A Wikified Landscape and New Possibilities

For those readers who have been asking--What is a wiki?--scholars define them in several ways. Brian Lamb's assertions, in "Wide Open Spaces: Wikis Ready or Not," highlight the diversity of these applications: he says, "It's risky to talk about wiki as if they're all the same. In practice, the term wiki (derived from the Hawaiian word for "quick") is applied to a diverse set of systems, features, approaches, and projects. Even dedicated wikiheads," he argues, "engage in perpetual arguments about what constitutes true wikiness" (38). But despite the diversity of these applications, others agree that there are common features of the wiki. According to Garza and Hern, the wiki is "a server-based collection of hypertext pages based on an 'open-editing' system concept," within which users can visit the allotted URL and within the web browser, "quickly and easily create, access, and edit wiki pages, including those created by others" (WhatisWiki). And technologist Bryan Alexander argues, in "Web 2.0: A New Wave of Innovation for Teaching and Learning," that wikis are "perhaps the writing application[s] most thoroughly grounded in social interaction" (36). For our purposes, though, we should: consider the diversity they offer for the sake of flexibility, and we should recognize the social location of these applications on the web, as well as acknowledge that they are grounded in the social interactions they foster. Then we can consider the implications of these facts on writing instruction in FYC courses like those at CSU.

As Garza and Hern claim, "the dynamic nature of wikis encourages writers to . . . better understand the social nature of writing." I would like to consider their claim in the context of the "landscape" the wiki offers. Unlike more traditional textual landscapes, such as the white piece of paper, the wiki’s landscape is not privatized, which expands possibilities of “audience” for student writing. This landscape is a public web space accessible to anyone who has the address or searches for the content within this wiki. Garza and Hern highlight the importance of this public space by stating that the wiki not only allows students to "consider the needs and demands of [their] ultimate audience, but those of [their] collaborators [or peers] as well" (WikiCollaborative). The authors' claim can be broken down and considered from two perspectives. As I argue in the previous section, traditional textual landscapes limit students' understanding of audience theory, fostering a state of disconnect between writers and their "invoked" audience. However, as these authors suggest, the wiki connects writers and their "ultimate" or intended audience. And as I contend, it is due to the expanded possibilities that the wiki's textual landscape provides. While traditional landscapes foster a cycle of textual production and consumption that exists in a vacuum between students and teachers, the wiki maintains this privatized landscape through password protection and "hide" options, but can also acts as a public space where writing can be accessed, with ease, by readers extending beyond the teacher.

And, furthermore, while Garza and Hern suggest that students (or writers in general) are more apt to envision their ultimate audience, and that the connection to peers that the wiki presents is the significant contribution of this tool to writing instruction, I argue that this is true but that the connection in itself is not unique. As I explain in the previous section of this article, students--at least those enrolled in FYC courses grounded in theoretical perspectives similar to CO150--are presented with ample opportunities to engage their peers in collaboration. Instead, I contend, the wiki offers an expanded connection between writers and their community of fellow writers and readers. It does this by transforming Bruffee’s traditional notion of collaboration in the writing process. As noted, Bruffee claims that too often when students collaborate when writing, they are engage in a series of verbal exchanges, but these verbal exchanges--these verbal conversations--neglect to engage students in the act of writing. But we cannot forget, in accordance with the Burkean Parlor theory, that writing itself is a conversation, and according to Bruffee, it is the teacher’s responsibility to engage “students in conversation among themselves at as many points in both the writing and the reading process as possible” (422). Drawing on this claim, I believe the wiki acts as another opportunity to engage students in conversation among themselves; and moreover, it provides a unique opportunity, in which the act of conversation and the act of writing are fused into one, seamless process.

For the sake of appearing unbiased, I recognize the value in the verbal discussions that students engage. They provide their own benefits that highlight the interpersonal communication that occurs between individuals as they grapple with their ideas, perspectives, and rationalizations that are a part of writing through face-to-face interaction. But on the other hand, the streamlined process of writing and discussion that occurs through the use of the wiki exemplifies what Susan McLeod identifies as a writing-to-learn activity. In her article “The Pedagogy of Writing Across the Curriculum,” she explains that the write to learn philosophy forwards the understanding that writing is a tool for learning, that it is student centered, that it promotes active and critical thinking, and that it is reflective (151-53). Seen through this lens, the wiki allows for a written conversation in which students, through the writing they produce in the space of the wiki via "open edits," which are changes made instantaneously to the web browser and thus to the content on the wiki site, are learning by engaging in active and critical thinking and acting as reflective resources for their peers. As an instructor of CO150, I experience a continual feeling that students do not practice the act of writing enough, and I see the wiki as one solution. My experience using this application suggests the wiki is another pedagogical tool--that offers another space, another place, and another opportunity--to engage students in the act of writing. 

While changing the collaborative process of writing by streamlining writing and discussion and thus fostering written discussions, the wiki also transforms students' revision processes within writing. As writing instructors we recognize the conceptual and pragmatic complexities of revision, and we should therefore understand the challenges revision presents our students with. In the last section I explained challenges that I have seen in my own classes, attributing these challenges, at least in part, to limitations of traditional textual landscapes. Here, I concur with Garza and Hern, who suggest that wikis "present visual and physical representations of the decentralized nature of the act of producing writing" (WikiComposition). The authors argue, implicitly, that these visual and physical representations of writing help writers "see" that writing is not only the "act" of composing but also the negotiation of complex thought processes that inform and accompany this act. By clicking on the 'history' link at the bottom of this page, for instance, viewers can select two or more versions of this section to visually compare. They can assess the chunks of text that were integrated, deleted, clarified, focused, resized, re-colored, and otherwise edited as versions of this section were updated to develop what is now the newest version. This feature offers a vision of writing that is different from the "finished product" traditional landscapes highlight and offers new and refreshing possibilities for peers involved in collaborative revision processes.

As this analysis suggests, the wiki application fosters a writing process that is challenges the limitations and complications of writing processes grounded in traditional classrooms, pedagogies, and landscapes. It offers students another lens through which they can explore and reflect on the social context that writing is imbricated. And again, I want to acknowledge the benefit that traditional writing instruction provides and argue that the wiki should expand and transform, not replace, existing pedagogies. The wiki--and likely other Web 2.0 applications--presents its own complications and challenges unique to the use of electronic technologies. In the next section entitled Is There a Conclusion Here?, I will offer closing statements on our responsibilities as educators in light of the recent histories of computers and writing, technological literacy, and the global community. Then, I will share challenges that the wiki applications presented me while developing this article and suggest several questions to consider for future research.