Charles Moran offers a sequence of in-class assignments that are generally not replicable in our 2015 classrooms. Christine Hult provides a look into how students revise their papers on the surface because the functions are easier in the word processor than revising with block moves, which, for the most part, still remains true. Ilene Kantrov suggests bringing technology assistants into the classroom so as not to distract students with computer troubles from the writing instruction–a request that is completely unrealistic in our classrooms.

Unlike last Thursday’s readings that really resonated with me I found most of this week’s “pedagogy in practice” texts downright laughable. Although the articles are written several years after the ones last week, the evolution of technological understanding hadn’t moved beyond “word processors cannot teach students how to write” (Kantrov 68) and super typewriters work best when students frequently print their drafts to measure their progress. However, I will admit that Sommer’s comments about revision and responding to student writing are important to note (as Hult argues), even 35 years later since much of what she noticed about student revision is still applicable.

Frankly, I am unsure what these articles provide other than a laughable look at our field’s inability to imagine innovation and change.