Elsevier

Computers and Composition

Volume 62, December 2021, 102668
Computers and Composition

Phenomenology of writing with unfamiliar tools in a semi-public environment: A case study

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compcom.2021.102668Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Graduate student writers have trouble adjusting to unfamiliar tools, hardware, and/or software.

  • Graduate students experience surveillance anxiety in a semi-public writing environment.

  • Research on student writing with unfamiliar digital tools and in semi-public environments is increasingly necessary.

  • More phenomenological writing research in similar contexts may focus our awareness on beneficial adjustments for writers.

Abstract

This case study investigates the phenomenon of graduate students writing with unfamiliar digital tools in semi-public writing environments. The increase in the prevalence of writing with unfamiliar tools in semi-public environments, such as networked computer classrooms and university testing centers, makes it worthy of investigation. We use phenomenological interviews to examine the writing experiences of a group of graduate students writing in a classroom on unfamiliar computers equipped with a tool that tracked their keystrokes and eye movements. Though some of the writers had positive experiences with the tool's output and their reflective conversations about writing it prompted, they all had challenging experiences adjusting to the hardware, the physical requirements of the tool, and overcoming surveillance anxiety prompted by it. Some students who wrote in the semi-public environment using an unfamiliar tool benefitted but all were challenged by situational awareness, new hardware, new haptic interactions, surveillance anxiety, and lack of control. The study indicates a need to explore and address the factors of situation awareness, an adjustment period, and surveillance anxiety in situations where individuals are writing with unfamiliar tools in semi-public environments.

Introduction

People often write with unfamiliar digital tools in semi-public environments. Those without computers go to public libraries where they may write high-stakes business communication with the library's hardware and software. Job seekers may be directed to in-store hiring kiosks to complete job applications. In particular, students may be required to write in computer classrooms or controlled computerized testing centers. The prevalence of college testing centers in the United States and their adoption of computerized testing (including essay examinations for admissions, placement, or proctored online course exams) create high-stakes situations in which students write with unfamiliar tools in a semi-public environment. In all of these environments, the writing is typically monitored in one way or another: by recording software, a teacher, proctor, peers, or video camera. This surveillance of writing in these environments has become more thorough and widespread with the continued development of computer recording technologies.

What these environments have in common is people writing with hardware and/or software that they do not own and that is unfamiliar to them, in a place where there are other people who are or may be observing or interacting with them–though not collaborating with them, as in co-present writing, and not providing direct personal support for their writing, as in typical classroom instruction or tutoring. In this case study, we focus on graduate students doing an in-class writing activity using unfamiliar hardware that contains keystroke recording and eye-tracking software. Though this particular combination of hardware and software in a classroom is rare, we use it as a bell-weather case to explore the experience of writing with unfamiliar tools in a semi-public environment, with both other people and electronic monitoring present.

Our case study answers Takayosh's (2015) call for more empirical studies of in situ writing processes that are becoming increasingly prevalent in the computer age (in her case study, the “short form, networked writing” of social media). It also answers Pigg's (2014) call for increased attention to the role “environments play in interactions with virtual spaces” (p. 256). Her case study investigates what she terms “semi-public” writing where people are using their personal computers (and other devices) in public, as in coffee shops. Our case study, in contrast, addresses the increasingly prevalent (but largely unrecognized) semi-public computer- and network-mediated writing process where people write—often with high stakes—in public spaces with hardware and/or software with which they are unfamiliar, writing for which they will be held accountable to others.

Section snippets

Theory and literature review

We focus on the experience of writing in these environments from a first-person, phenomenological approach, in order to explore the bodily and emotional experience of it, which is often elided in cognitive or socio-cognitive research on computers and classroom writing. Phenomenology is a method of doing both philosophy and empirical qualitative inquiry that describes “how things appear, show, or give themselves in lived experience or in consciousness” (van Manen, 2017 p. 775). The goal is

Research questions

We wanted to know how Ph.D. students would react to using a writing tool that they were unfamiliar with for in-class writing, one that provided affordances and constraints that would allow us to see what the experience of writing with unfamiliar tools in a semi-public setting entails.

RQ1: How do graduate students in a classroom experience writing with unfamiliar tools in a semi-public environment?

Additionally, we wanted to examine this case of writing with unfamiliar tools in semi-public

Methods

The IRB-approved case study took place in a writing studies graduate seminar about phenomenology, genre, and writing processes in a large Midwestern university. The 9 students conducted a collaborative project to explore the phenomenology of research writing. They wrote two summaries of articles relevant to the course while in class using the provided desktop computers and a software program that recorded their keystrokes and eye movements. They then interviewed one another to describe the

Results and discussion

The most consistent finding was that students reacted very negatively to writing with unfamiliar tools in the semi-public environment. Perhaps because CyWrite was used in a semi-public environment rather than a one-on-one tutorial situation, as it had been used in a previous studies (Ranalli et al., 2018, 2019); perhaps because it was used only briefly, without sufficient time for guided exploration and practice, or perhaps because it was used to conduct a study rather than offer formative

Conclusion

The first research question asked: How do graduate students in a classroom experience semi-public writing with unfamiliar tools? Some participants reported positive effects of the unfamiliar tool in the classroom. However, in general participants reported that the unfamiliar tools initially created anxiety and stress, including sometimes physical pain, which appeared to decrease over time through exposure. The unfamiliar tools also initially affected the perception of performance negatively. In

Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank the developer of CyWrite, Evgeny Chukharev-Hudilainen, and his team, who made it available to us, as well Jim Ranalli, who lent his knowledge and encouragement; our technical support person, Lucas Figueroa; Paul Prior, who gave timely criticism, and most of all the other members of the class. The faults are of course our own.

Footnotes

(1) Two mentions of power differential were recorded in the data. Each minimized the influence of authority figures in the study. In the first, Paul stated, “I mean I might not be proud, I mean I hope that if [the professor] were to read this with my name attached, I think I would be like “Oh, gosh, he thinks I do not understand research,” but that is not happening so I am not too concerned.” In the second occurrence Cindy said, “At first, I felt anxious because I knew at least you would read

Philip B. Gallagher is an Assistant Professor of Technical Communication at Mercer University,  a member of STC, ATTW, and the ACM's Special Interest Group on Design of Communication. His-current research examines technical communication pedagogy for STEM, surveillance and presence in online learning, and technology in writing ecology. His-previous work on technical communication pedagogy appears in SIGDOC ‘19: ACM's 37th Annual Special Interest Group on Design of Communication conference

References (94)

  • Heather B. Adams et al.

    Acting with algorithms: Feminist propositions for rhetorical agency

    Computers and Composition Online

    (2020)
  • Sara. Ahmed

    Queer phenomenology

    (2006)
  • David G. Alden et al.

    Keyboard design and operation: A review of the major issues

    Human Factors

    (1972)
  • Veda. Alsim-Yetis

    Sources of writing anxiety: A study on French language teaching students

    International Education Studies

    (2017)
  • Timothy R. Amidon et al.

    Copyright, content, & control: Student authorship across educational technology platforms

    Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy

    (2019)
  • James A. Anderson et al.

    Productivity, screens, and aspect ratios: A comparison of single, traditional aspect, dual, traditional aspect, and single, widescreen aspect computer displays over simulated office tasks across performance and usability

    (2008)
  • Charles. Bazerman

    Textual performance: Where the action at a distance is

    JAC

    (2003)
  • Estee. Beck

    Computer algorithms as persuasive agents: The rhetoricity of algorithmic surveillance within the built ecological network

    (2015)
  • Estee. Beck et al.

    Making space: Writing instruction, infrastructure, and multiliteracies

  • Tony Bennett et al.

    Habit and habituation: Governance and the social

    Body & Society

    (2013)
  • Carol Berkenkotter et al.
    (1983)
  • David M. Boje

    Narrative methods for organizational & communication research

    (2001)
  • Aga. Bojko

    Eye tracking the user experience

    (2013)
  • Christine Borisov et al.

    Students with intellectual disabilities acting as tutors: An interpretative phenomenological analysis

    European Journal of Special Needs Education

    (2010)
  • Phil Bratta et al.

    Introduction to the special issue: Digital technologies, bodies, and embodiments

    (2019)
  • Judith. Butler

    Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity

    (1990)
  • Daniel. Chandler

    The phenomenology of writing by hand

    Intelligent Tutoring Media

    (1992)
  • Kory L. Ching

    Tools matter: Mediated writing activity in alternative digital environments

    Written Communication

    (2018)
  • Rebecca M. Chory et al.

    Organizational surveillance of computer-mediated workplace communication: Employee privacy concerns and responses

    Employee Reasons Rights Journal

    (2016)
  • Conference on College Composition and Communication. (2013). A Position Statement of Principles and Example Effective...
  • Lynne. Cooke

    Assessing concurrent think-aloud protocol as a usability test method: A technical communication approach

    IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication

    (2010)
  • Jon Cornwall et al.

    Stressors in early-stage doctoral students

    Studies in Continuing Education

    (2019)
  • De Beauvoire, Simone (2010). The second sex....
  • Dayna J. DeFeo et al.

    Tutoring as transformative work: A phenomenological case study of tutors’ experiences

    Journal of College Reading and Learning

    (2014)
  • Sara. Donaghey

    Repositioning the oral history interview: Reciprocal peer interviewing within a transgenerational frame

  • Ann H. Duin et al.

    The current state of analytics: Implications for learning management system (LMS) use in writing pedagogy

    Computers and Composition

    (2020)
  • Christian. Ehret et al.

    Embodied composition in real virtualities: Adolescents' literacy practices and felt experiences moving with digital, mobile devices in school

    Research in the Teaching of English

    (2014)
  • Peter. Elbow

    Toward a phenomenology of freewriting

    Journal of Basic Writing

    (1989)
  • Tara R. Fee

    Computer surveillance in the classroom: Or, how I learned to stop worrying and love the panopticon

    Pedagogy

    (2012)
  • Michel. Foucault

    Discipline and punish: The birth of the prison. (A. sheridan, trans.)

    (1995)
  • Friesen, Norm, Feenberg, Andrew, Smith, Grace, & Lowe, Shannon (2012). Experiencing surveillance. In N. & Friesen and...
  • Barney G. Glaser et al.

    The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research

    (1967)
  • Christina. Haas

    Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy

    (1996)
  • Kevin D. Haggerty et al.

    The surveillant assemblage

    British Journal of Sociology

    (2000)
  • Gail E. Hawisher et al.

    The rhetoric of technology and the electronic writing class

    College Composition and Communication

    (1991)
  • Kara C. Hoover et al.

    An empirical study of surveillance anxiety

    SocArXiv

    (2018)
  • E.B. Horwitz et al.

    Contemplative inquiry in movement: Managing writer's block in academic writing

    International Journal of Transpersonal Studies

    (2013)
  • Cited by (1)

    Philip B. Gallagher is an Assistant Professor of Technical Communication at Mercer University,  a member of STC, ATTW, and the ACM's Special Interest Group on Design of Communication. His-current research examines technical communication pedagogy for STEM, surveillance and presence in online learning, and technology in writing ecology. His-previous work on technical communication pedagogy appears in SIGDOC ‘19: ACM's 37th Annual Special Interest Group on Design of Communication conference proceedings and in the Journal of Interactive Technology and Pedagogy.

    Philippe Meister is a Ph.D. candidate in Rhetoric and Professional Communication and Human-Computer Interaction at Iowa State University and a member of the Adaptive Cognitive Systems Laboratory. His current work focuses on the design and evaluation of augmented reality weather training for General Aviation.

    David R. Russell is emeritus professor of English at Iowa State University, where he taught in the Ph.D. program in Rhetoric and Professional Communication. His-research interests are in writing in the disciplines, international writing instruction, online multi-media case studies, and the phenomenology of writing. His-book, Writing in the Academic Disciplines: A Curricular History, examines the history of United States writing instruction since 1870. He has published more than 70 articles and co-edited four collections on writing in the disciplines and professions, drawing mainly on cultural-historical activity theory and rhetorical genre theory.

    The work in this paper has not been previously published. The paper is not being considered for publication in other venues. The authors will not allow the manuscript to be so considered elsewhere before notification in writing of an editorial decision by Computers and Composition.

    The research data have been collected from human subjects in accordance with the standards and guidelines of the human subjects review board at the authors’ institution.

    View full text