Chris Berg Project
From WolfWikis
|
This page has not been properly categorized. Please add a category |
|
Anywhoo, I'm adding a "comment" section to every area so that others can comment or send me a source link - PLEASE contribute. It's not difficult. Thanks in advance - cb.
Final Project Links
Presentation Notes
Presentation Slides
Berg - Final Project
Working Title
"E-[Something]: Interactive Writing Technology in a First-Year Writing Course"
Abstract
Advocates and detractors of digital writing technologies often forget that producing or decoding written text in any form involves the use of technology: writing is a human construct, an abstract linguistic representation by which we attempt to record thought. A long line of educators since Plato have argued against various advances in writing technologies: in the early twentieth century, they argued against allowing students to use erasers with pencils, noting that "students would do better, more premeditated work if they didn't have the option of revising" (Baron 31). In the mid-twentieth century, they argued against the typewriter, which "depersonalized writing" (19), then against calculators, and most recently, against the computer. Like its predecessors in the long history of educational resistance, the computer has, for better or worse, become a fixture in our classrooms; like our predecessors in pedagogy, now that the technology is here, we must determine how best to use it. This paper addresses a failed experiment in incorporating interactive writing technology in a first-year writing class. By examining my abortive use of weblogs and contrasting my method with more successful endeavors, I hope to determine what went wrong and propose alternative means of use.
Comments
Sources and Notes
Introduction
1. Baron, Denis. "From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technologies." Passions, Pedagogies, and 21st Century Technologies. Eds. Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L. Selfe. Logan, UT: Utah State UP, 1999.
This chapter provides a wealth of introductory material that indicates a long history of technophobia followed by "now what?" in classrooms. I've used Ong's discussion of Plato and Writing in the past, but that is more effective for rhetorical study, rather than pedagogical: Baron's piece is broader, and encompasses a more learner-centered field than Ong.
2. Introduce my case study: give the background of the course, a first-year composition course at a large, land-grant state university with a high agricultural/technological orientation. Give presuppositions as well as the delivery methods of the assignment to the class. State basis for my judgment of failure as well as introduction to analysis, theory, and recommendations.
Case: My Failed Experiment
Basic notes for Analysis (by Group)
Comm
Nobody in this group posted at all.
Enviro Issues
Only two students posted/commented. The first post was from a student whose performance to date had been spotty; although he was a regular participant in class discussions - note - his post was an annotated bibliography entry from an incorrect source, with a rather poor grasp of the assignment. He received one comment, from a female whose grades had been outstanding, warning him that his entry, while interesting, was for a poor source and didn't quite conform to the assignment. The next full posts were from that female. She stuck to the assignment letter for the annotated bibliography and had excellent entries. Her only comment was from the student to whom she had replied.
History
After a few test posts, there was one that was related to the topic, from a weaker student, asking, "Can anyone post an entry so I can see as an example?" There were two full posts afterward (neither from that student), one from a female whose grades to date had been below her personal standards and who was trying to improve. This was the longest post from this group: 3 annotated bibliography entries. Three hours later, an ESL student posted a single entry. No comments were made within this group, and participation ended here.
Psychology
There was only one student who posted to this blog, a female with outstanding grades on all of her assignments.
Sociology
This was the most active group. The first post was a test post by a weaker female student who is highly motivated to improve, checking to see if anyone was posting. The second post was an AB entry by a male ROTC student. The third post was by a different female student, one whose grades did not reflect her potential. It was extremely detailed and statistically oriented. She received one response, from a female student with outstanding grades to date, who does not participate in class discussion. The response detailed both strengths and weaknesses in the post, and offered extensive review notes as to ways in which the original poster could improve.
The fourth post was by the test poster, two AB entries, which received a response from the third poster. This comment was a "good job I wouldn't fix anything" remark typical of peer reviews. The final post was a full, six entry AB by the respondent to the third post, a highly motivated female with outstanding grades. It received no responses.
Analysis
On first glance, the only full participants in the group weblogs were highly motivated students, of which there appeared to be two main categories: first, students whose performance to date had not been up to their personal standards, and second, students whose performance to date indicated that they were already highly motivated and intelligent.
The first category was responsible for most of the test posts as well as about 40% of the full-length posts. These students' full-length posts were typically one entry long; however, there was one who posted three entries.
The second category consisted of all female students, and their entries were substantially longer and less likely to deviate from the guidelines. None posted a single entry.
Comments and Responses: In almost all cases of initial response (by group) in which one student responded to the post of another, the stronger student was likely to be the respondent, and the response was detailed and offered suggestions for improvement. In all cases of response by other students, the comment was brief and likely to contain a message similar to "good job." All but one respondent received a response of his/her own, leading me to believe that responses were reciprocated: interaction was rewarded.
Overall AnalysisAfter reading the related materials and reflecting on the means by which I attempted to incorporate the group blog into the class, I feel that although instructions were explicit, the grounding of the blog in the project background was not as strong as it should have been, and the grounding within the course framework was even less so. The students had not been asked to respond electronically to anything thus far, and so the group weblog was unlikely to appeal to students who were not highly self-motivated to maintain or improve their grades. Because posting and response were not "required" per-se, only encouraged as a way to improve their performance on the assignment, many students, already overwhelmed by the unexpected workload of their first semester of post-secondary education, did not participate at all.
Scholarship
Note: These are in order of reading, not necessarily of importance.
1. Barile, Ami l., and Francis T. Durso. "Computer-Mediated Communication in Collaborative Writing." Computers in Human Behavior 18 (2003): 173-90.
p. 174 - Whenever incorporating group writing into a course, you need to provide at least implied justification by establishing a rich information environment. While electronic communication is generally the weakest environment for collaboration, it is possible to establish a high degree of social presence.
p. 175 - Writing is an open-ended task: as the assignment becomes more open-ended, a greater degree of interactivity and expressiveness is needed.
p. 177 - Process measures of interactivity: Questions receiving attention, irrelevant remarks - a lack of interactivity, they found, produces fewer irrelevant remarks within asynchronous CMC - indirect relevant remarks...
2. Ellis, Robert A. "Investigating the Quality of Student Approaches to Using Technology in Experiences of Learning Through Writing." Computers & Education 46 (2006): 371-90.
p. 372 - Recent evidence indicates high levels of participation as students engage in new forms of communicative media within classrooms...
3. Sauers, Diza, and Robyn C. Walker. "A Comparison of Traditional and Technology-Assisted Instructional Methods in the Business Communication Classroom." Business Communication Quarterly 67 (2004): 430-442.
p. 430 - Shy students are more likely to participate in online discussions than they are in standard classrooms. see my case - successful female student who didn't speak in class offered responses in cases where ordinarily, she wouldn't.
p. 431 - They taught a hybrid course - two days in a classroom, one via computer. The FYWP at NCSU operates similarly; however, the "computer" days are within a computer classroom with the instructor present. Nonetheless, it is a hybrid course.
p. 435 - use of online material was mostly helpful in teaching "tone" to students.
4. Johnson, Genevieve M., Howell, Andrew J., and Jillianne R. Code. "Online Discussion and College Student Learning: Toward a Model of Influence." Technology, Pedagogy & Education 14.1 (2005): 61-76.
p. 62 - Online peer discussion - the relationship between instructional time & student learning is documented: online discussion can replace or enhance in-class discussion - but not in-class instructional time - and the novelty itself may engage students.
5. Richards, Cameron. "Towards an Integrated Framework for Designing Effective ICT-Supported Learning Environments: The Challenge to Better Link Technology and Pedagogy." Technology, Pedagogy & Education 15.2 (2006): 239-55.
240 - Interaction design in context - a link is needed on ed. homepages for courseware to train instructors to harness new technology effectively. It needs to outline the kind of framework needed to better connect technological and pedagogical perspectives on the challenge. ALSO - we need models that move away from technology-centered design to human-centered design.
242 - When it comes to learning, it makes sense for educators to focus on the convergences or potential dialogue between both pedagogical and technological perspectives - - Part of the tension between differing tech. & ped. perspectives lies in whether we see ICTs as somehow extending or somehow replacing Face-to-Face learning - integrated notions should include both.
247 - interaction design - useful for linking the design of learning with the design of both technological structure and interface: teacher-student, student-student, and student-knowledge - w/ distinction being the primary discursive level.
248 - ICT-supported activities, communities, and environments - extension or autonomy? - activities - not only a strategy & structure for designing learning interactions but also a dialogical (p. 249) and transformative focus for generating a sense of learning comunity in relevant and effective contexts - must be learner-centered - student-student or student-knowledge, based in context, groundedness, and connections.
250 - ICT-activity based learning can be usefully translated into lesson-planning, but not vice-versa: design for "doing" and "understanding" first, then add a focus and context for more effective information transfer and skill acquisition.
The most effective learning is seen not just in a translation of information or skills, but a transformation through performance in context in order to link practice & thought, to discover and share the interdependence of parts and wholes, and to provide new insights and reveal potentiality in actuality.
6. Anson, Chris M. "Distant Voices: Teaching and Writing in a Culture of Technology." College English 61.3 (1999): 261-80.
Maybe our reluctance/resistance to adopt the newest gadgets is a good thing: p. 275 - We can't let the revolution sweep over us. We need to guide it, resisting its economic allure in cases where it weakens the principles of our teaching.
7. Blythe, Stuart. "Designing Online Courses: User-Centered Practices." Computers and Composition 18 (2001): 329-46.
336 - We need a reciprocal & participatory model of course development for web based learning. The audience must be open, visible, a collaborative presence - user-centered design.
My own course website did so - which explains my initial confusion as to the failure of the weblogs - I took characteristics that I had always wanted to see in course websites in my long career as a student (the first course with a web component that I took was during my sophomore year) and added them into my design: updated "coming readings" and "coming due" links, a "contact me" form that filled in the most common questions as well as left a blank entry form for other questions, comments, etc.
8. DeVoss, Danielle Nicole, Ellen Cushman, and Jeffrey T. Grabill. "Infrastructure and Composing: The When of New Media Writing." College Composition and Communication 57.1 (2005): 14-44.
20-21 - infrastructures
Embeddednesss, transparency, reach, learned as a part of membership, embodiment of standards
9. Honeycutt, Lee. "Comparing E-Mail and Synchronous Conferencing in Online Peer Response." Written Communication 18.1 (2001): 26-60.
27 - As some instructors move into synchronous online peer review, they've found that there is an overall lack of focus and reflection in student comments. Students engaged in social interactions and "face-saving" behavior instead of focusing on one another's texts. They seldom made text-centered responses, but when they did, authors rarely used these comments when revising. Some teachers have had to intervene as discussion degenerates. Synchronous conferencing is "clumsy, time-consuming, potentially hostile, and extremely difficult to organize and coordinate."
28 - alternatives: e-mail? - allows students to make better use of their time, to read others' writing at their convenience and to answer as the spirit moves them. It invites reflection as much as responsiveness.
It would seem that (after reading their theoretical grounding) the blog was a smarter route to go than simple chatting; however, the guidelines were not explicit enough, and students had no opportunity to "grade" their peers on response.
Theory
1. Bamberg, Betty. "Revision." Concepts in Composition. Ed. Irene L. Clark. Mahwah (NJ): Lawrence Erlbaum, 2003. 107-129.
113 - When computer-based word-processing arose, many theorists believed that the features which allowed students to easily revise without having to retype or recopy entire texts would also encourage students to revise more extensively. Early studies found that students revised more when using paper and pen than when using the computer.
Some researchers found that using computers encouraged localized revision because of the size of the screen limiting the view to a single area of the text, while others found that the ease in making low-level revisions
disrupted the composing process by encouraging students to engage in "continuous editing" throughout writing. Important: text editing tools such as grammar and spelling checkers reinforce a concept of revision as "error correction" and "surface-level changes."
2. Otte, George. "The Improving Power of E-Conversation." Teaching/Writing: In the Late Age of Print. Eds. Jeffrey Galin, Carol P. Haviland, J. Paul Johnson. Cresskill (NJ): Hampton P, 2003. 85-98.
91 - One possible problem with online discussion - a contextualized idea in the first place - is that without instructor intervention, students don't really know where to start because from the student perspective, the institution of education teaches what to think without teaching how to think. Although the "how, the process of shaping ideas to fit contexts and purposes, is eminently social . . . school can cut the students off from seeing that. Knowledge . . . is channeled to them through authorities, while their work, done in isolation, participates in a disconnection, a dis-integration, a de-composition of what it means to articulate ideas."
- note - He's discussing synchronous discourse, but the whole concept can be applied to the asynchronous discourse I used for the group blogs. Students are used to seeking direction. Without initial support from the instructor, they will either flounder, ignore, or drop the tool unless absolutely required. They have to be shown first, what the benefits are, and second, how to best garner those benefits.
3. Anderson, Daniel. "Web-Based Peer Review." Teaching/Writing: In the Late Age of Print. Eds. Jeffrey Galin, Carol P. Haviland, J. Paul Johnson. Cresskill (NJ): Hampton P, 2003. 185-98.
186 - A web-based peer review platform can facilitate guided readings of papers and shift attention away from surface-level writing concerns; additionally, the public nature may affect the nature of response.
- note - He says "Guided" - the public nature was not really an issue because only group members had the proper URL and posting addresses.
191 - As much at issue as the responses is the construction of the review prompt. The instructor provided a series of "review prompts" for the students engaged in review. He separated issues such as transitions, order, coherence, etc. by prompting, which focused the reviews and also let the reviewers know that he would be observing the nature of their responses.
- note - Each review exercise was seen as separate, and the instructor-as-facilitator helped establish a sense of responsibility (If I don't do this correctly, he'll know).
From Honeycutt:
29-30 - Communicative grounding in asynchronous and synchronous peer review: both deixis (from Greek for "pointing" - expressions referring to objects in a physically shared reality and usually indicated by demonstrative pronouns such as "this" or "that") and anaphora (expressions referring to things introduced into the conversation linguistically) are extremely important in examining discourse in online peer response for a number of reasons.
- Anyone who has worked with student writing and peer response can think of the ease with which deictic responses spring into peer discussion: "This is a good point, but that needs work." Most composition instructors feel that anaphoric responses are more desirable (and more difficult to elicit): "The introduction is well put, but the following paragraphs don't support it" (the it refers to the introduction, introduced by the reviewers introduction of Introduction). Anaphoric discussion is more fruitful because it leads to further discussion, whereas deictic discussion is "take it or leave it."
- Serious reflection is required for anaphoric discussion in peer review - the reviewer needs to have actively engaged with the reviewed text, to have considered the interactions between the parts and the whole. It takes more time to formulate a complex or involved message than a simple "editorial" message. While receiving a simple, uninvolved editorial comment may be easier than a complex one, a complicated or abstract conceptual discussion is best received in written form, and while it is always appreciated when a student learns how and where to put a semicolon, often the peer reviewer has a poor understanding him/herself, and our goal is to teach our students to handle complex, abstract material in written form; thus, our goal is to have our students engage with the global and local features of writing at the college level, rather than surface matters.
Success Stories
From Honeycutt - 35 - students "graded" their interactions on a likert scale - their peers were thus more likely to provide more fruitful feedback. Responses in asynchronous communication were more likely to reference specific and complex aspects of the document reviewed(45).
Anderson - "Web-Based Peer Review" -
187 - His class were given explicit instructions for conducting a peer review assignment that discussed reviews as an "opportunity to show rather than tell peers about opportunities for rewriting and stressed the importance of avoiding "error-hunting" while reviewing.
188 - creating the review platform involved the instructor developing a set of prompts that guide the peer-review. Students submitted papers, which appeared in a right-hand frame. In the left-hand frame, reviewers could select "review this paper," which loaded a form with the prompts delivered by the instructor. Each prompt was directed toward a single aspect of the paper.
189 - Students reviewed the papers of partners in collaborative groups of three or four that were established at the beginning of the course.
- note - this is a pretty interesting idea - establish peer groups at the beginning of the semester, which will establish both a sense of community and one of accountability. Blowing off people with whom you've been working for several months would be difficult for anyone, especially a peer-oriented eighteen year old.
Recommendations
Comments
Outline
This will be more of an annotated outline: framing my sections with notes from sources and transitional material, musings, and notes to self. Feel free to comment within each section of the outline.
Introduction
I. Background - technology and pedagogy:
Advocates and detractors of digital writing technologies often forget that producing or decoding written text in any form involves the use of technology: writing is a human construct, an abstract linguistic representation by which we attempt to record thought. A long line of educators since Plato have argued against various advances in writing technologies: in the early twentieth century, they argued against allowing students to use erasers with pencils, noting that "students would do better, more premeditated work if they didn't have the option of revising" (Baron 31). In the mid-twentieth century, they argued against the typewriter, which "depersonalized writing" (19), then against calculators, and most recently, against the computer. Like its predecessors in the long history of educational resistance, the computer has, for better or worse, become a fixture in our classrooms; like our predecessors in pedagogy, now that the technology is here, we must determine how best to use it.
Note: Walter Ong cites similarities, with a direct reference and a few quotes from Plato; however, he's far more into the irony of Plato using writing to critique writing in the Seventh Letter and the Phaedrus. While paradigmatic, this is too limited: Baron provides an excellent survey.
I'll post a claim or argument after I've made one.
Comments
Post comments below.
My Case
II. Case study: A failed attempt to incorporate group blogs into a project for a first-year writing class.
A. Project sheet and addendum: Discuss the assignment, the project into which it was incorporated, and the means by which it was incorporated.
B. Student posts: First - student posting quantity. Which students posted more frequently or made longer posts? Was there a correlation between grades on the project and postings? Is it a true correlative, i.e., did students who posted more frequently already have high grades in the course, or were there any whose grades actually benefited?
1. Why didn't one group post at all?
2. Summarize student posting
C. Comments: Relate to "II.B." How did they use comments? Was it different from the ways in which they use their drafts?
- Enviro issues - Commenting was initiated by a strong student, reciprocated by the weaker student - only two students posted at all. The weaker student was the first poster, but the stronger student made two posts in addition to her comments.
- History - no comments whatsoever.
- Psychology - one poster, no respondents.
- Sociology - only one extensive, content-oriented response from a very strong student. Two "good job" responses from others, mostly given in a sense of reciprocity for earlier posts.
- Commenting appeared to be initiated by highly-motivated students. Students who received a response were more likely to respond to others, albeit in a weak, "that's good" manner.
- Commenting appeared to be initiated by highly-motivated students. Students who received a response were more likely to respond to others, albeit in a weak, "that's good" manner.
D. Summarize findings: where did the project exhibit failures?
Comments
Post comments below.
Analysis
III. A. Optimum design: See Anson p. 275 - perhaps our resistance is a good thing: We can't let the revolution sweep over us. We need to guide it. Also see Richards: p. 240, 247 - The design must be user-centered and avoid becoming a lesson in itself cue to failure? - The interaction design must be set at an adequate primary discursive level for students to engage - this was student-student, but as an intro course, should it have been first teacher-student, then student-student? Next - (Blythe 336) - Reciprocal and participatory by design, not by force, also, must take into account student needs - my course website did this - cf comment above.
B. See analysis notes above: note discursive characteristics and global traits.
C. First cf Bamberg - computer-based writing may emphasize product over process and encourage localized, low-level revision, which computers seem to reinforce (113-14). This "peer review" blog system was unguided: most composition scholars recommend that teachers guide and shape the revision process by first providing a concrete language for discussing the work and then providing (teacher or class developed) criteria by which they can address the work (124). Without cues as to where to start, many novice writers fall back on cliched "just fine" reviews (124). This is reinforced by Honeycutt pp. 29-30 - Necessary grounding of anaphoric and deictic asynchronous discourse in assignment review.
- 1. Anderson's chapter reveals the reasons for his success, and by inference, those for my failure: his students were well-supported by the instructor, who took an approach of involved non-involvement. He prompted them, and they responded by filling in the prompts for review. Conversely, I told them to use the group blogs as "their" space for commenting, reviewing, and revising. Decidedly unhelpful approach.
D. Enter into my discussion.
- 1. Future use: especially with novice writers, it's best to have an authority figure offering methods and prompts for response and review. The positive feedback regarding the course website may have led me to feel complacent as to web-based courseware: the page was good, I overestimated the medium, which may be the primary problem with any web-based collaborative activities.
- 2. Warnings: don't fall victim to cyberlibertarian ethos. The medium, while it may provide a familiar form to students, does not provide familiarity with content: as I've stated elsewhere, the medium is not the genre. Novice writers are still novice writers, if not web users.
- 3. Instructor support = guided peer review.
Comments
Please post comments here.
Recommendations
IV. A. What will I do in the future?
- 1. I liked Anderson's idea of peer groups established at the beginning of the semester. This method might establish accountability and community right up front, which would make discussion more productive as the semester wore on. Note - I would have to make sure to establish the benefits of peer response in order to ensure that students would give productive responses, because as the semester wore on, they might be reluctant to offend their friends; however, the prompting system might curtail that: using instructor (authority) established prompts would create a sort of "buffer" - (I'm doing this because he's making me do it this way).
B. Start out with small, directed postings: make the students comfortable with the medium and ensure that they feel that it is a part of the course.
- 1. "Scaffolded" support: gradually scale back, only providing global prompts, and be ready to intervene (reassert control) if they start to drift away from the intentions I established as a part of the blogging process.
- 2. Perhaps ask them to use the blog as a regular means of response for the informal writing assignments? This way they might see the review as a homework assignment, but a more formal, instructor-guided assignment so long as I stress that involvement is an aspect of their grade. In other words, if they blow it off, they might be penalized in their own grades.
- a. This would be a good place to use the group blogs to emphasize standards. If regularly used in this way, the technology might become transparent (DeVoss et al. 20-21).
Comments
Please post comments here.
Conclusion
V. A. General recommendations for group weblog design for the future.
B. Lessons learned from my experience - first, specifics, then, general warnings.
Comments
Please post comments here.