Introduced to the teaching of composition in the mid 1970s, peer-critique groups provide one means of creating a community among college writers. [1] As Thom Hawkins (1976) explains: "Working in small groups is a natural, enhancing environment for active, socially realistic learning" (p. 637). This social context lends itself to the teaching of writing because "Writing is communication. If we don't talk to each other we will be writing in a vacuum" (p. 638). The "talk" of critique groups is not limited to criticism of drafts and final papers.
Group meetings can address all stages of the writing process,
from collaborative sessions on discovery and brainstorming to
exchanges of oral and written criticism of papers. Although peer-critique
groups, as suggested in research done in the mid-1970s and 1980s,
provide students with an immediate support network for their writing,
the addition of computer networks to writing classrooms has increased
the possibilities for collaboration among student writers. [2]
Peer-critique groups successfully wed oral communication to the
writing process; computer networks nurture this union yet require
that the discourse surrounding the interactive learning be a type
of informal writing among classmates working on-line.
The most comprehensive application of computer networks to the
writing classroom is the ENFI (Electronic Networks for Interaction)
Demonstration Project begun in 1987. [3] ENFI classrooms rely
on local area networks that allow synchronous (real time) exchanges
among participants. In addition, video switching components allow
students on the network to view and discuss the same text at the
same time. The rationale for using computer networks within writing
classrooms reflects principles inherent in peer-critiquing groups.
Echoing Hawkins' reasons for peer-critique groups from a decade
earlier, ENFI director Trent Batson (1988) enumerates these as
"conceiving of writing as a social act, not a solitary task;
as a process, not a product; and as a collaborative endeavor (p.
32). As Geoffrey M. Sirc (1988), a member of the ENFI Consortium
notes:
The saturation in writing and thinking about writing afforded by this network did much to nurture my students sense of themselves as writers (p. 103).
Written interchanges over a computer network offer important advantages
over oral discussions within a peer critique group. Sirc explains,
Too often in oral writing conferences, gestures and monosyllabic grunts can substitute for articulate commentary. When forced to express their ideas in writing, students must focus on what they're saying and how they're going to say it (p. 101).
Batson adds that because network discussions are "written
rather than spoken," they give "students a chance to
work out ideas in the mode they will use to compose more extended
text" (p. 33).
Following techniques of traditional peer-critique groups, Sirc's
students engage in brainstorming discussions about paper topics
on the network. A printed transcript of this "conversation"
provides writers with resources from which to begin their papers.
After drafts have been read by members of each critique group,
the students conduct interactive discussions over the network
regarding the strengths and weaknesses of each paper. Again, transcripts
of these network sessions give writers a record to consult as
they revise their papers (Sirc, 1988, pp. 100-101). ENFI Consortium
participant Diane F. Thompson (1987) summarizes:
On the network, students can work collaboratively to brainstorm, solve problems, experience writing as real communication with real people, and revise writing to satisfy their peers' immediate curiosity as well as the teacher's standards for composition (p. 92).
Whether meeting off- or on-line, peer-critique groups foster skill
in and understanding of the writing process because, as Kenneth
Bruffee observed in 1978,
students can often teach each other things which resist assimilation through the direct instruction of a teacher, and in the process, can learn more thoroughly the subjects . . . they set out to teach (p. 447).
However, the written discourse of the peer-critique group process
is often seen as ancillary to both the writing process and the
finished written product. In traditional peer-critique programs,
ideas exchanged orally in critique groups may be as ephemeral
as spoken language itself. Although an interactive, synchronous
network provides transcripts of peer-group conversations, the
length of comments from individual students--ranging from a few
words to a brief paragraph--seems to provide little practice for
sustained, formal written communication. Limitations also exist
between the relationship of this mode of discourse and formal
expository writing. Recounting his early experiences with a brainstorming
session on the network, ENFI member Marshall Kremers (1988) describes
that students immediately lost all sense of decorum about what is appropriate to say or write in an English class . . . There was much breaking into channels. . . and some flirting, and even some talking dirty (pp. 71, 76-77).
Moreover, Thompson (1988) warns that because communication on
a computer network often approximates written speech, it may be
a
hindrance rather than a help to developing writers because as
[Jeanne] Halpern points out, "good writing must function
without the supports of the speech context (p. 24) [4]
Supplementing a traditional peer-critiquing program with an exchange
of critique letters between two schools over an asynchronous distance
network is one way of eliciting sustained, fully articulated commentary
on student papers and providing practice and reinforcement in
successful written communication.
Critique letters--the initial centerpiece of peer-critiquing programs (Bruffee, 1978) are frequently overlooked as important student writing. By combining the skills of critical reading and writing implicit in the philosophy of peer critiquing with the emphasis on audience stemming from classical rhetoric, the critique letter written for a peer-critique network becomes a text itself, rather than a step in the writing process. Joining composition classes from two distant colleges realizes for students the importance of the conventions of written communication and forces them to confront the demands of audience in shaping effective written communication. [5] Writing comprehensive critique letters over a distance network encourages students to treat their peers' drafts as texts worthy of careful analysis and invites critics to develop fully supported ideas, a skill applicable to other writing situations.
In using an asynchronous, distance network to exchange compositions and critique letters between Babson College (a business and management college in Wellesley, MA) and Skidmore College (a liberal arts college in Saratoga Springs, NY), my colleague, Joel Nydahl, and I hypothesized that creating distance between writer and critic would alter students' typical perception of responsibilities for communication in a critique letter, allowing the critique letter to stand as autonomous, transactional prose. [6] An audience of classroom peers often inhibits the writing of comprehensive critiques too, especially given the desire of students to protect friendships and insure social status. In contrast, reading and critiquing drafts written by unfamiliar students over a distance network provides an environment that encourages students to concentrate on the text, not the personality behind the text. Moreover, with or without a local area network, students writing to peers in the same class often rely upon conversations in and out of class to complement their critiques rather than rise to the challenges of written communication. Conducting exchanges of peer-critique letters over a distance network requires students to acknowledge the unique demands of written discourse. As Plato argues in the Phaedrus, writing, unlike speech, is a limited form of communication that can neither explain nor defend itself. A distance network eliminates the opportunity for spoken discourse to clarify the writing, so writing critique letters for a .distance network requires students to "focus on what they're saying and how they're going to say it" (Sirc, 1988, p. 101) and to write comprehensive reader-based prose for clearly defined audiences and specific purposes.
Although a distance network holds many promises for writing instruction, especially when used to augment in-class peer critique programs, establishing a peer-critique network between two distant colleges is a demanding and complex task. Arranging classes and developing the curriculum is as intricate as the technological aspects of the network. Despite year long planning, the logistics of setting up classroom and scheduling procedures brought to the foreground administrative and bureaucratic concerns that the average instructor never faces. In order for two classes to function as a whole united by a peer-critiquing network, the colleges need to have congruent academic calendars. Equally important, semesters have to begin and end on approximately the same dates, and vacations need to coincide so that students at both schools work on the same assignments at the same time. Such requirements limit the number of schools that can connect to each other.
Issues more obviously related to classroom management also increase in importance during exchanges. Our classes had to meet with the same frequency on the same days so that students had the same due dates for assignments. Furthermore, maintaining parallel class enrollments became paramount. This raised its own challenge due to institutional differences. Composition classes at Babson enroll twenty, and those at Skidmore, fifteen; we compromised on sixteen, which gave us four groups of four students for our in-class, peer-critique groups. Using this enrollment figure required special permission from our home departments as well as from our colleges.
After surveying students from the previous year, we chose terrorism as the common topic [7] so that students could write as informed "experts" on the content of the compositions they criticized. But in developing assignments, we again confronted obstacles from institutional curricular requirements. Unlike Skidmore's writing seminars, Babson's composition courses taught research-paper writing skills. An extended definition composition and a mini-research paper proved to be a suitable compromise.
Before students could be active and effective peer-critiquing network participants, they had to receive special training and instruction. They had to learn to compose and revise on a word-processing system, particularly basic functions such as formatting texts and moving blocks of text. More importantly, we had to initiate students into analyzing and criticizing writing productively. To help students realize the criteria for "good" writing that the class implicitly held, at the beginning of the course we replicated an assessment session of first-year composition placement essays. After reading a selection of low, middle, and high range essays, students scored the essays and defended these ratings to their classmates. This discussion helped students articulate the characteristics of writing they themselves valued and gave them the opportunity to learn directly the qualities of writing praised by teachers of composition. [8] Preliminary to the critiquing process itself, such discussions brought to the foreground the importance of thesis statements, fully developed ideas, engaging supporting evidence, logical organization, and coherent sentence structure. Our instructions for revision also looked toward the critiquing process. Adapting guidelines that Nydahl developed, we taught revision as a process moving "from the 'Bottom' to the 'Top,"' first addressing global issues such as organization and development and concluding with surface features, grammar, and spelling. [9] We presented this approach to revision as a hierarchy of issues to address when critiquing a draft.
The exchange over the distance network did not begin until the middle of the semester; therefore, students participated in in-class peer groups, writing critique letters to their local classmates with the first two compositions. We outlined a four-step process to follow when critiquing drafts: review the assignment to refamiliarize yourselves with the composition's purpose and rhetorical agenda; read all of the drafts in your peer-critique group for a general sense of how this writing task can be approached; reread critically and evaluate one composition to note strengths, weaknesses, and to provide suggestions for improvement; lastly, compose a critique letter to the author. For writing the critique letter, we reminded students to establish some priority among the critical remarks they made as they would in the revision process and to incorporate compliments as well as negative comments; therefore, letters would become well supported discussions of the drafts, not simply lists of errors.
Although these initial critique letters were supported with peer critique group meetings, these very discussions--along with written comments from the teacher responding to the letters--increased students' awareness of the demands of the fully independent, writer-based prose they would have to strive for in their distant critique letters. Prior to going on-line, each class exchanged a packet containing a first draft of a student essay, the critique letter it received, and the second draft of the essay. In addition to exposing students to the writing the other college students' produced, discussions of these texts allowed students to see how different writers respond to written criticism and the problems that occur when a writer's draft receives inadequate criticism.
Once the peer-critiquing network function was fully operational, classes at both colleges received the composition assignments and engaged in discussions of shared readings and resources which could inform the paper. For instance, to introduce the unit on terrorism and to help students explore the complexity in defining terrorism--the task of the first composition--both classes saw The Little Drummer Girl. In addition to classroom sessions devoted to content exploration, both classes received instruction on the rhetorical dimensions of the assignments. Building on skills introduced earlier in the course and reading model texts on other topics, we examined how comparison/contrast, classification, analogies, and anecdotes can be used to define abstract terms. Prior to writing their first drafts, students met in their in-class peer-critique groups to discuss the assignment and exchange ideas and resources. Such lessons also provided students with further criteria with which to analyze and criticize their distant classmates' compositions. Students independently wrote their drafts on microcomputers, which were transmitted to the sister class.
Students received each other's compositions in the next class
session. Borrowing procedures from writing assessment, in-class
critique group meetings served as "normalizing" sessions
to discuss how the distant writers had responded to the assignment
and to clarify any questions the student critics themselves had
about the assignment. The students decided among themselves which
composition each would critique (critique letters were homework
due the next calendar day). Putting this choice in the hands of
the students decreased the likelihood that the same two students
across the network would be critiquing each other's drafts, thus,
further alleviating any counterproductive "peer" interference.
The critique letters were then transmitted to the sister college,
and students received their letters the next day to guide their
revisions. We conducted this exchange process on two drafts of
the two composition assignments written for the peer-critiquing
network.
Although peer-critiquing occupied the pedagogical heart of the Skidmore-Babson network, the intercollegiate network BITNET was the technological heart, providing an accessible and quick asynchronous means of transmitting students' drafts and critique letters. [10] Student access to BITNET was another unanticipated obstacle in establishing procedures for conducting the network. Although both schools belong to BITNET, their access policies differ: Skidmore students have free access to BITNET; Babson students do not. [11] The lack of accessibility to BITNET by all participants required us to enforce mandatory due dates so that texts could be transmitted collectively. This situation also caused us to restrict the duties of uploading, transmitting, and downloading files to ourselves and our student assistants. While this increased our work, it made student participation in the network easier; the complicated procedure for transmitting files would have needlessly puzzled or frustrated some students, focusing their attention counterproductively on technology rather than on writing.
To transmit files of their compositions and critique letters,
students left copies of their essay disks with their professor
or student aide at a prescribed time. Each disk was labelled according
to the student's critique-group number; this allowed the aide
to copy the drafts of the four students in each group into a larger
file. The aide next re-saved the four files in ASCII, uploaded
them to the VAX, and transmitted them to the other college via
BITNET's electronic mail. At the other end, a student aide extracted
the files from e-mail, downloaded them into the appropriate word-processing
program (WORDPERFECT at Skidmore, MICROSOFT WORD at Babson), copied
them into the students' class disks, and left the disks for students
to pick up the following day. Either the aide or the students
themselves prepared hard copies of the new material to bring to
the next class meeting.
Teachers using computers in their writing classes typically have
to overcome students' apprehension that their work is at the mercy
of the computer. However, there was some truth to this myth in
our project. The success of a peer-critiquing network relies to
a large extent on the dependability of the transmission network.
BITNET is an administratively decentralized network; when we encountered
problems with it, we had no single resource to consult. Throughout
the project, transmissions from Skidmore to Babson ran smoothly;
however, as the semester advanced, transmissions from Babson sometimes
failed to reach Skidmore. Regular maintenance work on the VAX
computers over which BITNET runs also affected the operation of
the peer-critiquing network. When BITNET failed or was temporarily
unavailable, we relied upon other telecommunications technologies
as "back-ups." Faxing student writings was a quick,
but costly, option. Moreover, it limited how students could use
word-processing systems to compose critique letters and to revise
drafts. Using a modem to access the Skidmore computer directly
proved to be a more efficient--although less flashy-- alternative
method for transferring files.
Just as we needed to be prepared for technologic breakdowns, we
also needed to anticipate human (i.e., student) failures. We developed
contingency plans to assure that every draft written would receive
a critique. Regardless of whether students had submitted either
or both of their first or second drafts, they were expected to
write a critique letter. If a student was absent from the critique-group
meetings, we asked other students in the group to write two critique
letters. On the other hand, if a critique group received fewer
than four drafts, the group members selected which drafts would
receive more than one critique letter. If a student did not receive
a critique letter--either due to absence or negligence by the
critic--the professors prepared a short critique of the draft
for that student.
Perhaps the greatest caveat of the peer-critiquing network--as
for any team-teaching situation--remains the danger of losing
individual classroom autonomy. Although we were aware that we
would not have the flexibility we were accustomed to, we sometimes
felt unexpectedly constrained by the demands of operating an active
network. Because of the lack of student access to BITNET, once
the cycle of exchanges was underway, the progression of subsequent
classes and assignments necessarily became fixed. No longer could
we change due dates for drafts or postpone the writing of critique
letters. Nor could we linger over a topic of particular interest
or spend extra time on writing concerns. The image of "the
tail wagging the dog" arose in our conversations and private
thoughts even though the peer-critiquing network created less
disruption in day-to-day classroom procedures than we anticipated.
In fact, the network brought distinct advantages to our writing
classes. Technologically, our students became members of the increasingly
important community of the computer literate. On a very fundamental
level, students' use of word-processing programs for writing seemed
to be enhanced because all texts produced for the course-- whether
drafts of compositions or critique letters--had to be on disk
to be transmitted. The transmission of files also legitimatized
the use of a standard disk-operating system and a single word-processing
program within each class. Students no longer complained that
their Macintosh or PFS WRITE program could not be used for the
course.[12] Finally, because files had to be uniformly and logically
named and formatted in order to be transmitted, the introduction
of the network taught students the logic behind many computer
protocols.
The critique letters that students wrote for the peer-critiquing network supported our original premise that imposing distance between writer and critic would encourage students to respond more attentively to the requirements of written discourse. At the end of the semester one Skidmore student summarized her experience of writing for the network:
When writing to someone in class, I can talk to them if they do not understand a point. When writing to Babson, I found that I was concentrating on giving a complete critique. I also found a new freedom because I did not have to worry about the Babson student getting upset with me.
Freed from in-class peer pressure, students were able to write honest and thorough critiques. The inability to talk to the author forced students to be attentive to what the writers had written and to weigh their own criticism carefully.
Even though having a distant audience frees the critic from worrying about the writer's reaction, with this freedom comes the burden of providing reasons for any revisions the critic suggests. Exercising this freedom to write with candor, one Babson critic bluntly told a Skidmore writer:
The first thing I would like to say is that your essay does not accomplish anything. Now don't take this too hard. I am not saying that it doesn't say anything. There is a great deal of good information and relevant examples in this work, but a lack of focus and a clear cut thesis has resulted in a paper with no destination. The errors are very simple to rectify ....
Despite the freedom critics claimed to experience when writing to a distant audience, the distance did not serve as a buffer behind which student critics hid to offer their blunt assessments. As this critic's remarks demonstrate, much of the criticism was softened with sensitive qualifications ("I am not saying that it doesn't say anything") and compensatory praise ("There is a great deal of good information . . ."). Indeed, the distance-critique letters between classes complimented the author an average of four times.
Reflecting, perhaps, this greater sensitivity toward the writer and a developing bond of collaboration between the critic and writer, explanations more frequently accompanied suggestions for revision. Sensing that a first draft did not fulfill the purpose of an extended definition, another critic wrote:
Basically, you classified the effects of terrorism but you didn't really define the term. For example, your second paragraph introduces direct victims, people whom the terrorists plan to harm or who they want to kill. You should also explain why the terrorists want to commit the violence. This would make your essay more complete . . . . So if you add a little more of what terrorism is rather than what it does, then the essay would fully answer the question.
As valuable as the actual recommendation is, the manner in which this critic presents his suggestions is equally important. He uses the terms "classified" and "define" from earlier class sessions on extended definitions to differentiate the purpose of this paper. He also immediately locates the problem specifically within the text by directing the author to "your second paragraph." By first observing objectively what the paper does, the critic establishes the legitimacy of his suggestion to refocus and expand the draft.
Another example demonstrates how fully the critic needed to engage
intellectually the writer's idea to convey her doubts about its
appropriateness. In his first drafts of the extended definition
of terrorism assignment, a Babson student attempted an unusual
analogy between a political terrorist and a dentist to which the
critic responded:
This idea is really original! Because of this it is essential that your meaning is clear. If visiting the dentist is an act of terrorism, then is all fear terrorism? I'm not sure if this is what you mean to say, and it is crucial to make the distinction between the two if there is one. If there isn't a difference between the two, then you need to go on after this example to explain to the reader why you feel there are none. You are right in saying that not all terrorists come in nice, neatly stereotyped packages such as you describe, but be careful that you don't imply that all dentists are terrorists. Make sure that the fear that you describe in the dentist visit is the result of the same force as when an airplane is hijacked. If you can work this paragraph out, I think it could be a very provocative aspect in your argument.
Although praising its originality, the Skidmore critic pushed the analogy to its limits to uncover for the writer its implications. Her concentration on the concept of "fear" requires the author to consider the differences among various types of fear provoking situations to arrive at the role of this quintessential element of terrorism.
Composing a critique letter for the distance network affected
the specificity of what the critics said as well as how the students
offered their criticism. On average, the letters written for the
peer-critiquing network were 100 words longer (425) than those
prepared for in-class exchanges. This added length did not come
only from the necessary explanations the critics provided. Recognizing
that they would not be present when the writer read the critic
letter, many critics made a much more concerted effort to ground
their remarks specifically in the draft. Using "copy-block
moves," critics more frequently included exact passages in
their letters before commenting on them. For example, rather than
simply chastising the writer for inappropriate diction, one critic
cited:
You start off with 'Terrorism is a heavy word. . . .' You must think of your audience in this situation. Being a teenager, I might understand what you mean by 'heavy' but others might not.
Focusing on the text rather than on the writer of the text made it easier for critics "to respond to the words, the meaning, and the paper as a whole," as one Skidmore student noted.
Students also began to employ the critical terminology of writing more frequently in their letters. As noted above, students bemoaned (or applauded) "thesis statements." They called for "smoother transitions," reminder the writer to "try and tie the paragraphs together with transitions." Critics regularly invoked the reaction of "the reader" or "target audience" when suggesting revisions. They discussed revision as the need to "reorganize" ideas or "to combine them in a different order." Extraneous material needed to be "omitted" or "narrowed down" because it formed "a tangent away from the assignment." On the other hand, critics encouraged writers to "elaborate' upon, "expand," or strengthen promising ideas by "adding more details, examples, and even a counter definition." Despite the occurrence of rubber-stamp comments in peer-critiquing activities, impressionistic words such as "vague," "cloudy," and "awkward" typically occurred no more than three times within a set of sixteen letters. As one student explained: "I wanted to make sure that I made useful suggestions because they couldn't get in touch with me; so my critique needed to be self explanatory."
Despite these advantages, the opportunity for discussion was greatly missed by writers, who wanted to question their distant critics, and by critics, who wanted to learn more about the distant writer's intentions before they commented further. As one student concluded of the network: "The biggest disadvantage was not being able to talk to them." An asynchronous transmitting network does not permit the immediate, interactive dialogue between writer and critic that a synchronous network affords. Although an asynchronous exchange of messages between writers and critics over BITNET's electronic mail system would have helped bridge this gap, the Babson students' lack of access to BITNET made e-mail untenable. Mail or telephone conversation, which was neither promoted nor prohibited in class, although it was available to the students, went unused.
Some Skidmore students, however, initiated conversations with
their Babson critics by attaching messages to the ends of their
drafts or critique letters. One student appended this note to
the end of her second draft:
I really enjoyed your critique. You perceptively touched on many points that kind of bothered me as I was writing the paper, but that I didn't want to deal with at the time. When you mentioned the things I should change, I only wish that you had elaborated on what I should do with them more, although this was very thorough and logical critique. Thanks for your time; I hope you do really well on your paper.
Overtly, this note attempts to begin a dialogue between the writer and critic. But rather than solicit clarifications, the student attempts to guide the critic in the formulation of his critique letter. The subtext of the note reminds the critic that direct interchanges are greatly limited on our asynchronous network; therefore the critic needs to respond more attentively to the extra demands this places on his written discourse. The critic responded graciously to this reminded: "Thank you for the note, it is always helpful to find out how I can help critique your paper better. I'll try to be very specific with this letter." A detailed two-and-a-half page, double spaced critique letter followed.
Tone, rather than content, prompted another student to "interface"
with his critic. Upset by what he perceived as a lack of sensitivity
in the critique letter, the writer attached this note to his Babson
critic:
Who died and made you king? Why don't you try treating everyone with a little respect. . . .If you are a business major, then you will in the future have to deal with other people, and this, sometimes, cannot be in person or over the phone. If you write in the way that you have, you will grow to be a very poor and lonely person. You do have some good ideas that I followed, but in order for me to really get anything out of your poor critique try writing like a person with feelings (if you have any).
Even in their sarcasm, these comments show the writer's awareness
of the dynamics and demands of written communication. Moreover,
the student believed his comments were justified, not only because
of personal offense, but because composing for the distance network
emulates future, post-college writing situations. The Babson student
who provided the next critique began:
Primarily, let me say that my fellow classmate who critiqued your letter [sic] got quite a laugh from your ending paragraph hinting to his future as a '"poor and lonely person." I think that was hysterical; probably the truth knowing this guy's character. I think you need to take criticism less seriously, this is only college and we are supposed to be having fun--so ease up.
This exchange approximates the playfulness of the worthwhile,
though atypical talk, which initially frustrated Marshall Kremers
in his use of an interactive network in his ENFI class.
Whether through direct exchange of drafts and critiques or indirect
communiques between writer and critic, the enlarged writing community
of the peer-critiquing network and the writerly introspection
it fostered were benefits everyone appreciated. One student provided
the following overview of the experience:
Reading other people's papers gave me different perspectives and different ideas on how to approach the paper. Then in critiquing someone else's paper, I realized the things that I would have wanted to see in a paper, and found that some of my suggestions to help him helped me also.
The use of a distance network to exchange drafts and critique
letters between composition classes at different colleges creates
a distance between student critics and student authors which,
ironically, brings students closer together in analyzing and discussing
written texts. Because of the increased understanding students
have gained about the demands of effective written communication,
a distance peer-critiquing network also brings students closer
to their own writing.
Michael Steven Marx teaches at Skidmore College
in Sarasota Springs, NY.
Joy Kreeft Peyton provides an annotated bibliography of
research on synchronous, interactive networks in writing classes
in "Computer Networks for Real-Time Written Interaction in
the Writing Classroom: An Annotated Bibliography." Computers
and Composition, 3(5), 105-122.
ENFI began in 1985 at Gallaudet University under the direction
of Professor Trent Batson as an approach to improve deaf students'
fluency and grammatical instinct in English by participating in
group interactions in writing over a computer network. Now expanded
to the teaching of writing to all students and funded by the Annenberg/Corporation
for Public Broadcasting Project, the ENFI Demonstration Project
Consortium includes Gallaudet University, the University of Minnesota,
Carnegie Mellon University, New York Institute of Technology,
and Northern Virginia Community College.
The schools participating in ENFI use the CompuTeach CT Classroom
package. It includes a local area network (10Net), an interactive
communications LAN ("Citizens Ban" CB utility), and
a video switcher. Other interactive LANs include Daedalus INTERCHANGE,
developed at the University of Texas, Austin and CECE TALK used
on Carnegie Mellon University's Andrew System.
Despite these qualifications, Kremers and Thompson (1988)
strongly endorse the use of interactive, synchronous networks.
Although the language on the network may have be atypical for
an English classroom, Kremers deems it "purposeful stuff."
The network conversation is "a writing session in which [students]
had a lot of fun, never once asked for my assistance, and eventually
camp up with substance for completing the assignment" (p.
77). Thompson also positively concludes that with careful teacher
mediation, a synchronous, interactive classroom network allows
writing teachers to converse with their students in writing; and
intervene in the seamless process of pre-writing, writing, and
revision; all while addressing the communication needs of real
people--the members of the network (p 25).
In addition to the Peer Critiquing network between Babson
and Skidmore Colleges, Northern Virginia Community College has
employed a distance network to link English classes at its Manassas
and Woodbridge campuses. A part of the ENFI consortium, this interactive,
synchronous, distance network run by Diane F. Thompson and Cathy
Simpson is in its third year of operation.
The planning for a distance network between two college
writing classes was initiated by Joel Nydahl, Assistant Professor
of English and Director of the Writing Program at Babson College
in Spring, 1988. The Center for Information Management Studies
(CIMS) at Babson College provide funding and course release to
Nydahl. The project was funded at Skidmore College by a Faculty
research Grant
As a textbook for this part of our course, we selected
Opposing Viewpoints: Terrorism. Ed. Bonnie Szumski (Ed.)
(1986). Greenhaven Press: St. Paul, Minnesota. We supplemented
these readings with articles from newspapers and magazines to
keep classroom discussion and student research current.
In these sessions, I used diagnostic essays the students
had written the previous summer to be placed in writing seminars
at Skidmore. Babson does not require diagnostic essays of all
its students, so Nydahl used a collection of essays from the English
Composition Board's writing assessment program at the University
of Michigan where both of us had previously taught.
In revision as a "Bottom to the Top" process,
the "bottom" refers to the foundation of the composition,
the features which are primarily responsible for the essay's ability
to inform, persuade, or entertain readers. In contrast, the "top"
means the surface elements of the essay. Nydahl differentiates
these levels by explaining: "Problems 'at the top' of a composition
typically can be corrected by the writer's roommate (nearly anyone
can add a comma or open a dictionary to correct spelling or check
word choice). But only the writer can correct problems
'at the bottom' of his/her composition. After all, the writer
is the only one who knows what she/he wants to say."
To strengthen the connection between word processing and revising,
we also introduced the four primary activities of revision in
terms of computer functions: Insert (adding materials), Delete
(cutting materials), Block Moves (rearranging materials), and
Typeover (correcting surface errors).
For further description of the capacities of BITNET, see
"Software Lets Schools Plug Into ED.Network With Worldwide
Links." T.H.E. Journal, 16(9), 50.
In addition to BITNET, other networks have similar capabilities
to those we describe here. On a national scale, Internet is the
major alternative to BITNET. Regional networks such as NYSERnet
and NEARnet also offer transmission capabilities. Even if a college
is not connected to a major network, the asynchronous peer-critiquing
network presented here can be replicated by using a modem to dial
directly into schools' mainframe computers.
Babson's policy is based on two considerations: (1) BITNET
operates from the VAX computers reserved for faculty use, and
the college administration was unable to grant even a small number
of students access to it for security reasons; (2) students would
be unsupervised in their use of BITNET and might either overload
it by making contacts with friends at colleges around the country,
or, worse yet, send troublesome (i.e., obscene) messages.
In schools where Macintoshes are the preferred system,
MS-DOS computers might fall into disuse.
Batson, T. (1988). The ENFI project: A networked classroom approach
to writing instruction. Academic Computing, 2(5),
32-33, 55-56.
Bruffee, K. (1978). The Brooklyn plan: Attaining intellectual
growth through peer-group tutoring. Liberal Education,
64, 447-468.
Bruffee, K. (1985). A short course in writing: Practical rhetoric
for teaching composition through collaborative learning (3rd
ed.). Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.
Hawkins, T. (1976). Group inquiry techniques for teaching writing.
College English, 37, 637-646.
Kremers, M. (1988). Adams Sherman Hill meets ENFI: An inquiry
and a retrospective. Computers and Composition, 5,
69-77.
Peyton, J. K. (1989). Computer networks for real-time written
interaction in the writing classroom: An annotated bibliography.
Computers and Composition, 6, 105-122.
Sirc, G. M. (1988). Learning to write on a LAN. T.H.E. Journal,
15(8), 99-104.
Software lets school plug into Ed.network with worldwide links.
T.H.E. Journal, 16(9), 50.
Szumski, B. (Ed.) (1986). Opposing Viewpoints: Terrorism.
St. Paul, MN: Greenhaven Press.
Thompson, D. F. (1987). Teaching writing on a local area network.
T.H.E. Journal, 15(2), 92-97.
Thompson, D. F. (1988). Interactive networking: Creating bridges
between speech, writing, and composition. Computers and Composition,
5, 17-27.