Matt writes, "I've been having similar problems with my classes as stated in the text. I have a couple students that I believe are pretty good writers but are being somewhat hindered by the technology. On the other hand, I'm beginning to believe that some of the students try to attain a higher level of writing because they are using expensive, state-of-the-art technology. I don' t think it makes their writing any better, but they do take more time in completing the task." I think that this is true across the board. Sometimes we have students that take to CMC in the way that was intended and then there are other times that students seem to be held back by the use of technology in the classroom. This is where the hands on work comes into play. We need to be able to decide which students do better with or without technology and how we can facilitate their learning to write. This is when it all gets low-tech.

Laura W. writes, "I sympathized with J. when he complained that "[t]he computer didn't lend itself to J.'s habitual use of visual cues such as circles and arrows" (58). There is something very satisfying about being able to view your entire paper all at once. You can do this with traditional pen and paper methods, but it is practically impossible to recreate this atmosphere on the computer screen. It's very important to step back and look at the big picture at some point in the composing process. I worry with my students that this simply never occurs. I don't know if a back-and-forth transition between computer and printed paper must take place, but somehow this idea should be kept in perspective." Does teaching CMC mean that we don't allow our students to break away from the computer and into "pen and ink space"? I don't think so. We show them how they could do all of the wonderful pen and ink stages using the computer but that does not mean that they must do so. Sometimes having the ability to draw circles and lines to connect sentences and ideas is just what some students need to come up with a cohesive argument. If that is the case LET THEM DO IT!!! We have to work within the limitations of the technology (and I argue that it is the technology that is limited and not the student). This may sometimes mean leaving the new technology behind in favor of the old.

Laura P. writes, "For a six year old, writing is crafting the actual letters. The toil and frustration of getting them right is part of the learning process. Learning how to write on a computer, the same six-year old would turn into a magician that could just make all these letters appear or disappear. Thus, immediate access to the finite product of the learning process of writing would deprive the child of a vital part of the significance of writing." Interesting thought. This all goes back to process pedagogy. If students see a word processed document as being "finished" then what happens to brainstorming, drafting, and revision? What about hte wonderful messiness of scratched out words and paragraphs added in the margins of the paper? If we are going to teach students to "write" on a word processor we must teach them to do all of the steps of the writing process using the same medium. How do we convince students that not all word processed documents are "finished", that some of them are "beginnings"?

Laura P. writes, "For a six year old, writing is crafting the actual letters. The toil and frustration of getting them right is part of the learning process. Learning how to write on a computer, the same six-year old would turn into a magician that could just make all these letters appear or disappear. Thus, immediate access to the finite product of the learning process of writing would deprive the child of a vital part of the significance of writing." Interesting thought. This all goes back to process pedagogy. If students see a word processed document as being "finished" then what happens to brainstorming, drafting, and revision? What about hte wonderful messiness of scratched out words and paragraphs added in the margins of the paper? If we are going to teach students to "write" on a word processor we must teach them to do all of the steps of the writing process using the same medium. How do we convince students that not all word processed documents are "finished", that some of them are "beginnings"?

Tally/Adrienne found Sloane's article insightful but "unoriginal". She spares my feelings and writes, "Nonetheless, J's story was certainly relevant for us to read about because it is very likely that he is, symbolically, in our classes. It took me a long time to be able to think creatively while working on the computer. I can see how J would have felt more authentic and more sincere writing with his pen -- it is a tie to the past and a long cherished tradition to look at a piece of paper as a work of art, both as a literary piece, as well as the way that the handwriting flows across the page. We are taught to think that a typed piece of paper is more formal, a final draft, if you will." I agree that many students do see the computer as a word processor/typewriter/expensive video game machine and they see documents created on the computer as being (or needing to be) more finished than a draft of a paper written with pen and ink.

The big question here is do we "need" to teach students to compose in a different way? Is the old way "good enough"? Are we helping or harming them by asking them to change their writing process? Who are we privileging with this? Why are we doing this? For them? For the labor industry? When do we say enough?

Cat finds the shortcomings in Sloane's essay. Cat writes, "sloane does a lot of great work, but, in my view, she doesn't go far enough. she doesn't (1) take basic association pschy into account; (2) she doesn't look @ her own standpoint positionality; and (2) she fails to locate or theorize j.'s own agency." I am going to pick up on j's agency here and run with it. What of j's agency? Why is it that Sloane doesn't deal with it? What was wrong with j's writing process? Why wasn't j. free to choose how he wrote? Was j's writing better after he was forced to use the computer in his composition process? Could he ever make it past using the computer as a typewriter, as a place for editing rather than invention? Would the texts that he created using the computer ever be as rich and wonderful as the ones that he created with his pen and ratty old notebook? Should we force our students to compose in a certain way just because it is the new hot pedagogical toy??

Julia (the rational Julia in this case) wonders about DE and the replication of all that is wrong with education (okay maybe not all), the banking theory. She writes, "Reading Fanderclai's article immediately brought to mind the article the Bridget and I are working on about how D.E. through CMC can reproduce Current Traditional Rhetoric and Banking Methods of pedagogy. These things seem clearly demonstrated by some teacher's approaches to using MUDs for such sillinesses as streamed -in video lectures." I agree! There is so much more that needs to be addressed when we look at computer mnediated classes. Rather as seeing them as a way to reproduce what is already in place, why not see them as tabulae rasae (pl)? Why not say "Hey we have a chance for a new start, let's see what we can do to make the classroom a better more equitable place?" At the same time we have to see the limitations of CMC and DE? Who gets left out? What does it mean for them that they do get left out? Why do they get left out? How can we stop them from getting left out? All very difficult questions.

(The more earthy) Julia brings up an equally imprtant point about melding mind, meat, and earth. She writes, "The more I read of the work by Haraway, the more valuable I think it is to consider the integration of both the machine and the ecosystem as integral part of our notions of subjectivity. This allows us to reincorporate body, environment, lived world, cyberspace as wide-reaching aspects of our subjectivity that operate dynamically in their influence upon each other." I too think that this would be a valuable and beautiful thing. This would not only lead to a richer cyber (and lived?) experience but could also lead to better access to technology. How you may ask? If we (or they) take the earth (and its affects on the meat) into consideration when we (or they) build computers and make software we would have less need for hardware upgrades (and production) and less of the toxic polluntants that come from their production. If companies stop raising the hardware "bar" for their software people would have to upgrade less and companies would not have to produce as much new hardware (and polluntants) and the ecosystem would be in much better shape. This slow down in upgrading and "bar" raising could also (theoretically) make it easier for people of lower economic classes to afford machines (or to keep the older ones that they have)...Okay, now I am the one blathering.

Ah, the empirical Mike. Mike wonders about Sanchez's claim that Computers and Writing is more of a safe space for men within the profession. He writes, "My other interesting note form page 98 involves Sanchez's admittedly tenuous argument that composition's connection to technology has made the teaching of composition "'safe' for men." I'd be interested to see empirical research investigating this claim as the technology area in Rhet/Comp. seems to me from my perspective to parrallel trends in Rhet/Comp. in general. How do others feel about that statement?" I too would like to see research that proves this. My thoughts on Sanchez's claim are that (perhaps) since computers and the hard sciences are historically (aka stereotypically) associated with men, by adding computers to the teaching of composition equation we can make it more "male" and perhaps people will see it as being more acceptable as a position to be held by men. If we remove some of the "touchy feely subjectivity" (the way that some folks percieve it) from composition and make it more "hard like objective" then it will be safe for men to pursue without being seen and too feminine. Whadda ya think Mike?

Margaret blogs about RL vs. VR this week. She writes, "I guess I'll say there's a shift toward the world of self, mind, thought life, vicarious experience, that many people are quite happy to live with. Some days, I am too. But there comes a point where I just have to go tromp in the woods...that's where my best thoughts come." This is a problem that many of us who were not born into the generation where technology is everything face. We ask ourselves "What about the real?" But then I play devil's advocate and say what is "real"? Are relationships built online real? Are textual experiences "real"? Are technologically textual experiences any more or less real than book textual experiences? Do textual experiences that are "felt" cause the same physiological responses that face to face experiences cause (for at least some people)? Does that make them more real (at least for some people)? Should we force all students to experience what we consider the real or should we allow them the freedom to choose? Allow them to work within their own "realness" in order to learn in a way that is more comfortable and efficient for them? Or do we force them all to use technology because it can broaden their possiblities (even if it stifles them)? If we allow both, how do we negotiate that in the classroom. Sorry Margaret more questions than answers this blog :-)

Erin (who has previously seen no real use for MOOs in the classroom) wonders what her own MOO pedagogy would look like and how she could get there. She writes, "I talk in mentoring about how people could use MOO in their classes. I show people how to use it. We even MOO. But I don't know how they're using it. I think maybe I should start watching them, start listening to them, start collecting their redacted transcripts, start paying more attention. I think it's too easy for me to get caught up in providing and documenting and troubleshooting and fixing and drift away from the how and the why of teaching (with technology)." Erin makes a good point. It is easy for computers and writing folks to get wrapped up in the technological hows and not pay attention to the pedagogical hows and whys. I think we all need to ask our students why use this technology? How does this technology make it easier and/or better for the students? Can the students do it easily? Is there a more efficient way? Will this work for all students? Wll this work for all teachers? There are these questions and many more that we need to consider.

Serkan writes about the liberating aspects of the MOO. He writes, "There are still issues that we cannot talk about in class, and even if the issue is not an unspeakable, some people are simply not comfortable speaking up in front of the class. Therefore, MUDs seem like a good alternative that would break the atmosphere of impersonality* that we like so much promoting in the traditional classroom, although there is still much to be explored. This is not begging the question of etiquette and how to get people to understand and use it. I think we, educators, have an important role; we are the ones who will teach people about the conditions of the online spaces like MUDs and negotiations that happen there. For one thing, online spaces are more conducive to conversations about sexuality, morality, justice, etc. This is the liberating aspect of MUDs, I would think. What we do not need to teach is what to say; we only need to teach how to say it. I do not mean dictating conditions for conversing, but letting participants know that respect for one thing and tolerance another are some of the guiding principles in a social space-virtual or RL." Serkan brings up good points about the pros and cons of MOOing. MOOs do allow students to freely discuss things that they might be uncomfortable discussing face to face but it does also give them the opportunity and anonimity to act in ways that are less than respectful to the viewpoints that are being put forth by their classmates. I agree with Serkan, this is where the teacher comes into play. While I think that the idea of play and learning is a good one I also think that this assumes a certain level of maturity and respect on the part of all involved, which is unfortunately not always the case.

Kate seems to like Fanderclai's article and finds her own MOO pedagogy in it. The MOO is an easy place to lose control of students who have no set goals (or those who just take the element of play a bit too far). Giving students an assignment a clear set of goals gives them the opportunity to work freely within the confines of an assignment. Which is something that we want them to do and Fanderclai writes about in her article. I think that is something that is often easier to do in 420 than in say a freshman writing course where the students are younger, more prone to play, and often given a less strict set of goals. Interesting idea....