POWER AT PLAY IN THE COMPUTER CLASSROOM
Beth Ervin <tervinator@aol.com>San Francisco State U
Patricia Baldwin <pattiey@sfsu.edu>
City College of San Francisco
The integration of computer-aided instruction into the at-risk reading or more broadly based literacy classroom affords greater flexibility and motivation for both instructor and student. This greater flexibility results from the opportunities created by technology for cooperative and individualized learning. Utilizing these two learning styles, an instructor can focus on motivation, support, and aiding the student in becoming an independent learner. More specifically, the computer allows students to explore texts, access information, and discuss through writing the issues, the questions and the concerns that occur throughout the learning process without the sometimes contrived interference of classroom procedure. This discussion, however, of the liberating power of computer-aided instruction raises important questions about the inevitably changing roles of both instructor and student. We cannot possibly resolve this issue in a discussion of this length, but we will focus our attention on the results this shifting of roles has had on the successes and challenges of our students, the students of our colleagues, and on ourselves.
In "Creating and Assessing Literacy in At Risk Students through Hypermedia Portfolios," Susanna Duckworth and Rhonda Taylor explore the many advantages of integrating computers into the at-risk classroom: increased motivation, improvement of classroom behavior, increased opportunities for students with learning disabilities, increased self-esteem, and finally, "technology can add to the perception of at-risk students being more able learners" [1]. This final advantage was a very important aspect of our work at San Francisco State University with reading students who found themselves in what they perceived as a remedial classroom, English 115: Reading for Rate and Comprehension, even though they had received better than average grades in their high school English or literature classes. To be proficient at the computer is to be regarded as educated, self-sufficient, and useful to other students. The stigma of being in a "remedial" reading and writing class was virtually erased in the minds of many of our students as they eagerly tackled computer assignments using spreadsheet software or Internet technology either in small groups or individually.
Our courses focus on students who arrive at the university underprepared for the information they will be asked to absorb. Klein's comments give us a solid idea why computers are an excellent remediation tool. "Given the skill deficiencies that characterize so many of today's students, not to mention their inexperience with written texts and their historical illiteracy, the computer network offers an ideal chance to invite these students back into education, this time with a sense of greater ownership" [2]. The computer is a new format and an inviting prospect in the hands of the right teacher. We will go on to explore how email can provide support for these marginalized voices and how the Internet can make accessible some of the historical knowledge that students are lacking.
It is also advantageous to consider that "what computers do is allow students to amplify the depth and range of their learning and, equally importantly, to seek increased ownership of that knowledge. Kay summarizes the challenge: 'Children . . . learn best when they can ask their own questions, seek answers in many places, consider different perspectives and add their own findings to existing understanding' (146)" [3]. Computer-assisted learning invites the student back into the learning process, by relieving them of their sense of powerlessness and providing a bridge between personal experience and academically sanctioned knowledge. Students can learn how to learn and exercise greater control over what they learn. The difficulty facing teachers is twofold. First, we must decide how to deal with setting up a computer classroom that lends itself to providing the student with a sense of ownership and, secondly, to grapple with the transfer of authority that computers and the accompanying pedagogy ask of us.
Although computers have been used in the classroom for over a decade now, their newness has not worn off. Neither has the stigma of their difficulty. Teachers tend to be resistant to bringing computers into the classroom. Students are just as concerned about their appearance in the curriculum. "It is estimated that as many as one-third of the college students in the United States suffer from technophobia and are anxious about using computers" [4]. Educators have a responsibility to acquaint students with the technology that they will find useful to their college studies and vital to their entrance in the job-market.
Our use of computers in the reading classroom has typically included the use of software such as Excel or a word processing program. This inclusion of commonly-used software programs allows us to integrate skills that will be used across the curriculum, making reading tasks "real" or applicable in general study and major-related courses. Often our students at SFSU are students who find working with numbers and science more comfortable or enjoyable than working with the more mutable and flexible skills needed to interpret texts. Thus, our colleague, Joan Wong, created a series of lessons that utilize students' knowledge of the spreadsheet program Excel. The lessons included the reading and discussion of a lengthy nonfiction text that includes many graphs and charts. To help students increase their critical thinking and comprehension skills in terms of reading the text, the lessons incorporated the spreadsheet program to enable our students to learn to interpret, design, and create their own survey, spreadsheet, and graph or chart. The students worked in groups to create questions to ask on the SFSU campus and in their neighborhoods. As a class they evaluated questions based on their importance or relevance to the community being polled and the interest level for the intended audience. These lessons resulted in the students learning a great deal about the original text, interpreting graphs and charts, the use of the particular spreadsheet program, the use of statistics to support or refute an argument, and even how statistics can be manipulated. Students were motivated by the assignment, the chance to work with computers, and the fact that many of them could assist others in the learning of the software program.
Bringing computers into the classroom can allow for flexibility in the teaching of materials. Multimedia applications permit information to be presented in a variety of forms with ease. The computer can accommodate individual approaches to material and information. "Current technology enables students to create different maps or models and to explore multiple answers. Such activities heighten students' awareness of emerging patterns" [5], which helps to create a macrostructure for learning. Kaha wants us to understand that a student can learn the subject at hand and explore possibilities for further learning. That student can then, with the teacher's guidance, chose the model that works best for him or her.
Still, teachers who choose to integrate computers into their lesson plans need to ease the students into the technology. We have found that electronic mail (email) is a supportive environment for the introduction of technology into the classroom. Other college instructors have had success with email, as well. Skubikowski and Elder write that "class members noted the value of 'getting to know the people in class through their entries' and of 'an unspoken trust' established between writer and correspondent, one that carried over into classroom discussions as well" [6]. Another student mentioned that "the computer room has become quite a social place . . . " [7]. Students respond well to email.
This, too, has been my experience as a teacher of college level reading classes. During the second, third and fourth weeks of the semester, I [Baldwin] held my office hour prior to class in the computer lab. Students could meet with me and more importantly have me on hand if any problems arose on-line. After that I reluctantly returned to my office. I wanted to be part of the lively community that was forming in the lab, but I saw students were able to work with each other to solve problems as they arose. I did not want them to turn to me first. They were more comfortable with the computers and would attempt to solve their own problems and even better, should they come upon a complex question they would ask another student to help them. By the seventh week of instruction, I would stop at the lab five minutes prior to our meeting hour, so the students wouldn't get caught up in their fun and arrive late to class.
Conversely, it seems that the use of technology has made speaking with an instructor a far less intimidating experience than the proverbial office visit and far more productive. Students no longer wait for office hours or run across campus or across town to ask one simple question. Email has changed the relationship between student and instructor, allowing for increased opportunities for individualized, prompt feedback. This is an essential aspect of reaching and motivating at-risk students who may feel alienated by the newness or immensity of the college experience.
The students who used the lab regularly formed a supportive community. Which, as Skubikowski and Elder's students found, made the class a less intimidating, more comfortable place to be. Cynthia Selfe has also seen how email can accommodate thoughtful or not-quite-aggressive-enough students. "Students who wanted to take time to think about their response before they offered it or students who were merely polite were also mostly out of luck. The discussion in the traditional classroom sessions tended to proceed at a breakneck pace and, sometimes, in a competitive manner" [8]. I [Baldwin], myself was that type of student. My class participation was almost non-existent. It was not that I did not pay attention or lacked something to say, merely that by the time I had digested other comments and formulated a response we had moved onto another topic. The additional reflection time that email allows has been particularly useful to my ESL students. With email they can share their views with the class and feel more comfortable because they have had time to put forth their ideas on the screen instead of composing as they go during an in-class discussion and maybe not getting their point across clearly. Email allows them to share their thoughts, ideas, and opinions in a less stressful forum and that is really why teachers encourage class participation, so that voices are not silenced and ideas are not lost.
Some students were initially reticent about "talking" on email. We do not think this is uncommon. Even in the writing of this paper which took place almost completely over email, both of us felt at times that we were sending our vulnerable half-thought out ideas into the ravages of cyberspace. But, then the response comes and with it the confidence to believe that not only do we have something to say, but that someone is listening, thinking about what we have said, and taking time to reply to us. Klein address this point is his essay by borrowing, as will we, from Trent Batson:
In response to the question of depersonalization, the authors [Batson et al. (1993)] claim that 'the crazy sea of electronic musing' brings much more human interrelationship, for it multiplies the transactions a hundredfold. My own recent experiences of having students on-line weekly bear this out. Students reported a much greater feeling of community than they normally do. Numerous teachers have been reporting that e-mail alone enhanced the classroom conversation in dramatically new ways." [9]
Students can then use what they have read on-line during the classroom discussions. The more vocal ones can reply to written messages or they can choose to write back, or they can do both. The bottom line is that each student finds a space, whether it is on-line or in-class, to speak their thoughts.
Conversations are begun or continued outside of class. Questions are asked and ideas sent out. The class dialogue extends beyond two hours a week. It extends beyond the campus. Barker and Kemp bring to lightsome of the luxuries that email can offer students.
The loss of the spoken word may seem to inhibit the immediacy of the criticism and reaction, but the convenience of transmitting e-mail (which can be sent and read independently of class meeting) replaces one kind of immediacy with another. In addition, the direction of the commenting is not all one way, since the author can respond with his own mail message. The possibility of a considered exchange taking place over days and even weeks provides a whole new opportunity for sustained inquiry concerning a document or issue." [10]
Email is a convenient way to communicate. The student can ask a question or jot down and send off a thought while it is still important to them. The student can actually email the night before the paper is due with burning questions and is likely to get an answer from a classmate before the class starts. Not only information, but people become accessible. Barker and Kemp bring up a second important point. The discussions can be kept alive via email long after the class discussion has moved on to a new topic. With email discussions, a topic need never be "dropped". It can collect intellectual force on-line and maybe be reintroduced after several students have added to the idea pool.
This type of "sustained inquiry" prevents the pitfalls that Kenneth Bruffee warns against. Without interaction, "students will learn only that knowledge and authority are located elsewhere--in textbooks, in the minds of teachers, in the codified language of experts" [11]. Email discussions need not even include the teacher. I [Baldwin] noticed that several of my students had dual class lists, one with and one without my name. My presence wasn't necessary for some discussions and wasn't even welcomed at others. My students were learning that I was not the center of the class. They were starting to see their peers as sources of ideas and better understanding. Email helped them feel important to one another and to themselves.
By this point in the learning process, our students begin to feel very comfortable with the technology. In fact, it has become what Harry Noden and Barbara Moss, authors of "Virtual Schools: Reading and Writing," call "transparent" [12] technology or as comfortable and as natural a way to communicate with each other as speaking. Of course many students feel the use of email makes communicating with peers (especially about schoolwork) more fun than speaking.
Once you move past the fun, email brings authority into question. We have noticed that "recent technologies undermine the authority of print by presenting information in unfamiliar formats and allowing the student to manipulate information in radically diverse ways" [13]. This has two advantages. Authority is not located in a foreign text, so the students have to look elsewhere, at themselves and each other. More to the point, it is not in the text where Klein claims the students will have difficulty unlocking it because of their "inexperience with written texts and their historical illiteracy" [14]. The book moves from the center of the class.
Moreover, multiple studies point out that "the use of computer networks in a writing classroom situation, for instance, often seems to shift focus from the teachers to the students, prompting more discussion that is student-centered (Daiute 1985; Selfe and Wohlstrom 1985; Hiltz 1986)" [15]. Network usage can actually shift student attention away from the teacher. We are no longer the center of focus. Email helps bump aside the text and, then, the teacher. The computer- generated text becomes a new text, that requires a new teacher-student relationship. I learned experientially what Carolyn Handa sets forth in the introduction to Computers and Community: Teaching Composition in the Twenty-First Century: "We live in an age when the individual must learn to balance between valuing self and working with others; today we acknowledge that students learn as much from each other as they do from us" [16]. Peer interaction can bring as much to the class as the teacher can. We wonder whether Handa has only gone half-way in her analysis of the new teacher-student relationship. Logistically, there is only one teacher versus twenty or more students. If everyone brings something to the class, then it stands to reason that what 20 students bring to the class will be richer than what one teacher can introduce.
Still, teachers are not asking or for that matter allowing students to take the position of authority in the classroom. "In the composition class, the computer conference is one method by which we can bring the authority of the student's personal experience into the curriculum, integrating personal experience with received knowledge" [17]. Effective educators are moving towards a point where the student's prior knowledge and personal experiences are being held in value along with the textual knowledge.
The Internet also figured prominently in our English 115 courses. Again, it has a fun aspect to it that attracts students' attention and interest. As Klein states, ". . . the Internet invites activity and interconnection" [18]. Since motivating these students requires making reading assignments as fun and as inviting as possible, we create lessons that include discussing fiction through email, exploring the Internet to find information relevant to our current theme (i.e. the theme "caught between worlds" in which students discuss cultural/religious heritage in America), and increasing vocabulary through the subscription to a listserve called "Word for the Day." This introduces students to navigating the computer and the net without the pressure of finding a restrictively specific research topic. It also opens up the classroom to a wide variety of new information. Using the Internet makes learning, literally a hands-on experience. "In the old model of education, for far too many students, school has been a defeating experience. Schools are like museums, with exhibits behind glass where the learner cannot touch them" [19]. The classroom community reaches out for a global understanding. The Internet allows for different perspectives than those of teacher and text to be brought into classroom discussions. Kaha also touts the shift towards a student-centered, process-based class that the Internet can help bring about, since "technology allows for information to be organized, formatted, and communicated in many different ways. Such technologies shift attention away from the subject under study and toward the process of learning" [20]. Once again the computer can be used in such a way as to foreground the student and not the material.
The Internet activities also inspire creativity. Many of these activities, especially in the beginning stages, are learned collaboratively in small groups or pairs. We particularly encourage small group work in the lab to prevent individual students who are wary of technology from becoming frustrated with the assignments. The effects of this collaborative effort aids in the development of a community atmosphere of learning and sharing information. Students who are more comfortable with the technology are encouraged to jump in and aid their peers giving them a greater sense of accomplishment and a clearer view of themselves as academically successful. The students who do not feel comfortable using the technology have expressed a greater enjoyment of the learning process if aided in that process by their peers.
As we did with email, we can shift away from our teacherly authority. "Plater explains that in the past [traditionally], 'teaching has been based on what the teacher knew and valued, but the (new) tools make it possible and desirable to shift the emphasis to what the students need or want to know-they are no longer limited by our knowledge, our experience and our expertise' (1993, 14)" [21]. The Internet highlights how limited the teacher's knowledge is.
During the semester, we begin phasing out collaborative work and increase the use of individualized assignments. By this point in the program the students are ready to express themselves more freely over email, to explore the Internet for information, and to dive into software application knowing a support system of classroom experts can share advice and experience. The students use this individual time to become mini-experts on topics they can then share with the class. This often results in the shift in power many instructors feel or sense as they integrate computers into the classroom. Using computers to access worldwide information puts instructors in the sometimes uncomfortable position of no longer being the expert in the field. The overwhelming availability of information on the Internet makes the old paradigm of instructor as expert impossible. This "breakdown" of authority, however, is essential if students are to successfully navigate this new information-glutted age. It also increases students' sense of themselves as independent learners.
We also must take into account that classroom roles can blur. The teacher can become the student on the Internet. More difficult to swallow is that the teacher can become the student, while the student does the teaching. Haven't we "all experienced occasions when the pedagogical transaction produces (rather than simply transmits) knowledge, both for us and for our students" [22]? Teachers can learn from sources more knowledgeable, such a the Information Super Highway, and from sources traditionally considered less knowledgeable, the student.
I [Baldwin] am guilty of wanting to be who the students look to for knowledge, and thereby overlooking that it is not what I know that I want my students to take away from my class, but an understanding of how to get access to the information that they need. I am not there to transfer my knowledge so much as my know-how.
Kameen puts it very succinctly:
It is not so much a matter of a teacher's having arrived at a position of authority or expertise, of being knowledgeable, acquiring thereby the right and the rituals to determine when a student has done so, but where each of these parties is heading in their institutionally constructed relationship, how they are respectively, and mutually, becoming knowledgeable. [23]
Too often I [Baldwin] overlook the process in the hunt for the product. Fortunately, using computers in the classroom has helped keep me on track. I also have the students to remind me of how much less I know than I thought I did. As Klein points out, I am not alone,". . . our students will increasingly come to us knowing more about computers than we do, . ." [24]. My students are not fooled. I am not the fount of knowledge. They see me fumbling along right beside them when something goes wrong in the lab. The key is to see it not as a disaster, but as a new learning experience. Collaboratively, we attack a problem. And I model my problem-solving strategy for them. Not to mention that it is a very authentic task, in its presentation and in the likelihood, that we will not arrive at the right answer, despite all our combined effort.
San Francisco State University has recently launched a program to provide every faculty member with a computer. Several faculty members incorporate computer technology into their courses. Occasionally, on-line courses are offered. And, in spite of these ambitions, Klein's words ring true: "Although most faculty members by now probably have word processors and e-mail accounts, the authority shift and the complex new architectures of learning offered by computers are just too threatening for most to give serious thought to the pedagogical and epistemological shifts implied" [25]. We have already discussed how computer instruction can lead to more individualized work, can allow the students to reclaim power over their education, and can shift authority away from the teacher. These are possible outcomes of computer usage in the classroom. However, they remain possibilities until we look at how we use computers, how we will make these possibilities into realities, and how we will deal with these new realities when they occur in our classrooms.
Klein tries to reassure us:
Giving up control is not something we relish, even though such surrender is only partly real. The kind of control that faculty exert does shift appreciably with computer-based education, but it does not disappear: managing the new sources and tools of knowledge discovery and creation requires immense amounts of inventiveness, direction, and pedagogical scaffolding. All are, of course, forms of control, perhaps more benign than the older forms because they put more power into students' hands. [26]
Just as the printing press caused a move from lecture to print media educators are quaking in the wake of technological advancements. Even though all this information has been made accessible through computers, our students still need guidance and instruction in how to use and how to make the best use of resources. Isn't that what teachers are supposed to do? Technology is not the challenge; making effective use of technology is.
We must be aware of the trappings of change that mask the status quo. A roomful of computers does not change our approach to teaching. A roomful of students sitting at those computers is not a guarantee that learning is taking place in a more efficient manner than in a roomful of students at traditional desks. Spooner and Yancey, proponents of email, caution us that ". . . the fact that a pedagogy seems innovative or uses new technology does not prevent it from simply reproducing the prior paradigm" [27]. A computer does not solve a teacher's or a program's problems, it merely moves the errors to a different medium. We know that "computers can change classroom dynamics in our classrooms" [28]. But the operative word is "can". The change will come only if we are critically designing uses and watch-dogging the usage and results.
When we hear the ways computers can make wonderful things happen in the class, such as Klein's: "Finally, wider information access should invite the silenced and the traditionally ignored to author their own stories and their own destiny, and, therefore to share in the collective storehouse of capital, property, and power " [29], we need to retain our critical perspective. He is right that access to information "should" help to empower our students. But it will only happen if we make the information and the technology accessible and actively participate in making decisions about how to help our students use this access. Students have access to texts already, and are arriving at the university in need of courses like English 115, because they do not know how to use the knowledge they have access to. We need to safeguard against failing the students in the same way with the advent of on-line information.
Even with his optimism, Klein warns against one possible problem that can surface with computer instruction, writing that "a danger is teachers who see computers as an opportunity to invite students to be independent learners, without a nurturing community and technical support" [30]. We feel that email helps to foster this type of community. Email use in our classrooms has also been an instrumental factor in helping students gain a measure of authority. And not giving, but sharing authority with the students allows them to move beyond being invited into the larger university community, to having the right and the desire to take their place at our academic table.
We must also change our roles as we change our courses. If we wish to give the students more responsibility we need to step back just a little and give them the room to wield it. We hope to be the type of instructor that Cyganowski is. She notes that,
As the lab decentralized the classroom, my role as instructor has changed. I am less of a judge and more of a consultant, guide, mentor, and adviser. My single authority is supplemented by the assistance and authority of peers, as groups, work with the software and their projects. . . . Students form working partnerships and groups that move naturally from assisting each other with software to assisting each other with writing." [31]
We must recognize the differing demands placed on us as instructors in an on-line course and adapt to them.
The integration of computer technology actually has seemed to increase our need to plan and prepare, to work together as teams, supporting each other in our strengths and weaknesses just we have shown our students to do. This is definitely a case in which teachers must practice what they teach. We must understand both the power and the pitfalls of technology before we bring it to our students, for if we do not, it will become an innovation that constrains and frustrates our students rather than liberating and motivating them.
Above all else educators must begin or continue the self-critiquing that we have begun here. We must all ask Savage and Vogel's questions of ourselves: "The arrival of the tools to develop and broadly deploy interactive media raises questions. What will we do with these tools? And what will they do to us?" [32]. Teachers need to ask these tough questions again and again in order to move from what we "can" do to what we "are" doing.
NOTES
[1] Susanna Duckworth and Rhonda Taylor, "Creating and Assessing Literacy in At Risk Students through Hypermedia Portfolios," Reading Improvement (Nov. 1994): 26.
[2] Thomas Klein, "Electronic Revolution at the Educational Crossroads: Foot-Dragging on Campus", College English 43.4 (1995): 154.
[3] Klein 154.
[4] Beth L. Mark and Trudi E. Jacobson, "Teaching Anxious Students Skills for the Electronic Library", College Teaching 43.1 (1995): 28.
[5] C. W. Kaha, "Mastering Technology: Studies in Cognitive Styles", College Teaching 43.1 (1995): 27.
[6] Kathleen Skubikowski and John Elder, "Computers and the Social Contexts of Writing", Computers and Community: Teaching Composition in the Twenty-First Century, Ed. Carolyn Handa (Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook 1990) 94.
[7] Skubikowski and Elder 95.
[8] Cynthia L. Selfe, "Technology in the English Classroom: Computers through the Lens of Feminist Theory", Computers and Community: Teaching Composition in the Twenty-First Century, Ed. Carolyn Handa (Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook 1990) 127.
[9] Klein 154.
[10] Thomas T. Barker and Fred O. Kemp, "Network Theory: A Postmodern Pedagogy for the Writing Classroom", Computers and Community: Teaching Composition in the Twenty-First Century, Ed. Carolyn Handa (Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1990) 20.
[11] Patricia A. Sullivan, "REVIEW: Social Constructionism and Literacy Studies", College English 57.8 (1995): 952, commenting on Bruffee's Collaborative Learning: Higher Education, Interdependence, and the Authority of Knowledge.
[12]Harry Noden and Barbara Moss, "Virtual Schools: Reading and Writing", Reading Teacher 47.2 (1993): 167.
[13] Kaha 26.
[14] Klein 154.
[15] Selfe 125.
[16] Carolyn Handa, Introduction, Computers and Community: Teaching Composition in the Twenty-First Century, (Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook 1990) xix.
[17] Mary J. Flores, "Computer Conferencing: Composing a Feminist Community of Writers", Computers and Community: Teaching Composition in the Twenty-First Century, Ed. Carolyn Handa (Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook 1990.) 106.
[18] Klein 152.
[19] Klein 153.
[20] Kaha 25.
[21] Klein 153.
[22] Paul Kameen, "Studying Professionally: Pedagogical Relationships at the Graduate Level", College English 57.4 (1995): 454.
[23] Kameen 456.
[24] Klein 151.
[25] Klein 153. [26] Klein 153.
[27] Michael Spooner and Kathleen Yancey, "Postings on a Genre of Email", CCC 47.2 (1996): 255.
[28] Carolyn Handa, "Politics, Ideology, and the Strange Slow Death of the Isolated Composer or Why We Need Community in the Writing Classroom", Computers and Community: Teaching Composition in the Twenty-First Century, Ed. Carolyn Handa (Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook 1990) 169.
[29] Klein 152.
[30] Klein 154.
[31] Carol Klimick Cyganowski, "The Computer Classroom and Collaborative Learning: The Impact on Student Writers", Computers and Community: Teaching Composition in the Twenty-First Century, Ed. Carolyn Handa (Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook 1990) 70.
[32] Terry M. Savage and Karla E. Vogel, "Multimedia: A Revolution in Higher Education?", College Teaching 44.4 (1996): 127.
WORKS CITED
Barker, Thomas T., and Fred O. Kemp. "Network Theory: A Postmodern Pedagogy for the Writing Classroom." Computers and Community: Teaching Composition in the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Carolyn Handa. 9th ed. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1990. 1-27.
Cyganowski, Carol Klimick. "The Computer Classroom and Collaborative Learning: The Impact on Student Writers." Computers and Community: Teaching Composition in the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Carolyn Handa. 9th ed. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1990. 68-88.
Duckworth, Susanna, and Rhonda Taylor. "Creating and Assessing Literacy in At Risk Students through Hypermedia Portfolios." Reading Improvement (Nov 1994): 26-31.
Flores, Mary J. "Computer Conferencing: Composing a Feminist Community of Writers." Computers and Community: Teaching Composition in the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Carolyn Handa. 9th ed. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1990. 106-117.
Handa, Carolyn. Computers and Community: Teaching Composition in the Twenty-First Century. 9th ed. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1990.
Handa, Carolyn. "Politics, Ideology, and the Strange Slow Death of the Isolated Composer or Why We Need Community in the Writing Classroom." Computers and Community: Teaching Composition in the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Carolyn Handa. 9th ed. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1990. 160-184.
Kaha, C. W. "Mastering Technology: Studies in Cognitive Styles." College Teaching 43.1 (1995): 25-27.
Kameen, Paul. "Studying Professionally: Pedagogical Relationships at the Graduate Level." College English 57.4 (1995): 448-460.
Klein, Thomas. "Electronic Revolution at the Educational Crossroads: Foot-Dragging on Campus." College English 43.4 (1995): 151-155.
Mark, Beth L., and Trudi E. Jacobson. "Teaching Anxious Students Skills for the Electronic Library." College Teaching 43.1 (1995): 28-31.
Noden, Harry, and Barbara Moss. "Virtual Schools: Reading and Writing." Reading Teacher 47.2 (1993): 166-168.
Savage, Terry M., and Karla E. Vogel. "Multimedia: A Revolution in Higher Education?" College Teaching 44.4 (1996): 127-131.
Selfe, Cynthia L. "Technology in the English Classroom: Computers through the Lens of Feminist Theory." Computers and Community: Teaching Composition in the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Carolyn Handa. 9th ed.
TCC Online Conferences
Kapi`olani Community College
University of Hawai`i
Honolulu, HI