Imagine five distinct introductions for this text. As a hypertext document, readers would select one to read and possibly click back and read another. Navigating hypertext on the screen is clearly a different experience than reading or hearing linear text read in a temporal sequence. A hypertext can offer readers more diverse possibilities; yet, if not well orchestrated, perhaps more chaotic ones, wherein readers stray off path, become trapped in a maze of loops or worse still, distracted by irrelevant, annoying visual images. To create effective hypertext, writers are faced with challenges that do not exist when creating ordinary linear texts—and the cognitive demands on writers for producing reader-based texts as opposed writer-based texts increase. As we move into the whole new realm of hypertext authoring, which is unavoidable in the pervasive world of the Internet, how well prepared are we as writing instructors to assign, teach, and evaluate these texts?

To return to my original premise, if this document were written in hypertext, I would produce the five introductions that I suggest. For the purpose of creating a text for a live presentation, I need only compose one. Yet, I ask you to pause and imagine how different your experience would be if you arrived at a homepage on the Internet and selected the introduction whose hyperlink enticed you the most. Those preferring an historical perspective on the role of computers in the classroom could start there. A theoretical argument would be available for those who desired to place the situation into a conceptual framework. A case study would be offered for those who gravitate to empirical data. A fourth would offer a series of pithy quotations, perhaps for the more philosophical of the lot, and a fifth for the visually inclined would merely be a provocative pictorial image of a high-tech computer classroom. As you pause now, contrast the experience of reading a paper online to that of reading it in print or hearing it as a conference presentation. Clearly, we as composition instructors and writers would not deny that we increasingly find ourselves reading online. But how well prepared are our students to write in this ever-pervasive medium? Whose responsibility is it to equip them to function as writers in this dimension?

It is imperative for composition instructors to tackle this challenge. We must remember that whereas our courses are generally required, courses in technical writing and business writing are often taken by a select group of students. At present, many students have their first, and sometimes only hypertext experience, in computer science courses. Where are writing teachers in this scenario? While hyperlinked texts invite a rich, varied, interactive experience for readers, composing online presents writers with a complex array of tasks. To what extent is it the responsibility of writing teachers to incorporate these cognitive skills into their courses?

Given that hypertext authoring is so pertinent to our students' lives, why is this mode of writing not more prevalent in our composition classrooms? Though some might invoke economics—a lack of computer resources—as the explanation, I would argue that the real culprit is rooted in human behavior. Many composition instructors are ill equipped to teach in computer classrooms, and some are intimidated by the reality of doing so. Others see no reason for change. However, those who have begun within the last ten to fifteen years to teach in computer-rich environments report unusually high levels of success. In the National Council of Teachers of English's publication Electronic Communication Across the Curriculum, forty-five instructors from a range of disciplines claim that teaching in electronic formats using cross-class discussion groups, the World Wide Web, and email vastly enrich their students' learning experiences. Teaching in these environments helps students write with a clear sense of audience, lead to interactive learning and opportunities for collaboration, increase attention to task, improve critical thinking, and expand students' global and cultural perspectives.

The 1999 anthology Passions, Pedagogies, and 21^st Century Technologies, edited by Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe, a spectrum of composition theorists contend that hypertext authoring needs to be an essential component in the curriculum. Doug Hesse, advocating for the place of the essay in the contemporary classroom yet cognizant of the omnipresence of the Internet, queries, "When is a homepage an essay?" (42). He notes that homepages are judged by their design and the way in which they organize resources and that "because of their relative novelty we haven't yet developed a criterion" to judge them the way we evaluate essays, which conventionally are examined for their "'quality of thought or analysis'" (44). In the fervor to write on the Internet, Hesse reminds us that "[e]ssays … should populate the Internet, like raisins in the cake of the expanding electronic universe" (48). Thus in the midst of Hesse's argument favoring the essay tradition is the concession that we must take charge of the direction that writing will take on the Internet. Composition instructors must enter the scene; otherwise, according to Hesse, the role of the essay in the future, where the Internet is everywhere, is threatened.

Gunther Kress, in the same anthology, speaks to the visual nature of the Internet and cautions us that communication is changing: the straight text is no longer all there is, and we must consider what is communicated by how pieces are juxtaposed as hypertexts. Computers invite writing to be composed in "smaller chunks" not "free-standing in the way that articles and essays" have been "for the past four centuries" (40). Kress contends that if composition studies is to remain relevant, we must train students to "produce culturally valued text," for we can no longer ignore the reality that the visual is "becoming prominent in the landscape of public communication" (67). That is, we need to recreate the teaching of composition as the melding of text and image. Post-modern theorists Diana George, Diane Shoos, and Marilyn Cooper argue, again in Passions and Pedagogies, that networked environments allow the diverse voices in our classrooms to be heard, toppling a traditional, formalistic, top-down style of teaching. Lester Faigely, based on ten years of teaching in networked classrooms, proffers that computer classrooms are catalysts for collaborative learning, public discourse communities, and student-focused instruction.

In the 1990 text Computers and Community: Teaching Composition in the Twenty-First Century, theorists of the post-modern, post-process, social constructivism, and liberal feminism schools report that computer-rich environments foster marrying their beliefs with their practices. The mere arrangement of the electronic classroom into pods, clustered workstations, or terminals on the periphery of the room abrogates the traditional power structure of the classroom where the professor looms as quasi-pontifical figure. These kinds of student-participatory, democratic learning environments bring to fruition the post-modern precepts espoused by Paulo Freire and popularized in the US by Ira Shor and Victor Villaneuva. In networked classrooms, students are the central players, for their online composing is the content and curriculum of the course. Here the professor takes a backseat as a liberated, freethinking spirit much the way a creative film director liberates actors to shape a script and determine the final outcome. Richard Lanham, in Computers and Community, calls such a composition instructor a "learned coordinator" (xiv), and Carolyn Handa, in the same text, asserts that instructors in these environments "control less…[and] say less" (xx). Thomas Barker and Fred Kemp state that students and teachers collaboratively create a "knowledge-making enterprise" in a "egalitarian state," moving away from a "top down" instructional approach that is no longer acceptable in American higher education (6). As students sit at computer terminals composing and revising texts, participating in electronic peer reviews, or going online in electronic discussion forums, they are active writers and learners, not passive listeners. More class time is spent on the act of writing, rather than talking about writing or receiving direct instruction on how to perform it. When instructors embrace appropriate pedagogical styles in computer-based learning environments, students have excellent opportunities for honing their skills as writers, while also finding the experience relevant to their lives and the world around them.

Needless to say, many composition instructors have not moved ahead quickly enough. Many spent their own formative years in non-electronic classrooms, lacking role models for spearheading a paradigm shift. Paradoxically, the void grows as the gap widens between their lived experiences and that of students. Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe remind us that Margaret Mead's 1970s Culture and Commitment warned of a "prefigurative" state wherein an accelerating rate of change left adults vastly unprepared, with no reference points and models as guideposts for teaching the next generation. Mead concluded that the "rapid explosion of technological knowledge and global communication" demanded a "new kind of education response" (qtd. in Hawisher and Selfe 4). Mead's concept of "prefigurative" describes the Internet age, where to use Wordsworth's phrase, "the child is father of the man." At the fin-de-siècle, Henry Adams spoke of a "dynamo effect," wherein predecessors lagged behind their progeny. Adams claimed that an exponentially escalating rate of change in the future would worsen the situation. Here we stand today at the cusp of the 21^st century with Adams's doomsday predictions perhaps more relevant than ever.

If we do not grapple with the Internet and begin to teach our students to be effective hypertext authors, we will find ourselves in the quandary similar to one that Joseph Janangelo eloquently describes in his 1998 College Composition and Communication article, "Joseph Cornell and Hypertext." Having received two hypertext essays, one from a graduate student and another from a graduating senior, Janangelo states that "[t]he reality of having no models to teach by recently hit me" (24). He continues, "I experienced great difficulty discerning what [the] links meant. My inability to follow the intellectual connections behind the links led me to assign the texts low grades and to write to their authors about the communicative impasse I experienced" (25). "[I]nstead of changing and learning from our students," Janangelo writes, we venerate "the paradigms of linear prose" (26). Janangelo concedes that in his puzzlement, he began searching for ways "in which students could learn from [him] while also teaching [him] about their innovative activities"(26). Eventually, he happened upon the work of collage artist Joseph Cornell as a useful model for showing students how to transform their chunked texts into "a persuasive collection" and concluded that the "act of selecting and linking texts is a challenging intellectual activity—one to which elements of western rhetoric pertain even when they are reconfigured by technology" (27). Janagelo's story serves to help us understand how we, especially those who like Janagelo work at schools that are not "especially technological advanced" (26), can find answers within our realm of experience, though some creative leaps may be warranted.

As composition professors, we cannot ignore the reality that students growing up in the last decades of the twentieth century have been weaned on television, computers, and video games. Most identify the computer as their preferred writing tool. Some began as early as elementary school revising and editing papers with word processors and tinkering with multimedia software for creating dynamic, interactive compositions that meshed text with image. In this computer-rich world of both home and school, many students type at a quicker clip than they write by hand, access Internet resources more successfully than they pluck books from library shelves, and log on to email as habitually as they chat on their cells phones. Composing first drafts on the computer and writing in networked classrooms strikes them as natural. Yet, many sit in composition classrooms with no computers in sight/on site—the schism between their lives and their classroom experiences widening. Given the current state of affairs—our students' facility with computers and the increased availability of them on our campuses—composition instructors need to re-examine their teaching principles and practices.

Composition instructors are advised to ponder the very titles of the essays in Passions, Pedagogies, and the 21^st Century. For example, consider Gunther Kress's "English at the Crossroads: Rethinking Curricula of Communication in the Context of the Visual," Geoffrey Sirc's "'What is Composition …?' After Duchamp (Notes Toward a General Teleintertext)," and James Sosnoski's "Hyper-readers and Their Reading Engines." Such titles invoke a new age and a new vocabulary. Their authors plead with instructors to teach critical reading skills that focus on navigating mazes of hyperlinks, to create opportunities for analyzing texts that are hyperlinked chunks of webbed global compositions, and to teach students how to be successful composers of these new texts. In the last several years, some institutions have begun to offer programs of studies and courses in hypertext authoring, yet on many college campuses, composition instruction remains low tech. Instructors who fear electronic classrooms are perhaps stymied by what they perceive as the alien world of html hieroglyphics. Java scripting and other hypertext authoring systems appear to be foreign languages beyond their scope of comprehension and task commitment. However, point-and-click hypertext software is as easy to use as word processors, and likely more playful and creative. At one time, going back nearly two decades ago, writing instructors squawked at using computers for writing. But, as word-processing software became ubiquitous and simpler to use, attitudes changed, and hardly a professor today is not wedded to word processing. The same is likely to happen with web-authoring software, given more time. Because hypertext authoring is different than linear composing, the challenge of teaching students to write in hypertext is greater, and some are likely to wonder about how to integrate web authoring into their already tried and true teaching practices.

To illustrate how web-authoring software can be seamlessly woven into an ordinary composition class, I describe how I approached this task at a low-end technology institution, though this model bears relevance for both the veteran computer instructor as well as the apprehensive neophyte. The approach is based on post-modern, post-process, collaborative learning, constructivist, and scaffolding theories of learning and teaching. Though the course ostensibly uses a public discourse style, borrowing generously from John Trimbur's Call to Write, the assignments and approach are adaptable to a multitude of contexts. For the sake of presenting the course as lived, I describe it in quasi-chronological order.

 Starting with the Syllabus as a Hypertext:

The course syllabus is a hypertext document, serving as a model and scaffold for students, who come to see hypertext as malleable and changing in time as well as an interconnected tapestry of ideas. The online syllabi enables students to access assignments from anywhere, and by pointing and clicking, they can obtain additional resources, authored by the instructor and others, for working themselves through course projects. As the semester unfolds, new information and links are added, and modifications are made in response to students' questions and input. In essence, students see that hypertext documents on the Internet can cater to an audience's needs and are modified with such in mind, or are, to use the customary composition lingo—revised. The evolving syllabus on the Internet reinforces that authoring on the web is an ongoing activity, and although this might be advantageous for readers, for writers, staying current is an arduous, perpetual task. The public display of text extends the audience and number of people who respond, again increasing the demands on the writer. Furthermore, as the syllabus unfolds throughout the semester and students create their own hypertext documents accessible on the Web, the online syllabus is amended to include links to students' work.

 Writing for an Audience:

The initial assignments engage students in coming to see the course as a place where they write for an audience other than the instructor, reflecting post-modern ways of learning in contrast to formalistic, structured teaching where only the instructor is privy to students' texts. In one of the opening assignments, students write letters that they mail, and in a complementary assignment, they write a series of email posts. The main point at this stage is that students are writing for an audience and distinct purpose and, therefore, employ writing styles concomitant to the context.

Using John Trimbur's Call to Write, the course operates on the premise of writing for varied audiences and real-world purposes, not for the exigency of completing an assignment that an instructor grades. The letter writing activity calls on students to write to people whom they know, and students choose to write to family members, friends, former teachers, and other people who populate the world beyond the college campus. In addition to these letters, which are printed on stationery and mailed, students engage in a class email exchange and email me questions they have regarding the syllabus. Journal writing accompanies these assignments, with students finding the prompts for these journal exercises accessible online by using hyperlinks in the syllabus. All journal work is composed online and saved to a computer folder that students create expressively for the purpose of storing these writings. These initial writing activities in the first week of class establish a safe environment for writing, for the local audience is far less foreboding than the larger world of the Internet. These simple assignments set the stage for more complex assignments and introduce students to the concept that the writing that will be done in the course will not be merely assignments collected by a professor, graded, and returned.

 Starting to Configure Web Sites

The first major writing project in the course is a memoir, a unit from Trimbur's text. In his Memoir chapter, Trimbur suggests as a sidelight that students compile a time capsule. In the past, I skipped this extension activity, but in the new approach to teaching the course, the concept suddenly struck as an ideal way to introduce web authoring. Students could compose the time capsule entirely online within the web-authoring software, though they would gather ideas for the project in a prewriting journal activity. Opening the web authoring software for the first time, students compose a first file, which is merely a table of contents that will be converted into hyperlinks once the parallel documents are created and saved as separate files. The table of contents is a place for students to further brainstorm ideas of what they would put in a time capsule. Creating this first file introduces students to simple web-authoring techniques, such as page layout, insertion of a background and pictures, and saving files in html format via a point-and-click operation. Once the corollary files are created, students return to the table of contents page and insert their hyperlinks, webbing the composition together. By the conclusion of the activity, students have a foundation for their web site, though their main index page/homepage will be created later. The initial exercise teaches them the basics of web authoring and how to create hyperlinks and connect texts in ways that ease viewer navigation. Although their time capsule will be revised later in the course, when they will learn about scanning pictures and aligning images with text by using grids, at least the first draft is completed. Perhaps feeling a bit tentative about how their first drafts look, students are assured that they will advance their technology skills and revisit these hypertexts later in the course. At that point, writing is recursive, for as students add technological elements, they also rethink their text and loop back to earlier stages in the writing process.

At the same time that students begin their time capsules, they write their memoirs. These memoirs describe a pivotal event in their lives. Adding these writings to their web sites provides a means for readers of the web site to become acquainted with the authors. Knowing that their memoirs will be incorporated into their sites and viewable on the Internet, students select topics with care. Online peer reviews,¹ online journal writing, and online and in-person conferencing with the instructor and writing center tutors accompany the project. These steps assist students with molding writing for an audience and help them to write reader-based texts. In addition, students employ photographs as one technique in writing these papers, the photographs serving as triggers to remember events and help with descriptive details, and in gathering these photographs, students have pictures for scanning into their eventual hypertexts. Once the text versions of the memoirs are completed, students then copy and paste their text files into the web-authoring program and save the files as html format. At this point, they are ready to consider layout design and how pictures will enhance their hypertexts. Once the pictures are inserted, the juxtaposition of the verbal and pictorial suggests text revisions, for the sudden fusion creates a new subtext that needs alterations to harmonize the elements.

 Expanding the Web Site: Writing Profiles

Another writing project borrowed from the Trimbur text calls upon students to write profiles. This assignment is adapted by having students write profiles of people on campus, which helps them to become acquainted with the college community—a worthwhile venture for first-year students just joining the university culture. Students select a person in a leadership position or teaching role to profile. Once all of the profiles are completed, students compile them and publish a book to distribute to each other, the people profiled and other members of the campus community. What could be a conventional assignment by virtue of the skills involved—interviewing, observation recall, and synthesizing of research as well as the use of descriptive language and zooming in on the subject—takes on an additional dimension, writing with a strong sense of audience. Moreover, with the profiles accessible on the Internet, both through the students' own web sites and a class directory with links to all of the profiles, students diligently confirm facts and ensure their subjects' permission to print their stories. Most subjects jump at the opportunity for a moment in the limelight and extend themselves to help students with writing the profiles. Photographs of the subjects are gathered for the project, and students add hyperlinks that bring viewers to external sites such as an individual's homepage. In the end, when the profiles are read on the Internet, students and others learn about the college community, and the hypertexts serve as a public discourse mode of communication with a real purpose. To return to an earlier idea, student writing is the content of the course, for it is a written artifact that documents a slice of life on the college campus.

When students add their profiles to their sites, they also create their own homepages, with links to their time capsules, memoirs, and profiles. Now when they upload their sites, they have a composite of interwoven texts, and any existing navigation routing errors propel students to revisit their sites anew to fix errors, invariably leading to further tweaking of the content. Perhaps the most daunting task of all is how to make readers pause and read the text rather than jump off the page via a hyperlink. As James Sosnoski notes in "Hyper-readers and their Reading Engines," reading on the Internet is a process of filtering, skimming, pecking, imposing, filming, trespassing, de-authorizing, and fragmenting. Susan Hilligoss reminds us that "readers move from keyword to keyword or link to link rather than sequentially" (77). Jay David Bolter observes that hypertext reading is an associative process rather than a sequential one, and readers of electronic text select the path they travel. We need to prepare our students to write in ways that will engage readers who use these strategies. The rapid nature of the Web engenders pecking and pawing, whereas writers might want readers pausing and pondering. An effective hypertext breaks a long text into smaller chunks with links at the ends of pages for proceeding to following pages. In this way, some linearity is maintained, and the essay experience that Hesse waxes nostalgic for is not entirely lost. Clicking to the following page is much like turning to the next page of a printed text. In a well-conceived hypertext, however, the viewer proceeds not just linearly but also in tangential ways, momentarily stopping to check a related page while then returning to the original page. These minor jumps alter the reading process, adding another layer to it. Furthermore, hypertext authoring incorporates rich visual elements, which as Kress claims is vital to defining literacy in the 21^st century. Writers must learn to create hypertext montages where visuals add meaning rather than obfuscate it and must also understand how readers interact with hypermedia.

 Combining Web Sites and Electronic Discourse Communities

As students advance in the course, moving beyond writing about themselves and others in the college community, they compose commentaries espousing their views on contemporary topics, such as depletion of the ozone layer, world poverty, the state of contemporary education, violence in society and cultural mores. To gather ideas and tease out reactions to their views, students enter the online space of the Intercollegiate Electronic Democracy Project (IEDP), a national cross-campus bulletin board for posting ideas for others to see. Students select any number of bulletin board forums to join and exchange ideas in these forums, where they not only have an opportunity to read posts expressing a variety of viewpoints but also have a stored repository of all posts for reference when preparing their commentary papers. Once students add these papers to their web sites, they are encouraged to invite readers to respond via email, adding another dialectic element to the writing process.

At this stage in the course, students now have four writing projects on their sites: their time capsule, memoir, profile, and commentary. Most are at a point where they are comfortable with composing hypertext and using the tools of the medium for adding pictures and other features such as background music to their texts. Keeping in mind that these students attend a higher education institution where computer resources are far from ideal, the students are stretched to the limit, exploring new avenues where technical assistance might not be forthcoming in their campus computer labs. Nonetheless, this does not hamper their attempts at creating sites that rival their friends and peers at institutions where resources are replete. Learning becomes self-propelled, as students spend innumerable hours perfecting their sites. The instructor's role is to keep them on task honing their writing skills. The scope of the audience provides another motivation for producing error-free, easy-to-read text. Students revisit old texts with the goal of making them more concise and responsive to audience expectation. Writing pedagogy supersedes process theory and advances to a post-process moment. The professor can step back in awe as the students take charge of the situation and own the writing classroom, which has now expanded to be the living room of the Internet.

 Moving Further to Audience Needs: Adding Reviews to the Web Site

One of the last projects for the course is to write a review of a film, book, CD, concert, play, or some other event. In this case, a plethora of models exist on the Internet for showing students how to enhance hypertext by chunking text, embedding hyperlinks to related sites, and incorporating visual imagery. Students evaluate these models as well as conventional print reviews and contrast the two media as they prepare their own online reviews. In creating these reviews, students use strategies for breaking apart their compositions into categories and consider how readers are likely to travel through the webbed hypertext.

By the time students add their reviews to their sites, they have advanced their web authoring skills considerably. They tinker with document design, experiment with different column layouts, contemplate the interplay of font features with background styles, and ponder how all of these elements at the composite level affect the message. Moreover, adept at using the language of the review genre, having read in this genre often and having heard it delivered in the popular medium in sound bites on television and radio, students enjoy this project. The classroom dynamics are lively, interactive, and student centered, and the walls of the classrooms are stretched as students work online at home, in dorm rooms, and in computer labs. Students are highly committed to the task and the writing process, eager to revise their work so they can convince their audience to consider their viewpoints, and furthermore excited about developing a whole new set of literacy and critical thinking skills relevant to reading and authoring on the Web. Students quarrel with their peers who beg to differ regarding the merits and demerits of what has been reviewed, and writing becomes the vehicle for an animated discussion—again turning the writing process into an act of public discourse. The very experience of seeing their reviews in the public space of the Internet motivates students to talk adamantly about their writings.

 Meshing Research Writing into the Web Site Project

The final course project engages students in expanding their commentaries into position papers that incorporate references. For this assignment, students read research papers on the web and develop their own research papers cognizant of the fact that their work will be published on the Internet. Their papers embed hyperlinks to online sources as well as hyperlinks for jumping to segments within the text. The latter presents a challenge. Given adequate time, they can explore other hypertext research papers on the Internet to gather ideas about how to proceed. Yet, they also realize that such documents require extensive work and when successful, are a complex medley. For some, the constraints of a one-semester course make it difficult to achieve this goal fully. Nonetheless, they acknowledge that in time as researchers in their own disciplines in professional settings, they will have opportunities for amassing an assortment of information in a cohesive hypertext for the public. Interestingly, once the course ends, students revisit their Internet research papers as fodder for starting assignments in other courses. Given a new opportunity to add to what they have created and/or revise it, they can create more expansive research sites. As for completing successful hypertext research papers as one among many projects in a fifteen-week course, one solution might be for students to work in small groups developing a collaborative site. FAQs and action pages—delineating what viewers might do to get involved in a cause—might be included.² Ultimately, as a group students can pool their talents to create a comprehensive site far more sophisticated than what a single writer could accomplish in a couple of weeks.

 A Comment about Scaffolding and Theoretical Pedagogy

The web projects described above and the theories upon which they are based support a decentralized approach to teaching that relies on scaffolding techniques. Students move from simple tasks to complex ones in sequential step; they start in a safe environment, gaining confidence by writing for a select audience before facing the prospect of using web-authoring software to reach a broad audience. Simultaneous to learning new tasks, students work from models, at times having their own peers' writings serve as these very models. Students begin their web sites with pieces composed by using conventional word processors, and simultaneously use web-authoring software to create a simple document with minimum text (i.e., their time capsules), therein learning the fundamentals of this new software when the cognitive demands of writing are less taxing. Within a short time, they have a site online and assume center stage as the players shaping the course curriculum. Their education becomes inclusive, and their written texts become the reading matter for the course, giving them key roles as authority figures while also imbuing them with a strong sense of authorship. Even the most reticent student becomes vocal in the classroom, at times becoming the leader in the group. Furthermore, peer reviews via email and electronic discussions conducted over the Internet (e.g., IEDP) provide additional venues for achieving a student-centered pedagogy and expanding the discourse community.

I invite readers to envision classrooms where more student writers rise to the occasion of becoming web authors and to think about how learning to write in this environment echoes our best theories about learning, teaching and writing. We also need to continue to formulate new theories to define hypertext and its place in the classroom. Lastly, we must face the challenge of working toward a curriculum where more opportunities exist for students to write in the ways in which they will be reading in the 21^st century. As compositionists, we need to assume stewardship for shaping the future of hypertext as a form of written communication.

Works Cited

Barker, Thomas and Fred Kemp. "Networked Theory: A Postmodern Pedagogy for the Writing Classroom." Computers and Community: Teaching Composition in the

Twenty-First Century. Ed. Carolyn Handa. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1990. 1-27.

Bolter, Jay David. Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext, and the History of Writing. Hillside, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1991.

Cooper, Marilyn. "Postmodern Pedagogy in Electronic Conversations. Passions, Pedgagies, and 21^st Century Technologies. Eds. Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe. Logan: Utah State P. 140-160.

Faigley, Lester. "Beyond Imagination: The Internet and Global Digital Literacy." Passions, Pedgagies, and 21^st Century Technologies. Eds. Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe. Logan: Utah State P. 129-139.

Handa, Carolyn. "Introduction." Computers and Community: Teaching Composition in the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Carolyn Handa. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1990. xvii-xxii.

Hesse, Doug. "Saving a Place for Essayistic Literacy." Passions, Pedgagies, and 21^st Century Technologies. Eds. Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe. Logan: Utah State P. 34-48.

Hilligoss, Susan. A Writer's Guide to Visual Communication. New York: Longman, 1999.

Janangelo, Joseph. "Joseph Cornell and Hypertext." College Composition and Communication. February 1998 (49,1). 24-41.

Kress, Gunther. "English at the Crossroads: Rethinking Curricula of Communication in the Context of the Turn to the Visual." Passions, Pedgagies, and 21^st Century Technologies. Eds. Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe. Logan: Utah State P. 66-88

Lanhan, Richard. "Foreward." Computers and Community: Teaching Composition in the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Carolyn Handa. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 1990. xiii-xv.

Reiss, Donna, Dickie Selfe, and Art Young, eds. Electronic Communication Across the Curriculum. Urbana: NCTE, 1998.

Sirc, Geoffrey. "'What is Composition …?" After Duchamp (Notes Toward a General Teleintertext)." Passions, Pedgagies, and 21^st Century Technologies. Eds. Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe. Logan: Utah State P. 178-204.

Sosnoski, James. "Hyper-readers and their Reading Engines." Passions, Pedgagies, and 21^st Century Technologies. Eds. Gail Hawisher and Cynthia Selfe. Logan: Utah State P. 161-177.

Trimbur, John. The Call to Write. New York: Addison Wesley, 1999.