Skip to content
2018
Volume 73, Issue 4
  • ISSN: 0010-096X
  • E-ISSN: 1939-9006

Abstract

This multi-institutional study surveyed undergraduate students (n=669) about how and what they learned in hybrid and online first-year composition (FYC) classes, employing the Community of Inquiry (CoI) Framework to analyze their responses. The data illustrated a significant difference in hybrid versus online students’ perceptions of the student-teacher relationship.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.58680/ccc202232017
2022-06-01
2024-02-23
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Adler-Kassner Linda Wardle Elizabeth “Naming What We Know: The Project of This Book.” Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies Adler-Kassner Linda Wardle Elizabeth University Press of Colorado 2015 pp. 1 11 10.7330/9780874219906.c000b
    [Google Scholar]
  2. Akyol Zehra D. et al. “Online and Blended Communities of Inquiry: Exploring the Developmental and Perceptual Differences.” International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning 10 6 2009 pp. 65 83
    [Google Scholar]
  3. Aragon Steven R. “Creating Social Presence in Online Environments.” New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education 100 2003 pp. 57 68
    [Google Scholar]
  4. Arbaugh J. B. et al. “Developing a Community of Inquiry Instrument: Testing a Measure of the Community of Inquiry Framework Using a MultiInstitutional Sample.” The Internet and Higher Education 11 3-4 2008 pp. 133 136 10.1016/j.iheduc.2008.06.003
    [Google Scholar]
  5. Blancato Michael Iwertz Chad “‘Are the Instructors Going to Teach Us Anything?’: Conceptualizing Student and Teacher Roles in the ‘Rhetorical Composing’ MOOC.” Computers and Composition 42 Dec 2016 pp. 47 58 10.1016/j.compcom.2016.08.002
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Brannon L. and Knoblauch C. H. “On Students’ Rights to Their Own Texts: A Model of Teacher Response.” College Composition and Communication 33 2 1982 pp. 157 66
    [Google Scholar]
  7. Borgman Jessie and Dockter Jason “Considerations of Access and Design in the Online Writing Classroom.” Computers and Composition 49 Sept 2018 pp. 94 105 10.1016/j.compcom.2018.05.001
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Boyd Patricia Webb “Analyzing Students’ Perceptions of Their Learning in Online and Hybrid First-Year Composition Courses.” Computers and Composition 25 2 2008 pp. 224 243
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Bruffee Kenneth Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge 2nd Johns Hopkins University Press 1999
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Brunk-Chavez Beth L. Miller Shawn J. “Decentered, Disconnected, and Digitized: The Importance of Shared Space.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy 11 2 2007 http://technorheto ric.net/11.2/topoi/brunk-miller/index.html
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Cargile Cook Kelli Grant-Davie Keith Eds Online Education 2.0: Evolving, Adapting, and Reinventing Online Technical Communication Routledge 2013 10.2190/OE2
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Cunningham Jennifer M. “Mechanizing People and Pedagogy: Establishing Social Presence in the Online Classroom.” Online Learning 19 3 2015 pp. 34 47
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Dockter Jason “The Problem of Teaching Presence in Transactional Theories of Distance Education.” Computers and Composition 40 2016 pp. 73 86
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Downs Doug and Robertson Liane Threshold Concepts in First-Year Composition Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies Adler-Kassner Linda and Elizabeth Wardle University Press of Colorado 2015 pp. 105 121 10.7330/9780874219906.c000b
    [Google Scholar]
  15. Ede Lisa and Lunsford Andrea A. Writing Together: Collaboration in Theory and Practice Bedford/St. Martin’s 2011
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Ericsson Katherine “Thinking Outside ‘the Box’: Going Outside the CMS to Create Successful Online Team Projects.” Applied Pedagogies: Strategies for Online Writing Instruction Ruefman Daniel and Scheg Abigail G. Utah State University Press 2016 pp. 121 145 10.7330/9781607324850.c008
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Farkas Kerrie R. H. and Haas Christina “A Grounded Theory Approach for Studying Writing and Literacy.” Practicing Research in Writing Studies Powell Katrina M. and Takayoshi Pamela 2012 pp. 81 95
    [Google Scholar]
  18. Garrison D. Randy et al. “Critical Inquiry in a Text-Based Environment: Computer Conferencing in Higher Education.” The Internet and Higher Education 2 2–3 1999 pp. 87 105 10.1016/S1096‑7516(00)00016‑6
    [Google Scholar]
  19. Gere Anne Ruggles Writing Groups: History, Theory, and Implications Southern Illinois University Press 1987
    [Google Scholar]
  20. George Diana “Working with Peer Groups in the Composition Classroom.” College Composition and Communication 35 3 1984 pp. 320 26
    [Google Scholar]
  21. Gillam Ken Wooden Shannon R. “Re-Embodying Online Composition: Ecologies of Writing in Unreal Time and Space.” Computers and Composition 30 2013 pp. 24 36
    [Google Scholar]
  22. Glaser Barney G. and Strauss Anselm L. The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research Aldine 1967
    [Google Scholar]
  23. Greer Michael and Harris Heidi Skurat “User-Centered Design as a Foundation for Effective Online Writing Instruction.” Computers and Composition 49 2018 pp. 14 24 10.1016/j.compcom.2018.05.006
    [Google Scholar]
  24. Griffin June and Minter Deborah “The Rise of the Online Writing Classroom: Reflecting on the Material Conditions of College Composition Teaching.” College Composition and Communication 65 1 2013 pp. 140 63
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Gunawardena Charlotte N. Zittle Frank J. “Social Presence as a Predictor of Satisfaction Within a Computer‐ Mediated Conferencing Environment.” American Journal of Distance Education 11 3 1997 pp. 8 26 10.1080/08923649709526970
    [Google Scholar]
  26. Hart-Davidson Bill Genres Are Enacted by Writers and Readers Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies Adler-Kassner Linda and Elizabeth Wardle University Press of Colorado 2015 pp. 39 40 10.7330/9780874219906.c000b
    [Google Scholar]
  27. Haswell Richard H. “NCTE/CCCC’s Recent War on Scholarship.” Written Communication 22 2 Apr 2005 pp. 198 223 10.1177/0741088305275367
    [Google Scholar]
  28. Hewett Beth L. The Online Writing Conference: A Guide for Teachers and Tutors Bedford/St. Martin’s 2010
    [Google Scholar]
  29. Lawenthal Patrick R. Dunlap Joanna C. “From Pixel on a Screen to Real Person in Your Students’ Lives: Establishing Social Presence Using Digital Storytelling.” Internet and Higher Education 13 2010 pp. 70 72
    [Google Scholar]
  30. Litterio Lisa M. “Uncovering Student Perceptions of a First-Year Online Writing Course.” Computers and Composition 47 2018 pp. 1 13 10.1016/j.compcom.2017.12.006
    [Google Scholar]
  31. Lunsford Andrea “Writing is Informed by Prior Experience.” Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies Adler-Kassner Linda and Elizabeth Wardle University Press of Colorado 2015 pp. 45 55
    [Google Scholar]
  32. Lunsford Andrea A. Ede Lisa “Collaborative Authorship and the Teaching of Writing.” Construction of Authorship: Textual Appropriation in Law and Literature Woodmansee Martha and Jaszi Peter Duke UP 1994 pp. 417 438
    [Google Scholar]
  33. Means Barbara et al. Evaluation of Evidence-Based Practices in Online Learning: A Meta-Analysis and Review of Online Learning Studies. U.S. Department of Education Center for Technology in Learning 2010
    [Google Scholar]
  34. Nickoson L. “Revisiting Teacher Research.” Writing Studies Research in Practice: Methods and Methodologies Nickoson Lee & Sheridan Mary P. Southern Illinois UP 2012 pp. 101 12
    [Google Scholar]
  35. Nordmark Marie “Writing Roles: A Model for Understanding Students’ Digital Writing and the Positions That They Adopt as Writers.” Computers and Composition 46 2017 pp. 56 71 10.1016/j.compcom.2017.09.003
    [Google Scholar]
  36. Pallant Julie SPSS Survival Manual: A Step-by-Step Guide to Data Analysis Using SPSS for Windows 3rd Open University Press 2007
    [Google Scholar]
  37. Palloff Rena M. Pratt Keith Building Online Learning Communities: Effectual Strategies for the Virtual Classroom 2nd Wiley 2007
    [Google Scholar]
  38. Pritchard Ruie Jane Morrow Donna “Comparison of Online and Face-to-Face Peer Review of Writing.” Computers and Composition 46 2017 pp. 87 103 10.1016/j.compcom.2017.09.006
    [Google Scholar]
  39. Rendahl Merry Breuch Lee-Ann Kastman “Toward a Complexity of Online Learning: Learners in Online First-Year Writing.” Computers and Composition 30 2013 pp. 297 314
    [Google Scholar]
  40. Richardson Jennifer C. Swan Karen “Examining Social Presence in Online Courses in Relation to Students’ Perceived Learning and Satisfaction.” Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks 7 1 2003 pp. 68 88 10.24059/olj.v7i1.1864
    [Google Scholar]
  41. Roozen Kevin “Writing is a Social and Rhetorical Activity.” Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies Adler-Kassner Linda and Elizabeth Wardle University Press of Colorado 2015 pp. 17 18
    [Google Scholar]
  42. Russell Thomas L. The No Significant Difference Phenomenon as Reported in 355 Research Reports, Summaries and Papers North Carolina State University 1999
    [Google Scholar]
  43. Seward D. E. “Orchestrated Online Conversation: Designing Asynchronous Discussion Boards for Interactive, Incremental, and Communal Literacy Development in First-Year College Writing ROLE: Research in Online Literacy Education 1 1 2018 http://roleolor.weebly.com/sewardorchestrated-online-conversation.html
    [Google Scholar]
  44. Shea Peter Bidjerano Temi “Community of Inquiry as a Theoretical Framework to Foster ‘Epistemic Engagement’ and ‘Cognitive Presence’ in Online Education.” Computers & Education 52 3 2009 pp. 543 553 10.1016/j.compedu.2008.10.007
    [Google Scholar]
  45. Sheridan Kathleen Kelly Melissa A. “The Indicators of Instructor Presence that are Important to Students in Online Courses.” Journal of Online Learning and Teaching 6 4 2010 pp. 767 779
    [Google Scholar]
  46. Stacey Elizabeth “Social Presence Online: Networking Learners at a Distance.” Education and Information Technologies 7 4 2002 pp. 287 294 10.1007/978‑0‑38735596‑2_4
    [Google Scholar]
  47. Stewart Donald C. “A Real Audience for Composition Students.” College Composition and Communication 16 1 1965 pp. 35 37
    [Google Scholar]
  48. Stewart Mary K. “The Community of Inquiry Survey: An Assessment Instrument for Online Writing Courses.” Computers and Composition 52 2019 pp. 37 52
    [Google Scholar]
  49. Stillman-Webb Natalie “Cultivating Ethos in the Online Writing Course: Student Perceptions of Teaching Presence.” Conference on College Composition and Communication Portland Oregon March 17 2017
    [Google Scholar]
  50. Stratman Jacob “‘It’s just too nicey-nicey around here’: Teaching Dissensus in Research and Collaborative Groups.” Collaborative Learning and Writing: Essays on Using Small Groups in Teaching English and Composition Hunzer Kathleen M. McFarland 2012 pp. 43 54
    [Google Scholar]
  51. Swan Karen P. et al. “Validating a Measurement Tool of Presence in Online Communities of Inquiry.” E-Mentor 2 24 2008 pp. 1 12
    [Google Scholar]
  52. Warnock Scott “Teaching the OWI Course.” Foundational Practices of Online Writing Instruction Hewett Beth and DePew Kevin E. The WAC Clearinghouse 2015 pp. 151 182
    [Google Scholar]
  53. VanderStaay Steve L. et al. “Close to the Heart: Teacher Authority in a Classroom Community.” College Composition and Communication 61 2 2009 pp. W262 W82
    [Google Scholar]
  54. Warnock Scott Gasiewski Diana Writing Together: Ten Weeks Teaching and Studenting in an Online Writing Course National Council of Teachers of English 2018
    [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.58680/ccc202232017
Loading
/content/journals/10.58680/ccc202232017
Loading

Data & Media loading...

  • Article Type: Research Article
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was a Success
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error