A Task-Based Study of Literacy Ecologies for Digital Composing
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Working in Patches, Groups, and Spaces: A Task-Based Study of Literacy Ecologies for Digital Composing Dissertation Presented in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree doctor of philosophy in the Graduate School of The Ohio State University By Julia Ann Voss, B.A., M.A. Graduate Program in English The Ohio State University 2013 Dissertation Committee: Beverly J. Moss, Advisor Harvey J. Graff Cynthia L. Selfe i Copyright by Julia Voss 2013 i Abstract Digital literacy learning has become a fundamental, mainstream concern for teachers and researchers because of the increasingly central roles played by writing in digital environments and multimodal composing in twenty-first century literacy and literacy instruction. Digital composing draws on many of the processes that apply to print composing (planning, drafting, revising, et cetera), but its medium makes additional technical and rhetorical demands on composers which print-based models of the composing process do not fully address. This study describes a process-based approach to group digital composing tasks that accounts for access to digital literacy resources, methods for sharing task responsibilities between group members, and workspaces for digital composing. The material resources (including hardware, software, and physical/virtual workspaces) and intellectual resources (the functional literacy skills to operate these material resources and the rhetorical sensibilities concerning design, mode, and audience according to which composers create digital texts) digital composing relies on recommend approaching digital composing tasks in terms of component parts, while situating these components within complex literacy ecologies. The case studies of student and faculty digital composing groups featured in this study focus on how groups approached and worked through their tasks. I analyze ii participants’ methods of digital literacy resource foraging, task structuring, and workspace selection/structuring to recommend strategies for teaching digital composing. Rather than offering sample assignments or rubrics, this study proposes metacognitive exercises designed to help students draw on the literacy resources present in their literacy ecologies and approach digital composing tasks as learning opportunities. Building on Selfe and Hawisher’s work on conditions of access to technology, I offer “foraging” as a metaphor for describing how digital composers access digital literacy resources and discuss how foraging works in physical and virtual ecological spheres with differing degrees of resource density. Once gathered around the group task, digital literacy resources help shape how groups use cooperative and collaborative methods to structure their composing task. Gathered literacy resources create the potential for members to accumulate new digital literacy resources, which they can potentially transfer to future digital composing tasks. Although dividing task responsibilities according to previous experience can discourage resource transfer between group members, in-group techne- mentoring can encourage digital literacy learning during collaborative task phases. The material and symbolic dimensions of the physical and virtual spaces in which digital composing groups worked also function as material digital literacy resources that shape groups’ composing processes. Studying how groups produce (work)spaces by inhabiting them considers the extent to which digital composers can alter literacy resources as they apply them to specific tasks. Positioning workspace as a digital literacy examines how iii resources change as they circulate in a literacy ecology through application to diverse composing tasks. Finally, groups’ physical and virtual workspaces also functioned as important digital literacy resources. Building on Paul Prior and Jody Shipka’s description of writers’ environment selecting and structuring practices, I look at how groups both follow and redefine the learning behavior cues designed into the physical and virtual environments in which they worked. iv Acknowledgements First, I want to thank everyone who participated in my study. Talking to and learning from you all reminded me of why I got into qualitative research in the first place. Thanks especially to Emily, the most generous and responsive participant ever. Thanks also to Kristy, Lisa, Sylvia, and Donna for generously inviting me into your classrooms and making my research possible. Thank you Donna, in particular, for an illuminating discussion of space and community that literally changed the course of this project and set me on a research trajectory I couldn’t have imagined a year ago. I also want to thank the edited collection contributors: you were all so generous with your time and so supportive of my project, for which I am deeply grateful. Your thoughtful responses to my questions and interest in my research are a credit to you and to our field’s tradition of welcoming new scholars into the fold. Thank you also to my committee members, Beverly J. Moss, Harvey J. Graff, and Cynthia L. Selfe. Your advice, guidance, and reading recommendations were much appreciated, even if you don’t see much evidence of them here. Thanks, in particular, for your confidence in my ability to finish this project and the faith you showed in my ideas, especially when I had both in short supply. And Beverly: like I said when you won the English Graduate Organization’s Professor of the Year Award, you are the master (mistress?) of both carrot and stick motivation. I recommend you as a wonderful advisor v and mentor to everyone, so know that no good deed ever goes unpunished. Thanks also to Annie and Jen, for your generous readings of and excellent feedback on many ghastly drafts. Our writing group was one of the main reasons why my committee members could see potential in my work once I finally I showed it them. You’d already done the hardest, messiest work. As for everyone else who made this project possible…too many people to count. Thanks to everyone who talked me down during my fits of hysterical dissertation panic— Jen, Katie, Kate, Anne, Cassie, the list goes on… Thank you to my family for countless emails, Skype chats, phone calls, care packages, and letters stuffed with newspaper clippings over the past six years. When I felt lonely, talking and writing with you reminded me of home and where I come from. And the home-made snacks, advent calendars, clothes, forwarded mail…didn’t hurt either. And Andrew, you should have your own acknowledgements chapter. But I’ll limit myself to saying thank you for countless meals (quick ones when I needed to get back to work, special ones when I needed a morale boost or had an accomplishment to celebrate), for your ongoing faith in my ability to complete this project (god knows why), for your much-needed expertise on technical matters, for rides all over town (but mostly to research sites and the airport), for your gentle reminders to stop reading romance novels and get back to work, and for your calm reassurance during my spirals of self-doubt. I couldn’t have finished this project if not for the fact that a) giving in to my fantasy of running away and living under an vi assumed name would have meant never seeing you again and b) you told me that the position of your wife had a PhD requirement, so I had to finish my degree. I meant it when I said that I literally can’t imagine how I could have done this without you. And, of course, thank you to Mojo, my spirit-muse. How could I have written anything without you to warm my lap? vii Vita Biographical Information 2002 ............................................................ Bishop Blanchet High School 2006 ............................................................ B.A. English and History; Minors in German, Philosophy, and Medieval Studies; Seattle University 2009 ............................................................ M.A. English, The Ohio State University 2008 to present ............................................ Graduate Teaching Assistant, Department of English, The Ohio State University Publications “‘So my computer literacy journey…’: Re-creating and Re-thinking Technological Literacy Experience through Narrative.” Stories That Speak to Us: Exhibits from the Digital Archive of Literacy Narratives. Ed. H. Lewis Ulman, Scott Lloyd DeWitt, and Cynthia L. Selfe. Logan, UT: Computers and Composition Digital Press/Utah State University Press, 2013. Web. Review of Writing Matters: Rhetoric in Public and Private Lives by Andrea Lunsford. Composition Studies 37.1 (2009): 142-145. Print. viii Fields of Study Major Field: English Rhetoric, Composition, and Literacy ix Table of Contents Abstract .......................................................................................................................... ii Acknowledgements .........................................................................................................v Vita ............................................................................................................................. viii List of Tables............................................................................................................... xiii List of Figures ............................................................................................................... xv Chapter 1: Introduction ....................................................................................................1 Ecological Approaches to Analyzing Human Culture and Society................................8