“Writing Is a Technology that Restructures Thought” by Ong
Ong reminds us that, even though we have become very accustomed in today’s world to writing and the notion of literacy, the act of writing is still an external form of technology that helps us think more deeply. For example, Ong asserts oral, or pre-literate, societies have a functional way of relating to their everyday environments, but they cannot be reflexive or philosophical about their lives because they can only speak to what is going on within the present context. In other words, writing gives us the ability to separate ourselves from and transcend above our immediate surroundings. To help illustrate his point about this technology, Ong lists 14 ways in which writing has changed the way our thought processes have evolved over time and further distanced “knower from known” (24).
Every time I have read something by Ong I have been completely amazed by his ability to make me re-think my ideas of orality, writing, and cognition, and this reading is no exception. Ong’s example of the different ways in which literate and illiterate people would consider the word “nevertheless,” for example, really reminded me that the sound of words and the words themselves would have either great meaning or no meaning at all depending on the person involved. As a member of Ong’s targeted audience, I too forget that writing is not always a large part of everyone’s existence and that it really does allow us to think about life on different terms.
As usual, I liked Ong’s writing a great deal, but one curious area for me was in his assertion that we “grasp truth articulately only in events….Full truth is deeper than articulation” (20). I’m sure he doesn’t mean “truth” in the Platonic sense, but he does make it appear that truth is something outside of ourselves here. Or does he mean that writing, as a technology for helping us discover how we feel and think about life, allows us to obtain our own interpretation of truth?
“A Cognitive Process Theory of Writing” by Flower and Hayes
Flower and Hayes acknowledge that the traditionally accepted “stages models of writing” (275) give us a general idea of what a writer does during the writing process but assert that they don’t really allow us to understand how a writer thinks while writing. To provide a starting point for more research on this issue, Flower and Hayes study think-aloud protocols to determine the cognitive patterns of writers and explain the results of their analysis.
Using four key points to sum up their cognitive process theory, Flower and Hayes suggest the writing process is made up of discrete ways of thinking that function together within a hierarchical organization. Based on the goals – process and content – that writers establish during the writing process, authors can access the different cognitive processes and organize them into whatever form best fits the current situation. In other words, writers do not think in a linear way but in a recursive fashion and pull “tools” from their toolbox as needed.
I found this article to be very interesting, and I have rarely read through a cognitive analysis as quickly as I did this time. I have to say that I admire the way the authors took an abstract theory and made it more clear and concrete. The model (278) the authors provided for their theory of writing was very helpful in showing how the different cognitive processes interact over and over again as a writer develops a text. I can definitely see, for example, how the “generating” process not only ties to “planning” as a writer composes but also is a factor in the “reviewing” phase as a writer decides what he/she needs to revise about a text. As I think about my own writing, I know that I often – to my own detriment at times – “evaluate” sentences and paragraphs as I am “translating” them. I need to learn to turn off the “monitor” in me sometimes.
I also now understand what Flower and Hayes mean about long-term memory and its influence on the schematics we might have for writing. I believe this is why some students have problems adjusting to an assignment and say, “But, this is how I write (or have done it).” I think we often become locked into writing a certain way based on “muscle memory” rather than accommodating whatever task we need to do.
Flower and Hayes make me now wonder, though, how a writing teacher’s comments on a student draft would affect the writer’s cognitive processes. Off the top of my head, I would think a teacher’s comments would re-activate the “planning” and “evaluating” cognitive processes as well as impact the overall goals the writer sets for the task. For example, a student’s new goal might be to fix whatever perceived problem exists in the text. This would be a very intriguing study, I think.
“Cognition, Convention, and Certainty” by Bizzell
Interestingly, Bizzell appears to try and answer the question I raised after reading Flower and Hayes. Bizzell, for example, believes that the purely “inner-directed” (388) cognitive theories of writing, such as Flower and Hayes’s, do not adequately address questions like mine regarding how a student’s thinking would change based on interaction within a social context (i.e. discussions with a teacher). Similarly, Bizzell asserts that purely “outer-directed” (388) cognitive theories do not provide a good answer either. Instead, Bizzell ultimately calls for a combined cognitive approach which would contain elements of both inner/outer theories.
I could certainly see Bizzell’s point of view in her article, but I was a little disappointed in the way she took Flower and Hayes’s theory a little too literally at times. For example, Bizzell frequently states that Flower and Hayes feel their theory is the only one that will work and that it is “superior to other theorists’ work” (394), but I did not comprehend that to be Flower and Hayes’s point in their piece. In fact, early on Flower and Hayes referred to their efforts as at attempt to “lay groundwork for more detailed study of thinking processes in writing” (Flower and Hayes 274). So, obviously Flower and Hayes were leaving room for future theorists.
Another way that Bizzell oversimplifies Flower and Hayes’s work is in her assertions that Flower and Hayes’s theory separates “planning” and “translating” with no thought to how they correspond. Again, I don’t think Flower and Hayes ever said that the cognitive phases remained separate and distinct when a writer is working. They simply had to show the cognitive processes as distinct elements in order to easily explain the components of their model. In fact, Flower and Hayes repeatedly showed how the “planning,” “translating,” and “reviewing” processes continually melded with each other during the writing process. I can understand Bizzell’s desire to illustrate the weaknesses of what she believes is an undeveloped theory, but I think she did a disservice to Flower and Hayes.
“Distributed Cognition at Work” by Dias et al.
Dias et al. argue that distributed cognition in a university classroom cannot have the same meaning or goals as distributed cognition in a workplace. They assert that, since students do not work in cooperation with the higher levels of academic hierarchy to move toward a common goal, the university is not able to duplicate what takes place in the distributed cognition of a business such as the Bank of Canada (BOC). The BOC must rely on many different employees from various levels to produce thinking and text (which include specialized genres, styles, and modes of argumentation) so the bank can function within the corporate discourse community and achieve the institution’s ultimate goals. The authors conclude that the cognitive processes which involve students should be thought of more as “socially shared knowledge” (137).
I always try to find something positive to say about our readings, but I’m having a difficult time with this one. I found myself repeatedly thinking “Okay, so what?” to most of the points that Dias et al. make in their extended analysis of the BOC. I don’t know about other readers, but I never really thought in the first place that employees – whose primary responsibilities are to further the interests of a company – were very comparable to university students whose primary goal is more personal and ego-centric. Maybe I could understand the need for this reading better if I had read it in context with the rest of the book from which it came. This could help because Dias et al. consistently refer the reader to previous sections.
Saturday, March 29, 2008
Sunday, March 23, 2008
Response to Readings for 24 Mar 08
“Diving In” by Shaughnessy
Shaughnessy encourages teachers of basic writing students to be more reflective about their own methods. Using her own “developmental scale for teachers” (312), Shaughnessy explains her four stages of: 1) guarding the tower, 2) converting the natives, 3) sounding the depths, and 4) diving in. To better understand how to improve our students’ writing, Shaughnessy argues that we must make a shift in our thinking between stages 2 and 3 from that of “what is this student’s problem?” to one of “what is problematic about my teaching strategies?”
Before reading Shaughnessy’s article I had not heard the term “basic” used in connection with writing done by students with special situations. I have never taught a basic writing course, but I have heard teachers who do refer to their students as remedial or unfortunately by more derogatory words. For example, I actually overheard a graduate student once say about her basic writing students, “They either need to get with the program or go start flipping burgers.” I have to say I like the term “basic” better because to me it connotes a foundation on which to build improvements.
I think Shaughnessy’s four stages adequately sum up the way many teachers feel about students who are not easy to teach. I know I have fallen into the gatekeeper (guarding the tower) trap in the past and thinking my methods should work for everyone. I quickly found myself in the illogical position of hitting my head against a wall thinking I would eventually break through without changing my actions. My only concern regarding Shaughnessy’s stages is that very few graduate students – the very people who end up teaching most of the basic writing courses – have enough time in their positions to fully evolve to the third and fourth developmental stages. How can we speed up the awareness and development of graduate students teachers?
“Inventing the University” by Bartholomae
Bartholomae argues that basic writers often are unable or lack the experience to easily enter the academic discourse community. Using samples of student writing, Bartholomae explains how each example either fails or succeeds in meeting the requirement to participate in a specialized discussion. Many times, the students who have the hardest time entering academic discourse use “commonplaces” (626) that originate from an author who is focusing on his/her own intentions versus writing for the needs of the reader.
Bartholomae’s points remind me of many discourse analysis theories that discuss how language-in-use conveys unique meaning to the individuals within a discourse community. By using specific words, phrasing, etc, members of a discourse community recognize others as having the right to speak. For basic writing students, Bartholomae asserts that the academic’s language-in-use has up to this point eluded the students’ understanding.
I know modeling writing behavior for students is not a popular method of teaching for many researchers, but I feel this might be a good way to introduce students to academic discourse. Providing a guide, of sorts, to a strange environment could help students grasp the “native” language more quickly. Total immersion in a discourse language may be appropriate for some students, but other students (e.g. basic writers) might benefit from seeing how insiders of a discourse structure their writing.
“The Language of Exclusion” by Rose
Rose demonstrates how the language writing teachers use to discuss basic writers actually excludes the very people they say they want to help. Much like Shaughnessy, Rose feels academics often reduce writing to a skill with easily identifiable parts, thus treating basic writing as a problem to overcome and influencing teaching that misses a larger issue. To illustrate his message, Rose discusses “five notions” (549) – behaviorism and quantification of writing, English as a skill, remediation, illiteracy, and the myth of transience – providing some history and explanation for each.
I think Rose proves once again how we often fall into the trap of reducing complex issues to the simplest, most measurable terms in order to make our tasks easier. As Rose points out, early efforts to quantify writing errors was “very American in its seeming efficiency” (552), and we continue this way of teaching in many classrooms because it’s quicker and lends itself well to delegation to graduate students, etc. In addition, when we reduce writing to a skill, we are in effect saying that anyone should be able to master the task and then move on to more challenging occupations such as research, discounting the fact that writing motivates us to think more deeply about that research.
The area of Rose’s piece that most interested me, however, was his discussion of remediation and illiteracy. I had never considered remedial writing as coming from medical terminology before, but I can see how this premise applies to many writing classrooms. As I mentioned earlier in this blog, I have never taught a basic writing course, so I don’t know how I would fare in that arena, but I have heard teachers discussing their students. As I recall, many of the teachers talked about themselves almost as surgeons would when they were going in to do exploratory surgery – “I need to take a look at him and see what I can fix about his writing.” I can also see how – as Rose mentions – literacy really depends on the context in which the term is being defined. Some basic writing students are literate in their own communities but not in others. Overall, I feel Rose accurately warns us to be cautious about the terms and labels we put on writing and writers.
“Narrowing the Mind and Page” by Rose
In this article, Rose continues to warn writing teachers and researchers about reducing their practices to the narrowest definition of a theory. As he explains the origin and premise behind such cognitive theories as field dependence-independence, hemisphericity, cognitive development stages, and orality-literacy, Rose shows how the over-generalization of each theory creates barriers to any real understanding of student needs. Specifically, Rose concludes that marginalizing cognitive theories collapses any differences in cognition, degrades careful study of student writing processes, and evinces unfortunate stereotypes. As Rose and the authors for our other readings this week have stated, our desire to simplify practice and theory typically results in a binary opposition.
What struck me the most about Rose’s piece is that it appears we, as writing teachers, have usually shown ourselves to be “field-dependent” when using cognitive theories. As I understand Rose’s explanation, early researchers thought field-dependent individuals tended to make broad generalizations, among other errors, about a given topic. So, when we try to apply hemisphericity theory or orality-literacy theory to a broad range of uses, we also ignore the specific tests and conditions for which the theories developed and force their adaptability to inappropriate functions. It also would appear that as children develop into the “formal operational” (362) stage, they become more field-independent.
Although I found Rose’s writing to be interesting, I was a little disappointed that he did not provide us with good examples of how writing teachers employed cognitive theories – in a good way or an unfortunate way – in writing classrooms. I can understand what Rose was alluding to as he worked his way through the various cognitive theories, and I learned a great deal of new information, but I would have been interested to see how problems played out in actual classrooms. For example, Rose asserts that field-dependent writers might have differences from field-independent writers, but “these differences should not, theoretically, lead to gross differences in quality” (349). I would have liked to have seen how papers produced by these two types of cognition groups compared.
Shaughnessy encourages teachers of basic writing students to be more reflective about their own methods. Using her own “developmental scale for teachers” (312), Shaughnessy explains her four stages of: 1) guarding the tower, 2) converting the natives, 3) sounding the depths, and 4) diving in. To better understand how to improve our students’ writing, Shaughnessy argues that we must make a shift in our thinking between stages 2 and 3 from that of “what is this student’s problem?” to one of “what is problematic about my teaching strategies?”
Before reading Shaughnessy’s article I had not heard the term “basic” used in connection with writing done by students with special situations. I have never taught a basic writing course, but I have heard teachers who do refer to their students as remedial or unfortunately by more derogatory words. For example, I actually overheard a graduate student once say about her basic writing students, “They either need to get with the program or go start flipping burgers.” I have to say I like the term “basic” better because to me it connotes a foundation on which to build improvements.
I think Shaughnessy’s four stages adequately sum up the way many teachers feel about students who are not easy to teach. I know I have fallen into the gatekeeper (guarding the tower) trap in the past and thinking my methods should work for everyone. I quickly found myself in the illogical position of hitting my head against a wall thinking I would eventually break through without changing my actions. My only concern regarding Shaughnessy’s stages is that very few graduate students – the very people who end up teaching most of the basic writing courses – have enough time in their positions to fully evolve to the third and fourth developmental stages. How can we speed up the awareness and development of graduate students teachers?
“Inventing the University” by Bartholomae
Bartholomae argues that basic writers often are unable or lack the experience to easily enter the academic discourse community. Using samples of student writing, Bartholomae explains how each example either fails or succeeds in meeting the requirement to participate in a specialized discussion. Many times, the students who have the hardest time entering academic discourse use “commonplaces” (626) that originate from an author who is focusing on his/her own intentions versus writing for the needs of the reader.
Bartholomae’s points remind me of many discourse analysis theories that discuss how language-in-use conveys unique meaning to the individuals within a discourse community. By using specific words, phrasing, etc, members of a discourse community recognize others as having the right to speak. For basic writing students, Bartholomae asserts that the academic’s language-in-use has up to this point eluded the students’ understanding.
I know modeling writing behavior for students is not a popular method of teaching for many researchers, but I feel this might be a good way to introduce students to academic discourse. Providing a guide, of sorts, to a strange environment could help students grasp the “native” language more quickly. Total immersion in a discourse language may be appropriate for some students, but other students (e.g. basic writers) might benefit from seeing how insiders of a discourse structure their writing.
“The Language of Exclusion” by Rose
Rose demonstrates how the language writing teachers use to discuss basic writers actually excludes the very people they say they want to help. Much like Shaughnessy, Rose feels academics often reduce writing to a skill with easily identifiable parts, thus treating basic writing as a problem to overcome and influencing teaching that misses a larger issue. To illustrate his message, Rose discusses “five notions” (549) – behaviorism and quantification of writing, English as a skill, remediation, illiteracy, and the myth of transience – providing some history and explanation for each.
I think Rose proves once again how we often fall into the trap of reducing complex issues to the simplest, most measurable terms in order to make our tasks easier. As Rose points out, early efforts to quantify writing errors was “very American in its seeming efficiency” (552), and we continue this way of teaching in many classrooms because it’s quicker and lends itself well to delegation to graduate students, etc. In addition, when we reduce writing to a skill, we are in effect saying that anyone should be able to master the task and then move on to more challenging occupations such as research, discounting the fact that writing motivates us to think more deeply about that research.
The area of Rose’s piece that most interested me, however, was his discussion of remediation and illiteracy. I had never considered remedial writing as coming from medical terminology before, but I can see how this premise applies to many writing classrooms. As I mentioned earlier in this blog, I have never taught a basic writing course, so I don’t know how I would fare in that arena, but I have heard teachers discussing their students. As I recall, many of the teachers talked about themselves almost as surgeons would when they were going in to do exploratory surgery – “I need to take a look at him and see what I can fix about his writing.” I can also see how – as Rose mentions – literacy really depends on the context in which the term is being defined. Some basic writing students are literate in their own communities but not in others. Overall, I feel Rose accurately warns us to be cautious about the terms and labels we put on writing and writers.
“Narrowing the Mind and Page” by Rose
In this article, Rose continues to warn writing teachers and researchers about reducing their practices to the narrowest definition of a theory. As he explains the origin and premise behind such cognitive theories as field dependence-independence, hemisphericity, cognitive development stages, and orality-literacy, Rose shows how the over-generalization of each theory creates barriers to any real understanding of student needs. Specifically, Rose concludes that marginalizing cognitive theories collapses any differences in cognition, degrades careful study of student writing processes, and evinces unfortunate stereotypes. As Rose and the authors for our other readings this week have stated, our desire to simplify practice and theory typically results in a binary opposition.
What struck me the most about Rose’s piece is that it appears we, as writing teachers, have usually shown ourselves to be “field-dependent” when using cognitive theories. As I understand Rose’s explanation, early researchers thought field-dependent individuals tended to make broad generalizations, among other errors, about a given topic. So, when we try to apply hemisphericity theory or orality-literacy theory to a broad range of uses, we also ignore the specific tests and conditions for which the theories developed and force their adaptability to inappropriate functions. It also would appear that as children develop into the “formal operational” (362) stage, they become more field-independent.
Although I found Rose’s writing to be interesting, I was a little disappointed that he did not provide us with good examples of how writing teachers employed cognitive theories – in a good way or an unfortunate way – in writing classrooms. I can understand what Rose was alluding to as he worked his way through the various cognitive theories, and I learned a great deal of new information, but I would have been interested to see how problems played out in actual classrooms. For example, Rose asserts that field-dependent writers might have differences from field-independent writers, but “these differences should not, theoretically, lead to gross differences in quality” (349). I would have liked to have seen how papers produced by these two types of cognition groups compared.
Annotated Bib - Part 4
Lowry, Paul Benjamin and Jay 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 (Dec 2003): 277-297.
As the weighty title of Lowry and Nunamaker’s article implies, this source lays out the parameters for good collaborative writing tools. The authors feel one of the best features of face-to-face collaboration is that the members can operate in a synchronous fashion. Being able to work together in real time improves group coordination, awareness, and document quality. Accordingly, the authors believe a primary requirement for computer-assisted writing tools used by physically separated group members is that the technology allows authors to replicate this synchronicity. Therefore, the article strongly advocates the need for tools that support “parallel-partitioned” (279) functions and division of roles.
This article is very pertinent to my research question, but I will have to be cautious about accepting their viewpoints at face value. On the positive side, the authors spend the first part of the article explaining why face-to-face writing teams often dislike computer-assisted writing tools but cannot avoid them due to today’s global corporate structure. The authors then do a good job of detailing the group dynamics that should be accounted for when searching for a way to collaborate in a distributed environment. I do have to be somewhat critical when using this article, however, because the second half is a comparison in which the authors show the superiority of a new collaborative writing program, Collaboratus, over MS Word. Of course, the authors don’t clearly mention that one of the authors of the article, Paul Lowry, is also one of the co-developers of Collaboratus. So, I will have to overlook much of the last half of the article in favor of the first part that speaks directly to ways we can gain the benefits of face-to-face collaboration in a virtual arena.
Ede, Lisa and Andrea Lunsford. Singular Texts/Plural Authors: Perspectives on Collaborative Writing. IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1990.
In their study of collaborative workplace writing, Ede and Lunsford primarily wanted to convince composition teachers that collaboration had a valuable place in the writing classroom. The authors thought teachers needed to understand how important it is for students to work together because collaboration will play a large part of their future success in many occupations. Therefore, Ede and Lunsford conducted an empirical study of the writing processes of seven organizations (including the Modern Language Association) that have a major role in their particular fields. Using detailed questionnaires in the first two phases and interviews in the third, Ede and Lunsford’s analysis ended up providing us with much more than a lesson for composition teachers. In fact, their study is the starting point for many other researchers on collaborative writing in general.
I am still working my way through all of the results for Ede and Lunsford’s field surveys, but I could not proceed any further with my own research until I had read and commented on their book. Every other source, without exception, that I have looked at so far refers to or quotes Ede and Lunsford’s groundbreaking study for one reason or another. One of the most interesting points I have discovered so far in Ede and Lunsford’s work is that most workplace writers responded that they spent the majority of any writing session on drafting versus revising or any other phase of the process. Drafting is difficult enough in a face-to-face session, so how can we best use technology to retain the benefits of the group dynamic in an efficient manner?
As the weighty title of Lowry and Nunamaker’s article implies, this source lays out the parameters for good collaborative writing tools. The authors feel one of the best features of face-to-face collaboration is that the members can operate in a synchronous fashion. Being able to work together in real time improves group coordination, awareness, and document quality. Accordingly, the authors believe a primary requirement for computer-assisted writing tools used by physically separated group members is that the technology allows authors to replicate this synchronicity. Therefore, the article strongly advocates the need for tools that support “parallel-partitioned” (279) functions and division of roles.
This article is very pertinent to my research question, but I will have to be cautious about accepting their viewpoints at face value. On the positive side, the authors spend the first part of the article explaining why face-to-face writing teams often dislike computer-assisted writing tools but cannot avoid them due to today’s global corporate structure. The authors then do a good job of detailing the group dynamics that should be accounted for when searching for a way to collaborate in a distributed environment. I do have to be somewhat critical when using this article, however, because the second half is a comparison in which the authors show the superiority of a new collaborative writing program, Collaboratus, over MS Word. Of course, the authors don’t clearly mention that one of the authors of the article, Paul Lowry, is also one of the co-developers of Collaboratus. So, I will have to overlook much of the last half of the article in favor of the first part that speaks directly to ways we can gain the benefits of face-to-face collaboration in a virtual arena.
Ede, Lisa and Andrea Lunsford. Singular Texts/Plural Authors: Perspectives on Collaborative Writing. IL: Southern Illinois University Press, 1990.
In their study of collaborative workplace writing, Ede and Lunsford primarily wanted to convince composition teachers that collaboration had a valuable place in the writing classroom. The authors thought teachers needed to understand how important it is for students to work together because collaboration will play a large part of their future success in many occupations. Therefore, Ede and Lunsford conducted an empirical study of the writing processes of seven organizations (including the Modern Language Association) that have a major role in their particular fields. Using detailed questionnaires in the first two phases and interviews in the third, Ede and Lunsford’s analysis ended up providing us with much more than a lesson for composition teachers. In fact, their study is the starting point for many other researchers on collaborative writing in general.
I am still working my way through all of the results for Ede and Lunsford’s field surveys, but I could not proceed any further with my own research until I had read and commented on their book. Every other source, without exception, that I have looked at so far refers to or quotes Ede and Lunsford’s groundbreaking study for one reason or another. One of the most interesting points I have discovered so far in Ede and Lunsford’s work is that most workplace writers responded that they spent the majority of any writing session on drafting versus revising or any other phase of the process. Drafting is difficult enough in a face-to-face session, so how can we best use technology to retain the benefits of the group dynamic in an efficient manner?
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Annotated Bib - Part 3
Rogers, Priscilla S. and Marjorie S. Horton. “Exploring the Value of Face-to-Face Collaborative Writing.” New Visions of Collaborative Writing. Ed. Janis Forman. NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc, 1992.
Although collaborative writing can mean many different ways of composing a multi-authored text, Rogers and Horton narrow their definition to the face-to-face completion of all facets of the writing process. In other words, Rogers and Horton believe that true collaboration is best when all of the authors in a group work together during the planning, drafting, and revising phases of a project versus dividing up tasks and then working on the parts individually. While they acknowledge that technology can be a valuable writing tool, the authors insist that the physical interaction of authors during all phases of a project offers benefits we cannot ignore.
While conducting an empirical study of 19 professional collaborative writing groups, Rogers and Horton observed four primary benefits of face-to-face planning, drafting, and revising: 1) the group members better understood the rhetorical situation of a project; 2) the resulting document had a clear “group voice” (124) and group vocabulary; 3) the group members considered more deeply the ethical issues of the project; and 4) the group members reflected on group decisions more thoroughly. Rogers and Horton assert that these benefits were a result of the time the group members took to discuss and debate the different aspects of the writing process. The authors refer to Bruffee’s concept that we, as social beings, “talk about talk” (122) in order to learn.
I tend to think of collaborative writing in the same terms that Rogers and Horton do. As I mentioned in my dissonance blog, I believe that teamwork and problem-solving improve as group members are able to talk through their concerns. Rogers and Horton raise some very good points, but they wrote this article in the 1990’s, and technology has come a long way. After doing some preliminary research, I now have to question the direction I initially wanted to take with my project. I’m thinking that my research question should really be: How can we use the different forms of today’s technology to replicate the face-to-face collaborative writing that Rogers and Horton support? I now feel this is a better question than my original idea of determining which form of collaborative writing is better because the benefits of both forms could be combined.
Selfe, Cynthia. “Computer-Based Conversations and The Changing Nature of Collaboration.” New Visions of Collaborative Writing. Ed. Janis Forman. NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc, 1992.
Selfe concedes the value of face-to-face collaboration but maintains that time and distance do not always allow authors to be physically present with each other during the writing process. In addition, Selfe argues that computer-assisted collaboration provides a barrier to problems that often arise in face-to-face exchanges. For example, groups are often dominated by people with “high status within the culture at large (e.g. whites, males, people with high socioeconomic status, etc.)” (149). Many times, these dominant individuals prevent other group members from taking turns in conversations and reduce the number of new topics introduced.
Selfe cites findings from a study tested in an on-line forum called Megabyte University that show in the “asynchronous, on-line discussion” no participants were interrupted and each member was allowed to complete their thoughts (158). Furthermore, the online collaboration allowed members to use pseudonyms that masked “visual cues of gender, race, and social status in organizational hierarchies” (155). As a result, members felt they could participate more equally in the collaborative process.
Although Selfe’s target audience for this piece was composition teachers and their students, I feel her observations are also applicable to the business environment. In fact, employees within a corporation are probably more susceptible to pressures of social standing, etc. Selfe does not provide suggestions for which technological advances are best for collaborative writing, but some of the research I have done on hypertext, blogging, etc, lends itself very well to her ideas. Again, I feel my research project is going to be headed in a different direction than I originally intended.
Although collaborative writing can mean many different ways of composing a multi-authored text, Rogers and Horton narrow their definition to the face-to-face completion of all facets of the writing process. In other words, Rogers and Horton believe that true collaboration is best when all of the authors in a group work together during the planning, drafting, and revising phases of a project versus dividing up tasks and then working on the parts individually. While they acknowledge that technology can be a valuable writing tool, the authors insist that the physical interaction of authors during all phases of a project offers benefits we cannot ignore.
While conducting an empirical study of 19 professional collaborative writing groups, Rogers and Horton observed four primary benefits of face-to-face planning, drafting, and revising: 1) the group members better understood the rhetorical situation of a project; 2) the resulting document had a clear “group voice” (124) and group vocabulary; 3) the group members considered more deeply the ethical issues of the project; and 4) the group members reflected on group decisions more thoroughly. Rogers and Horton assert that these benefits were a result of the time the group members took to discuss and debate the different aspects of the writing process. The authors refer to Bruffee’s concept that we, as social beings, “talk about talk” (122) in order to learn.
I tend to think of collaborative writing in the same terms that Rogers and Horton do. As I mentioned in my dissonance blog, I believe that teamwork and problem-solving improve as group members are able to talk through their concerns. Rogers and Horton raise some very good points, but they wrote this article in the 1990’s, and technology has come a long way. After doing some preliminary research, I now have to question the direction I initially wanted to take with my project. I’m thinking that my research question should really be: How can we use the different forms of today’s technology to replicate the face-to-face collaborative writing that Rogers and Horton support? I now feel this is a better question than my original idea of determining which form of collaborative writing is better because the benefits of both forms could be combined.
Selfe, Cynthia. “Computer-Based Conversations and The Changing Nature of Collaboration.” New Visions of Collaborative Writing. Ed. Janis Forman. NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc, 1992.
Selfe concedes the value of face-to-face collaboration but maintains that time and distance do not always allow authors to be physically present with each other during the writing process. In addition, Selfe argues that computer-assisted collaboration provides a barrier to problems that often arise in face-to-face exchanges. For example, groups are often dominated by people with “high status within the culture at large (e.g. whites, males, people with high socioeconomic status, etc.)” (149). Many times, these dominant individuals prevent other group members from taking turns in conversations and reduce the number of new topics introduced.
Selfe cites findings from a study tested in an on-line forum called Megabyte University that show in the “asynchronous, on-line discussion” no participants were interrupted and each member was allowed to complete their thoughts (158). Furthermore, the online collaboration allowed members to use pseudonyms that masked “visual cues of gender, race, and social status in organizational hierarchies” (155). As a result, members felt they could participate more equally in the collaborative process.
Although Selfe’s target audience for this piece was composition teachers and their students, I feel her observations are also applicable to the business environment. In fact, employees within a corporation are probably more susceptible to pressures of social standing, etc. Selfe does not provide suggestions for which technological advances are best for collaborative writing, but some of the research I have done on hypertext, blogging, etc, lends itself very well to her ideas. Again, I feel my research project is going to be headed in a different direction than I originally intended.
Sunday, March 16, 2008
Annotated Bib - Part 2
Selber, Stuart, et al. “Issues in Hypertext-Supported Collaborative Writing.” Nonacademic Writing: Social Theory and Technology. Eds. Ann Hill Duin and Craig J. Hansen. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.
Selber et al. provide a brief overview of hypertext and then show how this “emerging” (this was written in 1996, after all) aspect of technology affects the authorship, group dynamics, and organizational structures of workplace collaborative writing. The authors maintain that the benefits of hypertext greatly outweigh any problems. They state that rather than hindering social interactions, hypertext actually encourages better discussion among authors because writers who might normally be reticent during a face-to-face meeting feel they have an individual voice in a virtual forum. Furthermore, Selber et al. point out that the group dynamic of a collaborative writing team are often better when using hypertext since the writers are not only writing portions of a document but are also reading and revising the work of other group members as they interact within the database links.
I am always somewhat excited when I find a source so early in my research that really challenges my point of view on a project topic. I started my research with the general belief that face-to-face collaborative writing is better than virtual collaboration; however, Selber et al. make a very convincing argument for the superiority of hypertext-assisted group writing. In fact, the authors assert that hypertext is far better than other electronic forms of collaborative writing. I really did not know anything about hypertext’s applicability for collaborative writing before reading this piece. Once I understood how the process might work, I can acknowledge that fostering “dissensus” (267) – the elimination of group think – could be easier within a hypertext document since members have a better opportunity to review the work of others, maintain some individuality, and “defuse the tendency to position their text as the singularly approved one” (267). Selber et al. have motivated me to look for other information on hypertext’s value to workplace collaboration.
Locker, Kitty O. “What Makes a Collaborative Writing Team Success?” New Visions of Collaborative Writing. Ed. Janis Forman. NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc, 1992.
Taking advantage of the collaborative writing performed at her husband’s workplace, Locker had a rare chance to study “two teams in the same organization working on the same task” (38) in order to find out why one team was successful and the other was not. Locker’s qualitative case study evinces key differences between the two teams. The first team was not able to produce a successful draft of a class-action complaint in 13 attempts. By comparison, the second team’s initial draft on the same case resulted in a document that far exceeded the quality of all of the first team’s efforts.
After studying the two teams’ processes, conducting interviews, etc, Locker attributes the primary differences between the teams’ documents to seven factors: “power and leadership, dealing with feelings, involvement of group members, understanding the rhetorical situation, collaboration on revisions, attitude toward supervisors’ comments, and attitude toward revision” (46-52).
Of the seven factors Locker identified, I think that the first two (power and leadership and dealing with feelings) ultimately affect the emergence of the other five. For example, in the first team, one individual dominated the entire writing process and treated the other members as if they were there to support him. The team did not interact together in a way that motivated all members to share ideas or discuss problems. This, in turn, degraded the involvement of the team members and their attitudes toward the project. Conversely, the second team shared power and leadership and often reached out to each other (both in and out of their writing meetings) to ensure each member felt validated.
The differences Locker observed between the teams again make me wonder how much worse or better their experience might have been if they had worked together in only a computer-assisted realm. (Both teams had regularly scheduled face-to-face planning and writing meetings.) To me, technology has the potential to magnify whatever issues might already be occurring in a group. If one member is power hungry or controlling, technology might enable that person to isolate the writing project even more so than in a face-to-face meeting. On the other hand, the second team’s cohesiveness in producing an excellent document could have been highlighted even more with technology. Locker also points out that the second team knew each other fairly well before the project, but ended up being very close friends once the document was finished. I believe the dynamics of the second team were strengthened by their face-to-face interactions with each other. The ability to see the non-verbal communication of team members allows us to monitor how people might be reacting to problems, stressors, etc. and offer them assistance when needed.
Selber et al. provide a brief overview of hypertext and then show how this “emerging” (this was written in 1996, after all) aspect of technology affects the authorship, group dynamics, and organizational structures of workplace collaborative writing. The authors maintain that the benefits of hypertext greatly outweigh any problems. They state that rather than hindering social interactions, hypertext actually encourages better discussion among authors because writers who might normally be reticent during a face-to-face meeting feel they have an individual voice in a virtual forum. Furthermore, Selber et al. point out that the group dynamic of a collaborative writing team are often better when using hypertext since the writers are not only writing portions of a document but are also reading and revising the work of other group members as they interact within the database links.
I am always somewhat excited when I find a source so early in my research that really challenges my point of view on a project topic. I started my research with the general belief that face-to-face collaborative writing is better than virtual collaboration; however, Selber et al. make a very convincing argument for the superiority of hypertext-assisted group writing. In fact, the authors assert that hypertext is far better than other electronic forms of collaborative writing. I really did not know anything about hypertext’s applicability for collaborative writing before reading this piece. Once I understood how the process might work, I can acknowledge that fostering “dissensus” (267) – the elimination of group think – could be easier within a hypertext document since members have a better opportunity to review the work of others, maintain some individuality, and “defuse the tendency to position their text as the singularly approved one” (267). Selber et al. have motivated me to look for other information on hypertext’s value to workplace collaboration.
Locker, Kitty O. “What Makes a Collaborative Writing Team Success?” New Visions of Collaborative Writing. Ed. Janis Forman. NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, Inc, 1992.
Taking advantage of the collaborative writing performed at her husband’s workplace, Locker had a rare chance to study “two teams in the same organization working on the same task” (38) in order to find out why one team was successful and the other was not. Locker’s qualitative case study evinces key differences between the two teams. The first team was not able to produce a successful draft of a class-action complaint in 13 attempts. By comparison, the second team’s initial draft on the same case resulted in a document that far exceeded the quality of all of the first team’s efforts.
After studying the two teams’ processes, conducting interviews, etc, Locker attributes the primary differences between the teams’ documents to seven factors: “power and leadership, dealing with feelings, involvement of group members, understanding the rhetorical situation, collaboration on revisions, attitude toward supervisors’ comments, and attitude toward revision” (46-52).
Of the seven factors Locker identified, I think that the first two (power and leadership and dealing with feelings) ultimately affect the emergence of the other five. For example, in the first team, one individual dominated the entire writing process and treated the other members as if they were there to support him. The team did not interact together in a way that motivated all members to share ideas or discuss problems. This, in turn, degraded the involvement of the team members and their attitudes toward the project. Conversely, the second team shared power and leadership and often reached out to each other (both in and out of their writing meetings) to ensure each member felt validated.
The differences Locker observed between the teams again make me wonder how much worse or better their experience might have been if they had worked together in only a computer-assisted realm. (Both teams had regularly scheduled face-to-face planning and writing meetings.) To me, technology has the potential to magnify whatever issues might already be occurring in a group. If one member is power hungry or controlling, technology might enable that person to isolate the writing project even more so than in a face-to-face meeting. On the other hand, the second team’s cohesiveness in producing an excellent document could have been highlighted even more with technology. Locker also points out that the second team knew each other fairly well before the project, but ended up being very close friends once the document was finished. I believe the dynamics of the second team were strengthened by their face-to-face interactions with each other. The ability to see the non-verbal communication of team members allows us to monitor how people might be reacting to problems, stressors, etc. and offer them assistance when needed.
Friday, March 14, 2008
Annotated Bib - Part 1
In my search for literature on collaborative workplace writing, I have found several books and articles which I believe will inform my research project. As I mentioned in my dissonance blog, I am specifically interested in looking at the benefits and drawbacks of using technology to mediate a group-authored text. This blog is my effort to annotate a few of the sources I plan to use in my paper.
Colen, Kerryn and Roslyn Petelin. “Challenges in collaborative writing in the contemporary corporation.” Corporate Communications Vol. 2 (2004): 136-145. ABI/INFORM Global. ProQuest. University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Lied Library. 8 Mar 2008
Colen and Petelin present research on collaborative writing in the workplace to highlight the “pervasiveness” (136) of group writing in corporations and demonstrate why employees need to understand the skills required for team authorship. While not making any new arguments themselves, the authors provide solid explanations for the work of researchers like Ede and Lunsford who have looked closely at collaborative processes in various occupations. In doing so, Colen and Petelin predict a future need for studies in the “best practices” (142) for collaborative workplace writing.
I agree with Colen and Petelin’s suggestion that we need to define what the best practices are for collaborative workplace writing. In addition, I believe that one question we need to ask about best practices is whether it is better to work in a face-to-face setting or in a virtual realm when working on group-authored documents. I often wonder how working in one setting affects the benefits that would normally come from collaboration. For instance, the authors mention that one benefit of collaborative writing is that it often develops employees’ “active listening skills” (140). So, what effect might online collaboration have on effective listening and the interaction among authors? They also cite G.A. Cross who feels collaborative writing is often “protracted” (139) when participants are physically separated. This would indicate to me that online collaborative writing might delay a document’s completion. Overall, Colen and Petelin don’t answer these types of questions directly, but they provide me with a good starting point for further sources that might.
Jones, Scott. “From Writers to Information Coordinators: Technology and the Changing Face of Collaboration.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication Vol 4 (2005): 449-467. ABI/INFORM Global. ProQuest. University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Lied Library. 8 Mar 2008
Following up on his 1994 research on a company’s collaborative writing practices, Jones returns to the same company to see how the implementation of intranet and e-mail have affected the writing process. Jones first clarifies what he means by collaboration because shared responsibility for a text can take various forms. Using what he calls the “Comprehensive Collaborative Continuum” (451), Jones demonstrates how collaboration can move from the “Contextual” to the “Hierarchical” to the “Group” (451) – each movement becoming more overt in collaborative interaction. Then, Jones applies these forms of collaboration to the company he is studying, showing how e-mail and intranet has impacted the writers.
I found Jones’s conclusion that “changes in technology are creating new types of writers” (464) to be evident in the new responsibilities the company’s writers have. The writers, for example, tended to spend more time manipulating data in an online space versus collaborating on the production of new text. I think one positive aspect of this change is that writers could now template certain information to speed up “document cycling” (464). On the other hand, the company added new positions to the intranet – such as an intranet editor – which slowed down the progress of transmitted documents.
I was a little disappointed that Jones could not find strong indications that the company used group collaboration because this is the area of his continuum in which I am most interested. Jones even admits that more research is needed on group writing to see how technology affects texts and group identity. At the same time, I think Jones’s findings on “hierarchical” collaboration are applicable to certain group processes. One example of this is when Jones states that information stored on the database meant that “writers required much less collaboration with content experts” (459) in content interaction (hierarchical) collaborative writing. This same result could be evident in a group dynamic if the members of a writing team used the intranet to access data from a subject matter expert.
Colen, Kerryn and Roslyn Petelin. “Challenges in collaborative writing in the contemporary corporation.” Corporate Communications Vol. 2 (2004): 136-145. ABI/INFORM Global. ProQuest. University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Lied Library. 8 Mar 2008
Colen and Petelin present research on collaborative writing in the workplace to highlight the “pervasiveness” (136) of group writing in corporations and demonstrate why employees need to understand the skills required for team authorship. While not making any new arguments themselves, the authors provide solid explanations for the work of researchers like Ede and Lunsford who have looked closely at collaborative processes in various occupations. In doing so, Colen and Petelin predict a future need for studies in the “best practices” (142) for collaborative workplace writing.
I agree with Colen and Petelin’s suggestion that we need to define what the best practices are for collaborative workplace writing. In addition, I believe that one question we need to ask about best practices is whether it is better to work in a face-to-face setting or in a virtual realm when working on group-authored documents. I often wonder how working in one setting affects the benefits that would normally come from collaboration. For instance, the authors mention that one benefit of collaborative writing is that it often develops employees’ “active listening skills” (140). So, what effect might online collaboration have on effective listening and the interaction among authors? They also cite G.A. Cross who feels collaborative writing is often “protracted” (139) when participants are physically separated. This would indicate to me that online collaborative writing might delay a document’s completion. Overall, Colen and Petelin don’t answer these types of questions directly, but they provide me with a good starting point for further sources that might.
Jones, Scott. “From Writers to Information Coordinators: Technology and the Changing Face of Collaboration.” Journal of Business and Technical Communication Vol 4 (2005): 449-467. ABI/INFORM Global. ProQuest. University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Lied Library. 8 Mar 2008
Following up on his 1994 research on a company’s collaborative writing practices, Jones returns to the same company to see how the implementation of intranet and e-mail have affected the writing process. Jones first clarifies what he means by collaboration because shared responsibility for a text can take various forms. Using what he calls the “Comprehensive Collaborative Continuum” (451), Jones demonstrates how collaboration can move from the “Contextual” to the “Hierarchical” to the “Group” (451) – each movement becoming more overt in collaborative interaction. Then, Jones applies these forms of collaboration to the company he is studying, showing how e-mail and intranet has impacted the writers.
I found Jones’s conclusion that “changes in technology are creating new types of writers” (464) to be evident in the new responsibilities the company’s writers have. The writers, for example, tended to spend more time manipulating data in an online space versus collaborating on the production of new text. I think one positive aspect of this change is that writers could now template certain information to speed up “document cycling” (464). On the other hand, the company added new positions to the intranet – such as an intranet editor – which slowed down the progress of transmitted documents.
I was a little disappointed that Jones could not find strong indications that the company used group collaboration because this is the area of his continuum in which I am most interested. Jones even admits that more research is needed on group writing to see how technology affects texts and group identity. At the same time, I think Jones’s findings on “hierarchical” collaboration are applicable to certain group processes. One example of this is when Jones states that information stored on the database meant that “writers required much less collaboration with content experts” (459) in content interaction (hierarchical) collaborative writing. This same result could be evident in a group dynamic if the members of a writing team used the intranet to access data from a subject matter expert.
Saturday, March 8, 2008
Response to Readings for 10 Mar 08
“Mechanical Correctness as a Focus in Composition Instruction” by Connors
Connors explains how various factors influenced a narrowing of instructional focus in the writing classrooms of nineteenth-century America. In essence, writing instruction became a course in proofreading because rigid rules made it easier for teachers to manage their huge workloads. Connors points out that the progression of writing manuals from textbooks to handbooks to grammar workbooks gradually degraded the experience students had with actual writing. At the same time, these manuals often became a crutch for teachers who knew “no more of their discipline than [was] contained in the texts” (69).
Connors’s piece once again startled me with the fact that today’s composition classrooms reflect some long-standing issues. First, we are still battling increases to class sizes for composition classes due to budget cuts in education. For example, I have heard that the English department at UNLV is asked to justify on a routine basis why freshman writing classes should be kept at a more manageable enrollment. Teachers must be allowed the time to focus on the way their students communicate in writing. If not, we will often have to make the decision that Connors mentions between what we will and will not have the opportunity to look at in a student paper. Second, we still have composition instructors who are unsure how to proceed if they do not have a textbook in front of them. Unfortunately, some graduate students I know were placed in writing classrooms without adequate foundational training in teaching or classroom management. They usually keep their heads above water by staying just one reading ahead of their students, if that, and feel uncomfortable explaining concepts in-depth to students. I often wonder what this experience is doing for both the students and the teachers.
Overall, I think Connors’s piece, like some of our previous readings, points out again how harmful it can be to over-emphasize an isolated component of writing or rhetoric. Just as current-traditional rhetoric relies too much on one mode of discourse, focus on mechanics places too much importance on a particular canon – style. Rhetoric and composition work best when different elements function together to accomplish a goal.
“Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar” by Hartwell
Citing long-standing debates between teachers/researchers who are passionate about grammar and those who are not, Hartwell tries to show definitively that grammar instruction – when done in isolation from rhetorical strategies – does not improve students’ writing. Hartwell counts himself among teachers who do not concentrate on grammar and wants to put this issue to rest and “move on to more interesting areas of inquiry” (228).
Although Hartwell raises some good points about the deficiencies of grammar as a focus for instruction and supports his ideas with plenty of research, I found his style a little off-putting. I tried to overcome my distraction so I could focus on his meaning, but I believe Hartwell forgot a major rhetorical factor: his audience. For example, if he sincerely wanted to persuade a “hostile” audience of grammarian “worship[ers]” (223) to his way of view, I don’t think repeatedly using terms such as “hammer in” (215-216) is a good way to go about doing it. Inferring that those who oppose your way of thinking are stubborn and fanatical could alienate the very people you might be trying to reach. I’m not sure why Hartwell’s approach bothered me so much personally because I don’t really focus on grammar when I teach. I suppose I was irritated because I do try and consider my audience when I write. If we want students to reach the “metalinguistic” level of learning, then we have to demonstrate rhetorical concepts, such as audience awareness, for them.
When I was able to get past the tone of Hartwell’s piece, however, I did find it interesting that researchers believe some writing instruction might work only because teachers think that it does. If a focus of instruction can have a placebo effect for a classroom, I wonder what an experiment with a “control” group would look like.
“Reflections on Academic Discourse: How It Relates to Freshmen and Colleagues” by Elbow
Like Connors, Elbow maintains that academic discourse cannot benefit students if it simply centers on the stylistic or mechanical features of writing. Elbow goes a step further, though, and asserts that academic discourse is not a Platonic form that waits to be discovered. Instead, academic discourse – like non-academic discourse – must incorporate all of the rhetorical appeals to logos, pathos, and ethos. In other words, students must be able to not only state facts and arguments clearly but also be able to apply their own character, experiences, and feelings to the writing.
I am not typically a huge fan of Elbow’s – probably because I am still ambivalent about his “writing without teachers” concept – but I did relate to his premise that students’ ideas should not be discounted if they are presented in less-than-recognized academic language. I vividly remember one of my undergraduate professors who consistently corrected us in class with the advice to “use words that are more collegiate” during discussions. Most of us used to sit in class trying to figure out the best words to use and ended up not saying much at all. (Of course, this may have been what the professor was hoping for?) Then there was also the one student who could use every term in the textbook but didn’t know what any of it meant. Anyway, I agree with Elbow that we often cannot tell if students have really grasped a concept until they can express it in their own way. Elbow suggests that academic discourse is the result of reflection, experience and writing as a process, not something we can use as a text in the classroom.
“Responding to Student Writing” by Sommers
Sommers reflects some of our other readings this week as she discusses effective and non-effective ways to give feedback to students on their drafts. For instance, Sommers explains that focusing on mechanical issues in a first draft is usually counter-productive to improving student writing. Sommers advises us to first motivate students to work through the larger issues of ideas and content before we direct students’ attention to surface details.
I enjoyed Sommers’s article a great deal because I feel responding to student writing, particularly in business writing, is a definite weakness in my teaching. I want to help my students, but I freely admit to changing my reviewing methods practically every semester. I’ve tried commenting only on content, but then my students often miss the importance of formatting for business documents. I’ve tried commenting on formatting and content only to find that students don’t realize how important mechanics are to their ethos in the corporate world. I know that I most often overload my students with comments on their drafts, but I’m just not sure how to cover everything when we don’t have time for multiple drafts during a semester. What is the best way to respond to student drafts when we are under a time crunch?
Connors explains how various factors influenced a narrowing of instructional focus in the writing classrooms of nineteenth-century America. In essence, writing instruction became a course in proofreading because rigid rules made it easier for teachers to manage their huge workloads. Connors points out that the progression of writing manuals from textbooks to handbooks to grammar workbooks gradually degraded the experience students had with actual writing. At the same time, these manuals often became a crutch for teachers who knew “no more of their discipline than [was] contained in the texts” (69).
Connors’s piece once again startled me with the fact that today’s composition classrooms reflect some long-standing issues. First, we are still battling increases to class sizes for composition classes due to budget cuts in education. For example, I have heard that the English department at UNLV is asked to justify on a routine basis why freshman writing classes should be kept at a more manageable enrollment. Teachers must be allowed the time to focus on the way their students communicate in writing. If not, we will often have to make the decision that Connors mentions between what we will and will not have the opportunity to look at in a student paper. Second, we still have composition instructors who are unsure how to proceed if they do not have a textbook in front of them. Unfortunately, some graduate students I know were placed in writing classrooms without adequate foundational training in teaching or classroom management. They usually keep their heads above water by staying just one reading ahead of their students, if that, and feel uncomfortable explaining concepts in-depth to students. I often wonder what this experience is doing for both the students and the teachers.
Overall, I think Connors’s piece, like some of our previous readings, points out again how harmful it can be to over-emphasize an isolated component of writing or rhetoric. Just as current-traditional rhetoric relies too much on one mode of discourse, focus on mechanics places too much importance on a particular canon – style. Rhetoric and composition work best when different elements function together to accomplish a goal.
“Grammar, Grammars, and the Teaching of Grammar” by Hartwell
Citing long-standing debates between teachers/researchers who are passionate about grammar and those who are not, Hartwell tries to show definitively that grammar instruction – when done in isolation from rhetorical strategies – does not improve students’ writing. Hartwell counts himself among teachers who do not concentrate on grammar and wants to put this issue to rest and “move on to more interesting areas of inquiry” (228).
Although Hartwell raises some good points about the deficiencies of grammar as a focus for instruction and supports his ideas with plenty of research, I found his style a little off-putting. I tried to overcome my distraction so I could focus on his meaning, but I believe Hartwell forgot a major rhetorical factor: his audience. For example, if he sincerely wanted to persuade a “hostile” audience of grammarian “worship[ers]” (223) to his way of view, I don’t think repeatedly using terms such as “hammer in” (215-216) is a good way to go about doing it. Inferring that those who oppose your way of thinking are stubborn and fanatical could alienate the very people you might be trying to reach. I’m not sure why Hartwell’s approach bothered me so much personally because I don’t really focus on grammar when I teach. I suppose I was irritated because I do try and consider my audience when I write. If we want students to reach the “metalinguistic” level of learning, then we have to demonstrate rhetorical concepts, such as audience awareness, for them.
When I was able to get past the tone of Hartwell’s piece, however, I did find it interesting that researchers believe some writing instruction might work only because teachers think that it does. If a focus of instruction can have a placebo effect for a classroom, I wonder what an experiment with a “control” group would look like.
“Reflections on Academic Discourse: How It Relates to Freshmen and Colleagues” by Elbow
Like Connors, Elbow maintains that academic discourse cannot benefit students if it simply centers on the stylistic or mechanical features of writing. Elbow goes a step further, though, and asserts that academic discourse is not a Platonic form that waits to be discovered. Instead, academic discourse – like non-academic discourse – must incorporate all of the rhetorical appeals to logos, pathos, and ethos. In other words, students must be able to not only state facts and arguments clearly but also be able to apply their own character, experiences, and feelings to the writing.
I am not typically a huge fan of Elbow’s – probably because I am still ambivalent about his “writing without teachers” concept – but I did relate to his premise that students’ ideas should not be discounted if they are presented in less-than-recognized academic language. I vividly remember one of my undergraduate professors who consistently corrected us in class with the advice to “use words that are more collegiate” during discussions. Most of us used to sit in class trying to figure out the best words to use and ended up not saying much at all. (Of course, this may have been what the professor was hoping for?) Then there was also the one student who could use every term in the textbook but didn’t know what any of it meant. Anyway, I agree with Elbow that we often cannot tell if students have really grasped a concept until they can express it in their own way. Elbow suggests that academic discourse is the result of reflection, experience and writing as a process, not something we can use as a text in the classroom.
“Responding to Student Writing” by Sommers
Sommers reflects some of our other readings this week as she discusses effective and non-effective ways to give feedback to students on their drafts. For instance, Sommers explains that focusing on mechanical issues in a first draft is usually counter-productive to improving student writing. Sommers advises us to first motivate students to work through the larger issues of ideas and content before we direct students’ attention to surface details.
I enjoyed Sommers’s article a great deal because I feel responding to student writing, particularly in business writing, is a definite weakness in my teaching. I want to help my students, but I freely admit to changing my reviewing methods practically every semester. I’ve tried commenting only on content, but then my students often miss the importance of formatting for business documents. I’ve tried commenting on formatting and content only to find that students don’t realize how important mechanics are to their ethos in the corporate world. I know that I most often overload my students with comments on their drafts, but I’m just not sure how to cover everything when we don’t have time for multiple drafts during a semester. What is the best way to respond to student drafts when we are under a time crunch?
Saturday, March 1, 2008
Response to Readings for 3 Mar 08
“Teach Writing as a Process Not Product” by Murray
Murray addresses composition teachers as he advocates a change in the way we typically see writing instruction. Rather than viewing an established text as something to model, he suggests we allow students the time and space to develop their own ideas. On one hand, I have to agree with Murray that each student must develop in his/her own way. Every one of us is unique and therefore will go about the invention process a little differently. For example, my version of the “prewriting” process always involves a great deal of chocolate eating and house cleaning. I’m not proud of my dependence on the two activities which are necessary to my creativity, but there you have it. I also see value in Murray’s assertion that we shouldn’t rely on the modes of discourse, although I think some discussion of modes is important if students are truly going to be able to respond to “audience demand” (6).
On the other hand, though, I have to wonder how we could best incorporate Murray’s ideas into a typical semester of composition. First, we typically don’t have the time to allow students “the opportunity to write all the drafts necessary for him to discover what he has to say” (5). Our students must accomplish certain requirements before the end of the semester, so we have to move their writing process forward. Second, I think Murray discounts the potential value in modeling the writing process when he asks us not to do any prewriting for students. I understand we shouldn’t tell students what to write, but students often benefit from seeing how another writer approaches the process. In a class I took, for instance, the professor wrote his own paper as we were writing our required texts for his class. Seeing how the professor went about the different tasks was very enlightening to me.
“Writing as a Mode of Learning” by Emig
Showing how the traditional kinesthetic, visual, and auditory styles of learning are combined in the act of writing, Emig makes an interesting case for writing as an all-encompassing – and thus unique – form of education. I have to admit I never really thought of writing in the way that Emig does in her article, but I can now see how writing does involve most of the senses. This idea is very intriguing to me because I believe students learn best when they are engaged on multiple sensory levels in an activity. Since it was also Emig (in Reynolds et al’s article for our 4 Feb 08 readings) who suggested writing should be seen as “composing,” I would like to read more of Emig’s work when I can. (Although, I’m sure Hillocks might not share my enthusiasm for Emig since she doesn’t support his view of experimental research.)
I also appreciate the way Emig’s list shows the differences we need to be aware of when using talking as prewriting. For example, she points out that talking is natural – a premise that is well covered in Stephen Pinker’s The Language Instinct – while writing is acquired. This affinity for talking is one of the reasons I like to engage with groups in a face-to-face session because it seems more natural than trying to conduct a discussion online. At the same time, it would not be helpful to simply record what we said. Instead, the group members would have to reflect on the conversation and have the time to write about their observations. Item number five on Emig’s list of differences (9) seems to conflict with Perl’s study, however, because Perl demonstrates that writing is possibly as “redundant” (by which I mean there is reiteration) as talking can be.
“The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers” by Perl
Focusing on less developed writers, Perl provides us with a quantitative analysis of individual writing processes. Her overall message is that writing teachers can misjudge the needs of unskilled writers, spending too much time on the technical aspects of a product versus addressing the more important issues in a student’s approach to the process. I have to admit that I recoiled initially when I skimmed Perl’s article. I assumed (wrongly) that I would not take much away from a piece full of charts and tables and coding structures. I was pleasantly surprised by all of the “ah-ha” moments I had while reading Perl’s explanations for the data.
For me, the most interesting aspect was the section about “miscue analysis” (24). From my experience in the UNLV writing center, I already knew that weaker writers often misread the text from their own papers. This is the very reason why we always had students read their papers aloud during their visits to the writing center. Still, I could never figure out why a student continued to misread their paper even after I had asked them to slow down or highlighted areas they tended to change when they verbalized the text. It was as if the students could not understand or see the words on the page. Perl shows in her analysis, though, that this is a natural tendency for some writers. The information about miscuing also made me wonder if there are writers who compose aloud in vernacular English while encoding in SWE. In other words, could a student compose aloud using the word “axe” but literally write down “ask” or vice versa? This would be an interesting study from the aspect of code switching.
Another interesting idea in Perl’s piece is the premise that writing is possibly more recursive than we might think. The observed behavior in the study certainly indicates that it might be. As I mentioned earlier, since the writers in the study were asked to compose aloud while writing, this also appears to contradict one of Emig’s differentiations between writing and talking. It makes me question if the talking (composing aloud) required in Perl’s study may have actually influenced or increased the recursiveness of the writing process.
“Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers” by Sommers
Sommers illustrates the different ways in which student writers and experienced writers view revision. She explains that revision is a process that should be taught because it is ignored in current models. I think Sommers made several good points about the way student writers often get bogged down in the weeds when they need to be looking at the forest. For example, my own students have a rough time with peer reviews at first. They will usually point out mechanical errors and ignore the fact that the writer has completely missed the purpose of the assignment. It takes me a while to convince my students that they have to think globally when they revise. So, I definitely understand what Sommers is saying, although part of the difference between student writers and experienced writers is exactly that – experience.
I do have to confess, however, that I was perplexed by the semantics in the article. Sommers insists that revising is not rewriting; however, she goes on to use the terms interchangeably in her piece. For instance, she states, “Each writer…rewrote each essay twice…Each writer was interviewed three times after the final revision” (45). Furthermore, when demonstrating the enlarged view of revision that experienced writers possess, Sommers shows that four out of the six writers call revision “rewriting” (49). I realize this is a minor distraction, but I had to keep re-reading passages to ensure I hadn’t missed something.
“What Works in Teaching Composition: A Meta-analysis of Experimental Treatment Studies” by Hillocks
Refuting claims that research on experimental methods has no value for composition teachers, Hillocks performs a quantitative meta-analysis of various studies. While his article is difficult to read at times due to the volume of methodological terms, Hillocks clearly illustrates how experimental research can inform writing instruction. I struggled a bit with the terminology, but I found Hillocks’s article to be extremely eye-opening. He practically sets Elbow’s theory of writing without instruction on its ear because Hillocks’s data reflects teaching practices, such as the “natural process” (143) are not as effective as we might suppose.
I could not help trying to situate my teaching behavior into the different modes of instruction as I was reading the article. I would guess that I fall somewhere in a gray area between the presentational mode and the environmental mode most of the time. As an instructor, I was trained in Instructional System Design (ISD), so I tend to set specific objectives for my students, but I also try to allow the students to gain hands-on experience after a short discussion in class. In truth, my determination would really depend on the class session because some days I feel I need to provide more instruction than I do on other days. Overall, I was happy to see that the environmental mode is actually more effective than I would have thought.
The only aspect of Hillocks’s piece that confused me was his statement that “…although we know that the environmental mode appears significantly more effective than other modes, we do not know how it interacts with the various focuses of instruction” (163). I might be oversimplifying here, but to me it seems fairly obvious that certain focuses of instruction would fit seamlessly with specific modes of instruction. In other words, wouldn’t an instructor using the environmental mode tend to focus more on models or inquiry? And wouldn’t an instructor using the natural process mode tend to focus on freewriting, etc? At least that’s what the results of the meta-analysis implied to me.
Murray addresses composition teachers as he advocates a change in the way we typically see writing instruction. Rather than viewing an established text as something to model, he suggests we allow students the time and space to develop their own ideas. On one hand, I have to agree with Murray that each student must develop in his/her own way. Every one of us is unique and therefore will go about the invention process a little differently. For example, my version of the “prewriting” process always involves a great deal of chocolate eating and house cleaning. I’m not proud of my dependence on the two activities which are necessary to my creativity, but there you have it. I also see value in Murray’s assertion that we shouldn’t rely on the modes of discourse, although I think some discussion of modes is important if students are truly going to be able to respond to “audience demand” (6).
On the other hand, though, I have to wonder how we could best incorporate Murray’s ideas into a typical semester of composition. First, we typically don’t have the time to allow students “the opportunity to write all the drafts necessary for him to discover what he has to say” (5). Our students must accomplish certain requirements before the end of the semester, so we have to move their writing process forward. Second, I think Murray discounts the potential value in modeling the writing process when he asks us not to do any prewriting for students. I understand we shouldn’t tell students what to write, but students often benefit from seeing how another writer approaches the process. In a class I took, for instance, the professor wrote his own paper as we were writing our required texts for his class. Seeing how the professor went about the different tasks was very enlightening to me.
“Writing as a Mode of Learning” by Emig
Showing how the traditional kinesthetic, visual, and auditory styles of learning are combined in the act of writing, Emig makes an interesting case for writing as an all-encompassing – and thus unique – form of education. I have to admit I never really thought of writing in the way that Emig does in her article, but I can now see how writing does involve most of the senses. This idea is very intriguing to me because I believe students learn best when they are engaged on multiple sensory levels in an activity. Since it was also Emig (in Reynolds et al’s article for our 4 Feb 08 readings) who suggested writing should be seen as “composing,” I would like to read more of Emig’s work when I can. (Although, I’m sure Hillocks might not share my enthusiasm for Emig since she doesn’t support his view of experimental research.)
I also appreciate the way Emig’s list shows the differences we need to be aware of when using talking as prewriting. For example, she points out that talking is natural – a premise that is well covered in Stephen Pinker’s The Language Instinct – while writing is acquired. This affinity for talking is one of the reasons I like to engage with groups in a face-to-face session because it seems more natural than trying to conduct a discussion online. At the same time, it would not be helpful to simply record what we said. Instead, the group members would have to reflect on the conversation and have the time to write about their observations. Item number five on Emig’s list of differences (9) seems to conflict with Perl’s study, however, because Perl demonstrates that writing is possibly as “redundant” (by which I mean there is reiteration) as talking can be.
“The Composing Processes of Unskilled College Writers” by Perl
Focusing on less developed writers, Perl provides us with a quantitative analysis of individual writing processes. Her overall message is that writing teachers can misjudge the needs of unskilled writers, spending too much time on the technical aspects of a product versus addressing the more important issues in a student’s approach to the process. I have to admit that I recoiled initially when I skimmed Perl’s article. I assumed (wrongly) that I would not take much away from a piece full of charts and tables and coding structures. I was pleasantly surprised by all of the “ah-ha” moments I had while reading Perl’s explanations for the data.
For me, the most interesting aspect was the section about “miscue analysis” (24). From my experience in the UNLV writing center, I already knew that weaker writers often misread the text from their own papers. This is the very reason why we always had students read their papers aloud during their visits to the writing center. Still, I could never figure out why a student continued to misread their paper even after I had asked them to slow down or highlighted areas they tended to change when they verbalized the text. It was as if the students could not understand or see the words on the page. Perl shows in her analysis, though, that this is a natural tendency for some writers. The information about miscuing also made me wonder if there are writers who compose aloud in vernacular English while encoding in SWE. In other words, could a student compose aloud using the word “axe” but literally write down “ask” or vice versa? This would be an interesting study from the aspect of code switching.
Another interesting idea in Perl’s piece is the premise that writing is possibly more recursive than we might think. The observed behavior in the study certainly indicates that it might be. As I mentioned earlier, since the writers in the study were asked to compose aloud while writing, this also appears to contradict one of Emig’s differentiations between writing and talking. It makes me question if the talking (composing aloud) required in Perl’s study may have actually influenced or increased the recursiveness of the writing process.
“Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers” by Sommers
Sommers illustrates the different ways in which student writers and experienced writers view revision. She explains that revision is a process that should be taught because it is ignored in current models. I think Sommers made several good points about the way student writers often get bogged down in the weeds when they need to be looking at the forest. For example, my own students have a rough time with peer reviews at first. They will usually point out mechanical errors and ignore the fact that the writer has completely missed the purpose of the assignment. It takes me a while to convince my students that they have to think globally when they revise. So, I definitely understand what Sommers is saying, although part of the difference between student writers and experienced writers is exactly that – experience.
I do have to confess, however, that I was perplexed by the semantics in the article. Sommers insists that revising is not rewriting; however, she goes on to use the terms interchangeably in her piece. For instance, she states, “Each writer…rewrote each essay twice…Each writer was interviewed three times after the final revision” (45). Furthermore, when demonstrating the enlarged view of revision that experienced writers possess, Sommers shows that four out of the six writers call revision “rewriting” (49). I realize this is a minor distraction, but I had to keep re-reading passages to ensure I hadn’t missed something.
“What Works in Teaching Composition: A Meta-analysis of Experimental Treatment Studies” by Hillocks
Refuting claims that research on experimental methods has no value for composition teachers, Hillocks performs a quantitative meta-analysis of various studies. While his article is difficult to read at times due to the volume of methodological terms, Hillocks clearly illustrates how experimental research can inform writing instruction. I struggled a bit with the terminology, but I found Hillocks’s article to be extremely eye-opening. He practically sets Elbow’s theory of writing without instruction on its ear because Hillocks’s data reflects teaching practices, such as the “natural process” (143) are not as effective as we might suppose.
I could not help trying to situate my teaching behavior into the different modes of instruction as I was reading the article. I would guess that I fall somewhere in a gray area between the presentational mode and the environmental mode most of the time. As an instructor, I was trained in Instructional System Design (ISD), so I tend to set specific objectives for my students, but I also try to allow the students to gain hands-on experience after a short discussion in class. In truth, my determination would really depend on the class session because some days I feel I need to provide more instruction than I do on other days. Overall, I was happy to see that the environmental mode is actually more effective than I would have thought.
The only aspect of Hillocks’s piece that confused me was his statement that “…although we know that the environmental mode appears significantly more effective than other modes, we do not know how it interacts with the various focuses of instruction” (163). I might be oversimplifying here, but to me it seems fairly obvious that certain focuses of instruction would fit seamlessly with specific modes of instruction. In other words, wouldn’t an instructor using the environmental mode tend to focus more on models or inquiry? And wouldn’t an instructor using the natural process mode tend to focus on freewriting, etc? At least that’s what the results of the meta-analysis implied to me.
Dissonance Blog for Research Project
Leading large numbers of people during my military career taught me many things, but one of the most significant lessons I learned was that teamwork and collaboration are invaluable in accomplishing goals. In times of peace and war, I have personally seen how people all over the world, working as a single unit, can overcome what appear to be impossible odds. Furthermore, as a military instructor, I had the opportunity to teach diverse curriculum, such as conflict management, teambuilding, and strategic planning, to senior leaders in an environment that privileged cohesiveness among group members.
Naturally, I now tend to transfer the value of collaboration into other areas of my academic and professional life. For instance, I always prefer and seek out exercises and hands-on activities that engage students in team dynamics in my classroom. I have found that, no matter how well I think I explain an idea, collaborative learning helps students understand concepts which I might not be able to communicate as well as their peers. My experience in the classroom also prompts me to agree with Kenneth Bruffee that students “learned from the students they helped and from the activity of helping itself” (418).[1] Collaborative learning is definitely a two-way street because students gain as much as they give in the process of working with others.
Moreover, in the workplace I find teamwork on important projects to be just as influential to the employees’ success. In fact, in my estimation, workers have possibly more at stake than students in a classroom because promotions or careers are often on the line. Working in teams has the benefit of allowing employees to safely learn new practices without calling undue attention to their weaknesses. So, collaborative effort is valuable to me, but my personal dilemma resides in how best to structure group projects – particularly those which involve writing – when I now have a choice between traditional interaction and computer-assisted exchanges.
As a strong proponent of group authorship, I most enjoy working with other people when it’s in a face-to-face exchange. I believe that being physically present with team members allows problems to be resolved more quickly and encourages better group dynamics. (Of course, I also used to teach personality profile systems, such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, so I understand how different personality traits lend themselves more towards face-to-face meetings.) Rogers and Horton wrote an interesting article on the value of face-to-face collaborative writing, citing many of Bruffee’s ideas on how we “talk about talk” (123).[2] Their findings suggest that face-to-face collaborative writing allows authors to better understand the rhetorical situation and voice their “internalized dialogue” (123). So, I feel strongly that effective teamwork, especially on written documents, is best accomplished in face-to-face sessions.
Therefore, I am a study in contradiction on the subject of collaborative writing because I am somewhat reluctant to fully embrace the use of technology in group texts. Perhaps my hesitancy is due to the fact that, unlike some of my students and younger co-workers, I can remember when there was no Internet or e-mail. We actually had to sit in a room together and talk through our ideas and differences. Now, however, we have employers who send an e-mail to a worker when they are sitting right next to each other. As our environment is increasingly conducting school and work in a virtual setting, I am most concerned about the quality of group writing. I know that authors are able to communicate freely on the Internet and by e-mail, but I wonder about a group’s efficiency in resolving problems, compiling ideas, and composing documents when everything is done electronically. In an article I recently read, however, Selfe directly addresses my concern about the evolution of collaboration and brings up many benefits that I had not considered. For example, she argues that computer-assisted collaborative writing allows authors to contribute freely without worrying about “visual cues about age, ethnicity, sex and status” (147).[3] Looking at collaborative writing from the masked aspect of technology, I can see how some employees might feel more inclined to contribute to a project.
So, I have now reached a point where I need to question my own opinion about the benefits and drawbacks of collaborative writing and technology. I could look at the issue from many angles. For example, I could focus on collaborative learning in general to determine how technology has made an impact on the process. Or, I might approach the issue as a question about academic instruction in virtual collaborative writing. Alternatively, I could compare the collaborative writing of students in face-to-face and computer-assisted groups.
However, since my personal interest lies primarily in workplace writing, I have decided to research the following question: Do authors produce a better group text – specifically in the workplace – in a face-to-face setting or in a virtual environment? I have been able to garner some insight into my inquiry as I have taught hybrid versions of business writing for UNLV. While not technically in the workplace, my students must work as a group to produce a cohesive business report. Although, the students are not required to meet outside of class, and they have access to each other via computer, I have found that most of my students decide to meet at least once per week anyway. They appear to find the face-to-face interaction necessary to their success. But, I now have to wonder whether this is due to my own preference for face-to-face collaboration. In other words, I might not be conveying the value of computer-assisted teamwork as well as I could be.
Based on a preliminary discussion with Dr. Jablonski, I know that my research question will be difficult to answer in the time we have for this course. I would really need to do an empirical study to reach a definitive decision. However, I can achieve a tentative resolution to my question by examining what the literature has said about traditional collaborative writing and online collaborative writing – particularly in the workplace – and then comparing the information with my own thoughts and experience through a descriptive analysis. This approach is very appealing to me, and I feel my research could be very beneficial.
Resolving the conflict I feel about collaborative writing and technology is important to me because I hope to soon have a position in which I would be managing collaborative writing projects in the workplace. Understanding the benefits of both face-to-face and online teamwork – or perhaps the superiority of one over the other – could only make me a more effective writer and manager. In the process, I also hope my research will enlighten others with the same concerns.
__________________________________________________________
[1] “Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind.’” Villanueva 415-36.
[2] “Exploring the Value of Face-to-Face Collaborative Writing.” New Visions of Collaborative Writing. Ed. Janis Forman.
[3] “Computer-Based Conversations and The Changing Nature of Collaboration.” New Visions of Collaborative Writing. Ed. Janis Forman.
Naturally, I now tend to transfer the value of collaboration into other areas of my academic and professional life. For instance, I always prefer and seek out exercises and hands-on activities that engage students in team dynamics in my classroom. I have found that, no matter how well I think I explain an idea, collaborative learning helps students understand concepts which I might not be able to communicate as well as their peers. My experience in the classroom also prompts me to agree with Kenneth Bruffee that students “learned from the students they helped and from the activity of helping itself” (418).[1] Collaborative learning is definitely a two-way street because students gain as much as they give in the process of working with others.
Moreover, in the workplace I find teamwork on important projects to be just as influential to the employees’ success. In fact, in my estimation, workers have possibly more at stake than students in a classroom because promotions or careers are often on the line. Working in teams has the benefit of allowing employees to safely learn new practices without calling undue attention to their weaknesses. So, collaborative effort is valuable to me, but my personal dilemma resides in how best to structure group projects – particularly those which involve writing – when I now have a choice between traditional interaction and computer-assisted exchanges.
As a strong proponent of group authorship, I most enjoy working with other people when it’s in a face-to-face exchange. I believe that being physically present with team members allows problems to be resolved more quickly and encourages better group dynamics. (Of course, I also used to teach personality profile systems, such as the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator, so I understand how different personality traits lend themselves more towards face-to-face meetings.) Rogers and Horton wrote an interesting article on the value of face-to-face collaborative writing, citing many of Bruffee’s ideas on how we “talk about talk” (123).[2] Their findings suggest that face-to-face collaborative writing allows authors to better understand the rhetorical situation and voice their “internalized dialogue” (123). So, I feel strongly that effective teamwork, especially on written documents, is best accomplished in face-to-face sessions.
Therefore, I am a study in contradiction on the subject of collaborative writing because I am somewhat reluctant to fully embrace the use of technology in group texts. Perhaps my hesitancy is due to the fact that, unlike some of my students and younger co-workers, I can remember when there was no Internet or e-mail. We actually had to sit in a room together and talk through our ideas and differences. Now, however, we have employers who send an e-mail to a worker when they are sitting right next to each other. As our environment is increasingly conducting school and work in a virtual setting, I am most concerned about the quality of group writing. I know that authors are able to communicate freely on the Internet and by e-mail, but I wonder about a group’s efficiency in resolving problems, compiling ideas, and composing documents when everything is done electronically. In an article I recently read, however, Selfe directly addresses my concern about the evolution of collaboration and brings up many benefits that I had not considered. For example, she argues that computer-assisted collaborative writing allows authors to contribute freely without worrying about “visual cues about age, ethnicity, sex and status” (147).[3] Looking at collaborative writing from the masked aspect of technology, I can see how some employees might feel more inclined to contribute to a project.
So, I have now reached a point where I need to question my own opinion about the benefits and drawbacks of collaborative writing and technology. I could look at the issue from many angles. For example, I could focus on collaborative learning in general to determine how technology has made an impact on the process. Or, I might approach the issue as a question about academic instruction in virtual collaborative writing. Alternatively, I could compare the collaborative writing of students in face-to-face and computer-assisted groups.
However, since my personal interest lies primarily in workplace writing, I have decided to research the following question: Do authors produce a better group text – specifically in the workplace – in a face-to-face setting or in a virtual environment? I have been able to garner some insight into my inquiry as I have taught hybrid versions of business writing for UNLV. While not technically in the workplace, my students must work as a group to produce a cohesive business report. Although, the students are not required to meet outside of class, and they have access to each other via computer, I have found that most of my students decide to meet at least once per week anyway. They appear to find the face-to-face interaction necessary to their success. But, I now have to wonder whether this is due to my own preference for face-to-face collaboration. In other words, I might not be conveying the value of computer-assisted teamwork as well as I could be.
Based on a preliminary discussion with Dr. Jablonski, I know that my research question will be difficult to answer in the time we have for this course. I would really need to do an empirical study to reach a definitive decision. However, I can achieve a tentative resolution to my question by examining what the literature has said about traditional collaborative writing and online collaborative writing – particularly in the workplace – and then comparing the information with my own thoughts and experience through a descriptive analysis. This approach is very appealing to me, and I feel my research could be very beneficial.
Resolving the conflict I feel about collaborative writing and technology is important to me because I hope to soon have a position in which I would be managing collaborative writing projects in the workplace. Understanding the benefits of both face-to-face and online teamwork – or perhaps the superiority of one over the other – could only make me a more effective writer and manager. In the process, I also hope my research will enlighten others with the same concerns.
__________________________________________________________
[1] “Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind.’” Villanueva 415-36.
[2] “Exploring the Value of Face-to-Face Collaborative Writing.” New Visions of Collaborative Writing. Ed. Janis Forman.
[3] “Computer-Based Conversations and The Changing Nature of Collaboration.” New Visions of Collaborative Writing. Ed. Janis Forman.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)