Collaborative Writing: Drafting
I am going to create separate documents for each of the following headings:
Why Collaboration?
Instructors’ Hesitations
Collaboration vs. Cooperation
Planning
- Teacher
- Student
Process
Grading
Under each of these headings I will write rationale/explanation, and I will then link to specific documents I intend to use in my class. Please let me know what you think!!
Some teachers are hesitant to pursue collaborative writing for several reasons. Because our culture is truly one that validates individualism, collaboration goes against our culture of individual authorship. Rebecca Moore Howard points out that our conception of writing is that it is done in isolation—with between on person and his/her pen and paper (or fingers and keyboard) (62). Most books and articles are written by one person. However, as I stated earlier, this conception is for the most part misguided in our current society. Few people in the professional world write on their own, especially once we consider the degree to which all writers talk about their work. Once we realize that all writing is essentially collaborative, and that people in the professional world are required to write collaboratively, we really do our students a disservice by limiting these opportunities.
Teachers are also leery of collaborative writing due to the time it requires on both the teachers’ and students’ behalf (Speck 14). Certainly, collaborative writing takes more time than individual writing, but the point is that students will be more apt to revise. They will be less likely to write the essay at the last minute before its due because others are counting on them. Teachers will also need to invest significant time into planning a collaborative writing task, but if the teacher takes seriously her role as providing the best opportunities for learning, this effort is worthwhile. The National Council for Teachers of English (NCTE) has determined that students learn more from revising the same essay four times than by writing forty different essays (CITE). Best practice, it seems, is to do more with less; revise more with fewer essays. I would argue the meta-cognitive components to collaborative writing are highly meaningful for students’ learning about the writing process. When they think about why they are making specific decisions and then justify or explain these decisions to others, their own ability to understand and participate in the writing process is bound to improve.
Noel & Robert argue some teachers find fault with the disjointed style of a piece written by several authors (65), and while I can see this as a legitimate concern, I would argue the problem itself opens the door for discussion about style and what determines style, a discussion which so rarely occurs at the high school level.
Understandably so, teachers and students alike worry about a lack of equitable task division and responsibility (Noel & Robert 65). No student wants to be in a “group” in which he does all the work, and no teacher wants to make an assignment in which a student is able to slack off and get the same grade as the worker-bees. Likewise, instructors do not know how to grade a project in which this inequity occurs. Grading and group responsibility are worrisome subjects, but if the teacher follows the planning and process steps I will outline, theses concerns should be alleviated.
While there are some realistic concerns on behalf of students and teachers with collaborative writing, the benefits I discussed earlier substantially outweigh the drawbacks. We owe it to our students to provide them with opportunities to work with, struggle with, and learn from other students to prepare them for life in a global economy.
July 15th, 2008 13:15
Good stuff. First the nuts and bolts:
Sorry about the laptop. But, back your stuff up! I use a script to do it and when I’m writing I run the script every hour or so. You can use a thumb drive, email documents to yourself, or just work off Google Docs for darn near everything, if your network can handle it.
For the draft, I suggest not separating the documents; just use subheads. That way you if you decide to move stuff around, you don’t have to cut and paste from file to file. And it’ll be easier to manage Works Cited that way, too. When you are done (enough), you can separate the documents, add any common elements, etc.
July 15th, 2008 14:45
Ok, more substantive stuff. Audience: if I recall correctly, you are basically thinking of your colleagues—how can you get them to adopt collaborative methods, to collaborate with you? If that’s the case, both the form and content are well-suited; your level of citation isn’t going to scare folks, but it shows that you aren’t just making this up. Not a lot of quotations, which is fine for that audience, too.
Personally, I’d want to hear more about the “How to get students to actually collaborate and not loaf” stuff; IMO that’s the biggest point of concern. Back to that individual stuff again; as much as we think about aggregated performance (NCLB) folks are hyper about each person pulling her own weight, or however you phrase it. If you are gonna amplify that later, in another section, fine; it might be good to include a very short summary here with a cross-reference.
In other news, I just saw a female ruby-throated hummingbird outside my office window!
July 15th, 2008 20:36
The “How to get students to actually collaborate and not loaf” stuff will be addressed in the Process and Grading sections, but I will add more here as you are correct in stating it’s a concern for teachers.
I actually didn’t lose too much with the laptop crash as I backed everything up about two weeks ago. Not exactly every hour, but that’s a LOT better than average for me.
I’m still planning on using Moodle, but I guess there’s no real reason to separate the rationale section into sub-sections. I was originally thinking I may have the students read parts of it (such as “Why Collaborate?”) and not other parts. Therefore, I thought I’d link each section to Moodle as a separate document, but if that doesn’t make sense, I’ll change it.
July 15th, 2008 22:29
You don’t need a lot of content; just enough for an effective cross-reference.
Actually, I think separation is a good idea. Just not for the draft. Speaking from experience building multi-part documents….
July 15th, 2008 22:31
New Section (tried to revise the first by cutting/pasting text from Word into wiki, but font went crazy on me. Now I see I’ve also screwed up the first paragraph of my “Instructors’ Hesitations” section. Aah!
Why Collaboration?
We live in a society that respects and rewards individualism. We honor the small business owner, the pioneer, the one who can go-it alone. Traditionally, schools have been and still are insitutions that require individual authorship of assessments. Each student sits in a separate desk, has a separate pencil, and completes a solitary task. Students are individually assessed by ACT, SAT and other No Child Left Behind state assessments. In fact, prior to taking such exams, students are asked to show valid forms of identification to confirm they are who they say they are. Individuals, not groups, get into colleges.
However, this purified structure becomes increasingly rare in 21st Century America. Employees are expected to work together, 74% of sample of 200 college-educated businesspeople said they work in groups to complete at least 25% of all writing on the job (Sutton 102). An earlier study by Ede & Lunsford concluded most of professional work is collaborative but that students are not prepared for such work. They surveyed 700 respondents from seven different professions (engineers, chemists, psychologists, city managers, linguists, professional services managers, technical writers). 87% of the documents produced had at least two authors (Noel & Robert 64). In general, the more important the task, the more likely collaborative work is invovled. Sadly, 61% felt their education didn’t adequately prepare them for collaborative writing (Sutton 103).
Research shows students learn 10% of the material when a teacher lectures and 80% of the content when they teach someone else (Edison). Collaborative learning creates this opportunity. Bruffee describes collaborative learning as “a way of engaging students more deeply with the text and also as an aspect of professors’ engagement with the professional community” (Bruffee “Conversation” 635). He claims “The most important tool [instructors] have to help students reacculturate themselves into the knowledge communities they aspire to join is mobilzing transition communities” (74). When students enter into an academic setting, they are on the boundary between the academic, professional community and the familiar/home community. Collaboration offers students the chance to transition into the academic community by engaging in conversation with one foot in the academic community and one foot in their familiar communities (Bruffee 74, 77). Students talk to peers, so they feel less pressure to talk the academic talk, but instructors also ask students to talk about academic content, thus providing students with a safe setting in which to “try on” features of the academic community. Bruffee views writing as having three main purposes: to maintain membership in communities we are already members of, to invite and help others to join communities we are members of, or to make ourselves acceptable to communities we are not members of (55). We as teachers, then, need to provide students with authentic audiences so they can fulfill these goals. Without audience, community is irrelevant.
When teachers set up authentic and effective collaborative writing experiences for students, they share a mutal dependency. Suddenly, students have an authentic audience rather than the fabricated teacher-as-reader one. In high school, students care desperately about how they are peceived by their peers. They are more aware of their audience and are therefore more motivated to revise and write in such a way that others understand and appreciate their work (Boling 506). Students feel this increased accountability and most likely will not want to let others down by procrastinating.
Teenagers are by nature self-centered, and when they must work with others, the benefits of the collaborative writing experience extend beyond the writing. They are faced with varied viewpoints and forced to resolve conflicts. They are asked to recognize and reconcile dissent, exploring the sources of dissent. This exploration then increases understanding of why people disagree, which further opens doors for discussion on diversity and tolerance (Bruffee 42). Students will most likely find their own ideas challenged, and they must reflect upon the nature of their own beliefs as well as how they interact with others. They may find the need for negotioation and learn that the minority opinion just might prevail in the end (42).
Some may argue that writing is naturally a solitary act. However, when we really consider our inspiration, our perceptions, and our understanding of content and audience that is derived from external sources, all writing is collaborative (Thralls qtd in Howard 55, Speck 2). All writers were somewhere, somehow fed the fodder of their writing. Bruffee argues “Every time we write, we try to construct, reconstruct, or conserve knowledge by justifying our beliefs to one another socially. We judge what we write, and other people judge it, according to the assupmtions, goals, values, rules, and conventions of these communities” (56).
Thus, if knowledge is ultimately a social construct, students cannot remain in isolation forever if they are to learn how to operate in a 21st Century life requiring collaboration.
July 16th, 2008 08:43
I like the second draft much more! You start off on a more positive approach. I think instructors need to take into account as well that not only is the school environment itself a social construct, but that our students are engaging in worldwide social constructs. My kids play approved games online, such as chess, with other teens from around the world! I think business has moved in much the same way, as has higher education. Collaborative skills are much more important today than say, correct comma placement. Perhaps tap into the change in the professional educational environment, stating more and more teachers benefit from collaborative school environments than trying to do it all in isolation–so why should our kids?
I would move Collab-vs-Coop up and address hesitations after. Build up the sale before addressing the concerns, so to speak.
Katie
July 16th, 2008 11:20
Hi Katherine et al.
You all have been busy little bees while I have been battling auditors and the IRS! (I hope you feel sorry for me.)
But back to the issue regarding student collaboration. In a group situation, how do you control the teen-age tendency to criticize their peers too harshly, which can be so destructive to the creative process?
July 16th, 2008 12:25
Note: I am doing this in sections, so the “Why Collaboration” section is not instead of the “Instructor’s Hesitations” but precedes it. I just posted them out of order b/c my computer drowned and I didn’t want to start over just then.
Katie, I think your points are valid, and I will certainly up the ante by claiming teacher collaboration is both productive and progressive. Thanks for the input. I’m also in agreement that Collab. vs. Coop. should come before Instructors’ Hesitations.
Nan, I will hopefully address your question as part of my “Process” section when I discuss the difference between Peer-editing (student as grammarian–I don’t encourage) and peer-review (student as reader). I generally prompt my students with sentence stems from which they can begin, such as “I am confused about . . .,” “The best part of this paragraph is . . .,” “You might want to expand on . . .” etc. In my experience, students are much too soft on their peers than too harsh. Without guidance and modeling of what makes a good peer-review (something I intend to do a much better job of with professional models, former student models, and my own writing), students write comments like “good job” and leave it at that. We need to go beyond that, and I hope to build in this kind of structure . . . at the same time, I’m assuming I’ve already done much of this legwork prior to assigning the collaborative writing b/c I can’t cover everything in great detail. Therefore, my conclusion has been to briefly discuss the peer review process and my general rationale behind it, attaching an actual peer review form, but not go into a lot of research and theory. I hope this is okay. Trying to limit scope.
July 16th, 2008 12:26
As I hit “submit,” I realized you might not be talking about the peer-review process at all, Nan, but instead the process of working together to generate common ideas and understandings. I don’t have an answer to your question from that perspective yet. I’ll mull it over.
July 16th, 2008 22:56
Collaboration vs. Cooperation (DRAFT PART III–COMMENTS APPRECIATED!)
In a traditional classroom, the teacher is the authority figure transferring knowledge to the students. Communication exists between teacher and students, but rarely is student-to-student communication recognized or encouraged. In fact, such communication, especially concerning schoolwork itself, is often considered cheating (Bruffee 64). However, more and more teachers are beginning to see the academic and social benefits of students working together. Schools are encouraging cooperative work, training staff in such strategies, and holding conversations about how to manage and assess such non-traditional work.
Teachers use the terms cooperative and collaborative work interchangeably, but Ken Bruffee would argue that, while both are “educational activities in which human relationships are the key to welfare, achievement, and mastery” (83) there is a distinct difference. This difference might explain why some teachers have been dissatisfied with “group work” in the past.
The goals of cooperative learning are to help students work together successfully. Students are held individually and formally accountable for learning collectively (88), whereas students within collaborative learning groups are given the authority to negotiate for themselves what is “fair” in terms of accountability. Students in cooperative groups do not feel the same competition they would feel in a traditional classroom, instead looking to others in their groups for support. Cooperative learning is meant to help socialize students to a “civil, cooperative environment,” (88) where group members all feel necessary, all stay on track, and all contribute equally to the work. To help ensure this supportive and equitable environment, teachers assign roles and intervene frequently in the process. As Karl A. Smith describes, “teachers tend to establish ‘carefully defined and operationalized . . . principles that faculty can . . . systematically structure,’ where ‘all members must cooperate to complete the task,’ and where ‘each member is accountable for the complete final outcome.’” (Bruffee 89).
Collaborative work, on the other hand, leaves much of the decision-making to the students themselves, the premise being that as they get older, more of this burden will be on their shoulders. One of the primary goals of collaborative learning is to foster students’ ability to deal with dissent and disagreement and cope with difference (89). If the teacher steps in all the time, it’s not the students dealing and coping, so in collaborative learning the teacher stands more aloof. Students choose their own topic, roles, schedule, division of labor, consequences for not upholding one’s end of the bargain, and, potentially, grading. They are given choices and thus more responsibility to foster interdependence on each other and independence from the teacher. This type of social structure “helps students become autonomous, articulate, and more socially and intellectually mature” (90) as well as self-advocates and more reflective about their own learning. They are not told what to do but must instead determine this for themselves in a problem-based learning situation.
That is not to say, however, that the teacher is hands-off, but he/she should only intervene under well-defined conditions (90). The specific process for such interventions will be discussed in the “Process” section. For one thing, teachers are encouraged to as much as possible turn the questions and conflicts back to the groups for them to answer or resolve on their own. Planning is also still essential to both the teacher’s and students’ success, and I will describe the specific steps in the “Planning” section.
Nonetheless, collaborative learning lends itself to problems with equal accountability from all students. Teachers should not evaluate the group process like they would in cooperative learning; students are graded after the fact on how well they were able to write about or apply what they learned as a group. This philosophy further complicates concerns about grading and individual accountability. However, if we keep the goals in mind–for students to learn not only content but how to negotiate the complex terrain that is human nature and human behavior–and if we have in place methods for observing counterproductive behaviors and for coaching groups to reconcile and self-discipline, students should learn more about themselves than to just “get along to make the teacher happy.”
In fact, students are encouraged to disagree so as to come to an understanding that not all answers are “absolute” (91). They are also allowed and encouraged to disagree with the teacher since the location of authority has shifted. Whereas cooperative learning serves to maintain and reinforce social behaviors and order, collaborative learning serves to challenge students’ preconceived beliefs about themselves and their learning, a goal appropriate for high school and post-secondary school.
Cooperative learning is specifically designed for primary to middle schools, tapering off in high school. Collaborative learning is more appropriate for middle schools to colleges, and problems arise when teachers choose a learning strategy that is not age-appropriate (Bruffee 88). Even if teachers choose the appropriate strategy, problems could arise if planning and process are not in alignment and pedagogically sound.
July 18th, 2008 07:55
If my audience is primarily other teachers, should I be using APA instead of MLA? Hmm . . .
July 19th, 2008 13:38
Katherine, use whatever documentation style you like.
More on this material to follow.
July 23rd, 2008 12:09
[...] Madelyn are out of town, so I have plenty of time to spend on your stuff. I’m commenting on Katherine’s blogged work right now; Katie’s email is [...]
July 23rd, 2008 17:48
The work with Kenneth Bruffee is quite strong. For me, this business with academic language is *the* most critical part of his work, so I’m very glad to see you addressing it head on. I’d move the quote “The most important tool” down after the explanation so the readers have a little more context, and I’d break paragraphs at “Bruffee views writing…” not “When teachers set up.”
Watch tone on “In high school, students care desperately about how they are peceived by their peers”—maybe “desperately” is the wrong word
You cover the dissent stuff pretty well in other places, but I wonder if enough considering its role in the difference between cooperative and collaborative learning, as well as in criticism of Bruffee by others. How, specifically, does this map onto diversity and tolerance? Maybe an example or hypothetical (or link to one); you could paraphrase one of KB’s.
Similarly, I think a brief example would help understand “conventions of these communities”—as simple as mentioning a review or another form where this kind of discourse takes place.
I’d drop the conditionals from your last sentence, so it’s not “if knowledge… if they” but “because knowledge… when they” etc.
The “Hesitations” section is the hardest to write—you don’t want to be negative, but you don’t want to sugar-coat. The topics you hit are right on. But of what you’ve written so far, it needs the most work. Maybe slow down a bit, breaking the paragraph with the NCTE bit into two, and working through the argument with some more examples and/or explanation. Honestly, the last paragraph in this section doesn’t add that much. If you dropped it, that would make room for expansion without adding much length. Alternatively, you could replace the last paragraph with a case study or example which showed ways to get around some of the (stereotypical?) problems folks see in collaborative learning.
On to “Collaboration vs. Cooperation”. Critical point about difference in paragraph two: you might toss in a quick summary here. Something like:
…there is a distinct difference which can explain why some teachers have been dissatisfied with “group work” in the past. Unlike cooperative learning, which includes frequent teacher intervention to ensure a civil, comfortable environment, collaborative learning turns this responsibility to students.
Great sentence “Whereas cooperative learning…” why not end with that?
July 23rd, 2008 23:50
Thanks for the feedback. I just emailed you my most recent drafts, rather than post them here b/c I’m afraid with all the bulleting, etc. the formatting won’t cooperate. Most of it is still a work in progress, and I know I need to connect dots between the first sections and the actual planning/process sections. The process section, come to think of it, is very skeletal. Shouldn’t have emailed that one yet. Don’t spend too much time looking/commenting b/c there will be substantial additions. Still, I figured it would be nice for you to see where I stand at this point. Katie and Nan, if you’re interested, I can email you, too . . .
July 24th, 2008 10:15
Just share the Google docs with cbdilger@gmail.com and I can comment directly on the documents. I’ll go light on the process one.
July 27th, 2008 15:17
Katherine,
I really like the distinction you have made between collaborative and cooperation learning. Your presentation is in line with my research and I do agree that not all professionals understand the significant difference. Ira Shor has an excellent book (I have purchased it because I loved it so much!) titled Empowering Education. It is all about getting the students invested in their own learning and really taking responsibility for their performance and product. The students take part is creating the classroom rules, write performance contracts with align expectations with grades, and have significant input on group project designs. They work collaboratively and decides how the workload is divided, how their grades will be determined, etc. The teacher really has to relinquish alot of the control of criteria to the group without reducing expectations or rigor. The students are held accountable by periodic progress assessment meetings with the teacher as well as by their group. I think this is really closer to “real-life” workplace expectations. No one is going to hand you a rubric for completing an advertising proposal.
Cooperative learning, on the other hand, is helpful for task mastering because one of the students has to be an “expert” on the task in order for the relationship to work. If both are clueless, the relationship stalls. Drafting mixed ability students together works, but the focus remains on individual accomplishment rather than the group goal.
In my research, several authors have argued that critical pedagogy does not move from teacher-centered to student-centered because the true “center” of the class is society. Dialogue and informed discussions are at the heart of the classroom. Each student has contributions to make, and while these may not always be equal, their perspectives are their own and not necessarily the same as the teacher’s. Collaborative strategies are the logical tool for the critical pedagogical practice because again, each person has an investment in serving the greater good and producing the best product together. The students evolve as they discuss, disagree, and learn. Cooperative works well if only one is an expert, say one knows how to use a wiki, and then in turn helps the others to use it as well. If they all are clueless, frustration reigns.
Keep up the good work. I see alot of potential use for this product.
July 28th, 2008 16:58
Katherine,
Is your material on g-docs? If so, I would love to read what you have together. I am particularly interested in the process and grading sections. I have read alot of neat ideas from Ira Shor and can share them with you as well. The more I read, the more it seems that success with peer editing, self-assessments, progress conferencing, and simply getting the job done all start on day one with the emphasis on dialogue and performance contracts. I am looking forward to implementing many of the strategies discussed in Shor and Freire this fall. Seems timely to conduct a critical classroom at the same time we are having a national election. Hoping to coordinate some activities with the seniors, possibly other CW and Adv Comp teachers to see if we can get some election awareness and enthusiasm going!
Katie
July 28th, 2008 20:23
Katie, I REALLY appreciate all your feedback. Sorry I haven’t reciprocated equally. I’ll send what I currently have on G-docs for the other sections, though none of my sections are exactly “done” yet. Thanks for the info on Ira Shor, too–put the book on hold from the library. Sounds like many of his/her (?) ideas are embedded in my project, which makes me feel pretty good. Gotta love the fact that I can’t access Moodle from home and today at school the internet was down. Just when I get a day to get some work done . . .
July 29th, 2008 12:22
Ira’s a he