Barker, Thomas T., and Fred O. Kemp. “Network Theory: A Postmodern Pedagogy for the Writing Classroom.” Computers and Community. Ed. Carolyn Handa. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1990. 1-27. Have Valley copy of book.
Bomberger, Ann M. “Ranting about race: Crushed eggshells in computer-mediated communication.” Computers and Composition 21 (2004): 197-216. Pdf and hard copy.
Bump, Jerome. “Radical Changes in Class Discussion Using Networked Computers.” Computers and the Humanities 24 (1990): 49-65. (In Lenard’s Works Cited)
Castner, Joanna A. “The Clash of Social Categories: What Egalitarianism in Networked Writing Classrooms?” Computers and Composition 14 (1997): 257-268. Pdf and hard copy.
Cooper, Marilyn M., and Cynthia L. Selfe. “Computer Conferences and Learning: Authority, Resistance, and Internally Persuasive Discourse.” College English 52.8 (1990): 847-869. Hard copy.
Cooper, Marilyn (1999). Postmodern possibilities in electronic conversations. In Gail E. Hawisher & Cynthia L. Selfe (Eds.) Passions, pedagogies, and 21st century technologies (pp. 140-160). Logan: Utah State University. Summited 2-18-09
Faigley, Lester. Fragments of Rationality: Postmodernity and the Subject of Composition. Pittsburgh: Univ. of Pittsburgh Press, 1992. Hard copy of chapter.
The postmodern era is characterized by randomness of experience, unopposed by any transcendent terms, a randomness that terrifies with the prospect of total dissolution while exhilarating with the possibility of free play of identities and social locations—that is, of subject positions. Composition pedagogy is often unresponsive to postmodernity, continuing to assume that unitary selves compose purposeful, linearly structured, generically recognizable texts. While this focus is often promoted by academic institutions as serving the practical ends of efficient communication, composition scholars increasingly resist it as oppressive to diverse students. A more postmodern composition study entails looking at how discourses, and the unequal power relations among them, are historically produced. Yet the field is still reluctant to abandon a unitary notion of students’ subjectivities. The field needs the kind of destabilized, decentered view that characterizes the networked classroom, where online discussion allows free play with different personae and even “forbidden” discourses (e.g., homophobic, racist, sexist). The problem that remains is how to establish an ethics of engagement for social action against the oppressive economic and discursive structures that postmodern analysis purports to reveal. Winner of CCCC Outstanding Book Award for 1994.
Hawisher, Gail E., and Cynthia Selfe. “Teaching Writing at A Distance: What’s Gender Got to Do with It?”
Kremers, Marshall. “Sharing Authority on a Synchronous Network: The Case for Riding the Beast.” Computers and Composition 7 (1990): 33-44. NEED
Laurinen, Leena I., and Miika J. Marttunen. “Written arguments and collaborative speech acts in practising the argumentative power of language through chat debates.” Computers and Composition 24 (2007): 230-246. Pdf and hard copy.
LeCourt, Donna. “Critical Pedagogy in the Computer Classroom: Politicizing the Writing Space.” Computers and Composition 15 (1998): 275-295. Pdf and hard copy.
Lenard, Mary. “Dealing with Online Selves: Ethos Issues in Computer-Assisted Teaching and Learning.” Pedagogy 5.1 (2005): 77-95. Have copy of issue (AH’s), need to make copy.
McKee, Heidi. “‘YOUR VIEWS SHOWED TRUE IGNORANCE!!!’: (Mis)Communication in an online interracial discussion forum.” Computers and Composition 19 (2002): 411-434. Pdf and hard copy.
McKee, Heidi. “‘Always a Shadow of hope’: Heteronormative binaries in an online discussion of sexuality and sexual orientation.” Computers and Composition 21 (2004): 315-340. Pdf and hard copy.
McMillan-Clifton, Alexis. “The Confluence: Process Theory, Contact Zones, and Online Composition.” TCC 2007 Proceedings. Pdf and hard copy.
Regan, Alison. “‘Type normal like the rest of us’: Writing, Power, and Homophobia in the Networked Composition Classroom.” Computers and Composition 9.4 (1993): 11-23. http://computersandcomposition.osu.edu/archives/v10/10_4_html/10_4_2_Regan.html Can’t find online in CC archives (via Valley) HTML and hard copy
Romano, Susan. “The Egalitarian Narrative: Whose Story? Which Yardstick?”
Spears, Russell, and Martin Lea. “Panacea or Panopticon? The Hidden Power in Computer-Mediated Communication.” Communication Research 21.4 (1994): 427-459. Avail at Valley P91 .C56
ABSTRACT: This article examines how interaction by means of computer-mediated communication (CMC) affects the operation of both status differentials and power relations. The authors attempt to provide a corrective to the dominant assessment, particularly within social psychological analyses, that CMC tends to equalize status, decentralize and democratize decision making, and thus empower and liberate the individual user. This emphasis contrasts with sociological critiques employing the Foucauldian metaphor of the panopticon, claiming that power relations can actually be reinforced in CMC. The authors argue that prevailing conceptualizations of influence and power within social psychology have tended to prefigure the more optimistic account, and outline a theoretical framework in which processes of “panoptic power” in CMC are given a more concrete social psychological foundation.
Sujo de Montes, L.E., et al. “Power, language, and identity: Voices from an online course.” Computers and Composition 19 (2002): 251-271. Pdf and hard copy.
Trimbur, John. “Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning.” College English 51 (1989): 602-616. Hard copy.
Warshauer, Susan Claire. “Rethinking Teacher Authority to Counteract Homophobic Prejudice in the Networked Classroom: A Model of Teacher Response and Overview of Classroom Methods.” Computers and Composition 21.1 (1995): 97-111. Pdf and hard copy.