About the AuthorsSarah Lonelodge is a PhD candidate in the Rhetoric and Writing Studies program at Oklahoma State University. She also serves as an assistant director of the first-year composition program and as president of OSU’s chapter of the Rhetoric Society of America. Her research interests include composition pedagogy and religious rhetoric. Katie Rieger is a PhD candidate at Oklahoma State University in the Rhetoric and Writing Studies program and is an Assistant Professor of English at Benedictine College. Her research interests include student-centered pedagogy; educational technology for distance learning; writing center studies; and the intersection of intercultural communication and technical writing pedagogy. ContentsIntroduction and Literature Review Research Design and Methodology |
ReferencesAblin, L. (2008). Student perceptions of the benefits of a learner-based writing assignment in organic chemistry. Journal of Chemical Education, 85(2), 237. https://doi.org/10.1021/ed085p237 Bean, J. C. (2011). Engaging ideas: The professor’s guide to integrating writing, critical thinking, and active learning in the classroom (2nd ed.). John Wiley & Sons. Beason, L. (1993). Feedback and revision in writing across the curriculum classes. Research in the Teaching of English, 27(4), 395-422. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171241 Birks, M., & Mills, J. (2015). Grounded theory: A practical guide. SAGE. Broad, R. (2003). What we really value: Beyond rubrics in teaching and assessing writing. Utah State University Press. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. SAGE. Chen, X., Vorvoreanu, K., & Madhavan, K. (2014). Mining social media data for understanding students’ learning experiences. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies, 7(3), 246-259. 10.1109/TLT.2013.2296520 Chiseri-Strater, E. (1993). Evaluation as Acts of Reading, Response, and Reflection. In T. Newkirk (Ed.) Nuts and bolts: A practical guide to teaching college composition. Boynton/Cook. Clark, I. L. (2003). Concepts in composition: Theory and practice in the teaching of writing. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Cohen, L., Manion, L., & Morrison, K. (2011). Research methods in education (7th ed.). Routledge. Davis, L., & Yin, L. (2013). Teaching writing with Twitter: An exploration of social media use in enhancing business communication skills. The Journal of Research in Business Education, 55(1), 36-52. Dietz-Uhler, B., & Hurn, J. E. (2013). Using learning analytics to predict (and improve) student success: A faculty perspective. Journal of Interactive Online Learning, 12(1), 17–26. Fiesler, C., & Proferes, N. (2018, Jan-Mar). “Participant” perceptions of Twitter research ethics. Social Media + Society, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118763366 Gere, A. R. Swofford, S. C., Silver, N., & Pugh, M. (2015). Interrogating disciplines/disciplinarity in WAC/WID: An institutional study. College Composition and Communication, 67, 243-266. https://www.jstor.org/stable/24633857 Glaser, B., & Strauss, A. (1999). The discovery of grounded theory. New York: Routledge. Hass. M. & Osborn, J. (2007). An emic view of student writing and the writing process. Across the Disciplines, 4, 1-13. https://wac.colostate.edu/atd/articles/hass_osborn2007.cfm Haswell, R., & McLeod, S. (1997). WAC assessment and internal audiences: A dialogue. In K.Yancey & B. Huot (Eds), Assessing writing across the curriculum: Diverse approaches and practices (pp. 217-36). Ablex. Hibbin, R. A., Samuel, G., & Derrick, G. E. (2018). From “a fair game” to “a form of covert research”: Committee members’ differing notions of consent and potential risk to participants within social media research. Journal of Empirical Research on Human Research Ethics, 13(2), 1-11. 10.1177/1556264617751510 International Network of WAC Programs. (2014). Statement of WAC principles and practices [Policy statement]. https://wac.colostate.edu/docs/principles/statement.pdf Johnson, K. (2011). The effect of “Twitter” posts on students’ perceptions of instructor credibility. Learning, Media, and Technology, 36(1), 21-38. https://doi.org/10.1080/17439884.2010.534798 Kopelson, K. (2003). Rhetoric on the edge of cunning; or, the performance of neutrality (re)considered as a composition pedagogy for student resistance. College Composition and Communication, 55(1), 115-146. https://www.jstor.org/stable/3594203 Leggette, H., & Homeyer, M. (2015). Understanding students’ experiences in writing-intensive courses. NACTA Journal, 59(2), 116-121. https://www.jstor.org/stable/nactajournal.59.2.116 Lomicka, L., & Lord, G. (2012). A tale of tweets: analyzing microblogging among language learners. System, 40(1), 48-63. ps://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2011.11.001 Luna, N., Horton, E.G., & Galin, J. (2014). The effectiveness of writing across the curriculum in a baccalaureate social work program: Students’ perceptions. Advances in Social Work, 15(2), 390-408. https://doi.org/10.18060/15692 Malady, M. J. X. (2013, Oct 10). We are teaching high school students to write terribly: The many problem’s of the SAT’s essay section. Slate. https://slate.com/human-interest/2013/10/sat-essay-section-problems-with-grading-instruction-and-prompts.html McKee, H., & Porter, J. (2008). The ethics of digital writing research: A rhetorical approach. College Composition and Communication, 59, 711-749. www.jstor.org/stable/20457031 McLeod, S., & Maimon, E. (2000). Clearing the air: WAC myths and realities. College English, 62(5), 573-583. https://www.jstor.org/stable/378962 Patil, S., & Kulkarni, S. (2018). Mining social media data for understanding students’ learning experiences using Memetic algorithm. Materials Today: Proceedings, 6(1), 693-699. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matpr.2017.11.135 Park, S. W. (2013). The potential of web 2.0 tools to promote reading engagement in general education course. Tech Trends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, 57, 46-53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-013-0645-1 Perun, S. (2015). “What the hell is revise?”: A qualitative study of student approaches to coursework in developmental English at one urban-serving community college. Community College Review, 43(3), 245-263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091552115580593 Russell, D. (1999). Activity theory and process approaches: Writing (power) in school and society. In T. Kent (Ed.), Post-process theory: Beyond the writing-process paradigm (pp. 80–95). Southern Illinois University Press. Shen, C.W., & Kuo, C.J. (2015). Learning in massive open online courses: Evidence from social media mining. Computers in Human Behavior, 51(Part B), 568-577. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2015.02.066 Stock, P. L. (1986). Writing across the curriculum. Theory into Practice, 25(2), 97-101. https://doi.org/10.1080/00405848609543207 Thaiss, C., & Zawacki, T.M. (1997). How portfolios for proficiency help shape a WAC program. In K. Yancey & B. Huot (Eds), Assessing writing across the curriculum: Diverse approaches and practices (pp. 79- 97). Ablex. Trimbur, J. (1994). Taking the social turn: teaching writing post-process. College Composition and Communication, 45(1), 108-118. https://www.jstor.org/stable/358592 Zemliansky, P., & Berry, L. (2017). A writing-across-the-curriculum faculty development program: An experience report. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 60(3), 306-316. 10.1109/TPC.2017.2702041 Zimmer, M. (2010). “But the data is already public”: on the ethics of research in Facebook. Ethics and Information Technology, 12, 313-325. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-010-9227-5 |
Download PDF