A discourse community, according to James Porter, is a "group of individuals bound by a common interest who communicate through approved channels and whose discourse is regulated" (38). Some may find this description too constricting, and others a bit vague, but Porter’s definition serves as an excellent starting point for examining the discourse community of gatsby-l. Although it is doubtful that Porter had virtual communities in mind when he wrote his often-quoted definition in 1986, the students who enrolled in the course and participated in the list discussions were "individuals bound by a common interest" (whether it was a sincere interest in the subject matter or merely a desire to earn a decent grade); they communicated through "an approved channel" (the gatsby-l discussion list); and finally, their discourse was "regulated" (self-regulated, yes, but "governed" by the requirements of the course and guided by weekly discussion prompts to which they responded).

Although the discourse community of gatsby-l was short-lived, students and others maintained connections beyond the semester. They conversed with each other, with "e-quaintances," and with me both on and off-list. Some also used their experience in this "local" discourse community to join other lists and gain access to other academic and non-academic discourse communities representing various fields of study or interest. For some students, this might mean entering and becoming a contributor to the global discourse community of their chosen field long before they would (if ever) typically have a "voice" in or be recognized by that community. Participation in the course, then, allowed many, especially those who participated in both gatsby-l and amlit1-l, to experience first-hand the phenomena of shifting, evolving, and dissipating circles of discourse which is fast becoming the norm in the information age.

Although these experiences will no doubt aid students in their future and present occupations, let us for a moment consider the nature of academic writing along with its possibilities and limitations. I will not pretend to claim that one semester’s participation in an e-mail list discussing American literature can fully prepare anyone for the challenges he or she will face writing and communicating in the "real" world. There are, however, as David Bartholomae suggests, a number of audiences and styles of writing expected of students before they even graduate:

Gatsby-l provided students with an introduction to the global discourse community of literary criticism by allowing them to not only read from the "canonized" critics’ works which were published in academic journals, but to quote from their peers (and be quoted) just as they might in a professional or academic community; they were even able to "converse" with established critics in MOO sessions and with authors via e-mail. This ability allowed students to truly engage in what literary critic Robert Scholes calls writing "within, upon and against" texts (24). The act of reading, Scholes says, produces a text "within" the text, as Stanley Fish and other proponents of reader-response criticism contend. Scholes goes on to tell us that the act of interpretation produces a text "upon" the text, and the act of criticism produces a text against the text. These three activities, all vital components of the networked, web-based course which gatsby-l participants were enrolled in, are the same three essential activities which professional writers and literary critics spend the majority of their time engaged in.

Of course, much to the chagrin of many literature instructors, most of their students are not likely to follow in their footsteps, and, without coersion by some other instructor later in their academic career, will probably never voluntarily write a critical analysis of any work of literature again. We who are in the profession do hope that students will see the value of such analysis anyway, and argue vehemently of the worth of literature courses to a general liberal education. But practically speaking, we often have very little concrete evidence to back up our claims. The networked, web-based literature course, however, offers the possibility of validating these long-held beliefs, and it is my hope that this study will be one of the first of many to explore the numerous implications of this new pedagogy. Students, though, don’t need to wait for the research to recognize the benefits. In an e-mail message sent to me the semester following the one in which he was enrolled in this course, a frustrated Sir Edward wrote:

Participation in the list not only helped students enter a "literary" discourse community, but also helped them to understand relationships between literary studies and other disciplines by seeing how other students and participants drew upon their own experiences and fields of expertise to bring about fresh approaches to the literature. Some of the paper topics included: fashion as a statement of women’s rebellion in the 1920’s; the history of emergency medical services and how today’s EMS technology would have changed the plot of The Great Gatsby; literary critics and their views on The Great Gatsby compared by analogies to various types of fish; and capitalism and the American Dream from the point of view of an American (economically conservative) economics major who had debated on gatsby-l with a German scholar who had grown up under socialism. These varied interests contributed not only to the final research papers, but also to the general listserv discussion. After one student compared the characters of Tom and Daisy Buchanan to amoebas, another replied, saying: "...you're a genius. You found a way to multi-task your Biology and American Lit. Well said! I know a lot of scientific types who could really relate to your metaphor about the amoeba! There's a diverse audience out there; and, your statement proves there's a way to spark a bit of curiosity in all of us" (Mary S., Fri, 23 Feb 1996 00:03:20).

Needless to say, the input from gatsby-l participants who were not officially enrolled in the course had a definite impact on the formation and nature of the discourse community that developed around the list. Some of the non-enrolled participants included: a speech pathologist from a major university; an executive of the Small Business Administration; a bioengineering major who had created his own home page for F. Scott Fitzgerald; a fruit science major/agribusiness minor from California; a technical writer; an English MA student from Nebraska studying for his qualifying exams; an archeologist on assignment in New Mexico; and a self-proclaimed "Philosopher of the Epistemology of Fishing, scholar in residence." Each of these "list-crashers" had a unique impact on the discussions of The Great Gatsby, and some even offered advice to the enrolled students when they submitted rough drafts of their research papers to the list.

The remainder of this section will be devoted to exploring the formation and development of the gatsby-l discourse community. The data suggest that: 1) students adapt quickly to the environment, taking up discussion of course-related subject matter with minimal prompting from the instructor, and seem to have little problem leading the discussion, creating a multi-branched discourse with many options for entering; 2) discussions are enriched and diversified by participation of non-enrolled list members; and 3) typically shy and/or non-traditional students participate in the course discussions more fully than they would in a traditional classroom setting. Figure 3 (below) provides a visual representation of the gatsby-l discourse community.

Although the required course discussion did not officially begin until I sent the first discussion prompt on January 24, several students who had been enrolled in my course the previous semester (as well as some "newbies") signed on to the gatsby-l discussion list early and began discussing the novel on their own initiative. As the following examples demonstrate, initial messages in a computer-mediated course tend to be focused on the task at hand (in this case, discussion of the course readings) and the discussion is quickly generated and shaped by the students. In the following message, two "rookies" begin their analysis of The Great Gatsby by focusing, ironically, on a concept around which I built the course, which was an examination of the "American dream" and how it was portrayed in literature written by authors representing various segments of our society.

Anthony, in his detailed refutation, displays a passion which will soon be echoed by other list participants. As an economics major and the son of a successful real estate investor, he cares deeply about issues that are "American" in nature, and signs his message with the highly formal "Anthony B. Hanes," a reminder of his socio-economic position. It is easy to decipher that he is the product of a society which applauds economic success, no matter how it is obtained. He claims that lies, cheating, etc. are "nothing new" and that they are "not a problem with our current society." By playing down the significance of unethical behavior, he strikes at the crux of her argument. He then frees himself to claim that even if greed exists, and even if Jay Gatsby is greedy, it is acceptable, even desirable. He asks, then answers, a rhetorical question: "What do you think makes capitalism work? Self-Interest (another form of greed)..."

The above messages, then, help to illustrate several important ingredients in the molding of the gatsby-l discourse community. It is helpful to think of the list participants as players in a game in which the goal is not to throw balls through a hoop as in basketball, but to stay on one’s feet as in a sparring session between boxers or martial artists. In this case, though, the game is not physical, but intellectual. One throws a series of punches (in this case ideas and opinions) at the opponent(s) and defends oneself from the blows delivered by the opposition. Whoever throws the best punches or kicks and puts up a good defense is declared the winner. I am borrowing heavily here from Wittgenstein’s notion of language games, and Lyotard’s contention that "to speak is to fight." Every utterence, says Lyotard, is akin to a "move" in a game of chess; I prefer my analogy of sparring, however, because the language games which take place in the electronic discourse community are much more dynamic, exciting, and immediate than those in a typical discourse arena such as an academic journal.

Another important ingredient in the electronic classroom is the ability for many students to "speak" at once; this is true of synchronous conferencing such as that enabled by software such as Daedalus InterChange in local area networks or educational MOO’s on the internet, but is especially important in asynchronous environments such as e-mail discussion lists. In both instances, several participants can contribute to the conversation at once, which allows for more "words per hour" than are possible in a traditional classroom setting. In the asynchronous environment, however, students have more time to read, synthesize, and react to what their classmates have said, creating a multi-branched discourse with many options for entering, giving the "deep thinkers" a more equal footing with those who tend to be of quicker wit. In addition, students have the ability to read a message over several times, follow a thread backwards to place the message in context, and write and revise their response before making it "public" by posting it to the list.

Students can also, if the course is structured properly, "teach" each other more than I could ever teach them on my own. Although Anthony’s message above touches only briefly on the subject of economics, he shared his knowledge of that field in several other messages throughout the semester. Other students used their knowledge of psychology, history, marketing, and even emergency medical training to shed new light on various aspects of the novel. Again, the extent to which this knowledge was shared was heightened by the absence of the time constraints that are an inherent characteristic of the traditional classroom setting.

In other "pre-class" list activity, some returning students renewed their acquaintance. Instead of just a superficial "Hi, how was your Christmas?" type of conversation, though, the focus began just where it left off--intellectual debate based on the course readings. In the following example, Sir Edward sends a relatively tame message to another "veteran," JW (Sharon Wells), with whom he had several heated disagreements during the previous semester’s discussions. In his response, Sir Edward appears to strike a conciliatory tone, finding in JW a compatible sparring partner rather than an enemy to be defeated; this message helped redefine their relationship roles as friendly competitors rather than despised adversaries, and although they still had disagreements throughout the semester, they were, for the most part, based more on logic than emotion:

Sir Edward, thirsting for the opportunity to share his observations, does not even bother with social pleasantries or formalities, but rather leaps right into an academic discussion; he does, however, begin with the atypical (for him, anyway) assertion that he agrees with JW about something. "JW," he states, "I also did not develop a gripping interest until late into the book." With this opening remark, he seems to take on a more conciliatory tone than in his previous semesters’ conversations with JW, and saying "okay, here’s something we agree upon--let’s build upon that and start afresh." Of course, Sir Edward would not be content to simply agree, but rather than using his typical "attack dog" approach (for which he had been rebuked by other students in the previous semester’s course), he politely comments that he will "have to think more about [her] idea of lost innocense on Nick's part."

Sir Edward then picks up on JW’s previous comments upon the novel’s theme and offers his own view, beginning a discussion of two other elements of the novel, plot development and characterization. By following the conversation between JW and Sir Edward, other list participants can now respond not only to my initial discussion prompts (which at this point in the semester have not even been sent out yet), but also have three other choices or "threads" which they can join: theme, plot development, and characterization. Providing opportunities for students to introduce their own topics is an important factor in creating a student-centered, open forum in which ideas are freely exchanged without fear of reprisal or censure by the instructor.

Of course, it would be false to assume that the students felt completely free to say anything they wanted. They were, after all, enrolled in a college-level course for credit, and no matter how much an instructor attempts to "empower" the students or give up his or her role as the authority figure, the knowledge that their comments are being constantly monitored or will be evaluated at some point still lurks in the minds of the students. Unlike some current theorists, though, I do not consider this to have a completely negative impact. Although I never sent any messages to the list warning the participants to "stay on track or else," the ambiance of the list nevertheless remained fairly academic in tone. For the most part, students shied away from frivolous comments and making ad hominid attacks, but instead practiced their rhetorical skills in their efforts to persuade or critique each other’s comments.
 
 

INCREASED PARTICIPATION BY TYPICALLY SHY AND/OR NON-TRADITIONAL STUDENTS

Data gathered from listserv messages as well as surveys and recorded interviews conducted with students after the course was over suggest that students with insecurities due to shyness, inexperience, non-traditional status, etc. tend to participate more often and more freely in an electronic discourse community than in a traditional classroom setting. This phenomena has been widely confirmed by both anecdotal evidence and recent computers and writing scholarship by researchers such as Hawisher and Selfe, Taylor, and McCann, and my research supports these earlier findings.

In what seems like an almost direct response to detractors who fear that education via computer-mediated communication has a dehumanizing effect on both students and instructors, one student noted on a written survey that "I think it [the virtual classroom environment] has the tendency to become more personal because people are more inclined to write things that they normally would not say" (Judith 5-6-96). Another student noted that ". . . it is more comfortable to say what is on your mind since sticks and stones can break my bones, but words will never hurt me" (Heath 5-6-96). A third stated: "I felt less intimidated to talk to them [other students] and ask for advice than I would in a traditional classroom . . . I participated more, because I felt more comfortable this way. I didn't have to worry about interrupting classroom lecture time to ask for help, advice, or give my opinions." Even those who claimed in the survey that there was little difference in their degree of participation neglected to realize that they had, whether voluntarily or not, made several dozen comments each throughout the semester; in order to fulfill even the minimum course requirements, they had e-mailed at least twelve 3-4 paragraph initial messages and at least 36 responses to classmates’ messages, in addition to essay rough drafts and peer critiques, throughout the semester. Compared to a traditional course that met in a classroom twice a week for fifteen weeks, each student would have had to make approximately two comments per class period to equal the same amount of participation.

In the following section examples will be shown of listserv messages from two students, Fran and Penny, both of whom rarely spoke in the classroom, but "blossomed" in the online environment.

Fran

Fran , a "married without children" student in her mid-thirties, was enrolled in the on-campus section of English 1302, the second semester of the first-year composition and rhetoric program. A typical non-traditional student, she had attended college briefly directly after graduating high school, but left school to get married and was now returning to college after several years’ absence. Her soft-spoken nature and the age difference between her and the other on-campus students led her to keep mostly to herself during class, and she used her computer lab time wisely by spending it constructively working on the computer. When asked to compare her relationship(s) with her classmates in the virtual as opposed to the traditional "face-to-face" classroom environment, Fran responded, "[w]e discussed more than normally would have taken place [in the] regular classroom. We learned more from each other than from you. You felt as though you could say what you wished and did not have to worry about being wrong" (5-6-96).

Fran had made it clear to me at the beginning of the semester that her knowledge of literature and literary terminology was extremely limited, and that she was not at all confident in her abilities in this area. This was also evident in several of her comments to the list alluding to her perceived inadequacy, such as the following message, in which she confesses her confusion over (an admittedly difficult) reading:

Penny

Penny, who was enrolled in the totally online version of English 1302, was also a non-traditional student. Twenty-two and also married, she had a four-year old son and worked full-time as a secretary during the day. She usually took two or three evening courses each semester, and enrolled in the English 1302 online course to save driving time and spend more time with her family. In her survey responses as well as during a taped interview I conducted after the semester was over, Penny made several comments relating to the fact that although she had originally enrolled in the course for the above-mentioned practical reasons, she discovered that she felt more comfortable, communicated better in, and actually preferred the online environment; she also expressed an interest in taking online courses in other subject areas if they were made available (the following year she enrolled in another of my online literature courses). When asked to compare her relationship with her classmates in the virtual classroom as opposed to a traditional "face-to-face" classroom environment, she responded, "[y]ou learn more about them. I hardly talk to people in my other classes."

Penny’s first few messages typically repeated what the other students had said and stated her agreement with their ideas, then provided a simplistic analysis, as in the following reply to Dana:

EFFECTS OF NON-ENROLLED PARTICIPANTS

Broadened horizons

In a traditional classroom setting, the instructor or perhaps a teaching assistant is typically the only person who ever reads a student’s writing; this is especially true of literature survey courses. Learning in a networked environment, however, affords students the opportunity to access virtually everything that is written by every other student, since all course-related discourse is stored electronically on the server that houses the e-mail list (the implications of this access will be discussed in Section VI). Another important benefit of using a wide area network such as the internet to facilitate course discussion is the participation of non-enrolled list members. Although, as evidenced by recent debate on the ACW-L discussion list, not all virtual instructors welcome or sometimes even permit these "list crashers," my research suggests that in many cases non-enrolled participants can be an invaluable addition to the course. These members, who discover the list in "lists of lists" or are made aware of it by contact with the instructor or students in the course, can add tremendously to the scope of the discussion. Non-enrolled participants can also give students a broader sense of audience, enabling them to move beyond the local discourse community of their classmates and the instructor.

The following message, from Johannes Dommnich,a non-enrolled participant who joined the list briefly for the first few weeks of the course, was in response to a discussion which had been going on regarding capitalism and the American dream and how they were portrayed by Fitzgerald in The Great Gatsby. In his response, Dommnich was able to draw on first-hand knowledge that helped to shed a broader light on the capitalism vs. socialism debate which had evolved on the list, something that I as a U.S.-born citizen could never have been able to do:

By allowing the participation of non-enrolled participants such as Johannes, students are given the opportunity to broaden their view of the course readings beyond simply the subject matter, which in this case is literature and literary analysis. In his monograph, Dialogue, Dialectic, and Conversation: A Social Perspective on the Function of Writing, Gregory Clark notes that "the topics of learning and discourse in the academy have narrowed to the disciplinary and, thus, the professional" and that because of this trend "the rhetoric of public discourse has been replaced by a rhetoric of personal competence that enables our students only to advance their careers" (64). Although one might argue that one of the core beliefs at the heart of any literature course curriculum is the desire to instill in students an understanding of human nature that is non-disciplinary specific, it is often difficult for instructors who have limited life experience outside academia to successfully accomplish this goal. The participation of non-enrolled list members in the course discussions allows students to enhance this interdisciplinary experience in a practical way.

A mentor appears

Another important contribution by a non-enrolled participant was that of Bonita Berg-Reece, a graduate student in English at the University of South Florida. By her active participation in the discussions, she greatly enhanced the quality of the course by using her background in literature to help bring up issues and clarify points for the students. Later in the semester, she also gave valuable critiques to students who submitted rough drafts of their research papers to the list; some of her critiques will be discussed in Section V. In her first message she sets an "on task" tone by not only introducing herself, but also by contributing some material she has learned about The Great Gatsby in her graduate seminars:

THE WRITING PROCESS IN COMPUTER-MEDIATED COURSES

The virtual classroom, then, if constructed using a collaborative, social-constructionist-based pedagogy, can provide students with a variety of ways to enhance their educational experience. Through the use of computer-mediated communication such as the gatsby-l listserv, students can experience first-hand the exchange of ideas that takes place in an academic discourse community; they can test out ideas and concepts in a relatively safe environment, and they can benefit from the participation of "outsiders" who can contribute invaluable knowledge and advice that the students would not otherwise receive.

In the following two sections, the effects of computer-mediated communication on the writing process will be explored. Section IV will focus on collaboration as a means to invention in electronic writing spaces. Section V will examine the effects of the virtual environment on peer critiquing and revision.

Section IV