ReMEDIAting College Writing

• In Event: 42.082 - Reimagining Online: Fostering Inclusivity, Engagement, and Participation in a Digital Age

Abstract

1. Objectives and Theoretical Framework
Over the last decade, many college campuses have looked to revamp their courses to make them more "innovative" or "relevant" for 21st Century learning (c.f. Allen, & Seaman, 2013; Roksa & Arum, 2011). Some have taken the form of Massively Open Online Courses, or MOOCs, while others have opted for a "hybrid" course structure. In many instances, the aim was to broaden the access of these courses to a wider and more diverse range of students (Cruz, 2012; Scida & Saury, 2012). Such was the case for MOOCs, whose purported goal was to make higher education accessible for everyone (Lewin, 2013; Lohr, 2013; Scott, 2013); since MOOCs were often free to take, anyone with a laptop and Internet access would have access. Yet many MOOCs, and other attempts at restructuring online courses fell flat on these promises, in part because of deficits in their pedagogical vision and instructional design (Cruz, 2012).
To date, we have taken a measured stance on claims for technology to become a great leveler, particularly across college campuses (author, 2014). The goal of this exploratory study was to look at points of equality and access in introductory college writing program that relied heavily on online and digital forum and included the following research questions:
What ways do technologically-mediated classrooms offer opportunities for students with different skillsets to engage and perform writing?
What supports—social, technical, and institutional—are needed to incorporate new tools for writing and conceptions of writing into the college classroom?

2. Methods: Study participants included undergraduate students and one course instructor from a large university in northern California. Students were part of the reading and composition program, and were considered “low performing” according to their early entrance exam scores. Over twenty hours of observations and semi-structured interviews were collected over a three-month period. Data were then analyzed and triangulated in the following ways: (1) open-ended and focused thematic coding of observations (Dyson & Genishi, 2005); (2) formal interviews analyzed using open-ended and focused thematic coding; (3) key events (Fetterman, 1989) identified through the analysis of user contributions; and (4) discourse analysis tools (Gee, 2003) to determine how participants engaged with others using multimodal tools.

3. Findings: Findings suggest that students displayed a higher level of critical analyses after engaging with a variety of digital and online composing tools over the three-month period. Crucial to students’ performance was the heavy reliance on peer-to-peer and online feedback -- students who spent more time reading and reviewing their and other’s web pages showed deeper levels of analysis in their work. Further, data revealed that students benefited from the multimodal affordances of the digital composing system that allowed them greater opportunities to express themselves through their analytical writing.

4. Significance: This work seeks to contribute new knowledge about the field college writing in underrepresented student groups within technologically-mediated learning environments. The research documents how students’ compositions and interactions can be supported with digital tools and designed environments to support critical thinking.

Author

• Jennifer K. Dizio, University of California - Berkeley