Blog Post #2--Teaching Writing at a Distance

Pavia, Catherine Matthews. “Issues of Attitude and Access: A Case Study of Basic Writers in a Computer Classroom.” Journal of Basic Writing 23.2 (2004): 4-22. Print.

In “Issues of Attitude and Access: A Case Study of Basic Writers in a Computer Classroom,” Catherine Matthews Pavia describes the experiences of two basic writers in her computer-equipped basic writing course and uses their stories to enrich her pedagogy. Pavia cautions her readers that all students do not have computer experience and access, and that that computers should not be seen as unequivocal tools of empowerment for basic writers.

            Pavia begins by presenting research that “still tends to paint an idealistic picture” of computers in basic-writing classrooms, characterizing technology as increasing student motivation, enjoyment of writing, and writing volume, and portraying students as comfortable and experienced with computers (5). Pavia complicates this view by focusing on two of her students who wrote less on computers and frequently chose to write by hand. She interviewed each student, took notes on their writing, and asked them to write about their own experiences with computers. The students were not selected randomly, and Pavia’s study should be seen as a discussion of specific circumstances rather than easily generalizable research, but the students’ experiences and Pavia’s conclusions are helpful to the basic writing teacher who wants to consider how best to reach all of her students.

            The students’ specific experiences differ, but there are many similarities. Both are low-income, and neither came from households with extensive computer usage. Neither student likes to write. Both have a positive view of computers, “reflect[ing] society’s positive and idealistic views about computers and the benefits of computer literacy” (12), yet both dislike writing with computers even more than they dislike writing in general. Much of this dislike seems to stem from unfamiliarity with computers—neither can type well, and both produce much less writing when using computers than do their classmates. Neither has access outside of class to an up-to-date personal computer. Pavia writes that for these two students, “writing on computers in the classroom did not lead to more empowerment when viewed from a more short-term focus on the class itself” (16). In fact, the technology “may lead students to doubt their [writing] abilities when what they really need is confidence” (17).

            In light of her research, Pavia now has students write “technology narratives” early in the semester in which they describe their past experiences with computers and current attitudes toward technology. She adapts her course to her students’ experiences. She has also added basic computer instruction to the course and assigns some writing assignments to be completed by hand. Finally, she “avoid[s] assignments in basic writing classes that might subsume writing by involving technology in the writing process in even more complicated ways than word processing does” (19)—in other words, no multimodal or Web authorship.

            As I mentioned above, Pavia’s research is not easily generalizable. However, I would still recommend this article. In addition to the value of her conclusions and her excellent critique of the overly rosy characterization of computer usage in basic-writing classes, her description of how she adapts each class to the specific students she has serves as an excellent model for other teachers.