I started with a working outline of the paper. I knew what information I wanted to put in, but I didn't really have much of an indea as to the direction of the paper. I used a lot of outlines, a lot of lists to organize the layout. Once I had the form and direction of the paper more or less ironed out, I started on the first draft. Every time I read something new or heard something interesting, I added it directly to my paper, hence my general lack of notes. The method worked quite well for me, but since notes were graded, things didn't turn out so well there. I would add in new sections and subsections to the paper when I had enough new information, but once I had the general layout (by about the second or third draft) only the content was modified. By my fifth draft I was still adding information (since I had a couple of great books) despite the direction that the papers should be completed, content-wise. My sixth and final draft was the trickiest draft for me to complete as, I couldn't shake my inclination to leave the paper be and tell myself that I would add more and polish it up later. The due date for the final draft caught me off guard, I suppose.

Mr. Oldani gave me the most feedback. What helped most, were his questions regarding the significance of topics I would cover. “How does this relate to your topic?” “Tie it in to your essential question.” That type of comment helped guide my paper and my research. At times I would be sidetracked by interesting studies, statistics and observations that, although interesting, were not pertinent my topic. Oldani's comments helped keep me on track. The junior's comments, on the other hand, provided meaningless, impotent feedback. Their comments usually boiled down to: “Good job. More research.” That, of course, did not help guide my paper at all.

My primary roadblocks were procrastination, deadlines and research. Procrastination foiled me in obvious ways. I put off actually whipping up a new draft until rather close to its due date. Which brings me to deadlines. Some times I felt that the deadlines were too close together and that had not had enough time to thoroughly rework or polish or reinforce my paper. Other times, the deadlines seemed too far apart and I felt that I had made significant leaps in my paper and that somebody's guidance would have helped before I modified the paper even more. As for research, I found that I had a great deal of information, all of which I wanted to use, not all of which was usefull. I was constantly putting information into my paper that I later had to take out since it didn't really adhere to the topic at hand, it was simply interesting. Maybe my exhibition topic should have been: “What is interesting to Jeff Tuzik?”

I suppose the greatest thing I can take from this, regard writing a major paper is that lists, outlines and organization are key. I was constantly getting hung up on how my paper should, what information should go where, what information is necessary, what information is pointless and so on. I was constantly researching things that I later threw out. With more lists and outlines, I would have known exactly what to research, when to research it, how to lay it out and when to do so. Then again, organization has always been my foible, so nothing “I learned about writing a major paper” should have come as a surprise. I suppose I could have structured my time better, as well. In retrospect, I wish I had finished my drafts weeks in advance of the deadlines, but it's always easy to look back and say: I wish I had sat down and written the damn thing, rather than struggling now. Ah well, that's hindsight for you.

I know myself as writer pretty well. I like to write, I write a lot. So I must say that I didn't learn much at all about my writing self. I procrastinate, I know that. I even procrastinate when it comes to the columns I write for the Lake Owsego Review.

It's rather difficult to put a number, a percentage, on how much of my paper or the writng process, represented new learning. But I would say that in terms of research, 75 – 80% of what I later put into my paper was new to me. I had basic knowledge in many areas of my research, but that knowledge only led me to certain chapters or books or articles and the detailed information within, was almost always new to me. I think it can be a challenge to find a lot of new information in a topic your are interested in since it stands to reason that you also be knowledgable in that area. For me, it took a minute amount of searching to stumble across new information.

I believe my paper has a wealth of information on the topic, I believe that it is long enough to encompass an acceptable range of the evolution information out there, while at the same time, concise enough to remain interesting all the way up to page 15. However, I struggled at times with making it perfectly clear why I was talking about one study of another and I feel that the major weakness of my paper, one that I can yet fix, is that it does not tie information back to the essential question enough.

I simply looked at the criteria sheet and checked off what was present in my paper at the “A” level and marked what was not. I then did my best to remedy those sub-par or missing areas. I intend to write more drafts after this as, I believe my paper could be better still, so my use of the criteria is somewhat of an ongoing process.

Next time I write a major paper I WILL WRITE IT EARLY. My greatest downfall is my accursed procrastination. I put off writing and revising the paper too often and for too long. If I had planned out when I was going to write, when things were due and how much I intended to accomplish on a given day or week or month, I know I would be ahead of the game. More lists, more calendars. Additionally, a stronger outline before I wrote anything at all would have helped. I didn't solidify my outline until I had already written a great deal of my paper so I was already heavily invested in that layout.

I would give myself an 8 for overall effort on my exhibition paper. I put a lot of work into it, I spent a lot of time trying to make it all add up and make it reader-friendly. For overall quality, I would give myself a 9. I feel I am quite capable to doing “10” quality work, and I fully intend to. There is time yet and I plan to raise my effort anquality ratings to a 10. In this past few weeks for sure, though, I would give myself a 10 for effort.

I would simply like to say that early in the year, we were receiving a great deal of homework on top of the expected exhibition work and I must admit, I found that overwhelming and frustrating. I doubt that will change though, since I suppose it simulate a college environment more accurately. That's really my only complaint though, as far as the paper is concerned. My only non-paper complaint has to do with the grading of notes. I think it would have been entirely appropriate if notes were graded simply for completion. For example, you would ask, “Are your notes done?” And I would reply, “Yes.” And you would say, “May I look at them?” And I would agree and you would glance at them and see that they were completed and I would get the grade for them being complete. I think it's almost impossible to apply a grading rubric to something so subjective as how a person takes notes.