by Judith Clayton Van
by Judith Clayton Van
In the fall of 1998 I enrolled in Patricia Webb's graduate seminar entitled Computers and Composition:ENG 591. I have been teaching with computers for three years, but while I had practical knowledge, I needed a theoretical base from which to proceed. I looked forward to Dr. Webb's course as an opportunity to clarify my pedagogical and theoretical philosophy of CMC (Computer Mediated Composition).
Each member of Dr. Webb's seminar was responsible for a persuasive research project and paper to be posted to a web site. My project is the story of a collaborative student ezine (electronic magazine) produced by my two 102 classes in the Fall of 1998. These students would write the same papers as non-computerized 102 students, but the last essay, their proposal, would be published on a collaboratively designed web page.
I chose this project for Dr. Webb's seminar to investigate difficulties, such as apathy, resistance, and at times blatant rudeness by several students (in the 12:15) 102 class involved in creating the 1998 ezine. My hope is that investigation of this classes problems will help me in creating a new syllabus for my project based 102 course, lead to improved student learning AND satisfaction, enhance in-class cooperation on collaborative projects, and reduce student and teacher stress.
This fall, because of my deepening concern over environmental problems in the Western United States, I chose as the topics for the class ezine the Environment, Ecology, and Land Use Planning. I presented the idea of the ezine and the topics students could choose the first week of class, so that if they did not like the concept they could choose another class that might suit. We named the student ezine : Digger's Journal:1998.
Some background about me:
In 1993, I graduated from A.S.U. with an M.F.A. in fiction writing (link to fiction). I've taught 102 regularly and sucessfully since I became a teaching assistant at A. S.U. in 1989. After graduating, I left A.S.U. for a year and taught fiction and compostition at Oregon and Arizona community colleges. I have always had good evaluations from my course coordinators, and mid-to very good range evaluations from my composition students with the exception of several 102 classes over the course of the eight years. In these courses my student evaluations were significantly lower than my average.
I became curious about why some 102 classes are easy to teach, and my relationships with students are good, and why other classes, particularly those 102 classes, were not nearly as easy to teach, and my relations with some students were especially difficult. I was teaching the same class from the same syllabus, and was not aware of presenting a different face to one class than another, of being kinder or a better teacher in one class, than the other, and so these "difficult" classes made me question the dynamics of the classroom and my teaching strategies.
By 1996, I had been teaching for about 7 years and felt that I was beginning to understand teaching and was getting my moves down, when the CAI wave hit A.S.U. Because I used and liked computers, see my computer autobiography because I thought that it would be a good career move, and that students would benefit from knowing how to maneuver in a computer mediated world, I was in the first A.S.U. Computer Assisted Instruction (CAI) training class in the spring of 1995.
We've have since changed the name from CAI to CMC (Computer Mediated Composition) because of CAI's association with early computer and education programs like PLATO and TICCIT "that were focused on drills and practice, tutorials, or both--in a given content area" (Hawisher, et al 1996). Given current process oriented pedagogy, these drills, more in the current traditional vein, are viewed by educators as formulaic, and not contributing significantly to student learning.
The next fall, my first computer class was a Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) class and it was fun, but not always sucessful. I didn't yet have strategies to keep students from surfing the net, or emailing relatives, in short treating the classroom like a lab, and me as a glorified (actually not at all glorified) tech support person.
That could have been a very hard semester but it was made easier because in an office around the corner from my classroom was a wonderful teacher, one of the trainers of the CAI classes at ASU, Kelly Truitt. She was very helpful that first semester and made what might have been a terrifying experience rewarding. Kelly is now at the University of Houston where she is director of student publications. See her Cadphiles site, and the student newspaper she designed and maintains, The Cougar.
When I begin teaching in the Electronic Classroom (EC) classroom, besides reconstructing my lesson plans to suit a CMC class, I also had to renegotiate the space of the classroom. Just as I was becoming really comfortable and confident in the traditional classroom, I found myself in a room where I was essentially deconstructed. By deconstructed, I mean what is at the heart of Derrida's theory--a reconsituting as in physics--of my teacher self (read self as text) that had gone before. I was doing a detailed reading of myself, my roots, my structure as a teacher. I had to take myself apart and reexamine all that I was doing in the classroom--so I was deconstructed by myself, my own scrutiny.
I was deconstructed in another way by my students, many of whom had been hacking away since they were in Jr. High school and knew more about the computer than I had yet guessed. They also seemed to have an entirely different idea from mine of what a teacher should be and do. I felt that every class was a renegotiation of what it means to be a student, and what it means to be a teacher.
When before in the history of teaching had students come to the aid of a teacher when in the middle of a class the equipment she was using refused to function, or she forgot a sequence of steps leading to the completion of a task and she had to ask a student for the answer? At first these circumstances, frequent in a CMC classroom, made me question my decision to teach with technology.
You may be wondering about my teaching philosophy, maybe thinking the answer to those difficulties and difficult classes lie therin. If so, please see my teaching philosophy. My desire to remain teachable and open to what benefits students was one prompt that led me to the computer classroom in 1996, so I was surprised that adding the computer to the classroom seemed to pose probems both for students and teachers. Silly me :)
Some Background about my 102 experience:
The next semester I taught three ENG 102 classes, two in a computer classroom. I linked two of the classes and we created the first class ezine, The Full Cup.This research based class and the computer were a fit, and I was much happier with the results of the classes. The students were delighted to have the computers in the classrooms, to work in class on their essays, find sources immediately, to show them to me and others immediately. Students could ask me to look at sources, email me with addresses to check, even email their papers, and works cited pages to me to preview before the paper deadline.
We could look at websites together, call up essays such as Jonathon's Swift's "Modest Proposal," and many others to read in class. If I wanted to make a brilliant (electronic) connection to help explain a concept, I could do it. I made a web page and begin to post class assignments. I felt more available to my students because we really were more connected. I thought the computer was a wonderful addition to 102, and so did most of my students. Yet this increased connectivity to sources and to the whole world, increased problems of keeping students on task, and in some cases of their maintaining civility. 102 challenges students and teachers even when the class runs smoothly, so these increased challenges sometimes seemed overwhelming the first year.
Yet, I'd always enjoyed teaching 102 because I like the way students feel about themselves when they sucessfully complete a thorough research project that they are proud of. I think the course is important. So, in theFall of 1997 when I first encountered what amounted to resistance from WAC students not only to the curriculum but to my requiring the computer classroom to be used as a classroom, not as a lab, I immediately begin to imagine how I could refigure 102--and my teaching style.
I did not want to change the syllabus, or teach less, but I envisioned some kind of class project that I hoped would provide students with more opportunity and desire to learn. I also pictured my role changing radically. I had always used a mix of traditional (debates, presentations, short lectures) and non traditional strategies (short, timed cooperative learning tasks, collaborative group projects) in the classroom. Now I envisioned myself functioning more like an editor--not the old time-hard boiled newspaper guy with the green visor--but one who would function more as a coach and project coordinator.
Spring 1997 semester. I taught three EC 102's. My first problematic CMC course met in Sonora, a lab with pods,connected by a patio to one of the dorms. Right outside the back door, and visible through the windows, is the dorm swimming pool, surrounded by lounge chairs. The equipement in the lab rarely worked, and because it was a lab when it wasn't being a classroom, students who lived in the dorm were often stumbling into the room in a hurry to use the computer for a last minute computer task. This was a constant interruption. This class had problems of apathy and rudeness, but they were not involved in the collaborative ezine project.
My second problematic 102 CMC course in the spring of 1997, was one of the classes involved with the production of "The Full Cup," the first collaborative student ezine. That class met in BAC 9, a dark room in the basement of the business building. It wins my first prize as the most inconvenient (incoherent) electronic classroom on the ASU campus. The rows of computers don't even face the front of the room or the insturctor, but run down the length of the long narrow room in lines. From the front of the room, I saw only the sides of the faces of the first two people sitting at the computers. It was a nightmare.
The class I'm using for this study, another class wherin students were resistant, was one of my Fall 1998 classes engaged in the production of the Digger's Journal. That class met at 12:15, in BA 396. I mention the rooms where the classes are held because after teaching in the different classrooms I find that some rooms, because they are designed as labs and not as classrooms, are more difficult for both students and teachers. See link to Laura Bush's great paper discussing EC classroom design.
There is also a good discussion of classroom design, and its effects on classroom dynamics in Transitions, by Mike Palmquist et al. They conclude that the "traditional school model of rows of desk or tables facing the front of the room . . .is the most limiting for teachers and students in computer-supported writing classrooms" (Palmquist 78). They point out that the monitors are too high for students to see over, and in my case, since I'm not five feet tall, I totally disappear. The Fall 98 12:15 Digger's class is such a room.
Yet, in my view, classroom design however limiting, is not the most serious problem. The major problem with any 102 course is that many students lack motivation to write because they don't see 102's connection to any real life they can imagine. They also lack foundational grammatical/ logical/organizational/ imaginative skills important to persuasive writing. Yet because a former curriculum may not have required these skills, they feel that they are "good" writers. They are dismayed when, on entering 102, they must juggle the acquisition of rheotirical knowledge, research skills, collaborative expertise, and time management skills some of which, depending on where they have been previously educated, are new to them. A main source of frustation for many students is that they don't immediately earn the high grades they are positive they deserve.
It was in seeking a solution to the ongoing 102 conundrum, that I fell on the idea of having the students produce the ezine. I thought that by offerring them an audience, and the technology (WWW) to reach a broad audience that the motivation part of the 102 problem might be solved. Then, given motivation, the second part of the problem, the aquisition of skills, would be easier to address, both for them and for me.
In Spring 1997, in order to facilitate creating the first collaborative project, The Full Cup 102 ezine, I did not do in-depth research about web-based collaborative projects. I refined my own pedagogical ideas, created my own plan based on classical argument strategies, and forged ahead.
So, that spring my two 102 classes produced an ezine entitled, The Full Cup . The ezine is set up as a news magazine for college students, and the topics they chose are divided into catagories such as hard news, health and entertainment, and sports. The ezine, from my standpoint, was a great success as a product, yet all students did not respond by being happier about the 102 experience, but the opposite. About a third of the students in both classes, were by turns, conflicted, absent, sullen, anxious, and resistant. However, the resistance was more intense in the class that met in BAC 9.
I thought these reactions were in part due to my being new, not only the the computer classroom but to large collaborative academic projects. I qualify by saying academic projects because in a previous life as an artist's agent, promoter of concerts, and operations manager for entertainment facilities, I had for many years routinely and sucessfully facilitated large group collaboration. I was at a loss, and could not understand why this class was so difficult both for some students and myself. My reaction was to take several faculty development seminars detailing sucessful use of academic collaboration. I also begin to read theories of cooperative and collaborative learning.
According to Kenneth Bruffee, "In collaborative learning students work on focused but open-ended tasks. They discuss issues in small consensus groups, plan and carry out long-term projects in research teams, tutor one another, analyze and work problems together, puzzle out difficult lab instructions together, read aloud to one another what they have written, and help one another edit and revise research reports and term papers" (Bruffee 1).
I had already used these strategies in class because it built community, and I knew that business, science and engineering were all using the "team" concept. Another benefit in the classroom was that it allowed weaker students to work with stronger students. It allowed those students who were perhaps "weak" writers, but had good ideas, to contribute those ideas and be recognized for their unique contributions.
Bruffee maintains that the most important thing we, as teachers can do for students, is help them "learn to depend on one another rather than depending exclusively on the authority of the teacher" (1). He says, that interdependence is becoming the rule both in academia and the professions, but that educators have not previously taught this way because of ingrained ideas of scholarship: the notion that ideas are one's own private property, and the fact that educators are rewarded (raises, honors) for their ideas. Also, working against the idea of social contruction is the idea of the "magic" transferrence of knowledge, a traditional assumption of both educators and students.
While I agree with Bruffee that foundational assumptions about cognition and learning--learning takes place/is formed between the learner and outside reality-- and post modern, post structuralist, anti foundational assumptions which favor a social constructivist theory of knowledge--knowledge is socially constructed among peers--he infers an either or situation. Socio-biology has long declared the inseperability of nature and nuture, and the reality of my classroom seems to bear this out. While some learners may be more inclined to learn through social constructivist methods, some prefer to learn on their own, and seem to work better and learn more independently.
I believe it depends on the student. My job as a teacher is to use as many strategies as I can to help students learn. One reason I am in favor of computer technology, the networked classroom, is that on line discussion, whether email, or sychronous software, makes it easier for some students to respond freely. It seems to free some in a way face to face communication does not allow. And freedom to explore ideas --however wild or off the wall they may seem--is something that makes for sharper minds, and paradoxically, more logical thinkers.
Janet Forman, in her Literacy and Compters article, "Literacy, Collaboration, and Technology: New Connections and Challenges,"discusses the problems that arise in the collaborative electronic classroom. She says that the electronic collaborative classroom can be problematic because it can "embody the tensions born of differences in age, class, economic inequalities, [and] teams can experience difficulties in group dynamics--how, among other things, to determine authority, manage conflict, distribute work, allocate credit, and sort out individual and group goals and methods for achieving those goals" (Forman, 134).
I agree, but one thing Ms. Forman does not mention is how much longer it can take for students to arrive at group consensus about a concept, or other tasks they might be working on. Since time is crucial because of administratively imposed curriculum goals, I found myself becoming frustrated because something that I could have covered quickly, if maybe not as deeply, often seemed to take a long time for them to complete collaboratively. I was often unsure whether or not students were actually ready to move on. But ready or not, we had to go forward.
Collaboration can play out negatively in class if things aren't highly structured by the teacher. That sounds odd, doesn't it? Odd, because collaborative and cooperative learning imply a student centered (structured) classroom. Yet, in relying on collaborative methods I had to be elaborately structured, in that I carefully craft the in-class exercises, analyze very closely the kinds of questions that I asked students to work with, and remain very sensitive to each individual in the class in order to select members that I hope will contribute to sucessful working groups. Bruffee gives the following basic principles for designing collaborative tasks.
While I am very much in favor of collaborative methods, I felt at times that I was having to function as a psychologist, rather than a teacher of writing, and thus felt underprepared. I think students saw my care and sensitivity towards them as weakness, rather than strength(McCord 1998). I asked question after question rather than give them answers, and they were not really prepared to learn in that way.
Writing the above sentence just gave me another clue to my 102 problem. While I was writing it, I "said" something I didn't know I knew. I had not prepared my students to work collaboratively. Oh, I had said, "We'll be working on the project collaboratively. We'll collaborate among ourselves in this class, and via email with the 3:15 class." This was about all I said about collaboration. I did give some ground rules about picking recorders for the sessions, about ethos, or manners, but that was about it. I made an assumption, and that was that they would naturally know how to collaborate by the time they arrived in their first year composition classroom.
This is something I will correct in my next project based course. It seems logical that the more students know about the methods of collaboration, the more they will profit from the experience. Recognizing that students need to start early, Instuctional Technology at ASU has created a project where minority children begin to learn collaboratively, with technology, at an early age. The goals of this program, Conexiones, are instructive, and their methods creative.
Michael Stricland and Robert Whitnell of Guilford College discuss another possible solution to the collaborative EC project problem in the article, "Weaving Guilford's Web." These professors of Computer Supported Communications, facilitated a class wherein students collaborativley created the Guilford College web site. Their in-class study and reading were not focused on collaboration, but on technology. They took as one premise Ladlow's assertions that "electronic text processing marks the next major shift in information technology after the development of the printed book. It promises (or threatens) to produce effects on our culture, particularly on our literature, education, criticism and scholarship, just as radical as those produced by Gutenberg's movable type" (qtd in "Weaving, 190). This is an important statement and I will return to it in the next section, a discussion of the classroom as a dynamic system.
In light of this claim Whitnell and Strickland gave their students a thourough grounding in the history and theory of technology. They maintained that it was not enough to understand the mechanics of web page construction, but that the theory was vital to the sucessful completion of the project. I agree, but wonder how this would translate to my classroom. Since I now teach logic,strategies and theories of classical argument, I don't know where we would find the time to read and discuss theories of technology, as we barely get through the model essays. This is also something I want to think more about. Could my 102 students profit from a course based on readings in information systems theory? If my readers have ideas, please let me hear from you.
Whitnell and Strickland say thier goal "was to help our students examine what it meant to be communicating and providing information in the face of rapidly changing rules: where the control of the time and means of acess to information is shifting from the provider to the consumer"(Strickland 194). This reminds me of one of my students who complained about the course, saying he "wasn't getting what he'd paid for." The student consumer . . . I don't think Strickland and Whitnell were thinking of such a situation, yet logically, it does seem to follow.
This brings up (an aside) the discussion (that I usually like to avoid) about making learning fun. There is theory to support that students learn better when having fun, but this causes me problems because I don't particulary want to have fun when I learn. That's not my style. I want to get to the point, get it, and get out. Therefore, when I hear that "good" teachers will make learning fun, I am intrigued, and apalled at the same time. Not that I wouldn't want create fun learning experiences if I could, but I don't know how. (This may be another area for me to consider in my resolution to the 102 problem)
To hear Strickland and Whitnell one would assume that all was perfect in their best of all possible worlds. They say they had no problems, all was smooth, wonderful and they are eager to teach more such classes. I find it difficult to imagine that they had no problems. Their students worked well together, were totally responsible, "kept a constant concern for the viewing capabilities of their diverse audiences" . . . and they [students] had little authority to rebel against because they had essentially all the power"(202). Sounds heavenly. Any problems they experienced were related to limited technology and technical support.
Stickland and Whitnell say that they give great credit to the students. It makes sense to me that the students would be committed to the project, because their class was creating a "real" product, it wasn't a manufactured product--as the 102 website was--to fit the needs of a particular course curriculum. I think this makes a temendous difference in the way a class will respond. Also, Guilford has a strong Quaker element, and this makes me wonder how much this background enhanced student motivation.
Prehaps the answer for my 102 classes is for students to decide on a topic for the page collaboratively, and then each student would create his own related site independently, only using the group as another set of "eyes." In other words the class could create the index page collaboratively, and each student would be responsible for his or her own link. Yet all the class would have to vote whether or not to publish each link.
L.M. Dryden, discussing hypertext software used in the creation of student projects, offers some support for the idea of students working independenlty even in an area where they know little to begin with. He mentions software used to aid students in creation of their projects, and concludes, "Conventional wisdom, however, confirms that often the most interesting hypermedia presentation--and the ones in which the most learning may take palce--are those that students create from the ground up, or with minimal start-up templates provided by the teacher. The reason may be simply that the students own their constructive hypertext productions . . .(Dryden 292). This may seem to diverge slightly from the ideas I've discussed, but I think it bears directly on student psychology and motivation. Students do need to be invested, and explore a topic by followoing their own interests, to create knowledge.
My only reservation with turning the students loose to choose their own topics and create their own pages is that the topics might deal with subjects that do not lend themselves to the four persuasive essays we teach in ENG 102. One may reply, "Well, you could give them a list of topics to choose from." I could, but I feel that prescribing what they write about, even to that limited extent, takes away that "real" reason to write. I have to do more thinking about this aspect of the writing situation to create a situation that encourages the students to write about something real, that fulfills the colleges academic guidelines, and doesn't cause me or them a nervous breakdown.
To help me understand more about student motivation and learning, I've continued to read theories of educational psychology. (I'm also looking for more links and sources detailing the role of "fun" in student learning. If you know of any you think would be helpful, please let me know).
In the meantime, while teaching my classes and trying to refine the 102 collaborative project, I was continuing to write fiction and take graduate courses in rhetoric and composition (see rhet comp class list ). I wrote a paper for Dr. D'Angelo's Classical Rhetoric course, entitled "Magic, Rhetoric and Chaos Theory" in which I attempted to synthesize my philsophy of teaching with my ongoing interest in metaphysics--looking for connections between my developing pedagogical theory and my personal philosophy.
As time passsed and I became more involved with teaching, I became even more curious about the sacred (magical, metaphysical) and powerful nature of rhetoric, and the intersection of rhet/comp, and chaos theory or dynamic non-linear systems , that I now consider any classroom to be. Dr. Uri Merry analyzes organizations, applying the chaos lens. Dr. Merry (see his email to me) discusses dynamic non-linear systems and how the principles apply to organizations--and to classes (my emphasis).
Here taking a pause to collect my thoughts, I begin thinking about Fred, my cat. (The reader may think that I'm slightly wacky to take a (textual) break to think of a cat, but as an animal lover and horse trainer for many years, thinking of animals is as normal, as important to me (if not to my audience), and as necessary as thinking of my 102 classes. I've learned much about human nature and teaching from studying animals, watching their reactions to humans, watching humans attempting to "train" animals, but that is the subject of another paper).
Back to my concern with my problematic collaborative 102 classes, and how I can more sucessfully facilitate the collaborative projects that I find so interesting. I've discussed the problems with 102, my problems and weaknesses as a teacher, how I used and mis-used collaborative techniques, and some of the ideas I want to investigate to make the course better suit the students needs.
Until now, I've been discussing theory, and praxis but since I'm a practical person, my concentration auomatically veers toward action one can take in a classroom. I ask, what can I do to help students learn more/better/at all. This practicality of mine however, leads me to ask how things work, then to see how I can make them work better. In asking the big questions, "How does it work?, Why does it work?" I am addressing ultimate questions, and the nature of these ultimate questions lead me to physics and metaphysics, to chaos theory, quantum theory, and magic.
As a person with a natural bent toward synthesis (see my discussion of interdisciplinarity, chaos theory, and classroom practice: "I Want To Be a Renaissance Man! )I try to apply what I know to any project or problem that I stumble upon, and thus I begin to think about the application of dynamic systems theory to the classroom. In physics, thermodynamics--chaos theory-- is the study of dynamic non-linear systems, and system states. If one considers a class a complex non-linear system--and I do, then we begin to talk about tiny changes creating probablitlites, possibilities, and multiplicities. Dr. Merry says the chaos model can apply to organizations: "since they are complex adaptive systems, there is no reason why they should behave differently"(Merry 3).
Dr. Merry describes organizations as passing through stages, as do dynamic systems, and individual people. For example a person goes through childhood, adolescence, adulthood, and maturity, then death . . ."from maturity through crisis and transformation"( 3). So, an easy conclusion to make is that my class is in the adolescent state, trembling on the edge of adulthood. They are moving from the ordered pattern stage, into the complex patterned stage, at times falling into chaos as they navigate their way through their college/classroom/life experience.
In his very informative paper Merry describes the nature of each stage, how the systems evolve, and the management styles that are most appropriate to each stage. He describes three main patterns: states one and two falling into the first, or ORDERED PATTERN, wherin the system is rigid and behaviors are repeated regardless of outcomes, such as in factories, and parts of the military. In the second set, or the COMPLEX PATTERN, comprising stages three and four, "the system applies a variety of behaviors which develop and change as the need arises. The system is always flowing" (11). In the CHAOTIC PATTERN: orderly patterns of behavior do not develop. Novelty is at its extreme and the system appears to be in a constant agitation"(11).
Merry says the optimum stage to promote organizational learning is the "edge of chaos."(11). I picture this as walking a highwire with no net, and only the wildly balancing bar for company. Merry says, "managing is often seen as creating and maintaining order in an organization so as to insure the regular, orderly, sequential and undisturbed work flow . . .[and]the difficulties arise when the organization attemps to be so orderly that it excludes the chaotic elements of novelty, discontinuous change, innovation, experimenataion, development, entrepreneurship, self-organization and creativity"(11).
So the optimum for learning is "where the system's components do not degenerate into stability and do not disintegrate into chaos; it is the BATTLEFIELD(emphasis mine) between degeneration and anarchy." Dr. Merry says that when a system "balances itself within the complex pattern of behavior so as to insure its sustainablitity it is at the edge of chaos." Hey now, my class is starting to sound better all the time :) as this is a fair description of the daily class proceedings.
Another point seems particularly related to the classroom. He says,"Too much order can be dysfunctional in systems that need to adapt to changing circumstances, and especially the conditions of burgeoning uncertainty of our times"(11). This sounds to me, like the EC classroom--using a syllabus that is designed for a different situation, situated within our changing college, within the university that's trying desperately to keep up with a changing community in a rapidly changing world. And then there is the teacher, me, who is retraining as rapidly as time allows, is often unsure how to adapt the curriculum to a changing student population, to rapidly changing technology, and to a community with rapidly changing and/or conflicted ideas about technology.
Another point not only made by Dr. Merry but one that is intregal to chaos theory is that small changes (sensitive dependence on initial conditions, or the butterfly effect) can have extremely significant impact on a system, in fact causing the system to bifurcate (cleave in two) or dramatically change, somtimes creating new systems, or states. In fact the introduction of advanced information technology has been described as a cultural bifurcation, as was the introduction of the printing press, as was the wheel ( Abraham 1994; Woolley 1993).
It would be a much longer paper if I were to go into the effect bifurcation and strange attractors have on systems(and you may read it in Dr. Merry's paper, and in the chaos links I provide througout this section of the essay), but I contend after considering my 102 classroom that the introduction of technology, of collaboration, and the high degree of order needed to complete the course work caused a bifurcation within the classroom which threw it into a crisis of deep chaos.
And, according to Merry, "deep chaos is a transition time which can lead either to transformation or to disintegration of the system"(17). The class did not disintegrate because only one student failed to hand in their final work, and actually failed the course, which is about average, and judging by their final work and the work that they accomplished throughout the semester, I judge that significant learning did take place.
In the computer classroom, however, because of being in effect linked to the entire world (the WWW), there are so many variables that there is continual cause for negative and positive disruption/irruption within the classroom which can radically change the learning environment at the flick of any one of a thousand keys simultaneously or singly. In light of what we know about the butterfy effect, this linkage, this web, automatically puts us on the edge of chaos in the networked classroom.( On reflection, I guess this is not such a bad place to be).This technological connection, that some think is now or will in the future, radically change our culture, has already radically changed my classroom.
Many theorists have discussed the benefits,drawbacks, and puzzlements of the electronic, computer networked classroom and technology itself. Whitnell and Strickland see the creation of the Guilford web page, using the web and the EC classroom as "providing them with a collaborative hands-on approach to learning and as enhancing the tradition of student empowerment that is characteristic of the college" (Whitnell, 190). In The War of Desire and Technology, (Sandy), Alluquere Rosanne Stone, sees the new technology as redefining our minds, bodies even our identities, and hopefully providing scholars with a new form of scholarly expression (Stone, 177) Turkel says that "people are embracing the notion that computers may extend an individual's physical presence . . ." She states, we are "moving from a modernist culture of calculation toward a postmodernist culture of simulation" (Turkel, 20). She is describing the cultural bifurcation I mentioned earlier. Haraway, sees the emergence and study of technology as the opportunity to call everything into question, our sexuality, our history, religions, politics, and like Stone, even our gender( Haraway, 156).
I think these scholars are correct in that technology is changing the world, the way we relate to the world, and even our thinking about our "selves" and our bodies. However, in one paper that I don't have linked for you to look at (you're probably grateful by now), I say that magic is simply reality that science has not yet discovered. For example, physicists studying Quantum mechanics--a branch of physics based on Plank's concept of radient energy subdivided into finite quanta and applied to a large number of processes involving tranference or transformation (emphasis mine--I associate this word strongly with my vision of learning) of energy in an atomic or molecular scale--cannot yet explain why a system that is observed acts differently than a system that is not observed. Extrapolating from this observation and applying the "observer effect" to complex dynamic systems (brains, for example or whole people, or classes), one might conjecture that a system will act differently if it is observed. The implications of this effect offer intriguing possibilities for classroom applications.
As I claim that magic is the reality that science has not yet found theory to support, similarly, I claim, based on quantum theory (scroll to "interpretation of Quantum Mechanics) and chaos research, that we are already naturally networked, and that the electronic networking we are doing in our classrooms and elsewhere, and so carefully analyzing is already the reality, but it's like we have to dowload it to the hard-drive to "see" it--to believe.
Technology only brings down into manifestation, the real world web of networked thoughts and ideas. It is a mechanical/electronic representation, a heuristic of how the brain may work (only the brain works better and quicker), how people's thoughts and ideas are connected, how the world is connected.
This is a risky statement for me to make, because I don't have the math, or the theory to back it up, but I'm convinced by my study of chaos theory and quantum theory that there is truth in it--so I don't worry too much about what techno/theorists claim. I think their conclusions are interesting, frightening, and sometimes funny, but I think they are looking in the wrong place. I would look to people, study them, and not technology--rather downplay the emphasis on technology. Technology is cool because it does replicate reality, it's a simulation of reality, but finally, so what?
My answer to this question is that if technology--computer mediated communication--can help us to be more human (and Turkel suggests it can (Turkel, 24), in teaching, learning, relating sensitively to our communities, in living our lives, in believing, then it's a very good thing.
Others share my view. In her very interesting site "From the Sophists to Chaos Theory," Sandy Bogus traces the history of Rhetoric and Composition theory and instruction, including links on information technology, cognitive psychlogy, Descate's Discourse on Instruction and Negroponte's discussions of technology, she concludes,"reducing things to black and white quantifiable terms may be politically necessary to convince people who prefer to see things simplistically. Our fragmented education system is only a reflection of an entire society that is fragmented and disharmonious. We have forgotten who we are and where we have come from. [Information technology], Constructivist principles and Chaos Theory point to a new direction in thinking that is more natural, albeit much more complex, to the human learner."
But still ,I'm more interested in How and Why we do what we do.To return to Quantum theory and consciousness for a moment: Physicist, Fred Alan Wolf PhD.,talking about human beings, knowledge and the soul, says," Instead [of Aristotlian and Newtonian reductionist principles about the nature of life and knowledge] we will see the soul as a process involving consciousness of knowledge. This process occurs in the vacuum of space in the presence and absence of both matter and energy. From this new vision we shall see why the soul is immortal. This means the soul begins when the universe of space, time, and matter first appear and ends when the universe returns to the nothing from whence it came. The major activity of the soul is manifestation of matter and energy and the shaping of the material world by knowledge. Both manifestation of the world and the soul's knowledge of it are tied to quantum physics principles, specifically the observer effect and the uncertainty principle.
The vacuum is fundamentally unstable. Anything that comes into existence arose from it through the soul's desire to manifest. This desire governs both the appearance of all matter and through the effect of observation spelled out by quantum physics, the relationship of a unified consciousness to matter. Thus the soul cannot be seen either materialistically or reductionistically. In fact the soul cannot be seen as a mechanical physical thing, at all. The soul's fundamental purpose is the shaping of knowledge into material form."
These conclusions are based on Quantum Mechanics. He has written many books and articles supporting his conclusions that contain long scientific/mathematical explanations supporting his claims, but ultimately, he builds his argument by showing the web of connectedness of all systems from the beginning of space/time, and arrives at the conclusion that we do "create" our own reality (s), and that we have enormous influence on our surroundings. Our directed engery, our word is a very powerful thing. How powerful, then, how crucial is rhetorical knowledge? How crucial is our job as teachers of rhetoric?
In conclusion, after considering these concepts I feel prepared to offer some ideas about applying this material to my teaching, and to my problematic102 courses:
My motivation in writing this paper was the resistance of some members of my 102 classes. I conceived of this resistance as a totally negative irruption, surely a problem to worry about, if only because our student evaluations are noticed when we reapply (every year) for Instructors positions. Not that I'll ever be delighted with resistant students in my collaborative computer classes, but "Cooper and Selfe (1990) argued that computer-mediated discussions 'are powerful, non-traditional learning forums for students not simply because they allow another opportunity for collaboration and dialogue--though this is certainly one of their functions--but also because they encourage students to resist, dissent, and explore the role that controversy and intellecual devergence play in learning and thinking" (qtd in Harris and Wambeam 355). This does offer hope that student learning is taking place, even (maybe in some cases especially?) when students are resistant.
One semi-final observation--(in hyper-text, no one has a last, last word): Rosanne Stone, in The War of Desire and Technology, says . . ."I sense in the wind that the hoary and infinitely servicable methods of representation that have worked so well for so long are beginning to break down, and that some academics are beginning to search--perhaps almost unconsciously--for new ways to convey their work to their peers" (177). She wants change. She is into the bi-furcation, she's walking the highwire on the edge of chaos, and if chaos theory follows true for complex non-linear systems( such as classes), her wish will likely come true.
Not only the way we convery our work to our peers will change, but the way students convey their work to us will have to change (or we'd be hypocrites)--creating this hyper-text project has convinced me of this. There's another paper here-- and there will be lots of intellectual ferment and confusion, and arguing such as is presently taking place in our(my)classes, our English department, and our college. It's good we've got the history and practice of rhetorical knowledge--negotiation, litagation, democracy--to help us remain civil while we add to the history, and radically change--the world.
This is the semi-permanent conclusion of my investigation. There are further connections I would like to make,more pointed conclusions,connections , and references, however for now, this is it for this section of the project.
The second section is not complete. The end is outlined, and the main links published. Please do see the student comments, and the working draft of the Digger Journal.
See Annotated Bibliography and Works Cited at the end of the entire document
In the Fall of 1998, I thought I was ready to facilitate the creation of a second student ezine. But this time I wanted to keep a record of our process, my thoughts, and students comments as we progressed. This is the project I proposed for Dr. Webb's seminar: the story of the Fall 1998 102 classes ezine.
So here's my story: I call it,
I'm standing in BA 396, a dark room with a computer and proxima in the front, and six rows of computers stretching into the back of the room where both doors are situated, one on either side of the classroom. Along the right side of the room is a thin aisle, with a long table against the wall where sits a single printer. It's sweltering August, I'm wearing a dress, and sweat puddles my neck as I address a group of scantly clad student's who are much cooler than I. "Welcome to English 102," I say. "It's going to be different than your other English classes and this is how . . ."
Since 1996, I've been teaching 102 from the on disk-syllabus the Composition office designed and distributed to teachers. I think the syllabus is too heavy on homework, and the book, St. Martin's guide, too light on suitably complex academic essys to use as models. But, I use it because I view myself as primarily a fiction writer--a writer-- NOT an authority on first year rhetoric and composition course design. To this basic syllabusI have added my own unit titles, quotes, and explantions of the ongoing assignments. I weave my course goals into the in-class writing assignments, and the paper assignments. Please view the 102 syllabus I use.
On that first day of class I discussed course topics: the environment, ecology, land use planning, and the ezine project. Quite a few casually attired students, after going over the syllabus in class and hearing the topics, dropped the course. The second day of class I elaborated further on our goals. I discussed the rationale behind the ezine,the merits of skill in civic discourse, and the Aristotelian and Sophistic views of argument. More people dropped and new people arrived. By the third class I thought that the student's who stayed were okay with the course. I think now, this was a gross error of preception on my part.
As the first full paper, the evaluation, drew near and student's finally had to choose a topic, there was generalized angst. Many could not find a topic that interested them. A few very vocal students begin to complain in class that they did not want to write on any of the topics because they were boring.
The first major paper was an evaluation of the topic they chose to write on for the semester. See the ORIGINAL EVALUATION ASSIGNMENT
Even after we had completely discussed the syllabus and how the papers would fold into each other to create the final research project, students seemed to have trouble understanding the assignment. After doing two, short collaborative assignments, one in class, and one as homework, the students were fretfull and complained that they did not understand what they were supposed to do. To clarify I sent the following detailed email to both classes explaining the evaluation assignment, although the 12:15 class seemed to be having the most trouble.
As the class prepared their final drafts, I handed back responses to the group evaluation of websites. They had been average, and it appeared to me that the student's had more than a general idea of what it meant to evaluate something.
[Here, I am replying to an email sent by a student in my 3:15 class. See the author in blue, my reply in brown, and bracketed]
I was encouraged by the response of my 3:15 class, and thought the evaluation problem had been solved. However in the next 12:15 class, the questions were such that I felt it necessary to not only spend class time discussing things that I thought were clearly stated and clearly understood, but necessary to send another email clarifying the evaluation assignment.
The following is a cronological transcript of messages from student's expressing their frustration, and some who express their satisfaction. I have taken the names from the posts as these are continuing students, and I felt that maintaining their anonymity was appropriate.
At this point I understood that students were having problems, yet I had taught the class many times before and knew students often struggled in the beginning of the course. Yet besides the emails I was sending, I was also saying the same things in class, but having a difficult time because students were not listening. They were working on their computers. At about this time, I begin telling them to turn off their monitors when I was speaking. This made them angry. They seemed to feel it was their right to do whatever they chose in class, regardless of the assigned class work. When I asked them to write, for example do invention work, they would hurry through it, then go back to their email, or websurfing. When I found them working on other than our class projects,and told them they could work on anything they liked in the class, as long as it was their english project, they frowned and growled
At the request of students who said they were still confused about the whole course, I sent the following CLASS OVERVIEW.
In response to one in class assignment that students handed in, I looked at and handed back, I wrote that Ms.x did not have a valid evaluative claim. I gave her some suggestions and she became very upset with me in class, accusing me of not wanting her to write about the media--her claim blamed the media for the sorry state of the some endangered species. I tried to explain to her that the media wasn't directly at fault, and that she should examine her topic from several perspectives and try to problematize the issue. She resisted loudly, vocally, became very angry and was supported by another girl in the class who spoke up, saying I was not being "fair." After class, I recieved this email from ms x.
The student who blamed me for being unfair, had been very vocal and abusive in class, saying that she did not like my way of teaching and that I was "not as good a teacher as her last english teacher." She was often extremely emotional over what she thought were injustices I visited on the class, such the assignments, the requirments, etc. This student, I'll call her Miss B, always spoke for the whole class, she would say,"we don't think this is fair." I spoke to her several times, and invited her to come to my office to talk, but she did not come. I suspected that Miss B was in the throes of some kind of emotional upset unrelated to class, but knew I must do something to keep her from being so disruptive in class. I spoke with Miss B's previous instructor and found that she had also been disruptive in her class. The Instructor said that one of Miss B's friends had been killed the semester before, and that the instructor had taken a very supportive nuturing role in helping Miss B work through her emotions and get through the course.
I spoke with Ms x in the next class saying that I wanted her to understand that I was not trying to force her to write "my " kind of paper, but to help her write a paper that was evaluative--an evaluative argument discussing valid criteria. I wanted to help her, but she still did not understand the concept of valid criteria. She seemed willing to at least give me the benefit of the doubt and was not disruptive in the next class. I also asked Miss B. to come talk to me. She became extremely defensive and said, "I have better things to do with my time than come to your office." Since she apparently saw my request to come to the office as a threat to her security in the class, I replied that it was her choice not to come at this point, but that I expected her attitude to improve.
Now we come to the time in the narrative (class) that can sometimes be a little dramatic: students receive their first grades for the course.
In this instance, I returned students evaluation papers to them without grades as they had resisted writing evaluative arguments, and had instead written position papers. I explained that since they had not written evaluations they needed to rewrite and gave another class period to the concept of evaluation. They were furious. I sent this email detailing some of their problems and as a guide to rewriting
When they turned in the rewrites, I graded the papers over one week-end, so they could see the results of their efforts. Unfortunately, I did not see this student's (DD's) final draft among the packet, but instead took the paper on top, an earlier version, that I took to be the final, and graded it.
On seeing his grade,the student became extremely upset, hollored that I had "not even looked at his final," cursed, and stomped from the room. Before the next class, I received this email:
I apologized for my oversight in grading the wrong draft, but also had DD sign a contract (link to my letter to 102 coordinator and student contract) with me stating that his behavior in class would remain appropriate to the classroom, or he would be dropped from the course. For a while he was quiet, as though he had chosen to be in class, but not contribute. Then he seemed to reconsider, and his attitude, and work were great for the remainder of the semester.
This is not the first time that I've had problems with juniors and seniors in 102 classes. They somehow resent the fact that they haven't taken the course, or that they "have" to take it, and they can, depending on their level of maturity either be real pains, or great assets to the class. Another situation that often occurs, especially in the Fall, is that transfer students, who have taken 102 or its equivilant at another school, end up in the class, and are unhappy that they have to take it again.
In this 12:15 class I had two graduating seniors,one an English major, several juniors, and several transfer students whose credits did not transfer with them. Then there were the regular 102 students who had just waited to take their 102 course at the beginning of their sophomore year. Also, unfortunately, there were also several students who had failed 102 before. This was not a happy mix.
Miss B, on hearing DD's problems, also refused to rewrite her paper. After DD left the class that day, she sat and talked among the people around her, completely ignorning the class discussion. I asked her to share her remarks with the class. She said that if the whole class had to rewrite the paper, it was my fault. I replied, that while that was one view there might be others and that rewriting would only benefit them,was certainly not a punishment, and asked her to think about it in that light. She remained in class, her face set in an expression of disdain.
Since the next class meeting was the start of a new unit, I changed the make-up of student groups, and as each student came into class, showed them their new place. I had hoped Miss B's attitude would improve. She entered class with a withdrawal slip,then was unhappy about having to sit in a different group, and refused to work or to have me sign it as she said she was "making up her mind." I asked for the slip, signed it, and asked her to leave the room.
I also had prepared a class etiquette statement, re-stating the highlights from the syllabus. I had the entire class read the section on EC classroom etiquette, and sign it. I made a short statement saying that the behaviors of some students had been disruptive, had impinged on the rights of other students, and were intolerable.
This whole episode shocked me. During my time teaching I have had students challenge me, my pedagogy, the curriculum, university policies, all these things, and expect challenges as that is what some students feel compelled to do. However, usually a visit with me, and peer pressure from other students solves the problem.
Since I'm kind of easy going in class, I thought I'd better provide more structure as I did not want the unhappy few to further disrupt the class. This 102 class reminded me of a class I'd once taught as a visiting artist in a private junior high school.
Those eleven and twelve year old students were all over the place all the time, and the only way we all finally survived was that after the third class, I changed the syllabus and closely structured the class. I had them working on very specific task throughout the class period. This is not my normal method of teaching college students because I don't like to learn in this manner, and I don't think college students do either. I like to have some time to think things over, and discuss with others, but the more freedom I gave this class to discuss and think creatively, the more wild and rude they became.
So, remembering that junior high course, I begin to keep the students strictly on task from the time they came into class until they left. I think the students benefitted, but they resented the structure, and the students who had been unhappy with me before, were even more unhappy now. I invited several of them to talk to me after class, or come to my office, but the ones who needed to come did not.
On reading more on group dynamics, I found that Dr. Merry's research would indicate that clamping down was the wrong choice. He says, "When the organization is in a state of deep crisis attempts to manage the crisis by more and more control are doomed to failure. The manager needs to unshackle the bonds that are blocking the organization’s natural ability to self-organize itself by transforming into a new more complex state of functioning. This entails a change in the models and schemes in the heads of people in the organization."
I did not doubt that heads needed changing, including my own, but my main concern was keeping the class afloat and seeing student learning take place. Tightening the reins was a survival strategy and it seemed to solve the problem and create a classroom atmosphere that allowed us to move forward.
Collaboration:
Because of the arrangement of computers, in rows, it was hard for us to do effective group work in BA386, the site of the 12:15 class. Another problem with group work and collaboration not the fault of the room, was that students, early on, picked out where they wanted to sit, and became quite attached to a particular computer. For both of these reasons it was difficult to promote the kind of atmosphere where collaboration easily takes place.
Since students were in a narrow aisle, if two students were sitting in the middle of the group at the computer and using the computer to record the session, the other two or three had to stand up and hover above those people who were usually hunched over the group recorder's screen. Often, these standing student's attention drifted because the space excluded them. These students might end up talking about their week-end, or other classes, leaving the several people huddled around the computer to puzzle out the problem of the day.
One group was very fast and worked well together. They would often complete the task before the other groups, then start surfing the net, or whatever until I had to remind them that they either needed to add to their discussion, or work on their own projects. They would sigh, but they would stop using photoshop, or whatever application they were using and grudgingly go back to the net to find sources or to their draft to edit their work.
It would have been helpful to have synchronous communication, but the semester was well underway before I discovered that Collabra was available to me, and by then the class was so fragmented, I was hesitant to add another element to the mix, and they were sucessfully using the email list. I was also hesitant because the class was now very critical of me.
Although they did not blame my "failure" on the collaborative aspect of the class, the subsumed message "you don't teach us, you just tell us to do it," was that they wanted me to tell them the answers, so much of their dissatisfaction appears directly related to my collaborative teaching strategies. I would refer them to each other, to the book, to articles, web sites, etc. but remained adamant that I was not the one with all the answers. They didn't like this. One student even says in his anonymous evaluation that he did not get from the class what he, a paying consumer, had paid for. Yowww! I just dread those comments.
Although the students did not directly complain in class about collaborating, one girl came to me privately and said that one of her group members was not "holding up his end of the bargain" in the peer edits, and small group discussions. Since this was at the end of the evaluation unit, I told her that they would soon be changing groups, and hoped she could stick it out. I privately told the other group member that it would be appropriate for him to go into more depth, to more carefully respond to the work of his group members. He laughed and said I was right, and that he would.
Other students questioned the value of group work, especially the peer edits, calling them busy work. What they wanted me to do was take their rough drafts, correct each "error" for them, and make sure they all got A's. They would have been satisfied to have me to take responsibility for their learning. Most students appeared to care less about improving their writing or learning rhetorical concepts, they were absolutely grade oriented, and only wanted that A.
By now they were working on the causal paper (see peer edit sheet for causal essay), and the class appeared to be more calm and balanced. However, about half of the class had stopped doing the homework. Even though I thought the homework was sometimes a bit excessive, students who did it seemed to do better in the class. I reminded them several times of the percent of their grade that depended on the homework, and that the homework was the main way I had of keeping in touch with their projects. Still, some students refused to complete it, and thus were unprepared for class discussions.
The homework seems to be more of a problem for classes that only meet twice a week. I think this is because with only two meetings a week they end up doing most of the work for the class outside of class. Even though I tell students this at the beginning of the semester, I don't think they really make the connection that its going to seem like they are doing lots more work outside class. I think that for them, the required work simply translates as "you make us do more work than other 102 classes."
Now, however the class seemed to be functioning more normally, with Miss B withdrawn, and DD's wild outbursts constrained by the conduct contract, I had only Miss x, XXX, and xx, who still seemed unhappy with the process of the class. They weren't vocal in class, but very vocal among themselves, and began coming to class together, often late until I reminded them that the syllabus stated that three tardies made an absence. One person remarked that he didn't like being treated like he was in grade school. I could only smile sickly, feeling it best not to reply. At this time in the semester, mid October, they tended to look at each other with pained expressions at any new concept we discussed, but generally were there, did the work, and took part.
I was angry with some of these students. Not so that they would know it I hope but really puzzled and upset by their cavalier attitudes. There were students in class who wanted my help, and I had been so busy keeping order that I wasn't helping the ones who would have benefitted most. After handing out the class etiquette reminder (on paper--so they could not give the excuse that their computer "lost" the message), and making it very clear that the class had plenty to do, I deliberately turned away from the disruptive element. Instead, I turned my attention to students who wanted and needed help. This was deliberate on my part, and was noticed by some of the "wild ones."
Below, you will find an outline for the remainder of the class narrative, with some links to student emails I'd like you to see
Discussion of the Causal paper,
Student's philosphy regarding the environment volunteering five things they would give up for the good of the environment.
Position paper
Student's opinions on whether or not to have a web page
Preparing for the Proposal Paper
First Draft of the Student Web site: Digger's Journal
Student's ideas about editing the class web site
The finale, and the publication of the web page.
Student's anonymous evaluations of the course. (What would you keep, what would you change if you could design the 102 curriculum.) To come . . . (This was the last piece of the puzzle, and because of time constraints, and computer failures, I did not have time to download it all. It's also quite long, and needs to be edited before it can be loaed.)
A few good quotes:
The sun, the moon and the stars would have disappeared long ago … had they happened to be within the reach of predatory human hands.
Havelock Ellis (1859–1939), British psychologist. The Dance of Life, ch. 7 (1923).
"We cannot cheat on DNA. We cannot get round photosynthesis. We cannot say I am not going to give a damn about phytoplankton. All these tiny mechanisms provide the preconditions of our planetary life. To say we do not care is to say in the most literal sense that "we choose death."
Barbara Ward (1914–81), British author, educator. "Only One Earth," in Who Speaks for Earth? (ed. by Maurice F. Strong, 1973).
Bardyn, Janet and Donna Fitzgerald, from New Grange Center for Project Managment, http://www.newgrange.org/usesof.htm. December 14, 1998.
Bogus,Sandy. Updated Monday, July 10, 1995 "From the Sophists to Chaos Theory":http://129.7.160.115/INST5931/parallels.html. December 12, 1998.
Bonk, Curtis Jay, and Kira S. King: "Computer Conferencing and Collaborative Writing Tools: Starting a Dialogue About Student Dialogue":http://www-cscl95.indiana.edu/cscl95/bonk.html Indiana University.
Butterfly Effect: An Introduction. http://www.imho.com/grae/chaos/chaos.html December 11, 1998.
Butterfly Effect: connection to kabbalistic thought http://www.kabbalah.com/chaos.html. December 11, 1998.
Carpenter, Claire. "Resistance to Changing our Teaching Style":for Educom '97 in Minneapolis Proposal accepted for Concurrent Session V, 10:00am, Friday, October 31 http://www.uky.edu/~claire/resist.html. December 12, 1998.
Complexity, Complex Systems & Chaos Theory: Organizations as Self-Adaptive Complex (seeing the classroom as) :http://www.brint.com/Systems.htm#COMPknow. December 13, 1998.
Faculty Development Across the Digital Divide Re-Inventing How You Teach with Computers (An Epiphany Project) Good source for section about how I'd change my teaching.http://mason.gmu.edu/~epiphany/hawaii/resources.html#lists
Fun and Learning: http://www.digitalnavigation.com/educate.htm. December 12, 1998.
Forman, Janis. "Literacy, Collaboration, and Technology: New Connections and Challenges."Literacy and Computers: The Complications of Teaching and Learning with Technology. Eds. Cynthia L. Selfe and Susan Hilligoss. New York, 1994. 130-143.
Grozdanova, Liliana. et al. "Self Test" of your teaching style: http://www.salsem.ac.at/csacl/progs/disted/sandt/whichof.htm. December 12, 1998.
Haraway, Donna. Simians, Cyborgs, and Women: The Reinvention of Nature. Routledge, New York, 1991.
Hawisher, Gail, Paul Leblanc, Charles Moran, Synthia Selfe. Computers and the Teaching of Writing in American Higher Education, 1979-1994: A History. New Jersey: Ablex 1996.
Learning and Fun:" A Student's View: http://pubweb.nwu.edu/~jtk246/assignments/attention.html. December 13, 1998.
McCord, Dr. Wendy. "Earthbabies." wmearthbaby@aol.com. December 10, 1998.
Merry, Dr. Uri. Chaos: http://pw2.netcom.com/~nmerry/art2.htm. December 8, 1998.
Marchand."Strange Attractors:" http://actor.cs.vt.edu/~marchand/project/work/strange.html. December 13, 1998.
Murray, Bridget. "How important is teaching style to students?" :Psychology professors debate how much weight to give student evaluations of teaching style. American Psychological Association Moniter, http://www.apa.org/monitor/may97/ceci.html December 11, 1998.
Palmquist, Mike, Kate Kiefer, James Hartvigsen, Barbara Goodlew. Transitions: Teaching in Computer-Supported and Traditional Classrooms. Greenwich,CT: Ablex Publishing 1998.
Pet Loss Homepage:http://www.netwalk.com/~copydoc/petloss.htm. December 12, 1998.
Procee, Henk. University of Twente TECHNOLOGY, NORMATIVITY, AND THE FUTURE: THE ARISTOTELIAN TURN Society for Philosophy & Technology Volume 3, Number 1http://scholar.lib.vt.edu/ejournals/SPT/v3_n1html/procee.html. December 12, 1998.
Quantum theory and the brain:http://www.poco.phy.cam.ac.uk/~mjd1014/qtab.txt December 14, 1998.
Quantum Theory: The Observer Effect: "The effect of the observer on information transfer" http://www.eurekalert.org/releases/obsaffect-reality.html December 13, 1998.
Stone, Rosanne: http://www.actlab.utexas.edu:80/~sandy/ December 10, 1998.
Stone, Rosanne. The War of Desire and Technology at the Close of the Mechanical Age. Cambridge Mass. 1995
Susan. Review of War of Desire and Technology by one of Gail Hawisher's students, http://www.english.uiuc.edu/hawisher/405/susan'sbookreview.htm December 12, 1998.
Whitnell and Strickland. "Weaving Guilford's Web." Electronic Communication Across the Curriculum. Ed. Reiss, Donna, Dickie Selfe, Art Young. NCTE, Urbana, Ill. 1998.
Wolf, Fred. http://www.stardrive.org/excerpt.shtml