Tech as Tools
While most WPAs tend not to rank functional literacy high in their priorities, some of their discourses and practices still represent digital literacy in a functional, tool-based manner, which can in turn affect how instructors introduce technologies in their courses. A functional approach positions technologies as neutral tools, with instructors and students mainly being taught skills to “master” those technologies. As an example of how some programmatic instantiations appear to be functional, 22% of the WPAs who stated that digital literacy is formally encouraged in their programs tied digital literacy to the use of their program’s Learning Management Systems (LMSs) like BBLearn, Blackboard, and Canvas. While one WPA emphasized that the LMS in her program is used often for students to participate in discussions, most stated that these LMSs are used for grading, assignment submission, and document storage—and that these items are the focus in training. These WPAs also tended to only define digital literacy in terms of their program’s use of LMSs. This may suggest that some WPAs view the use of an electronic tool as the main type of digital literacy in their program, which can be interpreted as a functional approach to digital literacy, in Selber’s terms. (It may be that the use of the term "digital literacy" also encouraged WPAs to think in more functional ways than other terms like multimodal composing might invoke, but the definition provided to them defined digital literacy in terms of composing and analyzing, including considerations of social and cultural practices.) These approaches tend to frame technologies as instruments for efficiency purposes (grading and assignment submission) or for mastering a task through technological skills. While learning the functions of digital tools is important and is often needed as a baseline to employ rhetorical and critical perspectives, WPAs can promote more complex perspectives.
For instance, during technical training, WPAs can encourage instructors to engage in a critical perspective by analyzing the limitations of the LMS or the policing aspects of the LMS and discussing how to address limitations. Following Jeff Rice's (2007) assertion that WPAs must differentiate from the use of a tool and "rhetorical application of a tool" in administrative actions (p. 103), WPAs might consider having conversations about the social, political, and educational implications and underpinnings of a program technology such as an LMS--reflecting the more critical approach advocated by Selber; this can help teachers better set up the tool, explain its purpose to students, or perhaps find other technologies to accomplish certain tasks. WPAs can also encourage instructors to have students participate in forums within their LMSs and talk to them about the ethics of negotiating these discussions. This engages students in critical thinking and rhetorical awareness, important aims of writing courses, and it helps students see how digital technologies mediate and shape their communication practices. These suggestions can go beyond the LMS to other digital composing tools teachers or students may be introduced to. WPAs might also consider how and when chosen program technologies can be altogether counter-productive in educational settings, which was not addressed often in survey responses.
For instance, during technical training, WPAs can encourage instructors to engage in a critical perspective by analyzing the limitations of the LMS or the policing aspects of the LMS and discussing how to address limitations. Following Jeff Rice's (2007) assertion that WPAs must differentiate from the use of a tool and "rhetorical application of a tool" in administrative actions (p. 103), WPAs might consider having conversations about the social, political, and educational implications and underpinnings of a program technology such as an LMS--reflecting the more critical approach advocated by Selber; this can help teachers better set up the tool, explain its purpose to students, or perhaps find other technologies to accomplish certain tasks. WPAs can also encourage instructors to have students participate in forums within their LMSs and talk to them about the ethics of negotiating these discussions. This engages students in critical thinking and rhetorical awareness, important aims of writing courses, and it helps students see how digital technologies mediate and shape their communication practices. These suggestions can go beyond the LMS to other digital composing tools teachers or students may be introduced to. WPAs might also consider how and when chosen program technologies can be altogether counter-productive in educational settings, which was not addressed often in survey responses.
Another way in which functional perspectives came to the fore in the survey was when the WPAs explained their multiliteracies rankings. A majority of the WPAs discussed digital technologies as being most important as research tools. While this is a practical and useful reminder, technologies again tended to be described as neutral tools rather than artifacts to be questioned. To extend students' uses of technologies for research, administrators can recommend that instructors engage students in discussions of the credibility and validity of various online sources. WPAs in my study tended to focus more on citation rather than evaluation when discussing ethical approaches in their multiliteracies rankings, but careful evaluation of the credibility of sources is an ethical approach advocated by Coley (2012) that can bolster students' research skills. Instructors can also encourage students to understand how different university libraries have access to different journals and databases, and some of these decisions are related to the finances of the university, ultimately affecting students' access to quality research. WPAs can also encourage instructors to teach students to use the advanced search features of library databases, show them Boolean logic, or instruct them in how to configure Google Scholar preferences or curate sources using a social bookmarking tool. While these activities are related to the positive framing of functional literacy described by Selber, because they involve students in learning advanced features of technologies, encouraging analysis of the tools by having students discuss their limitations and possibilities can also help students think more carefully about these tools as well and help them generate ideas. For example, using a social bookmarking tool to aggregate secondary research sources can simply increase efficiency or make organization easier, but it can also help students build connections among sources by establishing folksonomies.
Other WPAs made comments that they were concerned some individuals in their programs “treat the technology as invisible and only acknowledge it when it doesn't function right.” Drawing on Langdon Winner, Selber (2004) argued that constructing technologies as invisible tools "discourages users from contemplating the mediating role of computers and their multifarious impact on daily life" (p. 40). The discussions I have described above, particularly related to LMSs, can make technologies more visible in a program. Related more to the classroom, a critical analysis of a web-based composing program like Piktochart, or of a given search engine or website, could help students analyze the political and economic dimensions of a given technology. In my own courses, I have used a "critical technology analysis" assignment for a service-learning project in a professional writing course. (Below, I share the assignment sheet, which others are free to use and adapt.)
Other WPAs made comments that they were concerned some individuals in their programs “treat the technology as invisible and only acknowledge it when it doesn't function right.” Drawing on Langdon Winner, Selber (2004) argued that constructing technologies as invisible tools "discourages users from contemplating the mediating role of computers and their multifarious impact on daily life" (p. 40). The discussions I have described above, particularly related to LMSs, can make technologies more visible in a program. Related more to the classroom, a critical analysis of a web-based composing program like Piktochart, or of a given search engine or website, could help students analyze the political and economic dimensions of a given technology. In my own courses, I have used a "critical technology analysis" assignment for a service-learning project in a professional writing course. (Below, I share the assignment sheet, which others are free to use and adapt.)
Critical Analysis Assignment by Jenna Sheffield on Scribd
Even for WPAs who programmatically encourage the analysis of digital texts, the artifacts of focus discussed in the survey were existing websites, documentaries, and images, rather than the computers, software programs, phones, or other technologies used to compose the digital texts. Critically questioning composing technologies helps students develop critical thinking skills related to the digital arguments that surround them daily and to understand how they are being constructed and influenced as consumers. An assignment such as the the one I share here can engage students in this thinking. WPAs can support instructors by providing examples of assignments such as this one (in training, on a program website) and explaining the purpose. They could also, as a survey respondent shared in my study, support instructors in the implementation of a digital assignment by asking instructors in training to compose a digital text similar to one they plan to ask their students to compose. A group discussion of the composing process could help instructors see the benefits and limitations of the technology they are working with and question if there are ways in which the technology they have chosen could benefit or limit the students’ growth as communicators.
Of course, I am talking here about assignments that require digital composing, but my survey found that while rhetorical literacies are valued by WPAs, most do not require instructors to assign a digital composing project. While engaging students in rhetorical literacy requires positioning them as producers, there are challenges to enforcing a digital assignment, which are not to be taken lightly. These include access, instructor resistance or hesitance, or the WPA's concerns about her own authority. Making an effort to resolve these issues is a lofty goal for busy WPAs with other important commitments. Respondents committed to digital literacy, however, have worked toward resolving these issues in various ways. For instance, some WPAs from my study have tried to alleviate access issues by writing grants or helping instructors write grants to purchase technologies for a course assignment or by working with upper administration to require a course fee that enables the program to fund a technology lab. To help assuage instructors who are resistant or feel they do not have the technological expertise, other WPAs have turned to asking knowledgeable graduate students to lead technology workshops, and with graduate students earning a line on their curricula vitae for leading or attending, administrators can keep costs low while still providing support. To ease the transition into a required assignment, a few of the survey respondents mentioned that they give instructors freedom in terms of the technologies they use or the type of assignments they require. For instance, a few stated that while they do require a digital assignment, they might ask instructors to have students recast an argument from a print essay into a new genre, and students can choose a digital genre with which they are already familiar. This can alleviate certain resistances, such as instructors feeling they do not have the technological knowledge to teach a digital composing assignment.
Of course, I am talking here about assignments that require digital composing, but my survey found that while rhetorical literacies are valued by WPAs, most do not require instructors to assign a digital composing project. While engaging students in rhetorical literacy requires positioning them as producers, there are challenges to enforcing a digital assignment, which are not to be taken lightly. These include access, instructor resistance or hesitance, or the WPA's concerns about her own authority. Making an effort to resolve these issues is a lofty goal for busy WPAs with other important commitments. Respondents committed to digital literacy, however, have worked toward resolving these issues in various ways. For instance, some WPAs from my study have tried to alleviate access issues by writing grants or helping instructors write grants to purchase technologies for a course assignment or by working with upper administration to require a course fee that enables the program to fund a technology lab. To help assuage instructors who are resistant or feel they do not have the technological expertise, other WPAs have turned to asking knowledgeable graduate students to lead technology workshops, and with graduate students earning a line on their curricula vitae for leading or attending, administrators can keep costs low while still providing support. To ease the transition into a required assignment, a few of the survey respondents mentioned that they give instructors freedom in terms of the technologies they use or the type of assignments they require. For instance, a few stated that while they do require a digital assignment, they might ask instructors to have students recast an argument from a print essay into a new genre, and students can choose a digital genre with which they are already familiar. This can alleviate certain resistances, such as instructors feeling they do not have the technological knowledge to teach a digital composing assignment.
For WPAs who do not want to or cannot intervene at the level of assignments, having critical Student Learning Outcomes (SLOs) may allow instructors to teach to their strengths while still meeting digital aims, also allowing WPAs to adopt an approach that goes beyond the functional. As a brief example, an SLO from a program in my study was written as follows:
Another important point to make is that less than half of the WPAs indicated that functional literacies were the responsibility of their writing program. I used Selber's positive framing of functional literacies to construct the multiliteracies questions, which included teaching students how to use digital technologies in order to achieve educational goals, to effectively manage online workspaces, and use advanced software, web-based programs, and/or apps. Thus, it may be that we overlook these skills or do not value them, but if we value critical and rhetorical literacies, functional skills may also need to be part of writing program, depending on students' prior knowledge, so that they can build on these functional skills in critical and rhetorical ways.
- Students will "use technological tools to find information."
- Students will explore the potentials and limitations of various technologies for information retrieval.”
Another important point to make is that less than half of the WPAs indicated that functional literacies were the responsibility of their writing program. I used Selber's positive framing of functional literacies to construct the multiliteracies questions, which included teaching students how to use digital technologies in order to achieve educational goals, to effectively manage online workspaces, and use advanced software, web-based programs, and/or apps. Thus, it may be that we overlook these skills or do not value them, but if we value critical and rhetorical literacies, functional skills may also need to be part of writing program, depending on students' prior knowledge, so that they can build on these functional skills in critical and rhetorical ways.