To:
David Gift, Vice Provost of Libraries, Computing, and Technology
From:
Computers in Writing Subcommittee, William Hart-Davidson, Chair
(Committee Members: Ellen Cushman, WRAC; Dànielle Nicole DeVoss, WRAC; Jeff
Grabill, WRAC; Jim Porter, WRAC; Dean Rehberger, WRAC and MATRIX; David Sheridan,
Writing Center)
Date:
2/14/2005
Re:
2005 APP&R Policy Recommendations — Computers in Writing Subcommittee
OVERVIEW
This report from the Computers in Writing Subcommittee (CIWC) of CCSAC updates the status of
ongoing initiatives and provides policy recommendations for the 2005 APP&R for LCT.
This year our report is guided by a well-developed set of priorities articulated by CIWC members in a
statement on “digital writing” submitted for publication1 in the journal Kairos, by the National Council of
Teachers of English statement “On Composing with Non-Print Media,”2 by ICTC and other groups within
CCSAC, and by the Writing Task Force Final Report3.
The committee offers new policy recommendations in four important areas:
1. An upgrade for the microlab in 317 Bessey Hall that currently provides resources for writing
course delivery, particularly in Professional Writing courses, as well as a space for instructor
training and professional development workshops for students.
2. Continued support for the Writing Center’s technology needs in its role as a hub for studentcentered, just-in-time assistance to student writers.
3. Support for outfitting 2 classrooms in Bessey Hall with laptop computers, a laptop podium, and
projection equipment to provide additional networked space for Tier I writing courses.
4. Support for a pilot project to develop, deliver, and assess a hybrid online and face-to-face writing
course. The assessment component, overseen by the WIDE center, will seek to establish the
guidelines for a systematic, outcomes-based assessment strategy that addresses both student and
programmatic criteria and is based on digital student portfolios.
We close with some forward-looking ideas about writing assessment and the role technology can play in
supporting all stages of the writing process for students throughout their careers at MSU and beyond.
1
Draft available at http://www.digitalwriting.org/kairos/
http://www.ncte.org/about/over/positions/category/media/114919.htm
3
http://www.rhetoric.msu.edu/writing_task_force/WTF_FinalReport2004.pdf.
2
2005 APP&R Policy Recommendations—Computers in Writing Subcommittee
2
ABOUT THE CIWC SUBCOMMITTEE
The Computers in Writing Subcommittee (CIWC) of CCSAC exists to help identify needs and promote
technology use in support of writing and writing instruction on the MSU campus. Our main focus
includes the writing courses and degree programs offered in the College of Arts & Letters (the BA in
Professional Writing, the MA in Digital Rhetoric and Professional Writing, the PhD in Rhetoric and
Writing); the Writing Center; Tier I writing courses in WRAC, and Tier II writing courses across campus.
The CIWC subcommittee also makes recommendations in support of the WIDE Research Center (Writing
in Digital Environments).
DIGITAL WRITING: VISION AND PRIORITIES
The recommendations we offer here are part of a coherent vision of the ideal learning environment(s) for
writing instruction in the 21st century land-grant institution. Members of the committee have drafted a
statement of this vision, which we excerpt below:
Whether or not we should teach writing with computers may have been an appropriate question to
ask 10 years ago—or 20 years ago—but it is no longer the correct or timely question. The issue
now is teaching writing in places that afford students the technological choices that they need,
and those choices certainly entail computers. The question is not "why teach writing with
computers" but “why teach writing in spaces that allow students to write with computer support?”
The answer is fundamentally pedagogical in nature: (1) Because students need a full set of
technology choices—including computers and networks—to support how they write now, and
how they will continue to write as professionals. (2) Because if teachers of writing expect to
intervene usefully to help students with their writing processes, they have to engage in students’
production, which are now mostly computer mediated.
We believe that all writing courses should be taught with computer technology—to prepare
students for their future professional lives and for their civic lives as participants in an
increasingly digital and global world (http://www.digitalwriting.org/kairos/).
As the excerpted statement above suggests, computing resources are important not only to student writers
in those moments when they are composing, revising, or seeking help with a writing project, they are
equally important to instructors, administrators, and other interested stakeholders in the overall success of
writing instruction at Michigan State. Indeed as groups such as the American Association of Colleges &
Universities (AAC&U) and the Association of American Universities (AAU) have recognized, hands-on
engagement with technology plays a central role in a 21st century college education and is foundational to
every aspect of a liberal education4. If we can all agree that such endeavors as creating multimedia
products and websites, engaging social issues by constructing a policy presentation, and working
alongside colleagues to problem solve and persuasively communicate results are important learning
experiences, we can also agree that, in 2005, all of these involve technology as the medium for working
and learning.
4
The 2004 AAC&U Report “Beyond Computer Literacy: Implications of Technology for the Content of a College Education”
makes a strong case for student’s engagement with technology as the tools needed to acquire an education suited to 21st century
demands (http://www.aacu-edu.org/liberaleducation/le-fa04/le-fa04feature1.cfm).
The AAU report “Reinvigorating the Humanities: Enhancing Education on Campus and Beyond” makes a similar case, arguing
that the foundational skills for working and learning in the humanities – searching, communication, archiving and access, data
analysis, and teaching – are all dramatically enhanced by information technology (http://www.aau.edu/issues/humanities.cfm).
2005 APP&R Policy Recommendations—Computers in Writing Subcommittee
3
The recommendations that follow aim to enhance our ability to provide students classroom-based and
just-in-time support for writing by making sure they have access to online resources as well as the work
and study environments required to make the best use of them. Moreover, we believe that all of these
recommendations contribute to a larger effort to build the kinds of work spaces that facilitate introductory
and advanced learning in writing by enhancing the way that instructors, administrators, future employers,
and other groups can view, intervene in, and assess the writing students do.
Our guiding vision is a bold one: Ubiquitous access to a variety of tools and resources for all stages of
writing instruction and writing processes, including up-to-date software, robust hardware, wired and
wireless Internet access, flexible spaces for writing and writing instruction, and more. This vision requires
that we think not only about hardware and software, but the types of peripheral support needed to
facilitate writing instruction such as shared displays for large and small group interaction, and
configurable desks, table systems, and seating that permit the “tetherless” potential of wireless
instructional spaces to be fully realized.
ONGOING INITIATIVES
Network & wireless connectivity upgrades to Bessey Hall, Olds Hall
CIWC is grateful for support granted in AY 2004–2005 to upgrade Internet connectivity in Bessey
Hall with gigabit switches and to begin the process of providing all classrooms and the Writing
Center with wireless access. We are also pleased that Bessey will be among the first buildings on
campus to be wireless.
We also want to acknowledge the installation of wireless connectivity in Olds Hall in connection with
the WIDE research center’s move to its new physical home there. The new connectivity helps to
ensure that as students and faculty move from traditional classrooms to spaces for research, group and
project work, their ability to access resources for writing remain consistently available.
With the pending installation of wireless Internet access in Bessey Hall, many of the classroom
spaces used for general education writing instruction as well as Professional Writing instruction are
being transformed into resource-rich spaces for writing. CIWC fully endorses the effort to make MSU
wireless, and encourages a view of this effort as one that will also ensure that support for writing and
writing instruction, and particularly Tier II writing courses, is accessible in all of the spaces that
students and instructors are likely to need support on the MSU campus.
Creation of the first laptop writing classroom in Bessey Hall
CIWC would like to thank David Gift’s office for supporting the development of a new laptop
classroom in Bessey Hall that will enable Tier 1 writing courses to be taught in a flexible, networked
space. The equipment has been purchased and Internet connectivity via the wireless upgrade, we
understand, is well on the way.
The only remaining hurdle for this initiative is the allocation of space. CIWC requests the assistance
of David Gift with this last, but significant, piece of the project.
We hope that as the range of connectivity grows in Bessey, that classrooms not equipped with
computers be upgraded with laptop podiums, projection, and audio equipment to ensure that the
connectivity can be used to its fullest potential. New policy recommendation #3, below, addresses this
issue by requesting support to outfit two additional classrooms in the coming year. CIWC endorses
the ICTC recommendation for “Collaborative Student Workspaces” (recommendation 8, ICTC
APP&R report 2005). As we noted in our statement on digital writing, we no longer need to be
2005 APP&R Policy Recommendations—Computers in Writing Subcommittee
4
tethered to our desks or workstations to engage in meaningful writing activity that is supported by
technology. Computing is the medium for writing, not the focus of writing activity itself. And so,
from a pedagogical standpoint, it can be just as important to provide the necessary physical spaces for
accessing wireless and distributed computing resources as it has been to build the hardware, software,
and network infrastructure to create these in the first place.
NEW POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS
1. An upgrade for the microlab in 317 Bessey Hall that currently provides resources for
writing course delivery, particularly in Professional Writing courses, as well as a space for
instructor training and professional development workshops for students. The microlab in
317 Bessey has become the primary home for courses in the Professional Writing major, offering
students access to state-of-the-art hardware and software for courses with advanced technology
needs such as WRA 417 Multimedia Writing, WRA 410 Advanced Web Authoring, and WRA
415 Digital Rhetoric, to name just a few. The lab also provides space and resources for training
faculty and instructors who want to incorporate technology into their teaching, as exemplified by
the August “Technology and Writing” workshop series organized each summer by Danielle
Devoss for WRAC faculty, instructors, and graduate students. For students and faculty, the lab
also provides informal space for individual and collaborative authoring and editing activities
when classes are not scheduled.
In order to ensure that Bessey 317 continues to be useful in all of the ways described above, a
regular program of upgrades should be pursued beginning in 2005 with the following:
•
•
8 New Windows PC Systems ($(15,000)
8 Operating System Upgrades for Macintosh Machines ($1000)
2. Continued support for the Writing Center in its role as hub for student-centered, just-intime assistance to student writers. Sponsoring an array of faculty-, student-, and outreachoriented initiatives—including over 7,000 hours of one-on-one student support and over 400
hours of faculty support annually—the MSU Writing Center is a key resource for writers and
writing instructors across the university. The Provost's Writing Task Force (a "Realizing the
Vision" undergraduate initiative) recommends an even greater role for the Center, including a
renewal of the Faculty Writing Project, a key site of support for faculty who seek to integrate
writing into their courses in pedagogically effective ways.
All dimensions of the Writing Center's work are increasingly shaped by digital technologies. For
instance, the number of students seeking help with digital compositions such as webpages,
PowerPoint presentations, and digital videos rose 34% from 2002 to 2003 and over 79% from
2003 to 2004. Whole-class presentations on technology-related themes (e.g., web design, visual
rhetoric, digital video) saw similar increases over the same period. Additionally, the Center has
been selected as one of five national lead sites to receive a $50,000 grant as part of the federally
sponsored National Writing Project Technology Initiative. To enable the Writing Center to
continue serving MSU students and faculty as they increasingly compose and teach in digital
environments, CIWC supports the following upgrades to the Center's technology:
•
A set of 8 laptops (with appropriate software) to supplement the 8 laptops the Center has
already purchased; in order to host the Faculty Writing Project and other faculty and
student programs focusing on the integration of writing and technology ($15,000);
•
A "creation station" suitable for more intensive multimedia authoring, such as digital
2005 APP&R Policy Recommendations—Computers in Writing Subcommittee
5
video editing, to help the Center support composers with special needs and to create
interactive web resources (see http://writing.msu.edu/interactive.humanities) for MSU
students ($4,000);
•
A ceiling-mounted projector in the Center's conference room, which routinely serves as a
meeting space for writing-related committee work, graduate and faculty writing groups,
guest speakers, the Fourth Genre journal, graduate seminars, faculty development
workshops, etc. ($2,500);
3. Support for outfitting 2 classrooms in Bessey Hall with laptop computers, a laptop podium,
and projection equipment to provide additional networked space for Tier I writing courses.
Following the design of the laptop classroom currently in development, we recommend purchase
and installation of the following to outfit two additional classrooms for Tier I writing courses:
•
Two sets of 24 laptop computers with carts suitable for storage, security, and re-charging.
($80,000)
•
Two laptop podiums with integrated PC/Video interface ($2,000)
•
A ceiling mounted projector for shared large-group display ($4,000)
In addition, we ask for assistance from David Gift in identifying the appropriate classrooms for
these upgrades and securing the necessary agreements to allocate these spaces accordingly.
4. Support for a pilot project to develop, deliver, and assess a hybrid online and face-to-face
writing course. The assessment component, overseen by the WIDE research center, will
seek to establish the guidelines for a systematic, outcomes-based assessment strategy that
addresses both student and programmatic criteria and is based on digital student portfolios.
The CIWC believes that all writing courses should be taught in networked environments where
access to computing resources, writing software, the Internet and World Wide Web are the norm.
Not only are these conditions the de facto standard for most information-age workplaces, but they
also provide the best support for active, hands-on learning by making the classroom or reflective
environment and the production environment coextensive. CIWC also recognizes that the
development of “hybrid” online and face-to-face courses is the best way to extend the benefits of
writing instruction to students who, for any number of reasons related to physical distance, time,
or other constraints might not be able to fully realize them.
For both of these reasons, we believe that in the ideal case, all writing courses would fit the
description of a hybrid course offered by The Chronicle of Higher Education and endorsed by the
ICTC in their 2005 APP&R report which states that some “traditional/physical class meetings are
replaced by online sessions.” Writing courses are ideally suited for this, as much of the interactive
work that goes on between students and teachers and between students and their peers takes place
in small group sessions, is organized around a writing task in which documents or information
must be shared, and is dialogic in nature. Best practices in writing pedagogy account for these
interaction patterns with a student-centered workshop or “studio” approach to learning, wherein
large group meetings are rarely used for faculty lecture, but rather for strategy or planning
sessions, mid or end-of-project reviews, or student presentations. In most writing courses, small
group interaction sessions are far more frequent. In a hybrid course design, some of these sessions
could happen without face-to-face meetings. In practice, this already happens a great deal as
students use e-mail, instant messaging, web pages, threaded discussion boards and other tools in
an ad-hoc fashion to interact with instructors, post projects for review, coordinate drafts with a
2005 APP&R Policy Recommendations—Computers in Writing Subcommittee
6
group, or access course materials. A good hybrid writing course design should systematize and
expand the use of tools for small group interaction in a writing course.
We recommend that support be given to develop such a design, beginning with a pilot of an upper
division writing course in the Professional Writing major such as WRA 415 Multimedia
Composing or WRA 420 Advanced Technical Writing, two courses whose pedagogical approach
and coursework already lend themselves to a hybrid design.
Assessment of the hybrid course pilot should be a top priority, and we recommend that a faculty
member associated with the WIDE research center compile and report on the results of the
assessment, taking both individual (student) and programmatic outcomes into consideration. The
goal of the assessment should not only be to judge the success of the pilot, but to use the
information gathered during the pilot to develop a set of guidelines for future hybrid writing
courses as well.
•
•
•
•
•
16 desktop video cameras (e.g. Apple iSight) to facilitate student collaboration and
student-teacher conferencing; ($1,600)
Summer course development funds for faculty + fringe ($5,000)
Licenses for electronic portfolio software (e.g. NuVentive Software’s iWebfolio)
($2,000)
Honoraria for 2 external evaluators ($2,000)
WIDE research faculty @ 5% + fringe or summer support + fringe for compiling
assessment results, publishing criteria & report ($5,000)
Following up on the initial pilot, we anticipate developing a similar project that would expand the
hybrid writing course model to Tier 1 courses beginning with approximately 5 sections in the
summer of 2006. The preparatory work for this extension is supported by Rhetoric & Writing in
its 2005 APP&R request so as to make maximum use of resources and expertise.
LOOKING AHEAD: EXTENDING SUPPORT THROUGHOUT THE WRITING
PROCESS AND ESTABLISHING A PLATFORM FOR SYSTEMATIC ASSESSMENT
WITH DIGITAL STUDENT PORTFOLIO
Recommendation #4, above, marks the beginning of an effort to build the technological infrastructure
needed for robust, ongoing, outcomes-based assessment of writing with continuous student improvement
and broad participation by stakeholder groups as guiding principles. As students develop as writers, they
take the skills they learn to new arenas, attempting new genres and speaking to new audiences throughout
their academic careers. Each of these writing situations constitutes an opportunity to learn and, taken
together, they constitute an opportunity for continuous improvement throughout a students’ academic
career. But continuous improvement requires systematic assessment by writers themselves and by the
groups that seek to evaluate their skills and performances in writing. From Tier I writing to the job search,
evaluators are looking at student writing to assess their learning, to make recommendations, and to assign
a grade or a rating based on these assessments.
In a digital world, writing performances result in outcomes – both process and product-based – that can be
archived, displayed, and reviewed later. In effect, a student’s career at MSU produces a “portfolio” of
work and a record of achievement. But for many students, this portfolio is conceptual only, a by-product
of learning. CIWC would like to see student portfolios – archives of digital products in all genres and
records of students’ learning processes - become an explicit and powerful hallmark of an MSU education.
2005 APP&R Policy Recommendations—Computers in Writing Subcommittee
7
The AAC&U report “Beyond Computer Literacy” describes the functional role of a digital portfolio
Electronic portfolios store those projects, or recordings of them, plus reflections and feedback, on
computers so that these records can easily be accessed online. For example, Web projects can be
stored in portfolios, as can video recordings of student performances (oral presentations,
participation in teams, dances). In contrast to paper portfolios, the online portfolio can organize
the projects in several different ways: one "view" organized for an individual course, another
view organizing the content to show progress toward goals of liberal education, another showing
progress in the major, and yet another that might be used for employment or graduate school
applications. The work can be used over a period of time by the student, by faculty, and, at some
institutions, by people outside the institution (e.g., potential employers). This ability to revisit a
project long after the project is completed is one of many distinctive values of electronic
portfolios. http://www.aacu-edu.org/liberaleducation/le-fa04/le-fa04feature1.cfm
Many of the most basic technological components for implementing and systematizing this process at
MSU are in place, including Internet connectivity and allocated storage space through AFS (for example),
which could house personalized, access-controlled archives. But many technological challenges remain if
we are to realize the goals set forth by the Writing Task Force (WTF) in their recent call for outcomesbased assessment. Here are the non-technical requirements that they suggest:
•
Identify the particular attributes that faculty and others with a vested interest in a department’s
students wish to see in student writing;
•
provide results from an assessment of the current skill levels of a representative sample of
students for evidence of the desired characteristics;
•
propose revisions to existing curricula to create opportunities for students to develop those
writing skills that need improvement; and
•
include a timeline identifying when students will be reassessed to determine the ability of the
revised curriculum to realize the desired writing skills.
The WTF goals set an ambitious course for assessment that is both formative and summative, intra and
intercurricular, aimed at individual students as well as programs and curricula. What we would like to put
on the table for discussion, going forward, is a set of technical requirements that would make the
assessment goals laid out by the WTF realizable. What would it take to give every student a digital
portfolio? To give every curricular unit the means to identify criteria for quality work, to associate those
criteria with specific student outcomes, and to communicate the results in a way that reveals improvement
options for individual students, instructors and courses, programs and curricula?
CIWC anticipates that, following the completion of the pilot hybrid course project suggested in
recommendation #4, an assessment in digital writing task force can be assembled and charged with
investigating the technical requirements for a campus-wide digital portfolio system that could provide the
foundation for outcomes-based assessment on the scale imagined by the WTF. A key component of this
work should be the evaluation of currently adopted systems such as Angel and LON-CAPA for use or
adaptation to outcomes-based assessment in digital writing.
2005 APP&R Policy Recommendations—Computers in Writing Subcommittee
8
COMMENTS AND ENDORSEMENTS
The CIWC feels that many of the CCSAC subcommittees’ goals align very closely with those outlined in
this report. We endorse the ICTC 2005 APP&R document and its recommendations. We also fully
support VPLCT LCT TLE funding requests for new and upgraded technology classrooms, including
upgrading and replacing projectors and other equipment. Maintaining our existing infrastructure is vital as
we consider expansion, so we support ACNS LCT TLE funding requests for network upgrades and
wireless expansion, upgrades to the microlabs hardware and software and the SoftGrid Application
server, and larger e-mail and storage quotas. And while capacity is vital, CIWC also supports LIBR LCT
TLE funding requests for enhanced and improved electronic resources in order to make the best use of
current and future capacity.