Annotated Bibliographies Data Collection

8/9/2019 Annotated Bibliographies Data Collection

1/8

PA Center for the Book Project

Erin Long and Jeanette Novakovich

March 20, 2010

Comparing Student Writing on Blogs to Student Writing on Paper:

A Progress Report

Research Question: Does the Injection of Technology into Technical Writing

Coursework Add Quality?

Project Scope: Two sections of English 202c will be given the exact same

assignment: to write an article for publication for the PA Center for the Book.

One section will submit work on paper and the other section will submit work

online using the Blogs@PSU platform.

The assignment has three parts: Annotated Bibliography Proposal Letter to the Editor Final Article

Raw data will be collected at each stage of the research process to quantify if

possible the measurable effects of using technology, specifically the blogs

platform.

Research Results: Overall summary of preliminary results shows the followingvalue of Online Submissions over Paper based on Annotated Bibliography and

Proposal:

More sources Higher word count Slightly higher quality

More images More compliance

Fewer Errors Higher Grades

Note: For the previous assignment, both sections turned in paper. In this case, the studentsthat were assigned paper for this project exceeded the performance of the students

selected for online submissions for this project.

Note: Grades for Annotated Bibliography were based on completion. Grades for proposal

were based on formatting, completeness and quality. The editor of the PA Center for the

books evaluated content. This content factor was not measured.

Raw data and additional summaries of data will follow.


2/8

Raw Data: Annotated Bibliographies: Paper Submission

This assignment was graded based on completion.

Plus means complete, 5 sources, 3 answered questions per source andcorrect formatting

Check means superficial work Minus means incomplete work

# of

Sources

Proper

Format

Quality of

Annotation

5 Plus Plus

7 Plus Plus

6 Plus Plus

5 Plus Plus

5 Plus Plus

5 Plus Plus

5 Plus Plus

8 Plus Plus

5 Check Check

5 Check Check

5 Check Check

5 Plus Plus

5 Plus Plus

5 Check Minus

5 Plus Plus6 Minus Plus

5 Plus Plus

5 Check Check

5 Plus Plus

5 Plus Plus

5 Plus Plus

5 Minus Plus

5 Plus Plus

- Incomplete incomplete

122 divided by 23 = 5.304


3/8

Raw Data: Annotated Bibliography-Online Publication

# of

Sources

Format Quality of

Annotation

5 Plus Plus

9 Plus Plus

6 Plus Plus

5 Plus Plus5 Plus Plus

5 Plus plus

5 Plus plus

7 Plus plus

6 Plus plus

5 Plus Plus

5 Plus Plus

5 Plus Plus7 Plus Plus

- Incomplete Incomplete

5 Plus Plus

5 Plus Plus

5 Check plus

14 Plus Plus

8 Plus Plus

5 Minus Check

5 Plus Plus6 Plus Check

8 Plus Plus

5 Plus Plus

6 Plus plus

147 divided by 24 = 6.125


4/8

Raw Data for Proposals- Paper Submissions

Word

Coun

t

Bloc

k

Lett

er

For

mat

Headin

gs

Completene

ss:

Introduction

Credentials

Research

Technicaldescription

Annot bib

# of

Imag

es

Peer

Review

Comple

te

# of

Mechanic

al Errors

923 Yes Yes Yes 1 no 5



600 Yes Yes no 1 no 4

877 Yes Yes no 1 no 6

994 Yes no no 3 no 0


1038 Yes no no 0 no 10

1042 yes yes yes 0 no 0

1098 no no yes 0 no 3

687 yes yes yes 1 no 2

613 Yes yes yes 3 no 2


632 Yes yes no 1 no 4

830 Yes No yes 1 no 21080 Yes yes yes 3 no 0





497 Yes no yes 1 no 2

1099

thre

e

papers are not turned In.

Average # of errors: 3.33


5/8

Raw Data for Proposals- Online Publication

Topic Word

Count

Block

Letter

Format

Headings Completeness:

Introduction

Credentials

Research

Technical

descriptionAnnot bib

# of

Images

Peer

Review

Comp

Steam E 956 Yes Yes Yes 2 Yes

Coal 1062 Yes Yes Yes 2 Yes

Bifocal 1686 Yes Yes Yes 6 Yes

Cloning 1185 Yes Yes Yes 1 Yes

Digital

watch

1064 Yes Yes Yes 2 Yes

eniac 1007 Yes Yes Yes 2 Yes

Elect me 1147 Yes Yes Yes 1 Yes

1stTruck 777 Yes No No 0 None

Taylor 607 Yes Yes Yes 3 Yes

Mechan

washing


Confe

Shale 1264 Yes Yes Yes 3 Yes

Carbor 1024 Yes Yes Yes 2 Yes

Penguins 1672 Yes Yes Yes 2 Yes

Polio 1082 Yes Yes Yes 0 Yes

Scotia 630 Yes Yes Yes 2 Yes

Soldering

Gun


Sugar

Beets


Sulfuric 597 Yes Yes Yes 1 Yes

Franklin 1254 Yes Yes Yes 0 YesUnion C 945 Yes Yes Yes 2 Yes

Toilet 1044 Yes Yes Yes 2 Yes

Marines 807 Yes Yes yes 3 Yes

Univac 1209 Yes yes yes 3 Yes

York 919 Yes Yes Yes 1 Yes

1st foot 707 Yes Yes Yes 0 No


6/8

Summary of Raw Data: Annotated Bib

Ave # of Sources Followed Format Quality of Work

Overall

Paper Submissions

5.304

Plus 15

Check 5

Minus 2

Plus 17

Check4

Minus 1

Online Submissions

6.125

Plus 22

Check 1

Minus 1

Plus 22

Check 2

Minus 0

Summary of Raw Data: Proposal

Average Word Count

Paper 855

Online 1006

Average # of Images Average

Paper 1.33

Online 1.83

Block Letter Format Yes No

Paper 20 1

Online 24 0


7/8

Headings Yes No

Paper 16 5

Online 23 1

Peer Review

Complete

Yes No

Paper 0 21

Online 22 3

Complete Yes No

Paper 16 5

Online 23 1

Average # of Mechanical

Errors

Overall Average

Paper 3.333

Online 2.416

Grade Average Proposal Average Grade

Paper 89.90

Online 92.80


8/8

Final Survey

Grade Average Article Paper Online

# of Articles Accepted

for Publication

Average

Number of MechanicalErrors

Average Number of

Images

Average Number of

outside sources used

Quality of Presentation

Plus/Check/Minus

(Editor Evaluation)

Ease of Reading

Plus/check/minus

(Editor Evaluation)

Questions specifically for the editor:

On a scale of 1 to 7, how favorable is your attitude toward the use of technology?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

On a scale of 1 to 7, how adept do you consider yourself with the use of technology?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

On a scale of 1 to 7, how would you rate the ease of using the blog website to edit articles?

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Documents

Annotated Bibliographies Data Collection