These six pieces cover how I found the research gap, planned the interviews and coding, studied the genre, and revised the paper and portfolio.
01 · CARS Model Introduction
Submitted July 15 · Research Genre Production + Generating Inquiry
Download the original Word document
Mobile messaging has become an important part of how college students communicate and participate in their courses. Gronseth and Hebert found that students used GroupMe to discuss course content, ask assignment questions, share resources, and collaborate with classmates. Similarly, Lauricella and Kay found that students valued text and instant messaging because they were fast, convenient, and useful for solving academic problems (Gronseth and Hebert; Lauricella and Kay). These studies suggest that informal messaging can support learning, communication, and a sense of community.
However, much of the existing research focuses on messaging platforms created or observed by instructors. Less attention has been given to student-run class group chats that exist outside official course spaces. Students may communicate differently when professors are not present, especially when asking questions, expressing confusion, or discussing academic stress.
My research will examine how college students use student-run class group chats to clarify assignments and support one another. I also want to explore why students sometimes ask classmates for help instead of contacting the professor. Studying these chats may show how informal digital writing creates its own expectations for audience, tone, participation, and peer support.
02 · Reading Response: Analyzing Primary Data
Submitted July 13 · Information Literacy + Contributing Knowledge
Download the original Word document
Coding is the process of organizing primary data by assigning labels to meaningful sections so that patterns, relationships, and larger themes can be identified. It is not simply highlighting repeated words or counting responses. Denny and Clark explain that open coding begins without predetermined categories, which allows the researcher to notice what actually emerges from the data rather than forcing responses into an expected conclusion (91). The Quirkos video makes this idea more concrete by comparing codes to labeled envelopes that hold related excerpts: the labels help sort information, but the researcher still has to interpret why the excerpts belong together and what the pattern means. Downs and Wardle place this process within a larger form of inquiry in which students study writing through primary research rather than only repeating information found in secondary sources. Their model begins with library research, moves into a formal proposal and an appropriate method, and then asks students to produce and interpret their own evidence (562–63). Together, these sources show that coding is a bridge between collecting data and making a research claim.
For my project on how college students use class group chats to clarify coursework and support one another, I would begin by exporting my anonymous survey responses into a spreadsheet and separating closed-ended answers from open-ended answers. Denny and Clark explain that closed-ended responses can be examined through totals, frequencies, or percentages, but the way the question was written determines what kind of data can be collected and what conclusions can reasonably be made (87–90). I could therefore summarize questions about platforms, frequency of use, or comfort levels numerically. I would then read every open-ended response before creating final categories. During the first reading, I would make brief notes beside statements about assignment clarification, deadline reminders, emotional reassurance, humor, privacy, or reluctance to contact an instructor. On the second reading, I would assign short codes to specific sentences or phrases. Denny and Clark describe coding as assigning shorthand designations—such as words, colors, numbers, or phrases—so that related pieces of data can be retrieved and compared (92–93). After that, I would group similar codes into broader categories. For example, “checking what the instructions mean” and “confirming the due date” might become course clarification, while “feeling less alone” and “receiving reassurance” might become peer support. I would then compare those themes across responses and return to the raw data whenever a category seemed unclear. This process would remain flexible because coding is iterative; categories may need to be renamed, combined, divided, or removed as I understand the data more fully (Denny and Clark 91, 96). Finally, I would interpret how the themes answer my research question instead of treating the codes themselves as the conclusion.
Ethical analysis begins before I write the findings. Because class group chats may contain private conversations, I would avoid requesting names, course numbers, complete screenshots, or other identifying details unless they were necessary and participants clearly consented. I would replace identifying information with participant numbers or pseudonyms. Denny and Clark explain that anonymizing data protects participants and can also reduce researcher bias by preventing assumptions about a participant’s identity from shaping the analysis (91–92). I would also avoid choosing only the responses that support my expectations. They warn that cherry-picking thin or unusual data can misrepresent the larger dataset, so claims should be based on patterns the collected evidence can actually support (97–98). This does not mean ignoring outliers, but I would identify them as exceptions rather than presenting them as typical. I would report the number of participants, explain how questions were distributed, and distinguish between counts and percentages so that a small sample does not appear larger than it is. If possible, I would ask another person to code a small selection independently and compare our categories, since a second interpretation can improve validity and expose places where my labels are too subjective (Denny and Clark 96–97). Downs and Wardle’s discussion of Stephanie reinforces this point. Her project produced unexpected findings and methodological problems, but she learned that research is “messy” and that acknowledging limitations is necessary so readers can evaluate or possibly repeat a study (570–71). Ethical reporting therefore requires honesty about uncertainty, contradictory responses, and the limits of what my study can claim.
I am currently planning to use an anonymous survey because it would let me identify broad patterns among college students who have participated in class group chats. The survey would combine closed-ended questions about platforms, frequency, and comfort with open-ended questions asking students why they use these chats and how the chats affect their understanding of coursework. I may also conduct two or three short interviews for more detailed explanations, although privacy and scheduling could limit that option. During the next week, I plan to revise each question so that it clearly supports my research question, write a consent statement, distribute the survey, and begin organizing responses. I will create a blank coding table in advance, but I will wait to develop most of the actual codes until I have read the responses.
03 · Reading Response: Genre and Discourse Communities
Submitted July 27 · Multiple Ways of Writing + Research Genre Production
Download the original Word document
Based on these materials, I understand genre in Writing Studies as more than a category such as horror, fantasy, or poetry. A genre is a repeated response to a situation that develops because writers and audiences recognize a familiar purpose. The Oregon State guide describes genre as a “typified rhetorical action,” meaning that certain features repeat because audiences expect a text to accomplish something in a recognizable way (Pflugfelder). The genre-awareness video adds that writers need to notice a genre’s purpose, audience, organization, and language so they can make appropriate choices in new writing situations (“Understanding Genre Awareness”). This also helped me understand the difference between a genre and a medium. GroupMe, Discord, or email are media that can carry many genres, while a request for assignment clarification is a genre because it performs a recurring action. Genres can change over time, and writers can follow or challenge their conventions, but those conventions still shape how a text is understood.
Devitt, Bawarshi, and Reiff show that genres and communities create each other. Communities develop genres to carry out repeated activities, while those genres teach members how to participate, what roles they have, and what kinds of language are considered appropriate. The authors argue that genre analysis can help researchers recognize how “lived textuality” shapes people’s experiences and interactions within communities (Devitt et al. 542). Their examples demonstrate that a genre is not only a neutral container for information. Jury instructions, for example, reflect the legal community’s specialized knowledge, values, and power relationships, but they can also create confusion for jurors who are outside that professional community (Devitt et al. 543–48). Similarly, the Patient Medical History Form organizes communication between doctors and patients while also assigning them different roles and reflecting assumptions about what information matters in medicine (Devitt et al. 550–51). Studying a community’s genres can therefore reveal its goals, beliefs, vocabulary, expectations, conflicts, and boundaries. It can also show who has authority, who can participate easily, and who may be excluded because they do not understand the genre’s conventions.
A genre I would be interested in studying is the assignment-clarification question used in student-run class group chats. The group chat platform itself is only the medium; the genre is the repeated kind of message students use when they want classmates to explain or confirm course information. Its main action is to receive fast, low-pressure clarification from peers without immediately contacting the professor. A typical message begins by establishing context, such as naming the assignment or due date. It then states the uncertainty, often with language like “I might be reading this wrong” or “I’m confused about this part.” The next move asks a direct question or requests confirmation, such as whether everyone completed the same section or understood the instructions in the same way. A final move may invite shared experience—“Is anyone else confused?”—or acknowledge the answer with a short reply, thanks, or reaction.
These moves help the genre succeed because they give classmates enough context to answer while keeping the message brief and informal. The hedging in phrases such as “I might be wrong” lowers the risk of appearing unprepared, while inclusive wording like “did we” or “does anyone know” treats the problem as something the group can solve together. Short sentences, abbreviations, reactions, and limited greetings reflect the community’s preference for speed and low formality. At the same time, the moves reveal that the community values peer support and shared interpretation, but they may also expose problems. Students who are unfamiliar with the class, less active in the chat, or uncertain about its informal language may have difficulty participating. Incorrect answers can also appear authoritative because the genre encourages quick responses rather than verified ones. This moves analysis supports Devitt, Bawarshi, and Reiff’s argument that genres are “operational sites” of communities because the clarification question does not just describe the group; it actively organizes how students help one another, interpret course expectations, and decide when official communication is necessary (Devitt et al. 552).
04 · Revision vs. Editing
Submitted July 24 · Revision
- Revising focuses on the paper’s larger meaning and effectiveness, such as reorganizing paragraphs, changing the thesis, adding evidence, or addressing the audience. Editing comes later and focuses on sentence-level issues such as grammar, punctuation, wording, and formatting.
- Ernest Hemingway said he revised the final page of A Farewell to Arms 39 times before he was satisfied.
- George Saunders describes revision as repeatedly reading a draft and making changes based on where the writing loses energy or feels inaccurate. He believes that small sentence-level changes can gradually reveal better ideas, more complex characters, and the story’s actual direction. His process shows that revision is not only correcting mistakes; it is also a way of discovering what the writing should become.
- Effective revision requires leaving enough time between drafting and submission. Helpful strategies include finishing the first draft early, stepping away from it, rereading it from the audience’s perspective, and revising one concern at a time. For example, I could first check my claim and organization, then examine my evidence and transitions, and edit sentences only after the larger changes are complete. This means I should avoid waiting until the deadline to draft.
- I previously thought revising and editing were mostly the same and involved fixing grammar or improving wording. I now understand that revision can involve completely changing the paper’s ideas, structure, and purpose. This makes revision seem more useful because it is part of developing the meaning, not just correcting the final draft.
- Outside of class peer review, I could ask my best friend Jacob, who reads often, a classmate outside this course, or my parents to review my paper. Someone unfamiliar with the project could be especially helpful because they may notice explanations that are unclear to a general reader.
05 · Mid-Project Reflection
Submitted July 20 · Process reflection · Generating Inquiry + Revision
Before starting this project, I knew that students often use class group chats to ask questions, discuss assignments, and remind each other about deadlines. However, I had not considered these chats as a form of writing with their own expectations for tone, audience, and participation. Researching the topic has helped me see that even short messages and reactions can have meaning depending on the context.
The biggest challenge was narrowing my topic and finding sources that were relevant without being exactly about student-run class chats. I solved this by looking for research on mobile messaging, peer support, digital literacy, and informal learning. My annotated bibliography, the Stylus articles, and Denny and Clark’s reading on coding were especially helpful. I would use these resources again because they helped me understand both the topic and how to analyze primary data.
My main standards for this project are clarity, honesty, and strong evidence. I want my claims to match what my research actually shows, and I do not want the paper to rely too heavily on quotations. I value research writing that explains why the topic matters, connects evidence clearly to the research question, and acknowledges limitations. I am also learning that I work better when I divide a large project into smaller steps instead of trying to perfect everything at once.
My ideas have changed slightly. At first, I assumed class group chats were mainly helpful, but my research showed that they can also create confusion, spread incorrect information, or make some students feel excluded. Because of this, my question has shifted from whether group chats are useful to how students use them and why they sometimes choose them over official communication.
My next step is to complete interviews with friends and one classmate, organize the responses, and code them for repeated themes such as assignment clarification, reminders, peer support, stress, and discomfort contacting professors. I feel mostly prepared, although interpreting a small amount of data may be difficult. In the future, this project could help me understand communication in academic and professional group settings. Over the next few weeks, I need feedback on whether my research question and interview questions are focused enough. My main concern is how to discuss the limits of a small study without making the findings seem unimportant.
06 · ePortfolio Design Reflection
Submitted July 17 · Multiple Ways of Writing + Revision
The original portfolio shell had generic outcome labels, empty artifact slots, and navigation based on what still needed to be added. I revised it around what an outside reader needs: a clear course introduction, the six outcomes, full reflections, an artifact index, web versions of the three major assignments, original-file downloads, and a process archive. The dark design matches the rest of my website, but the composition section now has its own navigation and labels for assignment type, date, status, and outcome connections. This makes it easier to see how each assignment relates to what I learned instead of treating the site as storage for documents.