Computers and Composition Reading Response

After reading through various articles in the Computers and Composition journal, I am going to focus on the writings of Charles Moran in his article “What We Had Hoped For.” The title alone offers the reader an understanding of the technological world that Moran is trying to illustrate. I have noticed over the course of my first semester of graduate school that there seems to be quite a bit of ambivalent sentiments that surround the computers and writing field. Moran describes scholars in the field, especially those writing and working for the Computers and Composition journal, as being “upbeat, optimistic, enthusiastic, and forward-looking.” I would completely agree with this assessment, but it is painfully obvious that there are still many critics in the world who generate pessimistic outlooks toward the technological landscape.

I was intrigued with Moran’s ideas of eliminating the “drudgery” that comes along with the tasks of writing. Let us get something straight. The advents of word processing and computer-related features are highly advantageous for anyone who writes, but this so-called “drudgery” seems to be a byproduct of recent times. Would we even be having a discussion of eliminating “drudgery” thirty years ago? My fascination with writing spawned when I was very little, and has grown as I have matured and gone through various levels of the education hierarchy. I have never viewed writing as being troublesome or tedious. Otherwise, I better start to seriously consider my educational and career choices. When I look back and put things in perspective, I realize that for the longest time, I always used to write everything out by hand. I am only twenty-six years old, but I grew up in a house that didn’t have a computer. The truth is that even if my childhood home did have a computer, I am not completely certain that I would have utilized it back then. It was only in my first year of undergraduate studies that I started using computers for writing purposes. Sometimes I feel as though we are spoiled this day and age. I have so much respect for the writers who had to painstakingly write out everything by hand in the most meticulous of fashions. I view the ideas of eliminating “drudgery” with much apprehension, because in the end, there must always be a need for the writer to have control.


Writing students and teachers of writing, as Moran describes, are being faced with new technological advancements that in effect would replace the teacher with computer review software. Is technology taking too big of a hand in the world of pedagogy? My apprehension is only further solidified when I imagine a world where a computer grades and reviews my writing. No thank you. I do not care how advanced computer logic has become, I still and always will want a human mind to delve into and judge my writing. There are tasks that computers can assist with, but as far as rhetorical analysis, the human mind must be present. Technology, for all its advantages, has also created elements that threaten the very thing that writers hold so dear.

The idea that technology (i.e. word processing) makes better writers out of bad writers does not carry much validity with me. Moran quotes the work of Richard Collier and Clifford Werier, who both write, “Good writers are good writers, no matter how they write – their processes and their products are only minimally tied to the mode of text production, no matter what they say or feel about computers or writing by hand.” This statement resonated with me because I feel that it illustrates the notion of why technology is practical for writing purposes, but at the same time, I feel that it explains the reasoning behind why technology does not improve one’s writing. The “mode of text production” should not benefit the quality of writing because quality is something that is not achieved through technology. Aesthetic quality and convenience is achieved with technology, but rhetorical and analytical quality must reside in the human mind.

Moran’s article goes into detail about the history that surrounds the field and community of computers and writing. The advances that have been made through technology and the effects that they have had on pedagogy have been enormous. In fact, after a three year hiatus from higher education, I made the decision to return to college and further my education. The fact that I am in a technical communication master’s program has helped me to realize a great many things about how pedagogy has transformed over the years. I would have never envisioned myself working in a computer lab when I first started college, but now, I cannot really picture it any other way. The world, along with writers must learn to embrace technology, but it is the responsibility of the writers and teachers of writing to control the landscape of how technology is used for writing purposes.

Kairos Reading Response

The years that I spent pursuing my undergraduate degree, in English, were mainly consumed with reading novels and essays. After looking back in retrospect, I am surprised that I was not exposed more to the world of academic journals. In fact, I cannot remember having been assigned any sort of reading that was directly from an academic journal. I don’t have the best memory in the world, but I am pretty sure that I would have remembered a personal interaction with an academic journal. Is this the norm for most academics? I think not. I would venture to guess that a lot of professors rely heavily on works from academic journals in their teaching practices. This semester is my first semester of graduate school, and during this time, I have become acquainted with many new forms of pedagogy, including the peer-reviewed online journal Kairos. I enjoyed this assignment thoroughly because it differed in comparison from past reading assignments. While I enjoyed reading the past four books, some more than others, I was glad to be able to interact more with Kairos as compared to just reading out of a book. I am also glad that the 10th Anniversary issue was the issue we were assigned to read because it seems to offer more of a broad overview of the history that brought life to this journal. I’ll admit that I was a bit skeptical at first when I found out that the idea and concept of this journal was conceived on the way to a Hootie and the Blowfish concert. Even though I am not a fan of their music, I will give Becky Rickly credit for the fact that she definitely came up with this idea of Kairos at a very unique time and place. Who would have thought that an idea for an online journal that explores the intersections of rhetoric, technology, and pedagogy would have been conceived on the way to such an event? In all seriousness, I have found that some of the best ideas are spawned at the most random of times when one is not expecting it.



I took the advice of the Logging On column and I read Douglas Eyman’s “The Arrow and the Loom” webtext first and foremost. The history that Eyman illustrates for the reader gives a sense of how an idea, with the help of a few dedicated individuals, can turn into a reality. Eyman describes the name Kairos, a Greek word, as having the meaning of “the right moment” or “the opportune”. After gaining an understanding of the context of the name choice for the journal, I feel as though the name encompasses the nature of the journal in a very successful manner. With technological advances, our world is changing at such a rapid pace this day and age, and I feel that there is always a need to evolve with the times. Kairos, not being the first online journal of its kind, offers a communication medium for individual scholars who wish to engage the Computers and Writing field in a new and interactive manner. Eyman also touches on the issues of overall design for the journal in his webtext. While I love the interactivity that webtext has to offer, I must admit that I found some of the navigation in Kairos to be somewhat troubling. While navigating through the journal, I almost felt as if I was missing certain pieces in the webtexts. The utilization of hyperlinks in the writing, combined with the design of the journal itself, made for a disjointed and somewhat frustrating read. I am not saying that I didn’t enjoy the content of the reading, but I am saying that I was not completely satisfied with the navigation. Of course, the authors of the various webtexts have constructed their own mediums for conveying their ideas, and each webtext is unique in its own way. The fact that Kairos allows the author to choose their own environment for writing purposes opens up the possibility of varying navigation methods and features. This is not necessarily a bad thing, but it is what makes Kairos unique. With all this said, Eyman emphasizes the fact that as far as design goes, the Kairos staff will be working on the journal to promote new and improved methods of “higher readability” and “more reliable navigation.”

Tracy Bridgeford’s webtext “Kairotically Speaking: Kairos and the Power of Identity” brought about some very interesting thoughts when dealing with the world of tenure. My knowledge of the Computers and Writing field is growing as this semester goes by, but I am constantly becoming a witness to the uphill battle that scholars in the field are constantly dealing with. Kairos is a prime example of a scholarly publication that is seemingly questioned as such by those “entitled” to pass such judgment. I cannot imagine how frustrating it must be for those ambitious technorhetoricians that must deal with the faults of bureaucracy. The rigorous editorial process, outlined in this issue, that submissions made to Kairos go through should be clear cut evidence that this field is rightfully scholarly in all aspects. The standards of tenure have been in place for many years, but how can those seated in the upper echelon of academia not have a willingness to be more open-minded and optimistic when it comes to passing judgment. Technology is here to stay, period! Once people realize this, I believe that there will be some dramatic changes that will take place in academia. Kairos, and all related rhetoric, writing, and pedagogy will become more recognized as a valid foundation for tenure. Bridgeford states, “Technorhetoricians often spend a good portion of their time educating and convincing their colleagues about the value of digital scholarship.” However, with the work of online journals such as Kairos, I feel as though attitudes will begin to change, because forgive me for saying so, but people cannot be blind forever!

The Praxis section of the journal outlines some very intriguing implementations that the editorial staff is planning to put into place. I love the idea of having an open-access section of the journal, a wiki of sorts, which would help and give suggestions to those interested in using certain digital tools and settings for their scholarly writing. This section would serve as a great reference for anyone in need of guidance when dealing with foreign facets of technology. I am anxious to see how this all shapes out.

In conclusion, with the work Kairos is doing, I hope to see an increase in the number of people citing credible and scholarly electronic sources, especially peer-reviewed online journals like Kairos. The editors and contributors seem to be doing something right because, as Eyman points out, the reader numbers have increased over the years and branched out to include an international audience. The variety of contributors, whether they are graduate students or tenured professionals, offers a friendly world where outsiders are embraced. Jim Kalmbach writes about this friendly world in his webtext “Reading the Archives: Ten Years on Nonlinear (Kairos) History.” Kalmbach states, “Community has enabled Kairos to survive.” This 10th Anniversary issue gave me a better understanding of the practices and ideals that this journal lives by, and for that, I am grateful.