Reframing Writing Instruction in Physical Learning Environments: Making Connections Between Digital and Nondigital Technologies

Main Article Content

Andy Buchenot
Tiffany Anne Roman


Active Learning Classrooms provide several advantages for teaching and learning by offering many physical and technological affordances that one can choose from when designing instruction. For courses where student writing is central activity to course learning outcomes, a challenge exists in that the innovative digital technologies may hide the opportunity to incorporate non-digital tools, such as paper-based student writing. We argue that treating student writing as a technology can increase opportunities for active learning within technology-enhanced learning environments. In this article, we describe an approach to writing instruction that builds intentional connections between paper-based texts and digital technologies, describing the rationale for the design decisions in an introductory composition course through a design case model. Classroom applications are discussed for physical learning spaces where student writing is incorporated into overall course learning activities.


Download data is not yet available.

Article Details

How to Cite
Buchenot, A., & Roman, T. A. (2019). Reframing Writing Instruction in Physical Learning Environments: Making Connections Between Digital and Nondigital Technologies. Journal of Teaching and Learning With Technology, 8(1), 87–98.
Case Study


Baepler, P., Walker, J. D., Brooks, D. C., Saichaie, K., & Petersen, C. I. (2016). A guide to teaching in the active learning classroom: History, research, and practice. Sterling, VA: Stylus.

Boling, E. (2010). The need for design cases: Disseminating design knowledge. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1, 1–8.

Brooks, D. C. (2011). Space matters: The impact of formal learning environments on student learning. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42, 719–726.

Bruce, B., & Hogan, M. (1998). The disappearance of technology: Toward an ecological model of literacy. In D. Reinking, M. McKenna, L. Labbo, & R. Kieffer (Eds.), Handbook of literacy and technology: Transformations in a post-typographic world (pp. 269–282). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Coca, D. M., & Sliško, J. (2017). Software Socrative and smartphones as tools for implementation of basic processes of active physics learning in classroom: An initial feasibility study with prospective teachers. European Journal of Physics Education, 4, 17–24.

Derry, S. J., Pea, R. D., Barron, B., Engle, R. A., Erickson, F., Goldman, R., ... Sherin, B. L. (2010). Conducting video research in the learning sciences: Guidance on selection, analysis, technology, and ethics. The Journal of the Learning Sciences, 19, 3–53.

Dryer, D. B. (2015). Writing is not natural. In L. Adler-Kassner & E. Wardle (Eds.), Naming what we know: Threshold concepts of writing studies (pp. 17–34). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

Dush, L. (2015). When writing becomes content. College Composition and Communication, 67, 173–196.

Haas, C. (1996). Writing technology: Studies on the materiality of literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Harris, J. (2010). Workshop and seminar. In J. Harris, J. D. Miles, & C. Paine (Eds.), Teaching with student texts: Essays toward an informed practice (pp. 145–157). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.

Howard, C. D., Boling, E., Rowland, G., & Smith, K. M. (2012). Instructional design cases and why we need them. Educational Technology, 52(3), 34–38.

Koehler, M. J., & Mishra, P. (2009). What is technological pedagogical content knowledge? Contemporary Issues in Technology and Teacher Education, 9, 60–70.

Manovich, L. (2001). The language of new media. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Ong, W. J. (2002). Orality and literacy: The technologizing of the word. London, England: Routledge. (Original work published 1982)

Pea, R. D. (2006). Video-as-data and digital video manipulation techniques for transforming learning sciences research, education, and other cultural practices. In J. Weiss, J. Nolan, & P. Trifonas (Eds.), International handbook of virtual learning environments (pp. 1321–1393). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic.

Prendergast, C., & Ličko, R. (2009). The ethos of paper: Here and there. JAC, 29, 199–228.

Roman, T. A., & Uttamchandani, S. (2018). Researching pedagogy within small active learning classrooms: Examining enacted pedagogies of learner and instructor interactions. International Journal of Research & Method in Education, 41, 447–467.

Russell, D. R. (1997). Rethinking genre in school and society: An activity theory analysis. Written Communication, 14, 504–554.

Saldaña, J. (2015). The coding manual for qualitative researchers (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Shipka, J. (2011). Toward a composition made whole. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Smith, K. M. (2010). Producing the rigorous design case. International Journal of Designs for Learning, 1, 9–20.

Star, S. L. (1990). Power, technology and the phenomenology of conventions: On being allergic to onions. The Sociological Review, 38(1_suppl), 26–56.

University Information Technology Services. (2019). Immersive showcase classroom. Retrieved from

W131: Reading, writing, and inquiry. (2018). [Course description]. Retrieved from

Wardle, E. (2007). Understanding “transfer” from FYC: Preliminary results of a longitudinal study. WPA: Writing Program Administration, 31, 65–85.

Yip, J., Wong, S. H., Yick, K. L., Chan, K., & Wong, K. H. (2019). Improving quality of teaching and learning in classes by using augmented reality video. Computers & Education, 128, 88–101.