How Asynchronous Digital Collaboration Afforded a Complex Reading/Writing Dialogue f

142 Pages·2017·1.67 MB·English

OOlldd DDoommiinniioonn UUnniivveerrssiittyy
OODDUU DDiiggiittaall CCoommmmoonnss
English Theses & Dissertations English
Spring 2016
LLeevveerraaggiinngg DDiiggiittaall CCoommmmuunniittiieess ooff PPrraaccttiiccee:: HHooww AAssyynncchhrroonnoouuss
DDiiggiittaall CCoollllaabboorraattiioonn AAffffoorrddeedd aa CCoommpplleexx RReeaaddiinngg//WWrriittiinngg
DDiiaalloogguuee ffoorr SSeeccoonnddaarryy SScchhooooll SSttuuddeennttss
Susanne Lee Nobles
Old Dominion University, [email protected]
Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/english_etds
Part of the Online and Distance Education Commons, and the Rhetoric Commons
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Nobles, Susanne L.. "Leveraging Digital Communities of Practice: How Asynchronous Digital
Collaboration Afforded a Complex Reading/Writing Dialogue for Secondary School Students" (2016).
Doctor of Philosophy (PhD), Dissertation, English, Old Dominion University, DOI: 10.25777/8cqe-0z72
https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/english_etds/11
This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the English at ODU Digital Commons. It has been
accepted for inclusion in English Theses & Dissertations by an authorized administrator of ODU Digital Commons.
For more information, please contact [email protected].
LEVERAGING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE:
HOW ASYNCHRONOUS DIGITAL COLLABORATION AFFORDED A COMPLEX READING/WRITING DIALOGUE
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS
by
Susanne Lee Nobles
A.B. May 1993, Duke University
M.Ed. May 1999, Virginia Commonwealth University

A Dissertation Submitted to the Faculty of
Old Dominion University in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

ENGLISH

OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY
May 2016

Approved by:

Louise Wetherbee Phelps (Director)

Kevin DePew (Member)

Michelle Fowler-Amato (Member)

Katie Dredger (Member)
ABSTRACT

LEVERAGING DIGITAL COMMUNITIES OF PRACTICE:
HOW ASYNCHRONOUS DIGITAL COLLABORATION AFFORDED A COMPLEX READING/WRITING DIALOGUE
FOR SECONDARY SCHOOL STUDENTS

Susanne Lee Nobles
Old Dominion University, 2016
Director: Dr. Louise Wetherbee Phelps

This dissertation examines a case study of a research unit taught to secondary school students
with the inclusion of an asynchronous digital collaboration with college students. Over consecutive
school years, two classes of high school seniors and two classes of college students, despite being
geographically separated by more than 90 miles, worked together in multiple reading and writing
exchanges within an online community as they read a primary text and as the secondary school students
wrote research papers. This study seeks to understand the effects of this unit on the secondary school
students’ thinking, reading, and writing skills, focusing specifically on the inclusion of an authentic,
responsive audience and the affordances of pedagogically-driven technology integration in the
classroom.
iii

Copyright, 2016, Susanne Lee Nobles, All Rights Reserved.
iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, I would like to express my admiration of and appreciation for my students for their hard
work and openness to new ways of learning. Because of them, I was able to explore and grow as a
teacher. Right behind my students was my administration, and I want to thank my Head of School and
Head of Upper School for always believing in my work. They trusted me enough to let me experiment
(and completed many IRB forms without complaint!).
Next, I would like to thank my committee. Kevin DePew is the definition of flexibility and support,
and these were critical to me as my committee make-up changed. Thank you, Kevin, for always saying
things would be okay—and for taking one of the newly-opened spots on my committee. Michelle
Fowler-Amato has been an invaluable resource on how my work fits into the field of secondary
education, as well as a critical early reader. Thank you, Michelle—your support kept me believing in the
value of my work. I want to give special thanks to Katie Dredger. Katie keeps me growing and learning,
and in our work together, she has become a dear friend. Thank you, Katie, for our many years of digital
collaboration and F2F friendship, and here’s to many more. Finally, I cannot capture the thanks I owe my
chair, Louise Wetherbee Phelps. Louise has challenged and supported me as a thinker since I first met
her at SDI in 2011—she is my boundary broker. Only through her patient, insightful reading of many
drafts and her hours dedicated to helping me conceptualize my work is my dissertation what it is today.
Thank you from the bottom of my heart, Louise, for giving me so much of your care and support. No
matter what was happening in your life, you always had time to give to me.
I also want to thank my fellow student and good friend, Laura Paganucci, for the many texts,
lunches, emails, glasses of wine, and editing support we shared through our parallel dissertation
journeys. I cannot wait to walk in graduation together.
Finally, I want to thank my family. My parents funded my coursework—their unwavering belief in
and support of education and of me is why I am receiving this degree. Thank you for 45 years of
constant love and support. To my children, Sabina and Caleb—thank you for your constant enthusiasm
for my work, even when it took me away from you. You both approach each day with such amazing
energy and excitement—you are my role models. Finally, to my husband, Kevin—thank you for every
day. You told me I could do it, and you made sure to smooth the way in our lives for that to be a reality. I
promise, no more degrees.
v

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................................................vii

LIST OF FIGURES………………………………………………………………………………………………..………………………………… viii

Chapter
1. INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................. 1
SETTING AND BACKGROUND....................................................................................................... 1
THE INITIAL PROBLEM ................................................................................................................. 2
TEACHING COMPOSITION IN THE SECONDARY AND COLLEGE CLASSROOM................................. 3
THE STUDY .................................................................................................................................. 6
RESEARCH QUESTIONS AND ORGANIZATION............................................................................... 7

2. METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................................................... 10
INTIAL METHODOLOGY: ACTION RESEARCH .............................................................................. 10
SETTING OF STUDY.................................................................................................................... 11
OBJECT OF STUDY: THE REDESIGNED UNIT ................................................................................ 12
DESIGNING THE FORMAL STUDY AND THE RESEARCH QUESTIONS ............................................ 20
CASE STUDY METHODS ............................................................................................................. 22
PARTICIPANT SELECTION ........................................................................................................... 27
DATA COLLECTION AND INTERVIEW PROTOCOLS ...................................................................... 28
DATA ANALYSIS ......................................................................................................................... 31
STRUCTURE OF FINDINGS.......................................................................................................... 37

3. DEVELOPMENT OF STUDENTS' THINKING SKILLS AND REFLEXIVITY ................................................... 39
CHANGES IN STUDENT PERCEPTION .......................................................................................... 40
THE FOUNDATION OF STUDENTS' CHANGE: THINKING AND REFLEXIVITY .................................. 45
OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................................... 53
DEFINING FEATURES OF THE REDESIGNED UNIT........................................................................ 54

4. AUDIENCE, COLLABORATION, AND LAYERS OF READING: COMPLEXITY THROUGH INTEGRATION ..... 56
CORE FEATURE #1: AUDIENCE ................................................................................................... 57
CORE FEATURE #2: COLLABORATION ........................................................................................ 60
CORE FEATURE #3: LAYERS OF READING ................................................................................... 69
OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS ........................................................................................................... 81

5. EXPANDED SPACE AND TIME AND READING/WRITING INTEGRATION: DIGITAL AFFORDANCES
ALLOWING FOR DEEPER LEARNING .................................................................................................. 83
CORE FEATURE #4: EXPANDED SPACE AND TIME....................................................................... 84
CORE FEATURE #5: READING/WRITING INTEGRATION............................................................... 93
OVERVIEW OF FINDINGS ......................................................................................................... 105
vi

Chapter Page
6. CONCLUSION: TOWARDS A NEW DIGITAL COMPOSITION PEDAGOGY............................................. 107
ESSENTIAL FEATURES OF A DIGITAL COMPOSITION PEDAGOGY .............................................. 108
AREAS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH ............................................................................................... 114
FINAL THOUGHTS.................................................................................................................... 117

REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 118

APPENDICES
A. STUDENT NOTIFICATION FORMS....................................................................................... 126
B. INTERVIEW QUESTIONS .................................................................................................... 128

VITA .................................................................................................................................................... 133
vii

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page
1. Chronology and participants of data sets......................................................................................... 29
2. Reading phases of the layered coding process ................................................................................. 32
3. Categories from the first reading of student pre-interviews ............................................................ 33
4. Coding of the student post-interviews and end-of-unit reflections .................................................. 34
5. Final codes ...................................................................................................................................... 37
6. Word clusters used to identify the final codes ................................................................................. 46
viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page
1. Character card template.................................................................................................................. 15
2. Digital character forum excerpt ....................................................................................................... 17
3. Moffett's discourse theory .............................................................................................................. 62
4. Moffett's discourse theory .............................................................................................................. 87
5. Time in digital discourse .................................................................................................................. 91
6. The writing process ....................................................................................................................... 108
7. Moffett's discourse theory ............................................................................................................ 109
8. A nascent digital composition pedagogy ........................................................................................ 110
1

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

This dissertation reports on a study of a research paper unit during which seniors at an
independent high school engaged in an asynchronous digital dialogue with an audience of college
students. Throughout this digital collaboration, the students worked with each other and the college
students in multiple reading and writing exchanges within an online community, as the secondary school
and college students read and analyzed the primary literary text of Othello and as the secondary school
students wrote research papers. This study seeks to understand the effects of this unit on the secondary
school students’ thinking, reading, and writing skills, focusing specifically on the inclusion of an
authentic, responsive audience and the affordances of pedagogically-driven technology integration in
the classroom.
This study developed in several stages. First, I was the teacher of the original research paper unit
for eight years, from 2001 to 2008. In 2009, I redesigned the unit to include an authentic audience
through the affordances of a digital collaboration tool, as I sought to help the secondary school students
understand that, while they had strong reading and writing skills, they still had and would always have
more to learn about writing (Adler-Kassner & Wardle, 2015). After perceiving significant growth in the
students who participated in this redesigned unit, I began an action research study. As a teacher-
researcher, I observed these perceived changes in the students over the next four years that I refined
and taught the redesigned unit. Finally I formalized this study in 2014 into a two-part case study in order
to document and analyze the effects of the redesigned unit on the secondary school students as
thinkers, readers, and writers. This dissertation reports on the findings from this two-part case study.

SETTING AND BACKGROUND
This study is set at Franklin Academy1, an independent school whose mission is to provide “a
rigorous, college-preparatory education in a nurturing environment that challenges each student to
achieve academic excellence, to think critically and independently, to communicate effectively, and to
act honorably” (Institutional Website, 2015). As a subset of the school’s mission, the Franklin Academy
English department’s mission (2011) defines the thinking and communication skills the department

1 All names of institutions and people are pseudonyms to protect the identity of the participants in adherence to
the IRB protocols described in Chapter Two.