Twittersation

The final chapter of Computers and the Teaching of Writing in American Higher Education 1979-1994: A History (Hawisher et al., 2006), which we abbreviate as The History Book), is called, “Our Colleagues Interact on a MOO.” The six “MOOers” involved were Eric Crump, Michael Day, Joyce Locke Carter, Johndan Johnson-Eilola, Becky Rickly, and Pamela Takayoshi. The chapter is a transcript of their conversation. Twenty years later the six reconvened for a discussion via Twitter (a Twittersation) about the (sub)field as they knew it then and saw it at the time of the conversation in 2014. The Twittersation was led by Jennifer Marlow and moved from talk about the state of the (sub)field to plans to return again to the venue of MediaMOO for further discussion.

The MOO discussion at the end of The History Book began in a similar place as the 2014 discussion provided here, with participants discussing their early involvement in the (sub)field. In The History Book conversation, there were mentions of Listservs (many long now defunct), “CAI folks” versus those who do word processing, and the issue of the digital divide. Rickly compared the coming together of computers and writing to pairing the chocolate with the peanut butter, and then asked whether or not the (sub)field is “real” (p. 292). Crump predicted the fading away of computers and writing “as we know it,” arguing rhetoric and technology had a stronger future ahead (p. 296). The participants discussed the (sub)field’s collegiality as a potential liability in the future because, as Crump pointed out, “the conventional rhetorical stance in academia conversations is confrontational.” However, he continued on to say, “but network environments have the *potential* to dislodge the default stance, eh? (p. 295).

The group also began brainstorming the beginnings of a kind of “Wyoming Resolution about grad students and technology” (p. 302). Johnson-Eilola suggested calling it “the DaedalusMOO resolution” (p. 302). This launched a discussion of the (sub)field’s responsibilities: teaching that literacy is a technology, promoting “techno-rhetoro-literacy” in society, and shaping the technology we use (p. 302). This morphed into a discussion about the relationship between technology and pedagogy. Carter stated that the computers and writing community made the “marriage” between computers and composition happen, and Rickly described it as the (sub)field’s responsibility to “see that they remain blissfully happy” (p. 303).

As in the 2014 Twittersation, the issue of tenure was raised and concern was expressed about how so much of what computers and writing teacher-scholars do is not measurable by typical tenure requirements.

The MOO conversation was punctuated by real life moments: Day heading off to bed, Crump dealing with his (kid, cat, dog??) peeing on the living room floor, and Johnson-Eilola’s dog barking hello.

The 2014 Twittersation, had fewer of these personal interactions, although Carter and Day threw in some waves for old time’s sake. The participants spent some time catching up—more than a few expressed that they no longer feel a part of the (sub)field, and those that remain active commented on recent trends and the “feel” of the Computers and Writing Conference. There was no longer discussion of word processing or the digital divide. Instead, there were conversations about Google glass and hacking, as well as comparisons between interacting via MOO and Twitter (MOO wins according to these six teacher-scholars).

This conversation can also be seen via Twitter using #CWconvo14. To view the full transcript, please scroll to the bottom of this page and view the More Twittersation page.