The Option of Collaboration
Elizabeth K. Haller
Graduate teaching assistant and Graduate student
English Language and Literature program
Central Michigan University, Mount Pleasant, Michigan
E-mail: ekhaller@hotmail.com
I know that group work may be beneficial to my English 101: Freshman Composition students, but I didn't grasp the full extent of its benefits until I read Richard C. Raymond's essay, "Teaching Students to Revise: Theories and Practice," and Leanne B. Warshauer's essay, "Collaboration as a Process: Reinforcing the Workshop." Prior to the readings, I was hesitant to utilize collaboration in anything more than a subordinate manner because I couldn't understand the benefit behind students providing revision strategies to other students when they themselves were unable to detect issues in their own work. However, I have come to realize the importance of giving my students the opportunity to provide as much peer assistance as possible.
After our first peer response session, I considered eliminating peer response days altogether. I evaluated each group during the session, and I was disheartened by their lack of progress. There was minimal--if any--group discussion, no matter how I tried to assist in the matter, and the written comments were much shorter than I required. I couldn't see how anything that occurred that day could be useful to any of the students. I thought I might try to reconfigure sessions in the future but leaned more toward taking peer response sessions off the schedule. I assigned a journal entry shortly after the peer sessions and individual conferences asking the students to give me their ideas on whether or not they found the peer response groups beneficial. I was shocked that each student commented on how helpful it was to have the peer sessions because they were able to see how they wrote in comparison to how other students wrote. Every student said they felt more confident in their own writing after both the sessions and the conferences. Taking all this into consideration, I decided to keep the peer response groups on the schedule, but I knew that I had to do something to restructure them for effectiveness.
Raymond's essay provided me with a few methods for restructuring the groups. Because students possess different reading speeds, time management was a huge issue during our sessions; therefore, I have developed two strategies for use as time allows. If the schedule is pressed, I have each student read their paper aloud while those in the group follow along on their copy. The students make suggestions/revisions as they go and take time after the reading to discuss their suggestions with their peers. If the schedule happens to be more flexible, I have students take home a copy of each student's paper in their peer group, read it for homework, and respond in detail both on the draft and on a separate questionnaire. The next class session is devoted to discussion of the comments with their peers.
Utilizing one of Raymond's methods, for each paper I have the students write out their statement of purpose and reader. They read this to those in their peer response group and hand it in to me with their rough draft. Reading it to those in their group keeps the readers focused on the writer's intent. I know the preferential way of reading for evaluation is to read first and then reread with evaluation in mind, but realistically, there isn't time for rereading and effective response discussion in a 50-minute session. I shortened response time by adapting some of Raymond's guidelines for peer response to my own purposes. Raymond requires his students to evaluate each portion of their peers' papers in accordance with his distributed guidelines for evaluation, thereby allowing the reader to answer questions as they read. The following are Raymond's guidelines:
Introduction:
- Identify thesis.
- Is thesis preceded by sentences that identify the subject, narrow the focus, and reveal writer's purpose or motive in writing?
- Is thesis precise, identifying causes or stating points of contrast?
Body Paragraphs:
- Does each topic sentence tie into thesis, stressing a cause, an effect, or stating a particular difference or similarity?
- Is each topic sentence followed by specific examples, precise figures? Are examples sufficiently varied?
- What suggestions for improvement would you offer?
Conclusion:
- Are cause/effect relationships summarized?
- Does the point of doing the comparison/contrast emerge clearly?
(Raymond 350).
I adapt the above guidelines to each assignment; for instance, in the rhetorical analysis paper and the problem/solution paper I gear "body" questions around whether the student has effectively showcased rhetorical strategies.
While Raymond's essay helped me figure out a basic way of effective time management during peer response sessions, it was Warshauer's essay that expanded my view of peer response sessions and gave me the most motivation to restructure my entire class around more group work. I was one who agreed students didn't have "the knowledge base necessary for this collaborative approach" (89), but after reading the essay, it occurred to me that they didn't need to have the knowledge base necessary because peer response sessions aren't just about advice on revision. The sessions provide the students with the opportunity to learn as peers rather than students. After I read Warshauer's essay, I remembered my own college experience with a form of peer response--study groups--and how I found it highly useful to my overall learning experience. It wasn't until I became involved in study groups that I actually began to gain a better grasp of what I was reading and what was being taught in the classroom. Thinking back on my own experience, once I looked at peer response as a form of study group, I realized how beneficial it actually is to the student. Getting my students to raise their confidence in their writing ability is a goal of mine in teaching this course, and it wasn't until reading my students' journal entries regarding peer response that I realized I didn't have to be the only one who could do this--their confidence was raised through group interaction.
I liked Warshauer's stressing that "the plurality of voices does not relinquish the teacher's role in the collaborative classroom; it simply changed it" (92). I don't have to give up authority because I'm no longer the only person speaking for 50-minutes. I need to give my students more responsibility than just counting on them to do homework every night. I want them to be held accountable for their reading and their writing, and I think one way to do this is to hold them accountable to each other. While I recognize the benefit of group activities, I agree that the "classroom community as a whole needs to be constantly reinforced" (Warshauer 93). Ideally, on any given day, the class spends roughly 20 minutes in groups discussing certain points I've laid out regarding the reading--or whatever else I find pertinent at the time. We then reconvene and discuss the reading as a whole, giving each group the opportunity to present their findings to the class. Because I basically act as a sounding board during these discussions, it provides students the opportunity to see their thoughts and ideas as important to the framework of the class as a community. Also, by reinforcing group activities, the students feel more at ease with each other and are, therefore, more at ease discussing pertinent revision issues during peer response workshops. As a result, my belief is that the workshops have proven more beneficial overall because the students want to hold themselves accountable for what they have to offer their peers. In holding themselves accountable, the students begin to create and expand the knowledge base necessary for this collaborative approach and for writing in general.
Works Cited
Raymond, Richard C. "Teaching Students to Revise: Theories and Practice." Teaching in Progress: Theories, Practices, and Scenarios. 2nd ed. Josephine Koster Tarvers. New York: Longman Publishers USA, 1998. 407-420.
Warshauer, Leanne B. "Collaboration as a Process: Reinforcing the Workshop," In Our Own Voice: Graduate Students Teach Writing, Eds. Tina Lavonne Good and Leanne B. Warshauer. Massachusetts: Allyn & Bacon, 2000. 86-94.
Academic Exchange Extra invites reader responses to any writings in this issue--especially articles advancing the scholarly debate of issues raised.
Page Viewed:
/ Created: 30 January
2003 / Updated:
--