Because "Blake" is a pseudonym, we are unable to make final claims about changes
in Finn's or Amber's positions despite the similarity of Blake's and Amber's
ideas. We can note, however, that the original position favoring a psychological
viewpoint went unchanged when placed in a newsgroup conversation with another
class. The same position played itself out differently in the local class
discussion. Perhaps it was the feeling of community and shared goals that
allowed Blake to shift ground more in the InterChange; no longer "threatened" by
unfamiliar readers or an unfamiliar setting, he/she could open up to other views.
In some ways, then, expanding the discussion to include two classes
paradoxically limited the number of perspectives. Any particular individual's
perspective was channeled into a limiting identification of "me/us" that was
opposed to "them." The InterChange forum, on the other hand, encouraged the
individuation of each student's voice, so the number of perspectives broke down
into variegated distinctions among "me," "he," "she," and so on. In our use of
it, InterChange seemed conducive to negotiating a diversity of perspectives
productively; perhaps the medium itself is suited for this purpose. While
authors and their messages are disembodied in this forum, in most cases students
are at least all present in the same room. Additionally, the spontaneity of
real-time interaction in InterChange makes it possible to press students to
consider alternative ideas and clarify their arguments on the fly, increasing
their immediate accountability in the discussion.
If we were going to implement newsgroups in literature-survey courses again, we
would introduce them to our students differently. Foremost would be efforts to
familiarize students better with the newsgroup format, our goals for using it,
and the students in the other classes with whom they would be corresponding. For
example, before having students enter a newsgroup, we would discuss common rules
of "netiquette" (Internet etiquette) that can help keep online interactions from
devolving into flaming. In addition, we would have students interact in the
newsgroup for a longer period of time to increase their mutual familiarity; if
possible, we would even plan our full syllabi together and use the newsgroup
throughout an entire semester. Having the members of the different classes meet
one another face to face at least once could also decrease possible newsgroup
alienation. Finally, we would emphasize newsgroups' function as a brainstorming
medium that all individual participants can use to explore their ideas.
That is, we would avoid having our separate classes discuss material
before they contribute newsgroup messages so as to minimize the initial
perception of predetermined identity according to class "blocks." On this count,
after we introduce students to writing and sending newsgroup posts in class, we
might ask them to continue doing so outside class, on their own time, so
that each participant's voice is relatively distinct and does not necessarily
appear in a set of messages composed by fellow class members.
In conclusion, it would be wrong to make large claims about newsgroups and
InterChange based on the limited evidence from our classes' exchanges. What we
can say is that our examples suggest productive ways to apply the two forums in a
course favoring multi-perspective interpretation. Our evidence also shows that
whatever the forum, pedagogies favoring diversity and discussion will inherently
involve issues of conflict. Debates and disputes in media like newsgroups and
InterChange can have productive results, especially if they are managed
appropriately. Our largest conclusion is that strategies for productively
negotiating difference are crucial to the success of multiple-perspective
pedagogies in conventional or computer-aided classrooms.
| EJournal Home Page | Vol. 2, No. 1: Contents |
Computers, Writing, Rhetoric and Literature