Pedagogy and Profession

Griffin, June, and Deborah Minter. "The Rise of the Online Writing Classroom: Reflecting on the Material Conditions of College Composition Teaching." College Composition and Communication. 65.1 (2013): 140-161. Print.

Griffin and Minter (G&M) wrote this survey at a time “when the field seems poised to pivot.” They report on surveys about conditions of OW instructors, and examine “important shifts in literacy and technology” (141).

Digital Literacies and Emerging Technologies

Beginning with a reminder of Yancey’s digital literacies as “textured literacies,” G&M explore 21^st century changes in how we write and read as well as how we collaborate and research, and apply these changes to OWI pedagogy. Reading, as well as writing, has become social, and they suggest that “social reading assignments make reading more writerly” (142).  They recommend several tools that “may be said to walk the line between reading and writing” and that call for a genuine collaboration rather than a simple division of labor (143).  

They revisit Yancey’s concept of screen literacy and apply it to touchscreens, smartphones, and tablets.  Students may compose on these devices, and while touchscreen technologies may seem antithetical to accepted composing practices, the new technologies offers new methods. For example, dictation software or apps offering brainstorm opportunities. Nonetheless, OWI is not inherently cutting edge, and many OL classes are “built around fairly traditional text-based assignments” (145).

Teachers and Learners in the Online Classroom

“Issues of access in online courses are strangely, simultaneously invisible and extraordinarily pronounced” but our failure to address them means students may drop out (148). G&M summarize survey data about OWI faculty and student populations, and discuss the benefits and challenges of OL classes for students.  Some non-academic barriers to success for “at risk” students (transport, childcare, shift work) can be minimized with an OL class; however, OWI can create barriers for ELL students, those with lower academic skills, or those with weak digital literacy.  Data show that OWI classes are especially difficult for students to persevere with if they are already in some way at risk. This is “especially troubling given that one of the touted benefits of OWI is increased access for historically underserved students” (147). A significant gap in OWI is attention to the needs of students with disabilities – universal access is far from universal.

The Material Conditions of Teaching Writing in Increasingly Digital Learning Environments

G&M review institutional issues faced by OWI professionals working in an increasing corporatized higher education. They address MOOCS, flipped classrooms, “restructuring” or “unbundling” of labor, class size, intellectual property rights, and pedagogical expertize versus “content provider”, need for training, compensation, and resources, and workload issues. They remind us of the student workload and their “literacy load” -- how much are we asking them to read / write to “compensate” for the lack of f2f? The ability to track progress and outcomes data is vastly enhanced by OWI – and the data can be used pedagogically and to make a case for resources. 

G&M offer a thorough, yet concise, review of the field and current issues.  In addition to pedagogical concerns, they make a compelling student and teacher-centered case for resources.  I urge everyone to read about these professional issues.