This e-mail message, copied from the acw-l archives, was posted by Dickie Selfe on June 6, 1998.
Fred said,
"1. Whether computers help or hinder writing instruction isn't of interest to anybody with the
resources to pull off such a study;"
I would add to the following, "Whether computers help or hinder writing instruction isn't of
interest to anybody." Agreed, I'm not concerned directly with this question either. I don't
remember anyone suggesting it as a research interest in the recent batch of messages (though
could easily have missed something). If you are suggesting Fred, that all long-term or large-scale
research is a waste of time, then I guess I have to disagree. Do I have something to learn from
systematic studies of the cyber learning, working, reading habits of young people and highly adept
cyberworkers? (One of my research interests) Well, YES. Can I apply what I learn to my own
teaching and curriculum efforts? Sure. Can others do the same at institutions unlike MTU, I
suspect so. I've seen many of the discussions from our summer workshops (with little empirical
"proof") implemented successfully at other institutions.
Fred also said,
So what's wrong with that? Most of us have learned our teaching trade by observing directly or
thru published work the highly contextualized conclusions of excellent teacher/researchers. We
then take the "exploratory energy" generated by those direct or indirect learning experiences and
try to employ them locally. I have no problem with your critique of an entirely empirical,
controlled study of "writing" instruction. I made my abreviated attempt at a similar critique in my
diss. methodology chapter. What does that have to do with cross-institutional research on
pedagogy, technologies, and cyberlife? Not much. Several people seem to be interested in
getting together and coordinating research projects. That in itself does not mean that anyone will
or should define ONE "computer-based pedagogy" or a methodology that will lead us to ONE.
Why would anyone want such a thing?
I would be very interested in hearing you debate a person willing to propose "a research design
that would satisfy the calls for methodological rigor I've been hearing for 12 years." I could
record the session and use it as a prompt for a graduate research methodology seminar here at
another 'tech' university. But I have trouble imagining anyone stepping into the role you imagine
for them.
In the meantime, I'm still collecting names of folks interested in collaborative, inter-institutional
research forums at CW99. After Fred's protestations about empirical research as chimera, I hope
we can come up with some functional combinations of "[UN]usual social science naval-gazing"
and quantitative reasoning.
dickie
"All you're going to come up with are conclusions that pertain to that place, those classes, that
technology, and those teachers...."