Response to Readings for 14 Mar 08

“Taking Control of the Page: Electronic Writing and Word Publishing” by Sullivan

Citing what were innovations in word-processing and desktop publishing software at the time (1991), Sullivan explains to writers and teachers how the “visual page” will set its own agenda if they do not fully understand and control the “published page” (44). Sullivan maintains that writers had not previously had to concern themselves with the publishing or visual aspect of writing because this task was usually performed by someone else. Thus, there was some distancing between creation of text and the formal publication of it. With the advent of computer software, however, the writer was now essentially performing multiple roles (writer/editor/designer/publisher), working on more than simply the content of a manuscript.

Although the article is a little dated, and some of Sullivan’s concerns have probably been overcome by events, I think the author did a nice job of explaining how writers and writing pedagogy had (up until that point) viewed computer technology as either an alien concept that had no valuable purpose in writing or merely a “tool” (45) for achieving the greater purpose of producing text. I particularly liked the way Sullivan practiced what she preached by using images, bullets, etc., to emphasize the importance of a writer’s rhetorical skill in using the spatial component of writing. With today’s market for e-books and websites, Sullivan’s points still have relevance. In fact, I saw parallels between Sullivan’s argument and my research topic – technology’s impact on group-authored texts – for this class.

“The Internet-Based Composition Classroom: A Study in Pedagogy” by Harris and Wambeam

Harris and Wambeam explain the impetus for and results of the empirical study they conducted to study the impact of Internet-assisted assignments on writing development. Using two geographically separated composition classes – one class in Pennsylvania and the other class in Wyoming – Harris and Wambeam established requirements on overlapping syllabi wherein students had to interact synchronously (on MOO) and asynchronously (on Internet journals). The students’ progress was monitored and then compared quantitatively with the performance of a control group – a traditional class in Wyoming.

The study’s findings were very interesting in that they show how engaged students can be through meaningful (and fun!) interaction with their peers. In addition, the study shows how students often don’t realize they can actually enjoy themselves when writing. Ironically, this aspect actually troubled me in a way because Question 4 on the “Journal Attitude Survey” (363) indicates the students still were not cognitively aware of how valuable writing is to their everyday lives. Although the students stated they thought journaling was enjoyable and helped them with ideas, they did not seem to make the connection that the process was also building their writing skills. How do we help students appreciate and value writing on an affective level then?

“The politics of the program: MS WORD as the invisible grammarian” by McGee and Ericsson

McGee and Ericsson explore the transparent (and insidious) way in which grammar instruction is forced upon writers as they use word-processing software, such as MS Word. The authors explain that we, as writing teachers, do not critically examine the forces behind this software and the impact of these elements on our students. For example, we do not often ask about the rationale behind the programming language. And, we do not question how having a constant reminder of grammar affects the way our students compose. As a result, the article challenges us to look more closely at the intricacies of these programs and then urges us to determine the best way to harness the power of the grammar instruction.

This is the type of article that I probably never would have read if I had not been in this class. When I saw the title, I thought, “Wow, these authors must really be desperate for something to write about.” But, I am so happy that I did read the article because McGee and Ericsson brought up points that I had never thought about before. For instance, I have become so familiar and complacent with the grammar and spell checker in MS Word that I never realized it could be affecting my writing process. I have to admit that I often stop while composing to check out what the little green line under a phrase is complaining about.

The authors’ statement that MSGC “could well have a negative effect on the development of writing ability” (454) also made me imagine MSGC as an irksome collaborative partner, of sorts, working with a student writer. It would be as if a student writer were trying to freewrite the content of a passage while an irritating co-writer kept focusing on only the mechanical issues. The two cognitive processes would definitely be in conflict, degrade the writing development, and probably end a relationship. As the authors point out, this conflict could also be detrimental to non-native English speakers who are trying to generate ideas before they switch the final version into SWE. This is a very interesting topic!

“Undistributing Work Through Writing: How Technical Writers Manage Texts in Complex Information Environments” by Slattery

Using a quantitative research approach that studied the writing processes of five Senior Technical Writers at a technical documentation services firm dubbed “Document Services Unlimited (DSU)” (314), Slattery outlines how the participating technical writers had to call upon both their technological and rhetorical skills to produce texts. For example, since the writers did not have a hand in creating the products described in their work, they had to rely on Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) for much of the content. This meant that the technical writers spent a considerable amount of their time coordinating with geographically separated SMEs via e-mail and instant messages and assembling comments from other personnel into the documents. In addition, since portions (or at times, all) of most technical manuals, etc., are boilerplated into other similar materials, the writers had to know where to find existing materials that could inform their current project and when to use this previously approved content in the new project.

I found Slattery’s article interesting in the way that he shows both the problems as well as the opportunities that distributed work brings to the field of technical writing. On the one hand, Slattery seems to feel that distributed work has the potential to relegate the technical writing profession to the lower ranks of an assembly line, thus endangering the future of the profession. This could happen, as Slattery points out, because advanced technology might one day be able to accomplish the technical aspects of pulling material from one document and inserting it into another with little intervention from a human. On the other hand, Slattery is right to point out (as did some of the other authors from this week’s readings) that machines cannot be programmed to think rhetorically about the implications of what they are doing. So, a technical writer’s expertise in considering audience and context would be an absolute necessity to the production of texts.