Editors' Note: The following is excerpted from Colette Daiute's chapter in Perspectives on Writing: Research, Theory, and Practice, edited by Roselmina Indrisano and James R. Squire, and published in April 2000 by the International Reading Association. More about the book can be found by visiting IRA's online bookstore. For links to related postings in Reading Online, click here.
Writing and Communication Technologies
An Excerpt
Colette Daiute
City University of New York
New York, NY, USA
Using computers for writing development is complicated. Computers can be tools for enhancing written language, yet using the computer requires literacy. Also, computer use is embedded in communication -- in classrooms, on the Internet, and in other contexts -- which can enhance motivation for learning to write. Nevertheless, children communicating via computers face social and ethical challenges, requiring that they understand and control the contexts, purposes, and processes of written language. For these reasons, children using complex computer systems are involved in critical literacy as they continue to master the mechanics of writing. The following statements by high school students express a range of such possibilities and issues related to using communication technologies, which play an increasing role in writing development.
Technology helps me in school when it comes down to doing reports, research projects, and...just doing things like that make life easier, make school a lot easier. (Ryman, age 17)
That's when I really know computers could do a lot of stuff -- we was [sic] talking to kids overseas. We had kin -- like a penpal thing -- and met different kids from different boroughs and made us like family. It, was, it was good. (Michael, age 17)
Basically being, you know, computer literate, that's the most helpful thing for me 'cause, you know, computers in basically the year 2000 is going to take over this world. (Tina, age 17)
It's going to be hard for low-income students to go against somebody who's, well, more financially stable. (Marcel, age 17)
These quotes are from interviews with New York City high school seniors who participated in a project that supplied computers, tutoring, and other kinds of support to more than 100 students from the time they were in the sixth grade. As part of the project, these students from schools serving low-income neighborhoods had access to a range of computer tools at home as well as in school for 7 formative years of their education (Daiute, Ausch, & Chen, 1997). When asked about how the computer enhances written language, Ryman, Tina, Marcel, and others echoed views that have been debated by scholars and educators for many years in relation to the role of computer technology in writing. These students identify computers as tools that can be helpful in a variety of ways, especially in the writing process. At the same time, these comments imply a range of social issues concerning technology. This chapter addresses these issues by reviewing theoretical perspectives that help make sense of how computers relate to writing instruction. Based on this analysis, I suggest that critical literacy must become an aspect of writing instruction by the upper elementary years.
In Writing and Computers (1985), I argued that the computer -- like any writing instrument -- is one of many tools used in the composing process and in the process of developing expertise as a writer. Consistent with this argument, other scholars also have explained that writing with computers is different -- not better or worse in any absolute sense -- from writing with instruments like pencil or pen on paper. Computer writing practices also must be considered in the social contexts where they occur -- like classrooms and cyberspace. Thus, it is important to understand how computers function among the many tools of written communication....
Cyberspace: Community, Communication, and Writing
In cyberspace, communication interactions occur through writing -- sometimes in codes and often in written dialogue or extended prose. Cyberspace, which is sometimes called virtual reality, also refers to storage capacity, providing large databases (libraries) of information accessible via the Internet. With a modem, telephone line, and a subscription to an Internet service provider, computer users can communicate in writing with people far away or in the next room and can connect to information databases stored on computers at network locations. Echoing debates about human/machine relationships, discussions about cyberspace and literacy have, on the one hand, led to the conclusion that cyberspace is an optimum context for the development of writing skills, and, on the other hand, that cyberspace limits written communication because of injustices similar to those in face-to-face society.
Cyberwriting Mirrors Communication in Life
Since the 1970s when they were first used in the workplace, computer networks have been described as democratic environments that enable people to interact more equitably than they would in face-to-face situations in which skin color, gender, physical strength, and other physical characteristics may lead to discrimination (Hiltz & Turoff, 1978). One argument is that people who meet in cyberspace can create their own identities through written discourse, whereas in person, physical characteristics lead to a range of discriminations. Also in this vein is the argument that communicating in cyberspace chatrooms and e-mail involves children in writing for reasons other than communicating with a teacher or writing for its own sake. Because cyberspace audiences can respond immediately, writers there often envision more authentic reasons to write (Cohen & Reil, 1990; Cummins & Sayers, 1995). Some classroom teachers have always involved children in writing for specific purposes and audiences (other than as exercises) by providing opportunities such as writing workshops and writing to members of the community for information, but these practices are still not the norm. In addition to the opportunity to communicate with distant and unknown audiences, children may be attracted to writing in cyberspace because they perceive it to be unmonitored and thus an adventure.
Written interactions in cyberspace occur among any number of people who enter a chatroom when they log in to the Internet. Organizations and individuals who create chatrooms establish rules, as did the New York City Board of Education, which monitors written interactions on NYCenet for profanity and other forms deemed inappropriate. In many cases, frequent participants in chatrooms establish their own communication mores, which sometimes include ways around rules. The problem with some chatrooms is that there is very little monitoring to protect children from offensive or dangerous interactions. The gradual evolution of such communication practices suggests that cyberspace is like face-to-face communities in some ways, but there are also important differences between face-to-face and Internet interactions, in particular differences of ethics and accountability. For example, even though people appear to establish relationships in cyberspace chatrooms, they can simply turn off the computer and avoid the consequences of their interactions. Another problem is that word processing functions like cutting and pasting can be applied to copy others' cyber conversations and transform them. These and other features of cyberspace make it collaborative and conversational -- phenomena that have been shown to support writing development. But arguments in favor of cyberspace as a context for writing development may not apply if the nature of interaction does not support purposeful, communicative, socially conscious writing. In order to understand how writing develops in cyberspace, we must study cyberspaces as cultures where people create values and practices.
In spite of considerable uncertainty about the nature of cyberspace, one of the main observations has been that students of all ages find writing on computers and communicating in cyberspace to be highly motivating -- an attitude that has not been reported regarding traditional writing instruction environments (Cochran-Smith, 1991; Daiute, 1985; Hoot & Silvern, 1988). One formal study (Cohen & Reil, 1990) indicated, moreover, that texts written by students for Internet acquaintances received higher quality ratings by teachers than similar writing samples created for the teacher in the classroom. Cohen and Reil (1990) conducted a study of 44 seventh-grade students in Israel who wrote two sets of essays -- one in traditional form for an exam and one sent to peers in another country via e-mail. Analyses showed that the e-mail essays were better in several ways than the essays written for the exam. Writing in cyber space seems more purposeful and meaningful to students because it involves reaching “real” audiences.
It is important to note, however, that when there are no structured activities or specific common interests or purposes, online chat tends to cease or degenerate into meaningless chatter. Thus, while cyberspace may be a motivating and interactive context for writing, an important area for curriculum development is the creation of purposeful activities that can provide explicit links between writing in cyberspace and writing required in academic contexts. For example, curricula guiding children to do reports on whales could contain references to topic-specific chatrooms and instructions to search the Internet for information about whales.
From a sociopolitical perspective, scholars have argued that explanations about the democratic nature of communication in cyberspace are “overoptimistic” and incorrect (Selfe & Selfe, 1994). According to this view, technologies including literacy are instruments of power (Freire & Macedo, 1987). Because technology is expensive and the means of technological production remain in the hands of an elite few, the problems and inequities caused by economic status in society recur with technology (Menser & Aronowitz, 1996; Selfe & Selfe, 1994). These abstractions become real with reports that middle-class suburban public schools have begun to provide their students with Internet connections while public schools in neighboring urban areas do not (Menser & Aronowitz, 1996). Of course, the difference between having computers with Internet connections and not having them may be offset by more substantive class discussion in technologically poor city schools, but access to Internet databases for research reports seems likely to offer benefits. Ryman, like other students quoted at the beginning of this chapter, explains:
The library had like two books, and I was the one that had the computer at home and could get access to the Internet, and I went online and got all the information that they [students in my groups at school] needed, and also I typed everybody's papers for them, cause not a lot of kids have computers.
Economic issues can make a difference in writing development in several ways. Because literacy development depends in large part on having extensive, engaging exposure to print and involvement with communication technologies is print intensive, students who do not have access to these technologies may be at a disadvantage. If children from poor and low-income families and schools continue to have limited access to technologies, like online information databases and e-mail, their writing skills may continue to fall behind those of their middle-class peers. In terms of producing writing, children who have access to word processing tools have supports for the writing process and means of producing print in the form of newsletters or flyers. Such tools may be especially important to children in poor and low-income neighborhoods because they provide ways of connecting with children from similar neighborhoods in other cities as well as with children from suburban and rural communities. Of course, if communication technologies limit writing development, pen and paper are sufficient, provided that writing and reading instruction are enriching and effective.
In addition to issues of access and equality of opportunity, the ways students use communication technologies also are related to power. Some scholars have argued that when computers are available for students from poor and low-income backgrounds, children learn to use them in “deskilled” ways (Menser & Aronowitz, 1996), such as learning word processing skills, more than learning to use the computer for research and publishing. This trend toward emphasizing computer skills for entry into low-level employment rather than for research and critical thinking requires continuing research and educators' attention. In addition, students who have limited access may have less control over technologies, in particular because they may not be aware of the limits or the possibilities of technology. Students who have had experience using word processing and spelling checkers, for example, learn quickly that programs can not identify words that are spelled incorrectly for the context in which they occur (Daiute, 1986), but students are not spontaneously aware of the broader contexts in which they work.
Scholars have argued that writing in cyberspace is limited by a machine that operates according to mathematical principles, with textual interactions often being reduced to cryptic, coded language or manipulated by machine features such as the size of the screen (Selfe & Selfe, 1994). Results of a study with 57 seventh and ninth graders in a city junior high school showed that students produced longer texts when they used the computer than when they used pencil or pen on paper (Daiute, 1986). The structure of the longer texts indicated, however, that regardless of where in the text additions made most sense, these 10- to 13-year-olds tended to put additions at the end of the text, perhaps because this required fewer word processing commands. Because writing has always been affected by the tools used to produce it, these results are no surprise. The dramatic increase in the length of texts written on word processors underscores the need to consider the writing instrument as part of the writing process. With such knowledge, teachers can guide students in how to use computer tools to achieve substantive discursive purposes. For example, teaching students how to revise paragraphs to conform to certain organizational patterns, such as beginning paragraphs with topic sentences, can occur with practice using cut-and-paste word processing capacities.
The Orillas project has developed structured activities in cyberspace to benefit those who do not have much power (Cummins & Sayers, 1995). This project involves establishing connections between sister schools in countries with different dominant languages that have interest in bilingual communication. For example, schools in Puerto Rico have been paired with schools in the United States to exchange information about each others' countries, schools, and students. In addition to exchanging such “cultural packages,” sister schools can engage in collaborative projects such as making a database of proverbs and discussing the proverbs as illustrations of their cultures. The project was designed to privilege minority languages like Spanish by establishing communication in that language most of the time. In this way, students in the U.S. have the chance to write in Spanish, which they may be studying, while native Spanish speakers in U.S. and Puerto Rican classrooms are the language experts, in contrast to the more typical low-status roles that they are often implicitly given (Cummins & Sayers, 1995).
Much more research is essential for examining the nature of young people's written communication in cyberspace. Useful research agendas would focus on exploring how children transfer classroom writing instruction to spontaneous Internet contexts, including chatrooms, e-mail, and database searching, and how the communication potential of cyberspace can be used to augment children's social influence, learning, and skills.
Cyberplay Is a Developmental Process
Writing in cyberspace often involves playing with knowledge, identity, and language itself, which can serve both developmental and social purposes. Writing in cyberspace seems somewhere between speaking and writing, which may explain why many people who do not like to write in other contexts spend their precious free time writing in cyberspace. This speech-like quality makes a range of communication in cyberspace appealing, expansive, and problematic.
While simulating real-life communication, cyberspace is also a place for fantasy. Theories and observations that cyberspace serves as a mask have noted that young people interacting in cyberspace often play out ideal or feared identities that they keep hidden during face-to-face interactions. Cyberspace is a place where people can create identities for themselves and see how others react. Although identity has not been a major focus of composition research in the past, the issue of context has gradually expanded to consider how identities are created in social context through oral and written language (Daiute, 1998; Lightfoot, 1997). One researcher who has spent many years interacting in cyberspace explained that adolescents and adults in multi-user simulated games write about themselves to invent, expand, and hide aspects of their identities (Turkle, 1995). Multi-user games are interactive fictions in which participants write themselves into stories and create discourse identities, and this use of cyberspace is like a diary that writes back. Diaries have served the function of identity development for a long time, and writing in cyber-communities makes this identity function highly salient. By providing such a setting where written identities can interact, cyberspace may help people understand and improve themselves, but certain fictional identities may be harmful, unethical exaggerations.
In cyberspace, children can engage in functional interactions that sometimes defy limits and conventions of physical reality, as when they write to professional scientists who are available online to answer scientific questions and to engage children in helping with scientific inquiries, such as gathering and measuring rainfall in their neighborhoods (Kerr, 1999). While children may be quite serious in their interactions with professional scientists, they are “playing” scientist as they use scientific language to perform the professional scientific activities (Reddy, 1996). Not being able to see the adult science writers with whom they interact may allow children to work uninhibitedly and playfully in an “as-if” mode that supports cognitive development. When writing about science in cyberspace, children are writing to learn, which is difficult to create meaningfully in traditional classroom settings (Scardamalia, Bereiter, McLean, Swallow, & Woodruff, 1989).
Arguments that anonymity minimizes discrimination are countered with troubling observations that creating cyber-identities also can be dishonest and exploitive. Just as children can write themselves new identities as amateur scientists, they can engage in role-playing in cyberspace with consequences that may be dangerous. Because of the anonymity of the context, participants can craft writing to present false identities -- using written language to pretend they are younger, older, or in other ways different from what they are in face-to-face interactions. Cyberspace is, for example, a context where adults have pretended to be children in chat rooms. Cyberspace can be a context where people play out fantasies that allow them to shed old fears or envision new possibilities, but cyberspace also can be a context where their worst problems flourish unchecked (Turkle, 1995). For these as well as pedagogical reasons, promoting cyberspace requires ongoing research and curriculum development efforts. Children should also be encouraged to talk about their cyberspace interactions with adults and peers as a way to build bridges between virtual and physical worlds and to reveal personal and interpersonal consequences.
In summary, communication technologies, including cyberspace and computer writing tools, are useful because they make explicit some of the social and cognitive aspects of writing. Children can use communication technologies to connect with people from different parts of the world as soon as they can write, but access to these tools requires critical thinking, including strategies for managing technical aspects of the computer and strategies for reading the messages that convey meanings in the absence of facial expressions, gestures, or other contextual cues. Thus, as communication technologies provide supports for writing, the nature of these technologies makes it increasingly obvious that writing skill involves reflection and analysis of the social milieu.
Using Technological Tools for Thinking and Composing
In much of the discussion about technology and writing throughout the last 20 years, the computer has been described as a tool, and this metaphor has evolved in relation to theories of writing as a cognitive process. Computer tools have been described as scaffolds that extend writers' composing processes and transform writers' knowledge and discourse. After explaining the concept of distributed cognition, this section offers two ideas about how various computer tools can be used to enhance cognitive aspects of composing -- distributed composing and transformational composing.
Distributed Cognition
One way of conceptualizing communication technologies for writing is as tools for distributed cognition (Salomon, 1993), which refers to thinking as it occurs in context -- thinking that embodies the range of physical and interpersonal supports both leading up to and during the thinking process. According to this theory, other people and environmental factors -- including writing tools -- extend an individual's knowledge and cognitive processes. The processing and networking capacities of computer tools make them especially interesting and sometimes problematic as extensions of human thought.
Another aspect of the distributed cognition theory is that social interactions involved in problem solving around meaningful activities are what eventually guide effective cognitive processes like writing and reading. For writers, distributed cognition means imagining and anticipating readers' responses, and one of the difficulties of learning to write is to engage in composing processes with imagined audiences (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Daiute, 1985; see also Applebee, Chapter Four in this volume [Perspectives on Writing: Research, Theory, and Practice]). The more explicit the social interaction context, the more support there is for beginning writers to choose appropriate composing strategies, rhetorical forms, and specific words. Writers with such social awareness also might decide to suspend their thinking about an audience in favor of a freewriting mode or attention to aesthetic aspects of texts (Elbow, 1976).
Distributed Composing Distributed composing is interactive composing that sets the writer's thought and action in broader social and physical contexts. For example, a writer reflects on his or her audience as the basis for deciding on a text revision and then carries out a revision using the word processor. The word processor presents the text in a form the reader can view immediately on the computer monitor or later on a printout. Computers can extend writing processes in a variety of other ways as well. For example, word processors reduce short-term memory burdens, especially for younger writers who find it easier to type and correct mistakes than to form letters, words, and sentences, and easier to give commands than to recopy entire texts (Hoot & Silvern, 1988). Similarly, spelling checkers extend writers' capacities by identifying words that are not included in the program's online dictionary, leaving authors to decide if or how they have mistyped or misspelled an identified word and to select an appropriate alternative if necessary. Such information processing explanations are the basis for arguing that if children know, for example, that an electronic spell-checking phase will help them focus on individual words, it may be easier for them to suspend editing as they compose, leaving more attention for generating ideas, revising, and editing independently -- a strategy that scholars have suggested for some time (see Elbow, 1976; Graves, 1982). Several studies have examined students' composing processes with and without computers, and in doing so have made discoveries about the nature of the composing process (see Cochran-Smith, 1991; Daiute, 1986). Other studies have shown that students who used word processors were more willing and prolific when they used these tools than when they used pencils and paper (see Daiute, 1986; Jones, 1994). Instruction in how to use word processing features, however, was not enough to result in revision if children did not know how to accomplish this important part of the writing process (Bridwell-Bowles, Johnson, & Brehe, 1987; Daiute & Kruidenier, 1985). These studies have suggested that revising involves social and practical motivation as well as expertise. In addition, studies of word processing also have offered information about how interventions in composing processes might work. For example, studies of online prompting to remind, organize, and suggest planning and revising strategies have indicated that interactive composing can address information processing difficulties. In one instance, students who had the prompting program available on the computers in their urban middle school did more quality revising than their classmates who either used word processors without such tools or used pens and paper (Daiute & Kruidenier, 1985). The prompting program that was accessible from the word processor offered students a selection of prompts to check a text for completeness, clarity, and correctness. After selecting one of these options, students saw a list of features that the program would prompt further. Some of the prompting options identified filler words such as kind of and sort of, while most of the options suggested strategies for students to apply independently to help them re-read and revise their own texts. Students who used this program from October through June did more revising than a group of peers who used only a word processor. Another group of students who used pens and thus had to recopy entire texts when revising made more revisions of ideas than students who used word processors alone. With word processing alone, students did more editing than revising. In summary, students who made the most appropriate revisions (as determined by a group of teachers) were those who used online prompting and word processing. If beginning writers can benefit from simple computerized reminders to re-read and evaluate their texts, they can benefit much more from interactions with teachers and peers who respond to the form, content, and rhetorical force of their writing. In another study, 4- to 6-year-old writers who composed with talking word processors became more sensitive to phoneme/grapheme correspondences, as measured on independent assessments, than children who did not hear what they wrote read aloud as they composed (Hoot & Silvern, 1988). This study indicates that benefits from a writing tool can be most dramatic for writers struggling with form and fine motor coordination. No one can make revisions without having at least some idea of the conventions that constitute good writing, clear thinking, and effective communication in a particular context, but young writers may or may not act on such knowledge as a function of the tools at their disposal. Transformative Composing According to sociocultural theory, speech and other coded interactions constitute thinking. When symbolic tools are used in purposeful ways, “as speech and the use of signs are incorporated into any action, the action becomes transformed and organized along entirely new lines,” (Vygotsky, 1934/1978, p. 24). Just as writing is a symbol system that transforms speech, writing with symbolic tools like word processors and e-mail engages young people in yet another set of cultural symbols. Building on Vygotsky's explanation that symbolic acts transform thinking, transformative composing is the deliberate use of composing interactions, contexts, and tools to enhance learning. As discussed earlier, teachers and researchers have found that critical analysis of one's own writing is extremely difficult, which is why approaches to writing that transforms knowledge are rare (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987). Activities from recopying to outlining can engage writers in closer reading of their texts, which may help them to identify areas for improvement, but purposeful interaction with one's audience around specific texts seems to be necessary to engage the social and material symbolism identified by Vygotsky as transformative thinking. Research has offered several examples to show that curricula for using communication technologies in effortful ways are needed to foster transformational composing (see Daiute, 1985; Woodruff, Bereiter, & Scardamalia, 1981-1982). Collaborative writing is a socially embedded use of word processors. As tools that allow writers to merge and revise ideas in text, word processors can be integral to creative and critical composing. Collaborative writing with a partner involves children in composing processes that make explicit the social nature of writing. When composing with a partner, student writers have the benefit of experiencing the role of writer and reader as they respond to a partner's suggestion of specific text sequences and listen to a partner's reactions (Daiute, Campbell, Griffin, Reddy, & Tivnan, 1993; Dale, 1997). The word processor is not absolutely necessary for collaborative writing, but it makes creating a coauthored text more feasible because individual contributions can be merged into one via typing, merging, and editing capacities. The collaboration is, thus, embodied in the word processed text. Children engage in a range of playful and metacognitive strategies when composing with peers. Research that compares interactions between peers composing at the computer and the same peers composing with their teacher indicates, moreover, that children's peer collaborative composing is varied and productive (< AHREF="#daiutecampbell">Daiute et al., 1993). In this study, the teacher engaged her 18 third-grade students in a range of composing processes, such as thinking about the purpose of the text, readers' possible reactions to the text, and the requirements of the genre they were using, so collaborating with the teacher was useful. When working with their teacher, physical aspects of the children's writing were not so obviously different from hers, which may have made them eager to take over the keyboard to introduce sentences -- a method of controlling the writing process. With that kind of physical control, the children could act on the teacher's substantive suggestions for text content and process. In this context, an experienced writer (the teacher) can engage students in making the kinds of extensive revisions via the sophisticated revising and editing functions of word processors -- like cutting and pasting -- which they as inexperienced writers tend not to use (Bridwell-Bowles et al., 1987). Nevertheless, with peers, children tended to engage in transformative thinking via their intensely playful experimentation with knowledge, identity, and language; free exchange of ideas; and sharing of personal, affective experiences. Interestingly, this playful orientation in peer collaborative writing on the computer has been associated with more improvement than has writing with only the teacher (Daiute et al., 1993). Because they provide image and sound processing with word processing, children can use multimedia composing tools to transform their writing skills. Using graphics engages children who would not other wise be attentive to textual features that provide support for their writing. Images include details and nuances that are more difficult for beginning readers to glean from text. In addition, integrating verbal and nonverbal messages is purposeful and enriching. Visual images also serve as a focal point for shared discussion, because children can coordinate picture viewing via gestures and description, discuss what they see, and develop ideas in the socially mediated context. Daiute and Morse (1993) studied a group of eight underachieving fourth graders for several months as they used a multimedia composing tool to create a book about their cultures and communities. The students worked as a group and individually, gathering visual images, sounds, artifacts, and texts that they thought represented their cultures. As a group, these fourth graders digitized their collections into a shared database, and then each student selected images from the database to use in individual reports. Students selected images and sounds from popular culture -- pictures of favorite rap singers, candy bar wrappers, baseball cards, images from youth magazines, and curriculum-related images pertaining to minority cultures. The written texts students created about these images tended to be more expanded than writing they had done before this activity. In addition, the composing processes in this context were most revealing, because children used the activity and multimedia tools provided to compensate for their disabilities in productive ways. For example, one boy who was reported to have great difficulty with written language in part because he was hyper active, shifted quickly across the image, sound, and text tools represented on the multimedia screen, but wrote an extended text because the media provided several productive composing channels rather than only the sequential stream of written words. Thus, the boy used the range of tools to transform his disability into an ability. Similarly, research that compared results of various storytelling modes, including text and two kinds of video -- one that prompted comprehension and another that did not -- also showed that multimedia tools support literacy (Sharp, Rowe, & Kinser, 1995). Some of the most dramatic transformational functions of computers occur when they provide a means of communication that would otherwise be impossible, as, for example, those with physical disabilities. Talking word processors provide flexible writing tools for the blind. Electronic networks provide speech-like communication channels for the deaf, and software activated by single strokes, breath, and other limited physical inputs provide means of communication for the seriously disabled (Brooks, 1994). Teachers also can use communication technologies to transform and restructure their classroom practice (Bruce, Michaels, & Watson-Gegeo, 1985). Researchers have described how children often have more expertise with computers than their teachers do and thus can take on positions of leadership in the classroom, which may be especially important for children who are underachieving in literacy and other abilities. Using technology such as word processing and the Internet can engage children in communication activities that support written language, in particular by engaging them in using text to display and extend their expertise. Similarly, teachers can combine the lecture and workshop methods of instruction in online classrooms where students can write, share, critique, and revise essays via e-mail during part of the class and listen to explicit instruction during another part of the class (Barrett & Paradis, 1988). Although technology can be a catalyst to such pedagogical transformation, the technology is typically only one aspect of a much larger educational reform. Using Communication Technologies Requires Critical Literacy Analyses of cyberspace and computer writing tools indicate the need for teachers and students to be reflective, critical users of literacy and communication technologies. Critical literacy is an awareness of issues of equity and power in the forms, functions, and contexts of literacy (Freire & Macedo, 1987). Critical literacy work involves children in thinking and talking about how, for example, they might have created brief, vague texts in contexts in which they did not have a strong sense of purpose or in which they felt that other people were simply not interested in what they had to say. As people engage in learning the mechanics of encoding and decoding written language, they can benefit from being able to assess what supports or inhibits their use of those skills. Basic writing becomes fluent writing as students engage with audiences for specific purposes. Written communication provides students with invaluable experience on how their writing has been problematic, providing the basis for developing critical perspectives -- perspectives on self in society. Critical theory has traditionally been considered for adult students, but teachers and scholars have begun to demonstrate that students can use literacy to manipulate power for their own ends (Heath & Mangiola, 1991). This theory must be extended to critical uses of communication technologies. Critical literacy involves teachers, children, and parents in reflecting on how communication is embedded in values, practices, and relationships. For example, in many classrooms children are granted use of computer word processors as a reward for good behavior for completing their work. Such application is inconsistent with research suggesting that word processing can be most helpful to the weakest writers, who are also likely to be the last ones to finish drills and the ones with the most problematic behavior (Daiute, 1985). With awareness of computer tools as means of production, teachers can help children think through what will help them to broaden their literacy experiences and to develop specific skills. Literacy classes are also appropriate contexts for addressing the use of communication technologies, such as relationships between community and identity, publishing and plagiarizing. The public and malleable quality of online text makes multiple authorship and copying increasingly possible. For this reason, issues of what counts as authorship, including the dialogic quality of text and the possibility of plagiarism, should become more central in writing instruction. Writing that is immediately public, as it is in cyberspace and collaborative composing, illustrates the need for discussion about issues related to participating in communities. These issues include ethical presentation of self and assuming responsibility for safety in response to deceitful presentation. To the extent that online writing involves community and the need for shared values and practices, children need guidance in thinking about these issues and their responsibilities to communities. Students who maintain unreflective and uncritical views of technology may not realize that although learning word processing skills can ultimately be useful for getting a job, using word processing to express their own views and to connect with other like-minded youth in an organized manner is a way to become active members of society. One way to prepare children for critical literacy practice is to involve them in analyses of written language communities. Children can, for example, be guided to analyze cyberchats. They can note how different people write, and how they use words to present themselves, to share their expertise, and to make friends. Pairs of classes can alternate anonymous classroom and online chats, later comparing how people interacted in writing and in face-to-face interactions. Class groups can have discussions beginning with questions such as, What do we know about the people writing in the chat? How do we know this from their writing? What don't we know? How does what they say and how they say it compare to who they say they are? The answers to these questions can then evolve into a discussion of how children prefer to interact and what makes them feel uncomfortable. After sharing experiences with Internet chats in which the students do not know their interlocutors, discussion about in-person classroom conversations can address questions such as, Are there interactions in writing technologies that put certain people down? How do these relate to put-downs in face-to-face interactions? How would we like online interaction to be, and what would we like it to be about? If class members keep printouts of their online written interactions, they can point to specific aspects of text and implied messages as bases for their discussion, and teachers can help guide them to create a list of strategies for writing on computers. Research on the development of metacognitive strategies indicates that by the upper elementary grades, children can engage in the goal setting, monitoring, and reflective processes required for critical literacy if they are working in meaningful, supportive contexts (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987). In addition, research has begun to examine uses of technology for critical literacy development in older beginning writers (Mahiri, 1998), but more research should be devoted to the nature and development of critical communication technology use among children. Issues-oriented online conversations, debates, and collaborative writing of newsletters can provide meaningful structure for organizing written interactions in cyberspace, but these must be extended with curriculum activities, because teaching and guided practice leads to skill development (Bereiter & Scardamalia, 1987; Daiute et al., 1993; Delpit, 1986; Vygotsky, 1978). Written conversation online can lead to instruction on persuasive writing-based community-building outside of school. A book about how children can participate in the law, for example, could be the basis for a youth chat room on children's rights (Nunez & Marx, 1997). As children interact online about legal issues that affect them, they also could write to lawyers in order to be exposed to legal language and ways of thinking. The plethora of perspectives among children from diverse sociocultural backgrounds working on the Internet from their classrooms also supports the development of critical literacy, because children respond with greater interest to points of view expressed by their peers than to the same views expressed by teachers (Daiute et al., 1993). In conclusion, a critical literacy perspective is one that argues for children's need to participate in discussions about their views of the world and the role that writing plays in this world. Writing is a medium that can engage children in many aspects of identity and community-building, but these children need more support with communication technologies than they have been receiving. Communication technologies make context and knowledge explicit, but children need to be socialized to critical literacy -- to evaluate their literacy actions and to determine how these actions affect society and support their own development. Emphasis should be on teaching children to use technological writing tools, like other resources, to increase their own capacities and skills as learners, thinkers, and communicators. For example, children can learn to use a range of computer software when writing reports, such as large research databases, online encyclopedias, and online chatrooms where they can interview people in interest groups relevant to their research. Children need to develop skills to organize their ideas and written conventions in ways that are appropriate for diverse, relevant communication contexts. While using computer communication to participate in a range of established institutions (such as professional chatrooms and research databases), children can also think about the technology in terms of equitable access to the tools of power. Children can be guided to use cyberspace and computer writing tools to write about their ideas and hopes to children in other parts of the world. However, it is clear that in order to model and support meaningful, safe interactions in cyberspace for our students and children, we adults have substantial learning to do. The development and use of communication technologies has far outpaced research on computer-mediated writing. Qualitative research that examines how teachers and children integrate communication technologies into writing instruction can offer invaluable information about interactions of social, cognitive, and physical aspects of writing. From the perspective of critical literacy theory, the most important questions address social, cognitive, and physical aspects of writing from students' points of view. Process questions like, How do teachers integrate communication technologies into writing instruction? and How do students from various writing backgrounds and expertise use communication technologies in their writing? are important questions that can be addressed by teacher research, or by teams of teachers and researchers, observing and analyzing processes and effects of communication technologies in the classroom. Similarly, questions like What do children learn about writing? can offer insights about students' reflection about writing. Asking young people to express their knowledge about the writing process and writing context invites reflection that can develop into untapped research on critical literacy. Discussions about the purpose and audiences of writing as they relate to social issues like those addressed above can begin with discussion of writing technologies. References Barrett, E. & Paradis, J. (1988). Teaching writing in an online classroom. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 154-171. Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1987). The psychology of written composition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Bridwell-Bowles, L., Johnson, P., & Brehe, S. (1987). Composing and computers: Experienced writers. In A. Matsuhashi (Ed.), Real time modeling production processes (pp. 8-107). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Brooks, H. (1984). A child's access to technology as access to society. Unpublished dissertation, Harvard Graduate School of Education, Cambridge, MA. Bruce, B.C., Michaels, S., & Watson-Gegeo, K. (1985). How computers can change the writing process. Language Arts, 62, 143-149. Cochran-Smith, M. (1991). Word processing and writing in elementary classrooms: A critical review of related literature. Review of Educational Research, 61, 107-155. Cohen, M., & Reil, M. (1990). The effect of distant audiences on students' writing. American Educational Research Journal, 26, 143-159. Cope, B., & Kalantzis, M. (1993). The powers of literacy: A genre approach to teaching writing. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press. Cummins, J., & Sayers, D. (1995). Brave new schools: Challenging cultural illiteracy through global learning networks. New York: St. Martin's Press. Daiute, C. (1985). Writing and computers. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Daiute, C. (1986). Physical and cognitive factors in the revising process: Insights from studies with computers. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 140-159. Daiute, C. (1998). Points of view in children's writing. Language Arts, 75, 138-149. Daiute, C., Ausch, R., & Chen, P-Y. (1997). Contradicting a program for “at risk” urban youth. Final report to the Stanton Heiskell Center, Project Tell, New York. Daiute, C., Campbell, C., Griffin, T.M., Reddy, M., & Tivnan, T. (1993). Young authors' interactions with peers and a teacher: Toward a developmentally sensitive sociocultural literacy theory. In C. Daiute (Ed.), The development of literacy through social interaction (pp. 41-63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Daiute, C., & Kruidenier, J. (1985). A self-questioning strategy to increase young writers' revising processes. Applied Psycholinguistics, 6, 308-318. Daiute, C., & Morse, F. (1993). Access to knowledge and expression: Multimedia writing tools for children with diverse needs and strengths. Journal of Special Education Technology, 12, 1-35. Dale, H. (1997). Co-authoring in the classroom: Creating an environment for effective collaboration. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Delpit, L. (1988). The silenced dialogue: Power and pedagogy in educating other people's children. Harvard Educational Review, 58, 280-298. Dyson, A.H. (1993). Sociocultural perspective on symbolic development in primary grade classrooms. In C. Daiute (Ed.), The development of literacy through social interaction. (pp. 25-40) San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. Elbow, P. (1976). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press. Flower, L., & Hayes, J. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 28 (2), 122-128. Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. Cambridge, MA: Begin & Garvey. Graves, D. (1982). Teachers and children at work. Exeter, NH: Heinemann. Heath, S.B. (1983). Ways with words. New York: Oxford University Press. Heath, S.B., & Mangiola, L. (1991). Children of promise: Literate activity in linguistically and culturally diverse classrooms. Washington, DC: National Education Association. Hiltz, S.R., & Turoff, M. (1978). The network nation: Human communication via computer. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Hoot, J., & Silvern, S. (Eds.). (1988). Writing with computers in the early grades. New York: Teachers College Press. Jones, I. (1994). The effect of a word processor on the written composition of second grade pupils. Computers in the Schools, 11, 43-54. Keifer, K., & Smith, C. (1983). Textual analysis with computers: Tests of Bell Laboratories' computer software. Research in the Teaching of English, 17, 201-215. Kerr, S. (1999). Visions of sugarplums: The future of technology, education, and schools. In M.J. Early & K.H. Rehage (Eds.), Issues in curriculum: Ninety-eighth yearbook of The National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 169-198). Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press. Lightfoot, C. (1997). The culture of adolescent risk-taking. New York: Guilford Press. Mahiri, J. (1998). Shooting for excellence: African-American and youth culture's role in new century schools. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. McCutcheon, D. (1995).Cognitive processes in children's writing: Developmental and individual differences. Issues in Education, 1, 185-191. Menser, M., & Aronowitz, S. (1996). On cultural studies, science, and technology. In S. Aronowitz, B. Martinsons, M. Menser, & J. Rich (Eds.), Technoscience and cyberculture (pp. 7-28). New York: Routledge. Nunez, S.J., & Marx, T. (1997). And justice for all. Brookfield, CT: Milbrook Press. Pea, R.D., & Kurland, M.D. (1984). Toward cognitive technologies for writing. Technical Report No. 30, Bank Street College of Education. New York: Center for Children and Technology. Reddy, M. (1996). Doing science in a second grade classroom. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Graduate School of Education. Salomon, G. (Ed.). (1993). Distributed cognition: Psychological and educational considerations. New York: Cambridge University Press. Scardamalia, M., Bereiter, C., McLean, R., Swallow, J., & Woodruff, E. (1989). Computer supported intentional learning environments. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 5, 51-68. Schwartz, H.J. (1982). Monsters or mentors: Computer applications for humanistic education. College English, 44, 141-152. Selfe, C.L., & Selfe, R.J., Jr. (1994). The politics of the interface: Power and its exercise in electronic contact zones. College Composition and Communication, 45, 480-504. Sharp, D.L.M., Rowe, D., & Kinzer, C. (1995). Dynamic visual support for story comprehension and mental model building by young, at-risk children. Educational Technology Research and Development, 43, 25-42. Turkle, S. (1995). Life on the screen: Identity in the age of the Internet. New York: Simon & Schuster. Vygotsky, L.S. (1978). Mind in society. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. (Original work published 1934) Woodruff, E., Bereiter, C., & Scardamalia, M. (1981-1982). On the road to computer assisted compositions. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 10, 133-148. If you enjoyed this excerpt, you might be interested in finding out more about Perspectives on Writing: Research, Theory, and Practice, by visiting the page that describes it at IRA's online bookstore. You might also be interested in these related postings at the Reading Online site: Excerpted by permission of the author and publisher from
Back
Back (first citation)
Back (subsequent citations)
Back
Back
Back
Back (first citation)
Back (subsequent citations)
Back
Back (initial citation)
Back (subsequent citations)
Back (initial citation)
Back (subsequent citations)
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back (initial citation)
Back (subsequent citations)
Back
Back
Back
Back (initial citation)
Back (subsequent citations)
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Back
Perspectives on Writing: Research, Theory, and Practice (R. Indrisano & J.R. Squire, Eds.) in
Reading Online, www.readingonline.org
Posted May 2000
© 2000 International Reading Association, Inc. ISSN 1096-1232