skip to main content
10.1145/3472714.3473662acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesdocConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Opportunities for innovation gained by connecting a customized process document to the collaborative development of an asynchronous online writing course

Authors Info & Claims
Published:12 October 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

This experience report details the advantages gleaned from moving course development from individuals to a mixed team of collaborators. We will present in detail what we learned from our experience working as a team of graduate students, junior and senior faculty in converting a long-standing traditional course to one offered asynchronously by remote. Our presentation will include effective strategies for collaboration, including an overview of course developments made possible through a melding of expertise, shared cultural competencies, and negotiated outcomes. We will share how our course development process was strengthened by the collaborative nature of this course redesign process, and we will discuss some of the implications for applying our methods to improving computing rich communication courses in ordinary, less unique circumstances as those occasioned by an international pandemic.

References

  1. William Hart-Davidson, Mark Zachry, and Clay Spinuzzi. 2012. Activity streams: Building context to coordinate writing activity in collaborative teams. In Proceedings of the 30th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication, October 3-5, 2012, Seattle, WA, 279-288. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/2379057.2379109Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Jason Swarts. 2000. Document collaboration and tacit knowledge. In Proceedings of the IEEE Professional Communication Society International Professional Communication Conference and Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM International Conference on Computer Documentation: Technology & Teamwork, September 24-27, 2000, Cambridge,MA,407-418. DOI:https://doi.org/10.1109/IPCC.2000.887298Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Douglas Talbott, Matthew Gibson, and Suzanne Skublics. 2002. A collaborative methodology for the rapid development and delivery of online courses. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual International Conference on Computer Documentation, October 20-23, Toronto, Ontario, 216-225. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/584955.584987Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Sweta Baniya, Nathan Mentzer, Dawn Laux, Aidan Holtan, Shawn Farrington, Christi Eden, Derek Sherman, and Liwei Zhang. 2019. Creating interdisciplinary collaborative teaching/learning praxis with design thinking, communication, and composition. In Proceedings of the 37th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication, Article 5, ctober 4-6, 2019, Portland, OR, 6 pgs. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3328020.3353930Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Eric J. York, and Johndan Johnson-Eilola. 2020. Enduring designs, transient designers: A comparison of the workspaces and materials of professionals and novices. In Proceedings of the 38th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication, Article 40, October 3-4, 2020, Denton, TX, 8 pages. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3380851.3416783Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Rob Cross and Jonathon N. Cummings. 2004. Tie and network correlates of individual performance in knowledge-intensive work. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 6 (Dec. 2004), 928-937. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5465/20159632Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Neomy Storch. 2019. Collaborative writing. Language Teaching, 52, 1 (Jan. 2019), 40-59. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0261444818000320Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Sang Soo Kim. 2020. Exploitation of shared knowledge and creative behavior: the role of social context. Journal of Knowledge Management, 24, 2 (Nov. 2019), 279-300. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JKM-10-2018-0611Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Irina Engeness. 2021. Developing teachers’ digital identity: towards the pedagogic design principles of digital environments to enhance students’ learning in the 21st century. European Journal of Teacher Education, 44, 1 (Nov. 2020),96-114. https://doi.org/10.1080/02619768.2020.1849129Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Orit Avidov-Ungar and Alona Forkosh-Baruch. 2018. Professional identity of teacher educators in the digital era in light of demands of pedagogical innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 73 (April 2018), 183-191. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2018.03.017Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Fredrik Barth. 2002. An anthropology of knowledge. Current Anthropology, 43,  1 (Feb. 2002), 1-11.  DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/324131Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. D. Douglas Caulkins. 2004. Identifying culture as a threshold of shared knowledge: a consensus analysis method. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 4, 3 (Dec. 2004), 317-333. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595804047813Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Tabitha Grier-Reed and Anne Williams-Wengerd. 2018. Integrating universal design, culturally sustaining practices, and constructivism to advance inclusive pedagogy in the undergraduate classroom. Education Sciences, 8, 4, Article 167 (Oct. 2018), 12 pages. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8040167Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Susan McLeod. 2014. The Pedagogy of Writing Across the Curriculum. In Gary Tate (Ed.). A Guide to Composition Pedagogies. Oxford University Press, Oxford. 149-65.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Michelle Trim. 2017. Increasing ethical awareness in [future] software developers using audience-based writing. In Proceedings of the 35th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication, Article 30, August 11–13, 2017, Halifax, NS, 5 pages. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1145/3121113.3121219Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. E. Shelley Reid. 2003. A changing for the better: Curriculum revision as reflective practice in teaching and administration. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 26, 3 (Spring 2003), 10-27.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SIGDOC '21: Proceedings of the 39th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication
    October 2021
    402 pages
    ISBN:9781450386289
    DOI:10.1145/3472714

    Copyright © 2021 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 12 October 2021

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    Qualifiers

    • research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate355of582submissions,61%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format