Pushing down on mercury

I'm struggling with the slippery aspects of my coding right now. My goal is to try and nail down my categories (add any if necessary) and then work out properties and dimensions. It isn't easy. However, I am seeing in slice 5 so far a very familiar pattern revolving around problem identification and "resolution." This pattern is one I identified in slice 2, and I charted out the many paths a student follows as they move from problem to "coming to know" and then declaring a revision goal.

My mind is so full of all the stuff going on that I think for the moment I will focus on one aspect of this dynamic I have seen in the draft cycle from my 1301 student #2. He had four problem identification-resolution cycles in his Writing Review. The first was short, but the other three were fairly extended. This dynamic seems to center around conflicting views between outside and inside the writer, and the entire dynamic is mitigated or driven or regulated by the abstract criteria of "essay success" (which could be more general "writing success" outside of the particular goals/criteria for the essay task).

Here are the three

Sequence A: problem = thesis
Feedback--not there <<<>>> Author--thought it was there
-------conflicting views---------------
Resolution
a--take authorities word for it (they are right)
b--self-check and confirm (COMING TO KNOW)
Revision Goal--make strong thesis

Sequence B: problem = contradiction
Feedback--you tend to contradict (id instance)<<<>>> Author--tried to avoid
*expresses doubt or disbelief they did it when they were trying expressly not to*
Resolution
a--take authority's word for it
Revision Goal--fix contradiction

Sequence C: problem = to casual, use of generic "you"
Feedback--too casual/you <<<>>> Author--double-checks and agrees
*agreement on problem*
COMPLICATION FOR RESOLVING PROBLEM
criteria of writing success--relate to reader vs. how to reach goal without using "you"
Resolution
a-take authority's word for it
Revision Goal--avoid "you"

I can notice a few things in these three patterns. First, there seems to be more negotiation or consideration revolving around the problem. Only the third sequence had any sort of complication about the solution and that was more a matter of facing a goal and not knowing how to get there without getting in trouble. Little or no extended consideration is given to the revision goals. I could do this or I could do that. If I did this then it would result in X, but if I did that it would result in Y. I think Y would work better because... . None of this "reflective thinking" occurs. Instead, the writer like a compass pointing to true north follows the view point of an authority. I am calling this phenomena right now [taking authority's word]. I might call it taking other's word for it. Rather than taking my word for it.

Authority's word is like a trump card. What is the source of their trumping power. Well, it is the power to grade and it is their power as arbiter of the criteria for essay success. They possess both the vision of this abstract essay success, but presumably they possess better skills at enacting that success than the student so when they speak you'd better listen.

I don't know if I am getting at anything interesting yet, but I am working at it. I am targeting getting materials ready to do a round of peer debriefing on my categories as soon as I can do it. Soon!