computers and the teaching of writing
Well, I finally finished Computers and the Teaching of Writing in American Higher Education, 1979-1994 A History: Gail E. Hawisher, Paul LeBlanc, Charles Moran, Cynthia L. Selfe. I started this book as a recommendation from a professor to learn if computers and composition might be the right focus for me. I'm not sure if this book has helped me figure that out. I do know I plan to keep teaching with computers as long as they'll let me, so in that sense, I'm already finding my work informed by computers and composition.
I found this book confusing in a lot of places, fairly disconnected and difficult to follow all the simultaneous narratives (there's the text of the book, plus a zillion quotes in the margins of the book, plus personal narratives by scholars at the end of the chapter, plus a MOO with many streams at the end of the book). I don't think this was a bad thing, and perhaps it was appropriate to structure a book about computers in such a way since they do reference hypertext quite a bit. But in a way, perhaps it does a disservice to computers & writing to structure a book this way. I only say that because all research and scholarly work can be like hypertext; this is not exclusively for scholars of computers & writing, however, most other scholars don't do this. That might be because they're difficult to read. Why think of the work of people who study computers as being the most difficult to read? Perhaps they need to make even more of an effort to make their work accessible.
Anyway, the thing I am thinking about most in relationship to this book is the way that technology is always thought to bring some kind of redemption along with the changes it brings. The authors of this book quite persuasively make the point that this is not true in their history. Computers in composition classrooms do not necessarily imply more equality for difference in race, gender, sexual identity, etc. Technologies are reflections of social situations, not miracle cures to those situations. It's interesting how people tend to either praise technology as a force for positive change or shun it as a force for destroying our world. But as long as we've been people, we've had technology, and we make it, so it's neither good or bad. It's just something we invent to allow us to do whatever we do as humans in a more extreme way. This point is something I hope to bring out with my composition students this coming semester: what things does technology truly bring? Why do people tend to look at it as all good or all bad? Interesting stuff.
I found this book confusing in a lot of places, fairly disconnected and difficult to follow all the simultaneous narratives (there's the text of the book, plus a zillion quotes in the margins of the book, plus personal narratives by scholars at the end of the chapter, plus a MOO with many streams at the end of the book). I don't think this was a bad thing, and perhaps it was appropriate to structure a book about computers in such a way since they do reference hypertext quite a bit. But in a way, perhaps it does a disservice to computers & writing to structure a book this way. I only say that because all research and scholarly work can be like hypertext; this is not exclusively for scholars of computers & writing, however, most other scholars don't do this. That might be because they're difficult to read. Why think of the work of people who study computers as being the most difficult to read? Perhaps they need to make even more of an effort to make their work accessible.
Anyway, the thing I am thinking about most in relationship to this book is the way that technology is always thought to bring some kind of redemption along with the changes it brings. The authors of this book quite persuasively make the point that this is not true in their history. Computers in composition classrooms do not necessarily imply more equality for difference in race, gender, sexual identity, etc. Technologies are reflections of social situations, not miracle cures to those situations. It's interesting how people tend to either praise technology as a force for positive change or shun it as a force for destroying our world. But as long as we've been people, we've had technology, and we make it, so it's neither good or bad. It's just something we invent to allow us to do whatever we do as humans in a more extreme way. This point is something I hope to bring out with my composition students this coming semester: what things does technology truly bring? Why do people tend to look at it as all good or all bad? Interesting stuff.
<< Home