Blog 10

Data Set: 4-1

-Bubble Text: More direct, organized and tied to text, with suggestions, positive comments

-Global Comment: Very general, not as positive, straight forward

Data Set: 4-2

-Bubble Text: Very informative, helpful to the student, organized, asks good questions to get the student thinking about revisions, positive reinforcement

-Global Comment: Disorganized, may confuse and discourage student due to lack of positive feed back

Data Set: 4-3

-Bubble Text: This bubble text differs from the others. It has too much text which may confuse the student or overwhelm them. 

-Global Comment: Has great positive feed back to encourage student, but also has to the point and easy to follow revisions

Data Set: 4-4:

-Bubble Text: Direct and to the point revisions

-Global Comment: too much positive reinforcement, student may think he doesn’t have to make the revisions suggested.

Research Questions

-Due to the amount of information given in these data sets, does the bubble text work best because it is more direct so the student can make revisions without becoming overwhelmed?

-Would the large amount of positive reinforcement negatively effect the way in which the student revises his or her paper? Is it too much?

Analysis

      After analyzing my research questions among  the data sets I have found that every paper is different and every teacher gives feed back differently. Some teachers use bubble text in the margins to help the student revise and others use global comment which is revision information at the top or the bottom of the paper. I found that in Data sets 1, 2, and 4 the bubble text worked best for the revision process. The bubble text works best because it organizes the paper and is very direct. If the student was to use the global comment he or she may become very confused. On the contrary, in Data set 3 the global comment sounded better then the bubble text. There was too much information within the text that may scare a student which is why they would use the more direct and positive sounding global comment instead. 

Another finding I discovered within the data sets were the amount of positive feed back given by the teachers. Although positive feedback may be very helpful for the student it may also be too much reinforcement. The student may look at the reinforcement given, decide his or her paper is good enough, and look past the revisions the teacher made. Positive feed back is good but a teacher should never overdue it.  

As you can see, from this analysis it seems like bubble text is the better choice of revision for these data sets. The bubble text seems to make it easier for the student to understand the revision, which encourages them to use the revision that is suggested. Global comment seems to be too in depth and not as direct as the bubble text. This results in the student giving up on their paper and losing interest in revising it. Although these data sets were very rich in positive reinforcement this could be a negative thing. Too much reinforcement may convince the student that his or her paper is good enough when it still could use some revisions.