Synchronous Collaborative Writing Among Linguistically Diverse Students
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, IRVINE Digital Literacy in Academic Settings: Synchronous Collaborative Writing among Linguistically Diverse Students DISSERTATION submitted in partial satisfaction of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in Education by Soobin Yim Dissertation Committee: Professor Mark Warschauer, Chair Professor Carol Booth Olson Assistant Professor Joshua Fahey Lawrence 2017 © 2017 Soobin Yim DEDICATION To Gloria (은빈) and Elin (은설), my two beautiful daughters I feel so blessed to celebrate the closing of this journey with my two daughters: Gloria— whom I was pregnant with when I began my graduate journey in Boston, and who has been my biggest cheerleader ever since, and Elin—who was born during my dissertation writing and made my defense and commencement all the more special by being the youngest audience. ! ii ! TABLE OF CONTENTS Page LIST OF FIGURES v LIST OF TABLES vii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS viii CURRICULUM VITAE ix ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION xiii CHAPTER 1: Introduction 1 CHAPTER 2: Conceptual Framework 5 Sociocultural Theories of Learning 5 Communities of Practice (CoP) 7 CHAPTER 3: Literature Review 10 Collaborative Writing Practices 10 Collaborative Writing Outcomes 13 Collaborative Writing Perceptions 20 Factors Shaping Technology-based Collaborative Writing 22 CHAPTER 4: Methods 29 Study Contexts 29 Data Collection 34 Data Analysis 37 CHAPTER 5: Results for RQ 1: Collaborative Writing Practices 53 Variations across Ability Grouping Status 54 Variations across Task Types 57 CHAPTER 6: Results for RQ 2: Collaborative Writing Patterns and Strategies 64 Pattern 1: Collectively contributing/mutually supportive 71 Pattern 2: Expert/novice 75 Pattern 3: Authoritarian/passive 86 Pattern 4: Reluctant/withdrawn 102 CHAPTER 7: Results for RQ 3: Textual Outcomes of Collaborative Writing 112 Narrative Task 114 Argumentative Task 115 Informative Task 116 !iii ! CHAPTER 8: Results for RQ 4: Phases of Building Communities of Practice 125 Initial Phase 128 Conflict Phase 132 Intimacy and Work Phase 139 Termination Phase 150 CHAPTER 9: Results for RQ 5: Perceptions of Synchronous Collaborative Writing 162 Perceived Affordances of Synchronous Collaborative Writing 162 Perceived Challenges of Synchronous Collaborative Writing 182 Contextual Factors Shaping the Implementation 189 CHAPTER 10: Discussion and Conclusion 200 Theoretical Implications 200 Pedagogical Implications 208 Methodological Implications 221 Limitations and Directions for Future Studies 223 REFERENCES APPENDIX A: Individual Student Interview Protocols APPENDIX B: Focus Group Interview Protocols APPENDIX C: Teacher Interview Protocols APPENDIX D: Sample of a Group Text APPENDIX E: Pre-study Background Survey APPENDIX F: Post-study Survey APPENDIX G: Observation Protocol APPENDIX H: Sample of Students’ Post-study Reflection APPENDIX I: Sample of Peer Evaluation on Collaboration Skills APPENDIX J: Analytic scoring Rubric for Group Texts ! iv ! LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 4.1 Distribution of Students’ home languages 32 Figure 4.2 A screencapture of the StudySync program 33 Figure 4.3 AuthorViz view of a collaboratively written paragraph in Google Docs 37 Figure 4.4 DocuViz views of participation in co-authoring a document 44 Figure 4.5 DocuViz views illustrating the degree of even participation. 44 Figure 5.1 Distribution of collaborative writing strategies across ability grouping 56 status Figure 5.2 Distribution of collaborative writing strategies across task types 60 Figure 6.1 Patterns of interaction and the relevant factors 68 Figure 6.2 AuthorViz view of Group 1’s narrative essay 76 Figure 6.3 DocuViz charts that visualize collaboration patterns of Group 1 during 78 narrative (a), argumentative (b), and informative (c) essays. Figure 6.4 DocuViz charts that visualize collaboration patterns of Group 2 during 89 narrative (a), argumentative (b), and informative (c) essays. Figure 6.5 DocuViz charts that visualize collaboration patterns of Group 3 during 102 narrative (a), argumentative (b), and informative (c) essays Figure 6.6 DocuViz charts that visualize collaboration patterns of Group 4 during 111 narrative (a), argumentative (b), and informative (c) essays Figure 7.1 Post-survey Results: Benefits of Collaborative Writing on Specific 118 Composition Area Figure 8.1 Conceptual map: phases of communities of practice and resulting levels 127 of collaboration Figure 8.2 A Nested Model of Collaboration (Modified from Shah, 2010) 150 Figure 8.3 Changes in members’ textual participation across the three tasks 153 Figure 8.4 Components of collaboration explained by multiple factors. 155 ! v ! Figure 9.1 Post-survey Results: Benefits of collaborative writing with Google Docs 164 Figure 9.2 Post-survey Results: Challenges of Collaborative Writing with Google 183 Docs Figure 9.3 Students’ mind map activity illustrating a sense of bonding among 194 bilingual peers ! vi ! LIST OF TABLES Page Table 4.1 Description of student characteristics 31 Table 4.2 Ability grouping status 31 Table 4.3 Focal group characteristics 32 Table 4.4 Description of three collaborative tasks 33 Table 4.5 Coding taxonomy of collaborative dialogue 38 Table 4.6 Coding taxonomy of scaffolding strategies 39 Table 4.7 Description of collaborative writing strategies and comparisons to 40 existing categorizations Table 4.8 Descriptive statistics of variables in quantitative analysis 44 Table 4.9 Data sources for each research question 47 Table 5.1 Characteristics of collaboration behavior by ability grouping status 55 Table 5.2 Characteristics of collaboration behaviors by task type 59 Table 6.1 Definition of factors and characteristics of each pattern 68 Table 6.2 Coding results of collaborative dialogue across groups 69 Table 6.3 Editing information of group texts (narrative, argumentative, 70 informative) Table 7.1 Regressions Predicting Textual Outcomes: Narrative 119 Table 7.2 Regressions Predicting Textual Outcomes: Argumentative 121 Table 7.3 Regressions Predicting Textual Outcomes: Informative 123 !vii ! ACKNOWLEDGMENTS As I look back on my challenging graduate journey, I am filled up with gratitude for my amazing supporters, mentors, and friends without whom I couldn’t have made it through. Their unwavering love and support have shaped who I have become, and driven what I have accomplished. Personally, it was an incredible journey of growth, during which I navigated and developed my multiple identities as a second language learner, researcher, teacher, mentee, mentor, wife, and mother. Academically, it was a humbling experience in which I constantly struggled with my own limitations, embraced them, and learned the beauty of rising from challenges and growing with others. The past five years was an incredibly cherished part of my life because of the following people that I want to honor and acknowledge. First and foremost, I’d like to thank my advisor and dissertation committee members. Words cannot express my gratitude for Dr. Mark Warschauer, my advisor, who supported me in every step of my PhD journey; he believed in me, valued my ideas, and nurtured them. His groundbreaking work in digital literacy has always been a solid foundation and source of inspiration for my research. He was not only my academic role model, but also such warm father figure for me. From my campus visit back in 2012, when he got a babysitter for then-15-month Gloria, to numerous warm invitations to his house for Thanksgiving holidays and year-end parties, he helped my family and I, foreigners in the U.S., feel Irvine as our second home. I couldn’t have asked for a better advisor, and will forever be grateful to him for what I have achieved under his mentorship. My deepest gratitude also goes to my wonderful committee members, Dr. Carol Olson and Dr. Joshua Lawrence. Dr. Olson’s PhD seminar on writing theories and practices sowed the seeds of inspiration for this dissertation. I felt privileged to have Dr. Olson, a nation’s leading educator and researcher on writing instruction, as my committee member. Her expertise and passionate mission for supporting English language learners has inspired me deeply. Out of her busy schedule, she gave me such thoughtful and detailed feedback accompanied by a letter of such warm encouragement that I welled up with tears reading them. It is my dream to provide the same support and encouragement for my students one day. I am also deeply indebted to Dr. Joshua Lawrence who has greatly influenced my graduate career from the moment he hired me as his research assistant at the Language and Literacy Lab at the Harvard Graduate School of Education. He introduced me to the PhD program at UC Irvine, and encouraged and advised me along the way. Working with him both at Harvard and UC Irvine was an invaluable experience for me that I will cherish for lifetime. I also would not have been able to make it through this journey without the support of my dear mentors, friends, and colleagues both in and outside of academia. They have always been there for me to give me advice and encouragement. Special thanks go to Dr. Sang-Keun Shin, my advisor at Ewha Womans University, and my mentors that I was privileged to have around the world—Seoul, Boston, and Irvine: Dr. Kee Chun Park, Dr. Jung-shim Lee, Ms. Sumin Kim, Mrs. Amy Fish, and Mrs. Lisa Roderick. Moreover, my heartfelt gratitude goes to my church families whose prayers, support, and comfort have meant the world to me: the Hepsiba cell group at Bethel Korean Church in Irvine (Mr. Hyunsu Kim, Mrs. Bongju Koh, Mr. Ma Jun, Mrs. !viii ! Sunryeong Ryu, Mr. Seokjun Yun, Mrs. Hyunjung Choi, Mr. Yongju Son, Mrs. Seoyoung Son, Mrs. Sukryeong Kim), and also Pastor Jack Fish and my church families at the Countryside Bible Chapel in Lexington, MA. During my two pregnancies and childbirths, and the numerous times when my family got sick and needed help, you have been there for us as caring families. You truly showed me Jesus’ love, grace, and wisdom. I owe debts of gratitude and love to you, which I would pay forward.