Planning: in planning for this projects i pretty much decided what i wanted to write about by searching wikipedia and checking if there was already an article listed for the topic and thought about places that i could get the information for my project.
Drafting: Because i changed topics half way through i did not use my usual drafting process. i didnt have enough time to take a break and go back to my draft later so my drafting process was shortened. this time i wrote, took a quick break and edited what i had written earlier.
Aligning: i dont think i did much aligning. when i was writing my article i did make sure that someone that had never heard about my topic would understand everything about it but that is as far as i went. i didnt really think about the reader beyond that point.
Revising: because i didnt have much time by the time my article was completed, i didnt do much revising. i was able to revise just before submitting.
Monitoring: i used this when i realized that i needed to change topics. i knew that there wasnt going to be enough information to write the paper that i wanted to so i changed topics to that i could write as well as i would have liked.
I pretty much did my article in the same way that you did yours. With planning I made sure my topic was not mentioned anywhere else and then found the information that I wanted to incorporate. As I read through Tierney and Pearson's article and compared their functions with my writing process I also found that my weak spot was definitely with aligning. First of all aligning was one of the things that I had trouble understanding in the book but from what I can tell it is something that I could have done better on in my article. When composing the Wikipedia piece I just aimed for a neutral "straight facts" stance and did not really combine that with the way my audience would read it. I think it is great that you put Camp Akita up there!! Good Job!
ReplyDelete