Analysis of Change in Graphic Organizers: Subject D

                Subject D demonstrated erratic performance in his use of graphic organizers. Lack of 

      motivation to consistently engage in planning and prewriting strategies led to 

      inconsistencies. For his initial assessment Subject D created a graphic organizer that 

      demonstrated an understanding of the organizational relationship between ideas in a 

      cohesive essay. While the subconcepts were broad they illuminated differentiated support 

      for an unspecified central idea.

              Then for Writing Task 1, Subject D created a rough graphic organizer that he did not 

      submit for feedback until submission of the final draft of his organizer and the final 

      composition. In the rough organizer for Writing Task 1, the thesis or central idea was so 

      broad as to be prohibitive. He focused on “the fishing industry now and a look into the 

      future.” Subject D labeled his first subconcept “the past” and underneath this heading he 

      listed “how I got started, how it developed into a passion, and family history. The second 

      subconcept was labeled “present” and beneath this were equally broad topics such as “how I 

      have progressed” and “the challenges I will face.” 

                In his final draft of the graphic organizer for Writing Task 1, Subject D used a different 

      format that was more like an outline. Each section was labeled by type rather than topic. For 

      example, the introduction was labeled “intro” and the second paragraph is labeled “first 

      body.” These headings make it impossible to know what the controlling idea of each 

      paragraph was. Also, under the headings for the first and third body paragraphs were lists 

      of equally broad ideas that could be subconcepts for separate paragraphs. For example, 

      under the heading “first body,” Subject D listed “boat description, harbor description, life of 

      fisherman.” These were huge ideas worthy of their own paragraphs, and their placement in 

      the organizers suggests that Subject D believed that they could have been used as 

      supporting details.

      For Writing Task 2, Subject D created a rough graphic organizer that reflected an 

understanding of organization and idea development. Instead of general headings that 

reflected paragraph type or number, each paragraph had a topic with more specific details 

placed to demonstrate the hierarchical nature of the ideas. Body paragraph one’s topic was 

the “physical features of the American Lobster.” Specific details were listed beneath the 

topic. In the second body paragraph, Subject D listed “the migratory patterns of the 

lobster” as the topic. Again, details of these patterns were listed below the topic. Two 

more body paragraphs followed the same format. 

      Subject D turned in a final copy of this graphic organizer, but it was unchanged from 

the rough organizer. Nonetheless, it was clear that Subject D has a strong understanding 

of organization and idea development for this writing task. 

                 For Writing Task 3, Subject D reverted back to the graphic organizer format he used 

      for Writing Task 1. Instead of using topics as headings for each paragraph, he used 

      paragraph names such as “first body,” “second body,” and “closing paragraph.” Although 

      teacher feedback suggested the need for revision of this format to include ideas placed in a 

      more hierarchical and idea-driven structure, the final draft reflected no change in 

      comprehension of this concept. Also, again the supporting details listed beneath the 

      paragraph headings were broad and could be subconcepts themselves. They were not 

      specific.

                 In his final assessment, Subject D created a graphic organizer with broad subconcepts 

      that were closer to thesis statements. For example, the thesis for the composition was that 

      “being a realist contributes more to society” than being and idealist. The first body 

      paragraph listed as its subconcept the “pros of being an idealist.” The second body 

      paragraph listed the “pros of being a realist,” and the third body paragraph focused on “why 

      being and idealist contributes to society.” The thesis seemed to have changed while each 

      subconcept is so broad as to have been prohibitive. Also, rather than choosing one position 

      to argue more specifically, Subject D had included arguments on both sides of the issue.