In "Writing in the Twenty-First Century," Kathleen Blake Yancey describes the history of experiential and curricular writing in the US, noting that today we are in a completely different era in which writing acts as participation and is available to students in ways to which we must adapt our teaching and composing models. She writes that:

We can and should respond to these new composings and new sites of composings with new energy and a new composing agenda. Let me also suggest that an historical perspective like the one I’ve sketched out here helps us understand an increasingly important role for writing: to foster a new kind of citizenship, one that has roots in an earlier time but that is being reimagined today.

I completely agree with this statement, but wonder how we can do so in such a way that avoids the "creepy treehouse" model theorized over the TechRhet listserv. Creepy treehouses are spaces adults build for young(er) people in attempts to attract them to the spaces or activities they want the youth to attend to by making it seem like the spaces youth enjoy. Students or young people see right through the attempt, of course, and often play along but half-heartedly. The difference is about self-sponsorship (a la Brandt). We want to take our agendas for writing development to the places where young people already enjoy writing, but even using these spaces their writing is no longer self-sponsored; it becomes compulsory. What sort of means are available for making room for truly self-sponsored writing in the 21st century writing classroom???

Reading Wysocki's piece I am struck by her call for us to reflect upon and define the materiality of writing as it unfurls across various media and in so many spaces. It occurred to me that I have a difficult time thinking of the new media spaces and old media texts in a strictly material way. The google sites I use in my classroom, the pdf's I upload to it, the writing tasks posted by my students, the videos we create and share, I tend to think of these in almost purely social and epistemological terms---they are ideas, they are thoughts, they are inquiries, they are investigations. I can only hope that this does not reflect a lack of cultivating criticality on my part.

While many people consider me "techy," and I certainly employ lots of rich digital writing spaces in my classes, I wonder if I haven't yet developed the proactive stance that considers writing in multimedia. As Wysocki calls for new media to be opened to writing, I believe this will be an important starting point as I move along and develop as a teacher of writing. I know I bring to digital writing assignments rhetorical questions: how will your readers expect to be able to understand this? What signposts can you provide that will direct them in understanding the richness of your investigation and argument? But a richer articulation of how writing may vary in these as well as traditional spaces. I spend much time helping students recognize that they are already familiar with the conventions, time helping them articulate their meaning within them, but perhaps not enough time bridging the two. If there's anything I know about teaching with technology, it's that there is a ton of trial and error, and a ton of room for growth and development.

I have not, for instance used blogs particularly well by some standards. While I do take the time to comment on students' posts (not all of them, mind you), I do not spend enough time, perhaps, developing a sense of the genre of blogging. I have up til now used blogs as a sort of prewriting space where students can develop ideas in candid ways while having some sense of audience–their classmates, for instance–and getting a sense for the social nature of research and writing. I have seen students integrate thoughts and ideas from their peers' comments in productive ways in their final essays. But I have not taken the time to have students initiate blogs toward their own ends, to do the small, tedious and meticulous efforts it takes to become part of a community of bloggers in a particular area of knowledge making.

In short, Wysocki's calls are well-heard for me, but not yet well-implemented. I think (to pay attention to the institution and particular material circumstances), that part of this has to do with the careful thought it takes to work these issues into a particular curriculum. Yet investigation of critical writing need not be separate from the issues of diversity and difference that many sections of our required composition classes take up: just look at Adam Banks' work for a clear model of how that might be done. It takes time, which as a CCR student I feel is limited, but small potent gestures of critical reflection on the materiality of the writing in my courses will go a long way, and each semester I believe I get a little bit better at helping students to cultivate engagement with text as writing, materiality, genre, and rhetoric.