國立虎尾科技大學 |

Efficiency, Correctness, and the Authority of Automation : = Technology in College Basic Writing Instruction.

Record Type:	Language materials, manuscript : Monograph/item
Title/Author:	Efficiency, Correctness, and the Authority of Automation :/
Reminder of title:	Technology in College Basic Writing Instruction.
Author:	Gibson, Gail R.
Description:	1 online resource (257 pages)
Notes:	Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-04(E), Section: A.
Contained By:	Dissertation Abstracts International79-04A(E).
Subject:	Educational technology. -
Online resource:	click for full text (PQDT)
ISBN:	9780355365351

Efficiency, Correctness, and the Authority of Automation : = Technology in College Basic Writing Instruction.
Gibson, Gail R.

Efficiency, Correctness, and the Authority of Automation :Technology in College Basic Writing Instruction. - 1 online resource (257 pages)

Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-04(E), Section: A.

Thesis (Ph.D.)

Includes bibliographical references

Nearly one-third of first-year college students are required to complete remedial courses (NCES, 2013), costing public institutions an estimated $1 billion annually (Bettinger & Long, 2009). This project examines a central tension in that much-debated policy space: whether colleges should pursue automated instructional tools to more efficiently prepare students in remedial classes for later coursework. Building on literature from composition and literacy studies and from higher education, this work investigates how pressures to make writing instruction for underprepared students faster and less costly risk restricting student access to complex literacy skills and, in turn, full access to college and professional pathways. The dissertation begins with a historical review of how technology has intersected with college literacy remediation across the twentieth century. A contemporary case study of a developmental writing course then examines student and instructor beliefs about the use of automated classroom tools in writing instruction. This work draws from and extends theoretical understandings of literacy as a social construct that is dependent on rhetorical awareness. The project also is framed by a consideration of the ways that beliefs about efficiency and Standard Language Ideologies (SLI) influence instruction and outcomes in college remediation.

Electronic reproduction.
Ann Arbor, Mich. :
ProQuest,
2018

Mode of access: World Wide Web

ISBN: 9780355365351Subjects--Topical Terms:

556755
Educational technology.
Index Terms--Genre/Form:

554714
Electronic books.

Efficiency, Correctness, and the Authority of Automation : = Technology in College Basic Writing Instruction.
LDR:04167ntm a2200373Ki 4500 001 910602
005 20180517123958.5
006 m o u
007 cr mn||||a|a||
008 190606s2017 xx obm 000 0 eng d
020 $a 9780355365351
035 $a (MiAaPQ)AAI10670281
035 $a (MiAaPQ)umichrackham:000780
035 $a AAI10670281
040 $a MiAaPQ $b eng $c MiAaPQ
099 $a TUL $f hyy $c available through World Wide Web
100 1 $a Gibson, Gail R. $3 1181973
245 1 0 $a Efficiency, Correctness, and the Authority of Automation : $b Technology in College Basic Writing Instruction.
264 0 $c 2017
300 $a 1 online resource (257 pages)
336 $a text $b txt $2 rdacontent
337 $a computer $b c $2 rdamedia
338 $a online resource $b cr $2 rdacarrier
500 $a Source: Dissertation Abstracts International, Volume: 79-04(E), Section: A.
500 $a Advisers: Anne Leslie Curzan; Anne Ruggles Gere.
502 $a Thesis (Ph.D.) $c University of Michigan $d 2017.
504 $a Includes bibliographical references
520 $a Nearly one-third of first-year college students are required to complete remedial courses (NCES, 2013), costing public institutions an estimated $1 billion annually (Bettinger & Long, 2009). This project examines a central tension in that much-debated policy space: whether colleges should pursue automated instructional tools to more efficiently prepare students in remedial classes for later coursework. Building on literature from composition and literacy studies and from higher education, this work investigates how pressures to make writing instruction for underprepared students faster and less costly risk restricting student access to complex literacy skills and, in turn, full access to college and professional pathways. The dissertation begins with a historical review of how technology has intersected with college literacy remediation across the twentieth century. A contemporary case study of a developmental writing course then examines student and instructor beliefs about the use of automated classroom tools in writing instruction. This work draws from and extends theoretical understandings of literacy as a social construct that is dependent on rhetorical awareness. The project also is framed by a consideration of the ways that beliefs about efficiency and Standard Language Ideologies (SLI) influence instruction and outcomes in college remediation.
520 $a Three central themes---authority, constraint, and possibility---emerge from this study. From historical analysis, the dissertation argues that the push to make college remediation faster through technological interventions is not a new phenomenon but, in fact, has been a recurring theme for the past century even as repeated turns toward automation have made little difference in remediation rates or outcomes. In the contemporary context of a developmental writing classroom at a regional community college, the project shows how automated instructional technologies assert strong authority over writing instruction and reduce the classroom focus almost exclusively to notions of correctness around language usage and conventions and standardization of form for written essays. Both students and teachers are reluctant to directly challenge this understanding of writing and writing instruction. Instead, they adapt their learning and teaching to meet the requirements of the technology system even, in some instances, as they voice doubts about its utility. Yet there also are moments of authentic possibility for broader learning and understanding through the use of the automated system. At various points, both students and their teachers bring their own critical questioning to bear in using the technology system to think more deeply about how language functions and the role of writing in their lives.
533 $a Electronic reproduction. $b Ann Arbor, Mich. : $c ProQuest, $d 2018
538 $a Mode of access: World Wide Web
650 4 $a Educational technology. $3 556755
650 4 $a Language arts. $3 556677
650 4 $a Higher education. $3 1148448
655 7 $a Electronic books. $2 local $3 554714
690 $a 0710
690 $a 0279
690 $a 0745
710 2 $a ProQuest Information and Learning Co. $3 1178819
710 2 $a University of Michigan. $b English & Education. $3 1181974
773 0 $t Dissertation Abstracts International $g 79-04A(E).
856 4 0 $u http://pqdd.sinica.edu.tw/twdaoapp/servlet/advanced?query=10670281 $z click for full text (PQDT)