Academic Exchange Quarterly
Winter 2011 ISSN 1096-1453 Volume 15, Issue 4
To cite, use print source rather than this on-line version
which may not reflect print copy
format requirements or text lay-out and pagination.
|
This
article should not be reprinted for inclusion in any publication for sale
without author's explicit permission. Anyone may view, reproduce or store
copy of this article for personal, non-commercial use as allowed by the
"Fair Use" limitations (sections 107 and 108) of the U.S. Copyright
law. For any other use and for reprints, contact article's author(s) who may
impose usage fee.. See also electronic
version copyright clearance CURRENT VERSION COPYRIGHT © MMXI
AUTHOR & ACADEMIC EXCHANGE QUARTERLY |
Composing
Collaboration: An Integrative Pedagogy
Russell G.
Carpenter, Eastern Kentucky University
Leslie Valley, Eastern Kentucky University
Russell G.
Carpenter, Ph.D. is Director of the Noel Studio for Academic Creativity and Assistant
Professor of English. Leslie Valley is
Coordinator of Writing in the Noel Studio for Academic Creativity.
Abstract
For
many years, writing centers have existed on the periphery of campus, having to
prove their worth on a year-to-year basis. An integrative approach to writing
center design centralizes services within campus communities while enhancing visibility
and embedding collaborative pedagogies among students and faculty. Integrative
collaboration displays the writing center’s worth to the campus community.
“The improvisational collaboration of
the
entire group translates moments of
individual
creativity into group innovation”
(Sawyer 17).
Like
many writing centers, Eastern Kentucky University’s (EKU) occupied a hidden
space on campus—the basement of an old, converted dorm. An internship between
the then-writing center director and dean of libraries resulted in a plan to
move the center to an unused portion of the library. In 2003, this plan was for
merely a physical transition. However, as the discussions evolved, more
departments became involved, envisioning the possibilities for renovation. The
mission and vision for the relocation of the writing center to the library
changed to include representatives from the library staff, department of
communication, and department of English who expanded the concept of what the
writing center could be. The vision became more collaborative, and the mission
expanded to consider the ways students and faculty create and communicate in
the 21st century. These administrators quickly became visionaries,
thinking about the interconnections between research, writing, and oral
communication. Seven years later, the Noel Studio for Academic Creativity
became a reality at EKU, supported by a compelling university mission of
developing informed critical and creative thinkers who communicate effectively.
To capture the campus-changing developments and impact the Noel Studio has had
at EKU, we explore how the integrative mission and vision of this exciting new
project embed it into the campus community and offer it as a model by which
writing centers can demonstrate their worth on campus.
On many campuses, faculty refer
students to the writing center or use it as a punishment for poor writing. Having
spent years in writing centers, we have seen bookmarks stapled to papers, notes
that say, “Go to the writing center,” and assignment requirements that involve
a visit to the writing center. We ask, though, whether these practices further
the connection between the writing center and campus community. We find this
referral practice problematic. For one, simply referring students to the
writing center does not suggest that there is a relationship between the
feedback received in the classroom and that of the writing center. Second, this
handoff seems to imply that the writing center is responsible for fixing
student issues. We suggest that there is much to be gained from tightening the
relationship between faculty and the writing center. This article suggests that
writing centers should question the benefits of students who are referred to or
required to visit the writing center without any context for their visit.
Furthermore, this article also argues that faculty, students, and writing
center staff can learn more and do more when passive referrals turn into
integrative partnerships that involve all of these parties in the development
of improved writing practices. Thus, we pose two questions:
Our purpose here is to examine an
integrative model for writing centers and, because we work in a newly developed
space, help those in the writing center field appreciate what this model can
offer. But first, we need to explore the relationship between collaboration, a familiar
term that involves engagement, and integration, which requires commitment on
all sides.
An
Integrative Philosophy
Writing
centers and the communities they serve stand to benefit a great deal from
collaborative efforts that involve students and faculty, but writing centers
often miss opportunities to involve faculty in the learning process. An
integrative model builds faculty into the mission and vision of the writing
center. This concept extends from Muriel Harris’s early work on collaboration.
Writing centers might benefit from deeper collaboration, integrating their work
and voice within their campuses. Collaborative efforts that involve faculty are
preferable over passive referrals, moving not only students but also faculty “from
the traditional passive stance of receiving knowledge from an authority”
(Harris 369) to a more active, engaged, and cyclical learning process. Previous
models promote collaboration but primarily as it relates to students and writing
center staff, rarely considering the role of faculty. Current models highlight
the benefits of a more inclusive type of collaboration, specifically between
writing centers and libraries. As James K. Elmborg
explains, “Integrated as they are across the curriculum, libraries and writing
centers can increase their influence tremendously by sharing their reputations
and expertise, leveraging their strengths and learning from each other” (18). For
example, Johanna Einfalt and Janet Turley overview a
three-way collaborative model that places students at the center in an effort
to engage them in research and academic skills such as writing (44). Similarly,
Sarah Leadley and Becky Reed Rosenberg present a
model for team-teaching designed to enhance writing and information literacy,
explaining that “this synergistic approach also functions to dismantle the
division between ‘skills’ and ‘content’” (59). Even in these models, however, the
collaboration seems to occur primarily between the writing center and the library,
leaving the role of faculty ambiguous.
We posit that writing centers can
create integrative collaboration—a model that encourages a more inclusive
collaboration or tightens the relationship between the teaching that takes
place in the classroom and the activity that takes place in the writing center.
In integrative collaborations, new modes
of thought and art forms thrive through joint efforts inspired by
transformative changes (John-Steiner 203). In 1999, Dave Healy questioned,
“Just what kind of place is the writing center? Is it an extension of the
classroom or an alternative to the classroom?” (231). We suggest that it is
neither. Through integration, the writing center can be part of an intentional,
active pedagogical structure by creating specific shared goals with faculty in
the collaborative process traditionally constrained to student-writing center
roles. We agree with Sawyer “that these intimate collaborations are the most
radically innovative, the ones that have the potential of transforming ways of
seeing to create a completely new vision” (134). To take the integrative
collaboration concept one step further, we might look more closely at the role
of group work within these relationships. Integrative collaboration, especially
between the writing center and campus community, highlights the need for group
work and cooperation between writing center administrators, student consultants,
and faculty as methods for successful integration. Elizabeth Cohen argues that
cooperation
aids in the development of higher level cognition and the ability to
communicate thinking: discussion within the group promotes more frequent oral
summarizing, explaining, and elaborating what one knows; cooperative learning
promotes greater ability to take the perspective of others… in the group
setting, one’s thinking is monitored by others and has the benefit of both the
input of other people’s thinking and their critical feedback. (15)
The ability to take the perspective
of others allows writing center staff, faculty, and students to approach the collaborative
process as equal participants in the students’ development as writers. Therefore,
the collaboration and resulting critical feedback enable participants to refine
their own processes while actively supporting each other. John-Steiner suggests
that transformative co-construction, braided roles, and visionary commitment help
construct integration as a collaborative pattern (197). Together, these traits
help inform integrative collaborative efforts and will serve writing centers
well when integrating with campus communities, thereby becoming critical components
of their universities.
Establishing
Worth through Integrative Collaboration
Writing
centers have long existed on the periphery of campus. Spatial politics permeate
much of what writing centers do and the roles they serve. Physical location
carries with it a political edge (Haviland, Fye, and Colby 85). Many writing
centers determine worth by reporting usage statistics; however, we must ask how
much these numbers say about a center. Do these figures determine the “worth”
of the center within the campus community? Certainly, usage is important to any
writing center, but we argue that the center’s worth is not only about numbers
but should also consider the pedagogical activities taking place within. Integrative
collaboration engages members of the campus community, creating multiple vested
interests in the success of the writing center and its contributions to students’
growth and development. These collaborative efforts become crucial to academic
success.
Aligning complementary areas that
extend and strengthen one another is critical to developing an integrative
mission and shared vision for the writing center. When writing centers feel
like they are not supported by faculty, it is often because faculty have not
been involved in shaping its mission and vision and therefore do not feel as
though they are engaged contributors to the success of related initiatives. The
relationship between writing centers and faculty should go far beyond a simple,
one-time meeting, and involve attempts to understand each other’s goals and
challenges so that they can be navigated together, with the aim of moving
toward a recursive learning process.
At times, the future of writing
centers seems uncertain because of changes in administrative structures,
university-wide downsizing, and budgetary constraints. An integrative writing
center increases its sustainability by developing closer connections to other
critical initiatives on campus. A writing center that is situated as a central
entity establishes itself both politically and intellectually, displaying its
value and worth to the university as a whole.
How do students,
faculty, and writing center staff learn successfully through integrative
collaboration? Based on one year of operation in the Noel Studio and the early
development of an integrative philosophy, we have refined six foundational concepts
that have contributed to successful integrative efforts:
For the Noel Studio, these foundational
concepts for integrative collaboration have evolved its practices through
happenings. These happenings, because of their power and ability to engage a
diverse range of members of the campus community, deserve further
consideration.
Happenings
as Integrative Experiences
Happenings
allow the writing center to extend beyond its traditional space and usual
collaborators to promote active engagement with and alignment to a wide range
of participants. Here, we trace the happening’s origins and history, while
framing it as an important component in an integrative vision.
Happenings invite collaboration
through innovative hands-on sessions that engage students, faculty, and writing
center staff. Susan Sontag saw the happening as a spectacle (265). She explained
that the primary aspect of a happening was materials and the incorporation of
audience into the event (267). Years later, William Lutz, building on Sontag’s
earlier definition, saw the happening as juxtaposition, the essence of creating
experiences about which students could write, an experience of the audience
rather than a performance witnessed (36). In 2002, Geoffrey Sirc described the
teaching of composition as a happening for its performative elements and the
“freedom of working without rules” (125). In the Noel Studio, happenings
encourage students, faculty, and staff to develop new insights through shared
experience. Happenings blur the lines between audience and performer, student
and teacher, and have, in a sense, informed integrative collaboration for the
Noel Studio.
Integrative collaboration in the
Noel Studio brings together students, faculty, and staff to achieve a common
goal. As John-Steiner explains, integrative collaborations,
require
prolonged periods of committed activity. They thrive on dialogue, risk taking,
and a shared vision. In some cases, participants construct a common set of
beliefs, or ideology, which sustains them in periods of opposition or
insecurity. Integrative partnerships are motivated by the desire to transform
existing knowledge, thought styles, or artistic approaches into new visions.
(203)
Happenings, as creative and
generative collaborations for the writing center, can take a variety of shapes
and forms. Primarily, they should connect the writing center with the campus
community. Happenings in the Noel Studio offer members of the campus community
opportunities to immerse themselves in the critical and creative-thinking
process that is central to the development of composition practices.
In the Noel Studio, we have
sought out collaborations with faculty to integrate ourselves into the
students’ process within the context of the classroom. We have partnered with
several faculty members to make the Noel Studio a part of the assignment—not
merely as a required visit, but as a carefully planned strategy designed by the
professor and the Noel Studio administrative staff. In a childhood psychology
course, for example, students are required to collaboratively research a
controversial topic such as spanking, write a group paper, and present an
in-class debate on the issue. Before we partnered, the professor required her
students to visit with consultants in the Noel Studio, but there was no
specified goal for those consultations. The professor saw that the students
viewed the course as including three separate assignments, rather than an
informed recursive process. More specifically, she articulated the need for
more cohesion between the research, writing, and presentation stages. After
discussions with Noel Studio staff, the professor changed the design of the
assignment to require three goal-oriented consultations:
1) the groups
met outside of class with a consultant to brainstorm their research approach;
2) five consultants
visited the class to consult the groups’ written products, and
3) groups met
outside of class with a consultant to plan the in-class debate.
Students reported feeling much clearer
about the relationship between writing, speaking, and researching about their
projects. The professor also reported more confidence in the students’
progression as researchers, writers, and communicators. At the end of the
semester, during a debriefing meeting, both the professor and the Noel Studio
staff independently recognized the need for an additional visit for research in
the future.
This collaboration establishes
the Noel Studio as neither an extension nor an alternative to the classroom.
Instead, the Noel Studio has become embedded pedagogically into the curriculum
as an intentional addition to the composition process, thereby demonstrating integrative
collaboration. Students learn about crafting effective writing based on valid
information and take away strategies for conducting research and integrating it
into their writing. The professor feels more confident in the assignment and
views the Noel Studio as crucial in helping students connect course content and
academic skill. Group work and collaboration take on more pronounced roles
within this powerful learning environment, prompting students and the professor,
side-by-side, to engage in an experience that has the potential to transform
the ways learning occurs and affirming the academic importance of the writing
center.
Conclusion
The transition from traditional
referral practices to a more inclusive collaboration that involves faculty as
participants has allowed the Noel Studio to connect classroom-writing center
gaps left by traditional writing center models. Whereas traditional writing
centers are perceived as tangential to learning, with faculty assigning visits
and referrals due to bad grades, an integrative approach creates renewed
interest in developing a centralizing space by partnering with faculty and
students to design intentional strategies to refine goals for assignments and
processes. Benefits of group work and collaboration are evident in current
writing center collaborations, especially as they occur between writing centers
and libraries.
The model we have presented here
builds on those examples, establishing faculty as key contributors to helping
students connect course content and academic skill. As a result of this
integrative collaboration, the writing center pedagogy informs, and is informed
by, the different facets of the university. Integrative collaboration creates a
space whereby writing centers showcase their pedagogy and establish value-added
to the university for what they do well.
References
Cohen, Elizabeth G. Designing Groupwork:
Strategies for the Heterogeneous Classroom. 2nd
Edition.
New York: Teachers College Press. 1994. Print.
Einfalt, Johanna, and
Janet Turley. “Developing a Three-Way Collaborative Model to Promote
First Year
Student Engagement and Skill Support.” e-Journal
of Business Education & Scholarship of Teaching 3.2 (2009): 41-48. Web.
16 August 2011.
Elmborg, James K.
“Libraries and Writing Centers in Collaboration: A Basis in Theory.” Centers
for Learning:
Writing Centers and Libraries in Collaboration. Eds. James K. Elmborg
and
Sheril Hook. Chicago: Association of College and
Research Libraries, 2005. 1-20.
Print.
Harris,
Muriel. “Collaboration Is Not Collaboration Is Not Collaboration: Writing
Center
Tutorials
vs. Peer-Response Groups.” College
Composition and Communication 43.3
(1992):
369-383. Print.
Haviland,
Carol Peterson, Carmen M. Fye, and Richard Colby. “The Politics of
Administrative
and
Physical Location.” Eds. Jane Nelson and Kathy Evertz.
The Politics of Writing
Centers. Portsmouth,
NH: Boynton/Cook, 2001. Print.
Healy,
Dave. “Managing the Writing Center/Classroom Relationship.” Administrative Problem-
Solving for
Writing Programs and Writing Centers: Scenarios in Effective Program
Management. Ed. Linda
Myers-Breslin. United States: NCTE, 1999. 223-32. Print.
John-Steiner,
Vera. Creative Collaboration. New
York: Oxford University Press, 2000. Print.
Leadley, Sarah, and
Becky Reed Rosenberg. “Yours, Mine, and Ours: Collaboration among
Faculty,
Library, and Writing Center.”Centers for
Learning: Writing Centers and Libraries in Collaboration. Eds. James K. Elmborg and Sheril Hook. Chicago:
Association of College and Research Libraries, 2005. 61-73. Print.
Lutz,
William D. “Making Freshman English a Happening.” College Composition and
Communication 22.1 (1971):
35-38. Print.
Sawyer,
Keith. Group Genius: The Creative Power
of Collaboration. New York: Basic, 2007.
Print.
Sirc,
Geoffrey. English Composition as a
Happening. Logan: USU Press, 2002. Print.
Sontag,
Susan. Against Interpretation and Other
Essays. New York: Picador, 1966. Print.