by Richard Keiser
A substantial number of us have been integrating computers into our CAP reading/writing courses, and the movement toward computer-aided instruction (CAI) has been bolstered by a valuable four-week workshop given last year by Anne-Marie Keenan and Chuck Herbert (the Pew Summer Institute on Using Computers to Teach Writing). During the four years that I have been using computers in my CAP classes, the effects of technology have been highly variable, depending upon the circumstances. As is true with any pedagogical method, practice often diverges from theory once a course is actually under way.
I began integrating word-processing into my CAP class in 1994, when I resumed teaching at this College after a break in service. Initially I depended on the Learning Lab teachers to coordinate the sessions where the students learned word-processing. Then in fall 1997 I began using Microsoft Word as an integral part of an A-level link, with the class actually meeting in a computer lab for part of the six hours per week, and I was pleased with the results-for reasons explained below. The following term I had a B-level link (normally I teach A-level in the fall and B-level in the spring) and used Norton Textra Connect, a new software program which had been introduced to us in the Pew Workshop. This time I was not so pleased with the results-again, for reasons described below.
But before getting into the pros and cons of technology, I want to interject that the Learning Laboratory support has been good, for the teachers assigned to my classes are familiar with the technology to one degree or another and have been a major help. Of the lab people I have worked with, Jay Howard is the most knowledgeable technologically, and he is well acquainted with Norton Textra Connect in particular. Others have been Anne Collins, Judy Rossman, and Paul Bonila. Additional welcome support has come from Kelly McQuain, Coordinator of the NTC sections; his knowledge and patience were invaluable while I was using Norton.
Word-processing for writing classes brings a number of obvious advantages, both to student and teacher.
The most important benefit to me is the easy reading of typed hard copy. As we all know, student handwriting is not always clear or neat, and given the number of papers an English teacher has to read, typing is a real boon. Moreover, research by the Educational Testing Service indicates that bad handwriting actually leads to greater leniency in grading, the instructor making an unconscious assumption that difficulty in following a student's ideas is related to the poor penmanship. And CCP has enough problems with maintaining academic standards without that additional handicap.
Second, to make a very unoriginal point, word-processing helps the students revise and edit better because it's fun for them to move letters, sentences or whole paragraphs around. This is a far cry from their having to rewrite an entire essay by hand. Also, students can see on the screen how a major piece of their writing looks overall; they can conceptualize better what they've produced. This is especially evident in 097 or in the early weeks of 098, when essays are normally short enough to fit on one page.
The feature of seeing an entire printed page on the screen is a special help for students with a learning disability. While I am not qualified to speak as an LD specialist, my anecdotal experience is that most students with a learning disability have particular difficulty seeing how the different parts of an essay fit together. Accordingly, they benefit especially from the computer screen or the printed out hard copy, both of which give them a clearer picture of their essay. Moreover, the handwriting of LD students often tends to be irregular and unusually hard to read.
For most students, word processing can become a valuable part of their invention strategies. I often have them freewrite on the computer. In the jargon, what I assign is "focused freewriting" in the form of open-ended questions which will generate ideas which the students can later use for essays. For instance, while we are reading Having Our Say, an autobiography of the centenarian Delany sisters, I ask the class to freewrite on how Sadie Delany is similar to, and different from, her sister Bessie. Later, I assign a formal comparison/contrast essay. Many students generate ideas on a computer better than with pen and paper-though not all do. Intuitively, I feel sure that different parts of the brain are being used for typing on a keyboard as opposed to writing with a pen. Since some students prefer board as opposed to writing with a pen. Since some students prefer composing by hand, I make sure that there are other opportunities for the old-fashioned kind of in-class freewriting so that students can see which works for better for them. But for those who have their freewrite on disk, selecting and dropping ideas for the formal essay is done more easily than with pen and paper.
A notable benefit of CAI is that some students, even in A-level, are already computer literate and can help their less technologically sophisticated peers. Not only is this practical importance to the instructor, given the shortage of lab aides at CCP, but it also helps build community. This past September, when my class first arrived in B2-19, one student really saved that period. The workstations there had been upgraded from Word 6 to Word 97, and the logon procedure had changed; the student figured out the correct procedure long before I would have. And besides building community, this type of experience makes the pecking order of the class more fluid, since the most computer literate students are not necessarily the best writers or the strongest readers.
Lastly, CAI not only fosters student community, but it also helps build community among faculty. I have met colleagues for the first time in the faculty computer labs, and I have talked over many issues there both with new and long-standing acquaintances. This sense of community has been particularly evident with the Norton Textra Group.
And now for another side of the picture. Even before experiencing the complications of Norton Textra Conect, I ran into some aggravations as a result of integrating word-processing into CAP classes. Still, these problems were not great enough to dissuade me from continuing with that integration.
A well known phrase is that CAI transforms the instructor from the "sage on the stage" to the "guide on the side." I find this idea appealing. However, with 20 workstations, the guide has to be in too many places at once, I particularly notice that this semester, since 18 of the 20 students have stayed in my CAP link. With the varying student abilities and needs not to mention the periodic discipline problems, I often find a computer lab session unusually draining. There is a clear need for an aide in the lab with the instructor, at least for the first four or five meetings there. After that, the instructor can usually handle things alone.
Closely related to this issue are the ubiquitous system problems or other ad hoc screw-ups which occur with the machines. Admittedly, fully half the time, the glitch has resulted from a mistake made either by me or a student, but it still presents and obstacle. Anne-Marie Keenan has cogently described the phenomenon: When Plan A doesn’t work because of technological problems, the instructor has to resort to Plan B; then sometimes the alternate class plan is stymied too, so there is a need to make to Plan C-or, on some days, even Plan Z. It is to Anne-Marie’s credit that she has more forbearance for this type of situation than I. Given the other challenges of teaching a CAP link, I don’t like these unexpected roadblocks. And, again, since there is no aide in the room, the instructor cannot normally get immediate solutions to such headaches.
Since it is necessary to teach at least the basics of word-processing, the time used for the inevitably takes time away from other matters. Especially in A-level, some students need explanations about word-processing all through the term. Such matters as double-spacing, changing the font size to 12, centering titles, and so on can be daunting to them. Given this extra instruction, what gets short-changed? In my classes, grammar instruction - though the lab teachers can help fill the vacuum. (Grammar lessons don't necessarily transfer to students' essays, but I do feel that they help. Besides, many of my lessons are based on errors which have actually appeared in the class's essays.) Also, the time for discussing course readings is somewhat less.
Norton Textra Connect presents its own specific joys and problems. However, the main joy was the faculty community referred to above. Overall, I concluded that the problems with the program outweighed the advantages.
Norton enables instructors to colelct papers, grade them, and return them to students - all on-line. For distance learning sections, this must be invaluable. However, collecting and returning papers on-line does not appeal to me because the program requires the teacher to collect them all at once and return them all at once. This does not allow for individual variations, and sometines our CAP students work at differing paces. Those who will pass can meet deadlines, but those who are struggling may benefit from extra time or estra drafts to try to raise their skills.
To facilitate grading essay on-line, NTC has a feature which enables instructors to create their own "grading macros" (i.e., symbols to indicate specific writing problems). I had fun creating the macros, but gradually on-line was uncongenial to me simply because I spent so much time staring at the screen. Psychologyically, I feel less eyestrain an dgreater keenness of perception when looking at the hard copy. On the other hand, in defense of Norton, typing extended comments is much more convenient than handwriting them. Besides, the "greater keenness of perception" is highly subjective. In any case, with NTC there is no requirement that papers be collected and graded on-line, so I had my students print them out and graded the hard copy.
A particularly interesting feature of NTC is asynchronous, on-line discussion. This means that students can send comments to each other or to the teacher whenever they log in. ("Asynchronous" refers to the fact that the discussion is not necessarily in real time.) The advantages of this are that it gets students to do additional writing, and it may enable people who are shy to make comments which they might not have the courage to make in a live classroom; Mary Griffin has accurately noted the positive effect of this on peer review, for students may be more frank when they don't have the writer sitting in front of them. Such on-line conversations are also an occasion for teaching "netiquette" (on-line decorum).
I am not sold on the advantages of this feature for CAP. Since I teach A-level in the fall, most of my students are new to college; many of them are also new to middle class standards of behavior in educational settings. In my priorities, live discussions take precedence over e-mail messages through NTC, for the live discussions are valuable for me to watch student interactions, hear speech patterns (which are often useful clues about non-standard written English) and teach manners of the more traditional variety.
At the personal level, I have reluctantly decided not to use NCT again, but I will continue to use Word as a part of my CAP links. I am also anxious to learn more about Academic Systems or other new programs for writing courses.
Tom Ott has suggested offering CAP links which include a word-processing course. I strongly support the idea, for that should eliminate the English teacher's having to take class time for such instruction.
I am chilly to the idea of a 4-credit course for 097, 098 or 101 which would include a word-processing component. My two reasons are that it would create inconvenience for faculty loading in the humanities (where nearly every other course carries 3 credits) and for students who transfer the course (in the case of 101).
A new direction in the English Department's hiring this year is an explicit criterion: "Experience with educational technology desirable." I support the criterion provided that not all hires are held to this standard. There are many candidates out there, including a large number of internal ones, who would have much to offer us without that particular experience. But to require technological experience for a certain percentage of English full-time hires certainly seems reasonable.
A class visitation program to take advantage of the current computer expertise by faculty is an excellent notion. Shirley Niederberger told me recently how much she learned from a visit to Anne-Marie's computer aided class at NERC; many similar examples can be given. My own class is open to anyone who cares to visit-though some of my colleagues are much more savvy than I about technological details.
Mary Griffin recently mentioned to me the idea of including in CAP links a library training session on computerized searches. This would be very useful for C-level or B-level (though not A-). In the past there have been logistical problems regarding the scheduling of class time in the library, but hopefully these can be overcome.
Another idea which has been floated is advertising specific sections of developmental English or math asCAI or CSI. However, I do not favor this: First, there is a good deal of student phobia about computers-judging by how much time I spend reassuring students, especially older ones, that being frightened is all right and that things will get better. The explicit listing of CAI/CSI might frighten off the very students we should be reaching (and reassuring). Second, many full-time faculty members switch their schedules after the publication of the course offerings, and most part-time faculty are not scheduled at all by that time. The result of this could well be a computer lab's being assigned to a teacher who does not want to use the equipment.
Lastly, I return to the issue of aides in the computer lab with the English instructor, at least for the first few weeks. Needless to say, this is a budget item, but it is one worth providing for. Not only would it increase the efficiency of the time spent in the lab, but it would be a strong incentive for some of our colleagues who are mildly computer phobic to participate in computer aided instruction.