After writing their Web literacy narratives, students created hypertext-based analyses of a collaborative or community based Web site where they would "investigate an online community or collaborative writing situation, or [...] write about practical, technological, editorial, social, or ethical issues related to online communities or collaborative writing on the Web."

Here is a list of all of the analyses produced by students in the course:

• Cathleen
• Kristin
• Tiffany
• Molly
• Melissa
• Nick
• Jason
• Ryan

In these analyses, the students are developing more as Web designers and becoming more fluent with conventions for Web writing.

Student Choices for Analysis

Even though all of the students had a presence on at least one social networking site (usually Facebook or MySpace), many of them found it difficult to choose a topic for the project, claiming that they did not spend much time in online communities or "doing stuff online" other than consuming news, seeking entertainment, and making purchases (as they had detailed in their literacy narratives). For many of them, participating in social networking sites (despite their critical discussions about them during other portions of the course) was normalized enough to not be seen as anything special or worthy of analysis; they felt they needed a "better topic" for their analyses projects.

Still, several students ended up choosing to write about communities or collaborative writing situations with which they identified: Nick, the captain of the swim team, writes about the treatement of athletes on Facebook; Jason, who is heavily involved with editorial work on Wikipedia, writes about the credibility of Wikipedia as a source. Ryan's choice to also write about Wikipedia grew out of his friendship with Jason. Other students have selected communities that interested them for personal reasons even though they do not participate in them: both Kristin and Tiffany choose to look at online dating sites because of their concern about the types of men with whom their friends (or perhaps "friends") are meeting through these sites. Cathleen, a new mother, chose Flickr, an online photo sharing site, since she has recently begun sharing pictures of her baby daughter online. Melissa, who self-identified as a "good student," chooses to look at RateMyProfessors. Molly puts off deciding on her analysis project for a long time, and finally chooses to look at online dieting through Weight Watchers, citing concerns about her body.

Simplified Understandings

Despite receiving an assignment and doing in-class work which asked them to engage in analysis, most of the students' work is largely descriptive in nature and demonstrated a rather uncritical acceptance of Web 2.0 technologies and practices. Some of this may have been due to a lack of proper instructional support; however, it also seems as if the students find the communities/collaborations they are analyzing to be less questionable and more acceptable because of their status as "digital natives" (even if they did complicate and resist that status themselves) who have grown up with such types of communication being commonplace and appropriate. When questioned during the processes of composition, many students seemed confused and bemused as to why the people often categorized as "digital immigrants" might find these types of communication problematic, questionable, or disturbing, mirroring Bauerlein's (2008) contention that for this generation of students, "technology is so personal to them that they can’t even entertain the idea of harm."

In her narrative about Rate My Professors, Melissa spends a lot of time describing the site and providing an ample array of screenshots to explain to a novice userchow the site works. She discusses some of the mechanics of online rating and cites some of the scholarly work that had been done on Rate My Professors, and ultimately concludes that

It is important to remember that online rating sites are normal for everything from hotels to restaurants, allowing consumers to rave or rage about businesses (Solnik). Therefore the way in which students rate professors online, will not dramatically stray from the norms of any other online rating system and should not be presented with any concerns that other sites wouldn’t face.

and later:

I believe that the ratings are credible because the students posting the comments experienced the teacher and class first hand. Of course there could be some speculation if the poster did in fact actually take the class but overall I think that most college students are just using the site to help others out, not deceive them. In my research I did not find a lot of information on sock pupating [sic], but I won’t deny the possibility of its existence. Do I think it occurs a lot? My answer is no. I think that the site could have many different effects on a professor’s career. If they receive a lot of bad reviews, naturally it could affect their enrollment and visa versa. Once again, I don’t doubt that some reviews may just be some college students’ idea of a joke, but I personally don’t think that occurs too often. I feel that the rating system is very fair.

For Melissa, education is seen as a transaction that is rateable just like making a purchase on eBay:

If a seller has a high score which was obtained through the ratings of many people, then buyers are more likely to purchase items from them. If a seller has a high score but only two people have rated them, their credibility is not as convincing. This proves that students are more likely to trust ratings which were supported by many other students as well.

I am sure most professors (including Melissa's) would argue with the idea that education is a transaction or a transaction that can be rated and assessed in the same measure or by using the same criteria as an online auction. When I opened the question at the heart of Melissa's uncomplicated analysis up to the class, all of the students agreed.

Nick's webtext is about a topic of great concern to him, as his athletic team has recently grappled with it: "College Athletes and their life on the web: Should schools be allowed to ban their students from being a part of social network sites?" His webtext attempts to again present a "balanced" description of both the positive and the negative aspects of allowing athletes to be present on Facebook:

Social network sites and picture sharing sites have come to the rescue of the students of today's generation. Social network sites such as facebook and myspace allow students to find easy contact with their peers.

Since student athletes are considered to be held to higher standards and are known as ambassadors for the university, when a student athlete makes a post about how drunk they were or is tagged in a picture of them drinking they are showing the people that see their site that they are breaking the law. since they are the ambassadors of their college they seem to portray a view that their college is all about drinking and other embarrassing behavior.

What is most interesting about Nick's webtext is not the content but the audience to which it is aimed -- instead of being written to a generic audience or the teacher-audience to which most student writing is pitched, Nick is clearly writing to students, and student athletes in particular. He addresses the student as "you" on the positives page ("Accessing a friends site allows you to view information about them, such as screen name, email, phone numbers and sometimes even an address.") and also provides a helpful list of tips for students as a sidebar on the "positives" page.

What are okay things to post/join?

• Screen name!
• Courses!
• Fun/positive Groups

What should be kept off your page?

• Degrading pictures
• Phone number
• any negative posts
• Hazing information

Nick's advice encourages athletes to build a positive ethos for themselves by only posting "fun/positive groups" and avoiding the presentation of "negative" or illegal activities. In his analysis, Nick does not come out against illegal or degrading practices such as hazing -- merely against the presentation of them in spaces which are surveilled by administrators and outsiders. Nick believes that the construction of ethos is primary and sufficient.

On the negatives page, Nick discusses his belief that it is only college administrators who see Facebook as problematic and asserts that the focus on athletes is hypocritical ("The problem with claiming this what does that say about how the school feels about its non athlete students? Is their safety not worth as much as the student athletes?"). Ultimately, he concludes:

Personally, being a student athlete, as well as the captain of my team i [sic] feel that for a school to ban its athletes from social network and picture sharing sites is something that sends a negative message more than a positive one. By not allowing students to take part in these sites, the school is denying them the college experience.

In contrast, Jason draws on his experience with Wikipedia to produce a webtext which attempts to respond to traditional criticism of the site. He provides a page of context about Wikipedia, a page summarizing the criticism, and a page of responses to this criticism where he claims: "Wikipedia, though clearly not without its share of problems, is indeed a useful tool for readers and contributors alike."

Jason's webtext does provide some analysis (of debate, although not of the site) and demonstrates an understanding of how the nature of Web 2.0 sites such as Wikipedia are perceived by digital immigrants more familiar with print media:

Wikipedia cites its source more than most newspapers; the reason why the newspapers are considered authoritative and Wikipedia is not is because they have institutional credibility. It is possible that, over time, Wikipedia may gain credibility, but it seems that it will always be scrutinized for its open-ended editing.

However, Jason retains the hope that Wikipedia could ultimately become a source that could supplant more traditional forms of media.

Nick's assertion that social networking sites such as Facebook are a right to which college students are entitled, Melissa's uncomplicated belief that Rate My Professors functions as well as eBay, and Jason's hope that Wikipedia will acquire institutional credibility demonstrate clearly that students in the the current generation see Web 2.0 sites as part of "the college experience" -- they are a normal part of their existence, therefore not something which exists to be analyzed or seriously questioned. While these students did identify "negatives" or "criticisms" about these sites, and other students produce work that is also critical of the sites, most of them ultimately conclude that the sites are still useful, productive, and helpful if people are "more careful" in how they construct and present their online ethos.

None of students discuss how the sites themselves might be indicators of larger social changes, how the sites could be problematic, or how users themselves have the power to enact change to the sites through the sites. As students, they demonstrate the "functional literacy" with computers as described in Selber (2004), but do not seem to have reached the stages of "critical literacy" or "rhetorical literacy" that he describes. Furthermore, as a professor straddling the native/immigrant divide, I find this almost uncritical acceptance of Web 2.0 sites to be both fascinating and slightly problematic.