Conversants and Combatants:
InterChange and Newsgroup Discussions in Literature-Survey Courses

Conclusion

Because "Blake" is a pseudonym, we are unable to make final claims about changes in Finn's or Amber's positions despite the similarity of Blake's and Amber's ideas. We can note, however, that the original position favoring a psychological viewpoint went unchanged when placed in a newsgroup conversation with another class. The same position played itself out differently in the local class discussion. Perhaps it was the feeling of community and shared goals that allowed Blake to shift ground more in the InterChange; no longer "threatened" by unfamiliar readers or an unfamiliar setting, he/she could open up to other views. In some ways, then, expanding the discussion to include two classes paradoxically limited the number of perspectives. Any particular individual's perspective was channeled into a limiting identification of "me/us" that was opposed to "them." The InterChange forum, on the other hand, encouraged the individuation of each student's voice, so the number of perspectives broke down into variegated distinctions among "me," "he," "she," and so on. In our use of it, InterChange seemed conducive to negotiating a diversity of perspectives productively; perhaps the medium itself is suited for this purpose. While authors and their messages are disembodied in this forum, in most cases students are at least all present in the same room. Additionally, the spontaneity of real-time interaction in InterChange makes it possible to press students to consider alternative ideas and clarify their arguments on the fly, increasing their immediate accountability in the discussion.

If we were going to implement newsgroups in literature-survey courses again, we would introduce them to our students differently. Foremost would be efforts to familiarize students better with the newsgroup format, our goals for using it, and the students in the other classes with whom they would be corresponding. For example, before having students enter a newsgroup, we would discuss common rules of "netiquette" (Internet etiquette) that can help keep online interactions from devolving into flaming. In addition, we would have students interact in the newsgroup for a longer period of time to increase their mutual familiarity; if possible, we would even plan our full syllabi together and use the newsgroup throughout an entire semester. Having the members of the different classes meet one another face to face at least once could also decrease possible newsgroup alienation. Finally, we would emphasize newsgroups' function as a brainstorming medium that all individual participants can use to explore their ideas. That is, we would avoid having our separate classes discuss material before they contribute newsgroup messages so as to minimize the initial perception of predetermined identity according to class "blocks." On this count, after we introduce students to writing and sending newsgroup posts in class, we might ask them to continue doing so outside class, on their own time, so that each participant's voice is relatively distinct and does not necessarily appear in a set of messages composed by fellow class members.

In conclusion, it would be wrong to make large claims about newsgroups and InterChange based on the limited evidence from our classes' exchanges. What we can say is that our examples suggest productive ways to apply the two forums in a course favoring multi-perspective interpretation. Our evidence also shows that whatever the forum, pedagogies favoring diversity and discussion will inherently involve issues of conflict. Debates and disputes in media like newsgroups and InterChange can have productive results, especially if they are managed appropriately. Our largest conclusion is that strategies for productively negotiating difference are crucial to the success of multiple-perspective pedagogies in conventional or computer-aided classrooms.

Works Cited

Lauter, Paul, ed. The Heath Anthology of American Literature. Vol. 2. Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath and Company, 1994.


Return to Conversants and Combatants
Daniel Anderson
Nick Evans
1996