Computers and Writing 2001
Reexamining WCLI and PPTW in the contexts of our institutional, statewide, and national K-16 English Studies needs has enabled Ball State to make a successful bid to host Computers and Writing 2001. In other words, by building on Nellen and Mayo's "Practical Theory" model, learning from "Evolution, Revolution, and Implementation: Computers and Writing for Global Change," moving from learning as a personal to a communal experience in diverse and authentic situations, we've been able to expand our in-house faculty development plans and "reflective inquiry ethos" to attempt to address the needs of a larger audience, the computers and writing community. In fact, the theme of this year's conference embraces what we've learned and invokes a question that many in our program and the general community are asking:

How might teacher-scholars map the progress of technology in our reading and writing classrooms?

This conference will explore this question under the theme “2001: A Cyber Odyssey,” 17-20 May 2001. The conference mission: to share ideas, formulate workable plans, and take specific actions to reach out beyond our classrooms in order to forge relationships that will enhance the use of computer technology for teaching, learning, and research.

The theme takes its lead from the Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick landmark film 2001: A Space Odyssey, which follows the arc of human evolution from primitive tool use to inter-planetary and intra-psychic exploration. “2001: A Cyber Odyssey” invites investigation of a range of questions. What technologies have we adopted out of necessity? What are our current choices? Which directions should we follow? And what pitfalls should we avoid? Our keynote speakers--including Sree Sreenivisan, David Bolter, and Susan Leigh Starr--will touch on these topics from different perspectives. Our conference objectives include:

• demonstrating positive uses of computer technology in contemporary society, such as community building, knowledge making, and information sharing
• promoting effective and efficient use of computer technology for teaching, learning, and research in other disciplines as well as businesses and industries
• developing new ways of implementing computer technology in our intellectual and personal lives
• shaping policy and perceptions about the use of computer technology in the classroom, office, and home
• educating others about the effective and appropriate uses of computer technology for teaching, learning, and research
• seeking ways to actively involve community and industry in Computers and Writing
• providing a collaborative conference voluntarily facilitated by members of the computers and writing community.

By mapping the technologies we use through paying attention to the important underlying values they reinforce, the CW2001 committee has had the opportunity to reflect on the tools we've used in the past, the tools we're using now, and the tools we may use in the near future. Just as Susan sought out human resources to meet and (re)define goals and community needs, so too has the cycle once again expanded and (re)contextualized.

What's Next?

Prince's Categories Life-Long Learners The faculty within this category have accepted the challenge because they see themselves as students. Older faculty in this group generally have been enthusiastic about the opportunity to acquire new skills. However, they are frustrated by the slow rate of their progress relative to the progress of younger faculty. Young Guns I Most of the faculty in this category are in their mid- to late-twenties and bring with them a strong background in computer technology, whether in graphic design, programming, etc. They usually are savvy with computers and possess the energy and desire to help others (particularly the Life-Long Learners) develop the skills necessary. The young guns usually lack, or are in the process of developing, the teaching skills to complement their technological skills. Young Guns II Young Guns I without the technological background. They are learning teaching and technology simultaneously. They have a positive attitude about computer-mediated teaching because they do not know anything else--it is just "the way it is" for them. Healthy Skeptics Many faculty, even those who initially were very enthusiastic, have adopted a "wait and see" attitude. They are not negative about the incorporation of computer technology in the writing classroom; however, they do not blindly accept that it is always a positive addition to the classroom. This cautious, healthy skepticism has helped re-evaluate use of the Internet for research, for example. Techno-Phobics Many faculty in this category fear that they will become obsolete (and will consequently lose their jobs) if they do not learn every computer tool and skill that is being used in the field. They generally have little or no experience using computers, let alone teaching with them. They are generally slow in developing computer/technology skills and so become frustrated and anxious about their job. The fear of losing their job is transferred to technology, making it more difficult for them to learn the new skills and tools. Minimalists Faculty belonging to this group made a conscious, personal decision to learn as little as possible about new technologies and adopt little if any new computer technology into the classroom. They may use class time for in-class writing on a word processor or for Internet research with little or no guidance for the students, but then claim to use computers in the classroom. Reluctants Faculty in this group perceive the trend toward computer-mediated teaching as a fad that will soon pass. They believe that if they "weather the storm," the problem will soon "go away." They have become very negative about their teaching and their colleagues after realizing that computer-mediated teaching is not a fad and is not "going away" soon. This category seems to be a transitional stage leading to minimalism or cynicism. Resistors/Cynics Faculty belonging to this group resist every force which makes them re-evaluate their pedagogy. Computer technology is only one of these forces, albeit a very strong and visible one. Most have consequently requested to teach courses which do not require a technology component.

Our conclusion is another series of steps leading toward an epiphany. We see our department, university, and the field of computers and writing moving in many positive directions in the next five years. In a recent presentation at this year's Watson Conference, one of Ball State University's "Writing, Computers, and Literacy Initiative" teachers categorized general response toward computer-mediated teaching trends in our department. As a member of the Contract Faculty Steering Committee John Prince has a unique perspective, and suggests "the order of these categories . . . represent the range of attitudes from the more positive to the more negative" (Prince). Prince's categories are realistic. And they suggest directions we might take to encourage our faculty to reflect on their own teaching practices. Philosophically, instead of asking "how can we change our pedagogy to work with the software we have available to us," we need to encourage our teachers to ask "how can we manipulate the tools we have to augment our well-practiced teaching pedagogy." By encouraging this mindset, and by considering what Dickie Selfe often refers to as "sustainable teacher-training plans," we can now strive for these goals: a general increase in technological literacy mastery and lore a more perfect union of pedagogy and practice, including purposeful technology use; which in turn will foster "actualized teaching situations" (putting ideas into practice) an increase in intranet community access, use, and ethos an even higher quality reputation of the program and "pro-active course selection" by students an endorsement of other kinds of literacy instruction in undergraduate and graduate programs, increasing our understanding of evolving literacy practices.

When we took our first steps with Epiphany in 1997, we could not have predicted where we would be today. Perhaps if we were to offer advice to others contemplating a similar excursion it would look something like this: Be always responsive to the needs of the community you are working with, especially sensitive to the people involved. Traveling this path has led us to some surprising places, always challenging us to question, assess, reflect, and to begin anew. We hope to maintain this cycle, to expand our thinking and continue the journey.