Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 1 Fostering Student Confidence Through the Mindful Usage of Online Writing Pedagogy Erin Curtis Department of English, Weber State University MENG 6960: Masters Thesis 2 December 2022 Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 2 Abstract Composition instructors are often eager to embrace new communication methods and platforms without fully understanding the frequency or purposes students are using such platforms for. This paper outlines and analyzes the results of a study (conducted at an open-enrollment university) into the online spaces freshman students enrolled in introductory composition courses frequent, how they occupy such spaces, and the rhetorical challenges that affect their online writing habits. Data from this study is then used to propose a pedagogical approach to teaching online writing within traditional freshman composition courses. This proposal includes frameworks for identifying rhetorical skills and strategies and easy-to-implement activities to model, analyze, and practice rhetorical strategies. Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 3 Fostering Student Confidence Through the Mindful Usage of Online Writing Pedagogy Within the field of composition studies, the idea of educational relevancy, or how a curriculum is current or usable for students, is a frequently discussed topic. Open any number of composition or English education journals and you will find a long history of articles pertaining to the application of composition skills to some of the newest arenas of writing. As methods of communication expand, composition instructors are eager to incorporate new audiences, environments, and writing spaces into their instruction. One area experiencing rapid growth and incorporation is digital writing. This writing area feels fresh, relevant, and exciting but many instructors have rushed to incorporate this method of writing without empirical data to support its current classroom use. In the field of composition studies and education, research used to justify the effectiveness of digital writing often relies on qualitative data and classroom anecdotes which have, in turn, contributed to classroom lore or assumptions about students that far too often are the driving force behind instructional choices. Additionally, there are few, if any, national studies that examine the broad range of writing activities available online, frequency of usage, or the comfort students currently have in writing in such spaces. Quantitative data that exists tends to focus on specific platforms, usually social media based, and overlooks networked writing purposes (boyd, 2014). Additionally, this data focuses on new media literacies (Livingstone, 2004) and proficiencies in using digital tools and does not address the issue of helping students navigate rhetorical challenges specific to online writing environments or their confidence in composing in online spaces. Under this guise, the benefits of digital writing and literacy have been well-defended in the past decade. Kelly Gallagher, a renowned proponent of “real world” writing has worked with Penny Kittle and published extensive works on multimodal writing in secondary English Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 4 Language Arts programs. Additionally, composition instructors have sought to implement digital writing into their studies not only to keep up with current rhetorical complexities found online but also to provide students with the digital literacies required for future employment (Livingstone, 2004). In all levels of education, efforts have been made to focus less on the final written product and more on the practices of writing (Yancey, 2004; Brooke, 2014). Doing so not only reinforces student engagement with writing but also allows underachieving students to draw on out-of-class strengths to demonstrate competency (Prior and Shipka, 2004; Yu, 2014; Brooke, 2014). While those defenses accurately highlight the necessity of digital literacy and writing, they make many unsupported assumptions about how frequently students’ engage in producing, not just consuming, materials on online platforms. Digital writing has been held as a golden standard for student engagement and in some cases used in a “add technology and stir” approach (Brooke, 2014, p.180). Under this approach, if teachers can make their writing instruction relevant through digital tools and platforms, students will suddenly form compositional connections and become engaged and dedicated rhetoricians. In 2009, Smith et. al wrote that modern students are frequently more civically engaged—both online and offline—and are more likely to join political or civic groups, contact government officials, or express themselves in the media. While this may have been accurate in 2009, a 2018 survey by Gold, Day, and Raw paints a different picture of students who are frequent consumers of online media but are less likely to create or engage in intentional rhetorical dialogue in online spaces. Understanding students’ present skills and perceptions of online writing is essential in designing a curriculum that builds upon current strengths, addresses gaps or weaknesses, and provides authentic practice which encourages the transfer of academic skills to situations outside of the classroom. To create activities that have academic transfer potential, educators must have a better understanding of the Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 5 spaces students frequent, how often those spaces are used for writing production compared to writing consumption, and the fears, concerns, and modality-based challenges that influence students’ online writing habits. Without this nuanced understanding, curriculum can either fall flat of student expectations or contribute to concerns and anxieties that keep students from participating in online writing spaces. Clarifying Semantics Before proceeding, it is important to clarify what is meant by online writing. In composition, many terms have been used to describe “new media” and writing techniques that students use to engage with it. For the purposes of this paper, online writing refers to all writing students complete using an electronic program (intended for writing or not) that is intended for online publication or engagement. This can include multimodal writing but is not limited to it as audience is a large component and consideration of online communication. Within this definition, writing tasks such as writing a review on Amazon, posting a photo and caption on Instagram, sharing or responding to social content, or publishing on YouTube or LinkedIn can be included. While this emphasis on semantics may seem pedantic, clarity of purpose is vital in defining student activities and skills. Digital writing places emphasis on the presence of digital elements or the tools used to create writing rather than the purposes of writing. As stated previously, instructors placed undue emphasis on the digital tools used to create a written product. By shifting our terminology to online writing, educators are able to assume digital tools are used in the creation process and focus instead on where writing is occurring, its purpose, and platform/genre-specific rhetorical choices and challenges instead. Student Perceptions of Online Writing Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 6 In 2018, David Gold led an initiative to conduct a large-scale, quantitative survey of students’ online writing habits, their perceptions towards platform purpose, and rhetorical challenges encountered in producing online writing. This survey found that while most students did have multiple accounts on online writing platforms, their rhetorical activities were limited. Most utilized social media platforms to connect and maintain relationships with friends and family. Public-facing writing, where the audience was less controlled, was also used far less than relationship maintenance writing (Gold, Day, Raw 2020, p.6). What is interesting about this survey is that when examining where students spent the majority of their time, social media platforms such as Facebook, Snapchat, and Instagram were each listed by over 80% of the respondents. Comparatively, students were most frequently asked by writing instructors to compose on blogs (31.7%), Twitter (24.1%), and LinkedIn (23.4%). Please note the drastically lower number of respondents who reported school or class assignments using digital writing (Gold, Day, Raw, 2020, p. 10). While it is understandable that students would generally rather spend their time connecting with friends rather than updating Wikipedia pages, commenting on local news forums, or reviewing products, the question arises of how much content is being created, rather than consumed, by students. In this same study, 86.2% of respondents reported writing online to maintain relationships; however, only 12% would frequently share information or expertise on a topic, 9.9% wrote to share creative works such as music or videos, and 10.4% frequently engaged in debate over controversial topics or events (Gold, Day, Raw, 2020, p. 10). This hardly depicts the rigorous rhetoricians that qualitative publications have depicted. These numbers become even more discouraging when you consider that 55.5% of all respondents frequently Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 7 delete posts or decide not to engage in digital writing with 44.9% citing fears of audience reaction as a contributing factor to their decision. These findings led me to wonder why students are so hesitant to engage in the intentional rhetorical dialogue their composition instructors encourage. In reviewing Gold’s data, two main causes can be identified: platform usage and audience. Online platforms carry with them cultural significance as well as intended use. As noted in the data above, social media platforms are the predominant writing platform that students use, however; these platforms are not seen by students as appropriate for rhetorical debate or stances. Gold, Day, and Raw’s survey revealed that, in student opinion, Snapchat was listed as the most inappropriate space for debate followed by Instagram and Facebook. Among the most appropriate spaces were forums, blogs, and news commentary (Gold, Day, Raw, 2020, p.17). Forums and news commentary were also among the least used by instructors for digital writing assignments. When instructors ask students to create content on platforms not intended for that use or seen as appropriate, they not only lose credibility with their students but also forfeit opportunities for genuine and authentic writing engagement and practice. When examining student perspectives, another concerning aspect of this report is that students may not recognize the stances, debate, or nuanced histories platforms have with individual expression and argument discourse. Additionally, when writing assignments are given on unfamiliar platforms, instructors must be aware of and plan instruction time for general use and production of writing. In online and public spaces, audiences are already present. Online writing is vulnerable and exposes students to the critiques of not just their peers but also unknown or unwelcome critics. In a qualitative study Gold, Garcia, and Knudson (2019) found that the stakes for rhetorical failure are much higher than in the traditional writing classroom: writing that does not Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 8 meet its mark is not simply a private matter between student and teacher—with an opportunity for revision—but a public affair that may forever define a writer by one inopportune moment. In Gold’s research, students show they are aware of their audience and select their platforms based on the audience they intend to reach, even though that audience is often narrow. Students reported having between four and five online writing accounts or profiles but 56.5% never wrote for “fellow citizens or the general public” (Gold, Garcia, Knudson, 2019, p. 15). Surveys of teen social media users reveal that this fear of writing for those outside of a trusted inner circle may stem from valid concerns about bullying, hate speech, harassment, and cyberstalking (Anderson & Jiang, 2018). An inaccurate picture of students' writing abilities can lead to classroom experiences where rhetorical rules are applied inaccurately or out of context for student use. “Attending to the epideictic nature of [a digital] environment means first taking students’ epideictic performances more seriously, and second, acknowledging that the “rules” of deliberative discourse we commonly teach may not apply to all rhetorical situations” (Gold, Garcia, Knutson, 2019). When teachers rush to use digital platforms without a complete understanding of their students’ current use and abilities, or even a complete understanding of the rhetorical nuances of a platform, they miss opportunities to create meaningful practice and instruction in class which can encourage academic transfer to non-academic environments. So where do we go from here? Gold, Day, and Raw’s study has figuratively opened a door for educators to better understand the instructional needs of their students. While their study will surely prove to be foundational in online writing’s instructional trajectory, it needs to be replicated at multiple universities and use modern platforms to clarify students’ current writing practices. Their survey was completed in 2018 and publication was delayed due to Covid-19 Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 9 restrictions and closures. As such, popular platforms such as TikTok were not included in their survey. TikTok is an important platform to consider because it utilizes physical storytelling more than any platform and inspired Instagram’s reels and live stories features. Closures and isolation practices related to Covid-19 also increased the amount of digital writing and learning that students were engaging in. Replicating this survey gives educators a chance to understand and empirically analyze how a generation of college freshmen perceive and participate in online writing in a post-Covid-19 educational environment. If Gold, Day, and Raw’s findings are upheld, current composition studies are failing to give students the skills needed to engage in modern digital dialogue and require adjustment. The outcomes of this research can then be used to guide university curriculum or even to further define what new media pedagogy or its subgenre of online writing really means in terms of student literacies. Ultimately, the goal of this research is to help guide instructors in their work to empower student writers with knowledge and understanding of rhetorical practices in writing, the ability to transfer rhetorical practices to non-classroom settings, and confidence in participating in dialogue across multiple platforms and modalities. Methodology Using Gold, Day, and Raw’s survey as a model, I created a twelve question survey using Qualtrics. This survey sought to answer the following questions: 1. What digital writing spaces are students occupying? 2. Are students creating original content in these spaces, responding to the creations of others, or acting as silent observers? 3. When students write online, who is their audience, and what is their intended purpose/outcome? Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 10 4. What rhetorical challenges/struggles do students face when engaging in online writing and digital rhetoric? This survey was reviewed by a thesis committee and submitted for IRB approval. The IRB committee determined that this survey qualified for exemption status. Weber State University is an open-enrollment university with a significant number of non-traditional students. This provides an interesting contrast to the large midwestern university where Gold’s study was conducted, although this will not be a major point of emphasis in subsequent analysis. While demographic information such as race and socioeconomic status were not gathered (largely to avoid survey fatigue from the participants), the survey did gather age and required composition courses completed. Administration of the survey was focused on students currently enrolled in freshman composition courses. Including age allowed for any significant generational gaps to be identified and to examine perceptions of recently graduated high school students as they enter higher education. An unexpected outcome of collecting this data has been the ability for preliminary discussions about the potential impact of Weber State’s introductory composition course, which addresses elements of digital and multimodal writing, on students’ online writing habits and perceptions. The survey link was distributed to forty-four English 1010 and thirty-seven English 2010/2015 instructors with a request to distribute the survey among their students and, if possible, provide class time for completion. Concurrent enrollment students were not included in this study due to time constraints and the IRB process for survey distribution in public school settings across multiple districts. Instructors received a reminder email two weeks before the survey closed to encourage students to participate. Because our university limits survey Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 11 distribution for instructor or student research projects, the survey was not distributed using university-wide communication methods. Occupying Online Spaces To answer the first research question, I identified fourteen participatory online writing spaces. In identifying these spaces, I tried to honor Gold et. al’s combination of social, professional, and educational platforms. Using feedback from classroom conversations with my students and consultations with my thesis committee, I decided to expand the options to include more contemporary platforms, such as TikTok and BeReal. The full list of options included TikTok, BeReal, Instagram, Snapchat, Facebook, YouTube, Twitter, LinkedIn, Reddit, Blogs, Forums, News, Wikipedia, and Reviews. Students were able to select multiple platforms from this list. I also decided to change the wording of the question to include frequently visited sites, even if the user did not have an account created. In education, it is important to differentiate between consuming and competency in analyzing, and creating. By changing the phrasing of the question to include frequently visited sites, I was able to better judge what spaces students are frequenting and then examine how they occupy those spaces in later questions. Similar to Gold, et. al’s study, my survey showed that 91% of all survey respondents had an account with or frequently visited at least one of the online writing spaces identified. A majority of students visited or had accounts with multiple platforms. Seventy-five percent of respondents had accounts with or frequently visited at least three of the spaces with 64% having four or more accounts and 41% having five or more accounts. Again, similar to Gold’s findings, the most popular platforms were social in nature (See Table 1). This would suggest that students have a fairly large digital footprint and are, at least, frequently visiting and viewing content in participatory writing spaces. It is suspected that a small percentage of these accounts are residual, Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 12 meaning that they were created by students in the past but are not used as primary accounts or spaces anymore. For example, 94 respondents reported having an account with or visiting Facebook. Later in the survey though, only 77 respondents affirmed using Facebook for viewing or writing content. Instagram YouTube TikTok Snapchat Facebook Reddit Twitter BeReal News Wikipedia Linkedin Reviews Forum Blog 69.4% (157) 66.8% (151) 53.9% (122) 54.9% (124) 41.6% (94) 23.0% (52) 23.0% (52) 19.0% (43) 15.0% (34) 13.7% (31) 8.8% (20) 5% (12) 2.2% (5) 1.8% (4) Table 1. Percentages of students who frequently visit/have accounts in various writing spaces (n=226) Somewhat surprising is the preference students have for non-traditional forms of writing demonstrated by the popularity of Instagram, YouTube, and TikTok (See Table 1). In comparison, Gold’s 2018 study placed Instagram and Youtube as the third and fourth most-used platforms. In the four years between studies, Instagram has placed greater importance on “reels” and “live stories” to compete with TikTok, a video-based platform. As educators are crafting instruction surrounding rhetoric, it may be beneficial to return to rhetoric’s original beginnings in oral culture. Changes in technology have brought two vital, and revitalizing, elements to oral traditions. First, these changes have presented a new way for verbal communication to be made permanent. Adaptive technologies are becoming standard as well as features such as cameras and voice recording on cell phones and computers. Speech-to-text features are available in everything from texting and email to internet searches to word processing programs. For example, I have had several able-bodied students who use voice-to-text technologies to create physical writing. Drafting by recording no longer requires transcribing as even most formatting options can be created verbally. These technologies make it easier to share prepared and spontaneous oral presentations of information. Second, access to portable technology has grown Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 13 drastically in the last decade. With a simple cell phone, students can create and send video and voice memos almost instantaneously at any time they wish. Not only is the creation of video and audio easier, but editing options have become easier to use. Pre-created filters, background music, and other editing tools to enhance the presentation of oral information exist in cell phone camera settings as well as across a wide variety of free or low-cost apps. While these tools are more freely accessible, it is reasonable to question the intention behind their use. For example, when a student adds a filter to a video, are they aware of the intentional rhetorical move they have just made? In classroom instruction of rhetorical tools available, time would be well spent discussing and identifying why students choose to use filters. Instructors can utilize common social media platforms to help students analyze the rhetorical choices of other content creators and guide students through a metacognitive exercise to evaluate the degree of understanding and deliberate action behind their own creations. Are students participating in a trend or using filters to enhance their own Aristotelian rhetorical appeal by presenting a more standardly beautiful presence, blurring background distractions, or adding the latest bop in the background? Just as reading novels frequently does not make one an expert craftsman of fiction, frequently encountering online writing does not make students experts in rhetoric. Because students are encountering and have the opportunity to engage with online rhetoric more frequently, they should be explicitly taught how to analyze and intentionally utilize rhetorical moves in their own online writing. With this in mind, in the classroom rhetorical skills should be taught across a broad range of modalities to increase educational transfer of these skills. Written communication still plays a large role in our society; however, students are increasingly more likely to present information verbally and should be equipped with the skills and tools necessary to make informed and Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 14 deliberate rhetorical choices in not only how they present themselves but also the ideas that matter to them. In examining online spaces that students had been asked to write in, it is encouraging to see that 107 students, or 47% of the respondents, had been asked to write in online spaces for an English Language Arts (K-12) or College Composition course. What is concerning is that the most common spaces students are asked to write in embrace traditional written rhetoric with News, Reviews, and Wikipedia being the most commonly used platforms. Spaces students are most likely to occupy such as Instagram and TikTok were reported among the least used by educators for online writing instruction and practice. Educators seem to be trying to replicate a wider variety of online writing spaces as 68% of students who had been assigned online writing tasks indicated they had been assigned writing in two different spaces. While this effort is commendable, students are not being challenged to adapt the modality of their writing. Only 10% of students who reported online writing assignments used both traditional writing spaces and non-traditional or multimodal writing spaces such as YouTube, Instagram, TikTok, or BeReal. Of interest to Weber State University specifically, only five respondents who reported having already taken English 1010 listed YouTube as an online space. Because Weber State’s English 1010 curriculum is currently moving towards embracing a wider application of rhetoric, there seems to be room for educators to more fully emphasize the application of digital writing skills practiced in assignments such as the video documentary to other out-of-class platforms such as YouTube. This means instructors should discuss the platforms such digital writing may appear on instead of creation tools only. For example, in teaching traditional writing, tools such as word processors are not emphasized, rather the platform and potential audience for writing produced using a word processor. Other tools such as the Adobe Suite should be treated the same Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 15 way. Educational emphasis should be placed on where students might encounter multimodal forms of writing and the purposes of these platforms as well as necessary creation tools. News Reviews Wikipedia Blog Forum YouTube Instagram Snapchat Facebook TikTok Linkedin Twitter BeReal Reddit 55.1% (59) 46.6% (48) 29.9% (32) 21.4% (23) 14.9% (16) 14.0% (15) 13.1% (14) 12.1% (13) 10.2% (11) 7.4% (8) 4.7% (5) 4.7% (5) 1.9% (2) 1.9% (2) Table 2. Percentages of students who report being assigned a writing assignment for K-12 English Language Arts or university writing courses (n=107) Understanding how students occupy online writing spaces is just as important as understanding what online spaces they frequent. An assumption made after reading Gold et. al’s study was that a majority of students seem to be silent observers or “lurkers” in online spaces. In other words, students frequently visit online spaces to read or view others’ writing but rarely contribute their own. This assumption was confirmed in all online spaces examined. When looking at how students engage with online platforms, it is important to recognize that some of the platforms considered most popular (Instagram, YouTube, TikTok) have low levels of active engagement or engagement beyond reading/viewing. For example, the total percentage of students who report engaging with TikTok content through sharing or responding is just 6.7% with only 2.1% creating their own original content. Instagram and Snapchat had higher total participation levels but even these platforms have significant numbers of silently viewing lurkers. For this study, the options of frequently sharing with added commentary and frequently sharing without added commentary were added. In examining how students join online conversations, the amount of personal writing attached is noteworthy. My own students frequently address the vulnerability of writing online during class conversations. A post that is shared with no added commentary is sometimes seen as less vulnerable because the intentions behind the post are vague. Was the post shared because you agree with the stance presented or Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 16 simply because you found it entertaining? This method of curating an online identity should not be overlooked. Students can join conversations they may otherwise feel uncomfortable entering by relying on the words of others. In many ways, this is not unlike the research writing skills we teach our students. Amateur writers tend to lean on the words, thoughts, and ideas of more experienced writers. As composition instructors, our job is to help students find confidence in their own ideas by helping them explain and connect cited information to their own positions or arguments. This same method of scaffolding seems to be present in online writing environments as well. Recognizing these connections and the ways students can join online conversations can help educators build scaffolded approaches to teaching writing process across multiple platforms. Audience and Purpose: As students are learning to join online conversations, recognizing who those conversations are happening with and why those conversations are happening is vital in preparing students with appropriate rhetorical strategies. To maintain a clear comparison, my survey utilized the same categories as Gold et. al’s, focusing on five primary writing purposes: ● Maintaining relationships ● Developing a professional or personal identity ● Sharing information or expertise ● Posting creative work ● Debating controversial issues In both surverys, the most frequent reason students write online is to maintain relationships. With this in mind, it makes sense why so many students report never engaging in debate of controversial topics or events. This also explains the popularity of platforms like Instagram and Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 17 TikTok BeReal Instagram Snap-chat Facebook YouTube Twitter LinkedIn Reddit Blog Forum News Article News Comm. Review Wiki-pedia Frequently Read or View 51.8% (100) 4.7% (8) 45.0% (86) 27.8% (44) 24.44% (44) 61.9% (119) 20.34% (36) 4.7% (8) 21.6% (37) 4.1% (7) 4.1% (7) 28.6% (50) 20.7% (35) 9.6% (16) 24.4% (42) Frequently respond 2.1% (4) 1.2% (2) 6.3% (12) 17.5% (32) 4.4% (8) 4.2% (8) 1.7% (3) 0.0% (0) 3.5% (6) 0.0% (0) 0.6% (1) 2.9% (5) 3.6% (6) 1.8% (3) 2.9% (5) Frequently share with my own added commentary 3.6% (7) 2.9% (5) 7.9% (15) 6.0% (11) 6.7% (12) 4.2% (8) 1.7% (3) 3.5% (6) 2.3% (4) 0.6% (1) 1.2% (2) 1.7% (3) 2.96% (5) 3.0% (5) 0.6% (1) Frequently share with no added commentary 1.04% (2) 6.47% (11) 4.2% (8) 4.4% (8) 2.2% (4) 2.6% (5) 1.1% (2) 1.7% (2) 0.6% (1) 0.0% (0) 0.0% (0) 1.1% (2) 0.0% (0) 0.6% (1) 1.2% (2) Frequently write or post original content 2.1% (4) 11.8% (20) 16.8% (32) 12.0% (22) 5.0% (9) 2.1% (4) 2.8% (5) 1.7% (2) 1.2% (2) 1.2% (2) 3.6% (6) 0.6% (1) 2.96% (5) 1.2% (2) 2.3% (4) Never write or post 39.4% (76) 72.9% (124) 19.9% (38) 32.2% (59) 57.2% (103) 25.0% (48) 72.3% (128) 89.5% (154) 70.8% (121) 94.1% (159) 90.5% (153) 65.1% (114) 69.8% (118) 83.8% (140) 68.6% (118) Table 3. How students engage with various platforms by percentage Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 18 Snapchat, which focus on connecting people and ideas, over more educational platforms such as News, Wikipedia, Reviews, and Forums. Both Instagram and Snapchat showed higher levels of written engagement than other platforms surveyed. A little over 35% of respondents reported responding, sharing, commenting, or creating content on Instagram and 40% of respondents engaged in some form with content on Snapchat. Both of these platforms are relatively easy to use to share both personal creations and content from other platforms on. For example, personal content such as images and live updates can be shared. It is also easy to share humorous content, helpful videos, etc. from other creators that mimic the in-person conversations students might have with friends or family. What surprised me about our data was the hesitancy many students seemed to show in saying they never wrote for a specific purpose. This differed from Gold’s study in some significant ways. Over 60% of respondents in Gold’s study reported never posting creative work online. In comparison, Weber State respondents were almost 20% more likely to post creatively than Gold’s respondents. Some of this might be attributed to new platforms such as TikTok and BeReal although this seems unlikely has TikTok had some of the lowest engagement rates (only 2.1% of students report posting original content) and BeReal was relatively unpopular with only 19% of students reporting frequently using that platform (Table 1). What seems more likely is that the definition of what can be defined as “creative work” has been expanded as platforms continue to evolve. For example, sharing video has become easier and more mainstream. This has opened up platforms for comedy, dance, parody, music etc. to be easily created and shared. This, in addition to the prevalence of image sharing and students’ desire to connect interpersonally with family and friends, might explain why students feel more comfortable sharing creative works. This could prove frustrating for composition teachers though as written Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 19 communication is prioritized, especially in rhetoric studies. Returning to a previous argument, instructors may find more success in embracing rhetoric’s early traditions in oral presentations of argument, especially as they create authentic analysis and practice experiences for students. A resounding similarity between Gold et. al’s study and my survey is the desire students have to avoid controversial situations online. 62.7 of Weber State respondents reported never writing to debate controversial topics or events. Classroom conversations with my own composition students provided some interesting insight into why this might be. When discussing places students would feel most comfortable talking about a self-selected research topic related to their field of study, all students but one selected family/friends over classroom or online environments. When prompted further, the idea of relationships with audience members and vulnerability came up. Research can be a process of self-discovery with personal beliefs or understandings being challenged. This process of self-discovery was deemed to be more comfortable with people who know and love you as compared to environments that can be filled with strangers or easily taken out of context. My students overwhelmingly agreed that online speakers/writers are far more vulnerable than their audience, even in situations where the audience can respond and post vulnerable materials of their own. When compared to a classroom setting, my students pointed out that the classroom felt safer than online environments because all students are seen as novices and there is a known and shared critic (the instructor). The concept of writer vulnerability is intriguing to me for several reasons. First, as the vignette shows, students are incredibly aware of their primary and secondary audiences. In addition to the opportunity online spaces present for misinterpretations and misunderstandings, the consequences of communication mistakes are high. Most social platforms now allow users to share, respond to, and contribute to the materials of other creators without their consent, or even Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 20 knowledge at times. This new content can then be shared to a new, unanticipated audience with virality potential, continuing the cycle of the conversation. In addition to this method of sharing, online writing is accessible for long periods of time. Conversations that were considered finished can be opened again by commenters at any time. Old posts or thought processes by students can also be reincorporated into more current discussions out of original context or removing the speaker’s perceived ability to change. In some ways, vulnerability online could also be described as a lack of control over the conversation. While this lack of control is present in other writing and communication environments, the potential for critique and direct personal attacks is far more potent online. Frequently Sometimes Never Maintaining relationships with friends and family (n=197) 52.8% (104) 34.0% (67) 13.2% (26) Developing my personal or professional identity (n=196) 19.4% (38) 58.16% (114) 22.5% (44) Sharing information or expertise on a topic (n=194) 12.4% (24) 44.3% (86) 43.3% (84) Posting creative work (n=195) 17.4% (32) 40.5% (79) 42.1% (82) Debating controversial topics or events (n=196) 6.1% (12) 31.1% (61) 62.7% (123) Table 4. How often do you write online for the following purposes? Frequently = Daily/Weekly My students’ verbalized concerns about audience and writer vulnerability coincide with survey results which show that students are far more likely to write to their friends and family than to any other audience. Research into how students use multiple platforms to curate audience is fascinating and somewhat aligns with our own findings. Emily van der Nagel has researched Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 21 reasons why multiple and alternate profiles or accounts are used on social media. One aspect she found was that “when facets of their lives are incompatible, people segment those lives into separate areas in order to maintain social norms and boundaries” (2018, p. 2). The nuanced purposes of each social platform is just as important as its communicative abilities. For digital writers, their perceived audience is already established. Again, the majority of student writers engage in digital writing to maintain personal relationships. Students tend to deal with the anxiety of present audiences in three broad ways: avoiding audiences, curating audiences, and actively ignoring audiences. The engaged argument discourse that many composition instructors teach is actively avoided. One potential way that students currate their audience is by creating alternate accounts and using privacy settings. Alternate accounts create a way for individuals to engage in platform purposes or content they have interest in while curating their audiences. It should be noted that in this study, the survey body was composed of largely college graduated adults and not young adult writers. While students’ audiences are fairly narrow, respondents at Weber State were slightly more likely to write for affinity groups and the general public than in Gold’s study. Writing for affinity groups may also be connected to the sharing of creative works as well. For example, it is relatively easy to utilize individual tags or hashtags to label a dance video and draw attention from other fans of the dance style or even fans of the artist whose music is used. Similar labels exist in forums for fan fiction/art and many platforms’ visual emphasis make it easier to share visually creative works with interested audiences. Returning to the idea of audience curation, labeling, and tagging writing can be seen as a form of curation and the speaker’s attempts to control the conversation, or who the participants in the discussion are. Ultimately, it is realistic for instructors to look at this data set and conclude that students lack the skills to navigate diverse audiences. Similarly, what students post and why they write Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 22 online are largely driven by their perceived audience. A more optimistic interpretation might include the desire that students show to write online for a variety of purposes. Over a third of all respondents at Weber State share that they sometimes write for affinity groups and members of the general public. This, combined over 40% of respondents stating that they sometimes write to share expertise on a topic or creative works should give composition teachers hope. Students are not resoundingly saying that they do not want to write in online spaces. Instead, this data seems to convey students who want to engage in diverse online writing practices but are ultimately influenced by audience. Frequently Sometimes Never Family and friends (n=196) 44.4% (87) 34.7% (68) 20.9% (41) Members of an affinity group (n=196) 7.1% (14) 30.6% (60) 62.24% (122) Members of a professional community (n=196) 6.6% (13) 19.3% (38) 74.1% (146) Fellow citizens or the general public (n=197) 13.2% (26) 29.4% (56) 58.4% (115) Table 5. How often do you write online for the following audiences? Frequently=Daily/Weekly The purposes students write for will directly influence their choice of platform. Online platforms carry with them structural purposes as well as cultural meaning. As one of my students pointed out (to resounding applause from the class), “Facebook is where old people go to argue.” BeReal was created in direct response to platforms such as Instagram which tend to glamorize everyday life. This countercultural platform is meant to show brief snapshots of a user’s “real life” throughout the day and functions largely as a photo-sharing platform with relatively few traditional writing opportunities. Anticipating that students largely avoid debate or controversial Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 23 discussion online, and knowing that debate or argument writing is commonly taught in beginning college composition classes, I decided to include Gold’s question about appropriate spaces for debating controversial topics. Significant modifications were made to expand the potential of the question. First, the question’s wording was changed from debate to “post, present, or discuss” controversial “topics or opinions.” Debate often carries a negative connotation for students. With this question, I wanted to better understand where students felt it was appropriate to share opinions that might be controversial. Because this survey was given during a midterm election year, I also wanted to avoid terms that could be politically affiliated. Controversial topics can range from environmental issues to religion to supporting an unpopular musician. My goal was to encourage survey users to explore what might be considered controversial using more neutral terms such as “discuss,” “post,” and “present.” The method of answering was also changed from a sliding bar to a matrix with not appropriate, somewhat inappropriate, somewhat appropriate, and very appropriate as options. The matrix option was a more user-friendly option for students taking the survey on their phones and helped limit survey fatigue. In looking at the number of responses, response numbers declines corresponded with platform usage. Platforms that were more familiar/popular received higher response rates than less familiar platforms (rather than responses declining by placement in the matrix). Two important connections should be drawn in analyzing responses to this question. First, the majority of spaces seen as most appropriate for controversial discussions utilize traditional writing. Second, these spaces are also some of the most infrequently used or visited by students. The exception to both of these connections is YouTube which was seen as the third most appropriate space for controversial discussions. The presence of this video-based platform is intriguing because it shows that students are, at least in a small way, recognizing that Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 24 controversial discussions can happen in non-written mediums. For instructors, this provides a pleasant stepping stone in moving to rhetorical analysis of controversial posts on more popular platforms such as Instagram and TikTok. Surprisingly, Gold’s prediction that Twitter would rise as an appropriate platform for controversial discussions did not occur in this study. It should be noted that at the time the survey was administered, Twitter was going through a tumultuous purchasing process which had an unprecedented impact on user confidence. Instructors should view this information with some caution in terms of where they ask students to write. While students should be given opportunities to write across multiple platforms, it is vital that instructors understand the functionalities of a platform and its cultural associations. Instruction does not become authentic just because it utilizes the newest or most popular social media platform. Rather, instruction becomes authentic when it matches the capabilities and intended use of a platform. BeReal is a useful example to return to. While an instructor could make a strong argument for controversial topics being presented through photos shared on BeReal (for example, a picture of someone at a protest or voting, etc.), using it as a platform to encourage controversial discussion would be inauthentic because it does not match the purpose or functionalities of the platform. BeReal is not currently structured to support extended conversations. Additionally, the cultural niche it fills is as a respite from platforms such as Instagram which supports long captions, video, private messaging, and public comments. Using this platform for argument instruction would work against the credibility and authenticity of the instructor. Instructors should seek to work with appropriate rhetorical choices students are making in terms of audience and platform. Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 25 Space (n) News Comment (169) Blog (164) You- Tube (185) Forum (160) Review (165) Twitter (174) Reddit (167) Face-book (183) Insta-gram (187) Wiki-pedia (166) TikTok (192) Snap-chat (182) Linke dIn (160) BeReal (163) Mean 3.22 3.02 3.03 2.93 2.88 2.78 2.73 2.68 2.56 2.52 2.40 1.97 1.97 1.80 SD 0.93 1.0 0.91 1.01 1.05 1.05 1.09 0.95 0.93 1.19 0.97 0.93 1.09 0.93 Table 6. Appropriateness of various online spaces for posting, presenting, or discussing controversial topics or opinions. Challenges and Anxieties Returning to the concept of audience, the awareness students exhibit for audience is reflected in their reported concerns about writing online. As we enter this section, an important definition is needed. The American Psychological Association defines anxiety as an emotion characterized by tension, worried thoughts, intrusive thoughts, and ultimately changes in behavior to avoid worrisome situations (American Psychological Association). For this paper, this definition is simplified to worries and fears that lead to behavioral action. Going forward, the term anxieties will be used when addressing worries and concerns that students have which ultimately shape their online writing habits, practices, and behaviors. It is also important to note that when students are writing online, their writing experience is not isolated to one single event. Prior and Shipka have written that writing is a cumulative experience (Prior & Shipka, 2003). As data surrounding online fears is addressed, it is vital to remember that students will have a wide variety of writing backgrounds and digital experiences influencing their perception of writing. When instructors ask students to write, they ask students to be vulnerable. When students write online, they are sharing those vulnerabilities with potential cyber bullies and others whose ultimate purposes may be far more malevolent and far-reaching than a typical classroom critic. Returning to the idea of online vulnerability, when students are asked to participate in online writing they are being asked to potentially turn over conversation control to malevolent parties. Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 26 Fear of audience reaction was a major concern students expressed about online writing environments. While students are most likely to write for friends and family, 73% identified their known audience as something they frequently or sometimes worry about when posting online. Interestingly, a lower 58% percent identified unintended readers as being a concern. This is notable for two reasons. First, students generally have the ability to somewhat control audience through various privacy settings which would explain why unknown audiences may be slightly less concerning to students. With that said, the availability of “dueting” or “stitching” videos together is becoming increasingly more common as a response tool for online writers. For those unfamiliar with this concept, online users can make a new video placing their own video, commentary, reaction, etc. alongside another video of their choice. Because a new video is created, the original video’s creators are not always aware of their video being used unless they are directly tagged. In other words, original content that students create can be used, without their permission, and has the potential to go viral outside of their selected audience. This practice is largely founded in oral argument and rhetoric. It also takes a large piece of control away from the original creator, adding to the sense of vulnerability my own students addressed in classroom conversations. The second reason this is notable is that it seems to indicate an awareness students have of the limitations of online writing and the possibility of miscommunication. My students were quick to remind me that even video-based platforms which allow for vocal inflections, tone, and body language to be utilized as communication tools are not the same as in-person conversations because of the barrier placed between the speaker being able to see and interact in real-time with their audience. While certain online rhetorical situations are difficult to address and prepare for, composition teachers have the direct ability to address skill and authority in writing online. Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 27 These two issues prove to be a major concern for students with 63.2% worrying about not having the necessary skills to write on online platforms and 68.8% worrying about developing their own ethos in online areas. Returning to Tables 4 and 5, students seem to have the desire to participate in online conversations and environments but this data suggests that they lack the skills and confidence to do so. From an educator’s perspective, this makes sense because while many rhetorical principles and tools can be used multimodally, some tools will be specific to the platform and purpose. Frequently Sometimes Never I worry about how intended readers may react (n=195) 28.72% (56) 44.1% (86) 27.2% (53) I worry that my writing will be online forever (n=194) 20.1% (39) 30.4% (59) 49.5% (96) I worry that I lack the authority to write online (n=194) 28.9% (56) 40.2% (78) 30.9% (60) I worry about how unintended readers may react (n=194) 20.7% (40) 37.3% (72) 42.0% (81) I worry that I lack the skills to write in a particular online space (n=193) 28.0% (54) 35.2% (68) 36.8% (71) Table 7. When writing online, do you ever worry about the following? These concerns directly impact students’ behaviors online which makes it appropriate to refer to them as anxieties. The information from Table 8 can be analyzed in two different ways. In the writing process, revision is an important step toward clarity and more efficient communication. With that in mind, the decision students make to edit a post could be set aside for a moment to look at more negative decisions such as deleting a post or deciding not to post. Both of these actions ultimately convey that students are either leaving online conversations or choosing not to enter them at all. In Gold et. al’s study, deleting or deciding not to post were Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 28 combined into the same category. In determining how students are occupying online spaces, it’s important to understand how their anxieties are affecting their presence in these spaces. While both deleting and deciding not to post do remove a student from the conversation, they each convey a different intent. Deleting a post shows that students, at some point, decided to enter a conversation but recused themselves due to fear. Deciding not to enter a conversation at all shows perhaps a deeper anxiety where students are allowing fears or concerns to limit their role to viewer rather than active participant. Separating these two concerns gives us key insight into why students are not participating in online conversations. While 49.5% report never worrying about writing being online forever, 59% listed it as a reason they decide not to post. In a similar vein, 36.8% of students report never worrying about having the skill to write in particular online spaces and yet 51.6% of students report that lacking skills is why they ultimately decide not to post. This trend is repeated in the concept of ethos or authority with 30.9% saying they never worry about lacking credibility and yet half of all respondents report anxiety over authority driving their decision to not enter online conversations. As we look for reasons why students are not writing online, these anxieties can be viewed as major factors in why students are refraining from participating. Additionally, these are all topics that composition instructors are uniquely qualified to address as they are rhetorical issues. Edit a post Delete a post Decide not to post I worry about how intended readers may react (n=185) 50.27% (93) 10.8% (20) 38.9% (72) I worry about how unintended readers may react (n=178) 44.4% (79) 9.0% (16) 46.6% (83) I worry that my writing will be “online” 26.0% 15.0% 59.0% Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 29 forever (n=173) (45) (26) (102) I worry that I lack the authority to write on a topic (n=184) 34.2% (63) 15.2% (28) 50.5% (93) I worry that I lack the skill to write in a particular online space (n=184) 39.1% (72) 9.2% (17) 51.6% (95) Table 8. Have any of these worries ever caused you to edit, delete, or not publish a post? Final Survey Notes In reviewing students’ anxieties about online writing, I was curious to see if their writing purposes had any impact on how writing concerns affected their writing habits. Because Weber State’s current English 1010 curriculum includes argument and rhetoric over multiple writing genres and modalities, I also wanted to know if there was any difference in the anxiety levels of students who had completed English 1010 in comparison to current English 1010 students. Before examining these results, it should be stated that our current survey did not examine where students completed English 1010. While Weber State does draw many Utah residents, the popularity of concurrent enrollment classes in high school has increased the number of students who come to Weber State having already completed English 1010. While this analysis does make some assumptions about current Weber State English 1010 curriculum, there is also value in examining the effectiveness of rhetoric instruction using traditional writing instruction/devices and its effect on writer’s confidence in online environments. In answer to the first question, writing purposes and anxieties could be roughly categorized with surprisingly similar responses. For example, writing for interpersonal connections such as maintaining relationships or building a professional identity had the highest responses of students deciding to not post in challenging writing situations. Students who wrote to share expertise or creative works were slightly more likely to post in challenging writing situations but still exhibited significant anxieties about situations relating to their own authority, Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 30 skill, or writing permanence. I expected the group of students who reported frequently writing online to debate controversial topics to have the lowest reported concerns, or the greatest confidence, in writing online but found that many of their reported anxieties were similar to those who frequently share expertise or creative works online. There are a few possible explanations for this. First, students who are posting to maintain or build relationships online will likely be focused on finding commonalities among the people they interact with. This may explain why they exhibit more fear in across all categories but especially in skills and authority needed to write in online spaces. Those who are writing to share expertise and creative works likely have a slightly better understanding of their audience and potential reactions which may be why their fear of primary or intended audiences is lower but their fear of secondary or unintended audiences is slightly close to responses from different writing purposes. The familiarity students who share creative works may have with the processes of critical feedback and revision may also explain their slightly higher comfort in their own authority and skills. As instructors design curriculum meant to increase students’ comfort in writing online, it would be worthwhile to encourage students to consider their own comfort levels in different writing purposes and why they feel more or less comfortable with certain writing tasks and modalities. This self-reflection, ideally communicated with the instructor, can help instructors design practice activities that specifically address students’ weaknesses and areas of highest concern. I would like to highlight once more that the fears most likely to cause students to not join a conversation relate to writing skills and authority. These are issues composition instructors frequently address in traditional writing instruction and should not feel like unfamiliar territory. Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 31 Students who frequently or sometimes write to maintain relationships (n=171) Students who frequently or sometimes write to develop person or professional identity (n=152) Edit Delete Not Post Edit Delete Not Post I worry about how intended readers may react 49.1% (84) 9.4% (16) 32.2% (55) 48.7% (74) 9.2% (14) 32.2% (49) I worry about how unintended readers may react 40.4% (69) 7.6% (13) 39.8% (68) 40.8% (62) 6.6% (10) 40.8% (62) I worry that my writing will be “online” forever 21.1% (36) 14.0% (24) 50.3% (86) 21.7% (33) 13.8% (21) 49.3% (75) I worry that I lack the authority to write on a topic 31.6% (54) 14.6% (25) 45.0% (77) 29.6% (45) 15,8% (24) 44.8% (68) I worry that I lack the skill to write in a particular online space 36.3% (62) 8.8% (15) 46.2% (79) 35.5% (54) 8.5% (13) 46.7% (71) Students who frequently or sometimes write to share information or expertise on a topic (n=110) Students who frequently or sometimes write to share share creative work (music, video, writing) (n =113) Edit Delete Not Post Edit Delete Not Post I worry about how intended readers may react 25.5% (58) 10.9% (12) 25.5% (28) 56.7% (64) 9.7% (11) 23.9% (27) I worry about how unintended readers may react 42.7% (47) 8,2% (9) 34.5% (38) 43.4% (49) 8.8% (10) 33.6% (38) I worry that my writing will be “online” forever 23.6% (26) 16.4% (18) 42.7% (47) 22.1% (25) 15.9% (18) 42.5% (48) I worry that I lack the authority to write on a topic 33.6% (37) 14.5% (16) 40.0% (44) 31.9% (36) 17.7% (20) 39.8% (45) I worry that I lack the skill to write in a particular online space 43.6% (48) 15.5% (17) 34.5% (38) 39.8% (45) 9.7% (11) 39.8% (45) Students who frequently or sometimes write to debate controversial topics or events (n=73) Edit Delete Not Post I worry about how intended readers may react 50.7% (37) 9.5% (7) 28.8% (21) I worry about how unintended readers may react 49.3% (36) 6.8% (5) 32.9% (24) Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 32 I worry that my writing will be “online” forever 30.1% (22) 13.7% (10) 38.4% (28) I worry that I lack the authority to write on a topic 39.7% (29) 11.0% (8) 39.7% (29) I worry that I lack the skill to write in a particular online space 47.9% (35) 4.1% (3) 38.4% (28) Table 9. Writing purposes related to writing anxieties and actions Ideally, if a curriculum was working to make students more confident in writing in online spaces, the number of students who report “never” being worried about a rhetorical situation would significantly decrease or the number of students who report only sometimes being worried about a rhetorical situation would increase in comparison to the other two options. The only situation in which this was the case was for fears of writing being online forever and lacking the authority to write on a topic. Respondents who had already completed English 1010 were nearly twice as likely to sometimes worry about the permanence of their online writing but around 8% less likely to frequently worry about it. In terms of authority, students who had completed English 1010 were a little over 8% less likely to never worry about their own ethos about 10% more likely to sometimes worry, and 3% more likely to frequently worry. Currently Enrolled in English 1010 (n=105) Completed English 1010 (n=77) Frequently Sometimes Never Frequently Sometimes Never I worry about how intended readers may react 27.6% (29) 43.8% (46) 28.6% (30) 29.8% (23) 45.5% (35) 24.7% (19) I worry that my writing will be “online” forever 22.9% (24) 22.9% (24) 45.2% (57) 14.3% (11) 40.3% (31) 45.5% (35) I worry that I lack the authority to write on a topic 24.6% (31) 36.2% (38) 34.3% (36) 27.3% (21) 46.8% (36) 26.0% (20) I worry about how unintended readers may react 20.0% (21) 35.2% (37) 41.9% (44) 19.5% (15) 40.3% (31) 40.3% (31) Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 33 I worry that I lack the skill to write in a particular online space 25.7% (27) 34.3% (36) 32.6% (41) 29.9% (23) 36.4% (28) 33.8% (26) Table 10. English 1010 vs. English 2010+ responses to “When writing online, do you ever worry about the following? Frequently = always/often” There are some concerning reports on how these anxieties affect students’ writing though. Very similar percentages across the two categories reported concerns about the reaction of unintended readers, which might point toward current curriculum not effectively teaching rhetorical skills to students. However, in terms of action, students who had completed Engish 1010 were almost 20% more likely to not post, or to abstain from joining a conversation, due to fear of unintended audience reactions. While other categories did not have as drastic of differences, across all situations students who had completed English 1010 showed a higher number of respondents reporting fears causing them to not post or not join a conversation. One possible conclusion we can draw from this is that our current English 1010 program is slightly increasing students’ fears in regard to challenging online writing situations they may find themselves in. Their own confidence in their ability to use rhetorical tools to navigate these situations is lacking. In designing an online pedagogy for composition courses, it would seem that additional emphasis is needed not only on the transfer of rhetorical skills but also students’ confidence in doing so across multiple platforms and in relation to the unique challenges regarding audience with online writing. Currently Enrolled in English 1010 (n=105) Completed English 1010 (n=77) Edit Delete Not Post Edit Delete Not Post I worry about how intended readers may 52.4% (55) 7.6% (8) 36.2% (38) 44.2% (34) 10.4% (8) 39.0% (30) Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 34 react I worry about how unintended readers may react 48.6% (51) 8.6% (9) 35.2% (37) 31.2% (24) 3.9% (3) 54.5% (42) I worry that my writing will be “online” forever 23.8% (25) 14.3% (15) 54.3% (57) 20.7% (16) 11.7% (9) 55.8% (43) I worry that I lack the authority to write on a topic 29.5% (31) 14.3% (18) 48.6% (51) 36.7% (28) 7.8% (6) 49.4% (38) I worry that I lack the skill to write in a particular online space 41.9% (44) 7.6% (8) 44.8% (47) 31.2% (24) 6.5% (5) 57.1% (44) Table 11. English 1010 vs. English 2010+ responses to “When writing online, do you ever worry about the following? Frequently = always/often” Designing Online Writing and Rhetoric Pedagogy Most scholarship surrounding digital rhetoric focuses on either the use and incorporation of technology, new rhetorical ethics surrounding digital spaces, and how to teach writing using specific online platforms. In some ways, digital writing pedagogies seem to be facing the same identity crisis that its sister genre, technical writing, currently faces. Is digital writing and literacy defined simply by the presence or use of contemporary technology in creating a product? My survey findings point to digital literacy as something broader than simply utilizing a program to create a product. Studies and pedagogies, beyond publications by David Gold, specifically addressing the idea of students claiming authorship of their digital writing and using writing processes (such as revision and writing frequently) to build confidence in writing in online spaces are few and far between. As technology changes our methods of communication, the concept of digital literacy needs to be redefined. In examining what drives literacy practices and Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 35 requirements, Syliva Scribner wrote that “Literacy has neither a static nor a universal essence” (8). Because literacy is driven by social practices, it is subject to change as it evolves to meet the needs of the society that defines it. The rise of social media and other online communication platforms within our current national and global society is continually challenging ideas of literacy. In 2010 the Library of Congress released a statement noting that “as society turns to social media as a primary method of communication and creative expression, social media is supplementing and in some cases supplanting letters, journals, serial publications, and other sources routinely collected by research libraries.” As a new K-12teacher in 2012, I attended a UCTE conference in Utah where the speaker passionately encouraged all new teachers to join Twitter because that was where pedagogical discussions and exchanges were happening, often predating research or ideas published in peer-reviewed journals. Today, social media serves as an instructional (consider how-to videos, live question and answer sessions, polls, etc.), news, advertising, and professional/community outreach platform. In addressing digital literacy, it is vital that instructors recognize the influence digital presentations of information play in their students’ construction of reality. Because the internet is a platform for social contribution, our students must be prepared to navigate its communication channels with confidence in order to advocate for their own rights and the rights of others. Mark Amerika has written, somewhat radically, that students should reclaim their role as programmers rather than the programmed (164). While poignant, this argument does raise the question of who is listening if everyone is creating. Conversely, who is creating if everyone is listening? Rather than focusing solely on students becoming creators of online content, a more accurate interpretation of digital literacy should define literate students as those who: Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 36 ● Are able to identify and critique rhetorical devices being used in a wide variety of digital media including but not limited to videos and photo posts, advertisements, emails, texts, forums. ● Have the ability to identify and use rhetorical devices in their own (and others) traditionally written work. ● Are able to successfully and intentionally use rhetorical devices in their own online writing, including but not limited to videos, photos, emails, texts, and forums. ● Have confidence in their own ability to flexibly transfer rhetorical skills between writing genres and modalities. These skills support the digitally minded twenty-first-century students Kathleen Yancey described when she states “we are writing to share, yes; to encourage dialogue, perhaps; but mostly, I think, to participate” (5). Digital literacy must extend beyond what students can produce, and address their confidence in navigating online rhetorical situations and perceived ability to participate. Adjusting a traditional writing-focused composition curriculum to include digital rhetoric does not require composition instruction to completely abandon the tenets of argument that we are usually drawn to teach. In fact, many instructors will probably find many common skills between traditional argument/academic writing taught in college classrooms and the digital writing situations students will encounter. For example, both types of writing center around the idea of collecting information from multiple sources and presenting an individual stance. In traditional writing, this often takes the form of database-focused research and writing with a specific thesis supported by researched information. In online writing, research may be viewed as more of a curation of shared ideas and fact-checking on digital platforms. Positions may be Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 37 represented by a written thesis, verbally spoken thesis, or using visual rhetoric tools such as images and other graphics. In both cases, clear explanations and connections among supporting ideas are needed for full rhetorical appeal to their audience. Ethos or authority must be created (often using sources they have gathered and personal experiences), and students can use carefully crafted placement of pathos to keep conversations from deteriorating. My students frequently emphasize the role of the audience in their online writing. This is also a skill we teach students with academic writing particularly. A message is only appropriate if it finds the right audience and online writing is no different. Survey data shows that students are already very aware of their audience, perhaps to the point of immobility. As composition instructors work with students in making rhetorical choices based on audience, it would be appropriate to consider the following chart depicting audience responsiveness: Table 12. Meter of Writer’s Responsiveness to Audience In the survey administered at Weber State, our curriculum seemed to foster students’ current fears of audience, at least in the characteristic of avoiding conversations with potential Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 38 conflict or disagreement and deciding whether or not to join conversations based on anticipated audience reactions. A more balanced approach would focus on teaching students to listen before entering conversations on any platform (research), and then to present a well-supported opinion that recognizes audience concerns and beliefs without catering specifically to those beliefs. Just as with traditional writing, this skill must be practiced across multiple genres of writing and, perhaps even more importantly, utilize a multitude of modalities. In online writing, identities can be curated by the content users share content created by other users, with or without their own written commentary. Students need to be aware of the rhetorical implications of such choices and be able to navigate such situations deliberately rather than avoiding them completely. Table 13. Rhetorical Skills Wheel In addition to audience, educators need to identify the specific skills that are used in traditional and online writing and research and the rhetorical tools available to aid students in Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 39 clearly communicating with their audience. While the Rhetorical Skills Wheel shown in Table 13 is by no means a comprehensive list, it can provide a helpful starting point as educators evaluate the skills they teach and the potential overlap between traditional and online writing. An area I would like to highlight is the connection between traditional research and occupying online spaces. Simply by existing in online spaces, students are conducting research of sorts as they are presented with a multitude of self-selected, algorithm-curated, and advertised materials. Just as analysis skills are taught as part of research, educators should take time to teach rhetorical analysis on online platforms. From my own classroom experience, students appreciate the contemporary nature of such activities and find this activity a useful scaffold in evaluating some of the more subtle rhetorical choices used in traditional academic or professional writing often used in college research papers. This presentation of writing/research skills and rhetorical tools can also be helpful when designing practice activities to help strengthen areas of student weakness or build student confidence. Educators should once again start with the skill they desire their students to become proficient in, identify rhetorical tools available to them, and then create authentic writing experiences to practice these skills. As these practice opportunities are incorporated into classrooms, it is important to be thoughtful about how students are evaluated and graded. A negative stigma already exists around online writing space as a place for generative discussion or personal development. Classrooms can provide a safe space for students to practice using rhetorical tools in unfamiliar spaces and contexts. There are several educational platforms and design tools that can be used for such experiments. Padlet offers a “feed” style discussion board that mimics the design of popular social platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, and Facebook. Adobe Spark and Canva are both free design spaces and offer templates specifically designed for Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 40 a variety of digital platforms. Using a class feed, students can practice creating digital writing spanning multiple modalities and receive feedback from their peers and an instructor about the effectiveness of their use of rhetoric. These classroom spaces should ultimately be for practicing and building confidence. Students already face high-stakes environments where mistakes are harshly criticized on digital platforms they frequent. Classroom-based practice should demonstrate the grace that can exist in digital spaces and ways that students can expand their writer’s identity without sacrificing their self-held identity and sense of worth. These practices of frequently creating, evaluating, and revising writing build not only confidence but perseverance and endurance in our students. Application As with most presentations of pedagogy, the theory may sound easier than classroom application. This final section will hopefully serve as an idea or creativity generator for instructors as they move towards a more mindful application of online writing spaces and skills to their curriculum. Just as students have concerns about public failure with online writing, instructors may feel some discomfort with the experimental nature of digital writing. Collin Gifford Brooke, a strong proponent of new media pedagogy, has written that a common misconception about digital writing is that “only those platforms with bounded, specific, and recognizable products should be adopted” (180). Digital writing can be a source of experimentation and the speed at which technology changes often means that it can lead to innovative writing as well. However, this also requires instructors to adapt at speeds vastly different than traditional writing has used in the past. For digital writing to be successfully utilized, its integration must be deliberate and mindful. This, in conjunction with instructors’ own concerns, insecurities, or lack of preparation and training in and about writing online, may Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 41 cause some instructors to seek the proverbial comfort of traditional academic writing just as some primary educators seek the comfort of a five-paragraph essay structure (Vie, 2015; boyd, 2014). The Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge (TPACK) model (Table 14) can be a helpful and empowering framework for instructors as they embark on embracing innovative and frequently changing methods of writing. While ideally, instructors would possess technical, pedagogical, and content knowledge, it is possible for instructors to be effective while being proficient in only two areas. Instructors should allow themselves the same grace offered to students as they continue practicing the writing process with their students. Table 14. Reproduced by permission of the publisher, © 2012 by tpack.org With this in mind, the easiest way for instructors to begin incorporating online writing into traditional writing curriculum is not with large-scale or bounded projects. Instead, practice or experimental writing can be utilized. This is effective for two reasons. First, students display significant concerns about judgment for their online writing. By removing a grade and referring to the work as practice, students are able to have reaffirmed to them that all writing is part of a process and while perfection is desired, no method of communication works perfectly. In other words, all writing requires formatting and should be expected to adapt to the feedback and needs Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 42 of its audience. This approach removes some of the immediate judgment or fears of failure that can limit creativity or participation. Second, small and frequent practice work allows instructors to quickly measure their students’ abilities and offer guidance and correction that will, ultimately, lead to less correction time on major assignments. Overall, frequent practice allows students to participate in the writing process and build stamina for the task of writing/creating, receiving critical feedback, and revising their work. Table 15 is a visualization of some activities that can be used as small and frequent writing or research tasks within the classroom. Similar to Table 13, this list is not comprehensive and should be used by instructors to spark their own creativity in coming up with activities that allow students to practice and participate in the writing process. Many of these are activities that I use in my own classroom. Two of the online writing activities will be explained in further detail below. Proposal Emails One of the major research projects my English 2010 students complete focuses on an issue within their field of study/future field of employment. Students write a research proposal and conduct primary and secondary research into the issue they have chosen in preparation for this paper. When students are first beginning to draft a research project, expressing their own ideas, as supported by their research, can be challenging. To assist with this project and give my students practice with a form of online writing, I have them write an email to me, their boss, expressing their observations about the issue or problem they have been researching. This email is meant to start a conversation and demonstrate some of the research they have gathered or thought they have put into their project. To prepare for this assignment, I show them an example email of my own. We analyze my example email looking for common pieces of an argument such as the thesis or claim, supporting evidence, and a call to action or proposal of future steps. Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 43 Table 15. Rhetorical Skills Practice Activities We also examine word choice, organization, and formatting while we consider appeals to logos, pathos, and ethos within the email. This conversation ultimately leads to conversations about audience and communication methods most appropriate for email. For example, we discuss how very few people will actually read an email that is more than 2 paragraphs long or how the subject line functions much like a title and plays a large role in whether your email will even be opened or not. We also discuss the role of formatting options such as images, bullet points, etc. After this analysis, which usually takes less than 10 minutes, students are given 10 minutes to draft their own email which is sent to me. As emails come in, I respond with my overall impressions or questions that I have about their topic. In this activity, I as the instructor am able to get a quick snapshot of students’ understanding of their topic. My students receive feedback from me about areas of their topic that were not well expressed or gaps that I’ve noticed in their Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 44 supporting points presented. This quick feedback helps them complete their research process and also offers direction as they begin the larger task of writing their research paper. Classroom Feeds One of my favorite discoveries as an instructor is the ability to create a “feed” on Padlet. This tool allows students to create posts that are presented in a similar method to many social media platforms such as TikTok, Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook. Using creation platforms such as Canva or Adobe Express, I have my students create social media posts fairly frequently throughout the semester. Posts and comments on the classroom feed are not anonymous. To build student comfort in using our classroom feed, the intensity of posting topics and scrutiny increases throughout the semester with the first post usually being quite silly to final posts of more personal or nuanced topics. The first post students create is usually about a topic, big or small, that they feel other students should know about. This activity is used as an introduction to visual rhetoric and is completed after analyzing examples of visual rhetoric in short film clips, social media posts, and advertisements. This practice is time bound as students are given less than 10 minutes to create their social media posts. After posting to the feed, students then peruse the feed and “like” posts that they feel are effective and then offer feedback on rhetorical choices they thought worked or suggestions/questions about choices that were confusing. As the semester continues, we use this activity as a way to examine supporting evidence and presentation methods based on audience. Using research topics from class, students create posts meant to meet certain criteria, audiences, or purposes. Within this classroom feed, students have the opportunity to practice moderating comments on their posts and responding to questions or concerns in real-time. While my classes have focused on using this platform for visual rhetoric Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 45 presentations, the platform itself is able to host video content which I am excited to expand to with my students. Since incorporating this activity, my students have expressed how much they enjoy the opportunity to incorporate creative thought processes into academic writing practices. As an instructor, I find these activities valuable as ways to check in and push my students to be deliberate in considering how certain rhetorical choices will affect their meaning. Students have expressed value in frequently revisiting or reminding themselves of their main research points and examining how that point might look or sound different to a specific audience. They also bring up very astute understandings of platform functions. For example, one student used Adobe Express to create a short video. In determining the length of the video, he referenced YouTube ads and the length requirements between mandatory or skip-enabled advertisements. Another student was very deliberate in making sure accessibility features were fully utilized so that hearing or visually impaired-viewers could participate fully in her posts. All of this practice happened within the classroom, eliminating some of the fears students have about audience reactions. Within this safe space, students were able to participate in the writing process of creating content, receiving direct and indirect feedback (posts that didn’t receive lots of “likes” were seen as not performing well sparking further conversation about improvement), and revising their writing or clarifying thoughts. Encouragingly, this activity came up multiple times in traditional peer reviews or writing workshops with students drawing connections between classroom feed content and the final written product. Conclusion Our perceptions of students as digital natives who are able to interact in participatory online spaces are incorrect. While our students have grown up with technology and frequently Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 46 visit online writing spaces, they are not active participants in these spaces. This should not be interpreted as a lack of desire to contribute to such spaces. Instead, instructors can use information about how students occupy and participate in online spaces to create composition instruction flexible enough to transfer to multiple genres and modalities. Technology continually changes the way we communicate and composition instruction should be responsive to these changes. In our current age, this often means embracing a stronger connection between oral and written traditions and applications of rhetoric as well as adopting a wider definition of what it means to “write.” The goal of such instruction is not to create a generation of social media content creators or add to the seeming cacophony of voices that exist online. Rather, the goal is to increase students’ confidence in navigating digital spaces, and the rhetorical situations such spaces will present, with intent, awareness, and hopefully joy. Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 47 References Anderson, M., & Jiang, J. (2018). Teens, Social Media & Technology 2018. Pew Research Center. http://assets.pewresearch.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/14/2018/05/31102617/PI_2018.05. 31_TeensTech_FINAL.pdf[http://assets.pewresearch.org/wpcontent/uploads/sites/14/201 8/05/31102617/PI_2018.05.31_TeensTech_FINAL.pdf]. boyd, d. (2014). It’s Complicated: The Social Lives of Networked Teens. Yale UP. Brooke, C.G. (2014). New Media Pedagogy. A Guide to Composition Pedagogies. 2, 177-93. Gallagher, K. (2011) Write Like This: Teaching Real-World Writing Through Modeling and Mentor Texts. 1 ed., Stenhouse Publishers. Gold, D. Garcia, M., Knudson, A.V. (2019). Going Public in an Age of Digital Anxiety: How Students Negotiate the Topoi of Online Writing Environments. Composition Forum, 2 (41). compositionforum.com/issue/41/. Accessed 4 Dec. 2021. Gold, D., Day J., Raw, A.E. (2020) Who’s Afraid of Facebook? A Survey of Students’ Online Writing Practices. College Composition and Communication, 72 (1), 4-30, library-ncte-org.hal.weber.edu/journals/CCC/issues/v72-1/30888. Kittle, P. (2008) Write Beside Them: risk, voice, and clarity in high school writing. 1 ed., Heinemann. Livingstone, S. (2004). Media Literacy and the Challenge of New Information and Communication Technologies. Communication Review, 7(1), 3–14. Prior, P., & Shipka, J. (2003) Chronotopic Lamination: Tracing the Contours of Literate Activity. Writing Selves/Writing Societies. Center for Writing Studies. 181-238. Fostering Student Confidence and Online Writing Pedagogy 48 Scribner, S. (1984). Literacy in Three Metaphors. American Journal of Education, 93(1), 6-21. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1085087 Smith, A., Schlozman, K.A., Verba, S., & Brady, H. (2009). The Internet and civic engagement. Pew Internet & American Life Project. http://www.pewinternet.org/2009/09/01/the-internet-andcivic-engagement/ van der Nagel, E. (2018). Alts and Automediality: Compartmentalising the Self through Multiple Social Media Profiles. Media and Culture Journal, 21(2), 1-4. journal.media-culture.org.au/index.php/mcjournal/rt/printerFriendly/1379/0. Vie, S. (2015). What’s Going On?: Challenges and Opportunities for Social Media Use in the Writing Classroom. Journal of Faculty Development, 29(2), 33-44. www.academia.edu/13105873/What_s_Going_On_Challenges_and_Opportunities_for_S ocial_Media_Use_in_the_Writing_Classroom. Yancey, K.B. (2004). “Made Not Only in Words: Composition in a New Key.” College Composition and Communication, 56(2), 297–328. https://www.jstor.org/stable/4140651 Yancey, K.B. (2009). “A Call to Support 21st Century Writing.” National Council for the Teacher of English, A Report from NCTE, 1-9. https://cdn.ncte.org/nctefiles/press/yancey_final.pdf Yu, E.(2014). Let developmental students shine: digital writing. Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, 30(2), 99-120. Gale OneFile: Nursing and Allied Health, link.gale.com/apps/doc/A369914841/PPNU?u=ogde72764&sid=summon&xid=08dd11f9 .