After parsing through today’s readings, I find myself continuing to think about the implications of the idea of the computer as an entity that seems to operate outside of the writing process, as something for which new processes (such as revision) needed to accommodate, as something that causes people like Kantrov to point out that “what is critical is how teachers choose to employ the technology in their classrooms and computer laboratories” (63).

Indeed, in light of these readings, I find myself preoccupied by similar concerns that have already been posed by others here. Like Sherri, I wonder how far we have really come and if the ways that we think about the intersection of computers and writing processes have really progressed in any meaningful way. And, like Alisha, I too wonder about the writing processes of experienced and inexperienced writers and how we might navigate the challenges we face in working on such processes with students.

And I’m also struck by something that Kantrov argues: “The greater access students have to more appropriately designed tools, the less students and instructors will have to struggle to accommodate the technology to the composition course’s goals” (73). Namely, I wonder, here, how it is that we might realistically help students garner access to such tools and how the idea of access informs the way we think about computers and composition.