Sylvia A. Holladay

Hillsborough Community College

COLLABORATIVE LEARNING IN THE BASIC WRITING CLASSROOM:

A RATIONALE AND PROPOSAL

Sylvia A. Holladay

Collaborative learning strategies are now widely accepted, especially in the scientific and technical fields, and by many composition instructors. Nevertheless, some writing instructors remain hesitant to use collaborative learning techniques in basic courses. These techniques, however, may be successfully adapted for teaching and learning in the basic writing classroom.

Collaborative learning is having students work together in small groups to reach a common goal. It is rooted in the learning theory of Vygotsky, Bruner, and Flower, among others. Smith and MacGregor define it as

a variety of educational approaches involving joint intellectual effort by students, or

students and teachers together. Usually, students are working in groups of two or more,

mutually searching for understanding, solutions, or meanings, or creating a product.

Collaborative learning activities vary widely, but most center on students’ exploration or

application of the course material, not simply the teacher’s presentation or explication of

it. (p. 1) [Italics mine]

The National Institute for Science Education states that

. . . properly structured collaborative group work involves a carefully planned task that

includes positive interdependence, social skills training, group processing, and some

form of group evaluation.

Implicit in this pedagogical concept is that learning is active, not passive; that the affective domain enhances and reinforces the cognitive domain; that teaching is student-centered, not teacher-centered; that the appropriate model for learning and teaching is the process model, not the coverage model; and that effective instruction is carefully designed and guided. In writing classes, collaborative learning techniques are based on the additional assumptions that writing is a social act and that the composition class is a writing community.

Collaborative group work is more than just putting students in groups. Johnson and others clarify the differences between the traditional learning group and a cooperative one:

Cooperative Learning Group Traditional Learning Group

Positive interdependence No interdependence

Individual accountability No individual accountability

Heterogeneous membership Homogeneous membership

Shared leadership One appointed leader

Responsible for each other Responsible only for self

Task and maintenance emphasized Only task emphasized

Social skills directly taught Social skills assumed or ignored

Teacher observation and intervention Teacher not involved with groups

Group processing No group processing

Thus, collaborative group work does not mean merely that students sit around in groups and talk or write or edit, nor that they do the same assigned task individually and compare results, nor that the more advanced students help the less proficient ones (Smith). Rather it means providing student groups a problem to solve and a common goal to work toward, a goal that is directly related to the objectives of the course. The key to collaborative learning is guided interaction of the members of the group in creative, cooperative problem solving. The students are given a problem to solve, and they work together to find the solution. Through their social and intellectual interaction they learn; that is, their understanding and application of the course material increases.

A common objection to the use of collaborative learning for basic students is that they are not ready for this type of learning, or that they know so little about writing that they can’t learn anything from each other, or that they are so socially and academically immature that they cannot work productively in groups. However, these assumptions are based on a reductive view of basic students. Rose argues against thinking of basic students as cognitively deficit:

Our students are not cognitively ‘deficient’ in the clinical sense of the term; if they were,

they wouldn’t be able to make the progress they do. Our students are not deficient; they are raw. Our job then is to create carefully thought-out, appropriate, undemeaning pedagogies that introduce them to the conventions of academic inquiry. (p. 127)

Instead of considering basic students remedial or developmental, unprepared or underprepared, unable or incompetent, Sternglass (1997) proposes the term “novice writers,” and Haswell (1991) suggests the term “bottom writers” because these are the students who usually end up at the bottom of verbal tests and holistic evaluations. Haswell identifies the qualities of these students:

. . . they lack confidence, they fear writing, they are confused with an unfamiliar

interpretive community, they trust everything to rules, they suffer from counterproductive

cognitive styles, they suffer from a learning disability acquired at an early age, they

operate from an inappropriate oral dialect, they are fixed in the security of an immature

formative stage and can’t cathect [i.e., invest with libidinal energy] or decenter or

generalize or abstract or think relativistically or imagine any way but narratively.

(p. 278)

He also argues that these negative characteristics exist mixed in most bottom students and furthermore are mixed with positive capabilities (p. 278).

Thus, teachers should take a positive attitude toward students who may not have developed what is considered college-level thinking and writing. They are not cognitively deficient; rather, they are cognitively, and sometimes socially, untrained for academic and career tasks. It is our responsibility to help them develop the skills and habits for success in academics and on the job, but we are not their final nor perhaps even their most important influence. From her longitudinal research, Sternglass (1997) concludes that although composition instruction does play a vital role in the development of writing abilities, it cannot be considered in a vacuum because there are so many variables that contribute toward an individual’s development of writing competence (p. 141).

Recent empirical research provides convincing evidence on the benefits of collaborative learning. Johnson and Johnson found that cooperative groups retain information longer than students who work alone as in traditional classroom settings. Gokhale concluded that collaborative learning not only develops critical thinking but also reduces anxiety, helps understanding, provides helpful feedback, stimulates thinking, and provides new perspectives (1).

Few teachers would deny that these are admirable objectives for all students, but many would ask how they are related to what is often perceived as one of the main purposes of basic writing courses—to help beginning writers learn to manipulate written English sufficiently to communicate their ideas effectively to diverse readers. Sternglass asserts that the purpose of all composition instruction is

. . . [to assist] students to formulate their ideas and learn how to express them clearly.

. . . to get students started in understanding what the goals of writing should be:

the ability to develop a purpose for writing, the ability to formulate ideas clearly and

succinctly, the ability to develop and defend the most crucial points in the argument, the

ability to analyze evidence, the ability to synthesize ideas, the ability to influence an

audience, and the ability to express their points clearly. (p. 141)

If students—of any level of competence—do not have any ideas which they consider worthwhile to communicate nor any options for rhetorical strategies for effectively communicating their ideas, they will not see any value in using correct or effective language skills. So we must help students discover, formulate, and express ideas before they will see any purpose in mastering the conventions of written language skills. Some drill-and-practice is helpful for students to internalize and make habitual the conventions, just as proofreading and editing practice reinforces their recognition and evaluation of written expression. However, the most important skill for students is to transfer their knowledge and understanding of the written conventions into their own writing so that they can communicate effectively. Carefully designed collaborative learning strategies can help them achieve all the objectives of basic writing courses.

The first step in successfully using collaborative learning strategies in the basic writing classroom is to develop an atmosphere of trust among the members of the class. Students, especially anxious, inexperienced beginning writers, need to feel comfortable and respected by the instructor and classmates. They need to know that they will not be put down or embarrassed as they interact with others. Establishing this atmosphere usually requires two to four weeks, so collaborative techniques work most effectively a few weeks into a course.

The second step is to carefully design a meaningful task with a clear goal that will help the students explore or apply the course material to increase their understanding of the concepts and appropriate activites and behaviors for the course. Traditional group activities are usually loosely structured, and although the students may enjoy having the opportunity to talk with classmates, they perceive the activities as busy work because they are not guided to discover the relationship of the activities to the other work in the course and to the grading of their writing and their knowledge and use of language skills.

The third step is to communicate clearly the goal, the steps in the task, and the roles of each member of the collaborative group. Because of basic writers’ fears and their desire to please, they become frustrated if they do not understand what is expected of them and how to achieve the desired results. Such anxiety will interfere with their learning and with their retention and transfer of what they learn. A group study guide usually works well because the students can refer to it when they become confused and do not have to rely upon untrained memories.

As the students work collaboratively, the instructor acts as a facilitator who intervenes at key points to explain, guide, praise, and support. He or she helps the students to relax and gain confidence in their abilities. This role is quite different from the traditional role of the basic writing teacher lecturing on the rules of grammar and punctuation, perhaps providing drill and practice, and then testing the students on discrete skills.

The possibilities for collaborative learning activities in a basic writing course are limited only by the boundaries of the course itself and the creative thinking of the instructor. Any of the accepted activities of composition instruction can be adapted to interactive group work in which students discover answers for themselves, but they should be structured throughout the course moving from the simple to the complex. In other words, students may not be asked to start with group composing or peer editing and response to a complete essay. They should start with small, simple tasks so that they may gain confidence in themselves and in collaborative procedures and increase their understanding of the concepts and practices of the course for more complex assignments. A collaborative writing group may be asked

> to discuss topics appropriate for a writing assignment.

> to brainstorm for a restricted topic suitable for a brief essay.

> to write or to evaluate an introductory paragraph.

> to discover specific examples for support of a generalization.

> to decide whether coordination or subordination is more appropriate in context.

> to determine how to punctuate complex sentences or compound-complex sentences.

> to rewrite a paragraph for consistency of person or verb tense.

> to analyze and evaluate an expository body paragraph from an essay.

> to analyze the coherence or structure of an essay.

One of the most useful activities is for the group to draw a conclusion based on evidence provided for them; this activity helps them to learn to abstract and then to test their abstractions with the evidence available.

Collaborative learning techniques can enliven the basic writing classroom and greatly increase students’ learning and retention of what they learn.

Works Cited

Bruner, Jerome S. Beyond the Information Given: Studies in the Psychology of Knowing.

New York: Norton, 1973.

Flower, Linda S. The Construction of Negotiated Meaning: A Social Cognitive Theory

Of Writing. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1994.

Gokhale, Anurdha A. “Collaborative Learning Enhances Critical Thinking.” Journal of

Technology Education 7:1 (Fall 1995).

.vt.edu/ejournals/JET/jte-v7n1/gp\okhale.jte-v7n1.html

Haswell, R. H. Gaining Ground in College Writing: Tales of Development and Interpretation.

Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1991.

Johnson, R. T., and E. W. Johnson. “Action Research: Cooperative Learning in the Science

Classroom.” Science and Children 24 (1986): 31-32.

Johnson, D. W., R. T. Johnson, and K. Smith. Cooperative Learning: Increasing College

Faculty Instructional Productivity. (ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report No. 4).

Washington, DC: The George Washington University, School of Education and

Human Development, 1991.

National Institute for Science Education—College Level One. “Doing CL: Group Dynamics.”

Collaborative Learning: Small Group Learning Page.

r.wisc.edu/nise/c11/c1/

Rose, Mike. “Remedial Writing courses: A Critique and a Proposal.” College English

45 (1983): 109-128.

Smith, Barbara Leigh, and Jean T. MacGregor. “What Is Collaborative Learning?”

Collaborative Learning: A Sourcebook for Higher Education. Anne Goodsell

and others. Pennsylvania State University: National Center on Postsecondary

Teaching, 1992.

Smith, K. A. “Cooperative Learning: Making ‘Group Work’ Work.” In Using Active Learning

in College Classes: A Range of Options for Faculty. Ed. T. E. Sutherland and C. C.

Bonwell. New Directions for Teaching and Learning No. 67, 1996.

Sternglass, Marilyn S. Time to Know Them: A Longitidinal Study of Writing and Learning at

the College Level. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1997.

Vygotsky, L. S. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes.

Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.

8

SAH