X-Envelope-to: mbu-l@TTUVM1.BITNET
X-VMS-To: IN%"mbu-l@ttuvm1.bitnet"
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Fri, 6 Nov 1992 12:20:00 EST
From:         WPWP@PITTVMS.BITNET
Subject: is this the end of paper (long message)

                The threads of this hypertext discussion would be served
          well by being thrown into a hypertext format.  I could use
          Storyspace now (if I only had a Mac to work on) to attempt to
          order them in a way that could help us address all of the issues
          that are being raised, something I'm not even going to attempt to
          do in this linear note to the list.
                I would like, however, to bring a few lines of the
          discussion into focus, particularly Michael's call for a new
          rhetoric, Irv's "practical" concerns for students using
          hypertext, and John's examples from "the real world" that
          hypertext is not just another elitism.  Seems to me that we can't
          separate these three concerns into single lines of discussion.
          Like the discourse of any discipline, theoretical, pedagogical,
          and real world concerns inform each other in complex ways.  On
          the other hand, juggling all of them at once is extremely
          difficult, especially as asynchronous chat.  But here goes
          anyway.
                I'll be as short as I can:  Seems to me that too often we
          are governed by the metaphors we use to talk about computer
          technology in the writing classroom.  A place to begin Michael's
          call for a new rhetoric might be a look at the metaphor of "tool"
          which both limits and extends what we say.  If you look at the
          language Cyndy culled from the recent Hypermedia conference and a
          host of other posts recently, you'll notice the prominent role
          the metaphor tool plays in our discussions.
                Where has this metaphor got us?  Computers as tools were
          instrumental for bringing computers into the Composition
          classroom in the first place.  Certainly there is some link of
          this metaphor to the Back to Basic and process approach rhetorics
          of the 1960s and 70s.  And of course, we inherit the metaphor
          from the field of computer science.  It defines classroom work
          with computers as a means to some other end, as Eric suggested in
          his question whether asynch and synch work in the classroom could
          be seen as an end in itself.  Tools are "applied."  They can be
          "carried" to other contexts.  Tools are "acquired" much like
          "skills."  Tools can be used to "fix" things and "build" things.
          Tools can be put together in a container called a "toolbox."
          Someone recently talked about Daedalus as a "toolbox" of powerful
          tools.  Above all, tools are "utilitarian," "efficient," and
          "effective."  I quote all of these terms because these are the
          terms it seems to me we use when we talk about tools.
                What tools can't recognize is the larger picture.  Tools
          don't define systems and subsystems of thought, function, or
          structure.  Tools do not define pedagogy, nor even structure it.
          They only provide a means.  On the other hand a metaphor like
          "environment" does serve these larger functions.  When students
          enter into a Daedalus-linked classroom, they are entering an
          "environment" that is not only shaped by the technology, but also
          defined by it to a great extent.  There has been a great deal of
          discussion lately about this "environment" and how it disrupts
          teacher centered environments.  Similarly, good hypertext
          applications provide environments.  John Slatin just wrote this
          morning:

More and more, the students who graduate from our institutions will be
entering environments, information environments, consisting of complex webs of
information linked to other webs of information; and they will be expected to
negotiate those webs and to construct them.

          Environment denotes a space, an atmosphere in which the learner
          can work and play, as in real life.  It is a "system" which has
          both structure and function and includes subsystems.  If an
          environment includes reading, writing, planning, analyzing,
          speculating, and hypothesizing in a spirit of play, it breaks
          down artificial boundaries.  Experts know that reading is writing
          is critical thinking is playing.  Each of these is a system
          articulating with other systems.  Each has a function, yet none
          is reduced to one technique, set of tools, strategy, or device.
          Programs like StorySpace and some hypertext applications
          illustrate this concept.
                More importantly, unlike the metaphor "tool," "environment"
          suggests that computer applications are not merely supplemental,
          nor merely functional, but instead are integral to the work of
          the class.  Integration is the function of hypertext, which is
          also the function of "entering environments, information
          environments, consisting of complex webs of information linked to
          other webs of information."
                My point is that it is necessary to talk about this new
          rhetoric Michael has called for.  And it is necessary to talk
          about Irv's desire to know how "you turn this kind of instruction
          to the benefit of students who will be asked to write
          discursively" and how "hypertext [is] entering (or how will it
          enter) into our students' lives?"  And further, it is important
          to think about how hypertext as "environment" can be used to
          shape the structure of our writing classes.  My question is what
          is pedagogy as hypertext?  What might it mean to structure class
          work as a space, an atmosphere in which the learner can work and
          play, as in real life?  What "systems" could we begin to talk
          about in such a context which have both structure and function
          and subsystems.  In other words, what happens when hypertext
          becomes something more than a supplemental tool for the writing
          classroom, and instead is its defining metaphor?
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU