My Preconceived Notions Of My Conducting Process In The Pre-Writing Process
The first day of research began on February 22nd in a public area outside of the CFE Arena, where we later decided to move into Dunkin Donuts to get a bite to eat. Before any of this, or any research research was conducted I wrote down my preconceived notions of my own conducting process regarding environment and workflow in the pre-writing table. I found that my previous assumptions regarding noise and distractions were correct. I work best in loud environments with lots of distraction which was confirmed by my enjoyment of the First (and also second) work environments. I started by reading through the article an additional time as well as reading through the assignment questions for the first time to develop an idea of what to write. This
…show more content…
Longer papers are much the same in respect to planning. I write down whatever comes to my mind first and spend the time I would have spent planning on revision. This allows me to quickly compose and finish assignments quickly which is beneficial in a college environment. I have quoted Mike Rose on it before and I will quote him again in that my planning method is “Good Enough, Most of the Time”, which is to say for most assignments my current approach to planning is sufficient (Rose 541). My revision process is a bit more complex as shown by both my own recording and the notes taken by my peer. As written in my pre-writing table I revised both as I wrote and as I reread my work. These changes included both minor syntactical changes and vast shifts of meaning and or whole paragraph revisions. Speaking aloud had a noticeable change upon my writing which I deduced from the changes in my writing from being recorded to being peer observed. If you pay mind to Appendix A. and Appendix B. you can see my fragmented speech as I had trouble conceptualizing what I was thinking to say it …show more content…
Again, I selected this location because of its publicity and the amount of residual noise in the locale. I began programming an assignment for Dr. Szumslanski’s Computer Science 1 course. The assignment was exceptionally long eventually taking a total of 38 hours to complete. Opposed to the first assignment, I began by planning how I would continue forward. My writing process in this case contained a much higher focus on planning rather than rapid prototyping. This focus on planning differs greatly from my preconception of long assignments, and how I composed them. The pre-writing table previous wrote up spoke about my lack of planning on long assignments but through the research I have completed I determine this original conjecture to be false. When considering assignments of length, in particular programming assignments. In regard to the speaking aloud protocol I underwent, speaking aloud in fact helped me think, and clarified issues in my program making my process a bit quicker. On longer assignments I spend roughly about triple the time planning, but also the same amount of time making slight revisions. The amount of major revisions I made was almost zero. I cannot speak as to whether this was by the nature of the assignment or a shift in my composing paradigm for long assignments. Most of the actual time spent at my computer, both by my peer’s
Longer papers are much the same in respect to planning. I write down whatever comes to my mind first and spend the time I would have spent planning on revision. This allows me to quickly compose and finish assignments quickly which is beneficial in a college environment. I have quoted Mike Rose on it before and I will quote him again in that my planning method is “Good Enough, Most of the Time”, which is to say for most assignments my current approach to planning is sufficient (Rose 541). My revision process is a bit more complex as shown by both my own recording and the notes taken by my peer. As written in my pre-writing table I revised both as I wrote and as I reread my work. These changes included both minor syntactical changes and vast shifts of meaning and or whole paragraph revisions. Speaking aloud had a noticeable change upon my writing which I deduced from the changes in my writing from being recorded to being peer observed. If you pay mind to Appendix A. and Appendix B. you can see my fragmented speech as I had trouble conceptualizing what I was thinking to say it …show more content…
Again, I selected this location because of its publicity and the amount of residual noise in the locale. I began programming an assignment for Dr. Szumslanski’s Computer Science 1 course. The assignment was exceptionally long eventually taking a total of 38 hours to complete. Opposed to the first assignment, I began by planning how I would continue forward. My writing process in this case contained a much higher focus on planning rather than rapid prototyping. This focus on planning differs greatly from my preconception of long assignments, and how I composed them. The pre-writing table previous wrote up spoke about my lack of planning on long assignments but through the research I have completed I determine this original conjecture to be false. When considering assignments of length, in particular programming assignments. In regard to the speaking aloud protocol I underwent, speaking aloud in fact helped me think, and clarified issues in my program making my process a bit quicker. On longer assignments I spend roughly about triple the time planning, but also the same amount of time making slight revisions. The amount of major revisions I made was almost zero. I cannot speak as to whether this was by the nature of the assignment or a shift in my composing paradigm for long assignments. Most of the actual time spent at my computer, both by my peer’s