List 5 terms you don't quite know yet how to define from our final keywords list. Next identify three in other students' blog you do know how to define, and comment on them there in those blogs.

Here are five terms that I am not yet able to define:

1. Peer evaluation
2. Empowerment
3. Errors and expectations
4. Intertextuality
5. Marginalization 

What is one assignment you will include in your syllabus assignment that uses collaboration and/or technology and/or other things Yancey, Selfe, Breuch, Bruffee, or Shaughnessey have discussed?

I like Bruffee’s ideas of peer influence through collaborative learning and think that the methods he describes are a must for all first year composition classes. From my experiences as a DI and from hearing about CI experiences with students, I believe that a combination of in person and virtual collaboration is necessary for students to remain engaged.

Many first-year composition classes follow a traditional model: the instructor decides which material is appropriate for the students to learn and the students respond by composing a response in writing. I think this method stifles creativity and doesn’t create an environment where students have their opportunity to contribute meaningfully to the outcome of the class. Also, students often don’t have the opportunity for an open discussion on what worked well in their assignment and what didn’t when assignments are graded and returned to students without pre-submittal instructor feedback. Rather than waiting for this feedback to come after an assignment has been graded, I think it would be helpful for students to participate in a peer review and mock pre-submittal review of an assignment before it is turned in. This would teach students how to give and receive feedback. I haven’t yet fleshed out all of the details, but if I were to include an assignment like this in my syllabus project, I would structure it as a three part project.

The first part would be a virtual peer review session that requires students in groups of 3-4 to pair up and revise a document real-time using a tool like Google Docs. The document chosen for them to revise would be no more than 2-3 pages. These are the goals I would set for the sessions:

• Develop their own analytical skills
• Become better proofreaders
• Learn how to take advice on suggested edits from a peer and decide which edits to proceed with
• Become more comfortable with the kinds of edit requests they might encounter later in their academic or professional careers

The second part of the assignment would be a mock pre-submittal review of the document that was peer reviewed. The students in each peer review group would meet with the course instructor and discuss the draft document. This session would help the instructor see the thought processes of the students; in turn, the students have an inside look at what instructors are looking for students to accomplish with their writing. In addition, it will encourage students to meet with their instructors for feedback on their assignments before submitting them. After this session, the students would set up a final session through Google Docs to finish up the document.

The last part of the peer review assignment would be a brief in-class presentation where each of the small groups would discuss what they learned from the assignment. 

Engage in discussion about something that captured your attention over the past few weeks in the course. Relate it back to specific class discussions, readings, and your grading/teaching when possible.

Back in Week 3, we all learned about the origins of a larger conversation about collaborative learning. Kenneth Bruffe notes that around 1982, the Conference on College Composition and Communication (CCCC) included a discussion topic that mentioned collaborative learning. Collaborative learning appeared as item eight or nine in a list of ten; a year later, it made it on the list again as the first item. Bruffe continues to open his essay by noting that sometimes collaborative methods work, and that sometimes they don’t. Every classroom interaction is unique and an instructor can only gauge the effectiveness of collaborative learning through experience. As Bruffe clearly notes, there is not a recipe that can be given to successfully navigate through the process. He instead urges educators to learn the history of collaborative learning in order to improve it and demonstrate how valuable it is.

In the 1970’s, American colleges began to see a new type of student: one that should have no problems succeeding based on a review of their credentials but, in fact were experiencing the same problems of adapting to the traditional conventions of the college classroom that the less academically prepared students were. One key point that Bruffe outlines is the fact that many undergraduate students refused to take advantage of the tutoring and counseling help offered on campus. The colleges explored several solutions to these problems, including: making it mandatory for students to attend these help sessions, implementing sink-or-swim programs to weed students out, and peer tutoring. Of these methods, peer tutoring proved to be the most helpful and led to results that showed students’ work usually improved when they received help from fellow students. Students that provided help in these peer sessions also benefitted by learning from the other students and gaining experience helping others in a teaching environment.

As a current graduate student that has temporarily stepped out of the workplace, I’ve become used to an environment of frequent collaboration, review cycles, and knowing when to ask for help. At my company (a large federal government contractor), my primary job duties were to oversee and coordinate the various stages of the proposal life cycle process for each proposal assigned to me. Some of the tasks given to me were to gauge when to bring in editing, desktop publishing, and graphics support; in addition, I provided training support, lessons learned feedback, and even printed and packaged the final proposal for delivery to the government customer. In all of these tasks, I participated in collaborative learning and teaching. We shared knowledge gained from each project we were tasked with completing and created an internal library of best practices. I would consider this work environment to be a great example of how the principles used in a collaborative composition environment (specifically one that implements peer reviews) can be beneficial. In most workplace settings, projects cannot be finalized without peers to review them. I’ve worked on projects that were important enough to the company’s goals for business development that the CEO sat in on milestone reviews and offered feedback on ways to improve a proposal. The feedback was given in a way that was helpful, not from a place of “do this or else.” Without the collaborative learning taught in settings like college composition courses, students won’t be able to settle in as employees in the workplace that contribute meaningfully to their company.

I suppose my idea of peer reviews in practice for Texas Tech’s ENGL 1301 course would be that in addition to students’ once a week in class session with their instructor, they would also meet with a Document Instructor (DI) one day a week, similar to the way recitation sessions for science courses meet. At these DI-run sessions, students would receive additional instruction on lessons from class; furthermore, sessions would also include a period where students worked together in small groups to peer review each other’s work. The environment would be informal and would function as a workshop that prepares students for submitting their best efforts as final versions of their assignments. In this scenario, the students learn to trust their own work through analysis of each other’s assignments, and DIs are given an opportunity for classroom instruction before they are required to instruct in their second year of the English department’s graduate assistanceship program. I think this approach is feasible and provides an alternative to the standard in-class group work assignments that often result in some students working harder than others.

Response to Bailey Cundiff’s Extended Analysis Document: Google Docs and Writing Instruction

For this week’s blog post, I read Bailey Cundiff’s Extended Analysis assignment titled, “Google Docs and Writing Instruction.” Google Docs is a free online word processing program that allows multiple users to simultaneously collaborate on a single document. Bailey notes that this feature makes Google Docs more useful than Microsoft Word for writing instruction. Instead of writing being one sided, immediate feedback and instruction is given. This increases students’ sense of collaboration and provides insight into instructors’ methods of editing and revision. Research shows that students who participated in online writing activities with Google Docs demonstrated increased improvement on their final documents.

One important point from Bailey’s research is that researchers acknowledge that the internet is this generation’s defining technology for literacy and learning; as a result, new technologies require new literacies. I feel that teaching styles should shift to embrace this new technology so that students feel like instructors are meeting them halfway. Students want to feel connected to the work they produce and I think this is an excellent way to create that connection.

I also found the section on collaboration to be helpful. Students having the ability to watch their ideas take different forms and be read in different ways is an invaluable experience. Also, rather than having an instructor “preach” at them about what changes need to be made, students are forced to participate in the revision discussion. If there are concerns about voicing an opinion in a face to face conversation, the online revision session should alleviate them. An audience is still present and in the moment, but, there’s a “wall” of technology to help shy students remain engaged.

These two points from Bailey’s research made my thoughts shift to our First-Year Composition students at Texas Tech. After participating in my first tutoring sessions last week, I was excited, and felt like I had a direct impact on students’ work. We worked together on creating thesis statements and I was able to give immediate, constructive feedback. Unfortunately, probably less than 10 percent of the students enrolled in ENGL 1301 show up for in person assistance. To encourage participation and interest, I believe working in a collaborative tool like Google Docs would be best. This way, students who want the immediate feedback but still uncomfortable coming in person can still receive assistance. It would give them the feeling of a “big brother” watching to make sure they stay on course with their writing.

Out of curiosity, I started searching the web to see which universities have started to use Google Docs as a way to work with students on their writing. Here are a couple of places that are currently using Google Docs:

• UCLA: http://wp.ucla.edu/index.php/home/services. The writing center here currently holds in person and online sessions. The online sessions are set up just like the in person sessions and seems to have the same level of interaction. I found it very interesting that the appointments for the online sessions allow the same 50 minutes as the in person session. Also, a draft of your writing assignment is not required to meet online! You can brainstorm together just like you would in person.
•  Johnson County Community College, Overland Park, Kansas: http://www.jccc.edu/student-resources/tutors-accessibility/writing-center/online-writing-lab.html: This program is based out of a community college! They appear to have the same set up that as a larger university system (like UCLA). I appreciated that this online writing lab (OWL) provided a set of guidelines and expectations for students. I believe this to be imperative as both the tutor and student should be aware of what is expected during the session.

Overall, I found Bailey’s research to be insightful and very thought provoking. It leads me to wonder if Texas Tech will in the near future adopt online writing collaboration as a way to reach more students. As a current Document Instructor, I know I would be very amenable to helping students this way!