Does your analysis have components that do not quite fit a straightforward application of the scholars’ existing ideas?
I talk about how sponsors can create a positive or negative experience depending on their teaching styles. I get into the specifics on how I think that works adding to the scholarly ideas.
Does your analysis suggest that your area of focus may be SIMILAR to another area that gets discussed in the scholarly work?
It is similar in that I use the ideas of sponsors and whether they withhold or facilitate. I follow to scholarly text definitions and basic ideas they have based around sponsors.
What are some LIMITATIONS of your analysis? A conclusion can often benefit from an observation regarding the limits of one’s findings, and this can offer you something else to focus on.
Some of the limitations of my analysis was that I wasn’t able to challenge my ideas and prove them wrong. There was no evidence in the scholarly texts that supported my main point about sponsors as withholders vs. facilitators.
Conclusion:
So how do both withholding and facilitating sponsors have such an impact students’ future feelings toward literacy? Sponsors as facilitators leave a positive experience behind for students to remember by giving them a fun and accessible education. Sponsors as withholders can either have a positive or negative impact. Sponsors as withholders who are focused on student success often provide lessons that leave a negative memory but helped the student in the long run. Sponsors as withholders who create negative experiences often do so by not showing interest in helping the student. Although I was not able to find a negative experience with sponsors as facilitators I do feel that teachers who are always supplying can still create a negative experience. Unfortunately the database we used to find our literacy narratives was very hard to find that specific of an article.
ENG110i
