Overview of the article: What conversation has this writer entered? What was the study?

What was he arguing based on this study? The author enters the conversation of what causes writers block and how it can hinder an otherwise excellent students academic progress. The study was between ten UCLA undergraduate students, where five suffered from unsurpassable writers block and the other five excelled at writing with an unbelievable ease. It was found that the five students who suffered from constant writers block followed a strict set of rules that seemed to help more in impeding writing than aiding one to excel in it, while the students who excelled in writing were found to use a much looser set of rules that would allow for them to write to the best of their ability and accept various forms of information from outside sources. The interviewed each student anywhere from one to three times, each interview having a guideline of notes, etc. that allowed the author to adequately maintain the conversation in the designated direction. Robert M. Gagne defines rules as an inferred capability that enables the individual to respond to a class of stimulus situation with a class of performances a heuristic does not guarantee the optimal solution or, indeed, any solution at all; rather, heuristics offer solutions that are good enough most of the time. Heuristic rule of thumb or guidelines which allow varying degrees of flexibility when approaching problems; Plan a plan is any hierarchical process in the organism that can control the order in which a sequence of operations is to be performed; Set represents a limiting and narrowing of response alternative with no inherent process to shift alternatives, kind of a cognitive habit that can limit perception, not a course of action with multiple paths that directs and sequences response possibilities

What aspects of the article to you find to be compelling? I find the reasoning behind why the students have such extreme writers block to be fascinating. I have never followed any given set of guidelines when entering my writing process (grammar, etc. being the obvious exception). I allow myself to simply write whatever comes to mind no rough draft, no peer review and let the outcome be my final draft, so long as it does follow grammatical rules and is not switching main ideas every sentence. I do, at times, experience writers block, and it seems to only occur when I think of writing as a set of rules which must be followed it impedes my natural curiosity and the creativity which I rely upon to complete any objective that is centered on writing.

Where do you see problems with the study or with the conclusions that have been drawn? The constructs of rules and plans advance the understanding or problem solving beyond that possible with earlier, less developed formulations. In certain situations, I believe the above quote to be possible; however, when dealing with writers block and the writers process, I believe the construction of rules and plans to be somewhat detrimental. In the beginning of the article it mentioned how the five students who had suffered from extreme writers block all had a much more strict set of rules and standards when it came to writing than those students who had no problem with writers block. If one follows a guideline of rules too strictly, I believe it impedes the creative process that is necessary

when one attempts to writeanything. If one follows a plan too strictly, they lose the ability to generate more inventive ways of viewing different questions and situations, their method of thinking becomes almost robotic, leaving the much needed creative essence severely lacking in whatever piece of writing said person is working on. Though mathematical and computer models move one toward more complex (and thus more real) problems than the earlier research, they are still too neat, too rigidly sequenced to approximate the stunning complexity of day-to-day (not to mention highly creative) problemsolving behavior. While overly strict rules should not be applied to a human beings thinking process, I believe it is extremely useful when dealing with computers, mathematics and the like. Mathematics is already has various creative methods of coming to the solution of any problem. It finds answers where one previously thought there would be none. This is due to the strict set of heuristics, plans, and sets that are put into practice throughout the process of acquiring the answer to a problem. If mathematics was lacking in the rigidity of its rules, then there would be various problems which one would otherwise be without the resources of being able to answer. Mathematics is filled with strict guidelines which must be followed in order to acquire the answer which one has begun working towards.

How do you connect to these studies as a writer or reader yourself? Do you see yourself reflected or not reflected in the article? What is your take-away as a writer, reader, and/or student? I can see myself reflected in some parts of the article, but overall I tend to have disagreed with many of the authors main ideas. I have gained a larger understanding of how various people view the writing process how some need a strict set of rules and others completely disregard them which helps me to understand the diversity that can be encountered throughout the writing process, depending upon the person. It has helped me to realize that everyone needs a completely different method when dealing with writing some of which I could not follow with the same results that others were able to achieve.