CBPP writing in the composition classroom extends student invention practices into topic selection.

Historically, students are assigned essay topics by the instructor. The instructor decides upon the essay topics in terms of course goals, determining what type of writing assignment will assist students in developing the necessary writing skills. Instructors often balance additional demands in determining how narrowly to focus the assignment; essays that require each student to address the same question are easier to assess, but invite plagiarism, while topics that are broadly defined by instructors and require more student self-examination result in more individualized essays.

A writer’s assessment of his or her creative interests is the natural starting point for any project, and CBPP is a more efficient economic model because it features this very self-assessment process, rather than requiring a firm manager to conduct an assessment of worker interests.

The reality of the contemporary working and writing environment thus sets the stage for the discussion of the concept of the hacker tradition of “laziness,” or the idea that workforce rules are changing – in part because of increasingly modular and granular work – to allow workers to self-select projects based on their creative impulses and vocation goals.

In the composition classroom, writing in a CBPP network extends invention to the topic-creation stage and affords composition pedagogy the opportunity to invite more student creativity, increase the amount of student writing through increased transactional efficiency, and intensify student commitment to writing projects by acknowledging “laziness.”

Student creativity is increased through CBPP as the writing process starts with the student assessing creative desires and then acting upon them, rather than simply accepting a line of inquiry from the writing instructor.

When the writing project is initiated in this context, the student is more likely to identify with the results and is more invested in the outcome of communicating a message with an audience. The CBPP approach in the writing classroom facilitates “laziness” as the convergence between what we choose to work on for our self-fulfillment and that which we work on our or for someone else’s advancement.

Balancing the demands of the audience and the project – but not allowing those demands to squelch creativity – is part of the careful balancing act that has long been the focus of collaborative learning.

Laziness, as a classroom practice, extends that balancing act.

Generally, it means creating projects with defined outcomes but maintaining maximum flexibility in terms of student topic and contribution selection.

The key factor for laziness in a writing assignment, however, is delegating the major decisions to the writers themselves – topic selection, project needs, contribution invention, contribution accuracy, and contribution relevance are all best left to the writers.

The film assignment of chapter two, as well as the assignments in chapter three, provide full examples of assignments which maximize student autonomy.

But having identified laziness as a concept, the next logical question is the conditions of its origins.

What caused laziness to develop?

Will understanding the culture of its creation assist in determining its longevity and ultimate impact in writing instruction?