WRITING ON THE WEB: ONLINE TECHNOLOGY AND THE WRITERS' WORKSHOP IN THE JUNIOR SECONDARY CLASSROOM BY Elizabeth Mcinerney Woods University of Northern British Columbia B.A., Central College, USA, 1970, Political Science Post Baccalaureate Diploma, Simon Fraser University, BC, 1996, Education THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR Tti_E D~GREE OF MASTER OF EDUCATION in CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION ©Elizabeth Mcinerney Woods, 2000 THE UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA December, 2000 All rights reserved. This work may not be reproduced in whole or in part, by photocopy or other means, without the permission of the author. UNIVERSiTY OF !ORTHERN BRIT!St-l COLUMBIA LIBRARY Prince George, BC Writing on the Web 11 Abstract Schools are places where students are required to perform writing acts and submit written products. A writers' workshop (WW) is one method used in schools to encourage students to write. Most would include the peer conference, the time for a student to talk about her/his writing, face-to-face, in various stages, one to one or in small groups of three to four peers. Graves (1983, 1985, 1991, 1995, 1996), Calkins (1986), and Atwell (1987) gave encouraging descriptions of their WW classrooms. Others have illuminated some of the challenges (DiPardo and Freedman, 1998; Lensmire, 1992, 1994; Morse, 1994; Rouse, 1988; Zemelman and Daniels, 1988). In particular, implementation of the peer conference has been problematic. Issues of teacher control are forefront and reinforced by the need to maintain a safe and productive classroom environment. Unlike the traditional teacher-talk dominated classroom, the peer conference creates less closely supervised opportunities for students to speak. In this restructured learning environment, the immediate peer culture becomes an important concern. The teacher cannot be sure that the classroom is a safe place for every student to share her/his work with peers (Lensmire, 1992). Despite these realities, constructivist theory stresses the importance of context and encourages active participation of students through talk and writing (Schaafsma, 1996; Doolittle, 1999; Schallert, Dodson, Benton, Reed, Amador, Lissi, Coward & Fleeman,1999). Online technology opens a new range of alternatives, and several features seem applicable to the problem of safety in the peer conference. Tornow (1997) and Bonk, Malik:owski, Angeli, and Supplee (1998) described the use of the online conference in a university setting. These authors defended the benefits of learning in a social context. Bonk et. al. (1998) saw web-based conferencing as "an electronic apprenticeship," an application ofVygotsky's negotiation of meaning within students' zone of proximal development. Three ofBakhtin's (1981) key perceptions are embodied in the WW: Through writing, the individual is able to to develop a dialogic awareness of his/her own place in the community (Brandist, 1997; Lensmire, 1994). Student stories are utterances in context, socio-linquistic narratives with an intertextual nature (Schallert et. al., 1999). However, with the reduction of autocratic control, the peer conference, like Bakhtin's carnival, has the potential to open the darker Writing on the Web Ill underbelly of the adolescent nature, and further serves as a caution to maintain a safe classroom environment. As researcher, I had a dual role as the teacher of the classroom under study. My goals were: ( 1) to create an online learning environment for the peer conference; (2) to peruse the peer responses to monitor class climate; (3) to assess the value of the peer conference; (4) to obtain students' evaluations of the online conference experience; and (5) to assess the value of the peer conference as indicated by revisions made between the draft and fmal copy of one piece of narrative writing. In collaboration with the project leader at the university computer center, we adapted a Weber site to meet our purposes. WebCT is a multi-dimensional communication tool developed at the University of British Columbia. A course construction template within this technology accommodated all of the functions necessary to establish the online peer conference. The main fmdings of this study were: ( 1) WebCT provided an appropriate online learning environment for the peer conference. In both the survey and class meeting data students confirmed that the online conference was a valuable way to construct meaning. One student commented, the assignment "gave us a thought process, not just a writing one." (2) Although one student received negative response to his story, for the vast majority of peer responses, safe environment was not a concern. However, the quality of peer responses was raised as an issue. (3) On the survey, of 22 participants, 17 students somewhat or strongly agreed that they would recommend the online conference for other students. At the last class meeting, of 18 participants present, 16 voted yes, they would like to do this project again. (4) On the survey, 18 somewhat or strongly agreed that they liked anonymous response. During class meeting discussion, students favored the use of a code name and suggested possible improvements: numbers versus names, assigned names, number only, no name and no number. Anonymous response allowed response to the writing and not to the writer, or the writer's place in the social hierarchy. (5) The concern for improved quality of peer response was reinforced as I found evidence of insufficient revision made between the draft and final copies of these narratives. Writing on the Web IV Table of Contents Approval i Abstract ii Table of Contents IV List of Tables X List of Figures XI Acknowledgements xii Dedication xiv 1. Introduction p. 1 2. Literature Review p. 5 2.1 Rationale p. 5 2.1.1 Experience p. 6 2.1.2 Theory p. 7 2.1.2.1 Behavioural Psychology p. 7 2.1.2.2 Social Constructivist p. 8 2.2 Social Construction of Meaning p. 9 2.2.1 Vygotsky p. 10 2.2.1.1 Zone of Proximal Development p. 10 2.2.1.2 Appropriation p. 11 Bakhtin p. 12 2.2.2.1 Dialogic p. 12 2.2.2.2 Utterances-in-context p. 14 2.2.2.3 Carnival p. 15 2.2.2.4 Ventriloquation p. 15 Writers' Workshop p. 16 2.2.2 2.2.3 2.3 Practical Application p. 16 2.3.1 Product Versus Process p. 17 2.3.2 Writers' Workshop as a Process p. 19 Table of Contents, continued 2.4 v 2.3.2.1 Structure p. 20 2.3.2.2 Ownership p. 20 2.3.2.3 Shared Power p. 21 2.3.2.4 Safe Environment p. 24 2.3 .3 Instruction 2.3.3 Writing on the Web p. 27 2.3.3.1 Peer Response p. 28 2.3.3.2 Preparation p. 32 Anonymity p. 36 2.3.3.1 Lack of Research p. 36 Technology p. 37 2.4.1 Brief Time Line p. 37 2.4.2 Online Conference p. 40 2.4.2 Online Conference Use p. 41 2.5 Research Problem p. 46 2.6 Purpose p. 46 2.7 Research Questions p. 47 2.6.1 Content p. 47 2.6.2 Attitudes p. 48 3. Method 3.1 3.2 p. 48 Phases Preliminary to the Study p. 48 3.1.1 Design of the Website p. 49 3.1.2 Sample Stories p. 51 Method p. 52 3.2.1 Participants p. 52 3.2.1.1 Ethical considerations 3.2.2 Procedure p. 52 p. 53 3.2.2.1 Introduction to WebCT p. 54 3.2.2.2 Peer Response Guidelines p. 57 3.2.2.3 Narrative Composition Assignment p. 57 Table of Contents, continued Writing on the Web vi 3.2.2.4 Revision p. 61 3.2.2.5 Survey p. 63 3.2.2.6 Multi-task Requirements p. 63 3.2.2.7 Class Meeting p. 65 3.2.2.8 Teacher Responsibilities p. 65 3.3 Data Analysis p. 69 3.3.1 Data Collected p. 69 3.3.2 Analysis Procedure p. 69 3.3.3 Teacher Notations p. 70 3.3.4 Peer Responses p. 71 3.3.5 Comparison of Teacher Notations, Student Notations, and Final Drafts p. 71 3.3.6 Survey p. 72 3.3.7 Class Meeting p. 73 4. Results p. 74 4.1 Content p. 75 4.1.1 Initial Categories p. 75 4.1.2 Revised Categories p. 78 p. 81 4.2 Revision 4.2.1 Changes Between Draft and Final Copy 4.3 Author Use of Peer Responses 4.3.1 Relationship Between Revisions and Peer Suggestions 4.4 Attitudes 4.4.1 p. 81 p. 82 p. 82 p. 85 Student Attitudes About the Process of the Online Conference p. 85 4.4.1.1 Likert-type questions p. 86 4.4.1.2 Short answer questions p. 88 4.4.1.3 Writers' Conference p. 90 Table of Contents, continued 4.4.2 Writing on the Web vii Student Attitudes About the Usefulness of the Online Conference p. 91 4.4.2.1 Class Meetings p. 92 4.4.2.2 Peer Responses p. 92 4.4.2.3 Computer Use p. 94 4.4.2.4 Evaluation p. 95 4.4.2.5 Narrative Project p. 95 p. 100 5. Discussion 5.1 Social Construction of Meaning p. 103 5.1.1 Quality of Peer Responses p. 103 5.1.2 Personal Assessment p. 104 5.1.3 Response Guidelines p. 104 5.1.4 Wider Connections p. 105 p. 106 5.2 Revision 5.2.1 Proofreading p. 107 5 .2.2 Personal Assessment p. 108 5.3 The Triumvirate of Initiatives p. 108 5.3.1 Student Attitudes about the Narrative Project p. 109 5.3.2 Challenges of the Online Conference p. 109 5.3.3 Anonymity p. 110 5.3.3.1 Anonymity in-situ? p. 111 5.3.3.2 A success story p. 112 5.4 Implications p. 112 5.4.1 Social Construction of Meaning p. 112 5.4.2 Revision p. 113 5.4.3 Anonymity p. 114 Writing on the Web Table of Contents, continued viii p. 115 5.5 Limitations of Study 5.5.1 Methodological Limitations p. 115 5.5.1 Data Collection p. 115 5.5.2 Role of Researcher p. 115 5.5.3 Sampling p. 116 5.5.4 Data Analysis p. 117 5.5.5 Auditing Techniques p. 117 p. 117 5.6 Contributions of Study 5.6.1 Social Construction of Meaning p. 118 5.6.2 Online Education p. 119 p. 120 5.7 Future Research 5.7.1 Social Construction of Meaning p. 120 5.7.2 Revision p. 121 5.7.3 Case Study and Interview p. 122 5.7.4 Online versus Print p. 122 p. 123 5.8 Conclusion p. 126 6. References 7. Appendixes 7.1 Appendix A: Sample of Letter of Consent, 1998-1999 p. 136 7.2 Appendix B: Letter of Consent, Ethics Committee p. 137 7.3 Appendix C: Sample of Letter of Consent, 1999-2000 p. 138 7.4 AppendixD: Assignment- Narrative Response Journal . p. 139 7.5 AppendixE: The Animal p. 141 7.6 AppendixF: In the Public Eye p. 142 7.7 AppendixG: Sample of Letter of Consent, 2000-2001 To Use Real Name p. 144 7.8 AppendixH: Peer Response Guidelines p. 145 7.9 Appendix I: Instructions: WebCT p. 146 Writing on the Web lX Table of Contents, continued 7.10 AppendixJ: Assignment- Narrative Creative Writing p. 148 7.11 AppendixK: Narrative: Evaluation p. 150 7.12 AppendixL: Sample of Student Survey p. 151 7.13 AppendixM: Reflective Response p. 153 7.14 AppendixN: Narrative Notations p. 154 7.15 Appendix 0-1: Enchanted Utopia p. 155 7.16 Appendix 0-2: Enchanted Utopia (revised) p. 156 7.17 AppendixP: Buck Fever p. 157 7.18 Appendix Q-1 : Marbles p. 158 7.19 Appendix Q-2 : Marbles (revised) p. l60 7.20 AppendixR: The Teacher p. 162 7.21 AppendixS: The Braggart p. 165 Writing on the Web x List of Tables 1 Ten Helping Behaviours for the Writing Conference p. 31 2 Ten Steps to Prepare for the Writing conference p. 34 3 Seven Steps to Prepare for the Electronic Writing Conference p. 40 4 Eight Guidelines for a Purposeful Chat Room p. 45 5 Chronology of Data Analysis p. 71 6 Examples of Peer Responses Distributed Among 15 Categories p. 78 7 Examples of Peer Responses Distributed Among 4 Categories p. 80 8 Peer Response as Related to Revision p. 84 9 Statistics: Likert-type Questions p. 88 10 Summary: Online Conference p. 90 11 Summary: Preferred Presentation Format p. 91 12 Summary: Reflective Responses p. 93 Writing on the Web XI List of Figures 1 Table of Contents of Sample Stories p. 55 2 Sample of Screen to Compose Message p. 56 3 An Example of a Student Story Posted to WebCT p. 59 4 Table of Contents of Presentations p. 60 5 A Sample List of Peer Responses p. 62 6 Calendar of Assignments p. 64 7 A Sample of Responses for "Buck Fever" p. 67 8 A Sample of Responses for "Braggart" p. 68 Writing on the Web xn ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This report exists because I have had the good fortune to work with Dr. Judith Lapadat. I am so very grateful that she agreed to be my thesis supervisor at the University of Northern British Columbia. She inspired me to raise my sights beyond the confmes of my classroom and to look to the horizon. Her meticulous attention to detail complements her broad reaching understanding of theory, research design, and data analysis. Her enthusiasm and energy have been an unending source of motivation. I am grateful to both Dr. Karin Beeler and Dr. Paul Madak who joined my committee at a late date despite time constraints. I appreciate the thorough and deliberate reading of the manuscript Dr. Beeler was able to provide. Her generous and insightful comments allowed me to better clarify and illuminate key concepts. She helped me to recognize that the peer conference could extend to expository and other forms of writing. I would like to recognize Dr.Anne Lindsay for her contribution to this five year process. She introduced me to the world of academic research and constructivist thinking. I would like to thank Lynda Williams, technology expert, teacher, and advisor, without her patient guidance and ongoing enthusiasm this study could not have been accomplished. Most of all, I am delighted to have found her friendship. I appreciate the exuberance and passion she has for her own writing, and I thoroughly enjoy reading her intoxicating science fiction series. To my thesis cohort, Molly Eichar, Carol Johnson, Trudy Mothus, Donna Preston, you helped me to remember that life goes on, and this, too, shall pass. Thank you for being who you are, - for sharing; for caring, and for your support. Believe it or not, I did enjoy reading all those chapters of your theses over these many months. I appreciate that I was a beneficiary of our collaborative efforts to make meaning. In the planning stages, my discussion of the narrative unit with Trudy helped to form the backbone of the assignment used in this study. I would like to thank all the students who helped and who participated in all the phases of this study. I thank School District No. 57 and the University of Northern British Columbia for permission to conduct the study. I appreciate the release time provided by Robin Temoin, my principal, to take advantage of in-service opportunities relative to technology. I am grateful to the Writing on the Web Xll1 members of the Technology Committee of Blackburn Junior Secondary who have worked for five years to bring current technology to the staff and students. In particular, I want to thank Maria Weisgarber and Lee Karpenko. Maria was the Teacher-Librarian while this project was under construction. Her daily support and encouragement were a tonic; and her help when students were in trouble with computers was indispensable. Lee Karpenko brought his calm and cool response to each of the never ending crises that plagued this implementation. He also helped me figure out how to add graphics to text! I am grateful for his optimistic outlook and patient approach to problem solving. The words of this document may be mine, but a great number of people participated in the making of this meaning. To all, as verbal as I am, I cannot thank each of you adequately. Writing on the Web XIV DEDICATION This study is dedicated to Father Roger Radloff, Ph.D., Litt.D., and Jungian psychoanalyst. In memory of Father Radloff, the Pierre Toussaint - Roger Jerome Radloff Foundation was established in 1993 to assist students in their quest for education in the Arts, Literature, Music or directly related areas. The study of writing was emphasized in the last two years of my study, and as such I qualified for this scholarship. This fmancial assistance greatly relieved the financial burdens five years of academic study have incurred. Thank you to Mr. Charles Cangro, attorney, and the Board of Trustees of the Foundation. My life has been a great dialogue with many partners, all of whom have enriched my experience. But first and foremost, it is my family both distant and near who have nurtured and ~ me. From across the continent, my relatives were in constant contact. Mom, you have been my confidante and confederate for five decades, you taught me the art of listening with love. Dad, you taught me to always keep reaching, to always feel that there is more to accomplish. You are my role model of generous giving. Tony, your telephone calls were the reminder to remember the fun things about life. Moe, your shoulder was there for me to cry on; your interest, encouragement and respect kept me going. And, I will always be grateful to you, Karen, because you continued to ask, "What have you done on your thesis?" To my immediate family, who supported me throughout his long, anxious struggle, I could not have accomplished this without your tolerance. For you, Sara, it has been too many years of a Mom with books in her lap. Thank you for your encouragement and Sunday visits. I most especially thank my husband, Dave. You accepted that I had to do this to be who I am. Your support came in so many ways - a cooked dinner, a wood fire, a reminder to stop for the night. Most of all, I needed your hugs. We are the product of our accumulated experiences. I am a very fortunate lady to have had accumulated experiences ftlled with so much love. Thank you all. Writing on the Web 1 WRITING ON THE WEB: ONLINE TECHNOLOGY AND THE WRITERS' WORKSHOP IN THE JUNIOR SECONDARY CLASSROOM CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION Writing is a product. Writing is a process. Writing is solitary. Writing is communal. Writing is art. Writing is diligence. Not opposite ends of a continuum, writing is all of the above. Writing is one way human beings experience and express their existence. Writing is communication. ··... Schools are places where students are required to perform writing acts and submit written products. The dimensions, complexity and relevance of the act of writing deserves and has received much attention in the literature of education. In the past six decades, writing has been recognized as both product and process, both solitary and communal. In practice and in the current literature, the communal process of writing has been emphasized as interactive learning. As a teacher of writing, I fmd that balance among alternatives is a more comfortable position. First, I try to respect the writer's need for solitude and self-determination of process. Then I try to create opportunities for interaction with both myself and peers to feed the process and encourage dialogue with a goal of improving the fmal product. A writers' workshop model is one method that has been developed to teach writing in •. schools. Agenetic defmition of the writers' workshop (WW) would be a classroom where students write and talk about their writing and the process of writing with peers and teacher. The purpose of the talk is to help students revise and edit their own work, to make meaning for themselves and to share that meaning with others. The WW builds on the traditional writing process of draft, revise, proofread and publish. A successful WW would include recurrent interactions that encourage ·discussion. The peer conference is the time given to a student to talk to others face-to-face about his/her writing; they may meet one to one or in small groups of three to four. In a peer conference, Writing on the Web 2 students discuss writing in various stages. Students may brainstorm ideas for a story, develop story elements, or proofread before final publication. Graves (1983, 1985, 1991, 1995), Calkins (1986), and Atwell ( 1987) give vivid and encouraging, positive descriptions of their WW classrooms. They describe classrooms that emphasized the importance of daily writing, student choice, and publication of student writing. Other examinations have illuminated some of the challenges faced by teachers in WW classrooms (DiPardo & Freedman, 1998; Lensmire, 1992, 1994; Brunjes, 1993; Morse, 1994; Rouse, 1988; Zemelman & Daniels, 1988). In particular, implementation of the peer conference has been described as problematic. Issues of teacher control and classroom management are forefront, and reinforced by the need to maintain a safe and productive classroom environment. The peer conference calls for a restructuring of the traditional scenario of teacher-dominated classroom talk, and allows students the freedom to speak in less supervised circumstances. When students are involved in peer conference, this freedom is put into action. The teacher cannot be sure what will be said in a peer conference or that every student and every student's work will be treated with respect. The teacher cannot be sure that the environment will remain safe for all students. Compounding this risk, neither research nor experience has demonstrated that an improved product will result from the peer conference. Despite these realities, I believe that the importance of talk to writing as a vehicle to "make meaning" outweighs the challenges. The WW provides a structure that allows students to experience opportunities to write, to talk and to make meaning. This is important above and beyond a focus on the product of writing. Every year, every semester, as a teacher, I am provided with a another chance to create a WW environment. Each time I try, I hope that it will be a positive experience that will allow students to make meaning for themselves and with others. The recursive nature of the secondary school schedule allows for experimentation and refmement from year to year, semester to semester. Each successive class adds a new piece of information and offers a new perspective. The addition of online technology to the WW, also known as _computer-mediated communication (CMC), may be useful in reducing some of the particular difficulties that accompany the peer conference. Online technology allows the teacher to monitor a written record to what students "say" in peer conference. Online technology also provides a convenient method to Writing on the Web 3 store and recall the draft(s) and fmal copy of the written work. To improve my ability to maintain and monitor a safe environment, the online alternative to the face-to-face peer conference offers an archival record of what is said. While verbal communications are spontaneous and cannot be retrieved, asynchronous, text-based discourse can be edited before it is released. For the student, online technology may offer the safety of anonymity. As a writer, anonymity allows the student to wear a mask, to hide his/her identity behind a "code name." For the insecure adolescent, a code name may allow the student to explore characters and situations that could be potentially embarrassing if publicly proclaimed. The anonymous response encourages an honest response. The peer responder is less constrained by bounds of loyalty or prejudice. Anonymity offers both the writer artd the reader an expanded freedom of expression. I do not suggest that the online conference should be a replacement for the face-to-face peer conference. Rather, I see online technology as an addition to my existing practices in the WW classroom. The specific advantage of online technology is the archival record of the student dialogue as well as the before and after drafts. My goal is to supplement current practices without ,subtracting what already works; my purpose is to improve the peer conference by adding online technology. The following chapters will discuss the key elements of the WW and review the literature that describes the WW as an opportunity for students to socially construct meaning. I will briefly outline the rapid growth of online technology and how I selected the specific technology used in this study. This qualitative study extends and modifies the use of the online conference as described by Tornow (1997), and Bonk, Malikowski, Angeli, and Supplee (1998), although.both of these were studies conducted with university students. These researchers valued the capacity of the online environment to produce an archival record and physical evidence of time on task and task completion. Tornow, in particular, discussed the value of the anonymous response, as anonymity allows a response to the writing, not the writer. Both studies reported positive student attitudes towards the use of online technology. My study was situated in a junior secondary school, and employed online technology. In this study, I examined the content of peer response and the use of peer response in the revision of a piece of writing. I used Weber as the online vehicle to provide a written record of the peer Writing on the Web 4 responses and to allow for anonymity to further protect both the author and respondent. The addition of online technology to the peer conference generated physical evidence that students did use the time provided to talk about writing, and, furthermore, I was able to monitor this record to ensure that the students' comments were respectful and appropriate. I will discuss the peer comments, the comparison of story drafts before and after the online conference, and what evidence in the fmal copy indicated about peer influence. Using comments gathered in a survey and two class discussions, I also will discuss participants' opinions about the use of online technology to peer conference and possible benefits to their writing. Writing on the Web 5 CHAPTER TWO LITERATURE REVIEW A word is a microcosm of human consciousness (Vygotsky, 1962, p. 153). Practice preceded theory both in personal and professional experience. First, I wrote; then, I wrote with students. Only later did I discover that education theory supported beliefs I had developed from these experiences. As a writer, dialogue with an audience both encourages and inspires me. As a teacher, I have observed that students benefit when they get to actively participate in their own learning. When students talk -- to each other, with the teacher, or in group discussion, a classroom can come to life. I have concluded that talk influences learning, and talk about writing tasks benefits writers. My problem has been how to create an opportunity for students to talk about writing. A Writers' Workshop (WW) is a way of structuring classroom instruction in the writing process. A WW encourages students to choose their own topics and encourages teachers to use the peer conference to support student writing (Gere, 1987; Lensmire, 1992, 1994; Strech, 1995; Brunjes, 1993). In the peer conference, students are asked to review and/or edit the work of fellow students; they detect, diagnose, and solve writing problems (van der Geest & Remmers, 1994). However, in the "hormonal environment" of the junior secondary classroom, experience with the peer conference has proved that implementation is problematic. The search for an answer to the problem of the peer conference led me to investigate the possibilities that technology might offer. Use of the computer in the classroom has introduced an intoxicating array of opportunities. Word processing has long been accepted in the writing classroom. A current direction has been online communication, and in this context, the idea of an online peer conference was developed. Rationale Through a review of the pertinent literature, I will place this study within the context of theoretical perspective and practical application. I will discuss social constructivist theory and the Writing on the Web 6 relevance of the work of Vygotsky and Bakhtin. With respect to practical application, I will describe the key elements of the WW; specifically ownership, structure and the peer conference. The use of online technology exploded in the late 1990s. As a consequence, this summary will be but a small sampling of available literature. Although neither the peer conference nor the online conference are original topics for study, most previous research has been situated in elementary and middle school classrooms, or in the world of the post-secondary education and business. Although a middle school may incorporate grade 8 and sometimes grade 9 students, the junior secondary population that includes the year(s) in preparation for senior secondary are seldom specified. Experience Writing has been an integral part of my personal history, documented in diaries and journals. My preference has been to express myself in decades of unpublished poems and narratives. I remember upgrading from pencil to pen, manual to electric and fmally self-correcting typewriter. I remember when I thought I would never own a computer; I have owned several since. Personal interest has led me to study of writing and audience response to writing. A correspondence course in education, Special Topics: Writing, offered by Carolyn Mamchur (1994) through Simon Fraser University, was my first introduction to the internet, using Eudora to connect to my peers to share writing and practice reader response (Elbow, 1981). Writing is an essential part of the English curriculum. The Province of British Columbia Ministry of Education has established an Integrated Resource Package (IRP) for each subject and grade level. For English 10, the IRP recommends that students be exposed to a "wide variety of literary and informational communications". This information is available online at www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/ela810/elacurr.htm. For English 10, the focus seems to be descriptive writing. In particular, students should be able to "describe how mood and tone affect the drama of a story, play or film." I have been a teacher for more than eighteen years, and an English teacher for the last twelve. WW strategies allow me to share my passion about writing with students. My own enthusiasm is often strained by the difficulties I have encountered in attempts to implement a WW environment. The key concern is a classroom management issue. When a teacher gives up the Writing on the Web 7 center stage and total control, students are allowed the freedom to select the venue for their learning experience. Even within the structured guidelines of an orderly classroom, an educational activity is not always a student's first choice. When given time to talk about writing, not all talk was on task. Sadly, not only would some talk not be helpful, sometimes what one student would say to another would be hurtful. The idea to create online conference to increase peer "talk" was one possible solution to the problems of eliciting on-task and appropriate talk. Theozy Theorists in such divergent schools of thought as behavioral psychology and social construction of knowledge have argued that students need to talk to learn and students need to talk to write. Both schools have focused on the interaction of thought, speech and writing. Behavioral psychology. The behavioral study of psychology was based on the theories of J. B. Watson (1878-1958) and B. F. Skinner (1904-) and focused on performance and empirical observation (Bohannon, 1993). Zoellner (1969, January) opened the doors to controversy, and initiated a series of rebuttals documented in College English over the nextsev.eral months, because he identified writing as a social event. He used a behavioral model to argue for a "talk-write" pedagogy. As an instructor of college level English composition, he observed that students could say what they were unable to write. Using the vocabulary of operant conditioning, stimulus- response-reinforcement, Zoellner argued for the study of external behavior. The heart of the talkwrite pedagogy was the principle of successive approximations where "the student is verbally reinforced for increasingly efficacious scribal activity" (p. 225). Viewed as a behavioral action, language could be studied in response to stimulation provided by other speakers. To summarize, Zoellner observed that students could speak what they could not write, and he proposed that student talk can improve student writing. In the four decades since, writers have revisited Zoellner's (1969) talk-write pedagogy. Miller and Rinderer (1980) recognized the resemblance between the Zoellner's talk-write model and a theatre performance. They commented, "The notion of rehearsal suggests preparation over time" (p. _3). The rehearsal analogy recognizes that an audience is implicit. A rehearsal is preparation to perform before an audience. For the writer, a peer response allows the writer to rehearse before the final product is presented. Hatch ( 1991) argued that teachers and researchers Writing on the Web 8 must study "writing as a signifying act," and suggested Zoellner's process model allows the teacher to deal with observable behavior. Hatch observed that Zoellner's concern for behavior is similar to work in linguistics and literary theory; "the teacher or researcher can only observe language, sign systems, and acts of signification" (p. 9). Signification was integral to the work of Russian researcher, Lev Semenovich Vygotsky (1896- 1917). Vygotsky (1962, 1978) identified language as a sign system that children use to learn culturally appropriate communication. Vygotsky argued that oral language develops thought, . and learning is interactive. Vygotsky, among others, gave a theoretical basis for creating classroom ~ that will offer a wide range of opportunities for language activity and social interaction (Hoel, 1997). Vygotsky, however, went beyond the reinforcement paradigm and emphasis on external observable behavior asserted by the behaviorists to propose the notion of social construction of meaning. Social Construct Theozy. Social construct theorists stress the importance of social context; the construction and reconstruction of ideas relies on collaboration and shared meaning. This perspective on language and learning recognizes language as a social construct, assumes that discourse is socially constructed within particular communities, and encourages active participation through talk and writing (Schaafsma, 1996). Although Vygotsky worked in the early part of the twentieth century, the writings of this Russian psychologist only came to the attention of North American researchers several decades later in the 1962 and 1978 translations. Vygotsky recognized the importance of social interaction, and suggested the close relationship between talk and writing. He contended that language is reconstructed in a mental process to organize individual thought. The individual moves from the social level to internal level; sign operations are transformed from interpersonal processes into intrapersonal ones (Geekie, 1993). The work ofBakhtin (1981) has influenced the view of writing as a didactic process, and furthers recognition that written language is communication (Mulvaney, 1993; van der Geest & Remmers, 1994; Hoel, 1997; Schallert, Dodson, Benton, Reed, Amador, Lissi, Coward & Fleeman,1999). These socio-cultural concepts have underscored the need to examine the relationship of student talk to student learning and the importance of talk in the classroom, in learning process. Writing on the Web 9 Social Construction of Meaning The essential core of constructivism is that learners actively construct their own knowledge and meaning from their experiences (Doolittle, 1999; Schallert et. al., 1999). The key to a WW is the social construction of meaning. The social construction of meaning can be defined as the intellectual product that is the result of collaboration among individuals (Schallert et. al., 1999). Wells (1986) discussed Vygotsky (1962) to argue that the writing conference is a vehicle for the reader to inquire about the author's intentions and to negotiate meaning. The construction of knowledge occurs through interaction of peers or small groups of students. This interaction is an effective tool for helping students bridge the gap between speaking and writing. As early as 1981, Emig's research on how writers write pioneered think-aloud strategies and documented case studies with grade 12 students (Dyson & Freedman, 1991). When students are in small groups, they participate; they risk exploring new ideas; they learn from one another (Reid, 1986). Wells (1986) made specific suggestions for the writing conference: First, assume the writer has something important to say. Then, be sure you have understood the writer's intended meaning; and question and make suggestions based on the spoken intentions. Finally, in reply, confirm or extend the understood meaning, and reply in terms the writer can understand. Wells recognized that children are active meaning makers and the best way adults can help them to learn is to give them evidence, guidance, and encouragement. Each individual constructs one's own meaning, and that meaning is built on the interactions each one had and has with others. A recurrent theme in the literature on language and learning is that learners actively seek meaning. Pinnell ( 1987) observed, "Children are not doomed to imitate; they make their own meanings. They are more than passive responders; they actively participate and think" (p. 353). Peer response makes language the central feature of thinking and knowing. · Gere ( 1987) surveyed a long history of writing groups, the earliest organized at Harvard in 1719, and stressed the similarities she discovered. She comments, "Perhaps the most significant commonality among writing groups appears in what they contribute to our understanding of what it means to write. Specifically, writing groups highlight the social dimension of writing" (p. 3). Based on her observations, Gere determined that writing groups often focus on creating meaning through dialogue; and this dialogue encourages writers to "re-vision" and create substantial improvements. Gere put peer response at the center of the writing group because it makes language the central Writing on the Web 10 feature of thinking and knowing. Gere claimed, ''The voices students hear in writing groups contribute directly to what they internalize and later use in writing" (p. 84). As students ask questions and make suggestions, they help each other shape and develop ideas. Children seek links, relationships, and conceptual wholes in everything they experience, including language (Pease et. al., 1993). ~ As mentioned above, Vygotsky studied the social context of language acquisition. A crucial element in Vygotsky's thinking is that development is mediated by tools and signs. Vygotsky (1962) argued that for the young child, language is at first only a tool for social interaction. The child will recognize that language has a structure and language plays role in the social environment. Cultural values are represented in the sign system that has evolved to regulate and maintain order. Ordered systems of linguistic signs mediate the ways in which people behave in particular social settings (Dyson & Freedman, 1991; Hoel, 1997). Vygotsky (1962) argued, "Not only may cognitive or social factors modify language acquisition, but language acquisition will in tum modify the development of cognitive and social skills" (p. 260). This social interaction approach to the development of language recognizes the fusion of nature and nurture in child development. Zone of proximal develQPment. Vygotsky (1978) argued that human beings were innately social, and he stressed the role of the care giver. He defmed the "zone of proximal development" (ZPD) as follows: It is the distance between the actual problem solving level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (p. 86). Wertsch (1985) identified the ZPD as the area between a student's unassisted performance and a student's performance with outside support. The ZPD is difference between what the child can do acting alone and what he/she can do when acting with the guidance of a more advanced partner. Negotiation of meaning occurs within a student's ZPD. Interaction is the key; talk is the medium for that interaction. Hoel ( 1997) explained the process that takes place in the ZPD as the conversion from the social to the individual, "or from the intermental to the intramental," to "learn appropriate Writing on the Web 11 cultural knowledge through a dialectic relationship with more experienced members in their society" (p. 6). Thinking in partnership goes beyond what one individual could do alone (Mulvaney, 1993; Schallert et. al., 1999). The construction of knowledge occurs when individuals enhance their personal experience through communication with others. Appropriation. A second concept, appropriation is the notion that cognition occurs based upon prior knowledge developed in relationship with a social agent or mentor (Vygotsky, 1962). Social interaction is at the core of learning and imitation plays an important part in that process. Vygotsky (1978) was specific: "While imitating their elders in culturally patterned activities, children generate opportunities for intellectual development" (p 129). Imitation as a source of learning is closely related to scaffolding, a concept associated with the 1976 work of Jerome Bruner (Hoel, 1997, p. 6). In the context of education, scaffolding is often used to describe the support a student receives from the teacher or more capable peer. Wertsch ( 1979) elaborated that appropriation occurred in four stages. First, an individual will appropriate or take on skills and thoughts valued by another person. Second, the individual will lack understanding of the task but performance is accomplished with the guidance of a mentor. Third, the individual will take over the responsibility for the task but with adult help. Finally, the individual is able to perform the task without adult intervention. In other words, the construction of knowledge occurs when individuals enhance their personal knowledge through the presence of others. In this way, the participating mentor challenges the student and helps the student by scaffolding new knowledge onto prior knowledge. Wells (1990) connected Vygotsky's theories: Learning through apprenticeship is, in fact, a universal phenomenon and is the normal mode through which most critical practices are · acquired .... it is what Vygotsky (1978) had in mind in his wellknown exposition of "learning in the zone of proximal development." In his view, all cultural knowledge, and indeed the higher mental processed themselves, are acquired through social interaction as, in the course of shared participation in a joint activity, the more mature member of the culture, while enacting the total Writing on the Web 12 process, draws the novice into participation and gradually allows him or her to take over more and more of the task, as he or she shows the ability to do so (p. 380). Evolving from demonstration to hands-on performance, an individual gradually appropriates the relevant behavior to the social situation. Bakhtin Four main ideas expressed by Bakhtin (1981) are particularly related to the study of student writing: First, the concept of dialogic makes language a social, cultural and historical phenomenon. Humans are a social beings in search of meaning. Through dialogue, an individual gains awareness of her/his own place in the community, within the whole (Brandist, 1997). Consciousness emerges through social interaction (Lensmire, 1994). Second, further, utterances in-context are language acts in a social setting, and the dialogue exhibits an intertextual nature (Schallert et. al., 1999). Intertextuality is the bridge to the written word, "We are all in dialogue with what we have heard and read, said and written before, we are part of the continuous chain of speech performance" (Hoel, 1997, p. 9). Third, the metaphor of the carnival illustrates the individual celebration of freedom from the constraints of conventional lives and reveals another facet of making meaning, with a darker undertone of blasphemy and profanity (Brandist, 1997, p. 11 ). Words vie for audience in an arena of competing voices. The chaotic atmosphere provides an opportunity for the release of powerful emotions, both positive and negative. Symbols of authority made be held up to mockery, and protection for the weak may be suspended. And fourth, the process where one voice speaks through another voice is defmed as ventriloquation (Manyak, 1999). I elaborate these ideas below.' D ~ Language is crucial to learning, as one needs to deal with another 'I' who can speak for and about his or herself in a fundamentally different way (Brandist, 1997). Meaning is constructed as an ideological bridge between the dialogue partners (Hoel, 1997), a process of "responsive understanding" (Gay, 1998).Dialogue is a characteristic of heteroglossia, "mirrors that face each other" (Brandist, 1997). Holquist (1981) offered another connotation for Bakhtin ( 1895-1975) is recognized as the center of a school of thought developed in response to the social and cultural upheaval of the Russian Revolution. Members of the group included M.l. Kagan (1889-1937), P. N. Medvedev (1891-1938), L. V. Purnpianskii (1891-1940), I. I. Sollertinskii (1902-1944), V. N. Volosinov (1895-1936), and others. Writing on the Web 13 heteroglossia: "Everything means, is understood, as a part of a greater whole -- there is a constant interaction between meanings, all of which have the potential of conditioning others" (p. 426). Bakhtin ( 1981) stressed the dynamics of speech, multiplicity of meanings, and a continuous generative process: The word, directed toward its object, enters a dialogically agitated and tension-filled environment of alien words, value judgments and accents, weaves in and out of complex interrelationships, merges with some, recoils from others, and intersects with yet a third group; and all this may crucially shape discourse (p. 276). To negotiate this continuous process, narrative is often used as a mediating device to negotiate a shared sense of meaning (Mulvaney, 1993). Hoel ( 1997) suggested that Bakhtin' s use of the term polyphony, or the story as composed by multiple voices, was interchangeable with dialogue, as in a polyphony of voices. The different voices may be "juxtaposed to one another, mutually supplement one another, contradict one another and be interrelated dialogically" (Bakhtin, 1981, pp. 291-292). The polyphony of voices relates to the concept ofintertextuality, the relation of one utterance to other utterances, and between past and present discourses (Ewald, 1990). The reader is a co-creator of text, and interprets the text to integrate the reader's experiences and purposes. The reader's role is crucial, as the reader consummates the discourse act (Ewald, 1990). Writing requires a triangulation of author, subject, and reader in a constant state of flux. An individual writes text in dialogue with many voices, those heard in the present, as a reflection of past experience, and in anticipation of the future. Talk is embedded in social practices. Individuals speak and write from a position situated in and bounded by cultural norms. Authorship, therefore, is a community-based activity, the product of a complex social situation (Freedman, 1994). Lapadat ( 1994) presents the argument that meaning does not have to be the same to be shared. She develops a concept of language domains, or multiple levels of context, that affect both verbal and written interactions. She distinguishes levels of context for both verbal/ face-to-face (F2F) and written interactions, and the effect of "Out There" and "In Here" on the individual (Eichar, 1996). In a F2F context, "Out There" includes extra-linguistic information, what is explicit and known, such as the physical setting, social setting, and immediate situation, as well as co-text Writing on the Web 14 that is created and negotiated between parties, what has been understood and what is expected. "In Here" includes the historical and experiential knowledge of the participants which incorporates each individual's prior knowledge, intentions and beliefs, typically implicit knowledge. The writer retrieves memory and reconstructs events of the experienced and perceived social world. This reconstruction can be used to serve literary purposes to fabricate a story, to transform experience into words and sentences, and can be further rewritten and revised. Each word and structural component will invoke social meanings, as each part is integrated and provides context. The writer assumes some readers will share certain knowledge with her/him, both cultural and generic. However, Lapadat cautions that the reader's interpretation of the writer's context will be through the lens of the reader's own experiences and implicit knowledge. The shared meanings the writer meant to be implicit may be invalid for particular readers, or the reader may supply unintended meanings to subtext. The subjectivity of an individual in the construction of meaning is further developed by Bakhtin. Utterances in-context. Bakhtin (1981) made the connection between the ongoing dialogue between individuals and social contexts. He emphasized that an utterance cannot exist without context (Ewald, 1990). Every utterance is a response to a previous utterance and the impetus for future utterances (Mulvaney, 1993). The primary use oflanguage is not self-expression but communication within a specific sociological structure. All speech acts serve as currency in discourse communities (Cooper & Self, 1999). Individuals make choices between competing world views in the effort to construct her/his own voice, and these choices are shaped by social goals and "ideological positioning" in peer-governed worlds (Manyak, 1999). Each utterance, each speech act is a point of dynamism and change. A single voice is heard in a complex choir of other voices (Ewald, 1990). Writing is a collaborative rather than individual act. The interaction of the writing world and the social network can be a mercurial event. When children use writing to respond to and to provoke responses from peers, they seek affiliation, they seek to captivate audiences. A Bakhtinian concept of voice suggests that the writer struggles to invest words and phrases with a new significance to express individual meaning. In a political sense, my words struggle for precedence over another's words (Lensmire, 1994). This sense of voice emphasizes an individual's active participation, and the contrast to participation is silence. Under Writing on the Web 15 oppressive conditions, some may be excluded from participation, and some voices may be forced into silence. Bakhtin ( 1981) summarized the challenge of this struggle, "Language is not a neutral medium that passes freely and easily into the private property of the speaker's intentions; it is populated-overpopulated-with the intentions of others" (p. 294). The imagery of the carnival fits the individual struggle to fmd the self amid the multitude of voices. Carnival. Bakhtin developed his metaphor of carnival in his doctoral dissertation written in the late 1930s, which he later prepared for publication in the 1960s when he emerged from obscurity (Brandist, 1997). Bakhtin's study ofRabelais acknowledges the symbolism of the Medieval festival as it is used to illustrate the philosophy of the Renaissance, which views the world in the process of becoming. Bakhtin concentrates on the collapse of the strict hierarchies of the Middle Ages and the recasting of official culture in the form of popular culture. The imagery of carnival is raucous and rowdy, a collective ridicule of officialdom. Carnival is the breakdown of the rigid, hierarchal world that may lead to a celebration of bodily excess. This hierarchal world echoes Plato's myth of the cave, a populace held in the confines of an apparent but false unity that seems indisputable and stable (Brandist, 1997). Carnival releases the individual from this false unity. Metaphysically, Bakhtin suggested, although the biological body is negated, the individual body will be transcended, and the body of historical mankind continues (Brandist, 1997, p. 11 ). The focus is on death and rebirth, the death of individual but endurance of communal, historical life. VentrilOQuation. The Bakhtinian construct of ventriloquation captures the active nature of appropriation. Children speak through existing texts. They interweave personal stories with super hero dramas and the local peer culture, thereby constructing a world and a constructing a self (Manyak, 1999). The social use of popular culture to express and explore identity is a primary source of affiliation (Dyson, 1995). In this process, there are always at least two voices. One voice speaks through another voice and you need to ask, "Who is doing the talking?" (Wertsch, 1991). The challenge is that we must use others' voices, and others' words to say what we want to say (Dyson, 1995). Finding your own voice is an appropriation from the myriad of voices and words that surrounds you (Lensmire, 1994). The Bakhtinian concept ofventriloquation resembles Vygotsky's identification of the mediational function of semiotic systems, as language is the mediational means for individuals to Writing on the Web 16 speak/ or write purposefully and appropriately in diverse contexts (Wertsch, 1991). These situations may empower or constrain the individual, especially when dynamic tensions exist between an appropriate cultural tool and the specific context (Manyak, 1999). Both Vygotsky and Bakhtin accepted that the act of writing entails a struggle for voice in a dynamic social environment. Writers' Workshop A successful WW is an attempt to ameliorate this struggle. A successful WW can be defmed as the recurrence of productive peer interactions that encourage discussion of student writing and the writing process. Writing is viewed as a process including the cyclical stages of prewriting, writing, and revision. The teacher provides instruction in strategies that recognize audience and purpose (DiPardo & Freeman, 1988). Group work allows·students to talk to students, and shifts the emphasis from product to process. A WW allows students the time to think, to revise, to talk throughout entire creation of a written work, from beginning to completion. Practical Application A goal of the WW is to transform the process of writing from a teacher-directed exercise into a personal, self-empowering experience (Wells, 1986; Cazden, 1988; Rouse, 1988; Zemelman & Daniels, 1988; Spandel & Stiggins, 1990; Hoel, 1997; Schallert et. al., 1999). To transform the traditional classroom, new behaviors are required of both the teacher and the student. To facilitate the development of these behaviors, the teacher attempts to create situations that allow the appropriation of the skills of writing and sharing writing. The teacher is encouraged to demonstrate a variety of strategies used by different writers (Ede,1979; Graves, 1985; Calkins, 1986; Phenix, 1990; Hatch, 1991). To bear in mind the affective nature of the writing process and feel the risk as the student might, the teacher is also encouraged to share personal writing experiences with students (Ede,1979; Graves, 1985; Calkins, 1986; Atwell, 1987; Gere, 1990; Phenix, 1990; Hatch, 1991; Walters, 1991; de la Cruz, 1995; Perry, 1998). The teacher flrst and foremost fills an essential role as model (Zoellner, 1969; Ede,l979; Miller & Rinderer,1980; Graves, 1985,1995; Calkins, 1986; Atwell,1987; Gere, 1987, 1990; Zemelman & Daniels, 1988; Jeske, 1989; Phenix, 1990; Spandel & Stiggins, 1990; Walters, 1991; Brunjes, 1993). To be successful, the particular verbal interactions of a WW must be shaped, accepted, and practiced (Gere, 1987; Brunjes, 1993; Freedman, 1994, No. 68; Hoel, 1997). Specifically, the teacher models appropriate behaviors for the writing conference Writing on the Web 17 (Hoel, 1997; Perry, 1998). These appropriate behaviors may include: listen carefully to the author's words, question and make suggestions based on the author's intended meaning, and reply in terms the author can understand (Wells, 1986; Morse, 1994). Peer models have been encouraged for over three decades (Zoellner,1969; Flower & Hayes, 1977; Miller & Rinderer,1980; Elbow, 1981; Graves, 1985,1995; Gere, 1987, 1990; Jeske, 1989; Walters, 1991; Morse, 1994). The giving of response to peer writing is a specific skill. The technical aspect of response giving is first thoroughly modeled by the teacher, then gradually, responses of skilled students serve as models for giving response (Dyson & Freedman, 1991; Hoel, 1997). Competent peers may be identified and asked to participate in role play scenarios for the class. Teachers are encouraged to provide opportunity for multiple trials (Zoellner, January, ~ Graves, 1985; Calkins, 1986; Atwell, 1987; Walters, 1991; Brunjes, 1993). The assumption is that, with practice, students will learn from the teacher and from each other. Product Versus Process This transformation in classroom practice has been part of an ongoing product versus process debate. Squire ( 1991) sets this debate in the context of the history of the teaching of the English Language Arts in the last half of the twentieth century. An academic reform initiated by cognitive psychologists2 led to a public school reform movement in the late 1950s to early 1960s. Squire credits Jerome Bruner ( 1960) with the introduction of a "spiral curriculum" that sought to develop mature concepts, which are systematically repeated through the four years of English and include a strong writing component. Although there was a short-lived counter-effort of alternative schools, the late 1960s and 1970s emphasized testing and accountability. "In schooling, as in life, one cannot sustain freedom without discipline" (Squire, 1991, p. 7): therefore, the excesses of the "open education" model, with an emphasis on expression versus specific skills, led to its downfall. The popular motto "back to the basics" encouraged an emphasis on product. Gay ( 1998) has referred to the product orientation as the "colonial period" in the teaching of writing. Following a 1966 Anglo-American Seminar at Dartmouth College attended by over 60 international professors, the reaction was to implement a recommended curriculum that stressed 2 Squire (1991) specified the University of lllinois, Urbana, Center for the Study of Reading; the University of California, Berkeley, Center for the Study of Writing; and State University of New York, Albany, Center for the Learning and Teaching of Literature. Writing on the Web 18 creativity, expressive writing and response to literature (Woods, 1978; Squire, 1991). The Dartmouth Seminar identified the interrelationship of oral and written language, and comprehension (Cazden, 1988). This incentive encouraged recognition of writing as a process. Educators were asked to address the intermediate steps of production rather than concentrating on the final product (Vygotsky, 1962; Zoellner, 1969; Flower & Hayes, 1977). Advocates suggested a focus on how children write, not on what they write, which would allow writing to contribute to individual growth. Mina Shaughnessy and Donald Murray began initial work with teachers, and Donald Graves popularized the writing process in the classroom. The growth of a process emphasis was encouraged in specific programs at several institutions, such as: the University of California, Berkeley, Writing Project Network; the University of Iowa Writers' Workshop; and the Bread Loaf School of English, Program in Writing, in Vermont. Several sources have recognized the work of the National Writing Project, which originated as the Bay Area Writing Project in 1974, as early leaders in the recognition of writing as process (Gere, 1987; DiPardo & Freeman, 1988). A process-oriented classroom could be defined by listing the opportunities that are made available to students. For Zemelman & Daniels (1988), these opportunities for students included particular strategies. They recommend that students receive direct instruction in both the process of writing and the mechanics of writing in context, as well as regular and extended practice at writing. This instruction and practice is complemented with both conference with the teacher and participation in collaborative activities. Students are asked to write for real purposes and experience a wide range of strategies. Teachers need to exhibit positive expectations, while maintaining both flexible and cumulative evaluation. They advise that students benefit when exposed to a rich reading experience, both in published texts and in the work of peers and teachers. As well, students benefit if they are exposed to skilled writers. Further, Zemelman and Daniels (1988) concluded that writing is pervasive in the most effective classrooms. In those classrooms, students write every day, for their own purposes, and with choice of topics and audiences. When they address a real audience, students benefit (Elbow, 1981; Atwell, 1987; DiPardo & Freeman, 1988; Phenix, 1990; Walters, 1991; Strech, 1995; Maxson, 1996). Practitioners report that talk supports and develops learning in the classroom, in particular in writing classes (Dyson, 1991, 1995; Lensmire, 1992, 1994; Spear, 1993; Freedman, 1992, 1994; Writing on the Web 19 Manyak, 1999). Teachers are encouraged to make time for students to talk to students (Zoellner, 1969; Graves, 1983, 1985, 1991; Calkins, 1986; Atwell, 1987; DiPardo & Freeman, 1988; Phenix, 1990; Hansen & Graves, 1991; Brunjes, 1993; Butler, 1995; de la Cruz, 1995). Cazden (1988) argued for an increase in the ratio of student to teacher talk in the belief that student talk improves student learning, and cited several large scale observational studies in the United Kingdom and the United States that indicated teachers tend to control classroom discourse. With a stronger note of pessimism, Geekie (1993) stated bluntly, "Teachers dominate classroom interaction" (p. 9). He argued that conversation is a stimulus to language development, but conversation is seldom fully used in the classroom. The development of a WW moves in the direction of encouraging student talk in the classrooms as talk becomes integral to the process of writing. Writers' Workshop as a Process Elbow (1981) established some of the essential components of the writing process: freewrite, revise, create voice. A freewrite is done in a short period of time to allow the writer to quickly record thoughts and associations to generate ideas. Correctness or completeness is not a concern. The writer then can use the ideas generated to develop a first draft. In the process of revising, Elbow suggested the writer needs an audience in order to increase control over the writing, to clarify focus, and to improve organization. The writing conference provides an audience, encourages exploration with words, and can assist the writer to attune to audience needs (Elbow, 1981; Reid, 1983; Hoel, 1997). Also, when an author reads to an audience, the writer hears her/his own voice. Freedman (1992) argued that a writer benefits when she/ he reads the work out loud. Voice gives writing power (Cooper & Selfe, 1990; Manyak, 1999); voice draws the reader in to experience what the writer is talking about. This concept is summarized in the axiom, "Show don't tell." Discourse is the catalyst that allows the writer to explore the complementary roles of talk both as speaker and as audience (Cazden, 1988). Elbow (1981) recognized appropriation as applied to discourse about writing: "There is a profound principle of learning here: We can learn to do alone what at first we could do only with others" (p. 190). The writing process can be applied to any form of writing, however, most of the literature I reviewed tended to discuss the process of narrative writing. Spear (1993) compiled the work of eleven practitioners across elementary, secondary, and post-secondary grade levels to describe Writing on the Web 20 writing groups in action. Three common themes emerged: structure, safe environment, and instruction. Structure. Although teachers are advised that writing groups require carefully considered structure (Graves,1985; Calkins,1986; Atwell,1987; Gere, 1990; Brunjes, 1993; Spears, 1993), little in the literature identifies structure definitively. However, certain elements recur, in particular, student ownership and student voice. Among the avenues open to the student voice would be the peer conference or peer response group. Another element of structure is emphasis on teacher responsibility to provide a safe environment (Graves, 1983, 1985, 1991; Reid, 1983, 1986; Calkins, 1986; Atwell, 1987; Gere, 1990; Brunjes, 1993). To ensure a safe environment, the teacher is encouraged to provide instruction to prepare students to work in groups (Miller & Rinderer,1980; Graves, 1985; DiPardo & Freeman, 1988; Brunjes, 1993; de la Cruz, 1995). In addition, the teacher is encouraged to model, and provide the opportunity for students to develop the skills of the writing process and the dialogue dynamic of the peer conference and response to writing (Hoel, 1997). A predictable structure is a key ingredient in developing those behaviors related to writing (Graves, 1983, 1985, 1991, 1995, 1996; Calkins,1986; Atwell, 1987), and the teacher must take the time to develop the structure required to support writing groups (Phenix, 1990; Freedman, 1992). Structure provides predictability and an opportunity for student choice and responsibility. Some sources advise the teacher to work together with the students to carve out rules and routines for the overall classroom. Students can be invited to participate in the design of the structure for their learning. Graves (1995) claimed, "Writing can flourish in rooms with a predictable structure · mutually designed by teachers and children" (p. 35). He reiterated that it is essential that students write everyday and write continuously, as it is "through daily writing children develop their rhythms, their rituals of getting work done, and their rituals of consultation" (p. 35). The rules, the routines, the rituals function best when overt and in consensus. Ownership is an intrinsic ingredient in the development of this environment. Ownership. An essential element in teaching writing is to foster ownership (Graves, 1985; Calkins, 1986; Atwell, 1987; Freedman, 1994). The individual is important (Zoellner, 1969; Calkins, 1986; Atwell, 1987; de la Cruz, 1995). Writing is seen as a voyage of self-discovery with the Writing on the Web 21 emphasis on communication and making meaning (Wolf & Gearhart, 1997). One aspect of student ownership is that the student selects the topics for writing. In doing so, a WW allows a student to create his/her own unique voice (Zoellner, 1969; Elbow, 1981; Walters, 1991; Dyson, 1991, 1995; Freedman, 1992; Lensrnire, 1992, 1994). A goal is that students will develop an internal awareness so that they will be able to view their own writing from the viewpoint of a predetermined audience without requiring audience feedback (Elbow, 1981; Gere, 1987). One element of internal awareness relates to the question of revision. As with most human beings, students find it difficult to accept criticism (Perry, 1998)- real or perceived. Students may ask, what do teachers mean by "improved" or "better" writing (Dyson & Freedman, 1991; Gay, 1998)? Many practitioners will support the observation that students do not want to revise (van der Geest & Remmers, 1994; Gay, 1998). Some say, ''They don't have a clue on what revision is all about" (Wolf & Gearhart, 1997, p. 226). The student retains the right to make changes or not to make changes. Some authors have suggested that the student should record all revisions on his/her own paper in consultation with the teacher, and that the teacher should not write on the student's paper (Phenix, 1990; Brunjes, 1993). The writer may receive input, but controls output. An optimistic observation contrasts revision done for writing assigned in school with writing done outside of school. Dyson & Freedman ( 1991) noted that students spend substantial amounts of time writing, planning and revising the story and poetry writing they did for themselves. For the act of writing to be relevant, a writer's sense of self must be fostered. Shared power. Schaafsma (1996) shares with his university students his belief that stories may be useful to them and invites them to share their multiple perspectives; he attempts to make implicit power relations more explicit (p. 112). A key difficulty in creating a similar environment in secondary school classrooms is the transition from teacher control of discourse to shared opportunity for discourse in the classroom. Allowing students to talk in the classroom alters the power structure. One goal of teachers is to employ classroom management skills to create a safe, productive learning environment. To this end, one pervasive reality of teacher talk is control statements (Cazden, 1988; Cooper & Selfe, 1990). Students must use the right words and wait to speak at the right time (Cazden, 1988; Schaafsma, 1996). When students are given opportunities to talk, a teacher attempts to ensure that students will continue to maintain a respectful atmosphere. Writing on the Web 22 The transformation from teacher-dominated discourse to a WW opens the issue of shared power (Wells, 1986; Cazden, 1988; Rouse, 1988; Zemelman & Daniels, 1988; Cooper & Selfe, 1990; Spandel & Stiggins, 1990; Brunjes, 1993; Schaafsma, 1996). Many would argue that when children are given responsibility, they can behave responsibly and no longer have to be closely supervised every moment of the day. Wells (1986) states: With an agreed agenda, they know what has to be achieved and spend their time productively, using resources appropriately, asking for the teacher's assistance only when other resources have proved inadequate, and moving to a new task when the present one is completed (p. 121). However, the cost of shared power is uncertainty and the loss of autocratic control. Control increases certainty, and uncertainty is uncomfortable. Rouse (1988) describes the difficulty of adjusting to a student centered-focus: a teacher must constantly improvise in order to manage the developing situation -- and then afterwards one realizes how much better this might have been done (p. 28). It is a challenge to find a positive orientation to cope with the inevitable conflict that will arise. A teacher must be convinced of the benefits of student focus in order to tolerate the tensions, and must seize opportunities to redefine failure as feedback. Shared power may be discussed in the literature, but again, is seldom defmed effectively. DiPardo and Freeman ( 1988) are explicit: ''The real issue is how to devise ways in which teachers and students might productively share power, but on this point the literature has largely remained silent" (p. 127). Further, they offer disturbing insight: Tensions abound between what groups are purported to offer and how practitioners frame them; too often, what is termed 'peer interaction' amounts to little more than teacher-initiated, teachercontrolled episodes in which students follow explicit directives and take turns role-playing their instructor (p. 144). They noted that the tendency has been to undermine the potential of peer response groups by "channeling peer dynamics toward teacher-mandated guidelines, thereby subtracting from the Writing on the Web 23 process the crucial element of student empowerment and denying group members authority to become decision-making writers and readers" (p. 144). DiPardo and Freeman criticize the restrictive devices that teachers use to increase student talk. Others might argue that such devices are necessary to provide the structure that allows a process of transition from teacher-dominated discourse to student talk in the classroom (Hoel, 1997). Teacher-created guidelines can be a beginning step, and part of the process that creates opportunities for students to talk in the classroom, and the opportunity to restructure authority. In a comparative study of eight classrooms, grades 6 through 9, four in the United States (USA) and four in the United Kingdom (UK), Freedman (1994) found striking differences across the classrooms. In all classrooms, the students were from multiple cultural groups, but most were working class. The first major difference was the focus. A child-centered concern for students' development was typical in the UK, whereas in the USA, a curriculum focus was more common. She observed that even when teachers agreed on the underlying theory of learning, everyday practice showed widely varying interpretations. British teachers seemed to emphasize knowing their students and they set up classrooms to facilitate a negotiated curriculum and shared responsibility. In practice, the negotiated curriculum required the teacher to motivate each student and track each student's progress. Community building was valued over individualization as context is a large force in the motivation of individual students. British teachers agreed that students need to be taught to assume responsibility, and that the process requires time to happen gradually. For example, students were expected to choose a writing activity that was motivating to them. Typically, the British teachers had worked with the same students for a period of two or more years. The particular British schools in this study were structured to support these teachers in creating close classroom communities. In contrast, the approach selected by each of the four USA teachers was less consistent and exhibited a substantial variety of daily practices. Two of the American teachers tended to create whole-class activities, whereas two were attempting to move towards a negotiated model. However, when the individual rather than the group was the focus in these classrooms, there was less of a sense of the role of community. Only at a point late in the year did some American students begin to assume increased responsibility. Implementing these recommendations requires serious restructuring. Au and Carroll ( 1997) Writing on the Web 24 discussed the fmdings of the Kamehameha, Hawaii, project (KEEP), one example of restructuring in a USA school. KEEP teachers worked with researchers to discover the discourse patterns that hindered student achievement, and then worked to modify their behaviors. Teachers tried to develop a moment-to-moment responsiveness, and attempted to focus first on the child's experience with ideas. They were willing to abandon the strictures of their own precedents to value the culture of the children. A typical solution has been to involve students without giving over complete control. Various methods have been devised to invite increased student participation, but limit student autonomy. Age level, maturity, and previous experience are mitigating factors with regard to student autonomy. Gere (1990) cautioned: Successful writing groups, whether for responding or evaluation, do not emerge spontaneously in classrooms. They require preparation, and it is this preparation that constitutes 'real' teaching (p. 125). Individual teachers create a variety of tools to accomplish the goal of students talking to other students in a safe environment. In the junior secondary classroom, the need for tools is especially strong; in some classes armor would be a better description. The writing process approach has great power, but the teacher has to facilitate the shift of control to the student. When students are given instruction about how to work in groups, small group work gives students an opportunity to learn important social skills (Sharan, 1980; Slavin, 1980, 1981; Miller & Rinderer,1980; Graves, 1985; Kagan, 1985; Reid, 1986; Johnson & Johnson, 1987; DiPardo & Freeman, 1988; Brunjes, 1993; de la Cruz, 1995). To make these groups work, a classroom climate must be created in which students are free to explore ideas. Reid ( 1986) advised to plan ahead; with careful structuring, the need for direct teacher control is greatly minimized. Spandel and Stiggins ( 1990) make two prime recommendations: First, keep the structure flexible. Second, give students the means, the skills, and the opportunity to assess their own writing. Safe environment. Even in the most positive of situations, the teacher must be prepared to cope with the limitations of working with adolescents in a public institution. Students do not necessarily adhere to the same standards of acceptable or appropriate behavior as the teacher, acting "in loco parentis," must consider. Once again, the definition of "appropriate" is absent in the Writing on the Web 25 literature. Schaafsma (1996) raises some pertinent questions: What kinds of stories are acceptable? Which stories are excessive? How does that decision take place? Do students have the right not to hear a story? Without clear answers to these questions, both the students and the teacher lack direction. Cazden (1988) recognized the need to clarify official and unofficial, legal and illegal speech acts in the total classroom community: "The dilemma for the teacher is not what her academic objectives should be, as it is in the case of student writing, but what rules about talking should be enforced to advance those objectives most effectively" (p. 152). DiPardo and Freeman (1988) noted there had been little information about "the cognitive and social capacities needed to interact supportively in classroom settings" (p. 131). Secondary students take risks when writing at a time of physical and social transition. Zemelman and Daniels ( 1988) observed that the basic reason the process paradigm fails in the secondary classroom is that students are not taught to work cooperatively. A teacher cannot assume that students know how to give respectful, appropriate, constructive criticism. Direct instruction in social skills or communication skills is advised in co-operative learning strategies, that is, those strategies based on students talking to other students (Sharan, 1980; Slavin, 1980, 1981; Kagan, 1985; Johnson & Johnson, 1987). However, ~ instruction in social skills is not mentioned in detail by practitioners in the WW literature. Writing, and talk about writing, can play an important part in identity formation. Calkins (1986) recognized that "it is during adolescence that we have a special need to understand our lives, to find a plot line in the complexity of events, to see coordinates of continuity in the midst of discontinuity" (p. 105). Adolescence is a period when students "try on selves," and the combination of adolescents and writing may be volatile. Although she emphasized the need for a safe, supporting environment, Calkins cautioned that the social hierarchy in the middle school can affect peer response. Social skills training can help students to overcome these challenges. She suggests that students respond less to the writing than to "the writer's place in the classroom social scene" (p. 109). Structure is required to combat the social stigmas of adolescence. Despite a natural inclination of educators to retreat from the volatile combination of adolescents and writing, adolescents have a special need to understand their own lives, and writing can play a crucial part in the task of identity formation. Language helps individuals make meaning, and making meaning Writing on the Web 26 shapes who we believe we are. Community-building activities may be introduced early in the program and continue throughout the year to create a positive classroom environment. Gere (1987) advised: "Establishing trust, developing collaborative skills or discovering those developed outside the classroom, and learning to critique writing constitute the preparation necessary for classroom writing groups" (p. 103). Successful writing groups occur when the teacher helps students learn how to function in groups. Writing is risky. After one year in a public school third grade classroom, Lensmire (1992, 1994) discovered that the utopian picture painted by WW advocates could be shadowed by teasing, risk, and conflict. Looking specifically at multiple peer audiences, he observed that children sought and avoided specific peers. Inclusions and exclusions developed defined by gender and social class. Children from the nearby trailer park were particularly marked as less desirable partners. Although no child reported negative experiences in peer conferences, most anticipated negative consequences if they had to conference with specific peers. Students had the choice of conferencing with the teacher or with peers. Some students, especially unpopular children, avoided peer conference. Lensmire (1992) admitted that his efforts were not enough to make the classroom a safe place for every student to share her/his work with peers. He concluded that peers are an important influence on student experience in the WW, but that influence is not all positive. He recommended that "we must pay more attention to the immediate peer culture" (p. 7), and further that "we had better pay attention to the communities we create in classrooms" (p. 8). Based on speech act theory, Warren and McCoskey (1993) stated that "language serves as a medium for the speaker's intentions" (p. 199). Further, they argued, "Speech adjustments made to acknowledge the listener's status relative to the speaker are almost as basic to verbal interaction as the exchange of information" (p. 209). Students must survive in "peer governed worlds" (Dyson & Freedman, 1997). Beyond the rudiments of classroom management, in the WW a student must not feel threatened to reveal the "self." The junior secondary school is dangerous ground. Students are aware that school or class rules exist to endorse positive behavior and discourage negative behaviors. But in the peer reality, negative is funny, and negative is cool. Individuals take pride in expression of put-downs and cutting wit. To overcome these undeniable social realities, instruction in specific skills is advantageous. Writing on the Web 27 Instruction An important component of the WW is the teacher's role: The teacher shares her/his own writing and writing process and serves as mentor and facilitator for students in their writing. In this way, she/he models appropriate responses for peer response groups, which are a key concern as discussed above (Elbow, 1981; Graves, 1985, 1995; Cazden, 1988; Gere, 1987, 1990; Wells, 1990). Whole-class critique sessions, in which the teacher is able to highlight useful comments and model constructive suggestions, may be useful (Gere, 1987; Hoel, 1997). The teacher serves as a model, or a scaffold, to assist students to develop listening and problem solving skills. In a WW, students benefit if instruction addresses two discrete functions -- the skills of the writing process and the skills of the social environment. For both writing and social skills, a mini-lesson is recommended for introducing and developing guidelines, criteria, and specific skills (Graves, 1991, 1996; Calkins, 1986; Atwell, 1987; Gere, 1990; de la Cruz, 1995; Strech, 1995). For the writing process, a number of possible mini-lessons have been suggested: classroom procedures (folders, portfolios, collection routines, reference materials), conferences (audience, principles, role-model, paraphrase, evaluation), skills (conventions, spelling, editing, revision, proofreading), style, publication rubric and rules (Atwell, 1987). The list can be extended: choosing a topic, leads, organization, argument, poetry, story telling, character development, dialogue, issues of plausibility, and specific grammar skills, such as the use of verbs, adverbs, nouns, adjectives, sentence combining, use of capitals, possessives (Graves, 1991). Graves (1996) recommended focusing on one convention daily in a ten-minute mini-lesson. Addressing the writing process specifically, Elbow (1981), Graves (1983), and Calkins ( 1986) outlined questions to guide student talk to students. Elbow ( 1981) developed two catalogues of criterion- and reader-based questions. Calkins (1986) specified sets of questions for content, design, and evaluation. Brunjes (1993) recommended role-play activities. In addition, teachers have developed their own checklists, revision, and editing sheets to guide student writing conferences. Although students are given the opportunity to talk, teachers establish safeguards to reinforce the mandate of respect and encourage student attention to the task at hand. The particular verbal interactions of a WW must be shaped, accepted, and practiced. Gere ( 1987) advised that the voices students hear in writing groups contribute directly to what they Writing on the Web 28 internalize and later use in writing. Gere argued for a semi-autonomous arrangement to allow the teacher to structure a program to increase students' responsibilities over time. As Gere reasoned, this is likely the most practical solution for the junior secondary classroom. Gere noted that the crucial ingredient in the success of writing groups is the commitment of the teacher. An essential part of this commitment is the preparation of students to assume the role of effective participation in writing groups. The teacher must monitor the effectiveness of each group: "The specific zone of proximal development for a given group can be identified only by a teacher who works closely with students much as a coach does, watching, encouraging, and suggesting" (p. 109). A coach needs a game plan. For the WW, an essential element in the game plan is a safe environment. Students need to appropriate the specific oral and physical language that builds a safe environment. Writing opens an individual to risks; it is difficult to express meaning on paper. It can be even more difficult to open that meaning to scrutiny of a public eye, teacher or peer. A familiar and predictable lesson structure is valuable, and routine can be the lubricant that allows an individual to explore new means of expression (Cazden, 1988). Routine offers clear clues to students in shifting contexts and helps students to recognize what talk is appropriate when. The more certainty the situation can provide for the individual the less the chance of negative consequences. Peer response. The peer response group is designed to encourage talk about writing. Few studies, however, explore what happens in response groups, and the few studies that exist do not adequately describe the particulars, such as: the group membership, the social context, preparation for group work, previous experience with response groups, or the actual responses. Freedman (1992) examined the intended functions of95 group meetings held in the classrooms of two grade nine writing teachers and the instructional context surrounding the groups. She also analyzed the video and audiotape data for 17 of the groups to describe the discourse patterns of peer response. Her data revealed some interesting percentages. When groups were guided by response sheets, 60% of the peer talk was on the assigned task to complete the sheet (p. 101). Groups not organized with response sheets were excluded from analysis for three reasons: lack of parallel to selected groups, substantial amounts of time spent in off-task talk, and a tendency for the sharing of feelings rather than ideas about the content of writing (p. 79). A common goal of individuals was to maintain friendships. In the groups studied, students avoided giving a negative response or what the writer Writing on the Web 29 might interpret as negative evaluation (Freedman, 1992; Wolf & Gearhart, 1997). When writers self-identified problems, only 4 of 32 responses (12.5%) were in the form of advice or suggestions. Peer responders often ignored the writer's specific request for help. Although guide sheets improved student on task performance, a lot of talk was purely to get the teacher-given task completed in ways that maintained the peer culture (Freedman, 1992; Wolf & Gearhart, 1997). The avoidance of critical comment and the desire to maintain friendships indicated the need for the teacher to give the writer feedback as part of the instructional program. Even though {>eer comment may be problematic, Freedman ( 1992) still encouraged writers to read their own writing aloud to peers in response groups. She argued that an important benefit of reading work aloud is selfresponse, or the development of the inner dialogue of the writer. Brunjes (1993) states that she enjoyed what she called "a somewhat notorious reputation" as a "response group guru" in her role as a middle school ~ teacher. While a Ph.D. candidate at the University of Utah, she worked as a researcher with a teacher in a large urban public school to assist with the introduction of peer response methods in a sophomore honors English class. Brunjes noted "complications," and she commented that the students "seemed to wrestle all year with fmding a comfort zone in the response sessions. Their experiences seemed to be colored by the ambivalence of adolescent security" (p. 41). These words are no surprise to the practitioner. At the junior secondary level, teachers recognize the "complications" mentioned by Brunjes as reality. Adolescent is a time of insecurity, when social defenses are underdeveloped (Elbow, 1981; Graves, 1985, 1995; Cazden, 1988; Gere, 1987, 1990; Jeske, 1989; Morse, 1994). Junior secondary students are adolescents, and therefore, they suffer the pangs of insecurity, uncertainty, and peer pressure. They are not sure who they are, who they want to be, or how to become that person. They are very concerned, and very concerned to hide that they are concerned, about what other people think of them. In a single class, students will have 30 ways of coping with the pain of adolescence. The students who participated in the Brunjes (1993) study "requested more structure and direct instruction in order that they might perform the task of response more successfully and efficiently in the academic setting" (p. 45). Brunjes noted, "The ability to give ·useful response to writers is an art learned over time" (p. 47). Students need time to become comfortable when talking to other students, time to develop communication skills, and time to Writing on the Web 30 practice effective responses. The process-product debate about the teaching of writing has often overlooked an important third dimension -- the audience. Morse ( 1994) noted that a teacher's responses to student writing in individual conference resembled the behaviors of the helping professionals, such as counselors, social workers, clergymen, substance abuse workers, physicians, nurses, among others. How one communicates is the vital link. Using a basic model of helping behaviors based on Rogerian principles, Morse acknowledged the microcounselling-based metatheory of communication developed by Allen Ivey and N.B. Gluckstem (1982, 1984). Morse outlined ten behaviors applicable to the writing conference (Table 1). Table 1 ~ Conference Ten Behaviors for the Behavior Description Basic attending behavior Maintain eye contact, relaxed body language. Minimal encourage Use silence, and acknowledgement. Paraphrasing For example, "I heard you say ...." Reflection of feelings For example, "I hear you are angry .... " Open invitation to talk Use questions such as what, how, could, would, but avoid why. Summarization Restate or recapitulate. Positive asset search Place an emphasis on strengths. Confrontation Identify discrepancies as an aid to clarification. Directives Make objective and non-evaluative statements. Self-disclosure Should be used in moderation. ~ from "The Writing Teacher as Helping Agent: Communicating Effectively in the Conferencing Process, by P. Morse, 1994, Journal of Classroom Interaction. 29, pp.1 0-11 . Writing on the Web 31 These steps could be combined and developed in mini-lessons. One, review basic attending behavior; discuss eye contact and body language. Two, illustrate the use of minimal encouragement; practice the use of silence, acknowledgement, and openers to promote talk. Three, demonstrate use of the paraphrase. Four, reflect your feelings to the writer. These "social capacities" could be introduced via direct instruction, by teacher modeling, and through role play situations. However, when Morse studied teachers who were deemed to be expert and frequently used the writing conference, he did not find these helping behaviors to be present. He concluded, "the more traditional methods of direct, didactic instruction, student passivity, and teacher control seemed to predominate" (p. 14). Expert teachers displayed weak helping skills, yet the WW is based on the belief of peers helping peers. Attention to Morse's helping behaviors would not only be of help to students in response groups but also to teachers who are attempting to model these behaviors. The National Council of Teachers of English concluded that students need to be shown inclusive and expansive ways to respond to peer writing (Gay, 1998). At least one study looked at the particular implementation of peer response. Lillios and lding ( 1996) looked at the effects of written peer comments, using a peer response guide, and teacher comments on the revision of one piece of student writing in a twelve-day unit. There were three phases to the study. Phase 1 consisted of pre-write and write, which were completed in the first three days. Then in Phase 2, instruction and practice in peer response occurred for three days. Students first practiced with an anonymous student's paper as a model in a whole-class discussion using the peer response worksheet. Each student then worked alone using the peer response worksheet with another anonymous student's paper. Phase 3 occurred in the remaining five days. The papers were collected for teacher commentary, and returned to students for revision. The students were then asked to complete a survey. The survey asked: What comments were most effective from teacher and peers? What changes were made based on comments? What changes were made based on feedback on peer-response exercise? For Lillios and lding ( 1996), the focus of their study was the participant's perceptions. They examined student's receptivity to teacher comments as compared to peer comments as reflected in student revision of work. The authors noted that students valued requests for additional information and mechanical corrections. Overall, teacher observations were considered more useful than those of peers, and students made more changes in response to teacher comment. An Writing on the Web 32 interesting observation was that students rated comments about mechanics more highly when given by peers. The most helpful comments discussed structure and praise. As 89% of authors made changes requested by peers, Lillios and Iding believed that with time and practice students would increasingly trust and value peer judgments. They expressed the hope that students will come to see writing as an ongoing process, where the product can be continually shaped and improved. The authors concluded that teachers ought to spend sufficient time discussing the model paper to practice peer response. However, they do not define "sufficient." They caution against the student tendency to be generous with compliments and recommend that the teacher should model constructive criticism. Students need to be encouraged to focus on more significant concerns, although they do not identify what these might be. Further, they recommended that teachers should engage students regularly in peer response activities and allow plenty of time for dialogue. Although twelve days were described in the study, the authors do not discuss any additional time spent on peer response in the class that was studied. There is no lack of encouragement, but little in the way of explicit direction. Preparation. The literature on professional practice is abundant and offers anecdotes and prescriptions for the WW, but relatively little research has been reported on the WW on which approaches are most efficacious. With the variety of interpretations and recommendations, how does the teacher begin to prepare students for group work such as the peer conference? Zemelman and Daniels (1988) recommended intensive preparation. See Table 2 for a brief overview. Many authors, in addition to Zemelman and Daniels ( 1988), refer to the need for the teacher to provide extensive modeling to demonstrate the techniques of response (Zoellner, 1969; Ede,1979; Miller & Rinderer,1980; Graves, 1985,1995, 1996; Calkins, 1986; Atwell,1987; Gere, 1987, 1990; Phenix, 1990; Spandel & Stiggins, 1990; Walters, 1991; Hoel, 1997; Perry, 1998). The recommendation to increase responsibilities gradually is echoed throughout the practice literature (Graves, 1983, 1985, 1991; Calkins, 1986; Atwell, 1987; Phenix, 1990; Spandel & Stiggins, 1990; Hoel, 1997). Jeske (1989) suggests two guidelines. First, students must "know how to praise what is praiseworthy, so as to enforce positive writing behavior" (p. 10). Second, students need to discriminate between "higher- and lower-order concerns" to best use the time available (p. 11). Writing on the Web 33 Table 2 Ten Steps to Prepare for the Step ~ Conference Description 1 State the purpose for the activity. 2 Establish time limits. 3 Model response techniques. 4 Derive appropriate procedures. 5 Derive appropriate comments. 6 Teach students how to paraphrase. 7 Teach students how to ask for help. 8 Develop their ability refer to feelings. 9 Practice collaboration. 10 Energize with humor. Note. Adapted from A Community of Writers: ~ ~ ~ in the Junior and Senior School, by S. Zemelman and H. Daniels, copyright 1988 by Heinemann. Students could begin work in pairs and then meet in small groups to collaborate on pre- writing. The use of training papers from an unknown, unnamed writer outside the group is one way to practice revision skills. Students can be guided to practice the use of constructive comments. One suggestion is to use questions rather than comments (Elbow, 1981). When giving feedback, peer_ response could be restricted to overall meaning or message of the writing in order to simplify the task. Focusing on one or two related sets of concerns at a time may help to increase student morale. Later, peers could begin to give attention to elements like clarity, organization, and voice. Record keeping and effective assessment also is important. Influenced by the work of Johnson and Johnson (1984), Zemelman and Daniels (1988), for example, recommended the use of a guide sheet to record teacher observations, to ensure concrete and accurate data. The teacher, the Writing on the Web 34 student and the group benefit if there is regular self-evaluation. Strategic intervention based on this collected record can be used to promote student problem solving. Zemelman and Daniels stated, "The main thing we've learned about peer writing groups is that they work beautifully and powerfully if you take enough time and energy to prepare them" (p. 186). The teacher needs to define roles; and the teacher should work with students to derive concrete, appropriate responses. The teacher is responsible for modeling appropriate language behaviors for the writing response group. As well, the teacher is encouraged to model the writing process. One way to do this is for the teacher to write in front of the students to demonstrate her/his own writing process (Calkins, 1986; Atwell, 1987; Zemelrnan & Daniels, 1988; Graves, 1985, 1995, 1996). Some go as far as to say that it is imperative that teachers write with their students (Spandel & Stiggins, 1990). Graves (1996) advised that teachers should "fight the fear factor" and write with students (p. 40). He explained that few individuals are comfortable enough with one's own writing to be able to share the process. If the teacher can model the process of writing and accept feedback to model revision, it will increase teacher sensitivity to the student's sense of risk. Perhaps, students will see that the teacher values writing and is able to overcome obstacles in the writing process. What type of feedback could be offered to the writer? Elbow ( 1981) devised two sets of questions that could be used to generate feedback. A "Catalogue of Reader-Based Questions" discusses feelings, reactions, expectations, and imagery. Elbow suggests 41 questions to elicit affective information in three fundamental areas. One, what was happening to you as you were reading the piece of writing? Two, summarize the writing -- give your understanding of what happened in it. Three, make up some images for the writing and the transaction it creates with you (p. 240). A "Catalogue of Criterion-Based Questions" examined content, organization, effective language, and usage. Elbow suggests 24 questions that asked the reader to consider four broad areas. One, what is the quality of the content: ideas, perceptions, point of view? Two, how well is the writing organized? Three, how effective is the language? Four, are there mistakes or inappropriate choices in usage? (p. 240). Elbow cautioned that the writer might know what she/he means to say, but the writer can query whether her/his words convey that meaning to the reader. Feedback from the audience helps the writer to know what the audience heard. A recent case study by Hoel ( 1997) specifically applied of the theories of Vygotsky and Bakhtin to the use of the response group, which he defined as 2-5 peers who comment on each Writing on the Web 35 other's drafts as a stage in their composition work (p. 10). Hoel examined upper-secondary compositions and the strategies used to solve writing and response problems. Identified as a problem-solving discourse, language was seen as both communication and a tool for thinking. Writing, reading, speaking, and listening are construed as integrated activities. The discourse he observed was a continuous "co-construction of meaning," and he commented: "A high proportion of the discourse consists of probing dialogue sequences where one student tries out a thought and another student grasps it and takes it further" (p. 11). Hoel noted that the response group requires three main areas of competence: First, individuals must be able to communicate and relate to others in the group. Second, individuals need training in the technical aspects of giving response. Third, response must be situated in relation to the criteria of the texts and language. One particular asset of this study situation was that Hoel taught his 22 students in Norwegian language and literature over a 3-year period, which gave him the opportunity to get to know his students well and to develop a close-knit community. This length of time allowed for the modeling and scaffolding Hoel identified as important instructional strategies in this process. This 3 year-period is significant in that the students had time to practice and develop the skills of social interaction, and specifically as those skills relate to writing. Anonymity Time is seldom sufficient to adequately prepare students for the process of peer response. The most significant problem for peer review is the desire for the individual to protect friendships and social status. Students are "reluctant to be frank and comprehensive" (van der Geest & Remmers, 1994). Individuals do not want to hurt a friend's feelings (Lensmire, 1992, 1994; . Freedman, 1994; Schaffer, 1996). The difficulties of working with adolescents and their particular age-determined mores led me to develop my study to make use of anonymity to overcome some of the socially hierarchical judgments that can cloud peer interactions. New developments in computers and the internet led to an exploration of methods to technologically create anonymity in the peer conference. Technology may offer a method to enhance the creation of a safe environment in the WW. In their study, van der Geest and Remmers (1994) noted that computer mediated communication (CMC) led to a reduction of social context clues and "prejudiced communication patterns." Schallert et. al. (1999) concur that CMC is able to mask cues of gender, ethnicity, and Writing on the Web 36 status. Despite the availability of anonymity, the possibilities have not been explored. Lack of research. Anonymity as a factor in the writing conference has received minimal attention in the literature. In fact, Keller ( 1999) specifically spoke against anonymity in online communication and presented a strong argument in favor of the use of real names over nick names, as "logging in with a real name increases a student's sense of responsibility for what they say" (online citation). As well, "faculty should find that few problems occur from students misusing their chat privileges." Tornow (1997) merely stated, "Pseudonyms have been provided for all students" (p. 29). Lensmire (1994) noted a contrast between the confidence exhibited by children who used their own names in their stories, and the risks other children "associated with writing about themselves in personal narratives" (p. 113). Further, he recognized the opposite of voice is silence, and silence is sometimes the result of "oppressive conditions that keep certain people from participating" (p. 13). Although van der Geest and Remmers (1994) and Schallert et. al. (1999) allude to a reduction or a masking of social clues, the concept of anonymity is not expanded. This lack of research into the role of anonymity gives weight to the need for this proposed study. The transition to an information highway paved by internet connections is well underway. The role of anonymity will have a place not only in such familiar places as response groups but also such new innovations as chat groups and web courses. Technology Although there may be some academics who continue to resist the new information age, many more are accepting the pre-peak growth of computers in communication technology on an intra- and interpersonal level, at home and world-wide (Strickland, 1997; Arlington, 1999; Beatty, 1999; Hopper Cook, 1999). However, summarizing the implementation of a specific "review supporting computer program" in 1994, van der Geest and Remmer concluded that the implementation problems they encountered were greater than the benefits of use. Although implementation does remain a challenging difficulty for most, Bonk, Malikowski, Angeli, and Supplee (1998) referred to Vygotsky's (1962) socio-cultural theory to argue that the benefits of learning in a social context has applicability in internet-based conferencing. The energy of current expansion combined with the justification of theory supports examination of technology as it may be used in the classroom, and the writing classroom in particular. As well, there is a need to develop Writing on the Web 37 better strategies for addressing the practical difficulties of implementation. Two dimensions of online interchange can be distinguished: Synchronous settings allow real-time communication (like a telephone), whereas asynchronous versions receive responses later (like a letter) (van der Geest & Remmers, 1994). This "hybrid form of discourse" integrates casual speech with the permanence of writing. This section will present a brief overview of the development of the internet and the online conference, a small sampling of current use, and the application of the online conference to this study. Brief Timeline Tornow (1997) traced the history of computer conferencing systems. The ftrst computer conferencing system was designed by physicist, Murray Turoff, in the 1960s for use by United States of America (USA) government. In the 1970s, the Department of Defense sponsored the development of a wide-area network for use in case of nuclear war. To prevent the possibility that the network could be disabled in a single attack, an integral feature was the lack of a central control base. The network was later dispersed for use among the policy makers in the USA government. The design continued to deliberately exclude a central control, which became "an essential characteristic insuring democratic participation" (Tornow, 1997, p. 16). The ftrst Computers and Writing Conference was held at the University of Minnesota in 1982, and has continued, despite a brief interruption in the 1980s, to meet annually ever since. In 1991, Written Communication devoted a Special Issue to "Computers, Language and Writing" to discuss networked computers. In 1992, one issue of College English included three reviews related to technology developments. The ftrst online version of the Computers and Writing Conference was held in 1993. The online conference has now become a standard adjunct to annual conferences. The National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) held their first online conference in 1995. Several journals are now published online. For example Ted Jenning's EJoumal began in 1991, and the Alliance for Computers and Writing (ACW) publishes the peer-reviewed webzine called Kairos: A Journal for Teachers ofWriting in Webbed Environments. Kairos is devoted to the study of writing in an electronic environment and was cited as an active model of good e-mail conduct (Beatty, 1999). An early example of the integration of computer networks in the classroom occurred in the education Writing on the Web 38 for the deaf. Trent Batson, an English professor in Texas, conducted his first networked class for deaf students in the spring of 1985, and the students were able to experience and participate in a new kind of live group discussion. Saye (1997) employed a grounded theory model3 to study teachers' comfort with technology use and how the use of technology relates to the larger culture's concept of what is legitimate teaching and learning. He concluded that preexisting beliefs will determine whether and how teachers use technology. Saye cautioned that the disparate fmdings of previous research may lie in study design. Those studies may have been based in evolutionary sites which differ from "general school populations" (p. 8). Often such studies included only the perspectives of active users, at sites with the benefit of atypical resources, or at pilot sites for technology-infused curriculum projects. He stressed the importance of a base of committed innovators. Saye quotes advocates who claim "that ubiquitous technology may push cultural change. The power possibilities that technology offers will spur incremental adoption of active student inquiry as the dominant schooling paradigm" (p. 21). Saye's prediction does seem to be accurate. Even those who favor the traditional over the electronic workshop can admit to certain advantages for an online connection. Kempa (1997), a Wyoming poet and essayist, realized how useful an online conference could be for "writers who cannot fmd the level of criticism they need within an hour's drive from home" (p. 70). He found that physical barriers of connection and technical assistance are compounded by psychological barriers such as remoteness which may affect the building of a sense of community. However, he sees the electronic process as more democratic in encouraging greater participation with fewer social constraints and no interruptions to the speaker. As well, all conversation is documented. Kempa suggested seven guidelines for setting up an electronic workshop (Table 3). 3 Saye ( 1997) emphasized the need to collect, to code, and to analyze data simultaneously and recursively. Writing on the Web 39 Table 3 Seven Steps to Prepare for an Electronic Workshop Step Description 1 Choose participants carefully. 2 Limit workshop size. 3 Arrange for good technical assistance. 4 Schedule training sessions. 5 Create start-up documents. 6 Maintain a strong central presence. 7 Line up alternative means of communication. Note. Adapted from "The Electronic Workshop," by R. Kempa, 1997, Poets & Writers ~ p. 71. Concern for size, training, and guidelines recur among enthusiasts, but the suggestion to remember to have a back-up plan is especially crucial when dealing with new technology. Online Conference Online technology offers a systematic, audience-oriented, and process-oriented approach to the study of writing. Tornow ( 1997) discussed her study of an undergraduate writing class that met on Live Interactive Network Conversations (LINC) at the University of-Texas, in her text, Link/Age Composing_in_the_Online_Classroom. Using an ethnographic approach with interest in hearing student voices, Tornow immersed herself as a participant-observer to look for patterns in what students were writing online and examined students' attitudes towards composing online. The participants had no previous experience in network conversation and little experience with e-mail. She concluded that "online communication is in many ways a return to print" (p. 6). The "talk" on networks is written talk and a new mode of language. As well, she asserted that writing plays and increasingly key role as online activity expands. Writing on the Web 40 Bonk et al. (1998) linked the electronic environment of the World Wide Web to sociocultural theory and observed that the social interaction allowed mentors and more capable peers to scaffold knowledge. Bonk et al. conducted a series of four studies using Conferencing on the Web (COW)4 with pre-service teachers during their practicum assignments. Like Tornow, Bonk et al. looked for patterns in the cases and commentary produced by the pre-service teachers, and examined students' attitudes towards use of online technology. With an asynchronous Web-based conferencing tool, students could read and comment on peers' narratives at various times. COW conversations were private (accessed by a site address), and all postings could be time and date stamped along with the username, to provide student accountability and system tracking. Students were provided with a seventy-minute training session before the conferencing began to learn important COW conferencing features (e.g., how to post narratives, how to use the reply button, to add personal profiles, etc.). The training session included an opportunity to electronically read and discuss sample narratives. Bonk et al. noted that "COW was extremely easy to use" (p. 11 ). Bonk et al. used the electronic recording system to gather data for specific forms of electronic assistance. Bonk et al. identified twelve forms of electronic learning mentoring and assistance: social acknowledgement, questioning, direct instruction, modeling/ examples, feedback/ praise, cognitive task structuring, cognitive elaborations/ explanations, push to explore, fostering reflection/ selfawareness, encouraging articulation/ dialogue proJTipting, general advice/ scaffolding/ suggestions, and management. These forms suggested categories that could be used in replication studies. Mter use of COW technology, students were asked to respond to a survey to examine student comfort with the use of technology and possible benefits. The study conducted in 1998 was the fourth study in a progressive series of studies that attempted to refine questions and methods examining electronic case-based learning in pre-service teacher education. In 1997' an interview was added for qualitative feedback, and in 1998, the number of mentors was increased and the number of participants was reduced. Both Tornow ( 1997) and Bonk et al. ( 1998) describe the use of the online conference in university settings. Citing the growth of the internet, Tornow stated: "Writing teachers simply cannot afford to ignore the fact that writing is increasingly an activity that occurs online" (p. 2). 4 COW was developed by Eric Klavins of San Francisco State University. Writing on the Web 41 She made the connection to the world of work and the need to prepare students for the careers in their future. Bonk et al. saw the importance of "apprenticing students" with emphasis on "authentic learning settings" (p. 4). Both authors defended the benefits of learning in a social context. Bonk et al. argued that Web-based conferencing is an application of Vygotsky's theories, in particular the principle of the zone of proximal development (ZPD). Bonk et al. related "negotiation of meaning within students' ZPDs" to "an electronic cognitive apprenticeship." The online conference allows "experts or more capable peers to assist student learning and problem solving beyond their independent reach" (p. 6). In this apprenticeship, gradually, the novice learner assumes greater responsibility for the task at hand. Online Conference Use The vast number of current uses of online technology prohibits an extensive review of such offerings. This discussion will be limited to one particular online conference and two specific applications at the University of Northern British Columbia. The Teaching Online in Higher Education Conference (1999, November) provides one small sample of online conference activity. The Conference advertised 85 sessions with 89 presenters, and listed approximately 280 participants. Presenters were predominantly from USA universities (over 82 per cent) but international presenters included six from Canada, four from Australia, three from the United Kingdom, and one representative each from Hong Kong, Spain, and South Mrica. Beeler (1998) and Lapadat (2000, May) each provide an overview for their implementation of online technology in a university setting. Online discussion has been identified as the virtual voice of an online community of learners and learning not bound by geographical limits. Altany (1999) described the online conference as a "cyber-sit-down," and also as "an education in how to express oneself and one's thoughts, how to respond critically, but kindly, to others, how to discern new perspectives and have others respond to one's own." Altany noted that those students who may be hesitant to speak in class tend to more fully join in to the ongoing online discussions. By posting student writing, students wrote not only for the teacher, but for a real audience of peers, and this invited responses from peers. This active, social dynamic gave the course a unique voice developed by the spirit and capabilities of the learners. Writing on the Web 42 Kasper ( 1999) in particular gave proof of this capacity to cross geographic boundaries. ESL students at five colleges participated in a content-based intercultural exchange, instituted through egroups.com. The four United States colleges were located in Georgia, Florida, with two in New York, and the fifth college was located in Kiev, Russia. After fmding compatible partners, students were asked to produce a portfolio of writing to be published on the class·website. Kasper cited gains for participants, including improved language skills, increased motivation, enhanced performance, and greater confidence. As well, participants benefited from sharing information and opinions with peers. Using Web Knowledge Forum, an asynchronous threaded discussion forum, Herod (1999) used an online questionnaire completed by eight graduate students, all female, at the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education. Herod investigated the learner's perception of interpersonal presence and compared CMC to the F2F conference, where interpersonal presence is physical. Despite the lack of physical cues, participants identified three forms of interpersonal presence: personal identifiers (biographical information, pictures, links); socializing efforts (extracurricular contact, personal information,supportiveness); and communication style, both personal (witty, poetic, sarcastic) and collegial (contribution to group work, openness, organization). Although all of these participants placed a high value on collegial relationships, the value of social relationships was more important to some than to others. · Three groups of people help to make an online class a success; the computer technologist(s), the teacher(s), and students (Catchpole, 1999). Most often the teacher acts as a mediator between the annoyances of daily use and the serious concerns that need to be referred to the technologist. Martin (1999) suggested a few basic principles that may be useful in the design of "student-friendly" web-based courses: plan carefully and test run all pages, keep each page simple, keep each page short (see also Tornow, 1997), provide "friendly" navigation tools, and keep pages current. Several presenters discussed specific web technology. Learning Space (LS), a tool for creating web courses designed by Lotus Notes, was used by Geffen (1999), who discussed the advantages and disadvantages of online courses. Several advantages were cited: Students had privacy; and they could choose to correspond with large or small groups, individually to participants, or to the instructor only. Interaction was encouraged. As well, the material archive Writing on the Web 43 could track student progress, including the quantity and quality of participation. Most of the disadvantages noted were specific to LS, such as lack of automatic buttons, static graphics, and an inadequate quiz program. More significantly, Geffen observed, "As with all software packages, there is a learning curve for participants before they feel comfortable using the program." This provides yet another argument for the gradual introduction of new skills. Equalization and greater levels of participation may be a natural outcome of "decentralization" (Butler, 1995; Strickland, 1997; Beeler, 1998; Mabrito, 1999; Schallert et. al, 1999). The online classroom model moves away from the top-down transfer of information and focuses on the exchange of information among students and the instructor(s). The online interactive discussion forum reduces the opportunity for the teacher or a few students to monopolize the exchange and marginalize others (Beeler, 1998). Students write more, and as all discourse is recorded, it is permanent and may easily be reviewed. Students who succeed best online are text-oriented, motivated, and self-directed. However, online courses may not be for everyone. Others have commented on the difficulties that can be experienced using online technology (van der Geest & Remmer, 1994; Rubenstein, 1997). The implementation of a writing process classroom demands a great amount of time. When online technology is added, the time requirements are substantially increased. Clayton ( 1999) commented, "this format requires a greater commitment of time prior to beginning a course than does the same material in a traditional setting." Extra time is required to rethink objectives, anticipate student needs, adapt all necessary components to the new format. In addition to the traditional course description, syllabus, and assignment schedule, vital components such as minilectures, links and bulletin boards may be necessary. Mini-lectures guide and facilitate the student in taking control of their own learning, links provide connections to supplementary material and bulletin boards provide interaction between students. Online communication may encourage too great a sense of freedom and lead to a lessening of inhibitions normally present in classroom discourse. A few researchers have noted that some people behave irresponsibly more often online than they would in F2F conversations (Tornow, 1997). The verb, "to flame" has been added to the online vocabulary. According to The New Hacker's Dictionary (1993) to flame is "to post an e-mail message intended to insult and provoke." Although some may defend flaming as a form of "emotional honesty," others hope Writing on the Web 44 respectful norms will develop -- again -- in time. To help to manage an orderly and intellectual discussion, Keller (1999) proposed eight guidelines for a purposeful chat room. See Table 4 for her use of the acronym CLASSICS. Table4 E ~ Guidelines for a Pw::poseful Chat Room Step Description c use contrasting text for teacher and students L limit chat room size A archive discussions s s provide study questions I c s select students to respond; limit spontaneous distractions invite guests to stimulate discussion use cut and paste for longer responses surnames not nicknames Note. Adapted from "Managing Interaction in Distance Learning," by S. Keller, 1999, Teaching Online in Higher Education Conference (November, 1999). Of specific interest are her suggestions to use study questions to guide discussion and to invite guests to visit to stimulate discussion. She strongly cautioned that enrollment must be limited. These recommendations are echoed by Lieberman and Stovall (1999), who add the need for definite start/end times and published rules of chat etiquette. Darabi (1999) questioned the viability of teaching online but concluded that it can enhance the learning opportunities of many students. She observed that "teaching writing online is much Writing on the Web 45 more time consuming," for reasons of course design timeS and the time needed to respond to student work. While response was more time consuming than in the traditional classroom setting, Darabi found that "my e-mail commentaries seem to be more thoughtful and helpful to students than my notations on student papers." Further, she strongly advised to limit enrollment in online writing courses if the course is to be taught well. Students in the course also commented on the time commitment required, and several were surprised that the course was not self-paqed. Darabi realized the heavy amount of reading may have been difficult for the student with weak reading skills or aural learning styles. Metamorphosis is the metaphor Beeler ( 1998) uses to discuss the transition of teaching practices from the traditional F2F model to a World Wide Web context. She developed the basic format for her course over a non-teaching/summer semester and the semester previous to introduction, but allowed for revision during implementation. Two concerns affected this course on contemporary Canadian literature: a need to protect authors' copyright and the limited number of online articles on Canadian literary topics. Beeler notes that this course was designed to meet the particular composition and distribution of students in the more remote areas of northern British Columbia. She argues that good group interaction and user friendly technology are key ingredients in any web course. Lapadat (2000, May) examined use of online discussion as a tool to socially negotiate meaning. She observed that the level of discussion online could be superior to F2F interaction in the scaffolding of students' thinking processes. In addition, computer conversations can be distributed over a wide geographic area. Lapadat articulates the unique potential of online discussion-based courses based on four successful experiences with graduate students. She observed that participants developed jointly constructed practice-relevant themes that evidenced deeper levels of understanding. As well, the extended time frame of asynchronous online discussion allows participants to reflect and to produce clarity and coherence in their responses. VanderGeest and Remmers (1994) concluded that "computer-mediated group writing might become the dominant professional writing practice, particularly when drafts of a document 5 However, Darabi (1999) commented that design time was reduced with the use ofWebCT, an authoring template. Writing on the Web 46 need to be revised" (p. 240). Many references have been made to the growth of the online connection (Harris, 1995; Tornow, 1997; Bonk et al., 1998; Arlington, 1999; Beatty, 1999; Clayton, 1999; Herod, 1999; Hopper Cook, 1999; Kasper, 1999). Although computer conferencing technology is in wide use in universities, colleges, business courses, and among textbook publishers, there has been little activity reported from the secondary school. Writing is a process that will help students to learn and to think. Writing can be a solitary activity, or writing can be an opportunity for social interaction in an effort to construct meaning with others and for oneself. The theories ofVygotsky and Bahktin help to explain the intricacies and importance of this interaction. A WW classroom provides opportunities for students to work together and to share the making of meaning. However, in the literature of teaching practice, no definitive framework has been established for the implementation of a WW. Research Problem DiPardo and Freeman (1988) illuminated two assumptions that practitioners hold about peer response groups -- students gather for feedback on writing, and groups function to increase collaborative thinking and writing. The authors surveyed the literature and research to 1988, and observed that three key areas require further exploration: How do response groups fit into the larger social context of the writing class; what factors internal to response groups influence peer learning; and how do students give and receive response from peers? The latter question was a focus of this study. I have found that the social hierarchical system of the adolescent culture has been a basis for difficulty in the use of the peer conference in my classroom. I still believe that face-to-face talk is beneficial, but it presents drawbacks for some students in some situations. To overcome these perceived difficulties, I attempted to use technology to create anonymity for students both as writers and as responders. I see this creation as one more way for students to share ideas to further the process of writing. The use of technology provides the possibility of anonymity so peers have a chance to respond to the writing itself and not the writer or the writer's place in the class hierarchy. Purpose The literature, as yet, has not discussed the application of online conference in the junior secondary classroom. The study to be discussed in Chapter Three was designed to look at one particular aspect of the WW, the peer conference, in the naturalistic setting of one junior secondary Writing on the Web 47 classroom. This study had a two-fold focus -- content and attitudes. With respect to content, I monitored student use of an online conference to discuss a short story each wrote and evaluated the impact of that discussion on a final revision. The second focus was students' attitudes. I used an online survey to collect students' opinions about the online conferencing process. Research Questions I formed my research questions in these two broad categories: content and attitude. What did participants say and do with regard to one piece of writing? What did participants think about the process and the product? Content 1. What was the content of peer response online? 2. What changes did the writer make between the online draft and final copy submitted for evaluation? 3. How did the changes address the suggestions made by peers? Attitudes 4. How did students feel about the process of online conferencing ? 5. How did students feel about the usefulness of online conferencing for guiding their writing revision? Writing on the Web 48 CHAPTER THREE METHOD You must write as if your life depended on it (Rich, 1993, p. 32). My goal in this study, both as a teacher and as a researcher, was to examine the use of online technology to create an web-based peer conference in a writers' workshop classroom. I considered three main areas: first, the content of peer responses; second, the value of peer conferencing to the students as indicated by their responses to questions probing attitude; and third, the value of the peer conferencing as indicated by revisions made between the draft and final copy of tenth grade students' narrative writing. This assignment continued an investigation of genre as the students were introduced to both the expository and narrative form during the fifteen weeks from September to December, 1999. For approximately seven weeks, students practiced the writing process of pre-write, draft and revise and prepared assignments in each format. For the essay, the students were required to include an introduction, statement of thesis, development of a minimum of five main idea paragraphs in support of that thesis, with a minimum of five details for each main idea, and a summary paragraph. I selected to focus this study on one particular form of writing, the narrative short story. Three considerations guided this selection: The literature I reviewed focused on the narrative form. I developed my practices based on the guidelines proposed for a narrative assignment. Finally, my own experience has given me a greater sense of comfort and confidence as a writer of narrative. I suggested to the students that the key elements of a narrative composition would include: exposition, character(s), rising action, conflict, climax, and denouement. This chapter will discuss participants, ethical considerations, procedures, student and technical logistics, and the time-line for this study of the narrative writing process. Five sets of data were collected: first, a first draft of students' narratives which they posted online; second, peer responses posted online; third, a printout of the fmal copy of each narrative; fourth, an online attitude survey; and fifth, class meeting notes. All data collected was in the form of words, phrases, Writing on the Web 49 and sentences produced in text by students either online or hand written. My field notes served to mark chronology and elaborate my decision-making processes. Phases Preliminary to the Study I developed this study over three phases. In the first phase, October, 1998, I drafted a narrative creative writing assignment which required student participation in an online peer conference. The assignment established the criteria for the narrative and expectations for fmal publication format. That fall, against the advice of my advisor, I attempted to work with a student to develop home-grown technology for students to use to peer conference online. In the second phase, June, 1999, I refmed the classroom assignment and piloted WebCT technology to replace the earlier technology that I had attempted. The third phase was the actual study. For all three phases the setting remained the same. My responsibilities as the teacher remained substantially the same across the time period. Primary differences between the pilot phases and the actual study were the participants and the technology employed. WebCT was piloted by students in the spring of 1999, and implemented in the fall of 1999. D ~ of the Website My initial exploration into online technology was undertaken with the purpose of adding a new element to the experience of the W titers' Workshop in the junior secondary classroom. The vast variety of possibilities I encountered in the search for an appropriate online vehicle was overwhelming. The availability of technical help narrowed the focus to WebCT. In the first phase, the sprout of homegrown technology withered on the vine. Belatedly acknowledging the advice of my advisor, I contacted the Centre for Teaching and Learning (CTL) at the University of Northern British Columbia (UNBC). There, in January, 1999, I was introduced to the conferencing tool, WebCT, developed at the University of British Columbia. Working with the Project Leader at CTL, we developed a WebCT site that could accommodate all of the functions necessary to establish the web-based conference for English 10.6 The name I gave the site used the first three initials of the school plus initials for "Writing on the Web" (BBJWOW). WebCT technology includes more possible uses than explored in this research. WebCT has 6 BBJWOW was designed by Lynda Williams in collaboration with Elizabeth Woods. David Juniper assisted with refinement of the site and nurture of the technologically challenged. Writing on the Web 50 built in options for the designer as well as those open to students. For the designer, the entry page could contain a banner, a heading, customized course icons, a footer counter, and a designer tool bar. A tutorial is built in to Weber plus additional documentation is available. WebCT is set up for four types of users: the designer, who maintains control; the administrator, who may be the designer; grader(s); and students. Designer tools include progress tracking, student management, timed quizzes, access control and course back-up. Course content includes: a home page to link course components; a welcome page that can offer a brief course synopsis and instructor comment; single pages which link to a browser window of course information; paths of content to sequence related pages and that allow rearrangement of topics; tool pages to group common elements; and additional tools for glossary and search. WebCT offers instructor consistency of interface, complete control, cross platform via browser, multi-media capability, and a tool set. The opening screen of the site we designed contains a banner, the heading BBJWOW, a footer counter, and-four icons: Student Writing, Bulletin Board (BB), Peer Response Guidelines, and Survey. Students can access the Student Writing icon to read past and current stories. Peer Response Guidelines and the Survey will be discussed in greater detail later in this chapter. The BB icon allowed communication between students and was available for teacher use, although I chose not to participate in this online interaction. The BB kept track of which responses had been read and notified the student what was unread. The BB could be searched for a particular response. The student self evaluation feature was used to post the online survey. The survey included multiplechoice and open-ended short answer questions . .WebCT offers several tools valuable to the instructor. Progress tracking pages indicate date and time of each access by each student, time spent on the system, and percentage of stories selected. The BB records the number of responses and follow-up postings, if any. Comprehensive statistics were available for ~ response analysis and can be downloaded for use with Excel. A number of other tools were available with WebCT but not used in BBJWOW. For example, electronic mail, which allows one-to-one message transfer, was not activated. The Chat Room for intra- or inter-course communication? was not accessed; nor was the 7 Weber will allow chat rooms to be exclusive to the specific course, but can also allow communication among students enrolled in any course on the system server. Writing on the Web 51 Whiteboard Tool, which allows real-time communication using a graphical paint interface. Other tools allow students to add images to their work and to include student-prepared web pages. Search features are available, including a searchable and linkable glossary and connection to external references. Timed quizzes can be delivered online on a predetermined day, and marks and comments can be returned to the students online. BBJWOW was developed from mid-February through to May, 1999. I was taught how to upload (save) the 41 narratives to Weber, and how to create paths, directories and links. I made decisions as to what I wanted where, but drew on the help of CTL staff for most manipulations of data in the site. The first challenge was to create a WebCT path for the "sample stories" that I had selected for display under the Student Writing icon. These sample stories were used to introduce WebCT technology and to model online peer response in the actual study. Sample stories Students enrolled in English 10, 1998-1999, two sections in semesters one and two sections in semester two, assisted in the first two phases of development of the study. In the fall semester, 41 students' short stories were saved to disk for future use. Of these, I selected twelve for use in the final study. The selection of the 12 was based on three criteria: The story contained a protagonist, conflict, and resolution; the story was successfully completed in HTMLS ; and I judged that the story would appeal to the target audience, adolescent males and females. In the second phase, thirteen students piloted the WebCT technology, and posted a narrative and peer responses online. These thirteen and the original twelve students were asked to complete the Letter of Informed Consent, 1998-1999, in the month of June, 1999 (Appendix A). Only stories written by the seventeen students who returned the Letter of Consent, signed by both student and patent, were considered for use as sample stories in the actual study. Of that seventeen, only fifteen stories were utilized, as one was incomplete and another was not saved in HTML. These stories became the basis for the sample stories used to introduce participants to the web-based conference in the actual study conducted in the fall of 1999. Hyper Text Markup Language (HTML) was developed in the 1990s and is used to create web pages. Known for its ease of use, it is often added by a text editor or word processor. 8 Writing on the Web 52 Method Participants Participants included 22 of 24 students, nine boys and fifteen girls, enrolled in English 10, first semester, 1999-2000. I was the only teacher of English 10 at the school. The junior secondary school of approximately 320 students, grades 8, 9 and 10, is located in the interior of British Columbia on the rural edge of a small urban center. The socio-economic status of the catchment area could be generalized as lower to middle class, with a predominance of employment in the forestry and pulp mill industries. The range of incomes is broad, from one-parent families on social assistance to two-parent income families who appeared to live in relative fmancial comfort. Ethical Considerations. Approval for this study was obtained from the school principal, April1; from the School District Director of Student Services, Apri115; and from the UNBC Ethics Review Committee on May 19, 1999 (Appendix B). Students were given the Letter of Consent (Appendix C) on October 13, 1999, and both student and parent signature was requested. Fourteen students had returned signed Letters by October 15, seven more were received by November 4, and the last Letter was returned November 9, 1999. The two students who chose not to participate online completed an equivalent assignment in class, and their work was not used in this research study. Data used in analysis was derived only from the nine boys and thirteen girls who returned the Letter of Consent and participated in the web-based conference. Participants were informed that any information obtained in connection with this study that could be identified with an individual participant would remain confidential and would be disclosed only with the permission of the participant. Two students consented to the publication of their names as the author of the story published online on BBJWOW. Both student and.parent completed the letter of Consent 20002001 (Appendix G). These two students agreed to the use of their names on the closed website, open only to students this particular school. Further, any wider dissemination of the site would require further permission from the student for the use of this/her real name or for the publication of his/her story. The decision as to whether or not to participate did not prejudice the student's relations with the teacher or the school. If a student decided to participate, the student was free to withdraw consent and discontinue the web-based peer conferencing at any time. No participant has chosen to withdraw. Writing on the Web 53 The study presented a minimal level of intrusion as this assignment is a part of the established English curriculum, and students were allowed to "opt out" of the online portion of the project. No time outside of class was required. However, students were free to work on the writing and revision of their stories as they chose. Risk factors were no greater than normal school activity. Procedure Class time was devoted to this project from October 12, to November 30, 1999, a period of 36 days, approximately seven weeks. However, student projects were accepted until December 17, 1999. During this time period, students also were working on other class assignments not relevant to this research. Students were introduced to both the short story and the web-based conference before they were asked to participate in this study. The preparation of students for the narrative composition assignment was undertaken from the first week of classes. On the first full day of school, I gave the students a Course Overview and introduced the option of their participation in this research project. The first unit emphasized expository writing and students had the opportunity to read a wide variety of essays, some of which were narrative essays, and they wrote an in-class essay. In the subsequent unit, the students were required to submit an extended argumentative essay in the form of a research paper. The second unit introduced narrative composition. I asked students to read a minimum of thirty short stories, recorded on a "Reading Log." Then each student selected fifteen of those stories for which to write paragraph responses and selected two stories for which they created a visual representation (Narrative Response Journal Assignment, Appendix D). One textbook9 was issued to all students, and additional texts listed on the assignment sheet were available to students in the classroom, but students were not limited to these texts nor required to use those recommended. Students were given time in the library to fmd additional resources to better match their personal interests, and students were encouraged to use material from any appropriate source. With input from students, five stories were selected to read out loud together in class, followed by class discussion. Additionally, students were given an opportunity to read the work of previous students that had been archived in WebCT. 9 F. Safler (Ed.). (1986) Impact: Fifty short short stories. New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Writing on the Web 54 Introduction to Weber. I used a LCD projector linked to an iMAC computer to demonstrate how to access the web site and how to log-in. The four icons previously described appear on the Welcome Page. The Student Writing icon led to three choices: Sample Stories, Presentations, and Publications. Of the fifteen stories I collected as samples, I selected two as examples of best quality, and I included these two under the "Publication" heading (Appendix E and F). I requested and received permission from the two students to use their real names as author when posted as a BBJWOW Publication. Real names are published only with stories_written by students who complete the Letter of Consent for Publication form (Appendix G), and both student and parent signatures are requested. The other thirteen stories were included under the "Sample Stories" heading (see Figure 1). 10 For these thirteen stories, only the pseudonym is given. On the Table of Contents, five are identified as "Fantasy/Science Fiction," four are "Murder/Mystery," and four are considered "True Life". 10 VanderGeest (1994) provided the example for the use of the screen image (p. 243). Writing on the Web 55 Figure 1. Table of Contents of Sample Stories ' ... 1. Filt11Bsy /Sti Pi 1.1. Alxlm:!d 11 Darl!l!kies 13. Ghcs!bus!rs 1.4.~ New Kid 1.5. !Uwlaticn ...Z.MUiller/Mmzy_ Z.1.Ai..llne 11. Hi!rnan fer Hi!! , UManbll!P ag_ ....3. Trncl.ifc ll. Damian ll.Hunter 3.3. The Penaljy Shot 3.4. The Wala! Up Call Writing on the Web 56 I showed students how to access the Table of Contents to select a story to read and how then to respond to a story through a link to the BB. The students read the titles and called out suggestions for discussion. I read out loud two of the selected stories. In whole class discussion, the students made oral comments about the stories; I synthesized these comments and posted a response under "Bulletins" on the website. An example of the screen used to compose a message is shown in Figure 2, and includes a sample of a student response in the student' s own words . ~ 2. Sample of Screen to Compose Message ComposeMesmge Start new thread on topic: BudrFevo Porum: Nates No. 156: posted by Chicken Little (little) Nov. 22, 1999, 14 : 4? Subject: tfarbles ~ pn ~ good detale but it didnt make any sense to me at the end IBBJWOW ~ ~ . ' .........,.,-.....-·.w.·NM"·""'-."''-"'"''w.w-"''"·"·""'"w.v.v.Wo"...___,•.,,,..,....w.w.v-..,.,. Writing on the Web 57 Peer Response Guidelines. After this initial session, I gave students a hand-out of the Peer Response Guidelines (Appendix H). Icon access to this list also was available online. These Guidelines were developed based on the work of Elbow (1981) and Bonk et al. (1998). At the same time, I gave students a sheet delineating step-by-step instructions to the website ("Instructions: WebCT," Appendix 1). As soon as a student returned the Letter of Consent, the individual student or a small group of students was given a repeat of the demonstration on how to log-in to the website. Students practiced peer response individually or with partners. In practice sessions, students used a "dummy log-in" to preserve anonymity. I recorded which students practiced on which day and the number of each response. Narrative Composition ~ For more than a decade, students in all three grades at this particularjunior secondary school have been asked to write a narrative composition as a requirement of the English curriculum. Students have the opportunity to write as many short stories as they wish; however, each student is required to submit one for evaluation. In October, English 10 students were given a narrative composition assignment which formed the basis for this study ("Narrative: Creative Writing," Appendix J). In accord with the philosophy of the Writers' Workshop, students were asked to demonstrate the writing process; a pre-write, rough draft, and revised draft were required. A prewrite could take any form such as a brainstorm list, web, plot diagram, character sketch, even an illustration or a cartoon. Students had free choice of topic; there were no length requirements.11 In previous years, I have asked students to share their draft with at least three peers in face-to-face conference. In this study, my aim was to develop a process for and to examine the effect of webbased peer conference on the students' writing process, and revision of the fmal product. The webbased conference was explored to allow a student to respond to the writing and not to the writer, or to the writer's place in the social hierarchy. To preserve anonymity, each student selected a code name she/he shared with me; only the participant and I were to know the student's code name (Tornow,1997). However, several students did reveal their code name to their friends. Some code names were lyrical, such as "Fire Fly" or "Purple Peacock." Others bordered on questionable 11 However, students who wished to enter the School District No. 57 Writing Contest were advised of a maximum length of 2500 words for that purpose. Writing on the Web 58 humor, such as "Bud Puffer" and "Dime Bag." Participants posted their short story to the designated web site, using the code name. Stories appeared online as shown in Figure 3. I selected this story, "Buck Fever," for further discussion in the Results chapter. Students posted their stories to the "Presentations" file. Once the stories were available online, participants were invited to read as many stories as they wished. Stories were arranged in alphabetical order by story title as shown in Figure 4. Writing on the Web 59 Figure 3. An example of a student story posted to WebCT. $ home . l contents/ql OJ 44 retrace refresh -4 pg baCk pg fwOI>J ~ mrch buDetins my notes Writing on the Web 60 Figure 4. ~ 11. Bi1ts'l'lllD11StHTML ~ U.BuckFner 11 Blllllllllla.HTML 1.6.Egg§ell!r ~ LB. End1anf!dUmsia D ~ 1.10. Grace 1.11. Heaven I.!!. Marbles 1.13. Mys!ttyMigic 1.14. ~ Shift 1.15.PJrty tDZPor 1.16.Sam 1.17.SehooiDlys h"'IML Table of Contents of Presentations Writing on the Web 61 A student could select a story by clicking on the title. The header above each story offered an icon link to the WebCT BB. By clicking on the BB icon, the student could respond to that story. Peer responses were posted to the BB and assigned a chronological number according to date and time posted. Students were required to respond to at least five narratives of their choice, using their own code name. The author could check the BB at any time to see what responses were posted to her/ his story. To ensure that each story received a minimum of three responses, I tracked the number of peer responses by student and to which story. Beginning November 21, at the beginning of each class, I read the titles of stories that had not yet received sufficient response. Students were very cooperative, and all stories received at least three responses. A sample from the list of peer responses is shown in Figure 5. Revision. I gave each participant a printout of the peer responses; and following this, they were given the opportunity to review, revise and proofread their work. I also gave each participant a printout of the draft posted to WebCT (online draft), and I asked her/ him to use a highlighter to note where she/he had made changes to the story. All students were required to submit a printout of their fmal narrative to the teacher for evaluation. They were required to attach hard copies of the prewrite, early draft, all revised drafts, and the printout of peer responses they were given. As the teacher, I evaluated each story for both "preparation'' and "quality." The criteria for "preparation" were listed on the assignment handout, Narrative: Creative Writing (Appendix J). On that assignment sheet, I detailed the specific requirements and the point value assigned for each item for a total of one hundred points. Then, I asked students to make suggestions to improve the criteria I would use to evaluate the "quality" of their short stories. I displayed a form I have used in the past on an overhead screen (Appendix K). I discussed these elements with the class and asked the students if they wanted to suggest any changes to the criteria. No suggestions were offered. The time required to complete this project using online technology was a limitation of this approach. By the time all students had submitted their stories for evaluation, this narrative unit had extended far beyond the length of time I had given in any previous year. At this point, time became a major consideration. Students were not required to make further revisions, and none of the stories were posted as "Publications" for peer review. Several students entered their stories in the school writing contest, but none were selected to compete at the district level. Writing on the Web 62 5. A sample list of peer responses ~ Enchanted Utopia ~ ~~ h I I I ...JI I! 95. Ips Eleven C!leven> (Tile, Nov. 16, 1999, 13:11) Anonymous If] 96. Dime ~ (Tile, Nov. 16, 1!199, 13: IZ) SchooiDays.HTMl I 97. Irn Me (I!!F) (Tile, Nov. 16, 1999, 13:12) Writing on the Web 63 Survey. All participants were asked to complete a short survey after the narrative writing. The purpose of the survey was to determine their familiarity and comfort with both peer conferencing and the use of computer technology to conference. The survey form was made available to students online, using Weber (Appendix L); however, the completed responses were only seen by myself and the CTL Project Leader. Students accessed the survey by selecting the icon on the welcome page. Multi-task requirements. For the month of October, students completed the Narrative Response Journal (Appendix D) and drafted a short story. Beginning mid-October, students typed their stories on iMAC computers and used the "save as" feature to convert the story to HTML to upload to WebCT. In school, students were able to access WebCT outside of class time anytime the school library was open. Access was also possible using Netscape Navigator or Microsoft Explorer from any computer with an online connection, as the web address was cited on "Weber: Instructions" (Appendix 1). As the number of computers at the school was limited, students had several tasks they could pursue in the library at any one time. Those tasks pertained to assignments other than the one examined in·this research as well as to the narrative assignment. From November 15 until December 17, students were working concurrently on a research paper as well as several small grammar assignments. The sequence of activities is outlined on "Calendar of Assignments" as shown in Figure 6. ·Writing on the Web 64 FiiUfe 6. Calendar of eptember s••••, s Mod17 Toudar 5 6 u 2lfOI 13 ..... -u ..... 2' 2lfOI 27 -Nor • 2lfOI 10 II 16 ..... 17 2lfOI • 2lfOI 9 14 ..... I.S 2lfOI ..... Wrilo 21 -llor 22 29 23 -Nor s......., 3 2 21 -"- r.w., n ......., WtCI Wd>CI I WriloNcr uplood ........ 1 Wd>Q I Wd>CI uplood 9 Wd>CI uplood lapoiiiO ........ ........ .......... ............ lol Wd>Q t.sWciiCI 16 Wd>Q lapoiiiO Rul'p Rul'p Rul'p ll Wd>CI 22 Wd>CI 23Wd>Q ~ Pp llu Pp ......... lapoiiiO 211 R.cvisioft 29: Revision ~ Pp jllu Pp Expos= ReadNar= Write= Weber Intro = Practice= Upload= Response= Revision= NarDue= Survey= ResPp = FriUr lapoiiiO ll•• ,, 301 I I PNt \IIIII uplood ~ .......o.,,.... ........ I!Wd>CI 17 Wd>CI = tapOIIK Wd>CI lapoiiiO /lul'p RuPp 24 Wd>CI 2.51 Wd>CI I :!: I ~ Pp I 12 lapoiiiO Ill R ~ Pp .s I 19 'I Ill I I 20' I I - Wrioo WciiQ s•••• , I I 27' I Wrioo WciiQ l Wriol Wc!ICI 19Radllor Wrila 20 RadNar WoiiQ Wrioo WciiQ 261 Radllor 21) RadN¥ 12.5Radllor Wrioo Wrill Wrioo Tau4ay r·, u,.., s, .., ! Survey Survey Ili a., I 201 ! I4Radr Martin, E. (1999, November). Developine; "student-friendly" web-based courses. Paper presented at the 1999 Teaching Online in Higher Education Conference, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN. http://as l.ipfw .edu/99tohe/presentations/martin.htm Maxson, J. (1996, March). The closed world of the writine; classroom: Student subjectivities as created by. and breakine; out of. bounds. Paper presented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication Annual Meeting, Milwaukee, Wisconsin. ERIC Clearinghouse ED 403 557 Miller, C., & Rinderer, R. (1980, October). ~ your ~ A rehearsal technique for the basic writine; student. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the lllinois Association of Teachers of English, Oak Brook, IL. ERIC Clearinghouse ED196 024 Miles, M. B. & Huberman, A.M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd edition). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Morse, P. (1994). The writing teacher as helping agent: Communicating effectively in the conferencing process. Journal of classroom interaction. 29 (1), 9-15. Mothus, T. (2000). Constructivism. cultural tools. and theory of Implications for students with ~ or ~ development: ~ disabilities. Unpublished manuscript, University of Calgary. Mulvaney, M. K. (1993, April). Two ~ ~ equal a positive: Semiotic mediation in peer Paper presented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA. ERIC Clearinghouse ED 359 528 Perry, L.A. (1998). Incorporate peer response to writing in a teacher education course. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy. 41, (8), 670-673. ERIC Clearinghouse EJ 567 277 Phenix, J. (1990). Teachine; writine;: The nuts and bolts of runnine; a day-to-day writine; ~ Markham, ON: Pembroke. Pinnell, G. S. (1987). Human development and communication: Then and now. Theory into ~ Writing on the Web 133 Reid, L. (1986, November). Collaborative learnin&: Brid&in& the &ap between speakin& and writin&. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English, San Antonio, TX. ERIC Clearinghouse ED 279 000 Reid, L. ( 1983, April). Talkin&: The ne&lected part of the writin& process. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council of Teachers of English Spring Conference, Seattle, W A. ERIC Clearinghouse ED 229 762 Rich, A. (1993). What is found here: Notebooks on poetzy and politics. New York: Norton. Rouse, J. (1988, February). Language, learning, and identity. En&lish Journal, 22-28. Rubenstein, I. ( 1997, April). Zen and the art of online teachin&: Reflections of a technolo&ically challen&ed writin& instructor. Paper contributed to the Teaching in the Community Colleges Online Conference, Hawaii, USA. ERIC Clearinghouse ED 413 890 Safier, F. (Ed.). (1986). hnpact: Fifty short. short stories. Orlando: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Saye, J. (1997). Technology and educational empowerment: Students' perspectives. Educational Technolo&Y Research & Development. 45 (2), 5-24. Schaafsma, D. (1996). Things we cannot say: "Writing for your life" and stories in English education. Themy into Practice. 35, (2), 110-116. Schaffer, J. (1996). Peer response that works. Journal ofTeachin& Writin&. 15. (1), 81-90. ERIC Clearinghouse EJ 544 162 Schallert, D. L., Dodson, M. M., Benton, R. E., Reed, J. H., Amador, N. A., Lissi, M. R., Coward, F. L., and Fleeman, B. F. (1999, April). Conversations that lead to learnin& in a computer aee: Trackine how individuals make sense of socially shared classroom conversations. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Annual Meeting, Montreal, Quebec. Sharan, S. (1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of Educational Research, 50 (2), 241-271. Slavin, R. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50 (2), 315-342. Slavin, R. ( 1981 ). A case study of psychological research affecting classroom practice: Student team learning. The Elementazy School ~ (1), 5-17. Spandel, V. & Stiggins, R. J. (1990). ~ writers: Writing on the Web 134 ~ assessment and ~ instruction. New York: Longman. Spear, K. (1993). Creating contexts to share writing: Starting with teachers. InK. Spear (Ed.), Peer response ~ in action: ~ ~ in secondacy schools (pp. 3-19). Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Squire, J. (1991). The history of the profession. In J. Flood, J. Jensen, D. Lapp, and J. Squire (Eds.), Handbook of research on ~ the E ~ ~ ~ Arts (pp. 3 -17). New York: Macmillan Publishing. Stanton, W. (1987). Barney. In G. Kirkland & R. Davies (Eds.)., Inside Stories I (pp. 211214). Toronto: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich. Strech; L. L. ( 1994, October). The implementation of writing workshop: A review of the literature. Viewpoints. (University Microfiche No. CS 214 682) Strickland, J. (1997). From disk to hard copy: ~ ~ with computers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. ERIC Clearinghouse ED 410 589 Tornow, J. (1997). ~ ~ in the online classroom. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press. van der Geest, T. & Remmers, T. (1994). The computer as means of communication for peer-review groups. Computers and Composition. 11, 237-250. ERIC Clearinghouse EJ 560 763 Vygotsky, L.S. ( 1978). Mind in society: The development of ~ ~ processes. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Vygotsky, L.S. (1962). and ~ ~ ~ Eugenia Hanfmann & Gertrude Vakar (Eds). Cambridge, MA.: The M.I.T. Press. Walters, M. (1991, March). Robert Zoellner's "Talk-Write ~ ~ Instrumental concept for composition today. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Boston, MA. ERIC Clearinghouse ED 339 030 Warren, A. and McCoskey, L. (1993). Pragmatics: Language in social contexts. In J. Berko Gleason (Ed.), The development Canada. ~ ~ (pp. 196- 237). Toronto: Maxwell Macmillan Writing on the Web 135 WebCT: What does WebCT look like? (accessed October 22, 1999) http://www. webct.com/look_like.html ~ makers. London: Heinemann. Wells, G. (1986). The Wells, G. (1990). Talk about text: Where literacy is learned and taught. Curriculum Ing,uizy. 20 (4 ), 369-405. Wertsch, J. (1985). Introduction. In J. V. Wertsch (Ed.) Culture. communication and ~ perspectives. (pp. 1-18). New York: Cambridge University Press. ~ Wolf, S. A. & Gearhart, M. (1997). New writing assessments: The challenge of changing teachers' beliefs about students as writers. Theozy into Practice. 36, (4), 220-230. Woods, W. (1978). ~ ~ The major theories since 1950. A study prepared at the Wichita State University. ERIC Clearinghouse ED 168 004 Zemelman, S. and H. Daniels. (1988). A community of writers: junior and senior ~ ~ school. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann. Zoellner, R. (1969). Talk-write: A behavioural pedagogy for composition. 30 (4), 267-320. ~ in the ~ E ~ Writing on the Web 136 Appendix A Letter of Informed Consent,1998-1999 An Investigation of Online Technology and the Writers' Workshop in the Junior Secondary Classroom I would like to request your participation in a study of narrative composition using computer technology to peer conference online. You are invited to participate in this study because you were a student in my grade 10 English class at Blackburn Junior Secondary School, in the fall or spring semester of 1998-1999. I am a student of graduate studies in Education at the University of Northern British Columbia. My supervising professor is Dr. Judith Lapadat. I plan to collect the data in this study as the basis for my masters thesis: Online Technology and the Writers' Workshop in the Junior Secondary Classroom. I plan to investigate students' use of online technology to respond to peers' narrative compositions (peer conferencing), and to survey students' attitudes about writing and peer conferencing online. I hope to learn more about how peer comments affect a writer's revision of his or her work as well as student attitudes toward writing and revising writing. This information will contribute to research in education, and may be beneficial to future teachers and students. During the time that you were a student in my class, you wrote a narrative composition. If you decide to participate, you will allow me to post your work as a sample story to the designated web site, anonymously, using your selected "code name". If you decide to participate, you may choose to respond to sample stories posted to the designated web site, anonymously, using your "code name." Students who will take English 10 in the fall semester of 1999-2000 will be given the opportunity to read your narrative and your comments, and may choose to comment on your sample story using their own "code name." You will be given an opportunity to read those comments, revise your work, and post the final, edited narrative as a published work, should you wish to do so. All participants will be invited to complete a short survey after the narrative writing, to determine familiarity and comfort with both peer conferencing and use of computer technology to conference. Possible risk factors are no greater than normal school activity. Students who choose not to participate online will not have their work used in this research study. Any information obtained in connection with this study that can be identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission. Your decision as to whether or not to participate will not prejudice your relations with the teacher or Blackburn Junior Secondary. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw consent and your work will be removed from the data base. If you have any additional questions, please contact me, Elizabeth Woods, at Blackburn Junior Secondary, {250) 963-7474. You may also contact my thesis supervisor, Dr. Judith Lapadat, at (250) 960-6667, if you have questions or concerns. You may keep a copy of this form . I have decided to participate in a study of narrative composition using computer technology to peer conference online. I agree to post my narrative online, and to allow peers to read and comment on my narrative. My signature indicates that I have read the information above and have decided to participate. I realize that I may withdraw without prejudice at any time after signing this form should I decide to do so. Student's signature Date Parent/ Guardian's signature Date Researcher's signature Date ~ . - ·.·. - Appendix B . UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN BRITISH COLUMBIA 3333 University Way, Prince George, BC, Canada V2N 4Z9 Dr. Alex Michalos · Chair, UNBC Ethics Review Committee Tel: (250) 960-6697 or 960-5820 Fax: (250) 960-5746 E-mail: ~ I UNBC Ethics Committee . May 26, 1999 Ms. Elizabeth Woods 9405 Alpine Drive Prince George, B_C Proposal: 19990510.53 Dear Ms. Woods: The UNBC Ethics Committee met on May 19, 1999 to review your proposal entitled, "Online Technology and the Writers Workshop in the Jr. Sec. Classroom". The Committee has approved your proposal and you are free to proceed with your research. CMr Sincerely, Alex Michalos ~ Ethics Review Committee Writing on the Web 138 Appendix C Letter of Informed Consent, 1999-2000 An Investigation of Online Technology and the Writers' Workshop in the Junior Secondary Classroom I would like to request your participation in a study of narrative composition using computer technology to peer conference online. You are invited to participate in this study because you are a student in my grade 10 English class at Blackburn Junior Secondary School. I am a student of graduate studies in Education at the University of Northern British Columbia. My supervising professor is Dr. Judith Lapadat. I plan to collect the data in this study as the basis for my masters thesis: Online Technology and the Writers' Workshop in the Junior Secondary Classroom. I plan to investigate students' use of online technology to respond to peers' narrative compositions (peer conferencing), and to survey students' attitudes about writing and peer conferencing online. I hope to learn more about how peer comments affect a writer's revision of his or her work as well as student attitudes toward writing and revising writing. This information will contribute to research in education, and may be beneficial to future teachers and students. All students will be asked to write a narrative composition. If you decide to participate, you will post your story to the designated web site, anonymously, using a "code name." Peers will then be given the opportunity to read and comment on your narrative, using their own "code name." You will be given an opportunity to revise your work, and post the final, edited narrative as a published work. All participants will be invited to complete a short survey after the narrative writing, to determine familiarity and comfort with both peer conferencing and use of computer technology to conference. Several students will be asked to participate in a post-revision interview. The interview will be audio-taped for future analysis of student responses. Except for the interview, no other time outside of class will be required. However, students are free to work on the writing and revision of their stories as they choose. Possible risk factors are no greater than normal school activity. Students who choose not to participate online will complete the same assignments in class; and their work will not be used in this research study. Any information obtained in connection with this study that can be identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with your permission. Your decision as to whether or not to participate will not prejudice your relations with the teacher or Blackburn Junior Secondary. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw consent and discontinue the online peer conferencing at any time. If you have any additional questions, please contact me, Elizabeth Woods, at Blackburn Junior Secondary, (250) 963-7474. You may also contact my thesis supervisor, Dr. Judith Lapadat, at (250) 960-6667, if you have questions or concerns. You may keep a copy of this form. have decided to participate in a study of narrative composition using computer technology to peer conference online. I agree to post my narrative online, and to allow peers to read and comment on my narrative. My signature indicates that I have read the information above and have decided to participate. I realize that I may withdraw without prejudice at any time after signing this form should I decide to do so. Student's signature Date Parent/ Guardian's signature Date Researcher's signature Date Writing on the Web 139 AppendixD ASSIGNMENT: NABB."TIVE E JOURNAL ~ Reading Log: Theme Paragraphs: Best Work: ~ E JOURNAL: 40 + 10 12 x 5 points 4 x 25 points = = = = 50 points 60 points 100 points 100 points READING LOG: You are required to read a minimum of 40 short stories. Some we will read together in class, some you will select to read by yourself. RECORD each story on your Reading Log: date read, author, title of story, source. Include Reading Log in final Response Journal. Theme Paragraphs: You are required to write a response to one story every day of class for this unit. Your response should address the THEME of the short story. Every fourth day, you will be asked to meet with peers to share your three responses. Every fifth day, you are required to submit one BEST WORK. Select the best of the three responses you have prepared, revise, edit, a11d submit for marking. BEST WORK DUE DATES: REQUIRED for all Theme Paragraphs: Presentation (05): computer, typed, or neatly handwritten in pen Identify (07): Exposition Copyright date Protagonist Antagonist Conflict Point of View ( 2) ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) ( 1) time and place Quote (03): Copy a quote from the story that represents the theme. Cite page number. Paragraph (10): Write a well-constructed paragraph (6-10 sentences) to discuss the theme. Include a clear topic sentence that states the theme. Support your topic sentence with a minimum of three details from the story. End your paragraph with a powerful clincher sentence. Complete sentences, correct grammar, mechanics, and spelling required. DEDUCTION: one point for every spelling or mechanical error! Writing on the Web 140 REQUIRED for RESPONSE JOURNAL: Title page: title of Response Journal + name, date, class, teacher, block Table of Contents: list : author and story title Presentation: duotang cover include this assignment sheet include two (2) demonstration response entries include (3) plot outlines include (4) examples of BEST WORK Visual Representation: two (2) illustrations (relevant/ creative) identify story title, author and source Bibliography: list all sources consulted minimum three (3) sources required Self-Evaluation: Record your score on this sheet before presentation to teacher. RESPONSE JOURNAL DUE DATE: EVALUATION: Title Page Table of Contents 12 Responses - complete 2 original art @ 10 pts. Reading Log Bibliography Presentation TOTAL I 05 points I 10 I 25 I 20 I 05 I 15 L2JJ. /100 points Bibliography of Sources: Jeroski, S. (Ed). (1991 ). Tapestries: Short stories from the Asian Pacific Rim. Scarborough, Ontario: Nelson Canada. Kirkland, G. and Davies, B. (Eds). (1987). Inside stories II. Toronto: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Safier, F. (Ed). (1986). Impact: Fifty short short stories. Orlando: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Sohn, D. (Ed). (1964). Ten top storjes. New York: Bantam Books. Winter, E. H. (Ed). (1967). Ventures 2. Canada: Thomas Nelson & Son. Writing on the Web 141 Appendix E THE ANIMAL By: Chris Receveur Tromping through the darkness, he savagely searches for food. There is no vegetation for miles, but he must survive. All the rest of his kind are dead. Dead of starvation. His heavy footsteps echo through the emptiness. He continues through his damp surroundings. He finds no food. Wait. There is something moving ahead. No. It's not one of his kind. He is not wanted among them, just a burden. He often feels of giving up. But he can't, he must survive. Now the sun is coming up. The water will soon be scarce. The sun's rays burn on his bare back, but he continues on in hopes of finding food. His once strong and muscular body is now withered down to bones, and his rough skin is itching and burning. He knows he only has one last chance, he must find food. He continues on to his hunting grounds. He usually has much luck there. The prey used to be plentiful, but since he started hunting there, it has been scarce. All morning he walks through the deep valleys until he reaches his spot. He sits, and waits. He sees his prey. No, that's not the one he wants. He waits some more. There. This one looks good. He has his attack all planned out. His prey is nearing, closer, closer, closer. Then, he makes his attack. "Excuse me, sir, could you spare some change?" Writing on the Web 142 Appendix F In The Public Eye by Davina Van Roode My feet pounded harder and faster against the rough forest floor beneath me as the wind rushed through my hair. I loved that feeling, the way the air felt against my skin as it picked my hair slightly up off my shoulders. It was almost as though I were flying. Often, I wished that feeling would go on forever, as if it were nothing, but I knew my legs could not go on for that long. I could feel the muscles getting even more sore. I needed another rest; it had been about twenty minutes since I last stopped. I figured I didn't have much time before he realized I was gone, and called the police to come find me. I kept running, faster now, terrified at the thought of ever going back to that dump he called a "home". He thought I was at Jessica's, believing that I would be home by 5:00 to cook him dinner. I glanced at my watch. It was 4:30. "Half an hour before he calls Jessica to see why I'm not at the house yet," I thought, "then he'll realize what I've done." I recalled the last time it happened, hopefully it would be the last of many times. He had come home earlier than I expected, and he had smelled so terrible I could have sworn it was raining whiskey outside. I was doing dishes, something Mom would have been doing, had she not died. I remembered thinking, "The bartender must have kicked him out again, it's a wonder he got elected." I knew, as soon as I had smelled him, I was in trouble. I tried to leave the room without getting caught, but it was too late. He had seen me. I prayed to God silently as I turned to face him. "Why aren't the dishes done, and why aren't you asleep!?" he yelled , his words slightly slurred. My prayer to God was interrupted. "Well 1...," I started "You were laz'in' around watching t.v.,weren't you!?" I didn't answer. "Weren't you!?" he repeated as if I hadn't heard. Before I got a chance to answer, he shouted, "You slut! Answer me!" "No, I ..." "When I want something done, you do it, understand!?" He started walking towards me. "Please, don't yell," I whispered, almost in tears . He was right in front of me now. "Don't yell!?" he cried. "It's my god damn house! I'll do what I want!" He slapped me, hard and across the face. I could feel the hot salty drops of water rolling down my cheeks. His face was inches away from mine. The heavy stench of whiskey on his breath was sickening. "I own this damn house," he repeated a third time, only louder. "I own everything in this f'ing house, and you, too, my girl." He walked back over to me and started hitting me. My stomach hurt from his punches. I tried to fight back with the little energy I had, but he only hit me harder. Writing on the Web 143 Tears were dripping off my chin and my arms became too sore to lift. The last thing I remembered was an sharp pain from the back of my head. I woke up the next morning starring at white linoleum and shattered dishes. I had a searing pain throughout my head. I went to the bathroom and looked in the mirror. I had bruise on my right cheek where he had slapped me, and bruises on my arms and legs. I had no cuts that time; I was lucky. I took some Tylenol for my headache, and I grabbed a pen and paper. I passed by the living room, where he was passed out on the couch. He was sure to be sleeping for a few more hours yet. I silently went into my room and sat down on my bed. I wrote: Dear Dad, I've gone over to Jessica's. Don't expect me home until five o'clock. -Samantha I guessed that he wouldn't call to check on me, at least, he never had before. I looked at my watch again. "He should be calling Jessica now," I thought. I slowed down to a walk for a while to catch my breath. Once I could breathe again, I started to run . I could hear the cars on the highway; I could tell that I wasn't that far away. I would hitchhike from there. Damn my father for wanting to live in the country. I heard barking coming from behind me, I broke out of the woods and onto the highway. There was a police car waiting for me, and several officers as well. I tripped and fell hard on the pavement. It felt as though my breath were taken away from me. My face, arms and legs stung as though skinned of flesh . They helped me up and then sat me in the vehicle. They acted as though I was unable to walk myself. I tried to struggle to get away, but it was too painful. "Don't take me back there, please," I managed to mutter to them. "Sorry," one of them replied, "but we have to. Your daddy misses you and wants you back home." "No," I thought, "You don't understand ... " When I woke up, I was in my father's bed. The police officers had left already. I assume that he had answered all their questions. "How are you?" he asked as though I believed he really cared. "Go to hell." He leaned over me and kissed my forehead . "Get off of me." I cried. He started kissing me even more. "Daddy loves you, don't run away anymore." He ran his hands through my hair. He started to undress me, unbuttoning my shirt. "Get off of me! I hate you!" "No you don't. You love me too, " his voice was calm . He started to unbutton my jeans. I reached over to the bed stand and pulled out the hand gun he had hidden there. I pointed it at him. "Get off of me!" "You won't shoot me," he said kissing my cheek. I fired the gun. He fell to the floor. He lay there gasping in his own pool of blood. I reached for the phone to call 9-1-1. They didn't make it in time. Writing on the Web Appendix G 144 Letter of Informed Consent, 2000 - 2001 To Use Real Name An Investigation of Online Technology and the Writers' Workshop in the Junior Secondary Classroom You participated in a study of narrative composition using computer technology to peer conference online in the spring of 2000. At this time, you are invited to present your story as a publication on the website BBJWOW. Your signature to this letter gives your consent to have your real name used in this online publication. I am a student of graduate studies in Education at the University of Northern British Columbia. My supervising professor is Dr. Judith Lapadat. The BBJWOW website was developed for the study that is the basis for my masters thesis: Online Technology and the Writers' Workshop in the Junior Secondary Classroom. I investigated students' use of online technology to respond to peers' narrative compositions (peer conferencing), and to surveyed students' attitudes about writing and peer conferencing online. My goal was to learn more about how peer comments affect a writer's revision of his or her work as well as student attitudes toward writing and revising writing. This information will contribute to research in education, and may be beneficial to future teachers and students. According to prior agreement, your story was posted to the designated web site, anonymously, using a "code name." Peers have had the opportunity to read and comment on your narrative, using their own "code name." All information obtained in connection with this study that can be identified with you will remain confidential. As agreed by your prior Letter of Consent 1999-2000, your name will be disclosed only with your permission. This letter of Consent 2000-2001, asks you to agree to the use of your name as the author of the story published online on BBJWOW. This remains a closed website, open only to students of Blackburn Junior Secondary School. Any wider dissemination of the site will require further permission from you for the use of your real name or for the publication of your story. Your decision as to whether or not to participate will not prejudice your relations with the teacher or Blackburn Junior Secondary. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw consent and discontinue the online publication at any time. If you have any additional questions, please contact me, Elizabeth Woods, at Blackburn Junior Secondary, (250) 963-7474. You may also contact my thesis supervisor, Dr. Judith Lapadat, at (250) 960-:6667, if you have questions or concerns. You may keep a copy of this form. I have decided to participate in a study of narrative composition using computer technology to peer conference online. I agree to post my narrative online, and to allow peers to read and comment on my narrative. My signature indicates that I have read the information above and have decided to participate. I realize that I may withdraw without prejudice at any time after signing this form should I decide to do so. Student's signature Date Parent/ Guardian's signature Date Researcher's signature Date Wriitng on the Web Appendix H Peer Response Guidelines 1. Social Acknowledgement: "Your story was about aliens," 2. Positive Feedback: "Wow, what a story," 3. "I like mysteries .... " "That shows real insight.. .. " Direct instruction: "When the character _ _ would be a good place to show not tell." "Consider the advice to foreshadow a tragic event." 4. Questioning: "Why was the character in the alley," 5. Content: "Who called her?" "What was your main idea for this story?" "I see a collection of thoughts, but what were you trying to say?" "Could you describe _ _ a little more." 6. Organization: "In the beginning, you could develop ... " "In the middle, I wanted to know ....... " ''The ending happened quite quickly; I needed a sense of closure." 7. Language: "Who is your audience?" "I could hear the voice of your main character." "The old man in your story talked like a teenager." 8. Mechanics: "Be sure to check your spelling; it distracts the reader." "Remember to use quotation marks for dialogue." "Run-on sentences/ sentence fragments confuse the reader." 9. Prompting: "I need to know why the character was angry", "What else might the character have done here?" 10 . Suggestions for improvement: "If I were in her shoes, I might. .. ", "Please clarify what you mean by .... " 145 Writing on the Web 146 APPENDIX I INSTRUCTIONS: WebCT Instruction are based on the use of the iMac computers at Blackburn Junior Secondary. Details may vary for other computers. I 1. Prepare .the narrative Codename You are assigned a two word "code name." The second word of the code name will be used as your . 2. Type draft a Have prepared draft of your story. b. Type the story into AppleWorks. c. After the title of the story, use your code name as author. d. Make all revisions and proofread. e. When you are prepared to save the draft, under the "save as" feature on the file menu, select "HTML." 3. Your teacher will upload the story to WebCT to "Presentations" and print a copy of the presentation draft. II 1. Using WebCT Open netscape navigator. 2. Use Book mark to go to "WebCT Course Listings." If you are using a computer away from school, the web address is: http:// 3. Select "English 10 BBJWOW" 4. Your is the second word of your code name in lower case letters. 5. Your "password" is your student number. You are invited to change your password if you wish. If you decide to change your password, please notify your teacher. 6. The "Welcome" screen lists four options: Student Work Peer Response Guidelines Survey Change your password. ...Please turn the page .... Writing on the Web 7. Practice Peer Response a reference: online "Peer Response Guidelines" or printed handout b. select icon: "Student Work" c. select icon: "Sample Stories" d. Ready any story you wish. e. select icon: "Bulletins" at the top of the page f. You are now in the forum. select icon: "Compose" g. Write your response to the sample story. h. select icon: "Post" to enter your response 8. Presentations at this stage, you must work individually -- no partners b. select icon: "Presentations" c. Ready any story you wish. d. You are required to respond to five stories. e. select icon: "Bulletins" at the top of the page f. You are now in the forum. "Compose" select icon: g. Write your response to the sample story. h. select icon: "Post" to enter your response 9. Revision Read the response peers have given to your story. b. Decide if you wish to make any changes to the story. c. Proofread. d. Save all the changes. e. Print the final publication copy of your story. f. Using the "presentation draft", highlight where you have made changes g. Turn in all required work to teacher. 10. a a Survey a b. c. select icon: Survey Respond to objective questions as indicated. Please give some thought to, and carefully answer, the short answer questions. If you wish to work in a group to practice peer response: a Use for log-in. b. Use for password. c. Note the number of the response you posted. d. Inform your teacher of that number to receive credit. 147 Writing on the Web 148 Appendix J ASSIGNMENT: NARRATIVE: Creadve \\·rldng POINT VALUE: Daily work: Peer Response: Evaluation: Evaluation: 10 x 10 points 5 x 10 points preparation content = = = = 100 points 50 points 100 points 100 points . You are invited to participate in a study of narrative composition using computer technology to peer conference online. I plan to collect the data in this study as the basis for my · masters thesis: An Investigation of Online Technology and the Writers' Workshop in the Junior Secondary Classroom. Students who choose not to participate online will complete the same assignments in class; and their work will not be used in this research study. All students are assigned to write a narrative composition. If you decide to participate, you will post your story to the designated web site, anonymously, using your selected "code name". Peers will then be given the opportunity to read and comment on your narrative, using their own "code name". You will be given an opportunity to revise your work, and post the final, edited narrative as a published work. All participants will be invited to complete a short survey after the narrative writing, to determine familiarity and comfort with both peer conferencing and use of computer technology to conference. OPTIONAL: Several students may be asked to participate in a post-revision interview. The interview will be audio-taped for future analysis of student responses. Except for the interview, no other time outside of class will be required. Students are free to work on the writing and revision of their stories as they choose. Please refer to the attached assignment schedule. Note the target dates established for successful completion of the project. Please record the date(s) you work on each of the required stages. This "Assignment Sheet" will be collected at the end of the unit. REQUIRED for Narrative Creative Writing: Evaluation: Evaluation: = 100 points = 100 points quality of content preparation E. Woods- 10/11/99 I 05 points I 05 I 10 I 10 I 10 I 20 On Time Assignment Sheet returned Prewrite Organization Draft Draft - revision - proofread Typed final copy Peer Response (3 x 10 pojnts) I 10 L3.Q Preparation 1100 TOTAL points Writing on the Web Assignment Target Date Dates for daily work Code Name Log-in created October 5 October 7 1 Complete Letter of Consent October 15 2 Prewrite October 18 3 Organization October 21 4 Draft October 26 5 Revision October 29 (change words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs) 6 Proofread October 29 (spelling, punctuation, margins) 7 Typed Draft November 2 "Save as" HTML IMAC file "BBJWOW" 8 Upload to WebCT "Presentations" - correct errors November 2 PEER RESPONSE Output required November 5 minimum (5) five 9 REVISE NARRATIVE November 9 Please highlight changes on draft 10 Complete Survey November 12 Class Meeting Reflective Response November 12 Final pul;>lication Upload to WebCT "Publications" November 15 E. Woods- 10/11/99 149 NARRATIVE EVALUATION: NARRATIVE EVALUATION: 150 Writing on the Web APPENDIXK TITLE TITLE OVERALL IMPRESSION 5 4 3 2 OVERALL IMPRESSION 5 4 3 2 Originality of situation 5 4 3 2 Originality of situation 5 4 3 2 Strong protagonist 5 4 3 2 Strong protagonist 5 4 3 2 Logical plot outline 5 4 3 2 Logical plot outline 5 4 3 2 Details 5 4 3 2 Details 5 4 3 2 Dialogue 5 4 3 2 Dialogue 5 4 3 2 Effective climax 5 4 3 2 Effective climax 5 4 3 2 Sentence structure 5 4 3 2 Sentence structure 5 4 3 2 Mechanics 5 4 3 2 Mechanics 5 4 3 2 Neat 5 4 3 2 Neat 5 4 3 2 • unity • development I 50 points TOTAL EVALUATION: 1 • unity • development I 50 points TOTAL NARRATIVE EVALUATION: TITLE 1 NARRATIVE TITLE OVERALL IMPRESSION 5 4 3 2 OVERALL IMPRESSION 5 4 3 2 Originality of situation 5 4 3 2 Originality of situation 5 4 3 2 Strong protagonist 5 4 3 2 Strong protagonist 5 4 3 2 Logical plot outline 5 4 3 2 Logical plot outline 5 4 3 2 Details 5 4 3 2 Details 5 4 3 2 Dialogue 5 4 3 2 Dialogue 5 4 3 2 Effective climax 5 4 3 2 Effective climax 5 4 3 2 Sentence structure 5 4 3 2 Sentence structure 5 4 3 2 Mechanics 5 4 3 2 Mechanics 5 4 3 2 Neat 5 4 3 2 Neat 5 4 3 2 • unity • development TOTAL I 50 points 1 • unity • development TOTAL I 50 points 1 Writing on the Web 151 AppendixL Survey Questions NAME CODE NAME ------------------- DATE DATE SURVEY ONLINE - - - - - - A. Please select the most appropriate answer: 1. Gender a. I am a: 2. www female b. male How much experience did you have using the World Wide Web before this project? a. 3. _ Elec no experience b. less than 10 hours c. 10-50 hours d. more than 50 hours Conference How much experience did you have using a Bulletin Board System, Chatline, or other electronic a. 4. _ conferencing no experience b. systems before this less than 10 hours project? c. 10-50 hours d. more than 50 hours Time How much time did you spend on WebCT during this project? a. __30 - 60 min. 5. 1-2 hours b. 3-4 hours c. 5 -6 hours d. 7 + e. hours Location Please indicate locations from which you accessed WebCT: You may select more than one. a. __ library B. b. Star Lab c. classroom d. home e. other Please give your opinion to the statements below, using the scale: 1 (Low/ Strongly 2 (Somewhat 3 4 (no 5 (High/ Strongly Disagree) Disagree) opinion) (Somewhat Agree) Agree) Please indicate how much you agree or disagree with the statements that follow, items 6 to 15. Number 5 indicates you do agree with the statement. Number 1 indicates that you do not agree. Please select the number from 5 to 1 that best describes your opinion. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. OC Writer I see myself as a writer. OC WebCT The conferencing tool WebCT was easy to use. Ide as This Anon author Anon response conferencing activity encouraged sharing ideas. I like using my code name to publish anonymously. like using my code name to respond to stories anonymously. 11. Read online prefer to read stories online. 12. 13. 14. Read print prefer to read a story on the printed page. Character This conferencing Plot This conferenc ing activity gave me ideas regard ing plot. 15. Recommend I would recommend online conferencing for other students. activity gave me ideas regarding character. Writing on the Web 152 Paragraph Questions C. 16. Open Ended Questions Most useful Please give examples of some specific comments from peers that were most useful. 17. Least 18. Exam pi es=h urt Did you receive any comments which hurt your feelings? 19. Read What did you gain from reading narratives written by peers, if anything? 20. Revision What rev1s1ons did you make to your narrative based on peer response(s)? Please give example(s) . 21. P writer Do you see yourself as a writer? as a writer? 22. Conf teacher What experience have you had with student/ teacher writing conference(s)? Did you make changes to your writing? 23. Conf student What experience have you had with student/ student writing conference(s)? Did you make changes to your writing? 24. Conf person If you have ever participated in a student/ student writing conference, what did you like about that experience? 25. Conf online You have just participated in online writing conference. What did you like about this experience? 26. Anon author Was it important to you to be anonymous as an author? 27. Anon response Was it important to you to be anonymous when you wrote a response to a story? Why? Why not? 28. Future Would you like to use online conferencing about writing in the future? Why? Why not? 29. Improvements What could be done to make improvements to the online conference or to help to prepare students to use it? 30. Other Additional useful peers Please give examples of some specific comments from peers that were least useful. comments? Please give example(s). If "yes", in what way do you see yourself Why? Why not? AppendixM Writing on the Web 153 REFLECTIVE RESPONSE For each of the following categories, list at least three things (in complete sentences) that you feel are important to you. I Good things: n Problems: ill Improvements needed: Writing on the Web 154 Appendix N ANALYSIS: Narrative Notations January 9, 2000 ~ e . ........................... ~~ ~ • ~ ················· ················································· ·········································································· ! ~ ..... ··········································································· ··········································· [ ~ ..................................................................:. ....................................................... ················ ······················ ····································· ········································· ! R ~~ ~~~~ ~ ~~~~~ .. ~ .. ~ """' .................................... [.~ ....i.ll. ~ ~~ .. ~ aragraph ~ ~~~~ . .Revision ~~ ...... ··················································+······························································>······························ ~ i<:> 11.... ~ .. ................................................. ·+........................................................................................ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ....... ~ ~~ ~ ~~~~ ~~~ ______ _.............. +·····························································>························································· ................................ .L. ..........................................................,................................................................,......................................................... i ~ : : ·········.. :::::::.. ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::.::::::::::::1:··::::::::::::::::........................................ +······························································ >························································ 1 ..............•......... ···································· ·······························+·······················································•······························································· ! ;····························································+····················································································································· [ ·······················+································· ····························.-··················· ..................................... , ........................... f....................................................................................................... ------------------------:----------------------------------··r··------------·--····· ................................f ................................................................................................................. . , ............................................................ ...................................................................................... .......... ................. . .. . . .......................................,....................................................................................................+ .............................................................;........................................................, : . ~ ..- ---··r- , .,.. ......................................................................... ............................................................ ................................. ,.................................................................................................+ . .. : '.: .................................... .......... ...... ..... ............... ; ................................................... .. Writing on the Web 155 Appendix 0-1 The Enchanted Utopia By: Fuzzy Kiwi Where the winding path led across the chine, bushes of blackberry and huckleberry gathered into two tangled lanes until it was one curling mass of green waves. Dull rays of the evening sun shone through the pink and silver haze of soft clouds. The insects chanted a hypnotizing chorus in the long July heat , near the gurgling rivulets of the cold blue bayou. Under the gnarled old oak tree sat a beautiful princess, with hair that fell in honey ringlets like a golden waterfall down her back. She had emerald green eyes that shone like jewels that seemed to look inside your very heart . and pierce your soul like daggers. To get away from the palace, Meredith would come to this spot as often as she could. Sometimes to feed the animals. Sometimes to throw rocks in the bubbling creek, and dream what I'd be like to grow wings an d fly far away from the royal confusions of every day life that has become her very existence. Or to listen to the world and all it had to say about the complications and unsettling enities which is our own manifested domain. Sometimes she'd fall asleep under the enchanted old oak tree, and only there, no where else she would dream about him. Never the face only a voice, resonant and melodious. One night during dinner there were three light raps on the front door. " Who would be so rude as to interrupt my dinner." She opened the door and peered out into the dusky silence of the eventide. "Who's there?" The princess called weakly. No answer. Just as she was about to close the door, a shape appeared suddenly out of the twilight. An old pitiful looking woman stepped into the light. "Please help me, I've no food and no place to stay, I've been traveling for days." The old woman's hair was matted with burrs and twigs . Her clothes were tattered and tom from her obviously long journey. "I will stay for only one night, and will be off in the morning. I can repay you." begged the old witch. "With what could you give me?, I am a wealthy princess, and you are an old beggar lady. What could you have that I don't. I have everything I need. So away with you wretched old witch." And she shut the door "Beggars!" Meredith mumbled with disgust. On the other side of the door she could hear the old witch grumbling and cursing. Meredith returned to her meal without any more disruptions. Days later Meredith wondered down to her discreet Utopia. She was staring at the clear blue sky when a beautiful butterfly fluttered around her then landed on her arm. Touched by it's beauty Meredith brushed her lips over the delicate gossamer wings. Suddenly a gust of wind came out of nowhere spiraling around Meredith and she closed her eyes against the tiny grains of sand. Seconds later the wind was gone and the princess could hear the voice of the man in her dreams, " you have released my soulfrom the bounds of a curse, you are my angel. I have seen your face in my dreams." "And I have heard your voice in mine." Suddenly the old beggar witch appeared." Ah ha! You thought you could just tum your back on me, and not suffer a consequence you poor unfortunate soul." The witch screamed. her voice filled with hatred and rage." Because you are rude, and vain you shall live for the rest of eternity never being able to be with your tnie love, and you will live forever with only half a soul. And turning to Merideth's love, spat out " And you shall perish in the fiery pits of hell." The witch raised her arms, clouds swarmed quickly around the clear sky. Thunder roared and lightening crashed as she summoned evil from the four comers of the earth. Thunder snapped angrily as if pissed off at the gods above. The witch turned to the Meredith called to her," Now you shall suffer for the rest of eternity. "Noooooooo! "Screamed Meredith. She jumped in the arms of the man and their lips met for a brief moment. Suddenly lightening struck the old enchanted oak tree. It was split down the middle and half fell on the witch, it killed her, but it was too late the spell had already been cast. There was another gust of wind and sand. The princess was turned into a fish to live in the bubbling brook near the charred old oak tree and the prince remained a man. And it was so, the couple could never be, For Meredith, and the man of her dreams. Appendix 0-2 Writing on the Web 156 The Enchanted Utopia By: Fuzzy Kiwi Where the winding path led across the chine, bushes of blackberry and huckleberry gathered into two tangled lanes until it was one curling mass of green waves. Dull rays of the evening sun shone through the pink and silver haze of soft clouds. The insects chanted a hypnotizing chorus in the long July heat , near the gurgling rivulets of the cold blue bayou. Under the gnarled old oak tree sat a beautiful princess, with hair that fell in honey ringlets like a golden waterfall down her back. She had emerald green eyes hat shone like jewels that seemed to look inside your very heart and pierce your soul like daggers. To get away from the palace, Meredith would come to this spot as often as she could. Sometimes to feed the animals. Sometimes to throw rocks in the bubbling creek, and dream what I'd be like to grow wings an d fly far away from the royal confusions of every day life that has become her very existence. Or to listen to the world and all it had to say about the complications and unsettling entities which is our · own manifested domain. Sometimes she'd fall asleep under the enchanted old oak tree, and only there, no where else she would dream about him. Never the face only a voice, resonant and melodious. One night during dinner there were three light raps on the front door." Who would be so rude as to interrupt my dinner." She opened the door and peered out into the dusky silence of the eventide. "Who's there?" The princess called weakly. No answer. Just as she was about to close the door, a shape appeared suddenly out of the twilight. An old pitiful looking woman stepped into the light. "Please help me, I've no food and no place to stay, I've been traveling for days." The old woman's hair was matted with burrs and twigs . Her clothes were tattered and tom from her obviously long journey. "I will stay for only one night, and will be off in the morning. I can repay you." begged the old witch. "With what could you give me?, I am a wealthy princess, and you are an old beggar lady. What could you have that I don' t. I have everything I need. So away with you wretched old witch." And she ·shut the door "Beggars!" Meredith mumbled with disgust. On the other side of the door she could hear the old witch grumbling and cursing. Meredith returned to her meal without any more disruptions. Days later Meredith wondered down to her discreet Utopia. She was staring at the clear blue sky when a beautiful butterflyfluttered around her then landed on her arm. Touched by it's beauty Meredith brushed her lips over the delicate gossamer wings. Suddenly a gust of wind came out of nowhere spiraling around Meredith and she closed her eyes against the tiny grains of sand. Seconds later the wind was gone and the princess could hear the voice of the man in her dreams, "you have released my soul from the bounds of a curse, you are my angel. I have seen your face in my dreams." "And I have heard your voice in mine." Suddenly the old beggar witch appeared." "Ah ha! You thought you could just tum your back on me, and not suffer a consequence you poor unfortunate soul." The witch screamed. her voice filled with hatred and rage. ·" Because you are rude, and vain you shall live for the rest of eternity never being able to be with your true love, and you will live a pitiful lonely life with only half a soul." Merideth heard her love' s voice and the love in it cloaked her in it's warmth and comfort." Hag, is there nothing which will break the curse?" The hag looked at him closely, half her face obscured by her matted hair, one eye glowing, her wicked face creased in thought. Then finally answered," To know his voice but not his touch, is your punishment for loving yourself too much." To him: "Fair of face is not love true, but a maiden with grace we'll be true to you. If love be yours then you must wait for the beauty of youth to first abate. When youth's bloom fades and wisdoms glow en if your hearts be true it will be known." She raised her arms, clouds swarmed quickly around the clear sky. Thunder roared and lightening crashed as she summoned evil from the four comers of the earth. Thunder snapped angrily as if pissed off at the gods above. The witch turned to the Meredith called to her," Now you shall suffer for the rest of eternity. "Noooooooo! "Screamed Meredith. She jumped in the arms of the man and their lips met for a brief moment. Suddenly lightning struck the old enchanted oak tree. It was split down the middle and half fell on the witch, it killed her, but it was too late the spell had already been cast. There was a another gust of wind and sand. The princess was sent to one side of the world, and the prince to the other. If it is meant to be, Then true love shall set them free. AppendixP Writing on the Web 157 liCK FEVER h: BUll Puner ..HIV Cllat IIIII dllrf IXCIIIIIId IIIII. 'WIIenil" ..Riallt Tllen, 11111tr ..b aene,"ubllell Chad. 'Will HVlllllll11 IIRI bUCk llvlr, IIIVbl VII CIUid llllllllllltbiDI." ..HIV llbl Mlfl buck IIVIril" 'Will Cllad b WIIIIIIUV- 1r WIIIMIIIIII UChld wiiiiiiUDdDI tbiV Cll1 Clatnl IIIIDIIIIvll. SIDIIdllll IIIIV IIIVI h II IIIII IIIIV IIIIIICIDIII and llllltatiiDIIIIIIDIIIIafs All tben. SIIDidllll IIIIV llllltatllllllllllllllatlslllen but Dll 1111 rllbt aniDIII." "SS VII IIIII PIIPIIIIIIII at Ukl dllllllllad II deer lr 111111 biCIUII tbiV IIDIIIDI tbelr dill-" .... Cllat I IIIII IIIIV 11111111 IVIrvtlllll IIIIV IIIIDk 11a1111111L IICIIdiiiiiiiDIU." "'lllelrs I de• Cllallllllll h IIIII dill." "1111111111111111." Plllld Cllad." ..1111 WlftV IIIII IIe Will diWI 111111111. n1111r111d h lid ICirl h biCk IP lllelllll IIIII VII 111111 h lr VII dltlettlllllllllllldiV." IIIII Wllkld diWI lllellllllrllld 1111 dllr lid lllded IIICk UP. h talk llbD I will II CIIDe back but Cllad bad a good leiiiDI IIIIUIIIIIIDI Ibis deer. Cllad lllllllllllelllllleP II 1111 truck wiiiD llesaw lllalllvesetlllatllrl cnss tbe liP llllllllllllllea llleiiiDI bead aad llldV came wllllllleanders. Cllad dropped bllaiDIDUDhlln en llle truck neer. Cllallllckld n••••..lhleaaalllauned 111u1111 IDII tbe Cllllllllr. Hll..ld 1111388 WlaCIIIIIIr •111 tbeiiiDI deer. ••••••••---• hllrllllllllkla nckll tbeanuad. 1 Ill ll,.llllll IIIII 111111._ 11-1111111111111111111111•1.. WIIII'IIIIIDIIIIIIIIV prlzl•ck." II Cllad WllkiiiiiWirdllllllll• bl DldCIIIIIII d11r wa Wllrllllllue IIIIi lid 11n111 llatJullllkl IIIII. THE Ell Writing on the Web 158 Appendix Q-1 Marbles by: Spiffy Spock OHusl). now.It6ll only be for a few hours. you know how lonely your grandma is now that Papa is gone,O my mother said as she dragged me by my ¥Jil up the gnveway. , QAnd donOt forget your please and thankyous now, you hear?O OButmom... O OIOll be back at dinner for you, alright.6 She yanked at my clothes and wiped my face, then hurried back to the car. I stood on the porch and watched her drive out of sight. Then the front door opened a crack and my grandmother poked her nose tprougg. , OYouOre late. Nevermind, shut the door behind you.O she ordered in her deep hoarse voice. She sputtered and hacked all the way back to the sofa then muttered at me to go play upstairs as tnot to bother her. She lit another cigarette and continued to bask in the glow of her television, lost in a myriad of game shows and westerns. For a moment I stood beside her, spying the room for something '!ffiUSing, to take upstairs. OHere!O Grandma shoved her faded yellow knit blanket in my arms and dipped her other hand into a bowl of old cheesies. It stunk horribly of smoke, but i dragged it uestairs nonetheless. The wooden floorboards creaked with my every step. The only door which wasnOt locked was at the end of the long dim hallway. The room was bare, except for a couple of old and battered wooden chairs which sat in fafing the window. The window had been left open, so itOs tattered curtains were floating and flapping with the breeze. I then draped the blanket over the chairs, creating a perfect tent. I crawled beneath and _ began to chat with V ana White over a cup of tea. She agreed that my Grandmother shouldnOt be so cranky. I was sitting on the floor crosslegged, when something rolled beneath the blanket and stopped at my foot; A £lear glass marble. Surely Grandma wouldnOt own any marbles. I stuffed in my pocket and poked my head out of the tent. ~ small frail !J.and quickly pulled itself back into the hallway. OGrandma?O No reply. I crept up to the doorway and saw her at the top of the stairs. A girl, a little older than I was, stooped over dozens of the same marbles, her back t,p me. Her dress was dirty and tom. A red velvet sash was tied be,hind her back. 0Hey!6 I whispered loudly at her, OWhere did you com from?O She slowly turned her face toward me, and grimaced but said nothing. Although the lighting was bad, it seemed that her eyes had no colour. Just white everywhere. I choked back a shreik of horror. She stood up, still watching me and lifted her foot as though to crush the marbles with her shoe. Just then, the window in the empty room slammed shut. I glanced at the window and back again. But she had vanished. No marbles or anything. I fled down the ~ to my granmother. QDid you ~ the girl?!6 I panted. QWhat girl?O my grandma b¥ked impatiently. QThe girl upstairs with the ... O _ , ONonsens,e! Now keep quiet. Yo}lOe made me miss the question now!O She waved her hand at me and said, OGo on back upstairs.O Writing on the Web 159 But I dared not move. I sat frozen, in the livingroom chair, my eyes glued to the top of te banister, for the time until my mother carne. Knowing my mother would only react in the same way, I snuck off to bed early to figure out who theat girl was. Not a lot was corning to mind. I pulled the marble from my pocket and placed it carefully on my dresser and eventually fell asleep. I began to dream that I could see my grandmother at the top of the staircase. But as she turned to me, her eyes had the same emptiness, and menacing smile. The phone rang, startling me awake. My alarm said 11 :49 pm. I heard my mother answer. I pressed rp.y ear against the wall to listen. , OYes, this is her.. Excuse me? ... But how ... O ~ wasn6t quite sure what to think of the tone in my motherOs _voice. OBut how could she have swallowed broked glass for ChristOs sake?!6 My mother half shouting, half sobbed into the reciever. I snatched the marble off of the dresser and threw it as far and as hard as I could out the window. Writing on the Web 160 Appendix Q-2 Marbles by: Spiffy Spack "Hush now. It'll only be for a few hours. You know how lonely your grandma is now that Papa is gone," my mother said as she ~ me by my arm up the driveway. "And don't forget your please and thank you's now, you hear?" "But mom ... " 'Til be back at dinner for you, all right." She yanked at my clothes and wiped my face, then hurried back to the car. I stood on the porch and watched her drive out of sight. Then the front door opened a crack and my grandmother poked her nose through. "You're late. Never mind, shut the door behind you." she ordered in her deep hoarse voice. She sputtered and hacked all the way back to the sofa then muttered at me to go play upstairs as not to bother her. She lit another cigarette and continued to bask in the glow of her television, lost in a myriad of game shows and westerns. For a moment I stood beside her, spying the room for something amusing to take upstairs. "Here!" Grandma shoved her faded yellow knit blanket in my arms and dipped her other hand into a bowl of old crackers. It stunk horribly of smoke, but i dragged it upstairs nonetheless. The wooden floorboards creaked with my every step. The only door which wasn't locked was at the end of the long dim hallway. The room was bare, except for a couple of old and battered wooden chairs which sat in facing the window. The window had been left open, so it's tattered curtains were floating and flapping with the breeze. ·1 then draped the blanket over the chairs, creating a perfect tent. I crawled beneath and began to chat with Anna White over a cup of tea. She agreed that my Grandmother shouldn't be so cranky. I was sitting on the floor cross legged, when something rolled beneath the blanket and stopped at my foot; A clear glass marble. Surely Grandma wouldn't own any marbles. I stuffed in my pocket and poked my head out of the tent. A small frail hand quickly pulled itself back into the hallway. "Grandma?" Writing on the Web 161 No reply. I crept up to the doorway and saw her at the top of the stairs. A girl, about my age, stooped over dozens of the same marbles, her back to me. Her dress was dirty and torn. A red velvet sash was tied behind her back . .. Hey! .. I whispered loudly at her, .. Where did you come from? .. She slowly turned her face toward me, and grimaced but said nothing. Although the lighting was bad, it seemed that her eyes had no colour. Just white everywhere. I choked back a shreik of horror. She stood up, still watching me and lifted her foot as though to crush the marbles with her shoe. Just then, the window in the empty room slammed shut, and I heard the marbles crunch. I glanced at the window and back again. But she had vanished. No marbles or anything. I fled down the stairs to my granmother. .. Did you see the girl?! .. I panted . .. What girl? .. my grandma barked impatiently . .. The girl upstairs with the ..... .. Nonsense! Now keep quiet. You'e made me miss the question now! .. She waved her hand at me and said, .. Go on back upstairs ... But I dared not move. I sat frozen, in the livingroom chair, my eyes glued to the top of the banister, for the time until my mother came. As we drove home I knew my mother would only react in the same way, so I didn't bother trying. I snuck off to bed early to think about who girl. I pulled the marble from my pocket and placed it carefully on my dresser and eventually fell asleep. I began to dream that I could see my grandmother at the top of her staircase. But as she turned to me, her eyes had the same emptiness, and menacing smile. The phone rang, startling me awake. My alarm said 11 :49 pm. I heard my mother answer. I pressed my ear against the wall to listen . .. Yes, officer, this is her daughter .. Excuse me? ... But how ... " I wasn't quite sure what to think of the tone in my mother's voice . .. But how could she have swallowed broked glass for Christ's sake?! .. My mother half shouting, half sobbed into the reciever. I snatched the marble off of the dresser and threw it as far and as hard as I could out the window. AppendixR Writng on the Web 162 The Teacher By: Little Smurf I sat in class wondering what would have happened if I had stayed. It would probably have turned out better than it did. It all started when the frist day of school had come. I was so excited, i was going into a brand new school. I have been hearing rumors about the teachers for months. That made me really nervous, but i was going to have to face it and fmd out for myself. I always thought thre rumors were just to scare me. My frist three classes went great, they say every year that the classes have so much fun. I checked my list to see what my last class was. There I saw it, his name Mr. Dimsadle. Out of all the rumors I heard, this one really scared me. I walked into class and sat in the very back corner. "Good morning ladies and gentlemen. My name is Mr.Dimsadle, I will be your teacher for ever and ever ha ha ha!" "Crystal, earth to Crystal you going to stay the night?" "Oh, Oh hi Jenny I must have been day dreaming." "Is it true about Mr. Dimsadle that he's really mean?'' "No, not at all." "There must be something going on, I heard that he's really mean on the frist day," I said. As soon as I got home my Mom, Dad and even my older sister asked how my frist day of school was. "I got Mr.Dimsadle for Math," I said. My whole family droped what they were doing. "Is something wrong?" I asked. No, No not at all," they said. I have got to find out what is wrong with this teacher. I also told my friends who I got and they wouldn't stopacting weird. I ate supper at home, but nobody talked during dinner. "My French teacher is pregnant," I said, but no one even loked up they just kept eating. The frist class I had this morning was with Mr. Dimsadle and thinking that made me dread getting out of bed. He started class like usual, with notes, all I could think about was that he was after me. Over and over it went in my mind "Forever, forever ha ha ha! The bell rang, I jumped and screamed. " I am so sorry, I had a really bad dream last night ." Everyone just laughed at me. I felt so embarassed. All lunch hour the kids in my class asked me how I was feeling. I ended up going home, but there wasn't anyone there. I read the note on the table. Writng on the Web 163 "Honey we had to go out for a while. We willl be back at supper time. Love you Yahoo! I have the whole house to myself, alright. This has never happened before. My parents never leave me home alone. I was having so much fun until some sick pervert started calling, I was really scared. The phone just kept ringing and ringing and when I picked it up he would say "Guess what I am going to do to you tommorow. It is not going to be very pleasant. It will probably make you scream again. Ha, Ha get it." I was so shooken up after that I tried to call the [police but every time I picked up the phone that voice would be on it. I went to my room and curled up on my bed. The phone stoped ringing for about 5 minutes, then started ringing again. It must have been someone playing a really sick joke on me. No one would have known about me screaming unless the rumors were true. Nah, they couldn' t be, I thought. The phone calls stoped when my family came home about half an hour later. The next day I was so glad it wad friday. The news I heard that morning just lit up my day. Classes were going to be just 20 minutes long because of a special presentation this afternoon. I was so happy I felt like I could fly. There was a new girl in French class today. She looked alot like my cousin. When I walked by her desk, to get to my seat, I realized it was her. We both started talking at once and I found out she is in my Math class as well as my French class. She's just as nervous as I was the frist time I went to that class. "Don't worry ~ only have 20 minutes today,"! said and that made her feel better. The presentation was actually really good. I wish I was still there. The weekend was finally here. We both went out for a walk by an old mine. We found alot of neat sites. It was getting dark, so we decided to go home. We ran back to the tunnel opening, but there were rocks blocking the opening. "I can't believe how this happened!" I yelled. We sat there trying to think of another way out of the cave. It became pitch black in the cave. We saw a shadow and we huddled closer together. The shadow was coming closer and closer. There it . stood bigger then me and my cousin put together. He reached out with his hands towards us and suddenly a cold hand touched us. He was finally so close I could swear it was HIM! It was Mr. Dimsadle. "Help us. Help please, oh please, help us," we both cried. "Shh! Please be quiet." he said. "What are you doing here?'' We asked. "Don't you ever go home after work? I always thought you went home to mark bad grades on peoples work just for the fun of it." "Ha, Ha no,"he said as he laughed. "No that is just a rumor." As we sat there, we found out that Mr. Dimsadle isn' t such a bad guy after all. We told jokes and old rumors. Mr. Dimsadle kept making freaky remarks like "I'm going to get you and you friend too! Ha,Ha. I can fly, wanna see?. I have one more thing to tell you hee, hee, hee!" As he got closer to us his laugh go treally scary. Writng on the Web 164 He leaned down "Do you want to hear something really funny? We both shook our heads no. " I'm not Mr. Dimsadle." "But you look exactly like him" we both said at the same time. "I have a twin Brother." We started backing away to try to get out of the cave. But he grabed me and wouldn't let go. "Urn, there's someone else in here with us!"cried my cousin. "John you know your not allowed out of your room."said this familiar voice. It was him the real one this time. "I don't have to listen to you," raved the evil twin as he grabed a peice of broken glass, while hews grabbing the glass I squirmed and freed myself from his grip. "I take it that you haven't taken your medication today," said Mr. Dimsadle looking at the piece of glass. "I sure have, look how much better I am." The two guys were circling closer and closer to each other. I yelled to stop the fight, but they didn't even take their eyes off each other. "You two can take off now this is in between me and John,"said Mr.Dimsadle. "No, I can't!"I yelled "Yes you can, just walk away, there is another exit just eyond that comer,"said Mr. Dimsadle, sounding just alittle angry. We both started running in the direction of the exit when I heard Mr. Dimsadle yell in pain. I ran back to see him lying on the floor. What kept running through my mind was "Is he dead?." I reach his side and bent down to get a better look. "Come on get up," I told him. But it wasn't him. Where was Mr.Dimsadle? To this day we don't what happened to Mr. Dimsadle. THE END Writing on the Web 165 Appendix S The Braggart Amigo Four There was god then there was me. That was the line of Joe Masons friend, or so called friend, Bill. Joe was a normal old Joe, lived in an average sized house and had a good job. He was a plump, husky 35 year old. Joe didn't like Bill at all. Bill was a skinny all around annoying person with a low class job. That afternoon guess who phones, Bill. "Hey Joe come see my new sled." "Yeah, okay I'll be right over."Joe knew that Bill didn't take care of anything. His sled would be held together by duct-tape by the end of winter. Bill heard someone at the door. "Come in." shouted Bill. "Hey Joe lets go snowmobiling!" "I don't think so, Bill." BANG,BANG,BANG! As the piercing sound of bullets, ripped through the silence of the small house. Bill drops slowly to the ground holding his chest, as he landed in his own blood. Joe could see Bill try to breath, but all that he did was cough up his own blood. BANG. One more shot to the head to flnish him off. As Joe walks around the house with a Jerry-can of gasoline he wonders what possessed him to do that. He thinks of the 25 years of friendship go down the drain because of bills bragging. Joe walks up to Bills mutilated caracas and lights his zippo, holds it in his left hand, then turns the gun on himself.