How I wish SLW and R/C didn’t view one another as Uncle Jimmie Joe Bob at the annual family reunion no one really wanted to go to anyways. The same conversation these articles dive into, is nearly the same conversation SLW (and CALL and digital literacies) began exploring in the early 90’s and continues to even today. Researchers wonder the effects of word processors (and other forms of digital literacies) on the SLW process: are teachers better at grammar instruction and feedback than WP or vice versa? are WP actually able to assist in SLW instruction if the data used to run WP is gathered from L1 language usage? do the squiggly cursors distract students? does spell checker actually impede the process of learning new vocabulary? do students see a whole text or a partial? what about ownership? who/what has more authority in the classroom: instructor or computer?

Most instructors will argue that we should merely turn off the many complex functions MS Word comes with – students don’t need, and shouldn’t, rely on them. However, some scholars (Li & Cumming (2001)) argue that proper instruction of word processors actually positively impacts writing instruction – to what degree is still under scrutiny. Yet the conversation of access, and how the lack of assumed access to the technologies used in the American classroom, is just beginning to ring loud enough for us to actually look up for our screens and pay attention.

The culture of our SLW students is ubiquitous throughout their writing process and interaction with digital media/literacies; many of our students may not have been granted technological privileges and have had little exposure to the modes of writing being integrated in American universities. Consequently, students may not only be struggling with linguistic components such as, grammar, syntax, semantics, pragmatics, morphology, and phonology, but they must also navigate through a digital divide created through a difference in educational context (e.g. Warschauer, 2003). Though it may be assumed that countries such as China (where most of our international students are currently from) are largely ‘developed’ in their uses of technology, Taylor, Jamieson, and Eignor (2000) found in their research that the following countries were described as not having computers in their classrooms: Bangladesh, Chile, China, India, Pakistan, Indonesia, and various others; however, the United States, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Netherlands, Sweden, and Switzerland are known for having the means to structure curriculum around computers (p. 576). So while using the computer in an ESL (or a mainstream comp class with multilingual speakers) context has proven to have a positive effect on the students’ motivation and attitudes towards writing, Pennington (2003) explains that students’ “behavior is dictated by their knowledge and understanding of the [technology]” they are interacting with (p. 408). In other words, students’ attitudes, based on their previous experiences, directly affect their interactions with the new modes of writing being introduced to the classroom setting.

For example: My international students in 106 last year spent more time learning and using the technology I was “forced” to teach (and they were forced to learn) than they did improving their writing skills through negotiation and collaboration. Writing quickly became the backdrop to technology’s play, and they knew it, disliked it, and rebelled against it.