Teaching Writing in Community Colleges: A Situated View of How Adults Learn to Write in Computer-Based Writing Classrooms.

Traditional models of writing focus on steps learners should take to produce writing without considering the learning context and its affect on the process. Proponents of situated cognition argue that adult cognitive processes can be better understood by examining how setting, culturally provided tools, and social activity structure learning and empower learners. Drawing upon these theories, the authors describe a qualitative study designed to investigate how adult learners learn to write in the social context of the computer-based developmental writing classroom. An analysis of coded data from student interviews and journals indicated that computers as writing tools gave students a sense of control over their writing and shaped their perceptions of how they wrote. The classroom's interactive social culture allowed learners to review each other's work and to construct their own knowledge about writing.

Fifty percent of all adults age 16 or older who participate in some adult education activity attend vocational-technical schools, community colleges, or universities (U.S. Department of Education, 1995). Many adults who enter community colleges have been out of formal academic communities for many years and experience financial difficulties, time management issues, and family problems (Tarvers, 1993). Another group of adult learners may be GED graduates who have been unsuccessful in their previous formal academic settings, lack confidence in their academic abilities, and whose most recent writing experience has been writing an essay to pass GED exams. Along with these barriers, adult learners unfamiliar with the academic environment may also have little knowledge concerning academic conventions and behavior, including academic writing conventions and expectations. Because writing essays and papers that meet academic standards translates into receiving passing or acceptable grades in all types of community college courses, learning to write in the academic style required by community colleges and universities is central to adult students' successful matriculation through these institutions.

In developmental writing classrooms held in both traditional classrooms and computer classrooms, writing is frequently taught as a conceptual, reiterative, linear process in which adults learn to apply abstract writing principles, procedures, and "how to" models of the writing process to their writing. Typical models of writing encourage students to move in a stepwise fashion from one part of the writing process to the next: find a topic, gather information, organize the information, write the essay, then edit it before finally turning it in for a grade (Petkosh, 1990). However, the very processes that are supposed to help adults write may become obstacles to their writing. Rose (1980), in his analysis of adult students in developmental writing classes, suggests that adults may be "stymied by possessing rigid or inappropriate rules or inflexible or confused plans" (p. 393) for the writing process. Furthermore, stepwise models of the writing process represent a decontextualized abstraction of the writing process that ignores how activity, social culture, and writing tools allow students to construct their own processes for writing.

Because computer classrooms have become commonplace on numerous community college campuses, many adult learners participating in developmental or basic writing classes may learn writing in computer classrooms. Duin and Hansen (1993) contend that as students write, interpret, and negotiate texts in computer classrooms, they are making meaning of the writing process in a real-world situation that promotes active participation in the learning process. Brown, Collins, and Duguid (1989), in explaining situated cognition, argue that knowledge learners can usefully deploy should be developed in the context of meaningful activity.

Many of the traditional models for writing used to teach adult learners in developmental classes (for example, Murray, 1980; Flower & Hayes, 1981) ignore the context of learning, activity, social culture, and the ways students write, interpret, and negotiate texts in computer classrooms. These models for writing do not accurately portray how students construct their own meaning concerning writing in the academic environment. Further, these models do not consider how the tools for writing may affect the processes adults use for writing and how adult learners may transfer models of writing into action in a computer classroom. The problem is, then, how do adult students learn to write in computer classrooms? How do activity, tools, and culture structure learning in a computer classroom? And finally, what does writing instruction look like in a computer classroom? This study was designed to investigate how adults learned to write in the social context of a computer classroom by examining the tools (word processors) adult learners used as they learned to write, the activity of using the computers to write, and the social culture of the computer-based classroom.

Traditional Models of Writing

Teachers of writing to adults traditionally provide students with general guidelines and procedures for writing, sometimes in a flowchart or cookbook fashion. The assumption is that adult learners can simply transfer the process of writing from one writing topic and situation to another. The two most common views that prescribe models for writing, the expressive or romantic view and the cognitive view, are the dominant writing models (Faigley, 1986) promoted by teachers of writing and generally ignore the context within which learning to write occurs by depicting learning as an internal mental process.

The expressive view of the writing process stresses integrity of text, spontaneity, and originality by focusing on the expressive content of the writing and the attempts of writers to mold and tell the truth as they see it (Tarvers, 1993). Proponents of this approach, Peter Elbow, Ken Macrorie, William Coles, Donald Murray, and Ann Berthoff, prescribe "pre-writing" techniques such as meditative exercises and journals, saying these exercises lead in a "smooth and linear fashion" (Tarvers, 1993, p. 24) to drafting and revision. Drafting, revising, and editing are seen as distinctive steps in the writing process. From an expressionistic or romantic viewpoint, it is assumed that the process for writing can transfer spontaneously from situation to situation with relative ease (Smagorinsky & Smith, 1992).

This assumption also is evident in the cognitive view of the writing process. This model describes how documents are produced through intensive draft analysis. Typical of this perspective is Flower and Hayes's (1981) recursive writing model that consists of three phases: planning texts, translating into sentences, and reviewing the texts to bring them back into line with the original plan. Although Flower and Hayes emphasize that writing is recursive, the model also stresses the hierarchical levels of the writing process, and an inherent linearity in their model implies writers must move mentally from step to step in the writing process. The contexts within which writers are writing, the writing tools themselves, and how both may affect their learning to write are ignored.

Even though the expressionistic and cognitive views prescribe a process to follow to produce a paper, the problem with these dominant teaching models of writing is that they characterize learning to write as largely an internal cognitive activity and consequently focus on "logical" steps writers should take to produce writing. They do not, however, take into account how the context of learning, such as the social structure of the computer classroom or the writing tools themselves, may affect the processes students use for writing. Flower and Hayes (1981), whose model has profoundly influenced how writing is taught, equate writing with problem-solving thinking, which in turn promotes circular reasoning and a simplistic view of how students actually write (Hatch, 1992). In addition, the authors of both expressionist and cognitive models seem to assume that the writing processes will be the same whether students write with pen and paper or with word processors, and that writing processes will be the same no matter what kinds of Writing students are doing. In short, these models fail to recognize how social interaction, activity, and tools may shape how students make meaning out of the writing process.

Social Perspective of the Writing Process

Another view of the writing process, the social-epistemic perspective, recognizes the contexts in which writing occurs while avoiding a prescriptive process for writing. The social-epistemic view of the writing process developed, in part, when more nontraditional, older and "nonwhite, non-upper middle class" (Tarvers, 1993, p. 26) students entered university developmental writing programs, forcing teachers of writing to change their expectations about the kinds of knowledge students brought with them, such as knowing how to sustain a thesis, support arguments, or how academics in universities think and thus expect students to think and write. Influenced by Paulo Freire, theorists such as David Bartholomae, Anthony Petrosky, and Patricia Bizzell advocate this notion of teaching writing, which encourages teachers to help students understand the constraints of the discourse community through analyzing the contexts in which they write and the forces that govern those contexts. Faigley (1986) explains that this view of writing is based on one central assumption:

   that human language (including writing) can be understood only from the
   perspective of society rather than a single individual ... the focus of a
   social view of writing, therefore, is not how the social situation
   influences the individual, but on how the individual is a constituent of
   culture. (p. 157)

Although the social-epistemic perspective recognizes that social culture plays a role in shaping how adult learners write, the primary notion in this framework is that writers are shaped by the world, not that the writers in any fashion also shape the world in which they are writing. However, Duin and Hansen (1994), while describing the dialogic nature of writing as being socially constructed in computer networked writing classrooms, argue that learners are not "helplessly awash in a storm of social forces" (p. 91) but contribute to and actively construct their social context, explaining further that it is "a two-way, not a one-way process" (p. 91), and that computer writing classrooms allow the social construction of knowledge about writing through social interaction and action.

Talk-Write Pedagogy

A fourth model of the writing process, talk-write pedagogy (Zoellner, 1969), regained attention in the early 1990s because it combines notions from both the social-epistemic and expressionist views and challenges the cognivist position. Instead of following a hierarchical model for writing, it advocates social collaboration, in which writers and readers continually interact and "talk" to make meaning of what they are writing. The core of this theory is Zoellner's argument that writing involves behavior constructed in the classroom and that most writing teachers direct attention to "how" students write, as portrayed in the cognivist models, and not the act of writing itself. Zoellner proposes that teaching writing constitutes behavior modification where teachers give writers immediate responses that enable them to modify behavior or writing to meet community expectations, which (when examining developmental writing classes) is the academic community. Zoellner further contends that traditional models of writing have failed students because they demand that students internalize the rules and abstract concepts about what constitutes good writing (Walters, 1991) instead of allowing students opportunities to discourse concerning writing and opportunities to discover their own processes for writing.

The "talk-write" theory recognizes social collaboration in writing as central to the continual transactions between writers and readers to make meaning. Although it locates writing as constructed in the writing classroom and lacks a prescriptive "how to" approach for teaching writing, the talk-write theory ignores the tools that writers use to write and how these tools may shape context for writing. The emphasis in this theory is also on dialogue between teacher-student, not the social interactions between students themselves in the writing classroom and how these interactions may allow students to construct their knowledge about writing. In addition, this model was developed by observing and researching traditional age college students, not adult learners who are new to the academic culture and who are so prevalent in community colleges.

Although the expressive, cognitive, social-epistemic, and talk-write models all offer perspectives of what writing might involve, all of these models were developed from research on traditional age college students and before computers played an active role in any writing classroom. What is missing from all these models of writing is how adults actually construct meaning and learn to write in the computer developmental writing classroom of community colleges, technical schools, and other adult education locales. Duin and Hansen (1994), while attempting to describe the social construction of learning in computer writing classrooms, explain that students, by shared experiences, build meaning and construct their own knowing about writing through an "ongoing process of communication, interpretation, and negotiation" (p. 90). Knowledge about writing in the computer classroom, then, is a dialogic process of social construction. Developmental writing students in computer classrooms are situated within an active culture, which, through activity, tools and social interaction, enables them to learn how to write in community colleges.

Situating Learning

To explain how adult learners might actually learn to write, we turned to theories of situated cognition (Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989; Lave, 1988; Resnick, 1987). Lave (1988) and Giddens (1979) argue that learners constitute and are constituted by society, or as Lave says, live in and fashion their society at the same time. Lave's work augments the ideas suggested by the social-epistemic and talk-write views of the writing process and has profound implications for examining the process of writing in a computer classroom. The social view of the writing process suggests that learners are constituents of a culture. But, as Lave explains, learners also fashion their culture at the same time; thus, how adult learners write may well depend on the context within which the learning is taking place, and, as Lave suggests, on the tools they use as they learn.

Because word processors are culturally provided tools embedded in the social dynamics of the class, theories of situated cognition provided the theoretical framework for conducting this study. Randic (1991), in describing Vygotsky's theories on learning language, asserted that "knowledge, thought and learning are social and collaborative acts" (p. 5). Traditional cognitive psychological understandings of learning describe a conceptual process of acquiring and storing knowledge for future use (Driscoll, 1994). The expressionistic and cognitivist models of the writing process support this notion by focusing on learning a process for writing that can be mentally internalized then transported to any context or social situation. Situated cognition suggests that knowledge is a relationship between the individual and the social or physical situation in which he or she learns (Orey & Nelson, 1994). Knowing, from a situated cognition perspective, is not an independent internal mental process, but is fundamentally situated as a product of activity, context, and culture.

Findings from Lave's 1988 ethnographic study of how adults used math in real-world contexts such as grocery stores led her to assert that "knowledge in practice, constituted in the settings of practice, is the locus of the most powerful knowledgeability of people in the lived-in world" (1988, p. 14). Lave argues that learning cannot be understood simply as an internal, individual mental process in which the mind acquires and stores knowledge for future use in any context. Instead, human cognition is profoundly situated: Learning and knowing are structured by people interacting with each other in tool-dependent environments, which leads to an understanding of learning as a complex social phenomenon. This approach to adult learning incorporates the mind, body, activity, and culturally provided tools in a complex web of recursive interactions (Rogoff & Lave, 1984; Brown, Collins & Duguid, 1989). In other words, "knowing and learning are centrally integrated within the language, tools, and culture of socially organized settings ... setting and activity dialectically structure cognition" (Wilson, 1993a, p. 336).

Viewing learning from this perspective causes us to develop an understanding of how tools and social interaction structure cognition, which means that learning must be investigated within the situations in which it occurs. Investigating learning this way helps us understand adult cognition as socially interactive, activity-based, and tool dependent. Nystrand (1990) defines social interaction as the individual interactions and discourse between writers and readers within writing communities. Shared experiences exert a powerful influence on how individuals perceive the world around them (Geertz, 1973). Viewing knowledge about writing as socially constructed through social interactions within the computer classroom situates students in the active construction of their own processes for writing. The implication for teachers of adults, then, is that modeling, coaching, and practice are the best approaches to foster learning (Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt, 1990; Farmer, 1991; Schon, 1987; Wilson, 1993b).

It is our view that computer classrooms provide opportunities for adult learners to see writing modeled, receive coaching both from instructors and other adult learners, and actively practice writing using the computers as tools for writing, thus leading to students' constructing their knowing about writing. Duin and Hansen (1994) define the writing, interpreting, and conversing writing students do via computer networks as situated literacy, further explaining that students make meaning as they share and respond to texts. They propose that students learn best when "situating their cognition and their making of meaning in a real-world situation that promotes active participation in the learning process" (p. 89). Social interaction, which allows exchange of ideas and discourse between students in computer classrooms as they read and discuss each others' writing projects, leads to social construction of knowledge about writing. Although both the social-epistemic and talk-write theories of writing recognize the social context in which students learn to write, Duin and Hansen propose a more comprehensive aspect by including the tools in their analysis of the social context.

Because in the computer-based classroom adult learners learn to write using the computer, our objective in this study was to examine how tools and social interaction may structure learning to write in a computer classroom. Reading each other's papers and providing comments and responses is a prevalent activity in any developmental writing class; when computers are used as the tools for writing, they add a new dimension to the social interactions concerning writing in which students engage within the computer writing classroom. Because we view learning as a social process structured by activities and tools in the social situation of the computer writing classroom, we sought to investigate how activity, culture, and tools structured the process adult learners used to write in the social context of the computer classroom.

Methodology

To understand how tools and social interactions structure how adult learners write in a socially interactive computer classroom, we used a qualitative case study research design, which allows researchers to investigate educational activity within its natural setting using multiple sources of evidence (Merriam, 1988). In this study, methods of collecting data included interviews, journals, and observations. We conducted this study at a midwestern institute of higher education that offered both two-and four-year degrees and served as a community college for the city and surrounding rural areas. The average age of students at this university was 28. Twelve adult learners, three men and nine women, ranging in ages from 22 to 45, who were students in developmental writing classes and who met in computer classrooms for an hour three times a week, agreed to participate in our study. Except for two African American women, all participants were White adult learners who were, for the most part, the first in their families to attend a higher educational institution.

A semi-structured, open-ended interview guide (Patton, 1990) was developed for interviewing adult learners. We conducted at least two interviews with each participant, one at the beginning of the semester and one at the end of the semester. The interviews took place at each student's convenience, usually in the computer classroom or in an adjoining classroom. The purpose of the initial interviews was to gather information about the adults and their prior experiences with and feelings about writing, word processing, and computers. In final interviews with adult learners, we gathered information concerning students' feelings concerning writing, descriptions of how they used word processors to write, computers as tools for the writing process, and the social interactions within the context of the computer lab within which they had learned to write.

All interviews were audio-taped, and tapes from the interviews were transcribed and coded throughout the data collection process. Along with the audio-taped interviews, the researchers took notes during the interviews that also became part of the interview data. Additional data consisted of written observations of students as they wrote using computers in the computer classroom and the adult learners' journals regarding their reflections on writing with computers.

Interviews were analyzed throughout the study generally following Merriam's (1988) and Patton's (1990) descriptions of case study analysis. A constant comparative method was used, and "categories were derived by constantly comparing one incident or unit of information with another" (Merriam, 1988, p. 142). When all students had been interviewed in each round, we analyzed the transcripts to derive the full meaning of adult learners' descriptions of their writing. This data "gradually evolved into a core of emerging theory ... the theoretical framework that guides the further collection of data" (Merriam, 1988, p. 144). Themes that emerged from the interviews formed the basis for analyzing both observation reports and student journal entries. Interview data were analyzed first for emerging themes; observation reports and student journals were then checked for corresponding themes that supported those that emerged from interviews. Triangulation of data supports research findings by showing that independent measures reveal the same findings, or do not contradict other findings in the study (Miles & Huberman, 1994).

Findings

After interviewing adult learners and analyzing their reflections on their writing and our observation reports, several categories emerged during the data analysis. First, learners indicated that computers were "tools" that gave them "power over" their writing in terms of having more control over the writing process; this "power" made writing easier with computers than their perceptions of writing with paper and pen. Thus, computers used as tools shaped how students wrote, or at least their perceptions of how they wrote. Second, the activity of writing using computers in the computer classroom allowed students to construct their own processes for writing, which typically meant that they did not follow prescribed "how to" methods as advocated by cognitivist views of the writing process. Third, the interactive social culture within the computer classroom provided opportunities for adult learners to "talk about" their writing and the computers as tools for writing with each other, therefore allowing them to construct their knowledge about writing. Consequently, their social interactions with each other and the culture within the computer writing classroom contributed to their development as writers. The results of the study showed that the social interactions within the computer classroom and the activity of writing with computers as tools allowed adults to engage in discourse concerning their writing which in turn led to them socially constructing their own knowing about writing in community colleges and universities.

Tools: Writing with Computers

A common theme that emerged from data collected at the beginning of writing courses was the students' beliefs that computers could make writing easier for them. The sense that the computer gave them control over their time because they did not have to retype whole essays because of typing errors surfaced frequently in the respondents' comments concerning writing. At the beginning of the semester, many students, particularly those who had problems typing or using computers, relied heavily on writing their assignments by hand and used the word processor primarily as a typewriter to type final drafts of assignments. However, as the semester progressed and adult learners used the computers more frequently, the computers became a tool for writing, much as pens and paper are tools for writing. Theresa, who completed her GED the year before she entered the developmental writing class in which this study took place, said that computers helped her writing and that the structure of the classroom itself helped students: "I can learn more one on one, with the teacher showing me stuff right on the computer ... I can't learn with the teacher reading out of the book and talking on the chalkboard."

In initial interviews at the beginning of the semester and before students had much experience writing in the classroom with computers, students were asked to describe how they thought the computer might help them with their writing. Missy, when describing her perceptions of the advantages of using computers for writing, said that computers would help her "a lot" because "it does spell check for you, you can move stuff around. By hand, you have to rewrite it all. By computer you just move it from one area to another." Sara, who had no previous computer experience and indicated that she was apprehensive about writing, said

   I think it [the computer] will be helpful once I get to know it.... It is a
   lot easier than typing because I am not a very good typist. It saves a lot
   of time because I know I make a lot of mistakes typing and I have to use
   that white-out stuff on regular typing. On the computer I don't have to
   redo it.

In later interviews, all adult learners in this study described computers as tools for writing. Two themes emerged from the data: functions within the word processor and being able to visually see what they had written displayed on the computer monitor screen were perceived as helpful to improving their writing. It was not surprising that most students listed the ability to check spelling as being helpful to improving their writing. The other function on the computer most used by the learners was the cut-and-paste feature, which helped them easily revise their essays. Babs, when describing previous writing experiences, spoke about her reluctance to make changes to what she had written because it would involve "too much work." She and others felt that because it was easier to change what they had written on computers, they were more willing to re-examine their work and make changes to it. Our observations and student journals indicated that students used the cut-paste function quite easily within the word processor. Students had also been shown how to use a grammar checker, and a few students reported that this function on the computer helped them correct errors in their writing and made them more confident about their writing. Most adult students, however, discussed negative feelings about the grammar checker, explaining that the checker assigned a "grade level" to their writing. This grade level was usually far below what students felt their writing was; therefore, they felt that the grammar checker was "too picky."

Activity: "It makes writing easier."

Adult learners reported that they felt they had more control over what and how they wrote using computers than when they wrote using pens, paper, and typewriters. Participants discussed how in the past they made only the changes to their writing that their former writing teachers had suggested they make. In the computer writing classroom, participants made changes suggested by both teachers, other students, and self-reflection upon their writing. Kara remarked "I make changes, but I don't want to change everything. I don't have to rewrite the whole thing--I can make changes wherever I want." These adults reported a new feeling of having "power over" their writing--they felt they could make whatever changes they needed, and the computers used as tools and the activity of writing directly on computers in the computer classroom facilitated these changes.

Some students said that being able to see what they had written printed on the computer screen helped them because "it was easier to read" than their own handwriting. Sheila said, "Just being able to see what I am writing as I am writing it helps me write better and more. It makes writing easier." Theresa mentioned that "seeing the writing visually on the screen helps a lot. I can go through every paragraph and actually find my mistakes before printing. Being able to see it and how it will look helps my writing." Viewing what they had written on the screen also facilitated making students more objective about their own work. "It's like looking at something someone else had written," said Steve. "I can be more critical of it, see my problems, and fix them." Babs said that viewing her writing on the computer screen gave "distance from my writing" that seemed to allow her and other students the opportunity to "re-look and fix" problems with their writing on the computer.

The activity of writing with the computers also affected the processes students used to write their assignments. When asked at the beginning of the semester to describe the processes they used to write an assignment, almost all participants described a structured process of thinking about what they wanted to write, writing the assignment with pen and paper, reading what they had written for errors, then typing the assignment before turning it in to the writing teacher. These processes mirrored the models of the expressive or cognitive frameworks for writing discussed earlier in this paper, and participants admitted they had learned the steps for writing they described in earlier writing classes. Although some of the students said that they asked others, such as spouses or friends, for help with their writing, most did not ask anyone to critique their writing.

In interviews later in the semester, each respondent clearly described processes for writing that were distinctively different from the processes they described at the beginning of the semester. These processes, which students had constructed within the computer writing classroom, generally followed this pattern: Students might generate ideas on the computer or with pencil and paper, although some students preferred to start drafting a writing assignment directly on the computer without engaging in any preliminary writing. In any case, students typed first drafts of their essays on the computer. Once they saved their essays on the computer, students frequently revised their assignments based on both instructor and peer feedback, usually making these changes directly on the computer during feedback sessions. Revision processes they described were not nearly as structured as the revision processes portrayed in cognitivist models of writing because students were willing to revise at any stage of the writing assignments. In addition, events in the computer classroom such as problems with computers, extra class time for working on writing, or giving or receiving feedback affected how students revised their writings.

Even though asking peers in the computer writing classroom to read what they had written on a regular basis was a new experience for these students, peer critiques became a standard part of processes for writing. These peer critique sessions did not seem to necessarily follow structured plans for peer critiques advocated by cognitivist writing models. Participants read each other's papers on the computer, thus allowing them during the critique session to make changes to writing directly on the computer and "try out" different sentences and writing styles. Because these adult learners saved writing assignments on the computer, they continued to revise and work on their writing throughout the time allotted for the writing assignment, and some adults continued revising even after turning in their assignments for grades. The activity of writing using the computers as tools along with the social relationships formed in the computer classroom and the dialogue concerning writing enabled students to construct their own processes for writing.

Social Context: "Talking about writing makes me write it clearer."

For the majority of students, asking a peer in the classroom to critique their writing was something unfamiliar, especially at the beginning of the semester. By the end of the semester, it was a natural step that they had added to their processes of writing. Participants reported that they frequently asked peers in the writing classroom or other people for help with their writing, then took these suggestions and rewrote their assignments. Other perceptions of the social context of the computer writing classroom was that its relaxed environment helped participants form "peer critique" groups to help them with their writing. The adult learners also reported being more willing than they had been before taking the writing class to ask for help outside the classroom, asking and receiving critiques from spouses, siblings, parents, and friends.

When asked to describe the kinds of help they received from their peers, adult learners reported that peers frequently pointed out grammar mistakes and other writing errors. Respondents reported examples of helpful comments that they were able to incorporate into their writing, such as "grammar problems, needs transitions between paragraphs, and I don't understand your thesis." Finding mistakes in other students' writing seemed to help them then correct their own writing. One student, Missy, described this as follows: "When I find a mistake in someone else's paper, then I go to my own paper to look for that mistake." Although some students said that they had received help through peer critiques in other writing classes, the critiques in the computer classroom enabled students to read each other's essays on the computer and revise them as they were critiquing them. To the students in this study, the peer critiques in the computer writing classroom were more helpful. As Theresa explained, "I need someone to show me stuff that I can write down. In the computer lab, I can be shown." The kind of help Theresa and other students seemed to "be shown" was not only help with their writing but also continual help and information from other students in the class concerning how to use computers. These conversations about the computers and writing seemed to help students construct their own meaning about writing in community colleges and universities.

Although during interviews at the beginning of the semester adult learners expressed concern that other students would be reading their writing and commenting on it, in later interviews many students expressed markedly more concern about other students' writing and discussed ways which they felt they had helped other students with their writing or received help with their own writing. Vivian gave this example of help she gave: "Like if they are talking about baseball and then all of sudden they switch to hockey, it is obvious to them but not to me. I try to point out those kinds of things." Kara described a similar situation in which she received help concerning her writing:

   One example is in this argumentative essay when I was writing about the
   five-point seat belt system. And I wrote two straps over the right
   shoulder, and two straps over the left shoulder, but then I lost track of
   the number of straps I was writing about, and the person critiquing my
   paper asked me some questions to make me write it clearer.

Carl felt that the critique groups helped him with his writing process because the groups served as a "supportive network of peers" for him in the computer classroom. However, his reaction at the beginning of the semester to peer critiques of his writing showed that he was sensitive to what others had to say about his writing: "I was upset the first time that we peer critiqued because there were comments that bothered me at first." In an interview at the end of the semester he explained how critiques helped him: "The gals seemed like we could rib a little bit, and we was all attuned to stay away from racist and sexist jokes. It was like I am here to learn. I don't have time for this high school stuff. We get right to work and help each other."

Vivian's, Kara's, and Carl's comments illustrate how the students constructed meaning out of their social interactions with each other within the computer writing classroom. Through conversations about writing, computers, or writing using computers, students were able to help each other understand the conventions of writing in academic cultures within community colleges or universities. When Kara said that the students' comments "helped me write it clearer," or Carl said that he and his group "get right to work and help each other," they were making meaning out of their interactions concerning writing, which seemed to lead them to view their writing as socially constructed within the computer classroom.

Although reading other students' papers and providing comments is a common feature of any developmental writing class, peer critique groups in the computer writing classrooms in this study socially interacted using computers as tools to help with writing. Adult students discussed how the computer classroom was a different kind of writing classroom than their previous experiences with writing classes and expressed feelings that the computers and the "more relaxed" environment of the computer writing classroom helped them to write. What students described as a relaxed environment was a workshop format for writing classes, where students wrote using computers during parts of each class period and frequently shared what they were writing with peers. This relaxed culture, reported students, contributed to the social construction of their knowing about writing.

Constructing a Writing Process: Not inside the Mind

Lave (1988) proposes that learning is a complex social phenomenon, profoundly situated, structured by people interacting with each other in tool-dependent environments. Duin and Hansen (1994) describe the dialogic nature of writing as being socially constructed in computer networked writing classrooms and argue that learners contribute to and actively construct their social world. The problem we sought to study was how adult students learn to write in computer classrooms; how activity, tools, and culture structure learning in a computer classroom; and finally, what writing instruction should look like in a computer classroom. Examining the adult learners in our study from the framework of situated cognition enabled us to develop an understanding of how tools and social interaction structured their learning to write.

How do adults learn to write in computer classrooms? Adult students described the computer as a valuable tool for writing because of how easily they could change what they had written. Because the adult student writers could easily fix their errors in writing with the functions in the word processor, they felt that they had more power over their writing than they did with pen and paper. Seeing what they had written printed on the computer screen also gave students an objectivity about their own writing that they reported not having with essays they wrote with pen and paper and then typed using typewriters. DeBauche (1990) argues that when a writer composes using pen and paper, the pen becomes an extension of the person; thus the writer may view what she or he has written as an extension of her- or himself. The essay typed on the computer, however, becomes something printed on the computer screen; physical and mental space separate writers from what they have written. If this notion is true, then students may feel real ownership of handwritten essays and may be reluctant to make changes to these essays because they are extensions of themselves. Many students in this study said that writing essays on the computer helped them "see" their writing, and because they could "see" it, they were more willing to revise, "fix," and make changes to their writing composed on word processors than they felt they were had they written their essays with pen and paper.

This willingness to revise gave students a sense of having more control over their writing processes and altered the processes students described using for writing. At the beginning of the semester, many students characterized using the computer more or less as a typewriter with which they typed a finished essay. However, as the semester progressed, students integrated the computer into all stages of their writing, thus changing how they wrote their writing assignments. Writing for these students became a matter of moving back and forth between drafting and revising, using the computer to make their revisions. Students did not feel constrained to follow prescribed steps for writing, but easily moved back and forth between drafting, revising, critiquing, and publishing in a different and less orderly way than the models for writing suggest these steps take place. Using the functions in the word processor to make these changes also gave them feelings of "power over" their writing. By the end of the study, asking others to critique their work became added components to their writing processes; these critique sessions helped the learners to construct their knowing about writing in community colleges and universities. Thus, adult learners' writing processes became not just something that was "inside their heads," but social constructions that required interactions and input from others and were influenced by the tools they used and the social interactions within the computer-based classroom.

Writing is a complex activity, and many of the traditional strategies employed to teach writing focus on technical aspects that isolate both learners and teachers from the authentic activity and context of writing. Zoellner (1969) argues that writing is thinking, not a "how to" process. We argue that writing is thinking, but it is not an internal "thinking" process; rather it is situated by the tools, activities, and the culture in which "thinking" occurs. What the students write helps define and change the social context of the writing classroom (Rubin, 1988).

Theory to Practice

How should writing be taught to adults in computer classrooms? We propose that computer classrooms provide a means of reorganizing how writing is taught in both schools and workplaces, allowing for modeling and coaching as advocated by the Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt (1990). Further, they help situate writing within the control of student writers and workers. By examining learning to write from a situated framework, it is easy to see that successful learning in computer classrooms in community colleges is not determined by individual learning factors alone (Jacobson, 1996); rather, tools, activity, and social interaction in computer writing classrooms structures learning. Teachers of writing in computer classrooms must be willing to give up some of their power to engage learners in the dialogic nature of learning to write with computers as tools. If teachers give up their power and authority in computer writing classrooms, the outcome of writing activities with computers will be collaboration and discourse among students, which in turn will allow them to construct their own knowing about writing within community colleges and universities. Once they "know" how to write for professors and instructors within higher education, students will be able to complete developmental writing courses successfully. Because writing successfully is instrumental to their fulfillment of writing requirements in almost all higher education courses, knowing how to help adult learners construct their knowledge about writing in higher education is key to helping adults succeed in all areas of higher education.

Prescriptions for writing processes may frustrate adult learners by requiring them to follow steps that make little or no sense to them. If teachers of adults in the computer classroom spend large amounts of class time lecturing and prescribing writing processes for students, students will not gain any experience using computers for writing, and the computers will basically be used by students as a typewriter for typing end product essays. To use computers as constructive tools for writing, teachers of writing in computer classrooms should plan classes that allow students time to explore computers and word processors for writing while at the same time engage in discourse about writing for community colleges and universities.

Teachers of writing in computer classrooms hold a powerful tool in their hands; but, unfortunately, too often they view computers only in an instrumental fashion rather than a constructive one. Computers do make writing more efficient, but as this study shows, they are also central to the construction of writing itself. Community college instructors and other teachers of adult learners need to recognize how computers used as tools and the social interactions in the computer classroom structure learning; they also need to reorganize their practice around the powerful nexus of knowledgeability dependent upon the interactions of people, tools, activity, and culture.

References

Brown, J. S., Collins, A., & Duguid, P. (1989). Situated cognition and the culture of learning. Educational Researcher, 18(1), p. 32-42.

Cognition and Technology Group at Vanderbilt. (1990). Anchored instruction and its relationship to situated cognition. Educational Researcher, 19(6), 2-10.

DeBauche, S. C. (1990). The effects of word processing in teaching writing in business communication courses at Southwest Baptist University. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Arkansas.

Driscoll, M. P. (1994). Psychology of learning and instruction. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Duin, A. H., & Hansen, C. (1994). Reading and writing on computer networks as social construction and social interaction. In C. L. Selfe & S. Hilligoss (Eds.), Literacy and computers: The complications of teaching and learning with technology (pp. 85-112). New York: The Modern Language Association.

Faigley, L. (1986). Competing theories of process: A critique and a proposal. College English, 527-542.

Farmer, J. (1991). Helping adults learn what they need to learn but what they can't learn adequately on their own. In Proceedings of the Project for the Study of Adult Learning. Normal, IL: College of Continuing Education and Public Service, Illinois State University.

Flower, L, & Hayes, J. R. (1981). A cognitive process theory of writing. College Composition and Communication, 32,365-387.

Giddens, J. (1979). A central problem in social theory: Action structure and contradiction in social analysis. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Geertz, C. (1973). Interpretations of culture: Selected essays. New York: Basic Books.

Hatch, G. L. (1992). Reviving the rodential model for composition: Robert Zoellner's alternative to Flower and Hayes. Rhetoric Review, 10(2), 244-249.

Jacobson, W. (1996). Learning, culture, and learning culture. Adult Education Quarterly, 47(1), 15-28.

Lave, J. (1988). Cognition in practice: Mind, mathematics and culture in everyday life. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Merriam, S. B., (1988). Case study research in education. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc..

Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). An expanded sourcebook: Qualitative data analysis. London: Sage Publications.

Murray, D. (1980). Writing as a process. In T. R. Donaovan & V. W. McClelland (Eds.), Eight approaches to teaching composition (pp. 3-20). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Nystrand, M. (1990). Sharing words: The effects of readers on developing writers. Written Communication, 7(1), p. 3-24.

Orey, M. A., & Nelson, W. A. (1994). Situated learning and the limits of applying the results of these data to theories of cognitive apprenticeships. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 373 746)

Patton, M. Q. (1990). Qualitative evaluation and research methods. London: Sage Publications.

Petkosh, D. G. (1990). The revising behaviors of three undergraduate technical writers assisted by the word processor: A qualitative case study. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University, College Park, PA.

Randic, J. (1991, March). Employing Freire's notion of dialogue as the "Sealing Power" in the writing classroom: Theoretical base and a call for change. Paper presented at the Conference on College Composition and Communication, Boston. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 331 069)

Resnick, L.B. (1987). Learning in school and out. Educational Researcher, 16(9), 13-20.

Rogoff, B., & Lave J. (Eds.). (1984). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Rose, M. (1980). Rigid rules, inflexible plans and stifling language. College Composition and Communications, 31(4), 389-401.

Rubin, D. (1988). Introduction: Four dimensions of social construction in written communication. In D. Rubin & B. R. Rafoth (Eds.), The social construction of written communication (pp. 1-33). Norwood, MA: Ablex.

Schon, D. A. (1987). Educating the reflective practitioner: Toward a new design for teaching and learning in the professions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Smagorinsky, P., & Smith, M. (1992). The nature of knowledge in composition and literary understanding: The question of specificity. Review of Educational Research, 62(3), 279-305.

Tarvers, J. K. (1993). Teaching writing: Theories and practice (4th ed.). New York: Harper Collins College Publishers.

U.S. Department of Education. (1995). National Center for Education Statistics: Statistics in brief. (NCES 95-823). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement.

Walters, M. B. (1992). Talk-write pedagogy: Instrumental concept for compositions today. Rhetoric Review, 10(2), 239-243.

Wilson, A. L. (1993a). Adult learning, situated cognition, and authentic activity: Relocating adult education in the context of experience. In the Proceedings of the 34th Annual Adult Education Research Conference (pp. 335-340). University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University.

Wilson, A. L. (1993b). The promise of situated cognition. In S. B. Merriam (Ed.), An update on adult learning theory (pp. 71-79). New Directions for Adult and Continuing Education, No. 57. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Zoellner, R. (1969). Talk-write: A behavioral pedagogy for composition. College English, 30, 267-320.

Catherine A. Hansman serves as assistant professor and program coordinator for Adult Learning and Development in the Counseling, Supervision, and Adult Learning Department at Cleveland State University in Statesboro, Georgia (email [e-mail]).

Arthur L. Wilson is an assistant professor in the Department of Adult and Community College Education at N.C. State University in Raleigh, North Carolina (email [e-mail]).