Table 1 Code Mapping (To be read from top to bottom)
__________________________________________________________________________Initial Codes
Quoting Illustrating Speaking
Listing Inquiring Connecting subject to life
Ends abruptly Personal connections Strong emotions
Speaks directly to reader Overwhelmed Weak writing style
Using “you” a lot Recognizing audience Comparing
Questions the reader Establishes subject Identifies strengths
Restating names of groups Provides illustrations Spelling errors throughout
Less specific Grammar errors throughout
____________________________________________________________________________
Secondary Codes
Illustrations (SD)
Quoting peers and teachers (SD)
Listing directly related to subject (SF)
Using relevant social vocabulary (RWC)
Grammar, Spelling, Weak Writing (E)
____________________________________________________________________________
Final Codes
Real World Connection (RWC) Errors (E)
Group Similarity (GS)
I selected the term group similarity to describe the way that the participants in the school
newspaper group were using similar writing elements in their articles. Writing elements that I coded that were described as group similarity were: using quotes from peers and teachers, listing details and
ideas, and directly informing the reader about their respective subjects.
Common in most articles was the participants’ ability to inform the reader about their subject.
Early articles were quite vague in the amount of detail to support the informing nature of each article.
The information given seemed to be more of a listing type of process rather than completely explaining
the information for the reader. For example, “There are some more programs like girls on the run,”
(Participant J, 2014). This is an example of Participant J mentioning or listing one of the after school
programs at the school; however, it does not offer details for the reader to gain a better understanding
of what, “girls on the run,” is or involves.
Supporting Detail (SD)
The term supporting detail was selected to describe how the participants provided more
information to strengthen their article. Writing elements that I coded that were described as supporting
detail were: directly quoting peers or teachers, having comparisons, and making use of illustrations.
Supporting details varied from article to article. Early articles provided supporting detail in
different ways. The information given offered some insight into each participant’s subject for the reader.
For example Participant K interviewed a peer M.H., “I have never been bullied. I have never bullied
anyone. I do not have a Facebook or Instagram so I have never been cyber bullied,” (as cited by
Participant K, 2014).
I like how clear your different stages of coding are in the table. Your initial codes show that you really studied what the students were writing about. You did a great job of narrowing the codes down to end up with five final themes or codes. It is interesting that you picked up on group similarity. I think it’s important to be able to compare the students' work to the writing of others to get an idea of what the students should be capable of and the types of things that they are learning in the classroom. Very good job on the coding process!
ReplyDelete