Blog 9: Groupthink

During our last class (10/02), we broke into groups to discuss the comments that appeared in sample 1 and sample 2 on our class blog.

Our group consisted of Tempie, Antoinette, Stephane and myself.  

The first thing we, as a group, decided to do was go over each comment in sample 1. This sample, which was the comments provided by an educator on a draft of a student's process narrative, had fewer comments than sample 2. The reason we began with this sample was due to the limited time provided in class. As we began, Antoinette and I got caught up with the first three comments provided on the sample.

Specifically, the comment titled LT3 sparked a bit of discourse.

This comment utilizes a strategy known as "hedging," in which positive buzzwords are used to encourage a writer. In the context of the sample, it came after 2 other comments (unhedged) that asked the writer to "dig deeper" and explore what he or she was trying to say. This third comment began with "Good observation!," and then continued with some urging to dig deeper. All three of these comments asked the writer to explain more, and gave prompts for the writer to entertain while rewriting.

Antoinette suggested that this hedged comment (LT3) was something that she was very receptive to. She felt that it would make her feel like she was on the right track, as opposed to the first two comments.

Playing "devil's advocate," I asked Antoinette if she would be more likely to rewrite the sections of comments LT1, LT2 or LT3. She paused and smirked, knowing where I was going with my comment. She admitted, after a moment, that she probably would be less likely to rewrite LT3.

Tempie and Stephane, who had been printing copies of the samples during our conversation, joined in at this. I asked them both to read comments LT1, LT2 and LT3 and then posed the same question. We unanimously agreed that LT3 would be the area we focused on least when it came to revising. This began an interesting discussion over the role of hedging.

After a bit of discourse, we began formulating a research question. Our first attempt at forming a research question was along the lines of:

"Can positive encouragement in comments work against the process of a writer?"

Dr Chandler, who had been observing the class during the group discussion, intervened. She told us our question was good, but to phrase it differently. A "yes" or "no" question would not do. Our rephrasing of the question became:

"What features of positive encouragement in comments work against the process of the writer?"

We kept reading through comments, searching for hedging and other "positive" features of comments. This caused us to discuss the nature of our question more, and we began to reshape the way we were asking it. The question that we eventually settled on was:

"How does the way a positive comment is offered work against the process of the writer?"


With this framework, we continued analyzing the rest of the comments. Our general consensus was that positive comments can boost confidence and make a writer feel good about what they have done correctly. Conversely, they also make a student/writer feel comfortable with what they have, and they are less likely to explore revisions or rewrites if the teacher is offering positive feedback before a suggestion.

This could be tested by seeing the revised version of the paper, and analyzing which areas the writer decided to focus on when they were rewriting.