Any discussion of synchronous writing programs in composition classrooms raises a host of
other issues.  When questions on how to keep control in a "virtual" classroom are asked,
questions about control and authority in the writing classroom in general inevitably follow.
Discussions of classroom practices lead to questions of policy and goals.  And, lastly,
maneuvering through the claims made for synchronous discussion and writing raises issues concerning claims about writing instruction in general.  Because synchronous communication and computer technology in general change what we do in the classroom, we must begin with a general look at how we approach teaching in the writing classroom.

How do I approach teaching in the composition classroom?  What are my goals, and how are
they fostered by these programs?

How does it work?	List of Works Consulted
Addressing Anxieties	Appendix I
Advantages and Disadvantages	Appendix II
When it Works and When it Doesn't and Why	Appendix III
Beyond Practice

I want to start by explaining, for those who have not used them, how synchronous discussion
programs work.  In the simplest of terms, synchronous communication programs, like Daedalus'
Interchange (DIWE) and Norton's TextraConnect, provide the opportunity for "real time"
discussion groups in a virtual environment.  The instructor logs into the program, creates, and
then names a conference space.  She can, at this point, send the assignment or discussion topic as
the first post.  Later, students log into the program, choose a particular conference, and read the
assignment.  When they are ready to begin the discussion, they type their contributions in the
writing space, either the bottom half of the screen (Interchange) or a separate window
(TextraConnect), send them, and read the posted contributions of others in their group.
Discussions can be constructed to engage the whole class in a single conference, or several
discussions can take place simultaneously with the class divided into smaller groups.

Both the DIWE Interchange program and Norton's TextraConnect for Windows perform similar
functions, but there are some significant differences. Those who are unfamiliar with computers
might confuse synchronous communication programs in general with the trademarked name
Interchange. Interchange, the program that we use in the English department at Lehigh, is one
module that is part of the Deadalus Integrated Writing Environment (DIWE) software package.

There are several modules, but the module we use most often is Interchange.  The other modules
in this package are Mail, Bibliocite, Write, Invent, and Respond.  Mail and Bibiliocite seem to
be the least used of the modules.  Mail is an intra-program electronic mailing system; Bibliocite
is an on-line tool for creating a bibliography.  Write is a simple word processing program.  It
composes and saves in plain ASCII text which can be read by other word processing programs.
For our purposes, Mail and Write are redundant modules. We have an adequate e-mail system,
and students can compose their papers in other word processing programs (Microsoft Word or
WordPerfect), but papers need to be converted into plain ASCII text to be uploaded and used.

As for Bibliocite, since most of the class work does not revolve around the use of the program,
students compose their papers using different word processing packages (which may not be
compatible with Bibliocite).

The other two modules, Invent and Respond, are a series of heuristics.  The students move
through screens, answering questions designed to lead students either deeper into the exploration
of a topic or into a response/evaluation of their own or another student's paper.  These two
modules, as presented in the program are too simplistic for our purposes. They can be altered,
however, to fit the direction or level of sophistication of the class.  Instructors can use the
Respond module in place of a peer evaluation sheet.  I have used the Respond module in this way with limited success.  Students were not familiar with converting their papers into ASCII text,
which means that the papers cannot be read on the computer in this program.  In addition, before
students were able to access the program in their dormitory rooms, they had no access to the
review/evaluation. Others in the department have reported favorable responses with both the
Respond and Invent modules, however.

The last module, InterChange, is the most useful in the First-Year composition classroom.
Students log into Daedalus, select Interchange, choose a conference and join it. They are then
presented with a divided window.  The bottom portion of the window is their writing space.
Here they compose their responses and can (but rarely do) spell-check them.  They then hit the
"Send" button to post their responses.  The top window is a read-only space, where they can read the posted contributions.  The posted messages appear in a continuous flow (see transcripts). Each new message is added to the bottom of the screen, preceded by the posters log-in name. While they cannot change any of the text that appears in the top window, they can highlight and copy text to paste into the write window.  This allows them to respond to a specific message parts of a message, regardless of when in the discussion it appeared.  There are some difficulties in managing the flow of postings. If it is a very active discussion, often all the new messages will flow by, and readers must scroll back to pick-up their places in the discussion.

Norton's TextraConnect, which is the program used at Cedar Crest College, where I also have
taught, works in similar ways. Some of the differences between the programs show up in the
amount of control the instructor has over the discussion space.  In TextraConnect, the instructor
logs into the program, creates, and then posts an assignment.  At this point the instructor has the
discretion of making the assignment either class or group based.  At the start of the semester, the
teacher must decide how many groups she wants for the class.  As she inputs the student names,
they are placed in groups.  If the instructor designates 4 groups, then students 1, 5, 9, and 13 are
in Group 1, students 2, 6, 10, 14 are in Group 2, and so on.  The number of groups can be
changed using the Class Manager, but this must be done well before the class.  We often found
that opening the Class Manager, even several hours before class, prevented students from
accessing the program during class.  The virtual space in the TextraConnect program is also
different.  The posts appear one at a time in their own screens.  A "New Message" bar is
highlighted as new contributions are posted, and the reader can then page though the responses.
TextraConnect also provides a separate virtual space for the posting of papers.  Students can
compose or upload and post freewrites or longer works.  Other students can then select "Read
Group/Class Papers," access these postings, and read them before entering into a discussion.

I had many anxieties about introducing computers in the writing classroom.  One of my primary
concerns was that computers would disrupt the way I taught writing.  I had only been teaching
composition for a year and a half when I began teaching in the computer classroom.  I was still
unsure about what I was doing as a writing teacher, and the added complications of integrating
computers into my classroom practice only added to my uncertainty.  I did find that using the
synchronous writing programs was one of the least threatening and least disruptive ways of
introducing computers into my composition class.  Interchange did not change what we did in the
writing class so much as where and how we did it.  The more traditional and useful assignments
and approaches were still valid; the students still discussed, had frequent in-class writing
assignments, and read and responded to each other's writing.  Instead of all discussion being
oral, however, some now took place in a written medium.  Instead of relying on freewrites and
response questions for in-class writing practice, the use of synchronous communication programs meant that students could spend most of the class time, previously used for oral discussion,
writing.  Ultimately, integrating computers into my class did disrupt the way I taught writing, but
this was not a bad thing.  Using the computers meant I had to be more creative in my ssignments,
faster on my feet in case things went wrong, more flexible in terms of what I wanted my students
to accomplish.

Another principal anxiety concerning the use of synchronous writing programs was that they
would not work; I was constantly afraid of hardware and/or software failure.  I avoided using the computers as much as possible my first two semesters teaching in the computer classroom.  At
that time, the 1995-96 school year, we only had the DOS version of the Interchange program.
While fairly easy to learn, this program was cumbersome and a step backward in the technology
in terms of ease of use, maneuvering through the system, using the mouse, compatibility with
more sophisticated word processing programs such as WordPerfect for Windows, and
familiarity with the operating system.  Many of my students were familiar with Windows-based
systems, but had never used a DOS system.  The computer classroom, at that time, was also
prone to many hardware and network failures.  I was afraid that any assignment I had planned
would have to be scrapped because the technology would not work.  This continues to be a
difficulty as new programs and upgrades to the LAN seem to create new bugs.  The greater
responsiveness of Information Resources has helped to solve hardware problems fairly quickly,
and in terms of the Interchange program itself, many of the bugs have been worked out of the new
Windows-based program.  I do not want to imply, however, that using computers and using the
computer rooms are problem free.  Difficulties, often caused by after-hours student use,
sometimes make using the synchronous program impractical.  For example, often I am faced with
22 students but only 20 working computers.  The instructor needs to move quickly if the use of
the program is not feasible; it is good practice to have non-technical alternate assignments when
using synchronous discussion programs.

My next concern was that my students might know more than I do. I found that often they do know
a good more about computers in general than I do.  Many of my students are engineering, science
students with extensive programming experience.  Using a synchronous program, while it does
require a bit of up-front knowledge on the part of the instructor, in some ways levels the field.  In terms of up-front knowledge, a basic knowledge of a Windows environment and word processing programs like MS Word or WordPerfect is necessary.  Some packages, like DIWE,
come with a fairly simple (and limited) word processing program, but it can be made partially
compatible with Microsoft Word and WordPerfect.  Norton's TextraConnect comes in two
versions, built to work in conjunction with either program.  The word processing program
installed on the computer then becomes the program for the package.

Learning the program itself is not too difficult, although some practice is needed to figure out
how to create assignments, determine group size, and manage the internal filing systems.  The
possible advantage here is that no matter how little we know about this program, our students
will (probably) know less.  In all likelihood they will not have been exposed to this program in
high school or at home.  I say this is a possible advantage because it can be a help to have
students who know about computers.  They can not only help other students, freeing the instructor to deal with non-technological problems, but they can also help the instructor figure out
difficulties.  This is one of the ways students can assume some authority in the classroom.

Authority is at the heart of my next concern; I was afraid of losing control in my classroom.
Computers are a distraction; playing on the computers was much more attractive to my students
than whatever the day's work was.  My students tended to come in early and read their e-mail,
often forgetting to close the program during class.  Several times during discussion I would hear
the sound of someone trying to type slowly and quietly.  This problem was fairly easy to solve
when I was in the computer room each class day; I simply shut down all the computers before
class began and did not permit then to turn them on unless we were scheduled to use them that
day.  The installation of Internet capabilities, however, has increased the level of distraction.  I
now have to compete with e-mail, playing with the background and wallpaper of the Windows
environment, and the Web. When I am in the room on alternate days, problems like this require a
bit more policing, for lack of a better term.  Letting them know up-front what is not acceptable
classroom behavior is essential.  I also have to remind myself that they are fresh out of high
school, but as they become more comfortable with college (often in the second semester) and
freedom, they often forget what acceptable behavior is.  Turning to high school tactics of asking
the student to share what s/he is looking at or simply letting them know that you are aware of
what they are doing is often enough.

The fear that I am foregrounding the technology at the expense of other classroom issues was
another issue for me. Janet Wright Starner and David Leight have neatly sidestepped this issue by making the issues of technology the focus of the class.  I, however, when faced with the dual
priorities of teaching my students to write and teaching them something about literature find that
using the computers tends to pull me in a third direction.  With limited time and energy, I find that I am giving short shrift to all three.  One of the most interesting moments concerning this problem
came early in the semester.  During an Interchange session, one of my students began to comment
on the appropriateness of using computers in "this way." (See Appendix I).  He expressed a
desire to see who he was "talking" to, and expressed an uncomfortable sense of distance from his classmates and from the technology which he compared to using a TTD.  I found his comments
fascinating, and although they had nothing to do with the discussion topic, I wanted to address the issues he raised with the class as a whole.  Unfortunately, we were in the middle of our unit on
Beloved and had no time to spare for the introduction of a new issue. That teaching opportunity
was lost.

Interestingly enough, my students at Cedar Crest College had no problems or questions about the
use of computers in this context.  They seemed to take to the synchronous discussion program
with no difficulty.  Granted there were more problems with the software, hardware, and levels of computer knowledge, but, in retrospect, I would have thought that this would cause greater
anxiety about the use of computers in the writing classroom.  Perhaps the fact that we stayed in
the same room the entire class made a difference.  Sharing the classroom, as I did at Lehigh that
semester, increases the pressure to use the computers on the days we meet in the networked
classrooms.  For me, Tuesday became the day we did computers.  While the greater amount of
advanced syllabus planning required was not a problem, the division between computer days and discussion or review days became much more pronounced.  At Cedar Crest it was much easier to treat the computers as another tool, like the whiteboard, because they were always available.  If
discussion was stalling, I could have everybody turn on their computers, freewrite for 5 minutes
and then have a group discussion about what they wrote.  When used this way, there was less
pressure for the synchronous discussion program to carry the day.  The computer discussion did
not have to be "so" constructive or meaningful because it could be picked-up and taken further at
the next class meeting.  At Lehigh, it might be a week or longer, depending on where we were in
the unit, before we could get back on Interchange.  Because we used it less, there was a greater
desire, on my part at least, to make better use of it.

Programs like Interchange and TextraConnect have several advantages over oral communication
in the writing classroom, for both the instructor and the students.  One of the main advantages is
that it helps to de-center the classroom, helps to redistribute authority.  With the use of
Interchange, discussion is now student-based rather than teacher-based (Glore).  I spend much of
class discussions trying to get my students to talk to each other, to direct their remarks to the rest
of the class rather than to me.  When I set up a synchronous discussion conference, I am
invisible.  I set up the groups and assign the topics or questions, and that is all.  I am removed
from the picture and the students have no one to talk with but themselves.  They are free to take
the topic in any direction they choose, to develop any point that they, not I, find interesting.  This
does not mean that as the instructor or facilitator I bow out completely.  With a few exceptions,
for example, not enough working computers, I monitor all conferences.  I can, if absolutely
necessary, enter into the conversation to bring it back on track.  Sometimes, however, students
will do this for themselves. During one conference, a student had noticed that the conversation
had gotten way off track and attempted to pull it back to the topic: "I agree with you guys. It's
time to get back into action, R and G was a pretty boring and confusing first act...." (Appendix
II).  This student picked up the authority that I relinquished when I removed myself from their
discussion; my intervention here was not necessary.  The various implications of becoming part
of their conversation will be discussed later in the Disadvantages section.

Another advantage is that the use of synchronous discussions allows for easier moderation of
small group discussions.  When I have the class do more traditional small-group work, my
presence is intrusive.  The students, uncomfortably aware that they are being observed, often stop talking.  I do not have that problem with the synchronous discussion programs.  At any point, with either program, the facilitator can unobtrusively "listen in" on any group conversation.  With
TextraConnect, the ability to move between groups is limited to the instructor.  In fact,
TextraConnect both limits and gives more control over the "virtual" space to the Instructor.  The
number of small groups is decided upon at the start of the semester, and students are rostered into a group when their names are logged into the program.  If the groups are too large, too small, or
the dynamics are wrong, the instructor can go into the Student Information section and alter the
group rosters.  Anytime the instructor designates an assignment as "group based" the students may only interact with those in their assigned groups.  Students work within a consistent group
throughout the semester and can form working relationships with other members of their group.
The restriction of students to particular groups prevents them from taking it upon themselves to
move from group to group.  They cannot pop into another group to say hello as often happens in
Interchange sessions.

What Interchange sessions do offer is more flexibility with group work.  The students are able to
work in groups of different sizes, often within the same assignment.  Class can begin with small
groups, for example 5 groups of 5 students with each group discussing one aspect of an issue.  At a prearranged time or at a signal from the instructor, the students in each group split up, going to
a new conference with one student from each of the other groups.  Here the participants from the
first set of groups can contribute information on his/her aspect of the issue.  The ability to move
from group to group, and to break off and recombine groups has the potential for exciting and
dynamic discussion; it also has the potential for total chaos.  At the end of this paper are attached transcripts from an exercise of this type I did with my 7:55 AM class (Appendix II).  As is
evident from the transcripts, the students did very little in the way of constructive discussion.  In
fact, the whole class discussion degenerated into personal exchanges that had no connection to
the assignment.  Assignments such as the one I gave to English 2-26 require a class that needs
less in terms of facilitation.  Even if the instructor chooses not to participate in the discussions,
she must be aware of what the students are doing in the virtual space.

Another benefit of the synchronous discussion spaces is the availability of hard copy.  The
instructor can download or print transcripts of any or all of the discussion sessions.  Interchange
allows the sessions to be closed and saved in two ways: as a chronological account of the
discussion or grouped by student.  Students now have tangible results from their discussions.
Students can have a copy of the discussion to take home and see how the issues can be developed further.  They can also have a copy of only their own contributions to the discussion.  They can
see where their ideas were leading and have a copy that they can work into a paper.  In addition,
the students can see themselves making knowledge in two ways.  First, they actually see what
they are "saying" before it is said.  This allows them to not only edit themselves (a benefit and a
disadvantage), but they also have the ability to compose a response rather than say the first thing
that comes to mind.  Secondly, students can see how their ideas are taken up, reshaped and built
upon by other students, as they take up, reshape and build upon the ideas of others.  Students can
also return to the conference spaces at a later date, either to refresh their memories or as part of
an ongoing assignment.

Another advantage to hard copy is that the instructor now has tangible evidence of the levels of
student participation.  When the time comes to evaluate class participation for inclusion into the
final grade, often all we have to go on is whose face and voice we remember.  With the printed
transcripts of an interchange session, we can see exactly who contributed and how much.  A
student who posted often but contributed nothing in the way of knowledge construction can be
shown the transcript, often prompting a better response in the next synchronous discussion.

Synchronous discussions sometimes encourage shy students to participate.  Students who do not
feel comfortable speaking in class may feel less uncomfortable participating in synchronous
discussions. Students who are slower on their feet, who require more time to think about a
response may also benefit from these programs.  In oral conversations, the discussion can move
from topic to topic quite quickly.  The conversation may move on to a new issue before students
have a chance to formulate a response or before they can be heard.  With synchronous discussion
programs, students can take their time and compose well thought out responses, and because all
contributions are posted, the students can send their posts and be guaranteed an audience.  This is more effective with the TextraConnect than with Interchange.  The way in which messages
appear and scroll in Interchange is often faster moving and more chaotic than an oral
conversation; slower readers and/or writers may get left behind.  Because posts in
TextraConnect appear one at a time, the conversations moves more slowly, and there is less
pressure to keep up.

The computer presents the instructor and students with a variety of spaces for communication and exchange.  The traditional classroom has face-to-face discussions, and peer revision is done in
pairs or small groups, with hard copy of both paper and evaluation.  The synchronous
communication programs open up a virtual space for this kind of interaction.  I do not claim that
this new space is better; it is different and of value for that reason alone.  Students might take a
fresh approach to peer evaluation if presented with a new environment.  In addition, the fact that
all communication is done through writing guarantees a greater amount of writing practice than in a more traditional classroom.

It is not my intention to sound like an advertisement for synchronous communication programs.
While they do offer many advantages for the writing classroom, there are also several
disadvantages. As noted above, students involved in a synchronous discussion spend much of
their time reading and writing, as opposed to talking.  This writing is often short and not
sustained in either thought or development.  Some students will take their time and compose a
thoughtful message, but often they write the first thing that comes to mind.  For several groups in
Appendix I the exchanges between students consisted of short one line responses.  In a practical
and constructive sense, these students are not writing.  Another disadvantage is that many
students use the program as a crutch.  They simply repeat or reword contributions made by other
students.  Sometimes this technique is evidence of a student trying to translate a complex idea
into more familiar terms.  But when this reworking is not followed by an attempt to work with the idea, to take it beyond what has already been said, then the student is simply parroting, not
thinking.

Interchange can also stifle a talkative group.  Much of the dissatisfaction from the students came
from the English 8-43 class.  This group, in particular, was a talkative bunch; however, their
interchange sessions did not reflect the level of sophistication and depth that their oral
conversations did.  They wanted to know why they had to sit with their backs to each other and
type instead of speak when they were all in the same room.  The artificiality and discomfort of
the situation led to either stilted conversation or the inappropriate exchanges discussed later in
this paper.

Several of my students were simply resistant to the idea of using technology in this context.  One
student in particular resented having to learn another program.  Her concept of a writing
classroom had nothing to do with computers.  Students who are uncomfortable with the actual
hardware and software or with the idea of technology itself may not benefit from this program.

They may also, when acting out on their discomfort, disrupt the conference.  The last
disadvantage is the introduction of the technology itself.  Class time must be spent teaching and
reminding students how to use the program.  We used Interchange several times during the
semester, and each time I had to show several students, often the same ones, how to start the
program.  I suspect that these are students who are uncomfortable with or afraid of the
technology.  Because of this, the use of synchronous communication in this class foregrounded the technology at the expense of the other the issues to be discussed.

Although the advantages presented in this paper outweigh the disadvantages, I have to say that
Interchange failed or the results were disappointing more often than not.  Part of this, I must
admit, was that I did not see until too far into the semester which class would benefit most from
the program.  My morning class, who almost never spoke, engaged in some very productive
synchronous discussions, while my more active afternoon class never seemed to catch on.
Another problem was that my assignments may not have been the best for this medium.  I am still
trying to figure out what makes a good synchronous discussion topic.  I found that discussion
topics that worked orally were often not suited for a computer-mediated discussion.  In a verbal
discussion broader, less directed topics/questions work best for stimulating more than a
one-word response.

In a computer session, the topic or the first questions I pose have to be a bit narrower, a bit more directed.  Because the teacher is not the focal point and does not have an obvious presence in the conversation, the students need more up-front guidance from the assignment to begin a focused discussion.  As students become more proficient in this form of discussion, however, the topics and assignments can become less directive.

Sharing the computer classroom also made using Interchange difficult.  Having class time split
between the computer room and a traditional class setting, makes the use of the computer more
artificial and less an integral part of the class.  Because we only had the room on Tuesdays, that
day became computer day.  This only served to foreground the technology, making our activities
fit the computer rather than letting it work for us.

When synchronous communication does not work, students merely take up bandwidth, throwing
one liners back and forth, insulting each other and making no constructive conversation.  They
become bored quite easily.  In class Janet Wright Starner talked about differing expectations of
and perceptions about the purpose of the computer.  She theorizes that since the students are used
to using the computers for entertainment, not education, they are resistant to the various ways we
try to integrate the new technology into the classroom.  As soon as the discussion is no longer
entertaining and/or amusing, they lose interest.  The "flaming" that occurs in synchronous
discussions may be an attempt to liven up what they see as a dull discussion.  It may also be an
attempt to redirect the focus of the discussion from serious interaction about a issue to personal
issues; to move it from an educational forum to an entertainment forum.  This shift in focus may
be another way students attempt to assert some authority over the class.  These misdirected
attempts at assuming authority may result from a previous educational training which does not
prepare them to take authority for their own education.  When they are given or forced to take this authority, they are not sure what to do with it.  Hence, they play around, masking their uneasiness
with humor and personal attacks.

One incident, during the first Interchange session with my 1:10 class illustrates this point.

Jennifer Goldfarb: M. asks - "Does all of the dialogue take place in his head," if not, who is he
talking to?

MM: Who does she think she is, butting in on our conversation

SB: Oh my god, what is she can see that?!

............

MM: I'm just kidding, don't worry about it

(Appendix II)

MM's reaction to my post startled me so much that I rarely entered into a student conversation
after that.  What was most unexpected was that MM assumed that this virtual space now belonged to the students, not the instructor, and that I had no place in it.  What these students did was take
the authority I gave them and turn it back on me.  The newness of and uncertainty about this
assertion of authority can be seen in the implied fear of retribution in SB's response.  The
unanticipated way that the students picked-up authority is based in differing perceptions of
virtual space.  The students felt that since the space designated for their group, the space belongs
to them.  I, on the other hand, being the instructor and having created this space, still felt that it
was mine.  To place this in more familiar terms, I think of it as a battle between parents and
teenagers over the concept of private space; the "house" was mine, and I let them live in a room,
as long as they live by my rules.  It was quite a shock to find out that they wanted to lock the
door.  I am still not sure how to handle the idea of ownership of virtual class space.  Because of
this I have listed this issue in the Disadvantage section. As instructors of first-year students, we
are not always prepared for students to take authority in this way and often do not respond in the
best manner when they do. The disadvantage for me was that I was not able to take advantage of
one of the benefits of the de-centered classroom; by staying out of the discussions, I could not
become part of the learning group.

Another possible disadvantage to de-centering the classroom in this way is the total lack of any
form of authority.  When the classroom is de-centered and the instructor gives over authority, she
assumes that the students are ready, willing, and able to pick up that authority.  Often this is not
the case and she is left in a classroom with no clear leadership.  Adding to loss of control is the
students' sense of distance from the words they are writing.  Students will write things in a
synchronous discussion that they would never say out loud.  The excerpt quoted above is one
such example.  This student would probably never say out loud what he wrote for all to see.
This lack of authority and distancing from words and ideas creates a level of freedom that often
encourages inappropriate remarks and behaviors, what Albert Rouzie in "Interchange and the
Electronic Ghetto" calls "wilding."  The following excerpt from an Interchange session was
directed at one particular individual in the group, and as evidenced by the rest of the discussion,
was unprovoked. (See Appendix II for larger excerpt.)

BD: as a matter of fact Booger, I would burn what you have written thus far. Besides the fact that
it sucks there are way too many loopholes

In this class there were several other incidents when students made inappropriate personal
remarks about and to other students.  These types of remarks disrupt the flow of the discussion.
Both of the postings by BD interrupt an attempt by two other students, TS and SD, to continue the
assignment. Although these two students continued to discuss their papers, the conference was
not as constructive as it could have been.

When Interchange did work, the students discussed issues in depth, asking questions and building off each other's ideas.  In a synchronous discussion we can see social epistemic rhetoric in
action.  The following exchange was from an Interchange conference which asked the students to
discuss the issue of hunger and desire in Toni Morrison's Beloved.  Part way through the
exchange, one student, LV, asking a question about the word hunger: "LV: Why are they always
referring to eating and hunger? Why didn't they choose chose words like "lust" or" "desire" or
"craving?""

The other students picked up the question and continued to build on it.

AR: Hunger is a primitive word. It is a description of the time.

AR: you can't get any more basic then "hunger".

CT: It may be a shot in the dark but maybe it has something to do with slavery. When people are
deprived of something it turns into a desire. Hunger is a great metaphor for this because it entails
some sort of pain

AR: hey, that's pretty good.

(Appendix III)

In this exchange we can see AR attempt to answer LV's question by referring to the time the novel took place and recalling the living conditions of the main characters.  AR then goes back and
qualifies her answer.  CT, after reading both LV"s and AR's contributions attempts to go further,
connecting "primitive" and "basic" to slavery and deprivation.  Here, we can see the students
"listening" to what the others have to say and using the posts to further their own thinking.

Finally, Appendix II is the transcript from a large Interchange session I did with my English 8-26
class.  I chose to reproduce the entire transcript because it was an exercise that both failed and
succeeded.  The assignment asked them to work in five small groups of four students each on an
issue or question concerning the play Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead.  Each group was
then to choose a representative to present their ideas in a sixth conference which the whole class
was observing.  After the representatives from all the groups had posted, other group members
could join the conversation. The small groups achieved different levels of failure or success.
(The corresponding rise in the level of success with the higher group number is coincidental.)

Group 1 represented the total failure of the students to engage in a constructive discussion.  They
did little more than restate what had been said in the previous class.  No new information was
either presented or developed.  Instead, Group 1 spent the most time deciding on a representative and consequently had nothing to say.  Group 2 did a little better.  These students were presenting
ideas and attempting to go beyond the class discussion.  However, these students did not seem to
be "listening" to each other.  There was some development of posted ideas, but they did not
spend enough time an any issue and conclude the discussion rather quickly.  The students in
Group 3 seemed to be listening to each other; there is the sense that they are reading other posts
before or as they compose.  Members of Group 4 were engaged in the construction of knowledge
for a large part of their discussion.  One student in particular attempted some sort of synthesis of
his ideas with the other postings: "WM: You guys are all saying that it gives the character more
life, and I guess I agree with that, but I don't know if it was meant to give the reader's a better
view of the characters. I agree with CV in saying that it was written so that it was meant to be
able to read, and it was also meant that it could be understood more accurately when trying to
perform a play."  However, a portion of this conference devolved into the sort of exchange we
saw in Group 1.  Group 5 had the highest level of success.  No time was wasted in
non-constructive exchanges, and the group members seemed to be engaged in a real and
constructive discussion.  Lastly, in the whole group conference, the representatives began by
simply sharing their group's ideas.  Then they begin to discuss what the others have posted.  As
the conference progresses, the remaining group members begin to get involved.  At this point, the
discussion begins to devolve as in Group 1 and Group 4.

I label this exercise a partial success. It was successful because at least three of the groups
worked on generating knowledge within their conference.  That success is conditional because
two of the groups did not work towards anything meaningful, and, in fact, members of these
groups derailed the progress of the whole class conference.

After reading accounts of experienced users of computer-mediated communication and
networked classrooms, I had many inflated expectations for synchronous communication
programs.  I expected that synchronous discussion would revolutionize the classroom.  I hoped
that my students would automatically take the seed questions I assigned and begin to explore the
issues in depth, coming to a deeper understanding of both the texts and each other.  They would
see how what they said in the virtual discussion space could become seeds for their papers.
They would share paper ideas and drafts and get constructive feedback.  They would take what
they had written on in the conference or freewrites and work these into well-constructed papers.
I expected that conferencing would expand their sense of audience for their papers, and that this
sense would translate into greater concerned for audience expectations.  I expected that this
program would make the students more involved and more invested in the learning and writing
processes.  I expected that I would be able to teach better; that I would become a part of the
conversation rather than the focal point of it.  I expected that my students would pick up some of
the authority that I relinquished and that I would be able to handle gracefully any difficulties this
might raise.

At the end of this project, I guess I am no longer expecting these outcomes but, rather, hoping for
them.  I wonder if my students will ever be as involved as those about whom Michael Day and
Trent Batson, in "The Network-Based Writing Classroom: The ENFI Idea," write.  Day and
Batson claim that students "involved in ENFI [Electronic Networks for Interaction] participate
more because they feel the same companionship and warmth that we associate with friendship
from some of their peers (Hawisher 87).  The sense of investment in and belonging to a
community of writers engaged in a common goal pervades and facilitates the interaction; that
engagement is reflected not only in the increased participation, but also in the level of personal
involvement students put into their written comments...." (6).  Then I wonder if all our
expectations are too high.  I know I have much to learn about using computers in the composition
classroom, and that my lack of knowledge and experience, as well as the dynamics of these
particular classes had a great deal to do with the conditional success of Interchange in the
classroom.  There is still much more I have to learn about using synchronous communication
programs, and many more questions that need to be asked and answered.

Berlin, James. Rhetoric and Reality: Writing Instruction in American Colleges, 1900-1985.
Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 1987.

Blair, Kristine. "Authority, Resistance, and Empowerment: The Possibilities and Constraints of
InterChange." 1996
http://www.daedalus.com/wings/blair.3.1.html

Day, Michael and Trent Baston. "The Network-Based Writing Classroom: The ENFI Idea."
http://129.118.38.138/kairos/1.2/coverweb/cmcmday.html

Hart-Davidson, Bill. "What's Dis'course About? Arguing CMC into the Curriculum." 1995
http://sunsite.unc.edu/cmc/mag/1995/jan/hart.html

Madden. Ed. "Pseudonyms and InterChange: The case of the Disappearing Body." 1993
http://www.daedalus.com/wings/madden.1.1.html

Rouzie, Albert. "Interchange and the Electronic Ghetto." 1994
http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~cwrl/v1n1/article2/rouzie.html

These are unedited excerpts from Interchange session From English 8-43. Only the student names
have been altered.

MM:

K, I just got done with your paper. The description in the story is really vivid. My only question
is: Does all of the dialogue take place in his head, if not then maybe use some quotation marks

MM:

S, good idea, I was planning on using quotes, I just thought that I would get the ideas onto the
paper and expand from there

SB:

That is what I am not sure about, maybe I would have someone else realize what is being done to
society and start to take off their handicaps. Leave the story kind of a mystery. Does that sound
dumb?

KD:

M, I think some more quotes would also be helpful in your paper, not many, just a few. Thanks
for the advice on my paper. I was debating that. I think most of it is just in his head though.

Jennifer Goldfarb:

M asks - "Does all of the dialogue take place in his head," if not, who is he talking to?

MM:

Who does she think she is, butting in on our conversation

SB:

Oh my god, what is she can see that?!

KD:

I think that ending sounds great. Kind've like a mystery on what will happen to the future. Or like
in those horror movies when the evil thing is actually alive at the end. It doesn't sound stupid at
all.

MM:

I'm just kidding, don't worry about it

SB:

cool, thanks for the advise

KD:

right m, try to cover for yourself!

SB:

i am bored

KD:

me too

SB:

K, are you doing rush?

MM:

Hey S, other than the typos, your story was really creative. At the same time, you kept with what
we thought about in class as well. How much more do you think you are going to add to your
paper

SB:

Probalby only another paragraph or two, not too much more

KD:

no, i'm not. are you? I don't really have the time and I want to live in trembly next year

SB:

bye, good job on the papers guys

MM:

Bye

SB:

Trembly would be awesome, but I heard it is had to get

KD:

bye

****************

AH:

oh this is really getting fun now

AH:

I want to go home

EJ:

Whoever read my paper- I'm having difficulty finding more to write about. Should I just expand
on what I have or think of other interesting ideas?

EJ:

Is this going to work from our own PC's

EJ:

HELLO!!!

JZ:

eric, your paper was good. I couln't think of anything to say about Harrison Bergeron. I didn't
know how to tie it into my paper. You could expand on what you have.

AH:

If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it does it make a noise?

*********************

TS:

S, what was the rest of your paper about?

BD:

Booger you make an excellent point; however, i should make it more clear that the incessant
droning was quite abrassive and would render any normal human being incapable of sleep

SD:

T,

in your paper harrison is in a 6*6 cell, but wasn't harrison seven feet tall with lots of handicaps?
either explain the exageration or change it.

TS:

S, Thanks for catching that. I just needed numbers, so I randomly made them up

........

SD:

T,

If harrison is such a threat why would he be sent to other countries couldn't he just escape, but I
do like the idea of him being a human target

BD:

as a matter of fact Booger, I would burn what you have written thus far. Besides the fact that it
sucks there are way too many loopholes

TS:

S, I guess they don't see him that way when it comes to what they want him to do for them. Should
I maybe talk about that?

***********

FM:

What's up.

FM:

is anybody out there

FM:

where is everybody

AH:

A:

this is really strange, why didn't we just discuss this out loud

FM:

I feel like I am a deaf person talking over the phone. Does anyone know what i'm talking about?

JC:

A,

I think that you could possibly expand your paper by talking about tne mythologies. You put it in
your introduction but you didnt get to it yet in your paper (I dont know if it was because you were
not done yet though)

AH:

J, i liked your paper and your ideas but some of your sentences were long and confusing.

i was just writing down my ideas, and yes it isn't finished yet.

JC:

F

You need to finish your paper because I really want to know what happens!

FM:

I will and I will let you read it when I am done if you are really interested.

AH:

F,

i don't really have anything to say about your paper except that i agree with J. It's really good and
well thought out, but it just needs an ending. i'd also like to read it when it's finished

JC:

F

I am interested in your paper and would like to read it when you are done!

FM:

Aw! You guys are being so nice.

JC:

A

I thought it was good how you used more popular myths and related them to Yellow Woman

AH:

thanks. my paper is hardly near being done yet though. i was getting stuck on how to pull them all
together.

FM:

J

I thought your paper was very well thought out. It is very food and it flowed very nicely.

Jennifer Goldfarb:

Can anyone offer A some pracicial advice on how to " pull them all together."

AH:

J

you just need to expand more on the ending when you were talking about Marquez's story. I don't
know if you were done or not.

JC:

F

My favorite part of the story was about the car and how it is so backward in technology- I know
that the part may seem small but it really made me think

FM:

she's out of the room. quick, write something!

FM:

I think that we are flirting with a part of technology that should not become a way of
communication.

AH:

i agree

FM:

I feel like we should have a picture of eachother on the screen so we at least know who we are
talking to on a more personal level.

JC:

A

I think that if you stay with your focus on how myths are created and the reality in them you
should be able to pull the examples all together- what you have so far is good

JC:

Does anyone have anymore to say????

FM:

SO TIRED OF TYPING!

AH:

Me too!!!

I just spent the last hour typing my paper.

BD:

just saying hello

This is an unedited transcript of the last Interchange session For English 8-26. The names of the
students have been changed.

Group 1

J. Goldfarb:

How is Guildenstern characterized? Describe his personality. What do you think of him?

JL:

Guildenstern seems to be the smarter of the two.

RG:

He seemed to be the brains of the two

RG:

It's funny though, neither of them seemed that smart, he was just the smarter. It was like neither
had a mind for their own....

oh and shotgun, I am not the spokesperson

LV:

shotgun

CT:

me neither

JL:

shotgun

LV:

I beat you C

RC:

I agree with you. me neither

RG:

that would be what I said.....why are you repeating it?

CT:

who's left?

RG:

Well it aint me!

RG:

what are we going to say anyways...just that he is smart?

CT:

Yeah, you can't double shotgun

LV:

Yeah, Ros seemed to be more of the comic relief so it made Guild the smarter of the two.

RG:

Okay....whatever...what are we going to say? Yes, I know that I started this stupid, but other than
that...what the heck can we say?

If Guild was the smarter, then they were both pretty dumb, right? I mean they both were funny
because they were stupid and easily persuaded, but there is nothing else to say.

LV:

kinda like Dumb and Dumber!

CT:

I cannot think of ant other way to characterize him. There was just nothing else in the book so far.

RG:

Like, why would they practice being intrigued without being enlightened and then go on to play
that stupid game of "chase" with words?

Was it to keep them busy so they didn't get bored becuz it really was silly!

RG:

V...you are dumb and dumber...

RG:

just kidding!

Auth-techi

LV:

i know

RG:

NOT IT

RG:

I nominate J...what do you say to speaking on behalf of our awesome group!?

LV:

they did it to entertain themselves

JL:

not it

LV:

not it

RC:

not it

CT:

What are u talking about Auth techi...is that German?Not it either.

RG:

but how stupid must they be to do that? I don't recall playing that game when I was younger let
alone now....

Wonder if it is fun!

RG:

Don't worry about it C....but it does seem to me that you are the spokesman....good luck babe!

JL:

I nominate R you talked the most.

RG:

Ha Ha Ha Ha.....those who rise late, miss the worm

LV:

we'll be supporting ya C!!!

RG:

But I said the least....

CT:

Fine! I am going to the main board now. Later

JL:

You seem to be the expert on the subject

RG:

Just cuz you talk doesnt mean you are saying anything important....

Thanks C!

LV:

peace....
 
 

*********************

Group 2

J. Goldfarb:

How is Rosencrantz characterized? Describe his personality. Who is he? What do you think of
him?

PG:

Well, from Hamlet I got the idea that he was not all that bad. I don't know about what kind of
person he is in this book.

Who is going to be our Representative?

BV:

Rosencratz is characterized as a person who is not very bright. He seems to be a follower of
Guildenstern. When the two are talking to the player the player says to Guildenstern 'You're
quicker than your friend"

CB:

Rosencrantz is characterized as guy who does not know to much. he tries hard to cover up the
fact that he is not smart, but he doesn't do a good enough job. He does things that don't seem to
smart.

I don't like Rosencrantz because he turns against Hamlet, he might not have known, but he still
carried the order for Hamlets execution.

CB:

B, do you want to be our representative? You seem to know what is going on.

BV:

Rosencrantz doesn't know any better and that is why he betrays Hamlet. He isn't very bright so he
pretty much does what everyone else tells him to do.

BV:

Actually i have no idea but i guess i will. o

PG:

Could it be that Rosencrantz was just naive perhaps? I don't really know for sure, but I have seen
people that have followed other out of naivity, and nothing more.

In truth, I think that Rosencrantz was not as smart as others, but is it possible that it is something
else?

BV:

yeah, it could be naiveness.

PG:

This text is a little weird/confusing to me. The book seems to jump around a bit.

*****************

Group 3

J. Goldfarb:

Stoppard mixes parts of Shakespeare's Hamlet in with his own text. Why do you think he does
this? What does it do for your reading of the play?

IF:

Hi

MS:

The words of Shakespeare, pulled right from the play, probably give more emphasis to the
characters. It defines them more clearly if Shakespeare's words are used.

JN:

I think the author does this to make the play more believable. It is necessary for him to do this to
make his version more satirical.

IF:

You get the feeling they are actually in the play. You also get their little ideas about what is going
on. Stoppar makes them just as stupid as we thought they were/

JN:

Also, I should be the spokesperson for this. Why not?

MS:

I agree.

IF:

no

AG:

I think that the reason for mixing Shakespeare's version of Hamlet with his own is to add flavor
to the characters. It also allows us to make a connection, making the characters seem more real to
us, as well as not just blundering idiots

JN:

I, what do you think?

IF:

i have barely read anything

JN:

Anyway, the characters are taken from the real play. He should make the language the same also.

IF:

ok

JN:

I, you just have to read.

IF:

You can tell where you are when he puts the real text. You can compare almost their
interpretation of a sceane as compared to the ones we had before in the actual book? i don't know

JN:

I, would you like to expand on that some more?

IF:

not really

AG:

I think that Rosencratz and Guildenstern is more of a window to the thoughts of the two
characters. In Hamlet, these two were left out and had very minor parts. Here, they are the focus
and their thoughts are being heard. Hamlet wasn't meant to be a story where the inner thoughts of
Rosencratz and Guildenstern are contemplated and here their thoughts and true characters can be
experessed

IF:

i agree

JN:

If you are going to rewrite any story or play it has to be closely related or else the audience will
not get the humor of it; it will not be recognizable if it isn't the same concept, using the same
style.

JN:

A, that is why theyy are so funny. They are meant to be minor characters yet, now take over a
large role.

MS:

The use of the lines from the actual play correlate the book to the play, and makes it seem like it
has something to do with it, instead of just being about it. There is a closeness defined between
the two stories that is established through the use of direct words from the original play. I agree,
the wording also helps to determine a spot in the play, being that the words are confusing and
twist things sometimes. It is true that this play gives us insight into the characters of Rosencrantz
and Guildenstern, but are these ideas of what is going on from Shakespeare's view, or Stoppard's
view?

********************

Group 4

J. Goldfarb:

In this play, Stoppard gives much more in terms of stage direction than Shakespeare does. How
does this effect your reading? Why? Compare to Shakespeare's Hamlet.

CV:

I think the stage direction demonstrates the clown-like quality of the characters more. It gives
them life and helps the audience understand their role better.

CV:

In Hamlet, the actions were not as important as the words. Stoppard tries to emphasis the actions
instead of the words since the characters are the "buffoons" in the play.

HG:

Although it does give the characters a little more life, the reader can get very distracted and the
story does not flow as well. I like it a little better than Hamlet because the reader can get a better
idea of what is going on by the actions of the characters rather than by words only.

WM:

The main difference between Stoppard's play and Shakespeare'a play is in terms of stage
direction. In Stoppard's play the use of more stage direction gives the reader a much more sense
of being in the play and being able to picture in your mind what exactly is going on.
Shakespeare's Hamlet on the other hand, has virtually no stage direction at all. This gives the
reader a chance to picture what is going on inside his or her head, and what the reader decides is
probably going to be different then what someone else thinks up.

CV:

I agree. The actions described can help the reader picture it better.

CV:

While Hamlet does let the reader peer more into the mind, i don't think that was Shakespeare's
purpose. He didn't write the play to be read. Stoppard, on the otherhand, wrote it for both genres.

HG:

I think that Hamlet is a much more emotional play and the picture that the reader produces in his
mind is that of a general emotional reaction.

WM:

You guys are all saying that it gives the character more life, and I guess I agree with that, but I
don't know if it was meant to give the reader's a better view of the characters. I agree with C in
saying that it was written so that it was meant to be able to read, and it was also meant that it
could be understood more accurately when trying to perform a play.

WM:

Yo, what I want to know is who is our spokesperson.

CV:

If it was meant to be read, then i think it gives the characters more life. They aren't just flipping
coins. They flip the coin, call heads, examine it closely, & are surprised when it comes up heads
again. The description is for the reader.

CV:

not me

CV:

H?

WM:

me neither

WM:

H, take it away

HG:

okay

CV:

we love you H :)

HG:

this is sort of funny

CV:

and boring

WM:

I'm falling asleep

HG:

what am I going to say anyway? I am still asleep

WM:

H, I think you were supposed to be saying it five minutes ago

CV:

who cares, no one in this class is awake anyway
 
 

*******************

Group 5

J. Goldfarb:

Halfway though Act I we meet the players. What do you make of them? Do you like them? What
do they add to the play? What do they say about the nature of acting?

MH:

hi everybody...well, i think that the players are disgusting prostitutes that shield themselves from
the horrible actions they commit by playing it off as a performance, further disgracing their
actions. they're so bad, of course, i'm not sure if i'm correct, because the play doesn't make much
sense yet, but that's okay.

MH:

hello...is anybody out there? um, i have a feeling this is going to be an incredibly boring
conversation unless someone else can think of something to write...

AR:

i'm not sure that i follow you all the way. why do you think that they are prostitutes? we know
that they are bad actors. why the rest?

MH:

anyway, back to those horrible players...i don't really know if they add anything to the play yet,
as all they can do is supply Rosencrantz and Guildenstern (who are obviously looneys) with the
information that Hamlet's gone mad.

i thought they were prostitutes because they wanted Ros and Guil to act out that play with them,
and they had the little kid dress up like a girl...hang on, i have to try and find it in the story...

EL:

As for the players, what Ros and guil find of them is that they are prostitutes hiding under the
cover of being some kind of "side show."

But as the players start to act out the Hamlet scene, it seems to me that the entire idea about
prostituting was just the players explanation of what acting really is...putting yourself out there
and giving the people what they want. Otherwise, it's not "profitable."

MH:

all right, i've found it, it's page 27, and it's right after the player asks Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern to join in the play called "the rape of the Sabine Woman", and Guil starts railing on
him, calling him a "comic pornographer and a rabble of prostitutes."

AR:

now that i think of it i believe that R&G call them prostitutes after they first meet them.

i'm not sure what real purpose they serve.

AR:

they don't do anything. i thought it was Claudius and Gertrude that tell R&G that Hamlet was
mad. i could be mistaken. if you know please tell me what purpose they serve. i think that it was
suposed to be comedy but it wasn't very effective.

EL:

it's kind of hard to say what purpose the players fulfil in the play. all i can make of it is that they
are going some kind of "reference point." but to what i don't know. we really haven't gotten much
of a story even though act one is over.

MH:

i think that if they serve any purpose at all, one may believe that the player is playing Hamlet,
saying that he never changes out of costume, yet he is constantly changing characters. i have no
idea if this is right, it's simply conjecture and i thought of it this instant, but it sounds feasible to
me.

AR:

M you seem pretty up with this stuff. i think that you should be our rep. i don't know much so go
for it. Erin if you want to you can either. i just know that i can't.

EL:

ok, i think M is now the official rep. Fine with you?

MH:

i suppose if you really wanted to read into it (which i really don't, but that's okay), you could say
that if the player is Hamlet, there may be some foreshadowing that Ros and Guil won't be able to
figure out what's wrong with him, as they don't understand the player's actions...sure, i'll be the
rep.

AR:

i guess you were voted into office M. i'm switching over to see what's going on in the first
conference. see ya.

EL:

i think the whole idea of the player being Hamlet and eluding to the fact that R & g won't be able
to catch on to it is a good one.

*********************

Group 6 - Whole Class

J. Goldfarb:

Each group has been discussing an integral part of Act I. In this conference, I want the
spokespeople to present their topic and the result of their discussion. (Other group people may
join in as the conversation progresses). How do all these elements work together in the play?
How do they all comment on the nature of reality in the play?

MH:

hi everybody...i'm the rep guy for group five, and our topic was the significance (or lack thereof)
in the first act. there's some ideas being thrown around, but i'm not sure if they're possible, they
seem that way to me...and i suppose that's all that matters.

MH:

oops, i forgot our topic, it's the significance (or lack thereof) of the PLAYERS in the first
act...sorry about that.

JN:

Conference 3 needed to state the importance or non-importance of using the same language in the
Ros and Guil play as Shakespeare soes in Hamlet. We decided that it is important to do this to
get the exact same point across and to make his play satirical.

WM:

let's go H !!!!

IF:

Hi I'm I, our group discussed the uses of actual lines from the book of hamlet and their uses.
Heres an idea of M's i liked

The use of the lines from the actual play correlate the book to the play, and makes it seem like it
has something to do with it, instead of just being about it. There is a closeness defined between
the two stories that is established through the use of direct words from the original play. I agree,
the wording also helps to determine a spot in the play, being that the words are confusing and
twist things sometimes. It is true that this play gives us insight into the characters of Rosencrantz
and Guildenstern, but are these ideas of what is going on from Shakespeare's view, or Stoppard's
view?

CT:

Our group(conference 2) characterized Guildenstern. We concluded that he seemed to be the
smarter out of the two protagonists. However, we also stated that neither of them really seemed
to be too bright, yet Guildenstern had more wits about him.

HG:

our group discussed the importance of stage direction in R&G and its importance in comparision
to Hamlet. some comments suggested that the stage direction made it easier to imagine the play.
Less stage direction in Hamlet gave the reader a chance to use his/her imagination. what do you
think?

JN:

Well, Stoppard decides what is going to happen and what is going on in his play. The characters
are the same as well as what they have to do.

BV:

My group, group #2, discussed Rosencrantz's character. We think he wasn't very bright and was a
strong follower of Guildenstern. We don't like his character because he betrays Hamlet. We think
he does this because of his naiveness and stupidity.

MH:

our responses (for group five), and i'm sure my fellow conference members could write about
this too, is that the players seem to be a metaphor for the whole story of Hamlet, with Ros and
Guil being unable to understand the actions of the head player, who here could be Hamlet, but
we're not sure...speculation?

RG:

I thought that the stage stuff was just filler for a short play and to tell you the truth it just confused
me to a point that I couldn't follow what was going on...you know?

JN:

Pookie, I know...

LV:

pookie???

RG:

J...g'mornin! was up all last night trying to read through this stuff and I just wanted to see it how I
wanted to, not how they told me to, ya know

HG:

I thought that Rosencrantz was the smarter character and G was the one who followed
Rosencrantz's actions.

JN:

Call her it, it's her name

IF:

hi B body

CV:

R, you get confused easily :) I thought stage direction was because the story was meant to be
read, unlike Hamlet.

WM:

I'm gonna jump right in and say that I think everyone had some pretty good input, but I is starting
to scare me.

JN:

Hillary, I think that was the point of this play. Dumb and Dumber

RG:

No...it was the other way around! Guild was the smarter, but who is to define smarter?

CV:

Yeah, they even get mixed up in the original play.

RG:

B, you get frightened too easily

:0)

JN:

B, what is your problem?

RG:

H.that is what L said

MH:

i think the stage direction is important to further satirize the original Hamlet, and the stuff
happening in the stage directions seems to be nothing that the cold, calculating, under control
character he is in Shakespeare's version.

MH:

who the heck is B?

RG:

I used to not like this conference thing...but it has gotten better today!

WM:

what's up with the :0) thing you got goin', R.

JN:

W

MS:

If the story was meant to be read, shouldn't the movements and scenes have benn incorporated
into the story, instead of being separated into stage directions.

RG:

spell my name right and I might answer you

JN:

it is a smile dummey

CV:

R is getting loud

MH:

oh, we had a blast last semester, but that's another story for another time

MH:

good point M

IF:

hi

MH:

R...stop being loud

CV:

Why are you thanking yourself, M?

JN:

I, you've been quiet. Good to hear from you..

IF:

i'm sorry i was day dreaming

CV:

We missed you too J

MH:

i'm thanking a different M...we've got multiple M in the vicinity

JN:

Lisxten, C. I have been doing nothing but talking here.

PG:

I happened to think that the character Rosencrantz was a little less smart than Guildenstrn, but I
also think that some of the reason the Rosencrantz follows Guildenstern is because he is just
naive. He does not know any better than to trust his friend, Guildenstern, so he will do as
Guildenstern says, even if what Guildenstern is doing is not very wise.

RG:

this is too much for me this morning

MS:

Thanks M.

CV:

I'm sooooo confused

JN:

I am the one that has been up since 5:45 in the morning.

MH:

they're both morons, it's pointless to discuss which one is the lesser moron...no prob M

RG:

I think that they are both just dumb!

CT:

Agreed!

IF:

i agree

RG:

I stayed up with this paper till 3:45, so stop guilt tripping me

CV:

They seem to share a brain.

JN:

You are right. They are both stupid and those were the author's intentions.

RG:

No, there isn't one to share....

they are as smart as my baby toe!...which is smart for a toe...but not much else

CV:

Your baby toe must be quite smart!

MS:

If they're both dumb, and we can't decide which one is worse, why bother reading about them at
all?

JN:

Pookie-Shut Up!

CV:

Ever think of the talk show circuit?

RG:

It just goes to show that they are like robots in a way....they do what they are programmed to do
without thinking of the consequences...like my paper

MH:

why, it's not due 'til thursday...you've got plenty of time to put it off

it's entirely possible C, but i think R is right, combined they can't be smart enough for a normal
person

MH:

good call

WM:

I agree with you guys. It's time to get back into action, R and G was a pretty boring and confusing
first act, but I think that the stage narration gave the characters a lot more life, and it makes it
easier for a producer to direct the play because it has less options. Do you guy's even know what
book we are reading.

BV:

i don't think Rosencrantz is that naive. it might have something to do with it but i think most of his
actions are based on his lack of intellectual ability.

RG:

YOU ARE SO MEAN.....

RG:

BUT AT LEAST M IS NICE...THANK YOU SO MUCH M!

MH:

which M?

CV:

M's a meanie too

RG:

B..have you figured my name out yet...i'd like to speak to you, but I can't
 
 

you silly

HG:

I know these two guys that go to this school and they act like R & G all the time. Every time they
talk it is like this big mind game, but now I know what is going on. They just keep asking each
other stupid questions and the one who answers or asks a question that cannot be answered loses. I can't believe I didn't catch on before, but then again I am rather slow.
 

This is an unedited transcript of the last Interchange session for English 8-26. The names of the
students have been changed.

LV:

Why are they always referring to eating and hunger? Why didn't they choose chose words like
"lust" or" "desire" or "craving?"

AR:

The characters are bound by others judgements , who isn't. Then no one is free.

CT:

Are u talking about the book or us L?

LV:

The book, sorry!

AR:

Hunger is a primitive word. It is a description of the time.

AR:

you can't get any more basic then "hunger".

CT:

It may be a shot in the dark but maybe it has something to do with slavery. When people are
deprived of something it turns into a desire. Hunger is a great metaphor for this because it entails
some sort of pain

AR:

hey, that's pretty good.
 

If you have questions, comments, or suggestions, email me at jg0e@lehigh.edu	Lehigh English Page
URL: http://www.lehigh.edu/~ejg1/Jen.html ~ Updated 5/98