When Blogging Goes Bad

After much frustration, I have now managed to post on the google group and also on the class blog(twice by mistake...does anyone know how to delete?). Despite this, because of my discomfort with blogs, I still feel like an outsider in this discussion (see my previous posting on Kajder chapter 4 & 8). Therefore, I think it appropriate to discuss Steven Krause’s “When Blogging Goes Bad: a Cautionary Tale About Blogs, Email Lists, Discussion, and Interaction.” In case someone hasn’t read it, the gist of it is that Krause asserts that, for the purposes of teaching writing, blogs are a forum for “publishing,” while email mailing lists are a means of “communication.” Krause analyzes the reasons for the failure of an “experiment” with blogs in his advanced writing class: “There was very little writing that could be described as reflective, dynamic, collaborative, or interactive...almost no exchange or conversation...it wasn’t even clear if the students were reading other posts. Individuals made their posts in an erratic and inconsistent manner, and they moved on.” (5) In his essay, Krause makes the case that despite the shortcomings in his own assignment, a good part of the reason for its failure was the decision to use blogs rather than email as a site for discussion. Along the way, he makes a series of statements, which I’d like to explore as a student of writing also attempting to use blogs for a class.
Krause purposely gives few prompts or direction as to what should go on his class blog, or how much each student should contribute. His intention is to create a space for spontaneous intellectual interaction, “where [his] students would simply just want to write.” The students’ failure to “want to write” disappoints Krause and, despite his reflection on the objective reasons and his understanding that his own lack of structure for this assignment was greatly to blame, he still feels disappointed by the fact that, when given the opportunity to write without restrictions, advanced students of writing do not use that opportunity.
Krause attributes his disappointment to the “idealistic” misconception of much writing theory, which claims that “writing teachers ought to focus on fostering and nurturing an atmosphere where...students can write not because they are being required to do so by some sort of ‘teacherly’ assignment, but because they want to write.” (5) Krause concludes that students are never going to want to write about anything without “a reason—and generally a personal reason.” (6) I will take the chance that my comment on all of this might seem self-evident or off-topic. Krause’s view of students strikes me as reductive. One basic fact which Krause neglects to mention is that posting on blogs (or anywhere, for that matter) involves a great deal of work. From his description of his class requirements, it would seem he expected students to hold this online discussion in addition to the regular work of his course. He does not seem to have incorporated this new form of writing in his own syllabus.
I think that one of the dangers of incorporating computer technology into our teaching is that, often, it is added to the traditional print work, not instead of some of the other class requirements. Because some people often spend a great deal of time on their computers doing personal tasks (emailing, blogging, surfing, etc.), it is easy to equate these online writing forums to relaxed, stress-free activities, when, in fact, the personal tasks to which people devote their time are recreational. It is the nature of the task, not the medium, which promotes free and, often, exploratory communication, such as that which Krause hoped for. In reality, students are aware that they are students when they are doing any communication for a class (blogs, email, or paper and pencil). There might not be any forum in which students can feel that class-related work is recreational. In contrast with Krause’s implications, I do not think this means that student writers do not become truly interested, even invested, in what they write. This does not mean that students will not reflect and discuss on paper or online in the way Krause envisioned. It does mean, however, that students are aware that there is a teacher expectation—the proof is in Krause’s disappointment, which was great enough to write about in an article, stating that he had hoped that his students would take the opportunity to write without being obligated because they were “grown-ups.” (5) It is hard to think of more condemning judgment than that.
Perhaps Krause has a point when he argues that “email posts to mailing lists are drafts or works in progress, and more often than not, they demand a literal response....and that [b]log posts are more finished...and while readers might ‘respond’ in some sort of metaphoric way, they are not as likely to write a direct response to the writer.” (9) In fact, if we can forget my inability with blogs, I have posted single, non-conversational texts this week myself, just as Krause suggests this medium encourages. So, Krause’s theory might hold some truth. However, I think his analysis of the failure of this technology in the classroom leaves out something that all teachers need to consider when incorporating technology into their teaching: class work is just that, work for a class. It can lead to rich and fruitful dialogue and reflection, but students will (and should) always be aware that it has standards by which to abide.
In her chapter on “Creating Community,” when discussing online discussion, precisely what Krause wanted his students to engage in, Kajder talks about the “clear dividing line between [her] professional and personal worlds,” and how she expects, and takes measures to ensure, the same from her students. I think teachers need to hold the same understanding when thinking of the purposes for class writing in contrast with those for personal writing. I believe the reason for the failure of Krause’s experiment lies in the fact that he believed the technology he was incorporating (blogs) would change the nature of the work the students were doing—so that they would “simply just want to write.” Because they were graduate students, and adults, he seemed to expect them to write as if his were not a class, a graduation requirement, one that they probably took concurrently with others, perhaps in addition to working and/or taking care of their families. The fact is that there are concrete reasons why his students weren’t going to want to “‘just want to write’ in a blog space (or anywhere else, for that matter, just because they were given the opportunity.” (5-6)
When referring to high school students, Kajder makes a very important point in relation to the use of online discussion tools: “It’s [giving an assignment] only different online insofar as it asks us to think and respond in a different medium... [i]t’s easy for the teachers to think that the technology itself will lead students to high-level thinking. Not true.” (103) Kajder’s point on higher level thinking in high school students, applies to Krause’s situation in that the medium will not change the fact that the discussion is part of a class, to be read by members or that class, including a professor.
At the time of writing his text, Krause planned to use blogs in a graduate class the following semester, hoping that the students would “come to see their class blog space as a useful research and prewriting tool.” I hope he was successful, but I can’t help but think that, again, he was overlooking the fact that posting writing on a blog, would not make it any less of a required assignment. As a graduate student, I would, personally, not present all of my prewriting and research writing for class or instructor reading. Instead, I would consider the expectation to post on a blog another class assignment, in addition, to my research and authentic prewriting work (to be re-worked over and over again before posting), making the blog an added assignment in my eyes.