Blog Community Analysis

Distance Learning Writing courses, Blogs and Community:

A community could be defined, and is defined here, as a group of people who feel an affinity toward each other and share a purpose. It also happens to be a hot button topic in discussions about distance education. Distance instructors are often encouraged to “build community” amongst their students in order to enhance learning and retention. The question is: how do we “build” it? Additionally, how do we know when it’s been done successfully?

Blogs have been touted as one way to build that community in a distance education setting because of the interactivity they enable (Deng & Yeun; Wei; Ellis; Tyron). Students can post their thoughts/ideas and their classmates or group members can respond. The nature of the blog also allows for the student writer to continue the dialogue with his/her classmates. This dialogic ability makes the blog especially conducive to building community in a writing classroom (DePew, et al). For example, peer review can be done on a blog and can create a community in the process (Breuch).

Blog Project for 7/895: Community Created?

Overall, I feel that community was “built” in this class because of the community already established by the program as well as the common purpose of having to complete this analysis. However, the blog was a small piece of a large puzzle in this “building.” (This will be addressed in the next section). While the assignment did not require us to respond to each other, we, as grad students, don’t typically need the extra prompting to read work done by our fellow classmates, nor do we need to be prompted to give responses that are more in depth than “great job.”  The comments made by classmates did things like thank the writer for the review because it was legitimately useful to the commenter (i.e. Angela’s comment to Mark’s 4^th post), complement each other on particularly well reviewed articles (i.e. Sarah’s comment to George’s 5^th post), and ask questions to probe the topic further (i.e. Mark’s comment to Cheri’s 3^rd post). These types of comments let the reader know that there is a real audience (outside of the teacher), and seemed to have led to completing the initial blog posts for the rest of the class.

Community may have formed out of this desire to help our classmates, which may be a direct result of the program we come from (as mentioned below) as well as our level of schooling and other activities in the class. I hadn’t thought of this until Megan McKittrick specifically mentioned in our group work on Wednesday June 13, 2012 that she had made a point to make a comment to every single person so that when we went to write this assignment, we had something to work with.

The students in our class also come from a program that is not only built on a fairly strong community, but is welcoming of new additions to the group. This may have helped to foster that desire to help our classmates from the get go. The class is also small enough to be a reasonable group size and we were able to work together for the majority of the semester, which is important to fostering a community (Breuch, 148). 

Additionally, some research suggests, based on student responses to a survey about community, that reading each others blogs is enough to foster community (Deng & Yuen). This is something I found to be true in our own class blogs. While I didn’t respond to each classmate blog that I read, I did read them all and so was able to get a clear idea of the projects that my classmates were working on. I was interested in reading what my classmates had researched despite not being required to do so for a grade.

The class was also able to learn from each other by reading the blog posts. For example, on Angela’s third blog post, she responded to Megan’s Soundcloud audio comment with Soundcloud (something that Angela appeared to be unfamiliar with before class based on her own comment on my third blog post). Despite this apparent dialogue, it isn’t certain that dialogue played a large role in community building.

The majority of the dialogue that occurred typically stopped after the blog writer commented on a classmate response. For example, I received a question on my first blog post from Patricia, to which I responded, but did not receive further comments. Additionally, I did the same to my classmates-didn’t continue the dialogue. However, this may be the fault of the blog. For example, I wasn’t notified when Patricia responded to my comment on her third blog. There were also instances were the blog writer did not respond to the comments made by classmates (for example, Nancy’s posts and all of Mark’s posts but the first one). It begs the question: would the community be stronger if these things were done? Which in turn leads to the question: would it have been more feasible if we were put into smaller groups (of say three) to respond to? Putting us into smaller groups may have resulted in more active discussion because the blog posts were difficult to keep up with because of the length of the course.

As far as improving the community building of the assignment, it’s possible that posting our proposals before our blogs might have enabled us to give our classmates more constructive feedback and allowed us to treat it like a peer review, which can create community (Breuch).

Other 7/895 Community Opportunities:

In this class, we were also able to foster community in other aspects of the course. For example, the most used community builder was the chat feature in Webex. This feature enabled us to put our own personalities into the course discussion. This is something that may not have happened by raising our hands and un-muting our microphones (how many classes get to talk about leopard pants on more than one occasion?) 

Additionally, our play outside of Webex enabled us to work in smaller groups and take advantage of the affordances of those other technologies. For example, working in GoogleHangouts allowed for a smoother audio interaction (no muting needed), which enabled us to have a more realistic f2f conversation (hearing the laughter you see on the screen makes a big difference). Our work in GoogleDocs also aided in the creation of community. GoogleDocs allowed us to give up ownership of our own writing to our classmates in order to create a single product to present to the class,

This is something that Rik Hunter found to be central to a specific voluntary writing community in an analysis of WoWWiki. He says that “…collaboration was more successful when individuals focused more on the welfare of the group or project over personal advantage” (54). This is something Sarah, Megan and I found to be true in our pedagogical tool review group as well.

Application Outside of Class:

In an FYC course, however,  the desire to read and respond to classmate’s blogs may be non-existant. "Requiring" classmate responses may lead to community building in order for the class to build a rapport for each other. It’s possible that if we required it at first and then made it option for the rest of the semester the community would remain. Additionally, establishing a common purpose for the blog would aide in the development of a community for the FYC distance course. However, the blog should not be the only form of communication for distance writing students as establishing a community takes more than just responding to a couple of posts.

Works Cited

Breuch, Lee-Ann Kastman. “Enhancing Online Collaborration: Virtual Peer Review in the Writing Classroom.” Online Education. Ed. Kelli Cargile Cook & Keith Grant-Davis. Amityvlle, NY: Baywood Publishing Co., 2005. 141-156. Print.

DePew, Kevin Eric, T.A. Fishman, Julia E. Romberger and Bridget Fahey Reutenik. “Designing efficiencies: The parallel narratives of distance education and composition studies.” Computers and Composition. 23.1 (2006): 49-67.

Deng, Liping & Allan H.K. Yuen. “Towards a framework for educational affordances of blogs.” Computers & Education. 56 (2011): 441-451. Web. 6 June 2012.

Ellis, Josephine. “Student writing blogs: Apprehension, ambivalence or appreciation?” Communication Journal of New Zealand. 11.2 (2010): 7-29. Web. 19 May 2012.

Hunter, Rik. “Erasing ‘Property Lines’: A Collaborative Notion of Authorship and Textual Ownershp on a Fan Wiki.” Computers and Composition. 28 (2011): 40-56.

Tyron, Charles. “Writing and Citizenship: Using Blogs to Teach First-Year Composition.” Pedagogy.  6.2 (2006): 128-132. Web. 19 May 2012.

Wei, Zhang. "Blogging for Doing English Digital: Student Evaluations." Computers and Composition. 27.4 (2010): 266-283. Web. 19 May 2012.

Critique^It Reflection

We decided to work on this tool review as a group because Critique^It is a software program that facilitates peer review, and while we could have gleaned information by playing both “reviewer” and “receiver” individually, we would have missed some issues (like formatting) and not had as much detail to present to the class. For a program that is so costly and would need to be “sold” to the administration, it is beneficial to have as much information as possible. If this had not been done as a group project, much of what we felt needed to be present in the video and in the explanation, because of the robust features of the software, would have been left out due to length constraints.

Working as a group within this software also enabled us to view the program as both student and administrator without having to pretend that one aspect or another was or wasn’t present. Additionally, it enabled us to pool together for information that we needed for the written portion (primarily remembering information that had been discussed with one of the co-founders).

When we initially began planning, we were considering uploading drafts of the written portion of the project to Critique^It. However, because we were writing 3000 words together (and wanted to sound like the same voice), we found that using GoogleDocs was the most conducive to our goals. The majority of the work was done asynchronously (with the exception of a Google Hangout before we jumped in), but we did find that, because GoogleDocs has a chat feature, we often ran into each other when working on the written portion and were able to chat synchronously, which helped speed up the work and make it easier to make decisions. While Critique^It does have a message board, it’s not synchronous, and each of us uploading our input as a version would have put the responsibility of putting it all together on a single person. Instead, we moved things around and made decisions as a group.

In addition to using Google Docs, we used screen capture software, iMovie, and Powerpoint to create our project. At first, I had forgotten that Jing Pro was on its way out the door, so there was an issue with a video created in Jing; however, we soon discovered that TechSmith replaced JingPro with SnagIt, which offered a 30 day free trial. After the videos were collected and edited, and our conclusion on the written portion was done, I created slides that gave our recommendation and supported the use of peer review in Powerpoint to insert as images into iMovie.

Overall, we worked as a group very well. Each group member was able to contribute in an effective way that aligned with her strengths, and we were able to create a community as we worked. This may be because we had spent time together at C&W (being in the dorms will do that) and because we set this group up on our own.  It was a pleasure working with you both Megan and Sarah!

Tool Review Video: Critique^It!

Critique^It! Review Video

A critique by

Sarah Spangler
English Studies Doctoral Student
Adjunct Faculty
Old Dominion University
757.828.7430
srspang1@odu.edu

Megan McKittrick
English Studies Doctoral Student
Full-time Faculty
Old Dominion University
757.753.8161
mmckittr@odu.edu

Catrina Mitchum
English Studies Doctoral Student
Old Dominion University
Adjunct Faculty
Tidewater Community College
609.425.7968
cmitc022@odu.edu

Pedagogical Tool Review: Critique^It!

A critique by

Sarah Spangler
English Studies Doctoral Student
Adjunct Faculty
Old Dominion University
757.828.7430
srspang1@odu.edu

Megan McKittrick
English Studies Doctoral Student
Full-time Faculty
Old Dominion University
757.753.8161
mmckittr@odu.edu

Catrina Mitchum
English Studies Doctoral Student
Old Dominion University
Adjunct Faculty
Tidewater Community College
609.425.7968
cmitc022@odu.edu

Critique^It Written Review
Critique^It is a digital peer review tool that provides users with dynamic options for giving document feedback remotely while fostering more personal dialogue and interaction between writers and reviewers.  Critique^It has focused on "keeping it simple" concerning layout, design, compatibility, and program capabilities.  This tool is marketed to nearly anyone interested in collaborative document editing and feedback exchange, including educators, students, writers, and professionals.  Educators, in particular writing instructors, comprise a major sector of the target audience for Critique^It; in fact, our group learned about Critique^It in the vendors area at the 2012 Computers and Writing conference.  With writing instructors in mind, Critique^It has striven to design a technology that supports social constructivist and process-oriented writing pedagogy by structuring the program in a way that meets the drafting and peer editing workflow needs of composition students and instructors.

Critique^It also considers the institution as a larger audience (consumer) for the product.  The ability to implement Critique^It within an institution’s LMS makes the product attractive and adds a competitive edge over other similar tools.  Designed as an LMS amplifier, Critique^It can be embedded into an LMS like Blackboard or Moodle and can be accessed by a single sign-on. This is done by syncing the program to the school’s database. When piloting the program for a new school, however, everything is hosted on the Cloud, which is ADA and FERPA compliant. Individuals or institutions interested in trying Critique^It can request a free trial account at Critique^It.com.   

How It Works
Critique^It provides a streamlined platform that enables students, “critiquers,” and instructors to upload text documents (.doc, .rtf, .odt, etc.), images (in PDF format), and slideshow presentations (e.g., PowerPoint).  Critiquers join a group(s), upload their files, and then share their files with the group.  Users can view all documents uploaded to the group by other group members within the program itself.  A “workpile” option allows for prioritizing tasks.  When submitting a document to a group for review, individuals can attach a comment to the document that is addressed to the critiquers; this feature might be used for expressing a specific concern the writer desires critiquers in the group to review.  Additionally, once a user has entered a group page from her dashboard, she can communicate with all of the group participants via a message board visible to all other group members.  
The Workpile facilitates time management by visually organizing tasks.  

Critiquers  access documents uploaded for review by entering a group page and clicking on a document to open it.  To initiate the process of commenting, critiquers must select the text on which they wish to comment.  Doing so opens a small proofreading dashboard that presents critiquers with several critiquing options: they can insert text-based, audio, or video comments, or they can insert preset proofreading marks or phrases.  Critique^It automatically saves comments, compiling them at the end of the document in paragraph order, and denotes which paragraphs have comments and how many by inserting a small, numbered tab on the left-hand side of the document.  

Once a critiquer has finished reviewing a document, she need only close the document, and the program will alert the document owner of the newly received critique by marking the document with the Critique^It symbol, [^].  The administrator (instructor) and document owner (individual students) are the only ones able to view feedback left by other critiquers. Document owners have the ability to download text-based comments to a PDF.  Should a user want to solicit additional feedback on a revised document, she can upload a new “version” of that document, enabling critiquers in the group to distinguish between the original document and subsequent drafts presumably reflecting revisions. Users may also comment on their own documents by entering the edit mode instead of the view mode.  

Situating Critique^It Pedagogically
An argument for adopting Critique^It as a peer review tool can be extrapolated from the scholarship on social constructivist pedagogy and process-oriented writing pedagogy; these pedagogical theories have long asserted a connection between collaboration and increased learning, as well as the benefits of improved writing and critical thinking and reading resulting from peer review in writing instruction.  Although not close to exhaustive, the following literature review reflects some of the major premises having emerged from this scholarship.  

Many theorists underscore the importance of community in a writer’s development. Randy Garrison and Norman Vaughan argue for a community of inquiry model of learning, which encourages “an express focus on opportunities for learners to construct meaning and confirm understanding through discourse” (8) and that “recognizes the social nature of education and the role that interaction, collaboration, and discourse play in constructing knowledge” (9).  Kenneth Bruffee underscores the importance and potential of collaborative learning and peer review in the writing classroom and implores instructors to create opportunities for students to converse about what they are reading and writing (642), asserting that “What students do when working collaboratively on their writing is ... talk about the subject and about the assignment. They talk through the writer's understanding of the subject” (645).  Chris Anson reminds us that “the teaching of writing, unlike some other disciplines, is founded on the assumption that students learn well by reading and writing with each other, responding to each other’s drafts, negotiating revisions, discussing ideas, sharing perspectives, and finding some level of trust as collaborators in the mutual development” (269).  More specifically, in a study of the benefits of peer review for the reviewer’s writing, Kristi Lundstrom and Wendy Baker suggest that the reviewer’s improvement in specific areas of writing were greater than those who only learned to incorporate peer feedback. This finding supports previous research that claims that the self-evaluation skills developed as a reviewer “may be the most beneficial aspect of peer review” (38).

Scholars also stress the usefulness of electronic peer review methods in distance learning courses. Scott Warnock points out that “peer review as a teaching strategy is so entrenched in composition that it might almost serve as an emblematic practice of composition, and as with other practices in the OWcourse [online writing course], the transition to a completely written peer review environment makes this common practice perhaps even more important online than in onsite instruction” (108).  Tim Molseed argues for the value and effectiveness of peer review in online graduate courses, noting the potential for “a richer learning environment” (254); he further elaborates on how peer review activities can be foundational in promoting “critical thinking skills in consort with the personalizing effects of a successful learning community” (265). Finally, in a study that focuses on the effects of electronic feedback versus traditional methods,  Jun Liu and Randall W. Sadler found that students were commenting more frequently in electronic peer reviews and that those comments had a higher percentage of revision-based feedback. However, they did find that the revisions made based on comments were higher in synchronous face-to-face interactions, which, they suggest, may be due to the ability to clarify ideas through dialogue with peers.

When placed in the context of wide scholarly support for collaborative learning and peer review practices in writing instruction, Critique^It shows potential as a tool for writing instructors and their students, whether in a face-to-face setting or online.  Critique^It’s intermodal platform for peer review effectively places students in dialogue with one another about their writing, simplifies the exchange of documents, and streamlines the process of reviewing and working with writers’ histories of invention, drafting, and revision for both the students and the instructor.  By attending to the tedium of peer review, Critique^It frees up students and instructors to focus on what is important to this practice - initiating a constructive and critical discussion about student writing, which, in turn, ideally assists students with improving their writing and critical reading and thinking skills.

Affordances of Critique^It for Distance Learning and English Studies Courses
Critique^It is a useful tool for English Studies instructors who employ peer response to improve students’ writing, rhetorical awareness, and critical reading skills.  Because peer review is important and commonplace in many writing classrooms, various software applications and digital approaches have been developed to support this pedagogical practice in a digital environment and to target the needs of this niche educators market.  As a peer review tool, Critique^It could be easily adapted to a distance, blended, or traditional face-to-face learning environment.  It is especially conducive to the writing classroom because it enables students to organize multiple versions of one document, prioritize their workflow (or “workpile”), organize and easily view their process, and communicate via a message board easily visible from their group page.

Critique^It could be especially beneficial and useful in the distance learning environment because it facilitates a more personal, collaborative experience by allowing students to comment asynchronously in ways similar to a face-to-face setting.  If an instructor seeks to enhance and supplement text-based online instruction and communication and to augment a sense of connection and community amongst learners, then Critique^It’s audio and video tools for commenting can support this endeavor.  Although synchronous video or audio streaming is outside the scope of Critique^It as a peer review application, the use of the program’s asynchronous audio and video comments has the potential to help transform an otherwise text-based online instructional environment to a more dynamic and personal learning space.

As such, the ability to insert audio and video comments, in addition to written comments, sets Critique^It apart from other programs like MyCompLab. Research indicates that students favor audio/visual feedback to written feedback, particularly for higher order concerns; however, they still prefer to use written feedback when seeking out and resolving lower order, sentence-level concerns (Silva 1).  The fact that Critique^It offers all three forms of feedback enables reviewers to provide a variety of responses that will help process both lower and higher order concerns.
Both Audio and Video feedback can be easily inserted on the document under review.

Because the audio/video forms of feedback are embedded in the program -- in other words, students do not have to turn to other programs outside of the system, like Jing -- Critique^It limits potential distraction. In addition, research indicates that what students care about most in an online environment is interaction and time management. As established earlier, Critique^It works well in asynchronous communication, providing a favorable level of flexibility, and the inclusion of video and audio will promote a feeling of connectedness among groups as they work together (Reisslein, Seeling, and Reisslein 26). In fact, the intermodality of this program, or the combined use of video, audio, and written feedback, would promote the writing process and facilitate collaboration among participants (Ciekanski and Chanier 175, 178).
Reviewers can insert stamp comments in the form of common praise or criticism, appearing as hand-written notes on the document.

In a given peer review session, a student can view 1) the comments she gives to another student and 2) the comments she receives on her own work.  Additionally, students can add an overall comment to their documents upon submission and anytime on different versions of the same project. Students’ names are attached to the critiques they submit; however, anonymity (if preferred) could potentially be achieved through modified usernames in this space.  Critiquers and document owners can easily toggle between versions to compare changes made; for example, suppose a group member commented that Student A’s first draft of her thesis statement was unclear.  Student A could revise her thesis statement and upload the revised version for additional feedback from the critiquers in her group.  The critiquers could easily toggle back and forth between the versions, noting the changes Student A implemented in her thesis statement.  Potentially, a robust dialogue between students could emerge as a result of the easy-to-use versions feature.  Also, students need not worry about saving comments or sending documents back to the original owners after finishing a review because the program addresses these tasks, thus automating two important steps.  

In addition to the affordances of Critique^It for peer reviewers, the program provides several benefits to instructors reviewing student work and peer response.  Critique^It positions the instructor as both a Critiquer in the peer editing space, as well as an administrator who can create courses and groups and can add/invite people to a group.  As the administrator of a course or group, the instructor may review all of the feedback critiquers give to one another, which is useful in helping to monitor the progress of a particular peer editing assignment.  Because the program also allows for a more fluid presentation of all the work that goes into developing a written “product,” instructors can view the process of each writer rather than simply emphasizing the writer’s final product.  Instructors see students’ process, in part through a detailed statistics page that tracks participation; Critique^It compiles the activity of critiquers into easily accessible data that provides information on levels of participation both in submitting and critiquing.  Such features enable instructors to offer help to students during the important stages of prewriting/invention and revision.

Instructors can monitor student participation and use this data for a variety of purposes.

Comparisons
Critique^It is an impressive competitor against a number of peer review software programs on the market. Below, we provide a brief comparison of several similar programs. This table is not exhaustive, as there are other programs that offer similar features; we chose these programs due to our familiarity with them, but this list also represents some of the more popular peer editing programs.

	Critique^It	MyCompLab	GoogleDocs	VoiceThread
Video Comment	Yes	No	No	Yes
Audio Comment	Yes	Yes	No	Yes
Text Comment	Yes	Yes	Yes	Yes
Stamp Comment	Yes	Yes	No	No
Clear Layout*	Yes	No	No	No
Accepts various file types	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Archiving/Portfolio Options	Yes	Yes	Yes	No
Meets ADA/FERPA Standards	Yes	Yes	No	No
Automatic Cloud Saving	Yes	No	Yes	Yes
Batch Release	Yes	No	No	No
Statistics/Tracking	Yes	Yes	No	No
Free/Open Source	No	No	Yes	Yes

Note: Some features may be incorporated into a given program by using other software.
*Subjective and varies according to individual needs/background knowledge

Because this is a review of Critique^It, the features of the above table are centered on those Critique^It has to offer. A table centered on any other program may find that Critique^It falls short in a number of areas; the above features, however, are indicative of the kind of tools teachers and students might appreciate. As a result, we find Critique^It to be one of the more dynamic peer review software programs on the market. The main drawback is lack of a free option for more than 30 days.

MyCompLab is, perhaps, the closest competition to Critique^It, as it has many similar features. It has had an insert comment/stamp comment feature for some time, and they recently added audio commenting. It also provides teachers with useful tools like statistics, and it helps instructors maintain student privacy; like Critique^It, however, it comes at a price for students. The main drawback is that the layout and the process of setting up an account is disorganized and confusing.

“Critiques” of Critique^It
Critique^It clearly has much to offer; however, as is the case with most technologies, there are a few minor glitches and drawbacks that instructors should consider.  The following list delineates several issues we encountered or noticed when using Critique^It:

1. While different document formats can be uploaded to Critique^It, we discovered that different formats may limit the reviewer’s ability to insert comments.  In one document we uploaded, a section of the text was inaccessible to highlighting and commenting.  However, we circumvented this issue by using the audio comment feature.
2. The program does not include a proofreading "dictionary" or legend for students who are not aware of proofreading conventions or, for example, what the word “awkward” implies.
3. The program does not allow for uploading audio or video versions for review (though you can upload them as shared resources for the group), which limits the critiques to text-based or image-based static documents.
4. Despite claims that some colleges have moved entirely to Critique^It, some important elements of making it an LMS, such as the ability to host grades, manage in depth discussions, or accept assignments that are not text based, are missing, so it would not be encouraged by this group.
5. Users can download text critiques, but they cannot save audio/video feedback to personal computers.
6. Besides use of an embedded message board, there does not seem to be a robust way for critiquers to dialogue or respond to a critique on their document.
7. There is currently no customization of the inline proofreading comments/tools (however, the company anticipates including this feature in the next release).
8. Critique^It’s pricing is geared toward institutional subscriptions; currently, a semester-long pilot program runs between $5,000 and $10,000.  However, the company plans to offer $9.99/month individual pricing Fall 2012, which means students will have to pay a subscription fee as well.

Conclusion
Critique^It constitutes an ideal tool for peer review, which is a staple activity for the writing classroom whether face-to-face or at a distance.  The modes of response (i.e., audio, video, alphabetic) make Critique^It an excellent choice for peer editing, but the ease of use and low learning curve are competitive factors for adopting this software.  Critique^It has created a space where all the different response modes are cleanly integrated, making it easy to both give feedback as well as review the feedback one receives.  

As a relatively new online software program, we were unable to locate any scholarly support for (or against) or discussion about Critique^It; however, a few technology-related websites have positively reviewed the product.  PRWeb reviews Critique^It as a program that “resolves painstaking document collaboration” and “enables in-depth communication and collaboration without making content vulnerable to unwanted changes.”  CayPen Magazine, a small, online magazine geared toward entrepreneurs, small businesses, and advertisers, lauds Critique^It as a “solution [with] significant application to any given market—from knowledge management, to contracts, art, or architecture, every industry creates content that needs constant feedback.”

Ultimately, we recommend this program for use in any classroom that includes an online, peer review component, whether it’s a face-to-face, blended, or online course. This user-friendly program enables instructors and students to collaborate effectively by employing various modalities throughout the writing process. Despite the expense of the program and the myriad ways to accomplish this level of intermodality using free software (like Jing) and an existing CMS/LMS, we believe that what the instructor gains in affordability, she loses in simplicity. Critique^It streamlines this intermodality, so the price may or may not be worth it depending on the user. 

Critique^It! Video Review:
 


Critique^It! Review Video



Works Cited
Anson, Chris M. “Distant Voices: Teaching and Writing in a Culture of Technology.”

College English 61.3 (1999): 261-280. JSTOR. Web. 19 May 2012.

Bruffee, Kenneth A. "Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation Of Mankind.’" College

English 46.7 (1984): 635-53. ERIC. Web. 8 June 2012.

Ciekanski, Maud, and Thierry Chanier. "Developing Online Multimodal Verbal

Communication to Enhance the Writing Process in an Audio-Graphic

Conferencing Environment." Recall 20.2 (2008): 162-182. Academic Search

Complete. Web. 21 May 2012.

“Critique^It, Inc. Eliminates Barriers to Document Mark-Up and Review with Launch of

Rich-Media Application.”  PRWeb: Online Visibility with Vocus.  Vocus, Inc., 18 Nov. 2010. Web. 8 June 2012.  http://www.prweb.com/releases/prwebCritique^Itlaunch2010/collaborationfeedback/prweb4716804.htm

Garrison, D. Randy, and Norman D. Vaughan.  Blended Learning in Higher Education.  

San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2008. Print.  

Liu, Jun, and Randall W. Sadler. “The Effect and Affect of Peer Review in

Electronic Versus Traditional Modes on L2 Writing.”  Journal of English for

Academic Purposes 2 (2003): 193-227. Science Direct. Web. 7 June 2012.

Lundstrom, Kristi, and Wendy Baker. "To Give Is Better Than to Receive: The Benefits of

Peer Review to the Reviewer's Own Writing." Journal Of Second Language Writing 18.1 (2009): 30-43. ERIC. Web. 7 June 2012.

Molseed, Tim. "An Analysis of Peer Review Response Types in Threaded Discussions of an

Online Graduate Class." American Journal Of Distance Education 25.4 (2011): 254-267. ERIC. Web. 8 June 2012.

Reisslein, Jana, Patrick Seeling, and Martin Reisslein. "Video in Distance Education: ITFS

Vs. Web-Streaming: Evaluation of Student Attitudes." Internet & Higher

Education 8.1 (2005): 25-44. ScienceDirect. Web. 5 June 2012.

Silva, Mary Lourdes. "Camtasia in the Classroom: Student Attitudes and Preferences for

Video Commentary or Microsoft Word Comments During the Revision Process."

Computers & Composition 29.1 (2012): 1-22. Academic Search Complete. Web. 30

May 2012.

“Start Up & Notice: Finally an Application that Works Like You Do!” Caypen Magazine.  

Caypen, Inc., 2 Mar. 2011.  Web. 8 June 2012. www.caypen.com.

Warnock, Scott.  Teaching Writing Online: How and Why.  Illinois: NCTE, 2009.  Print.