By: Mike Peterson
Given that we live in a computer-dependent society, it isn’t hard to believe that basic writers benefit from using computers in their collaborative efforts. But using computers in the basic writing classroom has its set of problems too. In this section, I explore the benefits and challenges of using computers for such collaborative activities as peer responses, conferencing, group assignments, and online discussions.
What are the benefits of using technology in collaboration?
Computers can help students overcome obstacles prevalent in non-computerized writing:
- In-class computerized collaboration offers an immediate and obvious benefit to basic writers: spell check (Ellis 55).
- Computerized peer responses also eliminate another distraction: poor penmanship.
Computerized collaboration can help students with revision:
- Through forums, blogs, chat rooms and network connections, students can receive immediate feedback from other students on their writing, both inside and outside the classroom (Varone 214).
- Research shows that students who use computers in basic writing make more complex and extensive revisions than students who don’t use computers (Ellis 58).
- Students who may have a difficult time finding the time (or place) to meet with other students can do so on-line via e-mail, forums and chat rooms (Sullivan 61; Selfe 150).
Computers make language visually accessible:
- Comments in classroom discussion often go unheard or are quickly forgotten. On-line discussions, on the other hand, put the words in front of the student where they can reflect on them, revisit them, and let them sink in (Fey).
- Seeing other students’ words on the screen (rather than just “hearing” them) helps students to see and analyze language (Fey).
- Teachers can more easily track the collaborative efforts of each individual student than in traditional face-to-face collaborative groups (Selfe 152).
Computerized collaboration can reduce power struggles, domination, and silencing:
- Anonymous or pseudonymous forums and chat rooms create a “reduced-risk environment” that can help students overcome social anxiety and be more experimental and expressive (Selfe 159–60)
- Online discussions can combat the domination of class discussions by a few class members by eliminating the stronger voices and negative non-verbal cues (Sullivan 61; Fey).
- Online groups, unlike face-to-face groups, “do not depend on visual cues about age, ethnicity, sex, and status”—the “floor” is afforded in an unlimited way to all students (Selfe 147).
What are the challenges of using technology in collaboration?
Computerized collaboration can increase feelings of social anxiety and isolation:
- Basic writers typically don’t see themselves as belonging to a community of writers, and sitting isolated at a computer workstation may make them feel less a part of the classroom community than a traditional classroom (Gay 74).
- Varone suggests teachers overcome this by positioning the computers so that pairs or groups of four can work together in close proximity (216).
- The computer terminal as a “private workspace” can be de-emphasized by using computers for collaborative revision (Ellis 59).
- Students, especially basic writers, may feel apprehensive about posting works-in-progress (e.g. early drafts, topic ideas, etc.) in a “public” space, such as forums, blogs, or on-line “bulletin boards”—especially if there is potential for people outside of the class to see it (Sullivan 61).
In-class computerized collaboration can be noisy and distracting:
- Sullivan points out that grouping the terminals together (like Varone suggests) turns the students’ attention to the computers and away from other important oral discussions in the classroom—the teacher is no longer the “physical center of the class” (63).
- As with any kind of in-class collaboration, the class may get noisy. Some students may be distracted by all the activity and talk, and “others may become overly helpful, managing to spend most of their time assisting their peers rather than completing their own assignments” (Varone 217).
Computerized collaboration can create confusion with the writing process:
- Elbow and Belanoff warn that “the computer may tempt some students to make hasty changes to their texts or to revise their work totally on screen without first printing and considering the text as a whole” (492). Varone recommends teachers encourage students to use the computers as a way to experiment rather than just making a quick fix (217).
- Online texts can be unintentionally manipulated by other students, such as making suggestions or making changes in the same font as the original text (Sullivan 62).
- If a great deal of instruction is needed to acclimate students to the computers/software, this may detract from the time spent on the writing process (Sullivan 64).
What are examples of technology-based collaboration?
This list is by no mean exhaustive—it is intended to give a sample of the kinds of technology-based collaboration the above-mentioned authors are talking about. These examples are taken directly from their articles and books. For more examples of collaborative assignments and activities, see What Are Some Basic Writing Collaborative Assignments? [link].
Idea generation:
- Cooperative Writing or Musical Computers: Each student types their topic at the top of the screen. The students switch terminals and free-write for three minutes on the listed topic. The class switches again until every student has written something on each proposed topic (Ellis 61).
- Debating: One student writes the “pro” argument on a suggested topic for five minutes. Students switch terminals, and then another student writes a “con” argument in response (Ellis 63).
Asynchronous or real-time online discussions:
- Group Annotation of a Single Text: A student reads a text and adds her comments in a different font. The next student does the same and so on until all students have read and added their comments. The students can then analyze the comments as a way to learn about reading habits (Sullivan 65).
Peer responses:
- In-Class Peer Editing: A noisy but fruitful endeavor. Two students, one on each side of a student at the terminal, work with an on-screen draft (Ellis 61).
- Switching Terminals: One student reads another student’s work and makes general comments at the end of the draft. This should be done with a finished or nearly-finished draft, and the responder should put his name at the end of his comments in case the writer has any clarifying questions. Have students switch terminals as many times as possible in the class period (Ellis 62).
- Peer Responses: Can be both in-class or outside-of-class. According to Selfe, peer response and student-student conferencing should be used in all stages of the writing process, from idea generation to editing (160).
Group Assignments:
- Two Students, One Keyboard: Students compose an entire in-class text as partners. The students take turns writing (Zeni 214).
Conferencing:
- Teacher-Student Conferencing: Same as a traditional face-to-face conference, but can be conducted via e-mail, asynchronous forum, or real-time chat. Unlike a face-to-face conference, students can print the conference transcript for future reference (Harris and Hooks 154).
Technology Bibliography
