The Role of the Spectator-Participant in Computer-networked Learning Environments

"The Spectator-Participant in the Computers & Writing Learning Environment"
Paper presented to the Computers and Writing Conference 2000 in Ft. Worth, Texas

I’m very pleased to be here today, since the last CW conference I attended was ten years ago (I think) in Austin, and even more pleased to be able to share some of my experience and thinking. I should probably open with a disclaimer so that you will understand better where I am coming from in my discussion.

First, I am a Kemp-itte and Daedalus user. I’m guilty—I admit it. Since I worked as a TA in 1988 in the UT CWRL with Fred and the other core members of the Daedalus Group, I have been seeking to understand and implement what Fred has called alternatively “network” theory or “dialogism.” I’ve been lucky in that I have been able to teach in a computer classroom with Daedalus for seven of my ten years teaching community college English. In that time I have sought to bring theoretical notions of collaboration and social construction into practice in the computer classroom. I’ve also experienced (as some of you may have also) the frustration and difficulty in bringing these theories into practice, and the isolation from peers that occurs because I was the only one “doing it” or who “got it.” I agree with the conclusion Bernard Susser made in a 1993 article “that a networked classroom may be helpful but is not necessary for making meaning through collaboration, creating a discourse community, or communicating to a wider audience” (63). My own experience has tempered my sense of “network theory’s” idealism and sweep into a more “local” and practical concern. How can I in my computer classroom make a pedagogy work that depends predominantly on students sharing and responding to each others’ texts? My curiosity and desire to improve my teaching practice has lead me to look more deeply into the dynamics of this shared discourse and seek to uncover how and why “learning” is occurring. As I mentioned in the CW2K online discussion on this topic, I have felt like I had a “cooks” understanding of collaboration and social construction, and I want to move to more of a “chemist’s” understanding. I can set in motion the mechanics—I can have students post drafts, form peer groups, do peer response, dialogue in a synchronous chat, review transcripts or texts together to pick out highlights—but I don’t know well enough what’s going on, what are the dynamics in this “shared discourse” that lead to “influence,” that lead to learning?

My real interest is to see things from the students’ perspective. I’m concerned with what is going on for the students as they sit at the computer screen engaged in sharing and responding to texts. I’m concerned with the students’ “situatedness,” their “context” or “positionality,” as they gaze at the tube reading their peers’ writing, reading their own writing, writing responses to their peers’ writing, writing comments into a discussion with their peers. Today, I will present the notion of the “spectator-participant” as a term describing students’ positionality inside computer networks and use it to make some conclusions about the dynamics of learning that occur when students share and respond to texts.

Last Spring I came across a quotation from an article by James Britton entitled "Spectator Role and the Beginnings of Writing" that sparked a whole new line of thinking for me:

… as participants we APPLY our value systems, but as spectators we GENERATE and REFINE the system itself.

Although Britton refers to an oral communication situation, it seemed applicable to computer-mediated-communication too. Wasn't a computer classroom filled with spectators and participants? Weren't our students inhabiting a dual role of spectator and participant at the same time? Weren't these roles and the students' "positionality" within these roles crucial to the dynamics of learning in this environment?

I began searching for an analogy to describe this dual role and place it in contrast to the student’s role in a traditional classroom. Although not the best analogy (because I am wary of equating writing to performance), I kept returning to the theatre as the most descriptive comparison.

The Student Role in the Traditional Classroom

Often students in traditional classrooms are predominantly spectators like spectators of a play. They sit in the seats but infrequently get up on the stage themselves. The teacher lectures; the students take notes. The teacher discusses with the class and a few students step on the stage and join in (while many stay silent). Command performances such as tests or essays many times are like auditions with the teacher--the student performs for the teacher alone and gives the student his or her only significant feedback. The teacher is the only true audience for the student. Classes following a workshop model that use peer groups heavily do not fall into this model; however, most current-traditional classroom practices do. As a spectator, the student in this classroom is most watchful of the teacher; as a participant, the student performs predominantly for the teacher.

The Spectator-Participant in the Computer Networked Environment

The analogy that comes to mind to describe this setting is that of a theatre troupe doing improvisational acting exercises amongst themselves. One summer I did Shakespeare at Winedale, a UT-Austin program where students put together and perform three Shakespeare plays. For the first month, we would spend an hour in the evenings doing “improv” amongst ourselves to explore our acting capabilities.

All of us in the class were there in the audience as spectators of each other’s antics. Also, all of us had our turn on stage before the others trying to act out of thin air. It was a stimulating, hilarious, and exhausting environment.

In a sense, our students when they engage in student-to-student communication are in this improvisational theatre situation. Each student is a spectator of the others because they are reading the “performance” of the other students. In addition, each student is a performer themselves because their writing is “up on stage” in the network for every class member to read.

What we have in this context is a radically different “positionality” of the student compared to the traditional classroom. The student’s role as spectator has shifted from primarily spectating the instructor to viewing fellow students. Their role as performer has shifted from performing predominantly for the teacher to performing for other students “in the audience.” Compared to the workshop approach to writing instruction (which contains some of these same characteristics), the computer classroom heightens and deepens this experience of spectating and participating for the students because of the ease and greater volume of shared discourse. Like a theater troupe performing for themselves, students involved in this kind of writing community have a greater awareness of their peers' work and ideas and a sense that their work and ideas are part of that group as well. Kenneth Bruffee would call this phenomena a sense of "membership." In the writing community of the dialogic classroom, then, the primary roles of membership in this community is to spectate and participate.

We can’t ignore that all of this spectating and participating is occurring through the computer screen--virtual, disembodied, silent. The computer interface gives another unique “positionality” to the student in a networked computer environment.

How does this interface affect the student as spectator? In what ways does the interface affect the type and level of participation of the student? Although students may see the other members of the class visually, they don’t know who or when exactly their peers are reading their text. Likewise, when they respond to a peer they don’t know when that peer will read the sent text. In a way, students perform their participation alone with no witnesses until they hit the “send” button. Similarly, the spectator reader views the performance of others in isolation. Thus, the network and the interface create a paradox: the network facilitates a high level of social exchange, yet this exchange is enacted in isolation--each student is alone connected to the group. Only in synchronous discussion does this gap between performance and spectating narrow to something approaching verbal conversation.

Also, the computer interface creates a different kind of "conversation." Because students often participate and spectate in parallel (rather than "real-time") as I describe above, the writing and reading of texts sent via computers is different from a verbal conversation. Participants may write longer and more carefully constructed messages than would be palatable in oral conversation (sometimes diatribes), and spectators can spend more time to read and re-read a message.

Let me share a quotation from one of my students that offers another analogy to describe this role of the spectator-participant:

In this class I have not only had my peers read my work, I have also evaluated theirs. I

have watched everyone do their work here almost like a spectator at a basketball game.

Lots of time when I go to Spurs games I get mad at the players and sometimes feel like I

want to go in there and play (like I could do any better). But this is how I feel. It's

sometime like that in class. I see everyone else's writing and feel that I should be writing

longer more in depth compositions.

Just like in my explanation before I feel like I'm at a basketball game. But in class it is so

much better. I can actually get on the court in class. I can actually interact in class and

shoot around with my other teammates. I can see their mistakes and learn from them and

they can learn from mine. We can teach each other different ways of expressing the way

that we play the game. It's great that I can actually play. In one instance I can recall

where I was stuck on a topic. I had no idea how to begin my writing. So I sat back and

just began to view everyone else's writing. I began to read and pretty soon I had a good

idea on how I was going to begin my topic. Being a spectator helped me to be a

participant.

Understanding just “where” students are when they sit before a computer screen and the roles they engage in is crucial to uncovering the dynamics whereby collaborative learning and social construction of knowledge happen in the computer-networked environment. Fred Kemp has similarly written about the importance of what he calls “situatedness” or “shared context” for students involved in computer-mediated-communication, stressing what he has called a conspiracy or collusion between the writer and the reader:

Authority, or effectiveness in writing, is a function of the place that the writer occupies in

relation to the reader and the world; the writer and the reader must have a sense of being

situated in an effective relationship to each other” (“Situatedness” 4).

I’d like to propose that for our students this place, this relationship is the role of the spectator-participant.

Here now is a proposed list of the dynamics and experiences of the spectator-participant that I see as leading to learning for our students (illustrative quotations from students are in italics):

Peer Influence/Membership: Students experience a sense of common identity and common activity. Within this “troupe” they look to each other for support, ideas, and examples. The sense of membership fosters an interest for the spectator in the activities of the other members and stimulates the participant into more engaged participation in the group

"After the first few papers I started to enjoy putting my work in the mail and having people respond to it. I wanted to get peer responses back so that I would know what I would have to work on to better my paper. It helped me a lot to be the participant."

"Although at first I was intimidated by others reading my work, soon after I was much more willing. After all it was for my own well being because they were expanding my writing capabilities. I wanted to impress all who read my paper, so it seemed I was working harder than normal. … As a writer putting my work in the mail for everyone to read, I was really at a nervous state. I didn't even let my parents read my work, let alone strangers. Soon after, I wanted input, and I needed that input to produce a successful paper."

"I felt like I was a key player. I wanted to make sure that I had my homework done to input it into the mail."

Multiplicity: One of the chief experiences for the spectator is a sense of multiplicity. They are exposed through the network to many viewpoints and ideas. Through the exposure to different ideas and perspectives (the “other”), students are given an expanded base of information and they experience a sense of displacement from their original viewpoint.

“It helps me to see or hear what others are thinking and feeling. It also helps to expand my knowledge of others in the class.”

"As a reader, viewing my peers work I was overwhelmed. I didn't know how many talented souls were sitting right across from me."

"In this spectating role, I was able to learn what my classmates insights were on the same idea. Many times the insights were very different from my own. It helped me to open my views and try to see the broad picture, hopefully adding to my writings."

Comparability: Multiplicity stimulates an experience of comparability for the spectator. The students compare their writing to the writing of their peers and they compare the writing of their peers to each other.

“Reading other’s writings also helped me improve my writing. It allowed me to compare their writings to my own. It gave me ideas and a jump start. When I had no idea of what to put on paper, my group shared their writings. After hearing what they had to say, I began writing without any problems. I used their ideas with my own to complete the assignment.”

"Working with others has helped me to take a look at my own work. I try to look at it from someone else's point of view and make any adjustments necessary to clarify my ideas.

Orientation/Perspective/Normalizing: What the spectator experiences and then the participant attempts to incorporate into their participation is a sense of orientation or perspective. If multiplicity exposes the spectator to new ideas, comparability and evaluation of that multiplicity help to crystallize a new perspective and a sense of where they fit in to the larger discourse of the group. Edward Schiappa in a 1993 article entitled “Burkean Tropes and Kuhnian Science: A Social Constructionist Perspective on Language and Reality” expresses something close to this sense of perspective and orientation:

The importance of exemplars is that they function as organizing metaphors for

perspectives (or paradigms).

And

As one learns to “literalize” a metaphorical perspective, one develops an “orientation”

toward the world. Burke defines orientation as a “general view of reality,” a “bundle of

judgments as to how things were, how they are. And how they may be,” a “system of

meanings,” and as an “interpretive attitude” (4)

Sharing texts provides “exemplars”—examples of meaning—for our students; as students seek to make sense of this expanded horizon of meanings and incorporate it into their thinking and writing (“literalize”), they develop a sense of orientation toward the subject matter and the group.

“I think that we have been writing on the computer because it is so important to get some type of feedback. Everyone can take a look at it. … You know where you stand as compared to just turning in the assignment and waiting for a grade.”

"When I first started the class I was very timid and scared. Once I read other people's work and saw that they shared the same mistakes I felt better."

"As a spectator, I was able to see what I wanted my writing to look like. I wanted it to be long, clear, and easy for my audience to relate to."

Kenneth Bruffee would call this “orientation” normalizing or the growth of “normal discourse.” My graduate advisor called this phenomenon “entering the conversation.” Bruffee himself describes this quest for “normal discourse” through the example of him writing an article for a scholarly audience:

My readers and I … are guided in our work by the same set of conventions about what

counts as a relevant contribution, what counts as a question, what counts as having a

good argument. I judge my essay finished when I think it conforms to that set of

conventions and values” (Bruffee 401).

Audience: Because students know that their writing sent to the group in the network will be read by the others in the group and that their writing will be compared to the writing of their peers, students experience a greater sense of audience. Although participants don’t have a uniform reaction to this awareness of audience, many student/participants experience a feeling of engagement, an openness and comfort to try more things with their writing, and a pressure to make their writing better and fit more into the “normal discourse” of the group.

“Just knowing that my peers will be reading my paper lets me know that I have to do this paper and it has to make sense too.”

"What readers perceive can help me to make changes and better define my objective."

"Through experiencing peer response, writing to a specific audience, and doing Interchange, I have found my writing to have changed. I have found myself thinking about the words I want to use in my writing. I think knowing that some one besides the teacher will be reading my paper has helped a lot. I find myself being more aware of audience while I am putting together an essay."

Disembodiment/Virtual Time/Objectivity: Although each of the above items might similarly apply to a writing workshop, the computer interface makes the sharing and responding to texts different. Because the spectator/participant reads and shares writing through the computer (disembodied and in virtual time), participants experience distance from the person they are responding to free from the social dynamics of face-to-face communication. For spectators and participants, the computer interface also can lead to more deliberative communication.

“Doing this on computer is better than doing it in person because you are able to write what you want without worrying about what they are thinking as they watch you. You kind of have your own space and time.”

“For me it’s easier to be honest on the computer rather than in person.”

Britton quotation revised: "as participants we APPLY our knowledge systems, but as spectators we GENERATE AND REFINE the system itself."

Works Cited

Britton, James. "Spectator Role and the Beginnings of Writing." Cross-Talk in Comp Theory. Ed.

Villanueva. N.p.: n.p., n.d.

Bruffee, Kenneth. Cross-Talk in Comp Theory. Ed. Villanueva. N.p.: n.p., n.d.

Kemp, Fred. "The Authority of Situatedness: Postmodern Writing Instruction Using Networked

Computers." English 5365: Summer, 1996 Computers and Writing (n.d.). Online. Internet.

Available http://129.118.38.138/courses/5365/kemp/su96/support/lectures/situatedness.htm (

2000).

Schiappa, Edward. "Burkean Tropes and Kuhnian Science: Social Constructionist Perspectives on

Language and Reality." Journal of Advanced Composition 13.2 (1993). Online. Internet.

Available http://nosferatu.cas.usf.edu/JAC/132/schiappa.html ( 2000).

Susser, Bernard. "Networks and Project Work: Alternative Pedagogies for Writing with Computers."

Computers and Composition 10.3 (1993). Online. Internet. Available

http://corax.cwrl.utexas.edu/cac/Archives/v10/10_3_4_Susser.html.