The Writing Program Administrator as Technorhetorician: Sustainable Technological Ecologies in the First-Year Composition Program

This chapter considers the role of the technologically knowledgeable writing program administrator (technorhetorician* WPA) as a decision-maker at the intersection of complex systems of relationships among stakeholders in a university setting.  These ecologies will include the technological infrastructure, such as machines, software, networks, and lab spaces; the faculty development support system, such as both university-wide and program-specific efforts; governance issues such as planning, policy, procedure, and administrative decisions; assessment issues such as electronic portfolio scoring, placement, and programmatic feedback; and pedagogical issues, such as the relationship between online and offline activities, and interactions with publishers, among others. 

As Shirley Rose and Irwin Weiser remind us in The Writing Program Administrator as Theorist, theory and everyday decision-making must be integrated at every level of the complicated work of directing a writing program.  Thus, in negotiating a sustainable pathway for a program that will meet the needs of as many stakeholders in the intersection ecologies of a university, the WPA needs to be able to draw upon existing knowledge and experience in at least three ways.  First, to whatever extent she or he can, the technorhetorician WPA should be reading the scholarly work of peers, not only in rhetoric and composition, but in computers and composition studies.  Second, the technorhetorician WPA should be involved in the national and international conversations about rhetoric, technology, and composition, through online discussions and face-to-face conferences.  Third, the technorhetorician WPA must learn the history, relationships, and concerns of the stakeholders in the local university context.  Practically speaking, the technorhetorician WPA must be able to listen to and act upon theoretical and anecdotal knowledge at both global and local levels.

Using the author’s experiences as technorhetorician for over sixteen years, university faculty development chair for five years, and WPA for five years, the chapter will discuss the evolution of an administrative philosophy that fosters the development of sustainable uses of technology in writing programs.  Through examples and case studies, it will provide some guiding principles for writing program administrators interested in answering the following questions.

(For the purposes of the poster session, each question should provoke a provisional discussion, then we can click on the links below to see any of my ideas and examples are helpful.)

Who are the stakeholders in the intersecting technological ecologies within and outside the university?  How do I learn about these stakeholders, and how do I gauge the impact of my decisions upon them?

On what information do I base my decisions about using technology in the writing program?  To whom do I listen, when, and how?

How do I decide between national recommendations and local exigencies, when they conflict?

How do I ensure that everyone teaching in the program has access to hardware, software, and network services essential to those who use computer technologies in the classroom?

How do I plan and implement faculty development (including professional development for graduate students) in a technology-integrated composition program?

How do I plan and implement an assessment program using best practices in rhetoric, technology, and composition, such as electronic portfolios?

How do I document, report on, and publicize my program’s achievements in technology, assessment, and student writing?

How do I ensure that our uses of technology are focused on meeting the needs of growing writers, not the needs of educational, software, hardware, and publishing companies?

Ultimately, the chapter will not make a case for detailed and specific approaches to sustainable technological ecologies in the writing program, but instead will illustrate and recommend a process of listening to global conversations about technorhetoric, processing and adapting technorhetorical theories and suggestions to local circumstances, then acting with the best interests of key stakeholders in mind.