In rhet/comp we have become accustomed to the wars between the technophiles, technophobes and the just plain confused. It seems that there is the constant fear that using new technologies (referred to by most as simply "technology") will distract us from our real classroom work-- teaching "real" writing. In the 1986 article, "Integrating Computers into the Writing Classroom: Some Guidelines," Dinan, Gagnon, and Taylor assert: "Above all, we try to keep writing, not technology, the center of the course, even when we are introducing word processing to the students" (34). As a historical document, this article can be particularly instructive to those who fear that computer proficiency will usurp the place of writing in our classrooms-- the fear that in the excitement over computers we'll forget to teach our students to write. At twenty two years old, "Integrating Computers into the Writing Classroom," provides us with useful historical perspective. In this article, the issue being addressed doesn't concern the use of Adobe Photoshop or Dreamweaver; it's not about internet searches or emails; it's about the most basic of word processing systems, the kind of system that we now take entirely for granted.

After reading Baron's "From Pencils to Pixels" and thus being given a refresher on the history of writing technologies, I can situate this debate in an even broader historical context. Baron reminds us that even writing itself is a technology as are the other analog writing devices that we find so mundane as to be almost entirely invisible--pens and pencils. Looking back in history to the adverse reactions to practices that we currently take for granted provides additional perspective. For example, there was the distrust for written documents when they began to replace witnessed verbal agreements and the uncertainty regarding the typewriter since up until then writing was analogous to hand-writing. "Integrating Computers" discusses the difficulties of integrating word processing into the writing classroom, a technology that has now almost reached the status of invisibility as an assumed technology. Because we expect teachers and students to be proficient in using word processing applications, the integration of CompuWrite (Dinan, et al.'s word processing application) could be used in the debate over teaching other applications, such as Dreamweaver. Dinan, et al. spent a significant amount of time teaching students to use the computer, even how to turn it on. If we look at the amount of time spent teaching students how to use what we now consider to be a rudimentary technology (word processing), it is perhaps more reasonable that we might spend a portion of that time teaching students to use other applications.

But wait. I can hear the protest now: "that's not real writing!" and "If we spend so much time teaching students how to create web pages when will we get around to teaching them how to write." Okay, so a large part of the issue here is how writing gets defined. In our New Media class last semester, we talked quite a bit about how we define writing and texts. Yesterday, in the multimedia writing class that I am teaching (English 419) I discussed those same questions with my students. We started with the question "what is multimedia writing" which then led us to the need to define writing itself. One student gave a definition/explanation that was new to me. He said that when he defined writing he included "writing to disk" (in other words, saving a file to a storage device) because "it all becomes code and that's writing, right?" I certainly had no argument to contradict his claim. Other students were quick to include visual and audio texts in their definition of writing while still others think of "handwriting" when they hear the word "writing." So, part of my point here is: if we are teaching students how to communicate well, using the available means, then does it really matter if it's "real" writing, especially since there is little agreement on how writing is defined to start with? I realize that the perceptions of those who don't study composition for a living are important and that our reasoning may not satisfy those with more "traditional" definitions of writing. However, I can't help but wonder sometimes if we aren't missing the forest for the trees.

[It's important to note that as teachers not all of us have the expertise that we believe is necessary to teach these applications and/or we are uncomfortable doing so. Thus, it isn't an issue of just getting people to agree that these other methods of composing should also fall under the category of writing.]