a smaller page. I hadn't- thought of it 'til then, but maybe if I fold the paper." The size of the-paper is related to one of Phil lip's other bogey-men, the number of words. The easiest part of 'writing for Phillip is the "rest of it. Once you get started, things ■start rolling." Always in the hack of his mind however is a nagging doubt; even when he's progressing fluently and easily, his primary concern is grammatical errors. "I never know if it's right." Reporting on his progress at the next interview, Phillip said: ! I worked from 6:30 to 8:30. As soon as I started, I just ; - had this energy and I wrote and I wrote and I felt like I was writing pages and pages and I only wrote two para graphs but I felt like it was ten, and then I got to the end and I couldn't put anymore with it and it wasn't enough words! So I stopped for awhile and came back and I still couldn't write. I'm going to work on it tonight and add some more words to. make the quota. Phillip said he was disgusted about not being able to "work out his idea." What made it particularly frustrating for him was that he'd "been thinking about it ever since it was assigned. I'm even driving ■ ,my car and worrying about it." The constant worry and not being able to generate any ideas made Phillip want to quit for a while and come back, but he also felt pressed for time. "I usually plan when I'm ' going to do it and then do it and when I can't...UGH." < By the night before the assignment was due Phillip had done no ; further work on his paper. "I've been reading through what I have . ’ and worrying about it because the time is nearly on us." Directing ! i my questions at Phillip's writing in the-past, he recalled hating com- j position because he had a teacher who "told us what all we did wrong 'but never told us how to fix it. I've been scared, from the first 'but that didn't help." He concluded that it would always be a pain. I . . -19,3- j J Phillip turned, his paper in on time with a story of considerable languish to accompany it: Yes. No, I didn't! It was more like U:30. About U:30 in the afternoon. I worked, and tried to add some more, and read through it and all that kind of stuff. I started typing it about 6:30. In between there I ate supper. And then I started typing it, and when I typed it first, I liked to have fell through, because it was so short. And I panicked, and so about let’s see, it was too short so I worked on it a little bit more trying to add some more stuff to it and then I went and called three different people to try to get some help. None of them were home, so I went to somebody's house, they weren't home; I drove around for about ^5 minutes thinking of what I was going to do. I was worrying about the paper. I typed it and prayed it would be good enough. I feel relieved,, but I'm still worried because it's kind of short. But then after class', when you said it only had to be a page, page and a half, that made me feel better. So I'm not too worried about it, now. See my face, I've got zits all over it from worrying about it. The myth gave Phillip a lot of problems. "If it was a story or some- .thing that happened in my life that I could've just related it to or if I . could've just looked at a book, found the information and changed the words and copied it down." Phillip became so frustrated 'with- his effort that he finally reached a point where he said to him self: "She's just going to take it like it is and if she doesn't ;like it, that's just too bad." When asked if he had done anything differently because of our sessions, Phillip said he usually got things.done earlier, but he had "fretted" so much over this he felt lucky to get it done at all, but he didn't think it was because of the interviews but because the as signment was so hard. I asked Phillip if he was worried about ■'anything now that it was over, and he said: "Well, that few seconds, just the time it will take you to pass hack the papers before mine, that's like two hours. You know what I mean? It feels like eternity, when it’s only a couple of seconds." ^ Discussion Phillip's "eternity" might be applied ..to the writing process he engaged in for this paper. He had "the longest planning time of all eight subjects (32.50 hours); Phillip almost would have had to be- "thinking about it constantly" to put in more than i hours per day in ■planning. He also had by far the highest number of negative comments revealed- by the content analysis, mostly in the areas of situational anxiety and assignment uncertainty. The kind of difficulty Phillip encountered and his final draft are evidence that he may be a blocker as well as a highly apprehensive writer. Word counts terrify him and ;each word that is eked out costs dearly. .His frustration zooms and |he has nowhere to go. Phillip's apprehension, his fear of not getting jan idea that will pan out by the' deadline was realized here. He was 'convinced that he was unable to create something from nothing; with- 'out a library book he was lost. A lot of Phillip's uncertainty is rooted in his lack of confidence in his ability to do it "right" and make it long enough. The only thing Phillip was certain of was that ¥ the assignment was going to give him trouble. That feeling became a jself-fulfilling prophecy. His long, arduous planning time (during ! 'which he did little real planning) was more unproductive and self- jdefeating than not. What makes Phillip's case particularly poignant .is the fact that his myth.might've■heen very good if he hadn't frozen. The case' studies of the low and high-apprehensive students have Jforegrounded a number of interesting variables that both groups of ;students share, as well as some crucial differences. An important ■ feature of the composing process that both groups seem to engage in is a prolonged waiting period before actual writing takes place. The length of this period varies from student to student, but all writers i in the study "paused" at least three days and as many as seven days between the time an "eight-day" assignment was given, and'the time it ‘ was due. This is probably representative of most student writers who are completing out of class writing assignments. Another character istic of this waiting period was the nature of the work that was done ■when pen was first put to paper. Three students wrote notes and/or a rough, draft (the earliest activity of this sort was Monday morning) ■and the rest relied on an evening-before effort. Interestingly, of .the low apprehensives only one, Haley, did any writing before Thurs day evening (the paper was due Friday). All of the high apprehen sives, on the other hand, except one (.Greg), worked on the paper at .least once before Thursday evening. Therefore the planning time of ■ the low apprehensives was somewhat longer (mean Low Apprehensive Plan ning time = 6.U2; mean High Apprehensive Planning Time = 5*00) in iboth hours spent and in total hours from the time the assignment was I Igiven and the time work, began.. The low apprehensives seemed more concerned with getting the "right" idea, the idea that would pull their unfpcused thoughts together and enable them to "direct" their papers before they began writing, while the high apprehensives seemed more content with getting an idea, any idea that would allow them to meet the deadline, one possible explanation for their early writing. ;As high-apprehensive Phillip said, there is less chance of getting an idea the closer the deadline gets. There are, of course, some indi vidual differences among the writers that belie this generalization. Debbie, for example, is a normally low apprehensive that was situa- tionally apprehensive about this assignment. Consequently her plan ning time and her fear were considerably increased (29.5 hours). But then, an interesting phenomenon revealed by this study is that low apprehensives are not the cool, collected creatures that previous :studies on apprehension would lead us to believe. There is consider- .able apprehension generated among the ranks of the confident pre ceding writing, an apprehension associated primarily with idea-getting. The pressure and tension"that was felt by these low apprehensives (while incubating their thoughts can be seen as "participants" in the ] • ' ‘discovery process. Creativity theorists would insist that the role iof apprehension/tension/pressure is even more than-participatory, 'but causal. It is difficult to say on the basis of my data whether l • or not these writers' ideas were caused by the tension they felt, 197 *but it can "be said that apprehension/tension was an important factor: :all students mentioned it, some in ways that led me to believe.they relied on it for idea-production (Bobby and Jeff for example). The high apprehensives were not as satisfied with the idea- 1 generating process they engaged in, a feeling that was compounded by . their fear of evaluation, fear of error etc. The most common feeling among the high apprehensives was uncertainty about the outcome of their efforts; it was this uncertainty that caused them to become frustrated, or to grab the first idea they had and get it in print . before they lost it. There was much less development and change in their ideas. ‘The longest thinking periods for high apprehensives came towards the end of the week, usually immediately prior to the final writing. It was here that they would make their final effort; !all of them succeeded, but the fact that their mean holistic grade p » * . - u was lower and that at least one of them,t P h i l l i p v >W e s ?.probably a' \ (blocker (thought Rhonda too exhibited some blocking behavior) as well as high apprehensive and produced a very short myth, points at !the relative superiority of the low-apprehensive planning approach. I The high apprehensives have let other concerns such as fear of error and evaluation interfere with their planning. They generally plan less and with less success as a rule. But the amount of time is not I as important as the way the time is used. This is, in part, respon sible for their less successful results.' They avoid focusing on j their topic for longer periods.; low apprehensives report productive ^thinking almost immediately while high apprehensives worried and I iavoided thinking. Lisa, whose apprehension probably stands in the i way of excellence (she is in her current state of mind "very good" at best), was evaluated highest of all subjects but the attitude she had towards her paper was relief mixed with uncertainty— as was the case ■with all high apprehensives. The low apprehensives were relieved, ,but proud and sometimes even elated as well. Psychologists tell us ■that too much apprehension can be debilitating, can cause people not to produce or to produce below par"; to settle for what is adequate rather than their best effort. Too little apprehension may result in .complacency or even stagnation but, the right amount of apprehension acts as a stimulant, causes frequent reassessment and striving for ex cellence. These generalizations work well with the results of my data. "Negative" feelings or feelings of apprehension, tension, or pres- ,sure are involved in the composing processes-of both high and low : apprehensives. The low apprehensives appear to use this tension when necessary; the high apprehensives carry it with them unwillingly and it affects them adversely. The tension of low apprehensives is re lated primarily to idea-gathering, not editing. They appear compla cent about this part of composing. In this study all low apprehen- :sives had lowered scores because of mechanics, an example of how a l .complacent attitude in this regard can affect a final draft nega- i ;tively. Length of planning time is related to apprehension as well as ;when planning time occurs. Most planning seems to go on before wri- i Iting begins, but differs in character between low and high apprehen sives. Low apprehensives engage in a prolonged pre-writing, in large part a result of stepped-up tension that is part of the increased "awareness" that accompanies creativity and discovery. They avoid ■beginning writing in.order to engage in this planning. Bobby is the 'best example, seeing ideas in almost everything and constantly evalu ating, rejecting and refining his^conceptualization of what he sees. The low apprehensives get ready to write. High apprehensives engage in prolonged avoidance of thinking as well as writing, in large part a result of their fear of being "wrong" or incorrect, and a reflec tion of their generally low writing-esteem. The high apprehensives in my study avoided beginning writing for shorter periods because ;once they got an idea they tended to use it, they did not reflect or alter to any appreciable degree. (jLisa is the only high apprehen sive who considered more than one or two ideas, but her flirtation f :with other ideas was repressed in order to complete her assignment.) Indeed they attempted.to ward off any planning behavior that might ’attempt to surface during writing for fear they would lose what lit tle they had. High apprehensives yearn for certainty in an uncertain situation; ready or not, they write when they can (or when they force ‘themselves to). Planning during and after writing in the form of reassessment jof what has gone before resulting in stasis, change or deletion 'occurs in 'both low and high apprehensives, hut to a much lesser de gree in high apprehensives. Again the fragility of an idea, the re luctance to part with it once it is horn accounts for this behavior. Their potentially productive apprehension, the kind associated with creativity, is surpressed. Rather than heing challenged hy the un iknown or the new, high apprehensives rejected it; their apprehension related to fear of negative evaluation and the possibility that they may have constructed an inappropriate response results in caution and retreat. The high apprehensives are not the risk-takers that low ap prehensives generally are. All of this points at a. new definition of .apprehension that adds to the work done by Daly, Bloom and Rose. My data suggests that; apprehension associated with discovery is more often productive than not. This, is-not the apprehension that results in ■avoidance because of feared incompetence, but the apprehension that results in avoidance because of a need for time to consider, to .plan, to'incubate so that something "good,” or "set," or "right" .(as my low apprehensives put it), is produced. Chapter V CONCLUSIONS: THE APPREHENSION PARADOX. • The data collected in this study-indicates some important ad ditions to what we know about apprehension and its relationship with ; the composing process. ' High and low-apprehensive writers in this study typically employed different composing strategies, particularly with regard to the planning component of composing. In a large sense, apprehension influences both the time involved in planning and in the kind of planning that goes on. Apprehension associated with the forging of ideas elongates planning; apprehension associated with fear of evaluation and fear of error causes postponement and compres sion of planning. The low-apprehensive writers, in general, under went a transformation during the discovery process. They stepped- 'up their consciousness, energized by the increased tension that is i ■ creativity, and mulled ideas regularly (.sometimes even constantly) until they reached a point of focus. Then they were ready to write. 'The high-apprehensive writers, in general, avoided thinking (as well as writing) because of their fear. They spent much more time worry ing and much less time in comparing and weighing of ideas. They 'repressed planning and then tried to force it to happen within a i i [prearranged time frame. This combination of postponement followed by i [compression (compression of occurrences, not necessarily hours, since ;high apprehensives plan for a long period but usually on only one or two occasions, while low apprehensives stretch their planning out) ' I can make for a less satisfying process (and, if we consider the mean 'for each group of four, a less skillful product). The low apprehen sives want to work out their performance, to rehearse it, as Donald Murray puts it (1979)* the high apprehensives want to take their show on the road as soon as possible. To extend the metaphor a bit, when ! opening night comes too quickly, the players usually aren't ready and : I the result— a flop. Of course the paper receiving the highest score (.Lisa's) was written by a high apprehensive, as well as the lowest score received (Phillip's). Though Lisa's paper was hardly a "flop" compared with.the others in the sample, it was among her poorer ef forts during'the semester. I Reflection, as Pianko (.1979). defines it, is another area in which iapprehension plays a part. If we agree that pausing and rescanning ( is also a kind of planning, that planning is influenced by the uncer- i ;tainty that accompanies apprehension. Low-apprehensive writers who | ' • • • * * \ ■ are uncertain about whether the idea they have developed is the best ! they can muster are generally more open to addition or alteration that. , is often inspired by writing the idea out; the continuing pressure ' or tension they feel as writing progresses is directed toward re- | i evaluation and improvement . 'They-search for a good idea: and have less i ! i ( ( I , i ________________ _ . _ ... ______________ ... .. ______________2 0 3 j (tendency to settle for an "acceptable" one or anything that comes to i mind. This reflection or revision that is also planning is like ; Lillian Bridwell's (1980) description of the perception of dissonance |(involving discrimination, tension and reconception). The four low- apprehensive writers, whose escalated tension is associated with the 1 . 1 'strain of discovery, "reflect" until they have resolved enough dis- ' sonance to he satisfied with the product'. (Sometimes, they were sat isfied too soon as evidenced hy the low1 apprehensives* mechanical ! problems). The high apprehensives were less open to change and were ■ beset by an often debilitating uncertainty.. Three of the four latched on to their first idea and put it in print- as quickly as'possible. (Lisa, the only high apprehensive who rejected several ideas before she chose one, also wrote the best- essay.) They too feel tension and ! pressure while composing, but its source id fear of retribution for an , unsatisfactory effort and they do‘ .as little-evaluation and restruc turing as possible. As a-result they do not allow themselves to re- 1 fleet as often and are not interested in "resolving dissonance." When i they see it they tend'to repress and push on. Two events among the high apprehensives may be seen as outcomes of this repression. Three 1 of them composed without interruption, having steeled themselves to ; : i ;the task. The erratic behavior accompanying the composing processes | I (interruption, pausing, backtracking) of three of the higher appre- i hensive writers was not allowed"”to surface, or resulted in blocking t ! when it did surface. In Phillip's case, for example, he stopped but : he could not explore alternatives so he simply stalled. The high- apprehensive writers in this study had the illusion that good writers know what they are going to say before they say it. When high-appre hensive writers do not know what they are going to say, they may panic, a panic that can result in paralysis at worst and a "less-than- their-best" paper at best. The fear of evaluation and the fear of "losing what little I have" are related. Three high apprehensives resigned themselves to below average work, so their fear was of outright failure. With that ;fear in their conscious mind (.and their subconscious as well) it is ,no wonder that any idea will do. Once they had committed the idea to paper the release of tension commenced, but only for a little while. Then it built again,as the student waited for a grade. Flower and Hayes (.1977) say that inexperienced writers feel they have only three ■available ways of composing: . prescription Chow textbooks pretend 'people do it), inspiration (.the mysterious way people really do it), * and writer's block (a default if- neither of the above-work). These ,views did exist among the high apprehensives in my study. Viewing writing as the product of inspiration (for example, Lisa's connecting a scarcity of ideas with an inability to write well) rather than "work" 'was mentioned, and writer's block was experienced by Phillip and Lisa. The planning behavior of both high and low apprehensives was also related to the nature of the assignment on which the study;was ! 'based. Since it demanded creativity (students were asked to invent ; ‘ ■ a myth), some of the behavior associated with this particular assign- , \ ment should be noted. Of course, it can be argued that all writing ,is creative, since even if the ideas are old the expression is new, but this assignment posed some special problems because subjects had to "make up a story." Three high-apprehensive writers found the !assignment tolerable (one even found it appealing), but compared with :the delight of three low-apprehensive writers (only one, Debbie,, found it distressing), the high apprehensives' interest was indeed low. The challenge reported by the low apprehensives was reported by ;the high apprehensives primarily as dread or uncertainty that affected their planning behavior'. For instance, Phillip and Rhonda blocked 'more often, and tried to find an outside source off a workable idea. Recalling Branch's research findingr that moderate anxiety can "increase 1 alertness and effort, and remembering Maslow's contention that ten sion and unease abeys decisionv and allows for creative "groping," we ■ can speculate about a connection between apprehension and creativity. ‘ The increased apprehension of the low-apprehensive writers peaked i while they were discovering ideas. That increased tension and uncer- ■tainty about a workable idea may have caused them to delay their writing until they had sufficiently incubated their ideas and were ready to write. Their writing was a continuation of planning; dis- j covery did persist, but they needed a focus to enable them to write. They arrived at that focus through judging and refining ideas, a ( I process facilitated by avoiding writing and increasing their ;awareness in order to discover. I have coined the term "Anti-Writing" to describe this avoidance of or resistance to 'writing, this delay for . the purpose of nurturing ideas. In Donald Murray's insightful es say, "Write Before Writing" (1919), he quotes three famous writers who are anti-writers as well. Franz Kafka had one word posted over i his writing desk: "wait." "Wise-passiveness" was Wordsworth's rec ommendation. And Denise Levertov says "if somewhere in the vicinity t there is a poem then, no, I don't do anything about it, I wait." ! An anti-writer? is, then, .best described as a writer who is waiting. This, waiting is not, however, calm and effortless. Fraught with ten- < i sion and uncertainty, it drives toward a certainty, an idea. If the ‘ waiting period is allowed to come to fruition, then the resultant ■ idea is probably the best the writer can muster at that time and in that situation. If however, as^illustrated by the poorer, on the 'average, essays written by high apprehensives, the waiting period is : •cut short, (or goes on too long) the writer usually must "settle for i less." Anti-writing, by my definition can be functional. Although j I ;the writer avoids writing, she avoids it constructively. Engaging in other activities (housework, television, reading, etc.) as a part ; of this avoidance may be seen as a defense mechanism that attempts to allay apprehension and, simultaneously, to extend planning time. ; ■An optimum level of apprehension resulting in an optimum period of ! anti-writing (which lasts as long as it takes a writer to ready her- : self) is not a . specific quantity that applies to all writers. > . Anti-writing varies from writer to writer and from situation to sit- 'uation, tut it can be identified and characterized. The writer who jis anti-writing is unsure of herself, is considering many options and has decided very little. The too-apprehensive writer or debili- ■ itatingly apprehensive writer does not use the non-writing period functionally "but restricts himself to one idea or .may become blocked ;with nowhere to turn. If the writer avoids writing indefinitely, letting apprehension and writing avoidance feed one another cyclical ly, then avoidance could go on forever and a paper could never get <written. Anti-writing is not dysfunctional. What is dysfunctional ;is the student's inability to anti-write during the period of delay. t Thus, apprehension may vary in both intensity and in kind. High and low describe only the intensity. There are essentially two kinds of apprehension: idea-forging apprehension that, originates from the writer's inner discovery process, and extrinsic apprehen- :sion, that originates from outside concerns— the fear of evaluation ,or the fear of making errors. Idea-forging apprehension originates intrinsically in response to a need to create, and can facilitate ;creation. All writers experience extrinsic apprehension to a degree, but when fanned into an all-encompassing fear by mounting pressure l ■ (.both remembered and imagined), it can enervate the writer. i This hypothesis has an important implication for the measure- ' ment of apprehension. Daly's instrument measured dispositionally ;apprehensive writers. If it were administered to a normally low Iapprehensive while he was engaged in discovery, his apprehension score might-rise. That is to say, state apprehension is common among wri-. ■ters who are about to.write and reflects their engagement in discovery Just as too much apprehension deprives a writer of creative .energy, too little can make it more difficult to create. Without apprehension, psychologists tell us, motivation and drive are re duced. Writing can be thought of as the ultimate release for the idea-forging apprehensive writer; once the apprehension and tension •have built sufficiently and an idea is formed the writer not only can write, but often wants to write. Dispositionally low apprehen sive writers transform their apprehension into a force that facili tates the development of ideas. And the anti-writing that accom panies idea-forging apprehension helps increase the tension that facilitates writing. Another way to look at the complex paradox of apprehension '(which can be facilitator and debilitator) is toV return tofta’ J’ mfetaphor 59 11 suggested earlier. The apprehensive writer who is anti-writing . ;is coming to terms with a task he finds difficult by taking time to consider possibilities and gage the task ahead. This anti-writer t :is like a weight-lifter who pumps himself up, getting his energy at i ,a peak level, breathes deeply and then, even then, does not lift, :but circles the bar,.preparing himself. When he is ready he lifts I L I (or writes). Chapter VI THEORETICAL AND PEDAGOGICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH. This research adds to composing process theory with its recur sive, transactive features "by examining out-of-class writing and by .describing the planning component of composinglin greater detail. Previous research has shown that planning is both recursive and trans active in that it develops.by evaluation and re-evaluation, "moving forward by virtue of its backward moving action," and (transactive) •in its constant regard for audiences and the reciprocity that audi- ence-awareness implies. In the previous controlled studies, little (planning occurred before writing, but this naturalistic research t shows extensive planning before writing in both low and high appre- j hensive writers.. Moreover, planning before writing is either poten tially self-defeating or potentially energizing for a writer, and ■either outcome is partially dependent on the kind and degree of ap- 1 prehension that accompanied the planning. The Flower and Hayes' Model may be added to as follows to in- icorporate this new information about planning. .The planning compon- ' ent in the original model (heavily outlined) has been expanded below I 'to describe the planning component of out-of-class writing. 210 THE WRITER'S LONG TERM MEMORY Knowledge of Topic Knowledge of Audience Stored Writing Plans TASK ENVIRONMENT WRITING ASSIGNMENT TEXT Topic PRODUCED Audience SO FAR Motivating Cues PLANNING o 2 b- < cr l i t 2 Ld O — ORGANIZING GOAL SETTING TRANSLATING REVIEWING READING f t EDITING MONITOR Figure k: Flower and Hayes' Composing Process Model (Original) Figure 5: Flower and Hayes' Composing Process Model (.Revised) PLANNING | *z OR.GRNIZIMG U 1 G oal. u ) o S E T T lh lG • J i SI 9 r ~ A n t i - W R I T I N G W R l T l N G A V O I b A N C C i&KJTUU A P P R E J H E N S i o n I I I&SA- FoRfclrtfcl ExrftlK/SlC - ■ — tfv The planning component of the composing process model in out- of-class writing assignments now includes apprehension, both idea- .forging and extrinsic. Idea-forging apprehension can take place !alone or in the company of mild extrinsic apprehension, leading.to •anti-writing (which varies in degree and in duration with the indi- ■vidual). Thus idea-forging apprehension (and limited extrinsic ap prehension) can lead to anti-writing which can lead to generating. Extrinsic apprehension, experienced in isolation and to the exclusion of idea-forging apprehension, results in writing avoidance which can ‘loop back to extrinsic apprehension in a useless snowballing effect. Such a model allows- for the facilitating tension and delay that ac- :companies generating ideas and for the debilitating apprehension that .results in. endless writing avoidance or recycles back, increasing apprehension even further, resulting in more avoidance. Prior to this study, all writing apprehension researchers have > recommended that teachers attempt to alleviate writing apprehension’ : and have recommended various procedures (structured writing times, an ; encouraging, atmosphere, positive comments on papers, etc.) to achieve :a non-apprehensive state. My research does not indicate that we tabandon these suggestions. There is a need to alleviate the kind of apprehension that is extrinsic and enervating. As psychological re- ' search tells us, even a single success experience affects apprehension 1 favorably. But there is also a need to create awareness in our stu- I I • jdents that some of the apprehension they feel is useful, particularly if it is involved in the forging of ideas. The apprehension accom panying the discovery process, heightening'"’ &wdreheJ ss iand''drive-r'-hoth very important to the successful completion of the discovery process— is necessary. The approaching deadline and the waiting audience also .contribute to the apprehension the writer/feels. If students know 'that- it is natural to feel- tense and uncertain during the time they are planning and that such feelings, in moderation, can actually in crease their chances of success, they may learn to be less frightened of the unknown, and to accept it as a challenge and as a place they must travel through to reach knowing. Other composing process researchers have recommended that more self-sponsored writing, in addition to school-sponsored writing, l should be done by students (Emig 1971, Piahko, 1979) to aid students in developing their composing processes, which are often more arduous than need be. They have recommended that teachers need to identify [student writers’ already internalized processes— which components of ;each student's process facilitate writing and which inhibit it— 'before imposing another method of instruction on those processes (Perl, 1979).. Many studies show that to simply instruct students on.the ■basic rules of usage, grammar, punctuation, spelling and organiza- i ’tion does not markedly improve their quality of writing. Poor wri- ■ ters do have low quality products, but they also have underdeveloped s composing processes, often believing that organization and mechanics are "all there is to it" (Pianko, 1979a), a fact rarely accounted for in teaching methods. A slower, more elaborated process including much "rescanning" in order to connect new thoughts to those already on the page has also "been recommended (Pianko, 1979"b). Research also .urges that students seek the "dissonance of discovery," utilizing the •possibility of revision (Sommers, 1980). This study adds to the recommendations made by these researchers by further addressing the process of composing. By teaching our students techniques for using the anti-writing period productively as a means of forging ideas and finding a focus, we can help them ■develop their composing processes, making the discovery of ideas less .mysterious and less fearful. Students who are used to the demands and constraints of an in-class writing situation often impose them ,outside the classroom as well, turning the complex recursive process of composing into an "immediate" activity, a speedy response to an .assignment without allowing sufficient time for incubation. This kind of response is, as the study has shown, related to extrinsic appre- 'hension, but is also part of an incomplete pedagogy. If we always force students to write immediately, we inhibit their composing pro cesses and do not allow them to consider (and reject) developing ideas.' Composing is not instantaneous feedback but tentative groping. Stu- * t dents should be taught to investigate a topic mentally, through ■ exchange with others and on paper until ready to write. In other \ words, we need to teach our students to wait before writing. By i letting their uncertainty lead them through many possibilities, i I i 1 I [ _______ 2lU- they will develop the cognitive processes involved in composing and ! write better papers. How will students know they are ready to write? Should we make deadlines more flexible to accomodate the unsure student? This ! f is not an invitation to do away with deadlines. Some students might abuse such an instruction if deadlines were extended or made too flexible. Deadlines should still be fixed— they too can facilitate i idiscovery— but discussion of various behaviors preceding deadlines is imperative. The work of professional writers, teachers and other i students who have spoken of or written about their composing pro cesses can be discussed to illustrate the normal working and re working that goes on during writing. Students could be asked to keep tallies of their planning behavior for an assignment to make them more aware of when they do and do not plan (.and when they could have). Based on these tallies and the essays produced the instructor .could conference with the students to determine at what points during composing more (.or less), tifne (for thinking, revision etc.) is needed. ' Of course, every composing process is unique, as is every composing situation, so the waiting time will differ from student to student ;and from assignment to assignment. But, based on individual intro- ! ;spective examinations, flexible guidelines can be established so that 'a student can judge her own readiness to write based on past exper ience. For example, the low apprehensives in this study, who did wait i until they had a focus, rushed their revisions and would have 215; probably written improved papers if they had given more time to edit ing. The pedagogy of waiting would have benefited them later in their composing processes.; Students need to wait between drafts to allow enough time to edit successfully. Teaching students to be "wait"- ers, to functionally extend their planning time, is a rich pedagogi- cal tool that can increase writing proficiency and satisfaction. The present study .has- several implications for research in writing and the planning component of the composing process in par ticular. Up until now only one side of the paradox of writing'-ap prehension has been investigated. We need to explore the causes and effects of apprehension further to outline the boundaries of its ’influence. Optimal levels of apprehension and anti-writing need to be further investigated and described by examining situational apprehension among writers of varying skill. More case studies of j writers engaged in planning activity are needed to investigate other : influences! on the discovery process. In order to better understand how students write, the sources of planning strategies need to be ,further described. Additional study of high dispositionally ap prehensive writers who are proficient, as well as low dispositionally apprehensive writers who are less skillful, are needed to determine ,how they make use of (or fail to make use of) the tension associated ,with creation. Studies of writing apprehension in various writing |situations and writing tasks are needed to determine if apprehension i i operates differently as types of writing differ. But most important, 216 we need more data about the periods of time during the composing pro cess when writers are' not writing. Information about these periods is the least available, and among the most crucial in understanding composing. | NOTES I i I -1-See, for example, the introduction to Nancy Sommers' disser- 'tation. Nancy Sommers, "Revision in the Composing Process: A Case iStudy of College Freshmen and Unexperienced Adult Writers," disser tation, Boston University, 1978, p. 1. I 2 j See, for example, Sondra Perl, "Composing Processes of Un- jskilled College Writers,” Research in the Teaching of English, 13 j (Dec. 1979), pp. 317-336; Sharon Pianko, "The Composing Acts of | |College Freshman Writers," dissertation, Rutgers, 1977. I | ^Patrick Hartwell, in response to-a question at CCCC, Dallas, » I 1981. tee, for example, the work of John Daly and Lynn Bloom. ; ^Janet.Emig, "The Uses of the Unconscious in Composing,” Col- J lege Composition and Communication, 15 (Feb. 196U); p. 7. ^Sheridan Baker, The Complete Stylist and Handbook, 2nd ed. t (Cambridge: Harper and Row, 1980), back cover. 1 7 j Mike Rose, "Sophisticated, Ineffective Books— The Dismantling | of Process in Composition Texts," College Composition and Communi- ( I cation, 32 (Feb., 1981), p. 67. , f g j Rose, p. 67. ' 9 Richard Ohmann, "Freshman Composition and Administered Thought" in English in America, (N.Y.: Oxford University Press, 1976), p. I i 133-171. 218 1(^For a more complete discussion of this revolution in thought as pertaining to composing process theory, see Barrett and Kroll's I 1 "Implications of Cognitive-Developmental Psychology for Research in | Composition," Research on Composing, 1978. ! 11 ! D. Gordon Rohman, "Pre-Writing: The Stage of Discovery in | ! the Writing Process," College Composition and Communication, l6 (May 1965), p. 106. -*^James Britton et al. , The Development of Writing Abilities 1 11-18 (London: Macmillan Educational, 1975), p. 26. ■ -*-3pona]_^ Murray, "Internal Revision: A Process of Discovery," ;in Research on Composing, eds. Cooper and Odell (Urbana, ILL.: NCTE, 11978), p. 86. ! 1U ■ / , Janet Emig, The Composing Processes of Twelfth Graders (Ur- ! ; bana, 111.: NCTE., 1971), p. 92. j 15Emig, p.-91. I - LDCriticizable in that it may .be compared with a prescribed i | set of rules and "corrected" if it fails to follow them, j ^C.K. Stallard, "An Analysis of the Writing Behavior of Good i | Student Writers," Research in the Teaching of English, 1 (Summer i : ! 197*0, p. 206. ■j Q Stallard, p. 218. 1^L. Flower and J. Hayes, "Dynamics of Composing," in Cog nitive Processes in Writing, eds. Gregg and Steinberg (Hillsdale, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1980), p. 77. 219. i on | Sondra Perl, "Understanding Composing," College Composition {and Communication, 31- (Dec. 1980), p. 368. I [ 21 ! Sharon Pianko, "A Description of. the Composing Processes of 1 ,College Freshman Writers," Research in the Teaching of English, 13 < |(_Feb. 1919), P. 7. ’ pp \ Sharon Pianko, "Reflection: A Critical Component of the Composing Process," College Composition and Communication, 30 I '(.1979), p. 277. 2^Nancy Sommers, "Revision Strategies of Student Writers and ;Experienced Adult Writers," College Composition and Communication, i •31 (Dec. 1980), p. 379- % j . 2i | Sommers, p.’ 386. 1 ^Lillian Bridwell, "Revising Strategies," Research in the .Teaching of English, lU Oct. 1980), p.' 210. j 2(^John Clifford, "Composing in Stages: The Effects of a iCollaborative Pedagogy," Research in the Teaching of English, 15 |(Feb. 1981),.p. kk. i 2%. R. Winterowd, Contemporary Rhetoric: A Conceptual Back- ! grOund •with Readings (New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, •1975), P. 16. ! 28W. R. Winterowd, "The Language Transaction," Chapter 1 of an unpublished manuscript in preparation. | ^Marshall Atlas has done an important study of experienced 1 I jand novice writers that addresses the issue of audience as it 1 relates to the composing process. He found that novice writers are 220 | very much aware of "audience," hut are context-dependent; that is, J the novice writer cannot manipulate a text for its intended readers I jwhile experienced writers can. > Phelps, "Rethinking Coherence: A Conceptual Analysis and | Its Implications for Teaching Practice." To appear in Reading and i Writing, (.1982), p. 5. | OT t D. Augustine, "Geometries and Words: Linguistics and Phil osophy: A Model of the Composing Process," College English, U3 i (March 198l), p. 229. I "^Augustine, p. 223. [ 1 . 3 « ! J. Hayes and L. Flower, "Identifying the Organization of ! jWriting Processes," in Cognitive Processes in Writing, eds. Gregg I and Steinberg (Hillsdale, .N.J.,: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1980), pp. I i11-13. * J ^L. Flower and J. .Jayes, "The Cognition of Discovery: De- ! fining a Rhetorical Problem," College Composition and Communication, I 31 (Feb. 1980), p. 21. J Daly, "The Effects of Writing Apprehension on Message I Encoding," Journalism Quarterly, 5^ (.1977), p. 571-572. I 1 3^L. Bloom, "The Composing Processes of Anxious and Eon- Anxious Writers: A Naturalistic Study," paper presented at CCCC, March, 198O, p. 20. I I 37m . Rose, "The Cognitive Dimension of Writer's Block: An t Examination of University Students," UCLA Research Study in Pro gress, p. 1. ; Rose, "Rigid Rules, Inflexible Plans, and the Stifling of l jLanguage: A Cognitivist's Analysis of Writer's Block," College ■ Composition and Communication, 31 (Dec. 1980), p. 389. ! 3?C. D. Spielberger, Anxiety: Current Trends in Theory and Research (.New York: Academic Press, 1972), p. k. t i ^®M. J. Goldstein, The Experience of Anxiety (New York: Ox- | ford University Press, 1975) , pp. 66-132. I j ^C. H. Branch, Aspects of Anxiety (Philadelphia: J. B. Lip- 1 jpincott Co., 1968), p. 17. j E. Fann, Phenomenology and Treatment of Anxiety (New York: ISP Medical and Scientific Books , 1979) > p. 7^-. ! U3 , I E. E. Levitt, The Psychology of Anxiety (Indianapolis: Bobbs ! ' jMerrill Co., Inc., 1967), p- 199- There are several studies which support Levitt's claim. Most notable are. R. W. White's and L. Stein jWhite's "Lives in Progress: A Study of the Natural“Growth of Personality," (1952) demonstrates that moderate anxiety acts as an - incentive, and Stein, in "Reciprocal Action of Reward and Punishment Mechanisms," (.1961), presents evidence that human advancement- is, at least in part, a consequence of the human organism's capacity to experience anxiety. LL C. H. Branch, p. 9- ^Levitt, p., 200. k6 Sprelberger, p. 13. hj I Richard E. Young, Alton L. Becker, and Kenneth L. Pike, i i . I Rhetoric: Discovery arid Change (Hew York: Harcourt, Brace and ' , i !World, Inc., 1970), p. 71. | ^Preparation, Incubation, Illumination and Verification, the !stages of the writing process outlined by Young, Becker and Pike, I . I ijnay also be cited as examples of an early stage model of compo- 1 : i sition. It is significant to note that on several occasions in • I 1 Rhetoric: Piscovery and Change they mention the non-linearity and j heuristic value of writing itself. • ^A. Rothenberg and C. Hausman, eds. The Creativity Question l i (.Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1976), p. 89. ^D. Gordon Rohman, "Pre-Writing: The Stage of Discovery in ^ ;the Writing Process," College Composition and Communication, l6 i j (May 1965), p. 107. ' ! j | 51Ibid. j t 52 | Catherine Patrick studied creative thought in artists by i jasking persons who wrote, drew and solved scientific problems to de- ! : scribe their thoughts while working. Hers was the first systematic I | attempt to study creativity and confirm Wallas' stages. Richard Beach has conducted one informal study ("Self-Evaluation {Strategies of Extensive Revisers amr Nonrevisers," College Composition arid' Communication, 1976). where students wrote at home and then taped a self-evaluation after each draft. His study, which dealt'exclu sively with revision, is the only composing process study to date i that investigates out-of-class writing. 223 J -^S. Wilson, "The Use of Ethnographic Techniques in Educa- Itional Research," Review of Educational Research, U7 (1977), P- 1 !2^7, p. 253. | Guha, "Naturalistic and Conventional Inquiry." Paper 'read at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meet- !ing, April 1980, p. 2. Students were also told that they could complete all course ;assignments and receive grades on all if that was their preference. Two of the eight students in the final group did, in fact, do all !assignments, waiving their right to a lighter load. I 5 7 One and one half hours was tallied for the "More than one ! ]hour" slot on the original form students completed. The table I ! |shows only time greater than 15 minutes, which includes 30 min- jutes, one hour, and more than one hour on the student form. | c:A ' The negative and positive labels I have assigned the various content analysis form categories are based on Daly's five variables | (.evaluation, conspicuousness, ambiguity, novelty and prior ex- j perience) and behavior (both unproductive and productive) and attitudes (both good and bad) that are part of the writing process. 1 59 'xhis metaphor was suggested to me by Mike Rose. BIBLIOGRAPHY } Adams, J. L. Conceptual Blockbusting, A Pleasurable Guide to I t ! Better Problem Solving. New York: W. W. Norton & Co., 1976. [Atwell, Nancie. "Class-Based Writing Research: Teachers Learn from Students." English. Journal, Jain/ (1982), 8U-87. i jAugustine, D. "Geometries and Words: Linguistics and Philosophy | 1 A Model of the Composing Process." College English, U3, ! March Cl98l), 221-231. t Beach, R. "Self-Evaluation Strategies." College Composition I and Communication, 27, May (.1976), 16O-I63. ■ ----- - "Between Draft Evaluation." Research in the J , ' ' - - : Teaching of English, 13, May (1979)5 111-120. Beaty, Jerome. "Middlemarch, From Notebook to Novel." Illinois | Studies in Language and Literature, 1*7 (i960). jBerthoff, Ann E. Forming/Thinking/Writing: The Composing Imagin- t | ation. Rochelle Park, N. J.: Hayden, 1978. Bloom, Lynn Z. "The Composing Processes of Anxious and Non- I j Anxious Writers: A Naturalistic Study." Paper presented I at CCCC, March, 198O. i i ----------. "Why Graduate Students■Can't Write: Implications 1 of Research on Writing Anxiety for Graduate Education." Paper read at CCCC, Dallas, 1981. --------- . "Teaching Anxious Writers: Implications and Appli cations of Research." In Composition arid Teaching II. | (.In press, 1982.) !--------- . "Identifying and Reducing Writing Anxiety: Writing ' Anxiety Workshops." In The Psychology of Composition. I I Cln press.) ■Bolgar, Hedda. "The Case Study Method." In Handbook of Clinical 1 t j Psychology. Ed. Benjamin Woloman. Hew York: McGraw-Hill, i 1965. Bonn, Jerry. "A Definition of Anxiety." Paper presented at NCTE Convention, San Francisco, 19791 ;Braddock, R., et al. Research in Written Composition. Urbana, ] 111.: NCTE, 1963. 1 [Branch, C. H. Aspects of Anxiety. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippin- cott Co., 1968. |Bridwell, L. "Revising Strategies." Research in the Teaching i j of English, ih, Oct. ( . 1980), 197-222. |Britton, James, et al. The Development of Writing Abilities | (.11-18). London: Macmillan Educational, 1975- j 'Clifford, J. "Composing in Stages." Research in the Teaching j of English, 15, Feb. Cl98l), 37-5^. | - * ' JCooper, C. and L.Odell, eds. Research on Composing: Points of 1 Departure. Urbana, 111.: NCTE, 1978. i ' I I 226 Cronbach, L. J. Essentials of Psychological Testing. 3rd ed. ; lew York: Harper and Row, 1970. i [Daly, J. A. "The Effects of Writing Apprehension on Message I • | Encoding." Journalism Quarterly, (.1977), 566-572. !---------. "Writing Apprehension and Writing Competency." t ! I Journal of Educational Research, 72 (1978), 10-lU. i ‘ i j---------. "Writing Apprehension in the Classroom: Teacher I Role Expectancies of the Apprehensive Writer." Research i | in the Teaching of English, 13 (.1979) »■ 37-^. I 'Daly, J. A. and J. L. Hailey. "Putting the Situation in Writing I \ Research: Situational Parameters of Writing Apprehension i j as Disposition and State." Paper presented at NCTE Con- t i ference, 1: 980. I Daly, J. A. and M. D. Miller. "The Empirical Development of an | Instrument fo Measure Writing Apprehension." Research in the Teaching of English., 9 (.1975), 2k2-2k8. ' --------- . "Apprehension of Writing as a Predictor of Message Intensity." The Journal of Psychology, 89 (1975), 157-177- 1 --------- . "Further Studies.on Writing Apprehension: SAT j Scores, Success Expectations, Willingness to Take Advanced Courses and Sex Differences." Research in the Teaching of English, 9 (1975), 250-256. Daly, J. A. and W. G. Shamo. "Writing Apprehension and Occupa tional Choice." Journal of Occupational Psychology, U9 (.1976), 55-56. ----------. "Academic Decisions as a Function of Writing Appre hension." Research in the Teaching of English, 12 (1978), 119-126. Daly, J. A. and D. Wilson. "Writing Apprehension, Self-Esteem, and Personality." Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, 1981. D'Angelo, F. A Conceptual Theory of Rhetoric! Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop, 1975. Dixon, John. Growth Through English. London: National Association of Teachers of English, 1967• Elbow, P. Writing without Teachers. London: Oxford University Press, 1973. • -. Writing with- Power. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 19.81 • Emig, Janet. "The Uses of the Unconscious in Composing." College Composition and Communication, 15, Feb. (.196U), 6-11. -• The Composing Processes of’ Twelfth-'Graders. Urbana, 111.: NCTE, 1971. Faigley, L., J. A. Daly, and S. Witte. "The Effects of Writing Ap prehension on Writing Performance and Competence." Paper pre sented at the Annual Conference of the American Educational Research Association, 19-81. Fann, W. E. Phenomenology and' Treatment of Anxiety. New York: SP Medical & Scientific Books, 1979- Fischer, W. F. Theories of Anxiety. New York: Harper & Row, 1970. Flower, L. ^'.Writer-Based Prose." College English, 1*1, Sept. (JL9T9), 19-37. j Flower, L. and J. Hayes. "Problem Solving Strategies and the Writing : Process." College Composition and Communication, 39, Dec. i ( (.1977), hh9-U6o. --------- - "Cognition of Discovery." College Composition and i I Communication, 31, Feb. (.1980) , 21^-32. ! i * > , ;-------- , * ■ ' "Dynamics of Composing." In Cognitive Processes in i Writing: An Interdisciplinary Approach. Eds. L. Gregg and [ j E. Steinberg. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1980. j -"A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing." To appear ' in College Composition and Communication. I Fox, Roy F. "Treatment of Writing Apprehension and Its Effects 1 on Composition." Research in the Teaching of English, lU, Feb. C1980), 39-b9. i . * * I ! Freedman, A. and I. Pringle. Reinventing the Rhetorical Tradition. Conway, Ark.: L & S'Books, 1980. Gaudry, E. Anxiety, and Educational Achievement. Hew'York: John | Wiley & Sons, 1971. | Gehle, Q. L. and D. J. Rollo. The Writing Process. Hew York: 1 | St. Martin's Press, 1977- < j Ghiselin, Brewster. The Creative Process. New York: New American [ Library, 1952. Goldstein, M. J, The Experience of Anxiety. New York: Oxford j University Press, 1975- I " jGraves, D. "A New Look at Writing Research." Language Arts, i j 57 C 1 9 8 0 ) , 9 1 3 - 9 1 9 . ; Guba, E. "Naturalistic and Conventional Inquiry."-. Paper read'at the American Educational Research Association Annual Meet ing, April, 1980. • ■ • ■Hayes, J. and L. Flower. "Identifying the Organization of Writing ■ Processes." In Cognitive Processes in Writing. Eds. Gregg j and Steinberg. Hillsdale, N. J.: Lawrence Erlbaum, 1980. --------- - "Uncovering Cognitive Processes in Writing: An ! Introduction to Protocol Analysis." In Research in Writing: Principles and Methods. (in. press..) iHiltner, S. Constructive Aspects of Anxiety. New York: Abingdon | Press, 1963. jHirsch, E. D. The Philosophy of Composition. Chicago: University I J of Chicago Press, 1977. jHurlow, M. L. "Linguistic Insecurity and Linguistic Complexity." I ! Paper read at CCCC, Dallas, 1981. ,Hyde, M. J. "The Experience of Anxiety: A Phenomenological In- i j vestigatlon." Quarterly- Journal Of’Speech, April ( 1 9 8 0 ) , j 40- 50 . jKasden, L. and D. Hoeher. Basic Writing: Essays for Teachers, ! Researchers and Administrators. Urbana, 111.: NCTE, 1980. j Kinneavy, J. E. A Theory of Discourse. Englewood Cliffs, N. J. j Prentice-Hall, 1971. ' Koch, C. and J. Brazil. Strategies for Teaching the Composition Process. Urbana, 111.: NCTE, 1978. jKytle, R. Prewriting: Strategies for Exploration and Discovery New York: Random House, 1972. ■ i 1 Lakoff, Robin. "Writing as a Second Language: The Continuum of | Discourse." Paper presented at NCTE Convention, San Fran- I cisco, 1979- 'Levitt, E. E. The Psychology of Anxiety. Indianapolis: Bobbs- Merrill Co., Inc., 1967. tLowes, J. L. The Road to Xanadu. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1927. I Mack, K. and E. Skjei. Overcoming Writing Blocks. Los Angeles: } j J. P. Tarcher,,Inc., 1979- iMacrorie, Ken. Telling Writing. Rochelle Park, N. J.: Hayden, 1970. j -. Writing to Read. New York: Hayden Book Co., 1976. [Matsuhasi, A. "Pausing and Planning." Research in the Teaching ; of English, 15, May (198.1), 113-13^. I.McKeon, Richard. "Creativity and the Commonplace." Philosophy ; and Rhetoric, 6, April Cl973), 198-20U. j McQuade, D. Linguistics, Stylistics, and the Teaching of Com- ! position. Akron: L & S Books, 1979- fMishler, E. "Meaning in Context: Is There Any Other Kind?" Har- j ; vard Educational Review, 1+9 s Feb. (l979)5 1-19* Moffett, James. Teaching the Universe of Discourse. New York: Houghton Mifflin Co., 1968. • Murray,. D. M. "Write Before- Writing." College Composition and i • ■ . Communication, 29 (1978), 375-381. . "Writing as Process: How Writing Finds- Its -Own.. -Meaning.” In Eight Approaches to Teaching Composition.1 Eds. T.R. Donovan and B'.W. McClelland. Urbana',- Illinois: NCTE, 1980, ,3-20. • • Nelson, Marie W. and K. Kantor-. "Context-Dependent Studies in Composition: A Selective Review.” Research in Composition Newsletter, 2, Spring-Summer (1981), 1-7. ' Ney, J,. "Notes Toward A Psycholinguistic Model of the Writing Pro- ( cess." Research in the Teaching of English, 8'(.197^)» 157-169- : Ohmann, Richard. "Freshman Composition and Administered Thought.” j In English in America. . N. Y. : Oxford University Press, 1976. Pelto, P.J. and G.H. Pelto. Anthropological Research: The Struc- I ! ture of Inquiry. 2nd ed. Cambridge, England: Cambridge Uni versity Press, 1978. Perl, S. "Five Writers Writing: The Composing Processes of Unskilled : College Writers." Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, NYU, 1978. — --------. "Composing Processes of Unskilled Writers." Research in the Teaching of English, 13, Dec. (1979), 317-336. . "Understand Composing." College Composition and Commun ication, 31, Dec. (.1980), 363-369. Phelps, L. "Rethinking Coherence: A Conceptual Analysis and Its Implications for Teaching Practice." To appear in Reading and Writing, 1982. Pianko, S. "The Composing Acts of College Freshman Writers." Un published Ph.D. dissertation, Rutgers University, 1977. ----------. "A Description of the Composing Processes of College ■ Freshman Writers." Research in the Teaching of English, 13, Feb. C1979), 5-22. ■ ' ------ • ---. "Reflection: A Critical Component of the Composing Process." College .Composition and Communication, 30 (.1979,), 275-278. Plimpton, G., ed. Writers at Work: The ‘ Paris Review Interviews. 3rd Series. New York: Viking Press, 1963. Robinson, P. "An Ethnography of Classrooms." In Contemporary Re search in the Sociology of Education. ' Ed. J. Eggleston. Lon don: Methuen, 197*+. Rohman, D. Gordon. "Prewriting: The Stage of Discovery in the Writing Process." College Composition and Communication, l6, May (1965), 107-11**. Rohman, D.G. and A. Wlecke. Pre-Writing: The Construction and Application of Models for Concept Formation in Writing. East Lansing, Mich.: Michigan State University, I96U. (USOE Co operative Research Project Wo. 2171+.) Rose, M. "Rigid Rules, Inflexible Plans, and the Stifling of Lan guage: A Cognitivist Analysis of Writer's Block." College Composition and Communication, 31, Dec. (1980), 389-1*01. -. "The Cognitive Dimension of Writer's Block: An Exam ination of University Students." Unpublished Ph.D. disser tation, UCLA, 1981. --. "Sophisticated, Ineffective Books--The Dismantling of Process in Composition Texts." College Composition and Commun ication, 32, Feb. (1981), 65-lk. Rosner, S. and L.E. Abt. ' Essays in Creativity. .Croton-on-Hudson, N.Y. : Worth River Press, Inc., 1971+• Rothenberg, A. and C. Hausman. The Creativity Question. Durham, W.C.: Duke University Press, 1976. Ruitenbeck, Hendrik. The Creative Imagination: Psychoanalysis and the Genius of Inspiration. Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1965- Shaughnessy, Mina. Errors and Expectations. Hew York: Oxford University Press, 1977. Sommers, Wancy. "Anxiety and Revision." Paper presented at WCTE ' Convention, San Francisco, 1979- --------- . "Revision" Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers." College Composition and Communication, 31, Dec. (1980), 318-388. --------- . "Revision in the Composing Process: A Case Study of College Freshmen and Unexperienced Adult Writers." Disserta tion, Boston University, 1978. Sommers, N. and R. Schleifer. "Means and Ends: Some-Assumptions of Student Writers." Composition arid Teaching, Vol. XI. (in press.) . Speilberger, C.D., ed. Anxiety: Current Trends in Theory and Re search. New York: Academic Press,.1972. Stallard, E.K. "An Analysis of the Writing Behavior of Good Student ; Writers." Research in' the Teaching of English, 8 (197*+), : 206-218. , Tate, G. , ed. Teaching Composition: Ten Bibliographic Essays. Fort Worth: Texas Christian University Press, 1978. Tate, G. and E.P.J. Corbett. The Writing Teacher’s Sourcebook. : New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. Vygotsky, Lev S. Thought and Language. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 195*+. Weimer, W.B. and D.S. Palermo. Cognition and the Symbolic Proces ses . . New York:. Wiley, 197*+. Wiener, H. The Writing Room: A Resource Book for Teachers of Eng- lish. New York: Oxford University Press, 1981. Williams, J. Style: 10 Lessons in Clarity and Grace. Glenview, 111.: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1981. Wilson, S. "The Use of Ethnographic Techniques in Educational Re search." Review of Educational Research, UT (.1977)) 2^9-265. Winterowd, W.R. Contemporary Rhetoric: A Conceptual Background •with Readings. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1975- -------- -. The Contemporary Writer: A Practical Rhetoric. 2nd ed. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich, 1981. --------- . "The Language Transaction," Chapter I of an unpublish ed manuscript in preparation. Young, R.D., A.L. Becker, and K.L. Pike. Rhetoric: Discovery and Change. New York: Harcourt, Brace and World, Inc., 1970. DALY’S WRITING APPREHENSION MEASURE ‘ DIRECTIONS: Below are a series of statements about writing. There j are no right or wrong answers to these statements. Please indicate the degree to which each statement 1 applies to you by circling whether you (l) STRONGLY AGREE (.2) AGREE (3) ARE UNCERTAIN (U) DISAGREE or ; (.5) STRONGLY DISAGREE with the statement. While some of these statements may seem repetitious, take your time and try to be as honest as possible. Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. ■ 1. I avoid writing. 1 2 3 k 5 ’ 2. I have no.fear of my writing being evaluated. 1 2 3 k 5 ;3* I look forward to writing down my ideas. 1 2 3 h 5 ; ! I am afraid of writing essays when I know they will be evaluated. 1 2 3 k 5 '5. i i l Taking a composition course is a very frightening experience. 1 2 3 k 5 i6- Handing in a composition makes me feel good. 1 2 3 h 5 j 7. 1 My mind seems to go blank when I start to work on a composition. 1 2 3 k 5 ■ 6. ! . Expressing ideas through writing seems to be a waste of time. 1 2 3 k 5 |9’ I would enjoy submitting my writing to maga zines for evaluation and publication. .1 2 3 k 5 [10. I like to write my ideas down. . • 1 2 3 k 5 in. I feel confident in my ability to clearly express my ideas in writing. 1 2 3 1 * ■5 12: * I like to have my friends read what I. have written. 1 2 3 u- 5 113. i I'm nervous about writing. 1 2 3 k 5 uu. People seem to enjoy what I write. 1 2 3 h 5 15. i ■ I enjoy writing. 1 2 3 k 5 11<5. i 1 I never seem to be able to clearly write down my ideas. 1 2 3 k i 5 i I 17. i ' -Writing is a lot of fun. 1 2 3 k 5 | ; is. i I expect to do poorly in composition classes even before I enter them. 1 2 3 k 1 5 : ! 19. « . 1 , . I like seeing my thoughts on.paper. , 1 2 3 k 5 ! ( ! 20. i 1 Discussing my. writing with others is an enjoyable experience. . 1 '2 3 k 5 ! 21. I i ' I have a terrible time organizing my ideas in a composition course. 1 2 3 h 1 5 1 j22. When I hand in a composition I know I'm going to do poorly. 1 2 3 k 5 ! 1 | 23. It’s easy for me to write good compositions. 1 2 3 h 5 ; i 2k. I don't think I . write as well~as most other people. 1 2 3 k ■ " i i ‘5 25. I don't like my compositions to be evaluated. 1 2 3 k 5 26. I'm no good at writing. 1 2 3 k 5 t I 238 WRITING ATTITUDES AND EXPERIENCES QUESTIONNAIRE * ' » I 1 Please return the complete answers to these questions by Monday, Jan- juary 19- ;You should spend approximately two hours writing the answers. The jmore information you can give me of your writing background, the better able I will be to help you with your individual needs. , ‘ > 1. Can you remember any specific comments your teachers made to you about your writing? Try to paraphrase these comments’ and , give as many as you can recall. I ' 2. How often do you write? Take a week out of your life; how much writing did you do in that week tpaper, letters, grocery lists, I etc. } ? i ■ 3. What is the most difficult thing for you as a writer? i U. Do you ever get stuck when you write? Tell me about a case | or two. i \ 5- Do you ever have so many ideas that you don't know what to < write about? I 6. What do you find is easy to write, and why? f { | 7. Do you ever worry about your writing when you write? What 1 worries you? Be specific. I j 8. What is an easy subject for you to write on? What makes it easy? | 9. What is a difficult subject for you to write on? What makes ! it difficult? : 10. What do you consider to be the characteristics of good writing? ;11. Do you have any favorite authors? Name them. i ; 12. What do you consider to be the characteristics of bad writing? A SELF-APPRAISAL OF YOUR OWN WRITING PROCESS 'The following self-analysis asks you to do three things: first, to • look at your own, writing process as objectively as a musician, dancer, 'or athlete would look at his or her performance. What strategies do ; you typically rely on and how well' do they usually'work? .'Secondly, P | spend some time collecting data on yourself . What do you really do i j when trying to writ'e? And finally, how does that compare to your I !image of what a good writer would do? Jot down your answers on a I |separate sheet. » r jA. What are the last four things you have written (excluding short notes)., and who read them? -We will refer to your writing here as ! a "paper," hut it could have been a college composition, letter, i ■ ; , ' - memo, announcement, proposal, or report. (in the questions that j follow, whenever you find it difficult to decide what is typical j for you, refer back to these four events as your norm.) t j B. In general, how do you feel about writing? I j rather enjoy it neutral dislike it | C. Do you find it easy to write papers that say what you wanted them 1 to say? In practical terms, is writing a relatively efficient ; process for you in which your time is in proportion to your in- » j tentions? j D. How many hours did you spend writing (drafting, writing, revising) J the last three papers you did? Give number of hours and number of pages written (excluding appendices). Is this normal? Do you generally try to write a piece in one sitting from the be ginning, or do you work on sections separately and at various times? Do you generally end up having to do the actual writing of papers under pressure— that is, under a tight time constraint? When you think of having to write a paper, what are the main things that come to mind for you? Are any of these problems ones you frequently have? 1. Getting started: Getting the whole paper ordered in your head before you write. Getting a beginning paragraph. Getting a first sentence. Sitting down to write. Turning on the flow of creative ideas. 2. Organizing what you know into a paper: Finding a main idea or thesis that fits in all the things you have to,say. Turning an outline or sketch into a fleshed-out, proper . paper with sentences and paragraphs. , Turning lots of.good ideas into an outline. Writing a formal paper when you know you could explain it easily if you could just talk to the person. 3. Writing for an audience? Knowing what your reader really wants. Finding that readers miss the important things you thought were clearly stated. Finding that, upon rereading your writing, you don’t understand it in the same' way you did when you wrote it . U. Controlling the circumstances under which you write: Trying to concentrate with noise and activity around you (the TV, stereo, friends, family)..' Writing when you feel tired or sleepy instead of during the most alert part of your day. Being inadequately prepared (you haven't had time to think the problem through "before you start to compose). Having no time (or less than a day) to let the paper sit "between writing and editing it. Do you have any rituals that help you get in the mood to write? Many people depend on private rituals that help them to get started and maintain their concentration as they write. The rituals can vary from mere sharpened pencils to special rooms, desks, or times of day set aside for writing. Some people set subgoals and give themselves rewards when they achieve them. Do you have any private rituals that help you get in a frame of mind to write? If so, jot them down. ; < J . Once you have completed questions A-I, read over your responses. Try to define as perceptively as you can three major problems you have in writing. Make your definitions as specific as possible. Wow develop a practical plan for dealing with each of your prob lems the next time they come up. From Flower, L. Problem Solving Strategies for Writing. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc., 1981. PLANNING TIME QUESTIONNAIRE ACTIVITIES YOU ENGAGE IN BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY BEGIN WRITING AN ASSIGNMENT ABOUT HOW LONG 5 MIN. 10-15 MIN. or less 30 MIN. I HR. MORE THAN 1 HR. 1. Talking to others about the assignment, a. classmates . b. roommates c. parents d. friends e. teacher ' 2. Making an outline. 3. Jotting down ideas. - i * . Journal writing related to the writing assignment. 5. Worrying about the as s i ghment. 6. Getting ready to write by doing any of the fol lowing: (or "try ing to get ideas" by doing any of the following): a. Listening to music. • b. Reading related to the assign ment . c. Flipping through a magazine. d. Daydreaming. e. Watching TV. f. Eating, Drinking. 2hk ACTIVITIES YOU ENGAGE IN BEFORE YOU ACTUALLY j BEGIN WRITING :AN ASSIGNMENT g. Talking on the phone. h. Reading un related to the assign ment.. i. Taking a walk. 0. Thinking about the assignment. k. Other (.please specify) 7. Library research. 8. Deciding to work on the assign ment at another time. 9. Doing things you have to do, but that, are not necessarily re lated to the writing assign ment. Please specify. 1. 2........ ................ 3. ....................... ABOUT HOW LONG 5 MIN. 10-15 MIN. 30 MIN. 1 HR. . MORE or less THAN 1 HR. I 1 DAILY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS j ; Monday i j jWhat was your first reaction to the assignment? j What have you done since the assignment was given? ; What determines your feelings toward writing? ! How would you rate your fear of writing on a scale of one to ten? » I ; Tuesday ■ Did you do anything since yesterday on your paper? J What is the most difficult aspect of composing for you? I What is the easiest part of writing? jWhat is your primary concern when you are composing? i I i , Wednesday i ^ Did you do anything since yesterday on.your paper? (asked each day) I Do,you like to write? , How do you get ideas for writing? How do you manage to get started? What activity or feeling causes you ' to begin? To get that first line down? " [ Do you worry about anything when you write? j Do you ever procrastinate? Why? ' ; j - • I Thursday Tell me about you and writing. What experiences have you had? j What things do you recall about learning to write? ; Friday | Has this survey made you think about your writing any differently? j What did you do \ differently on this assignment? • How do you feel now that it’s over? i . 2k6 CONTENT ANALYSIS FORM FOR INTERVIEW DATA GENERAL ATTITUDES (a) Negative attitudes about writing (a ) . Positive" attitudes about writing (pleasure, eager ness, delight, success) Past Present (b^) Lack of general school pressure ) General school pressure Past Present (c) Pressure from a specific Lack of pressure from a assignment specific assignment Past Present (d) Negative attitude about (.d^) Positive attitude about revision revision Past Present FEARS/ANXIETIES: CONFIDENCE (a) Fear of evaluation Ca ) Not afraid or looks for ward to evaluation Past Present (b). Fear of making errors , ( _ b ^ ) Syntactically/grammatical- ly confident Past Present (c) Assignment uncertainty (c^) Sure about the assignment Past Present (d) Pressure from need t o ( d ^ ) Absence of pressure complete assignment Past Present (e) Situational anxiety (e^) Absence of situational anxiety Past Present (f) Dispositional anxiety(f^) Absence of dispositional anxiety Past Present PLANNING BEHAVIOR (a) Delays starting to write (a-^) Starts immediately with- to plan out .planning Past Present (b) Avoiding thinking about and(b^) Thinking and planning planning for the paper Past Present (c) Unable to concentrate or focus on topic, or diffi culty in finding ideas Past Present CONSIDERING FEATURES OF THE ASSIGNMENT (a) Difficulty ®ase Past Present (b) NoTelty ■ (b-^) Familiarity Past Present (c) Interest level l o w ( c ^ ) Interest level high Past Present (d) Dislikes personal experi- (d-^) Prefers personal experi- ence assignments ence assignments Past Present (e) Dislikes creative topics(e^) Prefers creative topics' Past Present - (f) Dislikes analytic topics (f^) Prefers analytic topics Past " . ... (c^) Brainstorming ease, surplus of ideas Present TEXT GENERATION (a) Problems generating first ' • n '(a^‘ ) Ease in generating first- sentence , paragraph sentence, paragraph Past Present (b) False s t a r t s , s t o p s ( b p ) Consistent, even exces- sive generation Past Present (c) Interruption with other . (Cp.). Uninterrupted production activities Past- Present REVIEWING TEXT (.a) Not rereading initial draft (a ) Rereading initial draft or sections 1 or sections Past Present (b) Not evaluating own efforts ( V Evaluating own efforts Past Present (c) Not seeking others' eval (c ) Seeking others' eval uations of draft uations of draft Past Present (d) Not revising text Cd-^1 Revising text on basis of evaluation Past Present POST-WRITING BEHAVIOR , - v ( . a ) Dissatisfied with final (an ) . Happy with final product productv Past ' Present . . . * ■ Cb) Relief that assignment is (b^) Unrelieved that assign ment is completed completed Past Present
Linked assets
University of Southern California Dissertations and Theses
Conceptually similar
PDF
00001.tif
PDF
00001.tif
PDF
00001.tif
PDF
00001.tif
PDF
00001.tif
PDF
00001.tif
PDF
00001.tif
PDF
00001.tif
PDF
00001.tif
PDF
00001.tif
PDF
00001.tif
PDF
00001.tif
PDF
00001.tif
PDF
00001.tif
PDF
00001.tif
PDF
00001.tif
PDF
00001.tif
PDF
00001.tif
PDF
00001.tif
PDF
00001.tif
Asset Metadata
Core Title
00001.tif
Tag
OAI-PMH Harvest
Permanent Link (DOI)
https://doi.org/10.25549/usctheses-oUC11257766
Unique identifier
UC11257766
Legacy Identifier
DP23087