Analysis of Change in Graphic Organizers: Subject E

      Subject E showed significant and consistent change in organization and idea  

development in his graphic organizers. For his initial assessment, Subject E created a basic 

graphic organizer that illustrated the hierarchical order of his ideas and expressed the 

central idea and subconcepts in one-word representations. Several of the subconcepts 

themselves were broad topics, and none were supported by specific details.

              For Writing Task 1, Subject E created a rough graphic organizer and then a revised 

      organizer based on teacher feedback. In the rough graphic organizer the thesis was not 

      differentiated hierarchically from the subconcepts. Visually, it was initially difficult to 

      determine which idea was the central idea. Also the subconcepts and the supporting details 

      were broad. For example, the thesis idea was that his parents are special. One subconcept 

      listed “father” as a controlling idea. Beneath that, in the space designated for specific 

      supporting details, Subject E listed “his background, hard worker, immigrated to the U.S, 

      made a drastic career change, and not a quitter.” Each of these could have been 

      subconcepts and whole paragraphs rather than specific supporting details.

      The final draft of the graphic organizer for Writing Task 1 showed significant revision 

and a better grasp of the hierarchical nature of the ideas in the composition. The 

subconcepts that support the thesis were more focused. For example, one subconcept 

stated that, “both my parents are hard workers.” Beneath this was a list of specific details 

that included, “stories of dad melting ice off pipes, mom walked to work, “ and “dad 

working long hours as a plumber.” The changes were significant.

             For Writing Task 2, Subject E created a rough graphic organizer that reflected a better 

      understanding of the organization of ideas. While the thesis and the subconcepts were 

      different than those in the final graphic organizer for this assignment, the supporting 

      details were more specific in some instances although this was still not consistently true.

             In the final graphic organizer for Writing Task 2, however, Subject E revised his graphic 

      organizer significantly. The thesis became more focused and sophisticated. In the first and 

      rough graphic organizer his central idea was that, “reenlisting in the military was a very hard 

      decision.” In his final organizer the thesis evolved and focused on being “caught between 

      my obligation to the army and the wishes of my parents.”  This new focus allowed the 

      subconcepts to evolve as well. The first subconcept was “when I first enlisted” and was 

      supported by specific narrative details. The second subconcept was “my reenlistment” and 

      again the details were specific. Each of the following three subconcepts and their details 

      reflected an enhanced understanding of organizational structure of ideas and idea 

      development. Also, the graphic organizer was visually arranged to clearly define the 

      hierarchy of ideas. 

              For Writing Task 3, Subject E needed to do very little revision on his graphic organizer for an evaluation of 

      the film The Karate Kid. The ideas in both the rough draft and the final draft were hierarchically arranged, with 

      the thesis clearly supported by subconcepts and specific supporting details. It is interesting to note that Subject E 

      had begun to include the introduction in his graphic organizer. The first body paragraph subconcept combined an 

      introduction of cast with “synopsis of film” and the specific support then lists plot details. The second subconcept 

      was revised in the final organizer to include a discussion of theme and the third subconcept recommended the 

      film. While this final body subconcept was a bit broad and may also have been construed as a delayed thesis, it 

      was clear that Subject E had a much clearer understanding of the planning process, organization, and idea 

     development in graphic organizers.

               In the final assessment Subject E created a detailed graphic organizer. In comparison 

      to the initial graphic organizer its ideas were more clearly arranged to reflect hierarchical 

      order and the subconcepts developed the thread of central meaning. While some of the 

      details that supported the subconcepts were broader in nature than in the revised graphic 

      organizers of the three writing tasks, they further explained and developed their driving 

      ideas. For example, Subject E’s thesis was that “people do benefit from having many 

      choices.” For the first body paragraph, he stated that, “some choices are permanent so you 

      need many options.” Supporting details for this paragraph included, “what if you could only 

      get one of three tattoos?” as well as some broad ideas that explained the subconcept, such 

      as “in some instances if there were not enough choices pleople simply wouldn’t choose.” 

      This graphic organizer was more sophisticated in nature than the initial graphic organizer.