CCCC vs. Faigley as the Proverbial Tension between Theory and Practice

If it is okay, I would actually like to start with my impression of the CCCC Position Statement, and then pinpoint the places where Faigley's argument directly critiques it.

With no official segue, I'll just dive right in. I did not find any large bones to pick with the 5 assumptions. I did notice, however, that they sound a lot like WSU's learning goals involving information literacy. Also, the problem I do notice with the assumptions is the fact that students are not often "reflective practitioners" of technology, nor do they often "apply digital technologies to solve substantial problems." Yes, that is what we as educators want them to do. However, as technology develops, use becomes automatic and intuitive to the point that deep reflection and problem solving increase in difficulty, but are possible with the right amount of prodding.

I did, however, become skeptical of what I call the political campaign promises made in the list of what "administrators with responsibilities for writing programs" will do for students and faculty, especially "assur[ing] that all matriculated students have sufficient access to requisite technology," "assur[ing] that faculty have ready access to diverse forms of technical and professional development before and while teaching in digital environments." Et cetera, et cetera. However, the bummer is that WSU's Y2K Zzusis snafu is proof enough that these promises are often too large to keep. Also, many of these promises are contingent upon funds and budgets allowing for successful implementation of new technologies.

As a side note, I also found it interesting that they made such bold statements against machine scoring of writing. In Bill Condon's assessment class last fall, we discussed a lot of these issues in assessment, and I even delved deeper into some of it for my final project. Their statement against sounded a bit like "this is what we advocate as proper use of technology, but this is what we think is malevolent misuse, even though it might be a nice shortcut." It is like they could hear people's inner dialogues saying, "if only we could outsource essay grading to robots or other willing minions!" and CCCC was saying "Hell no don't even think about it!" And yet, sadly, that's basically what the SAT/ACT/GRE have morphed into doing. And universities have been battling this assessment issue ever since.

Faigley's lament about the abuse of resources and writing teachers brings the idealistic feel of the CCCC assumptions and promises back to reality. The first place where his critique directly contradicts the CCCC position statement is thus: "...providing venues for the discussion of public issues does not necessarily lead to a more informed public, increased civic engagement, or enhanced democracy" (Faigley, 36). In the context of CCCC, I take this to mean that getting students to think critically about technology by using technology in the classroom is still idealistic, considering that academic use of technology still differs in the intent to which students use technology during their free time. 

On page 39, Faigley asserts that "...Web sites need to be placed in a larger perspective. Pointing to their work as proof that digital literacy necessarily leads to democratic participation and civic engagement is another version of the good classroom leading to good society." I agree wholeheartedly, and hear the sentiment he argues against in the CCCC Position Statement. Just because the committee motions to include technology in academia, this does not mean that there is a relevant context or a constructive use beyond tinkering with different applications. The position statement presents some gaps between what they claim to provide, and how the provisions will lead to direct outcomes. As we all discussed in class today, interfaces like Blackboard, Angel, whatever require a lot of expertise, improvisation when they fail to work, and an institutional learning curve before they allow for more creativity and utility. Yeah....

                                                                      Works Cited
Faigley, Lester. "Literacy after the Revolution." College Composition and Communication 48.1 (1997): 30-43.

CCCC Position Statement on Teaching, Learning, and Assessing Writing in Digital Environments. Conference on College Composition and Communication. (2004).