Digital Writing in Practice Perceptions and Experiences of the Writing Process

Chapter 1

Background of the Problem

Technology use is ubiquitous in daily life, and as it becomes further integrated into

society, it becomes essential that it also be integrated within classrooms and school curricula

(Alvermann, 2012; Merchant, 2008; Mills & Exley, 2014). Technology and its effects on

communication are changing the world of literacy within society, and students must be prepared

to contend with this new reality. To address this change, the National Council of Teachers of

English (NCTE) released a position statement regarding 21st century literacies stating, “Because

technology has increased the intensity and complexity of literate environments, the 21st century

demands that a literate person possess a wide range of abilities and competencies, many

literacies. These literacies are multiple, dynamic, and malleable” (NCTE, 2013, para. 1). These

new literacies, sometimes called multimodal literacies, are the ways we interact with technology

to communicate, create, receive, and represent information, and these new literacies are

continuously changing (Leu, Forzani, & Kennedy, 2013).

This concept of multimodal literacies is a key turning point in literacy education. Jewitt

(2008) argues, “It is not possible to think about literacy solely as a linguistic accomplishment….

The time for the habitual conjunction of language, print literacy, and learning is over” (p. 241).

Education must now address the use and instruction of multiple literacies, but research is needed

to ensure its implementation is appropriate and effective. Literacy researchers are attempting to

explore and examine these new literacies and their effects on literacy instruction and student

learning. One specific new literacies topic which needs more examination is digital writing with

young learners (Brown, 2014; Grünke, & Leonard-Zabel, 2015; Rowe, Miller, & Pacheco, 2014;

Sessions, Kang, & Womack, 2016).

Two arguments can be made for focusing research on digital writing with young learners.

First, as stated earlier, literacy, its use and instruction, is changing, and students must be prepared

to utilize technology in their day-to-day lives. Offering digital writing opportunities to even our

youngest students should be a priority (Sampson, Ortlieb, & Leung, 2016; Swaggerty, Atkinson,

& Cannon, 2015). Rowe et al. (2014) state, “To become effective twenty-first century

communicators, children need early opportunities to explore ways of combining print, images,

and other modalities to create interesting and effective digital texts” (p. 300). With more

research, school administrators and educators will understand the need to implement digital

writing with elementary students into their curricula. Mills and Exley (2014) state,

It is timely for governing agencies to reconsider the changing nature of writing across

levels of schooling… The systematic and continual inclusion of writing in digital formats

and specialist discourses of written communication needs to become a fundamental part

of transformed evaluative criteria. (p. 464)

Young students need experience with digital tools, and research can assist educators with

implementing these effectively in literacy instruction.

A second reason digital writing with young learners is an important topic for research has

a more pragmatic basis; overall, students’ writing skills need improvement. The most current

National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) writing assessment for eighth and 12th

grades was conducted during 2011 and executed that year as a computer-based test for the first

time. The results revealed approximately 74% of eighth graders and 73% of 12th graders scored

below proficient with females scoring higher than males and suburban students scoring higher

than those in rural, town, or urban areas (National Center for Education Statistics, 2012). These

results attest to the crucial need for focused writing instruction and for that instruction to include

training with digital writing tools.

Writing instruction and student writing skills have gained more attention recently as the

use of national and state-mandated writing assessments have increased. One concern is that

often these assessments are executed on a digital platform though not all students have skilled

experience writing this way (Cheung, 2012; Sampson et al., 2016). As the NAEP results

communicate, students need more help with writing skills, and need it via digital tools. But, if

schools aren’t meeting the need for digital writing instruction, there are other avenues to

supplement instruction. One venue that could incorporate digital writing is afterschool

programs.

According to the Afterschool Alliance’s 2014 report, “Nearly one-quarter of families and

18% of children rely on afterschool programs to provide a safe and supportive environment,

inspire learning, and fill the gap between when the school day ends and when the work day ends”

(p.7). With the growing formation of afterschool programs, tutoring with digital writing is one

way to provide academic skills to students, preparing them for writing assessments, while also

helping them with technology skills they will need in the future workforce. Including digital

writing instruction in afterschool programs offers students more opportunities to improve their

writing abilities, a needed reinforcement with the increased focus on writing assessments and

current low-performance scores.

More research is needed on the digital writing process and its use by elementary students

so educators will know successful ways to help children with their writing (Brown, 2014, Grünke

& Leonard-Zabel, 2015; Sessions et al., 2016). This study examined elementary students’

experiences and perceptions with the digital writing process in an afterschool program to help

inform educators who seek to implement digital writing in classroom settings. With the

increased attention on writing skills and the growth of writing assessments for elementary ages,

this is a timely study focusing on children working through the digital writing process.

Personal Context

The focus of this study stems from my experiences with an undergraduate course I have

taught and have been assisting with throughout my tenure in the doctoral program. The class

involves training honors and education students to tutor second grade children in an afterschool

literacy program. Each tutor works with two children through a digital writing process to create

an e-book that is ultimately published into a hard copy. I taught the class during the first

semester it was offered. That semester, due to it being part of a revitalization effort of the

college literacy center to offer off-campus activities, an outside group was hired to evaluate the

afterschool program. Findings were complimentary with positive feedback from tutor, child, and

parent participants. Evaluators raised concerns regarding the lack of parent involvement, but

ultimately the report strengthened the belief that the program was beneficial to our

undergraduates and the children being tutored. However, with the evaluation completed, I still

had questions about the program and how the children were influenced by the digital writing

process.

The children were engaged and excited during the semester, and their end products were

well done. Their pride at being authors was evident, but there were still unknowns. Did the

children feel differently about themselves as writers now? Had their writing skills been

impacted? Did they find the use of digital technology more interesting and engaging than they

would had the project been done with paper and pencil? The semester I spent with the program

caused me to consider how the digital writing process was influencing the children and how they

were perceiving the program.

The next semester I continued to work with the afterschool program through my graduate

assistantship with the university’s literacy center. That semester a faculty professor taught the

course, and my schedule only allowed me to attend the first hour of the class. My role was to

help with set-up, bring the children from the cafeteria to our tutoring room, and assist with any

technology problems. During the rest of the week I graded assignments and handled class

communication. On Thursdays I helped organize a new facet of the program, book clubs. Four

volunteers and I led small-group book discussions on multicultural literature with the same

children who participated in the Tuesday tutoring. Since research has demonstrated that

academic tutoring is more effective if implemented at least twice a week (Cobb, 2001; Ellson,

Harris, & Barber, 1968; Juel, 1996), the book club was created to give the students in the

program a second opportunity to work on literacy skills.

This course was offered a third time and through my dissertation work I had an

opportunity to answer some of my questions about how the digital writing process influences the

children and their perceptions of themselves and their writing. I did not teach but again fulfilled

duties as a graduate assistant. My responsibilities were the same as the previous semester though

I was able to attend the entire class session assisting with any needs as they arose. This scenario

gave me full access for data collection with the program.

In regards to my position as a researcher, I am a Caucasian woman raised in rural West

Tennessee. I moved to a larger town in the region for undergraduate work and since then, I have

lived in Memphis for 12 years. I have much experience working with children and youth in an

academic capacity through classroom teaching, private tutoring, and afterschool care.

Theoretical Context

This study was grounded in the epistemology of constructionism (Berger & Luckmann,

1966). Crotty (1998) defines constructionism stating, “There is no objective truth waiting for us

to discover it. Truth, or meaning, comes into existence in and out of our engagement with the

realities of our world. Meaning is not discovered, but constructed” (pp. 8-9). To this definition,

Burr (2003) adds that “all ways of understanding are historically and culturally relative” (p. 4).

Therefore, constructed meaning (knowledge) is manifested from our cultural and social

interactions situated in a certain context of time or history. This epistemology creates the

foundation for the next layer of theory in this study, sociocultural theory.

The broad framework of sociocultural theory is derived from the work of Vygotsky

(1978) in which he states, “human learning presupposes a specific social nature and a process by

which children grow into the intellectual life of those around them” (p. 88). Therefore,

sociocultural theory views literacy as “a situated social practice” (Brandt & Clinton, 2002, p.

337). Barton and Hamilton (2000) point out, “Text does not have a set of functions independent

of the social meanings with which it is imbued” (p. 12). This theory allows for cultural and

social influences to be recognized in literacy activities. For example, words identified as slang

with connotative meanings in one ethnicity, social class, or generation can be read by others and

understood with an entirely different meaning due to each groups’ differing social

understandings and interactions. A table of high schoolers might refer to something innovative

and interesting as “sick” whereas a teacher overhearing the conversation unknowledgeable of the

slang meaning of the word would assume that the topic of discussion was of something

disgusting or gross. Thus, the social meaning determines the meaning of the word and affects

how people perceive it in their literacy practices. This theory acknowledges that social and

cultural influences affect literacy practices and events and affect those participating in these acts

of literacy.

The mid-level theory of New Literacies theory (Lankshear & Knobel, 2011; Leu, Kinzer,

Coiro, Castek, & Henry, 2013) was the final layer used to frame this study. This theory

acknowledges the variety of ways people can communicate through the use of technology, and

therefore, is used to broaden our understanding of literacy to include more than print text.

Knobel and Lankshear (2014) define the framework stating, “the idea of ‘new literacies’ focuses

on ways in which meaning-making practices are evolving under contemporary conditions that

include, but are in no way limited to, technological changes associated with the rise and

proliferation of digital electronics” (p. 97). New Literacies theory incorporates the

multimodality of literacy, which means through technology, communication can now be

transmitted not only via text, but sounds, images, and video. This theoretical framework allows

a place for multimodality to be considered and included in a more broadly defined literacy.

In sum, the epistemological and theoretical frameworks of this study were grounded first

with constructionism, a belief that the participants’ constructed reality is the truth that will define

the study’s outcome. Since the research was an examination of the children’s experiences and

perspectives, the foundation for this study was a belief that truth and knowledge are defined and

understood though individuals’ interactions with the world. Secondly, sociocultural theory was

used to acknowledge the social and cultural aspects that impact learning. This was important

with this study because the children participating in the digital writing process brought with them

social and cultural understandings of writing and of technology use. These understandings also

impacted how they interacted with their tutors and participated in the literacy activities. These

factors impacted their learning and involvement with the digital writing process. Finally, New

Literacies theory was an essential component of this framework since it acknowledges the

revolutionary effect technology has had on literacy and on society’s means of communication.

Through this lens, the study recognized how digital writing can be developed through

nontraditional avenues and helped examine how children were influenced by the digital writing

process.

Statement of the Problem and Research Questions

This qualitative case study grounded in sociocultural and New Literacies theories was

conducted with eight tutors and sixteen children from a university-sponsored off-campus

afterschool literacy program located in a medium-sized urban city in the Mid-South. Data

included semi-structured interviews with six child participants, participant observation, program

artifacts, and a researcher’s journal. The purpose of this study was to examine how a digital

writing process influences the second-grade participants according to the students and their

tutors. The following questions guided this study: (a) How does a digital writing process

influence children’s motivation in writing? (b) How does a digital writing process influence

children’s engagement in writing? (c) How does a digital writing process influence children’s

writing skills and performance? (d) How does a digital writing process influence children’s

writing identities? (e) What are the issues and concerns with this digital writing process?

Researchers have called for more data regarding the digital writing process as it impacts

student learning (Hutchison, Beschorner, & Schmidt-Crawford, 2012; Sessions et al., 2016;

Zheng, Warschauer, & Farkas, 2013). Sessions et al. (2016) state, “Although there has been

much research into technology integration in literacy instruction, it has focused primarily on

reading instruction.…Technology integration, specifically integration of iPad and writing-

specific educational applications, in writing instruction in elementary classrooms has barely been

discussed” (p. 219). Regarding this study’s specific questions on motivation and engagement,

Vue et al. (2016) assert, “There is a significant need for more research to understand the role of

motivation in writing and ways that digital technology can enhance writing instruction and

student engagement in writing” (p. 92).

This study sought to extend knowledge on the effects of the digital writing process with

elementary children, a need which the literature points to as lacking (Brown, 2014; Sessions et

al., 2016). The digital writing process is now one of many ways written communication can

occur and the lack of research on this facet of literacy is a detriment to students and teachers

(Northrop & Killeen, 2013; Wollscheid, Sjaastad, Tømte, & Løver, 2016). This study sought to

expound on how the digital writing process influences children’s motivation and engagement

toward writing, their skills and performance, and their writing identities.

Summary

This chapter introduced the background of the problem, which includes, first, the

complex change occurring with literacy instruction due to the increase of communicative

technologies and, second, the increase in state and national writing assessments on digital

platforms and students’ subsequent poor performance on these tests. The need for more research

to examine the impact of the digital writing process on early elementary children was presented

as the focus of the research study. The following chapter discusses the theory that grounded this

study as well as the literature from the field which sets the context and understanding needed for

this study. The literature review begins with an overview of afterschool programs and an outline

of the digital writing process. It continues with a review of literature on the use of technology in

educational settings while next focusing on research involving digital writing. Chapter three

details the methodology and methods selected as appropriate for examining a digital writing

process in an afterschool program and also provides an overview of the data analysis techniques

to be used.

Chapter 2

Theory and Literature

The following chapter covers two sections pertinent to this study: the theoretical

framework and a review of literature. The theory section begins with the epistemology and

macro level theory that supported this study followed by the mid-level, discipline-specific theory

that framed this work. The second section covers the literature regarding research on afterschool

programs as well as a definition and description of the digital writing process. This is followed

by a review of literature on technology use in literacy education and how digital writing

influences students’ performance, engagement and motivation, and their writing identities.

Theoretical Framework

Epistemology and Macro Level Theory

The theoretical framework of this study was grounded in the epistemology of

constructionism which holds that knowledge and truth are subjective. Crotty (1998) cites

constructionism as the belief that “truth, or meaning, comes into existence in and out of our

engagement with the realities of our world. Meaning is not discovered, but constructed” (pp. 8-

9). Research from this standpoint seeks to explore “the way people interpret and make sense of

their experiences” (Grbich, 2009, p.8). Therefore, reality is personally constructed, and this idea

creates the foundation for the tenets of sociocultural theory.

Further narrowing a researcher’s beliefs, the theoretical perspective is used as the lens

that focuses her research and, therefore, must fit with the underlying tenets of the chosen

epistemology. Theory is essential in research as it is the filter through which the experiences are

understood and analyzed. A theoretical perspective is “a way of looking at the world and

making sense of it” (Crotty, 1998, p. 8). The chosen framework of sociocultural theory

essentially views literacy as “a situated social practice” where literacy activities are entrenched

in social structures and thus help shape those structures (Brandt & Clinton, 2002, p. 337).

Furthering the concept of the sociocultural underpinnings of literacy, Barton and

Hamilton (2000) point out, “Text also does not have a set of functions independent of the social

meanings with which it is imbued” (p. 12). Gee (1999) also makes this point writing, “The fact

is that words give meaning to contexts just as surely as contexts give meaning to words. Words

and context are two mirrors facing each other, infinitely and simultaneously reflecting each

other” (p. 187). Consequently, this theory acknowledges that social and cultural interactions

affect literacy and those participating in literacy.

Sociocultural theory is derived from the work of Vygotsky (1978) and is an overarching

concept that covers several specific theories including the mid-level theory of this study, New

Literacies theory. What unites these specific theories under the umbrella of sociocultural theory,

according to Perry (2012), is emphasis “on the social and cultural contexts in which literacy is

practiced” (p. 51). Being within the sociocultural spectrum, these various theories often utilize

themes of “culture, activity, identity, power, and the sociocultural contexts in which literacy

occurs” (p. 51). By looking at the context in which literacy is situated, we can “illuminate the

diverse forms and meanings that literacy takes on” (Brandt & Clinton, 2002, p. 340). Therefore,

with this theory, “Writing does not occur in a vacuum but is affected by social relationships,

institutional belongings, membership in various communities, and so on” (Slavok, 2015, p. 82).

Along with considering this study through its social and cultural context, New Literacies theory

was applied as the mid-level theory.

Mid-level Theory

While considering the situated social practice of a literacy event, adding the layer of New

Literacies theory allows an examination of communicative technology and the implications this

technology brings to discussions of literacy. New Literacies theorists argue that literacy can no

longer be examined or studied without considering technology’s impact (Coiro, Knobel,

Lankshear, & Leu, 2008; Jewitt, 2008; Rowsell & Walsh, 2011). Kress (2003) states, “The

major change is that we can no longer treat literacy (or language) as the sole, the main, let alone

the major means for representation and communication" (p. 35). Leu, Kinzer, et al. (2013) agree

that new literacies have created new social practices and outline eight tenants of New Literacies

theory,

1. The Internet is this generation’s defining technology for literacy and learning within our

global community.

2. The Internet and related technologies require new literacies to fully access their potential.

3. New literacies are deictic; they rapidly change.

4. New literacies are multiple, multi-modal, and multi-faceted, and, as a result, our

understanding of them benefits from multiple points of view.

5. Critical literacies are central to new literacies.

6. New forms of strategic knowledge are required with new literacies.

7. New social practices are a central element of new literacies.

8. Teachers become more important, though their role changes, within new literacy

classrooms. (p. 1158)

Leu, Kinzer, et al.’s list offers a glimpse of the difficultly in encapsulating new literacies. They

are multiple, ever-changing, and require a new way of thinking.

Lankshear and Knobel (2011) define New Literacies theory as “the idea that changes

have occurred in the character and substance of literacies that are associated with larger changes

in technology, institutions, media and the economy and [the globalization of] manufacture,

finance, communications, and so on” (p.28). New Literacies theory allows the researcher to

consider two issues with literacy: (1) the technological changes to communication and (2) how

those changes have impacted the social practices of literacy. This first change to literacy is

realized through the varied ways communication now occurs. The electronic creation,

distribution, and receipt of textual information is now manifested in a variety of multimodal

forms, much more than ink and paper texts. These multiple means of communication are the

basis for the term literacies. Rowsell and Walsh (2011) state, “Making literacy plural signals

that there is more than simply one model of literacy, there are many different literacies that shift

with contexts, texts, and the identities of people using literacy” (p.55). Images, hyperlinks, and

sound are a few of the technological changes now incorporated into digital writing with text

messaging, wikis, and blogs being platforms for digital writing. Each of these are examples of

ways technology has transformed communication.

Secondly, Lankshear and Knobel (2011) state these changes have altered “values” and

“social and cultural relations” so that it is “plausible to distinguish between conventional and

new literacies in a broad way” (p. 29). These social changes include how information is

accessed and received. For example, the authors explain that new literacies tend to be more

“participatory” and “distributed” rather than “individuated” and “published” (p. 29). Kress

(2003) states, “The new information and communication technologies have produced the

technological condition where all can publish to all, and by means of the enormous change they

have abolished the era of mass communication" (p. 17). Digital formats have multiplied student

options for sharing their writing and multimodal compositions (Kress, 2003). With a click of a

button, students can have a global audience for their work. This change has not only altered the

way we identify literacy, but it has also affected the way we participate in the social practice of

literacy, “what people do with reading, writing, and texts in real world contexts and why they do

it” (Perry, 2012, p. 54).

This paradigm shift in literacy has altered the way it is acknowledged and taught, with

written and spoken means no longer the central focus (Kress, 2000; Kress & Van Leeuwen,

2001). Bailey (2009) writes, “An ability to read visual and aural texts is increasingly regarded as

a skill embedded in literacy practices” (p. 209). These visual and aural components of new

literacies create meanings, according to Lemke (1998), that “are not fixed and additive (the word

meaning plus the picture meaning), but multiplicative (word meaning modified by image

context, image meaning modified by textual context), making a whole far greater than the simple

sum of its parts” (p. 283–284). New Literacies theory was an essential framework for this study

since the research incorporates technology use, and this theory allows for the research to be

viewed through this altered understanding of literacy.

Literature Review

The purpose of this literature review is to help situate the reader in the scholarly research

of which this study was based. Due to the research being set in an afterschool program, this

section begins with current relevant findings dealing with afterschool programs. The review then

defines and describes the digital writing process which is followed by pertinent research on the

topic of technology use in literacy education. Finally, the review ends with findings regarding

student experiences with digital writing, specifically how the digital writing process influences

students’ skills and performance, their motivation and engagement, and finally, their writing

identities.

Afterschool Programs

Afterschool programs have been a mainstay of society starting in the late 1800s as the

creation of child labor laws liberated children’s afterschool time (Halpern, 2002). Programs

continued to increase in popularity during the mid-1900’s as mothers steadily joined the

workforce (Lauzon, 2013). There are as many variances in afterschool program content as there

are sites that implement them, but tutoring through skills reinforcement is a common theme.

Consequently, research has established that students who participate in academic afterschool

programs perform better in the classroom than their peers who do not attend (Vandell, Reisner,

& Pierce, 2007). A focus on academics continues to be a main afterschool purpose in the 21st

century (Reisman, 2005) and now many programs seek to implement technology to prepare their

students for the 21st century workforce and make their curriculum relevant and current to our

tech-laden society.

Research reveals afterschool sites offer a variety of tech integration for students from

STEM programs (Eglash, Gilbert, Taylor, & Geier, 2013; Schnittka, Brandt, Jones, & Evans,

2012) to tech integration with project-based learning (Bell, 2010) to movie-making programs

with multimodal literacy (Brass, 2008). Conversely, some programs utilize technology such as

webcams and video conferencing as a means to provide academic tutoring in afterschool

programs for geographical areas where high-quality tutoring services are lacking (Houge,

Peyton, Geier, & Petrie, 2007; Vasquez & Slocum, 2012). However, a key component to a

successful tech-centric afterschool program is the proper implementation and integration of

technology based on what the participants need (Biancarosa & Griffiths, 2012; Fokkena, 2011).

Lauzon (2013) argues that afterschool programs are perfect opportunities for students

who are pushed to the margins in the traditional classroom to find the infrastructure needed to

“potentially mitigate some of the more negative impacts of the changing formal educational

system” (p. 776). Engaging struggling students in an afterschool program, especially one that

utilizes technology, can not only improve their academic skills but offer them a better chance of

success in post-graduation society. Since students in low socio-economic situations often do not

have access to technology at home, afterschool programs with technology embedded can be an

important avenue for students to have exposure to and practice with technology.

An important issue to note is that blindly integrating technology into a program will not

automatically solve the problem of a student’s lack of tech knowledge, and successful

technology implementation "stems from the types of learning opportunities that are made

available to students" (Willmett & Curwood, 2014, p. 255). Fokkena (2011) discusses her

experience working in various afterschool programs, all of which had some form of technology

use, and warns, “Without a clear plan for technology’s integration into afterschool programming,

the haves are able to build on their existing experience and resources to make dynamic use of

new media and new technologies, while the have-nots struggle to keep up” (pp. 26-27). As with

any instructional tool, the use of technology in an afterschool program must have a rationale that

is tied to student learning and skill improvement.

Defining the Digital Writing Process

The idea of instructing writing through a process approach versus writing to create a

product began with research and theories in the 1970s by researchers such as Janet Emig (1977),

Donald Graves (1975), and Donald Murray (1972/1997). Theories of the cognitive processes

needed to compose became clearer with work by John Hayes and Linda Flower (1980). These

initial frameworks included three steps to writing: prewriting, writing, rewriting (Murray,

1972/1997) or with terms similar to these. Current pedagogy defines the writing process in five

stages, though it is imperative to remember these stages are recursive and writers move through

and revisit each as needed (Graves, 1983).

The instructional phases of the writing process are the cyclical progression through pre-

writing, drafting, revising, editing, and publishing written material with much feedback (teacher

and peer) given during the drafting, revising, and editing phases. In the pre-writing stage, writers

decide on a topic. Sometimes topics have to be assigned, but research has substantiated that

students are more motivated when they are allowed to choose their own (Graves, 1976). During

this stage writers also decide their purpose for writing which leads to determining their audience

and the form their writing will take. Having an authentic audience encourages students to

identify themselves as authors (Rubenstein, 1998). Finally, writers in this stage collect ideas and

organize their thoughts about their topic. This involves activating prior knowledge and

organizing thoughts through using concept maps and graphic organizers, drawing, talking,

researching and/or reading about the topic. In a digital environment, this stage could utilize the

Internet for research, or writers may communicate electronically with others about ideas.

Drafting is the stage where writers focus on creating the bulk of their content. Errors are

common during this phase and should not be pointed out or corrected; otherwise, students will

believe correctness is more important than content (Sommers, 1982). Using digital means for

drafting could save time if students have strong typing skills. Next, revising work incorporates

personal rereading, feedback from the teacher and peers to strengthen the work, then rewriting

based on reader suggestions. Students (especially inexperienced writers) may see this phase as a

negative assessment and become discouraged (Heard, 2002), but it is a vital step where students

learn over time and through lessons on effective writing how to spot weak work. Revisions

include moving, deleting, adding, and/or substituting text (Faigley & Witte, 1981). Technology

allows for comments and tracked changes to be inserted directly into documents as writers seek

feedback for revising.

Writers then move into the editing phase. Here, errors are located through proofreading

and are corrected. With a digital process, computer word processing software aids the editing

process with automatic spelling and grammar corrections. After (possibly several) reiterations of

these stages, the final step is publishing—an essential stage to encourage students to persevere

through revisions and editing (Elbow, 2002). Publishing can occur through sharing with

classmates or family, and simple binding by stapling can create booklets. Students can share

writing via public digital postings on class websites, blogs, or wikis. When students have a

purposeful, “real-world writing experience” and authentic audience during this final stage, it

helps “to promote the formation of their identity as a writer” (Spanke & Paul, 2015, p. 179).

Finally, an important aspect which can aid the writing process is the creation of a

environment of support. Angelillo (2008) cites the need for trust and honesty as this affects

students' motivation and writing development. Students need a safe place for sharing their ideas

and compositions, a community that nurtures creativity. This atmosphere should pervade all

stages of the writing process to support and foster effective writers.

Technology Implementation in Literacy Education

Technology use has been incorporated in literacy education in varying degrees for years,

but as information and communication technologies evolve and change, educators must strive to

keep the pace so students are prepared for our digital society. In 2009, the International Literacy

Association (ILA) issued this position regarding technology implementation,

To become fully literate in today’s world, students must become proficient in the new

literacies of 21st-century technologies. As a result, literacy educators have a

responsibility to effectively integrate these new technologies into the curriculum,

preparing students for the literacy future they deserve. (ILA, 2009, p. 1)

Along with ILA, some researchers have cited the need for technology use to be incorporated into

school standards and curricular plans (Mills & Exley, 2014; Rowe et al., 2014). Specific to

digital writing, Mills and Exley (2014) argue for digital writing and multimodal text to be

included and required in school curricula, “It is timely for governing agencies to reconsider the

changing nature of writing across levels of schooling, and … to accommodate new specialist

forms of digital text creation” (p. 464). With a regulated emphasis from governing school

agencies, consistent implementation of information and communication technologies would be

required. Rowe et al. (2014) argue this implementation of new literacies needs to begin at an

early age,

To become effective twenty-first century communicators, children need early

opportunities to explore ways of combining print, images, and other modalities to create

interesting and effective digital texts. While young children are often offered

opportunities to be consumers of electronic games and digital stories, we believe that it is

also important to give them opportunities to be active designers of digital content. (p.

300)

Exposing students to the technology tools that broaden our understanding of literacy will provide

them with much needed practice and preparation for a 21st century workforce.

Conversely, as discussed with afterschool programs, there is a danger of technology

being required in educational spaces without a clear, established purpose (Graham & Harris,

2016). In regards to technology being used with literacy instruction, Biancarosa and Griffiths

(2012) warn, “Students need more than access to technology; they need to learn how to apply it

strategically to advance their literacy skills— especially the conceptual and knowledge based

capacities that become crucial in later literacy tasks” (p. 142). Obviously technology use will not

magically cure students’ literacy issues, and these tools must be applied with thought to the

individual learner and what best will support his or her learning. Again, Biancarosa and Griffiths

(2012) advocate that technology use with instruction “must be embedded strategically within

cohesive, evidence-based educational programs” (p. 142). Teachers should be wary of putting

technology in a program for literacy development without a focused purpose for skill instruction.

Finding the proper technology fit for students’ needs is not an easy task. The explosion

of tech products makes for difficult navigation when deciding what will be most effective with

literacy education. Looking at research on literacy technology can be a difficult task as

Biancarosa and Griffiths (2012) state the difficulty with generalizing research conclusions, “it

[is] hard to draw generalized conclusions from research, because each device and application has

specific features and limitations. Thus, claims made about one form of technology with specific

features may not apply to another form” (p. 143). It is important to know not only what the

technology can offer, but also to consider how the technology will best fit into the instructional

needs for improving literacy.

Teachers must be wary of the pitfall of using technology only to improve students’ tech

skills when it could also be used as a tool to specifically improve literacy skills (Hutchison et al.,

2012). Schugar, Smith, and Schugar’s (2013) research found that teachers’ classroom tablet use,

“sometimes focused on the usability of the device instead of the content they were trying to

teach” (p. 618). Northrop and Killeen (2013) state iPads should be implemented with instruction

in a “careful and deliberate way to ensure learning and development of early literacy skills” (p.

531). Scaffolding is key (Willmett & Curwood, 2014). Consequently, Hutchison and Reinking

(2011) and Hutchison et al. (2012) cite technology use in literacy classrooms is more often

implemented for improving technology skills rather than integrated within the curriculum for the

purpose of supporting the learning of literacy skills.

Research also voices another concern of which educators must be aware, one that stems

from assumptions students may make regarding their own abilities with technology (Hutchison,

Woodward, & Colwell, 2016). Willmett and Curwood (2014) explain that students may have

social knowledge of how to use technology but often there is a lack of knowledge with the

educational function of technology. Their research findings from 40 eighth graders revealed the

students believed they were quite adept with iPad technology but classroom observations and

teacher interviews determined quite the opposite. Hutchison et al. (2016) state,

Teachers should assess the practices in which students engage on digital devices when

not in school, and make explicit connections for students to in-school instructional

activities. Building these connections for students will not only strengthen their

understanding of how to use digital tools for school purposes but also model the

possibilities through demonstration of the relevance of their out-of-school lives to in-

school learning. (p. 16)

Educators and students alike must remember that though we are surrounded by technology in our

everyday lives, it does not always equate to educational expertise with these devices.

Remembering that students may need guided instruction for using technology for

educational functions leads to interesting research from Hutchison et al. (2016). These

researchers targeted preadolescents (defined 9-12 years old) and their findings communicate

many misconceptions on how pre-adolescents use and perceive technology. In their study,

fourth and fifth graders (n = 1,262) were surveyed to gain insight to their “online activities,

perceptions, preferences, and skills” (p. 1). The participants were mainly Caucasian and from a

relatively affluent community with ubiquitous access to technology including access in schools.

The researchers’ findings cite these preadolescents are participating in more digital tasks in

school than out, and the in-school digital tasks were reported as mainly information consumption

rather than the production of creative media. Online social activities to connect and

communicate were the least of the activities as these preadolescents mainly used the Internet to

consume information. Students reported preferring Internet use, yet claimed reading a book is

easier and a way to learn more than using the Internet.

These findings drive home the point that making assumptions about student abilities with

technology or with how they use technology is a dangerous proposition in educational settings

and reinforces Hutchison et al.’s (2016) previously cited statement that teachers should access

how students use devices outside of school so that connections to their existing practice can be

made to classroom practices (p.16). Conversely, educators should be wary to assume all children

have had technology access. Martin and Lambert (2015) write, “Broad assumptions about

today’s adolescents may mask important differences in their digital writing experiences” (p.

219). The authors cite their research with a middle school class whose students had various

exposure to digital tools, some of which was very limited. The authors acknowledged how

“adolescents’ prior experiences with technology and digital texts appeared to shape the

possibilities that they envisioned for their writing” (p. 217). Thus, previous experience must be

taken into account and instruction must be differentiated.

Digital Writing and Skills Improvement

Biancarosa and Griffiths (2012) make an insightful and perceptive point, “The question is

not the narrow one of how to fit technology into literacy education, but the broader one of how to

transform literacy education to meet today’s changing demands” (p. 142). A review of the

literature supports the connection between writing though digital means and improvement in

writing skills. With a tablet-based tool that facilitate reading to writing literacy skills, Cordero et

al. (2015) investigated 237 third graders’ use of a gaming mechanism that encouraged the

creation of multimodal narratives. They stated a general finding that “interactive, co-

constructive tools in a technological format can serve as bridges between elementary schoolers'

reading and writing” and also found this digital tool fostered storytelling skills (p. 486).

Another study links laptop use to the improvement of writing skills. Zheng et al. (2013)

suggest from their study of 2,158 upper elementary students that “well-planned use of laptops

and digital media can help diverse learners improve their literacy processes and outcomes” (p.

267). Their study also cites the need for more research involving digital writing and one-to-one

laptop programs (p. 271). Also, in a separate iPad specific study, the researchers cite the

multimodal component to iPad digital writing allows for struggling writers to express themselves

in a variety of ways and offers students an autonomy to their creations and learning (Willmett &

Curwood, 2014), each important factors to improving writing skills.

Other research that illustrates writing skills improvement through technology use

includes the study from Sessions et al. (2016). The researchers compared students’ pencil and

paper writing to the writing created with the help of an iPad app in a fifth-grade classroom. The

authors investigated differences specifically between each group’s practice of visualizing,

sequencing, and use of sensory details. Through narrative inquiry analysis of student learning

journals and writing activities along with student interviews, the researchers found little

difference in use of sensory details, but cite “apps affected the sequencing of events in narrative

writing, influenced students to visualize the coherence of the story, and directed the decisions

students made about pacing the plot” (p. 224). Ultimately, students demonstrated improvement

in sequencing skills due to their improved visualization abilities fostered through tablet

technology.

Encheff (2013) examined how a fifth-grade classroom implemented iPad e-book writing

with science content. After teaching a two-week unit on writing skills and technology use, the

classroom teacher had students create iBooks of science concepts through the use of various iPad

apps and technology tools. Though student surveys and observations, the researcher found this

authentic learning experience improved writing including, “better organization and connection of

ideas, increased use of academic vocabulary, and an increased use of clarifying details and

analogies” (p. 61). Students being supported in their writing through tools that help them “SEE

ideas” was a theme also explicitly discussed by the students in the Sessions et al. (2016) study (p.

224), and is cited by Rhodes’s (2013) case study of an iPad app helping a student with thought

organization (p.64).

Digital Writing and Student Engagement and Motivation

For a general definition of student engagement with literacy, Guthrie and Wigfield (2000)

broadly state, “Some students are intent on reading and writing to understand. They focus on

text meaning and avoid distractions…exchange ideas and interpretations of text with peers” (p.

403). They cite disengaged students as “inactive and inert.… [They] avoid reading and minimize

effort" (p. 403). Thus, engagement is evidenced through student behavior. With more specific

terms, Guthrie and Wigfield (2000) present three elements that are needed for students to be

engaged: cognitive skills, a social community, and motivation. They explain, “Engaged readers

in the classroom or elsewhere coordinate their strategies and knowledge (cognition) within a

community of literacy (social) in order to fulfill their personal goals, desires and intentions

(motivation)” (p. 405). Motivation will be discussed more below as it is imperative to initiating

engaged behavior.

Vue et al. (2016) cites engagement as a key component to writing development (p. 85).

Research has revealed the use of digital tools with writing increases student engagement

(Cordero et al., 2015; Siegle, 2012; Vasudevan, Schultz, & Bateman, 2010). Hutchison et al.

(2012) found their fourth-grade classroom was more engaged and “able to demonstrate unique

and creative ways of responding to text” with their iPad use during literacy instruction (p. 23).

There is also research to support that student-centered learning environments are created and

encouraged from engagement with the digital writing process (Encheff, 2013; Rhodes, 2013;

Willmett & Curwood, 2014). In Sessions et al.’s (2016) study, the researchers examined how

iPad apps influenced students’ “social relations during writing instruction” (p. 218). A key

finding included new collaborations of student-to-student or teacher-to-student alignments, each

manifested from strong student engagement.

As mentioned previously, a vital component of engagement is motivation (Guthrie &

Wigfield, 2000). This inward impetus drives the action of student engagement and is a complex

and multifaceted concept. Guthrie and Wigfield list five facets to motivation that exist in literacy

students in varying extents. First, literacy students may be motivated due to a desire to learn and

understand new content. Likewise, they may be driven by performance and the desire to excel

more than their peers. Also, motivation can manifest through intrinsic enjoyment of an activity

(Deci, 1992) or due to extrinsic motivation to receive rewards or incentives (Deci, Vallerand,

Pelletier, & Ryan, 1991). Finally, one’s self-efficacy, “people's judgment of their capabilities to

organize and execute courses of action required to attain designated types of performances”

factors greatly in a student’s motivation with literacy (Bandura, 1986, p. 391). Guthrie and

Wigfield (2000) express that student motivation shifts over time due to a student’s

increasing capacity to understand their own performance, [a] realization that they are not

as capable as other children. And, practices that focus on social comparison between

children, with too much competition between them, can lead to declines in competence

beliefs, learning goals, and intrinsic motivation.” (p. 408)

Guthrie and Wigfield (2000) conclude that motivation guides cognition. With motivation, a

student will persist with difficult reading and writing assignments as he has goals for completing

the task and believes he is competent. The completion of these tasks of increasing difficulty then

continues to strengthen his skill set and literacy understanding.

Within this section, it is important to note Paris and Turner’s (1994) warning of applying

motivation as a universal experience to every child. The authors state, “Analyses of motivation

should consider the characteristics of individuals in specific situation because a person’s

motivational beliefs and behavior are derived from contextual transactions” (pp. 213-214). Thus,

it is crucial to be cognizant that the five facets of motivation can be impacted to varying degrees

through a student’s environment and social interactions.

Jang, Conradi, McKenna, and Jones (2015) and others decry the fact that use of the term

motivation in literacy research is often vague (Conradi, Jang, & McKenna, 2014; Schiefele,

Schaffner, Möller, & Wigfield, 2012). Jang et al. (2015) cite after a systematic review of reading

research on motivation only 17% of the 92 articles defined motivational constructs, 20% had

erroneous definitions, 32% used terms synonymously though they have different meanings, and

19% did not list a definition. In the research reviewed for this study, none gave a definition for

motivation though many studies reported improved student motivation with the use of digital

writing (Brown, 2014; Cordero et al., 2015; Encheff, 2013; Rhodes, 2013; Sessions et al., 2016).

Sessions et al. (2016) cite observations from their study which support that students persisted

more at writing due to the use of tablet devices. Rhodes’ (2013) case study student was more

motivated to write as her narrative structure was clearer due to the organizational help from a

tablet app (p.64). Brown’s (2014) research discussed the benefit of immediate feedback with the

DrawWriteRead app as it allowed children to move through the writing process at a faster pace

than they would with pencil and paper drafting, revising, editing, and publishing steps. She

found the immediacy of feedback to be a motivating factor to the children and noted this

advantage was inherent to digital writing with that tablet app.

Digital Writing and Writing Identities

It is important to note for this research the concept of identity is specific to the students’

understanding of themselves as writers and how if at all that understanding changes from the

beginning of the afterschool program to the end. Juzwik, Cushman, and McKenzie (2016) warn

researchers of considering identity as a “static [concept] rather than fluid, given rather than

made” (p. 9). They cite Wortham (2006) to encourage researchers to consider student

identification versus identity as identification is “a more process-oriented term,” and they

support that identities should be delineated at the end of a study once there has been analysis of

classroom discourse (p. 9). Vasudevan et al. (2010) also state this idea of student identity as

“constructed in the moment” and write that identity as seen through sociocultural theory allows

“people take on identities in relation to context and experience” (p. 445).

In a review of literacy research on identity, Moje and Luke (2009) cite the multiple

meanings that literacy researchers apply to the term identity and argue that “the subtle

differences in identity theories have widely different implications for how one thinks about both

how literacy matters to identity and how identity matters to literacy” (p. 416). Therefore, the

authors identify five metaphors that can be used to conceptualize the idea of identity. Identity

can be understood as (1) difference, (2) sense of self/subjectivity, (3) consciousness, (4)

narrative, and (5) position. They also delineate three assumptions that were found throughout the

literacy research on identity. First, identities are socially constructed, not individually created.

Second, as mentioned previously, these studies also acknowledged identity as fluid and dynamic,

and recognized that individuals embody multiple identities due to their contextual situation and

development. Finally, identities exist because others recognize them. The authors cite James

Gee (2001) who argued “identities are not inherent in individuals but are only brought into being

when recognized within a relationship or social context” (p. 419).

Digital writing allows children to develop their writing identities in a space that paper and

pencil writing does not, often manifesting in improved confidence (Bogard & McMackin, 2012).

Findings from Vasudevan et al. (2010) state, “the introduction of new composing tools and

processes provided students with the opportunity to take on a broader range of available

identities as ‘successful’ students in an academic setting” (p. 443). In Brown’s (2014) study of

second graders creating e-books with Nooks, she found students’ sense of agency increased.

“The use of Nooks either assisted students in constructing/co-constructing identities as writers or

confirmed existing identities of themselves as authors" (p. 316). In Hines, Kersulov, Rowland,

and Rupert’s (2014) case study, the researchers study the development of students’ writing

identities as they “resisted and embraced” writing technology (p. 483). Encheff (2013) states the

students involved with iBook creation in her study commented on gaining a more thorough

understanding of the science concepts and their confidence and self-efficacy increased with the

publishing of their books to the iBookstore.

Looking at digital writing apps’ influence on children’s writing, Sessions et al. (2016)

found the classroom teacher in their study observed many students “perceived as low achievers

and had lower status relative to other class members had heretofore hidden technology aptitude”

which altered students’ perceptions of each other and affected their perceptions of themselves (p.

224). Hutchison et al. (2016) state their findings, “indicate a need to understand further how

literacy identities are developed in digital spaces and the role that gender plays in the

development of those identities” (p. 16). These researchers found pre-adolescent boys reported

watching and creating online videos and reading more fanfiction than did girls. Both of these

behaviors are opposite of what research has found for adolescents. Again, this illustrates the

need for more research in how children perceive themselves as writers.

Conclusion

This study was grounded in a theoretical framework of sociocultural theory and New

Literacies theory. Sociocultural theory allowed for the influence of the children’s social and

cultural backgrounds to be acknowledged in their digital writing and allowed for the social

context of the children’s writing to be acknowledged. New Literacies theory allowed for the

inclusion of the multimodal aspects of literacy. Since the children in this study were writing

using nontraditional, digital methods for writing, this theory was critical in its inclusion and

acknowledgement of technological changes to communication and literacy.

A review of the literature has provided an overview of topics relating to afterschool

programs, defined the digital writing process, and summarized issues with technology use and

writing. Finally, research specific to digital writing and skills improvement, engagement, and

motivation has been reviewed along with research on how digital writing influences students’

writing identities. This study sought to provide more research to broaden our understanding of

how the digital writing process influences students. Regarding this point Wollscheid et al.

(2016) argue,

Literacy including writing and reading is more complex today than several decades ago.

This has implications for further research that should take into account that complexity

by drawing on a broader range of writing tools and broader definitions of writing in

literacy instruction. (p.30)

This study took the complexity of literacy into account striving to provide insight into children’s

perceptions and experiences with a digital writing process.

Other researchers have called for more research on digital writing with elementary

students (Bogard & McMackin, 2012; Grünke & Leonard-Zabel, 2015). Sessions et al. (2016)

state, “Technology integration, specifically integration of iPad and writing-specific educational

applications, in writing instruction in elementary classrooms has barely been discussed” (p. 219).

Brown (2014) cites, "Research has been limited in early digital writing for a couple of reasons”

including that education is “uncertain about the role of digital tools for young children” and that

curriculum “narrows opportunities for the development of new literacies” (p.309). Brown (2014)

and Wollscheid et al. (2016) lament the lack of attention paid to early writing instruction for

elementary-aged students. Wollscheid et al. state, “We argue that early writing skills are a

prerequisite for further learning and academic achievement, particularly in the digital age” (p.

20). Specific to this study’s question of student motivation with digital writing, Vue et al. (2016)

write, “Little research in the last three decades directly addresses motivational aspects in the

instruction of writing” (p. 92). There is a need for digital writing to be encouraged and utilized

in classroom settings which makes this study dealing with the perceptions and experiences of

second grade students timely and needed scholarship.

Chapter 3

Methodology

As the literature supports, there is need for more research understanding the use of digital

tools with young elementary writers. Therefore, this study sought to examine second grade

elementary students’ use of a digital writing process in a university-sponsored off-campus

afterschool program from the perspectives of the students, their tutors, and their parents.

Questions guiding this study include 1.) How does a digital writing process influence children’s

motivation with writing? 2.) How does a digital writing process influence children’s

engagement? 3.) How does a digital writing process influence children’s writing skills and

performance? 4.) How does a digital writing process influence children’s writing identities? 5.)

What are the issues and concerns with this digital writing process?

In this chapter the research methodology is discussed and the rationale for each chosen

method is described. Details are provided for the site selection and participants. Analysis and

representation are also discussed along with the trustworthiness and ethics interwoven

throughout the study.

Rationale for Qualitative Case Study Methodology

The research design of this study utilized a qualitative, descriptive, single case study

methodology. Denzin and Lincoln (2005) define qualitative research as, “a situated activity that

locates the observer in the world. It consists of a set of interpretive, material practices that make

the world visible” (p. 3). Therefore, the use of qualitative research is aligned with a study that

examines student experiences and perspectives with a digital writing process, and also, according

to Graue and Walsh (1998), an appropriate choice for studying children in context. Furthermore,

case study was the chosen methodology because, as Baxter and Jack (2008) state, “rigorous

qualitative case studies afford researchers opportunities to explore or describe a phenomenon in

context using a variety of data sources” (p. 544). Yin cites the descriptive case study as one

which “describes an intervention and the real-life context in which it occurs” (p. 20). Applying

the methodology to this research allowed the bounded system of the afterschool program to be

the context of the study while describing the phenomenon of the digital writing events and its

effects on the child participants.

Brief History of Case Study

According to Tellis (1997) case studies came to prominence in the United States through

research at the department of sociology at the University of Chicago in the early 1900s. Platt

(1992) reports that this work was comprised mainly of life histories and social work, but over the

years other research methodologies gained favor and the use of case study diminished. Denzin

and Lincoln (2005) describe how quantitative methods dominated research until the 1960s when

concern developed with the natural limitations of quantitative work. As researchers sought

methodology that would allow them to address research questions of why and how, interest and

use of case study methodology was renewed (Tellis, 1997). At this point, several important

milestones occurred, including Strauss and Glaser’s development of grounded theory as a

qualitative methodology. By the late 1900s, work by researchers such as Robert Yin (1984) and

Robert Stake (1995) had taken case study methodology to a level of clear design and rigorous

standards. Many neophyte researchers turn to their work and guidelines for proper use and

implementation of case study research.

Case Study and Theories

A case study methodology allows for inspection of multiple facets of the case

simultaneously. According to Stake (2003), a case study is a “bounded system” with “certain

features…within the system, within the boundaries of the case, and other features outside” (p.

135). Sociocultural theory (Barton & Hamilton, 2000; Heath, 1983; Vygotsky, 1978) and New

Literacies theory (Kress, 2003; Lankshear & Knobel, 2011; Leu, Kinzer, et al., 2013) are

complemented by this methodology as they each account for how literacy is perceived and acted

upon by participants within a bounded system. Sociocultural theory calls for the examination of

the social and cultural space of the case to be studied which allows for the children’s social and

cultural backgrounds to be acknowledged and taken into consideration. The use of New Literacy

theory was also appropriate as it allowed the inclusion of the technological component of the

literacy events in the afterschool program.

Baxter and Jack (2008) write, “[A qualitative case study] ensures that the issue is not

explored through one lens, but rather a variety of lenses which allows for multiple facets of the

phenomenon to be revealed and understood” (p. 544). The case study methodology paired with

these two theories allowed for the research to be seen through the lenses of the sociocultural

perspective as well as the expanded view of multimodality in literacy. It allowed the digital

writing experiences of the elementary children to be examined, the children’s social and cultural

backgrounds and interactions to be acknowledged, and the focus to be placed on the

technological premise of the writing experience of the children.

Case Study and Research Questions

Ultimately, methodology should be chosen based on what methods of data collection will

best help address or answer one’s research questions. Yin (2009) states, “The more your

questions seek to explain some present circumstance (e.g., ‘how’ or ‘why’ some social

phenomenon works), the more the case study method will be relevant” (p. 4). The use of case

study methodology was applicable with this research since the questions examined how the

second graders were influenced by the phenomenon of digital writing and sought to examine

issues in its “real-life context” (p. 20). Also, examining the specific questions of how the

children’s motivation, engagement, writing skills, and writing identities were influenced was best

accomplished with a methodology that permits each of these facets of phenomenon to be

investigated at once. Case study allowed for collection of the various data needed to answer

these questions.

Site Selection

This study was set in an afterschool program housed in a public, urban PK-5 elementary

school in the Mid-South. The school opened in the fall of 2013 and functions under a

“community school” plan, meaning they offer and encourage community involvement and

activities for children and adults during and after school hours. During this study the school

served a population that was 84% African American, 13% Hispanic, and 3% Caucasian, and

slightly over 76% of the school’s students were on free or reduced lunch rates. Reports from the

past three years of state testing attest to consecutive failing grades for literacy achievement with

77% of the school population reading below grade level. During the year in which this study

took place, school enrollment was at 1,190 students and over 100 of these students were enrolled

in the afterschool program. The school’s aftercare services began at 3:15 PM with parent pick

until 6:00 PM.

The afterschool literacy program was operated and funded through the literacy center of a

large university in the Mid-South region of the United States. The program was implemented

through the work of a faculty professor and this researcher in her role as graduate assistant, as

well as undergraduate students who signed up for class credit to work as tutors in the program.

In the spring of 2015, the university literacy center director reached out to the principal of the

school to discuss the possibility of working with her elementary students through a university

class offering afterschool literacy tutoring. Program and research approval through the school

system were obtained and the necessary background checks and protocols required by the school

system were administered.

Since the study was conducted in the second year (and third semester) of the afterschool

program, there was an established relationship between the literacy center staff and school

administration. As the graduate assistant for the literacy center, this site was a convenient

location to research and offered the researcher ease of access as a university representative. But

this site was also selected due to the researcher having previous knowledge of the academic

struggles of students in this school. Since the opening of the school three years ago, the

researcher has been made aware of the school’s material and volunteer needs through a church

partnership and was eager to help facilitate a literacy initiative through the university literacy

center.

Participants and Setting

The children enrolled in the afterschool literacy program were the focus of this study.

Information from the children, tutors, and parents was utilized to help examine the children’s

perspectives and experiences with the digital writing process. Recruitment and enrollment

numbers of children in the afterschool literacy program were linked to the number of

undergraduate tutors who enrolled for the university class. For the duration of this study, there

were 16 African American children participating in the program, 15 second graders and 1 fourth

grader. Eight of the children were male and 8 were female. Six children with varying writing

abilities were selected as focal students for the study. Each were 7 years old at the beginning of

the study. Four of these students were female, and 2 were male.

Elementary school administration was in charge of child selection for the program.

Criteria for child participants was limited to second grade children who were already enrolled in

the school’s aftercare services. School administration chose to focus the program on second

graders as this is part of a crucial time to master literacy skills. Research has established if

reading skills are not mastered by the end of third grade, children struggle academically in later

grades (Center for Public Education, 2015). Children in this grade level were given a university

program signup packet from the school staff which included research consent forms for the

parents. The enrollment was then on a first-come, first-serve basis in the order in which signup

packets were returned to the school.

There were eight university tutors, all female with four identifying as African American

and four identifying as Caucasian. Their ages ranged from 19 to 24 and half reported they had

tutored previous to the course while the other half had not. There was one sophomore, two

juniors, and five seniors with three taking the class for credit through the education department

and five for credit with the university’s honors program. All reported a GPA of 3.0 or higher.

Each tutor worked with two elementary children.

These undergraduate honors and education students enrolled for an elective three-hour

credit course and participated in training by the class instructor for nine hours over three weeks

prior to beginning tutoring sessions. Training covered how to implement the stages of the digital

writing process throughout each tutoring session. During this time, tutors also familiarized

themselves with the iPad app used to record and create the children’s book. Also, discussion and

instruction on culturally responsive teaching was provided.

Each tutor was assigned two elementary students to work with once a week on writing a

digital book. At the end of the program these e-books were published as a hard copy, given to

the tutors and children, and distributed to patients at a local children’s hospital. Book topics

revolved around activities and tourist attractions in the children’s city with the following themes:

museums, music, restaurants, sports, outdoor locations, zoo, downtown sites, and famous people.

Child-chosen writing topics within the theme were researched each week by the children and

tutors. Each child wrote and illustrated one page on his or her chosen subject as seen in the

example in Figure 1.

Figure 1. Children’s book sample pages from restaurant theme writing.

These tutoring sessions occurred once a week for one and a half hours for ten weeks.

During the tutoring sessions elementary children and tutors were spaced out in a large room with

tables. The university class instructor monitored all sessions. Tutors were given a lesson plan

format during training to ensure children received consistent instruction using the writing process

(see Appendix A for the lesson plan format).

In sum, the lesson content sequence consisted of reading classroom blog comments from

the previous week’s writing, conducting a mini-lesson on a writing skill, revising the previous

week’s writing, introducing the week’s theme, researching a writing topic, completing a graphic

organizer, typing a composition in the iPad, connecting writing and literature, and dictating an

end of session reflection. The mini-lesson format involved explaining a writing topic or skill,

showing an example either from a book or a tutor-written composition, engaging the child in a

hands-on activity with the skill, and applying the lesson to the child’s writing. For the

connection to literature portion, each tutor used the same picture books chosen by the literacy

professor. Also, end of session reflections were posted on the classroom blog along with that

day’s writing for parents and instructors to leave comments and feedback.

At the end of each session, children picked out a picture book to take home to keep.

These donated books were used to increase the children’s exposure to and excitement about

literacy. The children were encouraged to read their books to a family member, and at the

beginning of their next tutoring session tutors questioned them about who listened to them read

that week. During the last session of the program, parents were invited to attend a parents’

celebration to preview the children’s e-books prior to the hard copy publication.

Methods

Data collection for this study included semi-structured interviews, participant

observations, program artifacts, and a researcher’s journal. Semi-structured interviews

questioned participants about their experiences with the digital writing process. Participant

observation allowed details of the afterschool tutoring space to be recorded, while program

artifacts allowed viewing of material objects that play a role in the literacy phenomenon of the

digital writing experience. Finally, a researcher’s journal was utilized as data on the researcher’s

actions and reflections of the study.

Participant Interviews

According to Savin-Baden and Howell Major (2013), “Interviews are the most common

method of gathering data for qualitative research and are an integral part of most of the research

traditions” (p. 357). They allow a researcher to “probe deeply into a participant’s experiences”

(p. 357). This study included semi-structured participant interviews conducted with six children

from the afterschool program using questions piloted prior to the data collection. Semi-

structured interviews follow a predetermined question guide but also can allow for “additional

questions in response to participant comments and actions” (Savin-Baden & Howell Major,

2013, p. 359). With these interviews, the researcher occasionally “strays from the guide as

appropriate” (p. 359). Semi-structured interviews do not adhere as rigidly to the guide as

structured interviews but are also not as “broad and free ranging” as unstructured interviews (p.

359).

The six child participants were selected for interviews based on scores from a writing

sample administered to all child participants at the beginning of the afterschool program (see

Appendix B for writing sample prompts). Six children were chosen so that two children at each

skill level would be represented in the perspectives garnered from interviews: two children above

grade level, two at grade level, and two below grade level. The children’s technology

background from the child demographic survey was considered in selecting the child

interviewees as well (see Appendix C for the child demographic survey). Ideally one child with

low technology experience and one with high technology experience was to be paired for each

literacy level to broaden the perspectives garnered from the interview data. The demographic

surveys reported all children had some degree of technology exposure at home, so pairing

varying technology experience was not possible. The six children to be interviewed were given

pseudonyms for data collection purposes.

Since the interview participants for this study were children, the researcher was aware of

the sensitivity needed. Graue and Walsh (1998) state, “Most of what kids know, they know

implicitly. Knowledge is not filed away in kids' heads in answer form waiting for the stimulus of

the perfect question to release it” (p. 114). This required the researcher to be attentive, patient,

and persistent. Danby, Ewing, and Thorpe (2011) cite that when interviewing children it is

important “the researcher listen to the total views given and not just the ones that fit the agenda

of the researcher” (p. 74). Tone and inflection were used as helpful tools in conveying meaning,

and the researcher was cognizant of the need to ask age-appropriate questions due to the

participants’ developmental vocabulary. Interview guides were tested for reading level to keep

the question content at the appropriate grade level.

Interviews were conducted once at the beginning of the semester-long program, once at

the mid-point, and once at the end (see Appendix D for the initial interview guide, Appendix E

for the mid-point interview guide, and Appendix F for the final interview guide). The six

children were individually interviewed three times during the study to examine how the students’

motivation and engagement were influenced by the digital writing process and to examine the

impact to their writing identities. After the initial interview, the other interviews also examined

the children’s perceptions with issues and concerns regarding the digital writing process.

Transcripts from previous interviews were reread before conducting the next set. Participant

interviews lasted approximately 20 min and were audiotaped and transcribed for analysis.

These interviews were conducted after school on days when the tutoring program did not

meet. During these days, children were working on homework in the school’s regular

afterschool program and interviewing was not a disruption to any other activities. Interviews

occurred in one of four quiet locations in the school depending which space was unoccupied.

Some were conducted in the computer lab where weekly tutoring was held. Others occurred in

the library where there was only occasional noise from patrons. The third and fourth areas were

small, vacant teaching classrooms located within the library and were chosen if the other two

spaces were occupied.

Participant Observations

The researcher’s role as a graduate assistant to this program allowed for the

implementation of participant observations. There was some interaction with the tutors and

children during observations as they had questions or needed assistance during sessions.

According to DeWalt and DeWalt (2002),

Participant observation is a method in which a researcher takes part in the daily activities,

rituals, interactions, and events of a group of people as one of the means of learning the

explicit and tacit aspects of their life routines and their culture. (p. 1)

Field notes and jot notes were taken on site, and expanded notes were written immediately after

sessions to record details and ensure proper documentation. Emerson, Fretz, and Shaw (1995)

state the manner of writing field notes during participant observation “involves active processes

of interpretation and sense-making” (p. 4). Also, experiencing the program as an insider can

enhance the quality of fieldwork data since there is a “tacit understanding” of the phenomenon

being observed (DeWalt & DeWalt, 2002, p. 8). Again, as studying children is a more difficult

undertaking than research with adults, Graue and Walsh (1998) stress, “Once in the field with

children, one must continually find new and different ways to listen to and observe children, and

to collect physical traces of their lives” (p.95). The researcher was sensitive to the flexibility and

tenacity needed to observe the child participants in this study.

Ten weeks of observations in the afterschool program were conducted in order to observe

the six focus children’s writing skills and performance and their motivation and engagement with

the digital writing process. Two of the six children were paired with the same tutor, so five

groups were observed. The researcher spent 10 to 15 min per group and rotated the order groups

were observed each week in order to see each child at a different point in the lesson.

Observations also allowed for first-hand data of how the children were producing their writing

through the recursive writing process and how they were interacting with their tutor and peers.

A formal protocol was not used; the researcher focused on the children’s interactions with

technology and comments made by them and their tutors especially regarding identity and skills.

Attention was also placed on the children’s actions reflecting engagement and motivation and

their activities with the writing process, such as leaning in to the iPad screen and comments

about their excitement with writing. Field notes recorded how the children participated in digital

reading and writing tasks during tutoring sessions as well as any comments the children made

about their writing identities or issues and concerns with the digital writing process.

Program Artifacts

According to Marshall and Rossman (2016), “The artifacts that individuals,

organizations, agencies, townships, or larger social groups produce take multiple forms. Some

are documents…. Documents, in particular, often are drawn on in a qualitative study” (p. 164).

Bowen (2009) defines documents as “both printed and electronic (computer-based and Internet-

transmitted) material” (p. 27). Graue and Walsh (1998) extol the use of artifacts in research with

children, “Much of children's lives is hidden, however, and artifacts from that hidden life can

illuminate it” (p. 123). For this study a total of 12 types of document artifacts from the program

were studied. Only the artifacts from the six focal students, their parents, and their tutors were

analyzed.

The first three were collected before the afterschool program began as each of these

provided context for the researcher on the children’s backgrounds and ability levels.

 A parent-administered child demographic survey which included questions regarding

their children’s technology background and attitude toward writing was collected.

This data set offered a glimpse from the parents’ perspective on how the children use

literacy and technology in their homes.

 The PAWS writing interest survey was conducted by the researcher with the children

to determine their attitudes towards writing (see Appendix G for the PAWS writing

interest survey).

 Writing samples from the children were taken by the researcher. These were assessed

using a second-grade level writing rubric to determine a baseline idea of their writing

abilities and were scored by an outside evaluator (see Appendix B for the writing

sample rubric). The writing samples provided academic data from which interview

participants were chosen: two above grade level, two at grade level, and two below

grade level.

Also note, the PAWS writing interest inventory and a writing sample were also administered at

the end of the program to examine how, if at all, the children’s abilities, skill levels, and/or

attitudes toward writing changed.

Through the duration of the program, the following eight artifacts were collected from

both children and tutors.

 Children’s prewriting activities were collected at each weekly tutoring session to

note the writing strategies and skills they were using. These activities consisted

of hard copy graphic organizers taken up at the end of each session.

 Rough drafts of digital book content were collected weekly and examined for

writing strategies and skills. These artifacts were photographed by the tutors, then

posted and available for access by the researcher through the program blog.

 Final drafts of digital book content were emailed to the researcher for data

collection. A comparison of these artifacts allowed for examination of strategy

usage and editing changes as the children and their tutors worked through the

digital writing process.

 Children’s weekly session reflections, part of the class assignments, were dictated

by the children to their tutors who posted them on the class blog (see Appendix H

for the children’s weekly session reflections in the class syllabus). These

reflections contained the children’s thoughts on their writing work for the day and

were examined for themes regarding their writing identities and/or their

motivation and engagement with writing.

 Parent comments made on the children’s blog postings were taken as a data

source to compare parental involvement and the children’s motivation and

engagement.

 Tutor-written, end of session debriefs were taken from writing prompts (see

Appendix I for the tutor end of session writing prompts). At the end of each

weekly session the instructor had tutors free-write about the children’s

participation that day.

 Audio recordings of debriefing discussions between the instructor and tutors over

the topics covered in the writing prompts were also be made and transcribed as

needed.

 Weekly tutor teaching reflections, part of course assignments, were submitted to

the university’s online course dropbox (to which the researcher has access) two

days after each session (see Appendix H for tutor reflection questions in the class

syllabus).

The tutor debriefing free-writes, debriefing audio recordings, and tutor teaching reflections were

collected for data on the tutor’s perspective of children’s motivation, engagement, skills

improvement, and/or comments on their writing identities. These data sources also offered

insight to issues and concerns with the program.

At the closing of the program the PAWS interest survey and post-writing sample

mentioned above were re-administered to determine any changes to the children’s motivation,

engagement, and skills. Also at the end of the program per class requirements, tutor-written case

studies on each child’s development were submitted to the university’s online course dropbox to

which the researcher has access (see Appendix H for the case study assignment in the class

syllabus). These provided tutor insights about the children’s motivation, engagement, skills

improvement, and/or changes in their writing identities.

Researcher’s Journal

A record of the researcher’s actions and thoughts regarding this study were kept in a

researcher’s journal. Janesick (1999) states, “Journal writing may be incorporated into the

research process to provide a data set of the researcher’s reflections on the research act” (p. 505).

This personal writing was a tool to help the researcher think through the data and inform her

thinking as it pertained to all the research questions of the study. Richardson and St. Pierre

(2005) argue that qualitative researchers should “think of writing as a method of qualitative

inquiry” (p. 967). Janesick (1999) also states that in qualitative research “because the researcher

is the research instrument, keeping a journal is a check and balance in the entire course of a

qualitative research project” (p.521).

The researcher’s journal is one method which promotes confirmability for the research.

Petty, Thomson, and Stew (2012) define confirmability as, “The extent to which the findings are

the product of the inquiry and not the bias of the researcher” (p.382). Recording perception and

actions in a researcher’s journal allowed for reflexivity and for sensitivity to unwitting biases.

Journal entries were written weekly with multiple entries made in some weeks. Entries were

recorded digitally on the researcher’s laptop computer.

The following table delineates the timeframe for collection of data and also the alignment

of research question to data collection method.

Plans for Confidentiality

It is the purpose of this researcher to protect the anonymity of all participants in this

study. Consent forms were distributed to the tutors serving in the afterschool program by the

program instructor (see Appendix J for the tutor consent form). Parents of elementary students

received consent forms from their school administration (see Appendix K for the parent

permission form). Once parent permission forms had been returned with approval to participate,

the children had an assent read to them by their tutors so they could agree or disagree to

participate in the study (see Appendix L for the child assent form). Data collect began after their

assent was received. Confidentiality of all participants was protected by assigning each person a

number identifier. Direct identifiers were removed and labeled with each participant’s assigned

number at the time data was taken. Therefore, participants’ names were not utilized during

analysis and write-up of the study. All data collected from children, tutors, and parents remained

secure either through locked environments or in password-protected hardware and accessible

only to the researcher, a peer researcher for debriefing, and the dissertation chair.

Trustworthiness and Ethics

It is the desire of this researcher to conduct this study in an ethical manor so that the work

will be considered trustworthy. Steps were taken to ensure trustworthiness such as striving for

transferability, using multiple collection methods for triangulation, and keeping a researcher’s

journal for review of decisions and the “development of thinking” as the research progresses

(Silverman, 2000, p. 193). Interviews and observations were conducted in such a way to gather

rich, thick descriptions which allowed for evidence to illustrate the phenomenon being analyzed.

Thick, rich descriptions are used in qualitative research to promote transferability. Petty

et al. (2012) define transferability as “the extent to which the findings can be applied in other

contexts or with other participants” (p. 382). Unlike generalizability used in quantitative

research which purports research findings can be replicated in other settings, qualitative research

seeks for transferability of study findings to other contexts. It was the goal of this researcher that

this study be conducted in such a way that the findings have a transferability to other scenarios of

digital writing with elementary students.

Triangulation, member checking, and peer debriefing were used to promote credibility in

the research. Credibility is defined as “the degree to which the findings can be trusted or

believed by the participants of the study” (Petty et al., 2012, p. 382). Each of these strategies

were implemented to work toward trustworthiness in the research with the expectation that the

findings will be transferable to other settings where the digital writing process is utilized. The

use of interviews, observations, and program artifacts allowed for triangulation. “The use of

multiple methods, or triangulation, reflects an attempt to secure an in-depth understanding of the

phenomenon in question…. Triangulation is not a tool or strategy of validation, but an alternative

to validation” (Denzin & Lincoln, 2005, p. 5). Triangulating the findings promoted

dependability, which is defined as, “The extent to which the study could be repeated and

variations understood” (Petty et al., 2012, p. 382).

Also, member checking was utilized by providing summaries of the study to the tutors.

With member checking, “the researcher devises a way to ask the participants whether he ‘got it

right.’ Most often, he gives summaries to participants before writing up his study and asks for

reactions, corrections, and further insights” (Marshall & Rossman, 2016, p. 230). To accomplish

this, once analysis was in its final stages, tutors were emailed summaries of findings to ask for

their input on content and any perceived discrepancies. This allowed the tutors to contribute

feedback on the researcher’s analysis and voice if a proper understanding of their perspective is

portrayed. Finally, to implement peer debriefing Marshall and Rossman (2016) state, “The

researcher makes arrangements with knowledgeable and available colleagues to get reactions to

the coding, case summaries, analytic memos written during data analysis” (p. 230). Analysis

completed with thematic coding was sent for peer debriefing to another doctoral student as a

consultant to check analysis decisions. The credibility of the research was improved with each

of these safeguards in place.

All questions and data collection methods adhered to upholding participants’ human

rights especially since the research included children, a vulnerable population. Research was

performed sensitively and ethically so as not to exploit or dehumanize any participant. An IRB

approval was acquired from the researcher’s institution as well as from the child participants’

school district. Ethical sensitivity and moral obligations were considered throughout each phase

of this study.

The researcher was sensitive to perceived power dynamics between herself and the

college tutors stemming from her role as the graduate assistant to the class. Tutors were

informed that their grades were in no way affected by their actions in this study, and they were

made aware that participant observations focused on the children and not the tutors’

performance. The researcher was also aware of the perceived power dynamics between herself

and the children with her position as an assistant for the sessions in the afterschool program.

Children were informed that interviews were only a time to talk with no right or wrong answers,

and observations were conducted with little intrusion to prevent children from being

conscientious of their actions. The researcher was sensitive to the need to explain the purpose

and intent of the study in a way the children will understand.

Subjectivity Statement

Identifying one’s subjectivity involves identifying one’s “own views and how they have

been constructed” (Grbich, 2009, p.8). I am a Caucasian, middle-aged female who has worked

in educational settings for over 15 years. I am mindful that due to my two-year involvement

with this literacy center project, I will bring personal assumptions to this study due to my prior

experiences. I am also aware I am an insider with personal knowledge of the participants and the

program to which an outsider with this study would not have access. As mentioned previously, I

became aware of this school through its partnership with my United Methodist church. Many

opportunities to donate and volunteer have been presented there during the three years since the

school has opened. I began working on this afterschool literacy program with the university

while it was still in its preliminary stages. During this time I have built strong ties to the school

administration and staff who logistically make the program possible, and I have spent many

hours working with children there through program testing and the Thursday book club I

organize and lead for them.

Throughout this study I sought to employ measures to counteract any bias. Graue and

Walsh (1998) state,

Bias can be introduced into the data record by attitudes and beliefs brought into the field.

One cannot be free of attitudes and beliefs. Who one is affects how one sees the world.

The trick is to develop a strong sense of that identity and how it affects one as a

researcher in the specific contexts within which one is working. Bias cannot be removed.

It can be identified and its effects explicitly monitored. p. 126

In order to monitor my bias, I strived for reflexivity as I conducted this research. Preissle and

Grant (2004) define reflexivity as, “The fieldworkers’ self-conscious and critical study of their

own standpoints and assumptions and of how these change or remain stable throughout the

fieldwork and analysis and in relationship to participants, funding sources, and other interested

parties” (p. 175). The use of triangulation, member checking, peer debriefing were each applied

to combat any biases that might have unknowingly occurred. Reflexivity also occurred through

analytic memos and journaling. Analysis was performed with specific attention to personal

interpretations that could have stemmed from partiality.

Data Analysis

Data analysis occurred throughout the study. Preliminary analysis occurred as data were

collected (Charmaz, 2006) and continued with a final analysis after all data were collected. Due

to the nature of case study methodology, data was “converged in an attempt to understand the

overall case” (Baxter & Jack, 2008, p. 555). Interview transcripts, observation field notes, and

the program artifacts of child reflections, tutor reflections, tutor end of session writings, and tutor

end of session discussions were coded for thematic analysis. “Qualitative coding is a way of

opening up avenues of inquiry: the researcher identifies and develops concepts and analytic

insights through close examination of and reflection on fieldnote data” (Emerson et al., 1995, p.

23). These data sources were analyzed regarding information about students’ motivation and

engagement toward writing, their skills and performance, their perceived writing identities, and

any issues and concerns they had with the digital writing process.

Contextual background information was collected from the program artifacts of the child

demographic survey, PAWS writing interest inventory, writing sample, parent blog comments,

and tutor-written case studies. Student prewriting activities and digital drafts and final drafts

from weekly sessions were not analyzed for skills improvement. Observational data indicated

tutors did much editing to the initial and final drafts without input from the children and the

researcher determined that an analysis of the children’s skills improvement would be invalid.

Interview transcripts and observation field notes were coded with no initial a priori codes.

The program artifacts of tutor reflections, tutor end of session writings, tutor end of session

discussions, and child reflections were analyzed through Structural Coding (Saldaña, 2016).

“Structural Coding applies a content-based or conceptual phrase representing a topic of inquiry

to a segment of data to both code and categorize the data corpus. Structural Codes are generally

foundation work for further detailed coding” (Saldaña, 2016, p. 97). The focus of each research

question was used as the Structural Codes for these program artifacts as Saldaña (2016) states,

“A provisional list of codes should be determined beforehand to harmonize with your study’s

conceptual framework…and to enable an analysis that directly answers your research questions

and goals” (p. 71). Therefore, unlike the interview transcripts and observational field notes,

these documents were analyzed with categories of each topic of the research questions set a

priori.

Initial Coding (Saldaña, 2009) was utilized as the first step of analysis (p. 4). For the

interview transcripts and observation field notes, initial codes were formed through In Vivo and

Descriptive Codes (pp. 6-7). The process was repeated for a Second Cycle of coding as Saldaña

writes, “Recoding can occur with a more attuned perspective using First Cycle methods again,

while Second Cycle methods describe those processes that might be employed during the second

(and third and possibly fourth …) review of data” (p. 10).

Repetitive patterns were determined, refined, and codes were collapsed into categories of

descriptions and processes. Since some codes were interrelated, care was given to categorize

based on the original intent or context of the code source. For example, one of the categories

was audience but original codes for this category ranged from “giving the child a sense of

purpose” to “affected writing content.” Therefore, this nuanced information was retained so that

the broad themes have data-specific support in the findings of this study.

After categories were determined, in order to keep the tutors’ perspective separate from

the children’s data, the categories from the tutor weekly reflections, tutor end of session writing,

and tutor end of session discussions were amassed together for thematic analysis and presented

in findings as tutor perceptions on the children's experiences. The interviews, observations, and

children’s weekly reflections categories were then analyzed together and are presented in

findings as the six focal students’ experiences and perceptions. Saldaña (2009) states, “When the

major categories are compared with each other and consolidated in various ways, you begin to

transcend the ‘reality’ of your data and progress toward the thematic, conceptual, and

theoretical” (p. 11).

As analysis progressed, three themes emerged and findings took shape. Categories of

peer interactions, scaffolding, and instructional methods were identified in relationship to 1)

social interactions, categories of writing topics and child choice were identified in relationship to

2) personal cultural connections, and categories of audience, end product, and technology use

were identified in relationship to 3) linking text to their world. These themes will be referred to

in future chapters as findings and will be discussed in relation to each of the five research

questions.

The theoretical framework of sociocultural theory (Barton & Hamilton, 2000; Heath,

1983; Vygotsky, 1978) and New Literacies theory (Kress, 2003; Lankshear & Knobel, 2011;

Leu, Kinzer, et al., 2013) allowed the analysis of the transcripts, field notes, and documents to be

performed through a lens of social and cultural context as well as a lens that recognized digital

writing as a literacy event. Since sociocultural theory allows one to look at data through the

social and cultural context of the phenomenon, the coding analysis incorporated of categories

from the social interactions between the tutors and children in afterschool program setting. This

theory lens also allowed for contextual data from the children’s backgrounds to be included.

New Literacies theory allowed data analysis to include the technological aspect of the literacy in

the afterschool program. With this theory the digital writing was recognized as literacy and

codes such as digital tool use, iPads, and blog postings were utilized in the analysis.

Findings and themes were triangulated. According to Creswell (2012), this is completed

as the researcher “examines each information source and finds evidence to support a theme. This

ensures that the study will be accurate because the information draws on multiple sources” (p.

259). Triangulation was used as a way to make the study more rigorous and reliable. No

inconsistencies with data analysis appeared.

Representation

This data is represented through the themes determined in the thematic analysis of the

data. These have been shared through a traditional method of written results through findings,

discussion, conclusions, and implications of the study.

Summary

In this chapter the research design was discussed, and the chosen methodology, case

study, was reviewed. Site selection and participants (tutors and elementary students) were

detailed, and methods for data collection were listed (semi-structured interviews, participant

observation, program artifacts) along with a timetable for data collection. An overview of data

analysis was furnished (thematic analysis) while reliability and ethics were also discussed. The

next chapter will discuss findings of the research study, and chapter 5 will include the discussion,

conclusions, and implications of the study.

Chapter 4

Findings and Interpretations

The purpose of this case study was to examine how a digital writing process influences

the second-grade participants according to the children and their tutors. The following questions

guided this study: (a) How does a digital writing process influence children’s motivation in

writing? (b) How does a digital writing process influence children’s engagement in writing? (c)

How does a digital writing process influence children’s writing skills and performance? (d) How

does a digital writing process influence children’s writing identities? (e) What are the issues and

concerns with this digital writing process? This chapter begins by establishing the backgrounds

of the six focal children of this study and ends by outlining the findings as they pertain to each

research question. Within the findings, tutor perceptions are given first with findings from the

children’s experiences and perceptions second. All findings from tutors were obtained from

tutor weekly teaching reflections, tutor-written weekly end of session prompts, and tutor end of

session debrief discussion recordings. All findings from the children’s perceptions were

obtained from observation notes from each tutoring session, three sets of child interviews with

the six focal students, and child weekly session reflections. The researcher’s journal and analytic

memos were also utilized in the analysis process. Background context on the children was built

through the following program artifacts: child demographic survey, pre- and post-PAWS writing

interest inventories, pre- and post-writing samples, parent blog comments, and tutor-written case

studies. This section ends with the interpretations of the findings along with a model of the

instructional factors that are conducive for a digital writing process.

Child Backgrounds

Six children were chosen for this study based on rubric scores on a researcher-

administered writing sample. Two children were chosen with above-grade level scores, two with

scores on-grade level, and two who scored below-grade level. All children who had enrolled in

the program were asked to write from one of three writing prompts and these writing samples

were then scored by an outside evaluator. Children within each grade-level grouping were

randomly chosen. Avery and Nora were selected as above grade-level participants, Morris and

Jasmine on grade-level, and Kenan and Jalisa below grade-level.

All children were seven years old at the beginning of the study with Nora and Morris

each turning eight one month into the program. Initially, all children scored between indifferent

(2.5) and slightly enjoy (3.0) on the PAWS writing interest inventory with the exception of

Jasmine who scored 3.7 placing her interest closer to the highly enjoy (4.0) category. Post-

interest scores showed a slight increase as all children moved closer to the slightly enjoy category

with scores ranging from 2.7-3.3 and Jasmine’s decreasing to 3.3.

All children reported they did not use digital tools in any capacity at school or with any

school assignments unless it was a special report that could be typed at home if desired. None of

the children had written a book before with the exception of Jasmine who shared how she

sometimes rewrote and changed stories from current books when at home and her mom would

staple these into a book. All children reported enjoying their time in tutoring and, overall, each

were observed to be having positive experiences. The following sections provide specific

background context for each of the six focal students.

Avery. Avery was an outgoing African American female with an advanced verbal and

written vocabulary. She developed a strong bond with her tutor, commenting on the fun and

creativity her tutor brought to the sessions. As Avery discussed the importance of typing to

being able to use digital tools, she commented how she “admired” her tutor’s typing skills and

“wanted to type” as well as her tutor could. Her interviews were always the longest as she had

much to share about the topics of school, tutoring, writing, and her home. Most of the interviews

were conducted with Avery standing up and occasionally walking around the room though she

was always attentive to the discussion.

Avery was selected as an above grade-level participant after scoring at the accomplished

range on the writing sample rubric (3.1). Her writing attitude survey score placed her with an

overall positive outlook on writing which stayed consistent in the post survey. Her parent-

administered demographic survey reported a positive attitude toward school with her favorite

subjects as science and social studies and least favorite as math. The parent survey reported she

likes to write which Avery confirmed during interviews. When asked how she felt about writing

in school she replied, “I love writing, so, I’m great. I’m okay whatever, whatever writing

assignment you give me… I’ll just do the work because I have to get a good grade.” Avery

mentioned good grades as an incentive during other interviews as well.

Avery reported she sees her mother, father, and brother write at home: her brother while

doing homework, and her mother and father completing family administrative tasks. Avery

shared that she and her mother use digital tools while her dad and brother are more “old-

fashioned.” The parent survey shared that Avery has Internet access at home along with the

following technology tools: smartphone, tablet, e-reader, and video game system. Avery

reported she had little experience using digital tools but shared her tutor sometimes let her type

her story in the iPad; this was never observed. No one from Avery’s family ever logged in to the

class blog.

Nora. Nora was a reserved African American female with a sweet smile and little

verbosity to her interview answers. She was thoughtful before replying and her pithy style led to

the need for probing questions. Even so, during interviews she easily projected a student who

cared about learning and doing well in school.

Nora was selected as an above grade-level participant after scoring 3.1, within the

accomplished range, on the writing sample rubric. She scored at the indifferent (2.5) range with

a 2.6 initially on the writing attitude survey but scored 3.2 in the post survey which placed her at

the slightly enjoy (3.0) category. Her parent-administered demographic survey reported a

positive attitude toward school with her favorite subject as language arts and least favorite as

math. The survey also stated she likes to write which was confirmed during interviews. When

asked how she felt about writing in school, Nora answered “Well, I feel good because, like, it

can, um, get me ready for third grade.”

Nora shared she did not see anyone at home write very much except she often sees her

grandma writing scripture verses. Nora commented she does not use digital tools frequently

though the parent survey shared there is Internet access at home and a PC and smartphone.

Nora’s tutor let her type her story in the iPad if she requested and Nora’s mother logged in to the

class blog leaving two comments on separate sessions praising Nora’s work.

Jasmine. Jasmine was a soft-spoken African American female who freely shared her

thoughts during interviews. She had a timid personality that made it easy for her more forceful

partner (Morris) to sometimes dominate tutoring activities and discussions. She talked of

playing “school” at home and of writing up fake homework and of all the focal children, seemed

the most interested in writing for fun during her free time, usually at home.

Jasmine was selected as an on grade-level participant after her score of 2.4 fell between

the developing (2.0) and accomplished (3.0) range on the writing sample rubric. Her writing

attitude survey score was the highest at 3.7 and placed her closer to the highly enjoy level (4.0).

Her post interest survey came down to a 3.3 still revealing a positive outlook on writing at the

slightly enjoy range. Her parent-administered demographic survey reported a positive attitude

toward school with math as her favorite subject and nothing listed as least favorite. The survey

also stated she likes to write which she confirmed in interviews. She shared she felt good about

writing in school “because I write at home, and I, like, write weird stories at school. Sometimes

I, like, find a book and I write my own book sometimes.”

Jasmine discussed how her mother wrote often at home on a computer when she used to

go to school. She also talked about communicating with her grandmother via text messages on

her mother’s smartphone at times and explained how her own smartwatch, which she was

wearing during the interview, allows her to send pre-written messages to her mother whenever

she needs to. The parent survey stated Jasmine had Internet access at home and access to a PC,

smartphone, tablet, and video game system. Jasmine reported she was good at using digital tools

because she knows what she is doing and how to work them. Jasmine’s tutor did not let her type

her story in the iPad and no one from her family logged in to the class blog.

Morris. Morris was a friendly African American male who easily veered into tangents

during interviews. These tangents at times manifested into long soliloquies as the researcher

tried to refrain from cutting him off. He particularly enjoyed describing the details of the writing

competitions in his classroom which resulted in a prize given to someone selected as the best

writer for the week, a prize he was determined to win. Due to a speech pattern that the

researcher sometimes had trouble understanding, he was occasionally asked to repeat

information which he graciously did with no sign of self-consciousness.

Morris was selected as an on grade-level participant with a 2.3 score falling between the

developing and accomplished range on the writing sample rubric. His initial writing attitude

survey score placed him at indifferent (2.6) which increased to slightly enjoy (3.1) in the post

survey. Nothing was marked for school attitude on his parent-administered demographic survey

but spelling was cited as a favorite subject and math as least favorite. The survey also reported

he likes to write and Morris said he felt “happy” about writing in school because of the

opportunity to win prizes as best in the class during weekly ceremonies.

Morris shared when his uncle was in school he often saw him writing and that he sees his

neighbors who are in high school write when they work on their homework. Each of these used

paper as the medium. Morris cited video games as the main technology he uses and does not use

any digital tools at home. Morris stated he does not have Internet at home which the parent

survey confirmed but the survey did list a PC, smartphone, tablet, and video game system as

technology used there. Morris’s tutor (who was also Jasmine’s tutor) did not let him type his

story in the iPad and no one from Morris’s family logged in to the class blog.

Jalisa. Jalisa was a good-natured African American female who sometimes answered

interview questions with an upturn in pitch as though she was answering with a question. Due to

what sounded like unsure responses, the researcher at times wondered if Jalisa felt the need to

answer in a way that the researcher would deem “right” as opposed to giving her true opinion.

Jalisa also often answered non-verbally with head nods or shakes, so interview transcripts

include the researcher narrating her body movements.

Jalisa was selected as a below grade-level participant after scoring 1.3 on the writing

sample placing her between beginning (1.0) and developing (2.0) on the second-grade rubric.

Her 3.0 writing attitude survey score placed her at slightly enjoy (3.0) which increased

marginally to 3.1 in the post survey. Her parent-administered demographic survey reported a

positive attitude toward school with her favorite subject listed as math. It was reported she likes

to write but when asked about how she felt about writing in school she replied “not much” after a

six second pause.

Jalisa reported she sees her mother and father write at home, specifically stating her

mother signs her weekly conduct sheet. Jalisa mentioned typing in web addresses to access

educational websites like ABCya or other websites that would help her with her homework. The

parent survey shared that Jalisa has Internet access at home where there is also a PC, smartphone,

and tablet. Jalisa’s interviews were the most difficult to conduct as she at times did not

understand the questions which resulted in long pauses and she needed explanation for

vocabulary such as “often.” Many questions were answered with “I don’t know.” Jalisa

described using tablets to access websites, but not to write other than typing in web addresses.

Her tutor did not let her type her story in the iPad. Jalisa’s mom logged in to the class blog but

did not leave comments.

Kenan. Kenan was a slightly taciturn African American male. In each interview, he

freely answered questions though normally without much detail. He enjoyed talking the most

about the technology he had at home and how he would be getting a smartphone at Christmas.

Just as Jalisa, he also often used non-verbal answers such as shoulder shrugs and head nods;

therefore, the researcher narrated his actions so as to have them recorded on interview

transcripts.

Kenan was selected as a below grade-level participant after scoring between beginning

(1.0) and developing (2.0) on the second-grade rubric with a 1.3. His writing attitude survey

score of 2.5 placed him at indifferent though it was raised to 2.9 on the post survey, much closer

to slightly enjoy (3.0). His parent-administered demographic survey reported an indifferent

attitude toward school with math as the favorite subject and reading the least. The parent survey

also reported he did not like to write and when asked about his feelings toward writing in school

he answered, “fine.”

Kenan reported he sees his mother and father writing on paper during family

administrative tasks and seldom writing with digital tools. The parent survey described that

Kenan has Internet access at home with a smartphone and tablet in the house. Kenan reported he

had his own tablet and used a smartphone to message his friends to come over. He was proud to

state “I’m beginning to type fast.” Kenan’s tutor did not let him type his story in the iPad. No

one from his family logged in to the class blog.

Findings

Three broad themes of the digital writing process emerged from data analysis examining

student experiences and perspectives: 1) social interactions, 2) personal connections, and 3)

technology-based text. These findings will be discussed in-depth in relation to each research

question with tutor data reported first and experiences and perspectives from the children’s data

second.

Finding 1: Social Interactions Were Crucial to Children’s Participation and Growth in the

Digital Writing Process

Analysis revealed social interactions within the digital writing process significantly

influenced children’s motivation, engagement, skills and performance, writing identities, and

issues and concerns. These social interactions such as instructional discussions, feedback on

writing, and conversations about the children’s prior knowledge on writing topics occurred

between the children and their tutors, the class instructors, and their peers.

Motivation. Tutor data reflected social interactions with the tutors and instructor were

motivating factors, specifically through tutor scaffolding and feedback from the class instructor.

Child data also found praise to be motivating.

Social interactions: Motivation

Tutor perspective

Scaffolding: prompts and praise, graphic organizers

Feedback from class instructor

Child perspective

Praise

Scaffolding. First, tutors’ use of scaffolding influenced motivation. In this study

scaffolding is defined as, “the assistance that adults and more competent peers provide during

learning episodes” (Tracey & Morrow, 2006, p.109). Specifically, this support can be identified

as, “clues, reminders, encouragement, breaking down the problem into steps, providing an

example, or anything else that allows the student to grow in independence as a learner” (Slavin,

1997, p. 48). Tutors’ specific scaffolds from the data included the use of prompts, praise, and

graphic organizers.

Prompts and praise. Tutors cited their interactions, specifically prompts and praise, as a

way of encouraging children throughout the writing process. Verbal prompts could be in the

form of questions, hints, reminder statements, etc. that would be helpful to a child stuck on a

writing task. These prompts were offered by tutors as a way to assist the child without doing the

task for him. For example, one tutor reflected on her use of prompts, “[My student] has trouble

being motivated to write, but it helps him when I give him a jumping off question.” When her

student seemed unable to come up with writing ideas, this tutor questioned him on topics he

might have experienced in order to get him excited to write about a memory he wanted to share.

Secondly, tutor praise inspired children to completed writing tasks. One tutor wrote, “My

students LOVE when I stop and tell them how great they are doing and it makes them that more

excited to write.” Praise was used effusively by tutors to motivate and inspire children to

continue writing and was often offered as encouragement on a specific writing skill rather than a

general comment.

Graphic organizers. Next, tutors voiced that graphic organizers were a motivating factor

in their children’s writing during both the pre-writing and drafting stages. These graphic

organizers, or concept maps, consisted of spaces where children could write in a topic and its

details. These spaces were linked or connected in a way to provide the children with a visual

representation of their writing. These tools offered a scaffold for tutors to help their children

brainstorm, organize, and think through their writing. Children were driven by the task of filling

in all the components of the graphic organizer during pre-writing as one tutor wrote, “She loves

creating the graphic organizer.” Other tutors stated the finished graphic organizer was essential

in the drafting phase, as children could be motivated to continue composing by referring back to

these. For example, one tutor reflected, “I feel that the graphic organizers and illustrations are

some of the most effective aspects of the lesson and, as far as I can tell, the most motivating for

my students…. They stay on task with their graphic organizers.” Tutor use of scaffolds,

specifically prompts, praise, and graphic organizers helped children stay focused on their tasks

and motivated them throughout sessions.

Instructor feedback. The second social interaction which influenced children’s

motivation was their contact with the class instructor. The class instructor visited each group

during the last half of sessions asking children to read their compositions. Children were excited

to read their drafts, proud to share their work, and were pleased to get feedback from her. One

tutor commented, “She loves it when [the instructor] asks her to read.” Tutors used this

consistent weekly event to encourage children to write their drafts and make revision changes

that had been discussed from her feedback. One tutor reflected, “They really enjoy reading their

writing out loud to the teacher as well, and I think seeing their words and hearing them is

validating.” Reading their compositions to the class instructor allowed the children interaction

with an adult other than their tutors. The instructor feedback regarding their writing and its

quality motivated the children to excel and make revisions and edits as suggested.

Praise. In an overlap with tutor data, child data revealed that praise was a motivating

factor from their perspective. These positive remarks from tutors and the instructor inspired the

children to write their best during all aspects of the digital writing process. During participant

observations, the researcher had focal students express appreciation for the blog comments she

had made regarding their rough drafts. For example, in an observed session after the tutoring

group had checked their blog comments, Morris turned to the researcher and said, “Thank you

for saying our writing was good,” to which the researcher replied, “Well, thank you guys too for

doing great writing.” During an interview session, Jasmine stated how reading the blog postings

praising her work made her “happy.” Children were also observed throughout sessions receiving

praise from tutors and the instructor. While drafting, one tutor was observed discussing content

with Kenan when she told him, “That’s a really good way to end your paragraph.” Similarly,

during a mini-lesson on writing with detail Avery received a high five from her tutor after

correctly defining the term adjective. All data sources suggest children’s willingness to compose

was heightened through praise.

Engagement. According to tutor data, there were two types of social interactions that

influenced the children’s engagement during the digital writing process: peer collaboration and

scaffolding through tutor-written stories about themselves and graphic organizers. Child data

also revealed similar social interactions affected engagement, specifically peer collaborations

and scaffolding specific to the tutors’ teaching styles.

Social interactions: Engagement

Tutor perspective

Peer collaboration

Scaffolding: tutor-written stories and graphic organizers

Child perspective

Peer collaboration

Scaffolding: tutor teaching styles, creativity, and relatability

Peer collaboration from tutors’ perspective. Partner collaboration increased children’s

interest in writing as having a peer to share in the fun of the project kept children enthusiastic

about their writing tasks. It should be noted that while there were activities and tasks that the

paired children did together, the composing component was planned so that one child worked on

writing while the other illustrated. Then those tasks were swapped so as to always give the tutor

one-on-one time with the child who was writing. The amount of peer collaboration varied

between groups depending on the tutors’ teaching style and the children’s personalities.

Peer collaborations could occur during pre-writing as topics were being discussed and

sometimes during drafting or revisions as partners gave suggestions for content and corrections.

One mid-semester session also had tutoring groups share their e-books with other groups to see

the progress that had been made so far and offer suggestions in the form of “Three Stars and a

Wish.” In one reflection, a tutor wrote that her children “feed off each other’s excitement” as

they compose. Another tutor wrote how she utilized collaboration during the revision stage,

“Having them read their stories to me and each other is working well because they are more

engaged and alert this way.” The pair structure, in this context, was a positive influence as

children had a partner with whom to enjoy the session activities and tasks making for an

engaging environment.

Scaffolding from tutors’ perspective. Two areas of scaffolding affected children’s

engagement: tutor-written instructional samples and graphic organizers.

Tutor-written compositions. The scaffolding technique of tutor-written stories influenced

child engagement. These writings were personal in nature and were used in mini-lesson

instruction as examples on the week’s theme. Tutors intentionally wrote about themselves as a

strategy to keep children engaged. Due to their personal content, children were interested and

more inclined to participate in writing tasks. For example, one tutor commented, “I always show

my children drafts that I have written to help spark their interest.” Another wrote, “I try to come

up with funny/interesting stories relative to the topic that I’m sure would get kids interested in

writing.” These personal, written anecdotes drew children in and made them more attentive to

the mini-lesson objective.

Graphic organizers. Also, scaffolding with graphic organizers worked to engage students

throughout the digital writing process. These tools helped the session pacing and the children’s

focus while the children also enjoyed completing them. One tutor commented how during pre-

writing she would write the graphic organizer content as her children dictated. This was so the

session pace could move quicker thus keeping them more engaged. Other tutors wrote that using

the graphic organizers during drafting helped keep the children from getting distracted. One

stated, “The graphic organizer is a great way to keep the children’s focus.” Just as with

motivation, graphic organizers were an engaging component because the students enjoyed filling

out the content. The scaffolding techniques of both graphic organizers and tutor-written

instructional examples comprised social interactions that helped children’s enthusiasm about

writing.

Peer collaboration from children’s perspective. According to data from the children, the

same social interactions as reported from tutor data impacted children’s engagement,

collaborations and scaffolding, though with different applications. Based on observational data,

peer collaboration influenced child engagement not only through teamwork and cooperation but

also through wait time. During a mini-lesson on writing with detail Morris and Jasmine were

observed working together to place sentence cards in order and then to find the adjectives. Field

notes read,

[The tutor] has cards out with words on them to be used to make a sentence. Jasmine is

saying it doesn’t make sense. They talk about needing a capital at the beginning and a

period at the end. Jasmine and Morris talk together about where to put them. ‘Eager’ and

‘adventurous’ are the only cards they have left to place.

Another opportunity for engaging teamwork arose midway through the program when groups

were asked to pair up and swap their iPads to give feedback on their e-book progress. This

provided a collaborative opportunity with new people as children and their tutors were able to

view another’s e-book and discuss what was going well and what might need to be adjusted.

Children were excited to see another group’s vision of the assignment and pleased to offer

feedback.

Partners sometimes affected engagement due to one child having downtime while the

tutor was working with the other. Often the child would watch and sometimes even help their

partner while that child was working. Observation notes of Kenan and his partner working on

revisions read,

[Kenan’s partner] reads his paragraph and Kenan watches the screen. [The tutor] makes

suggestions. [Kenan’s partner] agrees. Kenan leans forward to watch [tutor] type the

changes on the iPad. “Can I do mine?” Kenan says…. Kenan looks around the room,

then turns his attention back to [tutor] and is listening to her makes another editing

suggestion. Kenan says, ‘You can say, “I saw a rabbit before he jumped.”’ [Tutor] says,

‘That’s a good one.’ [Tutor and partner] makes changes and now it’s Kenan’s turn.

Other instances of downtime resulted in seemingly disengaged behavior from the

children such as was observed with Avery, “Avery listens to [partner and tutor] talk about

football (the writing topic of the day.) Avery is drawing hearts on a page…. She is making a

colored border around the edge of her paper.” In another observation with Nora, “Nora tells

[tutor] she is done. She stands up and dances, tapping her feet and snapping her fingers while

[tutor] finishes up with [partner.]” After these instances children resumed work and interest in

the writing once the tutor was ready to interact with them again. Therefore, wait time was

sometimes utilized as an opportunity to help their partner, but it was also occasionally time

wasted as they waited for their partners to catch-up.

Scaffolding from children’s perspective. Child data pointed to how interactions with the

tutors’ teaching styles, creativity, and relatability influenced how enthusiastic and willing

children were to write. Nora and Avery’s tutors had laidback teaching styles and they allowed

their students to personally type their stories into the iPad which each enjoyed doing. On the

other hand, Morris and Jasmine’s tutor liked to have more control over the process. Yet, they

each commented how they enjoyed writing in sessions because, with their tutor typing

everything, it made writing much easier than in school. Avery’s tutor used her creativity to

hand-draw graphic organizers and inspire her children to write. Avery commented how she

enjoyed filling these out, “[Our tutor] makes it out of different shapes. She makes it in an ice

cream cone, a burger.” Other children commented on feeling comfortable with their tutor. For

example, Jalisa talked about being glad her tutor helped her with spelling and Kenan stated

tutoring was fun because “I liked my tutor teacher. I had fun with her.” Tutors’ teaching styles

and personalities created interactions which helped children stay engaged throughout the digital

writing process.

Skills and performance. According to tutor data, for the research question regarding

skills and performance, scaffolding was an influencing social interaction, specifically the use of

graphic organizers and mini-lessons. Children’s data also corroborated scaffolding as an

influence on skills and performance, specifically citing the use of the “good writers” phrase,

mini-lessons, graphic organizers, revisions, and questioning/prompts.

Social interactions: Skills/performance

Tutor perspective

Scaffolding: graphic organizers, mini-lessons

Child perspective

Scaffolding: “good writers” phrase, mini-lessons,

graphic organizers, revisions, questions/prompts

Scaffolding from tutors’ perspective. According to tutor data, two scaffolding techniques

were important to children’s understanding of quality writing, their development of skills, and

their performance with those skills: graphic organizers and mini-lessons.

Graphic organizers. Tutors cited their use of graphic organizers as helpful to children’s

overall performance since these tools streamlined brainstorming thoughts, assisted children with

content, and helped structure their writing into a coherent flow. One tutor wrote of their use in

the pre-writing stage, “The concept map was a great way to let the student brainstorm ideas for

the downtown page.” Later in the semester, another tutor reflected on the improvement she saw

in writing content and structure, “I think the use of graphic organizers is improving as the kids

are adding more details and they definitely are getting into the swing of writing their entries in a

structure, so I think the reinforcement of a pattern has really helped them.” Graphic organizers

allowed for social interactions as the tutors and children discussed the content and tutors made

suggestions and asked questions. Tutors cited improvement in content and structure skills with

the use of graphic organizers and often touted them as beneficial to children’s performance.

Mini-lessons. Interactive mini-lessons also had an influence on the children’s writing

skills and performance. These lessons highlighted writing concepts which tutors then saw

utilized in children’s compositions. Tutors also consistently reinforced previous mini-lesson

content to help solidify children’s understanding and application of the skills. Tutors remarked

how their children use mini-lessons topics in their weekly writing such as, “I’ve seen

improvement in the way they write beginning, middle, and end.” Another tutor wrote, “I am

seeing more use of mini-lessons [content] being implemented every week.” During an end of

session debrief, one tutor discussed how she thought the mini-lessons were helping as she would

“go back and reinforce what [they] already learned” from these lessons each week as a way to

facilitate skill improvement. Tutors also linked the mini-lesson content back to the phrase “this

is what good writers do” and reinforced with their children that as they utilized these mini-lesson

skills in their writing, it made them good writers as well. The specific scaffolds of graphic

organizers and mini-lessons were found to influence children’s writing skills and performance.

Scaffolding from children’s perspective. Similar to tutor data, child data reflected

scaffolding was the main social interaction influencing children’s skills and performance, but

this scaffolding included the repetition of the “good writers” phrase, mini-lessons, graphic

organizers, revisions, and tutor questions and prompts.

“Good writers” phrase. First, one scaffold that impacted children’s understanding of

quality writing was the repetition of what “good writers” do. Both tutors and the instructor used

this phrase throughout the sessions. This could come up when tutors were teaching mini-lessons

explaining what “good writers” do, or when they wanted their children to revise their work and

would remind them of a “good writer” rule, or when they were praising their children for

composing with a writing skill just as a “good writer” would do. For example, use of the “good

writers” phrase was observed as Morris was dictating to his tutor and his story became stream of

consciousness. His tutor reminded him his writing must have an end stating, “Good writers have

beginning, middle, and end.” Also, “good writers” phrases often appeared in children’s weekly

blog post reflections as they answered what they had learned that day about being a great writer.

In one instance, Jalisa wrote about the topic of her mini-lesson, “Good writers use strong verbs.”

The repetition of this phrase made an impact on children’s knowledge and skills base for how to

write well.

Mini-lessons. Mini-lesson topics were often repeated in conjunction with the “good

writers” phrase and were the second scaffold that impacted children’s skills and performance.

These short lessons helped children understand and practice specific writing skills. Tutors

presented an objective, showed an example through their own writing or a piece of literature, and

then had the child practice the skill in some type of hand-on activity. As illustrated above, mini-

lesson topics were also often recounted in children’s weekly blog post reflections as they

answered what they had learned in the day’s session. The “good writer” phrase and the

implementation of mini-lessons were instructional scaffolds which influenced children’s skills

and performance.

Graphic organizers. Use of graphic organizers was another social interaction cited in the

children’s data which influenced skills and performance. Several observations cite the children’s

use of graphic organizers during pre-writing to formulate thoughts and to structure their writing

content. For example, “All circles of [Nora’s] graphic organizer are filled out. McDonald’s has

two foods connected. Olive Garden has two other foods connected. The other two main circles

have ‘who go with’ and four names listed.” In the same session Jalisa is observed brainstorming

content with her tutor for her graphic organizer. Field notes state, “[Tutor] asks Jalisa what she

likes about the restaurant. Jalisa answers the rice and writes I love you in one of the circles off

the main circle of China House…. [Tutor] asks her about different foods like egg rolls and

fortune cookies but Jalisa has not heard of these. She writes rice in one of her circles.” Graphic

organizers provided another social interaction between the tutor and children as they discussed

content for their book and the children formulated their thoughts for writing. These tools helped

children develop writing sequence skills and for some pushed them to think and write more as

they strived to fill the chart.

Revisions. During final interviews, four children verbalized interactions during the

revising stage were a valuable part of improving their skills and performance as a writer. During

the revising stage, tutors would have children read their writing aloud and then discuss what, if

anything they thought needed to be changed. If children did not catch errors, tutors would

prompt and hint but sometimes they had to reveal areas and assist the children in correcting

them. In one interview Jasmine commented, “[Revising] made me a better writer just in case

you get a word wrong,” while Avery said, “[Checking over work] has helped me write better

because I think [it] is good because you don’t want any mistakes on your paper.” Revisions

created more teaching opportunities for tutors to interact with children on writing skills and

technique.

Prompts. Data also demonstrated tutors often used prompts and questions while

interacting with children to improve their writing skills. As mentioned above, these interactions

often occurred during the revising portion of the session. In one observation, Jasmine’s tutor

prompts her to make a correction as she worked with her during revisions,

[Tutor] brings up their restaurant writing to edit. Jasmine reads hers out loud…. [Tutor]

prompts at one sentence and asks if she wants to change or take anything out. Jasmine

says no. [Tutor] reads it out loud and Jasmine suggests a sentence that doesn’t make

much sense. [Tutor] suggests something else and Jasmine agrees.

Here the tutor helps Jasmine see the need for revision and scaffolds a revision when Jasmine is

unable to reword an improvement. Prompts were used often throughout the digital writing

process and as shown here, were frequently utilized during revisions to influence the skills and

performance of the children.

Writing identities. Both tutor and child data found social interactions influenced

children’s writing identities from the repetition of the phrase “what good writers do” linked to

specific writing skills.

Social interactions: Writing identities

Tutor perspective

Use of the phrase “what good writers do”

Child perspective

Use of the phrase “what good writers do”

Good writers phrase from tutors’ perspective. Tutors and the instructor consistently

commented about various writing skills that “good writers do” and children were praised when

they used these skills in their writing. One tutor shared how she witnessed her children “say they

are good writers and apply ‘what good writers do’ into their stories.” Another tutor wrote, “My

girls are now so much more acclimated to the idea that THEY are writers. Not just writers, but

great writers – according to themselves – because they are doing what great writers do each and

every week.” This verbal reinforcement from tutors and the instructor impacted how students

identified themselves as writers.

Good writers phrase from children’s perspective. Child data also substantiated the use of

“what good writers do” influenced children’s writing identities. For example, field notes detail

how Kenan was reading his writing to the class instructor who then reinforces the idea that his

good writing skills make him a good writer, “Your story has a beginning, middle, and ending.

That’s what good writers do. Very nice!” Social interactions such as these helped children

internalize the belief that they were authors and had skills equal to capable and competent

authors.

Issues and concerns. From the tutor perspective, there were two concerns regarding this

digital writing process evolving from social interactions: the revision stage and the partner

structure. From the child perspective, there were also two issues that interfered with the digital

writing process: partner interactions and tutor instructional ability.

Social interactions: Issues and concerns

Tutor perspective

Revisions

Partner structure

Child perspective

Partner interactions

Tutor instructional ability

Revisions. In one concern, tutors reported children were sometimes disinterested in

correcting or changing their work during the revision phase. This process was seen as boring

especially compared to the activities of composing or researching. One tutor specifically said

her children wanted to skip over this task so they could move into pre-writing and drafting on a

new topic. “I’ve tried different approaches to get students to revise, but they seem to be too

excited to get to the writing portion.” Another tutor voiced her concerns with revisions,

“Revising seems to be where I struggle the most when it comes to getting my kids engaged.”

Though four of the interviewees discussed its importance to their performance, tutors spoke of

difficulties in keeping children willing and inspired to revise writing drafts.

Partner structure. Data also revealed concerns with the paired tutoring structure. Tutors

specifically cited issues with meeting the needs of two children during the digital writing

process. These concerns included the children’s varying ability levels, behavior, and levels of

engagement. In the beginning of the semester, one tutor shared her concern of the amount of

attention given to one student’s needs, “It is taking away from my other student’s time.”

Another tutor wrote of her children’s behavior distracting them from the writing tasks, “I’ve tried

multiple times to get them back on track. They’re also friends so I think that makes it worse.”

Other tutors commented on their pair having different interest levels toward the writing process,

“One of my kids…enjoys coming up with her stories. [The other] has trouble being motivated to

write.” Balancing two children, their instructional needs and differing personalities, created

concerns for some tutors during the writing process.

Partner interactions. According to the child data, at times some children were

overpowered by their partner during the digital writing process. This was observed with Morris

taking over lesson discussion from Jasmine as she had a more reserved personality. Nora, who

had a disposition similar to Jasmine, was also observed in a session being overpowered by her

partner when they were being quizzed on mini-lesson content. Avery, who was quite

independent, was matched with a like-minded and strong-willed partner but Avery was seen

allowing her partner to have her way in order to keep the peace. Also, during interviews children

discussed their dislike at having to draw first while their partner was allowed to draft first.

Jasmine voiced her desire to “write my book first” while Kenan stated what was not fun in

tutoring was “when [my partner] get to write his story first…. I didn’t want to draw. So you just

had to wait and, and you were supposed to be drawing.” Due to the balance of two children,

tutors had to split their time and the partner work was at times considered a negative aspect by

the children.

Tutor instructional ability. Finally, tutor instructional knowledge and ability factored

into concerns with the digital writing process. As most of the tutors were non-education majors

with little tutoring experience, they did not always know how to help their children or at times

even recognize their instruction was not developmentally appropriate. This was seen

predominately with Jalisa, who was functioning below grade level and working with a non-

education major tutor with little experience tutoring young children. In one session, the tutor had

brought a mad lib activity for Jalisa to fill in blanks with the correct part of speech. Field notes

read,

The first blank to be filled is an adjective. Jalisa doesn’t remember adjectives. [Tutor]

reminds her what nouns are. Jalisa puts head down on table…. [Tutor] asks what kind of

park she wants it to be. Jalisa can’t think of anything. [Tutor] pulls up list of adjective

[on iPad.] Jalisa picks ‘new.’ [Tutor] replies that works. Jalisa asks if she is going to

help her with the rest. [Tutor] has Jalisa read the next sentence and asks if she knows

what a plural noun is. Jalisa remembers nouns but not singular and plural.

In the final interview, when asked what could be done to make the tutoring program better, Jalisa

replied, “Help everyone.” Probed further, she shared that she did not always feel that she had

gotten the help she needed.

In sum, social interactions were found to influence children’s perceptions and

experiences in this digital writing process. With motivation, tutor data reflected the scaffolding

techniques of prompts, praise, and the use of graphic organizers along with class instructor visits

were each elements that had positive impacts on children’s willingness to write. Child data also

revealed praise as a motivating factor.

Social interactions influencing engagement according to tutor data were positive peer

collaborations and the scaffolds of graphic organizers and tutor-written instructional

compositions. Child data cited scaffolding actions of tutors regarding their teaching styles,

creativity, and relatability as well as partner interactions as factors that influenced engagement.

For children’s skills and performance both tutor and child data reflected instructional

scaffolds of graphic organizers and mini-lessons with child data also including the “good

writers” phrase, revisions, and questions and prompts as important social aspects to building

their writing ability.

Only tutor data reflected influences on children’s writing identities through social

interactions. The use of the phrase “good writers” linked to the children’s actions as writers was

cited as a dynamic within their identity development.

Finally, social interactions were the only finding for features that impacted issues and

concerns with the digital writing process. Specifically, these interactions according to tutor data

were concerns with child participation in the revision stage and the partner structure requiring

tutors to balance two children throughout the digital writing process. Child data revealed two

concerns: partner interactions and tutor instructional ability. Partner interactions were two

pronged. First, one child overpowering the other was occasionally an issue, and second, during

interviews children complained of not enjoying waiting on their partner to draft first as they

would rather be the first one to write each week. Also, lack of experience on the part of the

tutors also led to concerns of their ability to best instruct children during the digital writing

process.

Finding 2: Children’s Personal Connections to the Writing Topic Brought Meaning to the

Digital Writing Process

Analysis revealed the digital writing process influenced children’s motivation,

engagement, skills and performance, and writing identities through personal connections. These

personal connections were the various ways children were able to make meaningful cultural

connections during the digital writing process through their background knowledge and personal

experiences. These personal connections could also manifest through the desire to learn more

about specific topics or locations.

Motivation. Only tutor data suggested that children’s motivation was influenced by

personal connections. The two areas cited were prior knowledge of weekly program themes and

the ability of children to choose their topic.

Personal connections: Motivation

Tutor perspective

Weekly themes (prior knowledge)

Topic choice

Weekly themes. First, data revealed children were motivated to write due to prior

knowledge of the broad weekly themes. It was found weekly themes, determined by the literacy

professor and graduate student who designed the program, were broad concepts constraining the

children to topics within the parameters of tourist attractions, yet they were familiar enough that

all children were able to select a topic from them. When children had been to locations or had

personal experiences regarding the theme, tutors found the children to be more inspired to write

than when they had no prior exposure. In one instance, a tutor commented her children were

especially excited with the zoo theme because they had visited there recently on a field trip.

Another tutor wrote, “The topic has a lot to do with their willingness to write. If it is something

they can relate to, they tend to have more to say than other times.” When beginning the digital

writing process with prior knowledge and experience on the weekly theme, tutors found their

children more motivated to write.

Topic choice. Second, it was also found that allowing children to make choices regarding

their writing was a motivating factor in the digital writing process. Throughout the program

children chose their book titles, specific writing topics, and content. One tutor wrote, “[The

children] are very enthusiastic about having their ideas heard.” Having choice led to ownership

as this tutor explained, “I am able to motivate them by saying, ‘This is your book. What do you

want your story to say?’” Children were empowered and felt ownership of their compositions

due to their ability to choose and this was a motivating factor throughout the digital writing

process.

Engagement. Personal connections influenced children’s engagement due to prior

knowledge with weekly topics and the enjoyment children had in picking out the writing topic.

Personal connections: Engagement

Tutor perspective

Weekly topic

Child perspective

Topic choice

Weekly topics. Tutor data also revealed weekly topics were a factor in children’s

engagement. Children were allowed to choose their writing topic within the weekly theme, and

most often they choose a subject with which they were familiar. Tutors spoke of the direct

correlation between children’s enthusiasm and their personal experience with topics. For

example, one tutor penned, “Personal experience with the topic makes a huge difference in how

engaged and enthused they are about writing.” There were situations in which a child had little

knowledge from which to draw. One tutor reflected on the power of weekly topics to cause

disengagement, “I think that [the child] disengages himself or becomes discouraged when he

sees that he has less exposure to things we have in our city than the other student has and finds

himself feeling inadequate and doesn’t like to participate anymore.” In one instance, this child

was disappointed he had not visited any of the iconic city restaurants and felt he had nothing to

write since he had no experiences with them. Another tutor cited her use of children’s personal

experience and new information to keep engagement high,

I keep my girls engaged in their writing by digging for personal experience and prior

knowledge while contributing bits of new information. This way they have personal

investment in what they are doing, but they are also continuing in knowledge expansion.

The child’s engagement or lack of engagement with topics had consequences throughout each

stage of the digital writing process either helping or hindering the child’s writing output.

Topic choice. Just as tutor data revealed, child data also reflected that having personal

choice regarding the book content impacted child engagement. During her final interview, Nora

explained she liked writing in tutoring better than school because of the choice she was allowed.

She explained, “Because, like, we write about different places and stuff [in tutoring] but in class

we have to write about stories.” Jalisa was observed engaging more in her writing once the

research moved to the topic of her choice. As the tutor was showing her group pictures from a

local iconic restaurant, Jalisa is observed asking questions off topic to her partner and tutor,

disengaged with the iPad research. Later, when the tutor has passed out graphic organizers and

Jalisa has chosen a restaurant, field notes report, “[Tutor] has pulled up the China House

restaurant which is what Jalisa wants to write about. [Tutor] reads on the iPad they have a buffet

and asks Jalisa if she wants to write about that. She says yes and starts looking at the webpage.”

Another session observation cited Jasmine’s excitement over choosing her writing topic. As the

tutor tells them they will write about famous people, Jasmine says, “Famous people?” and in

whispered excitement to no one in particular, “I know what I’ll write.” Choice empowered and

enthused the children and encouraged them to focus on their writing tasks.

Skills and performance. There was no tutor data regarding personal connections

influencing children’s writing skills and performance. From child data, children’s skills and

performance were influenced by their personal connections to the topics. Child perceptions of

their skill with digital tools is also discussed.

Personal connections: Skills and performance

Child perspective

Topic knowledge

Child perceptions of digital tool skills

Topic knowledge. Children shared it was “easy” to think of subjects to write about from

the weekly themes which in turn benefitted their ability to write. During interviews, each child

commented on how it was not hard to think of what to write. Though none of the children

verbalized why, it is surmised that they found writing about the themes easy since they were

topics with which children would be familiar. Avery shared that the topics were “really easy for

us to learn and write.” In another discussion, Jasmine stated, “telling the story and [the tutor]

writing it down was the easiest part of making the book.” When talking about the difference

between writing in tutoring and writing in school, Morris stated, “You could just think of

something. You don’t have to think of something in a book or text,” referring to the need in

school to support his written answers with a textual reference. Children cited this ease of

composing as a different experience from their classroom writing and having the option to

choose familiar topics perhaps was liberating to them compared with their writing regimen in the

classroom.

Child perceptions of digital tool skills. Children verbalized their personal perceptions of

their digital writing skills during the interview process. During the initial, midpoint, and final

interviews, children were asked what skills they thought were necessary for successful use of

digital writing tools. With the exception of Jalisa who replied each time she did not know what

skills were needed, all other children answered one needed to know how to type. Nora also

commented spelling knowledge was required while Avery and Jasmine also added that one must

be responsible when using digital tools. When asked if being able to write with paper and pencil

makes one able to write with digital tools, all answered yes except for Morris and Kenan who

voiced one would also need to know how to type. Child interviews reveal they see typing as the

main skill needed to use digital tools, but when asked if writing with paper and pencil would

make one proficient writing with digital tools, all said yes except two who repeated the

importance of typing.

Nora was the only child observed writing with digital tools as the others had tutors who

did the typing for them. Avery shared that her tutor sometimes let her type her story on the iPad,

but this was not observed. The following is an excerpt from field notes during the first session

when Nora requests to type on the iPad,

Nora begins dictating her writing to [the tutor] and then asks, “What if I write it in?”

[The tutor] says, “If you want to.” She passes the iPad to Nora. (I interviewed Nora

yesterday. Many questions centered around had she used digital tools to write. This was

possibly the reason she wanted to write herself.) Nora asks her how to capitalize. [The

tutor] shows her the arrow key…. She uses one finger while holding the tablet. She looks

at the keyboard while typing and stops to look up at the screen…. Nora looks at the

graphic organizer then returns to typing. She has put an underscore instead of an

apostrophe. There are some double spaces between the words. She has four short

sentences by the time I leave.

Though her typing was slow and deliberate, Nora had the opportunity through the duration of the

project to work on her typing skills using a digital tool. These interview and observation

examples highlight the children’s perceptions of digital tool skills.

Writing identities. In this section, the children’s perceptions of their writing identities as

articulated during individual interviews will be discussed. This finding links to personal

connections as it is the children’s personal beliefs about their writing abilities.

Personal connections: Writing identities

Child perspective

Interviews

Child perspectives. During the interviews, all children, with the exception of Jalisa,

reported they thought of themselves as writers because writing was fun or because they were

good at it. In discussions of what makes someone a writer, children verbalized that knowledge

of writing mechanics, specifically spelling, capitalization, and punctuation, are essential. Kenan

answered that someone is a writer just by “starting to do it” while Morris and Jasmine equated

being a writer with being famous.

Though Jalisa did not recognize herself as a writer in the initial or midpoint interviews,

during the midpoint she did acknowledge that the class instructor thought she was a good writer.

During the final interview, Jalisa voiced she felt better about her writing than she did when she

started tutoring and had decided she was a writer because “I have grown up.”

On the topic of how the children perceived themselves as writers with digital tools,

Avery, Kenan, Nora, and Jasmine said they were good writers with digital tools though Avery

and Nora reported little experience using them. Jasmine stated, “I know what I’m doing until

you get frustrated and then you need help.” Kenan connected his skills to typing, commenting,

“I’m starting to type fast.” Since Jalisa did not perceive herself as a writer in general, she also

did not see herself as a writer with digital tools. Morris also did not consider himself as a writer

with digital tools. He seemed to have had little exposure at home and reported that his lack of

typing skills prevented him from being a good writer with digital tools; his convictions continued

throughout the study. On the other hand, by the final interview Jalisa answered she was good at

using digital tools because she now saw herself as a good writer. These excerpts from the child

interviews are included in the personal connections finding as they are personal beliefs voiced by

the children and help explain the children’s perceptions of themselves as writers.

Participation and completion of the bookmaking project. As this is the last finding in

which writing identities will be discussed, the bookmaking project is placed here since working

through the bookmaking process was an influence on children’s writing identities and worthy of

discussion, though it is not completely explained through personal connections.

Writing identities

Tutor perspective

Participation and completion of the

bookmaking project

Tutor data revealed children’s writing identities were influenced by participation in and

completion of the bookmaking project. The program assignment required children to author a

book with the help of their tutors and this impacted how the children perceived themselves as

writers. For example, one tutor reflected how with their role in the project the children were

“very enthused to become authors themselves.” Another tutor spoke of her initial concerns with

how her children were viewing the work, “I had been worried that they don’t think of themselves

as writers because I’m doing the typing but today one of my students said ‘my story.’” These

examples illustrate how children began identifying themselves not only as writers, but authors.

As children began to take on the identity of author, they also began to claim ownership of

the project. For example, later in the program a tutor proudly wrote how her students see the

book as their own creation. She shared, “They take ownership of their book and their

paragraphs.” At the end of the program another tutor wrote, “I think their accomplishments have

impressed not only myself and their parents, but they’ve surprised themselves, I think, with how

much they’ve done.” Children claimed the project book as their own, which in turn

strengthening their writing identities as authors.

Finally, the bookmaking project impacted children’s writing identities through writing for

their main audience, the children at the hospital. As the program children considered what their

readers would want and need to know about local tourist attractions, they had to adjust their

perspective to that of their audience. This task helped build an empathy and awareness of their

readers’ point of view and children tailored their writing content with the consideration that their

audience might not initially be well enough to visit tourist sites. The project allowed children to

experience how a writer must change their personal perceptions and take on their audience’s

point of view. Overall, working through the bookmaking process and publishing a book

influenced the children’s identities of themselves as writers, their belief that they were authors,

promoted a sense of ownership with their book creation, and helped them identify with their

audience’s point of view.

In sum, personal connections influenced children’s motivation, engagement, skills and

performance, and writing identities throughout the digital writing process. Tutor data reflected

children’s prior knowledge with weekly theme topics and their ability to choose their specific

writing topic were motivating aspects of the digital writing process. According to tutor and child

data, engagement was impacted through the personal connections children could make with

choosing their writing topic. For skills and performance, only child data revealed children’s

assertion that the writing topics were “easy” influenced their abilities while interviews revealed

children’s perceptions of their skills writing with digital tools. Writing identities were influenced

through children’s personal perceptions of themselves as writers which was shared through

interview accounts. Finally, the impact of the bookmaking project, though not quite a fit with

the personal connections theme, was included in this section as it was an important element in

the children’s writing identities giving the children a sense of ownership and authorship of their

compositions.

Finding 3: Technology-based Text Opened Writing Possibilities That Would Have

Otherwise Been Impossible

According to the data, analysis revealed technology-based text in the digital writing

process influenced children’s motivation, engagement, and skills and performance. Digital

literacies assisted the children in making broad cultural connections by bridging gaps in their

knowledge and allowing them to communicate to a more expansive audience. Through

technology, children could access new information and share their compositions in varied ways.

Motivation. Tutor data reported technology-based text influenced motivation in four

areas: learning, audience, blog postings, and end product. Child data also reflected technology-

based text influenced their motivation by having an authentic audience and their sense of

accomplishment.

Technology-based text: Motivation

Tutor perspective

Learning new information

Audience

Blog postings

End product

Child perspective

Audience

Accomplishment

Learning new information. According to the data, when children had no background

knowledge on topics, they were motivated by learning new information through their digital

research. Since some weekly themes required children to choose a specific topic with which

they had no prior experience, the digital research provided an avenue for learning. One tutor

wrote, “They love being introduced to new topics.” Another tutor expressed, “The kids have

found a lot of info about their subjects they write about so I think informing themselves and their

readers is their main motivation.” Children were excited to see and learn new things about their

city during the pre-writing phase which was made possible through technology.

Audience from tutors’ perspective. Data also revealed children could be motivated to do

their best work when reminded of their main audience, the children at the hospital. Audience is

included in the finding of technology-based text because technology provided the means by

which children could reach their audience. The digital tools of the Book Creator app provided

the conduit for children to compile and share their compositions and ultimately to have them

published for the children in the hospital. The audience allowed a sense of purpose to their

writing, and children were inspired by the task of sharing their knowledge with children who

were ill. One tutor stated, “They also love the idea they are making other kids feel better through

their writing.” Many tutors commented how the children “love they are writing to [the children

in the hospital].” Another tutor wrote of her desire to help the children understand their writing

would be read far beyond the setting of their tutoring sessions. She shared, “I also try to keep

reminding them that ‘the world’ will read their stories so they have to put their best writing

inside.” This component of the digital writing process worked to energize and motivate as

another tutor shared, “[My students] were adamant about finishing their books so that the

children at [the hospital] could receive them.” Book publication to a wide audience was made

possible due to the digital nature of their compositions and this authentic audience was a

motivating factor that tutors believed kept children determine to write.

Blog posting. Data also found children were motivated by the responsibility to post on

the class blog. The class blog created another technology-based text assignment which not only

provided children with a second audience, but motivated them, knowing parents and the

instructor would be reading their compositions. Since parents and the instructor read and

commented on these posts, children knew it was a weekly requirement they had to complete. If

children began to lose interest or focus during the drafting phase, tutors at times reminded them

of their obligation to post on the class blog to keep them on track. One tutor recalled a session

where her child was unmotivated to complete her draft, “but she was able to pull it together,

especially after I told her that I wouldn’t have anything for the blog or to show her parents if she

didn’t do the writing.” This reminder of their weekly commitment to a “drafting-stage audience”

was a motivating responsibility.

End product. Finally, according to the tutor data, children found the impending

accomplishment of creating the book to be motivating. Children were thrilled with being

published authors which they knew would occur with the completion of the book. One tutor

reported how her children seemed to be mindful of this, “Mine are motivated by achievement, by

having a product, like having a good thing to hold up and say, ‘I made this.’” Their enthusiasm

was stoked by watching their book come together. When her children began to seem less

interested, one tutor discussed her plans to show them their progress in the Book Creator app as a

way to keep them driven. Another tutor reflected how she had done this throughout, “My girls

are very excited to see the book grow in the book app.” The digital format of their book creation

allowed them immediate access to their creation and helped motivate them to complete the

project.

Audience from children’s perspective. As with the tutor perspective, child data indicated

children were motivated by the importance of having the hospital children as their audience.

Again, this audience was made possible through the use of digital tools and children were

motivated through the desire to share their compositions with the hospitalized children. During

the first tutoring session, all tutors shared information about the hospital and showed children

pictures via the iPad. This was a cultural connection most of the children had not experienced.

Field notes recorded Kenan intently watching the screen during this portion of the session.

During the final interview when Jasmine and Avery were separately asked if they preferred

writing in tutoring or in school, both replied tutoring and each cited the hospital as a reason.

Jasmine stated, “Because it’s fun in tutoring … and you get to write a book for [the hospital].”

Later as she discussed how she learned about author’s purpose from her tutor, Jasmine stated,

“My purpose [in writing the book] is to help [the hospital].”

From the children’s perspective, motivation occurred not only due to their sense of

purpose but the audience also motivated them to consider their writing content. For example, in

one session, Nora’s tutor reminded her of potential readers in order to help her with content.

Field notes state as Nora writes in her graphic organizer, “Nora adds ‘famous people buy guitars’

and ‘they make guitars’ under the [guitar factory] circle. [Tutor] reminds her the [hospital

children] might want to take a tour.” Program artifacts reflect Nora did add guitar factory tours

to her draft. With the text being transmitted to an audience beyond the children’s personal

connections, some began to consider a broader view as they composed, taking their audiences’

interests and concerns into consideration with their content. This broader audience was made

possible through the implementation of digital tools.

Accomplishment. Children were also motivated throughout the digital writing process

due to the pride at being the author of a book. Children voiced pleasure with the accomplishment

of being authors and were motivated throughout the writing process to see the digital project

through to the publishing stage. During the initial interviews all the children indicated they had

never made a book before except Jasmine who talked of sometimes making books at home with

her mom stapling them for her. During Avery’s final interview, when asked about her tutoring

experience she commented, “I think it was really awesome because I never, I’ve never made a

book by myself before.” Each of the children viewed the books as an accomplishment and were

excited to see the final product as these field notes from Kenan’s last session state, “[Tutor] asks

if children want to see what she’s done with [the e-book.] [The children] both say yes! They

lean in close to the screen as [tutor] explains she has put the Spanish text in.” Children’s pride

stemmed from their accomplishment of creating a book and having their digital text published to

reach a wider audience than the classroom or their parents.

Engagement. Both tutor and child data reflected the technology-based text of the iPads

affected child engagement.

Technology-based text: Engagement

Tutor perspective

iPads

Child perspective

iPads

iPads from tutors’ perspective. Data demonstrated the iPads, a tool for technology-based

text, influenced engagement during the digital writing process. The iPads specifically influenced

engagement with their research capabilities, the children’s desire to use them, and their penchant

for being a distraction. Tutors acknowledged the iPads were invaluable during pre-writing and

drafting phases for research and keeping children engaged during research. For example, one

tutor wrote, “[The children] enjoy looking at pictures of things that we are writing about. We

have watched videos… [and] I think it helps the students understand.” Another tutor

commented, “They take full advantage of being able to look up resources or pictures to aid them

in their storytelling and authoring.” Other tutors pointed to the excitement children displayed

over being able to use the iPads themselves. One tutor wrote, “The kids like to use the iPad to

look at things for themselves, and I think they get excited when it’s their turn to use the iPad

because they want to learn on their own parameters.” Another tutor reflected on her plans to

implement “something that involves the iPad” for a child who seemed bored during sessions

“since he likes it.”

Tutors also found the iPads could negatively impact their children’s engagement due to

the distractions they could cause. One tutor explained, “[The iPad] also distracts them from their

research because they want to look up so many things that do not relate to their topic.” The

iPads allowed for an abundance of digitally-based, topical information which helped children

make connections to experiences beyond their knowledge base. This feature heightened

engagement though the plethora and options of content could encumber and sidetrack writing

research. Therefore, tutor data reflects the positive aspects of engagement from iPads, research

capabilities and strong child interest, as well as the negative iPad aspect of distraction due to the

vast and tangential research possibilities.

iPads from children’s perspective. The enthusiasm from iPad use was also cited in child

data as a factor in child engagement. Data continually demonstrated children’s high interest in

iPad work, especially since they allowed for the investigation of various topics via pictures and

videos. These technology tools broadened children’s cultural backgrounds through digital means

and inspired and excited the children throughout the pre-writing and drafting phases. For

example, field notes describe a scene from Morris and Jasmine’s session on restaurant writing,

[Tutor] asks them their favorite restaurant again. She pulls up pictures on the iPad of

[restaurant’s] giant burger. They gasp and laugh. Morris leans in to the iPad picture.

Jasmine asks if those are onion rings. They talk about who could eat a burger that big.

Morris asks to see another burger like that.

During the famous people session, field notes from Kenan’s group stated, “[Tutor] says let’s find

a video and pulls up [famous singer’s] new song. Kenan leans on the table watching the video.

He laughs as the people on the screen dance.”

Also recorded in observational data, iPads were an engaging tool when midway through

the program tutoring groups were asked to pair up, swap iPads, and share their progress with

their e-books. The tablets made it simple for groups to evaluate the writing, illustrating, and

formatting within the e-books so they could give feedback to each other. Due to the ease of

creating with the iPad Book Creator app, the groups already had text and photos inserted and

children were enthusiastic about the opportunity to offer feedback on another groups’ work.

Since this also allowed a takeaway of new ideas when one group had a feature that the other

decided to implement too, children were excited and inspired through this exercise.

Conversely, iPads could promote child disengagement as one observation revealed a

negative scenario. In this observation Nora’s tutor allowed her children to hold the iPad to

choose a video to research zoo animals. Nora had already been observed moving from one side

of the table to the other to improve her view of the screen. When Nora’s partner takes the iPad,

Nora becomes disengaged since she can no longer see the screen at all. The field notes describe,

“[Tutor] puts the iPad screen back to the search results so [other child] can pick a video. He

takes the screen close to his face and Nora picks up a book off the table and flips through the

pages.” The iPads had limitations as this example of disengagement due to the small screen

attests. But more often than not, iPads were a major factor in child engagement due to the ease

at which tutors could share a vast array of digital information to which their children would

otherwise not have access.

Skills and performance. Tutor data demonstrated technology-based text influenced

children’s skills and performance through their authentic audience while child data reflected an

influence through their use of iPads.

Technology-based text: Skills and performance

Tutor perspective

Audience

Child perspective

iPads

Audience. Tutor data established children’s skills and performance were influenced by

being able to share their text to a wide, authentic audience. Knowing their writing would be read

by children in a hospital who had probably never been to their city before, children adjusted the

voice and purpose of their compositions to meet the needs of their audience. One tutor wrote

that as her children were drafting, “They are conscious of their audience and they make their

writing uniquely expressive in order to reach that audience.” In another reflection a tutor wrote

how the audience gives her children “a very strong sense of purpose for their writing.” As

children knew the purpose of the book was to inform visiting children of the best places to go,

they learned to adjust their content to that purpose. That sense of purpose also helped children

maintain proper voice, a skill that is built by writing to an authentic audience. These skills were

demonstrated throughout the digital writing process.

iPads. According to child data the iPads were a major influence on their knowledge and

performance throughout the digital writing process. The technology-based text and information

the iPads provided were essential in bridging gaps in the children’s background knowledge

helping them make connections to broader cultural understandings in their world. Observation

notes describe Jalisa and her tutor researching information about a local museum,

[The tutor] pulls up more information and pictures on the iPad. Jalisa has her chin in her

hand watching and leans closer to the screen…. [Tutor], “They have movies. You can

add that. And they have a planetarium.” Jalisa says she has never been to one. [The

tutor] explains you can watch stars on the ceiling screen. Jalisa talks about glow in the

dark stars she’s seen on walls. They look at more picture on the iPad and Jalisa adds

planetarium to her graphic organizer.

Another observation illustrates the power technology had in bridging children’s gaps in

understanding. During their writing on the theme of the zoo, Morris had decided to write about

otters, but Jasmine did not know what otters were.

Morris dictates about otters doing tricks. Jasmine looks at the iPad while [the tutor]

types. Morris asks her to search for a video of otters with a ball. She pulls up a video of

otters swimming and dunking a small ball in a hoop. [Tutor] to Jasmine, ‘Now you know

what an otter is.’

The iPads were used in each session with each child to elucidate topics and provide interactive

opportunities that otherwise would not have been possible with traditional texts and, therefore,

influenced their skills and performance during the digital writing process.

In sum, technology-based text influenced children’s motivation, engagement, and skills

and performance. With motivation, children were excited to learn new information via digital

research; the audience, reached by digital means, motivated them through a sense of purpose;

children were motivated by the sense of accomplishment with their end product; and weekly blog

postings motivated children through a sense of responsibility to their draft-reading audience.

Child data also suggested the audience motivated children to complete their writing and give

consideration to the content and that the end product motivated them through the pride they felt

at becoming authors. Engagement was influenced positively and negatively by iPads while skills

and performance were impacted through children’s adjustment of voice and purpose to the

audience and through the iPad work bridging gaps in their background knowledge.

Interpretations

Three broad factors were found to influence children’s motivation, engagement, skills

and performance, writing identities, and issues and concerns while participating in a digital

writing process: 1) social interactions, 2) personal connections, and 3) technology-based text.

These general aspects were detailed in the previous section by connecting them to specific events

recorded from the data. Here interpretations are given for these factors and their impact on the

digital writing process.

First, social interactions are an essential element to learning environments grounded in

sociocultural learning theories (Vygotsky, 1978). Honig and McDonald (2005) discuss how the

concept of learning from a sociocultural view “contrasts sharply with traditional cognitive and

psychological theories that view learning as involving a relatively solitary learner acquiring a

body of knowledge” (p. 6). The foundation to sociocultural theory “emphasizes the social nature

of learning” (Tracey & Morrow, 2006, p. 105) and within this study the social interactions

between the tutors and children, the instructor and children, as well as between the child partners

were found to have positive effects through scaffolding, collaborations, and feedback. This

finding is congruent to established understandings that social learning environments, inviting co-

construction of knowledge and guided assistance, can support scholarship.

One of the main social interactions of this study was executed through scaffolding.

Scaffolding was provided by the tutors and helped children learn when tasks were leveled within

their “zone of proximal development” (ZPD), a term coined by Vygotsky (1978, p. 87).

Vygotsky’s idea of ZPD is the area where a learner can complete a task with guided assistance,

an area between a learner’s independent ability and inability to complete a task. Coltman,

Petyaeva, and Anghileri (2002) write of how ZDP scaffolding transpires,

Activity is followed by support and instruction and a cycle is established which takes the

learning forward beyond the level which the child would have reached alone. Eventually

a point is reached at which the child has constructed an understanding with support. (p.

42)

100

Though the tutors in this study had limited teacher training, when scaffolds were used within the

children’s ZPD, tutors’ implementation of mini-lessons on writing topics, use of graphic

organizers, and properly placed prompts and praise facilitated growth in the children’s writing

knowledge and performance, influenced their writing identities, and promoted motivation and

engagement with the digital writing process. This is congruent with research regarding

scaffolding and writing improvement (Willmett & Curwood, 2014).

Social interactions was the only area in the study in which issues and concerns were

found. These specifically were issues with child revisions of their writing, tutors’ ability with

instruction and behavior management, and children partner interactions. The first, a lack of child

interest in the revision stage of process writing, occurred during the formal revision time of

sessions when groups would review the previous week’s writing though this was not reported for

every session. Dislike of revision is a well-documented in research as children often do not want

to dwell on what they perceive is a negative aspect of writing (Heard, 2002). Second, concerns

arose with tutors’ capability to balance two children and to provide instruction at varying ability

levels. The tutors in this study had limited experience and training which attributes to these

findings. Discrepancy dominates in research regarding the use of volunteers for tutoring and

little research has been done on tutor training (Elbaum, Vaughn, Hughes and Moody, 2000;

Shanahan, 1998). While some studies caution their use (Shanahan, 1998), others support

volunteer tutors who have been trained and are supervised by literacy specialists (Elbaum et al.,

2000; Wasik, 1998, Woolley and Hay, 2007). Finally, partner interactions were a concern as it

was observed that some children were overpowered by partners who were more outspoken,

outgoing, or engaged than the other.

101

Second, the children’s personal connections, their ability to access their personal cultural

backgrounds and knowledge, influenced the digital writing process. According to sociocultural

theory, background knowledge and prior experiences help shape new learning and, therefore,

learning is more strongly supported when children connect their cultural backgrounds and

experiences to instruction (Shepard, 2000). Honig and McDonald (2005) discuss the importance

of this concept and how, in making these personal connections with new content, children

“actively engage material and participate in activities in ways that allow them to integrate new

knowledge into their own understanding and experiences” (p. 7). Mills (2016) advocates the

importance of linking children’s culture and knowledge to media text stating, “Students [from

the study] were most engaged in text when the teachers selected multimedia and print-based text

that addressed themes that were familiar in some way to the students’ experiences” (p. 12).

Likewise, findings of this study revealed the child’s choice of writing topics and the use of

familiar, broad weekly themes positively impacted the digital writing process due to the

children’s ability to draw on their personal connections to the writing content. The children’s

freedom to choose from pre-established, culturally relevant themes was a factor in children’s

motivation, engagement, skills, and performance, which is consistent with previous research

(Graves, 1976; Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2006; Pajares, 2003) linking student choice as a

positive influence on motivation. By promoting choice, the session structure was a catalyst for

the children’s empowerment and feelings of ownership with the bookmaking project. Their

agency was acknowledged and encouraged along with their background and traditions from their

freedom to choose writing topics.

Third, the influence of technology-based text through the use of digital tools and

platforms was predominate throughout this study. Children consumed digital information and

102

created digital text through their e-book and blog postings, each a far cry from traditional text.

Using the lens of New Literacies theory, Mills (2016) discusses the imperativeness of broadening

the definition of literacy beyond print-based text,

At a time when technologies and their texts are endlessly superseded by new affordances

of communication media, literacy practices encompass an ever-broadening range of

textual features and structures, and possible formats and sites of digital display, and these

concerns [of literacy interpretation] extend to anyone who claims to be a teacher or

researcher of language and literacies. (p. 19)

The need for technology integration in educational settings is one of practicality and necessity as

tech use permeates culture and society.

The use of the iPads and blog was a critical component to the digital writing process in

this study, and the importance here is the digital application and its consequence, not just the

implementation, of the digital tools. In this study, the iPads for research and drafting and the

blog for parent and instructor communication were used for instruction in literacy skills, not just

to teach technology skills, a concern voiced by previous research (Biancarosa & Griffiths, 2012;

Hutchison et al., 2012; Northrop & Killeen, 2013). Each of these tools became conduits to a

broader audience and established an ease of composing and creating while the children worked

through the digital writing process.

In this study, the use of iPads for composing and especially for pre-writing research were

strongly linked to child engagement. The technology-based text children were responsible for

posting on the classroom blog for parent and instructor feedback was also cited as a motivator in

the digital writing process. Much research has substantiated how digital tools improve

103

motivation and engagement in instructional settings which aligns with the findings of this study

(Cordero et al., 2015; Siegle, 2012; Vue et al., 2016).

Two other major factors from this finding included the impact of the audience and of the

end product. The audiences were reached through the creation of the e-book on the iPad app and

through posting on the classroom blog, therefore tying the digital text to this finding. With the

children writing to other children and also to parents and instructors, the children were afforded

readership outside the physical boundaries of their classroom. Children frequently referred to

their excitement at sharing their knowledge with the hospital children as they instructed their

peers in the best places to visit in their city. Research supports that real-world writing purposes

that are shared with genuinely interested, concerned readers promotes children’s growth as

writers (Duke, Purcell-Gates, Hall, & Tower, 2006; Spanke & Paul, 2015). Also supported by

research, children developed a sense of accomplishment from the completion of the book and

having an end product helped them identify themselves as authors (Cooper, 2014; Pajares,

Johnson, & Usher, 2007).

Summary

As the findings from the study are interpreted, a process is revealed that highlights how children

experience a digital writing process. Taken from the findings of social interactions, personal

connections, and technology-based text, a model was created of the instructional factors

conducive to a digital writing process. As Figure 2 illustrates, the three factors of 1)

sociocultural instructional techniques, 2) literacy skills taught through digital tools, and 3) a

purposeful project work together to create an environment beneficial for a digital writing

process.

104

Figure 2. A Model of Instructional Factors Conducive to a Digital Writing Process

Chapter Summary

This section outlined three findings from the study. The first finding indicated social

interactions influence children’s motivation, engagement, skills and performance, writing

identities, and issues and concerns in this digital writing process. Various factors were involved

with this influence including scaffolding, instructor feedback, praise, peer collaboration and

interactions, use of the phrase “what good writers do,” revisions, partner structure, and tutor

instructional ability.

With the second finding, children’s motivation, engagement, skills and performance, and

writing identities were influenced by personal connections to the writing topics. These

connections incorporated areas such as prior knowledge of weekly themes and topics;

105

empowerment, enjoyment and ease through choice of topic; and children’s perspective on their

writing identities. The children’s feelings of ownership during the bookmaking project were also

discussed through the lens of writing identities.

Finally, the third finding discussed the influence technology-based text had on children’s

motivation, engagement, skills, and performance. This finding incorporated the broad cultural

connections children were able to make due to the digital format of the program. Factors that

caused this influence were the ability to learn new information, to reach a wider audience

through blog postings, and the use of iPad to research and bridge gaps in children’s background

knowledge. Also, the project’s authentic audience of hospital children and the end product of the

book were each made possible through the use of digital tools and the technology-based text that

the children composed.

In the last section, interpretations of the findings were presented in light of theory and

research. A model was offered of the instructional factors conducive to a digital writing process.

Three factors were outlined that work together to create an environment beneficial for a digital

writing process: 1) sociocultural instructional techniques, 2) literacy skills taught through digital

tools, and 3) a purposeful project.

106

Chapter 5

Discussions, Conclusions, Implications, and Future Research

The previous chapters presented the rationale, theoretical framework, review of literature,

methodology, methods, and findings and interpretations of the study. Chapter 1 outlined the

problem and purpose of the study. In chapter 2, the theoretical perspectives of sociocultural and

New Literacies theories were discussed. Also, the scholarly context was provided with an

overview of research in afterschool programs, the digital writing process, and how the digital

writing process influences motivation, engagement, skills, performance, and writing identities.

Chapter 3 included the methodology of the study along with the methods for data collection and

analysis. Chapter 4 detailed the three findings of the study: social interactions, personal

connections, and technology-based text. These were determined as factors that influenced

children’s motivation, engagement, skills, performance, and writing identities as well as

contributed to issues and concerns in this digital writing process. Interpretations of the findings

were discussed in relation to the literature and the theoretical framework and a model was

created outlining three instructional factors conducive to a learning environment for digital

writing process approach: 1) sociocultural instructional techniques, 2) literacy skills taught

through digital tools, and 3) a purposeful project. Within this chapter, a discussion of the findings

in relation to the research questions are offered, the researcher’s conclusions are shared,

implications are presented, and limitations are outlined with recommendations for further

research.

Discussion

The following section outlines the findings in relation to the five research questions of

this study: (a) How does a digital writing process influence children’s motivation in writing? (b)

107

How does a digital writing process influence children’s engagement in writing? (c) How does a

digital writing process influence children’s writing skills and performance? (d) How does a

digital writing process influence children’s writing identities? (e) What are the issues and

concerns with this digital writing process? The literature and theory that supports these findings

are also discussed.

Research Question 1: How Does a Digital Writing Process Influence Children’s Motivation

in Writing?

Findings revealed eight factors influenced children’s motivation during the digital writing

process: scaffolding (use of graphic organizers, praise, and prompts), visits by the class

instructor, use of preassigned common weekly themes, child choice of topic, ability to learn new

information, responsibility of blog postings, audience, and end product. According to Guthrie

and Wigfield (2000) motivation toward literacy activities can evolve from five elements: desire

to learn, desire to excel, enjoyment of an activity, rewards from participating in an activity,

and/or one’s self-efficacy.

First, the specific scaffolds of graphic organizers, praise, and prompting children to assist

with their performance were social interactions between the tutors and children that improved

their motivation. Second, visits by the class instructor in which she also praised children’s work

or questioned their writing product in order to improve their compositions were also cited as

factors that increased children’s motivation. As sociocultural theory postulates, “language is

influenced and constituted by social relations” (Mills, 2016, p. 20). Each of these interactions

was necessary to help the children improve their writing, yet they were also factors that inspired

and motivated children to do their best work. Research shows a one-to-one scaffolding approach

benefits children’s motivation (Neumann, Hood, & Neumann, 2009; Thompson, 2009). Also,

108

the class instructor visits, use of the graphic organizer, and tutor prompts and praise were

opportunities for the children to learn how to progress as writers and clarify what was expected

from their compositions which can directly impact motivation. As Hyland (2007) states,

By making clear to students what teachers value in writing and emphasizing exactly what

is expected from them in any writing task, students know how they will be assessed and

what they have to do to be successful, and this gives them greater motivation and

confidence to write. (p. 161)

Third, within this digital writing process predetermined common weekly themes were

used and, fourth, from these children were allowed to pick their own specific writing topic.

These two factors centered on the children’s ability to base their composition content on their

prior knowledge and experience. Research acknowledges the importance of connecting students’

learning to their background and prior knowledge (Tobias, 1994), and studies have also linked

increased motivation when children unite their experiences with literacy learning (Winstead,

2004). Conversely, the fifth finding of this research question revealed the children were also

driven by the prospect of learning new information when writing on topics with which they had

little experience. Gaining new knowledge also has been cited in the literature as a motivating

factor (Blumenfeld, 1992; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000).

Six, during this study tutors posted the children’s weekly rough draft on a blog so parents

and the instructor could leave comments on their writing. The responsibility of blog postings

was a motivator as tutors reminded children their compositions had to be ready to post by the end

of the session. Harris et al. (2006) report responsibility as one of “a variety of practices believed

to facilitate effort and intrinsic motivation” (p. 302). Likewise, the use of an authentic audience,

the seventh factor, for writing instruction has been determined to facilitate students’ motivation

109

as it provides a purpose and meaning to the task. As Ames (1992) details, “students are more

likely to approach and engage in learning in a manner consistent with a mastery goal when they

perceive meaningful reasons for engaging in an activity” (p. 263). Finally, children in this study

were motivated by the accomplishment of their end product, namely an authored, published

book. Pajares and Valiante (2006) discuss, “Students’ confidence in their writing capabilities

influences their writing motivation, as well as various writing outcomes in school” (p.158-9).

The students had confidence they had the self-efficacy needed to accomplish the task and that

coupled with the impending achievement of composing a book was an inspiring element for

them.

In sum, findings from this study suggest eight factors influenced children’s motivation

during the digital writing process: scaffolding (use of graphic organizers, praise, and prompts),

visits by the class instructor, use of preassigned common weekly themes, child choice of topic,

ability to learn new information, responsibility of blog postings, audience, and end product.

These findings are backed by the literature and concurrent with other literacy studies regarding

motivation.

Research Question 2: How Does a Digital Writing Process Influence Children’s

Engagement in Writing?

Findings cite five factors influenced children’s engagement during the digital writing

process: child’s choice of topic, tutor-written stories, peer collaboration, scaffolds (graphic

organizers; tutor teaching style, creativity, relatability), and technology use. Guthrie and

Wigfield (2000) posit engagement can be evidenced through behavior and cite three components

for engagement to occur: cognitive ability, a social community, and motivation.

110

First, as with motivation, children’s engagement was influenced by their ability to choose

their own writing topic. Similarly, in a study conducted by Mills (2016) regarding students

literacy work with technology, she reports, “The students’ engagement with the task was not

simply tied to the novelty of the technology, but to the activity structures that invited them to

share the cultural experiences of their lifeworlds” (p. 12). This idea of sharing one’s background

and experiences accounts for the second finding that children were engaged by the personal

writing examples tutors created. The content of these stories were specific to the tutor’s life and

used during mini-lessons as an instructional tool. As Mills states that engagement manifests

from children’s shared experiences, the same held true for engagement from tutors’ shared

personal stories.

Third, also during this study, peer collaboration was found to influence children’s

engagement with the digital writing process. Multiple studies have concurred that peer work

fosters engagement (O’Sullivan & Cleary, 2014; Vass, Littleton, Miell, & Jones, 2008). Fourth,

tutor scaffolds also impacted children’s engagement, specifically the use of graphic organizers

and the tutor’s teaching style, creativity, and relatability. As children make meaning from the

social interactions in their world, tutor scaffolds such as these assist learning and promote

engagement as children feel successful (Tracey & Marrow, 2006). Finally, in the fifth finding,

technology was a source of engagement for the children in this study which aligns with several

other research studies (Campbell, 2012; Encheff, 2013; Ntelioglou, Fannin, Montanera, &

Cummins, 2014). The novelty and innovation correlated with technology makes it an engaging

tool.

In sum, the findings from this study suggest five factors influenced children’s

engagement during the digital writing process: child’s choice of topic, tutor-written stories, peer

111

collaboration, scaffolds (graphic organizers; tutor teaching style, creativity, relatability), and

technology use. These findings are corroborated by the literature from other literacy studies.

Research Question 3: How Does a Digital Writing Process Influence Children’s Writing

Skills and Performance?

Findings revealed four factors influenced children’s writing skills and performance

during the digital writing process: scaffolds (graphic organizers, mini-lessons, “good writers”

phrase, revisions, questions, and prompts), audience, iPads, and writing topics. It is well

documented and researched that the writing process approach promotes student understanding of

and improvement with writing skills (Bayat, 2014; Graham, Gillespie, & McKeown, 2013;

Graham, McKeown, Kiuhara, & Harris, 2012). This section examines the specific tools and

events used in this study’s digital writing process that influenced knowledge and performance.

First, scaffolding incorporates the social interaction needed for learning with the

information and tools needed to improve writing performance. This study’s use of graphic

organizers, mini-lessons, the “good writers” phrase, the revision stage, and tutor questioning and

prompts were utilized as support for children working within their Zone of Proximal

Development to promote skill improvement (Vygotsky, 1978). Each of these scaffolding

techniques have been substantiated by research to be beneficial to students’ skills and

performance improvement (Graham & Harris, 2005) specifically, graphic organizers (DiCecco &

Gleason, 2002), mini-lessons (Dowis & Schloss, 1992), using the “good writers” phrase as

feedback (Cowie, 1995), implementing writing revisions (Graham & Harris, 2003), as well as

questioning and prompting for improved performance (Willmett & Curwood, 2014).

Second, audience was also cited in this study as a factor in children’s performance.

Magnifico (2010) discusses the role of sociocultural theory with writing audience stating,

112

The sociocultural framework places the audience in a more active role. Beyond a

conceptual tool that writers use to frame their writing, audience members here are the

receivers of written communications and the arbiters of social standing within a group.

(p. 175)

Writing content and performance can be impacted based on what perspective a writer, in this

study—the children, decides to use as she communicates with others.

Third, iPads were found to assist students’ performance as they could bridge the gaps in

children’s background knowledge, helping them to research the content needed for their

compositions. Research from Cardullo, Zygouris-Coe, and Wilson’s (2017) study cites the

benefit iPads provided to secondary students reading nonfiction text, as they could easily

research the subject matter to help fill in knowledge gaps and improve literacy performance.

This is similar in nature to the performance benefit found in this study of the children unfamiliar

with some of the real-world content needed in their compositions and the ease to which the iPads

helped them bridge gaps.

Finally, as also cited in motivation and engagement, the writing topics were found to

impact children’s skills and performance. The children discussed in interviews how they found

the weekly writing assignments easy due to writing topics, which for the most part, were subjects

with which they were familiar. In Olinghouse, Graham, and Gillespie’s (2015) study they

discovered, “Topic knowledge predicted story, persuasive, and informational writing quality” (p.

391). Since the children in this study were allowed to pick their own focus, they often had prior

knowledge on the topic or it was a topic they were highly motivated to learn and write about

making these findings concurrent with the literature.

113

In sum, findings suggest four factors influenced children’s writing skills and performance

during the digital writing process: scaffolds (graphic organizers, mini-lessons, “good writers”

phrase, revisions, questions, and prompts), audience, iPads, and writing topics. These findings

were substantiated by theoretical underpinnings and research with similar outcomes.

Research Question 4: How Does a Digital Writing Process Influence Children’s Writing

Identities?

Findings revealed three factors influenced children’s writing identities during the digital

writing process: use of the phrase “what good writers do,” working through the bookmaking

project, and identifying with their audience. At the beginning of the project all focus children

stated they identified themselves as writers except one. By the end, all six children commented

they believed they were writers. The child who changed her thoughts on her identity as a writer,

Jalisa, seemed to be swayed most strongly by the phrase “what good writers do” used by her

tutor and the class instructor. Juzwik et al. (2016) posits identity should be viewed as a fluid

concept as portrayed by Jalisa’s changing thoughts. Writing feedback and identity are

intertwined with concepts of power, authority, and subjectivity as the writer often has an

emotional investment in the composition while the instructor has a position of authority.

Comments can impact identity, and therefore, assessment feedback should be considered

carefully (Higgins, Hartley, & Skelton, 2001). In this study, the “good writers” phrase was

executed positively so children would know they were doing what good writers do, which

changed Jalisa’s perception of her writing identity.

In this study, the children linked their progress and completion of the bookmaking project

with their identity as authors. Spanke and Paul (2015) discuss how writing assignments with

authentic audiences, as this one was, can cause children to “promote the formation of their

114

identity as a writer” (p. 179). Children reported in interviews a feeling of accomplishment and

some cited they had never had a book published before. Seen through the lens of sociocultural

theory, writing is an act which allows one to align with certain cultural positions, in this case of

the children identifying themselves as authors (Ivanič, 1998). As Moje and Luke (2009) cite,

identities exist through social constructions and because others recognize them. With this

project, children were able to see themselves as authors through the social construct surrounding

the publishing of the book which was recognized by others in their environment as something

that happens to writers and authors.

Children’s identities as writers were also affected by their main audience. Children

adjusted their perspectives, sought to see through their audience’s point of view, to form a voice

that was appropriate and entertaining for the children in the hospital. This ability to broaden

understanding and step into another perspective builds cross-cultural awareness (Gay, 2002) and

an empathy and compassion for others. Sociocultural theory acknowledges the societal and

cultural dynamics involved in this process and how the children’s perception is influenced by

taking on another worldview, thus impacting their writing development and learning (Gee, 2000;

Rogoff, 2003) while breaking the barriers of social justice.

In sum, the findings for this research question revealed three factors influenced children’s

writing identities during the digital writing process: use of the phrase “what good writers do,”

working through the bookmaking project, and identifying with their audience. These findings

are supported and corroborated by the theory and literature undergirding this study.

115

Research Question 5: What Are the Issues and Concerns with This Digital Writing

Process?

Findings revealed four issues and concerns cited with the digital writing process: the

revision stage, the partner structure, tutor instructional ability, and partner interactions. Tutors

complained that their children often did not want to take the time to revise their work. This is a

common theme in writing research as children can perceive correcting their work as a negative

experience that points out their mistakes (Heard, 2002).

The second issue involved the tutors working with two children at one time. Tutors were

concerned that they were not dividing their time equally and also that having pairs instigated

behavior problems. This connects to the third issue of the tutors’ ability to instruct and manage

children with little experience and limited training. Due to the tutors’ lack of educational

training, they at times felt overwhelmed working with two children, and data supports that some

tutors were at a loss for how to best meet their children’s developmental literacy needs or even

unaware that their instruction was not at the proper instructional level. These concerns are

common when utilizing tutors who are not specializing in education (Wasik, 1998). These tutors

did have consistent and on-going supervision from a literacy specialist, the professor of the class,

as research cites this is most beneficial when working with non-educators (Woolley & Hay,

2007).

Finally, partner interactions were found at times to be a concern as it was observed that

some children were overpowered by a partner who was more dominant. Morcom (2016) states,

“Collaborative learning is a pedagogy that is values-focused and student-centered because

students need to demonstrate mutual respect to learn to work together” (p. 95). Morcom relates

it is sometimes assumed that children have the skills and understanding needed to work together

116

in partnership and when this is not the case, it often falls to teachers “to diagnose the needs of

students so they develop the skills and confidence to work together” (p. 83). Again, this

situation can be linked back to the concerns which manifest due to the tutors’ lack of knowledge

and experience in instructional settings with children.

In sum, in the final research question of the study, findings revealed four issues and

concerns cited with this digital writing process: the revision stage, the partner structure, tutor

instructional ability, and partner interactions. Concerns with children’s lack of interest with the

revision stage is established in the literature. Program issues with a paired partner structure,

tutors’ instructional ability, and partner interactions can be traced back to the use of tutors with

little experience and limited training in educational settings.

Conclusions

In addition to the discussion and interpretations of the findings, conclusions are presented

concerning children’s experiences and perceptions of the digital writing process and its

implementation. Though this study is limited in scope and content, suggestions are made

connecting the initial problem cited at the beginning of the report with the results of the study

and current literature.

Initial concerns which were the impetus for this study included the overall need for more

writing instruction as standardized writing assessments reveal poor performance (National

Center for Education Statistics, 2012) along with the need for young children to be exposed to

digital tools for writing (Swaggerty et al., 2015). For these goals to be accomplished, writing

instruction on digital platforms should be incorporated into classroom settings (Sampson et al.,

2016). Therefore, this study examined second graders’ experiences and perceptions with the

digital writing process to help inform educators who seek to implement digital literacy

117

instruction in educational settings. As a result, conclusions are drawn from the findings, which

supported positive experiences and perceptions from the child participants, with the intent of

advising on the implementation of a digital writing process. Five conclusions are expounded

below: 1) Children are empowered through a digital writing process, 2) Multiple audiences can

assist with the digital writing process, 3) Afterschool programs can be a productive setting for

the digital writing process, 4) Technology use is requisite and non-negotiable in the digital

writing process, and 5) Writing themes should include facets that draw on prior knowledge and

foster knowledge growth in a digital writing process.

Children Are Empowered through a Digital Writing Process

The first conclusion of this study is based on four elements found within this digital

writing process which allowed for child empowerment. Rappaport (1987) states the concept of

empowerment, “suggests both individual determination over one's own life and democratic

participation in the life of one's community” (p. 121). In this study, providing opportunities for

peer collaboration, allowing choice of topic, establishing an authentic audience, and providing an

authentic purpose were each factor with the potential to foster a sense of empowerment in the

children as they worked through the digital writing process.

Opportunity for peer collaboration. First, children are empowered in the digital writing

process through the role they fulfill as a productive member of a group. By offering the chance

to collaborate in a digital writing process, children are emboldened with the knowledge of their

critical role to the joint project and as they understand the interdependency of their participation

(Wenger, 1998). In this study, children experienced how their writing and collaborative work

were tied to the outcome of the book. Each child had a role to play so that the final product

would be ready for publication. This collaboration impacted engagement with the digital writing

118

process, fostered excitement, and provided opportunities for the children to take on roles

requiring them to offer feedback and assistance throughout the process stages.

Writing research from Schwieter (2010) suggests peer-editing with feedback is an

optimal way to utilize peer collaboration combined with scaffolding during the writing process.

This instructional approach allows children to take on the role of guiding and helping with

revision and editing while collaborating on compositions. Although collaborating through peer

feedback is one option, any collaboration through the digital writing process can offer children

the chance to see themselves as an important member of a group with a stake in the completed

composition. Peer collaboration is a mainstay of sociocultural theory which purports “learning is

a social process by turning attention to the relationships both among learners and between

learners and the activities in which they engage” (Honig & McDonald, 2005, p. 8).

Allowing choice of topic. Second, children can also experience a sense of empowerment

from the ability to choose their own writing topic. This can foster a sense of agency as children

are allowed to determine the content of their composition. In this study, children’s motivation,

engagement, writing skills, and performance were impacted by their ability to choose their

writing topic. Personal choice allowed the children to take on a position of authority and

decision-making in their roles as authors.

Opportunities for the learner to make personal connections during the digital writing

process make the task and learning more meaningful (Rogoff, 1994). Honig and McDonald

(2005) also suggest that children do not have to be put in a position of being the designer or

complete decision-maker in projects, but providing “significant input into the activities in which

they are involved” is beneficial to the learning task (p. 7). As in this study, the literacy professor

and graduate assistant established the broad themes for weekly writing, but within those themes,

119

children could choose their own topics for composition. As children realize they have control

over the content in the digital writing process, they are empowered through the agency they

develop as writers.

Establishment of authentic audience. Third, as children compose through the digital

writing process, they can be empowered by knowing an authentic audience will hear their voice,

opinions, and thoughts. In this study, an authentic audience impacted motivation and children’s

writing skills and performance as these children knew their writing would be read by other

children interested in their city’s tourist attractions. With an authentic audience, the program

children knew their written thoughts would be read and their opinions would be heard.

Audience is considered a crucial component to the writing process (Duke et al., 2006).

Regarding an authentic audience, Duke, Purcell-Gates, Hall, and Tower (2006) state, “Language

learning occurs best when the learning context matches the real functional context” (p.345).

Research has shown when students write to an audience other than their teacher, they place more

importance on their compositions (Graves, 1994; Kelley, 2009; Schwieter, 2010) and it is easier

for children to learn when the context is meaningful to them (Duke et al., 2006). Establishing an

audience in a digital writing process provides children with the knowledge that their voice will

matter because the ones who read their writing matter. Often determining the audience then

creates the purpose for writing, the final component explained here.

Providing an authentic purpose. Finally, children can be empowered during the digital

writing process by providing an authentic purpose as it offers meaningful work in which the

children can engage. In this study, motivation and the children’s writing identities were

influenced by having an authentic purpose. The bookmaking project allowed the children to

share their opinions and give their audience valuable information on the best places to visit in

120

their city. The project purpose also promoted their understandings of themselves as authors and

elicited a sense of ownership to the books they created. An authentic purpose can move mere

participation into empowerment when the end product has intent and meaning.

Duke et al. (2006) define authentic purpose as when “the activity serves a true

communicative purpose” (p. 346). This implies when establishing an environment for a digital

writing process, children’s compositions must be written for the purpose of being read, not

evaluated. Prior (2006) states, “Sociocultural theory argues for viewing writing as a mode of

social action, not simply as a means of communication” (p. 58). Much of the benefit of this

study centered around the fact that the children found writing to other children in the hospital a

significant purpose for writing, a purpose that consequently helped them broaden their

worldview and develop empathy and compassion as they put themselves in the place of someone

in the hospital (Aronson & Laughter, 2016). Honig and McDonald (2005) cite sociocultural-

based learning environments need “genuine, meaningful work” with “joint enterprise [and]

decision-making roles” (p. 7) while culturally relevant pedagogy advocates for instruction that

empowers children to be change agents and caring members of their society (Ladson-Billings,

1995). In this way, an authentic, meaningful purpose can offer children another avenue for

empowerment during the digital writing process.

In sum, by proving opportunities for peer collaboration, allowing choice of topic,

establishing an authentic audience, and providing an authentic purpose, educators can implement

an instructional environment that empowers children through digital writing process.

Multiple Audiences Can Assist with the Digital Writing Process

The second conclusion of this study focuses on the possible benefits from having

multiple audiences for children’s work in a digital writing process. In this study, the children

121

had the opportunity for their writing to be read in three different contexts. First, children were

furnished with immediate feedback from their partners, tutors, and the instructor as they wrote

within the classroom. Also, the drafts posted on the class blog gave parents and the instructor

the opportunity to comment, praise, and motivate the children. Finally, the children at the

hospital were the final, wider audience for their books and the primary focus for writing. These

multiple audiences provided benefits that would not have been possible with only the main

audience of the children in the hospital.

A more expansive role can be engendered with multiple audiences, a role beyond only

offering meaning to the project. In this study, feedback in the form of various comments,

positive reinforcements, and corrections on compositions were given at various times and stages

of the writing process. Parr (2017) states, “Feedback is vital if students are to have information

that helps them to learn and to take responsibility for regulating their own learning” (p. 54).

Research has revealed multiple audiences can also benefit children as they learn to develop a

writing voice since “writing to different audiences requires translating across various

communities of language” (Gunel, Hand, & McDermott, 2009, p. 356). Multiple audiences can

require children to consider different worldviews and develop a voice for social justice (Prior,

2006; Aronson & Laughter, 2016). Content and linguistic choice factor in to any communication

and multiple audiences could give children practice developing various voices (Bremner, 2006).

In sum, multiple audiences not only bring meaning to the digital writing process but can

also provide feedback at various stages of the writing process, facilitate children’s development

of voice, and compel children to consider other perspectives and needs for social change.

122

Afterschool Programs Can Be a Productive Setting for the Digital Writing Process

The third conclusion of this study is afterschool programs can be a productive setting for

the digital writing process. With the nationwide growth of afterschool programs (Afterschool

Alliance, 2014), these numerous settings become consummate environments to offer enrichment

or remediation in writing skills. In this study, all children met the program requirements with

the assistance of their tutors, creating a book per assignment criteria. All focus children reported

being happy with the program though Jalisa, a below-grade level participant, did share concerns

that she did not always receive the help she needed from her tutor.

Afterschool programs could easily replicate the instructional format of this study and use

staff who are not formally trained in education. The digital writing program from this study

could easily be implemented with tutors, from high school honors students to a myriad of

community volunteers. It is important to remember in an afterschool setting with workers who

are not educators, children’s needs could supersede tutors’ ability and knowledge to care for

them and supervision by a literacy specialist is highly recommended (Woolley & Hay, 2007).

Research is conflicting regarding the role volunteers play in literacy instruction (Ritter,

Barnett, Denny, & Albin, 2009). Wasik (1998) reviewed tutoring programs with both minimal

and extensive training concluding training is most required when “there is an emphasis on (a)

having the students actively involved in higher level reading and writing activities, and (b) the

use of informed judgment on the part of the tutor” (p. 283). In her conclusion regarding sessions

with less-trained tutors, Wasik states those programs “emphasize basic skills using tutor-proof

materials” (p. 283). In this study, three instructional techniques were implemented by tutors with

little training but on-going support to positive results: use of graphic organizers, implementation

of mini-lessons, and repetition of “good writers” phrase.

123

Use of graphic organizers. First, in this study the scaffolding technique of graphic

organizers was found to influence motivation, engagement, and writing skills and performance.

Graphic organizers were used as tools to help children brainstorm, organize, and think through

their writing during the pre-writing phase and used again during drafting as children referred

back to them to keep a logical flow to their writing. Tutors cited them as a motivating factor in

this sense and also cited them as essential with engagement as they helped with the pacing of the

session and keeping the children focused. Graphic organizers also assisted children’s writing

skills and performance by helping structure their writing into a coherent flow and encouraging

them to add more details.

Research has shown the use of graphic organizers help students grasp, retain, and write

about relational and hierarchal knowledge (DiCecco & Gleason, 2002; Robinson & Kiewra,

1995). In this writing setting, children and tutors discussed what content should be included in

the graphic organizer, allowing for social exchanges and conversations about how to best

formulate the writing. These interactions align with the tenants of sociocultural theory which

“views learning as a social endeavor” (Honig & McDonald, 2005, p. 6). Due to its ease of

implementation, graphic organizers would be a helpful tool to implement with minimally-trained

tutors in a digital writing process program.

Implementation of mini-lessons. Secondly, mini-lessons are another technique that can

be implemented by volunteer tutors. These short-timed lessons are an opportunity “for teaching

skills within the writing process… so that skills and content can develop concurrently” (Dowis &

Schloss, 1992, p. 35). In this study, mini-lessons influenced children’s writing skills and

performance. Tutors often saw children apply mini-lesson skills into their writing and lesson

topics were often the reflection answer children gave for what they had learned that day. Tutors

124

also consistently reinforced previous mini-lesson content to help solidify children’s

understanding and application of the skills.

Research has shown students do not learn as well when writing skills and grammar rules

are taught in isolation but they retain and implement them much better when taught concurrently

within the writing process (Dowis & Schloss, 1992; Graves, 1985; Isaacson, 1989). Following

sociocultural principles, mini-lessons should be executed with tutors introducing a skill,

modeling its purpose and implementation, and allowing the child an opportunity to practice with

tutor assistance as needed. These lessons structured with demonstrations and supervision

provide an “apprenticeship relationship” (Honig & McDonald, 2005, p. 8) that allow children to

practice and learn writing skills within their Zone of Proximal Development (Lave & Wenger,

1991; Vygotsky, 1978)

Repetition of “good writers” phrase. Finally, minimally-trained tutors can explicitly

tell children what “good writers” do and how “good writers” create quality compositions. In this

study, the repetition of the “good writers” phrase impacted writing skills and performance as

well as the children’s writing identities. Throughout tutoring sessions tutors and the instructor

repeatedly made comments about what “good writers” do and applied them to the children’s

writing. The phrase was used as a way to give specific feedback to help children improve their

writing such as if a child had information in the composition that was off-topic, a tutor might

say, “Good writers have a main idea and make sure all their sentences support that main idea.”

This phrase was also used to give specific praise so children would know the specific writing

skill they correctly utilized.

Cowie (1995) states, “Feedback will improve student writing if students are given

appropriate and timely information, and are trained in ways to use it” (p. 187). This form of

125

feedback can be used to reinforce or adjust children’s performance as they write and in an

informal way. This feedback can prevent miscommunication regarding what corrections should

be made since a specific skill is coupled with the phrase. Often in this study the comments of

what “good writers” do were coupled with mini-lesson topics. This reinforced the information,

improving children’s skills and performance. When it was used to praise children for what they

had done, it reinforced their beliefs of themselves as good writers. This illustrates how learning

can be a social process, here through the interactions of the tutors/instructors and children (Honig

& McDonald, 2005; Vygotsky, 1978)

In sum, afterschool programs can be a productive educational environment to implement

a digital writing process approach, especially when the concepts being taught and/or the tools

being used need minimal training for application. This study specifically found the use of

graphic organizers, mini-lessons, and repetition of “good writers” phrase as scaffolding

techniques that tutors with little training could utilize with positive outcomes.

Technology Use is Requisite and Non-negotiable to the Digital Writing Process

The fourth conclusion from this study is that technology use is requisite and non-

negotiable to a digital writing process. In this study, the application of technology impacted

motivation, engagement, skills, and performance and it aided research, communication with

audiences, and the creation of the book. Obviously, technology would be a requirement for a

program supporting a digital writing process, but the findings suggest technology was a crucial

part of this program.

The digital component made certain activities and tasks possible that could not have been

done with paper and pencil compositions. Understandably, revisions and edits were much easier

with a digital format than the erasing and rewriting that would be necessary with paper. This

126

saved time and moved the writing process forward at a quicker pace. Also, besides the face-to-

face classroom feedback, the other major forum for comments on the children’s writing was

possible due to digital means. Screenshots of the children’s rough drafts were posted to the blog

where the instructor and parents could then leave feedback in the form of blog comments.

Additionally, Internet access through the iPads made the research possible which helped bridge

the gaps in the children’s understandings of their writing topic. Also, because of the capabilities

of the iPad and Book Creator app, children had choice regarding the design and layout of their e-

book and the app functions were much easier to use than creating the book from paper. Digital

photographs were subsequently easily inserted into the e-book authors’ pages before printing,

allowing the audience to see who wrote their book and facilitating a more personal connection.

In this setting, the purpose of the technology use was a means to instruct digital literacy

skills in an authentic way, not to solely teach tech skills, though these skills were explained and

practiced. For example, the iPad was used to teach skills in the brainstorming stage of the

writing process, but concurrently, the children could learn how to operate the iPad as they were

researching. Though there were disadvantages to using the iPads such as the ease of getting off

track during research or the wait time due to having one tablet per group, the advantages

massively outweigh these limitations.

One framework advocated for use in implementing technology in a learning environment

is the technological pedagogical content knowledge (TPACK) framework from Mishra and

Koehler (2006). Cited by Hutchison et al. (2012) as a supportive framework leading to practical

implications for teachers, they acknowledge how it assists in “identifying and understanding the

complex interplay of teachers' technological knowledge, pedagogical knowledge, and content

knowledge and how these knowledge bases influence how a teacher effectively integrates

127

technology into classroom instruction” (p. 16). Ultimately, being wary of implementing

technology for the sake of technology is key, and with this model, technology can be applied so

that literacy skills are introduced, learned, and reinforced through a digital platform.

In sum, technology can play a critical role in the digital writing process. In this study,

writing via the iPads expedited the revision and editing stages, the blog provided another outlet

in which to share their writing with parents, and iPad functions allowed for screenshots of the

writing to be posted on the blog. Also, Internet access through iPads established the means for

writing research, and the Book Creator app permitted design and layout choice as well as digital

photographs to be used for authors’ pages. During a digital writing process, literacy skills can be

taught authentically through the use of technology with the practice of tech skills being an

additional benefit. Though this study revealed technology made it easy to get off track during

research and resources were limited to one tablet per group, the advantages of technology use far

outweighed the negatives.

Writing Themes Should Include Facets That Draw on Prior Knowledge and Foster

Knowledge Growth in a Digital Writing Process

The fifth and final conclusion from this study is the recommendation that writing topics

in a digital writing process be chosen from themes which provide a balance between topics

children will find familiar and topics that allow for knowledge expansion. In this study,

children’s motivation was impacted from their ability to choose their writing focus from broad,

common subject areas such as sports, the zoo, and music. Most sessions, children found topics

within the assigned themes that they were excited to write about because of their previous

experiences. But some themes such as restaurants and museums were subjects with which

children had little background requiring research to gain new knowledge. In these cases,

128

depending on the child, unfamiliar themes could inspire one to learn new information or to

become disengaged from the writing process.

When children had prior knowledge dealing with the themes, they were more inspired to

write. Mills (2016) states, “By beginning with familiar [themes] from students’ homes and

communities, teachers can embrace the diversity of interests and experiences of the class, while

leading them to new experiences of the world” (p. 12). Children have what Moll and Greenburg

(1990) term funds of knowledge specific to their experiences, background, and culture. Utilizing

these funds of knowledge in writing instruction is beneficial to learning (Prior, 2006). Behizadeh

(2014) advocates for defining a writing assignment as authentic based on the children’s

perspective, not to the teacher’s definition; therefore, by upholding the children’s perspective of

importance, their funds of knowledge will more likely be accessed. Behizadeh (2014) states,

“The focus has generally been on making [writing] tasks authentic to college, careers, or

researcher-determined notions of authenticity rather than making tasks authentic to students and

their funds of knowledge” (p. 27). The digital writing process can be a positive experience using

themes commonplace to children and based in their cultural backgrounds.

Though research has proven motivation and engagement are higher when children are

writing on familiar topics, there must also be opportunities for exposure to information and

experiences that will broaden children’s understanding of the world. Therefore, balancing theme

content with familiarity and with options for new knowledge is important. Research has

revealed children can be motivated with an opportunity to learn new information (Blumenfeld,

1992; Guthrie & Wigfield, 2000) as was found in this study. Yet, also in this study there were

instances where children were disheartened by being asked to write on an unfamiliar topic.

Technology played a large role in knowledge expansion due to the ease and novelty with which

129

research could be completed and at times this helped to renew children’s interest and

engagement with an unfamiliar topic.

In sum, the writing themes are a seminal element of the digital writing process. Finding a

balance between familiar subjects and those that will expose children to new information is an

important component. Though children need the opportunity to write what they know,

technology can be a key factor in helping children bridge background gaps to be able to write

about new information.

Implications

As the purpose of this study was to examine how children were influenced by the digital

writing process, implications are provided in the next section to help inform educators who seek

to implement digital writing in classroom settings. Three implications are presented for

consideration: 1) implementation of a digital writing process takes time and focus, 2)

implementation of a digital writing process requires access to technology, and 3) implementation

of a digital writing process must consider diverse learners.

Implementation of a Digital Writing Process Takes Time and Focus

Since writing is a skill that must be honed, time must be allotted for practice and for

realistic navigation through the recursive process of writing. The current climate of high-stakes

testing can tempt instructors to find a quick-and-dirty pedagogy that might help their students

meet writing standards, yet leave them unable to actually compose for audiences other than

standardized test evaluators (Beck & Jeffery, 2007; Luxia, 2007). As stated by Ortlieb, Verlaan,

Cheek, and DiMarco (2017),

When prescribed ways of writing determine whether a student passes a grade level,

teaching to the test becomes commonplace to ensure no child is left behind (that grade

130

level), leading to a narrowing of the curriculum. These approaches come at the cost of

implementing best practices in writing pedagogy toward students’ development as

competent writers capable of doing what real writers do – engage in story creation, plot

development, content knowledge extension, and image creation. (p. 3)

Ortlieb et al. continue with delineating the consequences of a testing mindset which places the

focus on the writing product, not the process, and therefore “do not adequately assess all that

students need to know and be able to do as successful writers” (p. 3). The rise of high-stakes

testing has done much to put a spotlight on writing, but teaching only to the test can be a

detriment to student skill development (Dutro, Selland, & Bien, 2013; Gregg, Coleman, David,

& Chalk, 2007).

The digital writing process in this study allowed children to pre-write and draft in one

session, then revisit the writing in the next session for revisions and editing. Though children do

need to gain skills for timed writing and producing a product on demand, there must be

instructional balance between a testing environment and the organic process in which students

can navigate through the stages of writing recursively as needed. Instructors have a

responsibility to provide support and learning environments conducive to skill development.

Therefore, educators must be mindful of the need for proper pedagogy and execution of writing

instruction which requires time and focus.

Implementation of a Digital Writing Process Requires Access to Technology

The implication of technology access it two pronged. First, schools, afterschool

programs, and other educational venues may not have the resources required to provide digital

writing instruction. Computer and mobile technology is expensive and organizations and

institutions often seek help from grants and other national and local funding sources. In this

131

study, the afterschool program received funding through university and donor resources in order

to provide iPad use to each tutoring group. Locating funds to supply technology for the digital

writing process must be considered and could possibly present a challenge.

Second, it is important to note that just as schools and other educational facilities have

difficulty funding technology, some families have limited access to technology as well. It is

never safe to assume the children working through the digital writing process have an immediate,

basic understanding of operating digital tools (Hutchison et al., 2016; Willmett & Curwood,

2014). The children in this study did have prior knowledge of touch screen usage, but due to the

paired grouping, the tutors were the main operators of the iPads. It is often easy to assume with

the representation of computer use today that all children will have rudimentary technology

skills, but they may have more social knowledge than knowledge of the educational functions of

the digital tools. Therefore, though technology use is ubiquitous in today’s society, there are

those, organizations and individuals, with limited access and this must be kept in mind when

implementing a digital writing process.

Implementation of a Digital Writing Process Must Consider Diverse Learners

Due to the current rise of diverse learners in this country, any implementation of a digital

writing process must consider the instructional and curricular needs for non-native English

speakers (Lincoln & Idris, 2015; McMartin-Miller, 2014). Designing writing programs for

English language learners means special needs must be considered and instruction altered to

meet their development stage. Though this study’s participants were English-only speakers with

similar cultural backgrounds, attention was given to the literature component of the program

making sure multicultural titles were chosen, and children were also given the option of

132

researching and writing on topics with which they had no prior experience in order to broaden

their background knowledge.

Culturally responsive teaching is a pedagogy in which instructors acknowledge and

celebrate diversity and utilize instructional strategies to do so (Ladson-Billings, 1994). This

pedagogy helps engage and motivate learners as they see themselves in the curriculum. Also,

targeting diverse learners for writing instruction is currently an essential need (Schwieter, 2010)

as writing test scores for this demographic are poor (National Center for Education Statistics,

2012). Consideration for diverse learners’ unique literacy needs should be integrated in any

writing instruction program and culturally responsive teaching promotes appropriate, research-

based methods in which to do so (Gay, 2010, 2013; Ladson-Billings 1995, 1999).

Future Research

As stated at the beginning of this study, there is a need for research on digital writing

with young learners (Brown, 2014; Ortieb et al., 2017; Rowe et al., 2014) and this study sought

to provide more information. As further questions are explored to fill the dearth of research in

this area, it should be stated that considerations for future research are taken from the context of

the limitations of this study. Consequently, limitations of this study will be presented first

followed by recommendations for further research.

Limitations of Study

This qualitative study was limited in scope and is not generalizable to other bodies of

research. The participants were homogeneous in racial status and age. Though the school itself

services a large majority of low socioeconomic students, the specific socioeconomic status of the

students in the study is unknown. Furthermore, not all children’s perspectives and experiences

were taken into account. Though this study focused on children from a variety of ability levels,

133

all children’s perceptions were not examined. The format of the program allowed for weekly

instruction executed afterschool and there is no definitive way to know if skill and performance

gains were made due to weekly enrichment or class instruction. The following research

possibilities stem from limitations of the current study.

Future Research Questions

At the conclusion of this study, questions arise regarding the implementation of a digital

writing process. 1) How would the use of more multimodal literacies impact the digital writing

process? This would allow for the use of more technology and for the children to experience

sound, video, pictures, etc. in the compositions, expanding their understanding of communication

and technology’s role in this expansion. How would this inclusion influence children’s

perceptions and experiences? 2) How, if at all, do partner personalities impact the digital writing

process? One concern cited in this study was of partner pairings causing one child to be

overpowered by a more dominant personality. How could this be mitigated? What impact does

this have on learning? 3) How could the implementation of a wider digital audience impact the

digital writing process? The authentic audience was a major component of this study but what if

the children’s e-books were distributed electronically on the web for anyone with Internet access

to see them or if their blog postings were accessible to more than their parents and instructor.

How would extending the authentic audience impact children’s perceptions and experiences of

the digital writing process, if at all? 4) Some students in the study linked effective use of digital

tools to one’s typing proficiency. What are the potential implications for this belief and students’

writing identities regarding digital tool use? 5) How can tutors with little tutoring or educational

experience best be trained implement a digital writing process? The tutors in this study had

limited experience or background with educational instruction and were prepared for these

134

sessions with three weeks of training while continuing to receive instructor support throughout

the program. How would more training impact the digital writing experience and what should it

include?

Chapter Summary

This study examined second graders’ experiences and perspectives with the digital

writing process in an afterschool setting. The findings in relation to the five research questions

were discussed in light of the theoretical framework and literature which supports this study.

Five conclusions were presented as recommendations for those seeking to implement a digital

writing approach in an educational setting: 1) Children are empowered through a digital writing

process, 2) Multiple audiences can assist with the digital writing process, 3) Afterschool

programs can be a productive setting for the digital writing process, 4) Technology use is

requisite and non-negotiable to the digital writing process, 5) Writing themes should include

facets that draw on prior knowledge and foster knowledge growth in a digital writing process.

Implications from this study were discussed in light of educators who might consider

establishing a digital writing approach with three points of concern highlighted: 1)

implementation of a digital writing process takes time and focus, 2) implementation of a digital

writing process requires access to technology, and 3) implementation of a digital writing process

must consider diverse learners. Finally, future research was discussed through the context of the

limitations of this study while drawing on the review of the research literature and the findings of

this study.

Students also viewed