| |
Hugh Burns, Texas Woman’s University, Four
dimensions of significance: Tradition, method, theory, originality.
Abstract: In this article, I reflect on four dimensions of
assessing the significance of research in the computers and composition
field: tradition, method, theory, and originality. Considering these
four key concepts as topoi will help our community define, explain,
and predict how future research will significantly contribute to teaching
wisely and to writing well with technology.
Sibylle Gruber, Northern Arizona University, The
good, the bad, the complex:
Computers and Composition in transition.
Abstract: In this article I use Albert Borgmann’s (1984)
four-part theory of technology to analyze various contributions to
Computers and Composition—initially enthusiastic, sometimes
fearful, and later aware of the complexities of technology and the
need for anchoring discussions of technology in theory and pedagogy.
By applying Borgmann’s theory, I show how readers of Computers
and Composition can follow the 20-year development of technological
awareness in the journal, and I also show possibilities for future
directions the journal can take.
Anne Frances Wysocki, Michigan Technological University,
and Julia I. Jasken, McDaniel College, What should be an
unforgettable face…
Abstract: The history of interface development has led us
to focus in a very limited way on the surface of the computer screen
and has asked us not to see how the design of what is on screen shapes
the actions and thinking we can do while engaged with interfaces.
In this article, we look back to arguments in Computers and Composition
from the 1980s and early 1990s, arguments that tried to broaden our
views so that we could see how interfaces are thoroughly rhetorical.
We show how, then, these arguments appear, unfortunately, to have
been forgotten: In handbooks and guides intended to help student in
writing classes design and develop Web sites, students are asked to
think of interfaces—and hence audiences—only in terms
of technical function and ease of use. The interfaces developed from
such help can only then see audiences reductively. We offer suggestions
of strategies teachers can use to help students develop reflexive
and more generous interfaces.
Beatrice
Quarshie Smith, Illinois State University, Teaching with
technologies: A reflexive auto-ethnographic portrait.
Abstract: This reflective article chronicles the process
of my development as a writer, a learner, a teacher, and a researcher
who happens to engage the practices of writing, learning, teaching,
and researching with emerging technologies. Using a colonial metaphor
that captures my initial exposure to school-based literacies, I demonstrate
how a colonial pattern permeates current dynamics of technology used
both in and out of schools. I use this frame to raise issues and ask
questions about teaching with technologies in socially just and responsible
ways.
Robert Samuels, University of California Santa Barbara,
The future threat to computers and composition: Nontenured instructors,
intellectual property, and distance education.
Abstract: In this article, I argue that recent initiatives
concerning the use of computer-mediated instruction (CMI) to improve
writing skills in large lecture classes often work to undermine the
professional status of composition teachers in North American universities.
I trace the use of computer-assisted instruction, specifically distance-education
initiatives. To further the cause of a just implementation of CAI,
I discuss recent contractual language and explore the current practice
of hiring computer and writing specialists into nontenurable staff
positions. I posit that writing program administrators need to fight
for stable, long-term positions for faculty who teach with computers
and within computer-mediated spaces. I also argue that compositionists
must seek to regulate and control the ownership of their intellectual
property and course materials.
Barclay
Barrios, Rutgers University, Reimagining writing program
web sites as pedagogical tools.
Abstract: I argue that conversations about the pedagogical
applications of web sites and HTML should be extended to include applications
of these technologies on the programmatic level. I specifically examine
the experience of the Rutgers Writing Program and the reconception
of the Writing Program web site through a student-centered, content-driven,
collaboratively constructed model in terms of Cynthia Selfe’s
(1999) notion of critical technological literacy.
Kathleen
Blake Yancey, Clemson University, Looking for sources of coherence
in a fragmented world: Notes toward a new assessment design.
Abstract: Assessing digital texts requires criteria and processes
responsive to the texts as compositions. In this article, I note that
current software already assesses digital texts and I suggest ways
to become aware of and to use such assessments as sites of invention.
In addition, for assessment I propose a four-part heuristic keyed
to the multiple patterns that both composers and readers use to create
coherence.
Kevin
Eric De Pew, University of Nevada, The body of Charlie Brown’s
teacher: What instructors should know about constructing digital subjectivities.
Abstract: Although scholars from multiple fields, including
rhetoric and composition, have studied and theorized how computer
users can construct empowered subject positions with digital writing
technologies, we have yet to articulate a rhetorical process for composing
digital subjectivities. Past work has presented some unrealistic expectations
related to digital empowerment and subjectivity. As compositionists
and as digital rhetoricians, we need to develop and articulate rhetorical
strategies that may lead to instructor empowerment. Here I examine
rhetorical situations experienced by instructors, and I explore how
they might use various writing technologies to rhetorically position
themselves in the classroom. To not only successfully revise their
subjectivity, but also to teach students how to compose digital subjectivities,
instructors should consider the ideologies that define the rhetorical
situation, their knowledge of the technologies, and the ideologies
that the computer industries have written into the technology.
Taku
Sugimoto, Chiba Institute of Technology, How international
is Computers and Composition?
Abstract: In this article, I examine to what extent Computers
and Composition: An International Journal for Teachers of Writing
is international. My analysis of several aspects of the journal indicates
limited international scope. I also discuss two issues important when
considering the potential international scope of computers and writing
research and practices: the differing uses of computers for writing
by different language users and the differing concepts of identity
and self in different cultures in relation to writing. I conclude
with concrete suggestions for broadening our perspectives on computers
and writing and making this journal truly international.
Michelle
Sidler, Auburn University, The not-so-distant future: Composition
studies in the culture of biotechnology.
Abstract: As composition studies came to terms with technologized
classrooms in the late 20th century, another field of science, biotechnology,
also came into maturation. Here I address how biotechnology is poised
to dramatically change our cultural landscape in the coming decades,
fusing communication tools made possible through electronic technology
with molecular-level knowledge of our genetic structure and our evolutionary
past. Because biotechnological research is discovering the codes our
bodies use to communicate and may eventually merge biological processes
with information technology, it is important to interrogate how biotechnology
will impact writing, teaching, technology, and even humanity. I analyze
parallels in biotechnology as they have occurred in the past 20 years
in tandem with special issues published in Computers and Composition
to suggest past, current, and future connections between biotechnology
and the work of computers and writing.
Bill
Hart-Davidson, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, and Steven
D. Krause, Eastern Michigan University, Re: The future of
computers and writing: A multivocal textumentary.
Setting: Camera cuts back and forth between close-ups of
writing activity in what appears to be a classroom computer space.
Shots (e.g., of hands typing, mousing; screens with text editors,
email, web browsers open; groups viewing documents on an overhead
screen, etc.) don’t allow us to see exactly where we are. From
opening-sequence montage, fade to Ball State University in Muncie,
Indiana, site of the 2001 Computers & Writing Conference; fade
to Normal, Illinois, site of the 2002 Computers & Writing Conference;
fade to West Lafayette, Indiana, site of the 2003 Computers &
Writing Conference.
|
