For my response this week I would like to address two points that seem to be overlooked so far in the discussions we are having here, specifically: Who should we be teaching what to? And where does writing fit into a web-based pedagogical philosophy.

To begin, I would like to return to a question I asked in class on Tuesday. Is there a difference in our pedagogical discussions concerning the role of web-based media when we begin addressing the particularities of specific composition classrooms? Let me offer a local example as a point of clarification. Should our use of, and instruction of, web-based learning strategies be altered for the 106 classroom as compared to a professional writing classroom or other composition classrooms beyond 106? The reason I bring up this question again is based on Chapman’s statement that “[web page production] has the potential to squander the precious resource of student time by focusing on the mechanics of Web-site production instead of on the act of writing” (Chapman 252). Although I strongly agree that “[p]ublishing student writing on the Web is one way to address issues of voice, audience, and purpose” (Mauriello, Pagnucci, and Winner 411), which many other posts for this week have been addressing, I think Chapman raises an interesting point.

I often wonder how much our 106 students should be learning when it comes to digital communication practices. Should 106 students be taught the fundamentals of web-design or the code behind the process? Is letting them us a WYSIWG application the only web-design skills really all they need? Should 106 students even be required to produce digital “products”? All questions I still do not know the answers to. I think part of the solution, however, is simply to create a balance between what is required and how many choices our 106 students have when it comes to digital or visual assignments. I do like to require a classroom blog or online journal because I see the benefit in collaborate that can develop out of the requirement, as long as the digital conversation becomes apart of the class and does not just “hang out” in cyberspace. But, I also like to give my students options when it comes to composing in any medium beyond print and usually offer them the opportunity to select the medium they feel comfortable in when it comes visual assignments. Outside of the 106 course, like a technical writing course for example, however, I think students should start to learn HTML coding. Because if one is to tell an employer they can build websites, I hope they have a set of skills so they are not embarrassed when they cannot complete that first work related assignment on time because they spent all their time learning a new application.

To address the second question I asked earlier, I think we may be overlook one of the most important aspects of web-based pedagogies, which is the fact that the act and instruction of composition is never overlooked in an introductory composition course. Both pieces “Reading between the code: the teaching of HTML and the displacement of writing instruction” and “The changing nature of writing: prose or code in the classroom” seem to address the advantages of using web writing and web page production in composition classrooms, but both seem to ignore the “Luddite” argument that “[l]earning the mechanics of Web-page production is not a bad thing in itself, but it will not achieve the basic goals of the composition course” (Chapman 251). Instead of addressing the issue head on, both articles seem leave the idea of keeping the traditional goals of a composition classroom as unstated implications. I think sometimes we seem to get ahead of ourselves and like to talk about the technological aspects of non-traditional, and I’m using the phrase “traditional” here to represent print-based classrooms, classrooms without addressing the fact that we are still teaching what Chapman refers to as “the basic goals of the composition course.” One way to say it is that we are still teaching our students how to produce strong prose, or the content of a web page; we have just found different ways to address the “social constructionists” concerns when it comes to composition instruction.

I think the ultimate point I’m trying to make here, and it seems like I have taken a relatively long winded approach to it, is that what we decide to do in our composition classrooms should match and contribute to our overall pedagogical goals. Technology should not be abused just because we think it is cool and our own pedagogical preferences need to be balanced by student needs.