Nydahl, Joel. "Critical Thinking and Computer-Mediated Writing Instruction." The Critical Thinking Workshop. Ed. Toni-Lee
          Capossela. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1992.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________
 

          As recently as 1986, a writing teacher related how her English department "dragged its first-year composition program into the computer age" (Simpson 11). Perhaps instigated by an early fear that computers might replace teachers, that reluctance is now an anomaly. Even those teaching in writing programs within traditional English departments have come to understand that the question now is not whether to use computers in the writing class but how to use them wisely--not simply "as tutoring or editing machines, but as writing tools, at the center of an intelligent and imaginative curriculum" (Nash and Schwartz 45).

          In general, this challenge means using computers in ways that will encourage critical thinking. In the words of Anthony Petrosky, if students are to become critical thinkers, they must engage in "interpretive encounters" with the material they are studying, encounters "different from rote learning," which simply "emphasizes . . . memorization or the use of algorithms which guarantee correct solutions if properly applied" (2). Instead, as a recent study points out, students need to participate in cognitive activities which stress "(1) integrating and synthesizing different bodies of information, (2) making critical judgments, and (3) developing and testing hypotheses--in other words, the kinds of "activities generally identified in the literature on problem-solving" (Patterson and Smith 82).

          In the writing class, that prescription would seem to translate, respectively, into activities which demand that students (1) deal both with feedback from others and with new judgments of their own; (2) evaluate the worth of various possibilities for content, organization, and expression; and (3) try out those writing and revision strategies that seem most promising. Teaching critical thinking to novice writers, in other words, means helping them learn not simply the "know-what" but the "know-how" of writing (Foster 119); it means helping them move from being "knowledge tellers to knowledge transformers" (Kozma 33).

          Ironically, for those of us in computerized classrooms who want to make knowledge transformers of our students, the most serious challenge is to surmount the computer's primary advantage: its ability to use, and its propensity to encourage, algorithmic thinking and rote learning. To enable inexperienced writers to become flexible, innovative, and self-reliant ones--writers capable of taking over their own writing instruction--we must use a tool closely associated with algorithmic tasks in such a way that we encourage a non-algorithmic approach to learning and expose our students to more than drill-and-practice programs which provide, in the words of Ann Duin, only "rigidly logical, sequential, lock-step control patterns" (78).

          Ultimately, however, when we talk about a tool succeeding or failing to promote non-algorithmic thinking, the computer itself isn't the tool we mean at all. A computer, after all, is a tool only to the extent that a brain is. Both are incomplete: One needs a mind, the other a program, in order to function. Using tools in the writing class to help students become independent thinkers and writers, then, means giving students the "right" writing software--software, I will claim, which doesn't detach responsibility from self or encourage dependence on external authority. In addition to giving students suitable writing software, however, we must also teach them how to use the new tools effectively. Finally, and somewhat paradoxically, we must make students tool-independent.

          This last criterion is an important one. Teachers who are interested in developing self-reliant writers should not teach writing strategies that aren't translatable from computers to yellow pads and pencils. Those writing teachers skeptical about using computers as a teaching tool frequently argue that "there's nothing students can do with computers that they can't do without them." Exactly. That's precisely (if only partially) the point. Users of tools shouldn't be shackled to them. As I've pointed out elsewhere, as with a Nautilus machine, a computer "should extend students' powers" rather than make them dependent on it (Nydahl 906)

          As we learn from other essays in this collection, critical thinking means a number of things--among them, being "comfortable with ambiguity" (Capossela ??) and with "consider[ing] an issue from many sides" (Zeiger ??). But if critical thinking predisposes independence and autonomy--and that would seem self-evident--one said to be skilled in that area would have to be able to apply principles, exercise strategies, and carry out operations learned under one set of circumstances when he or she encounters a different set.

          In the writing class, then, critical thinking would imply the ability of a student to carry out composing and revising strategies learned in a computerized classroom to writing situations met in a computerless environment. Writing teachers need to be sensitive to that principle. Simply put, inexperienced writers need to develop "cognitive residue"--that is, they need to "internalize certain operations and strategies, explicitly encountered while interacting with a computer tool, such that [these strategies] can come to serve as [generalized] cognitive tools" (Salomon 2).

          In this essay, I'll discuss how a number of college writing teachers use computers to develop students' critical thinking skills. Not surprisingly, their methods vary. Some call upon the untapped teaching potential of word processors; some write their own computer-assisted-instructional (CAI) writing software; some adapt CAI programs written by others; and some use local-area and distance networking to encourage collaborative learning.

The Philosophical Significance of Software

          Writing teachers who want to develop critical thinking skills need to be concerned about possible deep-level effects--about what might happen in minds--when writers use computers, especially when they use ancillary writing tools.

          In Electric Language: A Philosophical Study of Word Processing, Michael Heim asks whether "thought itself change[s] [when] the mind works with symbols under different conditions" (24). Since, as Plato knew, "writing detaches memory from speech," is it possible that some CAI software--rigid drill-and-practice, textbook-on-a-screen software, for example, or programs that give a five-page single-spaced printout of advice to a perplexed student who's written a three-page, double-spaced paper--tends to detach responsibility from self? Is most CAI software likely to stultify or enhance writers' imaginations? Will it discourage writers to take chances or encourage them? Is it possible that inexperienced writers who use (certain kinds of) CAI software will become dependent on the programs? Might they be inclined to surrender control to the external authority of the program? Might they ask, "Is the program the expert or am I?" or "Whose writing is it?" Even if questions like these never occur consciously, might they end up embedded in the psyches of inexperienced writers?

          Heim's question about conditions changing the nature of thought is, of course, a rhetorical one. Certainly, the writing tools which students use will internalize processes, values, and ways of seeing. Certainly, these tools will affect not only the texts students produce but also the ways in which they understand the nature of text, of writing, and of thinking. As teachers of writing, we need to make certain that these internalizations encourage and reinforce strategies and techniques that make for self-reliant thinkers and writers. To produce self-reliant writers, we need to put our students in positions where they have to take responsibility for their own texts. To position students for achieving self-reliance, we need to free them, as much as possible, from dependence on writing aids; and, when writing aids are called for, we need to furnish nonprescriptive aids which prompt in a open-ended manner.

          As we'll see, one way to accomplish these goals is to call upon the hidden potential of many off-the-shelf word processors to emulate CAI routines. Besides avoiding the expense of special writing software, utilizing such CAI potential has at least three other advantages: (1) Teachers can "build" customized writing aids right into their students' word processors; (2) teachers can create writing aids which don't interrupt writing processes by requiring students to exit the text-entry mode in order to enter a special editing mode; and (3) teachers can create writing aids which are passive, nonprescriptive and open-ended--aids which encourage students to take questioning stances and test alternative possibilities for texts.

New Ways of Seeing Writing Software

          Word processors represent a virtually untapped resource for teaching critical-thinking skills. Even though computers in general may encourage algorithmic thinking and rote learning, the very nature of word processing--including, but not limited to, the fluidity and evanescence of the text, the concomitant ease of imagining and executing revisions, and the degree of "play" generally encouraged--tends to undermine the kind of "rigidly logical, sequential, lock-step control patterns" of thinking which Duin warns about (78). To see and understand what is meant by the CAI potential of word processors, however, we need to re-place them (that is, "place them again") in the scheme of writing software.

          Gail Hawisher argues that, since the way we classify software indicates how we place "computers in the context of instruction," changing the paradigms we use to conceptualize software can change the ways we think about the roles which software plays. To illustrate how this insight helps us re-place word processors, let's consider one of the best known writing-software classification systems, Robert Taylor's. Taylor's categories are tutors (software which teaches something), tools (software which helps users accomplish something), and tutees (software which can be taught something) (Hawisher). Examples of each, in order, might be Writer's Helper, WordPerfect, and Hypercard.

          But what a program primarily is should not obscure what it potentially is. We shouldn't allow ourselves to be trapped by limiting paradigms--such as the false dichotomy which sees word processing programs and erasable ball-point pens as "just tools for doing something" but sees "instructional computer materials [as] tools for teaching and learning something" (Southwell 223). The trouble here is that software classified as one kind can often be transformed into another. Word processors, for example, which we tend to think of only as powerful tools, can be transformed, first, into tutees and, then, into tutors by their being "taught" to carry out new and unexpected operations that, in turn, can be used to teach writers.

          The potential of a word processor to become a tutee or a tutor resides mainly in its ability to execute macros. It's helpful to think of macros as a kind of programming language--one that's very powerful, yet easily accessible, even to computer novices. More specifically, a macro is "a way to record and quickly play back sequences of keystrokes" (Rinearson 463); these sequences can be of any length, can represent any combination of characters or commands, and can be of great complexity--even to the point of mimicking routines and performing operations on text which we usually associate only with special add-on CAI software.

Utilizing the Teaching Potential of Word Processors

          Using macros to program and carry out CAI-like operations has at least two cognitive advantages--one for teachers and one for students. Both advantages involve the "higher order thinking skills of synthesis and evaluation": First (to modify and expand an analysis by Hawisher), in order to teach a word processor well, the teacher "must first create a full understanding of what it is he or she wants [the word processor and the students] to learn"; second, because of the passive and nonprescriptive nature of macro routines, students must take responsibility for their own texts.

          Here's a scenario from a first-year composition class at a college of business and management whose curriculum, since students need to write documents such as company policies and executive summaries, stresses a somewhat narrowly conceived mode of transactional writing. The teacher has introduced a sequence of thinking and writing strategies which he encourages students to carry out in the process of coming up with topics on which to write, deriving theses, developing ideas, composing, revising globally and locally as they move through drafts, and editing for style and correctness. The teacher has also created a number of macros--applicable irrespective of writing content and in no predetermined sequence--which will enable students to apply the strategies quickly and easily.

          Bill has finished a draft of an essay on the presence of British troops in Northern Ireland. He's been taught to check for unity and organization of major ideas by evaluating a topic-sentence outline. To produce one, he activates a macro which carries out the following operations: (1) splits the screen; (2) copies the thesis sentence into the bottom window; (3) and copies all topic sentences, in order, after the thesis sentence. On screen (or in hard copy), the result looks like this:

          Macros can also help Bill edit for grammar, punctuation, and usage by marking instances of potential surface-level problems. For example, if his teacher has noted a lack of action verbs in Bill's other writing, Bill might decide to run a macro that marks all instances of the verb to be, as in the following example:

          The expectation is that by being put in charge of teaching himself, Bill will develop what Gavriel Salomon calls "skill internalization." What Bill "accomplish[es] today with help and guidance," he ought to "be able to accomplish tomorrow, through the internalization of the help, on his . . . own" (2). In other words, Bill has used a computerized writing tool that stresses--to once again use Robert Kozma's terms--being a knowledge transformer rather than a knowledge teller (33).

Using CAI Writing Software

          While the teaching potential of word processors can encourage the development of critical thinking abilities, CAI software also has a role to play. Although most early CAI programs reflected an algorithmic approach to learning--drill-and-practice software, of course, being the easiest to write--increasingly, programs began to appear which "engage[d] students in thinking, writing, organizing, and synthesizing material" (Hawisher). This approach grew out of a commitment to the idea that students should "experience the creation of ideas and knowledge" and, thus, develop "their metacognitive as well as cognitive abilities" (Montague 7).

          Before committing ourselves to specific programs, however, we need to ask what identifies pedagogically sound CAI writing software.  Literature in the field of critical thinking makes it clear that CAI software of any kind should encourage a "self-awareness of thinking and learning" (Patterson and Smith 81) and should focus on the "procedures in making choices . . . rather [than on] the making of a [particular] choice" (D'Angelo 19). In short, CAI software should be open-ended and nonprescriptive. And it should prompt, not preach.

          Among the CAI software most likely to meet these criteria--and help students like Bill gain the insights and master the strategies they'll need to be competent revisors of their own writing--are what Stephen Marcus terms "second-generation programs" (writer aids) and "third-generation programs" (author systems). Second-generation programs focus "on one or the other stage of the basic composing-process model" (135); third-generation programs usually address all of the so-called stages by providing "direct instruction for prewriting, a word processor, and editing and rewriting aids" and by letting "writers move . . . freely among the various stages of the writing process" (136).

          Without recommending one third-generation program over others, we can get an overview of these programs by looking closely at one of the best known, Writer's Helper, by William Wresch. Writer's Helper assists students in finding topics, viewing topics from different perspectives, organizing ideas, adapting writing to specific audiences, and polishing. Properly used, and accompanied by informed writing instruction, Writer's Helper, like the best of other programs of this kind, encourages critical thinking by making students responsible for their own texts. When using Writer's Helper, students themselves must determine which tools are best at which times, which information the program should give them, and how to respond to the information they receive. Of primary importance, most of that information is descriptive rather than prescriptive; and most of the prompts are suggestive rather than imperative. In the words of its creator, there's no ideal "essay-in-a-box" for students to find; nor does the program claim to have answers for all questions which might arise in every writing situation. In dealing with word frequencies, diction level, and style, Writer's Helper reflects the same pedagogical commitment to self-reliance which undergirds the word-processing macros: It simply performs calculations and presents results which students can adopt, adapt, or ignore.

          Finally, in judging the potential of CAI writing software to encourage critical thinking, we need to look beyond the programs themselves and ask how they're used. Since many second- and third-generation programs can be customized--for example, by "expand[ing] the list of phrases that the program searches for and [editing] its suggestions" (Thomas and Thomas 18)--teachers can skirt or minimize problems in writing pedagogy and make programs more class- or writer-specific. Some programs, in fact, such as Editor (Thiesmeyer and Thiesmeyer), encourage customizing.

Using Local-area and Distance Networking

          Influenced by both postmodern pedagogy and theories of collaborative learning, many teachers have come to believe that knowledge "is something people make as they work and write and discuss together"--"the result of a community solving meaningful problems with language" (Petrosky 3). These teachers repudiate proscenium-like classroom structures--where the teacher, standing in front, acts as a conduit for all knowledge--and "notions of education" which encourage "teachers talk[ing], students listen[ing]; teachers' contributions [being] privileged; [and] students respond[ing] in predictable, teacher-pleasing ways" (Hawisher and Selfe 55).

          Recently, some writing teachers have moved toward using networked computers to validate "collaboration, intertextuality, and the polyphonous voices of many in negotiating meaning through writing" (Hawisher 4). This use of computers would seem to be a natural one since, as Marjorie Montague has pointed out, "technology-based education moves the educational process from a linear model to a multifaceted, dynamic, and interactive one" (9). As leaders within this movement, Thomas Barker and Fred Kemp have argued for a "postmodern pedagogy for the writing classroom" which emphasizes enfranchising the student by means of "communal . . . knowledge making" (2). Barker and Kemp claim that since, in traditional writing classes, students "often fail to 'internalize'" the information presented to them or to "transfer the information into productive behaviors" (7), writing teachers need to stress more than mere "knowledge transfusion" (10). Believing, as others have before them, that "we need to teach students not 'what' they need to know, but 'how' they will produce what they need to know when relevant occasions arise," Barker and Kemp propose a pedagogy which emphasizes "practice in recognizing situations in which new knowledge is required and . . . in producing knowledge by negotiating information within contexts" (9-10).

          Based on "network theory," Barker and Kemp's model utilizes a computerized classroom in which all computers are linked in a nonhierarchical fashion by a collaborative local-area-network (LAN) program. This program, called Interchange, allows an entire class to transact synchronous communication among all members, none of whom are privileged. In fact, a teacher who wants to participate in the give-and-take of classroom discussion must get online and exchange messages with students. While students read a common text--comments by classmates--in the top window of a split screen, they are able to enter remarks in the bottom window and, when ready, share their ideas by posting their remarks to the class. The posted remarks then become part of the common, expanding text which participants can scroll through, save, or print. As Barker and Kemp put it, when using Interchange, "the writer reads the shared text of his classmates [and] becomes . . . aware of how his own ideas and his own presentation fit into the context of his particular discourse community" (18).

          Some teachers have expanded beyond the restricted scope of local-area networks and enabled their students to critique the ideas and texts of students at other institutions by means of a distance network such as Bitnet. Believing that students often have little understanding of what it means to write to real audiences and that writing to strangers over a distance network would encourage students to "develop fully supported ideas" (Marx 26), Michael Marx (at Skidmore College [Saratoga Springs, NY]) and I (at Babson College [Wellesley, Mass.]) had our students exchange texts. Prefatory to their handing in final versions of essays on the common subject of terrorism, students twice exchanged drafts and critique letters. Marx and I wanted to go beyond what we saw as two inherent limitations of synchronous networks: relatively short comments by writers; and an at-best-tenuous relationship between, on one hand, the extemporaneous writing usually fostered by synchronous communication and, on the other, the formal expository writing which students have to master in order to succeed in academia. Since our students would be writing to strangers to whom they owed neither intellectual nor emotional allegiance, we wanted an arrangement which would encourage an objectively critical stance and emphasize "the role of individual students as knowledge makers" (Barker and Kemp 17).

          That computers can be effective tools for developing critical thinking, collaborative learning, and audience awareness is, of course, not a new idea. Marjorie Montague, for example, has written of using computers to "enhance the level of cognitive engagement of students by creating a rate of interaction more typical of small group learning" (18) and of helping writers "develop audience awareness by focusing on communication as the primary purpose of writing" (39). What is new, however, is the extent to which recent experiments with various kinds of networking stand as repudiations of the criticism that "using computers pedagogically in the classroom" removes students "from the effective instructional activity of the group [simply] to stare at video screens and to perform automated drill and practice" (Barker and Kemp 16).

What the Future Holds

          The approaches to teaching critical thinking skills which this essay investigates are practical possibilities for many of us because they are electronic variations of classroom techniques we've used before. Only local-area and distance networking require an investment beyond computers and relatively simple and inexpensive software. Some teacher-researchers, however, are using computers in ways which are not practical for most of us today--but may be the day after tomorrow.

          Diane Balestri, for example, has her students learn how to program in an artificial language. She believes that the intellectual effort needed to "make a program work right" can be harnessed to improve students' writing skills (36-37). By actually programming, for example, students learn that a program must be mechanically correct for it to work, that it "works to accomplish something," and that a problem must be understood before a program can be written to solve it (37-39).

          If there is a "wave of the future" in developing students' critical thinking skills in writing classes, it is probably hypertext. For example, Michael Joyce's, Stuart Moulthrup's, and Nancy Kaplan's innovative work with interactive fiction will undoubtedly have direct classroom applications for writing teachers. Of more immediate interest--simply because it represents an attempt to break the "rigidly logical, sequential, lock-step control patterns" still evidenced in much software--are the speculations of Fred Kemp. In attempting to go beyond the work of Hugh Burns in delivering "open-ended instructional programming," Kemp believes it's "possible that a hypercard interactive questionnaire, with its extraordinary flexibility of screen action, [can] move considerably beyond sequential prompts" and make possible "a quasi-natural language interface." Such software might be able to demonstrate "interesting things about the way people generate knowledge about a topic, especially if the programs could have a feedback mechanism built in which would capture decision patterns on the part of the user" (Kemp).

          This essay has only plunged to the surface of its subject. It has not, for example, speculated on what researchers in the field of artificial intelligence might develop tomorrow. It has, however, made clear that writing teachers down in the trenches here and now, working today within the confines of limited expertise and limited resources, can do a great deal with computers to ensure that their students are better writers because they are better thinkers and better thinkers because they are better writers.

Barker, Thomas T., and Fred O. Kemp. "Network Theory: A Postmodern Pedagogy for the
       Writing Classroom." Computers and Community: Teaching Composition In the Twenty-first
       Century. Ed. Carolyn Handa. Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Boynton/Cook, 1990.

Collier, Richard M. "The Word Processor and Revision Strategies. College Composition and
       Communication 34.2 (1983): 149-155.

Cox, Diana. "Developing Software for Freshman Composition Students." Collegiate Microcomputer
       6 (1989): 161-164.

Crew, Louie. "Style-Checker as Tonic, Not Tranquilizer." Journal of Advanced Composition
       8 (1988): 66-70.

D'Angelo, Edward. The Teaching of Critical Thinking. Philosophical Currents 1. Amsterdam: B. R.
       Grüner, 1971.

Dennet, Daniel C. "The Computer as a Trojan Horse," lecture, Babson College, Wellesley,
       Massachusetts, on November 17, 1987.

Duin, Anne. "Computer Exercises to Encourage Rethinking and Revision." Computers and
       Composition 4 (1987): 66-105.

Foster, David. A Primer for Writing Teachers: Theories, Theorists, Issues, Problems. Upper
       Montclair, NJ: Boynton/Cook, 1983.

Gerrard, Lisa. Ed. Writing at Century's End: Essays on Computer-Assisted Composition. New
       York: Random House, 1987.

Handa, Carolyn. Ed. Computers and Community: Teaching Composition In the Twenty-first
       Century. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1990.

Hawisher, Gail E. "Blinding Insights: Classification Schemes and Software for Literacy Instruction."
       Computers and Literacy. Eds. Susan Hilligoss and Cynthia Selfe. New York: Modern
       Language Association, forthcoming.

Hawisher, Gail E., and Cynthia L. Selfe. "The Rhetoric of Technology and the Electronic Writing
       Class." College Composition and Communication 42.1 (1991): 55-65.

Heim, Michael. Electric Language: A Philosophical Study of Word Processing. New Haven and
       London: Yale University, 1987.

[Authors]. Interchange. Software program. [City, State}: Deadelus Software Company, ????

Kemp, Fred. Megabyte University. Computer network. August 2, 1991.

Kozma, Robert B. "Computer-Based Writing Tools and the Cognitive Needs of Novice
       Writers." Computers and Composition 8.2 (1991): 31-45.

LeBlanc, Paul. "Roundtable: Computers and Composing: New Paradigms for Instructional Design."
       Conference on College Composition and Communication. Chicago, 22 March 1990.

Marcus, Stephen. "Computers in Thinking, Writing, and Literature." Writing at Century's End:
       Essays on Computer-Assisted Composition. Ed. Lisa Gerrard. New York: Random House,
       1987: 131-140.

Marx, Michael Steven. "Distant Writers, Distant Critics, and Close Readings: Linking Composition
       Classes Through a Peer-Critiquing Network." Computers and Composition 8.1 (1990): 23-39.

Montague, Marjorie. Computers, Cognition, and Writing Instruction. Albany, NY: State University
       of New York, 1990.

Nash, James, and Lawrence Schwartz. "Computers and the Writing Process." Collegiate
       Microcomputer. 5.1 (1987): 45-48.

Nydahl, Joel. "Teaching Word Processors to Be CAI Programs." College English 52.8 (1990):
       904-15.

---. "Writing Instruction Software with HBJ Writer." Research in Word Processing Newsletter
       (1986): 12-16.

Patterson, Janice. H., and Marshall S. Smith. "The Role of Computers in Higher-Order Thinking."
       Microcomputers and Higher Education, Part I. Eds. Jack A. Culbertson and Luvern L.
       Cunningham. National Society for the Study of Education. Chicago: University of Chicago
       Press, 1986. 81-108.

Petrosky, Anthony. "Critical Thinking: Qu' est-ce que c'est?" The English Record. 23.3 (1986): 2-5.

Rinearson, Peter. Word Processing Power with Microsoft Word, 3rd ed. Redmond, WA: Microsoft
       Press, 1989.

Salomon, Gavriel. "Discontinuity Between Controlled Study and Implementation of Computers in
       Classrooms: A Letter to a Young Friend." Technology and Learning 3.3 (1989): 1-5.

Simpson, Jeanne. "Word Processing in Freshman Composition." Computer-Assisted Composition
       Journal 3.1 (1988): 11-16.

Southwell, Michael G. "Appropriate Uses for Instructional Software." Collegiate Microcomputer 4.3
       (1986): 223-227.

Strohmer, Joanne C. "Are We Using Technology to Train Pigeons or Thinkers?" Principal 67.2
       (1987): 6-7.

Taylor, Robert. The Computer in the School: Tutor, Tool, and Tutee. New York: Teachers College
       Press, 1980.

Thiesmeyer, Elaine, and John E. Editor. Software program. New York: Modern Language
       Association, 1990.

Thomas, Gordon P., and Dene Kay Thomas. "Judging and Adapting Style-Analysis Software."
       Computers and Composition 8.2 (1991): 17-30.

Wresch, William. Writer's Helper. Software program. Iowa City: CONDUIT/The University of
       Iowa. 1991.