"Whose Line Is It, Anyway?": Researching, Reporting, and Remixing in the Online Writing Classroom

You can also view the presentation at http://www.slideshare.net/dnroach/whose-line-is-it-anyway.

Presentation for ENGL 895 Pedagogical Tool Review

NOTE: Click the "menu" button above on the bottom left of the presentation to access the "View Fullscreen" command.

If you cannot see the presentation above, click here to see it on Slideshare.net.

Using Screencasting to Teach Writing Online: A Tool Review of Jing and Screencast-O-Matic

Online writing instruction has been the subject of much discussion, as scholars try to determine how best to create a writing class in a virtual setting. Many instructors are finding that attempting to translate methods used in a traditional class directly to an online environment can sometimes be next to impossible. Further, even when we do identify a set of ideal practices that may serve teachers well, issues of student access, institutional support, and technological savvy often complicate the implementation of even our most pedagogically-sound ideas. Finding technological tools to help mitigate these issues can be key, but we must be certain to approach these tools with a careful analysis of their usefulness and appropriateness for the goals we seek in our classrooms. Screencasting software is just one of many tools that has received a fair amount of attention in distance education, and an analysis of the possibilities of this type of program reveals that screencasting may be part of the answer to the question of how we can create a successful writing classroom online.

Overview of Screencasting and Its Uses

What is screencasting?
A screencast records the activity on a computer screen along with accompanying audio either from the computer itself or from a microphone. Thus, screencast software allows you to record yourself performing an activity on your computer and narrating that activity, and then allows you to save the clip of that activity on your computer and/or online. The screencast viewed by the user, then, resembles what someone would see if they watched over your shoulder as you performed and explained an activity on your computer.

Why use screencasting?
Synchronous communication seems to be the gold standard for conferencing and tutoring in the writing classroom because of its ability to connect students and teachers in real-time (Hewett & Ehmann, 2004; Neff & Whithaus, 2008), but sometimes that is unattainable due to technological limitations of the student, the instructor, or both. On the other hand, asynchronous communication is not without its benefits, allowing students to revisit content without the restraints of time (Warnock, 2009). Screencasting combines some of the benefits of synchronous communication with the flexibility of asynchronous interaction.

Additionally, the multimedia format appeals to visual learners and to students used to getting info in other-than-print format. The tool also allows for visual demonstration of physical activities and operation of tools (in fact, both Jing and SOM offer screencasts that demonstrates the logistics of screencasting with that particular software). The voiceover component allows students to connect with instructor in auditory capacity (something that may be limited in other areas of the course). Providing these kinds of multisensory guides for students provides much needed "scaffolding" advocated by Helen M. Grady and Marjorie T. Davis (2005).

Of course no tool is without its drawbacks, and though the potentials for screencasting are great, obviously the tool has its limitations. The most obvious drawback is the lack of two-way communication between instructor and student; thought he software replicates the instructor-side of a demonstration or critique, the student cannot directly respond. Additionally, screencasting does not provide an active interface for user. For example, if there is a link on a website in your screencast, the student cannot click it to find out more information (the screencast is, after all, merely a recording of your screen reproduced for the student in video form). Thus, the passivity of interaction with the screencast is of some concern if we seek to create interactive learning in the writing classroom. Most importantly, screencasting has the potential to reinforce the "sage-on-stage" model of teaching, something that most writing teachers work hard to avoid. Thus, screencasting should be used only in conjunction with other, more interactive teaching tools to ensure that the student is actively involved in the process of building and creating knowledge in the writing classroom.

How can screencasts be used?
The possibilities for screencasting across the disciplines are many, and in the teaching of writing, screencasts can be used to supplement many different areas of instruction. At the individual student level, screencasting can be used to provide a narrated review of writing. the instructor can move through a student's paper, pointing out problem areas and extrapolating audibly on comments already made with printed text in the document. Demonstrations of how to use other writing tools can also be useful for students, and screencasting allows students to see and hear the instructor guide them specific tasks, from setting up a running header in MS Word to how to apply templates in a presentation. Similarly, when teaching students about how to find resources for research writing, screencasting can be used to introduce the library home page, demonstrate the difference between credible and non-credible web sources, or explain how to perform effective database searches. Through screencasting, all of these activities come to life for the student more so than if they were presented in basic textual form or through even an audio-only explanation.

What software is available?
The market for screencasting software has exploded in recent years . Most software is proprietary (with the notable exception of the open-source CamStudio). Several packages are available that are replete with high-end editing and capturing options (Archee, 2008), but the most popular are quite expensive. TechSmith's Camstasia is a fully-functional screen recording and editing software available for purchase online. Abode's Captivate is perhaps the gold standard at this point in time, but again, the costs are prohibitively high, particularly for individual teachers. Some other programs offer similar features but are only available in brief trial versions.

Thus, this review focuses on two popular screen recording software programs that are 100% free: Screencast-O-Matic and TechSmith's Jing. Jing offers an upgrade to Jing's pro version for $14.95 annually, and Screencast-o-matic offers 1 hour at a time for $5 with additional features, but I will only be discussing the features available in the free versions. Often, institutional support is not available to instructors for supplemental software such as this, and freeware can be an effective counterbalance for instructors who have been given a limited set of tools by the college or university (usually in the form of all-in-one, proprietary software platforms). Thus, this option has increased in popularity even though, as Colleen A. Reilly and Jospeh John Williams point out, "institutional labor practices and other pressures appear to prompt writing teachers to use the institutionally supported courseware for their distance-learning courses" (p. 88). Thus, seeking out viable freeware options in screencasting software allows the instructor to supplement their course with usable tools without demanding support from the institution for their purchase and implementation.

Evaluation of Jing and Screencast-O-Matic

Jing
Jing is a freeware screencasting offering from TechSmith, a company that also produces a free screen capture program (SnagIt) and the aforementioned Camstasia. To use Jing, instructors must download and install the software on their local computers. Jing's hallmark, the yellow sun, lies at the heart of the application and can be set up to appear at the top or side of the user's screen for easy access.

When the user creates a screencast through Jing, the program saves the video as Shockwave Flash (.swf) file. Jing then offers the user the option to save the file locally or upload it to a website. A free Jing account includes 2GB of storage on Screencast.com, a site managed by TechSmith that was designed for the hosting of their product files. Jing also offers optional buttons that can be added to the toolbar that allow for screencasts to be posted directly to YouTube, Facebook, Flickr, and Twitter. The many options for hosting and file management, then, will appeal to educators who have limited access to spaces wherein they can host the files themselves.

One of the biggest reasons that Jing has risen in popularity in the educational community is that TechSmith has actively tried to collaborate with educators to provide resources and help for the use of Jing in educational settings. Their website offers a small but ever-expanding resource packet geared specifically toward those users who wish to employ Jing in the classroom. In recent years, much of the literature regarding screencasting in education has endorsed Jing as the best available option in freeware (Rethlefsen, 2009; Tagge, 2009).

Jing does, however, have its limitations, something that is not altogether unexpected in a freeware package. The free version of Jing allows for the recording of only 5 minutes at a time, so often presentations and tutorials must be split into multiple clips that must be managed separately. Also, because Jing creates files only in the .swf format, some users may have difficulty maximizing the use of their. The biggest drawback of Jing, however, is the very nature of the software itself. Users working from multiple machines (i.e., a home computer, a laptop, and a work computer) must download the software on each computer to be able to screencast from each one. Also, the system requirements can be tricky; older computers and netbooks with smaller displays struggle to accommodate the requirements of the software, which can present difficulties for users who seek a simple, streamlined tool for their screencasting needs.

Screencast-o-matic (SOM)
Unlike Jing, Screencast-O-Matic (SOM) is available completely online on a Java platform in most internet browsers. This frees the users to screencast from any machine with internet access. SOM also allows users to save their files as Quicktime (.mp4), Windows Media Player (.avi), or Flash (.flv) files, which in turn gives the user greater flexibility. Like Jing, SOM offers automatic upload to a free hosting space on SOM's site and also to YouTube. The length limits are also less constricted; SOM allows recordings up to 15 minutes for postings on SOM and up to 10 minutes for use on YouTube.

SOM, like Jing, has a handful of drawbacks, but most of them seem to be in the form of more minor annoyances. The site itself is framed and supported by GoogleAds, so users may be put off by the banners for various tech products that litter the page. Also, SOM has yet to offer up any targets educational support, although the site does offer a bevy of samples from other users that can be searched by applicable terms. The only technological shortfall that is overtly evident is the Java-based platform. Most users whose machines respond well to Java will not experience any issues, but because some browsers and platforms do not "play well" with Java, users should be aware of this possible limitation.

Conclusions

Educators are very fond of Jing right now; it is, in fact, being touted by many researchers in information studies (Rethlefsen, 2009; Tagge, 2009) as the most viable freeware screencasting option available for educators. Furthermore, Jing offers a lot of support in terms of presentation and content advice, and TechSmith is clearly working to develop more support to further enhance the tool's appeal in education. However, the web-based availability of SOM may appeal more to educators working from multiple machines or those whose computers do not meet the technical specifications necessary to run the software for programs like Jing. Also, the multiple formats available through SOM allow for more flexibility in embedding and using clips in multiple online settings.

Several other options also exist presently, and more options will likely appear over time as demand for this type of tool continues to increase. Regardless of which software educators prefer, screencasting offer instructors the opportunity to demonstrate step-by-step computer procedures and to engage in multimedia interface with students who cannot communicate synchronously with video and audio. Screencasting offers instructors a way to enhance presentation of materials in online course to more closely imitate the types of presentations they might offer face-to-face.  

References

Adobe Captivate 5. (2010) Retrieved 15 Jun 2010, from http://www.adobe.com/products/captivate/

Archee, R. K. (2008). Screencasting—the future of technical communication? Intercom, 55(3), 39.

Camtasia. (2010) Retrieved 15 Jun 2010, from http://www.techsmith.com/camtasia

Grady, H. M., & Davis, M. T. (2005). Teaching well online with instructional and procedural scaffolding. In K. Cargile Cook & K. Grant-Davie (Eds.), Online education: global questions, local answers (pp. 101-122). Amityville, NY: Baywood Pub.

Hewett, B. L., & Ehmann, C. (2004). Preparing educators for online writing instruction: principles and processes. Urbana, Ill.: National Council of Teachers of English.

Jing. (2010). Retrieved 15 Jun 2010, from http://www.jingproject.com/

Neff, J. M., & Whithaus, C. (2008). Writing across distances & disciplines: research and pedagogy in distributed learning. New York: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Reilly, C. A., & Williams, J. J. (2006). The price of free software: Labor, ethics, and context in distance education. Computers and Composition, 23(1), 68-90.

Rethlefsen, M. L. (2009). Screencast Like a Pro. [Article]. Library Journal, 134(7), 62-63.

Screencast-O-Matic. (2010). Retrieved 15 Jun 2010, from http://screencast-o-matic.com/

Tagge, N. (2009). Jing and Yang: balancing asynchronous and synchronous training. Library Hi Tech News, 26(10), 6-7. doi: 10.1108/07419050911022261

Warnock, S. (2009). Teaching writing online: how and why. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Article #5 Review: "Transforming the Group Paper with Collaborative Online Writing"

Kittle, P., & Hicks, T. (2009). Transforming the Group Paper with Collaborative Online Writing. Pedagogy, 9(3), 525 - 538.

Full-text link (only available through ODU library proxy): Kittle and Hicks (2009)

This article begins with a rationale for collaboration in the writing classroom and an investigation of the ways that new media reshapes our ideas about that approach. Peter Kittle and Troy Hicks frame a convincing argument about how to think about collaboration as we move it from the f2f classroom to the virtual world of new media. They highlight the differences between group work and genuine collaboration in many of the same ways that Kenneth Bruffee and others have highlighted the differences between cooperation and collaboration:

People can contribute to a project or cooperate in a group without truly collaborating. Genuine collaboration involves a number of tasks beyond simply getting along and adding one part: giving ideas and feedback, creating content, debating the merits of an overall argument for the paper, writing and revising a particular section, researching information for that section, sharing one's writing by raising questions for peers about content and style, editing all parts of the document, taking a risk as a writer by sharing all of this publicly, and encouraging one's group members to engage in all these tasks.

Kittle and Hicks go on to argue that technology in fact offers some very useful tools that offer more flexibility and opportunity for genuine collaboration. the focus, then, of the second half of the article, is an exploration of several case studies that utilize two specific online collaborative tools: wikis and online word processors. Although the only online word processor they discuss is Google Docs, they examine mention several wiki options (Wikispaces, PB Wiki, Seedwiki) and offer a link to an online "Wiki Choice Matrix."

The project that Kittle and Hicks discuss all utilize one or both of these tools: they discuss using wikis for inquiry support, developing a collaborative study guide, and creating a Favorites list by using Google Docs (semi)synchronously. What I like about the article is its practicality. The concrete "case studies" offer realistic lesson ideas that can be easily modified and translated depending on the course's goals and content.

The cliffhanger, however, for this article is two-fold: the author close with an invitation to consider how issues of authorship should be addressed in this type of collaborative writing, and they also acknowledge that assessment issues will need to be addressed further. Certainly, these issues merit further attention, and I would argue that they bring us full circle to my review of the first article when I asserted that the lack of empirical studies in composition makes it difficult to ascertain the facts about how some of these ideas truly affect student's learning and creation of "good writing." I suppose, however, that such an argument should perhaps be held over for ENGL 840 Empirical Research Methods (Dr. Potts, here I come!). Overall, this article nicely rounds out the scope of the research I need to frame my project effectively, and several of their suggestions have become springboards for what I plan to put together for the teaching unit I'm designing.

Article Review #4: "Plagiarism, originality, assemblage"

 Johnson-Eilola, J., & Selber, S. A. (2007). Plagiarism, originality, assemblage. Computers and Composition, 24(4), 375-403.

Again, here's an ODU-proxy link to the article: Johnson-Eilola and Selber (2007)

Continuing to delve into the research I began last week with Howard’s interrogation of plagiarism and the author, I have chosen another article that deals with some of the intertextuality issues that cropped up in last’s week review. Although the article title, “Plagiarism, Originality, Assemblage” suggests a balanced discussion of three topics, Johnson-Eilola and Selber (2007) focus their energy on explaining and exploring assemblage, suggesting that our ideas about plagiarism and originality can be more honestly unpacked and redefined through a pedagogy of assemblage. They ask the reader to consider “what happens . . . if we tell our students that their goal is not to create a new, unique text but to filter and remix other texts in ways that solve concrete problems or enact real social action” (p. 380).

Johnson-Eilola and Selber offer the following definition of their key term: “assemblages are texts built primarily from existing texts in order to solve a written or communication problem in a new context” (p. 381). The three distinct components of this definition each ask scholars to consider new ways of thinking about the text, about plagiarism, and about what we value in writing:

“Built primarily from existing texts”

Assemblage, first and foremost, relies on the interplay of parts, and most often those parts come from texts that have already been written. Valuing this type of practice, then, calls to mind Foucault’s musings about the author function and asks us to consider the equation between authorship and ownership in the context of the trappings of particular social systems (namely, capitalism and patriarchy). Remixing and reassembling texts into a new text asks us to consider (even hope) that text will offer some insight that is greater than merely the sum of its parts.
  
“To solve a written or communication problem”
  
Remix, pastiche, collage, assemblage: whatever name we give it, the value of the text and what it can do outweighs any “right” the original author may claim (nevermind the issue of how in the world we decide what “original” means, or if it can mean anything at all). Johnson-Eilola and Selber insist that they hope “to change the goal of writing from performance to action or effect in context” (p. 380). Instead of asking our students to perform for us (to show us some authorial genius), we should encourage writing that does something.
  
“In a new context”
  
This section of the definition is perhaps the most exciting, because it considers that a new context may be just the permission we need to validatre remixing as good writing practice. I would suggest the the rise of new media, as much as it has raised the dander of a group that fears a new wave of plagiarism, has also allowed us to redefine our ideas about the author and the text and just why we feel the way we do when we hear the word “plagiarism.”

My only challenge to the authors, then, is one of balance: do we also have an obligation to show students what might be expected in terms of source usage in more traditionally-framed academic discourses? For example, our presentation of assemblage and the remix, however liberating, may be at odds with what is expected when a student is asked to write about the implications of the Monroe Doctrine in a history course or the possible complications of gastric bypass surgery in a nursing course. How, then, do we offer up assemblage as valid writing while still addressing institutional and sociopolitical concerns about copyright and authorship? I think the answer lies in presenting students with the continuum, with more performative models of authorship at one end and more action-oriented models at the other. This fits nicely with the project I’m developing for this class, which involves asking students to create two versions of the same document: a traditional, MLA-cited essay and a remixed, “assemblage” version. By presenting the two extremes side-by-side (and by asking students to create both types of writing on the same topic), I hope to get to the heart of many of these issues while still giving my students the practical knowledge they need to survive writing assignments in a variety of types of classes.

Scott Warnock's blog and company

I wanted to post this link to Warnock's blog because I think it relates to our discussion. I've been checking it for a while now, and I think it's fun to watch the different parts of his book come out in the posts. Anyway, here it is:

http://onlinewritingteacher.blogspot.com/

Also, I think it's curious that he is cofounder of the company (Subjective Metrics, Inc.) that developed WayPoint assessment management software (he mentions this in Chapter 10 when he is discussing peer review):

http://www.waypointoutcomes.com/

Article Review #3: "Understanding 'Internet Plagiarism'"

Blog #3:

Howard, R. M. (2007). Understanding “Internet plagiarism.” Computers and Composition, 24(1), 3-15.

Note: For my fellow 795/895 students, full-text of the article can be found at http://tinyurl.com/2479yd4 (this links to the journal through ODU Library's proxy, so you'll need your university email and UIN).

As I began to focus my collaboration unit for this course's final project, I realized that I wanted the "topic" to be something of practical use to the student. Coincidentally, around the same time this course started, I found myself embroiled in academic honesty disputes with a few of my online students. As I reflected on plagiarism (what it means to me, what I think it should mean to students, what it actually means to students), I realized that plagiarism could be both a topic for the unit and also a way to reinforce the very collaborative principles I have set out to endorse through this project. Thus, for this blog entry and the one that follows, I am surveying two pieces dealing with plagiarism, its forms, its implications, and (dare I say) its possibilities.

The first of these two articles, then, is Rebecca Howard Moore's "Understanding 'Internet Plagiarism'" (2007). Moore addresses the issue from the viewpoint of the instructor, but quite differently from the typical water-cooler gripes that we have all heard about the topic. In fact, Howard uses the article not only to question how we understand plagiarism, but further to call out those who would seek to convince the writing teacher that the Internet has somehow given rise to a plagiarism epidemic. Howard seeks to shape the discussion in such a way that it might help teachers better understand the Internet-author relationship. Implicit in her argument is the supposition that being so informed might enable teachers to better present that relationship to our students. Such a discussion would enable us to address issues of plagiarism and academic honesty in concrete, usable, non-accusatory terms.

As Howard surveys the various revolutions that have washed over writing and authorship (the printing press, the patronage system, the advent of popular literacy, the mass-marketing of texts), she situate new media as only the newest iteration of a long line of camps seeking to privilege authorship. In discussing, for example, the prominence of 19th century detractors of "mass literacy," Howard writes

John Trimbur (2000) noted that many members of the upper class regarded popular literacy with suspicion; it had the potential to fuel discontent and even revolution (p. 287). Many also feared that mass literacy would produce a market for texts that appealed to the masses’ sensibilities. Nathaniel Hawthorne fumed about the “scribbling women” whose shallow, sentimental works were gaining a larger audience than his. John Carey (1992) asserted that the intelligentsia responded by promoting the notion of “high” and “low” literacy.

Clearly, she argues, revolutions such as these will be met with fear, distrusts, and even contempt, so then it makes sense that this wave of hysteria regarding plagiarism would take hold just as new media threatens/promises to offer up the text to legions of new readers and authors.

Although I must say that the article takes a turn I had not anticipated, I find the arguments riveting, and I am truly excited about the prospect of folding this into my project and also into my overall philosophy of teaching. In my next blog (teaser) I will discuss an article that deals with assemblage and intertexuality, ideas that I think can empower both teachers and students to overcome what Howard calls "the specter of 'Internet plagiarism'." By opening up the dialogue about what it means to be an author and how the Internet might or might not change that role, I think we can allow our students power over their own writing and their notions of how best to interact with the writing of others.

Article Review #2: "Sharing Our Toys: Cooperative Learning versus Collaborative Learning"

Article #2:

Bruffee, K. A. (1995). Sharing Our Toys: Cooperative Learning versus Collaborative Learning. Change, 27(1), 12-18.

If, as Kevin mentioned in Monday's class, we can think of composition studies in camps, then some might argue that the director of Camp Collaboration is none other than Kenneth A. Bruffee. This article, "Sharing Our Toys: Cooperative Learning versus Collaborative Learning," piggybacks on many of Bruffee's earlier works, including such seminal works as his landmark 1984 essay "Collaborative Learning and the 'Conversation of Mankind'" and his 1985 textbook A Short Course in Writing. In his earlier works as well as in this article, Bruffee discusses the entry of students into the discourse of the academy, and he points out that teachers play a vital role in helping students navigate this transition. Although "Sharing Our Toys" is several years old, it addresses the main concern of my project: differentiating between collaborative and cooperative learning in the writing classroom.

At the heart of this article, as the name suggests, is Bruffee's attempt to parse out the differences between cooperative and collaborative learning. Although the two words both bring to mind the much-maligned notion of "group work," the differences between cooperating and collaborating reveal themselves when we consider the power relationships of the players in a given environment. Cooperative learning, which Bruffee argues dominates the landscape of primary and even some of secondary education, places the teacher in the position of power. This enables the students to learn to work with one another in a non-competitive environment, relying on the teacher as the leader and knowledge-maker. Collaborative learning, on the other hand, shifts the onus of power from the teacher to the learners, allowing (and often inviting) insecurity and sometimes conflict, but also providing an environment in which students seek and create knowledge themselves. This model, then, better serves to acculturate students to the discourse communities they seek to join in the academy. Bruffee points out, after all, that the university instructor should help students "cope interdependently with the challenges generated by and within this encompassing community of uncertainty, ambiguity, and doubt" (p. 16).

I am tailoring my project to an online first-year writing class for TCC, and these ideas certainly resonate with me as I consider how I will frame the assignments and discussions required for the unit. This article is especially applicable because of the preconceived notions that many of the students in such a class will likely bring with them. For many students, TCC's ENG 111 is their very first online class, not to mention often their very first college class period. This means that the notions they have about "group work" often stem from their experiences in their K-12 learning, experiences that, as Bruffee points out, may well have leaned more toward the cooperative model rather than the collaborative one that we seek to establish in the college writing classroom.

Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative Learning and the 'Conversation of Mankind'. College English, 46 (7), 635-52.

Bruffee, K. A. (1985). A Short Course in Writing. New York: Longman.

Article Review #1: "Decentered, Disconnected, and Digitized: The Importance of Shared Space"

Article #1:

Brunk-Chavez, B. and Miller, S. J. (2007). Decentered, Disconnected, and Digitized: The Importance of Shared Space. Kairos, 11(2). Retrieved from http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/11.2/index.html

I discovered "Decentered, Disconnected, and Digitized: The Importance of Shared Space" in a cursory search of back issues of the online journal Kairos, and the promise of the title coupled with the ingenuity of the web-text format piqued my curiosity. This study looked at six courses using online writing instruction; half were f2f in a wired lab, and the other half were hybrid courses. Data was collected through teacher observation and through two student surveys administered online.

The authors are quick to situate themselves in the discourse of collaborative pedagogy. Citing standards like Kenneth Bruffee, Kathleen Blake Yancey, and Lester Faigley*, they quickly establish the terms for their model of collaboration (and remind the reader of the distinction between collaboration and cooperation). The authors also engage more current scholarship about online writing instruction (Hewett and Ehmann, 2005; Paloff and Pratt, 2001 and 2005*). The authors, then, reflect upon their findings in the context of both collaborative pedagogy in general and also more recent pedagogy about writing in digital spaces.

Two of their conclusions struck me as quite salient. First, they note their own surprise at the students' opinions of and reactions to the notion of collaboration:

Oddly (for us at least), we found that our students clearly desired working in groups and collaborative environments, and generally preferred doing so in many cases. Why then didn’t more of the instructors participating in the study incorporate more collaborative learning activities within their courses?

Brunk-Chavez and Miller quickly attempt to answer their own question here with the hypothesis that the responsibility may lie with the instructors, and this seems of particular interest when we consider the power differential and our own assumptions about students' preferences. For a long time, we as instructors have projected on to our student the opinion that group work is somehow undesirable. My hunch has always been that even though students sometimes bemoan "group work," many of them realize that they reap the benefits of the social interaction and the construction of knowledge that collaboration allows.

Second, Brunk-Chavez and Miller make the assertion early on that "a digitized classroom creates and maintains shared spaces in ways that a f2f classroom cannot." Although verifying just how (and how much) this statement holds true would certainly be a herculean task, the rewards of such labor would be immeasurable. Thus, this contention merits further attention and discussion, and I hope that future researchers will continue to explore the benefits, limitations, and implications of space in OWI.

Unfortunately, the study itself proved fairly inadequate, and I must admit to being somewhat disappointed in the methodology and the conclusions the study offers. For reasons not fully explained by the authors, only 57 of the study's 150 participants answered the first survey, but then 117 of the participants responded to the second survey. As the authors point out, this prevents them from being able to draw conclusions about change over time or to make connections even about general student perception (after all, it is impossible to determine the overlap between the first group of 57 and the second group of 117).

This leads me to what is perhaps my most pressing question: is there reliable empirical evidence about collaboration in teaching writing at a distance? Many articles have bemoaned the lack of actual empirical studies as the basis for sound pedagogy, and even Brunk-Chavez and Miller themselves make mention of Hewett and Ehmann's admonition of "the relatively low value given to proving claims made for social constructivism" in OWI (2005). I hope that a deeper survey of the literature will lead me to the kinds of research that raise the bar for what empirical data for composition studies should look like.

*I have noted the following works that were cited in the Brunk-Chavez and Miller web-text; their complete Works Cited list is available through their web-text:

Bruffee, K. (1999). Collaborative learning: Higher education, interdependence, and the authority of knowledge. (2nd ed.) Baltimore: Johns Hopkins.

Faigley, L. (1992). Fragments of rationality: Postmodernity and the subject of composition. Pittsburg: University of Pittsburg Press.

Hewett, B., & Ehmann, C. (2005). Preparing educators for online writing instruction: Principles and process. Urbana: NCTE.

Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2001). Lessons from the cyberspace classroom: The realities of online teaching. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Palloff, R., & Pratt, K. (2005). Collaborating online: Learning together in community. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Yancey, K. B. & Spooner, M. (1998). A single good mind: collaboration, cooperation, and the writing self. College Composition and Communication, 49(1), 45-62.

An introduction

Hi everybody,

I obviously haven't posted any of my reviews yet, but I thought perhaps an introductory post would be a good placeholder.

I've been teaching writing since 2006 at lots of different types of colleges and universities (I even tutored online for a while). This is my first class toward my PhD (I'm also taking the WPA class later this summer). I was originally admitted for fall, and I will be full-time. Instead of teaching for my assistantship, I will be the Assistant Director of Writing Programs alongside Matt Oliver, so I'm sure I will be working closely with any of you who are teaching here in the fall.

I've lived here in Norfolk for about a year now with my husband Wayne and our two boys, Josh (almost 8) and Ben (3 and a half). Wayne is a "cyber" officer in the Air Force (which I think makes him sound a little like Robocop), and we have moved about every three years since we got married eleven years ago. We are moving over to a house on Brunswick Avenue as we speak, which is literally around the corner from the ODU campus.

I'm already really enjoying being back in class as a student, and I hope I will be able to get to know many of you as the class progresses. I've posted some of my favorite related links here on my blog too just to share, and I hope that they will be of some use. I'm looking forward to working with all of you.

Cheers,
Danielle