St.

John 1
Mariah St. John
Jim Henry ENG 405
Due: 15 March 2016
Meta-Commentary
Although the majority of students can agree that the idea of collaboration is a widely
loathed aspect of ones academic career, it is undoubtedly an integral part of learning, especially
in the construction of knowledge. As a student, I am constantly immersed in collaborative work
environments and have experienced collaborative approaches that have enhanced my learning
outcome and improved the overall quality of my work, allowing me to discern the benefits of
collaboration. On the other hand, I have experienced collaboration that solely caused burden and
stress. The primary reasons why those particular collaborative environments were unsuccessful
in my opinion, was due to lack of structure and guidance provided by the teachers. Through these
experiences, I have observed characteristics that promote positive collaboration in addition to
those that are troublesome in collaborative environments. With that being said, I would like to
examine the components of a truly successful collaborative environment. What does a successful
collaborative environment look like? Questions like these must be must be considered in
advocating for collaboration. Perhaps it is a domain where collaboration is demanded, where
goals are clearly defined, and where the task equally and fairly engages everyone at hand. In
examining collaboration theories, my aim is to underline the ways in which collaboration plays a
key role, and an essential part of the writing process. There is an old adage, I want another pair
of eyes to look this over, but what is actually being implied here? What can be gained through
the interaction prompted by active and collaborative learning? The outcome of successful
collaboration is the constructions of knowledge through back and forth dialogue, bouncing of
ideas off of others, and the gained insight through the proposal of multiple perspectives. The

St. John 2
process is worked through rather than being merely deposited from one source to another.
Understanding how power and control are located/situated within collaborative writing centers
and environments is vital, especially in considering the standard hierarchical routines of teaching
where control and power are placed within the hands of a teacher or tutor. In many cases, this
traditional placement of power has caused reluctance in students to seek additional help and step
foot in a writing center. However, as a tutor, I am situated in two distinct discourse communities:
students/peers and teachers. Tutors are in constant limbo between these two communities, as they
inhabit a space that resides between teacher and student.

St. John 3
Annotated Bibliography
The aim of this annotated bibliography is to first underline the benefits of collaborative
learning, while also considering complications that can arise as a result of collaboration and
second to illustrate the components of a successful collaborative learning environment. While a
few sections of the bibliography discuss collaborative learning within classrooms, in addition to
exploring components of technical and professional collaboration, the primary focus is on
collaboration within writing centers, and how the various techniques and characteristics
mentioned can be applied to a tutorial. There is an emphasis on specific implications for tutoring
practice since the nature of tutor and tutee interaction is collaborative nature.
Gray, Jennifer P. "Translating Normalcy: Tutors Navigating Spaces Between Expectations and
Experiences For Non Traditional Students." Praxis: A Writing Center Journal 11.1 (2013): n.
pag. Web. 5 Mar. 2016.
Gray explores the effect teacher comments and overall feedback can have on a student
during the writing process. She begins first by examining the dominant model of learning where
teachers are the absolute authority, who then directly transfer their knowledge to a student, and go
on to assess their learning. The standard student-teacher dynamic being described by Gray can
create hindrances in the way a student receives the feedback given to them, potentially resulting in
suggestions and helpful critique being disregarded entirely, or resulting in a student becoming
insecure about their authorial ownership. Furthermore, the act of a sole teacher providing feedback
can inevitably move a students writing in a direction that favors their interpretation and
perspective. In some instances, students may even begin to feel as if their voice is being
compromised. This method of feedback can result in students viewing their assignments as merely
being a space to put their understanding of the information provided to them by their
teacher/professor on display rather than being a place to closely engage with their unique ideas.

St. John 4
Alternatively, teacher feedback, as a method of collaboration, can create the potential for
teachers and students to engage in interactive and stimulating dialogue, which can be beneficial in
regards to enhancing an assignment. Where does the writing center come into play in considering
the teacher feedback method of collaboration? Adding the component of the writing center into
the student-teacher mix creates a strong dynamic. Many composition theorists note that the
development of the conversation recognizes a multiplicity of reader interpretations As writing
tutors, we serve as an additional audience member to the writer, allowing for a further
interpretations and understandings surrounding their work to surface. When working with a student,
various methods are implemented throughout a session that prompt the student to either focus, shift,
and in certain situations, even rethink their angle and perspective. A student can be prompted to do
so through a series of questions that stimulate additional ideas and understandings apart from those
that they entered the session with. Tutors also serve as sounding boards, as tutees work through
their writing process, which helps to achieve the production of ideas, and a mutual understanding.
The outcome of the dialogue between a tutor and tutee through the asking of questions allows the
writer to engage with their writing differently, specifically in a way that enables them to take their
authorship into their hands and take control of their writing. During sessions with students, it is
important as tutors that we strive to maintain the unique voices of our tutees as they work through a
revision, for example, and are required to work directly with teacher comments and feedback.
During the 30-minute collaborative partnership, a tutorial, the dialogue between the tutor and tutee
is imperative as it fosters a place of valuable engagement with a writer and their work.

St. John 5

Howard, Rebecca Moore. Collaborative Pedagogy. Composition Pedagogies: A Bibliographic

Guide. Ed. Gary Tate, Amy Rupiper, and Kurt Schick. New York: Oxford UP, 2001. 54-70.
Howards essay provides a strong foundation in understanding collaborative pedagogy by
providing a general overview of core collaborative pedagogy theorists in addition to the
historical context surrounding the topic. Collaborative pedagogy is rooted in the contention that
collaborative learning promotes better learning. The writing process is not an individualistic
process and instead, goes against the tradition that entitles the individual agent. (55) Typically,
methods of collaborative pedagogy are implemented in classrooms through group projects, small
group discussions, peer review, workshops, and collaborative writing assignments. Howard
brings attention to the implications that can arise from collaboration, noting that one of the
biggest deterrents to collaborative pedagogy is the delicate balance between plagiarism and
original thought. Howard suggests that any idea that surfaces from a group or in the case of the
writing center, a pairing, is not plagiarism. The concern of plagiarism, rooted in the interaction
between a tutor and tutee is an issue that has been brought up during class discussions. While
some faculty members, for example, are concerned with plagiarism, it is important to reiterate
that while yes, tutorials are collaborative, the majority of the responsibility of formulating ideas
and transcribing is placed on the student. We as tutors are taught better than to blatantly provide
tutees with answers or telling them exactly what to write; instead, we are guiding them, through
various methods and techniques, to figure out what it is they would like to say and how to say it.

St. John 6
Harris, Muriel. "Collaboration Is Not Collaboration Is Not Collaboration: Writing Center Tutorials
vs. Peer-Response Groups." College Composition and Communication 43.3 (1992): 36983. JSTOR. National Council of Teachers of English, 9 Sept. 2009. Web. 4 Mar. 2016.
In reading through Harris essay, I saw many parallels between what she discusses and what
Rebecca M. Howard talks about in Collaborative Pedagogy. Harris, like Howard, acknowledges
the need for collaboration in the writing process. She examines writing center tutorials and peer
responses, highlighting the notable differences and benefits of collaboration. Harris argues that
the interaction between the reader and writer, or, in this case, the tutor and tutee, can directly
benefit a students writing. Harris notes that a quality tutors possess is the ability to discover a
writers unique needs and interests, which can be done through the one-on-one dialogue, successful
questioning, and active listening. Our roles within sessions are essentially to guide writers to their
own discovery. The interaction between a tutor and tutee propels the process of discovery, through
language and through the dialogue. Through this interaction, we are able to help them explore,
experiment and refine their ideas, and in doing so we produce better writing, while also equipping
the students with writing tools they can utilize outside of the session and on future writing
assignments. Harris does discuss disadvantages that may arise from collaboration. In the writing
center, for example, tutors may assume control over a writers work or challenge the feedback a
professor has provided the student. Additionally, peer responses can sometimes be seen as being less
helpful due the absence of constructive criticism. This point on constructive criticism brings me back
to the discussion we had revolving around politeness in the writing center. While yes, it is vital to
maintain a level of politeness while working with a student, it is also equally important to remember
that we are there to help the student. The dialogue between a tutor and tutee can either hold the
power to hinder or define an effective tutorial.

St. John 7

Lunsford, Andrea. "Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center." The St. Martin's
Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. By Christina Murphy and Steve Sherwood. 4th ed. Boston:
Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. 70-76. Print.
Lunsfords essay is what originally drew me to the topic of collaboration. She provided a great deal
of clarity regarding how power and control are located/situated within the writing center,
acknowledging the standard hierarchical routine of teaching where control and power are placed in
the hands of a sole individual, for example, a teacher or professor. However, she counters this
notion by depicting a truly successful collaborative environment as being a place where control,
power, and authority are placed within the hands of the negotiating group. Furthermore, she
describes a successful collaborative environment as also being a place where collaboration is
demanded, where goals are clearly defined, and where the task equally and fairly engages everyone.
When goals are established, they must be set up collectively rather than having the tutor take sole
control over a session. As a tutor, it is important to remember that there is always something to be
learned and taken away from each session and student. The distinction between tutor and tutee can
often be blurred during successful sessions as tutors are met with the moments when they too are
able to benefit from the session.

St. John 8
Bruffee, Kenneth A. "Collaborative Learning and the "Conversation of Mankind"" College
English 46.7 (1984): 635-52. Web. 6 Mar. 2016
Kenneth A. Bruffee is recognized as the first composition theorist to advocate for socially
constructed knowledge, [his] scholarship [bringing] collaboration to the conversation of
composition studies, [dating] modern interest in collaborative learning to universities
(Howard). In his landmark essay, he attests that the writing center is the central site for
implementing the principles of collaborative learning. He urges us to understand how imperative
it is to understand the way knowledge is initiated and sustained in the normal discourse of
knowledgeable peers. Collective efforts among peers encourage students to embrace the text and
their peers ideas at deeper levels, in many cases, writers gain knowledge about their writing they
may have otherwise been restricted within the classroom setting. Additionally, he notes that
collaborative learning allows for a student to engage with the text at a deeper level, as it provides
a social context where students are able to both experience and implement the types of
conversations valued by professors. He acknowledges that collaborative learning requires more
than simply grouping students together with little to no guidance or preparation in order for
collaboration to truly be effective. Structure and guidance in collaborative environments are
vital. The relationship between structure and successful collaboration is a topic of discussion that
has surfaced during the course, specifically with the reading, "Collaboration, Control, and the
Idea of a Writing Center" by Andrea Lunsford, where she illustrates the properties of a successful
collaborative environment. Furthermore, Bruffee explains the misconception inherent to the
concept of individual authorship and the independent production of knowledge, stating,
knowledge is an artifact created by a community of knowledgeable peers constituted by the
language of that community, and that, learning is a social and not an individual process. He
goes on to suggest that writing is deeply rooted in conversation. The exchange and interaction

St. John 9
between the tutor and tutee is important within tutorials. With the emphasis of directive and nondirective approaches in writing center theories, it is important to keep the idea of flexibility in
mind when working with a student. Lets say a student is soft-spoken and prefers not to speak as
much, or that a student is more of a visual learner, it is essential to be able to asses a session and
tailor methods and techniques in ways that complement the distinct writing process of each
student. For example, utilizing the white board wall in our writing center to generate ideas
through visual cues for students who lean towards that style of learning. In doing so, we enable
them to thrive as writers, rather than hindering their creative process.

405 Mid-Term Heuristics

Major Topic: Collaboration/Collaborative learning

St. John 10

The conclusion table is a collective of key terms, phrases, concepts, and

subtopics that emphasize various aspects of collaborative learning and the
collaborative nature of tutorials. The terms and concepts are identified in the
first column, followed by a working definition provided in the second column,
and finally an elaboration on the tutoring implications. Essentially, the aim of
the last column is
to provide concrete suggestions and advice that tutors can draw upon as an
additional resource, whether it be for evaluating their repertoire before
sessions or to place specific heuristics into action.
Subtopics or
Concepts
Authorship (Ownership)
Construction of
Knowledge

Peer-response/Feedback

Power/Control

Plagiarism

Definition

Tutoring Implications

Reference to an author,
Enable students to take their
creator, producer of a
authorship into their own hands
work. Crafting persona.
and take control of their writing.
Knowledge that is gained Allow for gained insight (on both
in a collaborative
ends) through he interaction,
environment/collaboration
including: back and forth
.
dialogue, the bouncing of ideas
off of others, and the proposal
of new perspectives, as it may
result in the construction of
knowledge.
Providing a
Serve as an additional audience
response/reaction to
member, allowing for further
ones work offering
interpretations and
constructive
understandings surrounding
criticism/critique for
their work, in doing so you
improvement.
enable the tutee to explore and
refine their ideas.
Referring to the sole
Tutors are in constant limbo
authority placed in the
between these two
hands of one person.
communities, inhabiting a space
that resides between teacher
and student. Control, power,
and authority are placed within
the hands of the negotiating
group rather than an
authoritative figure.
Place
the
responsibility of
Unoriginal thought. Trying
transcribing on the student,
to pass someone else's
work or ideas as their own guiding them through various
methods and techniques, to
without proper
acknowledgement/citation establish what it is they would like

St. John 11
.

Dialogue/Conversation

Conflict

Visual Communication

Visual and Verbal

Content

Electronic/Technical
Support

to say and how to say it.

The interaction and

Vital in the process of discovery,
communication that taken
generating ideas, gaining
place in a collaborative
deeper understanding, clarity,
partnership.
etc.
An active disagreement
Recognize the role and value of
incited by opposing
conflict that may occur during a
opinions, views, and
tutorial. Remain professional,
needs.
respectful and open-minded.
The transmission of ideas Remain adaptive in determining
and information using
the best way to assist a
symbols, imagery and
student. Try to recognize
signs.
alternative methods to helping
a student, such as using visual
cue: videos, pictures, diagrams,
etc.
Material and information
Again, remain adaptive and
that manifests in the form
innovative in approaching
of words or visual cues.
sessions. Acknowledge styles of
learning and writing that may
contrast educational
mainstream.
The use of electronics or
Utilize and integrate technology
any other piece of
as an additional resource when
technology as a resource.
questions arise, for
brainstorming, locating sources,
providing students with new
sources and references, etc.

St. John 12

405 Midterm Research Log

Dat
e

Time
Spent

Task
Establishing topic and narrowing focus: Collaboration collaborative
learning successful collaborative environments. Specifically, the positive
effects of collaboration and the way it influences the writing/learning
outcomes.

3/3

1 hr.
Searching for possible sources regarding collaboration pedagogy,
theories, etc. Reading various journals, essays, and articles discussing
collaboration in the classroom, writing, center, etc.
Looking at the bibliographies of landmark collaboration essays in order to
establish more sources.

3/4

2 hrs.

Keywords: collaboration collaborative environments collaborative

theory collaboration in the classroom collaboration and the writing
center collaboration theorists successful collaboration benefits of
collaboration
Establishing a few solid sources for bibliography: 1) Rebecca Moore
Howards Collaborative Pedagogy 2) Mary Lynch Kennedys
Collaborative/Social Process Theory, and Kenneth A. Bruffees Peer
Tutoring and the Conversation of Mankind

3/4

3/5

1.5

1 hr.

Searching for, and reading through more potential sources and

establishing more for bibliography: 1) Muriel Harriss Collaboration Is Not
Collaboration Is Not Collaboration: Writing Center Tutorials vs. PeerResponse Groups
Reading through a few of my sources and taking notes on points I want to
use in my paper. Pinpointing main topics of discussion.

3/6
2.5 hrs

Reading Praxis: A Writing Center Journal 11.1 (2013): Special Issue,

specifically the content under the heading Twos Company: Teacher
Feedback on Student Writing and taking notes.
3/7

1 hr.

3/9

2 hrs.

Taking notes on sources.

St. John 13

3/12,
3/13, 3/14 4hrs.

Conducting further research on collaboration afield primarily looking

into technical communication and collaboration.
Search terms: Technical communication and collaboration technical
collaboration collaboration outside of education business
collaboration industry collaboration
*Note: I had a difficulty accessing all of the sources I found myself
interested in/thought would have help enhance my annotated bib. I was
able to located a few solid sources, such as Rebecca Burnetts
Collaboration in technical communication: A research continuum,
Collaborative Writing In Industry: Investigations In Theory And Practice
but was able to gain access to them.