Title Page | Overview | Documents | Surveys | Exercises
Clips | Profiles | Results | Reflections | References
@2006 Ed Gallagher, Professor of English, Lehigh Lab Fellow. Lehigh University.
Copyright, Terms of Use and Privacy Policy applicable to this site.

"FIELDING" RETURNS: FINDINGS

  • many students consciously changed serving strategies because of the three-step interaction in this unit
  • almost all students reported consciously changing their return strategies because of the three-step interaction in this unit
  • students are very comfortable using the response option terminology to describe returns they received
  • virtually all students reported receiving a variety of returns
  • students reported a significant amount of the level 3 response option I call "re-thinking" when they fielded returns
  • there was a significant amount of intolerance for students who did dead-end returns
  • most students felt good about the way they fielded returns because of the opportunities to respond provided by good returns from others
  • however, dead-end returns were a noticeable downer for some
  • 1/2 the class felt that the three-step process resulted in advanced thinking
  •  lack of participation in the three-step process, not the process itself, was the reason most often given for groups in which thinking did not advance
  • workload, running out of things to say, and posting fatigue were cited as the main reasons for lack of participation