I don’t think that computers, per se, make for better writers. I teach writing in a lab, and I find that what makes better writers is having a willingness to take risks and a willingness to apply oneself to learning. That confidence grows over the semester (for some) and leads to better writing.

The computer offers legible papers, which makes grading easier. I have more to say, but I have to get to work.

John, one of the points that Carolyn Dowling’s essay excellent, thoughtful essay makes is that the “ease” you describe does not necessarily produce or indicate better writing. Again: substitution of capital-intensive processes for labor-intensive processes does not indicate any change in the quality of the result of those processes. Are today’s student essays qualitatively better than those of 100 years ago?

As Mariolina Salvatori has often and insightfully demonstrated: difficulty can be a good thing. Still, I will offer the wish: if only it were easier to view and leave comments at John’s weblog. . .

One point of agreement I’ve seen is that the whole point is the writing–how to help students see themselves as writers and to use writing to good effect.

Because I typed my high school term papers on a Smith-Corona portable in the 1950s, I’ll claim that word processors make a significant improvement in writing. I now compose easily on a keyboard, something I never did all the way through graduate school. That ease translates into letting the ideas flow, knowing I can easily make edits later. In my basic writing course last quarter, only one student’s keyboarding skills were so weak that she wrote her in-class essays in longhand.

I will agree that we haven’t developed many good tools for helping students re-enter their word-processed drafts. Or, perhaps more accurately, Microsoft has not incorporated the kinds of tools that writing teachers might recommend. There’s an interesting question: why hasn’t our profession (and groups like CCCC and WPA) found a way to challenge Microsoft to incorporate useful teaching tools into Word?

OK–that’s enough for now. I have more comments on my blog from yesterday.

Regardless, you make valid points and open things for peering into which is why I’m always compelled to respond even if I disagree. It’s just all your fault because your seamless writing draws me in.

Ok. If I don’t say something, this’ll just fester. I’ll lie in bed tonight, and think of all the things I could say, get no sleep, and be grumpy tomorrow. I won’t pretend, however, that ranting wasn’t cathartic. And I won’t apologize for adopting…

Wikis are not accurate. I admire the concept of wikipedia but it’s not resourceful in my field. The notion that wikis challenge traditional schooling is ridiculous in light of its deficiencies. If you want some examples of woefully inaccurate wikis, let me know. I can supply them.

I agree with catching up on “computers.” The very idea of using that term to encompass all mass media via databases and the internet is arcane. “Yeah. computers are cool.” I’ve had professors who didn’t know didly about research via the MLA bibliography and in fact, gave out misinformation in research class. I won’t disagree with catching up.

How are computers helping students? improving resources with a quickness through ILLs, source research, and access. Access to articles in journals in PDF format, access to primary texts.

I don’t know what Boolean operators has to do with any of it. I think that’s the easy way out and that’s exactly what’s giving “computers” a bad name. Googling is not internet research.

Sorry I didn’t read the entire thing but really, it was SO long and I know I won’t get to it anytime in the next 24 hours and by that time, plenty of really smart people will have made fascinating points and that would mean I’d have even more to read before commenting.