Claudine Keenan
Claudine starts us off by saying that teachers, on the K-12 front, face more pressure and fewer opportunities to incorporate technology into literacy and language arts instruction. But, she asks, as students in the next few years will have had more experience using computers "what programs are in place to prepare public school teachers for what we, as university writing teachers, expect students to be able to do with computers?" The electronic writing classroom, like its predecessor, the process writing workshop, may be heading for a pedagogical blame game. To avoid this, Claudine says we may want to begin building bridges to our public schools now more than ever, when the technology itself makes this outreach even more convenient, even more feasible. Her conclusion: without cooperation between public and higher education, computers cannot effectively help to promote and promulgate current composition theory, nor can they overcome the gap that inequity between the two systems is helping to widen. 

Dickie Selfe
Dickie agrees with Claudine saying we should/could be in the forefront of higher education in establishing creative combinations of physical, virtual, synchronous, and asynchronous interactions between all stakeholders in and outside our institutions, and those creative combinations must value the building of a sense of learning space--both physical and virtual--via a mix of media that includes both structured and unstructured face-to-face interactions. He says we should be working together at all levels to take advantage of new media rhetorics while working hard not to exacerbate the gulf between technology haves and havenots. 

Fred Kemp
What Dickie calls "media mix," Fred (drawing from Steve North) calls "lore" and suggests that much of what many of the K-12 teachers Claudine spoke about learn, accept, and practice regarding the teaching of writing is done simply because what we university "eggheads" come up with doesn't work in the trenches. He suggests that the problem is with neither teachers or students but rather the trenches and promotes a vision of how continued digitalization of communication and society will release us from the "locked box" of the classroom into a "knowledge economy" where what we facilitate will be of value, essential. 

Cynthia Haynes and Jan Rune Holmevik
Cynthia and Jan take this notion further by stating that "the mission of teachers and scholars in computers and writing should be to rethink our missions with respect to technology, pedagogy, and research." We should/will do this by becoming developers of technologies in order to take the lead in how technologies are developed. They also suggest the necessity of shifting to multiple models of education (as Fred suggested multiple models of literacy and Dickie suggested multiple "media mixes" of delivering this education, these literacies). The result: wresting us from the authority of Mrs. Grundy, glowering at her blackboard, and placing us in the open, autonomous age of rhetorical "pings." 

Hugh Burns
Hugh calls for us to exploit the various classical dimensions of network technology in specific writing programs. We should be, he says, "steeped in the liberal arts tradition, inspired by all nine muses, watched over by Apollo, and online." 

John Slatin
John agrees with Cynthia and Jan and Fred and Dickie and Claudine saying, "our mission . . . is to understand and articulate the impact of technology upon literacy broadly conceived, both through traditional scholarly activity and by designing technology applications that instantiate and test our theory." Develop the competencies necessary to thrive in a knowledge economy that includes print and digital media. Students will bring these new literacies with them to the classroom and they, as should we, their teachers, will begin to see more and more the connection between what they do and the information system as a whole. We must, he says, learn to see ourselves as working within a vastly complex educational system.