A Review of College Writing Online

What pedagogical theory informs College Writing Online? Here, I am thinking of Jim Berlin's discussion of composition paradigms and the desire of most compositionists to avoid "Current-Traditional" methods in their classroom. For obvious reasons, compositionists should be aware of the pedagogical theories underlying a textbook, especially when certain assumptions about writing have been shown in our professional literature to be detrimental to students.
       The author of College Writing Online identifies some of his theoretical assumptions about composition in the "Teachers' Toolkit" section:
Assumptions and Theories Informing College Writing Online

Process matters. Students need to become familiarized with the work habits and attitudes of successful academic authors (Murray, Elbow, Berthoff, Emig).

The writing process is recursive. There is no one ideal way to compose. Different personalities, writing contexts, and topics influence composing.

Collaboration matters. Language acquisition is inherently social. Knowledge is socially constructed (Vygotsky, LeFevre, Bruffee).

Students learn by doing (in this case, by writing). We must encourage lots of writing. Students improve their writing by writing regularly (Dewey, Elbow, Boice).

Students need to be taught to read critically. Students improve their writing by reading widely and reading critically.

Thinking rhetorically is fundamental to effective communication (Aristotle, Kinneavy, Booth). Students need to think rhetorically, to understand that different contexts require different writing strategies, and require various media and organizational structures.

Students need to learn e-literacies. The standards of literacy have evolved. Writing instructors need to introduce students to multiple literacies.

I doubt that many compositionists would take issue with most of these points (though many of us now claim to be beyond process, and a great deal of our modern professional literature is focused on politics and culture). CWO is not a webtext about ideology, dominant classes, or otherness.
       The last point (#7), though it does not include a parenthetical list of scholars, may have included Richard Lanham and Jay David Bolter. I draw attention to this last point because it clearly separates CWO, theoretically, at least, from other composition textbooks which continue to stress (despite heavy protest from the field) the five-paragraph essay. CWO introduces students and teachers to new writing environments like wikis, which are one of the most exciting new writing spaces the Internet has ever offered. Moxley is a great lover of electronic writing tools, and he writes a good deal about them; from asynchronous tools like e-mail and discussion forums to synchronous tools like chats and video conferencing. Moxley makes an interesting speculation about video conferencing in the "E-media" section:
Recently there has been considerable debate about the role of video in first-year composition courses. Some educators argue that when English was first taught at Harvard University, grades were given for handwriting. Over time, concern shifted from teaching handwriting to teaching rhetorical principles and composing processes. While video conferencing is not presently a part of most college writing courses, perhaps it soon will be.
The casualness with which Moxley speculates that college composition may evolve into cinematography should give you some idea of the stylistic flavor of this text. College composition must change along with expressivist technologies.
       One important development in many popular composition textbooks is heuristics, especially as they are understood by Janice Lauer. CWO makes extensive use of heuristics. For example, in the Autobiography project, Moxley includes a list of 12 questions students are to contemplate before beginning their assignment. Some of these questions are "How did the way your parents raised you influence who you are? What has been the effect on your life of being brought up in a religious or nonreligious environment? If your parents divorced, how did the break affect you? How did where you grew up influence who you are now? In what ways did your family or neighborhood shape the person you are today?" Students are provided online forms so they can submit their answers to their teacher for review. Clearly, these questions serve as heuristics to guide the student in the writing process (and ask them to think critically about the topic, which is, in this case, themselves.) CWO consistently asks students not just to write, but to plan and reflect on their writing.
       Also, point #3 (Collaboration Matters) applies to teachers using the book as well as students. As I mentioned in the introduction, CWO sports a variety of collaborative features. Any user of the book may use the message boards attached to each project and strategy or participate in the community-authored wikis, Writingwiki.org and Grammarwiki.org. These writing spaces change CWO dramatically; they are no longer single-authored documents and become, to large extent, community-authored. Not only can readers interpret a document however they like, they can literally change it however they see fit. Of course, these features could be abused by mischievous readers, but this does not typically happen, and even if it does, the solution is simple.
       If I were asked to describe the theory of CWO as concisely as possible, I would say it is process-based with a learning towards the kind of cognitive process theory developed by empirical researchers like Linda Flower and Nancy Sommers. For instance, Moxley writes, "By conducting interviews, case studies, and protocol analyses of writers at work, researchers in the field of composition and rhetoric have uncovered important insights regarding effective writing habits." Moxley makes it clear here what type of composition research informs CWO; namely, the empirical. CWO also focuses attention on the writer's feelings and how these shape the writing process. In the "Adopting Effective Writing Habits" section, Moxley describes the "believing game," a strategy designed to build students' confidence in their writing, and how even the best writers occasionally doubt their abilities.
       While some modern compositionists may shy away from empirically-based composition research, I did not find it problematic. Coming from a Computers & Writing background, I have long been accustomed to empirical research and often feel the need for some "real-world facts" to backup the theories of more rationalist composition scholars.
       In summary, I'd say that CWO's theory is best described as emphasizing self and process. Students using CWO will find themselves contemplating themselves and their writing, and how these two concepts are never mutually exclusive.