Digital Authorship 1

Digital Authorship and Increased Metacognitive Processes

Alexandra Iggulden

87536141

ETEC 511 Section 64E

University of British Columbia

Dr. Norman Friesen

December 1, 2014
 Digital Authorship 2

Introduction

The definition of ‘author’ has gone through decades of academic debate (Bailey,

2000). Currently, Merriam Webster (2014) provides two different definitions for the word

author, “​the writer of a literary work” and “one that originates or creates.” ​To avoid

ambiguity within this paper, the use of the word author refers to someone that originates

or creates. Students author text as media in the form of written, visual and/or oral work.

The application or forum for which they author text is the relevant different between

pre-digital and digital authorship. Depending on the chosen tool, pre-digital or digital, his

or her audience may change from a limited audience to an expanded authentic

audience. The purpose behind student authorship is to entertain, inform, or persuade an

audience​ ​regardless who may be viewing their work​. ​Students may also choose which

tools to use based on what best fits the assignment or forum in which they are writing

for. Pre-digital and digital tools offer access to different audiences as well. That being

said, ​creating digital media for authentic audiences will increase metacognitive

processes within student work.

S​tudents that digitally author their work show apparent shifts in their

psychological mindset and intrinsic motivation to refine their work (Cheng & Ku, 2009).

This is due to broader audience possibilities online as well as the social impact of peers

and family members who may be viewing and commenting on student texts (Fitzpatrick,

2013). ​Digital authorship, side by side with authentic audiences, can motivate students

to use metacognitive and reflective processes more often and more effectively while
 Digital Authorship 3

completing, editing, and reflecting on their work (Ciampa, 2013).​ ​It also increases

students’ abilities to think critically and to collaborate with others to create texts that are

deeper, broader, and more connected to their real lives (Soule, 2014).

History of tools for authorship.

It is important to discuss the history of authorship of texts, various authorship

tools, and audience relationships to texts when considering their impact on student

motivations. Everyone working within the digital culture has been influenced not only by

digital culture, but by print culture. Historically speaking, authorship came in the form of

written text which was produced using a pencil and paper (Paul & Petrina, 2002). They

are our oldest and most ubiquitous tools for recording and manipulating ideas, however,

the digital age is producing a significant rise in different media tools that we can use to

talk, think, and collaborate with each other through, written, oral, and visual

representations (Thompson, 2013).

Putting pen to paper (or fingers to keyboard, more realistically) is

the traditional starting point for writing a short story, memoir, essay,
comic or novel — but in today's digital world, there are a slew of
unique tools that can make your illustrations and stories come to
life in ways that go far beyond the paperback (Albrent, 2014).

Similarly, in Dr. Norman Friesen’s (2011) article that discusses the relevance of the

lecture, he states, “instead of being replaced or rendered obsolete, the lecture, with its

oral roots, is complemented, augmented, and reconfigured through changes in textual

technologies” (p. 101). The evolution of the tools used for authorship can be explained

using the SAMR model. In the digital age, tools have been enhanced by substitution
 Digital Authorship 4

where, “technology acts as a direct tool substitute, with no functional change,” and

augmentation where, “tech acts as a direct tool substitute, with functional improvement”

(Puentedura, 2014). Tools have changed over time and although digital tools may be in

the forefront of 21st century classrooms, students will benefit most from a combination

between pre-digital and digital tools for authorship.

Authorship has evolved over the last several years, from pre-digital tools that

likely provided a limited audience to a variety of digital tools that include a potential to

have an expanded audience (Cooper, 2013). ​Socrates expressed concern that

traditional tools for authoring produced text that was too static; once you had written

something down it could not then be adapted to its audience (Thompson, 2013). A

traditionally authored product does not provide readers with the opportunity to discuss

or seek clarifications on any points without a direct discussion with the author

themselves. The digitally authored work of today would please Socrates: “it’s ​printish​,

but includes a roiling culture of oral debate attached to it” (Thompson, 2013, p. 69).

Allowing students to digitally publish their work online enables the potential for a highly

beneficial conversation between author and reader to take place.​ The significant

transition from pre-digital authorship tools to digital tools also caters to the diverse group

of students in 21st century classrooms, reaching those who learn independently as well

as those who are more collaborative in n​ature, ultimately improving focus amongst the

majority of students​ ​(Hendricks, 2013).

The digital tools and technologies that students use to author works and

assignments today still maintains the features of formal authorship, just in a new forum.
 Digital Authorship 5

Clive Thompson writes about the transition from pre digital tools to digital tools within his

book, ​Smarter Than You Think ​(2013). He states:

To be clear, I’m not predicting that the written word, our oldest
mass literacy, will disappear. in fact, it’s likely to remain the go-to
mode for expression. but as we develop ever more new modes for
expressing our ideas and recording knowledge, the challenge will
be figuring out when to use which form. when is text the best way to
make a point? When is the moving image? Or photos,
manipulations, data visualizations? Each is useful for some types of
thinking and awkward for others (pp. 110-111).

The teacher's role changes accordingly with the shift in cultural authorship from

previously being the center of attention and the dispenser of information, to facilitator,

setting project goals and providing guidelines and resources. “T​eachers need time to

learn new equipment and new software, and administrators need to keep this in mind

when delivering shiny new tools” (Collier, 2008, p. 12). A significant amount of

professional development will be necessary to effectively implement the use of digital

tools within the classroom (Ciampa, 2014).

21st century tools for authorship

As digital tools become more and more ubiquitous to our daily lives, it is only

natural that they are also infiltrating our classrooms (Bidin & Ziden, 20013). “Learning is

complex work and like other forms of skilled and technical work it requires that the

person performing the job understand and be comfortable with his or her tool set”

(Alberta Government, 2011, p. 4). ​Digital technologies, combined with the pencil and

paper, provide students with a multimodal toolset for learning.

The expansion of our toolset via digital technologies will inevitably

allow us to begin to shift our thinking about the mode of our work
 Digital Authorship 6

away from a uniform focus on the text-only formats that scholarship

has traditionally taken, encouraging us instead to think about the
ways that our work might interact with, include, and in fact ​be
something more than just text (Fitzpatrick, 2011, p. 18).

As access to digital devices within the classroom increases, students begin to

develop digital literacy through the u​se of these new tools. Students who use digital

tools actively make decisions regarding the process of expressing their knowledge.

They must decide how they will gather, synthesize, and display their learning to others

(Soule, 2014). This is more readily facilitated by digital tools than by analog tools. For

example, ​Fitzpatrick states, “the word processor has allowed my writing to become

much more about process - more recursive, more nonlinear, more open-ended, more

spontaneous - than previous technologies permitted” (Fitzpatrick, 2011, p. 5).

The choice as to which tool students use is based on whether their message is

intended to be written, oral, or visual, as well as, whether students plan on publishing

their work for free in online forums. That being said, if students do publish their work

online they will gain access to a more authentic audience that enhances the overall

educational experience for the student (Couros, 2014). Cory Austin (2014) details her

visit to Ms. Murray’s grade seven classroom in a recent blog post, where she noted that

by sharing their work with a larger audience students expressed greater confidence with

writing, editing, and revision skills. They were motivated to do more quality work and

their engagement had notably increased.

Educators work hard to provide authentic learning opportunities that meet the

needs of each their students. The choice of tools allows students to share their

messages in a manner that best suits their preferences and the purpose for their text.
 Digital Authorship 7

These options can include primary social publishing tools such as social media outlets

or creation applications that can be shared to third party applications including social

media. For example, some students may prefer to share their messages through

imagery on digital forums such as Instagram, Tumbler, or Pic Collages. Other students

may prefer to share their messages orally or in soundbytes through an audio file such

as a podcast, or a video file on Youtube.

Written authorship can be expressed using forums that allow for either shortened

or expanded texts. Students who prefer to share their written messages in a more

condensed format may consider using microblogging forums such as Twitter.

“Microblogging created a torrent of public thinking by making a virtue of its limits. By

allowing people to write only 140 characters at a time, Twitter neatly routed around the

‘blank page’ problem: everybody can think of at least that many words to say”

(Thompson, 2011, p. 76). Other students may need more space to express themselves

using a combination of written, oral, and imagery skills, or they may simply

communicate in longer drawn out thoughts. One of the most well known digital tools that

allows for a combination of skills to be expressed in one place is blogging. Students can

create interactive websites where they post entries that include, written work, links, and

pictures (Zawilinski, 2011). These websites ask others to join into conversations through

commenting or discussion forums creating an authentic and collaborative learning

environment. Blogs expand the audience for students text, enhance problem solving on

the Internet, and promote safe communication strategies (Zawilinski, 2011). Blogs can
 Digital Authorship 8

also serve as learning portfolios that students can refer back to as they progress

throughout their learning experiences (Couros, 2014).

History of Student Audience and a Cultural Shift

Typically, the main audience for student work within the classroom is the teacher

but not every student strives to please their teacher.

The most effective way to engage these students in learning is to

create an authentic audience, giving them a sense that someone
else (besides teachers and parents) cares about their work. They
need to have a vision of a product that matters. They need to learn
content and develop skills to complete the product” (Levy, 2008, p.
76).

When students author text for an authentic audience online they become personally

invested and are motivated to become better writers (Collier, 2008). They are also more

likely to fully commit to the process of learning through drafting and revision strategies

(Peterson, 2014)​.

Digital tools expose students to the idea that they can apply their skills and

knowledge to create products that have the ability to reach authentic audiences or

authentic community needs. One example of this was apparent in a grade seven

student from West Langley Elementary who chose to do a Genius Hour project on

raising funds and awareness for water in Africa. She created a website featuring

information about her cause and ways that her audience could contribute, and

published it online. She was able to bring her website to the attention of a

representative from the Hope International Development Agency, a non-profit

organization with similar aims, and she is now in the process of becoming partners with
 Digital Authorship 9

them to combine their fundraising efforts. The motivation seen within this student

throughout the knowledge acquisition and creation process of her project were

extraordinary. When she learned that her project had the ability to reach an authentic

audience, her engagement and determination was catalyzed. Additionally, her

motivation had a positive effect on her classmates as well (personal communication,

May 10, 2014).

Broader audience possibilities online as well as the social impact of peers and

family members viewing and commenting on student work creates a psychological

change in of self in digital authors that is apparent through intrinsic motivation to refine

authored text (Cheng & Ku, 2009). Students who are intrinsically motivated will continue

to author text while those who are extrinsically motivated by likes and mentions are not

(Ciampa, 2013).

Just as there has been a shift in audience, there has been a cultural shift with

regards to authorship values. “The historical formation of the notion of authorship in

modern literary culture has of course held originality among its key values (Fitzpatrick,

2011, p. 15). Similarly, students often focus on individuality and originality when they

author text within the classroom setting. In contrast, as text becomes more readily

available to us, we have access to multiple resources that influence our ideas and

opinions, predetermining any new text to be seemingly collaborative in nature. This

concept is apparent in the many peer-authored communities that are comprised of

scholarly articles, blogs, and media, that students can cite as sources as they author
 Digital Authorship 10

their own text. Fitzpatrick (2011) refers to this collaborative environment in his article

The Digital Future of Authorship: Rethinking originality:​

“We might, for instance, find our values shifting away from a sole
focus on the production of unique, original new arguments and
texts to consider instead curation as a valid form of scholarly
activity, in which the work of authorship lies in the imaginative
bringing together of multiple threads of discourse originate
elsewhere, a potentially energizing form of argument via
juxtaposition” (pp. 17-18)

As such, authorship is a collaborative competency whether it is perceived that

way or not. Students must come to realize that there are, “complex layers of authorship

involving platforms that are themselves authored…[They] build with samples and feeds

and the inputs of an inconceivably large choir” (Rettberg, 2011, p. 15). The digital age

has brought with it a significant cultural shift from the emphasis for authorship based on

individuality and originality, to works created through collaboration (​Weingarten A Frost,

2011)​. This cultural shift has significantly altered the way students think about authoring

their work including how they approach the process of authorship.

Sociological impact of digital authorship and the impact on the self.

The abundant number of authorship tools provides teachers with the opportunity

to set the classroom up in a way that allows for student autonomy and choice. Multiple

media options empower students by giving them the choice of how they express their

messages beyond just written work. “Researchers have indicated that locus of control is

associated with motivation when students are given control over their learning”

(Ciampa, 2013, p. 84). Intrinsically motivated students exhibit embodied learning where
 Digital Authorship 11

they are more focused on the process of learning and are flexible to change throughout

their work rather than on the finished product (Ciampa, 2013). It is important to mention

that educators should not focus only on intrinsic motivation but also on whether the

authorship opportunities are safe, age appropriate, and meaningful to the students’ lives

(Fitzpatrick, 2011).

Broader audience possibilities online creates a psychological change of self in

digital authors as apparent through intrinsic motivation to refine media works (Cheng &

Ku, 2009). One of the most direct intrinsic motivators for learning is curiosity (Ciampa,

pg 89). “Technology-enhanced environments afford individuals with almost limitless

opportunities for exploration and ready access to information to support both sensory

and cognitive curiosity” (Liu et al., 2002, p. 8). Constructive criticism through comments

from peers teaches students that their work may be incomplete or inconsistent. This

heightens their cognitive curiosity and creates a desire within them to return to their

work (Malone & Lepper, 1987). Online interactions with an authentic audience that

continues to interact with your work, even through the smallest forms of feedback like

microexpression, a tweet, a like or follow, will continue to motivate students to extend

their learning and create updated versions of their work online (Ciampa, 2013;

Fitzpatrick, 2011). Zawilinski (2011) describes this aspect when he says:

In this stage, students begin to summarize and synthesize

understanding across multiple textual units. While thinking about
the novel they are reading, the blog posts by other students, and
the group/class conversation, students are asked to synthesize
what has been shared and learned (p 659).
 Digital Authorship 12

This type of synthesizing involves original thinking which requires the use of higher

order thinking skills (Harvey & Goudvis, 2007).

“​The ability of an author to return to previously published work, to rework it, to

think through it anew, is one of the gifts of digital text's malleability” (Fitzpatrick, pg 2,

2011). ​The promotion of commentary on digital works explicitly exposes students to the

idea that different ideas and positions that are expressed regarding their work should be

valued and used throughout the revising process (McLaughlin & DeVoogd, 2004). The

ability to synthesize feedback and the views of peers into their own work is an example

of higher order thinking skills (Zawilinski, 2011). ​The use of metacognitive and reflective

processes in students are seen more often and more effectively while completing,

editing, and reflecting on their work (Ciampa, 2013). The ongoing process of published

work increases pleasure while also decreasing anxiety in students as they come to

realize that the process is of greater importance than finished product itself (Fitzpatrick,

2011).

Online authorship and publication produces an archive of student work that

students can continue to go back to, reflect on, and change, with the help of

collaboration from their peers (Couros, 2014). This ability to engage in revising work

provides easy access to textual alterations allowing students to develop a growth

mindset and to produce their best work because it is published (Fitzpatrick, 2011). By

creating a central place where students can see growth over time, personal reflection is

promoted (Ciampa, 2014). Ultimately benefiting students,​ “Reflective thinking involves

 Digital Authorship 13

actively monitoring, evaluating, and modifying one’s thinking” (Hmelo, Kinzer, Lin &

Secules, 1999, p. 43).

The potential to teach positive digital citizenship within the classroom is yet

another benefit to digitally authoring text. ​Digital tools for authorship allow us to present

the self that we want to be online (Turkle, 2012). ​By creating digital works, students are

creating positive digital footprints that can benefit them in their futures with regards to

income and job opportunities (source).

Conclusion

Tools for authorship have rapidly evolved from pre-digital tools, like the pencil

and paper, to digital tools, such as Twitter and blogging. Both sets of tools are

beneficial, however, digital tools provide authentic audiences for students which

increases intrinsic motivation and engagement throughout the process of learning.

Increased choice and ownership, as well as, a shift in focus to a collaborative

authorship approach are both evident when students publish text using online forums.

Increased metacognitive process are also apparent, including the synthesis of peer

comments into text, increased emphasis on revision, and promoted reflective processes

(Ciampa, 2013; Fitzpatrick, 2013).

 Digital Authorship 14

References

Alberta Government. (2012). Bring your own device: a guide for schools. Retrieved from

http://education.alberta.ca/media/6749210/byod%20guide%20revised%20201

2-09-05.pdf.

Albrent, E. (2014). Digital tools for authors and illustrators. Retreived from

http://mashable.com/2014/08/04/digital-tools-for-authors/​.

Author. 2011. In ​Merriam-Webster.com.​ Retrieved from

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/author​.

Austin, C. (2014). 4 benefits of blogging and publishing online. ​ASFM tech integration.​

Retreieved from ​http://www.asfmtech.org/?p=2873

Bailey, B.J. (2000). What is an author? ​Laryngoscope,​ ​110​, 1787-1788.

Biden, S., & Ziden, A.A. (2013). Adoption and application of mobile learning in the

education industry. ​Social and Behavioral Sciences, 90​(1), 720-729.

Cheng, Y. C., & Ku, H. Y. (2009). An investigation of the effects of reciprocal peer

tutoring. ​Computers in Human Behavior​, 25, 40–49.

 Digital Authorship 15

Ciampa, K. (2013). Learning in a mobile age: an investigation of student motivation.

Journal of Assisted Learning, 30,​ 82-96.

Collier, L. (2008). Widening the audience: students reading and writing online. ​The

​ etrieved from
Council Chronicle. R

http://www.lornacollier.com/CC0182Audiences-1.pdf​.

Cooper, J. (Feb 2013). ThumbScribes gives budding writers and authentic audience.

Learning & Leading with Technology - International Society for Technology in

Education,​ 32-33.

Couros, G. (March 2014). 5 reasons your students should blog. ​Principal of change.

Retrieved from ​http://georgecouros.ca/blog/archives/3721​.

Friesen, N. (2011).​ The lecture as a transmedial pedagogical form: A historical analysis​.

Educational Researcher, 40​(3), 95-102. Library Portal Access.

Fitzpatrick, K. (2013). The digital future of authorship: rethinking originality. ​Culture

machine,​ ​12,​ 1-25.

 Digital Authorship 16

Harvey, S. & Goudvis, A. (2007). ​A study guide, Strategies that work: Teaching

Comprehension to Enhance Understanding. ​Retreived from

http://www.stenhouse.com/pdfs/strats2guide.pdf

Hendricks, D. (March 2013). A look at recent findings on technology in the classroom.

Huffington Post; Tech. ​Retrieved from

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/drew-hendricks/technology-education_b_2867

458.html​.

Hmelo, C., Kinzer, C.K., Lin, X., & Secules, T.J. (1999). Designing technology to

support reflection. ​Educational Technology Research and Development,

47(​ 3), 43-62.

Levy, S. (2008). The power of audience. ​Giving Students Ownership of Learning, 66​(3)​,

75-79.

Liu, M., Toprac, P., & Cordova, D. (2009). What factors make a multimedia learning

environment engaging: A case study. Retrieved from

http://alienrescue.edb.utexas.edu/researchpapers/LiuTopracYuen.pdf.
 Digital Authorship 17

Malone, T.W., & Lepper, M.R. (1987). Making learning fun: a taxonomy of intrinsic

motivations for learning. Retrieved from

http://ocw.metu.edu.tr/mod/resource/view.php?id=1311.

McLaughlin, M., & DeVoogd, G. (2004). Critical Literacy as comprehension: Expanding

reader response. ​Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 48(1) 52-62.

Paul, R. (Executive Producer) & Petrina, S. (2002, October 11). ​The Magic Box:

Technology in education​(Sound Recording). Washington, D.C.: National

Public Radio, Sound Prints.

Peterson, S.S. (2014, February). Supporting struggling readers. ​What works? Research

into practice​. Retrieved from

http://www.edu.gov.on.ca/eng/literacynumeracy/inspire/research/WW_Struggl

ingWriters.pdf​.

Puentedura, R. R. (November 2014). SAMR: First steps. ​Ruben R. Puentedura’s Blog.

Retreived from ​http://www.hippasus.com/rrpweblog/​.

Rettberg, S. (2011). Finding a third space for electronic literature: creative community,

authorship, publishing, and institutional environments. ​Journal of Writing in

Creative Practice, 4(​ 1), 9-23.

 Digital Authorship 18

Soule, H. (2014). The helpful use of digital tools in the 21st century classrooms.

​ etreived from
Partnership for 21st century skills. R

http://www.p21.org/news-events/p21blog/1513-soule-the-helpful-use-of-digital

-tools-in-21st-century-classrooms-students-speak​ on Nov 23, 2014.

Thompson, C. (2013). ​Smarter than you think.​ New York, NY: The Penguin Press.

Turkle, S. (2012, April 21). The flight from conversation. ​New York Times,​

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/22/opinion/sunday/the-flight-from-conversati

on.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0​.

Weingarten, K., & Frost, C. (Spring, 2011). Authoring wikis: Rethinking authorship

​ p. 47-57​.​ Retrieved from

through digital collaboration. ​The Radical Teacher, p

http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5406/radicalteacher.90.0047.

Zawilinski, L. Hot blogging: a framework for blogging to promote higher order thinking.

The Reading Teacher, 62​(8), 650-661.