Moxley,+Joseph.+Datagogies,+Writing+Spaces,+and+the+Age+of+Peer+Production

=Moxley, Joseph. "Datagogies, Writing Spaces, and the Age of Peer Production."= //Computers and Composition// 25 (2008): 182-202. Web. 22 March 2010.

Abstract
This essay investigates how teachers and Writing Program Administrators (WPAs) can use commons- based peer-to-peer technologies to change their roles, to alter writing instruction and literacy genres, and to transform our processes of learning, writing, and collaborating. The essay introduces the term “datagogy” to theorize about the synergy that takes place when “crowds” of teachers employ tech- nologies to construct and debate shared pedagogies. The essay juxtaposes the values and ideologies of two metaphorical communities, the Community of Power and the Community of Learning, explores how these communities use and design online learning communities, and concludes that "datagogies" are unique interfaces that emphasizes the values of the Community of Learning as opposed to the values of the Community of Power. Finally, the essay argues that English studies will concede the central pedagogical stage of the 21st century unless we develop datagogies that engage the creative powers of individuals working collaboratively in a climate that respects diversity and independent thinking.

Argument
Moxley's argument is focused on how "new communication technologies" used collaboratively within in higher educational systems, can alter the dynamic between students and teachers as well as students and their contemporaries. He develops the term "datagogies" to characterize what he calls a "new mode of knowledge construction." Through collaborative interaction, the essence of "datagogy" flourishes. Moxley contends that gathering "crowds of people" can develop pedagogies "that are wiser and more engaging than those developed by individuals, even disciplinary experts." He references several digital learning platforms that can fuel the developments of a particular datagogy--Wikipedia, CollegeWriting, Newsvine, Reddit, MetaCritic, and Digg. Moxley believes, "Datagogies can challenge traditional assumptions about authorship, authority, collaboration, and power. Teaching, learning, and writing can become more dialogical as opposed to presentational. Knowledge can be conditional, subject to the next edit."

Key Passages
Moxley explains that currently there is a disproportionate impacts on teaching versus learning processes:

"Newsvine, Wikipedia, MySpace, Facebook—these popular writing sites provide models of new learning environments that enable writers to reach broad audiences for their texts, providing a world stage for collaboration, dialogue, conflict, and innovation. Open Access, Open Archives, Open Source—these are all examples of collaborative, decentralized, online communities where crowds of people interact to construct knowledge. These are spaces that celebrate the values of sharing knowledge and the gift culture of the Internet. We are in the midst of a major change in how knowledge is constructed, interpreted, shared, and archived" (184).

Moxley defines the contributing communities (ideologies) that inform datagogies and exist within the age of learning technology:

//"The Community of Power//: Those who seek to secure power, who are driven by self-interest, winning, and academic prestige, and who are concerned with claiming academic territory and copyright" (186).

//"The Community of Learning//: Those who seek to engage learners, who value the pursuit of truth and understanding, who are more committed to free culture than copyright, and who see all learning as an interconnected, collaborative act" (186).

"The Community of Learning is characterized by an emphasis on collaboration, gift giving, service learning, and interdisciplinary work, where individuals are less interested in power and self-promotion and more concerned with helping people develop, interpret, and share ideas. Academic prestige and power could be bestowed on leaders, teachers, and writers who ascribe to the actions and values of the Community of Learning, yet power and rewards are a by-product, not an end product" (191).

=Selected Works Cited= Anderson, Chris. (2007). People power < Wired.com >. Retrieved April 3, 2007, from < http://www.wired.com/wired/ archive/14.07/people pr.html >.

Anderson, Daniel, Atkins, Anthony, Ball, Cheryl, Millar, Krista Homicz, Selfe, Cynthia, & Selfe, Richard. (Fall, 2006). Integrating multimodality into composition curricula: Survey methodology and results from a CCCC research grant. //Composition Studies//, //34//(2), 59–84.

Baron, Dennis. (1999). From pencils to pixels: The stages of literacy technologies. In Gail. E. Hawisher & Cynthia. L. Selfe (Eds.), //Passions, pedagogies, and 21st century technologies// (pp. 15–33). Logan: Utah State University Press.

Barrios, Barclay. (2004). Reimagining writing program web sites as pedagogical tools. //Computers and Composition//, //21//, 73–87.

Gladwell, Malcolm. (2002). //The tipping point: How little things can make a big difference//. Boston: Back Bay Books.

Jarratt, Susan C. (1991). Feminism and composition: The case for conflict. In P. Harkin & J. Schilb (Eds.), //Contending with words: Composition and rhetoric in a postmodern age// (pp. 105–124). New York: MLA.

Johnson-Sheehan, Richard, & Pain, Charles. (2004). Changing the center of gravity: Collaborative writing program administration in large universities. //Technical Communication Quarterly//, //13//(2), 199–210.

Lunsford, Andrea A., & Ede, Lisa S. (1994). Collaborative authorship and the teaching of writing. In Martha Woodmansee & Peter Jaszi (Eds.), //The construction of authorship: Textual appropriation in law and literature// (pp. 417–438). Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

Marx, Gary T. (1996). Electric eye in the sky: Some reflections on the new surveillance and popular culture. In D. Lyon & E. Zureik (Eds.), //Computers, surveillance, and privacy// (pp. 193–208). Minneapolis: University of Minneapolis Press.

Miller, Thomas P., & Jackson, Brian. (2007). What are English majors for? //College Composition and Communi- cation//, //58//(4), 682–708.

Moxley, Joe, & Meehan, Ryan. (2007). Collaboration, literacy, authorship: Using social networking tools to engage the wisdom of teachers. //Kairos: Rhetoric, Technology, Pedagogy//, //12//(1)

Rorty, Richard M. (1979). //Philosophy and the mirror of nature//. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Rosen, Jay. (2007). Citizen journalism wants you!  Retrieved April 3, 2007, from .

Samuels, Robert. (2004). The future threat to computers and composition: Non-tenured instructors, intellectual property, and distance education. //Computers and Composition//, //21//, 63–71.

Selfe, Cynthia L., & Selfe, Richard J., Jr. (1994). The politics of the interface: Power and its exercise in electronic contact zones. //College Composition and Communication//, //45//, 480–504.

Sirc, Geoffrey, & Reynolds, Thomas. (April, 1990). The face of collaboration in the networked writing classroom. //Computers and Composition//, //7//(Special Issue), 53–69.

Smit, David W. (1989). Some difficulties with collaborative learning. //Journal of Advanced Composition//, //9//, 45–58.

Ulmer, Gregory. (1998). Foreward/forward (into electracy). In T. Taylor & I. Ward (Eds.), //Literacy theory in the// //age of the Internet// (pp. ix–xiii). New York: Columbia University Press. Wasley, Paula. (2006). A new way to grade. The Chronicle of Higher Education Retrieved April 3, 2007, from < http://chronicle.com/weekly/v52/i27/27a00601.htm >.

Yohon, Teresa, & Zimmerman, Don. (2006). An exploratory study of adoption of software and hardware by faculty in the liberal arts and sciences. //Technical Writing and Communication//, //36//(1), 9–27.