Teaching Professional Writing Online
with Electronic Peer Response
- Terry Tannacito, Frostburg State University
Introduction
For primarily practical reasons, professional writing courses are increasingly
being taught totally or partly online. These practical reasons concern me because
I do not believe that a pedagogical practice whose benefits are being actively
debated by scholars, such as online education, should be utilized only or primarily
because it is seen as a way of saving or making money. However, online education
is one pedagogical practice that, I believe, has great potential to improve
writing. A year-and-a-half ago, I taught several partly online sections of my
professional writing course, and I discovered that a strategy valuable in my
traditional sections became invaluable in my online sections: electronic peer
response.
Background
on Electronic Peer Response
Any background on electronic peer response, because it is so new and unexplored,
necessarily draws on the background of the two practices from which it is derived.
Simply explained, peer response groups are communities of students who work
collaboratively to improve one another's writing, and electronic peer response
groups do most of this collaborative work via electronic communication of one
type or another. Viewed from the larger perspective of composition studies,
both of these practices are relatively new. A review of the literature on composition
theory shows strong support over only the past thirty years for peer response
groups (Gere, 1987) and over only the past ten years for electronic communication
(Spitzer, 1989).
An important feature of peer response
groups and electronic communication is that both are pedagogical applications
which exemplify the ideas of Lev Vygotsky (1978) and the social view of writing
he inspired. Composition scholars now agree that peer response groups are inherently
social, and most agree that each individual within a group composed of students
with varying abilities can serve, in some way, as a more capable peer to help
the other peers reach their individual potentials (Bruffee, 1984; Ede &
Lunsford, 1985; Gere, 1987). Computers and writing scholars agree that electronic
communication is also inherently social, and they have been advocating this
view in mainstream composition studies for over a decade (Barker & Kemp,
1990; Flores, 1990; Holdstein, 1990; Miller, 1991; Selfe & Meyer, 1991;
Burns, 1992; Hawisher, 1992; Moran, 1992; Taylor, 1992; Wright, 1992). For example,
Michael Spitzer (1990), one of the early proponents of computer conferencing,
claims, "Computers, which were once thought to promote isolation, may in
fact prove to be of greatest help in creating cooperative learning environments"
(p. 59). Theoretically, adding the socially oriented electronic communication
to the already socially oriented peer response groups would have a dramatically
positive impact on the social construction of meaning.
Research
on Electronic Peer Response
In spite of this theoretical potential, there has been very little research
on electronic peer response, and the research that has been completed is problematic.
The problem with this research is that it has the same limitations as research
on peer response in general: it focuses only on the social construction, or
process, and excludes the meaning, or products, of the electronic peer response.
In "Some Difficulties with Collaborative Learning," David Smit (1994)
says, of all the studies of peer response groups, "Few of them analyze
the effects of collaborative pedagogy on writing per se." He explains,
"They demonstrate that students improve such things as feeling good about
the class, having better attitudes about writing, having an increased ability
to interact in small groups and participate in discussion, and being able to
critically analyze the writing of others" (p. 77).
In the very few studies that exist
on this interactive pedagogical application of electronic peer response groups,
the trend described by Smit continues. M. Diane Langston and Trent Batson (1990)
provided one of the foundational articles with "The Social Shifts Invited
by Working Collaboratively on Computer Networks: The ENFI Project." As
their pilot study's most significant conclusion, they say: "We found indications
that groups working on-line will show a more evenly distributed interactive
pattern than face-to-face groups" (p. 146). Mark Mabrito (1991) analyzed
"Electronic Mail as a Vehicle for Peer Response," and he also observed
affective benefits in the process. He says, "For the high-apprehensive
writers in this study, e-mail peer groups provided a productive and apparently
non-threatening forum for sharing their writing with other students and responding
to other students' texts" (p. 529). Cynthia Selfe (1992) confirms both
findings in "Computer-Based Conversations and the Changing Nature of Collaboration."
She notes, "On-line conferences seem to offer alternative spaces for academic
student involvement because they offer different conversational power structures
than those characterizing collaboration in the form of a traditional classroom
setting" (p. 149), and "On-line collaborative forums do indeed present
group members with a reduced-risk environment" (p. 162). All three of these
studies have two things in common: they conclude that electronic peer response
is a worthwhile practice, and they conclude this based on affective gains made
by students using it. In other words, students enjoy the process of electronic
peer response and, therefore, enjoy writing.
Although these studies provide important
theoretical grounding, none of them represent actual classroom studies.. Thea
Van der Geest and Tim Remmers (1994) of Carnegie Mellon University, describe
what I believe is the first published classroom study of electronic peer response
in "The Computer as Means of Communication for Peer-Review Groups."
The conclusion of their study, using a computer program that was the local prototype
of the commercial program I later used in my own study, was that, although it
seemed to involve more problems than profits, we, nevertheless, should conduct
peer response groups electronically. Because I find them very thought-provoking,
I know their words by heart: "With increasing pace, people are using
networks to collaborate on writing tasks. We suggest that future articles about
computer-mediated writing should focus on developing design criteria from the
perspective of a writing expert. The central question then should become how
writers can collaborate optimally in such a writing environment rather than
why they should do so" (p. 249).
Although I believe there is a lot
of validity to this pronouncement, I realized that many of my colleagues would
not agree with Van der Geest and Remmers' reason for using electronic peer response
groups, and I, too, would like to have a more positive reason to use them. It
was with hopes of going beyond the earlier research showing affective (Langston
& Batson, Mabrito, Selfe) and pragmatic (Van der Geest & Remmers) reasons
for using electronic peer response that I completed my own research, Electronic
Peer Response Groups: Case Studies of Computer-Mediated Communication in a Composition
Class, and found the following: "Electronic peer response groups offer
great potential to benefit both the process and products of most
students' writing (Tannacito, 1998, p. v). With this success, I began using
electronic peer response in all my writing courses, both traditional and online.
Benefits of Electronic Peer Response
As in my initial research study, I have continued to analyze the benefits of
electronic peer response in terms of the two primary components of writing:
the process and the products. In the online professional writing classes which
I recently taught, I collected evidence of these benefits through a variety
of sources including comments students made in our online asynchronous discussion,
in emails to me, in conferences with me, and on the writing process forms they
submitted with each final document. Of course, some of the most valuable evidence
was in the final documents themselves. Since the focus of this essay is not
on the benefits but on the factors contributing to those benefits, I'm simply
going to list the benefits for each of these two components...
Process of Response
I found two primary benefits related to the process of
writing:
- The students liked using the computers
for electronic peer response groups.
- The students built extremely close
and supportive communities in their electronic peer response groups.
Products of Response
I found three primary benefits related to the products of writing:
- One-third of the comments were
supportive compliments, and two-thirds were helpful suggestions.
- The revisions the students made
in their documents were closely associated with the suggestions their peers
made in the electronic peer response workshops, and a large majority of the
peer-suggested revisions were effective in improving the documents.
- Both the quantity and quality
of the comments and revisions improved with each workshop.
Factors
Contributing to Benefits
Although I have a tendency to concentrate on the benefits of electronic peer
response and evidence of those benefits, my colleagues have reminded me that
a thorough analysis goes beyond that. Given the myriad problems described by
others using peer response, the most frequent question I'm asked about electronic
peer response is this: What are the factors contributing to these benefits?
I'm sure that future thought will enable me to come up with others, but, right
now, I can identify three primary contributing factors: establishing a community,
preparing the responders, and responding electronically. I'll briefly discuss
each.
Establishing a Community
First, I feel strongly that beneficial peer response results from establishing
a community. This is important with traditional peer response, and it seems
even more important with electronic peer response in an online environment that
can easily become impersonal and uncaring. Therefore, I work hard to establish
the sense of community necessary to successful electronic peer response at two
levels: the class and the group.
Level 1: The Class Community
With my online sections, I was lucky
enough to have the whole class meet face-to-face for the first week, and we
made a major goal of getting to know one another and, I hoped, to care about
one another. I did this by talking with the class and engaging them in discussion
with me and with one another. During the first class session, we completed several
"Getting to Know One Another" activities in constantly-changing small
groups which then shared with the entire class. After the first week, I continued
to encourage whole-class community by posting student photos and bios on the
course website. I wanted to make sure the students got to know one another's
names and stories and talked to one another in the asynchronous discussion as
individuals with histories of which they were aware. Although many teachers
of online classes allow or even encourage pseudonymous or even anonymous discussion,
I'm not sure what the impact would be on community, and I fear that, as I've
seen it do, it could result in indifference or, worse yet, unkindness. When
asked at the end of the course whether or not they had felt a sense of community
within the class, a significant majority of the students indicated that they
had.
Level 2: The Group Community
Of course, this sense of class community
did not carry over equally to all groups. In one group, there was no community;
as a matter of fact, by the end of the semester, there was outright group dysfunction,
but that's a different story. In most groups, the sense of community was strong,
and in one group, it was especially so. In completely independent communications
and without knowledge of the other members' comments, all three of them commented
on this factor in their interaction. The first member shared, "I had never
thought about having a community in a writing class, but [the other two members
of my group] and I have a close one. It has helped me enjoy class and improve
my writing." The second member added, "I had a great sense of community
with my group. We had a great time together. They helped me a lot with my writing;
they gave me a lot of excellent insights into ways I could improve the various
documents." And the third member, interestingly the strongest writer of
the three, was also the most enthusiastic. Here is an excerpt from a message
she sent me: "I have a lot of fun in our peer response sessions, and I
think they're great. We are serious when sharing our opinions about one another's
documents, but then we lighten the mood with a friendly comment or a silly joke
that makes all three of us laugh. This is good because it lets us feel more
at ease with each other, a feeling that makes it a lot easier for us to share
our writing – something which can otherwise be difficult to do."
Although the sense of community in
this last group was a bit stronger than that in the class overall and certainly
stronger than is necessary for successful electronic peer response, I believe
it was a foundational factor in enabling the process to be beneficial. In the
closing essay of her edited collection on community in the computer-writing
classroom, Carolyn Handa (1990) explains that computers can promote isolation
or collaboration, and it is the teacher's role to make sure that a sense of
community is developed, enabling the latter. She claims, "An instructor
aware of the politics of pedagogy can use the computer as a medium for communication
and interaction, a tool fostering democratic patterns of exchange, and a tool
including those traditionally excluded at the margins of discourse" (p.
183). Many other scholars have since agreed with Handa, and I believe that considering
ways, from the method of determining who will be in each group to the guidelines
for evaluating group participation, to promote community is critical to successful
electronic peer response.
Preparing the Responders
I feel even more strongly that beneficial peer response, either traditional
or electronic, results from thoroughly preparing the responders. Further, this
preparation takes a variety of forms at various stages in the course. Before
asking my students to respond electronically to one another's drafts, I complete
at least three stages of preparation: explaining the writing assignments, sharing
exemplary documents, and completing a collaborative draft response.
Stage 1: Explaining the Writing
Assignments
Although the importance of explaining
the writing assignments may seem obvious, far too many of us fail to provide
written expectations for our writing assignments. I'm sure that, many times,
we share these expectations orally,
but the fact is that most people remember only one-fourth of what they hear.
With written explanations of the writing assignments, the expectations for those
assignments, and, perhaps, the evaluative criteria for those assignments, students
can certainly do a better job of fulfilling their teachers' expectations. Therefore,
I provide detailed handouts for each assignment detailing the topic, guidelines,
format, and evaluative criteria. For my online classes, I linked these "handouts"
to the online syllabus. In addition to guiding my students in the completion
of their assignments, the handouts served another extremely valuable purpose:
they guided them in their peer response. I didn't need to provide a "response
form" with a series of questions for peer responders to complete – a task
which, I believe, takes valuable time away from the actual draft response. They
knew the expectations I'd have in mind when I'm evaluating the documents, and
they considered those same expectations in their peer responses. Not realizing
that I provided them for my traditional sections as well, several students said
they were glad they were in an online section because of the detailed written
handouts.
Stage 2: Sharing Exemplary Documents
In addition to explaining the writing
assignments as thoroughly as possible, I help my students envision them by sharing
exemplary documents completed by students in recent semesters in response to
the equivalent assignment. Since my assignments never stay exactly the same
from semester to semester, I provide a written disclaimer on the gateway page
of my website explaining that these exemplary documents are examples, not models.
After I have evaluated each set of documents, I send an email to all students
who received As on their submissions and ask if they would consider sending
me electronic copies. Many of them do so, and I convert their Word files to
.pdf files using Adobe Acrobat. Then, I link these examples to the online syllabus
under the related assignment handout. My students tell me that being able to
see an example document is invaluable to them both in completing their drafts
and, again, in helping them provide meaningful responses to their peers' drafts.
My online students reviewed these thoroughly and frequently made reference to
them on the discussion board when discussing a particular type of document.
For example, one student said, about an example for the illustrative visual
assignment, "I really liked the way Sue used a stacked bar graph with pink
and blue segments to represent the genders. That way, she was able to show clearly
two elements in one graph."
Stage 3: Completing a Collaborative
Draft Response
Finally, and perhaps most important,
I prepare my students by completing a collaborative draft response. To do this
with my online sections, I had to get creative and adapt my in-class procedure.
The day that we started the electronic peer response process, I required that
the class meet online but synchronously. At this electronic "meeting,"
I requested that one student volunteer place his/her draft on the discussion
board, so we could collaboratively respond to it. First, I showed them the mechanics
of response using Word's "comments" feature. Then, I moved to the
content of response by making several relevant comments, a compliment and a
couple of suggestions, and I showed them how I would annotate the draft to indicate
those suggestions. Then, I opened the commentary to the group. This gave me
the opportunity to praise comments that were appropriate and to redirect comments
that weren't appropriate. Whenever necessary, I encouraged students in the direction
of a needed comment by asking questions of the class. My students said that
this collaborative draft response was extremely beneficial in helping them know
what kinds of comments to make in their own electronic peer response groups,
and they got off to a good start. And, the brave student who volunteered her
draft said, "I got the best deal of all; the entire class was my peer response
group!"
For years, criticism of traditional
peer response has warned of the dangers of a potential conflict between students'
and teachers' views of what constitutes improved and effective writing. For
example, Thomas Newkirk (1984) warns, "If students approach peers' writing
with values, interests, and emphases different from those of writing instructors,
the status of the peer response becomes problematical," and stresses that,
for peer response to be successful, the teacher must clearly communicate to
the students his or her values, interests, and emphases regarding writing in
general and the writing assignment in particular. Wei Zhu (1995), unlike most
others, provides directly the way to achieve this communication: training. Explaining
a study he did comparing the success of peer response groups that were and were
not formally trained, Zhu says, "The results of this study revealed that
when teachers trained students to assist one another in classroom peer response
sessions, students indeed assisted one another much more effectively" (p.
520). Although both Newkirk and Zhu are discussing traditional peer response
groups, what they say is as applicable and probably more applicable to electronic
peer response groups. To be effective, the responders in electronic peer response
groups must learn the rhetoric of response; they must be prepared.
Responding Electronically
I feel most strongly that beneficial peer response results from responding electronically.
The students really liked the electronic medium for response. My data, and I
had more extensive data on this finding than on any other, showed me three primary
reasons that the students liked completing peer response electronically, and
I have placed them in emphatic order – in terms of the students', my, and, I
believe, most teachers' perspectives of importance.
Reason 1: They liked computers more than writing.
At the beginning of the semester,
I posted this question on the discussion board: "What are your feelings
toward writing and toward computers? One of my students, a senior who had put
off taking the 300-level required writing course until his last semester due
to his fear of it, posted this response: "Not yet comfortable with writing.
However, I would like to become proficient in writing to help attain my goals."
Yet, when discussing computers, he reversed his position: "Very comfortable
using them. I make use of computers every day and learn something new about
them every day." I could see the truth of his second statement through
his occasional practice of submitting his postings to the board as audio files.
Everyone had a lot of fun with them, and I remembered Lester Faigley's (1992)
comments about the popularity of electronic communication programs being directly
related to students' enthusiasm for them. This student and many others liked
computers and electronic communication in general, and this led to their liking
electronic peer response in particular.
Reason 2: An even stronger reason
they gave was that they liked responding electronically rather than face-to-face.
During a mid-semester conference
with me, one of my students told me: "I think I'm getting more honest feedback
from my peers in the electronic response because [they] aren't afraid of hurting
my feelings by telling me what I need to change." Yet another explained
her preference for electronic response from the other perspective, that of the
responder. She told me, "I greatly prefer giving my responses electronically,"
and the first reason she gave was social: "[My group members] and I are
friends now. Even though I know that they trust me and want my responses to
their essays, it is much easier for me to write my responses in the electronic
component than to provide them all orally because I don't feel as if I'm hurting
their feelings." Cynthia Selfe (1992) foretold these views in her early
article on electronic peer response in a way that we teachers can certainly
understand: "Those of us who have found our own face-to-face critique sessions
with certain colleagues difficult, alienating, patronizing, or falsely encouraging
know just how powerful such social constraints can be" (p. 161). This second
student, however, gave another reason for her preference as well: "I think
I provide much better responses electronically rather than orally. The room
is silent, and I can look at the essay closely and take a moment to decide how
to phrase my suggestion so it will be most helpful." And this comment leads
to the final and most significant reason.
Reason 3: As strong as these reasons
were, the strongest reason they gave was that they found it helpful to have
a written record, provided by the electronic response, from which to revise.
Supporting student comments given
for this preference ranged from the simple to the complex, but almost every
single student in the online sections provided such support. One said, "I
depend on the printout of the response session when I revise. If I didn't have
it in front of me, I would forget half of what was said about my draft."
Of course, if in a traditional peer response group, the students could have/
should have taken notes to help them remember, but this is not the simple solution
it appears to be. Another student explained why the electronically written responses
were better than her own notes from an oral response could ever be: "After
a brief time when our thoughts are clear, we can read again our peers' comments
in their exact words, not the words that we have written from a verbal evaluation.
Sometimes what people say and what we hear are two different things." Mark
Mabrito (1991) describes seeing this in his own study: "Previous research
on electronic communication has indicated that participants in computer conferences
retain more information from these conferences than they do from face-to-face
meetings because people generally retain more from reading than listening."
Still, I consider this an impressive insight on the student's part, but, then
again, this particular student was impressive anyway. Later, after I asked about
the annotations I saw on one of the peer responses to her own work, she explained
to me her process: "When I went to revise my documents, I took out the
printout of my peers' comments and wrote my own remarks about what feedback
I was going to use and what I wasn't going to use." This, in turn, reminds
me of Mara Holt's (1992) argument for a written component to traditional peer
response because peer responders put more thought into a written response and
writers have a thoughtful written response from which to revise.
Conclusion
My recent experience teaching several partly online sections of my professional
writing course convinced me that online professional writing courses, although
increasing for primarily practical reasons, offer real opportunity to enhance
the learning process through strategies such as electronic peer response. Further,
this is a strategy that will benefit students as they move beyond the classroom
into professional fields that increasingly involve electronic response to writing.
References
Barker, T. T., & Kemp,
F. O. (1990). Network theory: A postmodern pedagogy for the writing classroom.
In C. Handa (Ed.), Computers and community: Teaching composition in the twenty-first
century (pp. 1-27). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/ Cook.
Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the conversation of mankind.
College English, 46, 635-652.
Burns, H. (1992). Teaching composition in tomorrow's multimedia, multinetworked
classrooms. In G. E. Hawisher & P. LeBlanc (Eds.), Re-imagining computers
and composition: Teaching and research in the virtual age (pp. 115-130).
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/ Cook.
Ede, L., & Lunsford, A. (1985). "Let Them Write-Together." English
Quarterly, 18, 119-127.
Faigley, L. (1992). Fragments of rationality: Postmodernity and the subject
of composition. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Flores, M. J. (1990). Computer conferencing: Composing a feminist community
of writers. In C. Handa (Ed.), Computers and community: Teaching
composition in the twenty-first century
(pp. 106-117). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/ Cook.
Gere, A. R. (1987). Writing groups: History, theory, and implications.
Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.
Handa, C. (1990). Politics, ideology, and the strange, slow death of the isolated
composer or why we need community in the writing classroom. In
C. Handa (Ed.) Computers and community: Teaching composition in the twenty-first
century (pp. 160-184). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/ Cook.
Hawisher, G. E. (1992). Electronic meetings of the minds: Research, electronic
conferences, and composition studies. In G. E. Hawisher & P. LeBlanc (Eds.),
Re-imagining computers and composition: Teaching and research in the virtual
age (pp. 81-101). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/ Cook.
Holdstein, D. H. (1990). A theory of one's own? An introduction to theoretical
and critical contexts for composition and computers. In D. H. Holdstein &
C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Computers and writing: Theory, research, practice
(pp. 31-39). New York: Modern Language Association.
Holt, M. (1992, October). The value of written peer criticism. College Composition
and Communication, 43, 384-392.
Langston, M. D., & Batson, T. W. (1990). The social shifts invited by working
collaboratively on computer networks: The ENFI project. In C. Handa (Ed.), Computers
and community: Teaching composition in the twenty-first century (pp. 140-159).
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/ Cook.
Mabrito, M. (1991). Electronic mail as a vehicle for peer response: Conversations
of high- and low-apprehensive writers. Written Communication, 8 (4),
509-532.
Miller, M. M. (1991). Electronic conferencing in the networked classroom. College
Teaching, 39 (4), 136-139.
Moran, C. (1992). Computers and the writing classroom: A look to the future.
In G. E. Hawisher & P. LeBlanc (Eds.), Re-imagining computers and composition:
Teaching and research in the virtual age (pp. 7-23). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/
Cook.
Newkirk, T. (1984). Direction and misdirection in peer response. College
Composition and Communication, 35, 301-311.
Selfe, C. L. (1992). Computer-based conversations and the changing nature of
collaboration. In J. Forman (Ed.), New visions of collaborative writing
(pp. 147-169). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/ Cook.
Selfe, C. L., & Meyer, P. R. (1991). Testing claims for on-line conferencing.
Written Communication, 8, 163-192.
Smit, D. W. (1994). Some difficulties with collaborative learning. In G. A.
Olson & D. I. Dobrin (Eds.), Composition theory for the postmodern classroom
(pp. 70-81). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Spitzer, M. (1989). Computer conferencing: An emerging technology. In G. E.
Hawisher & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Critical perspectives on computers and
composition instruction (pp. 187-200). New York: Teachers College Press.
Spitzer, M. (1990). Local and global networking: Implications for the future.
In D. H. Holdstein & C. L. Selfe (Eds.), Computers and writing: Theory,
research, practice (pp. 58-70). New York: Modern Language Association.
Tannacito, T. (1998). Electronic peer response groups: Case studies of computer-mediated
communication in a composition class. (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University
of Pennsylvania). Dissertation Abstracts International AAT9912826.
Taylor, P. (1992). Social epistemic rhetoric and chaotic discourse. In G. E.
Hawisher & P. LeBlanc (Eds.), Re-imagining computers and composition:
Teaching and research in the virtual age (pp. 131-148). Portsmouth, NH:
Boynton/ Cook.
Van der Geest, T., & Remmers, T. (1994). The computer as means of communication
for peer-review groups. Computers and Composition, 11 (3), 237-250.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological
processes. (Ed. By M. Cole, V. John-Steiner, S. Scribner, and E. Souberman).
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Wright, Jr., W. W. (1992). Breaking down barriers: High schools and computer
conferencing. In G. E. Hawisher & P. LeBlanc (Eds.), Re-imagining computers
and composition: Teaching and research in the virtual age (pp. 102-114).
Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/ Cook.
Zhu, W. (1995). Effects of training for peer response on students' comments
and interaction. Written Communication, 12 (4), 492-528.
|
