Charlie has done an excellent job illustrating the ways in which the driving force of technology can suck funding from other crucial areas, such as tenure track faculty lines and salaries. But Tharon takes the cake with his "techno-gorilla" metaphor, which made me grin like an idiot for several minutes, unable to continue thinking or writing! I'm reminded of all the "hidden costs" I have encountered in the five or six times, over the last twelve years, I have put together proposals for computer-based writing classrooms. We often don't think about upgrades, replacement, and repair, but these budget items can almost double the initial investment in equipment. They also require a continued source of funding that one-time grants often don't provide, so after a year or two of fantastic gains with new equipment, a WAC/CAC program may be faced with finding new local funding to maintain a computer facility. Cynthia Selfe makes some of the funding challenges abundantly clear in her classic, Creating a Computer Supported Writing Facility: A Blueprint for Action (published in 1989 but still a great source of advice for those interested in putting together computerized environments for writing).
Even more important and perhaps more hidden are the costs of training faculty to use the new facility, equipment, and software. I am reminded of the by-now-well-worn story about so many of the computers donated by big companies to schools in the 70s that ended up as doorstops—nobody knew how to use them. Finding the time and funding to bring faculty up to speed with new technology is a difficult problem, but Charlie's idea for combining WAC/CAC with faculty development training in computers, and Donna's proposed partnerships with IT, are especially appealing. After all, we can argue that these days the computer is the premier communication device, allowing easy, well-formatted text to be input and sent almost anywhere. Why shouldn't we, as Charlie suggests, use technology training as a new "hook" to promote interest in and funding for our WAC/CAC programs? Christine's experiences with securing outside funding are a good lesson: I am currently working on a grant proposal that will combine training in teaching composition with both technology training and assessment. Since improving writing skills, upgrading technology skills, and assessing effectiveness are such persuasive "hooks," I hope we will succeed at securing some funding. For those interested in learning more about issues and strategies related to training, Chapter Nine of Mike Palmquist, Kate Kiefer, James Hartvigsen, and Barbara Godlew's Transitions: Teaching Writing in Computer-Supported and Traditional Classrooms provides an excellent overview.
But there are other ways to save money, as Donna points out, including resisting the urge to purchase expensive, top-heavy software bundles from large corporations. Here at Northern, thanks to Eric Hoffman, we have a setup similar to the one Tharon describes at Clemson: easy-to-use faculty web page templates, synchronous and asynchronous discussion boards, e-mail lists, network space, and tutorials and lesson plans galore to share. This setup allows us to customize our class workspaces without the limitations of a commercial package, and to save money because almost all the tools are free. WAC/CAC programs with innovative software solutions and creative funding ideas should be applauded for sharing these grants and tools with other programs around the country.
Palmquist, Mike, Kate Kiefer, James Hartvigsen, & Barbara Godlew. (1998). Transitions: Teaching Writing in Computer-Supported and Traditional Classrooms. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.
Selfe, Cynthia. (1989). Creating a Computer Supported Writing Facility: A Blueprint for Action. Houghton, MI: Computers and Composition.
– Michael Day
mday@niu.edu