1. Introduction

This paper analyzes a US educational practice based on Online Writing Instruction (OWI). It presents an effective practice that meets the principles of the Committee for Effective Practices in OWI (CCCC, 2013). Among all the principles, the urgency of making this teaching experience known is due to the importance of the first principle in current times: “Online writing instruction should be universally inclusive and accessible.” The practice under investigation highlights an assessment methodology that promotes social justice: Labor-based grading contracts (Perelman, 2018). In short, it is a way to “making visible the social roles, power relations, and possibilities for reconstruction and deconstruction of hegemonic literate, formative, and scientific practices in the university.” (Navarro, 2021, p.14).

Previous research has made it clear that when students work in online classes there are a number of challenges that they need to overcome; according to a seminal study by Kerr, Rynearson y Kerr (2006, p. 102): “We find that novice students quickly develop requisite computer skills and perform well in the course as long as they possess other qualities such as high self-esteem, reading and writing proficiency, and independent learning.” The point here is that students who are new to online learning, often struggle with reading and writing proficiency and a lack of belief in their abilities to use online technology. This certainly rings true to all the teachers who had to move into online instruction during the Covid-19 emergency (González et al. 2020, Karadag, 2021). Many of our students had trouble following through on academic assignments, because of a combination of low writing skills and inadequate mastery of online technologies. However, there is a long tradition in the United States of how to develop a technology-enhanced class. Our study looks at a class that draws on the research and teaching practices of this tradition, and we are particularly interested in how this online class with Labor-based grading contract helped students improve their digital writing and academic writing skills. Our three central research questions are:

1. QI1: What are efficacious materials to use to engage students in OWI practices?

2. QI2: Do digital writing activities engage students?

3. QI3: Does the use of a Labor-based grading contract engage students?

Multimedia Writing Instruction in U.S. Context

The history of computers and composition is almost 50 years old in the U.S. context. This subfield of writing studies began with word processing studies written after the advent of the personal computer and the founding of the journal Computers and Writing in 1983, and it has allowed for the development of web-based learning studies (Handa, 2004). Technological advances soon allowed the parallel development of Online Writing Instruction (OWI) studies. This specialization is not about using a word processing program to write, but “occurs by using computer technology to learn writing from a teacher, tutor, or other students and by using it to communicate about that writing, to share writing for learning purposes, and to present writing for course completion purposes” (Hewett et al., 2015, p.35).

U.S. research explored the potential for learning in web courses by developing criteria for designing rich web-based writing courses, and by analyzing the potential learning benefits for students. Each of these lines of research is presented below.

The Committee in College Composition and Communication (CCCC) is the “world’s largest professional organization for researching and teaching composition” (NCTE, 2003). The CCCC created a committee to explore “effective practices” of OWI, and the committee published its findings and recommendations in 2013. The Committee established 15 principles for the design of effective online writing courses. From these 15 principles, we narrowed our focus the five that were most significant for student engagement and learning in academic writing contexts, according to CCCC (2013). The OWI principles used for our analysis are below in Table 1:

Finally, for a practical classroom analysis, Table 2 shows the components of an online writing course that tries to be cognitively enriched (Mills, 2006) should have by employing the three cognitive strategies for information processing in multimedia environments: selecting, organizing, and integrating (Mayer, 2012). The column with the cognitive processing strategies helps the teacher who has to design his or her online-enhanced writing activities.

An OWI course can enhance learning in three main ways: providing access to a range of learning materials, helping in the development of learner autonomy, and proving more opportunities for collaboration and communication among peers (Jonassen, 2000).

The list below is intended to synthesize what research studies say are some of the benefits of OWI instruction (Camacho et al., 2021; Elkon et al., 2018):

Technological aspects

• Ease of computer technology vs. pencil and paper (e.g., Carter et al. 2004; Li et al. 2012; Sturm and Rankin-Erickson 2002)

• Engaging multimedia resources (Sturm and Rankin-Erickson 2002).

• Immediate and just-in-time accessibility (Carter et al. 2004).

• Teacher proximity (McGrail and Davis, 2011)

• Free choice of topics, genres (Pruden et al. 2016).

Aspects related to the teaching of writing:

-Genres

• Real contextualization (Li et al. 2012; McGrail and Davis, 2011)

• Possible audience (Li et al. 2012, MacArthur, 1988; McGrail and Davis 2011)

-Processual

• Effective instructions and scaffolding of the process (Day et al. 1998; Pruden et al. 2016).

• A recurrent review phase (Collier, 1983).

• Accessible peer feedback (MacArthur, 1988).

• Frequent self-reflection on own writing (McGrail and Davis 2011).

-Sociocultural

• Cooperative work (Li et al. 2012).

• Emergent writing communities (McGrail and Davis, 2011).

Writing Assessment y Grading Contracts

The concept of Labor-based grading contracts is framed within a critical pedagogy that aims to create more just and egalitarian democratic communities in education (Dickson, 1974; Inoue, 2019). To this end, instead of evaluating students according to the social class from which they come, which often is evident in the register students communicate in, an instructor evaluates students according to the work they perform. In this way, we will stop considering students as: “poorly prepared,” “deficient,” or “lacking in ability.” In a course that uses Labor-based grading contracts, it is understood that students have their own home languages, and they are as important as the language of the academy; also, it is understood that students’ home languages are not inherently the reason for their difficulties writing academic English (Committee on CCCC Language Statement, 1975).

In this way, evaluation is understood as part of the process that is composed of acts of reading, critical judgment, and writing. Thus, students are encouraged to get involved and take responsibility for their learning, considering all aspects of the process: their expectations, their discourses, their processes, their judgments and their products. According to Asao Inoue, who is an important proponent and researcher around Labor-based grading contracts, a Labor-based grading contract assesses final scores in courses “by the labor students completed, not by any judgments of the quality of their writing. While the qualities of student writing are still at the center of the classroom and feedback, it has no bearing on the course grade” (2019, p.3). Ultimately, Labor-based grading allows for the evaluation of the effort put forth by students rather than solely focusing on the final product. This methodology does not exclude discussion about the qualities of writing. It is not about creating a class without discussion of writing and standards (Luri, 2019). Instead, the center of assessment is being shifted towards the work that gets done.

The specific manner in which grading contracts are implemented in a classroom is through agreements made on the first day of class between students and instructors, that set forth the specific terms and conditions for completing course work and receiving a final grade. These contracts, like all agreements, can be open for negotiation, so it is possible to start off working for an A in the class and ultimately end up working for a B, and of course it can work in reverse for students too.

A Labor-based grading contract usually describes the specific assignments a student must complete to earn a final grade, as well as any additional requirements that must be met, deadlines, and ways to monitor the process. The tasks required for different grades are specified. In this way, a student who only aspires to achieve a C will know which tasks must be completed from the first day of the course.

2. Methodology

Research Context

The research occurred at the University of California Santa Barbara (UCSB). The teacher, one of the co-authors of this piece, is a continuing lecturer in an independent Writing Program. As for the course itself, it was a general education writing course for first-year students. This particular first-year writing class was populated by first generation students, which in American academic parlance are: “students [who] come from families where their biological parents did not complete a four-year college degree” (Center for First Generation Student Success, 2017). It is also worth noting that the ten-week course, due to the Covid-19 pandemic, started off as a fully online course for four weeks, before starting to meet in a classroom bi-weekly.

The class was themed around the idea of “identity in the 21st century,” particularly online identity. The course is governed by a document that the Writing 2 Committee at UCSB created, “Writing 2/2E/2LK Curricular Guidelines,” and it is important to note that one of the curricular premises that this document specifically mentions are “blogs,” which feature prominently in our case study (2020). The guidelines are below:

1. 1. Rhetorical Knowledge
2. 2. 1.1. Develop rhetorical knowledge through reading and writing in a variety of genres-which are more than a simple form.
3. 3. 1.2. Gain understanding of how writing is shaped by readers’ and writers’ practices, purposes, and contexts. Develop critical awareness of diverse writing technologies and digital and non-digital modes of communication.
4. 4. Research and Reading
5. 5. Understand and use a process of inquiry to explore meaningful research topics and develop and answer focused research questions.
6. 6. Locate, evaluate, incorporate, and cite secondary and/or primary sources. Use strategies-such as interpretation, synthesis, response, critique, and design/redesign-to compose texts that integrate sources with the writer's prior knowledge and ideas.
7. 7. Processes
8. 8. Cultivate a conceptual awareness of writing as an ongoing process by developing writing projects through multiple drafts.
9. 9. Develop flexible strategies for reading, drafting, reviewing, collaborating, revising, rewriting, rereading, and editing.
10. 10. Knowledge of Conventions
11. 11. Learn about and use conventions in their own writing, i.e. grammar and punctuation. Understand why genre conventions for structure, tone, and mechanics vary.
12. 12. Practice applying citation conventions systematically in their own work and explore intellectual property issues.
13. 13. Metacognitive Reflection
14. 14. Use writing as a means for reflection.
15. 15. Demonstrate their rhetorical awareness as well as an awareness of their writing processes and writerly choices.
16. 16. Experience reflection as a necessary part of learning, thinking and communicating.

Even a cursory reading of the outcomes makes it clear that students are at the center of Writing 2, that digital and non-digital modes of writing are valued, that reflection is a key part of the class, and that the notion of process-based writing is key to understanding the work of the class. All of these elements are evident in the assignments of the course, its syllabus, and even the construction of the course management system online. (The Course Management System was a Moodle-based system that allowed the teacher to create a webpage of sorts and integrate online tools, like peer review and quiz tools, into the fabric of the course.) A brief description of the classes is provided below.

The course design is shown with 12 tabs:

• First Link: Important resources, documents, and links

• Second to Eleventh Links: links to each week

• Twelfth Link: links for all assignment submissions.

The three main writing tasks for the class are: a Blog, a Self-Study paper, and a Going Beyond Exhalation writing project. Student grades were assigned based on a final portfolio of work that was submitted and graded via the Labor-based grading contract in appendix A.

Participants

The instructor of the course, a fifty-five-year-old non-tenured continuing lecturer in the UCSB Writing Program, has been teaching first-year writing courses since 1996. He participated in an email interview.

The 14 students were all first-generation students at UCSB, and ranged in age from 18-21. They participated in the research by doing an online survey and by agreeing to share their work with us. To understand more deeply the students' perceptions, we have selected four students whose profiles are complementary and divergent. Of these four students we will analyze what they explicitly say in their blog post 10 comments and their Dear Reader Letters, which act as an introduction to their individual portfolios. All students will be coded, and non-identifying data will be used to protect their privacy, following the protocol of the approval received by the UCSB Human Subjects Committee.

Instruments

We ran a survey after grading (see Appendix B for details) that collected student responses to questions about their experience writing in this course. All but three of the questions were multiple choice questions. We present aggregate data, and do not identify any of the students, under the conditions approved by the Human Subjects Committee. Also, the instructor of the class was interviewed after grading and before reading the students' answers, and the questions can be read in full in Appendix C.

Procedure

First, we obtained the following categories to evaluate the effectiveness of the course and assignments for engaging students in OWI practices. The selection of analysis criteria was made considering that we wanted to test the effectiveness of the educational practices designed in this course. To this end, we have used the first five principles for Effective Practices for teaching writing online to analyze the course design (see Table 1). These principles are complemented with the features selected by Blair (2015) about the characteristics that a course must have to be effective.

In respect to the analysis of 3 assignments and the portfolio, the relevant components for these assignments have been selected drawing on Table 2 (Mills, 2006). Mills table includes the categories we used: title, problem, learning standards, objectives, procedures, resources, learning strategies, and assessments. In addition, to match the components of the “Writing 2/2E/2LK Curricular Guidelines,” the following elements have been adapted: “learning standards,” “objectives,” and “outcomes”. Finally, we used Atlas.ti to help in the analysis of documents we looked at.

3. Results

The results are presented in two parts. First, to answer the first research question (QI1: What are efficient materials to engage students in OWI practices?), we will present the results after analyzing the materials. Then, to answer questions 2 and 3 on how digital writing activities and the Labor-based grading contract engaged students, we will describe the responses to the semi-structured teacher interview and to the student survey and our analysis of the documents the students provided us.

Efficacy of materials

In this section, the specific principles of the online writing course model are presented first. This is followed by the specific criteria for online writing assignments.

Related to OWI Principle 1 (see Table 1), we can observe that the course takes into account the diversity in the classroom by the approach it takes to grading. The Labor-based grading contract is the evaluation backbone of the entire course, and it allows us to measure the performance of students not by their personal qualities or previous learning, but by the work and effort they made during the course. In this way, everyone has an equal opportunity work towards the grade they want. In addition, among the principles of universal design (Burstable y Cory, 2008), we highlight the first principle: equitable use. All students have access to the course requirements, since the instructor posts the readings in the course management system, and, in the case of the book they must read, the students received free copies of the required book, Exhalation, from the UCSB Library. Drawing on Burgstahler y Cory (2008), we highlight the second principle of universal design: flexibility of use. Each student has many options to complete assignments, especially they have freedom to choose the topic they want to do their research on. Thus their own skills and preferences as writers can be developed. Finally there is the 7^th principle outlined by Burgstahler y Cory (2008): size and space for focus and use. The course CMS has 12 tabs, which make it easy to visualize the course structure in a clear and orderly manner.

OWI Principle 2 states that the course should be writing-centered. In the CMS is a section of “Important Links and Resources” that the students use throughout the class. Table 3 shows the classification of these resources, with a brief practical explanation accompanying each.

OWI Principle 3 calls for practices to develop strategies for unique online features in a way that reinforces the technological aspect of teaching writing. In this course, students are asked to create their own quizzes for discussion of the shared text, Exhalation. In this way, the mastery of a technological tool is developed with the aim of producing a higher performance in the reading discussion activity.

One of OWI's main concerns is to fix body/phase/voice issues so that they do not affect the interaction between teachers and students. Although this course was hybrid, the teacher created a video presentation of the course, with clear instructions for using the CMS. Thus, it can also be said that it fulfills the principle of reinforcing the technological component that affects the improvement of the teaching of writing.

Principle 4 of the OWI refers to the importance of practices developing the pedagogy of composition and adapting it to the environment. This principle is evident throughout the course, and finds its best expression in the final portfolio, which includes reflection and writing about the experience of doing the work of the class. Also, each week the teacher sent an email that outlined the work to do in that class. Also, the instructor posted and email blog prompts each week that focused on reflection about the work of the class. A good example of this is the final email the instructor sent out:

Week Ten Blog Prompt

This is our final blog prompt for the quarter, so I want you to reflect on the class as a whole, your research process, and what this quarter was like for you in a general sense. Also, any feedback you have for me, your instructor, would be welcome. To help you write 300+ words you can use some of the questions below-you do not have to answer all or even any of the questions: they are simply prompting questions to help you write:

• What were some activities and readings that you enjoyed doing in the class?

• What were some things you hoped to learn in this class? […]

Finally, regarding OWI Principle 5 on the balance between contents and techniques used by the teacher to promote the autonomy of experienced teachers, we can state that this course has the perfect balance since the teacher has been teaching this course for about 30 years. We can see in the calendar how all the assignments are perfectly adjusted. At the same time, the syllabus follows the standards required by the Writing 2 Curriculum Guidelines.

In summary, all the design effectiveness principles that have been developed by the subject teacher, along with Sloan-C's principles of best practices, are met in this proposed model course. Therefore, the specific criteria of the online writing assignments are as follows: 3 assignments (the Blog, the Self-Study paper, and the Going Beyond Exhalation writing project) and the final portfolio. Our research used the Lesson Plan Template (see Table 2) to assess the extent to which a given activity actually develops enhanced online learning. Also, we used Blair’s (2015) criteria for evaluating effectiveness of each task from Table 1.

The first assignment

In the blog assignment, all the principles of effectiveness proposed by Blair (2015) have been detected. Both the problem and the outcomes (see Table 4) tell us about the balance achieved between content and writing techniques. It offers a possible way to work academic writing through multimedia writing via blogs. This achieves a perfect balance between research writing necessary to develop the skills required at the academic level and the mastery of multimedia writing. In terms of results, it allows students to develop the five areas to be worked on in this course. In the first bog post they must write, the teacher explains how to introduce images and encourages them to use all the multimedia resources they wish.

The blog assignment is a group activity carried out throughout the ten weeks of the course. Each student must post and comment once a week, but the topics that are commented on (see Table 5) usually derive from prior group discussion in class, and, in any case, the weekly comment must be on a post by a classmate. In this way, the blog resource is perfectly integrated into the development of the course.

In terms of resources, there are multiple resources offered each week, specifically for the development of blog writing, so that the focus on writing is not lost. Finally, it is interesting to comment on the evaluation of this assignment which requires 7 weeks’ worth of blogs to be written to obtain a C. The fact that only 2 omissions are allowed is understandable because the blog is conceived, by the instructor, as being “central” to the class. In addition, at least 7 of the required 10 blog posts relate to the other two assignments. So, the flexibility for catering to diversity in this case is seen in that students have 3-4 days to write the 300 (post) and 100 (response) words, which is quite reasonable.

The Second Assignment

The self-study of your life on and offline is one of the two papers. Faced with the difficulty of writing and researching at the university, students are provided with an attractive proposal in which the object of study will be themselves. They will be able to use multimedia elements, which are highly recommended by the teacher (see Table 6). On the other hand, students are provided with the outlines to complete the expected aspects of the essay. Therefore, we can see that there is a balance between writing techniques and content elements in this activity.

Regarding the process, there is a perfect integration of the document submission in the blog and in the CMS tasks. Ultimately, the strategies developed in this assignment cover practically the entire writing process: finding sources, analyzing sources, synthesizing sources, revising writing, and editing writing. Thus, the second assignment addresses all of the key elements of any writing class at the college level.

Finally, the assessment of student writing also shows flexibility. To obtain a C or B students must write first and final drafts of The Self-study and Going Beyond Exhalation assignments and rewrite one of those assignments for the final portfolio. However, if the student is working towards an A, then he or she will have to rewrite both of those assignments for the final portfolio. This sort of assessment practice promotes student agency and diversity-students choose what grade to work toward.

The Third Assignment

The second essay assignment, Going Beyond the Exhalation has very similar requirements to those of the first essay writing project. But in this case the topic is about a novel (see Table 7). Students have to discuss something related to the novel in one of a number of genres. One of the ways may be to create a piece of writing in a non-academic genre, like a comic or a video. In this way, we find a perfect balance between writing techniques and content components.

The procedures show a more integrated online assignment. For peer reviews on this assignment a computer-based tool is used: Eli Peer Review. In addition, the students themselves use another application to involve their peers in the readings (Kahoot). All learning strategies show how this writing task responds to pedagogical theories. The resources focus on the writing they must fill in. In fact, the teacher gives some instructions on how to use the new app: Eli Peer Review.

The last criterion refers to flexibility in assessment. Like the previous assignment, student the need to go the extra mile if they want to get the A.

Final assignment

The portfolio is recommended to be delivered in separate documents. It is a practice that reinforces learning at the end of the course, thanks to the collection of work and reflection on it (see Table 8). It can be stated that it integrates a perfect balance between writing techniques and content elements. The procedure is carried out entirely online, so the assignment meets the need to integrate computer technology. As for our assessment of the pedagogical aspects of this assignment, we observe it in the learning strategies adopted.

The resources of this practice also show us how it is focused on writing, since the teacher provides several handouts and aids for the correct writing of the last reflections on the course. Finally, the adaptation of required writing speaks to the flexibility of the course that allows all students to achieve an A, if they make an effort and try to improve by practicing their writing.

Finally, we have verified how all the assignment in their approach, and in their classroom development, fulfill the OWI Principles for Effective Practices. First, is remarkable that there is a perfect balance between the writing techniques and content aspects of the assignments (see Table 9). As for their procedures, they perfectly integrate online writing. The presence of learning strategies shows us the importance of adopting the principles of pedagogy in the design of assignments. The resources delivered by the teacher show how the main focus of the course is writing. The Labor-based grading contract allows for the flexibility of the assignments and the diverse nature of the student body. Thus, to answer the question about the students' preference for the Labor-based grading contract, it can be seen in the positive evaluations of the students towards the course, especially the pass rate, since all of them have been able to develop the course and achieve the objectives in a satisfactory manner.

Engagements and Benefits for the Students

This section analyzes the students' responses to the course design from the surveys and their evaluations in the documents. As can be seen in Figure 1, the answers to the survey indicate that the level of effort and motivation coincide with a 3.8 out of 5. No student values are lower than 3.

In Figure 2, it is possible to observe the degree of satisfaction in their learning, since all of them believe that their competencies have improved. Although they consider themselves more proficient in their digital writing competence (3.8), the amount of growth is higher (0.6) in their writing competence than in their digital writing (0,2), so the main objective of the course is fulfilled.

Based on content analysis of the documents, we found two categories with 31,3% that were not present in the literature reviewed: process approach (learning, personal voice, writing identity) and emotional learning (anxiety, blocks, confusing resources, enjoying) (Figure 3 and 4).

If we contrast these results with the teacher interview, we find alignments between the two. Specifically, the list of five aspects highlighted by the teacher is related to the students´ categories in the following percentages: A is related with the genre, in the figure above (4,1%); B, is linked to sociocultural aspects (4,8%); C, is linked with technological aspects (12,9%); D, is linked with emotional aspects (31,3%); and E, is linked with cognitive aspects (15,6%) and process (31,3%).

1. A. Assignments are open and inquiry-based.

2. B. The classroom is dialogic and rarely lecture-based.

3. C. Students have freedom when writing in the blogs.

4. D. The class prioritizes student engagement.

5. E. The course offers a variety of writing assignments and educational experiences.

We would like to highlight the predominance of emotional comments in students final reflective work in the “Dear Reader Letter.” Many of the students mentioned “enjoying” the work of the class with 20,4%. Secondly, it is important to point the second category related to the process: “self-reflection” (14,5%) and “recurrent revision” (8,6%) show us the role of thinking for the writing and the necessity of developing critical attitudes.

4. Discussion and Conclusions

As shown in the results, the materials meet all the conditions to attract students (QI1), and the activities proposed in the course engaged students (QI2), because these are beneficial. In terms of engagement via Labor-based grading (QI3), it is clear that this approach helped students engage in complex multimodal writing. Our case study provides good qualitative evidence for the efficacy of an approach to the teaching of writing that helps student master multimodal writing (as evidenced in the blog work in particular) while still focusing on integral skills of academic writing (use of sources, revision work, and editing), both achievements as a result of teacher's high commitment to carry out practices that prepare students to develop their 21st century multimedia writing (OECD, 2017). Although the professor asserts that he is still working to ensure that students have a clear understanding of what Labor-based grading contracts are; particularly since such an approach to grading can be seen as “radical” (Q3).

While there were notable successes in student engagement, and indications that student writing was improved, but we need to remember, as Krogh and Jakobsen (2019) point out, that we could be focusing solely on positive aspects of the course unintentionally. To that end we need to think about ways to improve upon this model of instruction (Krogh and Jakobsen, 2019).

There are of course limitations to our work. First of all, we focused on one first-year writing class with a small enrolment. However, the student responses to the survey do align with the finding of other studies that looked into issues of student writing competence and engagement (Riggs y Linder, 2016; Aldaghri and Oraif, 2022). For instance, Nepomuceno (2011) points out that blogging, a key assignment in the class we studied, can lead to both increased student engagement and skill in their own writing.

Another limitation is that this our piece is largely a case study, looking at one particular class and the way that it integrated both multimedia composition and Labor-based grading into a given class. That said, there is a long tradition of using case studies as a methodology in writing studies literature, and our goal is to present a possible model that could be of use outside of the U.S. context (Pande y Mythili, 2021; Gameel, 2017; Ghaderizefreh y Hoover, 2018).

Our modest hope is to provide a model that can be freely adapted to teaching writing that is engaging and effective via multimodal assignment design and Labor-based grading instead other more traditional means of student assessment (Navarro et al., 2019). It is a promising model in need of more research, particularly outside of the U.S. context, and it is suggested as a future line of research to deepen its possibilities of adaptability and functionality in other contexts.

References

Aldaghri, A. A., y Oraif, I. M. (2022). The Impact of Online Teaching on Students’ Engagement in Writing during the Pandemic of COVID-19.Turkish Online Journal of Distance Education,23 (3), 216-229. DOI: 10.17718/tojde.1137290

Blair, K. L. (2015). Teaching Multimodal Assignments in OWI Contexts. In B.L. Hewett y K. E. DePew, (Eds.), Foundational Practices of Online Writing Instruction (pp.471-491). Parlor Press. DOI: 10.37514/PER-B.2015.0650.2.15

Burgstahler, S. y Cory, R. C. (Eds.). (2008). Universal Design in Higher Education: from Principles to Practice. Harvard Education Press.

Camacho, A., Alves, R.A. y Boscolo, P. (2021). Writing Motivation in School: A Systematic Review of Empirical Research in the Early Twenty-First Century. Educational Psychology Review, 33, 213-247. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-020-09530-4

Carter, M., Ferzli, M., y Wiebe, E. (2004). Teaching Genre to English First-Language Adults: A Study of the Laboratory Report. Research in the Teaching of English, 38(4), 395-419. https://www.jstor.org/stable/40171689

Center for First Generation Student Success. (2017, Nov. 20). Defining First-Generation. Center for First Generation Student Success Blog. https://firstgen.naspa.org/blog/defining-first-generation

Collier, R. M. (1983). The Word Processor and Revision Strategies. College Composition and Communication, 34(2), 149-155. DOI: 10.2307/357402

Committee on CCCC Language Statement. (1975). Students’ Right to Their Own Language. College English, 36(6), 709-726. DOI: 10.2307/374965

Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) Committee for Best Practices in Online Writing Instruction. (2013). A Position Statement of Principles and Example Effective Practices for Online Writing Instruction (OWI). https://ncte.org/statement/owiprinciples/

Day, T. M., Raven, M. R. y Newman, M. E. (1998). The Effects of World Wide Web Instruction and Traditional Instruction and Learning Styles on Achievement and Change in Student Attitudes in A Technical Writing in An Agricommunication Course. Journal of Agricultural Education, 39(4), 65-75. DOI: 10.5032/jae.1998.04065

Dickson, E. G. (1974). Contract Grading. Journal of Financial Education, (3), 21-24.

Ekholm, E., Zumbrunn, S. y DeBusk-Lane, M. (2018). Clarifying an Elusive Construct: A Systematic Review of Writing Attitudes. Educational Psychology Review, 30, 827-856. DOI: 10.1007/s10648-017-9423-5

Gameel, B. G. (2017). Learner Satisfaction with Massive Open Online Courses. American Journal of Distance Education, 31(2), 98-111. DOI: 10.1080/08923647.2017.1300462

Ghaderizefreh, S., y Hoover, M. L. (2018). Student Satisfaction with Online Learning in a Blended Course. International Journal of Digital Society, 9, 1393-1398. DOI: 10.20533/ijds.2040.2570.2018.0172

González, T., de la Rubia, M. A., Hincz, K. P., Comas-López, M., Subirats, L., Fort, S., Sacha, G. M. (2020). Influence of COVID-19 Confinement on Students’ Performance in Higher Education. PLoS ONE15(10). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239490

Handa, C. (2004). Visual Rhetoric in a Digital World. A Critical Sourcebook. Ed. Bedford/ St. Martin´s.

Hewett, Beth L., y Kevin Eric DePew (Eds.). (2015). Foundational Practices of Online Writing Instruction. Parlor Press. DOI: 10.37514/PER-B.2015.0650

Inoue, A. B. (2019). Labor-Based Grading Contracts: Building Equity and Inclusion in the Compassionate Writing Classroom. University Press of Colorado. DOI: 10.37514/PER-B.2019.0216.0

Jonassen, D. H. (2000). Transforming Learning with Technology: Beyond Modernism and Post-Modernism or Whoever Controls the Technology Creates the Reality. Educational Technology Archive, 40(2), 21-25. DOI: 10.1007/9789462092693_008

Karadag, E. (2021). Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic on Grade Inflation in Higher Education in Turkey. PLoS ONE16(8). DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0256688

Kerr, M., Rynearson, K., y Kerr, M. (2006). Student Characteristics for Online Learning Success. The Internet and Higher Education, 9(2), 91-105. DOI: 10.1016/j.iheduc.2006.03.002

Krogh, E., y Jakobsen, K.S. (Eds.) (2019). Understanding Young People's Writing Development: Identity, Disciplinarity, and Education. Routledge. DOI: 10.4324/9781351010894

Li, X., Chu, S. K. W., Ki, W. W., y Woo, M. M. (2012). Using a Wiki-based Collaborative Process Writing Pedagogy to Facilitate Collaborative Writing among Chinese Primary School Students.Australasian Journal of Educational Technology,28(1), 159-181. DOI: 10.14742/ajet.889

Luri, G. (2019). La escuela no es un parque de atracciones. Una defensa del conocimiento poderoso. Ariel.

MacArthur, C. A. (1988). The Impact of Computers on the Writing Process. Exceptional Children, 54(6), 536-542. DOI: 10.1177/001440298805400607

Mayer, R. E. (2012). Multimedia Learning. Cambridge University Press. DOI: 10.1017/CBO9781139164603

McGrail, E. y Davis, A. (2011). The Influence of Classroom Blogging on Elementary Student Writing. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 25(4), 415-437. DOI: 10.1080/02568543.2011.605205

Mills, S. C. (2006). Using the Internet for Active Teaching and Learning. Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Moore, J. C. (2011). A Synthesis of Sloan-C Effective Practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 16(1): 91-115.

Moore, J. C. (2009). A synthesis of Sloan-C Effective Practices. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Network, 13(4), 73-94. DOI: 10.24059/olj.v13i4.1649

National Council of Teachers of English (2023). Welcome to the CCCC website.

Navarro, F. (Ed.) (2021). Escritura e inclusión en la universidad. Herramientas para docentes. Universidad de Chile.

Navarro, F., Ávila Reyes, N., y Gómez Vera, G. (2019). Validez y Justicia: hacia una evaluación significativa en pruebas estandarizadas de escritura. Revista Meta: Avaliação, 11(31), 1-35. DOI: 10.22347/2175-2753v11i31.2045

Nepomuceno, M. M. (2011). Writing Online: Using Blogs as an Alternative Writing Activity in Tertiary ESL Classes.TESOL journal, 5(2), 92-105. ISSN 2094-3938

OECD (2017). The OECD Handbook for Innovative Learning Environments. OECD Publishing. DOI: 10.1787/9789264277274-en

Pande, J., y Mythili, G. (2021). Investigating Student Satisfaction with Online Courses: A Case Study of Uttarakhand Open University. International Journal of Information and Communication Technology Education (IJICTE), 17(3), 12-28. DOI: 10.4018/IJICTE.20210701.oa2

Perelman, L. (2018). Towards a New NAPLAN: Testing to the Teaching. NSW Teachers Federation.

Pruden, M., Kerkhoff, S. N., Spires, H. A. y Lester, J. (2016). Enhancing Writing Achievement Through a Digital Learning Environment: Case Studies of Three Struggling Adolescent Male Writers. Reading y Writing Quarterly, 33(1), 1-19. DOI: 10.1080/10573569.2015.1059780

Riggs, S. A., y Linder, K. E. (2016). Actively Engaging Students in Asynchronous Online Classes. IDEA Paper# 64.IDEA Center, Inc.

Sturm, J. M., y Rankin-Erickson, J. L. (2002). Effects of Hand-Drawn and Computer-Generated Concept Mapping on the Expository Writing of Middle School Students with Learning Disabilities.Learning Disabilities Research y Practice, 17(2), 124-139. DOI: 10.1111/1540-5826.00039

Writing 2 Committee. (2020). Writing 2/2E/2LK. Curricular guidelines. https://www.writing.ucsb.edu/resources/faculty/curriculum

Author notes

(*) Autor para la correspondencia: M.ª Teresa Mateo-Girona. Universidad Complutense de Madrid, C/ Rector Royo Villanova, 1, 28040 Madrid, España. Correo de contacto: mtmateo@ucm.es

IR