OWI Principle 6: Alternative, self-paced, or experimental OWI models should be subject to the same principles of pedagogical soundness, teacher/designer preparation, and oversight detailed in this document.
Anson, Chris M. “Distant Voices: Teaching Writing in a Culture of Technology.” College English, vol. 61, no. 3, 1999, pp. 261–80.
Anson discusses two ways that “teaching and responding to student writing are pressured by rapidly developing technologies:” 1) “virtual” interaction replacing face-to-face contact in classrooms and 2) the evolution of distance education (at this time, mostly through tele-education) (263). The author investigates the first topic by providing a brief background on how various programs in the 1980s and 1990s used computer-networks to expand writing classrooms and how doing so challenged more traditional notions of “physical and textual spaces” (264). The article proceeds through an overview of how interaction, assignment responses, and other communication are changing due to advancements in educational technology, using a “futuristic” hypothetical example of a student (Jennifer) who navigates the new kind of classroom, one that has, for the most part, come to pass with the increasing advent of new technology. Anson then traces the history of correspondence courses and how new technologies are transforming those classes into “distance education” courses which are more dynamic and robust. The article concludes with a list of questions that those engaged in writing studies should discuss in order to ensure that writing instructors and administrators are using technology in the service of students and the faculty who teach them..
Keywords: distance learning, interaction, correspondence courses, course and program design: English
OWI Principles: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 15
Arduser, Lora et al. “The Need for Rules: Determining the Usability of Adding Audio to the MOO.” Computers and Composition, 28, 2011
Lora Arduser, Julie M. Davis, Robert Evans, Christine Hubbell, Deanna Mascle, Cheri Mullins, and Christopher J. Ryan describe how adding an audio component to a MOO impacts the user experience. Five students in the Online Technical Communication and Rhetoric Ph.D. program at Texas Tech University completed a series of tasks that simulated logging on to an online class and performing a series of tasks, such as pushing web pages to a display window, that could be completed using either audio or print instructions. The tests were designed to evaluate “whether a user solved problems with task completion by using text, audio, or a combination of the two and whether audio increased participation for some users” (61). Using a combination of think-aloud protocols, post-task questionnaires, and qualitative data on user participation, the researchers concluded that audio can improve the learning environment and increasing social connections. The article provides additional qualitative and quantitative data from the participants before concluding that several issues contributed to successful implementation of audio into online classes: 1) managing multiple channels of conversation, 2) learning and managing audio technology, 3) modeling behavior and instructor leadership, 4) the desire to relate, and 5) the establishment of rules. This article both demonstrates an effective protocol for usability testing and provides support for using audio and other multimodal means to connect with and engage students with online courses and online task completion.
Keywords: usability testing, synchronous interaction, qualitative research, quantitative research, multimedia, MOO
OWI Principles: 1, 3, 4, 6, 10, 11, 15
Bourelle, Tiffany et al. “Assessing Learning in Redesigned Online First-Year Composition Courses” Digital Writing Assessment and Evaluation, edited by Heidi McKee and Danielle DeVoss. Computers and Composition Digital Press/Utah State Press, 2013. http://ccdigitalpress.org/dwae/12_bourelle.html
Tiffany Bourelle, Sherry Rankins-Robertson, Andrew Bourelle, and Duane Roen describe a model of online course delivery that was developed in response to budget cuts at Arizona State University. The authors created the Writer’s Studio, a first-year writing curriculum focused on “post-process pedagogy, learner-centered pedagogy, multimodal instruction, and eportfolios that showcase[d] self-assessment in response to the course learning outcomes.” The Writer’s Studio utilizes coordinators (non-tenured, full-time faculty), instructors (part-time, contingent faculty), and instructional assistants (upper-level English majors and graduate assistants) to deliver pre-designed course content and both “facilitate instruction and provide feedback.” All aspects of the course design and delivery were collaborative and learner-centered. Designers used the Quality MattersTM rubric to ensure effective course design, and learners were introduced to their courses and facilitators through video introductions. Classes used the WPA Outcomes Statement and the “Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing” to develop course learning outcomes, and instruction in the class was multimodal. The article provides examples of instructional videos, multimedia learning objects, and portfolio prompts and sample responses. Finally, the authors share their portfolio assessment scores and how they used those scores to revise and improve the Writer’s Studio. This article provides a sound, research-based and learner-centered model of how large-scale first-year writing courses and programs can use research-based and professional standards to respond to budget fluctuations while simultaneously remaining engaging and learner-centered.
Keywords: learner-centered, Quality MattersTM, collaboration, contingent faculty, multimodal, video: English, writing program administration, pre-designed courses, portfolios
OWI Principles: 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15
Cargile Cook, Kelli, and Keith Grant-Davie, editors. Online Education 2.0: Evolving, Adapting, and Reinventing Online Technical Communication. Baywood, 2012.
The chapters in this collection were solicited ten years after those for the editors’ previous collection, Online Education: Global Questions, Local Answers. Given the changes in online education over this decade, this collection focuses on how online writing instruction has changed, what online instructors have learned, and how online programs are sustained. Chapters are organized into three sections: 1) Evolving Programs and Faculty, 2) Adapting to Changing Student Needs and Abilities, and 3) Reinventing Course Contents and Materials. This collection provides insights into innovative instructional strategies, encourages experimentation with and critical reflection on technologies, and suggests that online instructors’ classrooms will thrive with continued training, mentorship, and practice in these environments.
Keywords: course and program design: English, technical and professional writing, instructional design, faculty development, course evaluation, program evaluation: English, mentorship, online writing programs
OWI Principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 13, 14, 15
Charles, Cristie Cowles. “Why We Need More Assessment of Online Composition Courses: A Brief History.” Kairos, vol. 7, no. 3, 2002, kairos.technorhetoric.net/7.3/binder2.html?coverweb/charles/index.html.
Charles believes the problems with online composition courses have arisen because a thorough evaluation of their effectiveness has not been done. Large-scale distance learning programs often are based upon a corporate model that places the student as the consumer that excludes faculty input and control over curriculum. In contrast to the corporate model, Charles explores the development of online courses through individual instructor design. She suggests these online courses are more student-centered. However, instructor-developed courses are not often formally assessed. Charles sites the American Federation of Teachers’ 2001 proposal to provide “basic standards that will ensure a quality distance course.” Among some of the top recommendations were 1) that faculty control the curriculum, 2) that faculty are trained to teach online, 3) that students are prepared for distance learning, 4) that class size is determined by best practices in the field, 5) that assessment of student learning should be similar to what is done in face-to-face courses, and 6) that the courses should cover the same content. She suggests these proposals should be areas of evaluation for online composition courses in addition to assessing student writing.
Keywords: assessment, distance learning, evaluation, faculty development, student preparation
OWI Principles: 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9
Chen, M.-H., et al. “Developing a Corpus-Based Paraphrase Tool to Improve EFL Learners’ Writing Skills.” Computer Assisted Language Learning, vol. 28, no. 1, 2015, pp. 22-40.
Because EFL learners do not have adequate resources for learning paraphrasing concepts, Chen et al. developed a program, PREFER, that offers a “corpus-based paraphrasing assistance.” In this article, they report the results of EFL learners’ experiences (n=55) with the tool. The program utilizes “multi-word input” to generate “a list of paraphrases in English and Chinese” and produces examples of sentence variations students can model in their own writing. The authors claim that the program is effective after comparing students’ written performances against those who used the program and those who used an online dictionary or thesaurus.
Key words: EFL, quantitative research
OWI Principles: 1, 6, 15
Comer, Denise K., et al. “Writing to Learn and Learning to Write Across the Disciplines: Peer-to-Peer Writing in Introductory-Level MOOCs.” International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, vol. 15, no. 5, 2014, pp. 26-82.
Comer et al. describe how peer-to-peer interactions enhance understanding, linking course learning objectives to positively contribute to students’ learning. They developed a coding protocol to best interpret peer feedback and discussion threads, including posts and comments, and concluded that 1) online discussion board forums intentionally linked to course content contribute positively to learning gains and 2) feedback on peers’ writing can meaningfully focus on higher order concerns across multiple disciplines. This research specifically targeted peer-to-peer interactions as adding value and increasing learning in the online environment where the concept of “community” is challenged.
Keywords: MOOCs, WAC, empirical research, quantitative research, discussion: English, peer review, student-to-student interaction
OWI Principles: 3, 4, 6, 11, 15
Cotos, Elena. “Potential of Automated Writing Evaluation Feedback.” CALICO Journal, vol. 28, no. 2, 2011, pp. 420-59.
Cotos investigated the impact of automated writing evaluation (AWE) on student scores on standardized tests, teachers’ impressions of AWE, student impressions of AWE, impact on student writing, and student behavior as they use AWE applications—most notably, the Intelligent Academic Discourse Evaluator (IADE) program. Through the use of AWE, students’ writing performance improved notably through comparisons of their first and final essay drafts. Students also reported higher satisfaction rates with the instantaneous feedback provided through the use of AWE as compared to the time-delayed feedback provided by individual instructors. Using Likert-scale, yes/no, and open-ended survey questions that focused on tailoring computer automated responses to the individual, the study concluded that automated feedback stimulates computer-learner interaction which leads to better learning and retention of the information presented.
Keywords: automated writing evaluation, feedback, assessment
OWI Principles: 3, 6, 15
Dutkiewicz, Keri, et al. “Creativity and Consistency in Online Courses: Finding the Appropriate Balance.” Online Education 2.0: Evolving, Adapting, and Reinventing Online Technical Communication, edited by Kelli Cargile Cook and Keith Grant-Davie, Baywood Publishing, 2013, pp. 45-72.
Dutkiewicz provides the results of survey research that captured student and faculty perceptions of a predesigned course (PDC) at Davenport University (DU) in Michigan. DU implemented a PDC structure to help improve quality and ensure alignment in the 50% of courses delivered online, including sections of professional writing on an accelerated, 7-week schedule. The PDCs were designed and maintained in-house and were taught in Blackboard. Course administrators solicited feedback from faculty and revised the PDCs regularly after testing practices in pilot courses. The survey research indicated that instructors using the PDCs appreciated that the courses allowed them additional time for interaction, with approximately a quarter of survey participants (about 50% of instructors) indicating that they would be willing to invest more time in customizing courses in exchange for the ability to be more flexible in course design. Student respondents indicated that individual guidance and help from instructors and links to outside resources were most beneficial in improving their learning. The authors scheduled Live Classroom synchronous sessions with instructors teaching the PDCs to share survey results and to address concerns and issues highlighted by the survey. The study concludes that faculty engagement and input in PDC course construction is important and that communication regarding the PDC can help strengthen the instructional design and course facilitation process. This chapter gives a research-based approach to understanding faculty satisfaction with the design and teaching of online courses as well as providing a model for implementing and assessing online courses.
Keywords: assessment, pre-designed courses, Blackboard, course management system, surveys, course and program design: English, qualitative research, faculty satisfaction
OWI Principles: 3, 4, 5, 6, 12, 15
Ehmann Powers, Christa, and Beth Hewett. “Building Online Training for Virtual Workplaces.” Handbook of Research on Virtual Workplaces and the New Nature of Business Practices, edited by Pavel Zemliansky and Kirk St. Amant, Idea Group, 2007, pp. 257-71.
Ehmann Powers and Hewett address online and global workplace writing concerns for by outlining strategies for designing and implementing appropriate employee document strategies and solutions for employers who design and implement online professional development and training programs for their employees. When employees work online and at a distance, not only are their everyday communications conducted online, but the authors theorize that the training also should occur in that setting, which focuses the training to the environment in which the work occurs rather than on the fiscal and practical concerns of bringing employees together in one geographical space. The authors ground their recommendations in common educational principles that have been used in a variety of fields. They offer a rationale for the training, a theoretical and practical framework, and a model for scalable and efficient training activities. work provides (1) a rationale for leveraging the Internet for human adaptive training, (2) a theoretical framework for practice, and (3) a model for deploying scalable and efficient training activities. The rationale and recommendations offered can inform OWI practices to include teaching and learning activities for students, and training and on-going professional development for instructors.
Keywords: technical and professional writing, faculty development, professional development: English, business writing
OWI Principles: 4, 6, 7
Ehmann, Christa, and Beth L. Hewett. “OWI Research Considerations.” Foundational Practices of Online Writing Instruction, edited by Beth L. Hewett and Kevin Eric DePew, WAC Clearinghouse, 2015, pp. 517-46.
Ehmann and Hewett address key issues of research into OWI by considering development of research questions, theoretical frameworks, methods, analytical approaches, and dissemination venues. After a literature review that supports the exigency for OWI research, they discuss the need for qualitative and quantitative research, and they provide an analysis of some methodological research approaches with emphasis on replicable, aggregable, and data-supported (RAD) research. Organizationally, they align their literature review and discussions of various research topics with the OWI Principles and offer a series of research questions that readers can develop into potentially useful projects. OWI Principle 1 regarding access and inclusivity is a primary concern as it is one of the least explored considerations of online literacy instruction. Among the topics they consider for research are online tutoring, automated writing evaluation (AWE), and massive open online courses (MOOCs). This chapter may be especially helpful to those seeking to develop core research projects in OWI.
Keywords: access, automated writing evaluation, MOOCs, qualitative research, quantitative research, research, online writing center
OWI Principles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 15
Elder, Catherine, et al. “Evaluating Rater Responses to an Online Training Program for L2 Writing Assessment.” Language Testing, vol. 24, no. 1, 2007, pp. 37-64.
Elder et al. discuss the methodology and findings of a study conducted to investigate rater reactions to an online evaluation program designed to decrease variability and enhance reliability of rater scores. Data was collected in three phases to compare rater perceptions and mark behavior before and after training: pre-training questionnaire, online rater training, and post-training questionnaire. Diagnostic English Language Needs Assessment (DELNA) writing samples were given to the study group—most of whom were ESL instructors—to rate the fluency, content, and form of the samples. Once samples were rated, participants answered a brief survey dealing with training. Participants then took online DELNA training and were then asked to re-rate previous writing samples and fill out a follow-up survey. The findings suggest individual variation in receptiveness to training input and its effectiveness. Researchers conclude with suggesting a refinement of the online training program as well as further research into the factors influencing rater responsiveness.
Keywords: ESL, ELL, multilingual writers, L2, assessment, surveys, qualitative research, faculty development
OWI Principles: 1, 6, 7, 15
Goodfellow, Robin, and Mary R. Lea. “Supporting Writing for Assessment in Online Learning.” Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 30, no. 3, 2005, pp. 261-71.
This paper illustrates research conducted in the Open University’s MA, an Online and Distance Education Programme in the United Kingdom, one where distance students interact with a tutor who provides written assessment of their work. Goodfellow and Lea suggest that online discussion board interactions are commonly seen as representative pieces of student writing that are often used in assessment practices in terms of measuring student participation on the course; however, the authors argue that these writings should be viewed as written rhetorical practices in their own right and not just as indicators of social presence. When interviewing non-native and native speakers in the programme, the authors found that the non-native students perceived themselves as being at a disadvantage when participating in conference-type discussion boards because they took longer to respond than native speakers, and often, by the time they did post, the discussion had moved on. In addition, the students felt as though the tutors’ comments on their writing in these spaces did not take into consideration the complexities of joining the online forums as non-native speakers. To increase non-native speakers’ success in the programme, the authors designed “eWrite,” a repository of resources that attempted to provide the student view of writing issues by highlighting students’ personal accounts of working within an online course, orienting themselves to academic study, and learning “Anglo-American academic communication conventions” (268). The space allows for students and tutors to comment on the writing and the issues of social interaction raised within the documents in eWrite. The authors suggest that the new program helps raise both student and tutor awareness of “academic writing as social practice and the consequence of this raised awareness for the development of student writers and the diversity of the texts they produce” (268); the new software can also help make the needs of linguistically and culturally diverse students more explicit, which can ultimately aid in student production of written work, as well as within instructor assessment of the work these students produce in discussion boards.
Keywords: assessment, tutors: English, collaboration, discussion: English, feedback, student-to-student interaction, teaching with technology: English, ELL, ESL, multilingual writers
OWI Principles: 1, 6, 10, 11, 13
Harrington, Susanmarie, et al., editors. The Online Writing Classroom. Hampton Press, 2000.
This collection, edited by Susanmarie Harrington, Michael Day, and Becky Rickly, was published at a point where the “online writing classroom” primarily meant the networked or computer-mediated classroom. Harrington, Rickly, and Day bring together scholars who are working to view the lore of computerized and networked classrooms with “a more critical view” (3). The collection is divided into three parts: 1) Focus on Pedagogy, which “offer[s] a sense of the potentials and pitfalls of the online classroom by providing examples of pedagogical approaches and possible solutions” to problems with computerized and networked classrooms (15); 2) Focus on Community, which brings together chapters discussing successful pedagogies that build participatory community in computer-mediated courses; and 3) Focus on Administration, which focuses on the “behind the scenes” practices of departmental support, faculty preparation, and the material concerns of administering a writing program in computer classrooms. This collection rests on the line between the traditional, face-to-face classroom and the fully-online classroom and provides a rich historical context for how faculty and administrators navigated the move from face-to-face to online classrooms.
Keywords: pedagogy: English, faculty development, teaching with technology: English, community, writing program administration, online writing programs, assessment, networked classrooms, computer-mediated courses
OWI Principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 12
Hewett, Beth L. “Grounding Principles of OWI.” Foundational Practices of Online Writing Instruction, edited by Beth L. Hewett and Kevin Eric DePew, WAC Clearinghouse, 2015, pp. 33-92.
Hewett provides the theoretical background that supports the OWI Principles. She explicates each OWI Principle and addresses it within the context of the first principle regarding access and inclusivity. Each OWI Principle is presented in its full text along with the rationale the OWI Committee had originally provided for each principle. Hewett then offers a discussion that provides the committee’s historical research and discussions regarding the principle; its theoretical rationale; its connections to replicable, aggregable, and data-supported (RAD) research; and its general importance to those who study, research, and teach with OWI.
Keywords: accessibility, asynchronous interaction, hybrid, research, synchronous interaction, CCCC OWI Committee
OWI Principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Hewett, Beth L., and Kevin Eric DePew, editors. Foundational Practices of Online Writing Instruction, WAC Clearinghouse, 2015.
This book addresses the questions that OWI instructors and writing program, writing center, and other administrators should consider when developing viable OWI programs that have potentially effective practices. Each chapter corresponds to concerns raised in the 2013 A Position Statement of Principles and Example Effective Practices published to the NCTE website by the CCCC Committee for Effective Practices in OWI. The five parts of this book address relevant issues for a principle-centered OWI: (1) An OWI Primer, (2) OWI Pedagogy and Administrative Decisions, (3) Practicing Inclusivity in OWI, (4) Faculty and Student Preparation for OWI, and (5) New Directions in OWI. Hewett and DePew emphasize a future academy where most writing courses will be taught or otherwise presented in some type of online setting, which makes it a core text for the next generation of composition theory and praxis and valuable for those who teach and/or tutor students writing in online settings.
Keywords: accessibility, inclusivity, praxis, research, theory, writing program administration, online writing programs, student preparation, faculty development, tutoring: English, online tutoring, writing centers, CCCC OWI Committee
OWI Principles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Hewett, Beth L., and Kevin Eric DePew. “Introduction: A Research History of the CCCC OWI Committee.” Foundational Practices of Online Writing Instruction, edited by Beth L. Hewett and Kevin Eric DePew, WAC Clearinghouse, 2015, pp. 5-30.
Hewett and DePew outline the history of the CCCC Committee for Effective Practices in Online Writing Instruction (OWI) and its research. This historical background enables readers to understand the empirical quantitative and qualitative research that grounds the 2013 A Position Statement of Principles and Example Effective Practices published to the NCTE website by the CCCC Committee for Effective Practices in OWI. They begin by defining the work of the OWI Committee per its charges from the CCCC Executive Committee upon its 2007 constitution and 2010 reconstitution, and it outlines the vocabulary that the committee has used in its discussions of OWI. They continue by explaining the committee’s general research methods that included 1) determining core research questions, 2) developing an annotated bibliography of the extant literature up until 2008, 3) conducting site visits and personal interviews, 4) developing and launching two national surveys, 5) analyzing and reporting on those surveys through a report of the contemporary state of OWI in both fully online and hybrid settings, 6) developing an expert/stakeholder’s group that could advise the committee, and 7) writing the OWI Principles. They describe the importance of understanding all of its work in the context of a new understanding of access and inclusivity. Finally, they end by outlining the rest of the book by sections and chapters. This unique book has the potential to serve OWI administrators, teachers, and tutors as they assist and teach students through online media.
Keywords: CCCC OWI Committee, faculty development, research, literature review, interviews, surveys, accessibility, inclusivity, writing program administration, online writing programs
OWI Principles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
Hewett, Beth L., and Christa Ehmann Powers. “Online Teaching and Learning: Preparation, Development, and Organizational Communication.” Technical Communication Quarterly, vol. 16, no. 1, 2007, pp. 1-11.
Hewett and Ehmann Powers introduce this special issue on the need for training and professional development opportunities for online instructors at all levels of OWI and particularly for the technical writing field. They argue that there is a relative dearth of scholarly and practical articles written for training and professional development, possibly stemming from a lack of a shared vocabulary for such needs. The special issue itself addresses the need for considering the global setting, self-selection for educators and professionals, and the need for immersion and self-reflection in online instructional settings. This three articles in this issue address training, development, and organizational communication: 1) Kirk St. Amant’s “Online Education in an Age of Globalization: Foundational Perspectives and Practices for Technical Communication Instructors and Trainers,”2) Lisa Meloncon’s “Exploring Electronic Landscapes: Technical Communication, Online Learning, and Instructor Preparedness,” and 3) Kelli Cargile Cook’s “Immersion in a Digital Pool: Training Prospective Online Instructors in Online Environments.” Together, these authors provide perspectives on preparing educators for a global educational setting, self-selecting for teaching in online environments, and, in keeping with the principles of immersion and reflection, using course archives as “constructive hypertext” for training and development.
Keywords: technical and professional writing, faculty development, global, reflection, faculty satisfaction
OWI Principles: 6, 7
Hoven, Debra, and Agnieszka Palalas. “(Re)Conceptualizing Design Approaches for Mobile Language Learning.” CALICO Journal, vol. 28, no. 3, 2011, pp. 699–720.
Although not about OWI, this study of Mobile-Assisted Language Learning (MALL) in a hybrid English for Special Purposes (ESP) course addresses the theoretical grounds and operational models for developing online support programs. The development of resources intended to be accessed primarily from mobile devices outside onsite facilities is presented as a Design-Based Research (DBR) project, that is, as an iterative, evolving, and multi-disciplinary program for conceptualizing and improving educational technologies. The article focuses on an early stage in this research program wherein the authors determined that students volunteering to try the resources generally responded favorably to having access to downloadable instructional podcasts and videos at any time during their busy schedules. While these students also improved their scores on a standardized ESP test, this pilot study was not able to connect the improved performance directly to the use of the MALL tools.
Keywords: online support, mobile, non-traditional students, English for special purposes
OWI Principles: 1, 3, 4, 6, 11
Hsieh, Wen-Ming, and Hsien-Chin Liou. “A Case Study of Corpus-Informed Online Academic Writing for EFL Graduate Students.” CALICO Journal, vol. 26, no. 1, 2008, pp. 28-47.
The authors examine the effectiveness and reception of “research-informed online course materials for the explicit teaching of [research article] abstract writing for EFL graduate students in applied linguistics” (29). In particular, the online materials included a combination of 1) text-based “lessons” and 2) various “tasks” focusing on review and revision of academic discourse “moves” in published and peer (student) writing (41). The students also posted descriptions of their work on a discussion forum to engage with classmates about their learning. Most pertinent for OWI professionals, however, is the use of two online tools: 1) a collaborative online editor enabling the researchers to examine students’ completion of peer review and revision tasks and 2) an online concordancer used by students to initiate their own phrasal searches (recorded for the researchers to examine) within the corpus of published abstracts. Hsieh and Liou conclude that the effects of the online unit on their students’ abstracts were mixed (44), while they nonetheless emphasize the overall potential of the combined lessons and tools for assisting students in developing English for academic purposes through their “interactive” and “inductive” approaches (45). Hsieh and Liou’s research questions are founded on a moves-based understanding of discourse with an academic community (29-30), while their design of online tools is founded on the idea that active experimentation and reflective interaction among students facilitates the kind of “metacognition” and “metadiscourse” (quoting Elbow) needed to master those moves (37-38). This source is helpful in understanding how EFL students write and conduct research in online spaces within the confines of disciplinary discourse.
Keywords: online tutoring, revision, collaboration, ESL, ELL, EFL, multilingual writers, L2, discussion: English, student engagement, community, reflection, research, peer review
OWI Principles: 1, 4, 6
Krause, Kerri-Lee. “Supporting First-Year Writing Development Online.” JGE: The Journal of General Education, vol. 55, no. 3-4, 2006, 201–20.
Focusing on first-year students in an entry-level behavioral science course, Krause studies their perceptions of their own writing skills as well as their evaluations of an online writing support program comprised of interactive tutorials. The survey on the program’s usefulness showed that the oldest demographic group (over 24 years) valued the online resource significantly more than younger groups, although the online program itself was generally perceived to help improve skills and reduce anxiety about writing. Even so, the participants generally “rejected the option of replacing face-to-face classes with an online resource such as the one under investigation” (215). Krause emphasizes the value of the results for understanding student perspectives of online tutorial resources, acknowledging problems with the study’s validity for positing how the tool may have actually altered students’ perception of their own writing (219). Although the opening justification for the study addresses community building, the conclusions noted above suggest such an online support program was viewed as contradistinctive to the “social interaction” characterizing face-to-face sessions (213). Academic socialization is discussed in the context of access based on the study’s analysis of the online program’s support of students reflecting different ages and routes to higher education. In this respect, the study shows how a flexible and simple self-paced tutorial system can provide non-traditional students a means to address concerns and anxieties about writing as they deem necessary—hence the discussion of “just-in-time” online learning (208). Finally, while the article briefly mentions relevant literacy studies, it is not clear how relevant composition pedagogy was integrated into the online tools.
Keywords: non-traditional students, WAC, WID, online support, community, accessibility, composition pedagogy, students success
OWI Principles: 1, 6, 11, 13, 15
Lima, Jr., Ronaldo. “Practical Writing – An Online Interactive Writing Experience.” The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, vol. 14, no. 3, 2010, www.tesl-ej.org/wordpress/issues/volume14/ej55/ej55int/.
This article provides a brief, focused practicum piece on the core assignments of a six-week online ESL course on “Practical Writing.” Lima primarily emphasizes how the assignments integrated various online platforms to facilitate student interactivity throughout the writing process. The assignments also placed special emphasis on the advantages of ready publication and dissemination within online environments for the “post-writing” stage, which allows the student to see the purpose for the writing process. Within in the article, multiple pre-writing, drafting, review, and revision activities are described for helping students develop a personal introduction, a summary, a letter to the editor, job search materials, and a travel narrative. Integrated within the Moodle LMS, the course’s activities use discussion forums, multiple blog platforms, chat, and e-mail, drawing also on sites such as LinkedIn and Wordle. The article’s central discussion of online platforms to teach students the writing process addresses the advantages of online environments and adapting onsite composition theories to these environments. Lima also refers to the teacher’s role in directing the online activities within an accelerated, non-traditional format.
Keywords: ESL, EFL, ELL, L2, multilingual writers, writing process, revision, course management systems, composition theory, student-to-student interaction
OWI Principles: 1, 3, 4, 6
Maid, Barry and Barbara J. D’Angelo. “What Do You Do When the Ground Beneath Your Feet Shifts?” Online Education 2.0: Evolving, Adapting, and Reinventing Online Technical Communication, edited by Kelli Cargile Cook and Keith Grant-Davie, Baywood, 2013, pp. 11-24.
Maid and D’Angelo describe a model for an upper-division, technical communication course offered online through the Multimedia Writing and Technical Communication (MWTC) program at Arizona State University. The course was a response to two exigencies: 1) budget constraints at the university that pushed more classes online quickly and 2) concerns from stakeholders regarding the quality and pedagogy of the service course. As a result of these factors, the authors described online course design centered on the concept of “Online 2G,” or an online course with a set of standardized outcomes and modules that could be customized by a wide range of part-time faculty. This chapter explores four concepts related to the move from more fluid to more standardized courses, including 1) issues related to changing administrative roles and university restructuring, 2) the ability for faculty to have both a consistent, assessable structure and some flexibility in choosing course content, 3) constraints with the Blackboard LMS, and 4) the need for (and the limitations surrounding) online communities consisting of faculty and students at a distance. The chapter ends with recommendations for structuring online courses and programs that are both consistent and flexible and the call to hire a diverse, experienced faculty to teach and interact in these programs.
Keywords: course and program design: English, curriculum, technical and professional writing, online writing programs, administration, writing program administration, Blackboard, course management systems, pre-designed courses, community
OWI Principles: 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 12
Moore, Scott D., et al. “Leveraging Technology to Alleviate Student Bottlenecks: The Self-Paced Online Tutorial—Writing (SPOT).” The Journal of Continuing Higher Education, vol. 62, no. 1, 2014, pp. 50-55.
The authors begin by discussing general faculty perspectives of online learning. While many faculty and institutions find the value of the accessibility and economic advantage of the digital classroom, others find it problematic because it challenges faculty authority and freedom. However, the authors offer the Fresno State University SPOT Program as an example of effective OWI, especially in relieving course bottlenecks by allowing students to prepare for the Upper Division Writing Exam (UDWE). The SPOT Program helps students develop eight habits of effective writers based on research from composition researchers: curiosity, openness, engagement, creativity, persistence, responsibility, and metacognition. Students enrolled in SPOT complete a writer’s inventory adapted from Oregon State University’s “writer’s personal profile.” Based on the results of the profile, students created two goals that guided feedback from the writing mentor and peers. The authors claim that the SPOT Program is sustainable because it has an established curriculum, an assessable portfolio for each student, mandatory training for all writing mentors, and maintains consistency through the use of portfolios as future training and teaching material. The authors evaluate SPOT’s success as anecdotally successful in that all students completing the program, approximately 50 percent, passed the UDWE.
Keywords: online writing center, faculty satisfaction, composition, student engagement, reflection, surveys, curriculum, course and program design: English, mentoring, faculty development, tutor training, portfolios
OWI Principle 3, 6, 7
Opdenacker, Liesbeth, and Luuk Van Waes. “Implementing an Open Process Approach to a Multilingual Online Writing Center: The Case of Calliope.” Computers and Composition, vol. 24, no. 3, 2007, pp. 247-65. Science Direct, doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2007.05.003.
Opdenacker and Van Waes describe a multilingual online writing center called Calliope. They begin the article with a demonstration of why European online writing centers differ from American online writing centers while noting that there is a diverse range of OWCs across Europe as well. The authors describe how they “developed a new theoretical framework, based on a constructivist pedagogical approach, aimed at supporting both different learning profiles and writing processes” (248). Calliope is fully embedded into third year Strategic Business and Management Communication courses, blended courses where students both meet face-to-face and complete writing activities online through the online writing center. Students use three different tools in completing reflexive and reflective writing assignments based on case studies: 1) a feedback editor, which is “a Web-based application that supports giving and receiving feedback on written products in different stages of the writing process” (252); 2) Escribamos, which is “a Web-based application developed to support collaborative writing activities” (254); and 3) a portfolio tool in Blackboard that links to the OWC (256). In addition to integrating these three tools, the OWC allows different learner types as identified by Kolb to create their own pathways through the learning module to cover the three components of each unit: theory, practice, and a case study (257). Opdenacker and Van Waes end the article by briefly discussing how they designed Calliope and conclude with the next steps they are taking in the project. This article provides an alternative version of the traditional, American OWL that integrates specific writing instruction into courses across the disciplines.
Keywords: ELL, ESL, multilingual writers, online writing labs, hybrid, feedback, Blackboard, portfolio, course management systems, business writing, technical and professional writing, collaboration, modules, WID, WAC
OWI Principles: 3, 4, 6, 10, 11
Porter, James. “Framing Questions about MOOCs and Writing Courses.” Invasion of the MOOCs: The Promise and Perils of Massive Open Online Courses,” edited by Steven D. Krause and Charles Lowe, Parlor P, 2014, pp. 14-28.
Porter addresses the question of whether writing can be taught in a MOOC in the affirmative. He separates the differences between the MOOCs themselves, which he says can be “a valuable addition to the toolbox of methods that writing teachers use to help writers” (14) and the hype around MOOCs. Instead of addressing whether MOOCs can teach writing, he instead addresses the question of whether MOOCs can teach writing as well as traditional composition courses. In addressing this larger question, he considers two other questions: “1) Is the MOOC a course—or is it more like courseware? and 2) What are we comparing MOOCs to?” (15). To answer the first question, he concludes that, while a writing course is composed of many elements, the course itself is the interaction of elements and the “surprises” that occur as the elements interact (21). In answering the second question, he defers to the SUNY Council of Writing’s Resolution on Massive Open Online Courses and the Teaching of Writing, which states that “Completion of the Writing requirement should always involve close work with a faculty member who can provide students mentorship, careful assessment and a genuine sense of a human audience” (25). He concludes by calling for more research to be able to definitively assess MOOCs and the possibility of their replacing the first-year composition course. This article is beneficial in asking pertinent questions about what we consider to be the first-year writing experience and how we handle scalability in online courses.
Keywords: MOOCs, first-year composition, audience,
OWI Principles: 6
Reilly, Colleen, and Joseph John Williams. “The Price of Free Software: Labor, Ethics, and Context in Distance Education.” Computers and Composition, vol. 23, no. 1, 2006, pp. 68-90.
Reilly and Williams investigated whether open-source software choices were influenced by instructors’ institutional pressures and structures. They concluded that “due to time constraints, inadequate technical expertise, and institutional mandates, both proactive and implied, many instructors select commercial courseware—such as Blackboard and WebCT—when teaching their distance-learning courses.” (69). Even though open-source software more closely aligns with the liberatory and participatory nature of many university and college writing courses and programs, the time and knowledge constraints on online writing instructors can dissuade them from using open-source software. In a survey distributed to the WPA-L and TechRhet listservs, participants identified ease of use as the primary motivating factor in selecting course systems for online classes. Also at issue are the tension between philosophies that encourage the sharing of knowledge and the concerns that institutions and others might monetize the software and content produced by instructors using open-source tools. The authors review three open-source course management systems in terms of their viability for use by online writing instructors: Drupal, Plone, and Sakai (75). They concluded that the most viable course management system was Drupal. They also reviewed Blackboard and WebCT and concluded that these proprietary systems could be rigid and complicate the idea of open sharing so important to writing pedagogy. They conclude with case studies of four educators who use course management systems and identified a “disconnect between the professed support for open-source applications and the extent of their use for delivering writing courses in a distance-learning format” (88). This study raises crucial questions about who controls the environment of the online writing class and how the increasingly contingent nature of faculty positions might prevent instructors from fully implementing innovative and open-source technologies.
Keywords: accessibility, open-source software, teaching with technology: English, surveys, research, Blackboard, course management systems, academic labor,
OWI Principles: 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 15
Reiss, Donna, and Art Young. “WAC Wired: Electronic Communication Across the Curriculum.” WAC for the New Millennium: Strategies for Continuing Writing-Across-the-Curriculum Programs, editors Susan H. McLeod, Eric Miraglia, Margot Soven, and Christopher Thaiss, WAC Clearinghouse, 2011, pp. 52-85, wac.colostate.edu/books/millennium/chapter3.pdf.
Reiss and Young start their article by coining the term ECAC—or “Electronic Communication Across the Curriculum”—as “another approach to literacy, communication, collaboration, and community outreach for educational programs and institutions” (53). They provide a history of departments across the curriculum that are actively using computers and digital spaces to supplement and enhance their writing and communication instruction. They do so with three goals in mind: “1) an increase in information technology to support the activities of WAC/CAC programs, 2) an increase in alliances between instructional technology programs and WAC/CAC programs, and 3) additional emphasis on communication-intensive uses of technology, or ECAC, among teachers and institutions that emphasize active learning and the development of communication competence in all their students” (56). The history that the authors detail spans four decades from keyboarding classes in the 1970s to the fully-online classes of the 2000s. In particular, they focus on classes, instructors, and programs that use digital technologies to improve the writing-to-learn focus of classes across the curriculum. Reiss and Young also briefly recount the background of online collaboration and teaching and learning centers that have a focus on ECAC. They end with a section that predicts increased use of e-portfolios, an increase in the use of computer technologies to teach and to learn, and warnings about the possibility of unequal access to high powered computers and networks and challenges to faculty seeking tenure and promotion and job security as they teach in digital spaces. This article provides an important historical perspective on work in WAC and WID disciplines and identifies challenges and opportunities that may or may not have come to pass as writing and communication classes in the disciplines move fully online.
Keywords: WAC, WID, collaboration, faculty development, writing-to-learn, portfolios, instructional technology
OWI Principles: 1, 3, 4, 6, 14
Rice, Jeff. “What I Learned in MOOC.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 64, no. 4, 2013, pp. 695-703.
Less concerned with MOOC courses taking over higher education or inadequate peer feedback or grades with a large format course, Jeff Rice points to a different issue in online course pedagogy. This analysis and reflection of his experience with an early Coursera course offers an in-depth perspective on interaction with online course content. Reflecting on his own lack of desire to engage in the written aspects of the course, Jeff Rice suggests that the static, non social nature of the course design created no space in which to engage in knowledge creation. In his words, there was no “emotional occasion” with which to engage with the course (702). The format, structure, and design of the separate course element simply did not create a desire for him to respond. For OWI, considering the pedagogical implication of creating technological spaces for student engagement within different course formats is worthy of ongoing study.
Keywords: MOOCs, feedback, peer review, reflection, Coursera, student engagement, pedagogy: English, teaching with technology: English
OWI Principle 6
Scopes, Lesley, and Bryan Carter. “Cybergogy, Second Life, and Online Technical Communication Instruction.” Online Education 2.0: Evolving, Adapting, and Reinventing Online Technical Communication, edited by Kelli Cargile Cook and Keith Grant-Davie, Baywood, 2013, pp. 179-95.
This chapter describes how Second Life and other online virtual worlds, in addition to gaming, serve a number of purposes. One of these purposes is in the technical writing classroom as students practice social knowledge construction in these worlds which help them to engage in problem solving for shared common goals. The authors describe how experiential writing and writing for machinima (or films produced using characters in virtual environments) can be used to meet the learning outcomes in technical writing classes. This chapter provides a potential synchronous classroom environment to increase creativity in online writing classes.
Keywords: virtual classroom, synchronous interaction, gamification, technical and professional writing,
OWI Principles: 2, 6, 11
Shute, Valerie, and Diego Zapata-Rivera. “Adaptive Technologies.” ETS Research Report Series, vol. 2007, no. 1, pp. i-34, 2007. Wiley Online Library, DOI: 10.1002/j.2333-8504.2007.tb02047.x.
The paper presents adaptive technology research that can connect to form a more comprehensive systems approach to teaching and learning. Accordingly, adaptive systems can create flexible environments for learners with varied abilities and backgrounds as well as disabilities and interests. The paper demonstrates how to organize adaptive technologies, presents key challenges and systemic problems, and suggests the benefits of adaptive systems for learners who may or may not be disabled. The paper includes discussions surrounding inclusive and accessible education, how an adaptive systems approach can envelop a diverse range of learners’ needs, ways in which specific pedagogical and theoretical approaches can be connected to be made relevant, and how an adaptive approach can embrace alternative theories.
Keywords: adaptive technology, disability studies, accessibility, inclusivity
OWI Principles 1, 3, 4, 6
Snart, Jason. Hybrid Learning: The Perils and Promise of Blending Online and Face-to-Face Instruction in Higher Education, Praeger, 2010.
This book offers a thoroughly researched and critical exploration into hybrid teaching and learning. While not a “how-to” book for online and hybrid teaching and learning, readers looking for ways to create and/or improve their online or hybrid classes can find a plethora of ideas for classroom application through the thought-provoking discussions about the historical, political, financial, technological, and pedagogical aspects of online and hybrid classes. Snart provides an insightful and critical examination into the most controversial issues facing higher education that many administrators think will be solved by online classes, such as increasing enrollment, retention, and completion rates, and increasing profit. The book is divided into seven chapters that address challenges in higher education; reasons for increased interest in hybrid classes; cultural motivations; profiles of hybrid classes, programs, and student experience; the use of technology to build community and increase collaboration; and speculation about the future of hybrid delivery.
Key words: hybrid, blended, computer-mediated classrooms, educational technology, pedagogy: English, culture, online writing programs, collaboration, teaching with technology: English
OWI Principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
Snart, Jason. “Hybrid and Fully Online OWI.” Foundational Practices of Online Writing Instruction, edited by Beth L. Hewett and Kevin Eric DePew, Parlor P, 2015, pp. 93-127.
Beginning with definitions of “fully online” and “hybrid” courses, this chapter explores the similarities and differences between these two types of instruction. According to Snart, “hybrid describes an environment where traditional, face-to-face instruction is combined with either distance-based or onsite computer-mediated settings” (95), whereas a fully online course has no face-to-face or onsite components to it (95). He also notes that these terms carry different definitions from one institution to the next depending on many factors, such as administrative perspective and the needs of different student bodies. For instance, a fully online course may have a requirement that students take tests onsite, and hybrid courses are not always split 50:50 between onsite and online class time. Another important consideration when defining these two types of instruction is that one is not a variant or deviation from another; they are both separate and unique delivery methods that do have some overlap but also have specific and defining characteristics of their own. For instance, when migrating material from a traditional face-to-face setting to a hybrid environment, some instructors believe that at least half of their classroom instruction should be replaced or simply put online. Snart explains that teaching strategies do not always function equally in both settings; instructors should choose which activities work best in face-to-face classes and which activities would work better online. Furthermore, issues associated with access, pedagogy, organization, presence, and community take different shapes depending on the type of instruction and the ratio of time spent online vs. face-to-face or onsite. Instructors should consider what they do well in each setting and capitalize on those strengths when building online and hybrid classes. Additionally, technology should not lead course design; online and hybrid courses should be objective-based where teaching is grounded in pedagogy first and foremost so that the design enables students to best meet course goals and objectives.
Keywords: blended, hybrid, instructional design, modality student success, faculty development, time management, faculty workload, course and program design: English, pedagogy: English, learning outcomes
OWI Principles: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, 13
Takayoshi, Pamela, and Brian Huot, editors. Teaching Writing with Computers: An Introduction. Houghton Mifflin, 2003.
Takayoshi and Huot edit a collection of chapters that center around the practical skills related to teaching with computers, including teaching writing online. Although they value the relevancy of earlier compiled scholarship, they present technological and theoretical discussions of online writing classrooms circa 2003. This work is broken into sections that address 1) writing technologies for composition pedagogies; 2) learning to teach with technology; 3) teaching beyond physical boundaries (or, distance learning); 4) teaching and learning new media; and 5) assigning and assessing student writing. Takayoshi and Huot argue that “a notion of pedagogical practice grounded in the theory, reflection, and inquiry that drive our practices is an important component of this volume” (5). This collection is an early primer on the basic tools needed for instructors for new instructors in OWI settings.
Keywords: teaching with technology: English, pedagogy: English, composition, assessment, reflection
OWI Principles: 3, 4, 6, 10
Thiel, Teresa. Report on Online Tutoring Services. University of Missouri-St. Louis, 2010, uminfopoint.umsystem.edu/media/aa/elearning/Report_on_Online_Tutoring_Services.pdf.
Theil analyzes and evaluates two online, commercial tutoring services, NetTutor and Smarthinking, for undergraduate-level courses and recommends that the University of Missouri-St. Louis (UMSL) adopt NetTutor to provide online tutoring services for online courses. In evaluating the two services, Theil measured the quality and efficacy of tutoring, the ease of access and integration with the university’s LMS (Blackboard), the breadth of subjects offered, satisfaction of current users, and value. Ultimately, NetTutor was deemed the best because its quality of tutoring was slightly higher than Smarthinking, possibly because its tutors work from a central location with resources and supervision. Of particular interest to OWI instructors are the reasons that Theil recommends commercial alternatives to in-house writing centers: cost effectiveness and quality. Based on a recent comparison of tutoring quality between the USML Writing Lab and Smarthinking, the English department is “reconsidering whether” offering in-house online tutoring “is a good idea” (19). Theil notes that providing quality in-house online tutoring services “would require a dedicated staff to find, train, and monitor the tutors,” thereby increasing costs (19). She believes that the USML Writing Lab should continue offering onsite services and be supplemented with NetTutor to meet the needs of different student populations.
Keywords: online tutoring, tutor training, accessibility, online writing centers, administration
OWI Principles: 1, 6, 13, 14
Warnock, Scott. “And Then There Were Two: The Growing Pains of an Online Writing Course Faculty Training Initiative.” Proceedings of the Distance Learning Administration (DLA) 2007 Conference, St. Simons Island GA, 26 June 2007.
Warnock provides an account of the attrition associated with a new online faculty training initiative at Drexel University in 2004. He outlines the challenges that Drexel faced when the university decided to put 20% of its first year writing courses online in Fall 2004. That decision meant that at least 20 instructors would need online training to teach those courses; however, as the summer program progressed, the program lost instructors quickly. By the end of the fall term, only one instructor was still enrolled in the online training program. Challenges of establishing the online training program included lack of institutional backing, offering too many courses online at one time with a technologically unprepared faculty, emphasizing technology over pedagogy in previous training, and providing no course-specific instruction. Differences in opinion over the emphasis of the training course resulted in additional challenges. Some instructors wanted a course template created for them while others wanted to learn all of the tools and capabilities of the learning management system. In addition, the university failed to advertise the online courses, and enrollment for Fall 2004 was low. A 44% drop rate in online courses occurred due to students’ misunderstanding about the work and self-motivation needed for success in online classes. Despite the hurdles, the training program was restored in subsequent semesters as more teachers experimented with and found success in hybrid classes.
Keywords: first-year writing, hybrid, faculty development, teaching with technology: English, online writing programs, writing program administration
OWI Principles: 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12
Warnock, Scott. “Teaching the OWI Course.” Foundational Practices of Online Writing Instruction, edited by Beth L. Hewett and Kevin Eric DePew, WAC Clearinghouse, 2015, pp. 151-82.
This extensive chapter covers five of the OWI principles (Principles 2–6) presented in A Position Statement of Principles and Example Effective Practices for OWI. Warnock seeks to address the question of how to teach writing online successfully. He analyzes how the principles and corresponding effective practices tackle obstacles and the challenges teachers encounter, specifically in an online environment. Each principle is thoroughly discussed, including examples of how to implement possible best practices into online teaching. Warnock summarizes the chapter by emphasizing that first and foremost, online writing course are writing courses, and teachers need to remain focused on the course goals and objectives. Although teachers should develop strategies to utilize new technologies, they should also adapt their own best practices from onsite teaching and maintain core teaching principles in online writing courses. The responsibility of institutions and writing programs with regard to flexibility in course content and faculty training is also addressed.
Keywords: learning outcomes, teaching with technology: English, best practices, pedagogy: English, online writing programs
OWI Principles: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7
Wooten, Courtney Adam. “The Mediation of Literacy Education and Correspondence Composition Courses at UNC–Chapel Hill, 1912–1924.” Composition Studies, vol. 41, no. 2, 2013, pp. 40-57.
In this essay, Wooten situates contemporary debates about online learning into the historical context of distance education to demonstrate how institutional values shape offsite courses and mediate literacy learning. Wooten grounds her analysis in two types of mediation theory: 1) mediation as institutional sponsorship and 2) “mediation as communication in context” (44). Wooten begins with institutional sponsorship, analyzing the roots and growth of composition correspondence courses at UNC-Chapel Hill in the 1910s and 1920s. The motivation for these courses is familiar: UNC wanted to meet increased student demand while boosting its image as an innovative public institution. Its correspondence courses could not, however, be true equivalents to the onsite courses, as distance students had no access to campus resources and immediate instruction. Wooten latches onto this issue of immediacy, arguing that “the correlation between correspondence courses and online courses can...be seen through their lack of interactivity, especially in MOOCs,” claiming that in online courses, “the mediation of literacies is not as direct and personal, even with the use of synchronous technologies” (51-52). Wooten’s historical analysis and criticisms of online writing instruction that is driven by institutional needs, as opposed to pedagogical affordances, could help OWI instructors and WPAs analyze how their own courses are mediated at the institutional instructional level.
Keywords: distance education, MOOCs, interactivity, synchronous interaction, asynchronous interaction, writing program administrators, literacy
OWI Principles: 3, 4, 6, 11
Writing in Digital Environments Research Center Collective. “Why Teach Digital Writing?” Kairos: Rhetoric, Technology, Pedagogy, vol. 10, no. 1, 2005, kairos.technorhetoric.net/10.1/binder2.html?coverweb/wide/index.html.
The Writing in Digital Environments (WIDE) Research Center Collective, working under the premise that “networked computers create a new kind of writing space that changes the writing process and the basic rhetorical dynamic between writers and readers,” addresses the need to teach writing digitally in digital spaces. They assert that 1) traditional print-based rhetorical theory is not adequate for digital rhetoric, 2) teaching writing responsibly or effectively in traditional classrooms is not possible, and 3) we must shift our approaches to accommodate writing instruction in digitally mediated spaces. The uniqueness of this webtext resides in its multidimensional approach to responding to the question asked by the title, and in that it argues with the primary intention of assisting educators in responding to this question in their own institutional settings. This webtext provides answers for OWI practitioners and administrators who question why they would or should teach digital writing.
Keywords: digital literacy, computer-mediated communication, hypertext
OWI Principles: 3, 4, 6, 12, 14