Original_To:  BITNET%"mbu-l@ttuvm1.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 06:40:00 EDT
From:         "Composition Digest (Robert Royar,
              Moderator)" <R0MILL01@ULKYVX.BITNET>
Subject:      (Fwd: *C&CD*) Why teach Internet in writing classes? (13)

Date:         Mon, 12 Oct 1992 05:13:40 EDT
From:         IN%"RobertRoyar@Delphi.com" Robert Royar (C&CD Moderator)
Message-id:   <1992Oct12.051340.2.Grendel.Lair@Cratylus>
Subject:      Why teach Internet in writing classes? (13)
Reply-to:     IN%"R0MILL01@ULKYVX.LOUISVILLE.EDU"  C&CD
Organization: Cratylus Educational Software

Bradford A. Morgan writes
>Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 23:35:56 -0600
>From: "(Bradford A. Morgan)" <bmorgan@SILVER.SDSMT.EDU>
>Message-id: <01GPUDWHVOXS95MUFM@ulkyvx.bitnet>
>Subject: RE: Community of learners (*MBU*)

[...]
>During the early 1980s we had to convince
>many reluctant faculty outside our discipline that word processing was a
>useful tool in the teaching of writing.
[...]
>Now that we're in our second semester of using an Internet-based approach
>in our advanced technical communications course, it's becoming apparent
>that we'll have to deal with this same opposition. [...] And the questions
>we're getting are long since familiar: what do the Internet and Unix have
>to do with writing?  Is teaching the Internet an end in itself or a means
>to something?  What's wrong with the way writing has been taught all
>along?  These are important questions, to be sure, and we grow stronger
>when we have to justify ourselves, even under hostile circumstances.

One approach is to come in through the back door.  Don't attempt to convince
anyone that writers need Internet.  Instead argue that students who
understand the network find jobs and further the reputation of the school
which had the foresight to train them in net use and ettiquette.  Go at it
from a technical communication perspective.  Create some classroom scenarios
(ones you really try out) that parallel the uses of Internet (or any
distance e-mail/ftp) that industry will need from its workers.  Too many of
us have been caught in the justification quagmire on computer use and
ignore the very practical fact that these tools will be used regardless of
what English teachers think/do.  When we present pedagogical and theoretical
arguments (a colleague's constant citing of Derida comes to mind) that tend
to narrow and exclude our audience, we fail to convince them--regardless of
the argument's validity (or truth).

This is one problem with the ENFI approach at our school.  It took the high
ground, and by refusing to offer any practical reasons for network
interaction, led to the loss of that ability.

We got stuck discussing
  * developmental issues (maturation scales),
  * theoretical considerations (whether pomo or cog sci
    described the effects better), and
  * how ENFI changed writing pedagogy.

We forgot that other departments might not be interested in what they
perceived to be narrow issues.  When the LANs were given a minor face
lift, ENFI dissappeared.  Had we argued that this approach had implications
for vocational training (tech schools generally have a vocational focus) and
spent more time figuring how we'd set up classrooms--what we'd do there and
what we wanted students to leave with--we'd likely still have a working
interaction component.

 -- Robert Royar (RobertRoyar@Delphi.com) New York Institute of Technology
    "Do not search for the truth. Simply cease to cherish opinion"
                                           - Sengstan, Third Zen Patriarch

*************************************
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU