10/28

A lot of what Moran had to say concerning electronic composition struck me as applicable to traditionally written composition as well.  The first instance of this was his comment on the different assistance needed by students based on their individual composing processes (208).  This is not isolated to word processing and speaks more loudly against the linear composing models than a difference of teaching methods required when a student works on a word processor.  Students need to be met instructionally at their level of individual needs depending on the process with which they choose to write.  This could run the gamut from learning a writing process in general to learning final editing techniques.  The very individuality of this instruction raises the questions as to the validity of distance education through technology.  But, I’m getting ahead of myself.

I was even more intrigued by Moran’s comment that,  “looking for essential differences between screen text and print text is a dead end, because writers write differently, and even a given writer will write differently on different occasions” (207).  Have all the researchers attempting an empirical measurement of writing process and ability read this comment?  Does it not negate all attempts at such measurements, or merely insert a very larger and uncomfortable variable into the machinations of their research?  Alright, their research isn’t evil. But it’s formulaic products in conjunction with universal standards and, yes, technology have done more to distance composition instruction from the reality of individual and unique learners in need of equally individual and unique instruction. 

At the end of Anson’s article the question, “Is the motivation for distance education financial or pedagogical?” is tucked amongst many.  But this seems the crux of the issue being measured here.  Both Anson and Moran have a hard time finding concrete educational benefits to technology being the center of the classroom.  It may excite the interest of students, but who does it priviledge, who does it educate more easily?  Does it really increase access or does its increased use in education only serve to further restrict and marginalize groups based on social and economic standards?