Jeremy Hunsinger and Leigh Graves Wolf are assigned to respond to this proposal.

for the eco-social framework, I'd suggest looking into Felix Guattari, perhaps even the bit of Deleuze and Guattari on production and anti-production, which I think would fit well with your critical assemblage.

It seems to me that it might be good to deconstruct your questions a bit, primarily because I think that your conceptual apparatus is a bit loose and could use bolstering with solid examples and definitions..... The goal of this response to enable you to pick and choose directions in which to build your analysis amongst the questions that i provide below, or the ones you are developing yourself.

"Can the English studies disciplines (not just the Computers and Writing Community) continue to provide learning spaces where students are repeatedly exposed to practical, ethical, and appropriate uses of new information technologies? Assuming that the consumerist compulsion for rapid development and strategic change stay constant, can we sustain our engagement with communication technologies?"

what is "English studies disciplines"? Kiger in the encyclopedia of education defines a discipline as "A discipline is defined as a recognized branch or segment of knowledge within the domain of rational learning.", so It would seem that the discipline of English, discipline of rhetoric/composition and what else might be included?

what is a "learning space"? I'd tend to think about Lefebvre's Production of Space, or Castell's work on spaces and flows in the network society. You might also be referring to a conceptual space or territory that must be constructed and defended, and then... to what end? this brings up the question of sustainability.

"practical, ethical, and appropriate uses of new information technologies" Appropriate use.... practical use..... ethical uses.... the first is a matter of control of technology, and that is probably exactly the opposite of what should be done, which is to encourage innovative, and creative uses. Practical use... to me reduces to efficient use, or economically justifiable use, unless you try to go the route of techne or craft and then you are tied into the gordion knot of concepts that becomes knowledge and wisdom. Ethical uses... that is where i would locate critical engagement, in the realm of what is right and what is good, ethics. the problem here is that we once again risk moving outside of critical engagement and into a controlled engagement ala Deleuze's Postscript on the society of control. At what point do the norms posited remove precisely what critical positionality is supposed to provide?

what are old information technologies? how are they different from new ones? what is the essential characteristic of information technologies, how did they arise, and what is their normative stance? whom do they serve? whom have they served? why might that be important when considering critical engagement?

"can we sustain our engagement with communication technologies?" indeed... can we? are we even critically engaging them now in the English disciplines? are there examples of that which are sustainable? to what end are we currently critically engaging them?

"techno-cultural literacy development, a space that is in danger of being abandoned to the entertainment industries" by implication, you think that these entertainment industries are not critically engaging? It might be good to check out things like garagegames or similar critical entertainment projects.... Yes there is a hegemonic seemingly uncritical culture industry, but there are also subalterns in the form of critically engaged producers of entertainment content. I see no problem producing literate subjects that partake in both arenas.

In the end, I suggest that the development of the critical framework is going to be key to the success of this paper. There are all kinds of possible directions to go in this. I would tend to drive it to the chaosophic ecological framework and entirely question the origins of the normative structure, but if you don't question them, then you should clearly explain the norms and goals of the critical engagement that you propose.

So I'm a student of Jim Gee's, and as such I'll join in and take small issue with the last part of your statement: "a discussion that will place the ES disciplines and 'writing' per se at the center of techno-cultural literacy development, a space that is in danger of being abandoned to the entertainment industries (Gee, 2003)." You nearly had me until this last line. ~.* Maybe I'm misreading you, but...

What troubles me about this statement is that it reflects what I believe is a common misreading of Gee's thesis, namely that entertainment (in Gee's case, videogames) replaces "literacy development" as you call it. On the contrary, Gee argues that videogames are "particularly good places" to help us better understand things like learning, motivation, cognition, social-semiotics, and literacy. He doesn't argue that games--or any entertainment media, for that matter--will replace books or any traditional literacy practices. Instead, new media will "sit beside them, interact with them, and change them and their role in society in various ways" (Gee, 2003). Games and new media will not gobble up schools or books.

Even more, I wonder what you mean by "practical, ethical, and appropriate uses of new information technologies"? I'd be hard-pressed to find any avid gamer who doesn't deal daily with these issues (and I'd challenge you to get to level 10 in World of Warcraft and tell me that you haven't hit on all of them multiple times). And, given the fact that a good deal of our students are currently regular, if not avid gamers, wouldn't it be smart to start to look at what they're doing in these "entertainment" spaces? (See the 2003 Pew Internet Report on college student gamers for stats.)

I might also add that Lemke is now doing some pretty terrific (and serious) work on videogames and their affinity spaces. I'd encourage all of us to spend some time with Henry Jenkins' work on participatory fan cultures (http://web.mit.edu/21fms/www/faculty/henry3/) for more on the rich, diverse, and complex practices at work with traditional "entertainment" media. I would even argue (alongside dozens of literacy researchers such as Donna Alvermann, Anne Haas Dyson, Kevin Leander, Gunther Kress, Deborah Brandt and Katie Clinton, Constance Steinkuehler, Kurt Squire) that "sustained critical technological engagement" is already at work in numerous non-school-sanctioned spaces.

I'd imagine that most of us who study computers and literacy are well aware of this research, but I'd agree that we need to work harder to educate English departments writ large.

Jeremy thanks for taking the time to respond to that short abstract! I'm running for a plane now but you might want to look at my reponse to Alice. I'll be back.

Alice Robison,

Thanks for the thoughtful response to my abstract. Your concern about my abandonment comment is well founded. Here's the statement again. Let me try to explain what I'm after: that is how I hope to motivate English studies professionals to set up and sustain systems that encourage techno-literate development (a life-long ambition) in our students. In this crowd (Computers and Writing), that may seem like a silly question. Of course we will continue to encourage all types of literacy development in our students. That's our job, our passion.

My comment for others reading:
[we need to] place the ES disciplines and 'writing' per se at the center of techno-cultural literacy development, a space that is in danger of being abandoned to the entertainment industries.

I would not make the claim that

• gaming and other forms of edutainment aren't worthy of study or
• that literacy professionals can't learn a great deal from the power relations set up in gaming environments as "collaborative semiotic systems" (Robinson), relations that make these systems remarkably compelling or
• that those students and teachers who work and play in gaming system aren't developing the many cognitive and social skills that Gee lists in his work
• I was closest to being critical of the gaming experience by saying, as you pointed out that ES professionals need to develop "practical, ethical, and appropriate uses for new information technologies." As if gaming systems weren't at some level providing all three. I think it's easy to make a case for the development of "practical and appropriate" literacy practices in gaming systems. Maybe it's a little harder to make the case for games across the board that ethical literacy practices are being encouraged. Showing where this IS indeed happening would be of great value to our disciplines.

BTW, thanks for the pointers to Lemke's and Jenkin's work. I'll be sure to look that way.

This comment you made get's at my central concern, which because this is an abstract wasn't at all developed here. You said:

"I would even argue (alongside dozens of literacy researchers such as Donna Alvermann, Anne Haas Dyson, Kevin Leander, Gunther Kress, Deborah Brandt and Katie Clinton, Constance Steinkuehler, Kurt Squire) that "sustained critical technological engagement" is already at work in numerous non-school-sanctioned spaces."

Absolutely! We can then have a discussion about what "critical" might mean in these self-sponsored techno-literacy environments. But it certainly is a sustained and intense engagement. What we don't see is that same type of engagement, in most cases, throughout our educational experiences. Why not? I would claim that education-sponsored engagement would look somewhat different than those we see in non-school-sanctioned spaces. A discussion about how they might differ and be similar would be fascinating and quite useful.

William Kist just published a book trying to detail model classes where multimodal literacies were integrated into K-12 classes throughout the school year, not in one assignment or one special unit. That's the kind of sustained critical engagement that we need to encourage, and for GOOD reasons teachers are not finding it possible to make this kind of commitment. In many cases, even if the wanted to, this kind of commitment would not be sustainable for all sorts of reasons. It's a fragile system even when you do find what we might call "sustained critical technological engagement" in schools, K-college.

Here's the nub of the issue of sustainability for me:

1. Thiis bit of writing will eventually be a introductory chapter to a book. That book will circle around this question: How does the concept of sustainability influence the way we approach literacy instruction? (or something close to that question). It will range widely and I hope give us new ways of approaching the kind of sustained engagement the gaming industry has generated. We'll see.
2. I want to outline for administrators and technology enthusiasts (like me) how difficult sustained engagement is and what I'm asking of new and veteran teachers to add to their plate.

We--you (U of W, Madison), me (soon Ohio State), and Jeremy Hunsinger (Virginia Tech)--are all living in portions of well-heeled institutions that have made commitments to this type of engagement. But even in these institutions we can easily find spaces where literacy professionals are NOT at all concerned about how new communications technologies are changing or might change the literacy practices of their students for the better.

I appreciate the suggestions that you and Jeremy are suggesting here. Got to run for a plane.

dickie

I apologize for a brief response…Jeremy and Alice have covered a sufficient amount of territory, and your topic is a bit outside of my area of expertise. With that said, I agree with Jeremy, I need you to deconstruct the questions for me. When you ask: Can the English studies disciplines continue to provide learning spaces where students are repeatedly exposed to practical, ethical, and appropriate uses of new information technologies? Does this imply that English studies are currently providing these spaces? (In rereading Jeremy’s response, he also asks this question)

In your response to Alice you say “we can easily find spaces where literacy professionals are NOT at all concerned about how new communications technologies are changing or might change the literacy practices of their students for the better.” I disagree that they are not concerned, in my encounters, many are novice technology users themselves are simply not aware (which I see as different from not being concerned.)

Lennie Irvin
San Antonio College

Can the English studies disciplines (not just the Computers and Writing Community) continue to provide learning spaces where students are repeatedly exposed to practical, ethical, and appropriate uses of new information technologies?

I'm afraid I don't understand the premise of this question. From my perspective, "English studies disciplines" are dominated (as are other online) by online teaching tools like WebCT or Blackboard. Where do these kind of tools fit into this question? Computer networks by definition enable a kind of sharing of text unthinkable in the print medium, and I don't see the ethical and appropriate uses of technologies issue that seems to be raised by this presentation. What is different here? Is this presentation based on blog and CMS interfaces that hinge on more personal and confessional type of writing? But blog is not mentioned in the abstract?

I need some translation to understand this statement: "Theorists who begin with an eco-social framework and look at system-wide change do offer our related disciplines some hope for agency."

I think this presentation looks interesting, but I don't think I fully understand what the essence of what it will discuss. I particularly like the idea of "sustainable technological engagement" but I don't understand exactly where this presenter is coming from.

It seems like there is some dynamic implicit beneath this presentation that poses the entertainment industry as in danger of disrupting the kind of online communication we might engage with in our online learning settings. I hate to say, but I don't see that danger. I am open to hearing more of where this presenter is coming from.

LI

When Dickie writes . . .

"[we need to] place the ES disciplines and 'writing' per se at the center of techno-cultural literacy development, a space that is in danger of being abandoned to the entertainment industries."

. . . I'm reading him as talking about economy of literacy development, rather than suggesting the academy and industry are going to be in competition.

And I think it's an interesting question: When the resources of the academy are increasingly limited, how do we continue to contribute meaningfully to discussions of "techno-cultural literacy development"? While I don't know the precise genealogy of that term, I do know that the "techno" part of it is in large part economy-influenced. Often we look at megacorporations in the entertainment industry, cite their typically substantial development and research budgets, and wonder aloud how we can play any central role, but maybe sustainability offers an avenue. Clearly money does not educate, and at some point, entertainment industries have to attend to their profits, and thus develop new products, new versions of existing products, etc.

So what is the economy of sustainability in literacy development? Etc.

I'm looking forward to Dickie's presentation.

James