The session was held in a computerized classroom, with computers at tables throughout the room and a projecting computer up front. I had the outcomes web site on the projector as people entered the room, so many audience members were browsing the site before and during the session. We also passed out the current official outcomes draft and the proposed technology
plank on paper.

We then presented brief discussion openers, Patty and Bill setting the context of the project and explaining the special difficulty we are having deciding the role of technology statements in the FYC outcomes statement. Barry presented the position that special mention of technology misrepresents technology as something added on rather than something implicit in the work. He added that that for rhetoric to claim for itself a mission better suited to general education as a whole is to overextend itself. I presented the position that going into more detail about technology overbalanced the statement, leaving matters like reflection, language awareness, and socio-cognitive development underdeveloped by comparison. I added that to the extent the motive for a technology plank was openly coercive - to encourage more schools to buy technology - it opened us to charges of political manipulation that, as to the existing document thus far, would be unwarranted. Patty, speaking for herself and Irv (who could not attend but sent his position statement), noted that there was no clear line between political and non-political motives in the statement, that technology deeply affects the ability of students to accomplish much of what the rest of the statement asks, and that current technology has a different order of influence over the very nature of writing practices than things like even the ball-point pen. Emily Golson illustrated through experiential and research results not only the powerful effects that technology has in affecting all dimensions of rhetorical and composing ability, but also the difficulty teachers can have in getting administrators to understand this and provide needed equipment.

Cindy Selfe was the respondent, and she began with general approval of the document and the kinds of things it was already after, though of course she was concerned about our managing it so that it would not be misinterpreted badly. Starting what became a trend in the discussion, she was more interested in addressing larger ideas that small changes in the language of
the document might communicate - for instance, that our mention of "computing" technology in the processes section was actually limiting, not expansive, leaving out other media available for rhetorical education. The general discussion that followed never did address clearly the issue of whether a technology plank would be needed or desired, but it did focus a great deal more on making small changes in the existing document than on trying to recast the technology plank itself. Further, the kinds of changes seemed aimed rather more at keeping definitions expansive enough to include media other than just word processing or even hyper-text. For instance, there was a general preference for the word "works" rather than "texts" so that it was clear we had room for multi-media communication. Michael Palmquist, from out in the audience, became a leader in the recasting of some of the terms, gathering suggestions and discussing them, then taking time to make a few emendations at the end of the session (that I believe he gave to Bill Condon).

I formed three dominant impressions the sense of the room. First, those in attendance (30-40?) seemed pleased with the effort as a whole. Second, their interest seemed much more drawn to being open to all sorts of media than to just computers. Third, they seemed to prefer spreading specific reference to (or at least inclusion of) technology all across the sections of the statement rather than including a technology plank, even if they also seemed completely accepting of a revised version of such a plank.

Return to Main menu; return to Outcomes History