Collaborative Learning and Writing

This page intentionally left blank

Collaborative Learning and Writing

Essays on Using Small Groups in Teaching English and Composition
Edited by Kathleen M. Hunzer

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers

Jefferson, North Carolina, and London

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS : I am very grateful to my family and friends who have always supported me in my endeavors, my mentors who have helped me become the professional I am today, and all of the contributors to this collection who worked tirelessly in order to create this practical assemblage. Thanks for all of your hard work.

LIBRARY

OF

CONGRESS CATALOGUING-IN-PUBLICATION DATA

Collaborative learning and writing : essays on using small groups in teaching English and composition / edited by Kathleen M. Hunzer. p. cm. Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 978-0-7864-6029-8 softcover : acid free paper . English language Rhetoric Study and teaching (Higher) 2. Academic writing Study and teaching (Higher) 3. Peer review. I. Hunzer, Kathleen M., 1969 PE1404.C6135 2012 808'.042071 dc23 2012010906
BRITISH LIBRARY
CATALOGUING DATA ARE AVAILABLE

2012 Kathleen M. Hunzer. All rights reserved No part of this book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying or recording, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Front cover image 20 Shutterstock

Manufactured in the United States of America

McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers Box 6, Jeerson, North Carolina 28640 www.mcfarlandpub.com

Table of Contents
Acknowledgments Preface KATHLEEN M. HUNZER iv 1

Part I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

Writing Courses Live and Die by the Quality of Peer Review Bringing New Perspectives to a Common Practice: A Plan for Peer Review ANTHONY EDGINGTON Reinventing Peer Review Using Writing Center Techniques: Teaching Students to Use Peer-Tutorial Methodology CATHERINE SIMPSON KALISH, JENNIFER L. J. HEINERT, and VALERIE MURRENUS PILMAIER Its just too nicey-nicey around here: Teaching Dissensus in Research and Collaborative Groups JACOB STRATMAN JASON WIRTZ 5 17

30 43

Part II: How do I best select groups in my classes?

Increasing Student Participation and Accountability in Group Production of Text through Speed Interviews MIALISA A. MOLINE Connecting Writing Process with Personality: Creating Long-Lasting Trust Circles in Writing Classes KATHLEEN M. HUNZER Forming Peer Critique Groups Through Personality Preferences MIALISA A. MOLINE 55 66 75

Part III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?
Collaborative Learning and Writing in Digital Environments CINDY TEKOBBE , YAZMIN LAZCANO-PRY, and DUANE ROEN Keeping Up with the Future: Using Technology to Facilitate Small-Group Collaboration in the Writing Classroom KELLY A. SHEA 87 99

vi

Table of Contents

Cooperative and Collaborative Writing with Google Docs DONNA J. EVANS and BEN S. BUNTING, JR . Working with Groups Online: Collaborating with Web Conferencing CHERYL HAWKINSON MELKUN

109 130

Part IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?
Blending Collaboration and Competition: A Model for Small Group Learning in Business Writing Classes RANDI BROWNING Revisiting Collaborative Writing and Electronic Dialogues in Business Communication FLORENCE ELIZABETH BACABAC Collaborative Composing: Practices and Strategies for Implementing Team Projects into Writing Classrooms KARA POE ALEXANDER 143 166 181

Part V: Can special populations benet from collaborative activities?

Working Together Towards Greatness: The Cumulative Writing Model and English Language Learners ROBB MARK MCCOLLUM Anxiety Disorders and the Collaborative Classroom About the Contributors Index KATHLEEN M. HUNZER 201 217 225 229

Preface
I have a confession to make that may surprise you since I am here writing an introduction to a book about collaborative learning. When I was a student, I lived in fear of being assigned a collaborative project or being required to work in small groups. As soon as a teacher or professor mentioned the words group project or collaboration, my heart sank. Historically, I was put in a group of students who procrastinated on the project or who did not seem to care about their GPAs as much as I did; therefore, for me, collaborative and group assignments meant that I did the work while everyone got the credit. Having had many of these experiences from K-16, consequently, I was a bit skeptical when I entered my English M.A. program in 1992 and came face to face with my old nemesis collaborative learning again. We did not meet at rst. First I learned many other features of the process classroom. I learned to view writing as a recursive process that involves prewriting, drafting, and revising; to embrace the social-epistemic nature of the composition classroom; to decenter myself as a teacher so that I was more of a guide and a coach rather than the sole authority in the classroom; to recognize the value of one-on-one conferencing; to view the composition classroom a discourse community where students grow as learners and thinkers; and far too many other traits and articles to name here. All of these I embraced with open arms because they were the exact opposite of many classes I had taken and had not enjoyed. But then I met Kenneth Bruffee and others whose research demonstrated that collaborative learning in writing classes was one of the best ways to create this process environment, and as I read these works about the benets of collaborative learning, all I could write in the margins was wont work or yeah, right! because of my past experiences. While the research spoke of the powerful benets of group work and the potential for growth in collaborative environments, because of my personal experience with small group projects, I was convinced that collaborative learning and small group projects were wonderful in theory but that, in practice, they would never work. Time and time again, the research told me that collaborative learning, when done well, is highly benecial for everyone, both students and instructor. I read and reread that collaborative learning helps students become accustomed to their academic environment and helps them improve their communication skills, thus enabling students to more successfully negotiate discourse communities both in and out of class. I also learned that collaborative learning can help students better understand the rhetorical situation and consider the ethical effects of writing on an audience. In short, collaborative learning was necessary in the process writing class since the power is dispersed between the members of the group, thus demonstrating to students the benets of helping each other in times of confusion, success, and uncertainty of seeing writing as a process of discovery and learning. These benets and others were why
1

Preface

I was supposed to promote a collaborative environment in my classes, especially in writing classes, but I was still hesitant. My skepticism remained until I became a TA for the late Alan W. France at West Chester University in Pennsylvania, a man who convinced me that knowledge can be and should be socially constructed and that, when done well, collaborative learning could and would succeed. He coached me through my early classroom experiences with peer reviews as well as other small group tasks throughout the semester. He spent time with me discussing not only the benets of collaborative learning but also the how to do it questions I had. How do I choose groups? What tasks do I assign? How do I grade collaborative learning? Should I? What if people think Im trying to get out of work by assigning group tasks? And many others. All of these questions were answered with great patience and respect. Near the end of the semester, after he had observed my class twice, Alan France paid me an amazing compliment: he told me that my use of collaborative learning and peer review was impressive because I had gotten all of my students involved, had held them all accountable, and had conquered my fear of the practice by appearing to be an expert in the technique. Me, an expert in the practice I had doubted and resisted for so long? Perhaps, I thought, collaborative learning was not so bad after all. With this newfound condence in my abilities to use collaborative learning successfully, I embarked on my career as a writing instructor. I spent two years teaching six writing classes per semester at four different schools before moving on for my Ph.D., and no matter where I taught, I relied heavily on groups for peer review, group analyses of non-ction texts, collaborative evaluations of speeches, and many other tasks. My frequent use of collaborative learning continued as I completed my Ph.D. in composition and rhetoric and taught at a community college. After nine years of practice, I felt more prepared to speak intelligently and from experience about the benets of collaborative learning. My nemesis and I had clasped hands and become friends. In 2003 when I accepted my current job, which was my rst tenure-track job, I faced a daunting task my rst semester: a three-hour night class titled Human Issues in Literature. Now, as a writing specialist, I had taught some literature, but this was not my forte, and three hours? What was I to do? And thats when my former nemesis spoke loudly use collaboration and small groups to explore the works and so I did, every night in every class period. The results were amazing. Every night students were involved in analyses of some deep and challenging pieces, and at the end of the class, these reluctant students from a variety of disciplines who were forced to take the course as a General Education requirement told me that they had never learned so much about or had so much fun with literature. As word spread of my successful use of collaborative learning in this class and many others, I seemed to become the go to person when people had questions about using groups in their own classes. Many instructors knew of the benets of collaborative learning and were seeing me integrating the practice quite successfully into my own classes, but they also had many questions many of the same questions I had worked through over the years: how do I choose groups? How do I manage my time with group work? How do I handle personality conicts? What kinds of tasks should I assign? What if one or two students in a group does all the work? How do I handle a student who tells me that group work is problematic because the student has an anxiety disorder? Can I rely on collaborative learning too much? And other such practical questions that involve the actual implementation of collaborative learning. As I answered these questions for my departmental colleagues who struggle with group work (especially new(er) instructors), for our students training to be secondary school teachers, and for instructors outside of my home department who have heard of my success with

Preface

collaborative learning, I realized that our eld needed a practical sourcebook that answers these questions, and that is what you will nd in this volume. The essays in this book are here to help you actually do collaborative learning in your own classes. We all know that we should do it; this book helps you learn how to do it. Because I have been asked so many questions about small groups and collaborative learning in the past, I have arranged this book around some common questions that I have always tried to address with both theory and pedagogy. In Part I, a variety of voices answer the question Why are collaborative learning and peer review important? Jason Wirtz in his essay Writing Courses Live and Die by the Quality of Peer Review provides a thorough analysis of the benets of peer review as a type of collaborative activity. Bringing New Perspectives to a Common Practice: A Plan for Peer Review by Anthony Edgington supplements this analysis by providing you with strong foundational information on how to promote successful peer review sessions. The third essay in Part I, Reinventing Peer Review Using Writing Center Techniques: Teaching Students to Use Peer-Tutorial Methodology, expounds on the benets of re-visioning the performance of peer review in writing classes. Inspired by the format of the one-on-one peer tutorial structure of a writing center session, Catherine Simpson Kalish, Jennifer L. J. Heinert, and Valerie Murrenus Pilmaier provide helpful pedagogical suggestions for how to help your students embrace this new format for peer review. Finally, wrapping up Part One is Jacob Stratmans essay Its just too nicey-nicey around here: Teaching Dissensus in Research and Collaborative Groups, an essay demonstrating how we can combine consensus and dissensus productively in collaborative environments. In Part II, three essays provide new answers to the age-old question How do I best select groups in my classes? Drawing on her background in professional writing classes, Mialisa A. Moline invites us to try speed interviews when forming groups, in her essay Increasing Student Participation and Accountability in Group Production of Text Through Speed Interviews. In my essay, the second in this section, I relate my successes using a very simple question as a rst-day writing prompt to form groups. My essay Connecting Writing Process with Personality: Creating Long-Lasting Trust Circles in Writing Classes not only provides you with some techniques I use to select groups but also provides a few in-class practices that can foster trust between group members. In order to demonstrate how successful this group selection technique is, I include at the end of the essay actual student comments that I garnered from a short survey. Supplementing my essay is another piece by Moline, Forming Peer Critique Groups Through Personality Preferences, that demonstrates how the widely-acclaimed Myers-Briggs personality indicator can be used to promote successful collaboration. The next section, Part III, addresses the pressing question, How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments? Cindy Tekobbe, Yazmin Lazcano-Pry, and Duane Roens essay Collaborative Learning and Writing in Digital Environments introduces many ways that collaboration can be integrated into digital classes. Supplementing this overview are other pieces that address specic practices in electronic environments. Keeping Up with the Future: Using Technology to Facilitate Small-Group Collaboration in the Writing Classroom by Kelly A. Shea specically addresses small group collaboration in electronic environments. How to address collaborative writing needs when using a platform such as Google Docs is the topic of Donna J. Evans and Ben S. Bunting, Jr.s piece titled Cooperative and Collaborative Writing with Google Docs. Finally, Cheryl Hawkinson Melkun in her essay Working with Groups Online: Collaborating with Web Conferencing demonstrates not only how to use web conferencing with collaborative learning but also how to select a proper web conferencing platform. Many people question if collaborative learning can work beyond the rst-year composition

Preface

classroom. In Part IV, authors address the question Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes? Randi Browning, in her essay Blending Collaboration and Competition: A Model for Small Group Learning in Business Writing Classes, shares suggestions on how to merge collaboration and competition in business writing class, while Florence Elizabeth Bacabac, in her essay Revisiting Collaborative Writing and Electronic Dialogues in Business Communication, focuses on the connections between the electronic environment, business writing, and collaboration. Finally, Kara Poe Alexander demonstrates how students can work as teams in technical writing classes. Her essay Collaborative Composing: Practices and Strategies for Implementing Team Projects into Writing Classrooms provides detailed advice on how to integrate a collaborative team work project into the Technical writing class. Although the essays in this section target very specic writing situations, I believe that one can learn valuable lessons for all writing classes by reading them. In Part V of the collection, the question Can special populations benet from collaborative activities? is addressed by two essays. Robb Mark McCollum presents his ndings in the essay Working Together Towards Greatness: The Cumulative Writing Model and English Language Learners, an essay that provides an excellent research model for ELL students. My essay Anxiety Disorders and the Collaborative Classroom is the last in the collection and provides background on anxiety disorders that frequently appear in our collaborative classes. The essay provides information about the most common anxiety disorders and then offers suggestions as to how to address these issues in the collaborative class. Lets face it: doing group work is not as easy as it sounds and as easy as some people seem to believe. Because collaborative learning can be challenging and intimidating at times, this collection provides helpful advice, answers to your questions, and reassures you that you are not the rst instructor to ask these questions. We are all in the collaborative learning boat together, so its time for us to share our ideas and work together to make this amazingly productive pedagogy work smoothly and effectively. Enjoy!

Part I. Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

Writing Courses Live and Die by the Quality of Peer Review

JASON WIRTZ
Peer review is small group, collaborative work that is central to the writing classroom because of its emphasis on teaching writing as a process. The process approach was rst coined by Don Murray in his groundbreaking article Teach Writing as a Process not Product and has since become a type of rallying cry for the writing classroom. What does teach writing as a process, as opposed to product, entail? To my thinking, it means that we structure our writing classrooms around the ways that writers work. Writers participate in communities to aid their writing; writers read with the purpose of impacting their writing; writers use conceptions of audience to help shape their writing; writers recognize that writing is more about alternatives than correct responses; and writers realize that they must be the main investors of their work. Lets take a look at how peer review meets each of these writing needs.

Why Should You Use Peer Review in Your Writing Classroom?

Peer review is the structure through which classroom community is created in the writing class. The image of the writer working alone, typing out words and sentences in a quiet mahogany study is not a useful vision of the writing process. While writing certainly has its solitary, grindstone moments, these moments receive their impetus and direction from peer and mentor support. To illustrate this point I have my students contrast the cover of any given book with the acknowledgments page. For example, if I pull a book from my shelf, say, Mike Roses Lives on the Boundary, I see an artistically rendered cover with one name in bold: Mike Rose. The acknowledgements page, however, tells a much different story. Rose provides a typical opening to an acknowledgment page: The stories in this book would never have been woven together without the help of.... The next two pages read like a list of descendents from the Old Testament. Peer review is this community for your student writers. And not only that, but all the wonderful things associated with creating a classroom community are invited into your classroom along with peer review such as students interacting with one another in a positive manner, allowing course materials to be examined and penetrate with inuence, and students feeling that they are a part of the larger academy of learning. Lisa Delpit writes, ...discourses are not static, but are shaped, however reluctantly, by those who participate within them and
5

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

by the form of their participation (499). David Bartholomae makes the same point in his essay Inventing the University that as students participate as a group within the academy, within a particular discourse community, they not only appropriate but are appropriated by such discourses. Peer review takes these claims seriously by opening up the space signicant space in terms of both intellectual focus and time within the academic institution via the writing classroom for students to formulate their own conceptions and construct their own discourse communities as they simultaneously enter and construct, affect and are effected by, their academic institution. If you want to teach your students to read like writers, you must utilize peer review. I will make you a bet. I bet you that the students in any writing class you teach are better at interpreting than creating. The educational engine that has dropped these students into the desks of your classroom has invested more time and energy into teaching these students how to interpret a text (i.e., how to recognize symbols, themes, imagery, etc.) and less time teaching these students how to create a text. As Guy Allen notes, We ask our students to study and understand meaning at the same time that we offer little opportunity for them to make original meaning (95). In (Re)Writing Craft Tim Mayers brings clarity to this argument, and his response to this off-kilter educational pendulum is that composition teachers, taking their cue from creative writers, must begin teaching craft criticism. Craft criticism does not concern itself, for example, with why Toni Morrison wrote her essay Strangers, or what the theme of the essay is. Craft criticism is wholly concerned with how Toni Morrison wrote her essay. And because writing classes are about the how-tos of writing, I argue that Toni Morrisons essay is going to be practically useless. I could reasonably expect my student writers to read the essay and have something to say about what she does well within the essay. Students might reference her use of elevated language, her voice as being condent yet accessible, or her ability to wring a great deal of information out of a sentence. I could not, however, expect them to speak intelligently about where Toni Morrison fails or is ineffective in her essay. Students struggle to see the seams in writing that is nished because nished, published writing is meant to hide such seams, and it is the seams that provide entryway into the process of writing. Picture a dartboard in your mind. The bulls eye represents your students current level of writing ability and the rings extending outward from the center represent continuously developing writerly sophistication. Where is Toni Morrison going to fall within this set of rings? Twenty to thirty rings outward from where your students currently are? Where is an example student essay the best essay from last-semesters course going to fall? Where is one of their peers essays someone sitting right next to them in class going to fall? Stephen King speaks with his usual verve to the point Im trying to make here, the fact that student writers all writers for that matter improve by increments which means the best material to push us forward is that material closest to our current ability level: Almost everyone can remember losing his or her virginity, and most writers can remember the rst book he/she put down thinking: I can do better than this. Hell, I am doing better than this! (146, italics original). Peer review sets students up to read like writers, to deploy craft criticism in which they identify the specic techniques that their peers are using to effectively or ineffectively produce an argument or story. Peer review does not ask students to interpret the meaning behind writing but asks students to gure out how a piece of writing is constructed, how it is working or not working and to provide feedback to that effect. Ive constructed an abbreviated table to help illustrate the type of questions that the writing classroom concerns itself with as opposed to the English literature classroom:

Writing Courses Live and Die by the Quality of Peer Review (Wirtz) Writing Classroom Concerns
Where can the text benet from further detail or explanation? What does this author do particularly well that you would like to add to your own writing repertoire? Where in the text do you, as a reader, get confused? Point these out to the writer with suggestions for revision. Pick out a line in the text that you think is working particularly well and share this line with the author so that they may continue to write at this level. How well does the text match the conditions called for in the writing prompt?

English Literature Classroom Concerns

Identify the theme(s) of the text. What do you know about the authors personal history that informs your interpretation of the text? What literary devices does this author employ? Pick out three symbols from the text and explain what they are symbolizing. Compare this text with another text we have read in terms of its overall tone, theme, and use of symbolism. Provide a feminist, Marxist, and new-historicist interpretation of the text.

Peer review is as important to the English literature classroom as it is for the writing classroom, that is, if the given literature classroom is equally concerned with writing as it is with reading. Literature courses most often place heavier emphasis on reading and interpretation, however, in which case they deploy different types of peer review systems that focus on reading such as literature circles or readers workshops. It took me a long time to realize that my own English literature background had favored reading over writing. As a product of this system I didnt realize this favoritism toward reading until one of my writing teachers, Stuart Dybek, pointed this out to me when I interviewed him as part of my dissertation:
I think that most of the classes are about reading. One of the things Ive noticed in my writing classes is that people come in there as very good readers and they want to talk about a piece of writing as readers and what I keep trying to get them to do is talk about it as a piece of writing, how it was made rather than what it means. You cant talk about something totally disregarding what it means but you can have your priorities.

This last line has always resonated with me You cant talk about something totally disregarding what it means but you can have your priorities. This sentiment highlights the fact that writing and reading are not discursive practices, rather, they are complementary and interdependent practices which exist along a type of continuum. You can have your priorities, however, and the writing classroom is one of the few places (if not the only place) where the instructional priority will be writing rather than reading, where the content of the course will center around the development of students writing skills rather than centering around the course content content that has been selected and organized long before the students walk into the classroom. Peer review teaches students to be aware of an audience through the best means available an audience. I ask my students who their audience is when they write and they inevitably respond, You. Then I get to ask, Who else? Eventually they answer, somewhat bemused, Each other. Yes, I tell them, You are also writing to each other, to your peers and we get to talk about what that means for their writing. Writers envision an audience when they write and students write much better papers when they envision their peers as this audience because instead of approximating toward what it is they think I want as the instructor, they are much better, and more articulate, when they write to inform, amuse, and surprise one another. This may be an unusual turn, but I would like to invoke Peter Elbows essay, Closing

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

My Eyes as I Speak: An Argument for Ignoring Audience to support my ideas about the important overlap between peer review and audience. Elbow makes the argument in this heavily anthologized essay that an over-attentiveness to audience can actually inhibit ones writing. His argument against audience hinges on a very important point that the nature of ones audience can either be enabling or inhibiting. In my experience, the audience of ones peers is an enabling audience for students whereas the imagined, dislocated audience of what they consider to be good academic writing (aka, what they believe the teacher wants) is oftentimes an inhibitor. When students write to their peers they tend toward using language well within their capabilities and to privilege clarity of communication. When students write to an imagined, disembodied audience of the teacher or, worse yet, the academy at large, even the most simple of thoughts are complicated through a process of linguistic juggling in which they struggle to signify that they belong in what is oftentimes a new and unfamiliar academic setting. Peer review teaches that there are no right answers. Writing does not operate on the same plane as mathematical equations, historical dates, or biological identications. Oftentimes this is confusing for students because of the way other disciplines and the grading system in general contextualizes writing to make it seem to have an end-goal. As Ann Berthoff illustrates in The Making of Meaning, writing is a process of classication arriving out of chaos. Classication systems, while useful and communicable to wide audiences, are still, at their core, personal and idiosyncratic. Writing is the deployment of personal systems of classication. Peer review reinforces this notion of the writing process because students are consistently reading the way that their peers respond to an identical writing prompt with limitless variety and nuance. Peer review also reinforces the notion that writing is an ongoing process of development as it supports the idea that the writing classroom is more concerned with the students development as a writer over time than it is about any single particular writing assignment. Peer review teaches students to take ownership over their writing. Ownership is one of those pedagogical terms that has gotten tossed about to such an extent that it has become a vague, catch-all term. When I refer to ownership I am referring to a stance that writers take in relation to their work wherein they are both thankful and cautious about the feedback they receive. In my writing class this semester I have a student who can serve as the ideal example of taking ownership. He gets excited about peer review especially when the criticism challenges him because the comments get him excited to go home and work on what needs xing. In this case, his sense of ownership provides him with a sense of condence, a condence that allows him to take criticism in a manner that feeds his revision process. Ownership also refers to students listening to all of the feedback they receive and then taking the important next step of sifting through that feedback with a critical eye, discarding some comments while implementing others. Notice how this type of ownership rarely has a chance without peer review. The comments that students receive from their teacher, like it or not, have hierarchical, power-structure baggage that most often results in students viewing teacher comments as directives rather than possibilities to explore. Peer comments, however, have the opposite effect as these comments are much more likely to be viewed with a healthy dose of skepticism which, to my thinking, is illustrative of students enacting ownership over their writing. Peer review maximizes student involvement while minimizing in a smart way teaching involvement. Several years ago I came across a quotation, an aphorism really, that has always stuck with me. The best teachers make themselves progressively unnecessary. The point here is certainly not to minimize teacher involvement for the sake of making our lives easier, but that too often beginning teachers take too much of the onus on themselves for student

Writing Courses Live and Die by the Quality of Peer Review (Wirtz)

learning. I have observed many beginning teachers and Ive consistently noted that by the end of the classroom observation it is they, and not the students, who are exhausted. I remember this being the case for myself as well when I rst began teaching. Why is this? In my estimation, it is because beginning teachers are still working through a lter where they see themselves as being at the center of the activities, at the center of the learning, at the center of the explaining, talking, and doing. An invaluable heuristic for beginning teachers is to stop thinking about what they will be doing during the course of a classroom period and start thinking about what the students will be doing. Peer review is student-centered. Peer review places the onus of learning on the students. During peer review the utterances of the students vastly outnumbers the utterances of the teacher. When working as intended, peer review positions the teacher as being progressively unnecessary because the students are appropriately taking on the burden of learning.

Why Does Peer Review Want to Fail?

If you want quality peer review in your writing classroom then you must face, head-on, the fact that peer review has a natural tendency towards failure it wants to fail. Yes, peer review wants to fail. The important question to answer becomes, why does peer review want to fail? Peer review wants to fail because students dont want to be uncomfortable and they certainly dont want to make others uncomfortable. Imagine that you are a freshman student in a writing course. You are asked to read and respond to another students essay. Think about the larger context of your situation. You are in a new place, trying to nd your own way. One of the rules you rely on is be nice to people, thats the way you make friends. Now youve got this writing instructor telling you to provide critical feedback. What are you going to do? You are going to rely on positive feedback and when your feedback approaches anything resembling critical, its going to take the form of quantiable critical feedback objective feedback that carries little to no emotional currency and that means pointing out grammatical mistakes. Grammar check is not the sign of successful peer review. Peer review wants to fail because, like writing, it is a disruptive process. The poet William Olsen helped me to see how peer review and writing are processes that can be frightening for students because they require students to reect and subsequently change the way they are currently working and thinking. Olsen puts it this way: If youve learned something, if its an act of discovery, then that means its uprooted prior notions. Theres a disruptive nature to discovery. When somebody writes something good sometimes their rst instinct is actually to distrust it, to question it, to consider it a uke because it demands more of them. Students will resist peer review and the focused attention to the writing process it supports because it asks them to uproot prior notions, notions that oftentimes have been the same heuristics theyve relied on for years in order to be successful students. In other words, the writing process and accompanying peer review process are not challenge-free zones. In fact, writing and responding to writing necessitates candid self-reection that students naturally want to shy from, especially students who are simultaneously struggling to adapt in an unfamiliar social environment. A defense mechanism that Ive consistently seen enacted by students new to the college experience is to hold on tighter to the familiar. This shows up in students who travel home every weekend or students who rely solely on well-established friendships. This tendency to make their suddenly enlarged world a much smaller, manageable, and familiar place unfortunately falls into direct opposition with the type of intellectual space we want students to inhabit in our writing classrooms.

10

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

Peer review wants to fail because students have been consistently taught not to value one another. The most common complaint that students leverage against peer review is generally some combination of the following statements: Why do I want to know what my peers think? They dont know any more than I do. They dont grade me. I thought it was the teachers job to give me feedback, arent they supposed to be the experts? Im paying to receive my education from the instructor, not the student next to me. To my thinking this type of attitude alludes to the underlying problem that for the majority of their lives students have been immersed in a schooling system that does not encourage them to view one another as a community of learners working together. Most of the feedback and all of their grades have been assessed by teachers, parents, and administrators. This entrenched mindset can be a difcult habit to disabuse students of when they are asked, through the peer review process, to encourage, critique, and offer suggestions to one another. Peer review wants to fail because students want to be efcient. Picture the stereotypical grade-savvy student the one who gets good grades because he or she has learned how to navigate the system with purpose and efciency. This is the student that argues for an A after receiving and A- and is the rst to ask the questions (usually in this order), Will this be collected? and How long does it have to be? These grade-savvy students are not bad people but instead have been in education systems long enough to realize the importance of getting the best possible grade in the most efcient manner. They have learned not to get overly invested in any one given area because they have umpteen other areas to cover. The problem is that peer review quality peer review requires an intellectual investment beyond going through the motions. If the majority of students within any given peer review group decide to set the bar of achievement too low, they can effectively nullify any positive effects of peer review. Peer review wants to fall off track. I have an anecdote that has stayed with me for several years: I was getting coffee at the campus caf and struck up a conversation with a colleague who was teaching a writing course similar to my own. At the end of our brief conversation she told me she had to run, she was actually in the middle of teaching her course as we spoke. This peer review stuff is great, she said, I just get them into groups, get them going, and then I can run down here to grab some coffee. She was off in a blur to get back to her students. Ive noticed this more than once, this misconception that somehow peer review will maintain itself by virtue of its own inertia. It doesnt work that way. Peer review wants to fall of track because students will try to divide and conquer the work as opposed to putting their collective intellects together to provide optimal feedback for each writer; peer review wants to fall off track because some groups end earlier than others which signals to the remaining groups that their goal should shift from being comprehensive to being nished; peer review wants to fall off track because, in all sincerity, students have built-in, highly sensitive radars that accurately detect teacher investment levels and as soon as the teacher investment level dips below their own, the result is a sudden, collective, and absolute retraction of investment on their part.

How Can You Elevate the Quality of Peer Review?

Ive considered the various ways that peer review can potentially fail in order to set the stage for arguing the importance of the following how-tos. I want to describe how I structure peer review in order to counter these potential pitfalls. Peer review is often structured in one of three ways author in the group, author outside the group, and individual exchange. Each of these has its advantages and, generally, I work

Writing Courses Live and Die by the Quality of Peer Review (Wirtz)

11

through each in a sequential manner because of how they situate the writer and the type of response he or she receives. Here is a quick explanation of each type of peer review: 1. Author in the group. The author reads aloud his or her paper or the students can rotate the papers. If the author is going to read his or her paper out loud, its best if they bring 34 copies so that group members can see as well as hear the paper. 2. Author outside the group. Groups gather their papers and exchange with another group. Generally, the level of critique raises when the author is not in the group because students have an easier time being critical when the author is not sitting across from them. 3. Individual exchange. This is a very focused peer review in which students individually exchange papers with one another for commentary. The students work independently and then meet to discuss the feedback. This places a great deal of onus on each student to provide in-depth commentary because they do not have the benet of working within a collective group. Ways to facilitate the process across all 3 types of peer review: Students identify their concerns. This is a rst and necessary step for all peer review sessions. I give my students time to write out 3 to 5 concerns they have with their paper. I then ask students to share these concerns and I keep a running list of these concerns on the chalk/whiteboard. This list of concerns helps reviewers focus their comments. This list of concerns also helps the reviewers be more critical since this is feedback that the author has asked for. The master list of concerns on the chalk/whiteboard also helps me, as the instructor, to informally assess what students are having difculty with in relation to the assignment. The master list also becomes a place for me to clarify concepts. For example, if a student mentions ow as a concern, I can press them to explain what they mean by ow. Eventually, this process of dening terms helps to create a shared discourse which becomes the backbone of clear communication during peer review. Finally, this master list becomes a generative place for peer review groups to look when they feel they have exhausted their critiques. Students articulate the changes they made based on peer review feedback and the feedback they provided to their peers. My students have to write two paragraphs about these changes at the end of every major essay that they turn in for teacher commentary. The rst paragraph asks the author to speak to the peer review process in terms of the feedback they received. What were the peer suggestions given to them? How did they incorporate these suggestions into their revision process? What feedback did they decide not to incorporate? The second paragraph asks the author to reect on the feedback they provided for their peers the more concrete and specic the better. I generally ask for at least three specic examples. These two paragraphs not only help me to assess the quality of the peer review sessions but they help me facilitate the peer review sessions. For example, I can read over these comments and get a good sense as to how the peer review sessions are working, or not working, for students. I can make a list of comments that I want to talk over with the whole class, comments that are valued because they are straight from the students themselves. These two paragraphs also facilitate the peer review process because I am armed with the language of, Remember, you need to write a paragraph based on the changes youve made to your essay as a result of peer review. That means that you have to offer your peers critical feedback that will help them improve their essay and write this paragraph. These two paragraphs oftentimes become the muchneeded excuse students need to be more critical with one another. Exit slips. I have students complete exit slips on most peer review days. Here are a few

12

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

examples from my class this week: Based on peer review I will add more citations. I nd this process useful and hope to do it in the future. This tells me a great deal about this student since this student had to be told to put away her German homework and a few times I thought she was going to fall asleep. Ive had lively emails from her in the past that demonstrate her engagement in the class but her classroom affect is the opposite she looks withdrawn. This comment helps me to theorize/understand that perhaps this student is engaged even though she doesnt show it. Another example: Peer Review: I should focus on other resources and write down my own ideas rather than quote from the resources. This is an ESL student who is having difculty keeping up with her native speaking counterparts. This exit slip was heartening for me because I fear that her research paper will contain an overreliance on the sources. Im glad that shes getting this information from her peers. Another example: Peer review was a great opportunity to receive criticism that I wouldnt have seen. The review helps rene our papers. This is a positive response with, really, no depth. This is most likely a stock answer what this student thinks I want to hear. Contrast this exit slip with another: Peer review was helpful. It helped me to see what other literary techniques/styles are effective. Also helped me to identify strengths, and what should be left alone. My issue of sticking to my thesis was resolved. Much more content here specic, identiable results from the peer review session which demonstrates in a concrete manner the progress that this student was able to make. Another advantage to the use of exit slips is that they support my idea of maximizing student output while minimizing teacher output. I read these exit slips at the end of class after all the students have shufed out of the classroom. Reading these exit slips takes me three minutes and they are quite enjoyable. They require no response and what they provide in terms of informally assessing peer review as well as a check against students not staying on task during the peer review session vastly outweighs the time and effort I have to invest. This is teacher efciency in one of its nest forms. Float like a buttery, sting like a bee. Be available to answer any questions that arise during peer review but when a student hand goes up, you want to get in and out as quickly as possible. A raised hand is not the call for an elaborate lecture or even discussion. Peer review is their time to work as a group and a raised hand is a call to put some wind into the sails, not grab the steering wheel. Another tactic that I like to use is watch one group while listening to another. Circulating throughout the classroom is a good strategy to see if students are on task but Ive found that whichever group I happen to stop and observe is a group that will quickly be on task given the fact that Im watching a type of Heisenberg uncertainty principle of the writing classroom. I have found it much more informative to watch one group while listening in on another group. I get a more realistic picture of how groups are operating when they dont think Im observing. Your secret weapon: Quality peer review doesnt ever end. One of the difculties inherent not only in peer review group work but within group work writ large is that some groups will nish earlier than others. This creates a problem because the group that is nished is, by denition, off task and on to talking about their weekends or the math test they have coming up. The other problem is that the groups surrounding them that are not yet nished will feel the need to hasten the process which undoubtedly detracts from the endeavor. This is when you have to put yourself to the test. While oating like a buttery, you should be able to determine where each group is within the process. When a group nishes, you want to be there, talking to them about the process and looking over what theyve recommended to their writers. When you read at the end of an essay that the group wrote the comment, Good work here but more specic examples would help to support your arguments you get to push this group to be

Writing Courses Live and Die by the Quality of Peer Review (Wirtz)

13

more specic about where these additional examples should be within the essay and think about what the examples should be. This is where the master-list of concerns on the chalk/whiteboard can be your ally as well. Your secret weapon against group-interactionfailure is the simple fact that peer review can always be qualied further. You, as the bee, need to quickly determine how to push these early-nishing groups to articulate their ideas in a more sophisticated and developed manner. Continually alter group dynamics. I prefer to look at the class holistically and my lofty goal is that each of my students will feel comfortable relatively early on in the semester with every one of their peers. I also prefer to continually alter group dynamics rather than keeping group formations static because I dont want one or two groups consistently working well while others struggle. I encourage my students to be exible with one another and to work successfully with a variety of people. This type of social intelligence and social exibility is one of the hallmark outgrowths of quality peer review. Good peer review comes from good writing assignments and good writing assignments are student-centered. Student-centered writing assignments are writing assignments that are openended so that students can identify a topic of interest within the structures provided through the writing prompt. Providing choice fosters investment in the writing process and is true to the way writing evolves out of a desire to communicate an issue, argument, story, or idea felt strongly by the writer. I noted earlier that one of the inherent problems with peer review is that, like writing, it is a disruptive process that uproots prior notions of self. On the other side of the coin, however, lies the generative perspective that People want to make meaning even though it involves risk and makes intense demands of the maker (Allen 98). If the writing assignment is student-centered, if the students are allowed choice and the freedom to self-select the topics they want to spend their time with, then I believe student writers are better positioned to enjoy the struggle and personal changes associated with writing and peer review. Peer review days are NOT rst draft days. Ive had more than one peer review session go awry because too many students showed up with incomplete drafts. In order for peer review to work effectively students need to have completed full drafts. How does one know when they have a complete full draft? The author must have arrived at a stopping point a point where they feel they have either nished writing or where they dont know how to proceed. These stopping points are important, fertile ground for productive peer review. The problem with students peer reviewing drafts that have not reached such stopping points is that feedback received will be met with resistance in the form of, Yes, thats what I was planning to do or Well, Im not nished yet so the feedback I have received isnt relevant to what I havent written. Worse yet, student writers will feel the need to speak at length as to what they plan to do, leaving their peers in an awkward place to review what is written. Without being able to focus on the paper in hand, student reviewers are left with little traction to offer any sort of specic, substantive critique. Teacher comments invigorate peer review. Teacher comments set the bar for student-tostudent comments. If we want our students to offer one another critical feedback that pushes toward rewriting and revising on a global rather than local scale, then the writing instructor must model such feedback. (See Nancy Sommers Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers to visit the differences between local, grammatical revision practices and global, re-writing, re-visioning practices). In order to push students toward rewriting and revising, the writing instructor must provide evaluative rather than ranked feedback. Peter Elbow makes the point in his essay, Ranking, Evaluating, and Liking: Sorting Out Three Forms of Judgment. Evaluating takes the form of identifying places for improvement and

14

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

noticing places of uency within a student essay whereas ranking (i.e., assigning a grade) narrows both the teachers and students gaze onto the grade itself (390). I spent too many years as a writing teacher constructing my comments to justify a grade as opposed to coaching students along the revision process. To aid my position of coach rather than justier of the grade, there are three practices that Ive come to rely on: 1. Before students hand in their essays to me for commentary, I ask them to re-read the rst page of their essay, looking closely for any grammatical mistakes. If they nd any, they should correct them. The result: I only have to review the rst page for grammatical mistakes. If I nd any on the rst page, I know that the student does not know the grammatical rule that should be applied. If I nd grammatical mistakes on the remaining pages, I can still note them but I can consider these oversights rather than a lack of understanding the grammatical rule. This practice helps me to read student essays for their ideas as opposed to reading student essays with one eye on their grammar. 2. Before students hand in their essays to me for commentary, I ask them to write a brief paragraph explaining what they believe to be their essays greatest strength and greatest weakness. Quite honestly, I cant remember how I responded to student essays without having this paragraph. What students write as to their strength and weakness opens the conversation that I continue when I respond to the student essays. Most often, I nd myself agreeing with their comments, which places me in the position of offering and coaching strategies to help build on their perceived strengths and manage their perceived weaknesses. 3. The two previous practices are more immediate to the given writing event at hand. This third practice is more global and helps shape the entire writing classroom: the use of a portfolio system (see Doug Hess essay, Portfolio Standards for English 101 for further discussion on using portfolios in your writing classroom). Nancy Welch makes the argument that:
Composition teachers by and large havent been asking questions like Something missing, something else? that promote revision as getting restless with familiar and constrictive ways of writing and being, as creating. We respond instead (so a look through recent classroom texts suggests) in ways that restrict revision to a narrowing of focus, the correction of an inappropriate tone or awkward repetition, the changing of any passage that might confuse, mislead, or irritate readers [207].

The portfolio system helps to create the space for our comments to take the shape of pushing toward rewriting and revising because the portfolio system extends the date of nal publication to the end of the semester when students get to hand in a collection of their rened, best work. As a writing teacher then, I get to comment on student essays with the nal portfolio in mind, writing comments that begin with When revising for the nal portfolio I suggest.... Peer review is a routine that takes place over the entire semester. I observed a beginning teacher recently who was having her students work with tableaus. I have to admit, I had never seen this done before but I did think it was a novel idea. The teacher had four volunteer students go up to the front of the class to be the actors. The rest of the class took turns reading paragraphs aloud from a short story that she had handed out. The job of the audience was to tell the students what scene to depict after every few paragraphs. The audience of students had to decide, rst, what scene was the most signicant and, second, how to depict this scene given the four actors in the front of the room. This is a visualization exercise that related to good reading and writing habits that of visualizing and subsequently describing characters actions. The problem with this tableau activity, however, became immediately apparent: the

Writing Courses Live and Die by the Quality of Peer Review (Wirtz)

15

students had never done anything like this before. The students hadnt grasped the rules of the activity before the teacher was trying to push them toward using the activity to develop and depict their understanding. In our post-observation conference I asked the beginning teacher what she had thought of the lesson and she responded, Well I now know not to do that activity again. Her exasperation was the exact opposite of my feelings. The class showed me that this activity needed to be done again, and again, and again because I understood that the failure of today was the fact that the students didnt know how to do this new activity yet. Theres an amusing joke that illustrates the same concept from the opposite viewpoint. A beginning elementary school teacher takes the time to observe one of his more experienced peers. What he sees astounds him. The veteran teacher begins his class by playing a song and as soon at the students hear this song they quickly and quietly take out their workbooks and sit at their desks, pencils ready. Later in the lesson the veteran teacher plays a different song and the students put away their materials and all sit on the oor in a circle for reading time. Finally, another song gets played and all the students line up at the door in single le, ready to walk down the hall together toward the cafeteria. The veteran teacher marches them to the cafeteria and comes back to the classroom, asking the beginning teacher what he learned: I learned that I need to get a copy of those songs! How are these anecdotes related to peer review? In the rst anecdote we have a beginning teacher trying out a new strategy. She thinks of abandoning this new strategy because it doesnt work the rst time out. Peer review will most often not work the rst time out. Complex small group organizational systems need to be revisited and rened again and again before they will work successfully. In the second anecdote the complexity of the classroom strategy its history of revisions and renements was lost on the beginning teacher. It is important that peer review be conceived as developing over time just as these anecdotes reveal the importance of viewing any complex classroom strategy as developing over time. As an example, peer review is different depending on when in the semester it is taking place. At the very least, try dividing peer review mentally into thirds over the course of the semester. The very rst peer review should be markedly different from the last peer review of the semester. If you adopt the position that you can tweak and work on different aspects of peer review over time, this frees you from worrying about peer review falling at on any particular day. In the thick of a peer review session, think about the process happening both immediately and incrementally over the course of the semester. Throw out the rules. This is my nal point: Please dont be afraid to throw out the rules when students inevitably nd ways to adapt small group work to t their needs as writers. For example, students will eventually nd ways to augment peer review such as having the author take part in the conversation earlier than they are supposed to, or they will decide to divide up the papers and read individually before convening as a group, or they will (in a best case scenario) decide to peer review on their own time outside of the classroom via face-toface or electronic communication which, in turn, alters the in-class peer review dynamic. I have found that as long as a group can articulate a justication of their actions, I let them be. These types of modications usually take place in the latter half to nal third of the semester after students have thoroughly acclimated to the strategies for peer review that I initially model.

Whats Next?
Essays often end by answering this question: whats next? Ironically I nd this question best answered by a return, a return to why I decided to teach writing in the rst place. I teach

16

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

writing because I enjoy working with and learning from students and because I believe in the transformative effects of writing effects that can be accelerated in a well designed, differentiated, student-centered classroom. I am also hooked on scholarship associated with the writing process. Whether in the thicket or on the eve of a semester, reminding myself of these inthe-marrow beliefs helps me to answer: whats next? And so I leave off by asking you to think through whats next. I have sought to articulate my current ways of structuring peer review but as with any complex small-group process these structures are not meant to be comprehensive or static. I offer my conception of peer review as a type of trope that you may pick up and extent according to the needs of your students and your own evolving in-the-marrow beliefs about the teaching of writing.

Works Cited
Allen, Guy. Language, Power, and Consciousness: A Writing Experiment at the University of Toronto. In Johnson, 6598. Print. Bartholomae, David. Inventing the University. In Johnson, 231. Print. Berthoff, Ann. The Making of Meaning: Metaphors, Models and Maxims for Writing Teachers. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 1981. Print. Delpit, Lisa. The Politics of Teaching Literate Discourse. In Johnson 491502. Print. Dybek, Stuart. Personal interview. 28 April 2008. Elbow, Peter. Closing My Eyes as I Speak: An Argument for Ignoring Audience. In Johnson, 172194. Print. Hess, Douglas. Portfolio Standards for English 101. In Johnson, 407415. Print. Johnson, T.R., ed. Teaching Composition: Background Readings. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2008. Print. King, Stephen. On Writing. New York: Scribner, 2000. Print. Morrison, Toni. Strangers. Back to the Lake. Ed. Thomas Cooley. New York: W.W. Norton, 2009. 9597. Print. Murray, Don. Teach Writing as a Process not Product. Villanueva, 36. Print. Olsen, William. Personal Interview. 11 April 2008. Rose, Mike. Lives on the Boundary. New York: Penguin Books, 1989. Print. Mayers, Tim. (Re)Writing Craft. Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press, 2005. Print. Sommers, Nancy. Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers. Villanueva, 43 54. Print. Villanueva, Victor ed. Cross-Talk in Comp Theory. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1997. Print. Welch, Nancy. Toward and Excess-ive Theory of Revision. In Johnson, 207246. Print.

Bringing New Perspectives to a Common Practice: A Plan for Peer Review

ANTHONY EDGINGTON
My group didnt offer much feedback on my paper. I really wanted to hear more about my argument, but they really didnt say anything about it. I know my introduction is weak, but my group didnt write any comments about it. So, I didnt revise it before turning in the nal draft. Some of my group members said the paper was good. I dont know what that means! Why is it good? What did they like about it? I wanted to know more about their reactions to my paper. Today, it would strike an observer as odd to nd a writing classroom that did not involve some level of peer response or peer review. Pedagogically, most teachers promote the value of having students read and respond to each others texts. Various teacher narratives and research studies argue that peer review allows writers to obtain a greater sense of audience (Lamberg; Newkirk), enhances student attitudes toward writing (Fox; Chaudron), and opens up teacher response to more global issues in student papers while also saving the teacher valuable instruction time presumably since students will often catch early draft errors, allowing the teacher to respond to more specic issues in a student paper (Beaven; Moore). Signicant theoretical support for the practice has been outlined in various studies; for example, Jette G. Hanson and Jun Liu argue that, peer response is supported by several theoretical frameworks, including process writing, collaborative learning theory, Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Development, and interaction and second language acquisition (SLA) (31). So ubiquitous is the activity that we now nd research in such disciplines as mathematics, business, chemistry, and nursing that supports the use of peer response for writing assignments in those classes. Yet, for instructors in composition, the quotations offered earlier are still common when speaking with students about their reections on peer review in the classroom. For many instructors and students, peer review can be seen as a limited and limiting activity. Charlotte Brammer and Mary Rees nd that we [the authors] frequently hear students complain bitterly that peer review is a waste of time or blame their peers for not catching all the mistakes (71). Ronald Barron, in offering advice on the qualities that will lead to successful peer response sessions, argues that writers need to keep track of the questions and concerns they have about their paper; otherwise, students may get shotgun responses, random responses which might
17

18

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

help them revise, but which more often than not seem to miss the very areas where the writers need help (30). In his comprehensive article on response, Richard Haswell hypothesizes that even with peer-response methods, disillusionment has been setting in, though perhaps less with teachers than with students who are sick of so much of it (2006). And, Mary Holt, in discussions with graduate students and fellow faculty members, argues that she more often hears about the problems associated with students use of peer response such as hastily written comments, a limited focus on style and grammatical issues, and the subjective nature of the student responder than on the benets of the activity (384). Given this abundance of research, and after ten years of teaching introductory and advanced writing classes, I can honestly say that peer review has been both the most rewarding and the most frustrating activity that occurs in my classrooms. Rewarding because it offers students a chance to receive multiple perspectives on their texts and emphasizes the need for both critical reading and revision in the writing classroom. And, it has changed the way that I read student texts, allowing me to focus more on paper content and student revision than I did in the past. However, it is the frustrations associated with peer review that often continue to affect many instructors (including my) views on the practice. Speaking with fellow teachers and reecting on my own experiences, a range of problems emerge associated with the activity. Students often do not come prepared for the sessions or bring a text that is not ready to be reviewed by peers. While teachers usually see the value in peer review and speak enthusiastically about it, students do not always bring the same enthusiasm to these sessions; I often nd myself shaking my head as I watch a group of four to ve students stand up and leave twenty to twenty-ve minutes after starting the review, announcing that they have nished for the day. Students may exhibit different behaviors during peer review sessions: some dominate peer review sessions, either taking up a majority of the time with questions about their paper or offering wave after wave of criticism about peers papers; some refuse to offer criticism because they do not feel condent enough in their ability to do so; and some listen intently to what their peers have to say and then simply disregard the advice when they begin the process of revising the paper, relying only on what the teacher has offered as feedback. In her research study, Sarah W. Freedman found that teachers and students lamented the use of peer response because of the over-use of vague and uninformative student comments when responding to peers papers. Speaking of his experiences in English as Second Language classrooms, Paul Rollinson further argues that
Teachers may question its [peer reviews] value within their particular context, or wonder how such a time consuming activity can be reconciled with course or examination constraints. Students may have even more doubts: they are uncertain about its purpose and advantages, they may feel instinctively that only a better writer ... is qualied to judge or comment on their written work. They may feel that feedback received from classmates whose English level is more or less the same as theirs is a poor alternative to the real thing that is, the teachers periodic red-penned notations [23].

Most illuminating for me has been the discussions I have had with students about peer review during our student-teacher conferences. Not all students spoke of frustrations with peer review, voicing instead their satisfaction with peer feedback. These students spoke of productive discussions about their papers and pointed to areas where they had revised their work based on this feedback. These students often mentioned that they were active during the review of their papers, asking questions and pushing reviewers for more suggestions. These conversations reminded me of times when I watched peer groups enjoying the process; at times, these groups would require a small nudge from me to get them to wrap up the session

Bringing New Perspectives to a Common Practice (Edgington)

19

at the end of the class period. However, I also watched and listened during conferences as students spoke about the lack of communication they received from their peers, noting that others did not take the activity seriously or offered only vague comments of praise about their texts. These students would plead with me to be placed in other groups and, sometimes, to reconsider if future peer review sessions should be held. When asked whether they asked for additional feedback or offered peers questions to consider, most argued that it would not have mattered since the peers would not have offered any assistance anyway. Thus, what began to stand out the most for me, both in the enthusiastic as well as in the frustrated comments, was that sessions worked best when the writer became involved, asking questions and pushing peer reviewers to look deeper or in different ways at their texts. When peer review did not work, it often was because writers were not active members, instead choosing to either outline their concerns with peer review to me during our conferences or to resist revising the paper based on peer feedback. For this essay, I discuss three pedagogical changes in my classroom that have led to more productive peer review sessions. First, signicant time is spent preparing students for peer review; instead of simply putting students in groups and waiting for review to happen, students in my course go through a one to two day class sequence that discusses past peer review experiences, models successful peer review strategies, and offers the opportunity for practice with sample student texts. Second, noting the importance of the writer, the Writers Worksheet was constructed as a way of creating a more active writer during peer review sessions. The worksheet offers the writer the chance to address her questions during the review and, perhaps more importantly, puts control of the review in the writers hand. Finally, when responding to student texts after the peer review, my comments include a focus on peer reviewers comments, highlighting the many places where I often agree with the peers on their assessment of the paper. By focusing on peer comments, my goal is to increase the authority of these comments in the future. These three small changes have led to more successful peer review sessions in my classes.

Peer Review Preparation

Barron, while emphasizing the importance of peer review, acknowledges the early problems he had in his classrooms when using it:
But response groups have not always worked well for me. When I rst used them, they were failures because I merely assigned students to groups and expected them to know what to do. I did not teach them how to use response groups effectively. The critical factor in determining the success or failure of the method is what happens before students get into their groups to read each others papers. The groups by themselves are not a panacea [24].

Pamela Flash echoes Barrons experience, arguing that inadequate structure and an absence of modeling can cause [peer] groups to ounder, wasting valuable class time (Teaching with Writing). Looking back at problems experienced in my past courses with peer review, I recognize that my approach was similarly awed. My belief was that most students probably had experience reviewing anothers paper and would enthusiastically embrace the idea of having feedback on their own texts; so instead of devoting time to explaining the procedure and preparing students for the work, I instead spent a few minutes before the review explaining the process and then placed students into groups for the review sessions. Any problems would be explained away as anomalies while I continued to blindly believe that peer review was working in my courses.

20

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

After a few courses and several of the aforementioned student-teacher conferences, I began to recognize the students lack of experience with and knowledge about peer review in my classes. I found that most students had not participated in the practice in previous high school or college courses and felt that they had no direction in how to approach the task. Instead, they relied on vague and non-critical feedback when reviewing peers texts; without guidance on how to approach reading and responding, students fell back on practices that, in their opinions, would do less harm. Brammer and Rees study of peer review at one university found that preparation for peer review there was also lacking; teachers reported that, on average, they spent less than half of one period preparing students for peer review. And, the preparation was often limited to lecture or handouts, with an occasional group reading session on a sample student paper, methods that the authors see as insufcient ... for demonstrating the collaborative value of peer review (81). Not surprisingly, students at that university responded that peer review was not very helpful to them as writers. Brammer and Rees conclude that professors must invest a great deal of class time to ensure a productive peer review (81). Thus, in order to create a more productive environment, I designed a series of activities that transformed the way students learned about and experienced peer review in my classroom. In designing these activities, I was inuenced by three pre-training areas introduced by Rollinson: awareness raising (which is informing students about the principles and objectives of peer response); productive group interaction (creating a comfortable, supportive atmosphere for peer review); and productive response and revision (walking students through basic principles of critical reading, response to writing, group dialogue and dynamics, and revision) (27). The focus of my peer review preparation classes shifted to developing a stronger, more productive way of introducing students to useful strategies for the reviewing they would be asked to do. Depending upon the class, this preparation could take one or two class periods. For many instructors, incorporating one or two days to preparing for peer review in their course syllabi can be difcult. However, as the research points out, creating a stronger peer review environment in your classroom can save time later in a course, including the time it takes you to respond to student papers and the time it takes for you to re-educate students on peer review procedures. My recent experience validates these arguments and has emphasized, for me, the importance of introducing students to peer review through multiple steps. The preparation begins with a discussion of past experiences students have had with receiving commentary on their texts. Hansen and Liu point to the advantages of these discussions, arguing that conversing about prior experiences helps the teacher understand students concerns or attitudes toward peer review and can lead on to a discussion of classroom norms and interaction patterns expected from the students in the particular class or cultural setting (33). I usually start the discussion with two short questions: What was the best comment you have ever received on a past paper you wrote? What was the worst comment you ever received on a past paper you wrote? (I purposely do not ask for these to be comments received from peers; as I previously discovered, many students have not had signicant experience with peer review in high school or early college classes). I ask students to explain why they saw these as strong and weak comments. Past comments that Ive received include detailed comments praising signicant changes in the students writing; questions that ask the student to probe deeper into his or her research or argument; vague comments that appear to question more the students ability to complete the task than the success or failure of the paper; and even no comments (i.e., the instructor hands back the paper with only a grade and no written commentary). After placing several of these on the board, we spend time talking about them as a class, focusing on the strengths and weaknesses of each and how weaker comments could be made stronger. At this point, I begin to move the class into a conversation towards dening

Bringing New Perspectives to a Common Practice (Edgington)

21

what constitutes critical commentary, especially pointing out that critical commentary does not have to point out every fault in the paper, nor does it have to be abrasive or demeaning. Usually, the conversation then turns to addressing issues of tying comments directly to the text, offering more explanation for some comments, and introducing the value of positive comments as one moves beyond just writing this is good. In my freshman writing classes, signicant time is spent on this nal point, as many students have difculty with addressing what is working well in peers papers and understanding how to use these comments in future revisions and/or the creation of future papers. As Hansen and Liu further suggest, it is vital to prepare students to ask questions that generate a response from the writer, and that are revision-oriented so that there is a meaningful discussion about the content, rhetoric, or grammar of the paper (36). This rst class discussion helps to clarify which comments work and which may not. After discussing previous peer review comments, my classes usually move into a shbowl activity, usually during a second class period (see Meier; Neubert and McNelis). Prior to the activity, I choose four students who will be good models to watch during a mock peer review. These are not necessarily the best writers in class, but rather students who will put the time and effort into reading and responding to a peers text. The students and I meet to walk through how peer review occurs (including the use of the Writers Worksheet, which is discussed in the next section). When time permits, these fours students and I will participate in a mock peer review, stopping at times to discuss different methods, strategies, and techniques. The peer group is then given a short sample text to read over prior to the next class period. When the time for the shbowl activity arrives, the small group sits in the middle of the room, with one student serving as the writer of the text and the other three as reviewers. The class watches the review and takes notes on what they see and hear. Usually, the review itself takes fteen to twenty minutes, after which the class discusses their reactions to the session. As the discussion progresses, I push students to connect the comments they heard during the review to the strong and weak comments mentioned during the previous class session. We also reect on the silent moments of peer review. What should the writer do while peers read the paper? How important are listening skills during peer review? What reection should take place after the peer review has ended? Students are asked to consider what role the writer took during the review and if the writer needed to be more or less active. Finally, the class focuses on the dynamics of the group. How was turn-taking enacted among the members? Who controlled the group agenda? Were there places where the discussion encountered obstacles? By focusing on different aspects of peer review, including the role of the writer and how the group members work together during a peer review session, students begin to recognize the importance of the non-writing related aspects of peer review. Finally, after discussing commentary and group dynamics, the class is ready to try their hand at peer review. This normally occurs during a second class period (after the shbowl activity). I begin by placing students together in groups of three to four (I have found that more than four members in a peer group causes too much repetition in comments and forces the group to move more quickly through papers in order to t everyone in during the allotted time period). All the groups get the same sample student paper, usually one a past student has given me permission to use. The paper I use for this session is usually one of average quality, written well enough to be understood but containing some signicant problems in argument, development, organization, and/or grammar. The groups are asked to read the sample and respond back to it silently rst, noting strengths, weaknesses, and confusions. After each student has nished his/her reading and response, the group talks about the paper and looks closely at the responses offered, deciding which of their comments are productive, which would need to be rewritten, and which may need to be eliminated. From this discussion,

22

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

they develop one overall group response to the paper from their individual responses. Each group, then, discusses their combined response to the paper with the rest of the class, noting also the process the group went through in developing this response (this discussion often focuses on the discussions the group had while deciding which comments to keep and which to discard). The activity helps to emphasize much of the work done during the previous two activities but also stresses the importance of group response during peer review; while each member is responding back to the writers text, it is a group response that the writer will eventually take with him/her for revision. Finally, this time to practice peer review gives students a chance to experience the dynamics that occur during a peer review session (including how to handle peers that dominate discussions, peers who resist offering feedback, and the overall relationships that develop among reviewers) and to ask me questions about the process. After this mock review, time is spent discussing more practical aspects of peer review, such as How much of a draft should be completed before the review (my usually response is that the more you have done, the more you can have read and reviewed, but also stating that arriving with a draft slightly under the required page limit can be helpful for future revision), The number of drafts to bring (for my classes, this is always the same number as peer group members, without forgetting a copy for themselves), and Time management issues (to ensure that each students paper receives adequate review time, I usually suggest no more than 20 minutes on one paper). The Writers Worksheet is also introduced and explained at this time, as I stress that the writer will be expected to run the review on his/her paper (more on this in the next section and Appendix). Overall, the two classes prior to the rst peer review session provide signicant structure for students, introducing important ideas and activities that will guide peer review for the remainder of the semester. As their instructor, it offers me a chance to hear more about their previous experiences with review and to anticipate possible problems that may occur later in the class. But, perhaps more importantly, this preparation leads to a greater understanding of writing and revision among the students in my classroom. I have found that the time put into peer review preparation has led to more experienced and condent writers while allowing me to focus on larger issues in student texts during my own commentary. While time-consuming, these activities have created a more peer review-friendly atmosphere in my college classes.

Writers Worksheet
As mentioned earlier, a recurring problem during previous peer review sessions was that some writers often felt they did not receive back adequate or appropriate feedback on their papers. Meeting with students in conferences or reading over student reections, I noted how often students were critical of the feedback their peers offered when reviewing each others papers, noting that many of these comments were vague and uninformative (i.e. this is good or you have an A paper here) or comments the writer saw as abusive or highly critical (i.e., you need to learn how to use a dictionary or you are completely wrong about your thoughts on this issue). While at times this criticism about peer feedback was unfounded, since I later discovered that peers had offered effective feedback (more on this issue in the next section), my observations of peer review sessions and analysis of peer comments did conrm that some peers were resistant or reluctant to offer feedback or focused more on lower order concerns instead of the overall argument or content of the paper.

Bringing New Perspectives to a Common Practice (Edgington)

23

However, these observations also highlighted the lack of participation among many of the writers during the sessions. When peers offered vague or confusing feedback, writers would rarely ask for more information or clarication. When peers focused more on lower order issues, writers would either accept the revisions without question or offer a statement like yea, I know I need to x that stuff before I turn it in. Thus, it seemed that writers were content to take this unproductive feedback as is and chalk up the experience to being placed into a poor peer group. Later discussions during student-teacher conferences, when I asked writers about their participation (or lack thereof ) in the sessions, emphasized this view as writers argued that asking for more feedback was pointless since they did not expect to get anything else from their peers. My rst attempt at changing this environment focused on creating more detailed worksheets, where peers were asked to focus on and respond to four to ve specic areas of the text as they read. The use of worksheets during peer review sessions has been spoken of highly in past research on the activity (Neubert and McNelis; Barron; Samson and McCrea), and a simple Google search for peer review and worksheet will bring back dozens of online examples. The worksheets were often tied to the assignment that students were currently writing and focused on mainly content and organizational issues. For example, for a commentary assignment that asked students to choose a controversial issue and write an editorial about it, the worksheet contained some of the following questions: Has the writer considered opposing views on the topic? If not, what are some views he/she should consider? Has the writer incorporated emotional appeals (pathos) into the text? What are some other emotional appeals that could be included? Is the commentary organized in a way that is clear and understandable? Other assignments may contain different types of questions (for example, a more descriptive assignment like a memoir would focus more on the inclusion of strong details, background, and/or dialogue). During the session, peer reviewers were to read the writers paper, place some notes and comments on the worksheet, and then discuss the paper as a group, with the writer taking the worksheets with him or her after the session ended. While these worksheets increased discussions somewhat, the use of the sheets also led to an increased number of silent conferences, as peers were content to just ll out the sheet and hand it back to the writer with little to no discussion (and again with almost no encouragement from the writer for more feedback). I also tried a no worksheet approach, with the writer reading the paper out loud as the reviewers listened, later offering their feedback based on what they heard in the text. While some groups excelled in this environment, most students argued that the level of noise in the room, along with the difculty of listening to a paper without a copy in front of them, were problematic and caused me to end this experiment. Thus, I was faced with two problems: writers who felt they were not receiving enough feedback and were reluctant to ask for more feedback along with reviewers who were content to offer vague feedback orally or only slightly more extensive feedback on a worksheet with almost no oral conversation about the paper. Reecting on these past experiences, I came to the conclusion that my revisions may have been misguided. In my efforts to focus mainly on changing how peers responded to texts, I had failed to consider the silent role of the writer during these peer review sessions. Regardless of whether peers were responding to open-ended or more directive questions, or whether the paper was read silently or listened to out loud, the writers role during these session never seemed to change. She was most often a background gure, forced to listen or read peers

24

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

advice while offering few questions about this information. Thus, I decided to approach my next revision of these sessions from a different perspective. Instead of trying to change the reading and responding practices of the reviewers, I turned my attention to changing how writers participated during sessions. As Barron points out, writers need to be the focus. While advocating the use of guiding questions (discussed below), he says that placing control of the session into the writers hands makes clear that the nal responsibility for the assignment lies with the writer, not with the group. Group members advise, but writers have to decide which advice to follow ... [helping] writers sometimes see options for revising they did not recognize while they were concentrating on the print copy of their paper (30). What emerged from these reections was the Writers Worksheet. While the worksheets I used before this change provided a structure for the peer reviews, the lack of discussion among the groups and tendency for the writer to disassociate with the process led me to design a new worksheet that would maintain that structure students desired but also require the writer to become a more active member of the group. The questions on the worksheet are organized into three sections (Appendix A). First, writers are asked to write down any specic questions they need answered during the review; I encourage writers to produce questions about areas where they struggled most with the text or areas that, as they reread it, just did not sound right. Writers are advised to do this work while their reviewers read over their text. Second, three general questions are asked based on the work of Peter Elbow and others; the questions focus on overall strengths, areas of confusion, and suggestions for revision. The nal section usually includes two to four questions that are more specic to the criteria for the given assignment. My hope is that if these criteria are overlooked in the discussion of the general questions, that those areas will be reinforced in this set of questions. In many ways, the sheet was similar to ones used in previous classes. The major difference was how the questions were framed, as these placed the direction of the peer review session into the hands of the writer. No longer would writers be allowed to sit quietly, check text messages, or briey look over their paper while peers read the draft and wrote responses on peer review sheets. Now, the writer is the one who asks peers the questions on the sheet. She is the one responsible for maintaining the discussion, encouraging peers to elaborate on comments and suggestions. And, writers are asked to return to the questions placed in the rst section of the worksheet, emphasizing the fact that writers need to make sure they received answers to them. If not, then those questions should be asked to the group for additional feedback. These writer-focused questions hopefully ensure that the writer leaves the peer session with information on those areas that have caused her the most trouble or frustration while writing the paper. In later revisions to the worksheets, I have made more of an effort to tie the worksheet to the assignment criteria (see Appendix B for an example). The worksheet also changes the dialogue that occurs during the reviews. To begin with, reviewers no longer write down answers to questions and silently return them to the writer. Instead, questions are written to be asked orally by the writer; instead of simply sitting back and listening to what reviewers had to say, the writer controls when questions are asked and how much time is spent on those questions. And, what has become most important during the session, the writer now records this feedback from reviewers, asking for clarication or additional information when necessary. I have found that writers resist simply writing down this is a good paper, both because they know I will be looking at this worksheet and because they want more extensive feedback. While listening in on sessions, I routinely hear writers offering such questions and statements as Tell me more about why the introduction is not working, Can you explain why you feel like the organization is confusing?, and Im glad you like my use of research is there anywhere else I can add more from my sources? The

Bringing New Perspectives to a Common Practice (Edgington)

25

worksheet encourages writers to be more active during the sessions, probing reviewers for additional information. The Writers Worksheet has not solved all the previous problems of the past; some students are still silent during the sessions and some writers continue to be reluctant to push their reviewers for more information. But, it has signicantly changed the overall attitude students have toward peer review in my classes. Now, instead of students coming to student-teacher conferences with a negative view toward peer review, they arrive ready to talk about comments they received from their peers and how they have either used or are considering using these comments. Writers routinely (and often enthusiastically) point to areas of the Writers Worksheet that they want to discuss with me. In class, peer review sessions are usually more lively and groups often spend more time reviewing each others papers. Overall, the Writers Worksheet has created a more productive atmosphere for peer review in my classes, which has helped me in reducing the time I need to spend reintroducing peer review later in the semester while also allowing me to be more specic in my comments on student papers.

Responding to Peer Comments

A few years ago, I had the opportunity to co-teach a summer research writing course with a colleague. Over the course of six weeks, we met almost daily with the class, each taking the lead on the activity or discussion for that particular class period. My colleague and I collaborated on course and assignment design, met weekly to discuss the course and our experiences, and negotiated together nal grades for students. The experience was eye-opening, as we not only worked together to create an interesting course on language and identity, but were able to spend time reecting on the different assignments and activities used in our previous classes. As you might expect, one of the activities we discussed at length was peer review. Like myself, my colleague had experienced similar successes and struggles as mentioned in this essay, including watching writers and peers sitting silently during the reviews, listening during student-teacher conferences to writers bemoan the review comments they had received, and, most importantly, reading student reective memos and/or peer review worksheets that contained strong peer comments, yet were not even considered by the student writer. This last point became the one that garnered most of our attention, as we wondered aloud how often writers overlooked strong comments from peers during reviews. Some research has emphasized the strength of student-generated comments and suggestions during peer review; for example, Rollinson discusses a past study he conducted that found that 80% of [peer] comments were considered valid, and only 7% were potentially damaging (24). Ziv found that, after some experience with peer response, reviewers began to offer more concrete suggestions for revision, validating the comments students often receive from peers. And, Olga Villamil and Maria C. M. de Guerrero found that L2 writers incorporated a signicant amount of peer suggestions into their texts and that, upon teacher reection, about 95 percent of these revisions were in line with ones the teachers would also have offered. Thus, we set about reecting on how we could get writers to devote more attention to peer comments. While discussing our past experiences, we began to wonder what effect responding directly to the peer comments as part of our response to the paper would have on student writing. In other words, rather than just looking at the peer worksheets, would writing comments explicitly linked toward those peer comments inuence how writers revised their papers? With this question in mind, we set out with a plan to make peer review a more visible part of the course. First, we each decided to use a modied version of our peer review sheets; my colleague preferred more specic questions tied to the students texts while I had recently begun using the

26

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

aforementioned Writers Worksheet. Our decision was to create peer review worksheets that contained both general and specic questions geared toward the assignment, but follow the Writers Worksheet approach of having the writer ask her peers the questions and then recording down their comments (this experience led to the revised Writers Worksheet discussed in the previous section). Students understood that the worksheets would be turned in with each assignment; to this end, a signicant penalty reduction was included if the worksheet was missing. Both instructors taught one half, roughly three weeks, of the course. As there were four major assignments, we each had the chance to respond and grade two of these papers.1 Our method for response was as follows: after reading the students draft, we moved into a focused reading of the peer review worksheet. Reading over the worksheet, we looked specically for comments from peers that echoed comments we would offer to the student. Then we tied our comments directly to the peers suggestions as a way of highlighting the value of these peer comments. For example, if a peer wrote that the paper needed a more appealing introduction and we agreed with that assessment, our comment would be I agree with your peers ideas on the need for a more appealing introduction. In addition to their suggestions, I would also offer the following.... After tying our comments to peer comments, we nished by writing an endnote that either reinforced comments from the worksheet or addressed other issues the peers had not mentioned. Often, these endnotes were shorter than endnotes we had written in previous classes and there were even a few times when we did not need to offer an end comment (since the peers suggestions had covered almost all of the comments we would have offered). Looking back on the course and student comments, this method of response changed the dynamics of the class in different ways. First, after receiving back a few responses from us that pointed directly to the peers suggestions, students spent more time discussing and asking for additional feedback from peers. As we observed peer sessions, we witnessed writers asking more questions while pushing reviewers for additional information, especially about questions they had about the text. During conferences, students spoke highly about the comments their peers offered and frequently connected peer comments to the writers ideas for revision. While we did not mention our strategy of responding to the peers comments during the course, a few students remarked that it seemed the peers were catching most of their mistakes in peer review and they noticed the similarities between peer and teacher comments. In other words, writers began to value peer feedback at a much higher rate than they had in previous courses we each had taught, and peer response became a more visible aspect of the class and course conversations. In addition, we found that writers incorporated far more of their peers comments into their papers than when the course began. This, in turn, allowed us to focus our teacher comments on fewer areas, but also offered us the chance to go into more detail with our comments. Finally, we both noted an overall change in attitude toward the activity of peer review. While past classes usually consisted of some students who liked the activity, some who disliked it, and some who were ambivalent, this class contained a much higher number of students who expressed satisfaction and excitement about peer review. Peer review days were very well attended (a problem area for many instructors at our university) and students always came well-prepared for discussion. We also found that the sophistication and specicity of student comments on the worksheet improved noticeably after the rst session. Overall, the move to include peer comments in our response methods proved highly lucrative and changed many of the dynamics of our classroom. Both instructors have continued to use the method, with equal success, in more recent rst-year and advanced writing courses.

Bringing New Perspectives to a Common Practice (Edgington)

27

Conclusion
I enjoyed peer review in this class. It was a community atmosphere and the feedback I got from my peers was valuable. I learned to become more open to change and thankful for feedback from our peer review sessions. Ive hated this process in the past. Im still not sure about my feelings about review, but I do feel that I got better comments from others this semester than in past courses. Peer review can still be frustrating. I still shake my head as a group ends review after about twenty minutes, and I still get some negative comments directed my way during student-teacher conferences. But the changes to peer review addressed here have not only increased student appreciation for the process, as shown in the above comments on my recent end-ofyear in-class assessments, but it has reinvigorated my belief in keeping peer review as a prominent part of my classroom. While I imagine that I will continue to reect on the process and my practices will still change in light of these reections, I know now that, when properly introduced and structured, peer review can become a valuable tool in writing classrooms and can help to produce inquisitive, critical writers who begin to understand the value of peer response.

Appendix A
The following is a general outline of the Writers Worksheet (with adjusted spacing to t here)

Writers Worksheet
Writers Name: _____________________________________________ Before we begin the workshop, make note of any questions you have about your text and write those questions down here: As your readers talk with you about your text, make notes of important information in the spaces below and on the back of this sheet that will help you during your revision: General Questions My readers felt the following were the strongest parts/sections of my text (include why they felt these were strong sections). My readers felt the following were parts/sections of my text that were confusing and/or where I needed to add more information. My readers offered the following suggestions towards improving my text (with a focus on content, use of research, organization, development, purpose, transitions, etc.) Specic Questions NOTE: In this section, I often include 23 questions that are geared toward specic criteria listed on the assignment sheet. I use these questions to emphasize the main areas I will focus my evaluation on. STOP!! Before you wrap up the peer review, make sure that you have received some answers or information for the questions you listed at the beginning of this sheet.

28

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

Appendix B
The following is a sample assignment sheet used in my rst year classes along with the Writers Worksheet geared toward that assignment (with adjusted spacing). Commentary Assignment: Toledo Problem 56 page paper Due: August 5 General: For this paper, you will have the chance to write a commentary about a problem that affects the city of Toledo, a signicant part of the city of Toledo (such as a school district or a larger community) or a surrounding area (such as Sylvania, Perrysburg, etc). In addition, you will learn how to use the commentary to structure and advance an argument. Some key writing tools will include structuring arguments, using tools of persuasion, identifying a call to action, and incorporating research into a commentary. Specics: Your goals will be to: Summarize the current problem (including background information) and what you feel are the causes and effects of the problem; Recount other perspectives/arguments on the problem (i.e. include perspectives from other people who feel there is a problem AND from people who feel there is not a problem); and Advance your argument and a call to action (i.e. solution[s]) in relation to that topic. Questions: As you write your commentary, keep in mind the following questions: In your opinion, why is this a problem and what are the causes and effects? Does everyone agree that this is a problem; if not, what are other perspectives on this issue? What do readers need to know in order to understand why this is a problem? What types of evidence, research, emotional appeals, and statements from authority will you need to strengthen your argument? What are possible solutions? What is the possible call to action? Criteria: As I look over your commentaries, I will keep in mind the following criteria: Denition of the problem and clear explanation of the causes and effects Inclusion of different (both pro and con) perspectives on the problem Written so that multiple audiences can understand issues Inclusion of a call to action for readers Strong grammar, mechanics, word choice, etc. Research: For this commentary, writers should include 56 sources gathered from research. You must have: At least one online source (i.e. websites, online articles, etc); At least one print-based source (a book or an article); and At least one primary research source (interview, survey, observation). The other 23 sources can be from either of these or from other sources (lm, television, radio, public relations documents, etc). All sources listed on the works cited page must be used in the text itself (either as a quote, paraphrase, statistic, etc). Commentaries will be deducted one percentage point for each source not included.

Bringing New Perspectives to a Common Practice (Edgington)

29

Note
1. The two instructors met at the end of the semester to decide on the students nal grades, taking into consideration the grades on the two essays we each read, along with grades for classroom work and in-class writing.

Works Cited
Barron, Ronald. What I Wish I Had Known About Peer Response Groups but Didnt. English Journal 80.5 (1991): 2434. Print. Beaven, Mary, H. Individualized Goal-Setting, Self-Evaluation, and Peer Evaluation. Evaluating Writing: Describing, Measuring, Judging. Eds. Charles R. Cooper and Lee Odell. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1977. 135 56. Print. Brammer, Charlotte, and Mary Rees. Peer Review From the Students Perspective: Invaluable or Invalid? Composition Studies 35.2 (2007): 7185. Print. Chaudron, Craig. The Effects of Feedback on Students Composition Revisions. RELC Journal 15.2 (1984):114. Print. Flash, Pamela. Teaching with Writing: Creating Effective Peer Response Workshops. University of Minnesota Center for Writing. 27 January 2010. Web. 28 July 2010. Fox, Roy. Treatment of Writing Apprehension and Its Effect on Composition. Research in the Teaching of English. 14.1 (1980): 3949. Print. Freedman, Sarah W. The Role of Response in Acquisition of Written Language. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985. Print. Hanson, Jette C., and Jun Liu. Guiding Principles for Effective Peer Response. ELT Journal 59.1 (2005): 3138. Print. Haswell, Richard. The Complexities of Responding to Student Writing; or, Looking for Shortcuts Via the Road of Excess. Across the Disciplines. 9 November 2006. Web. 29 July 2010. N. pg. Holt, Mary. The Value of Written Peer Criticism. College Composition and Communication 43.3 (1992): 384392. Print. Lamberg, Walter. Self-Provided and Peer-Provided Feedback. College Composition and Communication 31.1 (1980):6369. Print. Meier, Nicholas. Peer Writing Response Groups in a Language Minority Classroom. Teaching and Learning 16.1 (2001): 716. Print. Moore, L.K. Teaching Students How to Evaluate Writing. TESOL Newsletter 20.5 (1986): 2324. Print. Newkirk, Thomas. How Students Read Student Papers: An Exploratory Study. Written Communication. 1.3 (1984): 283305. Print. Neubert, Gloria A., and Sally J. McNelis. Peer Response: Teaching Specic Revision Suggestions. English Journal 79.5 (1990): 5256. Print. Rollinson, Paul. Using Peer Feedback in the ESL Writing Class. ELT Journal 59.1 (2005): 2330. Print. Samson, Sue, and Donna E. McCrea. Using Peer Review to Foster Good Teaching. Reference Services Review 36.1 (2008): 6170. Print. Villamil, Olga S., and Maria C. M. de Guerrero. Assessing the Impact of Peer Revision on L2 Writing Applied Linguistics 19.4 (1998): 491514. Print. Ziv, Nina D. Peer Groups in the Composition Classroom: A Case Study. Paper presented at the 34th Annual Meeting of the Conference on College Composition and Communication, 1983. 11 pp. [ED 229 799]. Print.

Reinventing Peer Review Using Writing Center Techniques: Teaching Students to Use Peer-Tutorial Methodolog y
CATHERINE SIMPSON KALISH, JENNIFER L. J. HEINERT, AND VALERIE MURRENUS PILMAIER
Peer review can be a frustrating experience for students and instructors alike. Students are cast in the positions of surrogate English instructors, while instructors are left with little to do but supervise. Writing centers, on the other hand, are often a hub of activity that many of the best students turn to when a paper is due. As Composition instructors and former writing center tutors and directors, we created a way to blend peer tutorial techniques with in-class peer review. Our peer tutorial method is grounded in writing center theory, which is built on the premise that undergraduate students are capable of working one on one in a productive, collaborative capacity. In The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Peer Tutoring, Paula Gillespie and Neal Lerner explain, As a tutor, you dont have to be an expert on the subject matter of the paper the writer is working on, and you dont even have to be an expert in grammar and correctness knowing that something isnt right is probably enough (24). With instruction, students can ask thoughtful questions of each others work and then take time for the writer to think about his or her paper. Essentially, our method emphasizes students working in pairs, the reviewer taking the role of engaged reader (rather than instructor or expert), the writer thinking critically about his or her work, and both students focusing on having a conversation about each of their papers. In this process the students are engaged in the revision process with their papers and see that giving and receiving good feedback is an important element of the composition process. We recognize that Composition instructors and other writing-intensive instructors may use differing terminology; therefore, when we discuss the concept of traditional peer review, we use Sonja L. Armstrong and Eric J. Paulsons denition from their article Whither Peer Review?: Terminology Matters for the Writing Classroom from the May 2008 issue of Teaching English in the Two-Year College where she states that peer review is often considered an activity that is more focused on holistic concerns, rhetorical issues, and issues of meaning and audience appropriateness and is less inclined to discussion-driven feedback (400401, 402). However, even with the difculties encountered by both teachers and students trying to forge a successful peer review experience, both groups overwhelmingly understand its importance.
30

Reinventing Peer Review (Kalish, Heinert and Pilmaier)

31

In fact, one would be hard-pressed to nd a college English class that does not engage in some version of peer review. Similarly, this means that students are also familiar with peer review, whether it is a positive or negative experience for them. Charlotte Brammer observed in her article Peer Review from the Students Perspective: Invaluable or Invalid? that [a]fter surveying the Composition students at her school and analyzing the resulting data, the ndings clearly demonstrated that when peer review became an essential component of the class, was conducted regularly, and those sessions were conducted in the classroom, students were more likely to consider it a positive experience (77). Therefore, it may not be the practice itself but instructors approaches to it that made the experience positive or negative for the students. While our own students often grumble about peer review, an astonishing 89.9 percent of them commented that they found peer review to be somewhat to very benecial when surveyed in 2006 (Ahrenhoerster and Phillips). So what to do? How does our method bridge the gap? In our version of peer review, it is the discussion aspect so often missing from traditional peer review that virtually eliminates the pitfalls of the traditional version by taking the onus off of the peer reviewer as xer and turning the experience into a conversation that is mutually benecial to both writer and reviewer

Our System: The Peer-Tutorial Method

The following seven steps outline the process of the peer-tutorial method of peer review: 1. Group students into pairs. 2. Provide students with instruction about the Peer Tutorial Method. In our case, we read the instructions as listed in Preparing the Students for Peer Review (below). 3. As students begin to work, pay attention to how they are working. If students try to swap papers, redirect them, and encourage them to look at one paper at a time. 4. Students will begin to talk about their writing. Listen in! Be sure that students are engaged in conversation. If groups nish early, feel free to jump in. At some points, you may have to model what the process should look like. One way to do this is to read through the introduction together and ask the writer, now that weve read the introduction, what do you think of it? Does it do what it is supposed to? 5. Students who are struggling may want to refer to an assignment sheet, rubric, or the Questions to Ask During Peer Review (below). 6. Students will no doubt have debates about the appropriate way to handle different rhetorical situations. The instructors job is to be responsive to these students. 7. Enjoy the buzz of the classroom! Your students are doing good work!

Preparing the Students for Peer Review

We read the following instructions aloud to our students at the beginning of each peer review. Our instructions give students a structure for how they are to conduct their peer review, but the instructions do not micro-manage them. Rather, it is the students responsibility to review each paper together and jointly decide whether or not it successfully fullls the assignment. Peer-Tutorial Review Instructions
Today you will be conducting a peer-tutorial method of peer review. Please listen carefully to the following directions. If you have any questions, please ask at the end of the instructions.

32

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important? You will work with just one person during this session. If there is a group of three, I will discuss with the individual group how you will handle the review. Each pair should review one paper at a time; do not simply trade papers. You should sit with the paper between you both so that you can each see the text. As you review each others work, be sure to divide the time equally so that each of you has time to receive feedback. Reviewer: Your job is to present your thoughts on the paper. You arent an English instructor, so you are not expected to x grammatical or spelling errors, necessarily (though if you see them, feel free to point them out). Rather, share your thoughts, ideas, and questions with the writer. If there is a section of text that is confusing to you, tell the writer. If there is an area that youd like to know more about, point that out. Your job is to tell the writer how you, as a smart reader, react to the paper. Writer: Your job is to think carefully about your paper. Keep a pen in your hand and jot down notes when necessary. You are responsible for your paper, so you have the right to accept or reject any suggestions as you revise your paper, though you should carefully consider the feedback the reviewer gives you. Finally, I will give you a hand out that outlines some questions to ask if you need help getting jumpstarted. If you have any time left when your review is complete, make a to-do list that outlines what you will need to do in order to revise this paper to an A level work.

Then, working in pairs, the students read one anothers papers, and the method they use to do this varies from student group to student group. Some students read the papers together, some students swap papers, read them, and then discuss them one at a time, and some have the writer or the reviewer read it aloud and then move on. Next, the pair takes one paper at a time and systematically reviews it sentence by sentence, if need be, and talks through each paper with one another. Most students sit side-by-side and work paragraph by paragraph until they reach the end of the paper. We mandate that the only person allowed to write on the draft is the writer him/herself. In too many cases, we have seen the reviewer reduce the writers condence by taking on the role of teacher and correcting the draft. This method emphasizes that the point is discussion and process, not editing and correcting. In most cases, students are able to maintain a fruitful conversation about the papers that lasts until the end of the period, but there are some that have difculty opening a dialogue about their writing processes. For these students we developed a list of general questions that could be used as a springboard for discussion:

Questions Reviewers Can Ask During Peer Review

How does the title engage the reader? Why did you choose this topic? How are you engaging/accounting for the audience/readers in the introduction? Why (or why not) do you think the readers need (or do not need) background information? Why do you think readers will be interested in this topic and question? How does it explain why the topic is signicant or worthy of further examination? If its a topic sentence, does it forecast/encapsulate the paragraph? Which topic sentences could be improved? Which topic sentences work well? How are you showing when and where information comes from another source? How can you improve this? What information do you think readers should know about the

Reinventing Peer Review (Kalish, Heinert and Pilmaier)

33

sources you are using? Is the information from someplace else? If so, is it cited? Where do you need to include citations? If you have a quotation, how do you explain its logical relationship to the idea clearly to the reader? Where would the writer benet from attributive tags? What information is worth including in your attributive tag? How does the explanation of the quotations (and summaries and paraphrases) support the points? How does the paper move logically from one idea to the next? Does the paragraph seem fully developed? Is there more information that youd like to know? How does each paragraph tie back to and support the thesis? Why are the paragraphs /sentences in this order? What is this paragraph/sentence supposed to do? Is that what it does? Do you like it? Does your sentence/paragraph transition from the previous sentence? Flow to the next? Is there a logical connection from one idea to the next? What are you trying to do in the introduction/paragraph/sentence/conclusion? Do you like it? What does the conclusion do? What does the writer want it to do? Does it simply summarize, or does it go on to forecast the next step in research or the implications of the authors ideas? Does it do something else? What is the readers reaction to the conclusion? How does the paper fulll the assignment? Is there anything that is missing? Which criteria are done particularly well? Which criteria could the writer work at? How? What holes or gaps do there seem to be? What other information or explanation would help make the paper clearer or stronger? What ideas are clear? Confusing? Exciting? Funny? Thought-provoking? Surprising?

We feel that it is important to note that most of the students did consult this list of questions during their peer review sessions, but they knew that these questions were intended to inspire discussion and were not meant to be answered, in writing, by the reviewer. Indeed, when the students realized that they did not have to write answers to the questions and, further, that the only person who should be writing anything was the writer (in order to keep track of plans for revision), students were able to concentrate on the content of the paper rather than writing out answers to questions. With each successive peer review, the students jumped into the discussion stages more rapidly because they realized that talking about their writing helped them to understand more intimately what they were trying to communicate, thus ultimately improving their written communication skills. During our peer reviews, we inform students that if they are peer reviewing correctly, they will not have nished their conversation by the end of class. When students do nish before class is over, we ask them to do the following: 1. Review the assignment sheet and consider whether or not the assignment is fullled successfully. 2. Examine the Questions Reviewers Can Ask During Peer Review (see above). Some students just arent sure how to get started. While this list looks like a fairly traditional heuristic that one might ask students to consider during peer review, students are not required to ll out the answers. Finished students can benet from modeling this process. For example, you point out a quotation, and ask the writer, Do you

34

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

have an attributive tag here? Do you need one? Is this cited appropriately? After going through this exercise with the pair, then you can suggest that they review the rest of the quotations together. 3. If the groups insist that they have reviewed the assignment and the papers in-depth, you can ask each student to make a to-do list. We often remind the students that the great ideas that they come up with in class may be easily forgotten during the seven hours it will take before they look at their paper again. After each student makes the to-do list for his or her own paper, the pair can swap and then suggest additions. How This Method Varies from Traditional Peer Review
Traditional Peer Review
Reviewer instructs writer Reviewer is responsible for suggesting changes Both students often swap papers, comment on them, or ll out a worksheet Students work in small groups Instructor isnt engaged with students

Peer Tutorial Method

Reviewer asks questions of writer Writer suggests changes Time is spent in conversation between the reviewer and the writer. Students look at each paper together. Students work in pairs Instructor moves around the room elding questions

When you use this method of peer review, you will notice that many of the traditional classroom dynamics that you are used to with the traditional method change. One notable difference is that the entire peer review atmosphere and classroom environment under this model is strikingly different. Rather than a silent room lled with students reading drafts and responding to questions on paper (like many of our former peer review sessions), the classroom now has a low buzz of students talking earnestly in pairs. We noted in our observational data1 that it sounds like a beehive, or like ... a writing center! For the most part, students follow the directions, and when students try to avoid the process, the instructor is there to help get them engage more fully in the process. Another phenomenon that frequently occurs as a result of this method of peer review is students reading their writing aloud. Often students will pick a sentence or paragraph to read aloud as a way to initiate discussion. This allows the writer and reviewer to hear it as it is actually written, without getting bogged down in reading an entire draft, thereby yielding fruitful discussion. For example, one reviewer read a few sentences of a writers draft aloud and then asked her, Can you show this? Another example of this took place when a reviewer read a section of the paper and then asked the writer, Do you need this? The writer answered by saying, I want to include this because of background but I dont know what to do with it. The reviewer then went on to give the writer a few ideas about how it could be used. These discussions show that students are able to give specic feedback to writers about their papers (despite not following a worksheet that directed them to do so). One of the most exciting differences comes straight from the students mouths via the depth and complexity of their discussions about their own writing. Indeed, we noted that writer-reviewer conversations consistently related to all four categories of the Learning Outcomes for our Composition course Rhetorical Knowledge, Knowledge of Conventions, Critical Thinking, Reading, Writing, and Research, and Processes. Many writer-reviewer discussions focus on clarication, and in these discussions there is evidence of students demonstrating and understanding of conventions, rhetorical knowledge, and processes. For example, students ask each other things like, That sounds like you mean

Reinventing Peer Review (Kalish, Heinert and Pilmaier)

35

it this way do you? Its hard for me to read this sentence, and You could say this another way. In commentaries like these, the reviewers demonstrate a clear awareness of audience (both the writer they are working with, and the audience of his or her paper). Another reviewer may ask a writer What is your question? You are discussing two distinct things are you asking about both or not? This type of comment demonstrates the reviewer giving valuable feedback about critical research the ability to generate and develop a research question and thesis and the writer needing to clarify how she is going to approach the paper. Our approach to peer review asks students to use skills with which they are already equipped. They are much more comfortable with their own identity as students than they are with being a stand-in for an English instructor. The main focus of the discussions seemed to stay on higher order concerns, but we did note a few comments about mechanics, grammar, and style: Some writers said things like Ill catch the grammar later, and some reviewers were comfortable telling writers to check with the source of the authority when they were unclear. Yet, even when focusing on lower-order concerns, the groups seemed to be much more collaborative than they were in the traditional peer review model. An additional surprise is that many discussions move beyond the assignment and its constraints into content knowledge. For example, one reviewer, when discussing a paper about pharmaceuticals, questioned a writer about other sources and points of view on the topic by asking, Does the FDA have any say? Another reviewer asked a writer to frame her argument more specically: Is this an education basis, sociology basis, or psychology basis? By having real discussions about their papers, students recognize that ethos, logos, and pathos are not just terms bandied about in the classroom but important tools that can make their papers more effective. Our method of peer review helps students better meet the learning outcomes of the course content.1 The role of the instructor in peer review is another thing that changes dramatically in our method of peer review. All writing instructors understand that it is our duty to instruct our students in the merits of receiving and providing good feedback, as this is a crucial skillset to master in order to be successful in college and beyond.2 Further, even if we do not state it explicitly, the understanding of disciplinary conventions particular to Composition is one of the inherent goals that all Composition teachers hope our students absorb from this process, and this is a goal that is revered in both writing center and Composition peer review circles. We want our students to think about the larger, higher-order concerns that are emphasized in a peer tutoring session (audience, genre, purpose, strategies) as well as the assignmentspecic concerns targeted in a classroom peer review session (whether they are doing what the assignment specically asks of them). Typically, an instructor hopes to impart the understanding of the importance of giving and receiving good feedback and the necessity of stressing higher-order concerns over lower order concerns via the questions that must be answered on the sheets handed out during peer review (as mentioned above). Because the students are busily lling out the questions during the class hour, there is little for the instructor to do, except answer the odd question here and there, which is usually a clarication of one of the questions on the sheet or a grammar question. One complaint of more traditional peer reviews is that instructors feel as though they have nothing to do; typically an instructor may bring a stack of papers or a book to read and awkwardly sit in the classroom waiting for the occasional question. One of the surprises of our study was that the instructor plays a very different type of role in the peer-tutorial classroom. Indeed, in each class visited, the instructor spent the majority of class time moving from group to group, not only helping to direct (or in some cases redirect) student groups, but also answering questions about the assignment in general

36

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

or about student-specic essays and questions. These interactions most often range from questions about process and content, to rhetoric, and occasionally to style and grammar. In some cases, one students concern will be an opportunity for the instructor to point out something to the entire class, but in nearly all cases, the questions arose from a point of discussion. For example, in one class, two students were debating whether or not contextual information to be included was too basic. The writer wanted to include a great deal of background information for the reader, while the reader thought that it was more information than necessary. The students called the instructor to come in and help them nd the answer to their question. In addition, the instructor is often called upon to help dene assignment criteria and eld questions about formatting and citation. Because this was a new way of thinking of peer review, we would commonly have students backslide to the traditional method of peer review and that necessitated instructor involvement. Indeed, we found that during every peer review session, a few students would revert to the old way of peer review trade papers, write good! and believe that they were nished and needed the instructor to remind them of the process or jumpstart it by modeling questions that would generate a conversation about the writing of the paper. Typically, this nudge was enough to get the students back on track and into the groove of our version of peer review again. Some groups, however, had a difcult time knowing what to talk about. In this case, it is the instructors role to scan the room for struggling students. The instructor can then go and prompt the group by asking the writer what he or she thinks of the paper, suggesting questions to focus on, or asking if there are any problems. The students have to retrain themselves to think of peer review as a conversation about the rhetorical and subject matter issues of their papers instead of as a hoop to jump through (and a list of discussion questions to race through) in order to get out of class early.

Potential Drawbacks
One of the drawbacks to this method that we anticipated is that students do not have the opportunity to read as many student papers as they would if they worked in larger groups. For the purpose of peer review, the benet of having pairs examine each paper in a comprehensive way certainly outweighs the drawback of seeing fewer papers. One way to counteract this problem and eliminate the drawbacks all together is to include a variety of student sample papers in classroom activities. For example, an instructor may decide to conduct a sample peer review by looking at two sample student papers to see which paper adheres to the assignment criteria, and how each paper could be improved. This type of activity will alleviate the one signicant criticism of the peer-tutorial method. Moreover, this practice session prepares students for peer review and helps them develop the very rhetorical skills they will need to be an effective peer reviewer. While the students themselves overwhelmingly approved of this method of peer review, the only criticism that they voiced in their reective responses to this method of peer review was that they still wanted someone to x their papers. At one point in one of the observed classes, an instructor said to the class, Dont worry about grammar; worry about ideas. We suspect that this frustration with not having their grammar xed by someone else has less to do with the peer review process and more to do with where these students are as developing writers. They are still learning that grammatically correct sentences do little for a paper without substance, depth, and critical thinking. Discussion of grammar is not prohibited in anyway, but we do encourage students to start the peer review process with higher-order concerns.

Reinventing Peer Review (Kalish, Heinert and Pilmaier)

37

Why the Peer-Tutorial Method

The peer tutorial method of peer review focuses students attention squarely on the benets of the conversation, which is exactly what Composition instructors aim for in peer review we want students to engage in collaborative conversations about each others work while developing their rhetorical skill-set. Our own peer review research shows worksheets and heuristics just dont work. As one student aptly put it, I liked most not having to ll out a long drawn out sheet of paper that most students dont even take the time to read. Rather, in our method, students benet from an in-depth examination of their own work. Unlike traditional peer review where students ll out questionnaires about each others papers for the entire hour, in our method, they sit together, side-by-side in pairs, and discuss their writing the process, the intention, the challenges, the triumphs, and, occasionally, the grammar. Each pair looks at one paper at a time, from the rst line to the last, and talks through the paper. For example, the reviewer might read the rst line out loud to the writer (as they are both looking at the paper) and say What a great opener! Good energy! and the writer might then say, Do you think I provided enough context to the reader before I get to my thesis? and so on until they get to the end of the paper. If students get stuck or are at a loss for what to ask next, they can either refer to the list of general questions that we supply or ask the teacher for guidance. Bringing peer-tutorial techniques into the Composition classroom allows useful collaboration that prompts students to move past the cursory examination of punctuation and spelling to a more comprehensive revision of their work.3 This hybrid form of peer review, which emphasizes conversation and shifts the pen from the reviewer to the writer, yields positive feedback from students, more thoughtful work, a clear focus on writing as a process, and the practice and development of rhetorical skills. Putting conversation rst is a long standing tradition in writing centers. Kenneth Bruffees seminal article Collaborative Learning and the Conversation of Mankind revolutionized peer review in Composition circles because it emphasized the importance of conversation to auger learning. Indeed, it is in the process of articulating thought, consulting with others, and revising thought that much true learning takes place, and writing center theory has been quick to pick up on that concept. Gillespie and Lerner place conversation at the heart of a peer tutorial session and demand that tutors become skilled at both listening and responding, while refraining from directive questions that could inhibit the integrity of the writers vision. We incorporate this ethos into our peer review methodology because it forces the writer to take responsibility for her writing choices; talking through her ideas helps a writer focus on higher-order concerns such as thesis, organization, and audience awareness while helping her become aware of the ethos problems that surface from lower-level concerns of grammar and clarity. Although the writing center provides important and valuable feedback to the writer in terms of general writing skills, it cannot provide the particulars of the assignment emphasized by the actual teacher in the Composition classroom, nor should it.4 Indeed, peer review in the classroom must be an essential component to the writing process so that students can be sure to hit the particulars of the given assignment. Moreover, assigning peer review in the Composition classroom is a way to ensure student participation, whereas using the writing center is a voluntary process with limited resources that cannot always reach all students, whereas in-class peer review can. While the general concept of peer review (as focusing on the importance of feedback as part of the writing process) is the same, the procedure and intention are very different in the writing center and in the classroom. Both writing center tutorials and classroom peer reviews

38

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

start with the reading of a draft whether aloud or silently but classroom dynamics can range from one-on-one peer reviews sessions that last fteen minutes or the entire class, to groups of four or even up to eight switching papers and discussing papers individually and/or in groups, to anything in-between. No matter how the instructor customizes peer review, she or he is more often than not faced with complaints from the students. In Improving Students Responses to Their Peers Essays, Nancy Grimm suggests that much of student (and teacher) difculty with peer review stems from a lack of understanding of its organic nature:
Even with carefully written guidelines, students ability to function well in small groups improves slowly. Teachers can hasten improvement by showing as well as telling students about the behavior expected of them.... They [students] recognize with relief that the typical group session starts awkwardly, gropes for direction, ends on uncertainty, but still motivates and guides revision [94].

Students must learn that peer review, like writing itself, is a process that develops over time, and patience is a difcult concept for anyone, teacher and student alike, to master. In our own research on peer review, we found that, overwhelmingly, students preferred working in groups of two (as they would in the writing center), and one reason was because in a group of two that lasted the entire class period, there was simply more time to examine each paper. One student commented, This method of peer review was very benecial for me! I missed a lot of mistakes that my partner caught for me. I think this saved me from getting easy mistakes marked wrong. I liked how we sat down and discussed our papers together instead of swapping papers and doing them on our own. Furthermore, by working in pairs, students can focus on each paper, giving it the time and thoughtful examination it deserves. One student addressed this in the follow-up survey, its nice to work on each paper together rather than to simply exchange and improve each others papers because when we did it that way last semester, I felt like I was taken advantage of because the person slopped something together which to me was an F paper, knowing I would basically rewrite it for her, since that was our instructions to correct all mistakes. Similarly, another student identied the shift in attitude toward peer review from something to be blown off, to an important activity when the dynamic was shifted from reading multiple papers to only reading and discussing one other paper: What was different was that I actually got something accomplished. Normally peer review for most classes was goof around time, but this time I feellike I made the time useful and benecial to me. It was more 1 on 1 time which I liked. Students appreciate the small two or three (at most) person peer review group as well because it allows the reviewer to dwell on one paper, rather than racing through several papers. This peer review helped a lot, with just one person reviewing one paper it seemed like they were just focused on my paper. Giving me more advice on my paper. The reviewer wasnt reading mine quickly so they could go to the next paper. She took time and actually read the material and gave me great feedback. Along the same lines, another student nds that careful shared reading allows for higher quality feedback: By us both reading the paper we were able to talk about it and get better ideas of explaining it/what we should do to change. I like this peer review because I know another person actually reads my paper because sometimes when we just switch papers I do not think the other person always reads it carefully. Students appreciate the benets that come from the intimacy of the peer-tutorial method of peer review. By having a conversation with only one other person, both reader and writer are more accountable for the content of the discussion. One student identied how this problem is alle-

Reinventing Peer Review (Kalish, Heinert and Pilmaier)

39

viated: I hate handing off my paper to someone else and they write a bunch of garbage on it, this way I am in control of writing also I am more likely being able to read it. This method retains authority in the hands of the writer, thus improving the writers condence in regard to making choices about her essay. Another difference between our method of peer review and the traditional classroom version is the deemphasizing of a set question list that must be answered in the course of the session. In an effort to assist students with peer review, many teachers hand out a series of directive questions that the peer reviewer must ll out, and lack of time can lead to less than stellar responses: good or ok becomes the go-to response instead of thoughtful reections. As Amy Ward Martin laments in her article Recovering Response: Emphasizing Writing as Relational Practice,
Peer response, one of the hallmarks of writing-as-process pedagogies, has instead come to reinscribe writing-as-product through its evolution into an evaluative measure in writing classrooms. Rather than viewing peer response as a way to help others with their writing and to solicit valuable feedback on their own writing, students have come to view peer response as yet another obstacle to surmount on the way to a nal grade [116].

While directive questions are helpful, and a safety net for the teacher hoping to ensure that students do not miss essential elements in their review process, they can work to stie discussion instead of auger it because of the sheer amount of questions required to be answered in a nite amount of time.6 The skill-set emphasized in the questionnaires can be difcult for students to acquire if they feel that they do not have the time to answer them properly, or, more problematically, they feel that they have nothing important to contribute. Therefore, we do not mandate that students answer a set question list. Instead, we encourage our students to discuss whatever they feel needs to be discussed, both positives and negatives, and challenge them to integrate the rhetorical concepts that they learn from class into their peer review discussions. We also understand that a lack of condence in ones evaluation skills is one of the largest concerns voiced by students in Composition classrooms who are called upon to critique their peers work. Kwangsu Cho aptly sums up the main strains of students criticism of peer review in Commenting on Writing: Typology and Perceived Helpfulness of Comments from Novice Peer Reviewers and Subject Matter Experts, with the observation that On its face, students might be expected to produce less helpful comments because they know less about the subject matter, are less skilled at writing, and have less experience evaluating papers than subjectmatter instructors (264). Traditionally, because of their fear of providing poor feedback, many students give vague feedback so that they can at least get credit for the exercise. However, this method of peer review emphasizes that the students are not acting in the role of an expert or teacher, but only as readers. When students understand that they are the audience part of audience awareness, their role in the peer review process becomes more understandable their job is to explain to the writer how the reader interprets the text at hand and this vantage point can often help the writer to see that what is on the page may not be what the writer had intended. Therefore, the instructors role in this part of the peer review process is to impress upon the students that they need not be experts on writing, on the subject matter, on anything, for that matter but they must be willing to provide thoughtful feedback to their peer review partners. The reviewer is no longer concerned with providing answers, correcting work, or even worrying about insulting or hurting the writer. The reviewer is only responsible for asking questions and sharing his or her impressions of the work. Integrating the principles of peer-tutoring with practical goals of peer review places the responsibility on the writer, and not the reviewer, to improve his or her work.

40

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

The benets of working with peers who have knowledge of the assignment (which cannot be duplicated in a writing center environment) were evident in the writer-reviewer discussions. For example, one criteria of a given essay was to use attributive tags effectively. In one discussion, the reviewer asked the writer about this criterion and the writer responded, Im pretty sure I did it. The reviewer replied, Okay, show me a place you did that isnt in quotation marks. Another discussion showed that the writer was uncertain whether the argument he was making met the assignment: Is it okay to discuss strengths and weaknesses here? One paper required a rebuttal, and the reviewer asked the writer what hers was. The writer replied, Um, Im not sure what a rebuttal is. The reviewer said, Okay, so that is when you anticipate the other side and then your rebuttal would be talking about why thats not good enough. They then talked about anticipating possible objections and how she could respond to them. Moreover, the students knew that their instructor would be there to answer questions if needed. This environment and approach seemed to open up the possibilities of what students could discuss in peer review. Our experiences with both types of peer review have brought us to the point where we could see the unique strengths of both types of peer review tutorial and classroom and enabled us to integrate concepts of the tutorial method (working in pairs, going through the paper and discussing it together, mandating that the authority remains with the writer rather than the reviewer, looking at higher-order concerns of writing in general) with those of classroom peer review (looking at the specics of the assignment, ensuring the use of proper discourse conventions). We believe that this method utilizes the best aspects of each type of peer review and empowers our students to take an active, rather than passive, role in their learning experience. Our students realize that they have valuable insights to contribute, and when students are engaged in the evaluation process, the focus of evaluation discussion invariably shifts away from ... myopic attention to correctness to a more encompassing concentration on the communication of ideas (Kuhne 28788). Students become more effective writers because they have learned how to be more effective communicators in general. With each peer review, the students practice and hone the rhetorical skills that comprise the outcomes of the Composition course by having very directed conversations about their writing processes and drafts, and this growing condence and ability are then reected in their nished products.

Conclusions
When we started this process, our goal was to create a system of peer review that allowed students to engage critically the texts they were writing without asking them to x each others papers or stand in for English instructors. We wanted to treat them as the intelligent, engaged students they are, and meet them where they are, considering their skill-sets as rstyear writers. We wanted to demand better feedback from our students than the answers on a worksheet would provide. As we melded the best practices from the writing center peer tutorials with the best practices of the classroom peer reviews, we found that those objectives were met. What is perhaps most exciting about this model for peer review, however, is the way that it models their writing as a process of academic inquiry. When academics write, we do not write in a vacuum, and we do not trade drafts with someone else in order to get them xed. We seek out feedback, discussion, and debate, and we work hard to improve and ne-tune our ideas. Our goals were to have students to be more engaged, to focus on process, to think about their writing beyond grammar and punctuation, and to think about audience, purpose,

Reinventing Peer Review (Kalish, Heinert and Pilmaier)

41

conventions, as well as content. We found that our students were just as capable of doing all of these things, if we gave them the right tools to do it. This hybrid model of peer review need not be exclusive to English Composition classrooms. We would hypothesize that a version of this process would work in any course where writing is required. This process can be something that connects the concepts of disciplinespecic Writing across the Curriculum, as well as a way for students to understand the differing expectations of convention in each discipline.

Notes
1. Because each of us has played the role of both writing center tutor and Composition instructor, we have had a great deal of experience listening to peer tutorials and peer reviews. All three of us focused on capturing descriptions of the environment in the classroom, the process that the students and instructors were going through, and the actual commentary and discussion of the writers, reviewers, and instructors. 2. After each peer review, we tracked their feedback to the experience by having them respond to the following prompts: Was this method of peer review benecial for you? How so? What did you like most or least compared with other peer reviews you may have conducted? Of the hundreds of comments that we pooled, over ninety percent of the comments were positive, with less than ve percent of the comments being neutral, and less than ve percent being negative. Students appreciated the partnership with one other person and the concentrated one-on-one feedback they were giving and receiving. What one student liked best, in her words, was, We were both on the same page, literally and guratively. Many students mentioned how other peer reviews required them to try to interpret after the fact (whenever they got around to reading the feedback or revising their papers) what their reviewers had written about their papers. Talking about the paper with someone in real time, and taking notes about what to do, was something that students commented again and again that they appreciated. Many students also commented on how having an accessible instructor there to answer questions or weigh in on a debated point was helpful as well. Though we anticipated students being worried about only getting feedback from one person, many students listed this as what they liked the most about the process: Instead of handing your paper to someone, and having to trust them to catch everything, you can work together to make your paper better! Two, well, four eyes are better than two. And you can directly ask them questions about your paper. 3. In his article Student Evaluation and an Introduction to Academic Discourse: I Didnt Like It, and I Dont Know How to Improve It, Because It Works, Michael Kuehn states that Without peer evaluation, students at best mimic what they understand to be academic discourse. With peer evaluation-and the shift in teacher and student roles-students wrestle with and come to a clearer understanding of academic discourse as dynamic, negotiated, and communal: this is, essentially, what every Composition instructor aims for her or his students to achieve (285). 4. Our lesson study, funded by the UW System Lesson Study Project and a UW System OPID Undergraduate Teaching and Learning Grant, examined our hybrid method of peer review in several ways. First, we took eld notes as we visited each others classes during peer review. We paid attention to the types of comments students were making, as well as the general activity of the classroom. Second, we conducted surveys that asked students to report Was this method of peer review benecial for you? How so? and, What did you like most or least compared with other peer reviews you may have conducted? Finally, we compared drafts brought to peer review with nal drafts and recorded the types of commentary students made on their work. 5. In her article Collaboration is Not Collaboration is Not Collaboration: Writing Center Tutorials vs. Peer-Response Groups, Muriel Harris emphasizes that articles on writing center theory in books and in publications such as the Writing Center Journal and the Writing Lab Newsletter, training manuals for tutors, and those hundreds of reports writing center directors write every year for administrators all attest to the widelyaccepted view that tutoring in writing is a collaborative effort in which the tutor listens, questions, and sometimes offers informed advice about all aspects of the students writing in order to help the writer become a better writer, not to x whatever particular paper the student has brought to the center. Thus, even though a specic paper may be the subject of discussion, the tutor is always cautioned to work more broadly toward strengthening the writers skills in ways that will carry over to future writing [371]. 6. As Muriel Harris explains, The assumption is that the more the student reads and responds, the more her critical skills improve. The more the writer hears reader response, the stronger his sense of audience will be. [Therefore] ... skill building by repetition happen[s] in peer response groups.... (372).

42

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

Works Cited
Ahrenhoerster, Greg, and Cassie Phillips. Fall 2005 Student Survey Chart. English Department Assessment Project. University of Wisconsin Colleges, 2006. Web. 24 October 2009. Armstrong, Sonya L., and Eric J. Paulson. Whither Peer Review? Terminology Matters for the Writing Classroom. Teaching English in the Two-Year College 35.4 (2008): 398407. Print. Brammer, Charlotte. Peer Review from the Students Perspective: Invaluable or Invalid? Composition Studies 35.2 (2007): 7185. Print. Cho, Kwangsu. Commenting on Writing: Typology and Perceived Helpfulness of Comments from Novice Peer Reviewers and Subject Matter Experts Written Communication 23.3 (2006): 26094. Print. Gillespie, Paula, and Neal Lerner. The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Peer Tutoring. 2nd ed. New York: Pearson Longman, 2003. Print. Grimm, Nancy. Improving Students Responses to Their Peers Essays College Composition and Communication 37.1 (1986): 9194. Print. Harris, Muriel. Collaboration Is Not Collaboration Is Not Collaboration: Writing Center Tutorials vs. PeerResponse Groups. College Composition and Communication. 43.3 (1992): 36983. Print. Kuhne, Michael. Student Evaluation and an Introduction to Academic Discourse: I Didnt Like It, and I Dont Know How to Improve It, Because It Works. Teaching English in the Two-Year College. 33.3 (2006): 27994. Print. Martin, Amy Ward. Recovering Response: Emphasizing Writing as Relational Practice. Issues in Writing 14.2 (2004): 11634. Print.

Its just too nicey-nicey around here: Teaching Dissensus in Research and Collaborative Groups
JACOB STRATMAN
I teach Basic Writing, Freshman Composition, and American Literature at a small interdenominational Christian University in a small southern town. During a potentially heated discussion at one of my rst committee meetings, one of the deans leaned over to me and said, It will be ok. Were just too nicey-nicey around here. He was right. The potentially heated discussion cooled quickly as consensus was met and the meeting continued. Since then, Ive been in many committee meetings where conict is avoided, and consensus is sought vigorously; yet, unfortunately, potentially good and productive ideas are oppressed for the sake of the greater good. As a faculty member, these moments frustrate me. Whats so wrong with disagreement, especially in collaborative learning? What is the problem with understanding where disagreements originate before we try to seek common ground or even consensus? However, I am most discouraged when I see this type of conict avoidance happen in the classroom. In my particular situation, Im not sure if its because of the small-town southern ethos, the Christian ethos, or the fear of sanctions that is to blame for the nicey-nicey environment. Many students (and faculty) have the notion (real or perceived) that they will be punished for their adverse ideas. They have been taught by mostly well-meaning parents, for a variety of reasons, not to question authority or undermine group consensus. Beyond these motivations for group think, Ive also noticed a more relativistic approach to truth in the classroom (even at my Christian university). Ultimately, students do not want to be held in judgment, nor do they want to be ridiculed or labeled as judge. The greatest problem in my composition courses is that students simply lack critical and analytical thinking, reading, speaking, and listening skills. This lack, in turn, keeps students from disagreeing effectively with each other, texts, and even me. In this article, I will rst briey dene dissensus in the greater conversation of consensus and collaboration, explore reasons for teaching dissensus in the classroom in conjunction with collaborative projects, and nally suggest practical strategies for teaching dissensus in composition courses, essentially empowering students to engage critically and analytically with texts, peers, and even professors.1 A great deal of scholarship addresses how dissensus corrupts and problemitizes the classroom. So, my objective here is to present classroom assignments and situations that attempt to teach why critical engagement and student disagreement can be useful to the academy and students personal growth.
43

44

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

Dening Dissensus ... Briey

Before I briey survey the scholarship pertaining to dissensus, I would like to differentiate the terms disagreement and dissensus using an example from my own classroom. Teaching and living in Benton County, Arkansas, I nd it worthwhile to read several essays attacking and supporting Wal-Mart. Although most of our students are not Benton county residents, one cannot live in Northwest Arkansas long without engaging in the Wal-Mart debate. As we discuss a series of essays, students converse with each other about the benets and failures of this American institution. One student says, its cheap and that helps the poor. Another student says, lack of worker benets are outrageous and Wal-Mart forces local businesses to close. I call this kind of visceral, uncritical response disagreement. In my mind, these types of disagreements go nowhere (and are quite useless) unless we ask students to analyze and critically think about their own opinions. And, most times, these responses are merely the products of students families, churches, and peer groups. After our initial discussions, I usually ask students to write about how they came up with their opinions. Ultimately, this leads them to think about family politics, economics, and even cultural issues. I always nd that disagreements become more fruitful when students rhetorically analyze their claims and their classmates claims. This is dissensus: the ability to critically understand the narratives and assumptions that live beneath disagreement in a particular collaborative environment. Sometimes this turns into consensus (or at least establishing some sort of common ground), but dissensus, even if left as such, in this context always turns into better understanding. John Trimbur and Kenneth Bruffee have been the most inuential in my thinking concerning academic conversations in small group collaborative environments. In Trimburs Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning, he makes it clear that dissensus is not necessarily antithetical to consensus:
collaborative learning [is] not merely [a] process of consensus-making but more important as a process of identifying differences in relation to each other. The consensus that we ask students to reach in the collaborative classroom will be based not so much on collective agreements as on collective explanations of how people differ, where their differences come from, and whether they can live and work together with these differences [470].

Trimburs denition of dissensus is a Marxist response to constructivist theorists like Richard Rorty and Kenneth Bruffee. Bruffee argues that
knowledge is an artifact created by a community of knowledgeable peers constituted by the language of that community, and that learning is a social and not an individual process, then to learn is not to assimilate information and maintain knowledge among a community of knowledgeable peers ... to think well as individuals we must learn to think well collectively that is, we must learn to converse well [427/421].

Essentially, learning cannot happen in a vacuum. Students need to converse in order to learn. Where Trimbur critiques Bruffee is that collective/collaborative thinking, in Trimburs words, is an inherently dangerous potentially totalitarian practice that sties individual voice and creativity, suppresses differences, and enforces conformity (461). What Trimbur fears is group think and a squelching of the individual. Both Trimbur and Bruffee are right. Intentionally teaching students that learning does take shape through collaborative efforts that learning is a social act is important for improving critical and analytical skills. And, intentionally teaching students to understand

Teaching Dissensus (Stratman)

45

difference instead of simply seeking quick consensus is just as crucial to improving critical thinking skills and perpetuating successful group dynamics. One of the rst steps for instructors teaching small-groups is to discuss whether the objective of the meeting or task is to reach consensus. Sometimes, the interpretive community will come to the same conclusion about xing a complex sentence structure, analyzing the tone of a particular poem, conducting a peer-review session, or revising a student thesis statement; however, sometimes the consensus will be that there is not consensus that reasonable disagreement may unearth presuppositions that require deeper analysis. In Bruffees words, We establish knowledge or justify belief collaboratively by challenging each others biases and presuppositions; by negotiating collectively toward new paradigms of perception, thought, feeling, and expression (427). And, in Trimburs words, Consensus ... can be a powerful instrument for students to generate differences, to identify the systems of authority that organize these differences, and to transform the relations of power that determine who may speak and what counts as a meaningful statement (462). Both camps argue that conversation about dissensus within a group can be a very useful tool for students to question narratives (composition, literary, social, political, religious, etc.) in order to come to a better understanding of those narratives and how they inuence each of their lives. If Paulo Freire is correct when he famously suggested that education is suffering from narration sickness, then I propose that the following assignments and exercises that promote dissensus in collaborative activities replace narration from a single source to a dialectic environment (Freire 71). As a caution, however, Karen Kuralt and Molly Flaherty Haas pose a common critique of teaching dissensus in the classroom. They write, while composition theorists may favor collaborations that produce conict and dissensus, students often nd conict upsetting and unproductive and will deliberately circumvent it whenever to preserve group harmony (20). I have no doubt that this critique is valid when professors refuse or forget to teach dissensus. For the reasons I mentioned in the introduction, many of our students will go to great lengths to avoid conict. Ultimately, it is our job to teach small groups to effectively navigate dissensus in order to question presuppositions and particular narratives that keep students from either reaching consensus or being able to understand where those disagreements are born. Where many practitioners feel slighted by these theories is that they are light on real classroom practice. Since their publications, there have been many useful articles written to further esh out the practical utility (and lack thereof ) of the theory of dissensus.2 Below, I hope to add to this conversation by exploring dissensus in individual article response papers as a part of a larger research project and how I utilize dissensus in cooperative discussion groups and peer-review sessions.

How to Teach Dissensus

Before I offer practical ways to introduce dissensus in the classroom, I must point out that I dene collaboration a bit more broadly than some of my colleagues. Usually, collaboration refers to students working together on a project. In the past, students have shared physical space to create these products; however, now collaboration happens quite effectively in the cyber world as well. In an effort to get students to think about research and writing as a conversation, I also suggest to my students that collaboration occurs anytime they read / research. Students bring to each reading activity, I remind them, a complex set of assumptions and beliefs that interact in a variety of ways with the set of assumptions and beliefs of the author. Collaboration occurs when students attempt to create meaning from a reading

46

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

experience, especially when the student synthesizes a dialectic in the form of an academic essay.

Article Response Papers

My inquiry theme for my rst-year composition course is Writing for Social Change. In this course, I urge students to create a research question that allows them to make a wellresearched, logical, and insightful argument about a current social issue that is important to them. Each student spends the entire semester writing, researching, reading, speaking, listening, and arguing in an attempt to better understand the conversation regarding one issue. In the last few years, I have received essays on government subsidies, international adoption, sex trafcking, divorce, teen pregnancy, and a variety of other social issues. In an attempt to encourage students to enter the conversation, I require an article response paper each week. This assignment asks students to write about one article they have read during the week that pertains to their chosen social issue. Here is the assignment as stated on the syllabus (Appendix A):
You will turn in a 300400 word, single-spaced response paper each Wednesday regarding a scholarly/popular article you read that week. Each paper will have two components. First, you will practice reading with the grain. Write a brief paragraph summarizing the thesis and main points of the article. Secondly, you will practice reading against the grain. Write another paragraph refuting, challenging, resisting, or questioning particular parts of the article. Be specic and detailed. These exercises will be useful as you construct longer essays on that particular issue.

Student feedback reveals that this exercise is the most helpful assignment in ghting procrastination, better understanding the complexities of a single social issue, learning how to disagree with published writers, and learning how to analyze the rhetorical situation of a variety of media, namely popular magazines and internet websites. I also believe that students nd disagreeing with people they dont know (writers) easier than disagreeing with professors and peers. And, this exercise can be an effective gateway to teach dissensus before they enter collaborative cooperative groups. In this assignment, students learn how to listen to arguments. During my rst years of teaching, I noticed that students struggle with summary.3 Either they miss the point completely, or they summarize what they think they understand about the essay, which, more often than not, looks more like interpretation than summary. Throughout the semester, I urge students to understand that one cannot effectively engage a text or another person in disagreement if one refuses to listen. Starting with texts also allows students to practice listening before they enter collaborative groups with peers. Secondly, students must write a paragraph where they choose a particular passage or claim to resist or challenge. Without fail, students ask what they should do if they agree with everything that the writer claims. This is where I play the devils advocate and suggest that either 1) thats impossible. You have to disagree with something. 2) If the student refuses to nd any disagreement in an article, then I suggest that the student nd another article. I make it clear that students should nd research that supports their claims, but one of the objectives of this assignment is to teach them how to disagree with texts effectively. Dissensus, in this assignment, works as a means to better understand the conversation on which each student attempts to be an expert. The central objective of the semester is to understand the complexity of a particular social issue well enough to state an arguable claim that somehow extends the conversation. Teaching students to effectively disagree with research

Teaching Dissensus (Stratman)

47

is a necessary step to introduce them to the collaborative elements of research. All writers collaborate when they read in their scholarly discipline in order to better understand the eld and create claims that are products of the thinking in that particular academic conversation. With each week, students learn rhetorical phrases like seeking common ground, navigating competing perspectives, and entering the conversation. Navigating the tension between consensus and dissensus in research should empower students to feel more a part of the academic conversation. Ideally, this assignment forces students to listen and to disagree with claims in order for the student to better understand his/her own claims. Finally, if the student researches the eld broadly enough, one of the by-products of this assignment is critiquing and questioning the structures and narratives that inuence writers and the structures and narratives that inuence their own claims. As I mentioned before, part of how dissensus differs from disagreement is the importance a reader places the rhetorical situation on a particular text. At the beginning of the semester, one of our librarians spends an entire week teaching research strategies and opportunities that our library provides. Although he just touches on analyzing rhetorical situation, I use this library session to create my own lesson on analyzing rhetorical situation as a part of the dissensus process. In one class session, during the beginning of my students research process, I bring in several books, magazines and website URL addresses that all focus on a particular topic. Over the years, I have selected topics such baseball and steroids, evolution vs. creationism, and human trafcking. After I create collaborative groups and tell them our class topic for the day, I hand each small group a particular research item. Their job is to analyze its rhetorical situation. I give them four contexts which to consider as they think about the texts credibility, its bias or standpoint, and its use for student research. Here are the contexts: 1. Historical Context At what point in history was the text composed? When is the text being read/heard? What is signicant about these contexts and/or about gaps between these contexts? 2. Cultural Context In what cultural situation was the text composed? Where is the text being read/heard? What is signicant about these contexts and/or about the gaps between these contexts? 3. Authorial Contexts What are the perspectives and situations of authors and /or of the institutions with which authors are afliated? What is signicant about these perspectives? 4. Audience Contexts What are the perspectives and situations of different audiences of a text and/or what are the perspectives of the institutions with which audiences are afliated? What is signicant about these perspectives? [xix]4 The lesson works as follows: each group selects one member to lead the group discussion pertaining to a particular context. They look at the text (book, magazine, or website) for the answers. Then, they are to discuss the signicance of their ndings. After each round, we congregate as a whole class to talk about group ndings and signicant conclusions. Ultimately, I want them to question and analyze the historical, cultural, authorial, and audience contexts so each student can get a better sense of texts speak to/with each other. Ideally, these are the moments where students learn that their families have always hated anything from FOX News or MSNBC or the National Review or Mother Jones or whatever. In my classroom, research is a form of dissensus; therefore, the article response paper is the most important assignment I create in a semester to encourage students to think critically and analytically about their own assumptions and the assumptions of the particular texts they

48

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

use for research. Some Marxist critics, like Greg Myers, suggest that good assignments create a sort of doubleness where students begin to better understand certain social and ideological structures and a willingness (or ability) to question, critique, and maybe resist those structures (454). This doubleness, for both teachers and students, should improve critical thinking. Not only does the student become more aware of the ideological structures that inuence his thinking, but he also begins to question and engage with those structures that inuence those authors he researches. This is why I recommend using article response papers and teaching rhetorical situation as a platform for teaching dissensus. Now, seasoned writing teachers know that I am describing the ideal situation. I have plenty of stories of students researching only articles that support their agenda, students who nd that disagreeing just takes too much mental exercise, students who remain intellectually lazy and refuse to think about why exactly they think they way they do, students who continue to believe that research begins and ends with Google and Wikipedia, and students who refuse to critique social structures even when the critique seems quite obvious to me. Disagreement seems easy; they disagree with many aspects of the classroom. Seeking dissensus as a way of better understanding reader and writer assumptions and becoming a more critical reader and writer is difcult. Teaching students to utilize dissensus in order to be more critical and analytical researchers, thinkers, and writers is a process. I do believe, however, that this exercise teaches students how to view their research as a collaborative act and to see how dissensus can improve how they interact with research.

Cooperative Discussion Groups

This next assignment attempts to move dissensus from a private sphere (research) to a more public sphere (small cooperative discussion groups). On the days that I collect these article response papers, I have students get into pairs or groups of three to discuss their ndings. This activity utilizes cooperative learning strategies to empower each student to take ownership of his work and responses to others work.5 The activity is simple: 1. Each student orally summarizes one of the claims the article makes. Next, the student spends just one or two minutes critiquing that claim. 2. After the rst student presents his/her ndings, each listener asks a question that forces the student-presenter to think further about the claim or his critique of the claim, or the listener is to make a claim that either critiques the articles claim or the students critique of that claim. 3. The student then returns to his notes to jot down conclusions: questions, concerns, more claims, etc. 4. Move on to the next student-presenter. As you can see, this activity could last anywhere from ve minutes to the entire class period. On some days, students simply want to get through the activity to get to more important issues like xing comma splices, but on other days, students hit a nerve, and I cant get them to stop talking. Implicitly, I hope that students/groups will use our discussions regarding rhetorical situation to help them engage with the chosen article. What I nd very useful in this activity is creating transparency about the objectives of the activity. I state very clearly at the beginning that consensus is not necessarily the goal. If I notice that one group tends to agree with the writers critiques, I might sit for a moment and ask more questions and prod further, hopefully modeling what dissensus looks like. As Trimbur suggests at the conclusion of his essay, I am less interested in students achieving

Teaching Dissensus (Stratman)

49

consensus (although of course this happens at times) as in their using consensus as a critical instrument to open gaps in the conversation through which differences emerge (476). The primary objective of this cooperative group discussion is to force each writer, through peerdialogue, to think more critically about his or her issue and the critiques he or she has about the broader conversation. I have found that those students who are not incredibly critical when writing article response papers seem to respond more readily to positive peer pressure that these small collaborative groups provide. Indeed, students may not think critically about anything unless peers respectfully critique the students work, or at least encourage the student to think more critically about their claims. This activity, ideally, uses the form of inquiry to instruct students how to disagree effectively and appropriately. As I use this activity to introduce students to academic group life, I remind them that reasonable people can choose to disagree reasonably.6 These skills, I also suggest to them, are a part of being in a conversation (live or in research): locating disagreements, trying to understand where those disagreements originate, and applying competing perspectives to ones own claims.

Peer-Review Sessions
Throughout the semester, students turn in three to four shorter writing assignments as they construct arguments about their chosen social issue. Like many rst-year writing instructors all over the country, I use peer-review. Also, like many of my colleagues, I use peerreview to teach students that I am not the only one in the classroom who holds authority when it comes to evaluation. The peer-review session can be a useful place to teach dissensus; each essay is a particular rhetorical moment that can be interpreted differently by each student. The difculty is getting students to understand how dissensus can be even more useful to revision than simple, and oftentimes uncritical, consensus. How many times have instructors overheard one of the following phrases during a peer-review session: Uh ... I like it, Thats good. You shouldnt change anything, I dont really understand, but its your paper. You do what you want, and my favorite, I dont think youre supposed to do it that way, but I could be wrong. What students need, I argue, is the freedom to construct and create the peerreview session that allows them to actually hold some authority in the classroom. Far too often, we use the peer-review session to simply mirror the conventions and rules we as instructors have already laid down for the classroom. I use an introductory brainstorming session about peer-review to teach dissensus. I suggest using part of a class period to critique the peer-review process with students and collaborate with them on the best way to construct peer-review for the semester. In this way, if teachers take the time to explore how and why peer-review sessions have succeeded and failed in the past with students, then dissensus can be used as a means to create the best way to construct and utilize peer-review. I recognize the potential problem of this claim. As the authority gure, I claim that peer-review is benecial and necessary for improving student writing. However, my hope is that collaboration, and even dissensus within this collaborative exercise, can shape and improve how we use peer-review in the classroom. Secondly, a reader of an earlier draft of this chapter suggested that maybe my exercise wasnt dissensus at all. Perhaps, it was just group negotiation. Ultimately, my critics are correct if I simply tell them how to do peer-review or if just tell my students to gure out the best way to do peer-review. As I have attempted to emphasize throughout this essay, it is the essential relationship between collaboration and critical thinking, especially regarding educational narratives that seem to inuence and dictate how we and our students do education, that inspire my use of dissensus. This is yet another activity where I ask students to think critically about why they like or dislike a particular topic, issue, or pedagogical strategy. Here is the lesson:

50

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

In this introductory brainstorming session (see Appendix B), I ask students to get into groups of four and discuss when peer-review sessions have gone really well or really poorly. We make a long list on the whiteboard listing the positive and negative experiences regarding peer-review. Then, I ask them to return to their collaborative groups and explore reasons why these peer-review sessions went well or poorly. As a group, then, we spend a good amount of time critiquing the negative experiences: what causes someone to say only thats good on a paper? What are the inherent problems with peer-review? Are rst-year students qualied to review and assess another students writing? Ideally, at the end of this brainstorming session, we have thought through all of the many ways peer-review sessions can fail or succeed. Although, at this point, none of us will agree with each other, we can better understand the power struggles, episodes of inferiority, and even class, gender, and cultural struggles that undermine peer-review, or any collaborative exercise for that matter. At the end of the session, I ask each student to write down what their ideal peer-review session looks like. Below are a few examples from student responses: 1. Professor should pick the groups of 3 people. Then get three papers that are not any of those three and read and edit them together. 2. Put the papers in a pile and choose randomly. 3. I think we should have each person get an anonymous paper and go through and underline the thesis and main points of each body paragraph. 4. It [peer-review] should not be secret because the writer might want to discuss problems with the reviewer. This semester, I was amazed that the majority of the students wished to keep all peer-review anonymous. Throughout the semester, I have chosen to discuss why this is: power dynamics, inferiority, fear, etc. In order to construct positive and effective peer-review sessions, ultimately, students must be asked to analyze the process and even construct what the processes will look like in the future. That is why I employ a different peer-review approach each session. Ideally, I give the last ve minutes of each peer-review session to allow students to critique the days particular method. And, usually, I email the class the major critiques and my comments on those critiques. Before the next peer-review session, we discuss successes and problems as a class. The collaborative exercise should use dissensus to get students to think critically about peer-review, but I also hope it allows students to better buy in to the idea of peerreview. This type of transparency or critical exercise about dissensus during this brainstorming session can troubleshoot two concerns students usually have: Im not smart enough and it hurts to receive criticism. Instead of merely agreeing that peer-review is good practice, introducing dissensus to the group validates different opinions and experiences; however, it also forces students to question and analyze those differences. Let us begin with the inferiority complex. In 1957, E. Paul Torrance wrote an article about disagreement in group decisionmaking.7 His claims were the result of a study at the United Air Force Survival Training School on the nature and function of disagreement in decision-making situations. Torrance came to the conclusion that if there is willingness to disagree with the group, there will be an increase in the range of judgment considered in making a decision (315). However true, what Ive noticed in peer-review sessions is that some students believe that they are not well equipped (i.e. smart enough) to disagree with the smarter students or the professor. Torrance comments on this phenomenon: Low status individuals are reluctant to express their judgments either in opposition to those of high status or in fear that they might be in opposition

Teaching Dissensus (Stratman)

51

to them (315). Although Torrance specically refers to low ranking members of the USAF, the same can be said of the classroom. Carrie Shively Levernz echoes Torrances remarks almost forty years later regarding the imbalance of power in peer-review sessions where some students consider themselves knowledgeable and other students consider themselves below or outside of that knowledge circle. Levernz argues that no rhetoric of dissensus made it possible for the group to talk productively about their differences because the rules of normal discourse had already determined that differences must be treated hierarchically (184). Levernz argues what many of us have witnessed on countless occasions. Students who feel insecure in an academic setting are more willing to keep quiet during peer-review sessions and during the brainstorming session. And students who feel condent in such settings (whether they deserve such condence or not) are the rst to display authority in the session. What concerns me about Levernz article, however, is that the professor, as far as the reader knows, does not provide instructional space to address these power-dynamic issues. I suggest that if these issues are not addressed before peer-review or during a feedback session during the semester, these sessions usually lead to hurt feelings, misunderstanding, and consensus in the worst fashion. The group simply goes along with the authority of the group, or a few individuals, because as Levernz claims, although students recognized that their reading and writing were different, they could think about those differences only in terms of what was right and wrong (184). Levernz helps me make the argument that dissensus, as evident in a peer-review brainstorming session, can foster dialogue about problematic issues that usually occur during peer-review. Another way to impress upon students the importance of dissensus is to help classes, especially during collaborative exercises, understand the difference, as Torrance writes, between task-oriented disagreement and person-oriented disagreement. He argues that decision makers need to accept the fact that task-oriented disagreement is almost always good (317). We all know that convincing students (sometimes ourselves) to separate their self-worth from their work is a lesson in futility; however, the ability to separate the students work from the students self-evaluation may help keep students from establishing right and wrong behaviors, leaders and followers, and authoritative and marginal ways of thinking about writing. The brainstorming session, ultimately, can be a great lesson for the professor and the student to think about peer-review as a task, and not as a personal affront.

Conclusion
Many scholars and practitioners argue that dissensus is an important theory that simply fails in the classroom for a variety of reasons. However, what would happen if instructors took time before, during, and after collaborative exercises to teach what dissensus is, why it is important for critical thinking, writing, listening, and speaking, and how it can be used effectively in research, collaborative discussion groups, and peer-review sessions. Trimbur reminds us that we need to see consensus not as an agreement that reconciles differences through an ideal conversation but rather as the desire of humans to live and work together with differences (476). And, if instructors create activities and assignments that empower students to analyze and question how those differences work and where those differences originate, then maybe classes have a better chance of creating critical and analytical thinkers. Although it can be time consuming, my hope is that the activities Ive described above can be just a few ways to engage students in thinking about why consensus and dissensus are critical elements of successful collaboration in research and in small group settings.

52

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

Appendix A
Assignment Sheet Article Response Papers Objectives: To evaluate popular research sources To cultivate critical reading strategies To dialogue with published authors To improve reading comprehension and analysis Purpose One of my frustrations is listening to very opinionated people who are not very educated on the topic they are discussing. Daily reading is a vital component to argument. JBU wants you to be well-rounded, articulate, critical, and analytical. That doesnt happen if you refuse to read every day. Assignment You will turn in a 300400 word, single-spaced response paper each Monday regarding a scholarly/popular article you read that week. Each paper will have two components. First, you will practice reading with the grain. Write a brief paragraph summarizing the thesis and main points of the article. Secondly, you will practice reading against the grain. Write another paragraph refuting, challenging, resisting, or questioning particular parts of the article. Be specic and detailed. These exercises will be useful as you construct longer essays on that particular issue. You must type a bibliographic entry at the end of the essay. You must use at least one direct quotation in the second paragraph. The article must come from a credible source. For this exercise, all articles must have an author and must contain an arguable claim.

Appendix B
Lesson Plan Peer-Review Brainstorming Session In collaborative groups, I provide the following questions on a power point slide. I give each group just a few minutes to answer each question. After each question, we reconvene as a class to discuss particular groups ndings. What is important in this stage is asking students WHY they think (not just how/what) peer-review sessions fail and succeed. What is a peer-review session? What makes a good peer-review session? What makes a bad peer-review session? As I state in the text above, I ask students to answer the following question on a half-piece of paper that they will give me on their way out of class: Practically, how should this class conduct peer-review sessions? I use this feedback to create peer-review sessions for the semester.

Notes
1. Obviously, my practical strategies are heavily grounded in theory. If you are interested in reading about the debate over consensus versus dissensus, I recommend the following seminal articles: Kenneth Bruffees

Teaching Dissensus (Stratman)

53

Collaborative Learning and the Conversation of Mankind (College English 46.7 November 1984); Greg Myers Reality, Consensus, and Reform in the Rhetoric of Composition Teaching (College English 48.2 February 1986); and John Trimburs Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Writing (College English 51.6 October 1989). A more recent anthology is Andrea Greenbaums Insurrections: Approaches to Resistance in Composition Studies (State University of New York Press, 2001). 2. Several helpful articles that come to mind (all published in the Journal of Advanced Composition, Volume 14.1, Winter 1994) are Julia M. Gergits and James J. Schramers The Collaborative Classroom as a Site of Difference, Carrie Shively Leverenz Peer Response in the Multicultural Composition Classroom: Dissensus-A Dream (Deferred), Amy Goodburn and Beth Inas Collaboration, Critical Pedagogy, and Struggles Over Difference. I also suggest my own recent attempt: Jacob Stratmans and Matthew Van Zees Im the Author of this Paper: Collaboration and the Construct of Authorship in a First-Year English Course (The CEA Forum: online peer-reviewed journal of teaching and learning for the College English Association, January 2009). 3. This observation has led me to choose Gerald Graff s and Cathy Birkensteins They Say/I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing (W.W. Norton) as my primary writing text. The authors spend an appropriate amount of time covering the skills and importance of good summary in academic writing before they cover the skills and importance of effective analytical response. Each chapter includes a list of writing prompts students can utilize in their writing. 4. I learned about analyzing rhetorical situation as a teaching assistant at Marquette University. The above contexts can be found in the Introduction of Critical Literacies: A Reader for Marquette Universitys FirstYear English Program, Third Edition, edited by Krista Ratcliffe (Pearson Custom Publishing). 5. For those not familiar with cooperative learning, students work in pairs or teams where each student is held accountable for a particular task. Where cooperative learning differs from small group work and even some collaborative groups is that the teacher still contains some control over the group meeting. However, it is a useful tool to empower students to have and maintain responsibility in the group. For an introduction to cooperative learning, read Robert Slavins Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice and Harvey Daniels and Stephanie Harveys Comprehension and Collaboration: Inquiry Circles in Action. 6. I thank Dr. Krista Ratcliffe, English department chair and former director of rst-year writing at Marquette University, for this helpful quip. She said it often. 7. Although almost fty-ve years old, many political scientists believe that Torrances work on disagreement is one of the seminal contributions to the eld. For more recent work on disagreement in the political eld, read Amy Gutmans and Dennis Thompsons Why Deliberative Democracy (1998) and Democracy and Disagreement (2004).

Works Cited
Bruffee, Kenneth. Collaborative Learning and the Conversation of Mankind. In Villanueva 415436. Print. Daniels, Harvey and Stephanie Harvey. Comprehension and Collaboration: Inquiry Circles in Action. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2009. Print. Friere, Paulo. Chapter 2. Pedagog y of the Oppressed. 1970. New York: Continuum, 2007. 7186. Print. Gergits, Julia M. and James J. Schramers The Collaborative Classroom as a Site of Difference. Journal of Advanced Composition 14.1 (1994): 187201. Print. Goodburn, Amy and Beth Ina. Collaboration, Critical Pedagogy, and Struggles Over Difference. Journal of Advanced Composition 14.1 (1994): 131147. Print. Graff, Gerald and Cathy Birkenstein. They Say/I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing. New York: W.W. Norton, 2006. Print. Greenbaum, Andrea, ed. Insurrections: Approaches to Resistance in Composition Studies. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 2001. Print. Gutman, Amy and Dennis Thompson. Why Deliberative Democracy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2004. _____. Democracy and Disagreement. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1998. Kuralt, Karen M. and Molly Flaherty Hass. Coming to Terms with Conict: Preparing Students for the Complexity of Collaborative Writing. Journal of College Writing 4.1 (2001): 1734. Print. Levernz, Carrie Shively. Peer Response in the Multicultural Composition Classroom: Dissensus A Dream (Deferred). Journal of Advanced Composition 14.1 (1994): 167186. Print. Myers, Greg. Reality, Consensus, and Reform in the Rhetoric of Composition Teaching. In Villanueva. 437459. Print. Ratcliffe, Krista. Ed. Introduction. Critical Literacies. 3rd edition. Pearson Custom Publishing, 2006. Slavin, Robert. Cooperative Learning: Theory, Research, and Practice. New York: Pearson and Longman, 1994. Print.

54

I: Why are collaborative learning and peer review important?

Stratman, Jacob and Matthew VanZee. Im the Author of this Paper: Collaboration and the Construct of Authorship in a First-Year English Course. The CEA Forum. January 2009. Print. Torrance, E. Paul. Group Decision-Making and Disagreement. Social Forces 35.4 (1957): 314318. Print. Trimbur, John. Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning. In Villanueva. 461478. Print. Villanueva, Victor, ed. Cross-Talk in Comp Theory: A Reader. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 2003. Print.

Part II. How do I best select groups in my classes?

Increasing Student Participation and Accountability in Group Production of Text through Speed Interviews
MIALISA A. MOLINE
Having listened to yet another student complain about her group grade, then returning to my ofce to read an op-ed in the school paper railing against the use of student groups on major course assignments, I decided to try something new a few years ago. I decided to have students interview each other as potential group members in some signicant depth, questioning every other student in the classroom. What came from that process was rather amazing. The quality of group projects increased, and the number of students complaining about their group members (and group project grades) decreased dramatically. Classroom dynamics shifted, further enhancing the active learning environment. Headaches related to small group management for major course assignments decreased as well. Conducting speed interviews in the writing classroom beneted students in a number of ways, including the obvious increase in student participation for the creation of writing groups, an increase in the accountability group members felt toward their groups and their projects, and an increase in student awareness of audience. Students have expressed, on numerous occasions and in numerous venues, that they wish they had more control over who was assigned to which groups for large, graded projects in a course. However, students may not know everyone attending a class. Often, students isolate themselves into small cliques in a classroom, getting to know only those students in their immediate proximity. Students need to get to know all of the members of the class in a morethan-cursory way since they will be working with a broad spectrum of people upon graduation. Students need to step out of their social comfort zones, to avoid the just-like-me syndrome, and to decrease the potential for group think. In order for students to make informed choices about potential group members, they should expand their knowledge about all potential group mates. One way to increase this awareness is to have students speak to each member of the class face-to-face, individually, with a specic goal in mind. This chapter on working with groups in the writing classroom introduces the concept and use of speed interviews in a writing class. The chapter also describes where the activity might t into a writing course, suggests methods for conducting the activity, and articulates potential benets. Since this technique can pose some minor issues, the chapter also provides a brief troubleshooting guide.
55

56

II: How do I best select groups in my classes?

What Are Speed Interviews?

According to Crombie, speed interviewing is a technique where recruiters meet with and screen many applicants at one time. Each candidates [sic] has 510 minutes to meet with and impress the recruiter. Money-zine.com describes speed interviewing as one of the latest techniques to hit the job market ... the method ... allows both the interviewee and hiring company to assess the potential match of candidate to corporation. It also exposes the applicant to a large number of hiring companies in a short timeframe, thereby maximizing the candidates chance of nding a job (Speed Interviewing). In the case of classroom application, students perform dual roles, those of both interviewer and interviewee. For practical purposes in the classroom, individual interview time is held to less than three minutes. Dr. John Sullivan offers a brief overview of speed interviewing in his 2008 article, Speed Interviewing: Lessons Learned From Speed Dating:
Speed Interviewing and the concepts supporting it come directly from the social phenomena known as speed dating. Supported by lots of cognitive research that suggests initial intuition is as accurate as or more accurate than prolonged assessment, a few leading-edge organizations are hopping on board and testing speed interviewing as a possible solution to end the giant disconnect between society today and the HR systems of yesterday. Brave corporate pioneers include such rms as IBM, Abbott Labs, PNC Financial Travelodge, Texas Instruments, the Salt River Project, and RBC. The companies use this process for experienced candidates and for college hires.

Speed interviewing is growing in popularity and venue. Several major companies (Sullivan) now use the technique for hiring, as do academic settings. For example, A unique experiential technique known as speed interview was [recently] used to facilitate communication between conference participants and to practice newly acquired skills (White 517) for veterinary science students. White, et. al. report student willingness and clearly derived benets taken from this speed interview experience. The University of NevadaLas Vegas recently conducted a speed interview event for business students (Business Students Rene). A senior nance major described the event as one of the best opportunities the College of Business offers. Company participants seemed pleased with the event, with one team leader at Target stating, Its a great way to help develop talent in people. I think its been great for students to see their potential. Speed interviewing has certainly been incorporated into the hiring process, and the writing classroom can benet from this trend as well.

What Benets Might Speed Interviews Offer?

With increasing class sizes and as a response to student concerns about graded group projects, speed interviews add a sense of logic and purpose to assigning group members to a large graded writing project. Students need to gain more control over those with whom they work and to become highly invested in a project, all the while exploring their own work habits and preferences in a group environment. Some of the touted benets offered by the human resources sector regarding speed interviewing, according to Sullivan, include: Immediate comparisons between candidates Less trash time Less total time devoted to interviews An opportunity to see more candidates

Participation and Accountability Through Speed Interviews (Moline)

57

Managers like them It ts the next generation Scheduling ease Shorter time to ll An opportunity to assess other characteristics

Additional benets of using speed interviews in a class setting include: An opportunity for students to gain experience on both sides of the interview table An increase in the breadth of student interview results A decrease in complaints about group work, most notably time management issues for students with external commitments like jobs An increase in the opportunity for students to complement their writing strengths and weaknesses with students they choose to hire

What Are the Classroom Benets Derived from Speed Interviews?

Through a lesson study on speed interviews in the writing classroom, implemented over the course of four semesters, comparative assessment measures (both direct and indirect) regarding student accountability and student participation revealed interesting gains in student accountability and student participation. Group project experiences formed through speed interviewing became enhanced in several notable areas: The quality of group projects improved. The number of students complaining about other group members decreased. Classroom dynamics shifted, improving the active learning environment. Students gained an increased sense of accountability to group members and to the group writing project. Students spent an increased amount of time on the group project outside of class.

Where Might Speed Interviews Fit in a Writing Course?

The prime location for conducting speed interviews in the class syllabus falls when students are in the middle of writing an individual class assignment, a week or two prior to moving into an assignment requiring the group production of text. Adding an assignment between the two is ideal for instructors with heavy teaching loads (see Fig. 1), offering the instructor more time to gure out group assignments based on the hiring preferences forms received from students (see Appendix A).

Figure 1. Assignment Progressing for Speed Interview Activity

Individual Writing Assignment (with speed interview activity couched in the middle of the process)

Another Major Individual Assignment

Group Production of Text Assignment

58

II: How do I best select groups in my classes?

How Might An Instructor Conduct Speed Interviews in the Classroom?

A sample lesson plan for conducting speed interviews in a writing classroom follows: Background Information Class Description Writing course Predominantly undergraduates 2025 students enrolled in the class Time Spent in Class Class meets for 14 weeks, ~ 2.5 hours per week, hopefully in a technology-enhanced classroom (not required) Units of Study Individual production of text (essays or other various genres) Group Production of text (genre may vary) Objectives Course Develop planning, writing, and revising skills Increase ability to help other improve their writing Unit (multiple) Exhibits professional writing style (writes with an active group voice) Successfully collaborates with group Critically evaluates own behavior in group environment Critically evaluates other group members behavior Actively participates in group discussions Length of Time for the Lesson 2.5 hours Materials Needed Group hiring preferences form (Appendix A) Sample interview questions (Appendix B) Speed interview group notes for instructor (Appendix C) Self- and group-assessment document (Appendix D) Watch or clock with secondhand Pen Lesson Plan Stage 1: Pre-lesson Student Preparation Preparation and submission of 34 interview questions composed to inform the group hiring process: ask the students what they need to know about classmates in order to best work with classmates in a group setting. Sample interview questions are provided in Appendix B.

Participation and Accountability Through Speed Interviews (Moline)

59

Instructor Preparation Class discussion of what traits students might nd valuable in group members Class discussion of writing interview questions (See Appendix B) Class discussion of ethical issues surrounding interview questions (whats legal/illegal) see http://www.eeoc.gov for information regarding discriminatory hiring practices Review and return of student interview questions Review of self- and group-assessment document (Appendix D) Stage 2: The Lesson (see Fig. 2) 1. Remind students to take good notes just before beginning the lesson (name, major, responses to questions). 2. Write Rows A and B (with student names for each row) vertically on the board, clearly indicating which row moves and in what direction. 3. Students create two rows, facing one another in pairs. Students in Row A interview the students facing them in Row B for two to three minutes. After that time has elapsed, students in Row B interview the students facing them in Row A for the same amount of time. 4. Students in Row B move down one chair, facing a new classmate. You may need to prompt students to move, ensuring the correct row shifts in the right direction. 5. Students in Row A interview the students facing them in Row B for two to three minutes. After that time has elapsed, students in Row B interview the students facing them in Row A for the same amount of time. 6. Repeat steps 4 and 5 until all students in Rows A and B have interviewed each other. This is a good time for a break, since class time will likely be over. You will need to complete Appendix C to keep a record of which students ended up in which locations. Do not count on students remembering their end locations. Write it down so you have a record of who has interviewed whom. 7. Students in Row A break into two new rows (Rows C and D). Students in Row B break into two new rows (Rows E and F). These new subgroups should maintain physical distance from one another (See Fig. 2). 8. Students in Row C interview the students facing them in Row D, and students in Row E interview the students facing them in Row F simultaneously, for two or three minutes. The roles of interviewer/interviewee then switch. Students in Row D interview students facing them in Row C, and students in Row F interview students facing them in Row E simultaneously, for two or three minutes. 9. Students in Rows C and E move down one chair within their rows, facing a new classmate. Interviews commence for two to three minutes. Students switch roles, then interview/are interviewed by the same person. 10. Repeat steps 8 and 9 until all students in Row C have interviewed all students in Row D, and all students in Row E have interviewed all students in Row F. 11. All four rows break into sub-sub-groups (Rows G, H, I, and J; and Rows K, L, M, and N). 12. Interviews commence in the sub-sub-groups. 13. Finally, rows G, H, I, J, K, L, M, and N interview each other within their own rows. Depending on class size, additional or fewer sub-groups may or may not be required to complete the process. 14. Distribute the group hiring preferences form to students (See Appendix A).

60

II: How do I best select groups in my classes?

Figure 2. Speed Interview Rounds Round 1

Group A Group B 1 13 2 14 3 15 4 16 5 17 6 18 7 19 8 20 9 21 10 22 11 23 12 24

Round 2
Group C Group D 1 7 2 8 3 9 4 10 5 11 6 12 Group E 13 14 15 16 17 18 Group F 19 20 21 22 23 24

Round 3
Group G Group H 1 4 2 5 3 6 Group I 7 8 9 Group J 10 11 12 Group K Group L 13 16 14 17 15 18 Group M Group N 19 22 20 23 21 24

Stage 3: Post-lesson 1. After students complete the group hiring preferences form (Appendix A) OUTSIDE OF CLASS collect them and begin the task of assigning groups. Keep these forms condential. 2. Begin the process of assigning groups based on the hiring preferences forms discussed in the next section. 3. Release group assignments to students. 4. Collect group projects and the self- and group-assessment forms at the end of the group project assignment. You may or may not choose to weigh the assessment results in your grading process. However, requiring the completion of the assessment document will ensure that students offer you feedback on the group experience. Assessment A number of self- and group-assessment tools exist online and in textbooks. Using existing forms like the one in Appendix D, or forms you create on your own, will assist you in evaluating the effectiveness of student groups. Students appreciate the opportunity to reect on both their own contributions to a group effort and on the contributions of others within the group. Typical self- and group-assessment forms ask students to account for the group roles and tasks they fullled while working in the group, and the time they spent on the project.

Participation and Accountability Through Speed Interviews (Moline)

61

How Should an Instructor Assign Groups?

Once you have collected and examined the group hiring preferences forms from students, you will nd that each student hopes for an ideal group of their very own choosing, tailored to their own specic needs. However, each student will submit unique requests, and guring out who goes in which group can be challenging. A few guidelines to consider when assigning groups based on the results of speed interviews include: Ensuring that no students work in groups with people they have placed in the I dont want this group member category on the form Ensuring that students get to work with at least one group member they have listed on their top 5 list on the form Articulating to students that while they may not have chosen other group members on their top 5 list, those students may have chosen to work with them Once you have gured out how large you want the groups to be and who to place in which groups, you should release your group assignments to the students by writing them on the board or releasing them in a course management system if you so choose. Thus, you maintain instructor control over group assignments, but students gain signicant input (and sense of control) into your decision-making process. Consider shredding the group preferences sheets once you are nished examining them. To ensure condentiality, do not allow students to view other students preference forms.

What Considerations or Concerns Might an Instructor Need to Address When Conducting Speed Interviews?
Potential Problem
Loud classroom environment

Possible Solutions
1. Close the classroom door. 2. Forewarn professors teaching nearby. 3. Take the activity to another location, like a conference room in the student center. 1. Review interview questions before the activity begins. 2. Offer students the opportunity to report ethical violations. 1. Keep track, in writing, of where students leave the activity, to be used on the next class day. 2. Remind students to take note of their nishing location at the end of the class period. 1. Place empty chairs into the activity mix for missing students to take upon their return to the next class period. The empty seat rotates down the line. 1. Place an empty chair into the activity mix, so that all students are facing another desk, all desks occupied except one. The empty seat rotates down the line. 1. Write students rst and last names on the board.

Discrimination in the hiring process

Activity spans over multiple days

Absenteeism

Odd (not even) number of students in the class

Multiple students share the same rst name

62

II: How do I best select groups in my classes?

Instructors should address student concerns about graded group production of text in a pedagogically sound approach that benets both the course goals and the building of knowledge in students. The way instructors assign group members is one way to begin. When students exercise signicant control over who their group members are, they feel that investment in the form of accountability of self to both group and to project. Additionally, when students participate in conducting interviews from both sides, both potential employer and potential employee, their understanding of audience improves. This activity embraces the social construction of knowledge in an active learning environment, with a signicant emphasis on students becoming fully invested in the group production of text. While class time of often limited, and the logistics of the activity are complex, the resulting increase in students accountability to themselves and to their group are certainly worthwhile. And while assigning group members could be a relatively easy task, grounding the assignment of writing groups in a thoughtful approach to making group assignments offers an increase in the scope of rewards. This activity is by no means perfect. But conducting speed interviews in the writing classroom benets students by enhancing their active learning environment and encouraging their investment in group written projects.

Appendix A
Group Preferences Form
Your name: ___________________________ List, in order of preference, the top ve students you would like to hire for your group project. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________ __________________________________

List any students you specically would not want to hire for your group (optional) 1. __________________________________ 2. __________________________________ 3. __________________________________ ____________________________________________________________________________ Please fold and staple this document closed before returning it to your instructor.

Appendix B
Sample Interview Questions
What are your writing strengths? What are your writing weaknesses? Do you work? If so, what hours and days are you available to meet with a group? Do you live on or near campus, or do you commute from a distance? Do you like to work at the last minute or get your work done well in advance?

Participation and Accountability Through Speed Interviews (Moline)

63

What college courses do you like and dislike, and why? What is your favorite role to take in a group project? What is your least favorite role to take in a group project?

Appendix C
Speed Interview Group Notes
12 sitting 12 rotating

6 sitting

6 rotating

6 sitting

6 rotating

3 sitting

3 rotating

3 sitting

3 rotating

3 sitting

3 rotating

3 sitting

3 rotating

64

II: How do I best select groups in my classes?

Appendix D
Self- and Group-Assessment Form
Your name: _______________________ Group Project: ____________________ Leadership Roles Who stood out as group leader? Who managed the tasks and deadlines in your group? Who managed the personalities and communication within your group? Conict Resolution Did your group experience any conict? If so, describe it briey and discuss how the conict was or was not resolved. Assessment of Self What tasks did you accomplish individually while meeting with the group, and how much time did you spend on each task? What tasks did you accomplish individually while away from the group, and how much time did you spend on each task? Assessment of Group Members Your name: _______________________ Group Project: ____________________ Please rate your group members on the following traits, using a scale of 1 to 10, 10 being highest performance and 1 being lowest performance. Do not rate yourself.
Criteria: Group members name Group members name Group members name Group members name

Offers valuable ideas to the group Accepts other group members ideas with an open mind Helps maintain a professional working environment Respects other group members Prepares for group meetings Attends group meetings Participates in group discussions Stays on task during meetings Meets group deadlines Submits quality work to the group

Works Cited
Business Students Rene Skills at Speed Interview Event (News & Events Deans Ofce, College of Business UNLV). University of Nevada, Las Vegas. UNLV,. Web. 2 Feb. 2011. <http://business.unlv.edu/deans/ news_display.asp?news=226>. Crombie, Donna L. Quick Tips for Speed Interviews. What Are Speed Interviews? Simon Fraser University, n.d. Web. 12 Mar. 2010.

Participation and Accountability Through Speed Interviews (Moline)

65

Speed Interviewing. Careers, Finance, and Investing: Money-zine.com. Money Zine,-. Web. 2 Feb. 2011. <http:// www.money-zine.com/Career-Development/Finding-a-Job/Speed-Interviewing/>. Sullivan, John. Speed Interviewing: Lessons Learned From Speed Dating. ERE.net. ERE, 16 June 2008. Web. 12 Mar. 2010. White, Brad J., Kevin P. Gwinner, David M. Andrus, and J. Bruce Prince. Unique Educational Methods to Improve the Veterinary Employment Selection Process for Rural Mixed-Animal Practices. Journal of Veterinary Medical Education 34.4 (2007): 51723. JVME Online. Web. 12 Mar. 2010.

Connecting Writing Process with Personality: Creating Long-Lasting Trust Circles in Writing Classes
KATHLEEN M. HUNZER
Roaming around the group of graduating seniors as they lined up to receive their diplomas at the University of Wisconsin-River Falls one semester, I stop when a hand taps my shoulder. I turn around and see two smiling faces former students from my ENGL 251: Advanced Composition class. They both hug me, clearly affected by the joy of graduating, and then the two of them tell me that when they saw me, they had to come and thank me. Thank me for what, I ask. One of them smiles and says, for 251 ... thats when we started to be friends. Upon further discussion, the two inform me that they were complete strangers before coming to my class but that they remained friends ever since, even being roommates their last year of college. They had taken the class two years earlier, so I was quite surprised that they had hit it off so well having never known each other prior to my class. In the following months, when several other students related similar reactions, I couldnt help but wonder: did the collaborative nature of our class alone create these bonds or was it something else?

Some Background
Prior to teaching ENGL 251: Advanced Composition at the University of WisconsinRiver Falls, I had taught a variety of writing classes at different types of institutions, and because I had been schooled in my M.A. and my Ph.D. programs in the concept of writing as a process, not a product and in the major ideas of social-epistemic rhetoric, I was well aware of the benets of having students feel empowered in their writing classes, which is why I frequently used small groups in my classes to supplement the other aspects of the classes the lectures, the large-group discussions, and the peer critiques/reviews but collaborative learning had only been an occasional practice prior to my arriving at UWRF. In a bold move once I was at my rst tenure-track job, I wondered what would happen if we used collaborative learning and worked in small groups every day in some way: to analyze texts, to brainstorm, to work on grammar/punctuation issues, etc. Would this structure allow the course objectives to be met? Or was this overkill? Once I decided that my instinct to use small groups and collaborative learning in every class period was appropriate, I had to answer that age-old question: how do I put the students into groups? Each class had different objectives, so at rst I tried a variety of techniques to connect the collaborative goals to the course
66

Connecting Writing Process with Personality (Hunzer)

67

objectives. In ENGL 100: Academic Reading and Writing, a rst-semester class, I randomly placed students in groups so they could meet new peers. In ENGL 200: Investigating Ideas: Reading, Writing, and the Disciplines, I clustered them by major and minor since their research projects were often based in their majors and/or minors. In ENGL 241: Human Issues in Literature, I simply counted them off by 5s and had all the 1s work together, all the 2s, etc. since they were from a variety of years, from sophomore to seniors.1 Things went primarily smoothly: focused conversation oated through the air; insights were discovered; knowledge was displayed; and the time ew by as we worked and learned together. But no one from these classes had ever come to me after the class was over and reported what those graduating seniors had said. When I was rst scheduled to teach ENGL 251: Advanced Composition (a course required of all English majors, Elementary Language Arts minors, Professional Writing minors, most Marketing Communications students, and recommended to all Journalism majors), I had to think long and hard about how I would select groups for this class since it was such a crucial writing class in the students majors and minors. I reected back to my previous experiences, and while I recognized that things went well in general in the previous classes, I also thought about some of the issues that had arisen. The main problem I had in the past was connected to personality conicts in the groups: the perfectionists grew dissatised with their less-thanperfectionist group mates, the procrastinators did not like being bossed around by the nonprocrastinators etc. Was there a way, I wondered, of clustering people based more on their work ethic and personality? Thats when I happened across a topic that has worked ever since in creating successful, balanced groups, or what I call trust circles.

Choosing Groups: Fostering Group Identity

On the rst day of class, I have students write an un-graded essay on the following topic so I can gain a sense of where we are beginning, their personalities, and their work habits:
Regardless of why or how often you write, you approach writing in a certain fashion. Some people, for example, write detailed outlines while others use note cards to track main points. Some people write directly into the computer while other actually handwrite a rough draft before sitting down at the computer. Some people start an assignment as soon as they receive it, while others wait until 2am of the due date to be inspired. The writing process that you have developed as a student is yours and yours alone; no one has the same writing process. Take a few minutes to think about your individual writing process and why you think you have adopted these strategies; after all, the writing process that you use relates in some way to your habits, personality, beliefs, etc.. After you reect on this connection, write an essay in which you analyze your writing process and what this process reects about you. The essay should integrate both of these goals seamlessly. Remember to follow all of the elements of an effective essay that you practiced in your previous classes. An effective essay will be at least 500 words in length. We have plenty of time, so make sure you proofread and make any changes as neatly as possible.

As I read the essays that result from this topic, I pay careful attention to what the students have to say. I put the procrastinators with other procrastinators, the type-A students with other type-A students, perfectionists with perfectionists, the eclectic with the eclectic, the stretched-too-thin with the like, and so on. Then, once students are in these groups, I tell them that this is their group for the semester (although I always tell them that if the group does not work out, that I will change them, but I have never had to change the groups), and so the work of establishing their trust circles begins.

68

II: How do I best select groups in my classes?

Because their groups become their support system throughout the class, I try to foster a group identity from the rst time when they are in groups. First I have them introduce themselves to the rest of the group. They spend a few minutes talking about their backgrounds, majors, interests, activities, jobs, favorite snack foods or movies anything that will help them feel more comfortable with each other from the start. Second, once they have met each other, they face the next challenge that Ive found is crucial to fostering trust in their groups: they must all agree on a group name, a name that will follow them for the entire semester. The group names almost always reect traits that the group has in common. One semester the procrastinators called themselves 11:59pm, which is when their essays were always due. Another semester, the ones who labeled themselves as easily distractible called themselves Lets get to wo look a turtle! One group of insecure perfectionists called themselves The Perfect Mess, and so on. The group name is entirely up to them and has to be agreed upon by all members. Years after students have left my class, Ive heard them still calling themselves by their group names on Facebook, in a study lounge, or in other classes. Therefore, the combination of the writing prompt and the group name seem to help establish trust early on in their work together. After nearly seven years of teaching the class, sometimes two sections per semester, and after over 450 students have passed through ENGL 251, many students have returned to tell me that they continue to keep in touch with their group-mates, use the same groups to work on other classes projects, or have been in each others weddings. To this day, this is the only group formation tool that has led to my former students coming back to me and telling me that they are still connected to their groups, their trust circles. While the writing prompt and the formation of a group identity are the two primary ways that I have created these very successful groups in ENGL 251, the building of trust does not end there. In a series of small ways, my entire class is designed to strengthen the groups ability to work together while allowing students to grow as individuals.

My Class Context
Throughout the course of the semester, the small groups work on a variety of projects related to professional as well as peer texts. When we analyze essays written by professional writers, students are given questions to consider about assigned readings. They know from the very beginning that they are responsible as a group to work through the answers. Sometimes I have to intercede and prevent the work from being done by one person, but this is rare since the personalities in the groups usually blend well together; many times I must shark the room and keep students on task, but this is true of any collaborative environment. When the time comes for groups to report their ndings, however, I do not have them do this the same way every time. One way that the trust circles share their ideas after they have collaborated together is exemplied on the day that we discuss a pair of essays George Orwells Why I Write and Joan Didions Why I Write the students attend to the following questions: Find as many similarities between the two essays as you can (but look beyond, they are both about writing): what do we learn from these similarities? Find as many differences between the two essays as you can: what do these differences show us? Find as many effective stylistic elements in the two essays as you can: what specically works in each essay? What specic citations support your assertions?

Connecting Writing Process with Personality (Hunzer)

69

All of the groups must prepare answers to all of these questions, and then we list all of the answers from all of the groups on the board so everyone sees all of the ideas. In this way, the groups work on their own to come up with answers, but at the same time, these smaller groups must still interact with the entire group. Another way that the trust circles work together to explore and then share their ideas is implemented when more questions are assigned, such as when we discuss a cluster of essays: Joan Didions Georgia OKeeffe, Virginia Woolf s Leslie Stephen, Annie Dillards An American Childhood, and Doris Lessings My Father. All of the small groups are told to prepare answers for all of these questions since they are told you dont know what question or questions you will be assigned: 1) How do these four essays qualify as biographies? What evidence supports your answer? 2) What was successfully done in each essay? What examples do you nd? What was not successful? What examples do you nd? 3) Who is being biographized in these essays? How do you know? Do we learn about anyone else in these essays? How do you know? 4) What overall signicance do you nd in these essays? Who, besides the authors, can learn about from these essays and what is learned? 5) What do these four essays have in common with each other? Find specic examples to support your points. Rather than assigning certain groups certain questions on my own, I randomize the assignments by having students choose an index card from my small pile, and on each card is a number or a pair of numbers; the small group is then responsible for preparing the answer to that question or pair of questions. So, in the example above, if a group chooses the index card with 2 and 5 written on it, that small group is responsible for presenting answers on both of these questions. In this way, the professor is not accused of giving easy or hard questions to certain groups, and, in a very strange way, the index card becomes a way to bring the groups closer together: the groups start to discuss who should choose the card, or who should not choose the card, or which card is the best, even though all they see is the plain front of the card. Sometimes the members of the group even used the Rock, Paper, Scissors game to decide who would choose the card, thus another type of unity developed within the group. Sometimes the trust circles perform collaborative writing tasks throughout the semester such as writing paragraphs or revising existing passages. In this type of task, I may give them a poorly written passage and ask them to use subordination or coordination techniques to polish the passage, or when discussing style, I may have the groups re-write a passage into a different voice: low style to high, high to middle, middle to high, etc.. In this type of exercise, students must work and struggle together to complete the task, and their collaborative texts are shared with the rest of the class via a document camera or overhead. The index cards are also used in this type of small group activity. A nal type of activity that the trust circles complete is peer review, which has proven especially effective in this class since the students remain in the same groups throughout the entire semester, thus allowing them to not only trust each other but to recognize their individual strengths and weaknesses within the group. For example, I once heard one group say, Margo, youre the grammar expert, so you get those questions. Brad, you have great structure, and then Ill give suggestions about sources since I do them well. Admittedly, the rst time we do peer review, students often follow the pattern that we have all seen where they like everything in the essays, but after they receive their rst grades and as their trust level increases, they often take the review process more seriously and learn to be much more critical because

70

II: How do I best select groups in my classes?

they see that they are helping their group mates and are not attacking them. Keeping the trust circles the same throughout the semester regardless of the collaborative task seem to allow students to work together more effectively and with better success.

Surveying the Students: In Their Own Words

After talking to the two graduating seniors mentioned early in this essay, I really began to wonder: Did the selection of groups in this class really work as well as I think? Or was their experience limited to their group? To answer my question, I sent to a survey to 100 former ENGL 251 students to gain a better perspective on their experiences. Only nineteen students responded to the survey, but all of their answers provided great insight into my question. What follows are student-written comments from these surveys2. When asked the question What was your overall impression of your group as the semester advanced?, the following answers were offered: Student #2: For the most part I really liked our group! We had a lot of fun, which helped me be more comfortable with group critiques. I wouldnt have felt as comfortable verbally critiquing them if I hadnt really got[ten] to know them rst. The casual way we eased into groups, having discussions about other things besides strictly class, helped as well. Student #10: As the semester advanced we all became comfortable with our own and each others writing styles which made it easier to give advice and know each others strengths and weaknesses. We would come up with little projects for each other and ways to push each others writing. For example, for each paper we would choose a certain literary function, punctuation, a particular verb tense, a specic word, and we would each have to include it in our next paper in different ways. It helped us become more familiar with someone new in our own writing. That is still the only reason Ive ever used semicolons. Student #11: Up until this class I had been weary of group peer review. It seemed that most often I would get paired with people who [k]new very little about correct grammar and writing. It was the equivalent of having a three year old correct my calculus assignments. This class, however, was my rst real positive experience with peer review. Every member of my group had something to add to papers. We all were open in critiquing each-other and overall had great success. It was benecial to have someone with a different writing style read over the paper and point out things that otherwise would have gone unnoticed. I remember a common discussion we had in our group was whether or not to use long sentences or short sentences. In the end it was personal preference, but it is just an example of one of the writing philosophies we discussed with one another. Student #14: I dislike group work on the whole, so I was denitely not looking forward to it. An of course, I sized up my group members immediately ... [and] there was one woman in my group that I disliked almost immediately. I felt she was stuck up and full of herself, and I could not see how she would be able to help me.... As the semester wore on, however, I began to really like my group.... One of the group members and I actually discussed ... how we relied on the different people for different input. Interestingly, this person was the woman I did not get along with. Over the semester, we became friends and have continued to be ever since. Student #17: When I rst met my group, I was not overly enthusiastic about working with them. My past experiences with group work had not been wonderful, so I did not have high hopes. I am not very good at getting to know new people, and most of the other members of my group seemed to click with each other right away, while I just sat back and watched.

Connecting Writing Process with Personality (Hunzer)

71

They seemed like outgoing, intelligent people, and I was a bit intimidated by them. After the rst awkward week or so of working with a new group of people, I really came to like most of the members of my group. I saw sides of them that I really had not expected to see from them when I rst met them, and became pretty good friends with one of two of them. I really came to respect their opinions and thought[s] on my writing, which made revising my work as a whole a lot easier after they had read it. These responses are representative of the comments made by all but one of the nineteen responders, which demonstrates non-statistically that the consistent groups as well as the collaborative nature of the class were benecial to the students.3 When asked the question, Do you still keep in touch with your group-mates? If so, how often and why? If not, why do you think you have lost touch?, sixteen of the nineteen students stayed in touch with at least one (but often more) of their group-mates or classmates with whom they connected. The following responses demonstrate the connections made between the members of our class: Student #2: I do still keep in touch with 3/4 of them! One just through Facebook and not very closely, another through other classes and occasional emails, and another through occasional emails and meetings on campus...! I remember this class group more than most others of my college career! I think it was because of the class atmosphere, and how easily we were able to get to know each other and talk within groups about class-related things and non-class-related things. Student #10: I still keep in touch with one of my group-mates, even after graduating and moving away. I think we just got to know each other so well through proofreading and helping each other on ideas for papers. We stayed close throughout the rest of my English career at River Falls, which luckily was two years since taking Engl 251 and we would talk almost daily as we had several classes together and we kept meeting in groups do to similar revisions to what we did in Engl 251. Student #14: One group-mate I have not heard from since. Another and I are acquaintances and will speak in class or in the halls, but that is the limit to our contact. My other group member, who was, ironically, the woman I disliked, and I have become good friends. We have had dinner together outside of school and speak on the phone frequently. In fact, we are both inviting each other to our respective weddings. Interestingly, she told me that she initially disliked me as well. Today, I count her among the good friends I made at school. Student #19: I do keep in touch with my group mates.... One member I keep in weekly contact with via facebook (we have to discuss important reality TV results). Another member I keep sporadic facebook communication with but have had a class or two since Eng 251 and we usually sit next to each other and loathe the professor together (not any class with Dr. Hunzer though). And the other member of the core group I keep minimal contact with but its not an awkward thing, we just normally wouldnt keep in touch. Such is life. Student #7: A lot of my group member[s] were only English minors, so I havent seen them around in the same classes, etc, but when I do see them I always say hi. There is one group member who was also an English major and I have many of the same classes with her and often talk to her. I also end up talking to people who were in that class but not in my group, well often bring up good things we learned or discussed while in your class. The other responses offered were similar: that the students are cordial to each other when they see each other on campus or in other classes, that they communicate through Facebook, or that they email occasionally as friends. A few students mentioned that although they did not keep in touch with their actual group-mates, they did keep in touch with others from the class, which is also a clear sign that the atmosphere created in the class was benecial to the

72

II: How do I best select groups in my classes?

students. As stated earlier, however, a few students did not keep in touch with their groupmates, and there are their comments: Student #4: No. One girl dropped out. Another got married and started hanging with a different crowd. The guy transferred. We didnt have Facebook back then, so it took a different sort of effort to keep in touch with class mates. Student #8: Possibly next semester, but not during the summer. Student #12: I havent talked to any of my group-mates since we took our nal in May. This is probably because our personalities and life-styles never really allowed us to connect past our time together in English 251. Although these are indeed negative responses, I do not think that these responses comment negatively on the collaborative atmosphere or the use of consistent groups; rather, these comments demonstrate their differing life-paths, not a disconnection because of their work in English 251. Finally, the closing question of the survey produced very interesting responses: What else would you like to say about your experience with your 251 groups? Student #1: I think that splitting a class like that up in groups is the best possible way to teach the class. It allows the students to discuss the readings, be accountable for their work, be actively engaged with the people they see in class every day, and get positive and constructive feedback on their writing BEFORE the nal grade is given. The class as a whole was a lot less stressful because you were automatically given group support. Student #4: ENGL 251 was one of my favorite classes largely because I had that intimate interaction with my group-mates. The professor had the perfect melding of structured and non-structured learning, but every second was a learning experience. Student #5: My experience with my 251 group made me appreciate group work more than I had before. I realized how valuable it can be to work in a group when the members were chosen and assigned for specic reasons. Student #7: One specic event stands out in my mind, we were critiquing papers and one member has failed to understand and address the assignment correctly. So I basically told her she had to rewrite her entire paper. This was hard because we were so close, but I think she probably was more receptive to me because we were close and she knew I wasnt saying it to be mean or because I was overly picky. Student #8: I have had peer reviews in other classes where students share their work with their peers on either side of their chairs/desks. This is not a benecial mix because people frequently sit by their friends who typically have the same aptitude and are of the same sex. Males and females bring different perspectives. Plus, by having a mix of writing aptitudes, the products (papers) improve and most importantly, the students broaden both their critiquing and writing skills. The semester-long group work allows students to learn from a range of perspectives, helps individuals recognize his/her weaknesses, and each person receives a variety of suggestions on how to tackle writing problems. Student #10: I really attribute a lot of my success during my undergrad college career to that class. Before taking it I felt a little lost and alone in my major and it not only gave me a chance to improve my writing, but to meet with people who were fun and who could help me at the same time. We all learned to push each other, but still have a good time. Student #11: That very same semester I had a reading class which also utilized group review. In that class the group would get together and discuss the readings for that particular week. However, I keep in touch with no one from that group. In fact, I barely even remember who I was in the group with. I have been sitting here thinking about what makes these two

Connecting Writing Process with Personality (Hunzer)

73

classes so different. Why, in one, did we form a bond while in the other it was just another class where we were going through the motions? It was while pondering this question that I had a bit of an epiphany. Writing is an intimate process. We put ourselves out there with each transcribed word. The essays we wrote for that class were often very intimate in their subject. We put our souls into each paper and were at the mercy of the group members to read it, understand it, and improve on it. In the process we understood each other, and sometimes, even related with one another. There was a more intimate connection through our writing that is not evident in the group work for other classes. Our writing was a vestibule for our friendship. Student #12: At rst, being in a group of people who were going to be critical of my papers made me really uneasy; however, as the semester progressed I got to know my group members and I began to feel totally comfortable with them reading my papers and being critical of them. The thought of having others outside my group read my papers denitely was not appealing because I had gained so much trust from my own group members. Student #19: Overall, this was a great experience. Group work does not work for every class but in a writing class it is crucial. I could not have been in a better group and would not be the writer that I am if not for the group work that I experienced in 251. Just about everyone is apprehensive when it comes to being placed in a group but everyone is in the same boat. Students produce better work, form better relationships, and develop better responsibility as a result of being in groups.

Drawing Conclusions
As I stated early in this essay, we are all well-aware that collaborative learning has benets to our students, and I have used small groups hundreds of times in various classes, but my experiences with ENGL 251 still amaze me every semester. I honestly think my use of my rst day topic is one of the main reasons this class has worked so well, but I also believe that the other qualities of this classroom atmosphere also lead to success: the pieces of the whole all function together in making the trust circles successful and long-lasting. First, having the students in the same groups from the rst to the last day of the semester and then doing a variety of activities within these groups has strengthened the students interpersonal skills as well as their trust in their peers, both of which benet the students in the class and as they go beyond our class. Second, planning activities for every day of class that rely on the students within a group having to negotiate and learn together strengthens their ability to stay on task and bolsters the sense of camaraderie that seems to unite many of the students on a somewhat permanent basis. Finally, relying on their personalities and writing practices as the sole way to cluster the students emphasizes the connections between the students rather than focuses on the differences between them. We have all had to work with people in a group situation where one person seems to take charge or boss the group, where one person is forced to do the work for the entire group, or where one or two people in the group struggle to keep the group focused and on task. I can honestly say that these faults of group work rarely occur now that I have adopted these practices in my classes. I am proud to be known in the English Department as the one who uses groups so well, and I am especially happy to claim that my small groups live on long after my classes have ended.

Notes
1. Barkley, Cross, and Major outline ten ways to randomly place students in groups, three ways for students to choose their own groups, and ten ways for the instructors to place students into groups each of

74

II: How do I best select groups in my classes?

their explanations act as how-to guides for use in the classroom. Ruth Mirtz, in her essay titled Model Groups and Un-Model Writers: Introducing First- and Second-Year College Students to a Writers Life, also discusses some of the practical issues you need to consider when assigning groups in class. A third source of great help is Brooke, Mirtz, and Evans essay titled Teaching From Experience: Claiming Small Groups. 2. One student out of nineteen had a negative experience with her group experience in our class: As the semester advanced my group broke into two separate fractions, neither wanting anything to do with the other. Two of the individuals in my group felt they were right about everything and were not willing to accept mine and the other two group members opinions. This, of course, proved rather disheartening: some of the members of my group had really good ideas though because we were unwilling to accept one anothers views, often these good ideas were wasted. Overall, my impression of our group by the end of the semester is one of apathy. Eventually, I too switched over to the know-it-alls side, though this is unknown to my previous fraction. No pedagogical technique works for everyone, so this type of response is to be expected.

Works Cited
Barkley, E.F., K. P. Cross, and C. H. Major. Collaborative Learning Techniques: A Handbook for College Faculty. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005. Print. Brooke, Robert, Ruth Mirtz, and Rick Evans, eds. Small Groups in Writing Workshops. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1994. Print. _____.Teaching From Experience: Claiming Small Groups. Brooke, Mirtz, and Evans 5280. Print. Mirtz, Ruth. Teaching From Experience: Claiming Small Groups. Brooke, Mirtz, and Evans 85111. Print.

Forming Peer Critique Groups Through Personality Preferences

MIALISA A. MOLINE
One of the key components to the peer critique process in the teaching of writing is to get students to understand that the peer critiquer gains more from the critique process than the writer. This concept can be quite challenging to get across to young writers since students tend to focus on the benets that they, themselves, gain directly as writers. Having struggled with student complaints about how peers dont offer valuable feedback, and continually explaining that exposing oneself to other writers choices, processes, and texts is what offers the real value in the peer critique experience, I decided to try a new approach: using personality test results (like the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, also known as the MBTI) in assigning peer critique partners. Students enjoy learning about their own personality preferences information shared through the results and discussion of the personality test results and students gain a fairly rich understanding of different types of audience, including the appeals that work best for certain types of readers. So I began, many years ago, to require that my own students of writing take the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator at the beginning of every semester, and I began to further use those results in assigning peer critique partners (as I combined them with a strong consideration of the teaching concepts I wished to highlight on specic assignments). This chapter discusses the process I follow in using personality test results to inform my assignment of peer critique partners in the writing classroom.

Background
The rst step in using any personality test to inform teaching choices in the writing classroom is to understand the test itself and how it relates to the writing process in individuals. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, for example, is a psychologically descriptive personality test that offers a useful schema for analyzing people (Locker 44). An individual must rst take the test, often available through a universitys career services ofce, by responding to a series of multiple-choice questions about personality preferences. This process takes a bit of time not to just take the test, but also to allow for the scoring, interpretation, and discussion of the results. For example, at my own campus, students must make an appointment with Career Services to take the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and then return to Career Services after the results have been scored in order to meet with a career counselor and discuss the meaning of the results. This process may take up to two weeks, depending on the current demand for career services time and appointment scheduling considerations. Once students
75

76

II: How do I best select groups in my classes?

obtain their results and report those results to the writing instructor, the writing instructor must think carefully about how to use the results to best inform the assignment of groups for the peer critique process. The best place to start for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, in my opinion, is to read Jensen and DiTiberios Personality and the Teaching of Composition. A synopsis of their Handouts on Personality and Writing has been included in Appendix A for your convenience. However, a close examination of the full text is strongly encouraged. The results of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, for example, fall into sixteen possible descriptive categories based on four pairs of dichotomies. These dichotomous categories include: I/E, S/N, T/F, and J/P. Thus, results include a four-letter code describing the current personality preferences of the student (ISTJ, ISFJ, INFJ, INTJ, ISTP, ISFP, INFP, INTP, ESTP, ESFP, ENFP, ENTP, ESTJ, ESFJ, ENFJ, or ENTJ). Students typically receive a detailed report describing what their personal results mean. Detailed descriptions for each four-letter combination, along with descriptors for each dichotomy, are available in Jensen and DiTiberios text if you would like to read further. You may also ask your career services ofce to forward students results to you. Following, you will nd a brief explanation of each dichotomy for the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (used as an example in this article), and interpretations for each letter within those dichotomies.

Denitions of the Myers Briggs Dichotomies

The I/E dichotomy describes how individuals prefer to focus their attention and get energy. Extraverted [E] types are energized by interacting with other people. Introverted [I] types get their energy from within (Locker 44). EXTRAVERTS try things out [and] focus on the outer world of people ... INTROVERTS think things through [and] focus on the inner world of ideas (Felder). Extraverts tend to generate ideas best by talking about a topic ( Jensen and DiTiberio 171) during the invention stage of the writing process, while introverts are better at creating an inner dialog (172) and expressing invention through planning as in concept-mapping, outlining, branching, and free-writing (172173). The S/N dichotomy focuses on the way an individual prefers to take in information. Sensing [S] types gather information through their senses, preferring what is real and tangible. Intuitive [N] types prefer to gather information by looking at the big picture, focusing on the relationships and connections between facts (Locker 44). SENSORS [are] practical, detail-oriented, [and] focus on facts and procedures ... INTUITORS [are] imaginative, concept-oriented, [and] focus on meanings and possibilities (Felder). Sensors excel at presenting factual information ( Jensen and DiTiberio 173) and evidence, while intuitors excel at presenting theories and concepts and at devising new and unusual approaches to writing (174). In the rst drafts ... [intuitors] ... present generalities without examples ( Jensen and DiTiberio 174). The T/F dichotomy reects upon how an individual makes decisions. Thinking [T] types prefer to use Thinking in decision making to consider the logical consequences of a choice or action to base their decisions. Feeling [F] types make decisions based on the impact to people, considering what is important to them and to others involved (Locker 44). THINKERS [are] skeptical [and] tend to make decisions based on logic and rules ... FEELERS [are] appreciative [and] tend to make decisions based on personal and humanistic considerations (Felder). Thinkers tend to rely heavily on appeals to logos, while feelers tend to rely heavily on appeals to pathos. Thinkers may need to enliven their writing with some personal examples ( Jensen and DiTiberio 174), and

Forming Peer Critique Groups Through Personality Preferences (Moline)

77

feelers may be overly sentimental (175). The J/P dichotomy describes how individuals orient themselves to the external world. Judging [J] types like to live in a planned, orderly way, seeking closure. Perceiving [P] types prefer to live in a exible, spontaneous way, enjoying possibilities (Locker 44). JUDGERS [tend to] set and follow agendas [and] seek closure even with incomplete data ... PERCEIVERS [tend to] adapt to changing circumstances [and] resist closure to obtain more data (Felder). Judgers tend to work with efciency, making decisions quickly; while perceivers tend to work well under the pressure of deadlines because they tend to use up all available time to take in all of the data possible. Judgers may too rigidly adhere to their original plans ( Jensen and DiTiberio 176), adhering strongly to deadlines. Perceivers may only begin to write when an external deadline is approaching ( Jensen and DiTiberio 177). One letter from each dichotomy is selected and ascribed to student results. These descriptors, taken as a four-letter combination, represent personality preferences in a broader sense. Further investigation regarding these results is strongly encouraged before using Myers-Briggs Type Indicator results to inform the peer critique process. One great way to start is to take the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator yourself, read about the sixteen preferences in some depth (see Additional Reading), and talk to your universitys career services ofcer to nd out more about what information students might gain from taking the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Many academic and business texts are also available for further reading about the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator. Additional texts relative to personality preferences and the writing process have also been included in the additional reading list provided at the end of this chapter.

Rationale for Using Personality Preferences in the Assigning of Peer Critique Groups
The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator may inform our teaching in a number of different ways. Consider the social construction of knowledge ( Jensen and DiTiberio). Von Krogh, et al. assert that, beyond the efforts of individual players, people work together in groups to create knowledge (13). Part of working in groups in the writing classroom includes peer critiquing. As Shirley Brice Heath illustrates so very well, exploring creatively the need for social connectedness ... offers us ways to create and tell new stories (376). As students consider their audience(s), they may nd new ways to persuade readers through text. Knowledge enabling involves a mix of deliberate decisions and going with the ow (Von Krogh et al. 17). Use of personality preferences expressed in the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator results offers students an approach to the consideration of audience that explores a wealth of rhetorical considerations. Kitty Locker rightly asserts that students will, ... be most persuasive if [they] play to [their] audiences strengths (Locker 44). Understanding how the writing process is affected by personality preferences can be useful. Understanding how readers assign value to different types of appeals, for example, can improve a writers rhetorical effectiveness. Considerations of evidence, group work habits, time management, and invention may also be affected. Through discussion and application of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, invention may become a thoughtful activity in student writers, less tacit in nature, and far more deliberative. As Karen Burke LeFevre claims,
... while we as teachers of composition will work with individual writers as well as writers in pairs and groups ... we must take into account writers inextricable connections to social realms beyond the classroom. Since neither the individual nor the group invents in a vacuum, we must consider the relationships of inventors to other

78

II: How do I best select groups in my classes? social groups and institutions, all of which impose on inventors various roles, preferences, conventions, and restrictions [133].

The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator offers us one such avenue in the consideration of social realms beyond the classroom. The MBTI can enhance students understanding of audience. Sharon Crowley points out that invention reminds rhetors of their location within a cultural milieu that determines what can and cannot be said or heard. The only effective arguments are those to which the community is prepared to respond, whether negatively or positively (168). Building a writers understanding of the diverse nature of personality preferences within a community encourages the writer to expand outward from their tendencies toward presenting particular types of evidence and appeals when attempting to persuade readers to action. Bringing appeals to pathos and ethos into the discussion of the construction of rhetorical arguments (through the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and T/F dichotomy in particular) helps students understand that all three types of appeals may work well together to reach a broader audience. Since thinking types base decisions on logical, objective, and impersonal criteria, and feeling types base theirs on personal, subjective values, the writing of each often reects respectively an analytical or a personal approach to both content and audience ( Jensen and DiTiberio 92). Aristotelian rhetorical appeals include appeals to logos, pathos, and ethos. Logos, or rational appeal appeal[s] to the audiences reason or understanding (Corbett and Connors 18). Pathos, or emotional appeal often [sways peoples] will ... more by their passions or emotions than by their reason (Corbett and Connors 18). There is nothing necessarily reprehensible about being moved to action through our emotions; in fact, it is perfectly normal (Corbett and Connors 77) ... emotional appeal plays a vital part in the persuasive process (Corbett and Connors 84). Ethos, or ethical appeal, stem[s] from the character of the speaker ... [and] ... Aristotle recognized that the ethical appeal could be the most potent of the three modes of persuasion.... Skill in convincing the intellect and moving the will of an audience could prove futile if the audience did not esteem, could not trust, the speaker [or writer] (Corbett and Connors 19). The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator preferences in the T/F dichotomy tend to favor the presentation of logic, facts, and statistics for thinking types and the presentation of human examples and testimony for feeling types. Students favoring both sides of the dichotomy weigh their own individual preferences heavily when evaluating a peer writers ethos. In terms of forming peer critique groups, matching the T/F dichotomy between students with opposing preferences offers both thinking types and feeling types the opportunity to get a better sense of what types of evidence they may add to bolster their arguments for people preferring different appeals. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator preferences in the S/N dichotomy tend to address the overall structure and details provided in a text. Placing students with opposing preferences together in small groups offers intuitors the opportunity to assist sensors with adding a sense of creativity and surprise to their thesis statements. Sensors may also offer intuitors a sense of focus and narrowing of the thesis statements and a discussion of possible evidence needed to support those theses. Sensors will likely have gathered a great deal of evidence to present and may need assistance connecting that evidence back to the thesis. They will also likely need assistance in writing transition statements and connecting sections of the text together to make it ow. Intuitors may be capable of such assistance. Conversely, intuitors will likely have gathered a limited amount of evidence but connected it back to the thesis well, yet leaving gaps in supporting material. Sensors may be capable of nding good locations to add important evidence, locating and identifying gaps in the text and suggesting ways to ll those gaps.

Forming Peer Critique Groups Through Personality Preferences (Moline)

79

The I/E dichotomy primarily has to do with how people maintain their personal energy levels and manage to balance social interaction with their energy levels. Placing extroverts together during the invention stage of writing offers them the opportunity to talk out their ideas, and then write them down individually, post-discussion. Placing introverts together offers them the opportunity to brainstorm individually in writing and then share their texts and ideas as a group, once their ideas have been put to paper. The J/P dichotomy tends to affect time management, which can be applied to student writing groups in terms of work habits. In the interest of enhancing collaborative writing groups, placing judgers together offers them an opportunity to work ahead, setting and following through on agendas and reaching closure on their own terms and timelines. Placing perceivers together offers them the opportunity to resist closure together and work efciently near the deadline, making decisions nearer to the end of the process. Placing a perceiver in a group with all judgers has the potential to create conict, as the perceiver tends to have more difculty following a set schedule within the group, hoping to resist closure for as long as possible.

Planning and Conducting Peer Critique Sessions Using Personality Preference Results
Personality preferences are certainly not the be-all-end-all guarantee that student groups will work well together. However, it is a place to start, particularly if an instructor has limited knowledge of those students and their writing processes. At the start of a semester, gathering as much information as one can about student preferences, strengths, and weaknesses will assist instructors in making informed decisions. Assessing the writing goals for a given assignment also must happen before you proceed to matching up students into peer critique groups. Assigning students to peer critique groups based on personality preferences can be challenging, based on the preferences of any given room full of students. The chart in Appendix A offers some limited insight into how students personality preferences might affect their writing processes. Jensen and DiTiberio have gone to great lengths to relate personality preferences to specic traits of the writing process, and these descriptions can inform an instructor of writing at the beginning of the semester much more effectively than just using guesswork, physical proximity, or randomization for the creation of peer critique groups. Assigning student peer critique groups based on personality preference must remain exible, due to the luck of the draw regarding which students attend a given class during a given semester with other given students. Using personality preference results, an instructor will have to examine the overall mix of preferences in the class and decide how to apply the results to the work of assigning peer groups. One may have ve introverts and twenty extroverts, or twenty-two sensors and three intuitors in a class. Dealing with the individual nature of students and their personality preferences means working with a set population of students, the mix of which you may have no control over (some added variables might include registration issues, prerequisites, class scheduling and availability of seats). To overcome such issues, an examination of the overall mix of preferences becomes necessary. I typically type student names and personality preference results into a brief database, to be used as a convenience for sorting students by preference. Then, I use that list to assign peer review groups. Like any classroom management tool, the use of personality preference results may inform, but certainly should not dictate, how a class is managed. Working within a exible approach to the use of personality preferences, an instructor might, as I do, mix up the works every time a new assignment focus arises. For example, if I

80

II: How do I best select groups in my classes?

want my class to work on brainstorming topics and conceptualizing how a paper might evolve, I will try to pair up students with similar I/E preferences. If I want the class to work on examining the use of evidence later in the semester, I will try to create peer groups that hold a mix of the T/F preferences. Because the Myers-Briggs types (the four-letter combination results) are so complex in describing peoples preferences in a comprehensive sense, I try to avoid using those broader results when applying personality preference results to narrow foci within the writing process, based on Jensen and DiTiberios ndings (as summarized in Appendix A of this chapter). By the end of the semester, students generally know with whom they like to work, and within whom they nd the greatest value in the peer critique process; so I rely less on the personality preferences near the end of term and more on the expression of students wishes much later in the semester. The Process: I rst have students take the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator with our career services ofce. After they have taken the test and met with career services about the results, I examine their results and record them for use. Next, I identify the writing aspect on which I would like students to focus during a given peer critique process before examining, sorting, and combining specic traits within students expressed personality preferences preferences that I think will complement each other during the peer critique process. Finally, I release peer critique group assignments to the students, either with or without guided critique questions. I do like to use a combination of open response and directed peer critique questions for peer critiques; but I leave that decision up to the reader, as it relates directly to teaching pedagogy and assignment goals more than to the creation of groups. One example of my own approach includes a peer critique session designed with the intended goal of having students critically examine their use of sources in a research report. Using the T/F dichotomy, I will try to place students in small groups that include people expressing opposing preferences. That way, the students with thinking preferences can help the students with feeling preferences in nding ways to add different types of evidence evidence that appeals to a readers sense of logic; and the students with feeling preferences can help the students with thinking preferences in nding ways to incorporate evidence that appeals to a readers emotions. Working within a given student population with given expressed personality preferences, an instructor may only attempt to gure out the best combinations of groups for the writing tasks at hand. Students do seem to appreciate this approach, especially at the beginning of the semester, if the MBTI results are appropriately explained to them by the test administrator and the use of the results are appropriately explained to them by the instructor using the results to assign groups. Informing students of your use of this tool as merely one tool among many in your toolbox will help them understand your rationale behind group assignment choices and help the students focus on their strengths during the peer critique experience. Table 1 illustrates a bit more about those writing activities I personally nd most useful in applying personality preference results and how I use the results to inform my decisions.

Table 1. Writing Activities and Suggested Combinations of Personality Preferences

Writing Activity
Brainstorming/ Invention

Benecial Combinationsof Personality Preferences for Small Groups

The I/E dichotomy: Placing extroverts together offers them the opportunity to talk out their ideas, and then write them down individually, post-discussion. Placing introverts together offers them the opportunity to plan individually in writing and then share their plans and ideas as a group.

Forming Peer Critique Groups Through Personality Preferences (Moline)

Gathering, Analyzing, and Presenting Evidence

81

The T/F dichotomy: Placing students with opposing preferences together in small groups offers the opportunity to discuss the value placed on different types of evidence and to whom they appeal (those favoring logical or emotional evidence). This oppositional complement offers students the opportunity to balance their appeals through evidence, encouraging the use of mixed appeals to effectively persuade a broader audience. The S/N dichotomy: Placing students with opposing preferences together in small groups offers intuitors the opportunity to assist sensors with adding a sense of creativity and surprise to their thesis statements. Sensors may also offer intuitors a sense of focus and narrowing of the thesis statements and a discussion of possible evidence needed to support those theses. The S/N dichotomy: Sensors will likely have gathered a great deal of evidence to present and need assistance with winnowing and connecting that evidence back to the thesis. They will also likely need assistance in writing transition statements and connecting sections of the text together to make it ow. Intuitors may be capable of such assistance. Intuitors will likely have gathered a limited amount of evidence but connected it back to the thesis well. Sensors may be capable of nding good locations where intuitors may add important evidence, locating and identifying gaps in the text for the writer. The J/P dichotomy: In the interest of enhancing groups, placing judgers together offers them an opportunity to work ahead, setting and following through on agendas and reaching closure on their own terms. Placing perceivers together offers them the opportunity to resist closure together and work near the deadline. Placing a perceiver in a group with all judgers tends to create group conict, as the perceiver tends to have more difculty following a set schedule within the group, and wishes for more exibility than judgers are often willing to give. However, judgers may prove too inexible in changing their approach to a topic, even when such change is clearly benecial; and perceivers may need assistance in focusing or narrowing their topic in the pre-writing phase.

Crafting thesis statements

Making connections / writing transitions

Group production of text large collaborative writing projects

Reecting on the Experience

One of the most important concepts to convey to students when using the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in the classroom is the risk of labeling people. Introverts can still socialize well, and extroverts can still function by themselves. They simply manage their personal energy in different ways. After a period of socializing, an introvert may choose to be alone to increase personal energy. After a period of being alone, an extrovert may choose to socialize to increase personal energy. People expressing a sensing preference can still see the larger picture, and people expressing an intuitive preference can still work well with details. They simply prefer one approach over the other. People expressing a thinking preference still have feelings; and people expressing a feeling preference can still think. People expressing a judging preference can still weight decisions appropriately based on adequate data; and people expressing a perceiving preference can still reach closure on a decision. Helping students understand that personality preferences may change over time is also helpful, and noting the risks of using the results to label people is important. The Myers-Briggs Type Indicator has taken criticism in the past for the labeling of people by type. Help students understand that type is not associated with dening them as people, but rather that the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator is simply a tool with which you inform your assigning of groups according to expressed preferences. Such

82

II: How do I best select groups in my classes?

an approach will somewhat alleviate that risk. While I have taken some liberties in that area by citing Felder herein, I have done so merely in the interest of efciently and concisely conveying the concepts and processes by which I personally apply personality preference results to the writing classroom. I take great care in helping students understand the dynamic and contextual nature of expressing personality preferences. I encourage you to do the same. Be careful not to label your students according to type. Additional challenges may arise when applying personality preference results to the writing classroom. Some students will strongly disagree with their results. Your career services ofce should be able to address this issue if they are administering the test. Helping students understand that your approach to using personality preference results is not set in stone, and that your use of the results is only one factor in the assigning of groups, should alleviate their concerns. Writing instructors already tend to weigh many factors in the assigning of groups for collaborative writing projects, including but not limited concerns of gender diversity, individual writing strengths and weaknesses, and classroom behavior; and the use of personality preferences only expands those variables we consider. But the most difcult challenge that I have personally faced in assigning groups using personality preferences is one of logistics. Certain results are more frequently expressed in a population, and thus I will often end up with groups of students sharing the same expressed preferences. I have found that creating peer critique groups of three or four offers added exibility in placing students with opposing preferences together (example: one student expressing the intuitive preference placed in a group with two students expressing the sensing preference). Overall, I have been happy with using personality preferences in my writing classes when forming writing groups. While it may not always be appropriate pedagogically, I have found that it does help inform the formation of peer critique groups when appropriate. Students have repeatedly expressed their appreciation of a thoughtful approach to the assigning of groups for writing tasks like peer critiquing. Students have been exposed to small group work typically running the gamut in terms of how those groups were assigned. Offering a thoughtful approach to assigning small groups, and explaining ones rationale behind such an approach, help students see just how their strengths and weaknesses as writers complement the other students around them. Students can actually see the value they might add to the peer critique process, and work hard to show their strengths.

Appendix A
Jensen and DiTiberios Handouts on Personality and Writing Modied, Condensed, and Categorized Into Writing Stages
Preference Expressed

I (introversion)

Prewriting You may have less difculty with writing than extroverts because you tend to follow the composing process as it is traditionally taught. Your writing follows the prewriting-writingrewriting pattern. You want most of your ideas claried before writing.

Drafting As you begin to write, you may pause frequently to plan further or to anticipate the direction of the text. You tend to write alone, asking for advice reluctantly and then perhaps only from close friends or during private sessions with a teacher.

Revising Because you generate ideas in isolation, your texts can be improved if you revise to connect your ideas with lived experiences, perhaps by adding descriptions of experiences or facts.

Forming Peer Critique Groups Through Personality Preferences (Moline)

You probably write with little planning, though you might feel guilty about not writing from outlines. You tend to generate ideas best from talking about the topic, interviewing others, or presenting an extemporaneous report. You nd freewriting a good method for developing ideas. Outlining is benecial after writing a rst draft, in order to clarify rather than generate ideas. You are blocked less frequently when rst drafts are unfocused, lled with a wide range of data or ideas. In later drafts, you can more easily bring balance to your writing by selecting the most important ideas or data from the rst draft and writing about each. Your rst drafts tend to be a recording of facts not always clearly related to a central theme or idea. You probably nd writing easier when given a specic framework to follow. You tend to pay close attention to mechanics in rst drafts. You generate ideas almost unconsciously and write quickly, letting one idea trigger another with little attention to mechanics. Your rst drafts may contain only ideas and generalities unsupported by concrete examples, which are left for later drafts or neglected entirely. You tend to organize ideas and ndings into categories or clearly formulated organizational structures. You focus on the clarity of content rather than on whether or not the audience will nd it interesting. Your rst drafts read as dry outlines in which key points are numbered.

83

Discussing drafts help in this stage. You may not revise until you actually receive verbal feedback.

E (extroversion)

S (sensing)

You collect large amounts of data, for each fact seems equally important. However, you may become overwhelmed by the amount of data and unsure of what facts to include in subsequent drafts.

You probably view revising as merely correcting or proofreading. You probably need to be encouraged to explain the implications of your data or ideas by adding or rewriting topic sentences, thesis statements, or summaries. You need to resolve unnecessary complexities, check your facts, correct mechanical errors, and clarify your ideas by supplying concrete examples.

N (iNtuitive)

You write best when given general instructions from which you can create your own goals. Developing a unique approach to the topic seems to be an important part of your prewriting, but you can become blocked by your need for originality.

T (thinking)

You are motivated to write when an assignment engages your mind analytically and is presented with a clear and logical rationale. Unless assigned topics for writing are presented with clear objective performance standards, you may view the writing project as a meaningless academic exercise and become blocked.

When revising, you may need to enliven your writing with personal experiences.

Preference Expressed

Prewriting You are motivated when given special encouragement and when projects relate to what you care most about. You become blocked when writing about a topic you cannot relate to your personal values. What is most important is for you to connect with another human being through your communication. You tend to limit topics quickly and set goals that are manageable. You usually devote time to include plans to stop at key intervals to analyze and revise objectives.

Drafting You tend to focus more on how your audience may react to your writing than on content and organization. You may be excessively concerned that your audience may be bored or that your ideas are inadequate. You may likewise become stalled by searching for just the right phrase or wording to capture the readers attention. Your process is to complete the rst draft quickly. You tend to make stylistic and organizational decisions quickly. Your quickly written rst drafts are often shorter than later drafts. Your need to complete tasks helps you nish writing projects, but it may also create blocks. When writing before nishing your research, you may have not gathered enough information to generate adequate ideas; thus the draft proceeds slowly and painfully. Writing can become easier for you if you learn to put a stalled project aside to nish the research or generate more ideas. You may have difculty dividing the paper into sections, and may thus believe you need a large block of time before you can begin to write. When writing, you pause more frequently than judging types, not to reect or anticipate as an introvert does, but to take in numerous alternatives. Your rst drafts tend to be long and thorough but also too inclusive.

Revising Because your concern for impact is often greater than your concern for content, when revising, you may need to clarify your thoughts or improve your organization.

F (feeling)

When revising, you need to re-evaluate decisions that have been made hastily, to consider more thoroughly the implications of your data or ideas, and to expand your writing to clarify or qualify bluntly worded statements.

J (judging)

P (perceiving)

You tend to select broad topics and dive into reading without narrowing your focus. You discover a multitude of interesting possibilitiesrelated studies in literature search, without clearly knowing what you will do with the information you gather. Your topics may be limited only as the deadline approaches.

When revising, you usually need to cut down the length of the paper or to refocus its direction.

Source: Jensen, George H. and John K. DiTiberio. Personality and the Teaching of Composition. Appendix 3: Handouts on Personality and Writing. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1989. 171177. Print.

Forming Peer Critique Groups Through Personality Preferences (Moline)

85

Additional Reading
Briggs Myers, Isabel. Introduction to Type. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1980. Print. Briggs Myers, Isabel and Mary H. McCaulley. Manual: A Guide to the Development and Use of the MyersBriggs Type Indicator(r). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press, 1985. Print. Jensen, George H. and John K. DiTiberio. Personality and the Teaching of Composition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1989. Print. Thompson, Thomas C., ed. Most Excellent Differences: Essays on Using Type Theory in the Composition Classroom. Gainesville, FL: Center for Applications of Psychological Type, 1996. Print.

Works Cited
Corbett, Edward P.J., and Robert J. Connors. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. 4th Ed. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Print. Crowley, Sharon. The Methodical Memory: Invention in Current-Traditional Rhetoric. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1990. Print. Felder, Richard M. Matters of Style. ASEE Prism 6 Dec. (1996): 1823. FirstSearch. Web. 8 Apr. 2003. Heath, Shirley Brice. Ways with Words: Language, Life, and Work in Communities and Classrooms. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1983. Print. Jensen, George H., and John K. DiTiberio. Personality and the Teaching of Composition. Norwood, NJ: Ablex, 1989. Print. LeFevre, Karen Burke. Invention as a Social Act. Studies in Writing and Rhetoric. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1987. Print. Locker, Kitty O., and Donna Kienzler. Business and Administrative Communication. 8th ed. Boston: McGrawHill Irwin, 2008. Print. Von Krogh, Georg, Kazuo Ichijo, and Ikujiro Nonaka. Enabling Knowledge Creation: How to Unlock the Mystery of Tacit Knowledge and Release the Power of Innovation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print.

This page intentionally left blank

Part III. How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

Collaborative Learning and Writing in Digital Environments

1

CINDY TEKOBBE , YAZMIN LAZCANO-PRY, AND DUANE ROEN

Thanks to digital media, everyone in the digitally connected parts of the world, in a sense, lives next to each other. James Paul Gee and Elizabeth R. Hayes, Language and Learning in the Digital Age (35)

As Lev Vygotsky suggests in Thought and Language and Mikhail Bakhtin in The Dialogic Imagination, the words of writers and speakers often reect the voices of others who inhabit the minds of language users. Bakhtin refers to these voices as social heteroglossia or the Tower-of-Babel mixing of languages (278). Writers facing a computer screen or sheet of paper negotiate [these] various languages (Trimbur 220), drawing on them freely even when the voices are not at the level of consciousness. These bits and pieces of Text which writers and speakers borrow and sew together to create new discourse (Porter 34) are more common than we realize. In some sense, then, writers collaborate with language users with whom they interact, including those who wrote texts centuries or even millennia ago. Although these kinds of tacit collaborations occur frequently, learners and writers can also benet from more explicit collaborations. For example, in Mind and Society, Lev Vygotsky makes the case for small groups when he describes the zone of proximal development: the distance between the actual development level as determined by independent problem solving and the level of potential development as determined through problem solving under adult guidance or in collaboration with more capable peers (Mind 86). Of course, it is a logical fallacy to assume that any given student in a group will consistently be the more/most capable peer. For one task in a writing project, Erin might be that student, but for another task James might be. Although these kinds of social interactions can occur in face-to-face classrooms, we will demonstrate in this chapter that digital environments offer even greater opportunities for students to work collaboratively. Unlike physical space that students inhabit together simultaneously, virtual space permits, even encourages, students to collaborate across time and space.

87

88

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

The Impetus for Teaching in Digital Environments

In a digital space, students can engage the course materials provided by the instructor, but they can also link in their own course materials that they have sourced from their own digital les or they have discovered during their Internet research. With search engines such as Google and Bing offering suggestions and providing links to secondary materials related to an initial search string, students can throw a wide net to capture examples to share with the class. Using the following free and widely available creative tools, students can use their own media to illustrate a point or pose a question: Personal Web sites, such as MySpace and webs.com Social media sites, such as Facebook Presentation tools, such as Prezi and Sliderocket Video and production sites, such as YouTube and Xtranormal File sharing sites, such as Dropbox.com and Box.net Link sharing sites, such as Bo.lt and Diggo.com Blog communities, such as Wordpress and Tumblr

A student can engage in a discussion about messages in advertising and submit a video clip supporting her claims. Other students can comment, submit alternative clips, or work together to design their own media for consideration allowing the kind of hands-on sharing that is not possible in a traditional classroom. This kind of sharing, showing alongside telling, decentralizes the role of the instructor, who is then free to act as an expert practitioner (Gee Good ) rather than a singular conduit of knowledge. Digital environments support dynamic peer review and peer collaboration as documents are easily shared, revised, and annotated with simple and freely available tools. These tools simplify the collection and evaluation of student work and allow for greater instructor time management as digital les can be easily stored, transferred, modied, exchanged and archived. File sharing services such as Dropbox.com and Box.net offer free space for uploading and sharing les, while URL sharing sites such Diggo and Bo.lt allow members to share online sources. These digital spaces require limited funding and signicantly less nancial support than brick-and-mortar spaces. They free students to manage their own time and adjust their own workload. Flexible le and information sharing tools may be particularly attractive to working, returning, and non-traditional students who may be balancing the responsibilities of employment or family with their coursework. The distributed classroom model, with students and instructors meeting together online from a scattering of physical spaces, improves accessibility for students who might otherwise be unable to travel to and from a physical campus. This greater exibility can also be leveraged to improve student retention rates, providing students with more choices and increased customization of their own educational experience. Digital learning spaces provide students time to read the course materials and comments of their instructors and peers, contemplate, and construct responses without the time constraints of a classroom discussion. This built-in time lag provides a framework for the practice of mapping, writing, and revising as metacognitive acts. The ability to compose written responses, review, and revise them before contributing them to the community for consideration can encourage increased reection and self-assessment because in the process of making their thinking clear to others, [students] need to rst learn that they can think about their thinking in very conscious ways (Smith). Students are freer to point out any perceived gaps in their thinking and writing, and to ask for feedback or assistance.

Collaboration in Digital Environments (Tekobbe, Lazcano-Pry and Roen)

89

Managing Time and Workload in Digital Environments

If some students tune in and out of the online environment, they may miss the appropriate response window, and the dialogue will have branched beyond them. Once a student has fallen out of the pattern and direction of the discussion, she may nd it difcult to re-synchronize with their peers comments. Therefore, it is helpful to establish a regular response schedule and evaluate student work accordingly. An instructor might decide that initial responses to discussion questions are all due by midnight on Monday, peer responses are due by midnight on Wednesday, and follow-up responses are due by midnight on Friday. When a student knows that she must respond to three of her peers for each discussion as dened by the course guidelines, she can make individual decisions about when and how much time she can contribute on any given day. Of course, this does not stop the ood of midnight writers, but it does provide benchmarks for the path of the dialogue.

Table 1. Reminder to Students Reminder to Students: Deadlines for Posting Responses

Midnight on Monday Respond to question posed by teacher. Midnight on Wednesday Respond to at least three peers responses from Monday. Midnight on Friday Respond to at least two peers responses from Wednesday.

Instructors can encourage earlier and engaged responses by entering the discussion and providing feedback to the on-time responders. This positive afrmation reinforces the instructors expectations and serves as a visible demonstration of the benets of sticking with the schedule. These entrance points for the instructor also establish natural openings to mediate or moderate the discussion. Checking in early can provide valuable information about how students interpreted the assignment prompt, thus allowing the instructor to shift the discussion back on track by reframing the questions when necessary. Although planning is critical to the success of a digital learning environment, the actual teaching obligation in the 24-hour, on-demand culture can quickly swamp an instructors resources. In this digital culture, instant responses are the norm, and students may expect emails sent at midnight to be answered within minutes. Instructors may be tempted to work when students are working because the vitality of the network in motion is engaging. Yet if student and instructor work practices are conicting, the idea of engaging real time with students adds large blocks of time to the teaching schedule. Instructors may nd it helpful to communicate in advance to students the windows of time when the teacher will be entering the dialogue, as well as establishing standards for responding to email, providing feedback and posting grades. The digital space, in its unbounded ability to produce instant and simultaneous interaction, without clarication, can unrealistically shape student expectation and undermine the integrity of the instructor, instruction and space. For example, it may be helpful to establish that for two hours each day the teacher will read and respond to student posts while simultaneously recording grades. Students can adjust to a 48-hour window for responses to email and can ground themselves in the knowledge that they will receive responses on their major projects within one week. Perhaps daily assessments are posted on Fridays or anything submitted beyond Thursday at midnight will not be considered. Establishing a separate forum for housekeeping and administrative questions can be helpful. Teachers can encourage students to respond to one anothers questions before the teacher responds by establishing participation in the forum in the assessment criteria. This can help to avoid answering the same question (e.g., how many sources are required) multiple

90

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

times in multiple emails. This self-help practice also supports student agency and encourages independence and responsibility. However a teacher decides to manage time and workload, advance planning, and clear conveyance of schedules and expectations will help constrain the additional time commitment of digital learning spaces.

Blogs, Wikis, and Discussion Boards2

Blogs, wikis, and discussion boards are effective virtual spaces for collaborative learning and writing. Because students can use these tools to share ideas with classmates, as well other people across the globe, they understand the collaborative nature of knowledge construction. Further, by sharing ideas with people who will respond with questions and comments, students come to appreciate that they what they write matters. Writing is not just something that the teacher assigns and grades; writing affects other people.

Blogs
Blogs (Web logs) are online journals designed to allow a user to launch a personal space with little, if any, Web site development skills and experience. Most allow readers to post comments and content in response to the blogger. Blogs are generally customizable and offer personalizing features, such as avatar images, color schemes and layouts, and plugins that extend blog functionality. For example, many blog sites offer plugins that link the blog to the users other social media applications such as Twitter and Facebook. Users can congure these plugins to automatically notify Twitter and or Facebook of new blogs posts or new followers. For those who work with holistic and portfolio assessment, blogs provide a seamless way to accumulate a students body of work because each assignment can be submitted as a single blog entry. In this way, blogs encourage students to see their assignments as connected and interrelated, which may undermine the list-making and box checking tendencies students often exhibit in their approach to the course syllabus. One possible method of running a course in blogs is to choose a blog provider, such as Wordpress, and ask each student to construct a Wordpress blog and send the blog URL to the instructor. The instructor then constructs a Wordpress blog for the course, and using the links management tool of the course blog, build a listing of all of the students names with links to their individual blogs. The course blog can be used to post assignment prompts and announcements while the students use their own blogs to respond to prompts and use the comments features to respond to the writings of their peers. Plugins can be added to link the course blog to the course le-sharing site, a site such as Box.net. The instructor can then load the course syllabus, assigned readings, assessment rubrics, assignment prompts, and other course documents to the le sharing site. The blog plugin does the work of making visible to students on the course blog page the available course documents housed in the le sharing site. Another possible approach is for the instructor to develop a single course blog. In this schema, the instructor posts writing prompts and assignments to the course blog while students post their work as a comment to each assignment. Students using their own individual blogs provides opportunities for more student interaction because they can post their comments on each others work, but instructors may nd it more difcult to evaluate performance because she must check each students blog separately for both assignments and peer comments. A single course blog allows fewer opportunities for students to respond to their peers but is more straight- forward for an instructor to assess and administrate. Some popular blog sites include Blogger, Blogspot, Wordpress, and Tumblr. Because blogs can be made available to the larger blogosphere (although most have settings

Collaboration in Digital Environments (Tekobbe, Lazcano-Pry and Roen)

91

that can be congured by the user to limit access to the blog), students can use them to share ideas not only with classmates but also people outside the course community. For instance, if a student in a writing course were crafting an argument that state and federal government agencies need to support the development of all-electric vehicles and the accompanying infrastructure (e.g., recharging stations), she could post ideas and drafts in a blog. In the collaborative learning space of the blog, classmates and even members of the general public could comment on the students ideas, offering a range of perspectives. In the blog the student could even post a link to a survey that she has constructed in Survey Monkey at no cost, posing specic questions to test public views on the topic. These kinds of interactions with others help students to see how learning is a collaborative process that others can help learners rene their thinking.

Wikis
By their very design, wikis are collaborative spaces. They are essentially Web sites that may be edited by multiple participants. Although wikis design functionality allows for collaboration, they do vary in scope and purpose. Therefore, it is helpful to conduct a basic online search for examples of what course wikis across disciplines and grade levels look like. The easiest way to construct a wiki is through Web sites that offer to host them for free. Popular options include Wikispaces.com, PBworks.com, Wetpaint.com, and Wikia.com. Instructors may simply follow the step-by-step instructions provided in each of these Web sites to design their own course wikis. Although collaboration is the central activity engaged in when using wikis, instructors have ways to control the degree of participation through the manipulation of wiki design features. Skepticism about the validity of information found in the most famous wiki to date, Wikipedia, reects the commonly touted drawback that they can be modied by anyone to say anything. This is actually a security feature and can be controlled by the wiki owner. If an instructor wants to be the only person to modify the wiki, she can congure the Web site to accept only her changes. Alternatively, an instructor may intend to leverage a wiki as a collective environment for students to submit their own resources and recommendations or to build a group project. Depending on the wiki provider, most wikis feature change tracking options that post the identity of the participant who made additions or modications, as well as the timestamp of the change. This allows students to see the contributions of their peers and evaluate their own participation in the group effort. Wiki features thus provide some reassurance against the concern that the wiki is too easily corrupted by participants. Because wikis are designed to be collaborative spaces, the following principle can help to design effective activities: Students are not only consumers, but also producers of knowledge. A wiki may be used to offer students the opportunity and space to develop and co-develop course documents. 1. An instructor can craft a syllabus, course policies, program policies, key terms, preferred sources and resources, and samples and models of assignments in a wiki format. This format allows students to self-navigate the course requirements and, more importantly, makes transparent the pedagogy of the instructor. Instructors can also use a wiki to provide a space for a student-driven list of key course terms collected and edited throughout the entire semester by the students themselves. 2. Students may also collaborate to design course writing prompts, projects, and daily assignments. Using the program and course objectives as guidelines, students can

92

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

work together to invent, draft, revise, and edit course assignments that they will actually complete. This activity extends the opportunity for metacognition beyond that offered by the time-lag built in to coursework in a way that encourages students to think about their thinking regarding pedagogically sound activities. A wiki is an ideal space for any collaborative project culminating in a single written text. A collaboratively written research paper may be composed from brainstorming to the nal product through wikis. Instructors may structure the collaborative work by developing wiki pages for each stage in the writing process (West and West 8890). Students may also use the space to design multimodal nal texts which incorporate images and video alongside text.

Table 2. Wiki Resources

Goal Understanding how wikis work Design a wiki page Resource(s) CommonCraft demonstration http://www.commoncraft.com/video-wikis-plain-english Wikia.com PBworks.com Wetpaint.com Wikispaces.com Additionally, the following YouTube video walks users through each step in developing a wiki on Wikispaces.com. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MK7C8Gjmn-o SmartTeaching.org http://www.smartteaching.org/blog/2008/08/50-ways-to-use-wikisfor-a-more-collaborative-and-interactive-classroom/

50 additional uses for Wikis in the classroom

Discussion Boards
Discussion boards and online forums are perhaps the oldest form of digital collaborative learning spaces. As such, they have an established linear framework that is dependent on time of submission. Discussion boards can be arranged to push the most recent responses forward or to sort the oldest responses to the top. But these congurations are limited by the established protocol of turn-taking post and response controlled by the movement of time. While this linear format may be a constraint, it is also easily navigated and provides a clear and visual representation of the shape and direction of a conversation. Topics that attract student interest are easily identied by the number of posts and responses. Because these responses are recorded and displayed in a hierarchy, it is possible to track the moments of change or synthesis in the discussion. This visual representation provides participants and instructors with a scaled view of their contributions and foregrounds the importance of student engagement. Discussion boards are easily managed and, because they are time driven, lend themselves to efcient scheduling and effective time management practices. Their innate record-keeping structure makes assessing student work a straight-forward task. Because they are ubiquitous, they require a minimal learning curve, and the practices and protocols of discussion board conduct are second nature to many participants. With a few simple instructions regarding aming, trolling, lurking, and toading, students can freely engage in the conversation with little intervention or moderation on the part of the instructor. And because they are so well-integrated culturally, most institutions already have the digital discussion board framework in place, requiring minimal construction labor and administration on behalf of the instructor whose only responsibility may be to populate course content.

Collaboration in Digital Environments (Tekobbe, Lazcano-Pry and Roen)

93

In our own teaching, we routinely use discussion boards for a range of collaborative learning activities. For example, when we post a discussion question in a discussion board, we ask students to respond to that question and then to respond to other students responses to the original question. Early in the semester we guide students so that they respond in ways that encourage further exchanges. First, we remind them that any negative comment can be recast as a positive one that accomplishes the same goal. Second, we encourage them to respond with further questions, preferably ones that evoke open-ended responses rather than closeended responses such as yes or no. We also ask students to post drafts of their writing in discussion boards so that peers can offer feedback for revising. When we do this, we ask that students offer feedback on at least three peers drafts, but we nd that some students often respond to the work of additional peers. In some cases, students may respond to six or seven peers drafts. Such displays of generosity can be contagious, inspiring others to respond to more drafts than expected.

Forming Small Online Feedback Groups

In physical classrooms, there are constraints on the size of small feedback groups because of the time available for them to work as the size of the group increases, each group member has less time to offer or receive feedback. In virtual spaces, though, there is more exibility in forming groups because they can work asynchronously 168 hours a week. In these virtual spaces, a group might have as few as three members, or the whole class could be invited to offer feedback on any given piece of writing. Also, the instructor can observe the work of all feedback groups, offering helpful suggestions when that is needed. Small feedback groups can work in diverse venues. For example, in course management systems such as Blackboard or Learning Studio, a teacher can establish as many discussion boards as necessary to assign students to small feedback groups. Commercial educational social networking environments such as GoingOn.Com offer similar tools, providing tools for students to share a wide array of projects with peers. Some teachers encourage students to work in Google Docs, where peers can synchronously or asynchronously offer comments, questions, or suggestions. When we form small feedback groups, we strive to match students with similar interests. For example, if four students in the class are writing about sustainability, we place them in the same feedback group. However, when we form groups, we also consider students complementary skills. For instance, if ve students in the class are especially skilled at editing digital videos, we might place them in ve different groups so that they can offer more expert feedback and guidance to peers who are less experienced with digital video. Such practices are consistent with the concept of Vygotskys Zone of Proximal Development described earlier in this chapter (Mind 86). That is, students feel encouraged to learn collaboratively because they understand how they are both benefactors and beneciaries in such groups. Of course, to help peers offer focused, timely feedback, we remind students that certain kinds of responses are more helpful at certain points in the process of completing a project (Diogenes, Roen, and Moneyhun). We often suggest questions to focus attention on learning outcomes such as the WPA Outcomes Statement: (1) Rhetorical Knowledge; (2) Critical Thinking, Reading, and Writing; (3) Processes; (4) Knowledge of Conventions; and (5) Composing in Electronic Environments. We also suggest feedback that reinforces the writerly habits of mind described in Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing (Council of Writing Program Administrators et al.). Beach, Clemens, and Jamsen specically focus on digital tools, categorized asynchronous,

94

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

synchronous/hybrid, and reective/portfolio-based (159). The synchronous digital tool of online conferencing between students and instructors, peers, and tutors via text, audio, and/or video chat, as well as the e-portfolio (174) are particularly effective in promoting self-assessment beyond the duration of the course. Table 2 lists a few of the asynchronous tools that Beach, Clemens, and Jamsen examine for the purpose of giving feedback to student work.

Table 4. Asynchronous Digital Tools to Use for Feedback on Student Work

Type of Feedback
Comments Blog comments Audio comments Highlighting and comments Collaborative word processing Annotation Web clips Video annotations Discussion

Medium/Application
E-mail; the track changes feature in Word WordPress Digital recorders producing audio les; podcasts Diigo Web site, a personal and collaborative bookmarking tool Google docs Trailre, a Firefox extension Evernote YouTube; Video Ant (ant.umn.edu) Threads via virtual learning sites like Moodle, Blackboard, Desire2Learn, Drupal, Ning, Nicenet.org

Social Networks
Social networks offer students and their instructors potentially rich opportunities for learning and collaboration. As Boyd and Ellison note, social network sites (SNSs) are dened by features that allow individuals to (1) construct a public or semi-public prole within a bounded system, (2) articulate a list of other users with whom they share a connection, and (3) view and traverse their list of connections and those made by others within the system (211). Despite shared structural elements, social networks construct and are constructed by many cultures and subcultures and can vary greatly in terms of purpose. Whereas some social networks draw people together based on shared language and/or common ground stemming from national, ethnic, religious, and sexual identities, others work to connect people based on what James Paul Gee and Elisabeth R. Hayes describe as a common passion-fueled endeavor (107). Gee and Hayes posit that a passionate afnity group is grounded on the feature which allows people to relate to each other primarily in terms of common interests, endeavors, goals, or practices dened around their shared passion (Passionate Afnity Groups 107). This conversation invites teachers of writing and their students to explore the terms under which they connect to people in their social networks in general and how this connection in turn shapes the collaborative learning and writing in those spaces in particular. Social networks thus exemplify the nature of Web user participation brought about with the Web 2.0, that is, one which also allows users to construct knowledge as they write and produce (Greenhow, Robelia, and Hughes 247).

Facebook
Facebook, driven by a mission to give people the power to share and make the world more open and connected, is currently one of the largest online social networks with over four hundred million active users (http://www.facebook.com). The social networks design functionality enables people to connect with one another in various ways, including through status updates, by sharing links, uploading photos, as well as through third-party applica-

Collaboration in Digital Environments (Tekobbe, Lazcano-Pry and Roen)

95

tions. Because many students spend much of their time connecting with others on Facebook, educators should seriously consider the potential pedagogical opportunities inherent in its use (7 Things). The following suggested uses are organized under several principles to consider when designing collaborative learning and writing activities on Facebook. Namely, educators should recognize, value, and cultivate the negotiation skills their students demonstrate while participating on Facebook to meet relevant course goals, and collaboration through Facebook can have the same purposes and benets as collaboration in other spaces. Collaboration through Facebook Can Have the Same Purposes and Benets as Collaboration in Other Spaces Facebook may be used in addition to ofcial course management software. To start, instructors should note that the co-construction of knowledge through the use of Facebook in the classroom may function much like ofcial learning management systems used by schools, such as Blackboard a context familiar to many instructors. 1. Instructors may choose to use a Facebook course group as a supplement to any ofcial course software used by their schools. Constructing a course group page on Facebook (see Table 3) helps to foster a sense of community among learners within a context which may be more familiar to students than academias walls. 2. Like the announcements section of Blackboard, teachers may use Facebooks notes feature to provide information to students. One way to do this is to use the course group page wall as a discussion board where both students and instructor may share links, post YouTube videos or images to engage in online discussion (DeCosta, Clifton, and Roen 18). A benet of using the Facebook wall instead of other discussion forums is that students may easily broaden the conversation taking place in their course group pages to their prole page where their entire network of friends may also comment on shared links, images, and videos. Educators Should Recognize, Value, and Cultivate the Negotiation Skills their Students Demonstrate While Participating on Facebook in Order to Meet Relevant Course Goals. Facebook may be used as a rhetorical text itself so as to study the writing process, notions of audience, and identity. 1. Writing in a virtual space, e.g., Facebooks wall, while intended to express ones identity, may also be seen as a form collaborative writing what Gerben describes as a co-author[ship] [of ] each other (Web 2.0). Guiding activity questions to cultivate this line of thinking may include the following. How do students use writing to coauthor the identities of their Facebook friends? How do their own friends in turn co-author their own virtual identity? What is the purpose of this kind of writing? 2. In addition to posing these exploratory questions in the context of the ever-evolving conversation documented on a Facebook prole, instructors may design a lesson where students study the writing process documented through status updates and comments. The documented ow of composing, Gerben says, directs attention to the notion that writing is in fact a process occurring within communities (Web 2.0). Facebook may be used by students as a tool to direct their own learning 1. Another space teachers can potentially use to help students become better writers is Facebooks Questions feature. Unlike individual user prole pages, which can be limited to friends only, the writing composed in the context of this platform is accessible to every registered Facebook user. How will students take this broadened audience into account when posing and answering questions on Facebook? Instructors

96

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

can also construct a writing activity wherein they assign students the task of composing a provocative question along with a well-supported and clearly expressed answer to both tap into and contribute to a wide knowledge base. 2. Students may also work collaboratively in either large or small groups to develop their own Facebook group page around a topic or issue they nd interesting and important. This activity will prompt students to think strategically about how they will use rhetorical concepts, such as kairos, to form a group that somehow connects to a current conversation occurring in the public sphere. Through the experience of choosing for themselves what purpose their Facebook group will serve, students will come to know whether and how their own digital rhetoric is effective with their target audience.

Table 3. Facebook Resources

Goal
Form a group Using Facebook Questions in the classroom 101 additional ways to use Facebook in the classroom

Resource(s)
YouTube user JayDsfsu provides step by step instructions on how to set up a group page http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cm0aDPRHiQA This page offers a detailed list of Questions features, as well as a couple of ideas for implementation in the classroom http://edudemic.com/2010/07/ how-to-use-facebook-questions-in-the-classroom/ Useful resource for instructors and students on using Facebook in a variety of contexts for a myriad of purposes http://www.onlinecollege.org/2009/ 10/20/100-ways-you-should-be-using- facebook-in-your-classroom/

Twitter
Twitter is a micro-blogging site that aggregates its users 140-character posts into feeds, or running lists of user posts. To follow a person is to subscribe to their tweets. Thus, a persons Twitter feed is made up of tweets from all of the people she follows. One effective use of Twitter is as a backchannel in a large lecture. The teacher can project her Twitter feed where it is visible to everyone in the lecture hall, and students can post tweets with their comments and questions as a backchannel communication during the lecture. This allows students to participate in productive cross-talk while providing instant feedback to the speaker. To explore writing within social networks, students follow established writers on Twitter. As students note how writers negotiatethe elements of audience, voice, purpose, and mechanics in the context of social networks, they themselves are made aware of their own engagement with these aspects of the writing process. This activity not only carves out a space for potential collaboration with expert writers, it also situates students as producers of knowledge. To engage with identity work, students can spend a specied period of time tweeting, perhaps a week, then reect upon the choices they made in constructing their posts what do their posts reveal and obscure? How did the responses of their followers shape their tweets? What is the relationship between writer and Twitter audience? How does context shift in social media? As an information exchanging tool, there are a number of other academic possibilities for Twitter: Information sharing Network building Research resource Civic engagement Public sphere research

Collaboration in Digital Environments (Tekobbe, Lazcano-Pry and Roen)

97

Online Writing Communities

Conducting a Web search on the phrase online writing community yields millions of hits. Online writing communities bring together writers who share common interests in genres and topics. People who join writing communities often display unbridled enthusiasm for writing and a generous willingness to offer feedback to other writing enthusiasts. Students who join such communities benet in several ways. First, they learn that many people in the world have a passion for writing and that positive affect can be contagious. Second, they receive feedback from readers who understand that writing has real-world purposes that writing is used to get things done. Third, they understand that learning to write is a collaborative, social endeavor that others can enrich the learning experience. They come to appreciate that people outside of college care about writing and learning to write. We encourage students to search for those online writing communities that most closely align with their interests in writing e.g., a particular genre or topic. We suggest that they lurk in the community for a short period of time to get a sense of how the community works. Then its time to share their work and to give and receive feedback in the community. The process is fairly simple.

Digital Environments: The Future of Collaborative Learning

As noted throughout this chapter, digital environments foster collaborative learning in several ways. First, students increasingly see digital environments as social spaces, virtual places to interact with others. Second, digital environments make it possible for students to interact with other people across time and distance; they dont have to reside in the same city, state, or even country. Whats most exciting about working in these environments is that new digital tools become available every day. With these new tools come novel opportunities to collaborate with other learners. When students work with other learners in virtual spaces, they more fully appreciate how their thinking is inuenced by other people. In turn, they better understand how they can inuence the thinking of others. Perhaps most importantly, students understand that learning occurs in a wide range of venues. When students use Web 2.0 tools for learning, they develop collaborative learning skills that will serve them well not just in the academic arena of life, but also the professional, civic, and personal arenas. By helping students use these tools effectively, we encourage them to become more effective lifelong learners.

Notes
1. For teachers who have not taught in online environments, we recommend Donald Hanna, Michelle Glowacki-Dudka, and Simone Gonceicao-Runlees 147 Tips for Teaching Online Groups: Essentials for WebBased Groups. Many of the tips point to work that faculty should do before entering a virtual learning space. We have also found helpful videos on YouTube and Common Craft, with savvy advice from teachers who have much experience with online teaching. 2. Blogs, wikis, and discussion boards are widely and freely or inexpensively available on the Internet. They can be innovative alternatives to institutionally provided digital applications and frameworks, but they can contain advertising of the site. Institutionally provided products generally lack the commercial messages of freely and cheaply available applications on the Internet, but they may also lack customizable and usercentric features. [0]

98

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

Works Cited
7 Things You Should Know about Facebook II. Educause. May 2007. Web. 30 Dec. 2010. Bakhtin, Mikhail. The Dialogic Imagination. Trans. and Ed. Michael Holquist. Austin: University of Texas P, 1981. 259422. (Original work published in Voprosy Literatury i Estetiki, Moscow, 1975). Print. Beach, Richard, Linda Clemens, and Kirsten Jamsen. Digital Tools: Assessing Digital Communication and Providing Feedback to Student Writers. Assessing New Literacies: Perspectives From the Classroom. Eds. Anne Burke and Roberta F. Hammett. New York: Peter Lang Publishing, Inc., 2009. 157176. Print. Boyd, Danah M., and Nicole B. Ellison. Social Network Sites: Denition, History, and Scholarship. Journal of Computer Mediated Communication 13.1 (2007): 210230. EBSCOHost. Web. 1 June 2010. Council of Writing Program Administrators, National Council of Teachers of English, National Writing Project. Framework for Success in Postsecondary Writing. Web. 26 March 2011. DeCosta, Meredith, Jennifer Clifton, and Duane Roen. Collaboration and Social Interaction in English Classrooms. English Journal 99.5 (2010): 1421. NCTE. Web. 1 June 2010. Diogenes, Marvin, Duane Roen, and Clyde Moneyhun. Transactional Evaluation: The Right Question at the Right Time. Journal of Teaching Writing 5.1 (1986): 5970. Print. Gee, James Paul. Good Video Games Good Learning: Collected Essays on Video Games, Learning, and Literacy. New York: P. Lang, 2007. Print. Gee, James Paul, and Elizabeth R. Hayes. Language and Learning in the Digital Age. New York: Routledge, 2011. Print. Gee, James P., and Elisabeth R. Hayes. Passionate Afnity Groups: A New Form of Community that Works to Make People Smarter. Women and Gaming: The Sims and 21st Century Learning. New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. 105123. Print. Gerben, Chris. Putting 2.0 and Two Together: What Web 2.0 Can Teach Composition About Collaborative Learning. Computers and Composition Online (2009). BGSU Computers and Composition Online. Web. 14 Aug. 2010. Greenhow, Christine, Beth Robelia, and Joan E. Hughes. Learning, Teaching, and Scholarship in a Digital Age: Web 2.0 and Classroom Research: What Path Should We Take Now? Educational Researcher 38.4 (2009): 246259. Sage Journals Online. Web. 2 June 2010. Hanna, Donald E., Michelle Glowacki-Dudka, and Simone Conceicao-Runlee. 147 Practical Tips for Teaching Online Groups: Essentials of Web-Based Education. Madison, WI: Atwood, 2000. Print. ONeill, Peggy, and Cindy Moore, and Brian Huot. Introduction. A Guide to College Writing Assessment. Logan: Utah State University Press, 2009. 113. Print. Porter, James E. Intertextuality and the Discourse Community. Rhetoric Review 5 (1986): 3447. Print. Smith, Cheryl Hogue. Diving In Deeper: Bringing Basic Writers Thinking to the Surface. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy 53.8 (2010): 668676. EBSCOHost. Web. 1 July 2010. Trimbur, John. Beyond Cognition: The Voices of Inner Speech. Rhetoric Review 5 (1987): 211221. Print. Vygotsky, Lev S. Mind in Society. Ed. Michael Cole, Vera John Steiner, Sylvia Scribner, and Ellen Souberman. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1978. Print. Vygotsky, Lev. Thought and Language. 1934. Trans. Eugenia Hanfmann and Gertrude Vakar. Cambridge, MA: MIT P, 1962. Print. West, James A., and Margaret L. West. Wiki Projects for Critical Thinking. Using Wikis for Online Collaboration: The Power of the Read-Write Web. San Francisco: Wiley, 2009. MyiLibrary. Web. 27 March 2011. WPA Outcomes Statement for First-Year Composition. Council of Writing Program Administrators. Web. 5 June 2010. Young, Jeffrey R. Teaching with Twitter: Not for the Faint of Heart. The Chronicle of Higher Education. 22 Nov 2009. Web. 3 June 2010.

Keeping Up with the Future: Using Technolog y to Facilitate Small-Group Collaboration in the Writing Classroom
KELLY A. SHEA
Throughout this collection and elsewhere, the advantages of small-group collaboration in the writing classroom have been well-documented and accepted as givens. Even so, many students report that they are, as one article describes, grouped out (Gillespie et al. 81) they have done so much group work that they are tired of it and, in many cases, fail to see the educational or long-term value. According to studies of group work analyzed by Gillespie and her colleagues, as well as their own study, students report mixed views about and experiences with small groups (81). Students remain puzzled about how to proceed in small groups, they become concerned about one or two people doing all the work, and they sometimes decide that the professor is being lazy or doesnt have enough material to cover the class time. These responses are corroborated by Peter Kittle and Troy Hicks in their article, Transforming the Group Paper with Collaborative On-line Writing, in which they point out that these types of problems can be compounded by [professors] ... fears of plagiarism, credibility of on-line sources, students ability to work (or not) across time and space ... and, of course, the concerns that writing teachers always face about peers reading and responding to each others work in productive ways.... (525). In addition, we must appreciate that there is a difference between group work and group collaboration especially when writing is involved. Helping students into the difcult area of true collaboration is a tricky business, indeed, and its one in which faculty are not always willing to engage (Cooper et al.). But we must, of course, combat these mindsets so that our students and we as teachers can reap the benets of small-group collaboration without being predisposed to disliking it. Contributors to this volume have discussed ways of enlivening small group work in their writing classes, focusing on developing clear group assignments, managing small groups in large classes, and directing small group work when there are special populations in the class. I submit that another way of making small group collaboration more meaningful, effective, and relevant in a writing class is through the well-planned and judicious use of technology specically, through course management systems (CMS), wikis, and blogs, as well as other, newer Web 2.0 applications like social networking (Facebook, MySpace, Twitter, and the like), video- and image-sharing sites (YouTube, Flickr, and others), and document-sharing and -editing tools like Google Docs or OneNote. Note that I am not talking about using
99

100

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

technology for technologys sake I am talking about using technology in an organized, effective way to facilitate the group work as well as the writing the groups might be creating. Kittle and Hicks point out that this work involves distinguishing between a world that is simply full of more technology and a mindset that encourages participation and collaboration in many new ways (526). Technology meets students where they live, which, for many students, is on the computer. Even our older students (and faculty) are now comfortable enough with email and, to a lesser extent, Facebook, that training them in how technology can enrich small-group collaboration need not be a daunting task. Faculty must be comfortable with the technology in order to do this work, but I would also suggest that it is okay for students to know more than we do in this regard. I am always happy (and somewhat relieved) when students make suggestions or troubleshoot about how a particular methodology can be improved for more effective learning or more time-efciency. Still, there are those who decry the use of technology in the classroom, saying it engenders exactly the opposite of collaboration because of its solitary and isolating nature. While this can be true, it doesnt have to be true if the technology is used correctly and to good purpose. Many writing faculty have determined that using computers in the classroom is important and useful. In 2007, Kairos, an on-line journal devoted to exploring the intersections of rhetoric, technology, and pedagogy (About 1), launched a new feature, PraxisWiki, in which teachers contributed narratives about their use of digital technology in their classrooms. In the rst edition, 15 college teachers published articles on using web-based course tools; the articles included three pieces on Blackboard; two pieces each on WebCT (now Blackboard) and Drupal; and individual essays on Facebook, home-grown wikis, MagicFunnel, Sakai, iTunes University, Segue, Flickr and MediaWiki, and turnitin.com (Kairos PraxisWiki: Stories of Digital Tool Use. Featured Narratives 1). All of the essays but one were contributed by teachers of writing at universities ranging from small to large. If this leading-edge journals example is any indication, then, composition faculty are right at the forefront of using the latest technology in their teaching. And many of these uses are focused on collaboration. Perhaps for obvious reasons, there is a sense among composition instructors that having students use, rst, word processors and PCs, and now, laptops, handhelds, and course management tools and social networking applications to engage in the writing process is going to help them produce better writing and is going to help their peers and faculty respond to that writing in a more meaningful, engaged way. In her report of a study on using CMSs to facilitate peer response, Peshe Kuriloff suggests that students write quickly and casually with the assistance of technology, and common sense dictates that we need to use technology to teach them to write better (36). This extends to helping students work and write better in groups, as well. Indeed, students seem to think that using technology improves their learning, so why not use it? We are teaching a generation of students who are more motivated by technology and are thus more stimulated by learning that takes place assisted by technology. This is borne out by a 2006 Educause study of students, The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technology, which summarizes that many of our respondents really do believe that IT is contributing to their learning (Salaway et al. 16). According to the study, 99.9 percent of the more than 28,000 respondents use email to communicate, 80 percent use instant messaging, 98.8 percent use computers to complete coursework, 94 percent use computers to access library websites, and 75 percent use course management systems, sometimes accessing them several times per week or more (Salaway et al. 6, 11). And is using technology so different from bringing in updated readings or textbooks or other materials that have the most current

Keeping Up with the Future (Shea)

101

research or including modern language or music or contemporary poetry to meet students where they are? Hasnt it always been our intention to make our teaching and academic information accessible to students through means that are currently relevant? In the 21st century, does not using and even exploiting computer technology fall into this category? This clearly is where students are.

Course Management Systems (CMS) in the Composition Classroom

As a professor at a university that, since 1999, has required its undergraduates to buy into a laptop initiative, I have regularly used course management systems, i.e., BlackBoard and more recently, Sakai, for paired and small-group collaboration in the face-to-face composition classroom. Not a semester has gone by in 10 years in which I havent used it. My primary use of the CMS is in peer response. The students post all of their writing (prewriting, outlines, preliminary drafts, and nal drafts) in the discussion board individually and then respond to others (and their own) in a number of ways (see below). This is all done quite publicly; that is, all the students can see (and respond to) each others writing. The only part of the process they cant all see is the nal grade. I also use the CMS for informal small-group work in class the students might be asked to answer a few questions in a small group and post their groups responses in a discussion board forum. I will also use the formal group area in the CMS for organized small groups (those working on presentations, for instance) to collaborate around ideas, meetings, and nal projects. This work has been done in rst-year, upper-class, and graduate writing courses all my classes do peer response and small-group collaborations. In addition, I used the CMS wiki feature in an extremely intensive way in a graduate class on scientic and technical writing, where small groups collaborated on wiki pages that came together to form a larger wiki on the different types of scientic and technical writing.

Course Management Systems for Peer Response

The writing courses I teach are hybrids we meet face-to-face twice weekly (once per week in the case of graduate courses), but we use the CMS daily to keep the class materials centralized and organized and to complete in-class and out-of-class writings and peer response. This last application is probably the most important feature of my use of the CMS. For my classes, peer response forms the backbone of small-group collaboration. I ask students to post their writing and then read and respond to their classmates responses and to my comments to that writing. We most often use the CMS in class for peer review of formal essays. Students post their drafts in the discussion board; their partners download them, save, read, and add comments to those versions; and then post the new versions as a reply to the original students threads. They are given directions as to how to do the peer review (see Appendix A); the technical directions are given verbally. The students are put into pairs in various ways sometimes its based on geography (whom theyre sitting next to or whom theyre avoiding), sometimes its based on topic (if they are writing on the same essay, poem, or short story or on a totally different one), sometimes its based on the order in which students have posted (I just go down the list pairing them up), sometimes its based on nothing in particular, and the students are just randomly assigned. The students then sit with their partners in class (sometimes this involves actually getting up and moving around, a process that itself needs to be managed,

102

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

but one that can be very effective at perking everyone up) and discuss the comments. This is time-consuming, but when draft day comes around (about every two weeks), everyone knows that their drafts need to be posted or some will not have writing to read during class. After peer review, I download the peer-reviewed versions, write my comments (I typically hand-write with a tablet PC stylus, but typed comments also work, just as long as theyre distinguished from the peer responders and the actual writers typing all capitals work, too, and theres the Comment function in Word), and then post those documents as replies to the original threads. This system means that all students have the ability to see each others writing and all responses to it but this is no different from most writing workshops. What this also means is that we need to quickly develop a community of trust, which, again, is required in any writing course. Typically, I nd that students are not necessarily clicking on all of their classmates threads and reading every paper submission. That can be fairly timeconsuming. Does this work? Once the initial hesitation wears off (mostly because students know we are going to do it for every draft and they quickly learn its value and its necessity), most students seem to appreciate the idea of giving and receiving helpful, structured feedback to their peers, whether its on an essay, an in-class writing assignment, or a presentation. Not surprisingly, one student, in an anonymous survey about our class use of the CMS, expressed concern about others being able to see his/her writing and I have had the occasional student who has written about a topic that is very personal and will request that only I, not a peer, read it. I do offer this as an option and I will grant such requests. They typically occur only once, though, at the beginning of the semester. I even had one graduate student who dropped out of a writing class because she was deeply uncomfortable with the process. I fear that I might not have explained it effectively. And certainly, every semester students will complain about the CMS being down, but the student feedback I have received on peer review using the CMS has been overwhelmingly positive. In course evaluations, students routinely report that peer response (and technology) has been one of the most valuable aspects of the class. As one undergraduate pointed out, Being able to post papers on this discussion board for the classroom has made everything less stressful, and it was a much easier method of submitting ideas and papers. I really enjoyed being able to have my paper reviewed several times by different people so I was able to get many different perspectives on what would I could change with my paper.

Course Management Systems for Small-group Writing and Presentations

Another way that I have used the course management system is for small-group writing and presentations. While I do like having students write individual responses to in-class writing prompts, I have come to rely on the CMS for small-group responses as well. A typical in-class writing (ICW) assignment, which would be basically the same whether it was on-line or hand-written, asks the students to answer a few questions about an essay or piece of literature (see Appendix B for a sample in-class writing assignment). However, the collaborative twist is to put them in small groups (as with peer response, I have many different ways of grouping students, from having them count off, to having them separate based on where they are seated, to grouping them by essay peer-review partners, to having them group up on their own) and have them read, discuss, negotiate, and write the answers to the questions as a group, then report the answers to the class for further discussion. This requires that they choose a scribe (someone who types the answers for the entire group into the forum this is put into just

Keeping Up with the Future (Shea)

103

one thread but all the group members names are included so everyone gets credit) as well as a reporter someone who takes responsibility for sharing (sometimes, but not always, reading) the groups responses with the class. My classes are fairly small (around 20 students), so the groups could be as small as a pair or as large as four or ve. I prefer groups of three or four at the most. That size seems to be most productive and one that doesnt lend itself to one person doing all the work. The most important aspect of this exercise, of course, is the negotiation of responses. I tell the groups that they ultimately have to come up with answers that the entire group agrees on. As I train and facilitate the group work, I encourage students to actually engage in a conversation about the question who in the group answers the question a certain way and why, and where in the text (always referring back to a text) do they nd these answers? Whose answer makes the most sense? How might they combine or rene the individual answers to come up with a more thorough or sophisticated group answer? Then, after they have negotiated an answer, they develop a written response that they post. Sometimes the scribe does a great deal of the writing, at other times the scribe will actually wait for the group members to direct him/her in what to write. Then, when the entire class regroups as a whole, it is up to the reporter (often with the help of the group members) to fairly represent what the group has said or written. Sometimes, it is a matter of the reporter simply reading the response that has been written. Then, hopefully, the class as a whole will continue to discuss the topic. Facilitating and observing this process can be so rewarding. A bit of cajoling and returning the students to task may be required at rst, but students get involved in both academic and social (which is not so bad, in small doses) conversations in the small group that they might not have in the larger class. Because there are typically only two or three people in the group, everyone needs to nd a way to talk, even if they might be reticent to speak in the larger class. Sometimes groups have forgotten to choose a reporter, and then I have the opportunity of gently encouraging someone who might not have volunteered to do it. Again, they might only read what the group has posted, but it is still worthwhile to get them to participate. In a small class, many advantages to doing small group work exist: I can walk around from group to group to ensure that everyone is participating, I can give each group one of the several questions I want the class to consider that day, the students all get to know each other quickly, and, of course, it keeps the students more actively engaged. For instance with in-class writing questions in Appendix B, I can put the class into ve groups and then assign each group one question. Sometimes the groups will be given a few questions to answer, and the students will try to assign one question to each member to answer, but I do not allow this. That is not collaboration that is individuals working separately within a group and I make it clear that is not what Im looking for. Sometimes I give more than one group the same question, and it becomes a competition, of sorts, to see who comes up with the best response. In these situations, it is not uncommon to see groups talking more quietly so that another group with the same question doesnt hear their deliberations. Of course, the best-laid plans do not always succeed, and problems can arise. Sometimes no one in the group seems to understand either the directions, the question(s), and/or the process, and the answers are general, thin, or short. Sometimes the students will just try to nish as quickly as possible, and the small-group discussion and the results remain somewhat surface-level. Another problem is that sometimes the group work takes so long that we run out of time to hear from all the groups. Then, when we come back together (sometimes in two days, sometimes in ve days), it can be a bit difcult to resume the discussion. Trying to be vigilant in terms of how much time to give the groups to do their work in class is key. In any case, the trick is not to give up. Just as with peer response, students need to engage in

104

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

the process repeatedly in order to get better at it. And the students do seem to like breaking away from the large-group format at least once a week. For them, the work provides variety, interest, and a break from the traditional setting. In the anonymous survey, one undergraduate student reported that s/he likes using the CMS for in-class discussion questions: It allowed us to see what the other students wrote anytime we want instead of just hearing it when being questioned about it in class. Even one of my graduate students thought that it was effective to use the discussion board aspect of [the CMS] ... through all facets of the course (in-class work, free-writing, group discussion, assignments, etc.), as this offered a central meeting ground for us to communicate and respond to each other. I have observed that reluctant participants often become less frightened of joining in, even of speaking aloud in class, after they have posted a few responses to in-class writing prompts, worked in a small group on in-class discussion questions, and completed one or two peer response sessions. I also use this type of group work for setting up or checking in on group presentations. I might use the formal group area of the CMS (most have a separate section you can manipulate for group work) or the class discussion board to post a forum that asks each group to write about what theyre working on, what progress the group is making, what questions or problems that have come up, and how theyve solved their problems up to this point. Doing this helps to keep the groups on task and lets them use some class time to work on their presentations as well as to show the results of that in-class work to make sure it is productive time. Students often report that nding time to work together as a group outside of class is difcult, so I will give them in-class time, but they have to clearly account for it in their group posts. By allowing this, the students will often come up with far better presentations.

Wiki for Small-group Writing in Presentations

Another twist on using technology for a group presentation is using a wiki to develop the group work. I used this technique in a joint grad/undergrad scientic and technical writing class. The small-group presentation assignment was to create a wiki page (or set of pages) that dened and displayed different types of scientic or technical writing for a lay audience or for a student who might be interested in understanding what exactly constituted scientic writing or technical writing. Essentially the students, in ve groups of three, ended up creating a website of sorts that could be used as a resource for scientic and technical writers. Each segment of the wiki which the students broke up into the scientic narrative, the how-to manual, the technical report, the project proposal, and scientic journalism had images, denitions, examples, and links to other relevant sites. The groups had to collaboratively write the text for the site as well as decide together about what their part of the wiki would look like from a design perspective. In addition, they were charged with not only nding good examples of their chosen type of writing from outside the classroom but also deciding on at least one example from their classmates submissions. Depending on their interests, each member of the class had already written at least four examples of the genres, so there were several student samples from which to choose. Negotiating what would be written, included, and organized took a great deal of time and effort. Another unusual aspect to this project was that the groups were a mixture of graduate and undergraduate students it was an upper-level class, so they were all fairly competent and condent writers and students, but that layer of varying experience and expertise added a need for even more ne-tuning to the group work. I needed to be careful to have a mixture of graduate and undergraduate

Keeping Up with the Future (Shea)

105

students in each group, and each group (and I) had to ensure that no one did more work than another. While it is sometimes difcult to track, regular checkups on the groups progress allowed me to see and hear what was working and what was not working. In order to get a sense of the groups progress, in addition to asking the group as a whole, I would also ask the individuals of the group to either report verbally in class or post an in-class writing response, answering the questions, How is your project going so far? What is working well? What is not working well? Are there any particular problems the group is having? What solutions has the group developed for solving these problems? Do you need any help from me? These questions try to get at whether the group is progressing or whether it is having any of the problems typical to group work: trouble gathering, trouble organizing, one person doing too much or too little work, and/or leadership problems. For this project, the students created the wiki inside of the CMS of our course. They came out extremely well the students essentially developed excellent websites. Unfortunately, the technology that the students used to create the wiki also resulted in my not being able to resurrect all that hard work. Because it was housed in our CMS and the wiki tool has since changed the original wiki is not visible in the old course. This, of course, points to a major disadvantage of using technology for collaboration we need to make sure it remains accessible, or the results of the collaboration cannot be shared widely. I could have published it on-line after the semester had ended, but I did not have permission from all the students, so that is crucial to keep in mind if one is going to try to take students technology work products live.

Other Uses of Technolog y for Collaborative Small-group Work

Faculty can use technology and small groups in many ways within creatively conceived writing assignments having groups create Facebook pages to set up ctional businesses or to develop the lives of ctional characters, using Twitter group projects to teach the value of tight writing in marketing or other classes, or teaching groups to write digital stories about their own (or others) lives and posting them on YouTube. These newer technologies create new possibilities, which are, of course, endless, as long as the faculty have proper pedagogical goals and training and as long as they can be explicit with the students about those goals and educational outcomes (Gillespie et al. 100). Kittle and Hicks discussion of on-line collaboration with group paper-writing is quite intriguing: they describe this work with new literacies (525), including the document-sharing and document-development tools in Google Docs and wikis, through which on-line groups create multi-genre writing and on-line collaborative manuals (529535). My students have done a few of these types of projects, and in different environments for instance, the wiki project described above was completed mostly face-to-face, not on-line but I would like to do more and will use their article as a resource. One extremely interesting adaptation of using a CMS in a composition course setting is related by Peshe Kuriloff in Rescuing Writing Instruction. Kuriloff describes an on-line learning assignment that resulted in a distance-learning project in a three-credit writing course; students were put into CMS-based writing groups that worked with each other virtually (online) on shorter assignments, but over the course of an entire academic year. They also responded to each others writing from other classes (36). As a result of this program, Kuriloff says,
students in the electronic writing groups learned as much as and, in some cases, more about important aspects of writing than their counterparts in traditional com-

106

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments? parison groups. Outside evaluators judged the written work ... as equal and, in some cases, superior ... students found their instructors more accessible, and they experienced a stronger sense of community than did the students who met their instructors and classmates twice a week face-to-face [41].

Final Thoughts
Kuriloff s statements are bold claims, indeed, and she adds the analysis that this model could actually cost less than traditionally structured composition courses (41). Even more interesting is the wisdom that this project indirectly imparts: Do not to try to do too much all at once, especially if new to teaching with technology. New writing instructors who want to use technology in their teaching should choose a few areas on which to focus say, small groups collaborating on in-class writing prompts or paired or small-group peer response in writing classes and incorporate additional features as time and experience permit. As the students in the Educause study point out, keep the use moderate dont overdo it (Salaway et al. 11). To some, my and others work with technology and small-group collaboration in the writing classroom may seem too leading-edge, to others it might already seem old-school. Certainly there is a great deal more that can be done and is being done with digital technology in the writing classroom. Indeed, according to a 2007 editorial by Edward Maloney, the so-called Web 2.0 applications (wikis, blogs, social networking software, and so on) are much more highly functional in the classroom than are course management systems (also known as learning management systems) (B26). Maloney contends that, Course-management systems were not created to enhance learning, but to make it easier to deliver materials to students, and further claims that Web 2.0 tools are better for the classroom because they use newer information sharing and knowledge management technology rather than content delivery technology, which forms the basis of most CMSs (Maloney B26). This may be true, but there are many faculty members who would say that they are using CMSs to enhance smallgroup learning, particularly in the writing classroom and I am among them. Using a prefabricated CMS is a good way to start, actually, because so much can be built in to the faculty members specications and the software has been designed with different teaching situations in mind. In fact, according to a 2003 Educause-sponsored study conducted at the University of Wisconsin system titled, Faculty Use of Course Management Systems, while there is little empirical evidence that course management systems actually improve pedagogy ... using a CMS does invite faculty to rethink their course instruction and instructional environment, which has the pedagogical side effect of enabling better course organization, providing greater transparency and accountability in the course, and potentially increasing student engagement with the materials (Morgan 13). Indeed, I do believe the use of technology has improved students learning and my own teaching in the collaborative writing classroom. I urge my faculty colleagues to try it. With the amount of faculty input and ease of use built into the current course management system products out there, faculty can be successful fairly quickly. Students truly do seem to appreciate the effort I make to incorporate technology into our classes. They are there, so they enjoy the fact that I try to be there with them. If its done well, the students will very likely nd themselves more actively engaged in their learning and they will thus actually learn more.

Acknowledgements
The author wishes to acknowledge Seton Hall Universitys Institutional Review Board, which approved the studies referenced herein. In addition, much of the student-oriented study

Keeping Up with the Future (Shea)

107

of course management system use was rst published in the PraxisWiki section of Kairos, the on-line journal. Finally, thanks to my students and faculty colleagues who have generously shared many conversations on group work, technology, writing, and their intersections over the years.

Appendix A
Peer Response Form
GUIDELINES FOR PEER RESPONSE Authors Name ____________________ Responders Name ____________________ Please follow the steps below, answering questions when asked. Keep in mind that the purpose of peer response is to help each other write better. 1. Read your classmates composition. 2. Can you nd a thesis statement? _______ Yes _______ No _______ I dont know. 3. If you think you can nd a thesis statement, what is your opinion about it? _______ 100% clear _______ 75% clear _______ 50% clear _______ Not clear at all. 4. What do you think is the best aspect of your classmates writing? What do you like the best? 5. Underline everything in your classmates writing that you dont understand. 6. Write down all the questions you have about your classmates writing. After you have answered these questions, discuss them and the writing with the author. Remember that you are writing for each other, so its important that you understand each others writing. Please tell the author what you think because it can help him/her write something really good.

Appendix B
Sample in-class writing assignment
The Metamorphosis by Franz Kafka 1. What did you think when you read that the protagonist had been transformed into a bug? What do you think it means? 2. How does the family regard Gregor before and after the metamorphosis? Does his family exploit him? 3. Identify several symbols or revealing details in the story, i.e., food, the hospital,Gregors job. 4. How do you interpret the ending of the story? What does Kafka mean when he writes it would soon be time to look for a good husband for [Grete]? 5. Is this story a masterpiece of ction? Why or why not? Source
DiYanni, Robert. Literature: Reading Fiction, Poetry, and Drama. 6th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill, 2007. 641642. Print.

108

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

Works Cited
Cooper, James, et al. Implementing Small-Group Instruction: Insights from Successful Practitioners. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 81.2 (2000): 6376. Print. Gillespie, Diane, et al. Grouped Out? Undergraduates Default Strategies for Participating in Multiple Small Groups. The Journal of General Education 55.2 (2006): 81102. Print. Kairos: Rhetoric, Technolog y, Pedagog y. About 11.3 (2007). Web. 20 March 2011. _____. PraxisWiki: Stories of Digital Tool Use. Featured Narratives: Using Web-based Course Tools 11.2 (2007). Web. 20 March 2011. Kittle, Peter, and Troy Hicks, Transforming the Group Paper with Collaborative On-line Writing. Pedagog y: Critical Approaches to Teaching Literature, Language, Composition, and Culture 9.3 (2009): 525537. Print. Kuriloff, Peshe. Rescuing Writing Instruction. Liberal Education 90.4 (2004): 3641. Print. Maloney, Edward J. What Web 2.0 Can Teach Us About Learning. The Chronicle of Higher Education 53.18 (2007): B26-B27. Print. Morgan, Glenda. Faculty Use of Course Management Systems. Boulder, CO: Educause Center for Applied Research. 2003. Print. Salaway, Gail, et al. The ECAR Study of Undergraduate Students and Information Technolog y, 2006. Boulder, CO: Educause Center for Applied Research. 2006. Print.

Cooperative and Collaborative Writing with Google Docs

1

DONNA J. EVANS
Introduction

AND

BEN S. BUNTING, JR.

When you consider how to include group writing2 in your rst year composition (FYC) class, one of the rst questions to come to mind will likely be should I use an online platform? Many FYC classes already use ofine technologies like Microsoft Word to facilitate the writing process, but online technologies have unique advantages that should be considered during class planning. When using an online platform, students social interaction can foster an ethos of sharing essential for successful group writing. Online platforms that offer synchronous (always-on) editing and feedback capabilities support students as they work together in realtime (logged on in the same room or at distant locations), and can increase the groups composition process efciency. In addition, using an online platform mitigates traditional group-writing complaints like our group never had time to meet outside of class. Some instructors may view as a benet teaching students to write together while they learn how to navigate a new piece of technology, while others argue that adding the teaching of technology to composition complicates an already complex learning environment. Wanting to test some of these pro-online assumptions as empirically as possible while maintaining the integrity of the FYC curriculum, we conducted a research project in the fall of 2008 in response to two questions. First, we planned to observe our students writing with online and ofine technology and listen to their reactions to the experience. Second, we were curious as to whether students access to and prociency with technology before enrolling in our classes would, in turn, facilitate or complicate the use of online composition platforms in the classroom.3 For these purposes, we selected Google Docs as the required word-processing software in two sections of English 101 (52 students total), and as a control, the third section (26 students) used ofine word-processors such as Microsoft Word or OpenOfce. Students in all sections completed the same group writing assignments. With these three sections of rst year composition students, we pursued a semester-long research project and presented our ndings the following spring at the 2009 Conference on College Composition and Communication. We have included several handouts from those original classes for your reference (see Appendices), but our purpose in this essay is to draw on our experiences to explain the whys and hows of implementing Google Docs in a group writing classroom, not to discuss our
109

110

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

ndings directly. This essay provides theoretical and practical support for composition instructors who wish to condently adopt online writing platforms for use in their classes and encourages thought and discussion about how those platforms do or do not enable student learning.

What Do Theorists Say about Group Writing?

Before getting into the mechanics of using Google Docs in FYC, we will address the question why group writing? After all, dont students already have enough to do as they attempt to learn the ins and outs of college writing without having to also learn to cooperate within a group and share the responsibilities of essay writing? Often, the answer to this question from students and their instructors is a resounding yes. The debate among American educators over whether this extra work is worth it for the student has been raging for at least forty years with no clear resolution in sight.4 Although our essay does not address this larger debate directly, we would be remiss if we didnt make clear some of the potential difculties you will face as you decide whether to teach group writing in FYC. One point that few proponents of group writing in FYC will bring up is foregrounded by Rafael Heller in Questionable Categories and the Case for Collaborative Writing: group writing often goes against the pre-college writing-instruction grain. Accordingly, teaching students to effectively group-write is often an uphill battle against their previous learning. As Heller puts it, By and large, students are taught to be possessive of their writing and to commodify their ideas and stylistic achievements, which they cash in by way of grades, rankings, scores, and jobs. To learn to write in the academy is to learn to own ones writing and to compete with others (309). Indeed, we found that many students entered our classes with this attitude. As one student commented, [G]roup papers are, to be quite honest, very stupid for college level writing. They do not show your own personal writing style or allow you to choose what you want to choose. On top of this prejudice, students negative image of group writing was often being reinforced by the requirements that they cite sources (giving credit to other writers) and complete single-author writing assignments in their other classes. If group writing is more work and against the general perceptions students have about writing, then why bother teaching group writing at all? First of all, most students need the experiences and skills acquired by working together with other group or team members just as much as theyll need a competitive instinct. Thus, conversation with peers is necessary. In Collaborative Learning and the Conversation of Mankind, Kenneth Bruffee states that learning the language of the community is the prerequisite for being accepted as a member, and [w]riting is a technologically displaced form of [such] conversation (552, 551). When students practice this kind of conversation, they are better prepared for similar occasions in the future. This is one of [collaborative learnings] main goals, writes Bruffee, to provide a context in which students can practice and master the normal discourse exercised in established knowledge communities in the academic world and in business, government, and the professions (553). Introducing students to collaborative learning and group writing early in the college experience thus supports their investment in and maintenance of the knowledge base of the community, a pursuit based in social constructionist theory. To this purpose, group writing in the FYC classroom requires temporary commitment to a community; yet, by virtue of multiple voices conversing on a given topic, it exposes students to ideas beyond those a student might generate independently or that the teacher might incorporate in the assignment. At a time when career goals may have only begun to form, group writing supports the individual students exploration of diverse ideas, values,

Cooperative and Collaborative Writing with Google Docs (Evans and Bunting)

111

epistemologies, and disciplines within a knowledge community that is learning about and sharing in a conversation on writing. As a socially constructed experience, teaching group writing calls for careful attention to pedagogy as the course is planned. Collaborative learning can be a valuable tool when space is designed for students voices to be heard regarding ideas, views, and approaches, and when assigned tasks are relevant to learning. Bruffee writes that [s]tudents are especially likely to master [the normal discourse of a new community] if their conversation is structured indirectly by the task or problem that a member of that new community (the teacher) judiciously designed (553). Because the teacher is invested in designing and nurturing the writing classroom as community, she is also interested in monitoring and modifying the design to assure that it supports course objectives and student learning. Still, the very real question of unequal access to technology arises when a writing course requires use of a particular word processor. In FYC, does the technology (in this case, Docs) place unnecessary burdens or restrictions on students and their writing? The answer likely differs from campus to campus and from class section to class section. Cynthia Selfe discusses the dangers of inequity in Technolog y and Literacy: A Story about the Perils of Not Paying Attention. In our educational system, and in the culture that this system reects, Selfe writes, computers continue to be distributed differentially along the related axes of race and socioeconomic status and this distribution contributes to ongoing patterns of racism and to the continuation of poverty (101). This distribution differential can be assumed to inuence the level of technological acculturation a rst-year college student attains before arriving on campus; after entering college, other factors inuence access as well.5 But even so, when students advance to upper division major classes, many will be introduced to group writing through a highstakes assignment. This assignment will likely assume that the means of production as well as the knowledge of process are at hand. What if, instead of this abrupt immersion, students are exposed to group work by means of scaffolded, low-stakes assignments introduced early in their college experience, in FYC? Is this an unnecessary stress or a rare opportunity?

Why Online Group Writing?

In an academic regimen where single-author writing is often prized over comparatively ambiguous group-author work, FYC is one of the few classes that lends itself by default to the cooperative/collaborative ethos of group writing. In their paper Decentered, Disconnected, and Digitized: The Importance of Shared Space, Beth L. Brunk-Chavez and Shawn J. Miller characterize the composition classroom as one uniquely positioned to reap the benets of group writing. Because FYC has been at the forefront of the group-writing/individual-writing debate for several decades, the is predisposed toward challenging the oft-assumed superiority of the individual author. As Brunk-Chavez and Miller portray FYCs position, Though [online group writing] ies in the face of a traditional teacher-centered, or sage-on-the-stage pedagogy, we know that, on the whole, composition hasnt been traditionally taught for quite some time now (1). Through the exercise of group writing, Brunk-Chavez and Miller, among others, are advocating for what they call collaborative learning. Group writing provides a way in which students can take part in the construction of knowledge in the classroom that, according to Bruffee, helps students learn better more thoroughly, more deeply, more efciently than learning alone ... .collaborative learning teaches students to work together effectively when the stakes are relatively low, so that they can work together effectively later on when the stakes are high (quoted in Brunk-Chavez and Miller 5). So, if Bruffee is right, how can group writing be enacted in the FYC classroom so as to make the extra work worthwhile for students and teacher?

112

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

Brunk-Chavez and Miller write that while teaching composition online, they asked how students adjust when learning becomes less centered on the teacher and more student- and content-focused. Their experience suggests that success of the students and the class seem to be directly related to the design and use of collaborative as well as cooperative learning activities, with course design and planning also emphasized by Bruffee (Brunk-Chavez and Miller 2; Bruffee 553). Based on this observation, we adopted Brunk-Chavez and Millers denitions of cooperative and collaborative writing as clear and replicable descriptions of two distinct types of group work. In cooperative efforts, they write, students divvy up the work, go do it, then cobble their results into a nal presentation (4). Neither synchronous nor asynchronous technology is necessary; students bring their chunks of work to the group and assemble them into a single unit. This method account[s] for accumulated knowledge and maintains teacher-centered authority (4, 22). On the other hand, collaborative work encourages students to take charge of individual and group learning through critical thinking and discussion; learning is student-centered and student-driven (5). So it is that in a cooperative essay, an individual student makes limited contributions, with other group members expected to take on somewhat equal segments of labor. On the other hand, a collaborative assignment engages all group members in every stage of the writing process, with both synchronous and asynchronous contributions desirable and practical. A collaborative writing environment exposes students to considerations that they may not encounter anywhere else in their college experience (Brunk-Chavez and Miller 13). In a single-author situation, contradicting evidence or arguments contrary to a students own thesis can be summarily discounted or simply ignored; but, its not as easy to pretend ignorance when those ideas come from a fellow group member. In Brunk-Chavez and Millers experience and our own, this has been a largely positive experience for students. Brunk-Chavez and Miller report that their students overwhelmingly stated that they appreciate and seek out their classmates perspectives, opinions, and ideas (14). As one of our students comments, Before this paper I believed that English should be more of a solitary course than say science or math, however, this different approach to a very similar assignment changed my opinion. Group activities are a way to bring people and ideas together to form a more error free open minded and intellectual result. In addition to encouraging students to expand their ideological horizons, collaboration (and to a lesser extent, cooperation) gets them to question the balance of power in the classroom, to put more stock in feedback given by their peers and to not defer only to the sage-on-thestage. Loosening this sage/student dichotomy through group writing leads to a situation in which students can experience shifts in knowledge production between cooperative knowledge is shared rather than constructed and collaborative knowledge is socially constructed through meaningful conversations between students learning (Brunk-Chavez and Miller 45). Students are simultaneously challenged by learning to critically think outside the one right answer mentality (received knowledge) that other coursework may require while they are supported in that challenge by group members who bring new perspectives. Heller is correct when he cautions that group writing works against the competitive grain in some ways. He is correct, in our experience, when he says that teaching group writing in FYC adds more to an already full plate for both the student and the teacher. However, he doesnt address possible advantages or the fact that knowledge is not proprietary. His article closes on a reductionist note when he says of group-writing advocates, [They] want us to commit not to some form of life that we know already, or to one that lies just around the corner. Rather, they are trying to secure commitment to an entirely different form of life, in which people write with no thought of personal gain or glory, motivated by the sheer pleasures

Cooperative and Collaborative Writing with Google Docs (Evans and Bunting)

113

of fellowship and of writing itself (311). As a rebuttal, consider Lisa Ede and Andrea Lunsfords argument in Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship that knowledge-building is inherently collaborative and that the idea of a totally original work of scholarship is actually impossible (358). Word choice and word order within a composition might be entirely original, but the author is always already in conversation with someone. To direct a FYC class in which this conversation is foregrounded and elaborated upon might be more work, but it addresses a truth about the construction of knowledge that students may well not learn anywhere else in their university experience; or, if they do face this truth elsewhere, it will likely be in the form of a high-stakes assignment.

Why Google Docs?

Why choose Google Docs6 instead of Blackboard, WebCT, or any of the many other organizational tools made for academic purposes or available free on the web? The simple answer is that Docs is streamlined only an ofce software suite and nothing else.7 Google Docs is simple from a composition perspective as well, providing a word-processing window on which as many as fty8 writers can collaborate at once. All editors9 of a particular document see changes being made. In this way, Docs helps democratize composition and revision processes while also making them more time-efcient, unlike an asynchronous Course Management System (CMS) like Blackboard. Docs also facilitates direct interaction between teacher and student(s) during group writing and for feedback. Brunk-Chavez and Miller explain that [m]any instructors choose to use a [CMS] as a digital closet or le cabinet for their courses, and that while [s]tudents use the technology to gain access to the material/content, and may even be accessing and reading the content at the same time, this use of a CMS does not facilitate truly collaborative work (18). Google Docs enables collaboration in a much more accessible way. Brunk-Chavez and Miller propose that the teacher of a FYC class should simply learn to bend their CMS of choice in a more collaborative way (22). However, this makes little sense post-2007 as Google Docs provides teachers with a tool that requires no bending.10 Docs, with its synchronous editing, works in the classroom to create what Brunk-Chavez and Miller call shared space, a term borrowed from Michael Schrage and redened as a space that is variable and dynamic; it can be a virtual space, a physical space, or a digital space (7). But what really matters, according to Schrage, is that you need to have the media where the ideas can be captured and represented and those representations can be modied and played with (quoted in Conner). The existence of some type of shared space, then, is necessary for the kind of collaboration we have discussed to function in the classroom, and for this we selected Docs. But now you probably wonder, as we did, how you get Docs to work in class.

How Do I Use Google Docs in the Classroom?

As mentioned, Docs main function and what makes it unique when compared to other online platforms is its synchronous group-editing capability. Any Doc your students (or you) work on is automatically and frequently saved online. This means that any member of a group can access the document from any computer at any time once invited by the document creator to view or edit. Students can then make changes or additions to the document that appear in real-time on the screens of anyone who has that document open. This can be a little jarring if youre not already familiar with the idea of synchronous editing, so lets walk through the process of creating and editing a simple document:11

114

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

1. Assuming that youve already created a Google account, log in at http://docs.google.com, which will load the main Docs page. Here you will nd a list of links to all the documents you have created and/or have access to, much like a window that shows the contents of your hard drive in your computers operating system. You have options to star documents (i.e. make them a favorite document for easier access), sort documents in various ways, and tag documents or create folders in which to store those documents. These last two options are especially useful if an instructor or student is using Docs in more than one class or working with more than one paper for a course, as was the case with our portfolio-based FYC course. 2. To begin a new document, click the button in the upper-left corner of the window that says Create new. You can also upload documents that you began writing in Word or another word processing program, but for now lets assume that youre starting from scratch. 3. When you click Create new, a dropdown list shows the types of les you can create. Choose Document. This puts you in word processing mode, which youll probably notice looks a lot like your ofine word-processor.12 4. Name your document. Go to the top of the screen and click on Untitled document. For this introductory practice, change the name to Tutorial. Once you have saved the document, youll nd it again on your main page (from Step 1) listed as Tutorial. 5. Docs has most of the functionality that you use in your ofine word processor. In addition, it has a few functions you need to explore before introducing it to students. The rst of these is a link to the right of the bar where you changed the Docs name that says Private to only me. Click this link and youll nd the sharing options for this Doc. If you click to change the Doc from private status, you get a window explaining your other options. One makes the Doc available to anyone to whom you give the URL, while another makes the Doc available to anyone on the Internet who stumbles upon it. Google explains all of these options under the Learn more about visibility link. For our purposes, well assume that your Doc will be private and shared with a few fellow editors. 6. If you choose either of the non-default privacy options, youll nd a link to your document to give to others. Since this tutorial is private, youll have to invite others before anyone else can access your Doc. Doing this is simple. In the window you brought up by clicking the link in Step 4, click in the box under Add people. Here youll be able to enter email addresses of people you want to have access to the Doc and determine whether they will edit it alongside you or just view it. Once you add people to your access list, Docs will automatically send an email message (unless you opt out) and explain how to view the Doc. 7. Once group access has been established and writing is in process, you may want to download or print the Doc. Under the File menu, click on Download as. This option lets you choose the format (ODT, PDF, RTF, Text, Word, and HTML) you prefer for your downloaded Doc. 8. The See revision history option, also under the File menu, is very useful in revision-heavy composition classes. To see how this works, type 2+2=5 into your Doc, then save. Next, change your text to 2+2=4 and save again. Now click See revision history. Youll see the document as is, but with arrows above the document to allow you to move back to previous versions to see changes youve made. Not only can you roll back the document to the point where the equation was wrong, but also to the

Cooperative and Collaborative Writing with Google Docs (Evans and Bunting)

115

rst blank page. Unlike the word-processor-standard Undo command, this revision history can be used to revisit and potentially roll back changes you made days, weeks, or months in the past. When you view a previous version of the document, youll always be presented with the option to revert to that particular incarnation of the document. The revision history option is even more useful when it comes to collaborative documents, because it allows group members to go back and view not only what changes were made to the document and when, but who made those changes. This is not only useful for students wanting to keep track of changes to a groupauthored document but also for an instructor who gives suggestions for revision to each student, as we did in our 101 classes.13 Docs has a simplistic interface, but its not entirely intuitive. As discussed above, Rafael Heller warns that teaching collaborative writing adds a layer of difculty to the learning (and teaching) of writing. We caution that using an online platform like Docs adds a similar layer of difculty. To require use of Docs in-class, you must learn how to use Docs and then teach your students what youve learned. This may seem obvious, but based on our experience, the time and effort this learning and teaching takes is worth considering. You must also be prepared for inevitable technology failures. Some will be brought about by student or instructor error, others when the server goes down, and still others will be inexplicable.14 That said, we believe that Docs is one of the best free online technologies currently available and conducive to true collaborative writing in the FYC classroom. Any new type of knowledge that your students must learn and utilize in class will in turn cause new problems. Our intent in pointing out some of the difculties associated with teaching with Docs is not to discourage you but to nudge you away from what Gail Hawisher terms technocentrism that is, a sort of unbending optimism for all things technological and the related assumption that any new technology introduced to the classroom will be understood and adopted with zeal by all students (quoted in Brunk-Chavez and Miller 9). This was certainly not the case for us with our original project, as many students had trouble understanding how the use of technology t in with the class. Even those who got it had trouble understanding how the features of Google Docs afforded unique possibilities, as did one student who insisted that the same thing could be accomplished through e-mail. By the same token, a few students having difculty picking up the use of a technology in class is, in essence, little different than a few students having difculty picking up the use of MLA style, or the idea of a summary, or what scholarly source means. Brunk-Chavez and Miller agree when they write that [m]ost of us who have taught in an online environment would concur that while not every student succeeds in all levels and all aspects of a face-toface (f2f ) composition classroom, not every student succeeds in the technology-enhanced classroom either (1). That said, entering the class knowing how you will use Docs and being aware of the potential pitfalls inherent in that use will ensure that the number of students who have trouble with Docs, and with the class as a whole, will be kept to a minimum.

How Do I Assign Work with Google Docs?

Contrary to what pop culture would suggest, not every student born after 1990 is a natural computer hacker. In fact, the majority of students in our classes showed very little computer savvy beyond being able to check email and use instant messaging.15 Consequently, we learned that the rst step to using Google Docs in the classroom is to allot adequate time early in the semester and orient students to the programs use. From the outset, students need to know what they can do with Docs and what youre

116

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

going to require them to do for the class. These two things must be communicated directly and clearly to them because, like it or not, theyre unlikely to use Docs for anything other than required work. Our in-class orientations covered many of the main functions of Docs, similarly to the way we introduced Docs above. Specically, we discussed how the students would submit class papers and documents online (required for the class) and engage in online cooperative and collaborative learning (required). Depending on the class section, students were instructed how to access the class handout list (not required), complete peer review online (not required, but encouraged), and use the revision history function as a portfoliobuilding tool (not required, but encouraged). By and large, students engaged in the rst two activities, but not the last three. Docs, then, provides a useful, customizable canvas for group writing. But how do you communicate to your class assignment particulars and standards while also championing the virtues of democratized feedback and the benets of peer review? Brunk-Chavez and Miller discuss the results of a study indicating that though we may think our collaborative, purposely vague assignments are forcing our students to apply (and yes, develop) critical thinking skills, they are quite possibly robbing our students of the guidance necessary to analyze and store that experience in their long-term memory (6). How, then, can Docs be used for group writing assignments in a way that upholds both the ideas of sufcient teacher-guidance and classroom democratization? First, consider your programs requirements: 1. Review the catalog description of the composition course you will teach, and study the composition programs learning objectives. What course objectives should students have achieved by the end of the course?16 How will group writing support student learning in conformity with your institutions guidelines? Consider the end of your semester your starting point for design. What should students have learned about writing, and how will you teach them the processes and skills necessary for practice? 2. Examine the kinds of writing assignments students in your program are asked to do. Can these assignments be adapted or replaced with group writing assignments? In our program, each FYC instructor designs a writing sequence (four to ve writing assignments) that culminate in portfolio submission. Students must include in the portfolio a reection letter and the nal research essay, but they select from other essays written in class to reach the 22 revised-page submission requirement. Since students already participate in peer review and sometimes are assigned group presentations and activities, group writing seemed to us to be an intuitive next step to preparing our students for upper division and professional group writing situations. 3. Discuss your ideas with your FYC administrator and consider her concerns and suggestions. Does she support your proposal to integrate group writing into your course? If so, you are ready to begin drafting the design of your course. Next, work backward from the end of the semester and envision your students writing needs: 1. Revisit (again) institutional course and program objectives. Add to your objectives a statement about what students should learn from group writing by the end of the term. Include this list on your syllabus. 2. Determine the kinds of writing you want students to submit for grading. Will you include one or two group essays, or will you design smaller, less time-consuming assignments? Will these smaller assignments help build a group-written paper, and will you grade and/or comment on them? How much time can you devote to review and grading?

Cooperative and Collaborative Writing with Google Docs (Evans and Bunting)

117

3. Review the assignments you have designed for previous courses and recall which ones have worked well.17 What kinds of group writing are you already assigning, and where can you include additional or more rigorous group work? 4. Determine a method for evaluating group writing. The nal group essay should appear to have been written with one voice, and, ideally, all writers will have contributed to the process. The instructor, then, must consider what kinds, quantity, and quality of writing each student is expected to contribute to the groups project, and students must be informed about these expectations when the assignment is made. What will your methods be? Synchronous and asynchronous surveillance is possible with Docs, but how much time will you spend on this? You may decide to have each student choose a different font color with which to clearly mark individual contributions. Casual surveillance can be carried out in the classroom as you observe groups working together and discuss problems and progress with them. You may request or require each student to submit a condential evaluation of their groups interactions, and comments can be corroborated through several reports originating from different group members. Or, you may take a more casual approach and discuss group dynamics in private or group conferences. How and when will you implement such strategies? What percentage of the nal grade will group writing represent? 5. Consider posting class materials (the syllabus, paper guidelines, etc.) on Docs. You may choose to give these materials view only availability. Or, though you dont have to take things this far, you may invite contributions from students in the design of course materials. University classes have been taught using class materials edited by the students.18 The more that students use Docs, the more comfortable theyll become with using it to write. 6. Establish a le-naming protocol. While printed papers require little thought to format beyond documentation styles like MLA, digital submissions do. Decide how you will organize your folders and les to make student papers accessible, and enlist student cooperation in adhering to this format (See Appendix: Electronic Submission of Files and Folders).

How Do I Evaluate Work Done with Google Docs?

We chose Google Docs for our FYC classrooms because the program appeared capable of facilitating and illustrating cooperative and collaborative writing processes. However, we also anticipated that Docs could help streamline feedback between students during peer review sessions and between the instructor and student(s) when papers were submitted, reviewed, and responded to online. Because of this, printed copies of papers were not accepted, and instructor comments were made electronically. In our Docs sections, instructors used the Insert comment function under the Insert menu to make in-text comments. Because comments automatically insert the commenters name in a color selected by that writer, instructor comments seem more of a conversational insertion or aside than appropriation of student text. Also, at the end of each draft, instructors typed a short paragraph or two of feedback ranging between strengths and/or weaknesses in the essay as a whole to sentence-level patterns of error. Instructor comments were immediately available to students.19 Because less time was required to type than hand write each response, more extensive comments could be given.20 On the other hand, our students would have preferred receiving printed comments on their papers, and many of them were concerned with what they perceived as the erratic nature of the electronic submission process and awkwardness of the interface. One student wrote, The program

118

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

used to edit [the papers] was pretty primitive ... it looked like none of the formatting that I had on my paper stayed when I submitted it. Docs has a shortage of formatting options, so in order to give our students adequate practice using MLA format, we required students to download the nal drafts as Word documents and to comply with MLA format.21 Peer review was also conducted electronically. This was intended to give each student two forms of feedback on each draft peer review followed by instructor response. Students tend to prize instructor comments over comments made by their peers, and although we had hoped that receiving electronic comments would democratize this issue, this method did not noticeably alter perceptions. Students often viewed peer review as useless, not because of the issues of access and the Google Docs interface being difcult to navigate, but because students continued to see their peers comments as having little value in comparison to instructor comments. However, the purpose of peer review is not only to receive peer comments but to read and respond to the peers paper, which benets the reviewers own writing process. Generally, synchronous electronic feedback and submission didnt seem to democratize the portfolio construction process. When it came to using all available feedback to revise drafts and construct the portfolio, students often chose to follow only instructor suggestions as to which papers to include in their nal portfolio. One student writes that I ended up choosing [portfolio papers] based off of which one you liked more, and another says that they [p]retty much just used the papers that didnt suck the most. Occasionally this choice seemed to involve individual agency, but such a remark was more often made by students choosing essays that they thought the instructor would grade highest. Often portfolio papers were chosen somewhat by default, as students were required to include at least one group paper (either a collaborative paper or a cooperative paper). This choice led to many comments like this one: Although I was condent on the papers I selected for the portfolio, the most hesitated paper was of course the group paper. Much of this hesitation seemed to come from the question of authorship, which is an important consideration when teaching group writing, but one less tricky to navigate when using Docs. In their essay Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship, Lisa Ede and Andrea Lunsford discuss the ways in which collaboration in composition especially collaboration online can muddy the waters of authorship. Paraphrasing Sherry Turkle, Ede and Lunsford claim that the opportunity to deploy virtual selves with distributed and potentially ever-changing identities can be a source of alienation and anxiety as well as of liberation can make it hard indeed for us to determine Who am we? (355). While there is merit to this point, especially when you consider the multiple avatars and identities students frequently navigate through services like Facebook and MySpace, Docs mitigates much of this identity/authorship confusion with both optional and built-in functions. First of all, as mentioned earlier, each student-author must be logged in to Docs before they can edit a document. Then, once they have made changes or additions to those documents, their contributions can be tracked using the Revision history feature. This feature not only lists the time/date of each contribution but the name of the user who made said contribution. Secondly, all comments made on the document using the Comment function are similarly time- and date-stamped and include the commenters username. Last, Docs provides the functionality for each author to indicate their individual voices at their own discretion. Options to highlight text or change the font color are there, and assigning a color to each writer or letting him choose (strategies we used with our own group writing on Docs) allows students a way to distinguish their individual voices while still collaborating effectively. Of course, a goal of writing collaboratively is the cultivation of the illusion that several writers will unite with one coherent voice. While this idea concerned our students for example, one com-

Cooperative and Collaborative Writing with Google Docs (Evans and Bunting)

119

plained that I found out through this paper that no matter how hard you try to mesh everyones [sic] pieces together you are still going to be able to tell that it wasnt one writer who wrote the paper, or if it was one writer it was one with multiple personalities Docs allows enough control to keep individual contributions straight while still making the nal draft cohesive. Docs functionality makes it easy for you to decide the amount of feedback you want to give and the amount of control you want to have over your students compositions. Here are some suggestions for using Docs to evaluate student work: 1. Decide how accessible your students documents should be to you. You may want to allow them to work privately and only present to you their nal draft, or you may want to be able to view their document, live, while the group works on it. Also, you may want to comment on or add to a groups document while theyre working and so need an early invitation to the Doc. Any of these options are possible in Docs by telling your students how you expect them to use (and not use) the permissions settings for their documents. They can choose to include you as a collaborator on their documents, as a viewer, or simply not include you at all, leaving you out of the process until you receive a printed or electronic copy of their complete draft. However, it is your responsibility to check to see that the access you require is available and have students who overlook this instruction to adjust their sharing settings. 2. Decide how important it is to you that the students blend their voices when collaborating. Making sure that the paper has a cohesive voice was important to us in our classes, but often the students were so concerned about making their voices blend effectively that they focused too heavily on their sentence mechanics when revising and did little work on making their arguments and evidence cohesive across the essay. 3. Inform students of all the ways that they can expect to receive comments from you. Using Docs makes it at least theoretically possible that youll be available to comment on their work 24/7, and so they need to know where your attention will fall on a scale between always-on and never-on. If you plan to give each student one paragraph of feedback and are only willing to go beyond that if they request further help, explain that to them. Make clear as well exactly how much time will pass between submission of their papers and receipt of your comments. For example, forty-eight hours between receipt and response for a draft excerpt for which a few students request help may be reasonable, while a week between receipt and response for required, class-wide draft submissions is prudent. 4. Remember that your primary goal is to teach writing. Group writing is but one way to go about doing so. Distinguishing between students who are having trouble in the class because they need help with their writing and students who are having trouble in the class because they are having trouble in their group or cant gure out the electronic submission process is important. Certainly other considerations exist that we havent included and details that youll want to specify to your class as you become more comfortable with the Docs interface and its capabilities. Keep a record or journal of these items as they occur, perhaps on a Doc set up for this purpose.

Reecting on Teaching with Google Docs

Our original project to teach group writing in FYC using Google Docs ended with lessthan-stellar results as weve mentioned briey and you can see more clearly in this articles

120

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

notes. Even so, many of our problems in those particular classrooms came from inexperience with teaching group writing and the fact that at the time of the project, Docs was still in a beta stage. The ofce suites ease of use has much improved since the time of our study. One of the more dramatic disappointments in our classes at least according to the students was the technology aspect of the course as a whole. Brunk-Chavez and Miller say that [w]hen [students] dont succeed in a course, they have the tendency to look beyond themselves and blame what they cant control such as the instructor, the technology, or their group members (8). As tempting as it might be for some to take this as an excuse to wipe their course clean of anything but pencils and paper, and plan nothing but individual writing assignments, there is reason to be suspicious of claims that technology is to blame for all of a students (or groups) shortcomings. Moreover, Brunk-Chavez and Miller warn that students may claim that technology is to blame for their lack of success in the course. New twists on the old, traditional classroom excuses come into play: they couldnt nd the link to the handouts, presentations, or assignments; they couldnt gure out how to use the technology; they had a hard time meeting with their group members online; the system was down; and so on (9). We found this to be the case with the feedback we received from our students, and while we dont mean to imply that these complaints are always invalid, its worth noting that new technology doesnt instantly make old excuses have greater legitimacy. Another oft-heard remark was more characteristic of the nature of collaborative writing than the technology of Docs itself. Students strongly disliked (or liked, depending on their circumstances) the leadership dynamic that arose in group situations. Again, Brunk-Chavez and Miller express our sentiments when they explain that in their experience:
Students suggested that they dont like the leader/follower dichotomy arrangement in most groups some because they want to be the leader and some because they would rather not be the leader that they work faster and/or more efciently on their own, that they would prefer to be accountable for their own work rather than depending on others, and that their shy or timid personalities makes working in groups an uncomfortable activity [12].

This is an understandable complaint and, again, somewhat intrinsic to group work. However, we believe that this complaint can be mitigated by Docs functionality. The amount of work that each student is directly responsible for generating and showing to you as being their own work is easily managed by the commenting/color-coding functionality described above. Finally, online collaborative writing will be more effective if it is supported by other kinds of collaborative work in the classroom. Whether its more pen-and-paper collaborative writing or an activity that organizes students into groups that work together to answer a basic question about writing an introduction paragraph, live collaboration will beget successful online collaboration. Instructors should realize at the onset that by choosing to use Google Docs for group writing, you arent choosing a tool for your students to occasionally pick up in service of completing a compartmentalized activity in your course. Instead, youre choosing to expose them to an additional type of writing beyond that to which theyre likely accustomed. If youve decided to use Google Docs for group writing, the rest of your class structure should reect that choice. As useful as Docs is, it is ultimately only a tool for cooperation and collaboration a technology useful and appropriate for introducing students to a new method of composing.

Cooperative and Collaborative Writing with Google Docs (Evans and Bunting)

121

Appendix A
Creating, Naming, and Sharing Google Docs
To create a Google Doc: 1. Sign into your Google account and go to Google Docs. a. You may nd a link on the sign-in page. If not, search for Google Docs in your browser search window. 2. Click on Create new, the far left link on the Google Docs onscreen toolbar. a. Select Document from the dropdown list. To name a Google Doc: 3. Click on Untitled and refer to the Electronic Submission of Papers and Portfolio handout for instructions. (For example, enter your names followed by the Paper number (i.e., P1) and draft number (d1): lastrst_P1_d1). a. Begin a new document for revision drafts begun after receiving comments from the instructor. To share a Google Doc: 4. Click on Share, the blue tab on the right side of the Google Docs onscreen toolbar. a. Click Share with Others. b. Paper 1 (Writers Autobiography): For all drafts, enter my email address, instructor@college.edu, thus adding me as a collaborator. This will automatically generate an email message notifying me that I have access to your document. Keep the box marked Send email notications (recommended) checked so that the email will be sent. c. Paper 2 (Cooperative): For all drafts, one student in your group will create a document and enter all group members email addresses, as well as mine. i. Paper 2 Reection: Same as Paper 1. d. Paper 3 (Collaborative): For all drafts, see instructions for Paper 2. i. Paper 3 Reection: Same as Paper 1. e. Paper 4 (Independent Research): Same as Paper 1. f. Portfolio Reection: Same as Paper 1. Summary: For a paper you write alone follow instructions under 4, 4a, and 4b. For papers you write with a group follow instructions under 4, 4a, and 4c. You will write at least two (2) drafts of each assigned paper, including the Portfolio Reection. You may choose to write more than one draft of your Paper 2 and Paper 3 reections, especially if you plan to include one of these papers in your Junior Portfolio. However, for this class, you are only required to submit one reection for each of the two group papers. Thus, you will be an active writer on at least thirteen (13) Google Docs submissions: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Paper 1: 2 drafts Paper 2: 2 drafts + 1 reection Paper 3: 2 drafts + 1 reection Paper 4: 2 drafts + 1 reection Portfolio Reection: 2 drafts

122

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

Appendix B
File/Folder Protocol
Electronic Submission of Papers and Portfolio Organized folders and les makes keeping track of electronic documents much easier for you to locate the paper you want to submit as well as help your instructor keep track of commented and graded work. Important: Always save your electronic documents in at least two separate locations. Download drafts of your Google Doc after signicant revisions and save to your PC and/or the labs server, email a copy to yourself, save to a thumb/jump drive, etc. Read about Google Docs, Spreadsheets, Presentations, and Drawings at http://docs.google.com/ support/ or enter Support in the search window. Preparing your Doc for electronic submission: How to prepare folders: Create a course folder named: ENGL ###.##. Be sure to include the course and section numbers. In the course folder, create a separate folder for each major assignment and associated reection papers: Paper 1, Paper 2, Paper 3, Paper 4, PFL (see abbreviations below). How to prepare les: To download from Google Docs: Click on the File tab at the top left of your document Download as click on OpenOfce or RTF or Word Save the le on your personal computer (or to your account on the computer lab server) in a folder named ENGL ###.##: File name for individual papers (Papers 1, 4, PFR, and R4)

Include your name, the paper number, and the draft number

lastrst_P1_d1 Example: lastrst_P1_d1 (no reection assignment for Paper 1) Example: lastrst_P4_d2 Example: lastrst_R4_d2 You will save Paper 1 draft 1 in the ENGL ###.## folder under Paper 1. ENGL 101.46Paper 1lastrst_P1_d1 The Paper 4 folder will contain your research paper and a reection paper. File name for group papers (Papers 2, 3, R2, R3) Include your name, your groups number, the paper number, and the draft number lastrst#_P2_d1 Example: lastrst6_P2_d1 (name, group 6, Paper 2, draft 1) Preparing your nal portfolio for electronic submission: Create a folder titled lastrstPF (for Portfolio) in your course folder, ENGL XXX.XX. Save each document you want to include by adding a number to its name, in the order you wish it to be read. For example:

Cooperative and Collaborative Writing with Google Docs (Evans and Bunting)

123

ENGL XXX.XX lastrstPF 1 lastrst_PFR_d2 ENGL XXX.XX lastrstPF 2 lastrst_PFR_d1 ENGL XXX.XX lastrstPF 3 lastrst_P4_d2 And so on ... Burn to a CD. Be sure the les are saved in a format that your instructor can open .doc, .docx, .odt, .rtf, .pdf. Check the CD to be sure that les can be opened.

Document abbreviations: P: Paper d: draft R: Reection PFR: Portfolio Reection Letter pr: peer review RhA: Rhetorical Analysis If you need additional abbreviations for le names, contact your instructor.

Appendix C
Cooperative Essay Assignment
In cooperative learning, students divide the work among themselves and later assemble it into its nal product to be evaluated. Beth L. Brunk-Chavez and Shawn J. Miller. Decentered, Disconnected, and Digitalized: The Importance of Shared Space. Kairos 11.2 (2007). The skill of writing is to create a context in which other people can think.Edwin Schlossberg Learn as much by writing as by reading. Lord Acton Schlossberg and Acton borrowed from The Quotations Page: Quotations by Subject: Writing http://www.quotationspage.com/subjects/writing/31.html

Context: You have probably participated in at least one group project sometime in your academic career. Perhaps you worked with one or more lab partners, performed in a music ensemble, contributed to a group presentation, or, in extracurricular activities, played volleyball, football, basketball, or some other team sport. If so, you may have had an assigned task or position to fulll. Often when a group or collaborative writing project is assigned, students divide the work into chunks, with each group member taking responsibility for a specic portion of the work. The purpose of this Cooperative Essay assignment is to explore the benets and problems associated with divvying up a writing project and to prepare you to explore a truer form of collaborative writing in your next assignment. Assignment: Write an argumentative research paper about a topic upon which your group agrees. How to Do the Assignment: In your group of 3 or 4 people, decide on a topic that each of you knows something about; however, you need not be experts. Use invention techniques such as brainstorming to uncover specic ideas about the topic that your group wants to explore. Decide as a group how you will conduct research on your topic and what source materials are appropriate for your purpose and audience.

124

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

This paper has three parts: 1. Write a 12001300 word essay in chunks. That is, each person will write an equitable portion of the argumentative essay. Organize the chunks and use transitions to connect the chunks into a unied whole. Include a Works Cited page and MLA citations. 2. Write a 600-word reection on your experiences with this cooperative writing assignment. Due Dates:

Appendix D
Peer Review:* Cooperative Essay
Peer Reviewer: ________________ Group #: ___________ Email: __________________ Remember: Be honest and constructive but be respectful. Please ll out the blanks above and respond to the prompts for Section I, Section II, and your partners response to question 1 on this sheet. Respond to your partners question and the other prompts on a separate sheet of paper (or on the draft itself if you so choose). Both the copy of P2_d1 and an electronic version of the completed peer review need to be turned in on Monday. Send the electronic documents to the email address at top right and to instructor@college.edu by the beginning of class on Monday. Section I: Does your partner convincingly explain what interests his/her group about this topic? Summarize your partners connection to the topic in one sentence: Section II: Summarize your partners argument in one or two sentences: One specic aspect of the research paper on which your partner would like feedback: 1. What do you appreciate about this draft? What has the group done effectively? What did you like best about the paper? Be specic. 2. As a reader, what additional information do you want or need from the group? Are all of the important ideas clearly dened and all of the points adequately supported by examples and specics? Were there any areas of confusion? Where would you like to see more development? Be specic. 3. What is the tone of your partners paper? Is it too informal or too distant? Does it take audience into consideration? Does it address the naysayer/other side? 4. What is the balance between the writers words and the words of their sources? Is it effective? Is there too much paraphrasing/quoting/summary without discussion? Is there too much discussion without anything to back it up? Are the sources treated fairly and cited correctly? Can you locate one or two rhetorical appeals (logos, ethos, pathos) that have been used effectively? What do you think of the title? The introduction? Do those things make you want to keep reading? If not, do you have a suggestion on how they could be improved? Focus on ideas and concepts for now. Proofreading will come later.

*Adapted from the original by Sarah Aleshire.

Cooperative and Collaborative Writing with Google Docs (Evans and Bunting)

125

Appendix E
Pitch Proposal
(For Step 1 of the Collaborative Essay Assignment) The purpose of the pitch proposal is to enlist other class members in researching and writing about a topic for a collaborative paper on a topic that interests you. This proposal will be delivered orally, and you must have a visual aid that you design yourself. Class members will divide into groups on [day/date], through a voting and elimination process. The oral portion of the presentation will be one (1) minute long. State the topic you would like to pursue and tell why it will be a great topic or issue for an academic research paper. Explain why the topic is important or relevant, and propose a potential audience. Begin with an opener or introduction that will grab your audiences attention and make them excited about your topic. End with a creative and/or memorable appeal, but remember that your instructor is part of your audience, too. Humor is acceptable, but it must be appropriate for a classroom environment. You are not expected to spend a great deal of time in designing your visual, but do think about and experiment with the CRAP principles: Contrast: The idea behind contrast is to avoid elements on the page that are merely similar. If the elements (type, color, size, line thickness, shape, space, etc.) are not the same, then make them very different. Contrast is often the most important visual attraction on a page its what makes a reader look at the page in the rst place. Repetition: Repeat visual elements of the design throughout the piece. You can repeat colors, shapes, textures, spatial relationships, line thicknesses, fonts, sizes, graphic concepts, etc. This develops the organization and strengthens the unity. Alignment: Nothing should be placed on the page arbitrarily. Every element should have some visual connection with another element on the page. This creates a clean, sophisticated, fresh look. Proximity: Items relating to each other should be grouped close together. When several items are in close proximity to each other, they become one visual unit rather than several separate units. This helps organize information, reduces clutter, and gives the reader a clear structure. (Williams 13) Source
Williams, Robin. The Non-Designers Design Book: Design and Typographic Principles for the Visual Novice. 2nd ed. Berkeley, CA: Peachpit Press, 2004.

Appendix F
Dialogue Assignment
(Preparation for the Collaborative Essay Assignment) Write a dialogue in which each group member represents the voice of one of the authors or sources he/she was responsible for researching. Think of this as a conversation in which you pick up on topical cues for an appropriate point at which to add summarized or quoted ideas from your source. Each person will defend that sources point-of-view and will contribute at least one page of writing (about 300 words) to the conversation. Use MLA documentation style as you place

126

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

quotation marks around text quoted from the source, cite page numbers as necessary, and create a Works Cited page.

Appendix G
Collaborative Essay Assignment
[I]n collaborative learning, knowledge is socially constructed through meaningful conversations between students. Beth L. Brunk-Chavez and Shawn J. Miller. Decentered, Disconnected, and Digitalized: The Importance of Shared Space. Kairos 11:2. The hardest problems of pure and applied science can only be solved by the open collaboration of the world-wide scientic community. Kenneth G. Wilson But things can happen in a band, or any type of collaboration, that would not otherwise happen. Jim Coleman Wilson and Coleman from BrainyQuote: Collaboration Quotes http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/ keywords/collaboration.html

Context: In the Cooperative Essay, you worked in a group to research and write an argumentative essay. You completed a section or chunk of the work, as did each member of your group, and assembled it into a whole. Sometimes cooperative writing is efcient, as it might be in large-scale projects or reports, or when time constraints demand that information be collected and combined quickly. Collaborative writing, another type of group work, encourages creative and critical thinking that may lead to unexpected learning and knowledge making. Assignment: Write an argumentative research paper on the topic your group chose through pitch proposals. How to Do the Assignment: Your goal is to collaborate with each other to develop ideas through discussion and while writing texts, with each person contributing at all levels of research and composition. Rather than writing in chunks, for this essay you will weave ideas, paragraphs, and sentences together. For example, a summary may be written as a group, meaning that all members read a source and agree on the content and structure of the summary. Or, in one sentence, four group members may contribute through word choice, sentence reorganization, spelling, and/or grammar, or with techniques not mentioned here. Each person will write an equitable portion of the argumentative essay. 1. Each person will suggest a topic for research by preparing and presenting a oneminute pitch proposal accompanied by a visual text. The class will then work together to combine similar topics and narrow the eld to 810 topics. Each student will choose a topic and group with which to work, with no more than 34 people per group. 2. Write a 12001300 word essay using an organizational framework of your groups choice, and document sources with MLA citation style. Include a Works Cited page and citations in MLA format. 3. Write a 600-word reection on your experiences with this collaborative writing assignment.

Cooperative and Collaborative Writing with Google Docs (Evans and Bunting)

127

Appendix H
Peer Review: Collaborative Paper
Group reviewed: _______________________ Group reviewing: ____________________ Group members: ____________________ ____________________ ____________________ ____________________

Assignment: Which assignment requirements did the writers address? did the writers not address? Focus: What is the writers main focus? How do the writers connect subtopics to the papers main focus? How do the writers tie the end of the paper to the beginning? Organization: What organizational structure(s) did the writers use in this paper? Are transitions between paragraphs and between sentences smooth? Support: Identify the writers claims and the anecdotal evidence used to support those claims. Identify the naysayer in the text and how the writers address the issue(s) raised. Proofreading: Name two areas in which the writers could improve the practice of editing and proofreading. Discuss: What ideas do you have about revising your collaborative essay after peer reviewing another groups essay?

Appendix I
Reection on the Collaborative Essay
This Reection should provide a balanced, well-considered account of your experiences while composing the Collaborative Essay. Here you will demonstrate to your audience your contributions to the group essay. Also, should you choose to include the Collaborative Essay in your Junior Portfolio, the reection will serve as a supporting document that helps portfolio readers understand your written contributions to the group essay. How to Do the Assignment: Compose an essay (about 600 words long), using the following questions to reect upon your experience writing the Collaborative Essay. The questions are intended to be helpful guides, but you are not expected to respond to all of them. You may add information that is not mentioned in the questions. Be sure to include an introduction and conclusion and to give examples. What was included in your groups composing process? How did your group go about discovering ideas for topics and details? How did your group collaborate on research and writing as opposed to adopting the chunking method of the cooperative process? How was group writing helpful to your understanding of the writing process? How did group writing interfere with this understanding? How did the dialogue assignment help or hinder your group in writing the essay? What did you nd most difcult about collaborative writing? How was it different (not just easier or more difcult) than cooperative writing? How did your group work together to revise?

128

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

How did you use others to assist you in making effective revisions? How have you worked on improving your editing process? What tends to be your groups most common mechanical problems? Which communication habits have changed or remained the same during this semester? What was your overall experience with this assignment? Due: [day/date]

Notes
1. This essay was written collaboratively using Google Docs. 2. We use group writing throughout as an inclusive term for collaborative and cooperative writing. Later, we will distinguish between collaborative and cooperative writing. 3. The technology we used and the course materials we developed conformed to goals laid out in Washington State Universitys (WSUs) English 101 Rubric under the headings of Critical Thinking, Rhetorical Awareness, Processes of Writing, and Knowledge of Conventions. 4. Kenneth Bruffee writes in Collaborative Learning and the Conversation of Mankind that collaborative learning originated in Great Britain in the 1950s but didnt receive much notice in American education until the 1970s (546). 5. At WSU, English instructors can arrange to occasionally hold class in a computer laboratory, and students pay required fees or purchase passes that provide access when the labs are open (not scheduled for classroom use). Ostensibly, students have access to computers during and outside of class time. However, in-class lab access was limited more than anticipated during our research because the two 9 a.m. sections met during a period of peak demand. 6. For the purposes of this essay, the term Google Docs can refer either to Googles entire online ofce suite or specically to the word-processing software that is part of that suite and the particular focus of our study. 7. Docs allays potential user interface issues that students or instructors might have with other platforms. Uploading is simple and exible. Docs allows you to upload almost any document format, and it will convert that format to something the entire group can read. Specifying who has access to a given document and exactly what access features individual editors should have is as simple as adding email addresses to a list and sending invitations with a click of the mouse. 8. The maximum number of people who can work synchronously on Docs has increased from ten at the time of our research to the current fty. The maximum number of collaborators, 200, remains the same. 9. A Doc invitation may give permission to edit or to view only. 10. Google Docs is easy for your students to access. All one needs to do to start creating, editing, and accessing Docs is visit http://docs.google.com and sign up for a free account. Docs offers a full ofce suite of programs. If youre using Docs for a composition class, youre likely focusing on the word-processing feature, but you can also use it to create spreadsheets (compatible with Excel), forms, drawings, and presentations (similar to PowerPoint but with limited design options). Docs can be just as useful for your own administrative tasks as it can be for your students work. The more you use it on your own, the more likely you are to be able to condently generate innovative tasks for your FYC students. As instructors, we have used Docs with success for recording student grades on spreadsheets; sharing and tracking handouts, including changes made to them over time; and planning and revising our daily course calendars. 11. Google Docs has been extensively upgraded since our original project. Any instructions provided in this essay are accurate as of August 2010, but some handout materials in the Appendix may reect Docs as it was circa 20072008. For more extensive help in using the software, visit http://docs.google.com/ support/. 12. Draft view in Word has a similar appearance, with no outlines to indicate page borders. 13. As we write this article, Google Docs is in the process of updating its Revision History function. Notes on Docs ofcial support forum indicate that full functionality should be reinstated in the near future. 14. When one group opened their Doc during class, the program loaded code instead of text. Fortunately, See revision history allowed the group to revert to the document as they had last left it. Even so, this experience reinforced the practice of making a backup copy of the document. 15. Student use of social networking sites such as Facebook and MySpace has increased dramatically since our study two years ago. This may have affected the technological readiness that current FYC students display.

Cooperative and Collaborative Writing with Google Docs (Evans and Bunting)

129

16. Our syllabi included these course objectives: At the conclusion of this course, students will be able to: Apply the four composition strategies outlined as English 101 Outcomes. Employ written and visual texts as an argumentative strategy. Access sources and integrate appropriate support in a research writing project. Engage in and understand differences between cooperative and collaborative writing. Discuss ways in which we occupy space as well as in which space inuences our epistemologies. Consider inuences that technology has on writing. 17. For example, instructions for dialogue writing in the Appendix (Paper 2 Step 1) were adapted from a previous assignment. We recommend shifting this assignment to Paper 3. Also, the Pitch Proposal and Annotated Bib assignments were used in previous courses and adapted from ideas that we were introduced to by other instructors. 18. In an upper division technical writing class taught the year before the group writing project, one instructor invited students to design a grading rubric for memos. Students had strong ideas about what high and low limits of acceptable work should look like; but they left the middle zones of the rubric blank and resisted encouragement to complete the class assignment. 19. At times, students logged on and observed as the instructor drafted comments. This gave interested students an unusual opportunity to observe the instructors writing process in real-time. 20. Yet, students often complained that electronic submission was unsettling on an aesthetic level. For example, a student wrote that I feel like bringing in a hard copy is just better. 21. All students in our composition sections were informed about the research project and invited to participate in compliance with Institutional Review Board non-exempt project approval. Questions about the study were answered, and students were invited but not required to sign a consent form. Class requirements for each participant were the same as for non-participants. Students were expected to complete assignments and, as outlined in the syllabi, comply with attendance and other policies regardless of whether or not they chose to participate in the study. We explained to our students that a research study on group writing assignments and synthesis of sources would be conducted, and that they were invited to participate. Students were told that whether they participated in the study or not, the class would require about the same work load that could be expected in other composition sections. Students were told that the efcacy of common technology tools was being evaluated, with some sections using Google Docs and others using different word processors. Students were also informed that the reective essays they wrote might be quoted but their identities would remain anonymous.

Works Cited
Bruffee, Kenneth A. Collaborative Learning and the Conversation of Mankind. College English 46.7 (1984): 63552. Rpt. in The Norton Book of Composition. Ed. Susan Miller. New York: W. W. Norton & Comp., 2009. 54562. Print. Brunk-Chavez, Beth L., and Shawn J. Miller. Decentered, Disconnected, and Digitized: The Importance of Shared Space. Kairos 11.2 (2007): n. pag. Web. 31 July 2010. Conner, M. Our Shared Playground: An Interview With Michael Schrage. LineZine 3.1 (2001): n. pag. Web. 31 July 2010. Ede, Lisa, and Andrea A. Lunsford. Collaboration and Concepts of Authorship. PMLA 116.2 (2001): 354 69. JSTOR. Web. 18 May 2008. Heller, Rafael. Questionable Categories and the Case for Collaborative Writing. Rhetoric Review 22.3 (2003): 30017. Informaworld. Web. 12 May 2008. Sakellariadis, Artemi, and Sam Chromy, Viv Martin, Jane Speedy, Sheila Trahar, Susan Williams, and Sue Wilson. Friend and Foe? Technology in a Collaborative Writing Group. Qualitative Inquiry 14.7 (2008): 120522. Sage. Web. 13 Nov. 2008. Selfe, Cynthia L. Technology and Literacy: A Story about the Perils of Not Paying Attention. Computers in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook. Ed. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elizabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2008. 93115. Print.

Working with Groups Online: Collaborating with Web Conferencing

CHERYL HAWKINSON MELKUN
Finding a writing instructor who does not feel that collaboration encourages creativity and promotes excellence would be difcult today. As a writing center director and teacher of business writing, I know rsthand the value of collaboration. Solo writers, in particular, often see the ability to write well as akin to a genetic trait, either you have it or you dont. Working in writing groups and teams dispels this myth. Students who write alone, struggling with their writing assignments, often blossom when they begin working with others as they come to realize that they are not alone, that writing good writing is the result of struggle, of working through successive drafts, of wrestling with problems concerning content, form, and style. Peer review groups and collaborative writing teams create learning communities in which members exchange drafts, provide commentary, encourage reflection, and suggest revision. Collaborative writing has, for these reasons, flourished in writing courses across the disciplines; however, instructors teaching blended or online classes often abandon the collaborative approach after a few failed attempts, despite their recognition that the problem is not with the collaborative concept, but with the technology employed. Many collaborative technologies can facilitate online peer review groups and collaborative writing teams with varying degrees of success: they include email exchange, group discussion boards, chat sessions, and web conferencing. Email exchange has the virtue of being asynchronous and of being a familiar technology, one that instructors and students alike know how to use without any additional training; nevertheless, it is the least effective collaborative technology. In a study of writing tutorials, Spooner found that email exchanges typically resulted in only one round of turn-taking: the student sends a text with a question, and the tutor replies, exit (Spooner 7). This pattern is also typical of peer review groups employing email to exchange texts and ideas, and it is observable, to a lesser degree, among collaborative writing teams using group discussion boards to share their work and communicate ideas. Group discussion boards embedded within course learning management systems such as Blackboard and Moodle are superior to email in that they offer a central location, a group page, where students can post their work and receive commentary from their peers; however, discussion board commentary and response is similar to email commentary: It is often cursory and frequently focuses on lower order concerns. And while more than one round of turntaking can and often does take place within group discussions boards, the amount of turns
130

Working with Groups Online (Melkun)

131

(posts) that students complete is generally determined by instructor-set participation mandates with few students exceeding the number of compulsory posts they are asked to produce. Unlike email and group discussion boards, chat and web conferencing are synchronous technologies; the signicant difference between these two technologies is that web conferencing utilizes voice-over-internet protocol (VoIP) enabling students to orally discuss their work, while chat technology employs instant messaging requiring students to discuss their work by typing queries and responses. Chat is superior to email in that its synchronous nature enables a dialogic exchange, creating an environment that is truly collaborative; however, chat still has major drawbacks the most notable of which is signicant delays between typing and receiving messages.

Working and Collaborating with Web Conferencing

Web conferencing is an excellent online platform for peer review groups and collaborative writing teams since it offers all the features of chat with the additional advantage of VoIP, enabling students to collaborate and communicate with one another in the most natural, human way possible (Grogan n.p.). Peer review groups and collaborative writing teams meeting via web conferencing technology are able to speak with one another, view their documents, and edit their work. Many web conferencing platforms provide application sharing that permits group and team members not only to view the text but also to share control of the text, enabling any web conferencing participant who has been given control to move text and objects, rewrite sentences and paragraphs, add or delete content, and edit for style and consistency. In a study of writing conferences employing synchronous VoIP technology, it was found that students using this technology were more apt to engage in revision than students meeting face-to-face (Hawkinson Melkum 199). At the University of Alaska Fairbanks (UAF), a similar tendency has been observed. According to Thurber, the Director of the writing center at UAF, the use of web conferencing visually and mentally engages students in their work and has led to an increase in students nding and correcting their own errors (156). Thurber also notes that students meeting online are more willing to discuss higher order concerns than students meeting face-to-face. The willingness of students to work with documents online when using collaborative web conferencing software is not surprising when one considers that most students no longer compose their drafts with pen or pencil: they compose their drafts while on their computers using a word processing platform. A recent article in the NCTEs Council Chronicle acknowledges this and goes one step further identifying student engagement with technology as a best practice and stating that students should be engaged in collaborative processes using Webbased tools (Collier 7). Web conferencing programs enable group and team members to open, view, and edit their document in real time using the same word processing platform that created it. Revisions made during the web conferencing session can be saved to the writers computer, creating a dynamic, collaborative environment in which team members make suggestions, try out rhetorical techniques and strategies, and decide on permanent textual changes. Web conferencing meetings are identied by students as working sessions during which real progress is being made. In addition, most web conferencing platforms permit participants to surf the web, enabling team members to collectively search, nd, and discuss articles within their universitys online databases. Some web conferencing platforms even provide web conference participants with an audio and video recording of their collaborative session. In addition to these tangible web conferencing benets, there are intangible benets that are equally valuable, especially for nontraditional students enrolled in blended and online

132

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

courses. According to the National Center for Educational Statistics (NCES), moderately or highly nontraditional students [are] more likely than either traditional students or minimally nontraditional students both to participate in distance education and to be in platforms available entirely through distance education (Snyder et al.10). Nontraditional students are also less likely to attain their degree goal within 5 years and are more likely to leave postsecondary education (Choy 13). While no denitive study connecting the high attrition rate of nontraditional students to online delivery has been published, many scholars speculate that the online environment fails to create a meaningful learning community, a critical component for student success (Kuh et al. 74). Often online students, both traditional and nontraditional, complain of working in a vacuum. Collaborative group sessions hosted via web conferencing technology may lessen this problem by building student connections, fostering a sense of community, and creating a support network. A graduate student at California State University at Monterey Bay stated that collaborative group work was a critical component of her academic success: When I found a partner to study with and got to know my classmates, I had a connection.... I found someone else who understood my struggle.... Since in groups you just dont talk about homework or the test, you talk about home, and share about yourself.... It was a tremendous support for me (Kuh et al. 75).

Web Conferencing for Peer Review Groups

Collaborating with other students, whether in the brick-and-mortar classroom or online, leads to increased student involvement, improved writing skills, greater rhetorical awareness, and increased student success. One collaborative strategy that can be incorporated into any class in which students create signicant written work is peer review. Peer review allows students to obtain feedback on their writing while it is still a draft, creating an opportunity for reflection and revision. Francine Davis, an early proponent of peer review noted distinct patterns of verbal activity in peer review groups: 1) asking questions about their work, 2) proposing revisions of their work, 3) agreeing or disagreeing with the recommendations of peers, and 4) explaining their stylistic choices. While peer review group members are not trained tutors, they are interested readers, and as Davis notes, group members often ask probing questions that promote critical, reflective thinking about writing (112). Forming student peer response groups in blended and online classrooms can be challenging given the limited opportunities the instructor has to observe the communication skills of individual class members. Some instructors form peer review groups by sending students an email asking them whether there are class members with whom they would like to work. Groups are then formed accordingly with students who did not express a preference lling out partial groups. Advocates of student-formed groups contend that students who have selected their own group are more comfortable within the group and, therefore, interact easily with one another. The disadvantage of student-formed groups is that students tend to pick their closest friends as group members. These friends often share the same world view and are frequently reluctant to comment on one anothers work. Instructor-formed groups can create diversity and break-up student cliques. Instructors may want to consider their students individual written oral communication skills as well when forming groups. Ideally, every group should have strong as well as weak writers. Students who have the same type of writing problem whether with content, organization, syntax, diction, or grammar should be placed in different groups. After all, if students are unable to recognize a problem within their own work, they are unlikely to recognize that problem in the work of

Working with Groups Online (Melkun)

133

others. A student with a pattern of subject/verb agreement errors, for example, will probably not detect subject/verb agreement errors in another students work. A student who uses an abundance of polysyllabic words, convoluted sentences, and lengthy paragraphs in an effort to impress the reader will be delighted to see this style reflected in the work of a classmate. Even carefully formed peer review groups need guidance. Instructors should create peer review guidelines and establish a peer review protocol. In the courses I teach, students follow a protocol that requires them to read their papers aloud during their web conferencing review session (see Appendix A). While students often balk at this, I have found that students who know they have to read their paper aloud generally work harder on their drafts. Reading the paper aloud also forces group members to listen attentively and focus their comments on higher order concerns rather than lower order concerns. Though web conferencing technology enables group members to share their document view as well as document control enabling reviewers to point out specic sections, sentences, and even words that need changing, sharing control should be kept to a minimum. Students should not edit the writers work; however, writers may want to highlight areas for future revisions, insert comments and suggestions, and make minor revisions during their web conferencing session. In my writing classes peer review sessions, writers are responsible for soliciting comments from each group member, asking clarifying questions, and recording the highlights of what each group member said, noting who said what. Writers are not permitted to argue with group members, defend what they have written, or explain what they have written. When discussing this protocol, I tell students, You will not be sitting next to me when I read your paper. For peer review to be successful, it must be fully integrated into the class and incorporated within the syllabus. Students should be graded on peer review participation: the quality and thoughtfulness of their commentary, their willingness to receive and consider constructive criticism, and their implementation of the advice received. The consequences for failing to have a draft prepared or for missing a peer review session should be clearly spelled-out in the course syllabus. The instructor may also want to require students to submit their rough draft as well as their notes from the peer review session when the nal draft is submitted. This enables the instructor to determine which members of the group are contributing, the quality of the advice the writer is receiving, and the willingness of the writer to revise his/her work in light of perceptive commentary.

Web Conferencing for Collaborative Writing Teams

Collaborative writing teams are distinctly different from peer review groups in that teams work together to develop, design, research, write, and produce a collaborative document or project. Unlike peer review groups in which the writer listens to group members but ultimately is solely responsible for the work produced, collaborative team members share responsibility for the nal document or project. The diverse views and skills of individual team members enhance learning opportunities and allow members to achieve more than they could possibly hope to accomplish alone, a fact that has long been acknowledged by business and industry professionals. In the workplace, cross-functional teams address company-wide problems; taskforce teams develop a product, service or system; and managerial teams oversee work projects and task schedules (DeJanasz 202204). While teams have been a part of the business landscape for decades, the benets of teams increased awareness of diversity, greater creativity and innovation, and improved communication skills have only recently been acknowledge and embraced by academia.

134

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

This new awareness may be due in part to the writing-across-the-curriculum movement that has fostered the development of writing courses within diverse disciplines including science, technology, and business disciplines that have long embraced a team approach to problemsolving. Not surprisingly, team writing assignments are most common in technical and business writing courses where they enable instructors to provide authentic team experiences that will produce college graduates with strong interpersonal, management, and coauthoring skills (Wolfe 5). Student writing teams provide students with valuable experience and allow members to tackle large, complex projects they would be unable to complete on their own. Familiar technical and business writing team assignments include white papers, business plans, operations manuals, and case studies As with peer review groups, teams can either be formed by students or by the instructor. Student-formed teams increase team member buy-in and group cohesion; however, studentformed teams can also be problematic in that they can lead to the formation of polarized high-achieving and low-achieving teams, particularly in small academic programs where students know one another well. In such environments, high-achieving students tend to select one another class after class and to decline admittance to low-performing students. Hence, low-performers tend to end up on the same team. This can be a positive situation in that it forces these students to step up, produce, and perform. In order to achieve, however, these teams typically need intervention and guidance from the instructor. Instructors may wish to create writing teams in accordance with the students expressed research interests especially in classes that allow the team to choose among several different project options such as a business plan, a company website, or an interactive multimedia project. Another consideration when forming teams is diversity: studies have shown that team members benet from a diversity of approaches and perspectives that lead to innovative insights (Wolfe 5). Instructor formed teams tend to be more diverse than student-formed teams and may provide students with more opportunities to learn from their peers. An additional benet of instructor-formed teams is the instructors ability to balance the team by leveraging the individual team members written and oral communication skills. Oral communication skills are particularly important to consider at colleges and universities that have speaking-intensive as well as writing-intensive general education requirements. Team assignments are particularly appropriate for classes that are designated both writing and speaking intensive. Team writing assignments not only save instructors time with end-ofterm grading, but more importantly, they provide students with an opportunity to practice and learn effective strategies for small group communication and team management. In traditional and blended classrooms, a preliminary exercise (see appendix B) can be used to introduce and discuss common communication styles passive, passive-aggressive, assertive, and aggressive and to provide the instructor as well as students an opportunity to observe class members interact within a small group. The information gained through preliminary small group exercises can be helpful when forming teams. Students who are aggressive communicators, demonstrating a need to win their point and dominate class discussion, will also want to dominate their teams. Aggressive communicators should be placed in a team with an assertive student, a student who will be respectful but will not allow the aggressive communicator to dominate the group. Passive communicators, students who seek to avoid conflict and rarely voice their own opinion, also benet from being placed in a team with an assertive individual who will encourage them to talk and contribute. Since teams will be using web conferencing for some if not all of their meetings, team members must learn how to listen to, respond to, and collaborate with team members orally in an online environment.

Working with Groups Online (Melkun)

135

Whether a course is traditional, blended or online, the chances of web conferencing teams working successfully to produce an excellent, collaborative paper or project are greatly increased if time is spent discussing team communication and establishing team charters. Through discussing, designing, and implementing a team charter, members of the team are able to move from the initial forming and storming stages of team development to the productive team development stages of norming and performing. Team charters lay the groundwork for successful team performance and typically contain broad project goals, measurable personal and project goals, team expectations and protocols, as well as contingency plans and consequences for problematic situations such as missed deadlines and unacceptable work (Wolfe 2829). Having these guidelines established in advance, not only makes problems less likely to occur but also allows groups to quickly resolve problems when they do occur. Instructors can help teams function smoothly by empowering them and by fully integrating team assignments and expectations into the syllabus and grading rubric. At a minimum, the course participation grade should be based in part on the teams evaluation of each members contribution and performance (see appendix C). The instructor may wish to go further, establishing a separate team participation grade or allowing the team to determine a portion of each team members project grade. As with peer review, students must understand at the outset of the course that their contributions are vital and will be considered when the nal grade is computed.

Collaborative Web Conferencing Technolog y

Given the benets of peer review and team writing both of which require a dialogic exchange, it may seem surprising that web conferencing is not more widely used, particularly in blended and online classrooms. To be fair, there are good reasons instructors choose not to incorporate this technology. First, web conferencing is not appropriate for all online classes. Web conferencing would be difcult, if not impossible, to use when members of the online class are geographically dispersed across time zones and in some cases continents. Second, incorporating web conferencing into a course can be taxing and time consuming; many instructors simply do not feel up to the challenge given their course loads and service commitments. While some institutions support web conferencing via a college or university-wide learning management system, many do not, leaving the selection, testing, and implementation of a web conferencing platform up to the individual instructor. This follows a familiar pattern. In a study of college and university writing centers employing online services such as web conferencing, 90 percent of writing center directors reported that they were chiefly responsible for building and maintaining their online centers presence. The directors also reported that they lacked the necessary training and support to develop and maintain their online programs (Shadle 10). A 2009 study found that little had changed and that writing centers offering online services received no additional funding for those services (Neaderhiser and Wolfe 61). Instructors seeking to incorporate collaborative web conferencing into their classroom toolbox should be realistic about the time commitment involved and seek institutional support.

Selecting a Web Conferencing Platform

Before selecting a web conferencing platform, instructors should rst determine how they will implement web conferencing within their course. Will this be a supplementary technology with students meeting in class as well as online? Will students be using web conferencing for peer review or for team meetings? Will students be conducting research and editing online? Will instructors attend group and team meetings or will students meet independently of the

136

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

instructor? Choosing a web conferencing program with a feature set that aligns with the class assignments, the instructors pedagogical approach, and the courses learning objectives is important. Web conferencing platforms that have been developed exclusively for educational use such as Elluminate and Wimba tend to offer an extensive feature set since they have been designed for hosting synchronous online classes. A number of web conferencing platforms popular in business and commerce such as Connect and WebEx also offer extensive feature sets since companies and organizations use these platforms to host large virtual meetings and to conduct virtual training. There are also free platforms available, such as Skype and Big Blue Button, and while these platforms are not as robust as their more expensive counterparts, they can provide a fully functional collaborative writing environment. Price, however, should not drive pedagogy. Price is negotiable, the feature set is not. When choosing a web conferencing platform, it is helpful to develop a table that clearly displays common web conferencing features and their relative importance in relation to course learning objectives (see appendix D). An important next step is to look for web conferencing articles, with an eye toward nding current comparative studies conducted by educational institutions. Studies conducted by unbiased consumer groups can also be helpful as can company websites. Remember, though, while it would be fantastic to have all the bells and whistles web conferencing platforms offer, only a few features are absolutely essential for collaborative work. Cross-platform functionality is one such feature. The web conferencing platform must permit both PC and Mac users access. In addition, the conferencing platform should work well with computers employing hard-wired or wireless internet connections, and with a variety of internet connections including cable, DSL, satellite, and dial-up. A systems feature set may be robust: however, if students are unable to access the system, the system and its feature set are useless. Application sharing, the ability to view and share a document online, is vital for peer review and team collaboration. Most web conferencing platforms allow students to share views of PDF documents; however, with many web conferencing programs team members must be willing to share control of the desktop if they want other team members to be able to edit or revise the document. Since students are often wary of sharing their desktop, a platform that permits direct application sharing is desirable. Another critically important feature is voice-over-internet protocol (VoIP). VoIP enables group and team members to speak with one another using their computer rather than their phone. This capability is signicant since many home computers may be located in a room where no phone is available. In addition, some telephone users have given up their land lines altogether, opting to use only their cell phones. A phone conference for these users could be expensive. VoIP that affords simultaneous, hands-free talk among multiple users is preferable to VoIP that requires team members to speak by passing a virtual microphone back and forth. Though web conferencing platforms such as Elluminate, Connect, and Wimba use the familiar icon of a microphone to denote the talk feature, learning to click the icon on when talking and off when listening is far from natural. Users who are new to synchronous conferencing employing VoIP frequently forget to click off their microphone, inadvertently blocking other group and team members from speaking. Group members can quickly become flustered and frustrated. Simultaneous talk more closely replicates face-to-face meetings, allowing group members to speak naturally. Chat is an essential back-up to VoIP. Audio problems are experienced more frequently in web conferencing than any other technical problem. Some audio problems originate with

Working with Groups Online (Melkun)

137

the user: students may have difculty setting up their audio or may simply enter a meeting without the proper equipment. Using a computers built-in microphone and speakers rather than an audio headset can cause a noticeable, and often distracting, echo. Internet access speeds can also be a source of audio problems. Computers accessing the internet at different rates of speed can create a delay between when an audio signal is sent and when it is received. When VoIP problems become distracting or when VoIP fails to work altogether, chat allows the review session or team meeting to continue collaboratively. Though it is natural to think that video would be essential to successful group collaboration and would build community among online team members, many students resent the intrusion of video into the home. Even without visual cues, most students collaborating via web conferencing are readily able to judge participant response by listening to auditory cues such as tone of voice and hesitations in speech. From a technical standpoint, video takes a substantial amount of bandwidth, making this feature virtually inaccessible for dial-up users and slowing application sharing for all group members, regardless of internet connection type: cable, DSL, satellite, or dial-up (Shewmake and Lambert 163). Additional features such as participant polling, web browsing, and interactive whiteboards may be helpful for teams conducting research collaboratively online but are far less critical than application sharing, chat, and VoIP.

Implementing Web Conferencing

Instructors should take responsibility for training their students to use web conferencing technology and for teaching their students to participate constructively in peer review sessions and collaborative team meetings. Handouts are helpful but are not a substitute for instructor participation. Instructors should attend and participate in each group or teams initial online web conferencing session. By attending the rst meeting, the instructor can train and familiarize group participants with the conferencing platform minimizing the need for formal training. Furthermore, the instructor can enforce protocols and model participation, showing students how to constructively communicate online. The instructor does not have to attend every session in its entirety, but it may be wise to attend the rst ve minutes or so of the second session in the event technical problems arise. Creating groups in which at least one student is technically savvy is also a wise practice. In addition to oral and written communication skills, technical skills should be considered when forming teams. Ask students to identify the computer technologies that they have worked with previously. Several students will likely have strong computer technology skills, skills that include web conferencing. Placing at least one student with strong computer skills within every group or team substantially minimizes problems since the student is usually able to troubleshoot technical problems during the session and develop work-arounds if necessary. While minor technical problems do occur with relative frequency, most students are not deterred by them. In a study that compared web conferencing writing sessions to face-to-face writing sessions, students using web conferencing technology were just as satised with their session as those meeting face-to-face (Hawkinson Melkum 127).

Final Thoughts
Integrating collaborative writing and web conferencing into the course curriculum takes time and may seem daunting in the beginning, particularly for those instructors and students who, like me, struggle with basic technology; however, this is time and the effort well spent. Yes, there will be problems. When it comes to technology, there always are, but these problems

138

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

are not insurmountable; instructors and their students quickly learn to identify the most common causes of problems as well as solutions and work-arounds. Be flexible. The conference protocol may still need to be tweaked. Students may be reluctant to try the technology. Think of incentives. Be creative. The rst time this technology is used will be a learning experience similar to the rst offering of a course. Web conferencing techniques, like courses, improve with every iteration. As instructors, we expect to continually revise the content and delivery of our courses. The same process applies to our use of learning technologies. We must observe how these technologies are being used by our students, develop best practices, and continually improve on those practices. As instructors who value writing, we value collaboration. Web conferencing, unlike discussion boards and even chat rooms, enables students to speak with one another, to voice their opinions, to ask questions, and to receive answers. By meeting with one another online via web conferencing, students become members of a discourse community in which collaborative talk and questioning helps the writer use language to develop ideas, to test possibilities, to re-see and rethink their work (Ede and Lundsford 156). Students participating in peer review groups and collaborative writing teams are not only able to re-see and rethink possibilities, they are able to take immediate action in relation to those possibilities; they are able to play with the text. The ability to rewrite sentences, rework confusing sections, and alter the visual design of the document fosters metacognition as group members watch, discuss, and participate in the evolution of their individual and collective written work. This type of interaction and engagement is rarely found, even within the brick-and-mortar classroom and for those of us who teach blended or fully online classes, it is even rarer. As we move forward into an increasingly online educational environment and digital world, we can expect that web conferencing and collaborative work will soon become as prevalent in academia as they are in business and for the same reasons: collaboration fosters reflection, provides opportunities for professional development, and promotes excellence.

Appendix A
Peer Review Session Handout
Peer Review Session Protocol Your peer review session will take place online using web conferencing software. Any group member who has access to the internet will be able to participate in the session, even those using dial-up connections; however, if you are using dial-up and this is your rst time conferencing virtually, be sure to allow sufcient time to download the software: downloading can take up to 20 minutes the rst time but will only take a few minutes for subsequent meeting. All members should open and then minimize their drafts on their computers and before entering the session. You will be taught how to use the conferencing platform once you are in the session. Session Overview Writers: 1. Read your paper aloud twice, slowly. Do not stop, explain, or edit your work during the reading. 2. Make sure that you fully understand the comments that are being made. Ask clarifying questions if you do not understand a comment. Write down everything that was said about your paper, noting who said what. 3. Do not defend what you have written. It is possible that some of the advice you are

Working with Groups Online (Melkun)

139

given will not be good advice: you must be the judge since you are the author of your work and must ultimately take responsibility for it. 4. Turn in your preliminary draft and notes along with the nal copy of your paper. Reviewers 1. Listen attentively during the rst reading but resist the urge to take notes. You are trying to get an overall understanding of the paper during the rst reading. 2. Take notes during the second reading on both the positive and negative aspects of the paper. 3. Read everything that you noted even if the same comment has already been made by another group member. Writers need to know whether there is agreement on specic points.

Appendix B
Small Group Activity, The Drawbridge
As he left for a visit to his outlying district, the jealous Baron warned his pretty wife: Do not leave the castle while I am gone, or I will punish you severely when I return! But as the hours passed, the young Baroness grew lonely, and despite her husbands warnings, decided to visit her lover who lived in the countryside nearby. The castle was located on an island in a wide, fast-flowing river, with a drawbridge linking the island to the land at the narrowest point in the river. Surely my husband will not return before dawn, she thought ... so, she ordered her servants to lower the drawbridge and leave it down until she returned. After spending several pleasant hours with her lover, the Baroness returned to the drawbridge only to nd it blocked by a gateman wildly waving a long and cruel knife. Do not attempt to cross this bridge, Baroness, or I will have to kill you, he raved. The Baron ordered me to do so. Fearing for her life, the Baroness returned to her lover and asked him for help. Our relationship is only a romantic one, he said. I will not help. The Baroness then sought out a boatman on the river, explained her plight to him, and asked him to take her across the river in his boat. I will do it, but only if you pay me ve marks. But I have no money with me! explained the Baroness. That is too bad. No money, no ride, the boatman said flatly. Her fear growing, the Baroness ran crying to the home of a friend, and after again explaining the situation, begged for enough money to pay the boatman his fee. If you had not disobeyed your husband, this would not have happened, said the friend. I will give you no money. With dawn approaching and her last resource exhausted, the Baroness returned to the bridge in desperation, attempted to cross to the castle, and was slain by the gateman. In The Drawbridge, there are six characters. They are listed below in alphabetical order. Using the list below, rank the characters (from 1 to 6) in order of their responsibility for the death of the Baroness. 1 is the most responsible, and 6 is the least responsible. Use your values to make this determination.
Source: DeJanasz, Suzanne C., Karen O. Dowd, and Beth Z. Schneider. Interpersonal Skills in Organizatons. 3rd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2009

140

III: How do I integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments?

Appendix C
Team Member Participation Rubric
Poor 2 Research & Gathers Information Shares Information Does not collect any information related to topic Does not share any information to teammates Does not participate in any planning Does not perform any duties related to the team Relies on others to do the work Fair 3 Good 4 Collects some basic information related to topic Shares basic information, most related to topic Participates in group planning Excellent 5 Collects a great deal of information related to topic Shares a great deal of information all related to the topic Fully participates in group planning Performs all allocated duties efciently and pleasantly Always does the assigned work without needing to be reminded Always attended meetings

Score

Contribution
Collects very little information related to topic Shares very little information, some relates to topic Participates marginally in group planning Performs very little of the duties allocated to him/her Rarely does the work and often needs reminding Rarely attended meetings in or outside of class

Planning

Responsibility
Fullls Team Roles and Duties Performs nearly all duties allocated in an efcient manner Usually does the assigned work and rarely needs reminding Usually attended meeting both inside and outside of class Listens but does not contribute actively to the conversation Rarely argues, sticks to issues, and contributes frequently. Is assertive, but not aggressive.

Shares Work Equally

Attended meetings

Never attended meetings in or outside of class

Listening and Communication

Listens to Other Teammates Is always talking never allows anyone else to speak Usually argues with teammates and often gets loud OR does not contribute unless asked, often appears to be daydreaming Usually wants to have things their way and will not compromise Usually does most of the talking, rarely allowing others to speak Sometimes argues with teammates OR generally nods approval but does not communicate Often sides with friends rather than considering all views Listens and contributes without being aggressive

Communication with Teammates

Never argues, sticks to issues, and actively contributes in a professional, assertive manner

Makes Fair Decisions

Usually considers all views

Always helps the team to reach a fair decision by listening to all views Would denitely want to work with again

Summary Impression
Overall impression of Teammate I would not want to work with again Have mixed feelings about working with again Would probably want to work with again

Working with Groups Online (Melkun)

141

Appendix D
Comparative Web Conferencing Feature Table
Feature VoIP Text Chat Multiple Simultaneous Talk Video Guided Web Browsing Interactive Whiteboard PowerPoint Presentation Polling and Quizzing Multimedia Presentation Application Sharing Emoticons Breakout Rooms Record and playback Password Secured Cross Platform Highly Desirable X X Very Desirable Desirable

X X X X X X X X X X X X X

Works Cited
Choy, Susan. Nontraditional Students: Findings from the Condition of Education 2002. Washington, D.C.: Department of Education, 2002. Print. Collier, Loran. Successes in English Teacher Preparation; Preparing Tomorrows Teachers What Are the Best Practices? Council Chronicle: The National Council of Teachers of English March 2011: 610. Print. Davis, Francine. Weaving the Web of Meaning: Interaction Patterns in Peer Response Groups. Resources in Education August 1982. ERIC. Web. DeJanasz, Suzanne C., Karen O. Dowd, and Beth Z. Schneider. Interpersonal Skills in Organizatons. 3rd ed. Boston: McGraw-Hill Irwin, 2009. Print. Ede, Lisa. S., and Andrea Lundsford. Why Write ... Together? Rhetoric Review 1.2 (1983): 15057. Print. Grogan, Shareen. Re: [WCenter] State of OWLS. E-mail on WCenter Listserve. Retrieved from WCenter ListServe. 20 June 2008. Hawkinson Melkun, Cheryl. Meeting the Needs of the Nontraditional Student: A Study of the Effectiveness of Synchronous Online Writing Center Tutorials. Diss. University of Maryland, College Park, 2010. UMI, 2010 Print. Inman, James, and Donna Sewell, eds. Taking Flight with OWLs: Examining Electronic Writing Center Work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000. Kuh, George, Jillian Kinzie, John Schuh, Elizabeth Whitt, & Associates. Student Success in College: Creating Conditions that Matter. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005. Print. Neaderhiser, Stephen, and Joanna Wolfe. Between Technological Endorsement and Resistance: The State of Online Writing Centers. The Writing Center Journal 29.1 (2009): 4977. Print. Shadle, Mike. The Spotted OWL: Online Writing Labs as Sites of Diversity, Controversy, and Identity. Inman and Sewell 316. Print. Shewmake, Jake and Jason Lambert. The Real(time) World: Synchronous Communications in the Online Writing Center. Inman and Sewell 161170. Print. Snyder,Thomas D., Sally A. Dillow, and Charlene M. Hoffman. Digest of Education Statistics, 2008. National Center for Education Statistics. March 2009. Web. Spooner, Michael. Some Thoughts about Online Writing Labs. Writing Lab Newsletter 18.6 (1994): 68. Print. Thurber, Jamie. Synchronous Internet Tutoring: Bridging the Gap in Distance Education. Inman and Sewell 151159. Print. Wolfe, Joanna. Team Writing: A Guide to Working in Groups. Boston: Bedford St. Martins Press, 2010. Print.

This page intentionally left blank

Part IV. Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

Blending Collaboration and Competition: A Model for Small Group Learning in Business Writing Classes
RANDI BROWNING
Small group collaboration has long been recognized as a benecial tool to promote learning in various settings and levels of education. Incorporating small group collaborative activities and projects in a college-level writing class, however, is complex. Students bring previous experiences positive and negative to the activity, yet, we cannot assume they have developed the skills or attitudes necessary to collaborate productively with their peers, to solve problems together, or to complete the writing tasks given to them. Consider that throughout our students education, the dominant model has encouraged rewards, praise, and recognition for individual achievement the child whose hand goes up rst, the one with the right answer, the one who nishes fastest, etc. When we ask our students to collaborate, we are asking them to develop and to use a different set of skills and to consider and balance others ideas and concerns with their own while they work to complete the given task. In college, when some students scholarships depend on maintaining a particular grade point average, the prospect of other students affecting their grades heightens some students anxiety. So why should we incorporate small group work in a college writing class? One reason is that their future success may depend on the skills they use and develop through those activities. Many of the skills fostered by and needed for successful small group work fall under the category of emotional intelligence. Emotional intelligence can be characterized by ones ability to empathize, to be self-aware and self-controlled, to persist and motivate oneself, to communicate and influence, and to get along with others and work in teams (Goleman 35). In his book Working with Emotional Intelligence, Daniel Goleman documents how essential emotional intelligence is to success in the workplace. Based on his research and on his work with businesses, he reports that
[t]he rules for work are changing. Were being judged by a new yardstick: not just by how smart we are, or by our training and expertise, but also by how well we handle ourselves and each other.... [A]cademic abilities are largely irrelevant to this standard. The new measure takes for granted having enough intellectual ability and technical know-how to do our jobs; it focuses instead on personal qualities, such as initiative and empathy, adaptability and persuasiveness [3].

143

144

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

Citing a study related to IQ conducted at Harvard, Goleman summarizes the ndings: IQ takes second position to emotional intelligence in determining outstanding job performance (5). The good news is that unlike IQ, our emotional intelligence is not xed after our teen years; it continues to increase with experience (7). Small group learning activities can provide experiences that foster this development, but is simply providing the activity enough to accomplish this goal? To help students develop the necessary skills, some researchers have argued that teachers need to collaborate with students in order to model effective strategies. For instance, Webb et al., based on their research with elementary math classes, argue for teachers probing students explanations for more detail in order to further develop their reasoning. Overall, however, very little attention has been given to the teachers role in the process of small group work and to the instruction teachers need to include along with the collaborative activity. As a result, students are often left to flounder through the activity, missing the opportunity to expand much beyond the usual individualistic approach to learning and task completion. Many students may even identify small group work as an exercise in frustration or, perhaps, as a time to socialize more than to work setting the bar of motivation at the lowest common denominator. We cannot assume our students come with procient or even sufcient collaborative skills to achieve the goals we set for small group learning activities. We must think about our role in the process and what kind of small group work will help our students the most. We have probably all seen small groups in which one or two members carry the others, and some members seem content to have a free ride, making little effort to assert themselves or to take responsibility for the success of the group work. This kind of uneven participation does not yield the kind of growth for all members that we expect. We must have clear purposes for our small group activities, purposes we can share with our students so they can understand the value of the activity and can meet our expectations. With or without much focus on the teachers role in the process, proponents of collaboration in education particularly for younger students focus on the positive outcomes such as higher achievement, positive peer relationships, and a positive classroom environment. They often frame their arguments in contrast or opposition to competition in the classroom, identifying the negative outcomes of competition such as increased anxiety, repeated marginalization of some students, and diminished self-concept. Sometimes the value of collaboration is contrasted against what they perceive as the competitive norms of education in the United States (Napier; Roseth, D. Johnson, and R. Johnson; Self ). These studies help highlight some of the clear benets of collaboration in the classroom, but is competition always antithetical to collaboration? What happens when the competition doesnt focus on individuals but on groups? Is there a way to combine the benets of collaboration and the best aspects of competition? In the research that focuses on high school and college learners, we see that collaboration and competition may be more compatible than the studies that focus on children suggest. For instance, Fournier, Rayne and Geller report increased participation in classroom discussions when students were divided into competing groups, with extra credit as the reward for the team that participated the most. Adding to the conversation, other researchers particularly in science and technical classes also note some of the positive effects of competition in the classroom such as increased motivation and creativity (Cheng et al.). A few researchers have found positive results by combining the best of collaboration and competition (Fu, Wu, and Ho; Sabato). Fu, Wu and Ho have even used the term coopetition to describe activities that provide cooperation within groups and competition between groups. The idea of combining collaboration with competition is certainly common in the workplace, and we would serve

Blending Collaboration and Competition (Browning)

145

our students well if we would give them opportunities to see the benets and challenges of both approaches in the classroom, especially in the college classroom. When we combine the strengths of both collaboration and competition, we nd another way to approach small group work one that avoids the either/or options. Is there a way in writing classes to work with the best of both collaboration and competition? Especially for those students who choose careers in highly competitive elds, is there a way to blend the benets of small group collaboration and the stimulation of competition so that our students develop more fully than they would with only one approach? Business writing classes lend themselves naturally to such an approach. Many successful business men and women nd themselves with tasks that are larger and more complex than they can complete alone, and they need to know how to organize, manage, solve problems, and produce outcomes in a collaborative group. In business, however, these groups function in high-stakes competitive environments. The collaborators have to work productively together while they are also competing with other businesses for their work. Is there a way to help our students learn how to function and even thrive with the complexity of collaboration and competition? I sought to do just that in an upper-division business writing class as I taught the students proposal writing. I wanted them to understand and experience the demands that will be placed on them when their writing matters most, when their writing can determine the success or failure of their business.

Simulating Real World Collaborative and Cooperative Writing: The Writing Consulting Firm Project
The Context: An Upper Division Business Writing Class
Business writing classes have some built-in advantages and unique opportunities for helping students develop versatile writing skills. Because students often perceive these classes as, perhaps, more relevant to their futures than a more generic writing class, which usually focuses on academic writing, they come motivated to learn something new and relevant. Little do they know that an effective business writing class uses the same rhetorical principles found in any credible writing class: primary concern for audience, purpose, and context. However, when the students perceive the theory and instruction to be new, they listen with new ears. Business writing classes emphasize the importance and relevance of writing to the students future success in the real world in a way that seems more tangible to them than an academic writing course does. However, at the heart of a business writing class are basic rhetorical principles (not just genre templates). The application of these principles invokes a real-world context even though the principles could be applied to any writing occasion and setting in or out of the academy. The specic business writing course I designed and taught at a small liberal arts college in a ten-week quarter was open to all juniors and seniors and usually attracted a broad range of students and majors. The curriculum included a variety of writing tasks typical of many business writing classes (various types of communications letters, memos, reports, press releases along with resumes and cover letters, and proposals). All the assignments, however, were designed and sequenced to build skills and knowledge needed for the collaborative and competitive simulation activity. The foundation for a successful small group activity began the rst day even though the students were not aware of the sequencing and of my methods. The rst half of the quarter focused on helping students learn how to adapt to various audiences and purposes as they problem solved a variety of business issues and practiced

146

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

writing their letters, memos, and other specic pieces. Within the rst ve weeks, students often worked in small groups to generate ideas, to respond to each others drafts, and to problem solve various types of ethical and business issues. Through these activities, they were developing collaborative skills: they were learning to share their own perspectives, listen to others ideas, synthesize and build on common ground, question each other, and report consensus and dissensus accurately. The second half of the quarter was devoted to a simulation that resulted in a collaboratively written proposal and group presentation. In a business context, proposals are persuasive documents used for a variety of purposes. Often proposals are the means through which businesses bid for and acquire contracts for their services (or goods). In order to simulate this dynamic, I wanted the students to feel the importance of what they would produce. So the twist with this small-group collaborative project was that as in business where only one group wins the contract in this class, only one group could get the A. I wrote a Request for Proposal (RFP) as if it were coming from a company that needed to improve their writing skills and was soliciting writing consulting rms to help them achieve this goal. The students, collaborating and working in small groups, responded to that RFP by writing a proposal and making a presentation in order to compete for the contract the A.

Course Design: Developing Skills Through Sequencing Assignments and Small Group Activities
We should not assume students come to our classes as skilled collaborators, nor should we overlook the skill development that could be and should be fostered in the process of small group work and through the tasks we assign them. From the very beginning, I anticipated the skills (collaborative and writing) the students would need for the simulation, and I designed the assignments and class-session activities to help them prepare and develop their abilities. Sometimes, as teachers, we may incorporate small group activities as a way to engage all students or to vary the activities to keep students interested. Although I do that, too, I also think about the sequence of assignments, the process of accomplishing those assignments, the introduction and maintenance of a project, and the conclusion and debrieng of the project as important vehicles for skill development. As a result, long before the students knew much about the project, they had already laid the groundwork for it through the assignments and small group activities integrated into the class from the rst day.

First Assignments: Real World Applications from the Beginning

One of the rst assignments I gave the students was to identify three elds or specic jobs they might pursue after graduation and to locate three people in those elds they could write. Their task was to solicit samples of the most common and important types of writing produced in that eld/job. They had to persuade the recipients to send them actual samples of their companys writing. This task threw the students into the deep end from the beginning. Before they knew much about letter writing, they had to persuade someone a real person, not a hypothetical audience to take action. From the beginning, they began to understand that desired outcomes depend on their writing effectively; their writing had real consequences. That challenge exceeded what these students knew how to do on the second day of class, so they felt the disequilibrium that generates lots of questions and a desire for help. Creating disequilibrium can stimulate the learning process, but we must also provide effective scaffolding and support in order for the unsure students to gain their footing. This

Blending Collaboration and Competition (Browning)

147

is often where group work is especially helpful and productive. I provided a handout to help them prepare to write (Appendix A). We worked together as a class and in small groups to clarify the various purposes and tasks embedded in this assignment and to generate a list of what their audience would need in order to accommodate their request. This collaborative process supported their success. Many students received multiple sets of samples, and rarely did a student come up empty. Writing to someone they knew (family members, family friends, former employers, etc.) or to someone with whom they shared a contact (the career ofce had a list of alums and friends of the college who had agreed to be contacts for students) was helpful. As a result of the students requests, within a few weeks, we had real-life samples of writing from a broad section of elds, which we used to analyze style, voice, and effectiveness.

Preparing Students: Giving Them Practice, Helping Them Develop Common Language, and Providing Them Occasions to Make Decisions Collaboratively
The students had to analyze their received samples and identify the strengths and weaknesses of each piece in their own collection in order to write an assessment report (Appendix B). In order to scaffold this process, which was new to them, I gave them an analysis grid (Appendix C). Not only did this handout give them a systematic way of assessing the writing, but it also gave them some common language with which to talk together about writing. I was asking novices to act like experts. The handout and our work in class helped bridge that gap. After drafting their own report, they met in small groups to compare their samples and determine which set of samples was the neediest (the company that most needed to improve the effectiveness of their written work). Because each student had analyzed samples and brought their work to the small group, each had something to contribute, and they had a common language to use when deciding together which company most needed to improve their writing. Even though the simulation project wouldnt begin until the middle of the quarter, these rst assignments helped them develop necessary skills: persuading someone through their writing alone to take action (the request letter); writing with purpose and audience in mind (their report); identifying strengths and weaknesses in writing (their report); sharing their results and coming to a consensus by working in small-groups and by collaborating as a whole class. This process and the resulting selection of a company in need of improved writing not only set up the simulation and collaborative group project, but it also helped the students develop and practice essential skills and dispositions for the project. This process helped them learn how to identify strengths and weaknesses in writing and how to make decisions collaboratively with a small and a large group. Also, working with the samples from various elds and companies and sharing the results of their analysis, the students gained perspective on discourse communities in action and noted how conventions, forms, and voice adjust to purpose, audience, and profession.

Group Formation: Balancing Strengths and Weaknesses and Leveling the Playing Field
By about the fourth week of the ten-week quarter, I had observed the classroom dynamics, and I had seen enough of their writing to identify individual strengths and needs. With that in mind, I had them each ll out an application for employment in a writing consulting rm (Appendix D). By having them ll out an application, I could set a tone of professional

148

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

conduct, and I could make sure no one group had a built-in advantage or disadvantage. This step also eliminated some students staying with friends, with whom they were already comfortable, and some students feeling left over or unwanted. With their applications in hand, I formed the groups, making sure that close friends as well as boyfriends/girlfriends were on different teams and providing each team with a balance of strengths to draw on writing, interpersonal communication, organization, work-ethic, graphics/visual abilities, verbal facility, etc. Five or six students in each group made the workload manageable although four hard workers could succeed. Each group would be a separate writing consulting rm, competing for the job of improving the selected companys writing. When forming the groups, I had to consider all the various tasks they would have to accomplish. They would need to assess the strengths and weaknesses of the writing in the context of the business and the eld; to design a program for improving the companys writing; to write a proposal, which, in addition to needs assessment and action plan, included typical boilerplate information such as a company history, consultant qualications, and testimonials. They would also have to pitch their program in a sales presentation. By design, this project represented more than any one or even two people could do; they would have to learn how to work together in order to succeed. So, how do you move from grouping individuals to creating a team that can collaborate and succeed? The answer is a critical part of the process, one that is often overlooked.

Chartering and Forming a Group Identity

Often in small groups that are assigned a collaborative task to complete, the members focus on the task and get to work, ignoring the dynamics of the group and the needs of the individuals. Other times, the members spend so much time getting to know each other socially and ensuring that members feel comfortable with each other that the task gets postponed, and the group struggles to catch up. Building in the structure and instruction in the beginning that will help students develop essential skills and knowledge so they can balance both task completion and group maintenance is important. Although my students had worked together ve weeks prior to this project, they had not talked together regarding their attitudes and concerns about group work. As juniors and seniors, most students had participated in collaborative projects in previous classes; however, most of them carried the baggage of unsuccessful or frustrating experiences. They identied projects in which they dominated the group in order to get the work done right; projects in which they felt dominated by others and, as a result, they shut down; or projects in which they resentfully picked up the pieces of less-committed members in order to save their grade. With these experiences in the background, they braced themselves for more of the same. However, this was not business as usual. How you begin matters. I wanted to teach students some of the principles of successful group formation, so I built in an initial process, a kind of chartering process: clarifying for themselves the purpose and expectations of the project, establishing the ground rules; listening to the concerns of each other; understanding each others strengths, preferences, and communication styles; anticipating problems and ways to solve them, and creating a group identity and a sense of unity and purpose. Our chartering process did not result in a formal document, as some group chartering processes do, but it did address the rst stage in group formation. In 1965, psychologist Bruce Tuckman rst published his Developmental Sequence in Small Groups, and his four initial stages of development, known as Tuckmans Stages. These became known as forming, storming, norming, and performing (396). Throughout the years since then, Tuckmans Stages have been tested and applied to a variety of settings, including

Blending Collaboration and Competition (Browning)

149

task-oriented groups. These stages are still a reference point for the process of small group development today. In 1977, along with Mary Ann Jensen, Tuckman added an additional, nal stage, adjourning (426); this stage refers to the end of a group, when the tasks have been completed and the group disbands. Some have also referred to this stage as mourning. Although groups rarely follow a perfect linear model, Tuckmans Stages can provide a useful structure and point of reference for teachers as they plan small group projects and for students as they move from the initial to the nal stages in their group work. These stages remind us that there is a developmental process in small group work, and they can help students understand the various needs at different times of a group project. To begin this forming or chartering process, each group was given a list of sentence stems that they were required to complete orally to each other (Appendix E). At rst the students were self-conscious about this process, but my condence in its value and my unwavering commitment to the process convinced them to see it through every time. By the end of this rst group meeting, they had laid the ground work for successful problem solving, surfaced the hidden agendas and fears that would have been operating unseen, acknowledged differences in style, laughed together, and felt hopeful that this could be a different kind of collaborative experience. As we debriefed this process, we could collaboratively identify some of the storming problems that often interfere with successful group work: unequal commitment and participation, domination, ineffective communication, problem-solving avoidance, varying individual strengths and styles, lack of honesty and trust, etc. This process provided the students with an opportunity to avoid some of the common problems or at least to lay the groundwork for solving them when/if they arose as well as gave the students perspective and allowed them to anticipate the norming stage, which often comes as a result of addressing the storming issues. Through the simulation of competing writing consultant rms, I held them accountable for maintenance of the group as well as task completion, which gave them the opportunity to develop and practice important skills and attitudes, not just focus on the task alone.

Quick Task Completion and Success

This project was very complex, and the fast ten-week quarter was unforgiving in its pace. Few students had experience managing such a complex project on their own and even fewer had experience collaborating with a group to complete such a project. I had to build in enough structure to help them bridge that which they already knew how to do and that which they needed to learn how to do. Having spent at least half-an-hour working on group formation and chartering (the ground work for group maintenance), it was then time to address task completion, to create some momentum, and to build in initial success. I gave them the RFP and a planning worksheet a graphic way of chartering and organizing themselves and of getting started (Appendix F). By working through the worksheet together, they began to understand the complexity of the project, to consider how they would work together, and to plan for the completion of the whole task. They didnt have a chance to get paralyzed and to procrastinate, both of which can happen when groups face a daunting task. By tackling the forming and chartering processes along with some initial organizational tasks and preliminary decisions, they immediately put into practice what they had just learned about working with their group and about balancing group maintenance and task completion. In order to give them practice at small group learning and collaboration, I didnt want to direct their steps from beginning to end, but I did need to give them enough information to support their success. The planning worksheet, time to work together in class, and meeting with me before the class ended gave them support and structure to get started successfully, but there was still a lot of new territory for them to navigate together.

150

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

The RFP described some of the required elements. I also showed them some models professionally-produced proposals and the examples from previous classes. While they could not take the samples out of the class, they could look them over during our class working sessions throughout the project. These samples provided a quick orientation and encouraged them to get to work, and the RFP gave them a minimal checklist from their client or audience. As a group, they had to decide what they would include, what work they would do together, what initial steps they could do individually, and how creatively they would distance themselves from their competition. Collectively assessing what they knew, what they didnt know, and what questions they needed answered was an important initial step, and the planning worksheet helped them do that. After giving them at least a half-hour to work through the planning worksheet together, I started checking in with each group. I wanted to answer their questions and help them get unstuck if necessary so that they could get a jumpstart on the project and feel the momentum of a good start. Before they left class, they had worked together to make some initial decisions and plans, and they had met with me to ask questions that, if unanswered, might have stalled their progress. They left class set up for success.

Learning and Working Together: The Challenges Between Beginning and Ending
While I formed the groups, gave them the RFP, deadlines, and basic tasks, together they had to create a name for their company and invent a history and company ethos before they came up with their plan and wrote their proposal. As time consuming and relatively insignicant as those create-your-company tasks could be, they served to form a group identity that distinguished them from the other groups and moved them from a collection of students to a team. I found over time that I could speed this process up without losing any of the benets by creating different basic company proles that they would draw out of a hat. For example, one group might be a small but fast-growing young and cutting-edge consulting company; another group might become a middle-sized company with a track record of success; and another option would be a well-established consulting rm that included ofces in various states and offered a variety of consulting services. Each of the proles could be used for a marketing advantage, and they had to consider their identity when determining their costs. Even with a few time-saving shortcuts such as these, the groups still named their companies and created a logo for themselves; the company prole just gave them a place to start. Over the years, as more and more students came with digital and graphic experience, their visuals took less time to produce and became increasingly sophisticated, and, consequently, the students gained a growing sense of professionalism in what they produced. This project included more than enough work for everyone, and the work required a variety of skills creative work, technical work, graphic/visual work, research and assessment, drafting, editing, etc. Success depended on organizing and using everyones varied talents and bringing out the best in everyone. In order to foster the skills development of everyone this was a writing class after all they couldnt just assign students to contribute their already-developed strengths. All students had to be involved in some way in the writing. Aside from the heavy workload of this project, one of the most challenging (and predictable) aspects of the collaborative group project occurred when one or more members did not pull their weight, follow through with tasks, or meet deadlines. Another challenge occurred when one member assumed heavy-handed leadership and dominated others. These were among the most common storming issues. By talking about these pitfalls before they encountered them, the students had a place to begin addressing them, but the undergraduates had to resist

Blending Collaboration and Competition (Browning)

151

the impulse to ignore the problems, resort to passive-aggressive actions, or split off into backbiting subgroups. These common problems gave us a prime educational moment to address the need for communication and ethical problem-solving strategies in small group work. By situating the problems in a theoretical construct of common group development issues (Tuckmans Stages for instance), the difculties seemed less personal than they might have if the students thought it was just a faulty group or failing group member. The students could refer to the difculty as the storming process and take a certain amount of pride that they had identied the problem correctly. I was always grateful for the problems that surfaced because of the educational value. If we can give our students practice addressing the pitfalls they might encounter in collaborative groups after college, they will be better equipped to succeed when they face them in the workplace. Whenever we incorporate small-group work in our classes, we must realize that it involves developing their collaborative and communication abilities their emotional intelligence not just completing the given task. The challenges to small-group work provide opportunities for instruction and learning. I advised the students not to be thrown if problems occurred but to take responsibility for solving them. The educational benet comes from facing problems and attempting to solve them more than from a problem-free experience. However, students are not always experienced or skilled at problem-solving the issues that arise in small group work, so we need to coach, model, and incorporate ways to help them learn to address their peers honestly, directly, and constructively. In that rst project-kick-off class, I shared what other groups had done that worked and did not work to address the problems in their groups. I also modeled ways that were constructive and destructive to the well-being of the group and ultimately to their task. I reminded them that their grade was determined by what they produced AND by how they worked as a group. Because we were simulating work groups and consulting rms, I could easily link their behavior in this small group to what might happen if the same behaviors (positive and negative) occurred in the workplace. The instances of conflict or storming represent a natural phase of group development rather than a sign of failure. How the students move through this stage leads quickly (or slowly) to norming and performing. The forming and chartering process at the beginning usually surfaced individual needs as students communicated to their fellow group members what their strengths, weaknesses, and needs were. Added demands were made on groups that had members with special needs, but that, once again, created a very teachable moment and allowed the group members to understand the strengths that resided right along with something they might have considered a disadvantage. The advantage of collaborative projects is that no one person has to be everything the group needs. The success of these groups comes from learning to build off of individual strengths and to minimize the effects of weaknesses.1 The demand on those group members who had peers with identiable limitations was to determine the strengths while helping each individual develop new skills. If you hold the groups accountable for building and demonstrating collaborative skills and you create as even a playing eld as possible, you can minimize the stress on every one, and you can help students avoid marginalizing those who have various kinds of limitations. Differing levels of learning, writing and literacy skills, however, are not the only challenging aspects to successful small group projects. As we were simulating competing businesses, the groups needed a safety valve if they encountered a dysfunctional group member who refused to change despite all their efforts to solve the problem. As a last resort, each group had the ability to re anyone who was not performing. However, there had to be due process and a paper trail of efforts made to help the group member improve. The paper trail took different iterations over the time I taught this

152

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

course. Early on, I had them keep minutes of their group meetings to give each member practice at synthesizing and organizing the information covered, work completed, problems addressed, and next steps. While this additional assignment did help them structure their meetings and give them valuable writing practice with another genre, it also created more work for them during a very heavy-workload project. Ultimately, the stress of the additional assignment outweighed the benet, and I dropped it. I did, however, build in a mid-way progress report (more about that later). The paper trail for personnel issues turned into an asneeded memo to their boss or supervisor (sent to me) that included a statement of the problem, with concrete, specic examples, and it included a description of their actions taken to solve the problem and the response of the dysfunctional member. The document needed to be signed by all group members, including the dysfunctional member. I, in turn, either wrote back to them or met with them to discuss next steps. If they reached an impasse, they could recommend termination. If a student were terminated, he/she would have received an F for the project. In twenty years of teaching this class, no one was ever red. This option, however, did serve as a point of realism that brought home the lessons of accountability, cooperation, and individual responsibility. I was available to consult with them, but up to the point of recommending termination, they operated autonomously.

Structural Support: The Need for Communication and Problem-solving

To continue to support their skill development, I built in a mid-way assessment to check on their individual and collective progress and to provide additional coaching while there was still time to correct their course if needed. Half-way through the project, each member had to write up a status report (sent to their boss me), accounting for work completed (individually and collectively); problems encountered, solved, and remaining; plans for completing the remaining work; evaluation of the group and work so far; and recommendations (Appendix G). This progress report allowed each one of them to reflect on the tasks as well as on the collaboration, take stock and refocus if necessary, and it allowed me to note consistencies and inconsistencies within the groups. I wrote back to each group, and I usually met with them, especially to help them reconcile the discrepancies among group members reports. In this case, I was able to model and facilitate problem solving while there was still time to rectify misperceptions, misunderstandings, and/or conflicts. I usually reflected on what I saw and heard and asked the same of them. Because I was devoting class time for their group meetings, I was also able to observe the groups in action noting the dynamics and individual participation, which helped me give effective midway feedback. Rather than solving the problems for them, I tried to facilitate their solving the problem(s). I reported my observations and sometimes reminded them of deadlines or required tasks and responsibilities always followed by questions as to how they were going to make adjustments or solve the problem(s) that had emerged. I gave them feedback on the advantages and disadvantages of their choices, but ultimately, the choices were theirs to make. In making these choices, they established their norms. In addition to collaboratively producing a written proposal, each group had to plan and deliver a presentation as part of the bidding process. By the time they came to this task, they were often stretched thin, but it was also the part of the project in which they collaborated most effectively, the part that showed their performing stage most clearly. For instance, those who were not the most skilled editors could pick up the work on the presentation. Sometimes the students who had the hardest times contributing to the polished writing had the most to

Blending Collaboration and Competition (Browning)

153

offer when it came to the presentation. The groups had to use everyones skills and trust each other to bring everything in on time in order to accomplish the task. To relieve some of the stress of both tasks, I learned to set the deadline for the proposal submission a few days (at least a weekend) before the presentations. That gave me an opportunity to look over their proposals ahead of time, and it gave the students a chance to regroup, prepare, and practice for the presentations. Everyone beneted from this pace. Perhaps if I were not teaching on a fast-paced ten-week quarter, I could have given them a week in between.

Evaluating and Grading: A Collaborative and Multi-faceted Experience and a Final Stage of Development
I used several methods of evaluation. As I mentioned earlier, I devoted class time for the students to meet and work in groups, so my rst method of evaluation was my own observations. As they worked together during our class time, I observed and made notes of individual behaviors and group dynamics. If I saw a negative pattern emerging, I would often nd a way to describe what I was observing to the individual or to the group and ask them if my perceptions were accurate or if the portions of their group work that I had noticed were somehow not indicative of their overall work together; they had a chance to conrm or counter my perceptions at various times throughout the project. Second, I considered the status reports and conferences I had midway through the project and gave them credit for making adjustments and solving problems. Third, I assigned each student to write a summative report that asked them to provide specic information that I needed in order to grade them. This report also asked for their metacognitive reflections and their recommendations (Appendix H). After I read the summative reports, I met with each group so we could debrief the process together and reconcile any discrepancies in the reports. This meeting also allowed me to provide additional instruction and feedback where needed. Several members of the Business Administration faculty role played the clients during the presentations to give the students a more realistic feel than they would have by presenting to the class alone; the BA faculty each read the proposals, attended the presentations, and lled out evaluation forms for both the presentations and proposals. Even though I considered their feedback, when it came to grading the written work and presentations, ultimately, I assigned the grades. For the part of the grade that was determined by the proposal, the whole group received the same grade regardless of the individual contribution; it was the business that won or lost the contract. In an actual business situation, when one group wins the contract (the equivalent of the A), the other groups get nothing (the equivalent of an F). In my class, only one group could earn the A, but the other groups could earn as high as an A- for their written work and for their presentations. Even though each member of the group received the same grade for the written work, their presentation grades were a combination of the grade assigned to the group as a whole and to their individual performance. Each student also received an individual grade for his/her contribution to the group. The contribution was not simply equivalent to the amount of work done. In fact, in instances in which an overachiever dominated and controlled the group, his/her grade might be lower than someone who demonstrated more collaborative and cooperative behavior, even if that person had not done as much of the work as the overachiever. If we value and want to teach the skills of collaboration, communication, and cooperation, then we must weigh those aspects along with the tasks the groups complete. The grades we give are a kind of currency, and through time, instruction, and feedback we must invest

154

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

in the skills of collaborative group work as well as the writing we ask them to produce. Otherwise, we continue to tell them the product is all that matters, and the ends can justify the means. I held students accountable for both the task and for their collaborative skills and behaviors.2

Victories and Defeats: Winning and Losing Together and Moving on to the Last Stage of Small Group Development
As a result of the combination of collaboration and competition, most of the students achieved together the best work any of them had ever produced. They worked incredibly hard, often attending to details that they hoped would push them ahead of their competition. They consistently told me that this push, this commitment to excellence, was greater than what they would normally do working alone. As a result, they all entered the presentations with a heightened sense of accomplishment. Because they had not seen the work of their competition, they were all convinced they would be the best and would win. Except for one group, the winning team, the drop from anticipated victory to defeat was rapid and left them disappointed and sometimes a bit confused. Some would wonder, what more could we have done? Others would initially retreat to why did we bother to work so hard? And still others would look to place blame on someone in the group who got too nervous in the presentation or who did not come through in those last hours. So, why would a teacher want to set some students up for this disappointment? Although the competitive aspect of this project especially at the point when one group wins created a complex experience, it also created a critical educational threshold moment, one I wouldnt want to avoid simply because it was hard. Keep in mind that the losing groups did not get Fs for their work. In fact, they often received noteworthy grades for what they accomplished and for how they worked together. Nevertheless, the competitive aspect of this project brought to the surface the issues of winning and losing, of how we measure the value and worth of an experience and of our work, of the importance of teamwork, and of appreciating growth and excellence and learning from it. Our students will certainly face competition in the workplace, competition that will lead to both victories and defeats, thus it is productive and constructive for them to be able to process and debrief that experience together in an educational setting and to gain insight and appreciation for the lessons learned. We serve them better when we make room for these complex issues and guide them through the process. After I received their summative reports, I met with each group to discuss the most productive reflections on their experiences. They could surface unresolved issues, ask unanswered questions, articulate their insights and discomfort, reason together about what worked and didnt work, and clarify what had been learned and gained. This was an essential part of the project. By the time we nished talking in small groups and then with the whole class, we had come full circle, and the sense of defeat was gone. I nd it telling that I never had a student who recommended that I drop the competitive aspect. They all acknowledged that it pushed them harder than they would have pushed themselves, and they all had a sense of pride in the limitations they broke through and in all that they accomplished individually and collectively. So that you can hear some of their voices, here are a few typical samples of what they wrote when I asked them for their assessment and recommendations for the next time I taught the class: I think this project is a good tool for learning. All students seemed involved and inspired

Blending Collaboration and Competition (Browning)

155

to do the project well. I would keep it competitive as long as you can nd a way to reward all students for their efforts. A real sense of accomplishment is a good feeling, and we all experienced it. Overall, I really enjoyed the project. It was a lot of work, but so what thats life. Do not decrease the workload. And keep it competitive that is how life is too. I thought it was a brilliantly constructed project, and I would do it again in a moment! I strongly recommend that you continue with this project for the future classes. It helps students to develop qualities of working closely with a team, develop writing skills, planning, organization, patience, determination, etc. The benets far outweigh the costs. I gained a better sense of team work. I learned to trust the ability of others and not take on all the responsibility. I learned how to give a business presentation, and I gained a more professional outlook on my written work. This project acts as a stepping stone for so much growth. I enjoyed the challenge and think that the project serves as a wonderful guide to the professional world we will soon enter. I denitely think it should continue, and I do not see any major problems. One slight difculty is not feeling let down after such a big undertaking. That just may be personal though. Overall, the project beneted me greatly. Overall, I beneted a lot from the project, more so, because I am thinking about starting my own business when I graduate. The project offered opportunities to explore different ways to write proposals. Another benet is the experience of working with people in a group. The group was made up of different types of people with different values, different orientation and dedication to work, and different perspectives of the work that needs to be done. At the end, we were all relieved and happy to have nished the work, and we remain good friends. I learned so much about myself, my writing, working with others, group projects, time management, and the presentation of my work. I really enjoyed exploring the details that would make our work stand out. How we conclude small group work, especially when our students have worked together to produce a signicant project, is as important as how we begin the work. Through writing and discussing, we need to help our students reflect on what they learned, address unresolved issues if possible, understand how and why they earned their grades, appreciate each others strengths, possibly provide constructive feedback to each other that will help each student grow, and help each other come to a graceful closure. Small group work provides an opportunity for developing communication skills unlike what students experience when they work alone and their interaction is only with the teacher. That is one of the strengths of incorporating small group learning in our classes. The self-reflection and skillful communication, especially at the end, helps students realize the value of small group, further develops their emotional intelligence, reinforces what they learned, sets them up for future growth, and helps them adjourn positively. This closing step is one you dont want to cut short.

Conclusions
Small group collaboration has great potential for helping our students learn and grow in signicant ways. Synergistically, they can accomplish more together than they could alone, which builds condence, pride, and a sense of accomplishment. For some students particularly those who have been identied as underachievers small group collaboration might be the rst time they have such a successful experience and learn, from their peers, how to achieve their goals and feel accomplished. Looking back on the project, you can see the range of writing and communication experience the students gained: they had to analyze the writing

156

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

needs of the client company, create a plan for improving the writing produced in that company, create a vision and marketing strategy for their writing consulting rm, and, through their written proposals and presentations, persuade the client that they could improve the clients effectiveness through improved writing. Together as a result of their collaboration they assumed the role of expert even though individually, they lacked the condence and abilities to accomplish as much. Collaborative small group activities can also help the teachers exceed what they could accomplish by keeping themselves at the center of the learning activity. To have my students learn to assess the writing needs of a company, to consider how to help professionals develop their writing abilities, to connect improved writing with workplace benets, and to communicate all of this knowledge clearly, persuasively, and condently was more than I could have accomplished without this small-group activity and without this type of simulation. This is not to say that we step aside and simply watch our students teach themselves. We have an active and essential role to play throughout the process in order to help students build the skills and practice the abilities that will lead to their success. The way we structure the developmental sequence of activities and assignments is our rst step in supporting our students success. When we subsequently share with students our goals and expectations for the activity and the benets of learning to work in groups, we give our students a reason to take the activity seriously. When we clarify their responsibilities and when we grade or assess their abilities to collaborate not just their completion of the task then we reduce the free-loaders and the dominators, and we encourage them to learn and practice skills that will transfer to each collaborative experience they have in the future. If we are serious about helping our students improve their abilities to work with others, then we must assess more than the product they produce in groups (you can see a sample of one way I did this in the grading sheet Appendix I). Students rarely come to us with collaborative skills fully developed. They need our help to learn how and why to work effectively in groups. We need to look carefully at our responsibility to teach our students how to succeed in collaborative small group activities by sequencing our assignments and activities carefully and deliberatively. This includes developing materials that provide scaffolding and that support their skill development, modeling new approaches and coaching them as they work, providing the bigger picture (theory and research) so that they understand the importance and process of the activity, and giving them constructive and honest feedback that will encourage new abilities and skills. Just providing small group activities is not enough to ensure our students development or their success. So with all the benets of small group collaboration, did the element of competition really matter? According to my students, yes. Given that they could have lost the contract and still received an A-, I was continually surprised at how much winning the imaginary contract motivated the students to work together to achieve success. Through the simulation, the students learned that writing is not just something they do to complete an assignment for the teacher. Writing matters to their success in the workplace, and it matters to the success of their employers. They experienced that fact rst hand they felt it and they learned what it takes to strive for excellence. They learned what is required of their writing when the stakes are high. They learned the necessity for working together to achieve their goals. The competition cultivated a work ethic some of the students had never demonstrated previously. Their commitment to their peers encouraged them to work harder than they would have alone; they did not want to let their group members down or be the one who caused the team to fall short of the prize. The competition helped them realize that their individual behavior and work affected others in tangible ways. Unanimously, quarter after quarter, students overachievers, underachievers, and everyone in between told me that they would

Blending Collaboration and Competition (Browning)

157

not have worked as hard without the element of competition. They would not have pushed themselves or each other for as much creativity, attention to detail, or perfection if the project had not been competitive. In this project collaboration was combined with competition, so it is hard to know precisely what we could have accomplished without the element of competition. I do know, however, from my observations and from student feedback that with competition, they took themselves and each other seriously in ways they had not done with collaboration alone. They felt an urgency to use and develop their skills, to acknowledge their strengths and work to minimize or eliminate their weaknesses. Through sharing the responsibility to produce the best plan and proposal, they regularly read and responded to each others drafts. In doing so, they gained a purposeful and constructive way of giving and receiving feedback on writing. Because the feedback and resulting revision could help them all win, students rarely took offense at criticism and suggestions. In fact, they sought their peers responses and thoughtfully considered them much the way professional do. As they shared their writing with each other, they could also see and appreciate the choices that other writers perhaps the most skilled writers made; they learned naturally from each others best practices. Students reported that they revised and closely edited more than they ever had before and more than they would have without the element of competition. They approached all this writing activity as a way to accomplish their collective goal their purpose not just to please a teacher or to complete a disconnected activity. They set their own bar high. In addition to what they learned about writing through this collaborative/competitive project, most of the students took seriously their need to work effectively with others: setting and accomplishing their shared goals, communicating, solving problems, respecting differences, building consensus, listening, and sharing responsibility for success. Even when they were unsuccessful in their group work or made mistakes, the structure and process that was built into this project supported their growth. The varied skills cultivated by both the collaborative and competitive elements of this project not only supported their academic success but also their success after college. Competition alone might have caused the less-condent individuals to shy away from even trying to produce something that was the best, but combining competition and collaboration promoted motivation, growth, and the possibility to succeed, thus creating an environment that was energetic. Each quarter, when I would show the new class the proposals that previous classes had produced, their rst response was that of awe at what their predecessors had produced. Very quickly after that initial response, however, a wave of pride and a burst of creative energy moved through the groups as they vowed to surpass what the previous classes had achieved. They were not competing in any real way with previous groups, but the competitive element inspired them to reach for new heights in their own projects. Working together, they imagined possibilities they would have been intimidated to consider alone. The synergy of the groups enabled an energetic response to the competition. And the challenge of the competition encouraged them to expect the best from themselves and from each other. Small-group collaboration/competition brings real-life issues and lessons to the surface additional educational opportunities we need to embrace and use. This small group learning and writing experience gave us opportunities to discuss related ethical issues. Would they try to win at all costs? For instance, if one team left their fee structure in the printer in the computer lab and one of the competing team members found it, what would they do? Would they deliberately try to spy on each other? Did the ends justify the means? The discussions of collaboration, competition, and ethics were always fascinating and productive, and those

158

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

discussions would have stayed at a hypothetical level without the competitive project. The students consistently reported that they learned more about themselves, each other, writing, and the benets of collaboration than they would have without the simulation that incorporated both collaboration and competition. Often when we are challenged, we learn the most about who we are and what we can do, and this simulation seemed to create those moments for the students.

Appendix A
Business Writing
Persuasive Letter: Acquiring Real World Samples of Writing [For homework the previous night, the students had to identify three specic people in elds of interest and bring their contact information (snail mail and/or email) to class.] Your rst task: to collect samples (at least ve from each source) of the most common and important types of writing in various professions of interest. You will write to three different sources. Remember, as with all writing tasks, you should start by considering your purpose and your audience. Purpose(s): Ultimately, your purpose is to receive some samples, but to fulll that purpose you have to accomplish smaller purposes in relation to your audience. What will you need to do/write in order to persuade your audience to comply with your request? Audience analysis (consider the following factors for each of your audiences before deciding what and how to write your letters): Relationships (to you, to his/her company, to the college?...); Context (what is his/her life like, especially on the job not much time? could/not delegate? new to the job? the boss?) Values and commitments (do you know what matters to this person on/off the job?)? Concerns (what would get in the way of the reader granting your request)? Needs in general and needs in relation to what youre asking? Questions (what will this reader wonder or need to know)? What will it take to accomplish your purpose with each audience? After analyzing each of your contacts, then work in groups of three to get additional ideas of what you might need to consider or what methods of persuasion you might use in each letter. What other factors could/should shape the way you write the letter and the specic information you include? (work through this stage together) Means of persuasion: ethos: appeal based on character pathos: appeal to the readers emotions and most basic or deeply held values logos: appeal to the evidence and reasoning process Advertisers often consider some of the following emotions to appeal to: ego, guilt, obligation, fear, altruism, love, greed.... What might be an effective persuasive strategy for your audience? [Use The Business Writers Handbook for information about formatting your letter.] Common organizational strategy for persuasive letters: Attention getter (you have 10 seconds max to get their attention and persuade them to read further)

Blending Collaboration and Competition (Browning)

159

Background information followed by your request Specics what action are you requesting and by when? Good-will closing What can you do to create a letter that is oriented toward your audience instead of toward you? Assignment specics: You will need to receive at least ve samples by April 16 The samples need to be writing generated by that company, not received by the company You must persuade them through your writing, not through a phone call. If you are convinced an email would be more appropriate than a letter for your audience, see me. What are your questions now? After you have done your initial planning then write a zero draft in 15 minutes Bring both your zero draft and a revision to our next class.

Appendix B
Business Writing
Report on Writing Samples Assume you are part of a writing consulting rm. You have just received samples of writing from a prospective client. The client wants to know if she/he should hire you to improve the quality of writing produced in this company. As your boss, I have asked you to analyze the samples and report back to me with your recommendations. Your written report, which will include headings for easy access, should provide the following information although not necessarily in this order: Background information on the company Scope of this report: an overview of the pieces you analyzed Your criteria for evaluation (what did you look for or consider in your analysis?) Strengths of the writing (use specic examples to illustrate if appropriate) Weaknesses of the writing Overall characteristics of the style Your conclusions and recommendations (synthesis of your ndings and a clear statement of next steps pursue them as a client or ...)

This report will probably be two pages, but it should be no more than three pages. Bring a draft to class on Monday, April 29.

160

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

Appendix C
Analysis Grid for Client Samples
Criteria
Purpose: Clear, unied? Sense of Audience: Appropriate for the needs, interests, background, and prole of the reader? Reader Orientation: Oriented toward you or the readers point of view? Organization: Direct or indirect? Appropriate for the purpose and audience? Completeness, use of specics: Answers all/most of the readers questions or needs? Concision: Economical wording? Are all the details necessary? Clarity: Precise word choice? Wellchosen subjects and verbs? Tone/Voice: Appropriate for the purpose and audience? Consistent? Rhythm/sentence variety: Mix of sentence type and length? Mechanics/Proof Reading: Free of errors (spelling, word choice, grammar...)? Originality: Fresh expressions, free of clichs? Format/Visual Effect: Centered? Effective spacing? Comprehension help? Font?

Sample 1

Sample 2

Sample 3

Sample 4

Sample 5

Readability:

Appendix D
Consulting Team Application
Name: Major: Writing Information 1. What are your strengths as a writer? Cum GPA:

Blending Collaboration and Competition (Browning)

161

2. What are your weaknesses as a writer? 3. What type of writing and what aspects of writing most interest you? Group Work Information 1. Generally, do you prefer to work alone or with others? Please explain why you prefer one over the other. 2. Based on your experience, what are the advantages and disadvantages of working with a team? 3. What are your strengths and weaknesses with group work? 4. Effective group work usually involves two areas of concern: group maintenance and task completion. Indicate your orientation on the scale below. Are you more inclined to get the task accomplished no matter what, or are you more inclined to make sure that the relationships and effective communication within the group are maintained? ___________________________________________________________ grp. maintenance task completion Artistic/Creative Information List below any artistic experience or talent you have (graphics layout, digital art, PowerPoint, desktop publishing, etc.): Logistics What scheduled commitments do you have this quarter that might affect group meetings outside of class?

Appendix E
Business Writing
Team Building Effective collaboration doesnt just happen. It is important at the beginning of a project to constitute and form the group so that it functions effectively. Surfacing assumptions, preferences, and concerns right away can eliminate later problems or at least lay the groundwork for solving them. The following exercise will facilitate that communication. Orally complete the sentence stems in order below. Each member should give a response to the same sentence stem before you move on to the next one. You may stop to ask brief clarifying questions or probe for further explanation, but you should not take too much time on any one question. Move through the questions, gathering impressions and forming ideas; afterwards, bring those up in an open discussion as you work together to form your group. 1. When Im in a new group I ... 2. I like to take the role of leader/follower when ... 3. What is hardest for me in group work is ... 4. What I think you should know (about me) is ... 5. The animal that best describes me in a work group is (tiger, dove, snake, mule, ox, dog, beaver or...) BECAUSE ... 6. What I want from you, as a group, is ... 7. What you can expect from me is ... 8. The strengths I bring to this group are ... 9. I think my weaknesses in this group might be ...

162

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

10. One way you can support me is ... 11. In order for me to trust you ... 12. If you are ever dissatised with my contribution, what I need in order to improve is ... 13. Im usually motivated by ... What I like about this group at this point is ... My biggest question about this group is ... Because of what Ive heard today, Ive discovered ...

Appendix F
Business Writing
Proposal Planning Worksheet Name of our group (our company): 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. Our purpose: Our audience (sketch out a prole from what you know now): Possible strategies we can use to persuade: What will we need to do before we write? Pieces we will need to write (and tentative personnel commitments): Tentative timeline for the planning stage, drafting, revising, editing, printing, and presentation preparation (be specic with tasks and dates, not just stages): 7. What resources will we need, and what resources do we have (include personnel strengths and areas of expertise)? 8. Our questions (about the process, the end product, the presentation, our options, the client... ):

Appendix G
Business Writing
TO: (I lled in each students name and gave them each their own memo) DATE: FROM: Randi Browning RE: Status Report ________________________________________________________________ As we head into midpoint of this project, it is time to check in and assess your progress. What have you accomplished so far, and what will you need to do to nish this project successfully? By next Wednesday, May 1, please hand in a status report. A status report provides a written picture of an on-going project; I realize you are in the middle and have a long ways to go, but it is helpful to check in now. I am interested in the status of your work and the progress of your group. For this status report consider the following organization and questions: Work Completed: What have you done so far, and how would you assess your work at this point? Problems Encountered, Solved and Remaining: Identify the stumbling blocks you have encountered and the steps you have taken to overcome them. Current Status: Summarize where you are now in relation to your goals, organization, and deadlines.

Blending Collaboration and Competition (Browning)

163

Plans for completion: How and when will you accomplish the work that remains? What problems remain, and how/when will you solve them? Evaluation: What is your overall assessment of this project so far? Recommendations: What additional resources might you need? What changes or action would help you nish this project successfully? Do you recommend any modications (of your goals, plans, your groups process...)? In your one-to-two page report, you do not have to use the above headings, but you do need to consider the questions. Format your report as a memo and include headings that highlight the point of each section.

Appendix H
Business Writing
Summative Report on the Proposal Writing Project By 5:00, Wednesday, May 26, submit a nal report of your group project. To cover the scope of this assignment adequately and to answer the questions below thoughtfully, you should anticipate a length of approximately two to three pages. You may organize your answers to the questions below into any order that makes sense to you. You should include meaningful subheadings for the various sections of your report. What did each person, including you, actually do to complete the proposal and to prepare for the presentation? What problems did you encounter (individually and collectively)? What did you do to try to solve these problems (individually and collectively)? In retrospect, were your efforts to solve your problems successful or the most appropriate approach? What would you do differently now? Do you (individually or collectively) have any unresolved issues or problems? What did you learn or gain from this project (about writing, about collaborating, about competing, about yourself or about anything else)? Do you have any recommendations for the next time I assign this project? (Should I continue to combine the aspects of collaboration and competition? Anything else you want me to consider?) I need your report before I meet with your group to debrief the project and before I assign grades. However, I also want to see what you have learned about report writing, so be sure your report is appropriately formatted, carefully crafted, and polished.

Appendix I
Sample grade/feedback form, which I gave to each student after I had met with their team to debrief the project and their reports. This sample was given to a student who had taken over his group at the end; his actions had an adverse effect on everyone, but he thought he had saved the group through his hard work. I omitted the grades but left the comments for you to see. In the debrieng meeting, it was clear that even though he (the only male in the group) had taken over the group, the other members chose to quit trying to communicate their discomfort with him. They became passive and merely voiced their displeasure to each other.)

164

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

Business Writing
Project Grades and Feedback Proposal (15%): ____________ Clearly you worked hard on this maybe too hard individually. In terms of what you wrote, I can see that you have wonderful potential for writing effectively in the workplace. Keep developing what you have started this quarter. Presentation (5%) grp/indiv: ____________, You also have great potential as a presenter. As you go forward now, you will need to prepare more thoroughly to realize that potential. You maintained eye contact with the audience, and you avoided looking at the screen thats important. With greater preparation, you could have used the PowerPoint slides more effectively, and you could have generated more energy, condence, comfort, and connection with your audience. Group Work (10%): ____________, Dear ____________, This grade represents your commitment to the project but also the way in which you worked with the rest of the group. Theres no need to reiterate here the factors that affected your group work. I understand that these were blind spots and that you didnt understand the issues sufciently in order to improve. The grade would have been higher had you demonstrated greater willingness to collaborate, to communicate honestly with your group, and to listen carefully to their concerns. I raised the grade a bit after our debrieng session when I could see how everyone contributed to both the successes and the difculties. You are very capable intellectually. The intellect, however, is only part of what will determine your success in college and in the workplace. This project surfaced both your already-developed talents as well as your under-developed abilities. I encourage you to take action to strengthen these under-developed areas. According to a report cited by the Dean of Faculty in a recent meeting (sorry, I dont have the source at my ngertips just now), of the people who lose their jobs, many (an estimated 80%) do so because of their inability to work effectively with others (male and female). It is in your best interest to continue to develop your ability to work effectively with others. Consideration for the process and for the well-being of your team is not a waste of time; it will often determine your success. I wish you well in the future.

Notes
1. I have had students with hearing limitations, but the group members found ways to maximize what those students could contribute. I think some of the behaviors that seemed annoying or distracting to group members could have been caused by ADHD, but none of those students ever identied that particular disability. The more common challenge, however, came from international students and non-native speakers whose English language facility was not as developed or fluent as the native speakers/writers. This is where balancing the groups as I formed them mattered most. I also often worked with the groups to help them move beyond their initial assessment of what those international students could and could not contribute. While the English language learners might not yet be able to take responsibility for nal proofreading and editing tasks, they had many other talents and skills to contribute, and there were many writing tasks that had to be accomplished before the groups were ready to edit and polish their proposals. 2. This project was worth 30 percent of their nal grade for the course. Of the 30 percent, 15 percent was given to the written proposal they produced, 5 percent was given to the presentation (an average between the groups grade and their individual performance), and 10 percent was given to their group work. Although this project accounted for over 30 percent of the work they devoted to this class, when it came to their overall course grade, I chose to weigh more heavily the aspects of the class they had control over (the other elements

Blending Collaboration and Competition (Browning)

165

of their nal grade included 45 percent to their end-of-the-quarter portfolio, 10 percent to homework and in-class participation, and 15 percent to their nal). The fact that this project was only 30 percent of their nal grade did not seem to diminish their work ethic at all, due especially to the element of competition.

Work Cited
Cheng, Henry, Winston Wu, Calvin Liao, and Tak-Wai Chan. Equal Opportunity Tactic: Redesigning and Applying Competition Games in Classrooms. Computers & Education 53.3(2009): 866876. Web. 30 Oct. 2009. Fournier, Angela K., Sara R. Rayne, and Scott E. Geller. Positive Reinforcement and Intergroup Competition Facilitate Participation in a University Classroom. Behavior Analysis Digest 16.1 (2004): 23. Academic Search Complete. 1 Aug. 2010. Fu, Fong-Ling, Ya-Ling Wu, and His-Chaun Ho. An Investigation of Coopetitive Pedagogic Design for Knowledge Creation in Web-Based Learning. Computers & Education 53.3 (2009): 550562. Web. 30 Oct. 2009. Goleman, Daniel. Working with Emotional Intelligence. New York: Bantam, 1998. Print. Napier, Erv. Competition in the Classroom. Kappa Delta Pi Record 18.1 (1981), 1819, 23. CSA Illumina. Web. 28 October, 2009. Roseth, Cary J., David W. Johnson, and Roger T. Johnson, R. T. Promoting Early Adolescents Achievement and Peer Relationships: The Effects of Cooperative, Competitive, and Individualistic Goal Structures. Psychological Bulletin 134.2 (2008): 223246. Web. 29 Oct. 2009. Sabato, George. Cooperation and [Competition] Unleash Creative Potential. Social Studies Review 28.3 (1989): 103109. CSA Illumina. Web. 31 Oct. 2009. Self, Nancy S. Build a Positive Classroom Environment: Avoid Competition! Childhood Education 85.5 (2009): 306-I. Academic Search Complete. Web. 30 Oct. 2009. Tuckman, Bruce W. Developmental Sequence in Small Groups. Psychological Bulletin 63.6 (1965): 384 399. PsychINFO. Web. 27 July 2010. Tuckman, Bruce W., and Mary A. Jensen. Stages of Small Group Development Revisited. Group & Organization Studies 2.4 (1977): 419427. PsychINFO. Web. 23 Aug. 2010. Webb, Noreen M., Megan L. Franke, Tondra De, Angela G. Chan, Deanna Freund, Pat Shein, and Doris K. Melkonian. Explain to Your Partner: Teachers Instructional Practices and Students Dialogue in Small Groups. Cambridge Journal of Education, 39.1 (2009): 4970. Academic Search Complete. Web. 29 Oct. 2009.

Revisiting Collaborative Writing and Electronic Dialogues in Business Communication

FLORENCE ELIZABETH BACABAC
How do we integrate collaborative learning techniques into electronic environments in a business and technical writing class? Does incorporating technology during prewriting, for instance, affect student output when this process is done collaboratively using content management forums, such as computer-mediated communication (CMC)? In this digital age, composition scholars claim that the use of CMC during invention or prewriting promotes collaborative learning (Blythe 12225; Eldred and Toner 37; Yancey 108). Student dialogues become more productive in electronic environments as physical and social barriers are reduced to a minimum. If used in conjunction with face-to-face discussions, CMC would serve its purpose of taking the process of discovery to a higher level. Through the use of CMC when prewriting, student input prior to drafting a technical document is thus maximized. Philip Kolin in his book Successful Writing at Work enumerates the advantages of collaborative writing. Five out of Kolins eight advantages are achieved through the use of CMCs Discussion Board and Chat forums in a recent Business Communication course, namely: Allows for productive feedback and critique Increases productivity and saves time Ensures overall writing effectiveness Accelerates decision-making time Increases morale and condence while decreasing stress [Kolin 78]

Selected student transcripts follow each item above to illustrate the effectiveness of electronic dialogues in engaging students to share preliminary ideas within groups before drafting their documents. A description of two collaborative writing assignments and tasks are also provided that supports the importance of the dialogue in the process of discovery and invention that have become more enhanced electronically in this respect.

Background
The role of the dialogue in composition can be traced back to the history of rhetoric. During the ancient period, philosophical inquiry in search for truth was expressed in dialogues. Plato believed that truth is inherent and accessible to human beings because we knew it
166

Revisiting Collaborative Writing and Electronic Dialogues (Bacabac)

167

before our birth (Bizzell and Herzberg 81). Since we exist in the esh, nding truth can be difcult as we are susceptible to attrition. Only through the process of inquiry or verbal exchange can we can recognize truth and gain understanding of knowledge. Another aspect of the dialogue was theoretically conceived by the Russian philosopher Mikhail Bakhtin (18951975) whose idea of the dialogue is determined in his philosophy of language. For him, utterance as a speech unit contains a dialogic nature and exists as a rejoinder in dialogue (Bonetskaia 19). Both Bakhtin and Plato seem to promote the idea that it is only through dialogue and verbal exchange that an utterance nds meaning [Bakhtin] or for truth to come out [Plato]. On the other hand, Kay Halasek frames her interpretation of the dialogue within an approach that values multiplicity of voices and recognize knowledge making as a collective endeavor. She argues in A Pedagog y of Possibility: Bakhtinian Perspectives on Composition Studies that applying dialogic principles to composition studies is timely, even crucial, given the renewed interest in social learning theory, collaborative learning, the concept of knowledge as socially constructed, and the problematic relationship between speaking and writing (Halasek 3). A philosophy of writing instruction based on Bakhtinian precepts afrms that educated language users recognize and respond to the ideological implication of their own and other discourses (Halasek 7). Students initial attempt to join the conversation in their disciplines must understand the ideological framework of the discourse of their eld. And they can only gain such familiarity by actively reading and absorbing both the language and mode of thinking demonstrated in these discipline-specic texts. Therefore, every writing assignment teachers give to students, regardless of the type of writing they do, encapsulates the dialogic method. Constant interaction with disciplinary texts and other texts before and after it, as well as engagement in class discussions, reinforce the nature of Bakhtins verbal exchange until students are fully initiated to the language of their disciplines.

Business Communication and Electronic Dialogues

Nowadays, the use of CMC enables electronic dialogues to model collaboration in writing classes, but especially in business communication courses. To realize pedagogical approaches that value the concept of the dialogue, utilizing electronic discussion forums provides a more collaborative, equitable space for students to negotiate meanings with one another for specic rhetorical situations. In fact, most business and technical writing courses that require workplace document projects aim to initiate students into the professional discourse community. Allowing electronic discussions to take place before drafting a technical document supports dialogism and opens up diverse opinions among participants, thereby helping student-writers to become effective business and technical communicators. One way to integrate collaborative writing techniques into electronic environments is by asking students to combine their efforts online when preparing technical documents. This methodology necessitates course access to a campus content-management tool (e.g., Blackboard Vista, Moodle, etc.) and requires students to use either asynchronous Discussion Board or synchronous Chat forums for prewriting, drafting, peer-reviewing, or revising tasks. These platforms would allow students to read and respond to online posts at any time during the conception of an assigned technical or business document until it has been drafted and revised. Shared authorship and participants working together for the common good are some benets of such collaborative online invention activities. Students are forced to combine their efforts, not only to earn better grades but also to improve team-building skills necessary in the workplace.

168

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

Teaching Approach
Business writing teachers may assign various assignments that focus on the production of professional and technical documents. Because business communication courses usually provide student-writers with necessary skills to effectively recognize and model diverse professional writing styles, writing teachers should provide writing assignments addressed to a specic audience within a workplace setting (e.g., a direct supervisor or employer, customer, company, etc.). This shift in audience perspective will encourage students to go beyond producing typical academic writing projects and compose real-world documents instead. Simulated assignments such as these will also provide a meaningful context for both the learners and course objectives. Most of all, utilizing online collaboration among team-members in the classroom throughout the writing process will allow enhanced opportunities for dialoguing as student-participants express themselves and exchange preliminary ideas more frequently prior to submitting the nished product. With regard to assigning group projects, the teacher should emphasize the importance of practicing division of labor among participants for ethical considerations. This means that each group must recognize the need for group consensus early on as to who will lead and delegate the tasks to all members. They should also decide who will write which part of the assignment to avoid future conicts due to lack of group management. Each member should collaborate with the whole group for the success of their project. Individual projects, on the other hand, seldom encounter any of these managerial issues so division of labor is not relevant in this case.

Examples of Pedagogical Techniques

The following is a description of two collaborative writing tasks that require students to collaborate online throughout the composing process: SAMPLE ASSIGNMENT #1: MEMORANDUM (GROUP PROJECT) Description As employees working for the corporate communications department of a regional bank, students will write two separate memos to the head of the company analyzing the use of graphics from two published reports, respectively one printed (to which their group is assigned) and one online (their groups choice). The rhetorical purpose of this exercise is for them to recommend graphic design techniques for their companys print and online manual by the end of the quarter. The chosen online report should present information in a visual and interesting way, which might involve using images photographs and drawings or graphs, diagrams, maps, or tables. Or it might make special use of text, by setting off with columns, or color, as pull quotes, or boxed sidebars, etc. Some possible websites for these reports where students can explore are Yahoo, MSN, CNN, and so on. By making explicit what is often implicit, this rhetorical analysis can provide [future] business communication practitioners valuable insights for their own communication practices (King 320).

Collaborative E-Dialogue Process: Discussion Board Prewriting Activity

To discuss the effects of visual elements of each report, students will post their preliminary thoughts about the printed/online report in the Discussion Board and respond to at least a couple of their peers posts.

Revisiting Collaborative Writing and Electronic Dialogues (Bacabac)

169

[This prewriting activity may be done outside the classroom within a couple days] I. Instructions for Online Procedure 1. Instruct students to log in to the content-management course shell, click on the Discussion Board forum, click on their assigned group. 2. To get them started, students will consider the effects of the visual elements of each report by posting their answers to these prompts: Is it easy for the audience to nd the information they need based on the layout of the page or screen? If there are graphics, what messages (and attitude) do they convey? How relevant are the gures or tables used in the document? 3. Ask students to brainstorm and write down essential points they have noted from the report in the Discussion Board forum. Require them to respond to at least 34 online posts of their peers to get the discussion going. II. Instructions for Face-to-Face Procedure 4. For whole-class discussion after the prewriting activity, ask students face-to-face to follow the conventions of writing memos discussed previously in class. Students should also note the proper elements and parts of an effective memo and study the examples from the book chapter on important inter-ofce technical documents. 5. Before students collaborate and draft the analysis in a memo, ask them to determine how the visual effects are created. Students must explain in the document how the visual elements create a particular effect and how they add to the impressions depicted in the reports verbal reference: Are the visuals effective, carefully placed, clearly identied, and so on? This rhetorical analysis will be the basis for their recommendations at the last paragraph of the memo. 6. Instruct students that they are free to refer back to their previous Discussion Board threads for relevant ideas as they draft their document.

Assessment
Since grading for a collaborative assignment poses difculties (some students may have done more work than others), the teacher should emphasize that certain grading procedures will be followed. Even if each group will get a total grade for each reports visual analysis, below is a suggested set of criteria for assessment: 25 percent of collaborative grade is based on student contribution After submission of the group project, ask students to write self-evaluations outlining their responsibilities for researching, drafting, revising, etc. and grade themselves based on their own contribution in the Discussion Board activity; they may identify the visual analysis memo they were responsible for (i.e., for print or online report?) 25 percent on the quality of peer evaluations Require students to write evaluations, with suggested grades, of the other member/s of the group they worked with for this project 50 percent on the quality of the project SAMPLE ASSIGNMENT #2: COMPLAINT LETTER (INDIVIDUAL PROJECT) Description After discussing the types of business letters in class, the teacher distributes two different samples of adjustment letter (possibly a yes and no adjustment sample) for students to read and analyze. Then each of them will choose only one adjustment letter and write a complaint letter to which the chosen adjustment letter responds.

170

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

Collaborative E-Dialogue Process: Chat Prewriting Activity

To share their preliminary ideas about the complaint letter they plan to compose in realtime, the teacher sets up a chat forum for each group member to join. Chat groups will be divided according to the adjustment letter of the students choice. Each group should only have at least 45 students to increase the probability of a more focused synchronous dialogue for instance, if ten (10) students chose to write a complaint letter based on a yes adjustment letter, the teacher should create two (2) chat groups for that letter. Students should be instructed to make this prewriting chat activity productive by posting their initial thoughts, responding to one anothers post, and following proper e-decorum (e.g. off-tangent remarks and online aming should be avoided). [This prewriting activity should be done inside the classroom after students have read both adjustment letters] I. Instructions for Online Procedure 1. Instruct students to log in to the content-management course shell, click on the Chat forum, and click on the chat group assigned to them based on their choice of adjustment letter. 2. Each member begins by politely greeting one another in the chat room and starts bouncing off ideas with other members through the following prompts: What was the request of the customer in the adjustment letter? Why did the problem occur and how has it been resolved? What was the response of the company in the adjustment letter? Were there any alternatives with nancial incentives given to the customer in that letter? What possible idea/s might be included in the complaint letter in order to persuade the company to grant the claim? 3. Require students to respond to at least 34 online posts of their peers to get the discussion going. 4. Because synchronous chat is more uid, monitor the chat room and occasionally join group dialogues especially if discussions get off-tangent. 5. After around 20 minutes of online chatting, ask them to thank everyone in their groups and say goodbye before they leave the chat room. Then archive their chat conversations. II. Instructions for Face-to-Face Procedure 6. Review the principles of writing complaint letters face-to-face before students start drafting the complaint letter. 7. Instruct students that they are free to refer back to their previous conversations archived in the Chat room for relevant ideas as they draft the document.

Assessment
Because this is an individual project, assessment will primarily be based on the quality of the claim letter each student wrote. Students may be asked to evaluate their group chat dialogues and assess the effectiveness of this preliminary activity to their composition of the document. If desired, a few points may be allotted to this assessment and the quality of online dialogues to give credit to the collaborative prewriting activity. The Effects of Collaboration and Electronic Dialogues Limitations and Possible Solutions

Revisiting Collaborative Writing and Electronic Dialogues (Bacabac)

171

Both asynchronous and synchronous electronic dialogues have positive and negative effects on composing business and technical documents. Teachers should be aware of the negative effects of these collaborative prewriting activities, however, in order to properly navigate around these issues. Such strategic accommodations will diminish the disadvantages and strengthen the advantages of online communication at certain collaborative contexts. For instance, in terms of maintaining focus, the spontaneous interchange of ideas in Chat may easily propel discussions into random, off-tangent points caused either by computing speed, familiarity, or comfort in using the platform. Therefore, the use of synchronous Chat needs careful teacher-student attention due to its limitations: Unfortunately, the more people join in a chat, the more disjointed the discussion is. In addition, the contributions to the discussion are often short and people tend to use abbreviations, and make a lot of typing mistakes (Windeatt, Hardisty, and Eastment 113). For this reason, the teacher must create smaller groups in the chat room to maintain a more focused dialogue. Aside from assigning smaller groups, student-participants should have a common set of information to work on. Otherwise, with the uidity of chat room conversations, more time will be wasted on useless explanation of individual topics instead of producing meaningful feedback. The uniformity of assignment preparations and the teachers strong online presence are vital in keeping conversations under control. As a result, the spirit of collaboration will remain where two or more people work in concert on a common text project in an environment supportive of their text and idea sharing (Bonk and King 7). This effect is evidently a desired learning outcome of the collaborative prewriting activity. The formal appearance of the Discussion Board, on the other hand, encourages more focused dialogues among participants who are placed in a structured mindset. Thus, offtangent conversations are rare due to the presence of highly organized threads and categories for students to read and respond to at anytime. Within these threads are relevant questions, answers, follow-up questions, and nal responses (Simonson 32), all of which closely approximate the collaborative aspect of invention in promoting an active construction of knowledge. In line with this, students can act as meaning makers who actively select, organize, and integrate their experiences with existing knowledge (Hacker and Niederhauser 54), as they try to nd the best place to post ideas among a variety of subject threads. However, the responses in the Discussion Board may be either delayed or not guaranteed unlike the immediacy brought about by Chat or face-to-face communication. Granted, the teacher can control such limitation by closely monitoring student posts under discussion threads and providing clear instructions for them to respond to at least a couple online posts by their peers. Through this guideline, getting more in-depth responses is still probable because more spaces are opened up to accommodate other voices. Thus, more students become active readers and legitimate contributors of a community that is best represented by the interactions and resources of its members (Inman 1).

Strengths
As mentioned earlier, the advantages of the composing process through collaborative writing far exceeds solitary writing. If used purposefully, business communication students writing collaborative documents tend to gain more team-building skills necessary in workplace settings. The use of online forums to foster electronic dialogues positively engages each participant for the success of the assigned project. Jane Mathison Fife claims that this forum merges the writing-to-learn benets of a response journal with the convenience of an electronic format, allowing maximum idea exchange with minimal effort or expense (39). Students are more comfortable negotiating with one another in electronic forums than face-to-face

172

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

settings because of its online communication feature. Janet Eldred agrees by pointing out its convenience as all members of a group can read the posted messages (241) and social value or sense of community [...] gives individuals a stronger sense of their place in a group (241). Moreover, both the Chat and Discussion Boards archived electronic discussions are source[s] of enrichment (Yancey 108) that provide impetus for students to get into the habit of reading and writing. In conclusion, out of Kolins eight advantages of collaborative writing, ve advantages are described here with regard to the use of electronic dialogue for prewriting (Kolin 78). Snippets of Discussion Board and Chat forum dialogues from a recent business communication course accompany each item below to illustrate the strengths of both collaborative online prewriting activities: [Selected transcript lines were in bold and italics for emphasis; also, student names were changed for anonymity] STRENGTH #1: Allows productive feedback and critique. Group members get involved by writing down their initial thoughts about the memo in the Discussion Board prewriting activity, as well as the claim letter assignment in Chat, expressing agreements or critiques for the success of the project. Discussion Board Prewriting Activity on the Memo Assignment (Group Project): __________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Driver Electronic Device Use in 2008 Topic: Group 3 Memo Assignment Author: Jason Date: October 23, 2009 12:39 P.M. The deeper I get into my analysis of the article that we have chosen, the more I realize that the article would not be complete, nor would it be as understandable without the charts and graphs that the author included. I am beginning to understand the importance of understandable and clear graphic representations of important concepts in a piece of writing. I feel like we deserve an A on the collaborative part of this assignment. Im just saying that I think we have done a good job so far. ___________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Re: Driver Electronic Device Use in 2008 Author: Kyle Topic: Group 3 Memo Assignment Date: October 23, 2009 2:18 P.M.

I agree on all the points that you bring up. The visual texts are more than half of the information of the report. Without it the report would be too difcult to understand. Keep up the good work and see you on Monday. We can review the analysis that we put together. ___________________________________________________________________________ GROUP 1 Kevin > I am denitely choosing to write about the Phantom Hawk GT. Rebecca > Me too Robert > Yeah so am I Rebecca> It seems like something I understand more than the second one Rebecca> Pretty exciting. :) Kevin > I think it would apply more to life after this course than the HealthAir letter. Robert> For real!!! What are yall going to include in yours? Rebecca > I am going to explain that I am confused about things being charged to me that are under warranty

Revisiting Collaborative Writing and Electronic Dialogues (Bacabac)

173

Kevin > I think that it would be a good idea to remember to include accurate warranty details in addition to your being confused. Good idea Rebecca. Rebecca > So are you just going to make up warranty details? Kevin> Yes. Yes I am. Robert > That is really about it huh? The warranty and the bill Kevin> However, a base for the details can be found in the rst paragraph towards the end. Rebecca> Then I will probably say that I would like that taken care of. Rebecca> yes. that is true. Kevin > Yes Robin, it seems to be simple. Rebecca > I will probably say that I am enjoying my car, however, I dont like the charges ... something like that Kevin > Perhaps we could use the whiteboard to create an attachment to the letter illustrating the parts of the car that are defective... Kevin > I like that idea Rebecca. Chat Prewriting Activity on the Claim Letter Assignment (Individual Project): STRENGTH #2: Increases productivity and saves time. Online collaboration cuts down on the number of face-to-face meetings and conferences of group members, reducing travel time, and so on, as reected in the Discussion Board forums group project. On the other hand, the Chat room electronic dialogue geared towards an individual project also shows productive exchange of inquiry and responses especially about the assignment due date. Discussion Board Prewriting Activity on the Memo Assignment (Group Project): ____________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Re: Pre-Writing Post Topic: GROUP 1 Memo Assignment Author: Becky Date: October 24, 2009 11:29 A.M. I actually cant meet Monday night in person. I was thinking that we should post the rough drafts to this and each of us peer review the others and make suggestions in red ink, since we cant write on the paper ... Does that sound good? I am going to post my rough draft regardless. ___________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Re: Pre-Writing Post Topic: GROUP 1 Memo Assignment Author: Tim Date: October 24, 2009 8:15 P.M. I think that is a great idea Becky. Having it done by Monday will be great to make sure we get everything done by Wednesday night. ___________________________________________________________________________ Chat Prewriting Activity on the Claim Letter Assignment (Individual Project): GROUP 2 Lane > what r u guys going to write about Colby > i am going to write about why i was charged for the services Lane> i hate brunelli motors Colby > yeah they seemed like they screwed up pretty bad Joel> maybe something about it being a new car and already needing service? Matt > I am having a hard time organizing our thoughts Joel > great thoughts guys Joel > maybe we should think out loud and write at the same time so we can be exposed to one anothers thoughts twice

174

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

Colby > that way we can remember them so all of our letters will be the same Colby > i think if somebody charged me when i had a warranty i would be upset too Matt> Is this assignment due next week Colby > the draft Matt > Or just a draft Colby > draft Matt > Ok great Colby > awesome blossom STRENGTH #3: Ensures overall writing effectiveness. Because more people are involved in thinking about the document and talking about it online right from the start, chances are that the nal project would be more thorough and coherent. Snippets of realizations about the writing assignments are evident in the conversations from the Discussion Board and Chat forums. Discussion Board Prewriting Activity on the Memo Assignment (Group Project): ________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Here are a few of my ideas/observations. Topic: Group 3 Memo Assignment Author: Brett Date: October 23, 2009 9:14 A.M. I feel that the effects the visual report created were in line with the purpose of the article. Each visual is in the correct positions in relation to the text. The locations are good, and each serves a purpose to help those readers who understand more from visuals. I found that I could understand the main points of the article from observing the visuals without the text. Most of the diagrams or drawings depict scientic data explaining with pictures information that can be confusing to most who arent familiar with what a dirty bomb or radioactive material is. I dont feel that the pictures contain extraneous info. Unfortunately we are unable to see colors from the article, but we can assume that the colors give a serious, informative voice.... Ultimately, I felt that the images used in the article were used effectively and contribute to the credibility of the report. They support the topic, and are very relevant and appropriate. This is my quick summary prewrite. ____________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Re: Here are a few of my ideas/observations. Topic: Group 3 Memo Assignment Author: Jordan Date: October 23, 2009 11:20 A.M. Nice observations. Mine were similar, but i didnt put it in paragraph form yet. ___________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Re:Here are a few of my ideas/observations. Topic: Group 3 Memo Assignment Author: Tammie Date: October 23, 2009 4:44 P.M. I had similar thoughts, but just typed out the questions we are supposed to answer and put my thoughts after. I will combine yours and Jordans with mine and post a rough draft on Sunday, if not sooner. Thanks.

Revisiting Collaborative Writing and Electronic Dialogues (Bacabac)

175

Subject: Pre-write Topic: Group 3 Memo Assignment Author: Jordan Date: October 23, 2009 11:14 A.M. Verbal dominates ... There are headings that separates information makes it organized.... There is only one pull quote type thing good point.... The text size is very uniform except for the pull quote which serves as a key point.... Its only a 2 column article a little less than a newsletter - good for this type of report.... Pictures are all really descriptive, they are more like diagrams ... shows in detail what the article wants you to know ... serves a purpose.... Viewing angle is shown as if you are looking up ... looks important ... stands out.... Colors ??? Shaped into boxes.... Each photo either has a caption or text within the image to explain.... Each visual was informative and relevant.... Helps visual learners understand ____________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Re: Pre-write Topic: Group 3 Memo Assignment Author: Tammie Date: October 23, 2009 4:45 P.M. You, Brett and I seem to be thinking a lot alike. I did mine as question and answer but we all pretty much had the same thoughts. I will put the three together and have a rough draft posted by Sunday night. Thanks. ____________________________________________________________________________ Subject: Better late than never Topic: Group 3 Memo Assignment Author: Brett Date: October 23, 2009 10:24 P.M. I guess the reason why our observations are so alike is because the article was very well laid out. Cant add much more to your report. Good work. ____________________________________________________________________________ Chat Prewriting Activity on the Claim Letter Assignment (Individual Project): GROUP 2 Joel > cool sunset we could include that sunset picture in the letter heading to show brunelli motors that we are grateful for the car and service Matt > Brunelli was willing to x the problem Colby > yeah i guess the complaint letter is just that they got billed for the services Matt > why didnt they just come forth and approach the client about the overcharges when they discovered them Joel > maybe i will include a complaint about how they do their billing clearer Kyle > Whats up everyone? Colby > hey guys welcome Colby > do you guys like our picture Jordan> It has nothing to do with complaint letters Jordan > So no Colby > yes it does Colby > it puts us in a good mood so we arent too mean Joel > yeah it does scroll up in the conversation and see how we included it Kyle > Are you complaining the sun is going down? Jordan > I cant see your previous conversations Matt> how long does this need to be Colby> a couple paragraphs i believe Colby > make money money Jordan > Long enough to get the point across

176

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

Matt > An auto repair company is all about loyalty, so we should talk about how we want to stay with them Colby > you are a great artist Joel > peace out Lane > bye bye Matt> bye Kyle > ttyl Jordan> Buh bye Colby > bye guys Matt> that was fun Kyle > that was extra fun STRENGTH #4: Accelerates decision-making time. Both online groups the Discussion Board and Chat forums investigate problems and offer solutions initially to save more time in the long run when preparing the actual document. Discussion Board Prewriting Activity on the Memo Assignment (Group Project): ________________________________________________________________________ [continuation of GROUP 3s previous Discussion Board forum extracted from Strength #3]: Subject: Re: Prewrite Author: Tammie Topic: Group 3 Memo Assignment Date: October 23, 2009 4:46 P.M.

You guys are great! I have Jordan, Brett, and my pre-writes and I am going to combine them this weekend and get a rough draft to them to help nalize. Do you think you can get me what you guys have by Tuesday so I can put them all together? ____________________________________________________________________________ Chat Prewriting Activity on the Claim Letter Assignment (Individual Project): GROUP 4 John > Greetings fellow chat roomers, I will act today as both a collaborator and moderator in this session in hopes of keeping all you hooligans on task!! Trevor> im excited to make up a story about what happened with my PHANTOM John> I like the artwork, very nice John> If you do the rst one, what is left to do ... just say thank you? Jeremy> What are you going to say about it? Trevor> hmmm well not sure Trevor> what are some creative things that can happen to a phantom Jeremy> we should google what it looks like Trevor> i found a picture of a phantom hawk Trevor> i wish i could post it it looks cool Trevor> so anyway, Trevor> I think i will write a story that includes being billed incorrectly. i think that is what the letters resolution to the problem is. I think i would also like to include some requests for action that include a resolution to the problems with the billing , and inconsistency Trevor> oh oh i know

Revisiting Collaborative Writing and Electronic Dialogues (Bacabac)

177

Jeremy> The Ventilator looks like an ugly robot. I change mine to the PHANTOM Trevor> i could complain about being passed around on the phone and having to struggle and being frustrated to the point of writing a letter John> ok Trevor> i bet they outsource their billing Trevor> i could comment on that in the complaint letter John> I have no good ideas Trevor> hey dont self discourage like that Jeremy> what is the high-volume PAO-2 alarm circuit? Trevor> we are all full of good ideas, you just have to nd them within yourself STRENGTH #5: Increases morale and condence while decreasing stress. Both asynchronous Discussion Board and synchronous Chat provide assurance of help from the whole team who is collaboratively responsible right from the start. Discussion Board Prewriting Activity on the Memo Assignment (Group Project): ________________________________________________________________________ Subject: new group assignment. Topic: Group 2 Memo Assignment Author: Joel Date: October 21, 2009 7:32 P.M. Colby, so it is you and i doing the online portion of the assignment. lets get together soon and knock this thing out. i have the papers with the instructions. we can check yahoo or google to get our article we just have to choose one. ok peace i will talk call you soon. Subject: Re: new group assignment Topic: Group 2 Memo Assignment Author: Colby Date: October 23, 2009 3:13 P.M. Alright that sounds good. Just let me know when you want to do it. Any time is good for me. Chat Prewriting Activity on the Claim Letter Assignment (Individual Project): GROUP 1 Kevin > What do you guys think about asking to have the charges removed? Rebecca> Do you mean a diagram on the whiteboard? Rebecca> yes. I would denitely ask that. Rebecca> The product is under warranty Kevin> That is what I thought too. Rebecca> Maybe state clearly that the warranty does cover those charges and name them. Kevin > Be specic, I like it. Kevin > Should we ask for any sort of compensation? Kevin Lindquist > Robin? Robert> I love compensation. A free upgrade. Kevin> That was fast... Matt> Yo what up Kevin> Who should we address the letter to? The salutation? Rebecca> I am thinking to say something like I want to work with your company in the future Rebecca> Just to the manager on the adjustment letter Kevin> Or how about this, I will soon be looking at some of your other models as my teenage daughter prepares for her rst car? Robert> Susan Chee-Saar ... I just wanted to spell her name. Denitely couldnt pronounce it

178

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

Robert> But not if the problem isnt resolved Kevin> Will we have access to this chat after it ends? Robert> I hope so!!! Kevin > Goodbye. Rebecca> Thanks for all the great ideas! Rebecca> That was fun! Rebecca> Bye!

The Role of Electronic Dialogue and Collaborative Online Forums

Based on the online dialogue transcripts, Discussion Board forums produce structured conversations due to its neatly organized threads and topic categories. The formal settings put students in an equally structured mindset as they were able to respond to previous posts without difculty. The platform capabilities also promote diversity and meaningful conversations within a non-threatening environment. Indeed, many students working on a team project that requires collaboration no longer exchange email addresses or cell phone numbers nowadays because of the availability of technology-mediated communication (Worley 432). And the positive number of focused responses from asynchronous CMC demonstrates this social act of invention and knowledge construction necessary for effective collaboration. Transcripts from Chat forums exhibit uidity and dynamic conversations and realigns with previous scholarship on Internet Relay Chat (IRC): IRC can be useful for discussion among a small number of people, especially as the discussion can be logged, i.e. a copy can be saved on disk, to look at more carefully later (Windeatt, Hardisty, and Eastment 113). And because immediate responses are possible through Chat, students may have felt a stronger sense of belonging perfect for online collaboration. Unlike frequent delays characteristic of asynchronous forums, synchronous Chat modalities provide teachers and learners with a forum for an immediate and dynamic interchange of ideas ... an exciting asset to collaborative learning environments (Cooney 263). In retrospect, the process of discovery and invention expressed in dialogues becomes more potent electronically. When students collaborate and prewrite, draft, peer-review, and revise an assigned technical document online, their initiation to the professional discourse community is signicantly enhanced (see Appendix A to C for more samples of electronic dialogue activities on peer-reviewing technical documents). Thus, business communication and composition instructors need to select proper CMC forums and design purposeful writing activities that promote electronic dialogues to support the concept of collaboration so valued in contemporary workplace settings.

Appendix A
Sample Electronic Dialogue Activity on Peer-Reviewing an Informational Proposal Professional and Technical Writing Course: Writing for Interactive Media Peer-Reviews for Informational Proposal (Time limit: 2530 minutes) Assignment: Write critiques on the informational proposals your fellow students have posted.

Revisiting Collaborative Writing and Electronic Dialogues (Bacabac)

179

Instruction: Go to the Discussion Board and open the discussion thread for the Informational Proposal assignment. One at a time, open and read the informational proposals posted by at least TWO (2) of your classmates. Write a CRITIQUE of at least 2 paragraphs on each proposal and post it as part of the same thread as the assignment. Please read other comments and post your response. Be sure to include in your critiques the concepts we have been discussing in class. Note especially the following plans: Design Objective Target Audience etc. Both critiques need to be completed within the time limit. If you write more than 2 critiques, you will get additional points on this assignment.

Appendix B
Sample Electronic Dialogue Activity on Peer-Reviewing an Informational Design Document or Web Site Outline Professional and Technical Writing Course: Writing for Interactive Media Peer-Reviews for Informational Design Document or Web Site Outline (Time: 3540 minutes) Assignment: Submit critiques on the informational design document or web site outline your fellow students have posted. Instruction: Go to the Discussion Board for last week and open the discussion topics for the assignment, Informational Design Document or Web Site Outline. One at a time, open and read the informational design document or web site outline posted by everyone in your group (at least 2 people). Write a CRITIQUE of at least 2 paragraphs on each proposal and post it as part of the same thread as the assignment. Please read other comments and post your response. Be sure to include in your critiques the concepts we have been discussing in class. Note especially the following plans: Design Objective Creative Treatment Navigation / Flowchart, etc. Both critiques need to be completed within the time limit. If you write more than 2 critiques, you will get additional points on this assignment.

Appendix C
Sample Electronic Dialogue Activity on Peer-Reviewing an Informational Script and Sitemap Professional and Technical Writing Course: Writing for Interactive Media Peer-Reviews for Informational Script and Sitemap (Time: 4045 minutes)

180

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

Assignment: Submit critiques on the informational script and sitemap your fellow students have posted. Instruction: Go to the Discussion Board for last week and open the discussion topics for the assignment, Informational Script and Sitemap. One at a time, open and read the informational script and sitemaps posted by at least TWO (2) of your classmates. Write a CRITIQUE of at least 2 paragraphs on each script and post it as part of the same thread as the assignment. Please read other comments and post your response. Be sure to include in your critiques the concepts we have been discussing in class. Both critiques need to be completed within the time limit. If you write more than 2 critiques, you will get additional points on this assignment.

Works Cited
Bizzell, Patricia, and Bruce Herzberg, eds. The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present. 2nd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2001. Print. Blythe, Stuart. Meeting the Paradox of Computer-Mediated Communication in Writing Instruction. In Takayoshi and Huot, 118127. Print. Bonetskaia, Natalia Konstantinova. Mikhail Bakhtins Life and Philosophical Idea. Russian Studies in Philosophy 43.1 (2004): 534. Print. Bonk, Curtis Jay, and Kira S. King. Computer Conferencing and Collaborative Writing Tools: Starting a Dialogue about Student Dialogue. Bonk and King Electronic 323. Print. _____, eds. Electronic Collaborators: Learner-Centered Technologies for Literacy, Apprenticeship, and Discourse. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1998. Print. Cooney, Deborah H. Sharing Aspects Within Aspects: Real-Time Collaboration in the High School English Classroom. In Bonk and King Electronic 263287. Print. Eldred, Janet M. Pedagogy in the Computer-networked Classroom. Computers in the Composition Classroom: A Critical Sourcebook. Ed. Michelle Sidler, Richard Morris, and Elizabeth Overman Smith. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2008. 23950. Print. Eldred, Janet Carey, and Lisa Toner. Technology as Teacher: Augmenting (Transforming) Writing Instruction. Takayoshi and Huot 3354. Print. Fife, Jane Mathison. Enhancing Face-to-Face Class Discussion through Electronic Discussion Forums. Writing and the iGeneration: Composition in the Computer-Mediated Classroom. Ed. Terry Carter and Maria A. Clayton. Southlake, Fountainhead Press, 2008. 3747. Print. Halasek, Kay. A Pedagog y of Possibility: Bakhtinian Perspectives on Composition Studies. Carbondale and Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press, 1999. Print. Hacker, Douglas J., and Dale S. Niederhauser. Promoting Deep and Durable Learning in the Online Classroom. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 84 (2000): 5363. Print. Inman, James. Computers and Writing: The Cyborg Era. Mahwah, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004. Print. King, Cynthia. Introduction to the Rhetoric of Layoff Memos. Business Communication Quarterly 73.3 (2010): 320322. Print. Kolin, Philip C. Successful Writing at Work. 9th ed. Boston: Wadsworth, 2010. Print. Simonson, Michael. Making Decisions: The Use of Electronic Technology in Online Classrooms. New Directions for Teaching and Learning 84 (2000): 2934. Print. Takayoshi, Pamela and Brian Huot, eds. Teaching Writing with Computers: An Introduction. Boston: Houghton Mifin Co., 2003. Print. Windeatt, Scott, David Hardisty, and David Eastment. The Internet. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print. Worley, Rebecca B. Business Communication and New Media. Business Communication Quarterly 73.4 (2010): 432434. Print. Yancey, Kathleen Blake. The Pleasures of Digital Discussions: Lessons, Challenges, Recommendations, and Reections. In Takayoshi and Huot, 105117. Print.

Collaborative Composing: Practices and Strategies for Implementing Team Projects into Writing Classrooms
KARA POE ALEXANDER
Teamwork and collaborative writing are important practices in professional contexts. Benets of these practices in industry include increased creativity and productivity (Allen et al. 845; Walker 168), multiple perspectives (Dale x-xi; Rose 889), and greater diversity in technical elds for women and minorities (Natishan, Schmidt, and Mead 269).1 Because of the increased emphasis on collaboration in workplace settings, students in elds ranging from engineering and business to technical writing and the sciences must possess strong team and collaboration skills (Barker, Gilbreath, and Stone 2267; Roever and Mullen 4634; Wolfe, Team Writing 5). Workplace expectations have also led more professors to implement team projects into their classes. For instance, in technical and professional writing courses, it is now commonplace for students to work as a team to produce complex, collaborativelywritten texts. Ideally, these classroom collaboration experiences will help students make the transition from classroom to workplace smoother by preparing them to face workplace complexities and personalities (Rehling Is It Theirs 423; Natishan et al. 269).2 Scholars also argue that classroom collaborative experiences can generate reflection and growth in students (Barker and Franzak 303) and improve thinking processes and interpersonal skills (Bruffee 644). Other benets of collaboration in the classroom include better writing and opportunities to learn from peers and share expertise (Schrage 20; Wolfe, Team Writing 5). In spite of the popularity of pedagogical approaches emphasizing teamwork and collaborative writing, implementing team projects in writing classrooms remains difcult. For one, instructors often assign team projects without explicit instruction on teamwork and then give limited or no support to student teams during the process (Barker and Franzak 305; Vik 112; Wolfe and Alexander 1634). What often results is a gendered division of labor where men perform the highly visible and valued technical work and women complete the less visible and selectively recognized writing tasks often or writing is minimalized, done poorly, or neglected entirely (Stygall 257; Wolfe and Alexander 135, 144, 154, 161).3 In addition, the writing in such cases is minimized, done poorly, or neglected entirely. Another concern is that students have varying denitions of how collaboration should function in a team. For instance, Scott L. Jones nds that students often disagree on whether to follow the contextual, hierarchical, or group category of collaborative interaction in their
181

182

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

team (451), which creates tension and communication problems.4 In addition to this issue of how collaboration should work in a team, students also tend to overemphasize efciency rather than creativity, understanding, or dialogue (Kittleson and Southerland 284, 288). When students are more concerned with merely completing a project rather than doing it well, the end quality is poor and students are often indifferent. One nal concern is that many students, such as those from engineering or the hard sciences, may underestimate the importance of writing to their professions and not view such a skill as important or even relevant to their success (Burnett, Some People 135, 139; Newcomer, Kitto, and Sylvester 8; Winsor 67, 12). Such a view of writing tends to decrease student investment and involvement in all stages of the team project. Together, these issues can make implementing collaborative assignments tedious and difcult. Collaborative writing projects, however, do not have to produce such negative results. With careful strategic planning, team projects can actually be quite enjoyable and benecial for students from all backgrounds. In this chapter, I use my experiences researching and assigning collaborative writing to argue that in order for collaboration to work successfully in the classroom, instructors should structure and support team projects by planning in advance, having specic guidelines for teams to follow, and giving feedback to teams throughout the project.5 When instructors place such emphases on the collaborative process, student anxiety decreases, positive attitudes emerge, and students transition from academy to workplace with greater condence in their collaborative skills and writing abilities.

Teamwork Workshop
Before beginning a major team project, I introduce students to theories of teamwork and collaborative writing and give explicit instruction on how these practices should function in my classes through what I like to call a Teamwork Workshop. Together, the content we discuss and the guidelines I give students during this training lead to positive attitudes and experiences, well-written documents, and skill development that can then be transferred to workplace settings. The workshop usually lasts for two one-and-a-half hour class periods (or 3 classes for 50 minutes) and is generally appropriate for longer, more complex team projects (i.e., report, research paper, grant proposal) that last from 46 weeks or an entire semester. This workshop can, however, be adapted to any writing course where a team project is assigned, including composition, rhetoric, argument, and English Studies, and abbreviated for shorter projects. What I outline here is thus meant to serve as a springboard for you to design and implement your own collaborative writing assignments in the contexts where you work. In preparation for the rst day of the workshop, I ask students to read background essays on teamwork and collaborative writing. These articles range from Rebecca Burnetts Conflict in Collaborative Decision-Making and Louise Rehlings Writing Together: Genders Effect on Collaboration to Kenneth Bruffees Collaborative Learning and the Conversation of Mankind and several chapters from Joanna Wolfes textbook Team Writing (2010).6 These readings provide students with important background on theories and practices of collaborative writing before the team projects begin and, hopefully, decrease student anxiety toward the impending team project. When the students rst come to class after having read the articles, we enter into a discussion on their past experiences with teamwork and collaboration. Although students have a great variety of experiences (positive, negative, apathetic), the general sentiment is that they would rather not collaborate. In fact, they would rather write alone because they perceive being in a group as more time-consuming, complex, frustrating, and stressful. Other common

Collaborative Composing (Alexander)

183

responses about collaboration by students include one person typically doing all the work, scheduling meeting times is a hassle, and personality conflicts inhibit constructive collaboration. I afrm their observations by revealing some of my own experiences collaborating with others when I worked in a college recruitment ofce, many of which were negative, unproductive, and sexist. My goal through this initial discussion about past collaboration experiences is for students to speak freely so that they feel validated and also to lessen their anxieties about the process.

Videos of Student Teams

This initial discussion about past team experiences leads us immediately into watching videos of student teams collaborating.7 Many of the teams in these videos are quite dysfunctional, and students are quick to point out problems with the team interactions. We analyze the videos in detail, typically addressing the following issues: Planning. How does the student team plan and structure the project? Drafting, Revising, and Editing. How does the team write as a group? What is their process? Are they productive? Unproductive? Collaboration Model. How does the team produce content? Do they write individually and then meet? Does one person dictate while the other types? Something else? Document Control. How does the team manage a document when more than one person is contributing to it? Who maintains control of the document? How does one person know when its their turn to respond? Conflict. How does the team address conflict? Unproductively? Productively? How are disagreements settled and resolved? Collaboration Styles. How do different genders, races, or cultural groups collaborate? What are their characteristics? What does someones nonverbal communication convey? Other Observations Students Have about the Videos. What other elements do students nd elements to comment on? Students respond quite strongly to these videos and express shock at how some students work with others in such negative ways. They are especially vocal about those team members in the videos who treat others so poorly, perhaps by pointing a pen at them, shouting, acting domineering, or making blatantly sexist comments. Overall, these videos prepare students for the collaboration project by allowing them to observe rsthand the ways in which team projects can fail or be successful. By watching other teams experience and deal with unproductive conflict, inefcient drafting processes, and sexism, students come to understand how successful teamwork takes mindfulness and reflection, as well as forethought and planning. Ideally, these videos make students more aware of their own behavior as they collaborate, which can lead to better team collaborations.

Models of Collaborative Writing

After watching the videos, we move on to a discussion of collaborative writing. I invite students to brainstorm how they think collaborative writing might work in a classroom setting by asking them about the processes student teams might use to produce a single document. How might a group draft a document, for instance? Students typically respond by giving the three predominant models of collaborative writing commonly used in student collaboration. These models outlined in Wolfes book include face-to-face, divided, and layered. We discuss these models in detail so that student teams understand the advantages and disadvan-

184

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

tages of each model, when the model might be appropriate for use, and which model we will be using for our project (see Table 1).

Table 1: Pros and Cons of the Three Models of Collaborative Writing8

Collaborative Model Face-to-Face. The team meets in person to draft, revise, and edit the document. One person typically dictates while another types. This model is most appropriate in planning stages (brainstorming, assigning tasks, planning revisions, etc.) or when discussing highly visual documents (i.e., fliers, brochures, or Web pages) (Wolfe, Team Writing 8). Divided/Horizontal The team divides the document into sections and assigns each team member a section to write. Quick for getting started and completing the work in the least amount of time. Advantages Ideas can be shared and decisions can be made quickly and efciently. Drawbacks Ineffective and inefcient. Wastes time and can produce unnecessary conflict (Lowry and Nunamaker 2778). Scheduling problems. The team must nd a time to meet together, which is inefcient, and time-consuming. Unequal input by team members. More assertive team members tend to dominate the process, and others feel shut out, excluded, or ignored. Good ideas dont always get heard. Produces a poor quality document. Impossible in the workplace (where team members may be geographically distant). Minimal collaboration. Teams rarely communicate beyond the initial planning. No checks and balances or discussion of competing ideas. No vision of or responsibility for the whole document. Quality control is nonexistent. Writing is inconsistent and has gaps. Does not mirror workplace writing (Rehling, Is It Theirs 45). Produces a poor quality document. Finally, the quality of a document produced in the divided model is typically very low. In fact, material is often duplicated or inconsistent, the writing is incoherent, and the writing style and quality varies between sections. Takes more up-front effort and planning so that each person knows what tasks they are assigned. Workload may be different for various roles.

Perceived as fair disThis model is appropriate when speed is more important tribution of labor. than quality (because the quality tends to be very low).

Layered. Each person is assigned a primary role, and all team members have overlapping layers of responsibility. This method is most appropriate when drafting and revising longer documents and most closely workplace collaboration.

Expectations, responsibilities, and roles are clear. Divides students up according to their expertise, which maximizes contributions. Produces a highquality document. Emphasizes writing as a process, document cycling, and checks and balances. It motivates students (Paradis, Dobrin, and Miller 300; Rehling Is It Theirs 45; Wolfe, Team Writing 8).

Collaborative Composing (Alexander)

185

In my classes, I require students to implement the layered model for all written work so that the writing for a project is done by individuals working alone. However, this solitary work is alternated with face -to-face meetings in which the team discusses revisions and makes new plans based on the progress and obstacles encountered by individuals. I make sure to emphasize, however, that when students are given class time to meet in person, they should not be drafting content. Drafting is done outside of class by individuals, not together with the team. In sum, examining these three models of collaborative writing allows students to understand that successful writing is always tied to audience, purpose, and situation, and, when deciding which model they should use in future settings, they should always assess the rhetorical situation.

Document Control and the Teamwork Database

Another topic we discuss during the Teamwork Workshop is document control, or the way collaborative writing should function when multiple writers are working on one document. To get students thinking about this issue, I ask them to brainstorm ways they think collaborative writing might work. I ask such questions as: What is the most efcient way to control a document with multiple writers? Who has primary responsibility for the entire document, and does this change at various stages of the project? How should team members provide feedback to their teammates on a collaborative document? How does revision and editing work? Student responses to these questions lead me into a discussion of the three primary methods of document control: centralized, segmented, and relay. The centralized method gives one person central control over the document. This person drafts the document, receives feedback from other group members, and revises the document based upon this feedback. He or she is always in control of the document and no one else makes changes to the central document. This method is most often used when teams implement a face-to-face collaborative writing model. The segmented approach is where individual team members assigned to write a specic section (i.e., divided model) maintain control over their part until the very end of the project when all team members send their section to one person who compiles everything together into a single document. In this case, each team member maintains control over a segment of the text until the very end when one person compiles it all together. The relay method entails multiple team members sharing control of the document by adding changes and comments and then passing it back and forth (corresponds to layered model). Revision-tracking tools in Word, such as Track Changes, the Comments feature, or the highlighting tool, are used. In my classes, I require students to use the relay method because of its emphasis on process writing and increased collaboration between individuals. Although the relay method has many advantages, one disadvantage is that students can become confused by not knowing which document is the most recent one that needs feedback and/or revision. One solution to this problem is to have a centralized place to store all team documents so that students know they are working on the most recent version of the project. Many universities use course management systems like Blackboard that can foster collaboration by providing email and a central place for teams to store documents. While Blackboard does

186

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

contain some features that facilitate document control, I have not found it to support the type or level of collaborative writing I require in my classes. For one, Blackboard is not necessarily user-friendly. Although it does have email, students must leave their team thread and go to a different screen to send one. Also, Blackboard keeps no record of the email communication between teams, which can prove problematic. Furthermore, Blackboard is not always reliable (at least at my school where it might be down or in the process of being updated). Some teachers are now using Google Docs or Web 2.0 technologies, such as wikis, Facebook, YouTube, and Delicious for team collaboration.9 These technologies are fast evolving to become useful tools for collaborating, but because they do not yet keep track of individual contributions or email communication, I have not yet used them. Instead of these tools, I use a Teamwork Database (TWDB) created by Joanna Wolfe explicitly for facilitating and supporting group collaboration.10 Student teams use the TWDB to share drafts, respond to each others work, and communicate outside of class. They can upload, download, and store their les, make posts, have asynchronous chats, and send emails through this site. Students also have the option of including the length of time they spent on the material so that others (teammates or instructor) will see what and how much each individual is contributing. Student posts are tracked in reverse chronological order so that the most recent one is at the top, which helps students nd and locate the most recent work added to the database. Finally, each student post is a different color so that students (and instructor) can scroll easily and see at a glance who has contributed what. The Teamwork Database offers several advantages. First, it aids and even fosters team collaboration by encouraging the team to stay on track and hold each other accountable for what was assigned, said, or documented. Second, it allows students to upload drafts, meeting minutes, and other material for class so the problem of not bringing the appropriate material to class or not knowing what tasks were assigned to you disappears. Furthermore, the TWDB also allows students to work at their convenience, perhaps even when they can do their best work rather than when they may not be the most productive. Finally, the database also provides a single repository for student collaboration and is accessible from anywhere. Perhaps the best quality of this database is that all team communication is documented. During the Teamwork Workshop, specically when I introduce the Teamwork Database, I emphasize with students the importance of documenting work. I even give students them an example from my personal experience as a professor who is required to keep and maintain a tenure notebook that documents the work I do for my job. If I do not document my teaching, research, and service and show what I have done, then I may as well not have done it at all because no one is going to recognize it if it is not written down and document. Lack of documentation, therefore, works against me in tenure and promotion, as well as my chairs perception of me. In addition, one nding by Wolfe and Alexander was that individual writing tasks were often not recognized or recorded during a project, which led teammates to forget what other teammates had contributed when it came time to submit the nal report (161). Documenting work, on the contrary, ensures that teammates are aware of individual efforts and the work individuals have completed. In fact, team members and the instructor can actually see what other team members have done, especially when it comes to writing and revising efforts. Emphasizing the importance of documentation teaches students how to be organized and prepared for workplace collaboration. In addition to the documentation, the database also facilitates communication between instructor and students. Instructors can choose to view a teams thread and then read and comment on the contributions, thus directing the team in productive ways. The usable interface even gives instructors the ability to glance quickly through the contributions to see

Collaborative Composing (Alexander)

187

which student may not be doing their fair share of the work and send them an email through the site. In the end, the documentation afforded by the TWDB leads to more substantial grade assessments by instructors because instructors can assess the quality and quantity of contributions. In sum, this discussion of document control and the Teamwork Database is meant to prepare students for the expectations I have for their collaborative writing projects and to demonstrate the value of written documentation. Although a few students remark that the Teamwork Database was a little too much, most students claim it was the key to a successful project. Student Hilary, for instance, commented, The database allowed us to keep track of the work we did and to keep it organized in one area for everyone to access. Another student Christine wrote, The database was super helpful because it showed what other people had done. I found it really useful for collaboration. John also stated, The database was a helpful resource to track all the activity for our project and let us know what other teammates were doing.11

Team Roles and Project Management

One question facing instructors who assign collaborative work is how to make sure that all students on the team are contributing equally to the project. One answer to this question is to assign students a specic role they perform throughout the project. Rehling argues for clear roles because of the nature of academic culture where individual competition is emphasized over common goals: when students have clear roles, they know how they can add to the common goal (Is It Theirs 46). Wolfe maintains that clearly dened roles allow work to be distributed more equally (Team Writing 423). Thus, in my classes, students are assigned a specic role. The most important role on a team is the project manager. We spend a great deal of time discussing this role during the workshop, mainly because students often misconstrue this role as equal to a leader who takes charge of the project by being domineering and demanding and/or who does all the work. The project manager, however, is not a leader per se, at least as students typically envision one. Rather, the project manager actually manages the project by maintaining and facilitating communication with both the team and the instructor. Said differently, a project manager manages the team through written documentation.12 Written documentation, in fact, is essential to the project managers role because of the important function documentation plays in keeping the team on track and avoiding problems. The specic documents project managers are responsible for include meeting agendas, meeting minutes, a task schedule, and a team charter. Project managers are also responsible for sending emails to team members reminding them of deadlines, checking in with someone who was absent, asking about the status of a draft, and maintaining communication with the instructor. Project managers might also produce progress reports or a project plan for the instructor. When a teacher assigns the important written documentation to the project manager instead of a secretary for the group, Wolfe argues, [T]he teacher sends a message that internal written documentation is an essential, managerial task (Role 5). In this section, I will look specically at four of the primary documents maintained by project managers: meeting agendas, meeting minutes, a task schedule, and a team charter.

Project Manager Responsibilities

1. Meeting Agendas Project managers are responsible for creating agendas for each team meeting. Meeting agendas include a written list of topics, issues, or concerns to be discussed. Having a set agenda

188

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

helps guide the face-to-face meeting, ensures that nothing gets left out, and keeps the team on track. 2. Meeting Minutes The project manager is also responsible for taking meeting minutes and posting them to the Teamwork Database within 24 hours of the team meeting. Meeting minutes are, contrary to popular belief, managerial documents, not secretarial ones, that direct and push the project forward. In The Role of Writing in Effective Team Projects: Students and Professionals Differ, Wolfe found that in the workplace, those with expertise rather than secretaries are the ones who take the notes during meetings, and, therefore, in our classes, we should also recognize the managerial potential of meeting notes (3). Meeting minutes are essential to keeping the team on task, building consensus between team members, and holding team members accountable for deadlines and responsibilities. During the workshop, we explicitly discuss both the content and form of meeting minutes, including what they should and should not contain. One point I emphasize is that meeting minutes should not be mere transcriptions of everything that was said by whom. On the contrary, notes should provide a record of team decisions, action items, and due dates, all the while emphasizing and anticipating what is to come. I stress the importance of posting minutes soon after the meeting. If they are not posted and sent out to the team, then they are ineffective and useless. I also ask team members to read through the meeting minutes as soon as they are posted and to let the project manager know if anything needs to be revised or amended. Finally, I remind students that meeting minutes should not take the role of individual note-taking during the meeting. 3. Task Schedule Another document the project manager maintains is the task schedule. Wolfe argues that the task schedule is the most important document a team produces for managing itself because it documents who does what by when (Team Writing 40). I have been using the task schedule since I rst observed student teams who did not know what was expected of them or what they were supposed to be doing at any given time as they proceeded through the team project. I nd this document especially useful for keeping students aware of what they need to be doing and when that item is due. Before students can create a task schedule, students rst need to determine what tasks are required of the project. With the help of the instructor, students should brainstorm the major tasks the team will need to complete. They can use the instructors assignment sheet (it might identify tasks, expectations, or deadlines), as well as the textbook to generate these. They can also brainstorm with their team the specic parts of the projects that need to be completed, as pertaining to planning, researching, analyzing, writing, drafting, revising, and editing. Once major tasks are identied, students can then generate the actual task schedule (See Appendix A for a sample). Students create a table (in Word or Excel) and add columns with the following items: (1) major tasks (column 1); (2) the point value for difculty of task, ranked 13 (column 2); (3) the time value of task, ranked 13 (column 3); (4) the total value of difculty times task (column 4), (5) individual responsibilities per task (column 5), and (6) deadlines (column 6). Each student must also place an asterisk beside at least one item that reflects a new skill they will learn. I want to make sure that students are completing at least one task they have never done before, with hopes that some peer sharing will occur and that students will challenge themselves rather than just take the tasks that they already know how to complete. The numeric scores students must assign for difculty of task (column 2) and time of task (column 3) are intended to make task assignments fairer. The lower number (1) means

Collaborative Composing (Alexander)

189

that the task is not very difcult or does not require much time, and the higher number (3) means that the task is difcult and the time commitment is high. When students are deciding what task equals a 1, 2, or 3, they typically underestimate the amount of time and difculty level of writing, while they overestimate the difculty level and time of technical tasks or oral presentations. Therefore, instructors should instruct students that writing tasks (particularly when it concerns content for a report, proposal, or essay) typically takes longer and is more difcult than they may think. I typically have my students assign writing tasks that are part of the content of the project a 3 in terms of difculty and a 2 or 3 in terms of time. For instance, in a technical report, the following tasks might be assigned: write introduction, write methods, write results, and write discussion. Each task should be a 3 in terms of difculty and a 2 or 3 in terms of time.). Other writing tasks, like taking meeting minutes, sending emails, or writing meeting agendas, should be marked a 1 in terms of both time and difculty. After students have assigned each task a difculty and time score, students then multiply difculty by time to get a numerical value, which is then written as the Total (column 4). After each task is totaled, students should then add up each individual team members contribution score (from column 4) and write this overall number at the bottom of the task schedule. The closer the numbers are together per student indicates a fairer distribution of tasks between students. When someones number is too low, as in the case of Evan on the sample task schedule provided here in Appendix A, I do one of two things: I either require the team to revise the task schedule and give the person with fewer points more tasks, or I give teams the option of leaving the task schedule the way it is and, when new tasks emerge, assigning them to the person with the fewest points so that this team member is given equal responsibility to others. Overall, the task schedule balances the workload, leads to a fairer distribution of work amongst the team, and keeps the team on track. After the team has drafted and posted the initial team schedule, the instructor should look carefully through it to make sure that students have not overlooked any major or minor tasks, teams have not mistakenly assigned less or more value to a certain task, work is divided evenly, and students are going to learn new skills. As the instructor sees problems, she should point them out to the team, and students should revise the task schedule immediately. Although the task schedule is nished at this point, it should be continually updated as work is reassigned, deadlines change, or new tasks are identied. When changes are made, the project manager should then repost the revised schedule to the TWDB. Creating and maintaining a written task schedule holds people accountable for the tasks they are to complete and helps students avoid procrastination. Furthermore, the task schedule also allows the instructor to intervene when tasks are not being completed by assigned team members. 4. Team Charter Project managers are also responsible for guiding their team to draft a team contract, known as a Team Charter (Wolfe, Team Writing 28). The purposes of this contract are to set the goals, rules, and guidelines for team conduct and behavior, to hold team members accountable, and to provide a reference for the Project Manager (or instructor) when issues such as group conflict or attendance arises. I have found that when teams plan ahead by setting goals and making decisions up front, they save time and frustration later on in the process. At a minimum, I ask students to include the following in their contract: 1. List of team goals both broad and specic for the project. 2. List of team members, their individual team roles, their personal goals for the project (i.e., what they would like to learn), and their level of commitment (high, medium, low). 3. Norms to guide group behavior, including the following: how often individuals will

190

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

check email and the TWDB; guidelines for attendance, peer feedback, revision, and communication; and statements of how the team will resolve conflicts,13 handle missed deadlines, and deal with unacceptable work. 4. List of personal commitments that might make team members unavailable during a particular time frame and/or dates that someone will be absent. After the team drafts the Charter, I then require all team members to upload the document to the TWDB. This individual posting serves as their signature on the document.

Additional Team Roles and Responsibilities

In addition to the Project Manager, other individual roles are assigned to each team member. At this point, I have already emphasized to students the reasons why each student will have clearly dened roles, and now we discuss the specic roles we will be using for the project. Listed below are some typical roles that I use in my classes. I do not use all of these roles for every project, but I list several here so that you can decide which ones are appropriate for your specic context (consider the assignment, project task, number of students you want on a team, and other similar issues). Subject Matter Expert. The Subject Matter Expert (SME) becomes an expert on the subject matter for the project (the research area, the non-prot organization, an outside client, etc.) and contributes the core content to the documents. The SME leads and facilitates the research needing to be done, including locating and evaluating information and providing access to source materials and reference items. The SME is ultimately responsible for reviewing the nal documents for accuracy of information and content. Graphic Designer. The Graphic Designer offers visual expertise to documents by designing and drafting layouts, creating templates, illustrations, illustrations, visuals, charts, and tables, and formatting documents for consistency. The Graphic Designer also formats, labels, titles, and captions the visuals and formats the entire report according to required documentation style. Editor. The Editor analyzes and edits all documents for content, style, tone, and consistency, as well as clarity, fluency, and concision. The Editor makes sure paragraphs and sentences are organized with transitions, subordinators, and coordinators, and he also proofreads and edits the nal document. Lead Writer. The Lead Writer compiles the information and is in charge of delegating and assigning tasks for the writing portion of the project. She does not write the entire document but rather delegates and oversees the drafting, revising, and editing process. She also compiles the document, implements feedback, and edits the document. Liaison. The Liaison is used when a service-learning component exists in the course and provides the connection between the team and the community partner by maintaining communication with the client. The liaison also sets up meetings with the client and communicates needs and concerns of the client to the Project Manager and the team. The roles an instructor uses in a class depends, of course, on individual course needs, instructor goals, and the purpose of the assignment, and the instructor should take liberty deciding which roles will be needed for their specic contexts. Students often express how much they like having clearly dened roles. Jim wrote, Clearly dened roles allowed us to focus on our responsibilities. Shannon similarly notes, I thought having pre-designated jobs and roles

Collaborative Composing (Alexander)

191

was very effective. Each person came into the project with a job that they liked and knew how to do well. This made it a lot easier to divide up tasks and get quality work from each individual. Importantly, I always remind students that even though they have one role, each individual is still expected to draft, revise, and edit the document.

Project Roles Sheet

Another issue an instructor faces when implementing team projects is how to divide students into teams. Students can self-select their teammates, which gives students more of a voice in deciding who their teammates will be. This option might even encourage positive attitudes and increase motivation. Some disadvantages of this self-selection are that students may be grouped with others who have different interests, one team may all be good writers while another is not, or one group may be full of too many leader types, which might lead to unnecessary conflict. A second option is for instructors to divide students into teams. An instructor can choose these teams randomly or based on certain criteria, such as schedules, personalities, interests, the type of role the student wants to perform, or individual strengths. After experimenting with how to divide students up, I have nally settled on dividing students into teams based on the roles they want to perform during the team project. To determine which role students want to perform, I distribute to them a Project Roles Sheet, which I then use to divide students into teams (See Appendix B). Students are, by this point, familiar with the roles we will be using in the team project, and now they are ready to ll out the form. The Project Roles Sheet rst lists each of the roles we will be using on the project and briefly explains the basic skills and responsibilities of that role. Students then rank these roles according to their interests and the duties they want to perform, from 1 (top choice) to 4 (last choice). Student responses are kept condential, and I use this sheet to assign individual roles and place students on teams. The Project Roles Sheet can be adapted and revised according to instructor goals and purposes. Sometimes, for instance, when my students are working with outside clients or community partners, in addition to the roles ranking, I also have students rank areas in which they would be interested in working (health, education, arts, culture, music, etc.). I then use both the project roles ranking and the areas of interest ranking to divide students into teams. Other times, I add a question on this sheet asking students to name one person with whom they would (or would not) like to work. Or, I ask them to list one specic thing that they would like to learn from this project. Not only do the responses help me divide students into teams, but they also help me better know the students in my classes (their strengths, weaknesses, and goals). Once the results come in, I typically have an overflow of females who want to be project manager and writer, while most of the men choose roles that are more technical and appear to involve less writing, such as the subject matter expert or graphic designer. This tendency may not be surprising considering that the tasks and skills associated with these roles are traditionally divided by gender. However, I do not want all female project managers in my classes, nor do I want all male SMEs and graphic designers. In addition, in the workplace a variety of genders perform a variety of roles, and I want them to be prepared for that. I therefore attempt to have a balance of male and females in each of the roles (even if students have to be assigned their second choice). I consider it essential for students to see both male and females taking on a variety of roles so that our class can challenge and question gender stereotyping. In the end, I think this choice benets the entire collaboration process. In addition to the above, I also discuss with students what my role will be during the

192

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

project. I do not want student teams to assume that they are on their own until the day they submit their nal drafts because team projects often fall apart when instructors have a handsoff approach. Therefore, I explain to students that they should view me as a distant team member, a supervisor so to speak someone who has access to their communication and progress but who does not participate in every team meeting. I also emphasize that individuals and teams should use me as a resource and that they should come to me immediately if issues such as discrimination, harassment, or other problems arise. In sum, the Teamwork Workshop is meant to introduce students working on collaborative projects to theories, examples, and practices of successful collaboration. This overview gives students the tools they need to successfully complete a team project involving collaborative writing. The Teamwork Workshop outlined here typically takes two or three class sessions, but it can be adapted to a variety of contexts and situations. The workshop can be shorted or lengthened depending on the type of project an instructor assigns, and it can be adapted to other courses where teams and collaborative writing is used, including composition, rhetoric, English, and argument courses. Overall, structuring student teams in advance and supporting students throughout the project will make the team experience a positive one for all. This process also gives students the skills they need to become successful workplace collaborators.

Guidelines for the Team Project

After the Teamwork Workshop, I distribute the assignment sheet for our specic project. In the past, I have assigned a great many types of collaborative assignments, including reports and proposals based on original research (questionnaires, usability tests, interviews, or thinkaloud protocols), engineering analysis, rhetorical analysis, or bibliographic research. The assignment sheet I distribute details some specic guidelines I have for the team project. These policies are meant to protect student teams from some of the pitfalls that scholars and practitioners observe in team projects and improve student attitudes toward collaboration.14 Dedicating class time to discussing teamwork and setting specic guidelines as to how it can work successfully is important because students realize that team skills can be learned and that they need to possess them if they are to be successful in this class and in their careers. In this section, I list the specic policies I give to students at the beginning of the team project. 1. Each team member is expected to draft, revise, and edit the written report. This policy is in place for several reasons. First, asking every team member to write highlights the importance of writing. Writing becomes more visible, more shared, and more collaborative rather than less visible and selectively recognized, as Wolfe and Alexander found (135). Second, this policy aligns with the layered model of collaborative writing where writing tasks overlap and are shared by team members. Ideally, such layering produces a higher quality document because more people are revising and editing the draft throughout the process and the document goes through numerous revisions, unlike in other models. Third, this guideline gives every student a vision of the whole document, which creates a more consistent text in style, tone, and content (unlike what the divided model tends to create). Fourth, this policy emphasizes writing as a process. Students can see how the quality of the project increases when the document is revised as a result of feedback from others. They can also notice how each team member brings different skills to the revision process. Next, when everyone is expected to draft, revise, and edit, the tendency towards a gendered division of labor decreases. Writing emerges as an indispensable task and is no longer viewed as secretarial. Perhaps most importantly, requiring everyone to make substantive written contributions ensures that all students share an equal responsibility for the document and gain skills in drafting, revising, and editing.

Collaborative Composing (Alexander)

193

2. Teams should communicate primarily through electronic means outside of class and should not meet outside of class unless prior approval has been given by me. At least half of every class period is reserved for face-to-face meetings, so your team should not need to meet outside of class. This policy emphasizing electronic communication is intended to protect busy students from their tendency toward inefcient out-of-class meetings. In my observations of student teams on Wolfes study, I found that when student teams do get together outside of class, much of their time is wasted deciding when they can meet again, arguing over small stylistic details, or jointly completing work that should be done individually when time would have been better spent brainstorming ideas or producing content for the project. Thus, I require students to use electronic communication as their primary way to maintain team communication. The policy is intended to introduce students to collaborative technologies, even simple tools like email, Word, texting, and the Teamwork Database. Electronic communication provides for the easy exchange of feedback and drafts, and I encourage students to take advantage of it. Communicating through electronic means also allows students to work on the material at their own pace and in their own time. Better ideas often emerge as a result of electronic collaboration. Although students are expected to use electronic means to communicate with their team when they are not in class, I do encourage face-to-face time for brainstorming and planning. I reserve at least half of every class day for teams to meet to discuss ideas and plan the writing. If a student team wants to meet outside of class, I ask them to get permission from me in advance. In fact, they must persuade me that this meeting is necessary and worth their time. After completing his team project, student Lee commented, Our emphasis on electronic communication was our key to success. Sean likewise noted, The database and an emphasis on email communication allowed us to communicate clearly and instantly with one another. Using these tools, anything not covered in a meeting was easily made up for and progress was both efcient and steady. Another student wrote, No out of class meetings forced us to use our class time to its full potential. Overall, students really appreciate this policy. 3. All individual and group work on the project, including emails, must be documented in writing on the Teamwork Database to receive credit. Students are required to upload all documents produced, including meeting minutes, task schedules, memos, drafts, peer reviews, and other items to the Teamwork Database. I also ask them to send emails through the TWDB so that a record of the communication exists. Students tend to view teamwork almost exclusively in terms of verbal communication without writing down team decisions and action items (Wolfe, Role of Writing 1), which contrasts with professionals who view written documentation as essential to success. Team projects provide a nice opportunity for students to learn this value as well. Documenting work also shows the team (and instructor) what each individual is working on at any given moment. If one student is falling behind and not posting anything, the instructor can easily notice and address it. Overall, this policy protects hard-working students from irresponsible teammates and keeps the team up-to-date on the collaborative process. Students often mention how the written documentation, particularly the meeting minutes and task schedule maintained by the project manager, were the most helpful aspects of keeping the team on track and fostering good communication. 4. Teams should divvy up activities so that each person gets to perform at least one task that allows them to learn a new skill. When team roles are assigned based on interests or skills, students are assigned roles in which they already have expertise. While this division certainly makes sense in terms of ef-

194

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

ciency, it also limits team members opportunities to gain skills in areas they may be weak. Therefore, I require students to step out of their comfort zones and volunteer for one task they do not already know how to do. Maybe this task is to write a literature review or to draft tables, gures, and illustrations. Perhaps the task involves interviewing or data analysis. Whatever they choose, they mark it on the task schedule. This emphasis on learning a new skill communicates to students that the instructor values learning and equips students for fullling tasks with which they do not have prior experience. One idea for fostering the learning of a new skill is for instructors to dedicate one or more days to sharing skills within teams. For instance, if one student knows how to create a web site, then she might share this skill with another team member. Or, if one student is especially good at editing, this student might share his strategies with someone else. This kind of peer sharing can be especially meaningful for students and the collaborative process. 5. Students will receive two grades on this project: The project quality grade assesses the quality of the written report and is the same for all team members. The collaboration grade is based on individual contributions and varies between team members. I assign two grades for the team project, primarily because students see both an individual and a team grade fairer than only assigning one single group grade (Beard, Rymer, and Williams 379) and because it leads students to have greater agency and purpose in their collaborations (Rose 97). The majority of the grade goes toward the nal written document the team collaborates on together (6075 percent of overall grade). This project quality grade is the same for all team members and is especially important in showing students that the team document is shared by all. This grade also gives value to the collaborative process and places importance on a team working together to produce a single document. The collaboration grade, on the contrary, varies by each students individual contributions and efforts (2540 percent of overall grade) and communicates to students that the quality and quantity of individual contributions matters to the team project, just as the nal written product does (Wolfe and Alexander 1656). To determine individual collaboration grades, at the end of the collaborative process, I ask students to complete a Collaboration Feedback Form (see Appendix C). This form evaluates several aspects of the team project, including level of satisfaction of the collaborative process, new skill(s) learned, strengths and weaknesses of teammates, contributions by teammates, and the collaborative process in general. Students can refer to the task schedule and Teamwork Database to complete this form, and when they do, the situation where technical work is valued more than writing does not present itself. 6. Attendance on class group days is absolutely critical. A student who misses a class period dedicated to working on the team project will be penalized 10 points off the collaboration grade. Because student teams do not meet outside of class, coming to class is extremely important. Not only are students getting new information about the project from me, but class periods are also dedicated to in-class team meetings and peer review workshops over the team project. I frame this policy by comparing these meetings to the workplace where professionals cannot miss meetings. Absences greatly affect the progress and morale of the group by causing extra work and anxiety for the other team members. I therefore take 10 points off the collaboration grade of a student who misses class. The collaboration grade of the other team members does not suffer, only the student who has missed class. 7. Articulate problems to the Project Manager or to me. I encourage students to speak to their Project Manager or to me any time they foresee a

Collaborative Composing (Alexander)

195

problem. Whether the problem is related to the team project or involves individual issues, I want students to communicate their concerns to before they become unmanageable. Both the project manager and I have access to the written communication between team members and can of course talk to individual students who miss deadlines or fall behind. However, I also encourage students to anticipate problems arising and take the initiative to talk with one of us before the problem gets out of control (See Rehling, Foregrounding). To sum up the potential impact these guidelines have on student collaboration, I include a comment from Amanda: I believe that all the collaboration guidelines implemented during the team project were tremendously helpful. I do not think the project would have run as smoothly if any one of them were deleted. This team project was the smoothest one Ive ever been a part of.

Conclusion
Overall, the pragmatic collaborative writing pedagogy outlined here provides students with many opportunities to learn successful, practical ways to collaborate that will allow them to them transition to the workplace with greater condence and more skills. They gain a better understanding of different and effective ways to collaborate, and they learn when certain methods might be more appropriate than others. Since workplaces are becoming increasingly focused on team projects, teaching students collaborative writing skills and supporting student teams as they learn how to become successful collaborators seems like these practices, too, should be an important of the writing curriculum. This workshop also leads students to recognize how gender plays a part in collaboration. The videos and Teamwork Workshop helps them recognize how delegating others to specic stereotypical tasks is inappropriate. Instead of automatically settling into conventional gender roles, they are challenged to look beyond those to see how writing is an integral part of a successful team project. In fact, many who are in the role of Project Manager come to recognize that note-taking and meeting minutes are actually managerial tasks, attached to leadership, thus forming different understandings of how writing can be used to lead and guide projects successfully. This method also shows how collaborative writing is a social process of negotiation. Learning how to work successfully in teams is essential for students who will be asked to collaborate in the workplace and beyond, where texts, processes, genres, and cultures can all be extremely different. Using these principles to demonstrate to students that teamwork is a learnable skill can increase their condence as they transition from academy to work. In addition, students gain experience and practical skills by collaborating on a complex written document. Of course we can never forget that collaborative writing is highly contextualized and will need to be adjusted according to what works for the need of any given class, but I hope that the techniques outlined here will leave you room to apply what works for you to your pedagogical and organizational contexts.

196

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

Appendix A
Sample Task Schedule
1: Task 2: Difculty (D) 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 1 3 2 2 1 2 1 2 1 1 2 1 3: Time (T) 3 2 2 2 2 3 3 2 2 2 3 1 3 2 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 3 1 4: Total Points (D*T) 3 2 2 2 2 6 6 4 2 4 9 1 9 4 4 1 6 1 6 2 1 6 1 5: Assigned to Carla All Christine* All Carla Evan Carla Christine Matt Christine Evan* Carla Matt* Matt and Carla Matt and Christine All Christine Carla All Matt All Carla* All 6: Deadline 2/21 2/26 3/4 3/10 3/14 3/17 3/13/20 3/25 3/25 3/28 3/28 Ongoing 4/1 4/1 4/6 4/6 4/7 4/6 4/8 4/8 4/13 4/13

Task Schedule Find three scholarly articles and summarize Proposal Draft Revise and edit the proposal Final draft of project proposal Research Topic Collect Data Draft Methods Come up with plan for draft of Results and Discussion Introduction Literature Review Meeting Minutes Draft of Results and Discussion Revise Results and Discussion Revise and post complete draft of report Revise and edit Report Draft front and end matter Divvy up revisions for workshop Revise draft Draft of everything due for workshop Final report workshop Revise nal draft based on feedback Complete Collaboration Report

Totals per Team Member (column 4 added up per person): Carla: 36 Christine: 33 Evan: 28 Matt: 34

Appendix B
Project Roles Sheet
Your Name: _____________________________________ Each team member will be assigned one of the following four roles. Look through these roles to determine which one best match your strengths and the duties you would like to perform.
Role
Project Manager

Desirable Skills
Visionary who understands big picture. Strong managerial and organizational skills. Strong writer. Reliable and attentive. Effective problem solver. Motivator and advocate.

Basic Duties
Prepares agenda for meetings. Takes and posts meeting minutes. Maintains and updates task schedule. Facilitates communication with team and instructor. Coordinates group communication through emails, memos, and other documents.

Collaborative Composing (Alexander)

Subject Matter Expert Can nd and sift through information quickly and accurately. Good knowledge of subject. Thorough. Strong facilitator. Reliable and responsible. Good communicator. Keen understanding of audiences needs. Attentive eye to detail. Personable. Good artistic eye. Good computer skills. Good grasp of visual and page design feature. Ability to predict and respond to the needs of the team. Attentive eye to detail. Coordinates research phase of project. Becomes subject-matter expert and contributes core content to documents. Provides access to source materials and reference items. Reviews nal documents for accuracy of information and content.

197

Liaison

Provides connection between team and client by maintaining regular communication with client. Sets up meetings with client. Communicates clients needs and concerns to team. Creates, labels, and formats visuals (graphs, tables, images, etc.). Compiles and formats document for consistency and visual effectiveness.

Graphic Designer

1. Rank the following roles from 14, where 1 best matches your strengths and the role you would like for this project to 4 least matching your strengths and the role you want. _____ Project Manager _____ Subject Matter Expert _____ Writer _____ Graphic Designer 2. Place a check mark beside any area you are willing to work. If you do not want to work in a certain area, leave line blank. _____ Health and/or Nutrition _____ Mothers, Children, Families _____ Elderly Care _____ Animal Care _____ Environment _____ Education and Literacy _____ Arts and Culture 3. Is there anyone in this class with whom you do not want to work? List their name here.

Appendix C
Collaboration Feedback Form
1. How satised were you with the collaborative process? Extremely Satised Satised Not Satised 2. What is the most important thing you learned from drafting the written academic report? 3. Name at least one new skill that you learned and briefly reflect on learning this skill. 4. What were some positive experiences you had collaborating on this document? 5. What aspects of the collaboration process proved to be most helpful in terms of keeping the team on track? Why?

198

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

6. What aspects of the collaboration process aided in you having a more positive experience? Why or how? 7. What proved to be the most challenging part of the collaboration part of this process? Do you have any suggestions on how this aspect might be improved (or not prove to be so challenging)? 8. Describe a point during this project when you and/or your partners constructively disagreed. How did you work through and use this disagreement to your advantage? If your group did not experience any constructive controversy, why do you think this was the case? 9. List all the contributions you made to this project. Be as thorough and specic as possible. 10. List all the contributions each of your partners made to this project. Be as thorough and specic as possible for each team member. 11. Mark an asterisk in the question above (#10) next to the single-most important contribution each of your partners made to this project. 12. What were each of your partners strengths as collaborators? List several strengths for each partner. 13. Name some aspects in which each of your partners could improve his/her collaboration skills. (Note that just because you list something here does not necessarily mean their collaboration grade will be effected. This question is meant to help them grow as collaborators.) 14. Rank yourself and your team members where 1 is the most work to 4 being least work in the amount of work each team member contributed to the team project. If some team members contributed equally, then mark them as the same number. 15. What letter grade (use plus/minus) would you give each team member based on the quality of their work? 16 What letter grade (use plus/minus) would you give each team member based on their collaboration? 17. What are some things you would have done differently looking back on the research project? What would you advise other students?

Notes
1. The following works provide thorough discussions on collaborative writing in the workplace: Andersons What Survey Research Teaches Us about Writing at Work; Lay and Kariss Collaborative Writing in Industry: Investigations in Theory and Practice; and Lunsford and Edes Singular Texts/Plural Authors: Perspectives on Collaborative Writing. 2. See Leonard et al. and Beach et al. for discussions on how experience collaborating in the classroom can make students better prepared for workplace expectations. 3. This propensity to divide tasks by gender is at least somewhat due to a culture that tends to associate technology with men and language skills with women (Rehling, Writing Together 170-2; Natishan et al. 271; Wolfe, Team Writing 43). 4. Jones describes each of these team models: In contextual interaction, the organizational context is used during collaboration, particularly by borrowing older documents from the organization (451-2). Hierarchical collaboration typically involves passing a document from one writer to the next in a sequential fashion or a single author doing most of the writing and only engaging in collaboration when advice is needed (452-53). In group collaboration, a collection of people plan, draft, and revise together (454-55). 5. During graduate school, I had the opportunity to serve as a research assistant to Dr. Joanna Wolfe who had received a National Science Foundation grant to study collaboration in technical writing classrooms. This research resulted in numerous published articles for Wolfe, as well as a recently published guidebook for use in the classroom titled, Team Writing: A Guide to Working in Groups. 6. Other readings we discuss include: Burnetts Some People Werent Able to Contribute Anything But Their Technical Knowledge : The Anatomy of a Dysfunctional Team; Jones From Writers to Information Coordinators: Technology and the Changing Face of Collaboration ; and Rehlings Is It Theirs, Mine, or Ours?: Ownership, Collaboration, and Cultures (1994). Joanna Wolfes book Team Writing is also an excel-

Collaborative Composing (Alexander)

199

lent resource for an instructor looking to integrate a collaborative writing assignment into the classroom, and I highly recommend it as a textbook in classes where collaborative writing will be assigned. 7. These videos are available for viewing online at Bedford/St. Martins companion site for Wolfes Team Writing. 8. This table is adapted from the following sources: Debss Collaborative Writing in Industry, Joness From Writers to Information Coordinators, Rehlings Is It Theirs, Mine, or Ours?: Ownership, Collaboration, and Cultures, Rogers and Hortons Exploring the Value of Face-to-Face Collaborative Writing, and Wolfes Team Writing. 9. See J. A. Rices Devising Collective Knowledges for the Technical Writing Classroom (2009) for a discussion of the advantages of Web 2.0 technologies for collaborative writing. Also, see Joanna Wolfes Team Writing for a section on Google Docs and Wikis, as well as other technology available for collaborative revising (74-78) 10. The Teamwork Database is located at: http://coldfusion.louisville.edu/jlwolf02/teamwork/. If you would like access to the site it for viewing or use in your classes, please email Dr. Joanna Wolfe at : joanna.wolfe@louisville.edu. 11. Student comments are from the collaboration reports submitted at the end of the project. 12. See Chapter Two of Wolfes Team Writing for a detailed chapter on project management. 13. I ask students to address the type of conflict they will try to engage in. They have already learned about productive and unproductive conflict after reading Burnetts article, Conflict in Collaborative Decision Making in which she argues that the team process will be more productive if the team engages in substantive conflict, where consensus is deferred and alternative solutions are voiced (144-6). On the contrary, affective conflict that focuses on interpersonal disagreements and procedural conflict, which concerns disagreements about how the team should work together, are unproductive and detrimental to collaboration (145). When writing the team charter, I therefore ask them to focus on substantive conflict. 14. See the following texts for descriptions of problems with team projects: Anson and Forsbergs Moving beyond the Academic Community: Transitional Stages in Professional Writing; Odells Beyond the Text: Relations between Writing and Social Context; and Rehlings Writing Together: Genders Effect on Collaboration.

Works Cited
Allen, Nancy, Dianne Atkinson, Meg Morgan, Teresa Moore, and Craig Snow. What Experienced Collaborators Say about Collaborative Writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 1.2 (1987): 70 90. Print. Anderson, Paul V. What Survey Research Tells Us about Writing at Work. In Odell and Goswami, 383. Print. Anson, Chris M., and L. Lee Forsberg. Moving beyond the Academic Community: Transitional Stages in Professional Writing. Written Communication 7.2 (1987): 20031. Print. Barker, Randolph T., and Frank J. Franzak. Team Building in the Classroom: Preparing Students for Their Organizational Culture. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 27.3 (1997): 30315. Print. Barker, Randolph T., Glenn H. Gilbreath, and Warren S. Stone. The Interdisciplinary Needs of Organizations: Are New Employees Adequately Equipped? The Journal of Management Development 17.3 (1997): 21932. Web. ProQuest. 26 June 2010. Beach, Richard, Chris Anson, Lee-Ann Kastman Breuch, and Thom Swiss. Teaching Writing Using Blogs, Wikis, and Other Digital Tools. Norwood, MA: Christopher Gordon Pub, 2009. Print. Beard, John D., Jone Rymer, and David L. Williams. An Assessment System for Collaborative-Writing Groups: Theory and Empirical Evaluation. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 3.2 (1989): 2951. Print. Bruffee, Kenneth A. Collaborative Learning and the Conversation of Mankind. College English 46.7 (1984): 63552. Web. JSTOR. 12 May 2010. Burnett, Rebecca. Conflict in Collaborative Decision-Making. Professional Communication: The Social Perspective. Ed. Nancy Roundy Blyler and Charlotte Thralls. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Pub., 1993. 14462. Print. _____. Some People Werent Able to Contribute Anything But Their Technical Knowledge: The Anatomy of a Dysfunctional Team. Nonacademic Writing: Social Theory and Technolog y. Ed. Ann Hill Duin and Craig J. Hansen. Mahway, NJ: Erlbaum, 1996. 12356. Print. Dale, Helen. Co-Authoring in the Classroom: Creating an Environment for Effective Collaboration. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1997. Print. Debs, Mary Beth. Collaborative Writing in Industry. Technical Writing: Theory and Practice. Ed. Bertie E. Fearing and W. Keats Sparrow. New York: MLA, 1989. 3342. Print.

200

IV: Can collaborative learning and writing work in all writing classes?

Jones, Scott L. From Writers to Information Coordinators: Technology and the Changing Face of Collaboration. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 19.4 (2005): 44967. Web. Sage Journals Online. 22 June 2010. Kittleson, Julie M., and Sherry A. Southerland. The Role of Discourse in Group Knowledge Construction: A Case Study of Engineering Students. Journal of Research in Science Teaching 41.3(2004): 26793. Web. EBSCO. 24 June 2010. Lay, Mary M., and William M. Karis, eds. Collaborative Writing in Industry: Investigations in Theory and Practice. Amityville, NY: Baywood, 1991. Print. Leonard, James S., Christine E. Wharton, Robert Murray Davis, and Jeanette Harris, eds. Author-ity and Textuality: Current Views of Collaborative Writing. West Cornwall, CT: Locust Hill Press, 1994. Print. Lowry, Paul Benjamin, and Jan F. Nunamaker, Jr. Using Internet-Based, Distributed Collaborative Writing Tools to Improve Coordination and Group Awareness in Writing Teams. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 46.4 (2003): 27797. Web. IEEE Electronic Library Online. 22 June 2010. Lunsford, Andrea, and Lisa Ede. Singular Texts/Plural Authors: Perspectives on Collaborative Writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1990. Print. Natishan, M. E., L. C. Schmidt, and P. Mead. Student Focus Group Results on Student Team Performance Issues. Journal of Engineering Education 89.3 (2000): 26972. Print. Newcomer, Jeffrey L., Kathleen L. Kitto, and Barbara Sylvester. Written Communication in a Technical Context: Meaningful Writing Assignments for Engineering Technology Students. 33rd ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Boulder, CO, 2003. 813. Web. IEEE Electronic Library Online. 23 June 2010. Odell, Lee. Beyond the Text: Relations between Writing and Social Context. In Odell and Goswami, 249 80. Print. Odell, Lee, and Dixie Goswami, ed. Writing in Nonacademic Settings. New York: Guilford, 1985. Print. Paradis, James, David Dobrin, and Richard Miller. Writing at Exxon ITD: Notes on the Writing Environment of an R&D Organization. In Odell and Goswami, 281307. Print. Rehling, Louise. Foregrounding Positive Problem-Solving Teamwork: Awareness and Assessment Exercises for the First Class and Beyond. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 24.2 (2010): 23444. Web. Sage Journals Online. 11 May 2010. _____. Is It Theirs, Mine, or Ours?: Ownership, Collaboration, and Cultures. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 37.1 (1994): 429. Print. _____. Writing Together: Genders Effect on Collaboration. Journal of Technical Writing and Communication 26.2 (1996): 16376. Print. Rice, J. A. Devising Collective Knowledges for the Technical Writing Classroom: A Course-Based Approach to Using Web 2.0 Writing Technologies in Collaborative Work. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 52.3 (2009): 30315. Web. IEEE Electronic Library Online. 15 June 2010. Roever, Carol, and Diane Mullen. Teamwork: Preparing students for the new reality. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 8.4 (1994): 46274. Print. Rogers, Priscilla S., and Marjorie S. Horton. Exploring the Value of Face-to-Face Collaborative Writing. New Visions of Collaborative Writing. Ed. Janis Forman. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook-Heinemann, 1992. 12046. Print. Rose, Shirley K. Toward a Revision Decision Model of Collaboration. In Leonard et al., 85100. Print. Schrage, Michael. Writing to Collaborate: Collaborating to Write. Leonard et al. 1724. Print. Stygall, Gail. Women and Language in the Collaborative Writing Classroom. Feminism and Composition Studies: In Other Words. Ed. Susan C. Jarratt and Lynn Worsham. New York: MLA, 1998. 25275. Print. Vik, Gretchen N. Doing More to Teach Teamwork Than Telling Students to Sink or Swim. Business Communication Quarterly 64.4 (2001): 1129. Web. Sage Journals Online. 24 June 2010. Walker, Kristin. Using Genre Theory to Teach Students Engineering Lab Report Writing: A Collaborative Approach. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication 42.1 (1999): 1219. Print. Winsor, Dorothy. Writing Like an Engineer: A Rhetorical Education. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 1996. Print. Wolfe, Joanna. The Role of Writing in Effective Team Projects: Students and Professionals Differ. 35th ASEE/IEEE Frontiers in Education Conference. Indianapolis, IN, 2005. 16. Web. IEEE Electronic Library Online. 7 July 2010. _____. Team Writing: A Guide to Working in Groups. Boston and New York: Bedford/St. Martins, 2010. Print. Wolfe, Joanna, and Kara Poe Alexander. The Computer Expert in Mixed-Gendered Collaborative Writing Groups. Journal of Business and Technical Communication 19.2 (2005): 13570. Print.

Part V. Can special populations benet from collaborative activities?

Working Together Towards Greatness: The Cumulative Writing Model and English Language Learners
ROBB MARK MCCOLLUM
As an instructor of composition both to native English speaking and English as a second language learners, I am constantly striving to develop a model for academic writing that helps students learn the skills and language that will prepare them to be successful with written assignments in their future courses and careers. This article details the learning strategies, classroom activities, and teaching techniques that I have synthesized from my experiences with students and fellow teachers. I propose a model for academic writing that helps students focus on learning the language of academic research while participating in a collaborative research community. This model, the Cumulative Writing Model, demonstrates how collaboration is not just a supplemental feature to the writing classroom; instead, this approach shows how collaboration is essential to helping students become effective consumers and creators of research-based writing.

Collaboration and the Cumulative Writing Model

Developing prociency in argumentative academic writing is an important skill for university success (Pennycook; Wolfersberger). This ability requires multiple subskills including the ability to analyze, synthesize, summarize, paraphrase, and cite (Britt and Aglinkas; Chapelle, Enright, and Jamieson; Singh) and, as Harklau and Howard, Serviss, and Rodrigue have pointed out, this ability is not readily achieved by all college-age students. Both Keck and Yu and have observed that this struggle to attain advanced literacy is even more difcult for second language writers. In addition to grappling with the modes and standards of university-level academic writing, studies suggest that non-native writers are also faced with linguistic and cultural challenges that impede their ability to write from sources (Ascension Delaney; Campbell; Hyland; Wheeler). This article outlines how a collaborative classroom approach to composition can address the challenges facing college-age writers. Over the past several years, I have rened a model for teaching research writing that encourages students to work together as they learn the essential skills of academic writing. I have used this model with a variety of student groups, and I have found that it is especially benecial to English as a Second Language learners. My approach is based on models of research writing as proposed by Bullock and Goggin. They
201

202

V: Can special populations benet from collaborative activities?

suggest that research writing can be broken down into a sequences of smaller tasks including 1) nding sources, 2) annotating sources, 3) synthesizing sources, 4) developing an argument, 5) creating an outline, 6) drafting, and 7) revising. The model I use, the Cumulative Writing Model (CWM), follows this basic procedure, yet instead of proceeding through these steps only once, the CWM repeats the research writing process multiple times in a single semester. With each iteration, collaboration is key to helping students improve their ability to accomplish each step and increase their condence in research writing. Two elements differentiate the CWM the most from other approaches to rst-year writing: the models focus on a single rhetorical pattern and its collaborative nature. First, the CWM reduces the number of organizational patterns that students must learn during the course of one semester. In a typical rst-year writing class, students may be asked to learn three or four different genres such as critique, personal narrative, argumentative essay, and research report. Although teaching multiple writing genres is a valid consideration in a composition course, there are other goals that may deserve priority in a research-writing class for English language learners; researchers have suggested that lexical, grammatical, and anti-plagiarism concerns are especially relevant to non-native English language writers (Evans, Hartshorn, McCollum, and Wolfersberger; Lee and Chen; Plankans; Nakamura; Storch). These learners would benet more from explicit English language instruction that helps them to appropriately integrate sources into their research writing. This is why the CWM limits the types of writing required of students in order to help them hone the skills necessary to complete a research paper writing assignment. Because of this, the CWM is most effective in a writing program that 1) requires students to develop research writing from sources, 2) provides opportunities for students to learn other writing genres in other courses, and 3) understands that some students, such as non-native English language users, benet from explicit instruction in the language of academic communication. The second characteristic that separates the CWM from common writing frameworks is that the CWM thrives on collaboration among course participants. The CWM is designed to encourage students to learn from one another as they read and share source material, prepare outlines, revise drafts, and offer their own writing as background reading to their peers. These collaborative activities help students to develop both written and oral communication skills as they share their writing process and products with one another. Through the CWMs collaborative activities, students increase their audience awareness and the realization that their research writing involves participating in a wider community of learning.

A Basic Outline for the Cumulative Writing Model

As started earlier, the CWM is based on accepted approaches to research writing. But, true to its name, the Cumulative Writing Model repeats this process multiple times during a course, increasing the complexity with each iteration. This approach helps students to teach and learn from their peers as they collaborate more deeply with each iteration. Students begin by writing a simple problem denition paper on their rst topic. Then, when students submit their problem paper to their instructor, they also share their writing with peers who can use that paper as a source document for the next assignment. The second paper is a causes paper that summarizes a problem and then investigates possible causes. Students can use peers rst papers in helping to write the synthesis of the problem, but then the students must add to the issue by focusing on the causes. Once again, in addition to submitting their assignment to the instructor, students also share their causes paper with their classmates. In the nal iteration, students will have both problem papers and causes

Working Together Towards Greatness (McCollum)

203

papers, authored by their peers, as background source materials for writing the nal assignment. The solutions paper requires students to go beyond describing a problem and its causes to investigating potential solutions. Because students rely on both the bibliographies and the research writing of their peers, students provide one another with feedback on their research writing. This collaboration can lead to improved communication skills and better research papers. A visual summary of this process can be seen in Figure 1. A student, Kimberly, is assigned Topic A for her rst paper. She and other students who are also writing about Topic A share relevant sources with one another but write their own problem papers on that topic. (At the same time, other students are writing about Topic B and Topic C.) For the second assignment, Kimberly is assigned to Topic B. She has access to all the sources that Topic B students used for the rst assignment, and she also has a copy of each of their problem papers. She can use all of these materials to help her summarize the problem, but she will need to collaborate with other Topic B students in order to nd sources to help her write the causes aspect of the second assignment. Once she has completed the causes paper, she will move onto the nal assignment: the solutions paper. Now she is writing about Topic C, and she will have several problem and causes papers as background sources. She will also have an extensive collaborative bibliography from peers who previously wrote about this topic. However, she and her Topic C peers will need to nd additional sources that will help them write the solutions part of this nal assignment. By the end of the course, she will have written three research papers of increasing complexity on three different topics: see Figure 1 below.

Figure 1. The CWM Process

204

V: Can special populations benet from collaborative activities?

In the section that follows, I provide a more detailed description of each stage of the CWM and how collaboration increases with each iteration.

Determine Research Topics and Collaborative Groups

Whether your course follows a pre-specied theme or whether you allow students to select their own research topics, the CWM works best when students write from a limited number of research topics because fewer research topics foster an increased sense of community. With fewer options, students are more likely to take an interest into peers papers, and fewer topics means that more students are working on any given topic and can share resources with others. I recommend selecting three or four topics: one topic for the practice paper, and then three others for the cumulative assignments. As the instructor, I select the topic of the practice paper, generally something related to study skills or university life. For example, one semester our class wrote the practice problem paper about university general education requirements; another semester, we investigated the problem of online civility. These topics were of interest to all class members since they already had experiences and opinions about these issues. This helped raise their interest in the assignment and motivated them to seek out what others had to write about these issues. Although I decide the practice paper topic on my own, I invite the class to propose possible topic areas for the following papers. We begin this discussion as students are completing their practice papers. As we begin evaluating topics, I notice that students sometimes need help determining appropriate topics, and the following steps can help. First, I ask them to brainstorm a list of current events or news stories. I then model how a news event can serve as a catalyst for developing a research topic. For example, a prominent news story one semester involved a devastating earthquake. In discussing this news event in class, I helped the students see that many possible research topics could stem from that story: How effective were emergency services in responding to the crisis? How did government ofcials coordinate relief efforts? How could construction efforts have been improved in order to minimize the impact of the quake? With each question, one or more possible problem papers exist. My students and I have found that browsing the front page of a major newspaper or viewing the news media web homepages can help identify current events that would translate to appropriate research topics. Once we have a good list of potential topics, the students vote to determine the three ofcial topics. Each student gets three votes from among the approved list (voting can take place in class by raised hands, or online by survey or email messages to the instructor), and the three most popular topics become the ofcial course topics. Figure 2 displays an example of brainstormed topics and student votes (from a class of 15 students); the highlighted topics have the most votes and were the topics students wrote on that semester.

Figure 2: List of potential research topics

Topic Culture shock and international students Equality issues for women in the workplace Earthquake emergency preparedness Economic recovery from recession Food shortages in developing nations Internet freedom and censorship Civil unrest and political deance Votes 2 8 6 3 5 9 12

Working Together Towards Greatness (McCollum)

205

I inform students that they will probably get to write about at least one of their preferred topics, but that they probably will have to write about at least one topic that they dislike. Still, I tell them that I will try to show them how to develop an interest for all three topics by participating in collaborative research writing. I assure them that writing about a topic that does not interest them is actually an important research skill since during their university study, and in their careers, it is likely that they will be assigned to work on projects that do not match their personal preferences. If they can learn to enjoy writing about a topic that it of little initial interest to them, they will increase their chance of success with similar experiences in the future. I have found that the collaborative nature of the CWM helps students to discover previously unknown interest in an assigned topic as they explore the issue through small group discussions. When I rst used the CWM, I allowed students to select any topic from a list of ten for each of their papers. However, I quickly found that this resulted in some students who were the lone researchers for some topics, and other large research groups for more popular topics. Neither option was particularly effectives for collaboration learning and participation: lone students lost out on collaborative feedback, and large groups had too many students to allow for individualized feedback for all participants during a single group session. So, in subsequent semesters, I have evenly assigned students among the three most popular topics to ensure that there are reasonably-sized research groups at each stage of the semester. Students rotate among the three topics so that each student writes about all three topics by the end of the course, which means that there is a relatively equal number of source papers in any given topic for assigned students in the next iteration.

Model the Research Writing Process with the Practice Paper

Some students in my rst-year writing courses have never written an academic paper before, let alone a research paper in their second language. Before assigning them to work on their own papers, I take the rst few weeks of the course to model the research writing process. During this time, I select a topic that is general interest to my students (such as The Debated Value of General Education Programs) and together we read a variety of related articles. I demonstrate in class how I found the sources, and we even take time to discuss less-thanworthy sources and why they might not be relevant to our research. For example, I encourage students to consider criteria in evaluating their sources such as academic merit, timeliness, expertise of author, evidence of bias, and so forth. I have found that it is useful to ask students to generate a list of source types that they might use for a research paper, and then as a class we evaluate their relative strengths and weaknesses. Figure 3 (p. 206) shows a source mapping grid that I use to help students understand the appropriateness of particular sources. As students brainstorm possible research sources, for example, an encyclopedia article or a newspaper report, we discuss the evaluation criteria and then place it on the grid. I explain that over the course of their academic study, they want to become comfortable relying primarily on sources from the upper-left quadrant; however, I explain that these sources contain the most challenging and esoteric language of all possible source texts. I encourage students to try using one or two sources from this quadrant, and then to use other more approachable texts (such as news articles or the writing of other students) for their other sources. The grid mapping and discussion proves to be an effective method of helping student understand why popular internet sources (such as Wikipedia or personal webpages/blogs) may not be

206

V: Can special populations benet from collaborative activities?

Figure 3. Source Mapping Grid

appropriate sources for academic research writing, though such sources may function as a springboard to other sources if they contain bibliographies. Once we have a foundation of articles on the topic (usually four or ve), we then read and summarize them as a class. I try to model effective strategies for creating an annotated bibliography: in addition to a reference citation and short summary, each entry also includes an explanation of the sources relevance to the research topic along with at least one quote or paraphrase that could be used in the paper. The completed annotated bibliography is then posted to a shared location (such as a course management system or a class wiki) so that all class members can access the entries and articles. Following our creation of an annotated bibliography, we spend time exploring effective writing processes. The rst-year writing program at my institution takes an argument-based approach to research writing, and I model pre-writing strategies using a synthesis matrix (see Figure 3) in order to demonstrate how to collect relevant evidence for an argument paper. The matrix can help students analyze relevant information from numerous articles into an organized set of notes that they can use to 1) determine a thesis statement, and 2) generate an outline for their paper. A synthesis matrix can also help students to visualize their dependence on source documents as see whether their research suffers from bias or a lack of perspective; in other words, if a students research relies too heavily on one author or even one type of source, this will be reected in the research matrix and so the student (or a peer or instructor) can consult the matrix to determine whether additional research is necessary in order to gather additional evidence.

Working Together Towards Greatness (McCollum)

207

After I have completed a research matrix with my students, I then model how I would use the information in the matrix to determine a thesis statement and an outline. For most supporting claims in the outline, I reference at least one of the articles from our matrix. This helps students to see how claims are strongest when supported by appropriate sources. Figure 4 demonstrates how a student can adapt an outline from a problem paper research matrix.

Figure 4 A Research Matrix and an Outline for a Problem Paper Synthesis Matrix for Practice Problem Paper
Topic: Online Civility
Source
Hampson, R., Leinward, D., & Marcus, M. B. (2010, October 2). Suicide shows need for civility, privacy online. USA Today. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday. com/news/nation/2010 0930-rutgers-suicidesex-video_N.htm?loc= interstitialskip

Problem
Invasion of privacy, lack of respect Dangers of internet (cyber-bullying and online humiliation)

Effecte/Consequences
Harassment, suicide/death (para.6) Stricter laws regarding privacy and internet use? (para. 26) More sensitivity and internet safety training (para. 27)

Other comments
Raises awareness of online civility problems to mainstream America (esp problems with youth)

Shirky, C. (2011, JanuaryBad online interacFebruary). Cleaning up tions, lack of civil cononline conversation. Harversation vard Business Review. Retrieved from http://hbr. org/web/extras/hbr-agenda2011/clay-shirky Snell, G. F. (2010, February Backlash against com6). Much ado about com- menting and Web 2.0 menting. HighTalk. interactions Retrieved from http://hightalk.net/2010/ 02/10/much-ado-aboutcommenting/ West, R. (2010, Fall). Improving online civility. McKay Today. Retrieved from http://education.byu. edu/news/magazine/ civilityonline/ Online civility has declined with the advancement of Web 2.0 technologies that allow user interaction

Businesses are troubled by bad public discourse and the potential effect on business image (para. 4)

This article focuses mostly on causes and solutions, with only a bit about the effects

Many businesses are conAnother article from sidering removing comthe business perspecmenting features from their tive on the problem sites due to offensive comments from users (para. 5)

Most citizens feel that civil discourse has declined (para. 3) Internet users publish offensive statement behind the shroud of anonymity (para. 4)

Also focuses mostly on causes and solutions. Takes the perspective of social responsibility

Practice Problem Paper Rough Outline 1. Introduction a. Hook (story about online bullying Hampson et al.) b. Identication of issue c. emphasize seriousness of problem d. Thesis statement: The decline of online civility effects not only our online interactions, but has extended to real world interactions and has negative consequences for individuals, businesses, and communities.

208

V: Can special populations benet from collaborative activities?

2. Interactive, participatory nature of Internet a. Web 2.0 technologies (Shirky, Snell, and West articles) b. Anonymity online (Shirky, Snell, and West articles) 3. Effects on businesses a. Commenting sites (Shirky and Snell) b. Good versus bad web design for social participation 4. Effects on individuals and families a. Spending too much time online distracts from healthy interactions (West) b. Users exposed to uncivil language (Shirky, Snell, West, and Hampton et al.) c. Harassment and cyber bullying (Hampton et al.) i. suicide and criminal actions 5. Effects on communities a. New laws and policies (Snell, Hampton et al.) b. Increased awareness of the dangers of online use (West, Hampton et al.) 6. Conclusion a. Summarize main effects and restate thesis b. Suggest the need to learn more about source of problem in order to solve it At this point, students are now ready to do some independent work. I instruct them to write a draft based on our shared outline. During this drafting phase, we spend class time discussing sentence and paragraph formation including ways to introduce sources and effective topic sentences. In a matter of days, students will have produced a short research paper (about 34 pages in length) based on three or four source documents. I conclude the modeling process by discussing a citation page and proper research paper formatting. In all, I only take the rst two weeks of a typical fteen-week semester course for the practice paper modeling. This leaves about thirteen weeks for students to repeat the process with three different topics.

Begin with the Problem Paper

Now that students are familiar with the basic process of writing a research paper, they are now ready to experiment with the process in small groups. Each student is randomly assigned one of the course topics and begins locating sources. I usually serve as a coach, helping students conduct library and internet research as modeled earlier. Each student is required to nd at least two relevant sources and then add them to the groups shared annotated bibliography. This means that in a group of four students working on the same topic, each student will eventually have access to eight potential sources. I provide students with class time to present summaries of their sources to their group members, and students often use this time to help one another understand the issue and the position that various authors take. Each students is then required to select at least ve texts from the groups bibliography for analysis in that students synthesis matrix. After reading and analyzing those sources, students use their matrix to develop their thesis statement and outline. For the problem paper, a typical thesis statement involves persuading the reader that the chosen issue is a pertinent problem that deserves attention. The outline will contain supporting evidence that indicates why the issue is a concern and what is currently happening (or will happen in the future) if nothing is done to address the problem (the negative effects or consequences). During the drafting process, I continue to discuss principles of good writing and effective research methods, but I also reserve a portion of each class for small group discussion. Students meet in research teams and discuss sources and arguments with their peers. Inevitably, students

Working Together Towards Greatness (McCollum)

209

diverge in their approach to the assigned topic due to their personal interests, experiences, and selected sources; however, group collaboration helps students to receive feedback from peers who are studying the same general topic, and so these sessions prove useful in helping students understand the articles they read and improve the quality of their arguments. Other times, I place students into partnerships with representatives from the other topic areas. This provides them with an opportunity to present the most current version of their outline or draft to a classmate who is less familiar with the topic and will help them see whether their explanations are sufcient in communicating their ideas. These small group meetings not only provide students with feedback that will inuence their writing, but these interactions also help English language learners to practice their oral communication skills. In this way, the CWM helps students develop their presentation and argumentative skills in print and in speech. At the conclusion of the problem paper, students will have written a paper that is about 56 pages in length based on research from ve or six sources. When students submit their nal draft to the instructor, they also make a copy available to their classmates.

Build Onward with the Causes Paper

With the second assignment, students move onto a new topic. Their classmates who wrote about this topic for the problem paper have left them with several valuable documents: a list of annotated sources and several problem papers. The new group can begin by skimming through their classmates papers. I then provide class time for students to ask the authors questions about their papers. Readers frequently ask for clarication of the authors statements, and very quickly authors learn the importance of good writing since their audience is physically in front of them demanding clarication for any confusing aspects of the paper. Through this negotiation students learn that academic writing really is about building upon the work of others and joining in on the academic conversation (Graff and Birkenstein). Once students have a good background on the problem, it is now their responsibility to research the causes of the problem. Just as they did with the problem paper, students are required to contribute at least two entries to the shared group bibliography. Then, each student selects a total of seven or eight sources to synthesize; a few of these will probably be references from the problem bibliography, but the remainder will be used to analyze the causes aspect of the paper. A thesis for this paper aims to convince the reader which causes have had the greatest inuence in creating the identied problem. In general, the causes paper will include a short summary of the problem and then expound on possible causes. The nal draft is typically about seven or eight pages long. With the second iteration of the CWM, I spend even more time discussing proper citation practices. Now that students are potentially citing their classmates problem papers in their causes papers, they are more attuned to the rights and responsibilities of appropriate referencing. Students are now more attentive to summarizing and paraphrasing strategies, and they are more diligent with quotation procedures since they expect their classmates to quote them correctly as well. As a class we evaluate examples of paraphrasing, summary, and quotation in order to point out good, bad, and best practices. Oftentimes, students learn at least as much from an example of poor source use than they do from a model exemplar. By this point in the CWM, students are learning that research writing is more than just summarizing what others have said; instead, they begin to see that synthesis allows them to create a new argument that builds upon the work of other writers. Because students have the opportunity to discuss their drafts with their peer groups and with those who wrote problem papers on the same

210

V: Can special populations benet from collaborative activities?

topic, they begin to better understand how academic writing is akin to participating in an academic discussion where authors debate and issues through analysis of evidence.

Complete the Process with the Solutions Paper

The nal assignment is the culmination of several iterations with research writing. Students move onto a third research topic and now have a collection of both problem papers and causes papers related to their topic. They also have more than a dozen annotated bibliographic references related to their issue. As with the previous iteration, they rst take time to peruse the literature that their predecessors have produced, and they take time to interview the authors. Then, they add to the bibliography through the addition of sources that provide information about potential solutions to the problem. With the inclusion of their own entries, students will select 910 sources to help them analyze the issue with their synthesis matrix. During this reading and analysis stage, students are apt to note questions about their topic that they want to ask their peer predecessors. Fortunately, the matrix can become a powerful tool for peer collaboration, especially in the later iterations of the CWM. Figure 5 displays a work-in-progress research matrix for a student named Samuel. He has begun research his solutions paper on the topic of Plagiarism among ESL Students. He has indicated that two of this current sources come from his classmates previous papers (Lin and Hernandez) and three others were sources that classmates had used when writing those assignments. Samuel has also noted that he is still looking for a few more sources since his current sources do not provide enough information about solutions to the problem. His notes (in the far right column) include questions he will ask his classmates when he goes to class next week. He hopes that they will be able to provide him with the suggestions for additional sources. He may also learn a few sources from peers who are also writing a solutions paper on this topic. As a graphic organizer, not only does the research matrix help Samuel to organize his notes, but it also helps him know what information he needs to ask his classmates during collaborative sessions.

Figure 5A Work-in-Progress Research Matrix Synthesis Matrix for Samuels Solution Paper
Topic: Plagiarism in ESL Writing Thesis statement: Punishment is not an effective way to stop plagiarism among ESL students; instead, administrators and instructors need to do a better job of teaching students how to properly use source materials. Source Crane (2007) *This was one of Pings sources Why is this a problem? Students are getting expelled What are the causes? Bad references What are the solutions? Expulsion, but not effective since its not stopping the rate of plagiarism Other Comments This is not a good solution. Does Ping read about any better solutions?

Heller (2008) Students are failing Copied passages *I got this source classes; teachers are and plagiarism from Dannys paper frustrated misunderstandings Lin (2011) *This is Pings Problem Paper Students fail, get expelled, drop out _____

Failing grades but Also a bad solution. just leaves everyone Does Danny have with a bad attitude any other ideas? _____ I should ask Ping more about her paper.

Working Together Towards Greatness (McCollum)

Hernandez (2011) *This is Dannys Problem Paper Percentage of ESL students in U.S. universities is increasing, so plagiarism will increase unless problem is solved _____ Different expectations between students and professors about what is acceptable _____

211
I need to ask Danny more about these expectations. What kind of things did they not agree about?. Ask Rini how she found this article. Maybe she can help me nd at least one more article.

Naimova (2009) *This article came from Rinis Causes Paper

Linguistic limitations (poor paraphrasing) and cultural differences (citation rules)

Better education. More practice. Discuss good and bad examples

The thesis statement for a solutions paper will likely argue that one solution (or a combination of solutions) is the best resolution to the identied problem. The paper will include a summary of the problem and an explanation of it primary causes, but the bulk of the assignment will focus on evaluating possible solutions and making a nal recommendation that addresses the problem that was rst introduced in a classmates paper, several weeks ago. The nal draft of the solutions paper is typically about 910 pages in length. By this point in the CWM, students have repeated the research process multiple times. However, the change in topic and the added complexity of each iteration keeps students engaged and motivated to nish the nal paper. Additionally, because they have used the same kinds of academic language (i.e., verbs to introduce sources, and transition and summary phrases) with all three iterations, they have had many opportunities to demonstrate their growing command of academic English in a variety of topic areas. Students have also increased their ability to use effective research writing strategies, and they have learned how to tackle a large research assignment by approaching it as a series of steps. I always nd it encouraging to see that students who, at the beginning of the course, were intimidated at the prospect of writing ten-page research paper, have the condence and the skill to write an effective research paper from sources. Moreover, the CMW has effected valuable changes in student ability due to the models collaborative nature. As expected, students will improve their ability to write convincing and clear arguments thanks to the feedback of peers who will challenge weak evidence or vague statements. Additionally, students will improve their ability to communicate orally, given that the CMW uses class time for group discussion and author-reader interviews. Writers will gain experience defending their work in spoken English as they discuss their sources and their own papers. The collaboration also helps students to better conceptualize the goal of academic and research writing: shared knowledge. As students work in subsequent research groups, they pass on their research to peer groups who build on that work and eventually offer solutions to the original research problems. In the CMW, collaboration is not simply a convenient technique to make learning more enjoyable; rather, it is an essential component to developing better writing and better writers.

Solicit Feedback from Your Students

Throughout the CWM, but especially at the end of the process, instructors should encourage their students to share their thoughts about the learning process. Encourage students to evaluate the strategies that you model and decide which techniques work best for them. I let my students know that they do not have to adopt any strategy that they do not like; however, I require them to employ my suggested strategies throughout the semester in order to

212

V: Can special populations benet from collaborative activities?

determine their effectiveness. Then, if they still do not like it at the end of the semester, they never have to use it again. At the same time, I respect students opinions and have improved the quality of the CWM based on student feedback both the positive and the negative. For example, one year, student midterm feedback helped me realize that students loved vocabulary building exercises (and they wanted more of them), but students also let me know that they would like their peers papers posted to a shared internet folder so that they could access the les from their own computers outside of class time. I was able to adapt the remainder of the semester (and subsequent offerings of the course) to this feedback and tailor class sessions to my students interest, needs, and goals. As instructors seek out the opinions of their students, not only do they show that they value their students experiences, but they also model good metacognitive reection by showing the importance of continually working towards improving an academic process just as students should work to rene their individual research writing process. Moreover, this teaching attitude demonstrates to learners that collaboration between students and instructor is an important factor for a healthy community of learning.

Collaborative Activities for Use with the Cumulative Writing Model

Peer review and group discussion are common collaborative activities for the writing classroom, and when employed effectively, they can be powerful tools in helping writers hone their skills (Feagin, Strenski, and Singer; Lundstrom and Baker). I often employ peer review activities during the CWM process along with many other collaborative classroom activities. The following are a list of activities that help build a sense of cooperation among writers. Most of these activities can be used at various stages of the CWM. Speed-interviews: This activity, inspired by speed-dating, encourages students to share oral drafts of their writing with their peers. Students are formed into pairs and are usually given a set of questions to help them learn about their peers research topic. Students are given a time limit to interview one another (often just a few minutes each), and then students rotate into new partnerships. The process is repeated several times which helps writers to gain multiple perspectives on their work while also better rening their explanations with each new partnership. As students are interviewed, they discover which aspects of their paper need greater clarication or support. For example, interviewers may ask writers why they should care about their partners research, and this encourages writers to return to their drafts, postinterview, to improve their relevancy. Likewise, an interviewer may be confused by the terminology in a writers explanation, prompting the writer to better dene terms. The purpose of speed-interviews is to help writers evaluate their current draft by orally defending their composition to a peer. Vocabulary games: As Graff and Birkenstein point out in their guide for rst-year writing students, the language of academic argument is foreign even for native speakers of a language. This is especially true for ESL writers who conduct research writing; they benet from explicit instruction of academic vocabulary and phrases (Coxhead). Vocabulary games can be a great way to review and enhance vocabulary learning. In addition to playing charades, drawing, circumlocution, and other word guessing games, my student also enjoy playing a written form of the telephone game. In this pass-along writing game (McCollum), students are required to write a sentence using target words or phrases from a vocabulary list. Then, the paper is passed on to a peer who must draw a quick image to represent the written statement. The second student folds back the original sentence, and passes the drawing on to a third student

Working Together Towards Greatness (McCollum)

213

who must create a new sentence (using target words or structures) based on the previous students drawing. Play continues in this manner for 35 iterations at which point students reveal all sentences and drawings to see whether the meaning of the original sentence was preserved or altered through the process. This writing game employs multiple social vocabulary learning strategies as highlighted by Pavicic Takac that can help writers expand and retain academic words. Online resource sharing: One of the challenges of research writing is time spent on source nding. As part of the CWM, I try to reduce the amount of time students spend locating sources so that they can increase the amount of time spent writing and revising. By having students work in topic groups, they can also pool source material. At the start of a unit, I require students to gather two relevant sources for their topic and create a detailed annotated bibliography. Then, students post their bibliography to a shared folder on a school server or a class wiki. Once all students in the topic group post their two materials, each participant has numerous relevant sources at a fraction of the time it would take to nd them without the help of the group. Moreover, the sharing of these sources encourages students to choose high quality articles since they know that their group members will evaluate and critique those selections. The shared sources also help with peer review activities since students can discuss the articles with their group and seek clarication from others who have read the same articles. Additionally, once the class has moved onto subsequent phases of the CWM, writers can refer to the repository of shared sources to help them learn about their newly assigned topic. Reading model papers: In a writing class, students often need to develop both their microlanguage (vocabulary, grammar, and mechanics) and their macro-language (rhetorical patterns, organizational techniques, transitions). Sometimes it can be difcult for students to make the connection between the micro-language lessons and large writing assignments. In order to help students bridge the gap, instructors can provide students with model papers that exemplify the structures, styles, and patterns that students are required to produce. Instructors can assign groups to read through these exemplars and locate examples of the types of micro- and macrolanguage structures that are being studied. As students read these model papers, we see how other writers employ language to solve rhetorical tasks. They can then employ those structures in their own writing. Practice-rating benchmarks: An extension of reading model papers is providing students with the opportunity to evaluate those peer-level models according to a relevant rubric or grading scheme. Although a rubric is an important element to a standards setting program (Brown & Abeywickrama), even a well-written writing rubric can be ambiguous to interpret and apply without the help of benchmarks (McTighe & OConnor). By providing students with the opportunity to read and then practice-rate various example papers (ranging in quality from poor to excellent), instructors are encouraging students to discuss how the rubric is represented in actual papers. In their small groups, students teach one another to recognize the strengths and weaknesses of these anchor paper and then can, very quickly, become accurate at assigning the appropriate rating to a sample paper. The purpose of practice-rating is to help students to internalize the qualities of the grading rubric so that they become better aware of course expectations. As a result, students are in a better position to improve their own writing, and they are also more accurate in assessing the quality of their own writing and thus anticipating the grade they will receive for their own work. Practice-rating demysties the grading process and helps students to feel more condent in both the scoring rubric and in their own ability to achieve a desired grade. Live writing with feedback: The more that students will be required to write from source

214

V: Can special populations benet from collaborative activities?

material, the more feedback they will need on their paraphrasing, summarizing, and quoting skills. Although most instructors already provide written feedback on student drafts, I have found that students respond well to immediate oral feedback on live writing exercises in the classroom. For this activity, each student nds a space at one of the classroom chalkboards (or students can take turns, if board space is limited). In step one, students write a sentence or paragraph related to their research topic such as a denition or explanation and then add their name and year to the statement in simple citation format (such as written by Shuai Li). In step two, students rotate one space along the board so that they are facing a peers writing. Then, depending on the desired skill, students are instructed to paraphrase, summarize, or quote the statement in front of them, making sure to properly cite the original author. Upon students completion of the task, I then read aloud each citation with the class and discuss strengths and weaknesses. For example, the students and I assess whether a summary is concise enough, whether a quotation is properly punctuated, or whether a paraphrase is in danger of plagiarizing the original author. Variations on this activity include requiring writers to perform additional rhetorical tasks such as agreeing or disagreeing with the original statement. In this way, students better develop not only their language skills but are also gaining experience in building an academic, written conversation. These written conversations are especially effective when the original authors orally dispute the way in which their statements are used by the subsequent writer, which then encourages improved clarication on behalf of both the original author and the source user. Live writing activities can help students to better compose their own ideas and to use the words of others more responsibly. Furthermore, this collaborative activity helps student to feel more comfortable sharing their writing with others since classmates and instructor can see their live writing and provide immediate feedback on their use of language.

Adapting the Cumulative Writing Model

Every institution has particular goals for its composition courses. If you see aspects of the CWM that would benet your students, adapt it to meet the expectations of your program. For example, although I use a problem-solution paper with my students, the CWM could function equally well with a variety of different writing genres. The key is to nd a logical way to break the nal papers structure into a few smaller papers so that students can practice with the sub-structure before writing the nal paper. Also, although I have developed the CWM with English as a second language learners in mind, the model may prove just as effective with other groups for whom it would be useful to break down a complex writing task in smaller, cumulative stages. Whatever your needs, the key to successful implementation of the CWM is to reduce the cognitive demands on your students by helping them to learn the aspects of composition that you feel are most important through successive iterations of increasingly complex writing tasks. As you model effective strategies, your students will see how a once seemingly daunting task is actually within their capabilities as they develop their writing skills through cumulative assignments.

Better Writing and Better Writers through Collaboration

The CWM can be an effective model for writing pedagogy for numerous reasons. This approach lessens the emphasis on learning new genres of writing and instead allows more time for language instruction and for group collaboration. The greater attention to vocabulary and

Working Together Towards Greatness (McCollum)

215

structures makes this model particularly useful for English as a second language populations who may need additional exposure to the forms and conventions of academic English. Instead of moving from one writing style to another, in the CWM, students can experiment and receive feedback on their ability to employ effective research writing language. Additionally, the collaborative nature of the model contributes to oral language development as well: By working in groups and discussing their sources and papers, students can improve their ability to explain and defending their arguments in speech and conversation. The collaborative approach is also an essential component to helping students to understand how academic research is a continuous progression of learning, sharing, and building upon the work of others. As students read the work of their peers, as source material for subsequent assignments, they carry out discussions about meaning, purpose, and the implications that previous texts have on future assignments. This approach helps students to better conceptualize the nature of academic research: participation in academic (written) conversations (Graff and Birkenstein). This happens as students see how a topic develops over the course of a semester from problem paper, to causes paper, and nally solutions paper with student collaboration and interaction at each step of the process. As learners work together, they improve not only their written assignments, but they also become better writers.

Works Cited
Ascension Delaney, Yuly. Investigating the Reading-to-write Construct. Journal of English for Academic Purposes 7.3 (2008): 140150. Print. Bullock, Richard, and Maureen Daly Goggin. A Guide to Teaching: The Norton Field Guides to Writing. 2nd ed. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010. Print. Britt, M. Anne, and Cindy Aglinkas. Improving Students Ability to Identify and use Source Information. Cognition and Instruction 20.4 (2002): 485522. Print. Brown, H. Douglas, and Priyanvada Abeywickrama. Language Assessment: Principles and Practices. 2nd ed. White Plains, NY: Pearson Education, 2010. Print. Campell, Cherry. Writing with Others Words: Using background Reading Text in Academic Compositions. Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom. Ed. Barbara Kroll. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990. 211230. Print. Chapelle, Carol A., Mary K. Enright, and Joan M. Jamieson, eds. Building a validity argument for the Test of English as a Foreign Language. New York, NY: Routledge, 2008. Print. Coxhead, Averil. A New Academic Word List. TESOL Quarterly 34.2 (2000): 213238. Print. Evans, Norm W., K. James Hartshorn, Robb Mark McCollum, and Mark Wolfersberger. Contextualizing Corrective Feedback in Second Language Writing Pedagogy. Language Teaching Research 14.4 (2010): 440 465. Print. Feagin, Caley ODwyer, Ellen Strenski, and Jonathan A. Singer. Email Small Group Peer Review Revisited. Computers and Composition 22.2 (2005): 191208. Print. Graff, Gerald and Cathy Birkenstien. They Say/I Say: The Moves that Matter in Academic Writing. 2nd ed. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company, 2010. Print. Harklau, Linda. Through and Beyond High School: Academic Challenges and Opportunities for College-bound Immigrant Youth. Inclusive Pedagog y for English Language Learners. Eds. Lorrie Stoops Verplasetse and Naomi Migliacci. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2008. 181194. Print. Howard, Rebecca Moore, Tricia Serviss, and Tanya K. Rodrigue. Writing from Sources, Writing from Sentences. Writing & Pedagogy 2.2 (2010): 177192. Print. Hyland, Teresa A. Drawing a Line in the Sand: Indentifying a Borderzone Between Self and the Other in EL1 and EL2 Citation Practices. Assessing Writing 14.1 (2009): 6274. Print. Keck, Casey. The Use of Paraphrase in Summary Writing: A Comparison of L1 and L2 Writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 15.4 (2006): 261278. Print. Lee, David Y. W., and Sylvia Xiao Chen. Making a Bigger Deal of the Smaller Words: Function Words and Other Key Items in Research Writing by Chinese Learners. Journal of Second Language Writing 18.4 (2009): 281296. Print. Lundstrom, Kristi, and Wendy Baker. To Give is Better than to Receive: The Benets of Peer Review to the Reviewers Own Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 18.1 (2009): 3043.Print.

216

V: Can special populations benet from collaborative activities?

McCollum, Robb Mark. Pass It On! Writing Games. Language Games: Innovative Activities for Teaching English Ed. Maureen Andrade. Alexandria, VA: TESOL, 2009. 4148. Print. McTighe, Jay, and Ken OConnor. Seven Practices for Effective Learning. Educational Leadership 63.3 (2005): 1017. Print. Nakamura, Sarah. Lexical Issues in Writing Center Tutorials with International and U.S.-educated Multilingual Writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 19.2 (2010): 95113. Print. Pavicic Takac, Visnja. Vocabulary Learning Strategies and Foreign Language Acquisition. Clevedon, UK: Multilingual Matters, 2008. Print. Pennycook, Alastair. Borrowing Others Words: Text, Ownership, Memory and Plagiarism. TESOL Quarterly 30.2 (1996): 201239. Print. Plakans, Lia. Discourse Synthesis in Integrated Second Language Writing Assessment. Language Testing 26.4 (2009): 561587. Print. Singh, Gurupdesh. Summarization Skills: An Analysis in Text Comprehension and Production. Contemporary Themes and Issues in Language Pedagog y Ed. Vaishna Narang. Delhi, India: Nagri Printers, 2006. 1732. Print. Storch, Neomy. The Impact of Studying in a Second Language (L2) Medium University on the Development of L2 Writing. Journal of Second Language Writing 18.2 (2009): 103118. Print. Wheeler, Greg. Plagiarism in the Japanese Universities: Truly a Cultural Matter? Journal of Second Language Writing 18.1 (2009): 1729. Print. Wolfersberger, Mark A. Second Language Writing from Sources: An Ethnographic Study of an Argument Essay Task. Diss. University of Auckland, 2007. Print. Yu, Guoxing. Reading to Summarize in English and Chinese: A Tale of Two Languages? Language Testing 25.4 (2008): 521551. Print.

Anxiety Disorders and the Collaborative Classroom

KATHLEEN M. HUNZER
Since I started teaching college composition classes in 1993, many changes have occurred. When I started teaching, most of the syllabi I was required to use structured writing classes around the modes: narration, description, comparison and contrast, etc. I quickly learned that the modes of narration and description were dangerous in one major way: these two easily led to the confessional essay. I received essay after essay with lines such as It was a moonlight night when I rst became a woman and The sun was burning hot when my girlfriend and I rst..., but more disturbing were the essays about child abuse, sexual abuse, and the like that students submitted to me a complete stranger and submitted for peer review. This made me very uncomfortable; after all, I only had three psychology classes in college, and they did not prepare me to be a counselor to these newly-liberated teenagers. So as time went on, I tried to revise my assignment sheets and collaborative assignments so that they avoided such personal confessions by the students. Regardless of how many precautions I incorporated into my class and my assignments, however, these essays still broke through. When I was nally liberated from departmentally-mandated books and syllabi that revolved around the modes, I moved toward a more social-epistemic atmosphere in the class and focused on societal issues, and while this eliminated the types of essays named above, another issue arose. As the class shifted to addressing issues of gender and race and other societal problems, the class discussions and assignments became intense and uncomfortable at times for some. Now I had a new problem on my hands: students were now coming to me saying that their anxiety disorders (such as Panic Anxiety Disorder and Social Anxiety Disorder) or their Post Traumatic Stress Disorder made staying in class sometimes very difcult and made collaborative learning a huge challenge for them. For example, one semester when we discussed sexual assaults and viewed the lm The Accused, six students came to me and told me that they had been sexually assaulted (a few had been raped) and that they were having trouble discussing the topic in class with peers they had only known for a few weeks. I struggled with what to say and do since I do not have any training in dealing with students who have been attacked, but I especially struggled with what to do as a teacher whose classes are highly collaborative. Sadly, this was not an isolated incident. The year before these incidents occurred, I had a veteran with PTSD, two students with Generalized Anxiety Disorder, a female student who had been sexually abused as a teenager, and a few students who suffered from Social Anxiety Disorder/Panic Disorder all of whom self217

218

V: Can special populations benet from collaborative activities?

disclosed these situations to me at the very beginning of my classes. Since students are well aware from day one that my classes involve collaborative learning every day, all of these students expressed some concern about their success in my class. I tried to keep their situations in consideration in my class, but again I struggled with how to handle these situations since I do not feel adequately prepared to face these challenges. Suddenly those confessional essays seemed like a piece of cake. As the student population shifts, I have found that I have had to move from being a counselor/grader for the confessional essays to being aware of students anxiety and behavioral challenges that can affect my classes; no classes in Grad school had covered what to do in these situations, either, so I had to quickly adapt to this new role, which now required me to wear even more hats in the classroom: now I was a teacher, evaluator, facilitator, monitor, coach, counselor, mentor, the one professor students seemed to trust with this information, and the professor who was trying to teach these students how to work collaboratively when this could be a challenge. Because I was concerned at donning these hats successfully, I decided to learn about the situations my students had experienced so I could create some solutions of my own. What I learned as I researched anxiety disorders was shocking: According to the Anxiety Disorder Association of America website (www.adaa.org), 40 million adults suffer from some kind of anxiety disorder each year, which includes generalized anxiety disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, panic disorder, posttraumatic stress disorder, and social anxiety disorder. Of these adults with different anxiety disorders, nearly 75 percent will experience their rst event by the time they are 22 years old, with 13 percent of college students suffering from some anxiety disorder while attending college, which means college classes around the country are peppered with students who live with these challenges. The American Association of University Women website (www.aauw.org) states that 2025 percent of women will be raped during their college careers, with 80 percent of rape victims suffering from chronic physical or psychological problems. In addition to these rape statistics, AAUW also posits that 1 in 4 college women will be sexually assaulted (Sexual Assault on Campus). While these statistics focus solely on women, we cannot forget that men are also often sexually assaulted while in college, but since these assaults are so rarely reported, nding reliable statistics on this problem is an issue; therefore, we do not have a strong grasp on the true breadth of this problem. Finally, according to the National Center for PTSD section of the United States Department of Veterans Affairs website (www.ptsd.va.gov), approximately 12 percent of the soldiers returning from conicts in the Middle East suffer from posttraumatic stress disorder upon their return. Considering our college classrooms include an increasing number of returning soldiers, we also need to take this situation into consideration as well. Not only were these statistics disturbing on a human level, but these were also challenging from a teachers perspective. How can I accommodate the needs of these students while not ignoring the needs of the rest of the class or sacricing my course objectives and pedagogies? In order to nd ways to help students work most productively as they faced these challenges, I learned a bit more about the situations that I knew were in my classes, so what follows is a very brief context of the situations in case you face these challenges in your classes.

Anxiety Disorders and the Collaborative Classroom (Hunzer)

219

Anxiety vs. Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD)

As we all well know, we all experience anxiety at some point in our lives, but according to the Mayo Clinic, some people have more than the usual level of anxiety. These people are believed to have Generalized Anxiety Disorder: ongoing anxiety that interferes with dayto-day activities and relationships and makes it hard to enjoy life.... Generalized anxiety disorder has similar symptoms as panic disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder and other types of anxiety, but theyre all different conditions. People who live with GAD often have the following symptoms: constant worrying or obsession about small or large concerns, restlessness and feeling keyed up or on edge, fatigue, difculty concentrating or your mind going blank, and/or irritability (Generalized Anxiety Disorder). The students I have met who live with this condition sometimes have a hard time concentrating in groups and can sometimes be irritable with group mates. Clearly, these traits can affect collaborative learning.

Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD)

Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD), one type of anxiety disorder, is the fear of social situations and the interaction with other people that can automatically bring on feelings of selfconsciousness, judgment, evaluation, and inferiority. Put another way, social anxiety is the fear and anxiety of being judged and evaluated negatively by other people, leading to feelings of inadequacy, embarrassment, humiliation, and depression (Richards). Experts believe that SAD is much more common than research previously demonstrated. In fact, Thomas Richards states that in the United States, epidemiological studies have recently pegged social anxiety disorder as the third largest psychological disorder in the country, after depression and alcoholism. It is estimated that 78 percent of the population suffers from some form of social anxiety at the present time. For students who may have SAD, the collaborative class can be especially challenging since these students may experience stress or anxiety when doing any of the following: introducing themselves to other people, facing criticism, being observed while completing a task, meeting new people and people in a position of authority, being forced to say something or contribute to a class discussion, and making new friends.

Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)

While many think of PTSD as something occurring primarily in war veterans, especially Vietnam Veterans, the term PTSD is not solely connected to being in a war. PTSD is
... a type of anxiety disorder. It can occur after youve seen or experienced a traumatic event that involved the threat of injury or death. PTSD can occur at any age and can follow a natural disaster such as a ood or re, or events such as war, a prison stay, assault, domestic abuse, or rape. The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, in the United States may have caused PTSD in some people who were involved, in people who saw the disaster, and in people who lost relatives and friends. These kinds of events can produce stress in anyone, but not everyone develops PTSD. (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder)

People suffering from PTSD, regardless of the cause, can experience several symptoms such as repeated reliving of the event, which disturbs day-to-day activity, and this can lead to the following: ashback episodes, where the event seems to be happening again and again, recurrent distressing memories of the event, and physical reactions to situations that remind you of the traumatic event. Those with PTSD may also exhibit avoidance tendencies such as feelings of detachment, a lack of interest in normal activities, staying away from places,

220

V: Can special populations benet from collaborative activities?

people, or objects that remind you of the event, difculty concentrating, exaggerated response to things that startle you, excess awareness (hypervigilance), and/or irritability or outbursts of anger (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder). As you can imagine, working consistently in small groups where the conversation level of the room can sometimes get elevated, discussing serious social issues, and sitting in close proximity with others can be an issue with sufferers.

Victims of Sexual Assault

As the statistics stated earlier in this essay demonstrate, we are increasingly seeing the victims of sexual assaults in our classes. As the Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network discusses, the terms sexual assault and rape can be confusing, and the denitions may depend on your states laws (Types of Sexual Assault). Regardless of the legislative distinctions made, however, people who have been sexually assaulted and those who have been raped experience similar after effects. Victims of sexual assault and rape may suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), depression, anxiety, ashbacks, sleep deprivation, and may even resort to self-harm (Effects of Sexual Assault). Some survivors feel uncomfortable in groups or may even feel uncomfortable with people walking up behind them while others are insecure about discussing serious issues with their peers. Since the effects can be so varied with this group, its very hard to predict what you will face in the classroom.

What can we do?

As I stated in my introduction to this piece, no one really prepares us for the challenges of having students in our classes who have to live with these conditions. Most campuses have very helpful counseling services available for students who have these conditions, but this ofce may not be able to help you as the teacher as you face these situations. Also, since the timing and the situation may not allow you to seek this assistance at just the right moment, what follows is what I have learned to do in these situations. When in doubt, however, or if dealing with these situations concerns you, always consult the professionals on your campus. The suggestions that follow are those that I have developed over many years of using collaborative learning in my classes. I do not have all the answers, and very little research exists about how to successfully use collaborative learning in environments that can easily be populated by the issues listed above, so most of the adjustments that you will have to make will be dependent on the moment, the situation, and the student(s) involved. The rst step to working with students with these conditions is to recognize that you are not a counselor or diagnostician. You should not be looking for the traits and symptoms outlined above: this is beyond the purview of our jobs. I simply explained them above so you are informed about the situations, which has been very helpful for me when a student approaches me and says, I suffer from SAD (or PTSD, GAD, etc.) and Im scared about succeeding in your class. The research I have done allows me to hit the ground running, since I can speak with a some authority to the student about his/her situation, thus allowing me to address the students needs. Please remember that the student must self-disclose to you his/her situation before you can act. When the student does choose to self-disclose the condition, take time right then and there to discuss with the student what reasonable accommodations can be made to help that student succeed in your class. You should not be expected to cater your entire class around this persons situation, so if you think that the student will not do well, then you should be upfront with the student and suggest that he/she take a

Anxiety Disorders and the Collaborative Classroom (Hunzer)

221

different class, perhaps one that will better accommodate that students situation. I do, however, encourage students to remain in my class, and I promise to do what is reasonable to guide them through the class. Doing this has been successful: I have never had a student leave my class due to anxiety issues. Next, I inform students on the very rst day that our class will use small groups and collaborative activities throughout the semester so they know entering my class that this is the course format. Students who are concerned about this almost always approach me immediately after the rst class to discuss their concerns. Therefore, when students come to me and selfdisclose, I ask them, Well, what are you worried about in my class? You cannot guess what is worrying them. Once you know their concerns, you can better discuss with the student the situation. As you may have noticed, many of the disorders addressed above have similar symptoms/effects, so what works for one student one semester may work for another. Although I am not required to have this meeting and provide any accommodations for students who live with anxiety disorders, I try to work with the students for two reasons. First, I am a fairly exible person, so if I can help a student with an anxiety disorder in my class, I feel that this will help them in other classes. I usually have a good relationship with my students and they feel comfortable with me. I try to be an effective mentor for the students. Second, and more importantly, I think we need to make sure that these students do not run from every challenge that they face. Im not asking students to stay in an uncomfortable situation, one that could seriously exacerbate their condition, but I do remind students that college is where students learn different approaches and techniques that will help them in the future. As I remind them, eventually they will have to speak in public, offer an opinion, work with a team, etc. The world both inside and outside of college is social and collaborative, so I encourage students to embrace this opportunity to prepare themselves for this world. Again, I do not force students to stay in the class, but I do try and demonstrate to them that the real world is out there, and my class will teach them how to face some of the social challenges of that world.

What Accommodations Work?

Since many of the conditions named above can produce the same concerns with students, I have developed some practices that have enabled students to succeed in my extremely collaborative and social classes. Situation #1: A student tells me that he/she was physically assaulted and does not like when people sneak up from behind and that he/she does not like feeling surrounded by people. Solution: Suggest that the student sit with his/her back to a wall, and then when putting students in a group, have the group go to that person since the person has found a comfortable, safe place in the classroom. Also, since collaborative learning requires my constant sharking of the classroom to make sure groups remain on task, I make mental notes of whom I should approach from the front and not from behind. This small accommodation works very well and does not draw attention to the person with the challenge. Situation #2: A student says that sometimes he/she gets edgy and needs to remove him/herself from the situation. Solution: This sounds very simplistic, but just let the person get up and leave for a breath of fresh air or to remove him/herself from the situation for a few minutes. This is a very simple accommodation that does not excuse the person from regularly working with the group: Its just a way to provide that safety valve for the student. Many times the groups are so intent

222

V: Can special populations benet from collaborative activities?

on their work that they do not even notice: They just assume the person went out to use the restroom or the water fountain. Many times students who felt like they had to leave once in a while early in the semester do not do so as the semester progresses. Situation #3: A student admits that he/she obsesses over things and does not like when the group does not do things perfectly. Solution: This one is a bit trickier since you cannot simply tell someone to be less obsessive. Students who have related this concern to me are often the students who visit me regularly in my ofce hours, so I can work with them one-on-one to teach them coping mechanisms. One suggestion I offer is that the student write brief lists of things to be done, even in group work. So that the student who is obsessive does not feel odd making lists during group work, I often suggest that all groups make goal lists. If the group is asked to revise a text, for example, Ill suggest to all of the groups that they create a list of priorities before they face the actual writing task. In this way, the person in the group who does tend to obsess has a chance to keep the group on task by referring back to the list. Also, if the student worries that others in the group will not write well enough or cannot spell, I encourage that student to be the secretary of the group: Ive never heard a group argue over who was going to write out the answers or report to the group. Situation #4: A student tells me the rst day of class that he/she does not meet new people well, does not do introductions very well, and that he/she has a very hard time trusting strangers. Just the thought of having to work this closely with strangers is causing a great deal of panic. Solution: As a person who has suffered from panic attacks in the past, I immediately relate this to the students while also telling them some personal challenges Ive faced: that I took my speech class at another campus so I did not know any of the students, that I have a hard time talking to people I do not know, that I tend to stick with people I know at a party rather than walking up to people and introducing myself, and that I changed my major in college so I would not have to speak in front of people. The student usually looks at me with great disbelief since my job forces me to do these things every day, but when I do this, students usually stay in the class and seem to trust me more. I think they need to see that all of us can have similar challenges. Also, I remind them that since they will spend a great deal of time with the group mates, the group mates will become familiar, less stranger-like, and that even though they will all be scared at rst, their group will become friends in a way. This seems to put the students a bit more at ease. Another way of combating this situation is through the manner in which I assign groups. When I put students in groups for writing classes, I cluster them by their work habits and personalities (see my essay Connecting Writing Process With Personality: Creating Trust Circles in Writing earlier in this collection). Students usually recognize that they are working with like-minded individuals and, consequently, are eventually comfortable in class. Situation #5: A student tells me that he/she does not like being watched while working and that he/she does not respond well to criticism by peers. Solution: This is also a tricky situation since, at some point, the student will be watched while working by a peer or by me, and the student will continually be judged by his/her peers and colleagues in any situation: This, again, is part of the real world issue. I usually suggest that the student pay more attention to what the group is discussing than on where I am in the room, and I try to offer encouragement to all of the groups while I circulate. Ill just say great work so far, excellent, excellent, I knew you guys were smart cookies, or some other phrase of mild support. Sometimes I have to get groups back on task or suggest that they are not on the right track, but since my comments are at the group and not one individual,

Anxiety Disorders and the Collaborative Classroom (Hunzer)

223

this seems to work. I try not to hover over one person or another: I try to hover evenly and keep moving so one group or person does not feel overwhelmed. I also remind students that all of us are evaluated by our peers/colleagues. I remind them that I am periodically observed by others, that my work is peer reviewed when I submit something to a publication, and that no matter where I am or what Im doing, someone could be judging me. I want them to recognize, in a non-threatening environment, that being observed and critiqued is part of life. Situation #6: A student sees challenging issues on the syllabus (e.g. the Iraq war, sexual assaults in culture, essays about dying, etc.) and says that he/she will not be able to discuss these personal topics because they are too close to the issue. Solution: In rare instances, against the advice of a colleague who thinks students need to suck it up if they have an emotional connection to a topic, I have permitted students to not discuss a certain issue. In the class that I mentioned earlier in this article where we watched and discussed The Accused, for example, I did allow a student to miss class. She had been raped and said she couldnt re-live it. She never missed another class. While one could argue that this avoidance can be negative, I was not about to force a student who has been raped to re-live the nightmare again. If students do not want to miss class, I simply tell them that they do not have to share their personal experiences that they can try and speak in general terms or not at all. Sometimes heated discussions do occur, but I keep an eye on the student with the challenge and make sure that he/she is not being targeted, and I do not call on anyone during these kinds of discussions: Everyone needs to speak on his/her own. One time I had a student who was gang raped at a bar, and when people started saying, well, Jodie Foster was dressed like a slut and was high, the student spoke out for the rst time about her experiences. She asked the class, do I look like a slut? The class was startled, but then she explained. After class she said that she had never talked about it but that she wanted others to see the reality of the experience, which is why she spoke up. She said she was glad she did it and thought she could in my class because I had established such an atmosphere of trust. Should all students do this? Probably not: but the class has to provide the appropriate environment to accommodate this type of situation if it happens.

Concluding Thoughts
Considering the increasing number of students enrolling in college who have been assaulted, who have been in active combat, who have survived extreme adversity, or who live every day with anxiety challenges, writing instructors who implement collaborative learning in their classes must be aware of this problem. We cannot change our entire course designs for one student or another, and we are not trained counselors who are prepared to shepherd our students through these life challenges, but we can be prepared to help students be as successful as they can in their college classes. In reality, collaboration is not conned to a writing class or even to college in general: Collaboration is a reality in almost everyones lives. Because of this, writing instructors cannot back down from using collaborative learning and writing in fear of upsetting students who face emotional and social challenges. We need to create the kinds of environments that allow these students to learn ways to learn despite the challenges they face. I openly admit that the solutions I presented above are not complicated and did not result from any professional development meeting. The solutions are more common sense than anything else, but since I have had to learn quickly how to deal with these situations in my own classes, I wanted to share with you some strategies that you can keep in the back of your mind in case issues arise in your own classes. I recognize that I am not a counselor and

224

V: Can special populations benet from collaborative activities?

that I cannot cater my entire class to the needs of one student or the other, nor should I, but I can create a collaborative environment that allows all students to learn and grow in their own ways without fearing that their anxiety disorders will get in the way of these goals.

Works Cited
Anxiety Disorders Association of America. 2011. Anxiety Disorder Association of America. Web. 24 May 2011. Effects of Sexual Assault. Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network. 2009. Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network. Web. 24 May 2011. Generalized Anxiety Disorder. Mayo Clinic. 2011. Mayo Clinic. Web. 24 May 2011. National Center for PTSD. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. 2011. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. Web. 24 May 2011. Post Traumatic Stress Disorder: PTSD. Pub Med Health. 14 February 2010. National Center for Biotechnology Information, U.S. National Library of Medicine. Web. 24 May 2011. Richards, Thomas A. What is Social Anxiety? SAI: The Social Anxiety Institute. 2011. The Social Anxiety Institute. Web. 24 May 2011. Sexual Assault on Campus Statistics: Facts and Figures. American Association of University Women. N.d. American Association of University Women. Web. 24 May 2011. Types of Sexual Assault. Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network. 2009. Rape, Abuse, and Incest National Network. Web. 24 May 2011.

About the Contributors

Kara Poe Alexander, an assistant professor of English at Baylor University, has been published in a variety of journals, including College Composition and Communication, Journal of Business and Technical Writing, Kairos, and Computers and Composition Online. Her primary research interests include composition theory and pedagogy, technical writing literacy, and multimodal composition. She can be contacted at kara_alexander@baylor.edu. Florence Elizabeth Bacabac, an assistant professor of professional and technical writing at Dixie State College of Utah, has been published in both the Journal of Online Learning and Teaching as well as the Journal of Literacy and Technolog y. She has also presented at a variety of conferences: NCTE, CCCC, ABC, Computers and Writing, L2 Writing Symposium, Ohio TESOL, and Feminism(s) and Rhetoric(s). Her primary research interests are computers and writing and feminist rhetoric. She can be contacted at bacabac@dixie.edu. Randi Browning is a lecturer in the Writing Program at University of California, Santa Barbara, and is the co-director of the South Coast Writing Project. Prior to these positions, she was the writing program administrator and an associate professor of education at Principia College. She has presented her work at several conferences: CCCC, Computers and Writing, Writing Research Across Borders, National Conference on Students in Transition, and The First Year Experience International Conference. She can be reached at rbrowning@writing. ucsb.edu. Ben S. Bunting, Jr., is a Ph.D. candidate and teaching assistant at Washington State University. He has been published in New Media and Society and RMMLA, and he has presented at several conferences, including PAMLA, PNASA, RMMLA, CCCC, THAT camp, and ASLE. His research interests include ecocriticism, space and place theory, game studies, Chaucer, and Medieval literature. He can be reached at Locke456@gmail.com. Anthony Edgington holds the positions of associate professor and director of the Composition Program at the University of Toledo. His works have been published in the Journal of Writing Assessment, Teaching English in the Two Year College, and Journal of Teaching Writing, and he has presented at CCCC, Computers and Writing, and the East Coast Writing Centers Association. His research interests are writing assessment, working class studies, and writing program administration. He can be reached at anthony.edgington@utoledo.edu. Donna J. Evans, received her Ph.D. in English at Washington State University and is an assistant professor of English/writing and the writing center director at Eastern Oregon University. She has been published in Assessing Writing and Writing Lab Newsletter and is the coauthor of the Seventh and Eighth Findings: WSU Writing Portfolio Report; she has also pub225

226

About the Contributors

lished nonction and poetry. She has presented at a variety of conferences and her research interests include the rhetorics of space, place and political economy, composition and technical writing pedagogy, and writing centers. She can be reached at devans@eou.edu. Cheryl Hawkinson Melkun, an assistant professor of communications at the University of Mary Washington, has just completed her dissertation and is beginning to publish her work. She has presented many times at CCCC, IWCA, and ACHE, an organization from which she also received a research grant. Her research interests are composition and rhetoric (with an emphasis on pedagogy), writing center theory and praxis, and business and professional writing. She can be reached at chawkins@umw.edu. Jennifer L. J. Heinert is an associate professor of English at the University of WisconsinWashington County and the University of Wisconsin Colleges Online. Her work Narrative Conventions and Race in the Novels of Toni Morrison was published by Routledge in 2008. In addition to her interest in Toni Morrison, Jennifer is also interested in research connected to teaching and learning. She can be reached at jennifer.heinert@uwc.edu. Kathleen Hunzer, editor of this collection, is an associate professor of English and the director of Written Communication at the University of WisconsinRiver Falls. She has been published in Feminist Teacher, Writing Lab Newsletter, Literary Magazine Review, and International Journal of Listening, and she has presented at CCCC, Midwest MLA, WPA, and other conferences. Her research interests are argument theory, composition and rhetoric pedagogy, feminist rhetoric, and writing program administration. She can be reached at kathleen.hunzer @uwrf.edu. Catherine Simpson Kalish, an associate professor of English at the University of WisconsinMarathon County, has been published in Eureka Studies in Teaching Short Fiction and Midwestern Miscellany. She has presented at several conferences, and her research interests include teaching and learning related to peer review, 20th century American literature, and modern Irish literature. She can be reached at katie.kalish@uwc.edu. Yazmin Lazcano-Pry is a graduate teaching assistant at Arizona State University and has presented at a variety of conferences: CCCC, National Association of Teachers of English, Rhetoric Society of America, and the National Association for Chicana and Chicano Studies. Her research interests include digital rhetorics, Latino/a rhetorics, Chicana/o studies, documentary studies, and women and gender studies. She can be reached at yazmin.lazcano-pry @asu.edu. Robb Mark McCollum, lead instructor and program administrator for the Center for American English Language and Culture at the University of Virginia, has written book chapters in edited collections and articles in language teaching research journals. He has also presented at language teaching and research conferences. He is interested in issues connected to language teaching, teacher education, and applied linguistics and can be reached at robb.mark.mccollum@gmail.com. Mialisa A. Moline, an assistant professor of English at the University of WisconsinRiver Falls, has presented at a variety of conferences including ATTW, CPTSC, CCCC, WCWCA, and Computers & Writing. Her research interests include cyberliteracy, distance-based education, computer-integrated instruction in technical communication, writing center technological practices, internship management, and ethics in technical communication. She can be reached at mialisa.moline@uwrf.edu.

About the Contributors

227

Valerie Murrenus Pilmaier is an assistant professor of English at the University of WisconsinSheboygan. She has been published in The Shaw Annual as well as the Journal of British Studies and has also presented her research at the International Shaw Studies Conference, MMLA, and the Film and History Conference. Her research interests are Irish literature, gender studies, and childrens literature. She can be reached at Valerie.pilmaier@uwc.edu. Duane Roen, the head of technical communication and assistant vice provost for university academic success programs at Arizona State University, has authored nine books and more than 200 chapters, articles, and conference presentations. His articles have appeared in Written Communication, Rhetoric Review, Research in the Teaching of English, and English Journal, and he has presented at several conferences. His research interests lie in writing program administration, composition pedagogy and curriculum, and family history writing. He can be reached at duane.roen@asu.edu. Kelly A. Shea is an associate professor of English and director of the Writing Center/Online Writing Lab at Seaton Hall University. She has published on teaching with technology in the on-line journal Kairos, on the use of faculty vs. student on-line tutors in Writing Lab Newsletter, and also on faculty development and writing-across-the-curriculum (WAC) programs. She has presented at many conferences and her research interests are core curriculum, electronic portfolios, course management systems, e-texts, and other pedagogy improvement initiatives. She can be reached at kelly.shea@shu.edu. Jacob Stratman is an assistant professor and chair of English at John Brown University. His works have appeared in journals such as Christianity and Literature, Renascence, CEA Forum, SIGNAL Journal, and others. His primary research interests are American literature, teaching literature and writing for social change, and pedagogy. He can be reached at jstratman@ jbu.edu. Cindy Tekobbe, a graduate research assistant at Arizona State University, has presented her research at the Southern Comparative Literature Association, Computers and Writing, and NCTE. She is interested in digital literacies, new and emerging media, composition pedagogy and curriculum, and collective intelligence, memory, and identity. She can be reached at cindy.tekobbe@asu.edu. Jason Wirtz, an assistant professor at Hunter College, City University of New York, has published in New Writing, English Journal, Writing on the Edge, Kairos, Community Literacy Journal, Wisconsin English Journal, and Creative Writing: Teaching, Theory, and Practice. He is interested in the invention processes of successful writers and the generative disciplinary intersections of rhetoric and composition, creative writing, and English education. He can be reached at Jason.Wirtz@HunterCUNY.edu.

This page intentionally left blank

Index
anxiety disorders 217224; collaboration 221224; statistics 218 blogs 9091 business writing 143165, 166 180, 181200; and electronic dialogues 167180 collaborative writing teams 133 135, 143165, 181200; assessment 140, 164, 152155, 197 198; preparation rubric 140 competition 143165 computer mediated communication 8798, 99108, 109 129, 130143, 166180, 185 187 cooperation 109129, 181200, 201216; essay assignments 123124, 205211; peer review 124 course management systems (CMS) 101104; benets 106; discussion boards 9293; for peer response 101102; for small group writing and presentations 102104 Cumulative Writing Model (CWM) 201216; basic structure 202204; collaborative activities 212124 digital environments 8897, 99107; managing 8990 dissensus 4354; denition 44 45; how to use 4551 electronic dialogues 167180 electronic environments 8798, 99108, 109129, 130141, 166180; managing time 89 90; strengths 166, 171178 emotional intelligence 143145 English Language Learners (ELL) 201216 Generalized Anxiety Disorder (GAD) 219 Google Docs 109129; assessment with 117119; assigning work 115117; in the classroom 113115; creating, naming, and sharing 121; le/folder protocal 122123; potential challenges 119120 group selection 5565, 6674, 7585, 147149, 196197, 204205; in electronic environments 9394; and identity 6768, 148149; MBTI and 7585; with speed interviews 5565; in Writing Consultant Firm project 160162 models of collaborative classrooms 184185 Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) 7585; denitions of dichotomies 7677; peer review and 7982; rationale for using 7779 peer review 516, 1729, 3042, 4951, 7585; benets 59, 1719, 110111; challenges 9 10, 36; with CMS 101102; elevating the quality 1015; handouts 27, 52, 107, 124, 127, 138139, 178180; MBTI and 7981, 8284; online 111113, 130143; preparing students 1922, 3134, 107; responding to 2526; with team 161162; with web conferencing 132 133 peer tutorial method 3042; benets 3740; drawbacks 36; versus traditional peer review 3436 personality and writing 8284 Post-traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) 219 Social Anxiety Disorder (SAD) 219 social networks 9497; Facebook 9496; online writing communitites 97; Twitter 96 speed interviews 5565; benets 5657; conducting 5860; denition 56; diagram 60; group notes 63; sample questions 6263; self-assessment 64; trouble-shooting 6162 team writing 181200; benets 181182; preparation 182195; student roles 187192, 196 197 Teamwork Database 185187 trust circles 6674; assignments 6870; results 7073 web conferencing 130143; with collaborative writing teams 133135; selecting a platform 135137, 141 wikis 9192, 104105; for small group writing 104 105 Writers Worksheet 2225 writing assignments, samples 28, 4649, 52, 107, 123128, 139, 146147, 158159, 162 163, 168171, 205211 Writing Consultant Firm Project 145167; selection of teams 160162

229

This page intentionally left blank

~StormRG~