Reflection Paper On Arab American Feminism

1206 Words3 Pages

For my protocol analysis, I decided to record myself writing a self-reflective essay for a class on Arab American Feminism. This assignment asks each student to look at their personal history and identify moments that connect to this class and explain how these moments shape their personal perspective on themes that are relevant to the course. While the self-reflective nature of this essay made it difficult to reflect on my own writing, certain themes consistently appeared through my writing process. Throughout my recording, so much evidence suggests that I am constantly editing and revising my work—even editing sentences while they’re being created. Thus, the fluidity of my writing process supports Flower and Hayes’ notion that writing does …show more content…

Rather than seeing pre-writing, writing, and revision as three separate and linear stages, Flower and Hayes point out that “revision, as it is carried out by skilled writers, is not an ‘end-of-the-line’ repair process, but is a constant state of ‘re-vision’ or re-seeing that goes on while they are composing,” (367). Similarly, in my protocol analysis, I do not perform writing and revision as two separate stages. Instead, I’m constantly reworking sentences as I write them, melding these two stages into a single, continual process. Additionally, Flower and Hayes point out that these concrete stages limit the writing process and that “the sharp distinctions stage models make between the operations of planning, writing, and revising may seriously distort how these activities work,” (367). Similarly, my protocol analysis would reflect this notion—that the perception of writing as a series of stages does not actually reflect how many people think about writing. Although it can be used as a pedagogical tool for inexperienced writers, the expectation that more experienced writers write in such a disjointed manner does not reflect the cognitive processes that go into …show more content…

However, I’m hesitant to say that most of my writing process itself focuses on revision. I think that my comments are mostly about revision because that’s the easiest thought process to articulate. As I was creating the protocol analysis and talking through my writing process, it seemed like I was making a lot of comments and talking through every decision I made. However, upon reviewing that recording, I quickly realized how little comments I actually made. Instead, I could hear keys clacking in the background while I was entirely silent. When I did manage to talk through my actual writing process, much of it was just saying my sentences aloud as I wrote them down rather than explaining the logic behind my writing. I think that this is due in large part to the fact that your reasons for structuring your language in a certain way are almost impossible to articulate. How can you explain why you speak the way you do while you’re speaking? Similarly, how does one place objective reason onto their own rhetoric while they’re constructing it? This would be difficult for someone who is adept at creating protocol analyses, and is nearly impossible for someone who has no experience creating them. Thus, much of the evidence that comes out of protocol analyses reflects what’s easy for the writer to explain, rather than the actual cognitive process

Open Document