Week of 3/25 -Computers and Composition

The theme of this weeks’ reading revolve around composition and computers. As I read the articles, it was a bit difficult to determine how much of what was discuss has changed since the time of publishing, even Mueller’s article that was published in 2009; technology continues to change and the writing process will change right along with it. I took special interest with these articles because several questions came to mind prior to reading the article: 1) How have I changed as a writer since using word processing programs? 2) How do non-traditional students (older generations) who are accustomed to using pen and pencil for composition differ from those students that know not of a time without word processing programs? 3) How will current and future technologies change the way we teach composition?

I will begin with Sullivan’s article on taking control of the page. Sullivan discusses the waning of what once was a gap between actual writing and the printed page. Because of the closing of this gap, the writers are able to more in control of the published page. Sullivan emphasizes the possible effects of publishing on writers, curriculum, instruction, and readers. Sullivan argues that many instructors of composition have failed to recognize the computer as part of the writing process but rather as an assistive tool for writers and teachers alike. Even as this article was published earlier, many composition instructors today refuse to recognize the computer as part of the writing process. Many of them recognize the computer as a means of publishing written work, but many do not include computers in the writing process (drafting, revising etc). Grant it, a large part of this issue could be because of the lack of computer availability; however, recognition of computer as part of process should still be emphasized. Sullivan quotes Ong regarding technology effect of changing the way we communicate. The possible threats that Sullivan points out is the writer focusing more on the production rather than the process. Because the word processing programs allow for various ways to “present” the product (especially now with the over inundation of options to chose from), writers may very well be focusing more on the ways in which they can produce their work rather than focusing on constructing content. It seems this is the case with most freshman comp students as I have never been able to figure out why they feel if they had a fancier font for their written work and a larger, bolder title, they feel they have produced amazing compositions. It seems they have convinced themselves aesthetically pleasing printed product equals quality writing. Not so much. Sullivan emphasizes the notion that with word processing programs and the like, writers must now produce compositions with skill beyond just writing. Sullivan states, “writers must be able to write text, develop a global logic for documents, devise layouts, draw suitable artwork (if needed), and ‘see’ the grid” (p. 58). Because many writers are now familiar with the technological aspect of word processing programs, the focus then should be on instructing the other skills required in order to use computer as process rather than tool.

Harris’ article focuses on social constructionism and the importance of socially constructed thinking within communities. Harris emphasizes the need to define the roles which technology plays in the teaching of writing; specifically, using technology for pedagogical purposes. The article presents a study that uses an internet-based composition classroom. The findings of the study highlighted how an internet discourse community produced more effective writing and participation in writing. Additionally, perceptions and motivations about writing were more positive than that of the controlled group (traditional composition classroom). Through the use of internet, students were more aware of audience and were able to produce written work more frequently providing more practice in writing. After reading this work, I was actually surprised to find that students were more positively motivated about writing than the traditional classroom. It is far too common to find students perceptions of writing as a tortuous task; however, as I have explained to them time and time again, writing shouldn’t be painful. If technology (internet) is a means in which this will change the perception of writing, I am all for it.

McGee and Ericsson’s article focuses on Microsoft Word’s grammar checker and the overall effects it has on writers and teachers. We are introduced (I think we had some idea already) to the misleading nature MSGC has on students. It is interesting to note the power that this software program has on most writers. Students have relied more on this program than their textbooks and their instructors. It is important to note the widespread usage and reliance of MSGC to “fix” grammatical and mechanical errors. However, many students do not realize as Ericsson points out “MSGC is primarily concerned with prescriptive issues of usage and surface concerns of style.” However, despite whether students are aware or not, it seems it does not matter. Composition instructors need to begin to examine how we can utilize MSGC within our instruction as well as inform students the significant differences between what the grammar checker offers and what might be considered “good” writing.

Howard’s article readdresses plagiarism and the internet. Naturally, the discussion of intertexuality is brought up. Howard stresses how internet plagiarism is addressed without the notion of intertexuality. Thus, composition instructors focus more on finding the plagiarism either through the use of plagiarism detectors or Google searches rather than focusing on the opportunity to turn this issue into a pedagogical issue. Instructors must make connections with students about the theory of intertexuality and provide instruction how to appropriately “weave” ones written work rather than merely copy and pasting if you will. Essentially, the policy makers within the college need to reexamine the way plagiarism is handled. Perhaps the focus should shift more on instructing and addressing plagiarism rather than policing.