Updating My Professional Website

I have made some significant changes in my website during the last few weeks. I didn't think that I would be one of those HTML people, but now I can't seem to get enough of it. I'm even working on making a website for my 121 students, and attempting to use blogs to aid them in their research process. Maybe I'm biting off more than I can chew, but I'm excited about it nonetheless.

As far as style changes go, I feel that my site is based more on user-friendly aspects rather than glittering graphic design. I think I am still working on the basics, which is why I don't expect my sites to look attractive. When I first decided to make updates on my webpage, I went to the Spider Guide to 100 Do's and Don'ts of Design. I have to admit that I was overwhelmed by all the links and options for the design on the site. When I looked it over, I browsed more than read every detail. After a while I got a good feel of what a website should look like. I also checked out some faculty websites to see how they organized things. I think that my website is a combination of what I find useful in a website, and what I see that others have done.

On my homepage I played with tables a little to manage layout. I'm thinking about putting a short bio on the page, but I'm stuck on what I should write. The site is professional, so I want to sound appropriate, but I want it to still sound personable. I guess this is something I will have to work out in the future.

My interests/hobbies page was a fun experiement with scanning pictures of cakes that I have recently decorated. Since cake-decorating and making webpages are two new interests for me, I thought I would combine the two. I used more color and type styles on this site because I wanted it to seem more personal than my other pages.

My resume, book review, and research project all represent the academic and professional sides of my life. I wanted to find a balance between both sides, which is why I included them on my site. My resume is in a web format, but I think I would rather make it a pdf. file the next time I revise it. If a user minimizes the window, the format of my resume looks jumbled and not as polished. On the other hand, not everyone has Adobe Acrobat Reader (even though they should). It's something that I will have to work on a bit more, as well as other aspects of my page.

I plan to continue to learn more about webpages and web design, because I think it does make teaching easier--though I may not know this for sure until next semester.

An Annotated Bibliography (continued)

Abdullah, Mardziah H. “The Impact of Electronic Communication on Writing.” ERIC Clearing House on Reading, English and Communication Dec. 2003: 3-5.

In this Digest article, Abdullah summarizes popular studies about the affect of “e-writing” on students’ writing skills, behavior, and performance. She points out that students tend to be more apt to working on the process of writing, or seeing it, because it is easily manipulated on the screen. It is easier for them to break things down. Students are also more engaged during online conversation, due to anonymity. These conversations then lead to more collaborative writing where students can learn from each other, as well as from the instructor. While plenty of research shows that the electronic age is helping students become better writers, there are still some downfalls. The main concern of researchers is that students tend to write formal prose in the format of conversational prose, similar to what is found in e-mail and online culture. I agree with this point to a certain extent, but not entirely. If students are taught the difference between these two genres, then they are more likely to be eventually versatile in both. I think this article is helpful for a general overview about technology and student writing, but it doesn’t really lead me to new insight on the subject of OWLs.

Arkin, Marian. “Developing a Hybrid Tutoring Model in an Urban Community College.” Annual Teaching in the Community Colleges Online Conference. Kapiolani Community College. 17-19 Apr. 2001.

This source provides a look at the writing center at LaGuardia Community College of City University of New York, and its struggle to maintain a personalized tutoring environment due to an increase in student enrollment. They also want to provide relief for students who are also parents of young children. Having an online source will give them an opportunity to avoid finding childcare, in order to visit the center. The solution is to work more closely with the university-wide CUNY (City University of New York) WriteSite program. Located at http://www.writesite.cuny.edu/, CUNY used to be a cross-campus resource with only static information. Once paired with the efforts of writing centers across the university, CUNY will become a resource for tutoring as well. This source provides a look at what can happen when tutoring efforts are combined, yet it only provides an introduction of what is to come. I would like to know more about how the program works now, after being in service for a few years.

Enders, Doug. “Making synchronous, on-line tutorials easier: Microsoft’s NetMeeting 3.1.” The Writing Lab Newsletter 8 (2001): 14-16.

Enders discusses the advancements in synchronous communication for online writing centers — more specifically, the move from NetMeeting 2.1 to 3.1. The software can be downloaded from Microsoft’s web site free for distance learners, who cannot attend a face-to-face conference at the writing center. The program “allows a client to send his or her paper online to a writing consultant who then formats it on-screen for both to use alongside a chat window, where the two can discuss it in real time.” The greatest change from NetMeeting 2.1 to 3.1 is that it allows adjustments to be made to one screen, without changing the other. Like the tools on Microsoft Word, NetMeeting 3.1 allows users to highlight a particular phrase of the paper to call attention to it. The program also has more affordable audio/video options that can make the meeting resemble a face-to-face conference. Though software has made great advancements, Enders mentions that “it would take three synchronous, online sessions to achieve what one could do in a single face-to-face meeting.” This is mainly due to the fact that we type slower than we speak, and the absence of nonverbal communication. Indiana State University still uses face-to-face conferences, but this advancement has helped them take a giant step forward in the capabilities of online tutoring.

Harris, Muriel. “Preparing to Sit at the Head Table: Maintaining Writing Center Viability in the Twenty-First Century.” Writing Center Journal 20 (2000): 13-21.

Harris writes of the growing pressures facing writing centers, and how they plan to deal with them as technology moves forward. She asks writing centers to stick more than a “toe” into the cold waters of online tutoring for the benefit of students, more than the benefit of administration or commercial intervention. However, writing centers need to be more aware of the “bean counters” who are looking for ways to eliminate on-site tutors to save money on real-estate, salaries, and equipment. They need to stand their ground, while still moving forward with advancements in technology. Finding numbers that show that an on-campus writing center is more beneficial than a commercial online center is one way to prove their point. Harris points to higher SAT verbal scores and higher overall grades that result from students who visit on-campus centers. Being specific about the benefits and drawbacks of both on-site and online centers is the best way to fight this uphill battle, according to Harris. If they don’t, faculty will turn to the “experts” that will. This source is helpful because it cites quite a bit of research to prove how writing centers affect student learning.

Hewett, Beth L. “How Do You Feel? Attitudes About Tutoring Online.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal 2 (2004): 15 Nov. 2004 <http://uwc3.fac.utexas.edu/~praxis/Archive/04_spring/04_spring_files/training_online.html>.

This article focuses on informing tutors about what lies ahead when they decide to use an online format. The author poses a series of questions for tutors to decide if online tutoring should be a resource in their own labs. Questions mainly focus on how confident a tutor is with his or her computer skills, and how a tutor values online learning overall. The author does not want tutors to feel the pressure of appealing to the needs of teachers, students, or administrators, if they are not comfortable with running an online writing service. I think that the most important part of these questions lies in how comfortable the tutor feels. Online writing centers will not be as successful, if tutors (the background of the establishment) are under-prepared, or forced into an uncomfortable environment. These questions could serve as a way to screen candidates for writing centers, in order to decide which tutor will perform the best in a particular situation. It gives me an idea to think more about the perspectives of tutors, rather than just students.

Honeycutt, L. “Comparing e-mail and synchronous conferencing in online peer response.” Written Communication 18 (2001): 26-60.

Honeycutt takes a look at how students respond to synchronous vs. asynchronous communication during the peer review process. He thoroughly dissects the codes associated with the discourse involved in online communication; but more importantly, he looks at the practical response of individual students involved in this writing process. He concludes that most students prefer e-mail to chat conversations, due to the depth of communication and well-thought-out nature of the comments. Chat conversations resembled face-to-face speech more than the e-mail exchanges. Though students prefer e-mail, Honeycutt does not attempt to say that synchronous communication should be outlawed. It is possible that it has its place during the brainstorming or outlining process of writing, where quick feedback inspires the mind to come up with multiple ideas. This article is important, with respect to online tutoring; many centers rely on asynchronous communication for all stages of the writing process. What are the possibilities or constraints if writing centers consider adopting both synchronous and asynchronous methods of communication?

“International Writing Centers Association.” 29 Oct. 2004. 14 Nov. 2004. http://writingcenters.org/index.php.

This website is a wonderful resource for writing centers and people looking to develop their own writing centers. The International Writing Centers Association is an NCTE assembly, and is governed by a board of representatives from university writing centers across the country. It provides information and links for starting a writing center, peer tutoring, OWLs, resources for writers, and more. The association is also responsible for publishing The Writing Lab Newsletter and The Writing Center Journal, which focus on “concerns during the academic year” and “writing center theory and research” respectively. An interesting aspect of the “tutor” link is a peer-centered blog where “peer writing tutors/consultants can blog with their colleagues from around the world.” The site seems like a well-anchored source for writing center members.

Moe, Holly K. "Smarthinking.com — Online Writing Lab or Jiffy-Editing Service?" Diss. Modesto College, 2000.

In this study, conducted by a writing center tutor at Modesto College, the goal is to determine how students and instructors react to the online tutoring from Smarthinking.com. The writing center tutors at Modesto College had thought about ways to implement their own online tutoring service, but they were forced to resort to a semi-commercially driven resource, Smarthinking.com. Moe briefly describes the goals of Smarthinking.com as being ones that will “supplement institutions’ academic support systems to better serve the changing needs of students.” She also mentions that Smarthinking.com aims to be more than just an editing service for students and instructors alike. However, there is some skepticism on the part of the author. Her skepticism leads her to conduct a series of surveys from both students and instructors at her institution. The most interesting part of her findings was that the student sample seemed equally divided on the issue of preference. Half of the students preferred online tutoring, based on convenience, anonymity, and rate of feedback. The other half preferred face-to-face tutoring because they didn’t have to wait for responses, it was more familiar, and more personal. Only three instructors (ones who asked their students to use Smarthinking.com) provided the information for this study. All three like the idea that students can get a sense of audience and an outsider’s perspective, but they dislike the emphasis on grammar and editing conventions. This study is useful to see how one particular group of people feel about this online tutoring program; but due to the small size of the sample, it is hard to say that these ideas can resemble those of other institutions. It does cause me to question whether universities should conduct their own OWL, or if they should use a service such as Smarthinking.com.

Mooney, T.R. “Launching Loyola’s E-Tutor.” National Writing Across the Curriculum Conference. Bloomington, IN. 31 May 2001.

Mooney discusses the WAC’s response to distance learners’ requests for online writing tutors. Before adding the option of receiving tutoring, via email, students had the option to meet face-to-face, or by combining telephone and fax services. Due to an increase in distance learning programs at Loyola, the WAC department looked for ways to ease the lives of its students. After the e-tutor program was implemented, Mooney asked students to give feedback about how they used it. He found that, even though students requested this service, they continued to prefer the original methods of conferencing. The only problem with Mooney’s “study” was that he could not get accurate feedback on why students still preferred the old methods. He believes that it may have to do with participants being uncomfortable with the new method, due to its unfamiliarity. I have to agree.

“Online Writing and Learning: OWL.” 5 Nov. 2004. U of M Sweetland Writing Center. 14 Nov. 2004. <http://www.lsa.umich.edu/swc/help/owl.html - form>.

This page gives you information about the process of submitting your paper online to a writing center tutor. The timeframe for receiving feedback from a peer tutor is between 48 and 72 hours (when busy). It gives you information on: how to submit papers to the OWL, using the online submission form, and the online submission form itself. The guidelines for submission include sending papers that are eight pages or less, notification of privacy issues, and using e-mail vs. the online submission form. The online submission form itself is a system that allows you to enter name, e-mail, year in school, purpose, due date, and the title/topic of your paper. Text boxes allow the user to describe the assignment, ask for help in specific areas, and cut/paste the paper itself. While the format of this online service seems user friendly, I don’t think that it can compare to face-to-face conferencing.

Research Progress Report

I have looked through my annotated bibliography and the research of my classmates, and now I am feeling a little stuck. I have found some useful information about online writing labs, but the more I find, the more it seems to all look the same. Most of my sources discuss issues concerning student usage, logistics, community response, and impacts on the writing process itself. This is fine, but how much more can you say about these topics? When I come to a bump in the road, it is usually because I tend to find more sources about on-site writing labs rather than online writing labs. I'm not sure where else I can look, without repeating some of the locations of my previous sources.

Right now, I would really like to see some research or information about student responses to online writing centers. I can probably go to some online centers across the country to see if they have a commentary page, but I am not sure if this would be considered a reputable source for research. It would be more like doing my own research, instead of drawing from the research of others. Maybe looking at testimonies would be too subjective for the purpose of research. However, I do think it is something that I would like to look into.

For now, I will have to return to the library for more one-on-one assistance to find more information. Perhaps this will be the solution to my problem.

An Annotated Bibliography (1-10)

Anderson-Inman, Lynne. “OWLs: Online Writing Labs (Technology Tidbits).” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 40 (1997): 650-654.

This article offers “tidbits” to those with little or no knowledge or experience with OWLs. It briefly discusses the increase in numbers of OWLs for primarily post-secondary institutions. According to Anderson-Inman, there are three types of information (resource materials, online tutoring, and information gateways) that you will find in a typical OWL. She mentions that resource materials tend to be student-centered as opposed to teacher-centered, yet she does not pose this as a problem with OWLs. A look at online tutoring shows that it can range from “grammar hotlines” to more in-depth “synchronous discussions” for complex writing issues. Though some OWLs restrict access to students who attend the sponsoring institution, it does not mean that OWLs cannot be used by the public. The end of the article focuses on how OWLs can be used as information gateways to help students find an endless amount of writing resources. It provides a useful alternative to navigating through gateways such as Yahoo or Google. This source may be only useful for basic information on OWLs, but it does provide useful links to a variety of OWLs that have been established at institutions around the country.

Breuch, Lee-Ann M. Kastman, and Sam J. Racine. “Developing Sound Tutor Training for Online Writing Centers: Creating Productive Peer Reviewers.” Computers and Composition 17 (2000): 245-263.

Breuch and Racine maintain the belief that tutors who are trained for face-to-face writing centers are not necessarily prepared for what they may encounter by working online. Their goal is to provide an overview of how writing centers can provide adequate training for these tutors. To reach this goal, the focus on three aspects of changing our thoughts about online writing centers. We need to teach tutors to appreciate text-only environments. Among other things, they point out “text-only environments encourage students to write…[while] considering audience’s needs, anticipating readers’ reactions to text, and writing in a clear, concise, and informative style.” They also mention that specific procedures, such as commenting approaches, need to be developed for responding online. This will help writing centers formulate “appropriate roles for online tutors,” which include being more directive and modifying the traditional coach or guide approach. The main point is to avoid comparing online writing centers to face-to-face centers, and instead recognize them as separate entities that can both supplement teaching strategies.

Hewett, Beth. “Generating New Theory for Online Writing Instruction (OWI).” Kairos: A Journal for Teachers of Writing and Webbed Environments 22 Oct. 2004
.

Hewett’s main focus is to discuss her theories surrounding “individualized writing instruction within OWLs with references to computer mediated communication.” She believes that OWL research must go beyond anecdote and move to practice-based study that originates in natural settings found in both classrooms and onsite tutorial centers. Following with a background that focuses on her own biases toward OWI, Hewett discusses previous literature that inspired her to ask questions about OWI today. In this literature review, she explores several composition theories (current-traditional, expressivist, neo-classical, and social constructivist) and how they can be “extended in various ways to online writing instruction practices.” Her final note is that to obtain effective synchronous instruction in OWL, we must use a variety of designs to incorporate chat functions, multi-user dimensions, document sharing, and feedback models.

Hobson, Eric H., ed. Wiring the Writing Center. Logan: Utah State University Press. 27 Oct. 2004 .

This book includes several submissions from teachers and researchers who have explored the genre of OWLs. Due to the many approaches mentions in this book, the editor offers a cautionary note that says, “the technology does not provide a writing center with anything that can replace the people who work there, who train the staff, and whose experience, intuition, and common sense underlies a very powerful form of guiding insight.” One chapter of interest focuses on the OWL practices at the University of Michigan and is authored by Barbara Monroe. She takes an in-depth look at methods for providing feedback in an online environment. Using “front notes” “intertextual commentary” and “endnotes” provides an opportunity for tutors to engage with student writers who respond to a variety of commenting strategies. This OWL provides a model for finding that delicate compromise between criticism and praise in peer review that exists both on and offline. Her chapter ends with a positive outlook on asynchronous communication and how can benefit and supplement real-time feedback for either face-to-face or online tutoring.

Hongmei, Li. “Distance Education: Pros, Cons, and the Future.” Western States Communication Association, Long Beach. 2-5 Mar. 2002.

This paper takes a look at the aspects of distance education and online instruction to provide multiple perspectives of the truth behind this new commodity. Hongmei first takes a look at the student’s perspective to see who is most successful. Distanced learning tends to give control to “self-motivated and self-disciplined students with adequate reading and writing ability, good time management skills and comfort level with computers”. It is this group of students who succeed the most from this type of instruction. She then makes not of the differences between online and traditional learning with results in the conclusion that whatever your opinion, it is important to remember that student-based pedagogy is the most important factor. Her look at the support, or lack of it, by faculty members leads into the potential disaster of allowing “big business” to take its chunk of the pie. Fortunately, she ends on a positive note with an in-dept look at positive on-line writing programs at State University of New York and the University of California, Long Beach.

Leander, Kevin M. “Laboratories for Writing.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43 (2000): 662-668.

This article seeks to answer the question, “what does the development of online writing centers show us about the creation of ‘new’ spaces for literacy?” Leander takes an in-depth look at the “genrification” of online writing centers by exploring various shared characteristics. Most online writing centers have information about their offline counterparts (i.e. basic services, location, staff, hours). They also may include links to general writing resources for accessing style or grammar handbooks. Many contain ‘handouts’ that specifically target problem areas that writers face in their papers. Finally, more and more online writing centers are working toward providing e-mail links that permit students to submit their papers for prompt online feedback. After the author briefly explores online writing center hybrids, the risks of market-driven motivations of distance education, and student-centered learning the article ends with a look forward. “What if online writing centers became academic leaders as spaces for the advancement of multiliteracies?”

Palmquist, Mike. “A brief history of computer support for writing centers and writing-across-the-curriculum programs.” Computers and Composition 20 (2003): 395-413.

The article provides an in-depth look at how computer support has evolved since the 1970s in writing centers and WAC programs. Palquist begins with a discussion of computers being used as tools for individual work; little was networked within the program. The next stage involved using computers to run the administrative work of the writing center (i.e. accounting, notes on conferences, etc.). He then gets to the introduction of spell- and grammar checkers and how they represent a way to quantify writing into a mathematical equation. Word-processing programs play the next important role in attracting students to writing centers, whereby supporting outreach efforts. Gradually, there is an effort to use the pioneering technology of e-mail and inter-department networks to connect these programs to the rest of the academic community. His article finally concludes with a description of networking on the World Wide Web while looking forward to possible advancements in writing center technology. He expects a move toward more real-time instruction and critique, similar to conference technology being used in the corporate/business world.

Shadle, Mark. “The Spotted OWL: Online Writing Labs as Sites of Diversity, Controversy, and Identity.” Taking Flight with OWLs: Examining Electronic Writing Center Work. Eds. James A. Inman and Donna N. Sewell. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2000.

In this chapter, Shadle discusses his findings from a survey that he conducted at small and large institutions across the country. In his survey, primary questions focus on basic concerns with OWLs: resistance, practice, and successful vs. unsuccessful programs. His findings give him extensive information that focuses on how various OWLs are constructed given the implications of finding funding, support for servers, hardware, and software to run a successful center. He also extensively covers information related to updating existing OWLs. He suggests that writing centers approach issues of access, multiple audiences, resource materials, and the need for interactive features. On a last note, his brief look at tutor training and a “checklist” for creating an OWL may or may not be useful for practical application (based on the previous knowledge of potential writing center creators).

Swarts, Jason. “Live from the Writing Center: Technological Demands and Multiliterate Practice in a Virtual Writing Center.” Northeast Writing Centers Association, Worcester. 31 Mar. 2001.

This paper focuses on a writing center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute that pilots an Online Writing Tutorial. It is a 2-3-credit course designed to help students develop professional as well as academic based writing skills. Being a compliment to a co-op program, this course is unique to traditional essay-based courses. According to the author, there were several successes in this course. It allowed students to experiment with changing conventions based on their writing work. The program also had the ability to provide quick feedback via email, but not necessarily “real-time” feedback. The failures tended to be based on mainly logistics: supervisors restricting student access to company materials needed for course work and workday schedules causing awkward breaks between class periods. In the end, this paper provides yet another example that may be helpful to teachers who are looking for models for future pedagogical approaches.

Terryberry, Karl. “The Online Writing Lab (OWL) and the Forum: A Tool for Writers in Distance Education Environments.” Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning (IMEJ) 23 Oct. 2004 .

This is an article focusing on the “asynchronous” nature of online writing instruction through OWLs and other web-based tutorials. Terryberry discusses how to integrate basic web pages with courseware and “take advantage of threaded discussion groups that offer quality control over asynchronous environments and collaborative learning environments that writing students need.” He believes that OWLs can be used to deal with problems with peer editing, by allowing students to feel uninhibited by distanced confrontation. They can be used as grading tools by color-coding errors found in individual papers and their solutions via the web. And used as pedagogical tools for visual, auditory, and tactile learners. It is a close look at his pedagogical approach to teaching writing, which provides a model for teachers who intend to use OWLs in their classrooms.

Topic Proposal--On the uses of OWLs

As I thought about the impact computers and technology have on writing instruction, I found that there were so many issues to discuss that it was hard to choose just one topic. After looking at the MLA and ERIC databases, I found several hits on the issue of online instruction. At first, I wasn’t too sure about researching online instruction because I immediately thought that it only related to online classes. However, I started looking at the sources a bit more and found that I had a few questions. The most general question that I started with was “How does online instruction positively and negatively affect students’ writing skills?” I thought about online instruction with respect to using online communication to supplement in-class activities; this could be via email, Blackboard, MOOs, etc. Then I came across the idea of online writing centers and how they could be used as supplements as well, but it wouldn’t have to stop there. How does using online writing centers as supplements for the writing process (prewriting, drafting, peer review, revising) affect our students’ writing skills? Right now, my thoughts are that online writing centers are essential resources that should be used frequently in all stages of the writing process to craft and challenge our students’ writing skills.

Though I have only done a small amount of research on these online writing centers, I have several ideas for why I think these centers can be useful in our teaching methods. My first question about OWLs is about their effectiveness with getting students to write for different audiences. When my students feel that they are only writing for me, their instructor, I feel that they are limiting the possibility for expanding their skills on appealing to audience. I can tell them to pretend that they are writing for a particular audience as much as I want, but there is a clear difference between make-believe and the real thing. I know that the writing center at Eastern has mainly graduate assistants who work with students, but I wonder what the impact would be if there were other audiences within the writing center that could give their perspectives. What would be the effects of having both graduate assistants and certain professional writers work with students in the writing center? I know that it would be difficult to appeal to certain professionals and to house such an operation, but what happens if this is adapted to the online environment. There would have to be some incentive and a selection process, much like the one for the graduate assistants, for the professionals to view these students’ work, but it is a possibility. These professionals could login to Eastern’s OWL from anywhere in the country and be able to read certain pieces from students and critique their ability to write for their particular audience. Of course there are other options as well, but I think that this is one way to give students the feeling that their writing does matter to someone other than their instructor. I’m sure that there are many pros and cons to this type of online writing critique, but I am willing to take a closer look at this possibility and see what I can find.

Something else that came to mind as I was searching for information about OWLs is the matter of promoting students to get multiple perspectives on their papers to help with the revision process. I know that my students mention to me that they would like to have more than one person read their papers during the reader review process before turning them in to me. Of course I mention to these students that they can go to the Writing Center to seek more opinions, but they seem to be resistant. I wonder if OWLs would make it easier for students to make time for getting additional critique before turning in their final drafts? I think that OWLs would be very beneficial to these students, but the way they are now organized I feel that students would be more inclined to email their paper to an OWL tutor for quick fixes rather than thoughtful suggestions about content and writing style—somehow students expect the in-person writing center experience to be just that. Is there a more “real-time” interactive format for use in OWL to preserve some of that one-on-one conference style? I am reminded of how U of M formatted their OWLs in an email format. A student has the option of emailing their paper with a form that tells the tutor what the student needs help with and within three days the paper is reviewed and returned. I’m not sure if this is how it works now, since I haven’t used U of M’s system in the past four years. However, I would like to know if this form of review is the most beneficial for the student and the tutor. It may work for the tutor, because he or she can read through the paper and the form to make the appropriate comments in an efficient amount of time. Though, I feel that the lapse in time between when a student submits a paper and when he receives it back can have a negative effect on the success of the revision process itself. I feel that you can only give a certain amount of writing critique when you write it down. It leaves no options for any type of further conversation between the writer and the reviewer: no time for questions or collaboration. I think I will definitely want to explore this issue more closely as I conduct more research.

Right now, I feel that there are several avenues that I would like to explore with regards to the impact OWLs have on students’ writing skills. I think that the more research I find in this area, the more questions I will raise for myself. OWLs and their relationship to writing across the curriculum, is one more place where I would like to explore. At the time I am still not sure if this issue is readily present in the minds of the teaching community, but it is still a possibility to keep in mind as I continue to conduct my research.

Introduction

I plan on using this blog to record my thoughts and ideas about my research project for the semester. I have not narrowed down a specific topic, but I would like to look at how students use their knowledge about Internet communication in their writing for academic purposes. Some examples would be: their use of IM lingo when they are not communicating in IM, the way that they prefer the writing process to be instantaneous, like technology, and how they struggle with the lengthly revision process.

In-class blog

Example of a sample blog