"Embracing Digital Literacies: A Study of First-Year Students' Digital Compositions" - Page 14 of 14

by Bay VanWagenen | Xchanges 10.2/11.1

📋 Contents

Introduction
Methodology
Students’ Knowledge of Audience
Picturing an Audience
Managing an Audience
Managing an Audience (cont.)
Students’ Knowledge of Genre
Facebook Genre Content
Blogging Genre Conventions
Blogging Genre Conventions (cont.)
Students’ Knowledge of Purpose
Students’ Knowledge of Purpose (cont.)
Conclusion
Works Cited

Works Cited

Beaufort, A. (1999). Writing in the real world: Making the transition from school to work. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Beaufort, A. (2007). College writing and beyond: A new framework for university writing instruction. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

boyd, d. (2007). Why youth (heart) social network sites: The role of networked publics in teenage social life. The John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation series on digital media and learning (pp. 119-142). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Clark, J. E. (2010). The digital imperative: Making the case for a 21st-century pedagogy. Computers & Composition, 27, 27-35.

Clark, I. L., & Hernandez, A. (2011). Genre awareness, academic argument, and transferability. The WAC Journal, 22, 65-78.

Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (2009). ‘Among the audience’: On audience in an age of new literacies. In E. M. Weiser, B. M. Fehler, & A. M. González (Eds.), Engaging audience: Writing in an age of new literacies (pp. 42-72). Urbana, IL: NCTE.

Fife, J. M. (2010). Using Facebook to teach rhetorical analysis. Pedagogy, 10(3), 555-562.

Frost, E. A. (2011). Why teachers must learn: Student innovation as a driving factor in the future of the web. Computers and Composition, 25, 269-275.

Hansen, K., & Adams, J. (2010). Teaching writing in the social sciences: A comparison and critique of three models. Across the Disciplines, 7.

Hawisher, G. E., Selfe, C. L., Moraski, B., & Pearson, M. (2004). Becoming literate in the information age: Cultural ecologies and the literacies of technology. College Composition and Communication, 55(4), 642-92.

Hesse, D. D. (2005). Who owns writing? College Composition and Communication, 57(2), 333-357.

Hunter, S. M., Giddens, E. J., & Walters, M. B. (2009). Adding value for students and faculty with a master’s degree in professional writing. College Composition and Communication, 61(1), 153-174.

Johnson-Eilola, J., & Selber, S. A. (2009). The changing shapes of writing: Rhetoric, new media, and composition. In A. C. Kimme Hea (Ed.), Going wireless: A critical exploration of wireless and mobile technologies for composition teachers and researchers. (pp. 5-34). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

The New London Group. (2000). A pedagogy of multiliteracies: Designing social futures. In B. Cope & M. Kalantzis (Eds.), Multiliteracies: Literacy learning and the design of social futures (pp. 9-38). London, UK: Routledge.

Wardle, E. (2009). ‘Mutt genres’ and the goal of FYC: Can we help students write the genres of the university? College Composition and Communication, 60(4), 765-789.

Yancey, K. B. (2009). NCTE presidential address: The impulse to compose and the age of composition. Research in the Teaching of English, 43(3), 316-338.

Yi, Y., & Hirvela, A. (2010). Technology and ‘self-sponsored’ writing: A case study of a Korean-American adolescent. Computers and Composition, 27, 94-111.

About the Author

Bay VanWagenen graduated from California State University, Sacramento in 2013 with a Master’s degree in English Composition. She currently teaches in the Merritt Writing Program at the University of California, Merced. Her research interests include genre studies, digital literacies, and first-year composition.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14