With the advent of electronic networking, writing pedagogy has moved into the arena of computer-supported collaborative writing, using collaborative writing as an instructional means to promote a more social view of the writing process. Therefore, as business and technical communication researchers and instructors, we need to ask the following questions: What kinds of software have been developed to aid computer-supported collaborative writing in the workplace and in the writing classroom? What benefits and problems have resulted from the design and use of this software? What research issues should be addressed as we approach the next decade of computer-supported collaborative writing? In this article the author explores these questions, highlighting five computer-supported collaborative writing systems from the workplace and five such systems from the writing classroom.

On-line computer conferences have been of increasing interest to teachers of composition who hope to provide alternative forums for student-centered, collaborative writing that involve all members of their classes in active learning. Some expect them to provide sites for discourse that are more egalitarian and less constrained by power differentials based on gender and status than are face-to-face discussions. These expectations, however, are largely unsupported by systematic research. The article describes an exploratory study of gender and power relationships on Megabyte University, one particular on-line conference. While the results of the study are not definitive, they do suggest that gender and power are present to some extent even in on-line conferences. During the two 20-day periods studied, men and high-profile members of the community dominated conference communication. Neither this conference domination nor the communication styles of participants were affected by giving participants the option of using pseudonyms.

Why write together? the authors ask. They answer that question here, in the first book to combine theoretical and historical explorations with actual research on collaborative and group writing.Lisa Ede and Andrea Lunsford challenge the assumption that writing is a solitary act. That challenge is grounded in their own personal experience as long-term collaborators and in their extensive research, including a three-stage study of collaborative writing supported by the Fund for the Improvement of Post-Secondary Education.The authors urge a fundamental change in our institutions to accommodate collaboration by radically resituating power in the classroom and by instituting rewards for collaborative work that equal rewards for single-authored work. They conclude with the injunction: Today and in the twenty-first century, our data suggest, writers must be able to work together. They must, in short, be able to collaborate.

Conversations on the WrittenWord: Essays on Language and Literacy, Jay L. Robinson John Schilb Expressive Discourse, Jeannette Harris Douglas Hesse The Rhetorical Tradition: Readings from Classical Times to the Present, Patricia Bizzell and Bruce Herzberg Theresa Enos Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student, 3rd ed., Edward P. J. Corbett Cheryl Glenn Singular Texts/Plural Authors: Perspectives on Collaborative Writing, Andrea Lunsford and Lisa Ede John Trimbur Learning to Write in Our Nation’s Schools: Instruction and Achievement in 1988 at Grades 4, 8, and 12, Arthur N. Applebee et al. Paul W. Rea The Future of Doctoral Studies in English, Andrea Lunsford, Helen Moglen, and James F. Slevin Joseph J. Comprone

This article identifies problems in the computer-supported group writing of MBA students who are both novice strategic report writers and novice users of technology that supports group work. These problems consist of lack of attention to readers' needs, attitudes, and expectations; poor conflict management; leadership problems; genre confusion; shaky definition of the strategic problem; poor commitment and attitudes toward use of new technology; poor computer policies and practices; and conflicting hardware and software preferences. The article suggests several reasons for these problems, draws implications for instruction of computer-supported group writing, and suggests topics for further research.

This study examined the effects of computer network technologies on teacher-student and student-student interactions in a writing course emphasizing multiple drafts and collaboration. Two sections used traditional modes of communication (face-to-face, paper, and phone); two other sections, in addition to using traditional modes, used electronic modes (electronic mail, bulletin boards, and so on). Patterns of social interaction were measured at two times: 6 weeks into the semester and at the end of the semester. Results indicate that teachers in the networked sections interacted more with their students than did teachers in the regular sections. In addition, it was found that teachers communicated more electronically with less able students than with more able students and that less able students communicated more electronically with other students.

The triple focus of my title reflects some problems I've been concentrating on ás I thought about and prepared for the opportunity to speak last week at the Midwest Writing Centers Association meeting in St. Cloud, and here at the Pacific Coast/Inland Northwest Writing Centers meeting in Le Grande.Til try as I go along to illuminate -or at least to complicate -each of these foci, and I'll conclude by sketching in what I see as a particularly compelling idea of a writing center, one informed by collaboration and, I hope, attuned to diversity.

Preview this article: I Want to Talk to Each of You: Collaboration and the Teacher-Student Writing Conference, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/24/3/researchintheteachingofenglish15491-1.gif

Donald C. Stewart, Samuel Boothby, Kenneth A. Bruffee, Maxine C. Hairston, Comments on John Trimbur's "Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning", College English, Vol. 52, No. 6 (Oct., 1990), pp. 689-696

Preview this article: Collaboration in the Writing Classroom: An Interview with Ken Kesey, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/41/3/collegecompositionandcommunication8963-1.gif

Researchers and teachers are joining in a movement to introduce more collaborative work in language arts classrooms. While collaborative learning and writing are valuable activities in any classroom, not enough is understood about what happens when collaborative activities are introduced into a traditional classroom discourse structure. This study analyzes a collaborative activity, both as a traditional classroom event and as a collaborative event. The results of the analysis suggest that, even when the activity is explicitly collaborative and students are experienced collaborators, patterns of traditional classroom discourse dominate their communicative choices.

It is pointed out that preparing people to work collaboratively allows them to experience some issues of professional ethics, cooperation, responsibility, and decisionmaking. A model for teaching people to work collaboratively is described. A teaching team, comprised of a technical communication professor and a clinical psychologist, explains group dynamics and the three phases of group development to students. The team then asks the members of a group to rehearse roles and discuss various issues that may arise in their groups. It is concluded that people experience and work through issues of collaboration and professional ethics before they begin to work as a group.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

Preview this article: A Bakhtinian Exploration of Factors Affecting the Collaborative Writing of an Executive Letter of an Annual Report, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/rte/24/2/researchintheteachingofenglish15496-1.gif

Drawing on scholarship in a variety of disciplines - philosophy, political theory, sociology, sociolinguistics, anthropology, literary theory, rhetoric - the authors outline an approach to the study of literacy that does not neglect the cognitive or individual aspects of literacy but rather sees them as largely shaped by the social forces of our political, economic, and educational systems. Ranging from the first-year writing class to adult literacy programs, the essays point the way to effective teaching strategies, program design, and research opportunities.Seven new chapters - on such topics as collaborative writing, discourse communities, women's literacy, and functional literacy - and eight previously published ones make up the book, providing a comprehensive theory of writing as social action.

In her opening address, Composing Ourselves: Politics, Commitment, and the Teaching of Writing, Andrea Lunsford challenged the participants at the 1989 CCCC to tell the story of the teaching of writing in multiple voices which encourage differences and diversity. Cautioning against definition by others, particularly by those who would describe writing instruction in reductive terms or define writing instructors in limiting ways, Lunsford warned those present that we could be composed in the discourses . . . of others (75). For those of us teaching in two-year colleges, Lunsford's descriptions of historical precedents of marginalized voices writing themselves into being were particularly evocative. Her imperative for composition studies to remain inclusive, interdisciplinary, collaborative, nonhierarchical, and dialogic was a further articulation of the CCCC 1989 theme of empowerment and of interdependence. Furthermore, the 1990 CCCC theme, community through diversity, includes a strand on English in the two-year college. This focus recognizes the significance of teaching writing in two-year colleges and should provide the opportunity for participants to explore and articulate the strength in diversity among two-year institutions of higher education. Indeed, two-year schools are the largest single sector of higher education in the United States, with approximately one half of all students taking composition in two-year colleges (Facts 3). These 1,224 accredited schools serve more than five-million credit students, and many of those students transfer to four-year schools (AACJC Commission vii). The numbers of students taking composition in community colleges alone indicate the significance of community-college English departments (Raines 29). Yet no major study has been published since the 1965 NCTE and CCCC report, English in the TwoYear College. A follow-up to this report could be a critical contribution to an evolving text on the teaching of writing. In fact, the Association of Depart-

(1990). Rhetoric in a new key: Women and collaboration. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 8, No. 2, pp. 234-241.

Preview this article: Cross-Curricular Underlife: A Collaborative Report on Ways with Academic Words, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ccc/41/1/collegecompositionandcommunication8978-1.gif

Using a single-subjects-with-replicates design, this study investigated conference influence on first graders' knowledge about revision as well as revision activity. Sixteen children participated in group writing conferences with a teacher, in a natural classroom setting, every other week from February through June. Data from three baseline points and seven conference points were summarized. At conference data collection points, students wrote, conferred in groups with a teacher, were interviewed about potential revisions, and revised work in progress. At baseline points, the same events occurred, but there were no conferences. Two main variables were used to evaluate knowledge of the revision process: number of spots suggested for revision and average specificity of suggested changes. The main variable for actual revision activity was total number of revisions made. Final drafts were also rated for quality. Conferences did influence revision knowledge and revision activity for many children. However, the extent of conference influence was mediated by certain entry level student characteristics. Generally, the most positive effects occurred for students who began with the least amount of knowledge about revision, who were initially doing the least amount of revision, and who were initially writing pieces judged among the lowest in quality.

Any writing center coordinator soon finds that a good portion of her job involves efforts to build, maintain, and increase the number of writers using the center's services. Nevertheless, articles on writing centers rarely focus on promoting services and referral issues. Jim Bell's analysis of The Writing Lab Newsletter for a four year period, for instance, shows a dominant interest in tutoring methods (65 articles) with far fewer articles concerned with administrative issues (37 articles), and only 1 1 of those 37 articles focus on promoting the lab (2-3). To find a sound discussion of this issue, I turned to a 1984 survey by Gary Olson, which illustrates just how important an instructor's referral can be in developing a student's attitude toward writing center visits. Olson reminds us that the instructor who threatens students with a referral can devastate a writer who already has a poor self-image ["Johnny, if you don't show some improvement, I'm just going to have to send you to the writing center" ( Further, such demeaning oral referrals in front of a classroom of reluctant students enforces the myth that ". . . the writing center is merely for remediation" (Olson 160). Additionally, in his article "Collaborative Learning in Context: The Problem with Peer Tutoring," Harvey Kail explains why normally well intentioned colleagues might work against their own best classroom interests. Kail reminds us that writing centers threaten the traditional roles of English department members since, through their discussions with students, tutors and coordinators gain clear insights into the workings of an instructor's classroom. Instructors who are threatened by such a possibility may be those who believe the center should perform by what Kail calls the

Preview this article: Writing as Collaboration, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/51/8/collegeenglish11257-1.gif

Preview this article: Consensus and Difference in Collaborative Learning, Page 1 of 1 < Previous page | Next page > /docserver/preview/fulltext/ce/51/6/collegeenglish11279-1.gif

This article describes a course design that resulted from an academic and in dustrial collaboration. Unlike most simulation courses, the one described here was developed and taught by university professors and business professionals. One aim of designing the course was to find a way of teaching students that would better prepare them for writing in the workplace. A second aim was for the design-team members, through the experience of planning and teaching, to learn more about writing in the workplace and the teaching of writing. This article gives background on the development of the collaboration and on the decision to design and teach a simulation course, then describes the course and its results.

Gender-studies scholars describe the ways relationships within the family in fluence the gender identity of males and females, while composition special ists study the social nature of writing. In the areas of self-disclosure, control, trust, perceptions ofgroup and ofconflict, congruence, and reward, these gen der roles affect the abilities of men and women to collaborate successfully and determine their responses to interpersonal conflict. Through classroom activi ties and journal keeping, students can learn the limits ofgender roles and have access to a full range of collaborative strategies.

An assessment system for collaborative-writing projects helps create a positive learning experience for all group members by rewarding each individual for his or her participation. Unlike assessment systems that evaluate only the group product, the system proposed here balances product and process, the lat ter embracing individual skills at interacting and contributions to the collaborative composing. The results of a systematic study of students' atti tudes toward their classroom experiences seem to corroborate our perspective as practitioners: With this assessment system, group members felt that they participated fully and practiced effective interactional behaviors, that they be came involved in the collaborative-writing process, and that the reward system was fairer than a single group grade.

(1989). Conflict in collaboration: A burkean perspective. Rhetoric Review: Vol. 8, No. 1, pp. 113-126.

Previous research on the writing process in the workplace has given inadequate attention to the collaborative nature of work in an organization. Examination of the processes an engineer goes through as he writes a routine and a non-routine document shows that those processes are strongly affected by the degree to which his company has previously accepted the claims he makes as given or as knowledge. Claims are established as knowledge in an organization by being “inscribed,” that is, by having a series of increasingly general symbolic representations assigned to them by a series of writers at work. The inscribing process both resembles the writing process and affects it.

Most research on writing has focussed on the work of single authors working by hand on prose texts. However, much professional work is collaborative, computer-based, not exclusively prose, and not well studied. Some preliminary research suggests that the use of computers will affect the cognitive activities of individual authors in several domains of immediate relevance to composition and technical communication practitioners: planning activities, editing activities, the writing of novice computer users or poor typists, and writing for electronic mail and other electronic communication. Research reported here suggests that the rapidly increasing capability of computer-based writing systems will force communication researchers to 1) broaden their basic conception of and methods of studying “author” to include authoring teams, 2) broaden the type of material studied from that which is purely or largely textual to that which much more frequently includes other types of information, and 3) track changes in “genre conventions” resulting from the increased capabilities of computer-based systems—in short, to assess the impacts of the medium on the message.

The authors introduce the concept of hypertext and focus on how hypertext can facilitate writing activities. A survey of the capabilities of existing hypertext systems and current research activities is included.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

The author suggests that when technical experts team up to produce technical documents, dividing the workload horizontally, with each team member handling a separate chapter or section, does not work very well. He maintains that stratifying the project vertically, with a project team leader, a data gatherer, a writer, an editor, and a graphics person, is a more efficient and more effective method of collaborative writing. The process is quicker and the product is better because team members get to do what they are best at.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

Collaboration between student writers appears in various guises: small groups discuss each writer's paper in turn; a pair of classmates exchange papers to read and critique; a whole class evaluates a few students* papers based on an established set of criteria; a student shares her paper with a peer tutor at a writing center. All of these situations attempt to capture and build on the energy and shared learning that occur when students work together. And yet, while both the writing center and the classroom aim for collaborative learning, each context places the students in a different relationship. In the classroom, the students work together as peers under the teacher's guidance; in the writing center, students must work to overcome the disparity of authority inherent in their given roles of tutor and tutee. The difficulty for writing tutors lies in balancing their more powerful position as tutor with the goals of peer collaboration. Thus, collaboration in writing takes different forms and requires different skills in the contexts of classroom and writing center. This paper will use a study of a high school writing center program to illustrate and explain these differences. We hope that this discussion will provide insight into how writing tutors perceive and cope with their roles in a writing center and how the collaboration that occurs in a writing center affects students as writers and as people. Kenneth Bruffee's definition of collaborative learning provides a framework for understanding the difference between classroom and writing center collaboration. In his article, "Collaborative Learning and the Conversation of Mankind,1 " Kenneth Bruffee explains that " Collaborative learning provides a social context in which normal discourse occurs: a community of knowledgeable peers" (644). Adapting Thomas Kuhn' s theories about the scientific community, Bruffee emphasizes that a group of people together determine the accepted knowledge, the "normal discourse"

The empowering of writers touches close to interests common to writing centers -no one associated with one-to-one conversation can ignore the benefits of collaboration, the reality and effects of interpretive communities, and the intellectual respect and consideration owed to students by teachers. Yet empowering writers should mean more than simply acknowledging social backgrounds and encouraging self-disclosing discussion and listening (though both activities are of course vital). It should also create opportunities and methods for students to speak powerfully in discourse appropriate to the academy.

Communication instruction at the undergraduate, senior level within the mechanical engineering curriculum is discussed. Faculty collaboration across disciplines and departments and the involvement of students as professionals in their field of study are seen as elements in the process of developing technical communication skills. Faculty-student dialog that supports communication skill development is highlighted.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

It is suggested that students can learn the fundamentals of project leadership, team writing, and production of a major document if the teacher plans and structures the assignments for the project leader so that the project leader and the student writers share the same understanding of the document, know the lines of authority for decisions, and see how individual parts fit into the whole. The principles of cooperation necessary to complete the project also engage the students in issues of professional ethics.< <ETX xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">&gt;</ETX>

Many engineers and other technical/managerial professionals continually generate writer-centered memos, letters, and brief reports. Because such documents often contain needless repetition, excessive detail, and chronology-based information, an approach for encouraging writers to produce clear, well organized, rhetorically sound prose was developed. Technical writing teachers and communication trainers must 1) make these prose “paladins” aware of the essential ingredients for generating reader-centered prose, 2) familiarize these writers with the major steps involved in the writing process, and 3) operationalize the process through face-to-face writer-editor collaboration — involving peer editorial review. Only through frequent drafting and rewriting and the regular sharing of peer editorial response (oral and written) will clear, rhetorically effective prose accrue value. And only then will technical/managerial writers routinely generate reader-centered documents that communicate.