Artifact Index

This is where I turned a general interest in class group chats into a question I could study and laid out the first version of my method.

My instructor’s privacy concern led me to stop considering group-chat screenshots and use interviews instead.

I write for a planning genre: I introduce the question, explain why it matters, and propose a method before collecting data.

Comparing four sources helped me see what existing studies covered and narrow my inquiry to student-run chats outside official course spaces.

Each annotation evaluates the source’s credibility, relevance, methods, and limits instead of only summarizing it.

I follow the annotation genre by separating each source summary from my evaluation of how the source can be used.

In the final paper, I answer the question with evidence from my interviews and explain both how the chats help and where they can cause problems.

I use a coding table and bar chart to make the interview patterns easier to see. Headings and appendices keep the longer paper organized.

The paper explains which sources I used, how I protected participants, how I analyzed the interviews, and what five interviews can and cannot show.

I use the sections of an academic research paper to explain the method, report findings, discuss sources, and document the study in appendices.

I code five interviews, group them into themes, and compare those findings with nine secondary sources before making the final claim.

The revision map shows changes to the claim, method, organization, evidence display, source use, and conclusion across three versions. The cover letter explains why I made the final round of changes and what I would keep working on.

This exercise helped me identify what earlier studies had not covered and narrow the project to chats run by students.

I use the CARS model to explain what earlier research covers, what it leaves out, and why I focused on student-run chats.

I planned how to code interviews without forcing categories, protect participant privacy, and keep my claims within the sample.

This early response shows the analysis plan I later used to move from interview notes to codes and themes.

I analyze the assignment-clarification message as a genre and explain how short messages, reactions, and informal wording work together.

I analyze the assignment-clarification question as a genre by identifying its usual parts and explaining what each part does.

This assignment helped me separate large changes to meaning and structure from sentence-level editing.

This reflection records the point where the interviews made me stop assuming the chats were always helpful.

In this reflection, I explain how the interviews challenged my first assumptions and what I needed to change in the next draft.

I explain why I used separate pages, clear labels, and a mobile layout to make the project easier to read online.

I explain why I replaced the early placeholder pages with separate pages for the outcomes, artifacts, assignments, and process work.

The training informed my choices about consent, anonymity, written notes, and reporting.

This section records two rounds of reader feedback: one about multimodality and another about finding the outcome reflections. It also lists what I changed in response.

I record feedback about multimodality and navigation, then explain the specific design changes I made in response.