“As we’ve come to understand writing instruction in the past few decades, writing is something that is discussed, critiqued, analyzed, and read during writing classes. It is not, however, something that is done” (Palmquist, Kiefer, Hartvigsen, and Godlew, 1998, p. xxx).

I’ve taken the liberty of quoting my own work to start this talk, not because I’m enamored with my own prose, but because it sets up a central concern that my colleagues and I have about the way writing is taught in colleges and universities. Writing, as we all know, is something we do – an activity, a process. In fact most of us, if asked, would say that we teach writing using a “process approach.”

Yet, in most writing classrooms, the primary activity is not writing per se, but rather the discussion of writing. You know the drill: as teachers, we create a writing assignment, introduce it during class, ask students if they have any questions, and send them off to work on the assignment. When students return to class with a draft of the assignment, we might discuss it as a class or perhaps put the students through a peer review session. But only rarely do we ask our students to actually write during class.

As a discipline, we’ve used this approach to writing for so long that it has become difficult to think of writing instruction in any other way.[2] Or perhaps I should say that it used to be difficult to think about it in any other way. As it turns out, new instructional tools made possible through information technology have provided us with incentives to rethink the writing classroom. The result has been new approaches to writing instruction, some using computers as central parts of the classroom setting and others using computer networks to extend the traditional classroom. In this paper I’d like to discuss how writing teachers are taking advantage of information technologies to support the teaching and learning that takes place in their courses.

I’ll cover three main areas during my talk. First, I’ll discuss the results of a year-long study that my colleagues and I undertook in the mid 1990s. The Transitions Study followed four teachers and 173 students in eight classrooms for two semesters. The primary goal of the study was to try to understand differences between traditional and computer-supported writing classrooms. Second, I’ll discuss the growing importance of Web-based instructional resources and course management systems. Finally, I’ll discuss some emerging technologies, in particular Web/database integration tools, that make possible a new range of teaching and learning possibilities, extending our classrooms and, more important, our imaginations.

I. The Transitions Study: Exploring Differences Between Traditional and Computer-Supported Writing Classrooms

The Transitions Study emerged from the growing popularity of computer-supported writing classrooms in colleges and universities.[3] My own institution, Colorado State University, established one of the first computer-supported writing labs in the country in 1980, due to the efforts of Kate Kiefer and Charles Smith. Later, in 1987, Kate obtained funding for a computer-supported classroom. In 1991, we added a second classroom. Our department now has more than 100 networked computers available to our students and we teach roughly one-quarter to one-third of our writing courses in our two computer classrooms. We’re hoping to add more computer-classrooms, but funding – and available space – is tight.

In the early 1990s, we noticed that some of our teachers had become so enamored with teaching in our computer classrooms that they didn’t want to teach anywhere else. Unfortunately, there was enough demand for the classrooms that we couldn’t accommodate everyone’s wishes to teach in the computer classrooms. Some teachers found themselves teaching in a computer classroom one semester and in a traditional classroom the next. Others found themselves teaching in both types of classroom during the same semester.

Kate Kiefer, Jake Hartvigsen, Barbara Godlew, and I conducted the Transitions Study to explore differences in the teaching and learning of writing fostered by these two classroom contexts. We hoped the study would help us begin answering three main questions:

• How do we train teachers to use computer-supported writing classrooms?
• How do we help teachers re-adapt to the traditional classroom?
• How do we support teachers who teach in both settings in the same academic term?

We attempted to answer these questions by observing eight writing classrooms. We used a quasi-experimental design that incorporated several quantitative and qualitative information gathering techniques. Unlike a true experiment, we did not assign students randomly to the eight classrooms in the study. Nor did we randomly assign teachers to each classroom. Instead, we worked with the teachers to create a teaching schedule that would work for them.

We asked each teacher to teach essentially the same class in a computer-supported classroom and a traditional classroom. Each teacher taught a section of our required, first-year composition course, following the same general syllabus. The major assignments were identical. The key difference was in how those assignments were presented in each type of classroom.

The teachers were free to arrange the traditional classroom in whatever manner they wished. Some left the desks in rows, while others placed them in a circle or semi-circle. The computer-classroom was arranged with the computers on a countertop around the perimeter of the room. Students worked on chairs with rollers, allowing them to work on the computers or to gather around the seminar table located in the center of the room.

Figure 1: The design of the computer classroom in the 'Transitions' Study

We collected a large amount of information during the study. Our information collection methods included:

• Observing each classroom throughout the semester
• Surveying all students at the beginning and end of the semester
• Interviewing 37 students at the beginning and end of the semester
• Interviewing teachers throughout the semester
• Collecting weekly contact sheets, on which students indicated with whom they’d discussed their writing during the previous week
• Collecting email messages sent to the teachers from students
• Collecting teacher logs, in which teachers recorded their lesson plans and reflected on their teaching
• Collecting drafts of student writing assignments

In this paper I’d like to focus on four key findings from our analysis of this information: differences between the two classrooms settings in interaction between teachers and students, differences in interactions among students, differences in attitudes toward writing during class, and differences in student confidence about writing.

Student/Teacher Interactions

We found differences in the amount and pattern of interactions among students and teachers in the two classroom settings. Students in the computer classrooms reported high levels of interaction with teachers during class more than did students in the traditional classrooms (see Figure 2). Similarly, our observations of the two classroom settings indicated higher levels of student/teacher interaction in the computer classrooms (see Figure 3). Perhaps most surprising, we noticed a distinctly different pattern between classroom settings in teacher/student interactions over the course of the semester. Students who were obtaining lower grades in the course were more likely to interact with their teachers if they were in the computer classroom than if they were in the traditional classroom (see Figure 4).

Figure 2: Students in the computer classrooms indicated, in their weekly contact sheets, higher levels of interactions during class with teachers. (p < .01)

Students who earned a grade of D in the course were nearly four times as likely to talk with a teacher if they were in a computer classroom. (We attribute the low number of interactions with students who earned a grade of F to their low attendance in class; in fact, only a handful of students earned an F.)

Figure 3: Our classroom observations indicated that students in the computer classrooms initiated contact with teachers more frequently, while teachers initiated contact about as frequently in each classroom setting.

Figure 4: On average, students earning a grade of D in the computer classrooms were far more likely to talk with their teachers during, immediately before, or immediately after class than were students who earned a grade of D in the traditional classrooms.

In addition, our qualitative study of the classrooms suggests that the nature of student/teacher interactions differed between the two classroom settings. One of the teachers in the study observed, about interactions with students in the computer classroom:

Interactions Among Students

Similarly, we observed differences in the amount of interaction among students in the two classroom settings. Students in the computer classroom reported, in the weekly contact sheets, a higher level of interaction with classmates than did students in the traditional classrooms (see Figure 5). Our observations of the classrooms also indicated a higher level of interaction among students in the computer classrooms (see Figure 6).[4]

Attitudes toward Writing During Class

We found significant differences between the two classroom settings in student attitudes toward writing during class. In general, students in the traditional classrooms resisted writing during class, while those in the computer classrooms saw it as natural and expected. One teacher observed that students in the traditional classrooms resisted writing during class:

In contrast, a teacher in the computer classroom observed:

That time is so wonderful because students don't just sit and draft. They talk to their neighbor about their draft. They ask you questions. You filter around the room. It becomes a giant workshop. And yet, students are producing, so it's a workshop with some production going on. It's really pretty marvelous.

These differences in attitudes toward writing also appeared to affect students’ perception of the role of peer review during class meetings. A teacher indicated that students in the computer classrooms would begin drafting immediately after a peer review session, while those in the traditional classroom did not:

These differences seem to parallel differences between an art history course and an art studio. Students in an art history course expect to learn about art, while those in an art studio course expect to create art – or at least to practice techniques for doing so. Similarly, students in the traditional classrooms seemed to expect to learn about writing, but not necessarily to do any of it. We speculated that this might be the result of their experiences in previous writing classes, where it is likely that little writing was actually done during class. In contrast, students in the computer classrooms entered a classroom setting that differed markedly from the classrooms in which they had been taught before. They may, as a result, have felt less bound by the expectations shaped by their previous experiences in writing classrooms.

Whatever the cause, the computer classroom was viewed by students as a place in which writing was done. One student in a computer classroom speculated that the computers made it easier to teach – and learn – writing:

Student Confidence

The final result of the Transitions Study that I’d like to discuss here is an increase in student confidence in writing ability that we found in the computer classrooms but not in the traditional classrooms. The two classroom settings began the semester with similar levels of writing confidence. However, by the end of the classroom, students in the computer classrooms reported higher levels of confidence than they did at the beginning of the semester. On a one-to-five scale, with five being the highest level of confidence, students increased their reported levels of writing confidence from 3.42 to 3.54 over the course of the semester (p < .07, df = 1, 71).

We speculate that this increase in confidence is a result of the greater amount of interaction in the sections taught in the computer classroom, as well as the ability of teachers and students to discuss writing as it occurred. However, although statistically significant at the .10 level, the change is not great (slightly more than one-tenth of a point). The fact that a difference exists in one setting and not in the other, however, suggests that there are differences in the learning environments that may lead to improvements in student writing.

II. Web-Based Instructional Resources and Course Management Systems

A second area in which technology is significantly affecting the teaching of writing is the emergence of Web-based instructional resources, such as the many online writing centers that have been created over the past decade, and course management systems, such as WebCT, BlackBoard, and SyllaBase. These resources, easily accessed through Web browsers, allow students and teachers to access information, activities, and communication tools that support the teaching and learning of writing.

Instructional Resources

At Colorado State University, we have been working on an online writing center since the late 1980s, when Kate Kiefer and Dawn Rodrigues began work on an early network-based system they called the Electronic Writing Services. The EWS used a UNIX server to connect to the Internet. Students and teachers could use the system by sending electronic mail requests to the server, which returned information to the sender in a reply email message. Writers could also send a file containing a draft document to the UNIX server with the request that it perform a Writers’ Workbench analysis on it.

Unfortunately, technical problems dogged this project and, in 1992, we shifted from it to a new, LAN-based system that allowed writers and teachers to access information through a Microsoft Windows program. This system, called the Online Writing Center, provided access to model documents, instructional resources for writers, and interactive tutorials. In 1996, we shifted the Online Writing Center to the World Wide Web, where it can now be found at http://writing.colostate.edu (see Figures 7 and 8). The project has grown substantially over time, and it has benefited from the contributions of more than 100 writers. It serves not only as the online focus for our Writing Center, but also as the home for our campus writing-across-the-curriculum program. It provides:

• More than 100 writing and teaching guides – hypertext discussions of a wide range of writing varying in size from as few as 25 screens to more than 500
• Interactive tutorials and demonstrations that guide writers through writing, planning, and revising activities
• Annotated links to hundreds of resources on the Web
• Annotated model texts
• Links and information about the University library and related library resources
• Information about our campus writing center’s hours and locations
• Class resources pages, which provide homes for more than 100 sections of writing and writing-intensive courses each semester
• Online tutoring services
• Threaded discussion forums
• Chat rooms

Figure 7: The home page for the Online Writing Center at Colorado State University (http://writing.colostate.edu)

As online writing centers have grown more sophisticated, writing teachers and students are using them with greater frequency. You can find more information about online writing centers through a recently created group called the Online Writing Center Consortium at http://owcc.colostate.edu (see Figure 9).

Another example of Web-based resources available to writing teachers are online journals and resource sites, such as Kairos: A Journal for Teachers of Writing in Webbed Environments (http://129.118.38.138/kairos/) and Academic.Writing: Interdisciplinary Perspectives on Communication Across the Curriculum (http://aw.colostate.edu). Academic.Writing emerged out of our efforts at Colorado State University to support our WAC program. Initially, it consisted of the WAC Clearinghouse, a collection of resources on writing across the curriculum. Unfortunately, we found that many of the early WAC Clearinghouse supporters – faculty from across the country – were finding it difficult to list “working on a Web site” as a significant scholarly activity on their annual performance reports, so we created a refereed journal and added them to the editorial board. The WAC Clearinghouse is now part of Academic.Writing. Together, they provide a wide range of resources for writing teachers and teachers who want to use writing in their courses.

III. Course Management Tools

Course management tools, such as WebCT, BlackBoard, and SyllaBase, can provide a great deal of support for writing courses. Initially developed to support distance education or online courses, these tools have also proven quite useful for face-to-face courses, both in traditional and computer-supported classrooms. Currently, we are using WebCT and SyllaBase on our campus, and SyllaBase in our writing program. This semester, we are supporting more than 100 sections of writing and writing-intensive courses with SyllaBase.

In general, course management tools provide several password protected Web sites for a given class. The teacher has the ability to configure the Web site as he or she sees fit, and often has the ability to turn on or turn off specific tools available through the course management tool (such as discussion forums, chat rooms, and so on). Students access the class Web page by going to a common login page and entering their user name and password. Once they log in, they can visit the class page and access:

• Course Information
• Course Calendars
• Descriptions of Assignments
• Class Notes and Handouts, Related Links
• Forums, Chatrooms, Email
• Homework Management Tools

Teachers have access to all of these tools, as well as additional tools, such as class roster management and grading tools. Depending on the system, teachers may also have the ability to view records for individual students, for specific groups of students, or for the class as a whole.

When I login to SyllaBase and visit the class Web page for my course, Writing Online, I see the following screen. From this screen, I can view my other courses, view administrative options, or use specific tools on the Web page.

Some of the tools I use on a regular basis include:

• The class calendar, on which I announce new assignments, remind students about homework, and provide information about particular class meetings (see Figure 12)
• File sharing groups, which allow students to share drafts of their work (see Figure 13)
• Threaded discussion forums, which support discussions outside of class (see Figure 14)
• The Homework Manager, which allows me to receive student writing assignments and return them to students once I’ve graded them (see Figure 15)

Examples of these tools are shown below:

In addition to its obvious applications for distance education courses, we have found Syllabase – and, by extension, other course management tools – to be useful for writing courses taught in traditional classrooms and computer-supported classrooms. We have also found it useful for “hybrid” courses – courses that meet primarily online, like distance courses, but also have a face-to-face component (for example, bi-weekly class meetings).

The advantages of course management tools include:

• The ability to extend classroom discussion through electronic mail, threaded discussion forums, and chat rooms
• Increased access to curricular materials
• Support for increased student/teacher interaction outside the classroom
• Simplified course management – particularly built-in grade management tools
• Its ability to provide a record of student activity over the course of a semester

The disadvantages of course management systems include:

• The learning curve for students and faculty – like any new tool, it takes time to learn how to use it, as well as what it can and can’t do well
• The “early” stage of the systems in terms of development. Much like early word processing programs, there is much that needs to be added and refined.
• Their potential for distracting teachers and students from personal interaction. When the focus of the course is on the Web, it isn’t on students and teachers. As a result, teachers need to structure use of these systems carefully.
  

Emerging Technologies

I’d like to conclude this paper with a brief mention of some new technologies that promise to shape the way we will teach in the next decade. Broadly described, these technologies are the integration of the Web and databases. In fact, these tools are already being used in education, since the course management tools I just described are an example of Web/database integration.

Simply stated, Web/database integration tools separate content from presentation. The actual “content” – text, images, sound, video, data – are stored in a database. Depending on who you are, what you want to do, and what you’ve already done, the Web page is created dynamically and displayed for you. For instance, if you are a teacher, you will see a different page than your students will see when you log into a course management system. Similarly, if you are a student, you will see a different set of options on your class page than some of your classmates might see. Although you are all looking at the same Web page address, the page that is displayed is customized for you – and, as a result, it can differ in appearance and content from the page as it appears to someone else.

In addition to course management systems, writing teachers will find themselves using this technology with increasing frequency. For instance, you might find yourself using a site such as the Online Writing Center Consortium (http://owcc.colostate.edu), which I described earlier. The pages on the Online Writing Center Consortium are generated using Allaire’s ColdFusion server. Once you’ve joined the Consortium (it’s free), you can contribute to the site. In fact, the resources on the site – a bibliography, a list of links, a list of consultants, a description of resources on participating sites, and the descriptions of the sites themselves – are all created by members of the Consortium. Unlike most Web sites, where someone must code every page by hand, these pages change dynamically, displaying whatever information has been added to the database. As a member, you can not only add, but edit or delete the entries you’ve created.

This technology is also ideal for interactive tutorials. We are currently converting our older, CGI and Perl-based tutorials on our Online Writing Center into tutorials that take advantage of ColdFusion’s database integration capabilities. Our students will be able to login to our site, work on a project – or continue an activity they had worked on earlier – and then print, save to file, or send their work to someone via electronic mail.

Wrap Up

Let me conclude with three main points:

• Technology has changed (and will continue to change) writing and writing instruction. The results of the Transitions Study suggest clear differences between face-to-face classrooms that are supported by computers and those that are not. More important, teachers across the country are growing more comfortable with using computers in their classrooms, allowing the creation of a studio approach to writing instruction.

• It will become commonplace to extend existing classes using Web-based course management systems. The rapid adoption of this technology among even my most conservative (technologically speaking) colleagues has convinced me that these tools will enjoy a rapid adoption. As these tools continue to evolve, they will also become easier to use and more powerful.

• The Web will become increasingly interactive, allowing true multi-authored sites and supporting work across sessions. The ability of Web sites to display information dynamically is already creating a significant change in the way we can use the Web. As Web/database integration technologies improve, we will find even more applications for them.

Teachers, of course, will have the final say in how technology shapes their teaching. In the coming decades, however, I am confident that we will find that available technologies, in combination with our increasing understanding of their strengths and weaknesses, will result in a writing “classroom” that differs markedly from those in which we once taught.