Literature+Review


 * Literature Review**

Technology is present and not ceasing anytime soon – with hope such technology will help increase student learning and more specifically student writing. Dixon, Cassady, Crossm, and Williams (2005) pointed out that many “technology-fluent students carry their laptops to class to facilitate note taking and to add reflections during class in the most efficient manner they can manage” (p. 180). With this in mind, the researchers pondered the true “critical thinking” value of technology. More specifically the researchers “consider[ed] whether ready access to computers actually enhances critical thinking or whether it merely provides students with a tool that helps them finish tasks in a more acceptable, finished form without additional editing and revision” (p. 180). It is not that technology is inaccessible but that many educators have difficulty getting to the root of the education problem in relation to student writing.

As Marcoux and Loertscher (2009) explained since the introduction of technology in relation to learning “billons of dollars have been spent chasing a dream about the effect of technology on teaching learning” and yet no clear results have been discovered (p. 14). Even more elusive is the fact that many applications made to enhance learning often have the opposite affect – the researchers further explained, “we are entertained and dazzled by endless gizmos, a new tool or toy, and neat new discoveries” but often left “with an overwhelming feeling of confusion and inadequacy” (p. 14). Web 2.0 applications become more of a bandage than a cure – a way to cover up the problem than to fix the problem. The educator must find the root of the problem or as the researchers explained, the educator must “become the doctor, not the pharmacist” by utilizing best practices to achieve one’s goals (p.15).

In the article “Emerging technologies in higher education: A case of incorporating blogs, podcasts and social bookmarks in a web programming course based on student’s learning styles and technology preferences” Saeed, Yang, and Sinnappan (2009) argued that in order to utilize technology one must first look at student learning styles. The researchers stated, “students’ learning styles influence their preferences for using technology and that the use of appropriate technology positively influence their academic performance” (p. 100). With this said, the researchers explained that many educators do not have a clear understanding of student learning styles and that the success of the Web 2.0 applications in use correlates with “students’ acceptance and use of these technologies” (p. 98).The researchers concluded “that today’s learners are flexible in stretching their learning styles and are able to accommodate varying instructional strategies including the use of emerging web technologies. They further suggest that learning styles of today’s learners are flexible enough to experience varying technologies and their technology preferences are not limited to a particular tool” (P. 106).

Clark and Dugdale (2009) in the article “Young people’s writing: Attitudes, behaviour and the role of technology” also looked beyond the tools and more towards student attitudes. The researchers argued that because of the “Lack of research looking at how much young people write, the different forms of writing that they engage in and their confidence in using these different forms of writing… little is known about young people’s views about writing in the UK” (p. 4). The researchers - in order to come to an understanding of the decline and/or stalling of writing scores since 2006 – created a survey looking at the cultural change of writing and students’ attitude towards such writing. They used a survey specifically “to explore how much young people enjoy writing, what type of writing they engage in, how good at writing they think they are and what they think about writing” (p. 4). In doing this the researchers used an online survey with “3001 pupils aged 8-16 from England and Scotland” and compiled the surveys and came to the following conclusions: that young folk do not think about writing in terms of enjoyment; that most were engaged in technology based writing; that non-technological writing dealt with homework, notes for class, et cetera; and that most saw the writing profession “in a favorable light” (p. 33).

How can one get students to enjoy writing and thus take ownership? In the article “Gaga for Google in the twenty-first century Advanced Placement Language classroom” Adams (2008) stated the problem as a “struggle to discover ways to adapt and develop curriculum to meet the needs of my twenty-first-century N-Gen students” (p. 96). Many educators have turned to Web 2.0 applications without a true understanding of what Web 2.0 embodies. The researcher described Web 2.0 as a “paradigm shift” form unidirectional model to that of a bidirectional model “that promotes and encourages communication and interaction through user-generated content (p.96). The researcher also pointed out that in order for such applications to work “educators need to incorporate tech literacy not only I vertical learning scenarios but also through interdisciplinary and district-wide workshops” (p. 99).

Lawrence, McNeal, and Yildiz (2009) believed the answer involved the incorporation of Web 2.0 applications and in turn “sought to build upon students’ interest in popular culture with traditional academic tasks such as reading, writing, and conducting research to bridge the gap between adolescents’’ in-school and out-of-school practices” (p. 484). The researchers argued students could then make “connections between reading, writing, and technology” (p. 484). The researchers hoped that such a connection could be used and profited by – for lack of a better word – by educators in the classroom and further believed that “teachers can tap into [technologically literate students] as a resource in the classroom” (p. 492).

What is the first step in tapping into these students and thus creating ownership with one’s writing? Many researchers believe collaboration is the key. In the article “Technology review: Teaching writing for the workplace? Try a Wiki.” Harris (2009) reminded educators of the importance of collaborative writing. The author stated, “The exercises and assignments in many college writing classes, however, give students very little practice in collaboration, a very important activity” (p. 111). Why is this? The researcher continued by explaining that group dynamics often divides students’ time into “figuring out how to work together” or “actually [working] to complete the task” (p. 111). It is here that wikis come into play. The researcher explained that wikis are key fostering “rapid collaboration with a minimum learning curve” (p. 111). What better way to enhance student learning and effectively teaching collaboration. The researcher explained that using a wiki allows the instructor to create templates, sort students, et cetera and concluded, “Having students write in teams is excellent preparation for the writing they will do in the workplace” (p. 112).

In the article “A wiki for classroom writing” Morgan and Smith (2008) explained the purpose and workings of the wiki. The researchers reiterated the fact that with a wiki “Students work together to compose a single, collaboratively authored document, or they help each other with their own individual documents” (p. 80). This does not limit the participation of the instructor but more or less allows the instructor choice in how one would participate. The researchers further explained the instructor could easy choose between participating as “collaborator, guide, editor, or site administrator“ (p. 80). They also listed several guides or hints to help future instructors set up a classroom wiki of his or her own. These included: “Teachers should remember that wikis are nearly bulletproof; wikis are structured as a group of linked pages, so create a playground page where you and your students can experiment with the wiki; explore other wikis; plan the structure of your wiki; remember that the core principle of wikis is collaboration” (p. 82).

Beyond Wikis, one could also use Blogs to reinforce collaboration within student writing. In the article “’That’s online writing, not boring school writing’: Writing with blogs and the Talkback Project” Witte (2007) argued that “By combining writing with online technology, teachers can provide opportunities for students and future educators to develop their digital fluency while also strengthening their traditional literacy skills” (p. 92). Although the concept worked in other educational environments, the researcher wondered “How [he along with his collogues] could build upon the success of [Indiana University’s two-way journal collaboration with a local middle school] and integrate the technology that was available to us through our work with our local writing project site…” (p. 93). The researcher reiterated the fact that schools must continue to use technology to exchange information while continuing to adhere to safety and legal issues.

In the article “Technologies for transcending a focus on error: Blogs and democratic aspirations in first-year composition” Smith (2008) also argued that Web 2.0 applications – especially Blogs – can be used to increase “opportunities for student-driven expression, facilitate and energize the processes of collective brainstorming and peer review, stimulate creativity and class community, and supplement more traditional platforms for writ­ing without supplanting or detracting from them” thus allowing students to take risks (p. 37). Unfortunately, as the researcher explained, “Before [students] even think about striking out for new ideas, taking risks, and producing less-than-perfect first drafts in order to find unexpected, richer arguments, they tend to revert to what they know: that overly simple summary, for example” (p.39). This makes it difficult for teachers of writing to facilitate a class that uses “error as a tool for helping students come to terms with its role in writing and learning” (p. 37). In order to prove that Blogs are essential to this process, Smith (2008) used examples of student writing and student personal reflections to correlate the effective aspects of Blogging on risk taking.

Although positive in theory and practice – the effect Web 2.0 applications have on learning, collaboration, and such – the majority of the research overlooked the negatives that might occur with the use of technology in writing. Lanier (2010), in his book //You Are Not a Gadget: A Manifesto//, approaches such issues. One such issue, a mob mentality created by anonymous collaboration. This mob mentality Lanier speaks of is often seen in the world of education. As the rise of Web 2.0 technologies enter the education lexicon and become talking points, hip words of educational youth, the beginning – and according to Lanier – and ultimately the end of innovation in our youth will the cosmic educational machine revamp itself from one evil – the present institutional structure of education – to that of an “open Culture”? Lanier explains that when one gives technological “bits” life – when one willing hands over the reins of the human condition allowing technology to make human decisions – whether it be friend suggestions, dating choices, et cetera – based upon data that boxes in humanity, flattens. Ultimately, one loses the individuality, imperfections, and creativity that remove the user from the “bits” – numbers, on and off switches – of the emerging technology. If this is the case, where does it leave us?

For the most part I learned the ins and outs of many of the Web 2.0 applications educators most widely use in their classrooms. Many of the articles were very informative in how Web 2.0 applications promote collaboration skills that are often overlooked in schools but required in the corporate world. I do feel that some objective research looking at the cons of the Web 2.0 environment is in dire need. I also feel that one should begin to look beyond how Web 2.0 applications improve students’ confidence in writing and if such applications truly improve writing. For this objective data is in need.