College essay proofreading service
Compare that exchange to the one between Chip and Chris to see a difference in questioning technique. Chip first asks one question from a prepared list of questions that the writers were given. He then asks a question of his own that is assignment related and then moves on to another question from the list.
Chip does not try to lead Chris college essay proofreading service as Michele did with Louann but instead asks a perfunctory question. Chip: What are some things that reader would expect you say about your topic? Chris: Well I think many are about, you know, the same. They all basically have four walls, a help on research papers ceiling, and a floor. The terseness of the exchange between Chris and Chip contrasts with the elaborating exchange between Michele and Louann. What is not noticeable in the transcript that is noticeable in listening to the tapes is the quality of the discussion. Michele and Louann are ha vinga conversation while Chip and Chris are record- ing a static dialogue. Michele and Louann had a seriousness of purpose that was not evident with Chris and Chip.
I feel that this attitude, this seriousness of pur- pose, also helps the supporter to define cognitively his or her role. In most cases, this definition may be a more intuitive decision rather than a conscious one. In this sense, I feel that Chip and Chris interpreted "sup- porter" to mean merely "Asker of Questions. The concept of metacomprehension is applicable here also. Chris and Chipdidnotreallyunderstandwhataplanning session should be like or what a supporter was to do, but they thought they did. Michele and Louann, on the other hand, behaved as if they knew what a planning session was to be like and what a supporter should doand their dialogue shows that they knew.
As I listened to the taped protocols of Michele and Louann, I started to get a sense of the symbiotic rela- tionship between a planner and a supporter.
Then in listening to the taped protocols of Anje and Todd, I found this relationship underscored and developed. These two sets of dialogues also suggested two addi- tional metaphors for me to use in analyzing a planning session: mirror and window.
A mirror exchange is one in which the interaction between the planner and supporter allows the planner time for consideration, reflection and reconsideration.
The following dialogue between Michele and Louann illustrates the concept of a mirror exchange. Michele: That soinoone else will have to know what? Louann: To describe the room without telling the two words. A dialogue is a window exchange when it is transparent enough to allow the planner to see both sides of the wall and to get a clear vision of the "out- side" of his or her mind or to see concerns about the paper beyond the immediate question or topic of con- versation. It may also open up some concerns or questions college essay proofreading service for the supporter concerning his or her own paper. This exchange between Anje (planner) and Todd (supporter) illustrates the idea of a window ex- change. I would nursing essay help describe this as a window exchange because Anje is expressing some trepidation over her last assignment in which she tookarisk.
I tried to create an atmosphere wherein this could happen, for example accepting a poem instead of a traditional essay. The mistake she nude in the eariier assignment was that she incorrectly assessed the quality of three different short stories. At times, this may lead the discussion away from the topic and side-track the planning session. This is what happens to Todd in an exchangq below when he gets an idea for his own paper and Anje acts as a supporter at that point. Unlike the first example I gave, this is not side-tracking. These concerns are within the context hire someone to write my essay of the paper, but not within the context of the current question or discussion. I told them that both were respected stories, but critics valued one more than the other.
They college essay proofreading service were to choose which was the better story and to defend their choice.
For this session, I gave the supporters a list of possible questions compiled by Rebecca Burnett of Carnegie Mellon to use in the planning session. We ERIC Collaborative Planning: Concepts, Processes, and Assignmenis 55 talked about the responsibilities of both the planner and the supporter. Todd, in his role as supporter, did not vary from that list often. What is evident, however, is his logical selection of questions that keeps Anje moving through this initial planning stage.
There are times when the two are within the same segment.
In breaking the session into segments, I tried to keep a consistency of thoughts together rather than to break each exchange into either a mirror college essay proofreading service or window exchange. In Segment 1, Anje defines what she sees as a difference between a technical analysis and a creative approach to the assignment. While Todd did not ask questions beyond the prepared list, he was still asking reflective ques- tions college essay proofreading service which are the heart of collaborative planning. Anje, as I mentioned above, wrote a poem ir stead of a traditional essay for one of her assignments.
She incorrectly as- sessed the quality of three short stories against a given rubric. In her mind, she is equating the risk with the nrdstake and in so doing is actually operating in Window 4 of Figure 1.
She thinks she knows what went wrong with the pafxjr, but her equating the risk with the mistake shows that she docs not. Todd also does not know this, so he is unable to move her into Window 1 concerning this confusion. This segment is both a mirror and a window exchange. He then leads her to reconsider this by asking if there might be an alterna- tive.
Because he is getting her to think about her organization, the exchange is a mirror.
Segment 3 Todd: What is your purpose in writing this piece of writing? Benedict if I come up with something completely off the wall and interesting that I decide will work better.