The William and Mary
Collaborative Writing Project
A guide to integrating collaborative writing into college
teaching
A collaborative effort by Faculty and Academic Technology at
The College of William and Mary
Contributors
Evan Cordulack is a Ph. D. Candidate in the American Studies Program at the College of
William and Mary. He also works for Academic Information Services at the College as a Web
Applications Specialist.
Bella Ginzbursky-Blum is a Lecturer of Russian Language & Culture and has been teaching at
the College since 1992. In addition to teaching a variety of Russian courses in the Department
of Modern Languages & Literatures and pursuing research interests in Russian animation, she
has served for many years as an Academic Advisor in the Russian and Post-Soviet Studies
program, as well as the Faculty Advisor of the Russian House and the W&M chapter of Dobro
Slovo (the National Slavic Honor Society) which she helped establish in 1994. The sample
“before and after” collaborative assignment she contributed to this publication comes from her
Spring 2009 RUSN 309: Tale of Tales –The Development of Russian Animation course.
Pamela L. Eddy is an Associate Professor of Higher Education in the School of Education. She
teaches in the School of Education in Educational Policy, Planning, and Leadership. Eddy
teaches courses in policy, higher education finance, organization and governance, community
colleges, and women in education. Community colleges provide the context for much of Eddy’s
research. She investigates leadership in two-year colleges, looking in particular at the role of
leadership transitions and career pathways, issues facing rural leaders, gendered approaches,
and mid-level leadership. Another aspect of her research concerns partnerships and
collaborations among colleges, universities, and community stakeholders—both in the US and
in Ireland. Finally, Eddy does research on faculty work and faculty development. She is
interested in understanding how faculty work has evolved, teaching, and learning issues.
Stan Hoegerman is a geneticist and an adjunct in the Biology Department. He retired from the
full time faculty in 2006 and teaches a writing intensive Freshman Seminar on “Ethical Issues in
Human Genetics and Reproduction.”
Mark Hofer is an Associate Professor of Educational Technology in the School of Education.
He has been teaching a range of undergraduate, Masters, and Doctoral courses focusing on
integrating technology in teaching at the College since 2005. His undergraduate and Master’s
students work collaboratively to publish educational materials centering on educational uses of
technology for practicing K-12 classroom teachers. His doctoral students in the Curriculum
Leadership and Curriculum and Educational Technology programs develop collaboratively
written instructional plans and professional development materials. All of Mark’s course Web
sites are built in a wiki environment. He encourages his students to edit and add to the course
pages as they move through the course. He hopes to devise a strategy to empower his
students to collaboratively develop a course textbook for his doctoral course, CRIN 602:
Curriculum-Based Technology Integration, K-12.
April Lawrence is a doctoral student in the Curriculum and Educational Technology program in
the School of Education at the College of William and Mary. She also works as an Academic
Technology Specialist for the College.
Richard Lowry is an Associate Professor of English in the College of Arts and Sciences. Has
worked in American literature, the history of childhood and family life, cultural studies,
1
masculinity, slavery, and the history of photography. Specialized interests in the forms of public
intimacy in American life and the place of poverty in the formation of twentieth century American
nationhood. He is the author of Littery Man: Mark Twain and Modern Authorship (1996).
John Noell Moore is Professor of Education/Secondary English at the College of William and
Mary, where he teaches courses in English Methods, Planning Instruction in English, Literature
for Adults, and Current Issues in Curriculum, Instruction, and Assessment. He is the author of
Interpreting Young Adult Literature: Literary Theory in the Secondary Classroom (1997), and
John Marsden: Darkness, Shadow, and Light (2010) as well as numerous articles on English
studies and English teaching. His research focuses on ways of interpreting young adult
literature from multiple theoretical perspectives; most recently he has begun working on the
postmodern young adult novel and the challenges of teaching postmodern texts. He also
supervises student teaching internships and conducts the internship seminar.
Maria Elena Pada is the Coordinator of the Academic Information Services. As the coordinator
of AIS, she is dedicated to continue to support the effective integration of technology into all
aspects of teaching and learning at the College of William & Mary. As a member of AIS, she is
expected to be part of a team that encourages faculty to create better learning environments
and hopefully, improve educational outcomes. To accomplish these goals she participates
alongside the other members of AIS in promoting and helping with the exploration,
implementation, and evaluation of existing and emerging technologies.
Gene Roche is director of Academic Information Services and Executive Professor in the
School of Education at William and Mary. He is responsible for working with the academic
technologists, engineers and the lab-classroom team to help enhance teaching and learning at
the College. The AIS group provides discipline-specific support for instruction and research in
the social sciences, humanities, physical and life sciences, School of Education, and the School
of Law. Members of the AIS staff also manage a portfolio of institutional and individual projects
to leverage technology in improving instruction and research.
Betsy Schroeder is a Visiting Assistant Professor in the History Department and American
Studies Program. She teaches diverse students in Freshmen Writing Seminars, lecture courses
in African American and US History, as well as undergraduate and graduate special topics
seminars in American Studies. One of her pedagogical interests include teaching writing across
the collegiate experience and looking at graduate level writing as a culmination of the
collaborative writing process. Her research interests include aesthetics, literature, urban issues,
geography, and African American Studies.
Tammy Thrift is the Senior Academic Technologist for the School of Education, a new role that
seems almost tailor-made. Her approach is to promote technology as an innovative tool to
broaden learning potential -- with instructional objectives as the driving force for technology
integration.
Sharon Zuber teaches in the English Department and the Film Studies Program at the College
of William and Mary. As director of the Writing Resources Center, she trains students for peer
tutoring and works with faculty on integrating writing into their courses. Her research interests
focus on nonfiction writing and documentary filmmaking, both of which she believes highlight the
importance of process and collaboration. One of her favorite activities is talking about teaching
writing.
2
Table of Contents
The Case for Collaborative Writing: Introduction and Overview ........................................... 7
Faculty Roles in Collaborative Writing ................................................................................... 11
Student Roles in Collaborative Writing................................................................................... 11
Assumptions .......................................................................................................................... 12
Module 1: Planning, Facilitating, and Assessing Collaborative Writing ............................. 14
Planning Collaborative Writing ............................................................................................... 14
Facilitating Collaborative Writing............................................................................................ 17
Assessing Collaborative Writing ............................................................................................ 20
Looking Forward .................................................................................................................... 24
Module 2: Single Author Peer Review for Editing and Reflection ....................................... 33
Overview ............................................................................................................................... 33
Benefits ................................................................................................................................. 33
Application ............................................................................................................................. 35
Considerations ...................................................................................................................... 39
Evaluation Options ................................................................................................................ 39
Resources for Peer Review ................................................................................................... 40
Module 3: Using Google Documents to Support Collaboration .......................................... 50
Overview ............................................................................................................................... 50
Benefits ................................................................................................................................. 50
Application ............................................................................................................................. 53
Considerations ...................................................................................................................... 56
Evaluation Options ................................................................................................................ 57
Resources for Google Documents ......................................................................................... 60
Module 4: Using Wikis to Support Collaboration and Community ...................................... 68
Overview ............................................................................................................................... 68
Benefits ................................................................................................................................. 68
Application ............................................................................................................................. 70
Considerations ...................................................................................................................... 72
Evaluation Options ................................................................................................................ 74
Resources for Wikis............................................................................................................... 74
3
Module 5: Using Blackboard to Support Group Work .......................................................... 81
Overview ............................................................................................................................... 81
Benefits ................................................................................................................................. 80
Application ............................................................................................................................. 82
Considerations ...................................................................................................................... 86
Evaluation Options ................................................................................................................ 87
Resources for Blackboard ..................................................................................................... 88
Conclusion .............................................................................................................................. 97
Looking Ahead ...................................................................................................................... 97
Reflecting on Collaboration .................................................................................................... 97
Challenges .......................................................................................................................... 100
Shifting Paradigms .............................................................................................................. 101
References ............................................................................................................................ 104
Appendix: W&M Wikis Tutorial ............................................................................................ 105
4
List of Figures
1.0 The Case for Collaborative Writing .................................................................................. 10
1.1 Conceptual Map of Course Mapping ................................................................................ 17
2.1 Sample of Word Comment Function ................................................................................ 37
2.2 Sample of Word Track Changes Function ....................................................................... 38
2.3 Sample of Google Document ........................................................................................... 39
3.1 Screen Shot of Editing Features in Google Docs ............................................................. 55
3.2 Screen Shot to Set Up a Google Document ..................................................................... 55
3.3 Screen Shot of Sharing Feature....................................................................................... 55
3.4 Sample of Peer Evaluation of Individual Member Contributions ....................................... 58
3.5 Sample of Point Distribution Evaluation ........................................................................... 59
4.1 WM Wikis Homepage ...................................................................................................... 71
5.1 Blackboard Collaboration Tools ....................................................................................... 80
5.2 Creating Groups in Blackboard ........................................................................................ 84
6.1 Concept Map of the Collaborative Process for this Project............................................... 99
5
List of Inserts
1.1 Collaborative Writing Planning Template ......................................................................... 25
1.2 Learning Facilitator Checklist ........................................................................................... 27
1.3a Sample Collaborative Writing Template Constructed in iRubric ..................................... 28
1.3b Blank Rubric Template .................................................................................................. 29
1.3c Sample Peer Evaluation Rubric ..................................................................................... 30
1.4 Web Based Collaborative Writing Resource .................................................................... 31
1.5 Collaborative Writing Gateway Checklist ......................................................................... 32
2.1a Sample Assignment ....................................................................................................... 42
2.1b Sample Assignment Peer Reviewer Form ..................................................................... 44
2.1c Sample Questions for Peer Review ............................................................................... 45
2.2a Sample Rubric- Emphasis on Collaborative Process ..................................................... 47
2.2b Sample Rubric-Emphasis on Writing Process ................................................................ 48
2.2c Author Debriefing Reflection .......................................................................................... 49
3.1 Sample Assignment ......................................................................................................... 61
3.2a Sample Rubric- Emphasis on Collaborative Process ..................................................... 64
3.2b Sample Rubric- Emphasis on Writing Product ............................................................... 65
3.2c Sample Peer Evaluation Form ....................................................................................... 66
3.2d Sample Peer Point Distribution Evaluation Form ........................................................... 67
4.1 Sample Rubric and Assignment ....................................................................................... 76
4.2 Sample Rubric and Assignment ....................................................................................... 77
5.1 Sample Rubric and Assignment ....................................................................................... 89
5.2 Sample Rubric and Assignment ....................................................................................... 90
6
The Case for Collaborative Writing: Introduction and Overview
The information presented in this document emerged from a faculty development
seminar at the College of William and Mary that was sponsored by the Charles Center,
the college’s faculty development center. A total of 10 faculty and staff were involved,
representing seven disciplines across campus, including American Studies, Biology,
Education, English and Film Studies, History, and Russian Language and Culture.
Subsequent to this seminar, an additional faculty member and professional staff
became involved in the project. All participants had an interest in examining efforts to
infuse collaborative writing in courses at the college. However, our conversations were
not always without a level of frustration as we found that some of us had some previous
unsuccessful attempts at incorporating collaborative writing into our teaching. A clear
benefit from the seminar experience was that we had a platform for sharing our
successes and challenges and quickly discovered that we were not alone in our quest
for effective and practical strategies to put theory regarding collaborative writing into
practice. We have attempted to model the collaborative writing process by writing this
document together as a group. The goal was that the final product could serve as a
guide for instructors at William and Mary, but would also be relevant for faculty at other
colleges and universities in attempts to implement collaborative writing strategies.
In coming together as a group, we learned that we shared certain beliefs about
teaching and learning. Namely, we tend to embrace the constructivist perspective of
teaching and learning. We see the process of learning occurring as an act of
knowledge construction for the student, which implies a more student centered
classroom than an instructor centered one. In order for students to actively construct
their own knowledge (and actively learn), they should have classroom experiences that
enable them to consider and reflect upon their assumptions, evaluate and synthesize
new information, and critically reconcile this new information with their previously held
beliefs and assumptions. Collaborative learning environments in which students are
encouraged to inquire, discuss, explore, and evaluate with their peers can foster this
process of active knowledge construction. We see collaborative writing as one of the
essential tools for supporting a collaborative learning environment.
7
One motivation for focusing on collaborative writing came from College alumni
who have reported the need for more experience in working in groups as part of
students’ academic development prior to entering the workforce. Working collaboratively
provides not only valuable interpersonal and teambuilding skills, it can also deepen the
learning experiences for students (Wolfe 2010). Research in Cognitive Load Theory
suggests that collaborative learning environments may be an ideal model for
constructing, reorganizing, and acquiring new information (Janssen et al.
2010). Currently, the general term used for collaborative learning is group work or group
learning (Nilson, 2010). According to Nilson,
the research on the effects of group learning has focused on three fundamental
dimensions—achievement/productivity (learning), positive interpersonal
relationships, and psychological health—and group work yields positive results
on all of them (Johnson et al., 1991; Johnson & Johnson, 1989, 1994; Millis &
Cottell, 1998 as cited in Nilson, p. 156).
Research in the classroom documents the benefits of group learning in different course
levels and for different student experience levels. Yet, there are still benefits to
individual work and other forms of teaching strategies that should complement course
level group work. The shift to group work means that students must assume more
responsibility as a result of group expectations and responsibilities and that faculty must
structure the experience to obtain the best results.
In many ways, students and faculty are already engaged in collaborative writing
both in coursework and in research. This collaboration takes many forms, for example:
student revision and peer editing, developing a media project, or creating a class wiki.
We focus here on peer collaborative writing because we want to promote learning
environments that both facilitate student learning and that prepare our students for
success in the 21st century working world. Our goal is to make the process explicit for
faculty so that they can potentially pull a module from this document in order to begin
incorporating student collaborative writing into their own teaching.
Our focus on collaborative writing reflects the historical shift from the primacy of a
single author to the emergent collaborative nature of writing (Wolfe, 2010). Writing in
the 21st century work place takes many forms: document sharing, content building, or
8
multimedia production, to name a few. The modern digital working world enables
writers to bridge physical gaps and collaborate not only with peers in the office, but also
with colleagues around the globe. In academia as well, scholars are expected to
collaborate with their colleagues in research and publication, for example, in peer
reviewed journals (Creamer, 2004; Gappa, Austin, & Trice, 2007). If we intend to
prepare our students for access into academia and the 21st century work place, we
should consider integrating opportunities for collaborative writing within our classrooms.
In addition to equipping our students for their academic and professional
pursuits, well facilitated collaboration can potentially increase the learning experience
within our classrooms. Cooper, Robinson, and McKinney (1993) conducted a literature
review on cooperative learning in the classroom and found that “group learning is more
effective than traditional methods in improving critical thinking, self-esteem, racial and
ethnic relations, and positive social behavior” (as cited in Nilson, 2010, p. 156).
Interaction among students builds relationships and provides a platform for sharing
knowledge. As a form of group work, collaborative writing encourages students to
actively engage, debate, critique, and reflect on the relevant content for a writing
project. Collaborative writing also forces students to make decisions about what to
include and what to exclude and what to merge. Figure 1.0 illustrates the process of
collaborative writing. Thinking of writing as a process rather than simply a summative
assessment helps in considering how the act of collaborative writing might engage
students in knowledge building within our content areas. Finally, collaborative writing
also allows for the process of group work and teambuilding in our classrooms. Students
must consider differing perspectives and pool their talents and resources in order to
achieve a common goal (Wolfe, 2010). Our students will be dealing with large and
complex problems in their professional and academic pursuits and such large and
complex problems land at the feet of the team rather than the individual.
9
Figure 1.0: The Case for Collaborative Writing
*Improvements in technology
*Writing as cognitive process
*Constructivist pedagogy
*Increased learning outcomes
*Psychological health
*Positive interpersonal relationships
*Changes in workforce needs
*Shift to focus on learning
*Engagement through active
learning
Ever-evolving collaborative technology tools have opened up many new
opportunities for instructors to engage students in the writing process both inside and
outside the classroom. Web 2.0 technologies often serve as a support for collaborative
writing in both the classroom and the workplace. The emergence of learning
management systems (Blackboard, Moodle, etc.), the free availability of wikis, and the
ability to coauthor and edit in real time regardless of geography are just a few of the
ways that technology can support collaborative writing in our classrooms.
However, collaborative writing also presents challenges to students and teachers
who are more familiar and comfortable with the single-author approach. Some of the
challenges of collaborative writing by students for classroom assignments are the
evaluation of individual contributions, the time required to present the concept of this
strategy, and the ways different disciplines reward collaborative writing versus single
author writing (Nilson, 2010; Wolfe 2010). The intention of this document is to demystify
the process of collaborative writing and provide readers with practical examples,
strategies, and processes that enable them to implement collaborative writing into their
10
classroom teaching. As a starting point, the information presented here may help build
faculty confidence to explore the benefits of collaboration both in the classroom and in
their own research. The subsequent modules include practical information on planning,
facilitating, and assessing collaborative writing. There are four modules centered
around specific gateways for collaborative writing, single author peer review, Google
documents, wikis, and Blackboard, so that instructors might use all or some of the
modules as a practical starting point for integrating collaborative writing into their
teaching and coursework. We envision this as a process that will evolve and improve
through reflective use with students in classrooms.
Faculty Roles in Collaborative Writing
Prior to utilizing collaborative writing with students, faculty must consider the
pedagogy involved in managing this type of assignment and must reflect upon their own
assumptions about teaching and learning. The following questions provide a starting
point for faculty contemplating using student collaborative writing projects.

Acknowledging assumptions on knowledge building and ownership: Who owns
the knowledge? What is the best way to build the knowledge?

Reflecting upon teaching orientation: What kind of teacher am I? A content
deliverer, a mentor, a learning architect (interested in cognition), a nurturer, or a
champion of social justice? (See Pratt, 2002)

Considering course and program objectives: Does collaborative writing support
my learning goals?

Evaluating the impact on teaching: How will collaborative writing impact my
teaching? What are the ramifications for managing new types of grading? Can I
find support for exploring collaborative writing?

Planning, evaluating, and assessing Collaborative Writing: How will I plan and
execute collaborative writing in my instruction?
Student Roles in Collaborative Writing
Group work shifts the roles of students in the classroom. Students hold a
responsibility to the group for the final project rather than only having an impact on an
11
individual level. Group dynamics add another dimension to collaborative writing
projects. The following questions point to issues to consider regarding student roles and
expectations in collaborative writing projects.

Assessing orientations: What do students think about writing? How does
collaborative writing support the course content?

Learning to work in teams: What do students do when there is a disagreement?
What is their role in the team?

Learning to write collaboratively: What is the difference between contributing a
section to the final product and actual collaborative writing?

Learning to manage time: What is the schedule? How can students build in
checkpoints to make sure the team is on task?

Thinking about learning: What did students gain from the process? How can
collaborative writing aid in knowledge construction?
Assumptions
As we drafted this document, we realized that our ideas and practical
suggestions were based on several general assumptions about teaching collaborative
writing:

Sometimes the process of writing doesn’t look like writing: reading, discussing,
transacting, choice-making, evaluating, and reflecting are vital parts of the
process.

Collaboration may take place in a variety of forms (e.g., face-to-face, divided, or
layered) using a variety of tools (e.g., paper and pencil, within a learning
management system, in a wiki).

Writing is “thinking on paper,” thus through collaborative writing projects, we can
enhance critical thinking.

Teaching the process shifts the center of the classroom from the instructor and to
the students as active participants in knowledge-making.
12
By shifting – or sharing – the construction of knowledge within the classroom, we
have found it useful to think about our role in terms of “facilitator” or “project manager” –
the person who must oversee the logistics, as well as the content, of a project.
According to Joanna Wolfe (2010), author of Team Writing: A Guide to Working in
Groups, “the project manager needs to create a written task schedule that documents
deadlines, tasks, and responsibilities” (p. 14). In fact, by creating a syllabus and writing
up individual assignments, we do just that. Add to this list “defining how a project will be
evaluated,” and the description of our role is complete.
The language that we use throughout this document is built on research in
composition studies and education as well as science and business. Wolfe’s (2010)
research was funded by a National Science Foundation grant to study teams in
technical writing and engineering classes, thus her term “project manager.” We found
that this interdisciplinary language brought new perspectives; new language revealed
different ways to think about what we were doing and forced us to confront assumptions
embedded in the language of our own disciplines. For this document to truly reflect the
dynamics of collaborative writing, we imagine it being “remixed” by our readers to fit
specific teaching styles and course objectives. We hope you will embrace this
challenge by talking about the ideas with your colleagues, reflecting and writing about
the methods, adding assignments that worked (or didn’t), and sharing your expertise in
collaborative writing.
This manual begins with the last bullet listed above in under Faculty Roles in
Collaborative Writing, “Planning, Facilitating, and Assessing Collaborative Writing”. Our
guide then provides four modules of specific gateways for integrating collaborative
writing into your instruction: through single-author peer editing, through Google docs,
through a wiki, and through a learning management system. We hope that you find this
a helpful and practical guide that will assist you in trying out a new or remodeled
teaching tool or strategy that might facilitate collaborative writing and learning in your
classroom.
13
Module 1/Planning, Facilitating, and Assessing Collaborative Writing
This module reviews planning and implementing collaborative writing into
coursework. The planning process requires faculty to reflect on the ways in which
collaborative writing can help meet course objectives and to consider requisite teaching
strategies required for supporting this activity. Successful implementation of
collaborative writing into a class calls for setting student expectations and providing
training on the process. Finally, it is important to evaluate the collaborative projects and
establish links between the activities and overall course objectives.
Planning Collaborative Writing
 Does Collaborative Writing Fit My Course?
Designing a collaborative writing assignment or project requires a different form
of planning and facilitation than individual work assignments. While some of the
procedural issues are discussed below, it's equally important to understand the
pedagogical shift that is instrumental in successful collaborative writing integration.
Committing to using collaborative writing assignments in a class requires that faculty
shift their attention solely from final written individual products to group projects, which
include teaching about the process of collaborative writing (a process that may consist
of group research as well as talking and brainstorming), discussing group dynamics,
and reviewing of evaluation procedures. Ultimately, the choice to use collaborative
writing will affect both the class dynamics and the pacing of the syllabus. In particular,
there are three things we've found helpful to keep in mind from the outset:

Collaborative assignments take pre-class planning

The assignment’s structure and timing needs to be carefully thought through

The structure will inform assessment and grading
14
 Questions to Consider in Designing a Collaborative Writing Assignment
Collaborative writing assignments offer a variety of approaches to fit the comfort
level of faculty who may be concerned about allotting class time to teaching the process
of writing or introducing new collaborative writing technology. Course content and
discipline will suggest different entry points into the process (from individual peer review
to semester-long wiki projects), and course goals will suggest different end points.
Reviewing the following questions can help you to plan and structure a successful
collaborative writing assignment that is appropriate for your course and students:
1. What are the objectives for the assignment?

Master basic course content

Introduce supplementary materials

Employ active learning

Differentiate ways to evaluate student knowledge

Expose students to a wider audience

Teach group dynamics, building a collaborative class climate
2. What course needs and constraints will affect how you design the assignment?

Class size and level (freshmen, seniors, graduate students, etc.)

Flexibility of course content

Availability of assistance and equipment
3. How should I design the assignment?

Matching students and topics

Individual roles within group projects

Presentation of final project – including decisions on how much class time
required
15

Other requirements (proposal, storyboard, evaluation)

Creation of a materials list, if any, and addressing costs for students
4. How will I grade and/or evaluate the assignments/presentations?

Graded, pass-fail, general feedback

Percentage of course grade

Criteria for evaluation (rubric) – addressing individual contributions and various
stages of the process

Person doing the evaluation (professor, class members, self)

Deciding who will design the rubric, i.e., students, group, faculty
5. What assistance will be available to students?

Professor’s help with defining the topic

Workshop about use of technology (Google Docs, Power Point, iMovie)

Use of outside professionals/guests

Institutional support (Media Centers, IT, Academic Technologists)
It would be easier if there were hard and fast rules to help you answer the
questions above. In reality, though, the way you organize a group depends on the
focus of your course, the desired outcomes, the maturity of the group, the time
constraints, and other potential factors. For the smoothest facilitation of group learning,
it might help to construct a rubric that pertains to not only the product, but also the
process. Considering the end objectives of the assignment and how these are
evaluated via a rubric allows for backtracking into answers for several of the questions
posed above. Figure 1.1 provides a conceptual map that can help to begin your
collaborative writing assignment with the end in mind.
16
Fig. 1.1 Conceptual Map of Course Mapping
We have created a Collaborative Writing Planning Template that can help you in
matching your assignment goals to your desired outcomes (Insert 1.1). Once you have
determined the most appropriate parameters for the assignment, you can shift into the
design and development phase. We will explore some specific tools and designs in
each of the subsequent modules to target different forms of collaborative writing.
Facilitating Collaborative Writing
Many students come into a collaborative project having never worked in a
successful group; others have had extensive training and positive experiences. A key
concern for faculty is how to introduce a project and empower the students to make the
experience positive and productive. The key to creating a successful learning
experience is to allow a space for students where they can really collaborate on the
writing. Our job as faculty is to create that space.
17
 The Three Phases of Collaborative Writing
Most collaborative writing assignments and projects consist of three main
phases: initial-class preparation, class work, and post-project evaluation. While an
individual faculty member may choose to place greater emphasis on a single phase, it is
important to recognize each phase and its contribution to the success of the project.
Initial-class preparation
In the preparation phase, faculty members need to consider how students are
introduced to the project, become acquainted with the assignment requirements and
due dates, and how to organize groups to complete the work. The first task in this phase
is to determine how groups will be constructed. Group construction may be based on
assuring a mix for each group based on differences in: learning styles, gender,
diversity, experience, ideologies, or other variables. Likewise, group members may be
assigned roles or use group decision-making to assign roles. Typical roles might be
recorder, spokesperson, researcher, summarizer, checker/corrector, skeptic,
organizer/manager, observer, writer, timekeeper, conflict resolver, liaison (Nilson, 2010,
p. 158). Establishing the groups often begins with an initial group meeting - either during
class or outside class hours. A small investment up front pays great dividends. If you
have students spend 20 minutes at the beginning of the assignment to discuss the
process, the groups can begin to establish how they will work together to complete the
assignment. Often, we assume that students know how to work in groups. This can be
true to an extent, but they would benefit from talking about how they will work together
in this context. There are a number of ways to do this, ranging from an open
conversation about the process of group work, to an established "group charter," to a
mandated structure from the professor.
In her book, Team Writing: A Guide to Working in Groups, Wolfe (2010) suggests
several elements that contribute to an effective initial meeting (pp. 55-56):

Define what the team will do and how it will work

Defining what roles people play
18

Delineate methods for dealing with conflict

Develop a realistic task schedule with clear responsibilities and deadlines for
each task

Establish communication methods and guidelines for communicating
In this phase, students should also be introduced to and become familiar with the
particular tools and resources they will use in their writing. This might be specified by
the faculty member or left open to the students to decide. Either way, the students
should become competent with the tools to allow them to focus on the content of the
assignment.
Class Work
Once groups are formed, tasks are outlined, roles are established and deadlines
set, the role of the faculty member shifts to more of a consultancy role. Some students
may struggle with this more passive faculty position, but the shift of focus to student as
active learner is critical for success in the collaborative writing projects. As groups
encounter challenges either in regards to the content of the project or in collaborating
with one another, the instructor may be called upon to offer guidance. Additionally, in
larger projects, faculty may plan interim deadlines, rough drafts, and meetings with each
group to monitor progress, provide guidance, and ask probing questions. It is this "soft
scaffolding" that will be instrumental to each groups' success. So, while the instructor's
role changes in this type of assignment, she is no less involved with ensuring that
student learning goals are met.
Depending on the scope of the project, the focus of the learning goals, and the
experience of students with collaborative writing, the organization of class work in this
phase may be highly structured or more open-ended. Some faculty members choose to
create multiple check-points and/or drafts of writing throughout the semester. In other
cases, faculty may prefer to schedule group conferences to discuss their progress. As
the learning facilitator, it is important that the instructor set enough checkpoints and
guidelines so that the groups have a clear vision for staying on task and meeting
deadlines. Regardless of how the group work project is structured, the more active and
19
engaged the instructor is with the process, the better the final products will be. A
Learning Facilitator Checklist may help you in the facilitation process (Insert 1.2).
Post-project evaluation
Once the writing has been completed, students shift into the post-production
phase. This phase consists primarily of two elements - sharing and evaluation. In the
past, the professor has typically been the only audience for student writing. Digital
technologies, however, offer many opportunities to expand the audience for student
writing. From simply asking students to post their final papers in a Blackboard
discussion forum where they can see each other’s work, to formal presentations in
class, to publishing the products publicly on the Web, students can share their
knowledge with a much larger community. Evaluation consists of not only the faculty
assessment of the collaborative writing, but also group members’ evaluation of each
other. This could require the distribution of a set amount of points among the team.
This differential requires students to allocate more points to some and less to others.
Students may be part of the process to develop the criteria for evaluation of group
member participation.
Assessing Collaborative Writing
Evaluation of student work can take two primary forms - faculty and peer
evaluation. Faculty can evaluate the final product created as well as assess the
process that students' followed in the course of their work. You will need to decide
between grading the whole group or assigning each student an individual grade. It
could even be helpful to incorporate formal or informal peer assessment from other
group members in assigning the grade. Classmates can also offer qualitative feedback
on the projects either in class, or through posted comments. A blend of instructor and
peer evaluation is often a rich way to assess the product of collaborative work (Insert
1.3a; Insert 1.3b; Insert 1.3c).
20
Most faculty members are comfortable grading individual assignments.
However, when setting up collaborative assignments, one of the challenges is when
and how to evaluate the process, grade the project, or try to figure out “whose work am I
grading?”
 General Principles:

Remember that not all collaborative assignments need to be graded for students
to be learning

Use evaluation to teach the process of collaboration by grading parts of the
process or by involving students in setting up the evaluation criteria

Assessment can happen at any time; evaluation is usually focused on a product

Formative assessment can allow for continuous evaluation during the
collaborative writing process; Summative assessment provides an overall
evaluation of the projects

If peer reviewers are trained to frame their comments in the form of questions,
the writer will still be doing all the work.
When we typically think of assessment, we may tend to think of the final grade on an
exam or paper. An assessment, however, can take a variety of forms:

Formal and informal

Formative and summative

Instructor-led and peer-led
Assessment can serve primarily as a measuring stick to compare student progress in a
given class. It can also serve as a learning tool for students to recursively develop their
understanding more fully. The focus and form of the assessment should always
connect with the assignment objectives and student learning goals.
21
 Developing a Vision for Assessment
Collaborative writing assignments can be assessed in a variety of ways.
Instructors can grade the product in the same way as an individual paper might be
assessed, focusing entirely on the content of the writing. In this model, the instructor
might assign the same grade to each group member. This model may also be
supplemented by formative assessment check-points throughout the project to provide
graded or ungraded feedback to the students as they work through the project.
If, however, the instructor is focusing at least in part on the process of
collaboration, she may create an assessment plan that focuses not only on the final
product, but also on the effectiveness of the collaboration itself. Process assessment
can be solely at the discretion of the faculty member, peer evaluation of each member's
contribution, or some combination of the two. Some electronic tools such as a wikis
enable fine grain analysis of specific group members' contributions to a document. This
focus on process is perhaps more appropriate for large-scale, long-term projects;
however, students often appreciate being rewarded for the extra time and effort involved
in a collaborative writing assignment.
 Strategies for Assessing Collaborative Writing
Below we share several strategies that we have used over time to assess
students’ collaborative writing:

Include the grade as part of students' class participation grade. Collaborative
work often improves students' overall participation.

Use a form of self-evaluation:
o
In dialogue with instructor over mid-semester evaluation of class
participation
o
Set up a grading contract that lets students choose what grade they
should receive.
22
o
Give a group 100 points and ask each student that they would allot
portions among members
o
Include evaluation questions that ask students to reflect about their role in
the group and about the process.

Evaluate products at different stages of the process of a large-scale collaborative
project

Separate evaluation for group project and final product

Include peer-review/moderation throughout the process

If giving letter grades for peer review responses, develop clear rubrics (either by
charter or by the instructor).

Use a tool (e.g. wiki) history to assess/evaluate participation

Evaluate group work and individual work together as a single grade (everyone in
group receives same grade)

Have the group create a portfolio (check from time to time to see what
documents – dated - are in the physical portfolio). The instructor can then grade
both the final product and a separate portfolio that students construct over the
course of the project reflecting the process.
 Resources for Assessing Collaborative Writing
Several resources exist that can support collaborative writing, both for students
and for faculty members using collaborative writing in their classrooms. We have set up
a wiki site that contains the text of this material and that provides a forum for ongoing
conversation and exchange of best practices regarding the collaborative writing
process. (see http://collaborate.wmwikis.net/) Additional resources are located in
Insert 1.4.
23
Looking Forward
Collaborative assignments offer a variety of approaches to fit the comfort level of
faculty members who may be concerned about giving up class time to teach the
process of writing or introducing or learning new technology. Those who have not used
collaborative writing may want to begin with individual peer review, which builds on
basic individual conference techniques. This method also lends itself to courses, such
as first-year, writing-intensive freshman seminars, in which students write shorter, more
frequent papers or to the draft stage of a longer paper assignment that has been broken
down into stages. Group collaborative writing projects such as wikis may fit upper-level
courses or any level class that will benefit from a longer, sustained project. There is no
“one size fits all.” Different entry points into the collaborative process – from singlewriter peer review to semester-long group projects – should be determined by individual
course objectives.
In the following modules, we look at several of those entry points that can help move
the collaborative writing process forward.

Single Author Peer Review

Using Google Docs

Using Wikis

Using Blackboard
We will discuss the aspects of each of these four tools or methods in subsequent
modules. Additionally, you might find the Collaborative Writing Gateways Checklist
(Insert 1.5) a helpful tool for deciding which collaborative writing platform works best for
your assignment.
24
Insert 1.1 Collaborative Writing Planning Template
1. What is the goal and learning objective of this assignment?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
2. What are the constraints (time, class size, ability level, resources) I must
consider?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
3. If I need support or assistance with this project, where do I find that support?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
4. What will I grade and how will I do that?
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________
25
You can add or delete cells in the following table to create a rubric for your assignment.
You can delete the existing text to fill in your own requirements. The primary
assessment target for this rubric concerns the process of the group participation.
Another rubric may be created or this one expanded to evaluate the final projects and
assignments.
Exemplary/5
Proficient/4
Satisfactory/ 3
Unsatisfactory/ 2
Team work
The team worked
The team worked
The team had
The team had
(contributions,
together to resolve
as a cohesive unit
some difficulty
much difficulty
conflict resolution)
conflicts in a
that tried to
resolving conflicts
resolving conflicts
productive way
resolve conflicts
which may have
and had difficulty
that fostered
and to meet the
contributed to the
coming together to
collaboration and
project
quality of the final
meet the goal.
production.
requirements.
product.
Schedule (all
All deadlines were
The team met all
The team met all
The team did not
deadlines and
met by the team
but one of the
but two or three of
meet four or more
checkpoints were
as a whole.
checkpoints and
the checkpoints
of the checkpoints
deadlines.
and deadlines.
and deadlines.
Discussion,
A good amount of
Some evidence of
Very little evidence
drafting, editing,
writing as process
drafting, editing,
of a drafting,
and revision were
(drafting, writing,
writing, and
editing, writing,
apparent
revision) is
revising in the final
and revision
throughout the
apparent.
product.
process.
Fully meets the
Nearly meets the
Misses the mark
Fails to meet many
requirements of
requirements of
on two or more
of the assignment
the assignment.
the assignment.
objectives.
objectives.
met)
Writing Process
collaboration.
Final Product
Total Points
26
Insert 1.2 Learning Facilitator Checklist
Initial-class preparation
 Explain the project making sure that all groups are clear on the process
and outcomes.
 Determine the process for and facilitate group making.
 If group members will have specific roles, (ex. Technology Expert, Chief
Editor, define the roles).
 Discuss and model methods for dealing with intragroup conflict.
 Determine checkpoints and deadlines.
 Establish communication standards making sure that group members
have a (or multiple) means of communicating (face to face, email, phone,
instant messaging).
Class work
 Review with the teams common elements in group dynamics.
 Consult with groups on their progress.
 Complete any of the built in checkpoints, drafts, or deadlines.
Post-project evaluation
 Facilitate the established method for sharing the final product (presentation,
posting online, etc.).
 Evaluate products—both faculty and group members contribute to this
process.
 Possibly facilitate a reflection or debriefing period in order to assess student
perceptions of the collaborative learning process.
27
Insert 1.3a Sample Collaborative Writing Template Constructed in iRubric
(www.rcampus.com)
28
Insert 1.3b Blank Rubric Template
Task
Proficient
Satisfactory
Needs
Improvement
Additional
Comments
29
Insert 1.3c Sample Peer Evaluation Rubric
Students, complete the following grading rubric for each of your teammates.
Your name:
Teammate’s name:
Exemplary 5pts
Satisfactory 3pts
Commitment to
Teamwork
Cooperative
contributor to the
project. Offered
respectful and
positive feedback.
Written
Contribution
Helped with all of
the written work.
Active Editing
Stayed engaged
with team member’s
writing throughout
the project. Offered
feedback and
suggestions.
Met all deadlines.
There may have
been one or two
conflict areas, but
the teammate was a
positive team
player, for the most
part.
Contributed in some
way to more than
half of the written
product.
Read most of the
team member’s
writing. Offered
some suggestions
and feedback.
Deadlines
Production
Assistance
Helped a great deal
with the final
production.
Met most deadlines.
Helped somewhat
with the final
production.
Needs
Improvement 1pt
Did not work well as
a cooperating team
member.
Contributed very
little to the written
product.
Didn’t seem to read
very much of other
team member’s
writing. Offered
little to no feedback.
Missed more than
two deadlines.
Helped very little
with the final
production.
_______/25pts
Additional Comments:
30
Insert 1.4 Web Based Collaborative Writing Resources

Assigning Collaborative Writing: Tips for Teachers. From “Collaborative
Pedagogy” by Rebecca Moore Howard in Composition Pedagogies: A
Bibliographic Guide (2000).

Basic Writing Collaboration. Boise State University.

Collaborative Learning: Group Work and Study Teams (Berkeley)

Collaborative Writing Groups in the College Classroom, by Carol McAllister in
Studies in Writing (2005).

Collaborative Writing Strategies, New Century College

Guiding questions for developing assignments, University of Maryland University
College

iRubric

National Writing Project Resources for Teaching Collaborative Writing

Rubistar

Teaching tip sheet: Collaborative Writing, by Emily Viggiano

Texas A&M University Writing Center

The Writing Across the Curriculum Clearinghouse (Colorado State)

Using collaborative writing and problem-based learning in the college classroom,
by R.R. McCown and Mary P. Driscoll in Proceeding CSCL '95: The first
international conference on Computer support for collaborative learning.
31
Insert 1.5 Collaborative Writing Gateway Checklist
Use the list to determine which of the four methods we discuss will work best for your
instructional goals and constraints. You can add, edit, and delete cells in the table in
order to customize your comparative checklist
Single author
Multiple
authors
Multiple
Editors
Private
Audience
Potential
Public
Audience
Incorporation
of multimedia
Facilitates
discussion
Promotes
revision
Synchronous
Available Off
Campus
Single author
peer-review

Google Docs
Wiki
Blackboard



























32
Module 2/Single Author Peer Review
Overview
Single author peer review is the act of inviting a student peer or a group of peers
to read and critique a text authored by one writer. Single author peer-review differs
from other forms of collaborative writing in that the authoring remains a single entity
rather than a collective voice. The actual collaboration occurs at the point of review and
revision. Used at strategic points in the writing process, peer review provides feedback
in the form of an audience response. If successful, the peer review process will help a
writer shift a document from being writer-centered to reader-centered through both
content reflection and structure and style re-visioning.
It is important to have the class set up ahead of time of the day for peer review.
This way, students can be more focused on the direction for the review procedure
versus time used for further explanations. Faculty might also find it beneficial to give a
warning announcement when the time for peer review is nearly up. Time can be
adjusted based on the length of the assignment and class session. Faculty can monitor
the utility of the peer review process by having students keep all drafts of their work that
are done over the course of the semester. Remind students to keep the peer review
forms so that they can turn them in with their final drafts and these can then be used to
evaluate peer reviewer comments, student writing improvements, and the collaborative
process. Faculty can see what peer reviewers suggested and how this was
incorporated by the student writer.
Benefits
Several benefits exist for using single author peer review and these vary
depending on the level viewed. For instance, faculty may use this collaborative writing
process to meet particular learning objectives in their courses and student writers may
use peer reviewers as a means to improve their written products. Some potential
benefits of peer review are listed below.
 For Faculty
33

Easily adapts to various forms or class structures

Ensures that papers are not written at the last minute, thus faculty are reading
better papers

Builds in discussion about audience consideration as it gives the writer an
objective response to the ideas in a paper

Establishes a dialogue and sets up a common vocabulary about the writing
process

Emphasizes ideas and content for revision

Takes place either in class or out of class
 For Students/Writers

Acknowledges the needs of both the writer and reader; writing is not a solitary
act.
o
Asks questions about how to put an essay together
o
Initiates a dialogue about writing
o
Encourages critical self-reflection by the writer
o
Helps people learn to listen and to develop strategies for accepting
feedback

Suggests ideas about structure

Encourages thinking about the process of writing

Provides a space for students to ask provocative questions in a moment when
they might get addressed – before a final draft is graded.

Provides time for reflection and revision, stressing the cyclical nature of writing

Allows debate about the writing to form. Ultimately, the writer has to make a
decision about where to go in their essay; they learn that they are responsible for
what they produce.

Takes place either in class or out of class
Application
34
Single author peer review can take several forms.

One-on-one meetings between a reviewer and a student writer. The writer may
read the paper aloud, or the reader may read the paper prior to the meeting.

Draft exchanges. Two writers might exchange drafts and thereby become two
reviewers as well.

Pair-Share. Students exchange papers multiple times and thus get multiple
readers (Caution: the number of exchanges should be somewhat limited since
too many comments can overwhelm a writer).

Targeted review groups. Groups can be designed for different purposes. For
example, one group might be responsible for reviewing thesis statements while
another group is responsible for critiquing evidence or citations.

General review groups. For general review purposes, a group of students may
collectively critique a student text. One option is to include the writer in the
review process by having him or her read the paper aloud. The writer then
becomes a listener and must consider the role of audience in the writing process.

Class workshops. Class workshops provide an opportunity for faculty to model
and train students on effective methods for peer review. During a class
workshop, faculty members can guide the review process without commenting on
the individual drafts specifically. The workshop might begin with the faculty
member modeling the peer review process with a sample essay. Modeling peer
review will help students identify areas to focus on and will aid in determining
what kind of comments are meaningful (getting past the “good job” comment).
The workshop model can also aid faculty in working with weaker students.
Faculty can move around the room and check in with students during the review
process in order to help them negotiate the process. Before beginning a peer
review workshop, faculty will want to assess class time. The workshop model
does take a large amount of class time to complete effectively.
Whichever format faculty choose to explore, there are several general best
practices that will help to facilitate a smooth and productive single author peer review.
Insert 2.1a provides an example of a sample assignment and Insert 2.1b provides a
35
template for the peer review process. Planning is essential in any collaborative writing
endeavor. Faculty might build into the syllabus time to review a sample paper and,
later, to exchange papers. The method of exchange (random, strong writer/weak writer,
targeted groups) should be determined prior to the review class session. Some faculty
might find it helpful to create a rubric for the review process so that students have a
clear direction for the review process. Other faculty might find a directed set of
questions will aid in the review process. You can find a set of sample of general
questions that can be used in the peer process in Insert 2.1c.
In addition to planning, modeling peer review will also help facilitate an effective
review process. Faculty can model the process by bringing a sample student paper to
class, projecting it, and showing the class how the instructor would evaluate the writing
(this might take 30 minutes on a short paper). Modeling the process helps illustrate the
guidelines that peer reviewers will be expected to follow. Together, the class can
practice finding areas for improvement and making effective comments. Faculty might
have students practice turning comments into questions; for example, writing ”Is there
evidence that supports this?” rather than “Use a quote” downplays the expertise of the
commenter and focuses on the writer, potentially building writer confidence through
inquiry and self-reflection.
Faculty may want to build in ways to evaluate the process as well as ways to give
and receive feedback about the peer review process. More information on evaluation
strategies is covered in the section below. Some may want to read the peer review
comments before they are given back to the writer. Comments could be graded using
points, letter grades, or checks. Peer reviewers or review groups might be asked to
evaluate themselves as part of the process (What was your goal? Did everyone
participate equally? What did you learn?). Perhaps most important in the single author
peer review is the opportunity for the writer to reflect upon the review process. The
student writer might be asked to complete a form reflecting on the value of the student
comments. Writers can discuss what choices they made in their final revision and can
explain or defend these choices. Having the student writer complete a final reflection on
the process gets to the heart of the goal of single author peer review- using
collaboration to improve student writing and thinking for a single author.
36
Any of the methods listed above can be completed with or without the use of
technology. A traditional paper/pencil method of essay exchange might be preferable
for some faculty. Others may want to utilize existing technologies to aid in the review
process or to support an institution’s sustainability efforts. There are a few options for
technology supported peer review:
1. Word: Insert Comments
2. Word: Track Changes
3. Google Documents
First, faculty might have students use the “Insert Comment” feature in a Word
Document as the primary means for delivering peer review. This method is preferable
for leaving comments and questions that do not disrupt the text of the original
document. To insert a comment into a document, students will
1. Highlight the text they wish to comment on.
2. Under the “Review” tab, click “New Comment”.
3. Type comment or question.
4. Save changes to the document and email back to the writer. (See Figure 2.1)
Fig. 2.1 Sample of Word Comment Function
A second method for technology supporting single author peer review is the Track
Changes feature in Word. Track Changes allow the reader to make edits within the
original document. The edits and revisions will then be visibly depicted in the text. The
37
student writer can then decide to accept the suggested changes or to reject the
suggestions. The Track Changes method of review might be more preferable during a
final edit rather than the initial review. Track Changes can visibly identify grammatical
and mechanical suggestions, but questions and comments regarding the content of the
piece might be difficult to form in Track Changes. To Track Changes, students will
1. Under the “Review” tab, click “Track Changes”.
2. Edit the text with Track Changes turned on.
3. Save a copy of the newly edited text and email to student writer.
4. The student writer will decide whether to “Accept” or to “Reject” the suggested
changes using these buttons in the Changes panel. (See Figure 2.2)
Fig. 2.2 Sample of Word Track Change Function
If the goal is to have a group edit a single-authored text, then Google Documents might
be an option. (We will discuss the use of Google Documents in more detail in the next
module). Google documents might be preferable for those instances when group peer
review is to be completed outside of class. The group’s comments are recorded as is a
complete history of the document. This way, the author can decide which version to
use during the final revision. (See Fig. 2.3)
Fig. 2.3 Sample of Google Document
38
Considerations
As with any new instructional strategy, single-author peer review does come with
its own set of challenges. First, how should faculty group students of mixed ability?
One suggestion is to put students of equivalent ability into pairs. This way, the power
differential feels nominal within the pairing. For group reviews, it might be beneficial to
use small mixed level groups. Or, faculty can randomly assign pairs or groups. A
second challenge might be resistance from more advanced students who resent pairing
with a less advanced student. To thwart this from occurring, faculty will want to build a
class climate that upholds the value of mentoring and that acknowledges writing as a
process. Again, modeling is crucial in staving off such concerns. With training, even
less advanced students can provide useful feedback. A third challenge is a faculty
concern that the student has received “assistance” on the writing. If we recognize
writing as a process and acknowledge the value of peer review, then we are perhaps
more inclined to see the review process not as merely “assistance,” but as an essential
component of academic research, writing, and reflection. For grading purposes, one
strategy faculty might adopt is having student writers complete a reflection piece in
addition to the final written document. The reflection piece can outline the interaction
between the review process and the final revision, thereby making the student writer’s
contribution more apparent.
Evaluation Options
Faculty may want to weight the collaborative process differently, depending on
course goals. If the course goal is to facilitate the collaborative process and to teach
team building and conflict resolution strategies, then an instructor may want to design a
rubric that perhaps more heavily weights the collaborative process. (See Insert 2.2a).
39
On the other hand, other faculty may wish to use the collaborative process as a means
of encouraging thoughtful reflection while still evaluating only the merit of the final
product. An alternative rubric for the final product of this assignment appears in Insert
2.2b. Rubric generators like Rubistar (http://rubistar.4teachers.org/) and iRubric
(http://www.rcampus.com/indexrubric.cfm) can aid in designing custom rubrics for your
assignment. Additionally, you can modify the rubric located in Insert 1.3a of this booklet
to use in your evaluation for this assignment.
It is helpful to have students reflect on the peer review process to not only gain
insights into what has been accomplished by using the process, but also to begin to
question underlying assumptions they may have about writing and receiving feedback.
Insert 2.2c provides a format for collecting reflection comments. You may opt to use
this feedback as an assessment measure in your rubric for this project as well.
Resources for Peer Review
Below is a list of some additional information that can help you as you structure
your peer review assignments.
 Articles
Anderson, T. (2010). Peer editing could use some revision. The Chronicle of Higher
Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/Peer-Editing-Could-UseSome/66124/
Brown, K. (2010). Why peer editing matters to majors. Teaching Professor, 24(8), 6.
Nelson, S. (2003). Engineering and technology student perceptions of collaborative
writing practices. IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication, 46(4), 265276. Retrieved from
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/stamp/stamp.jsp?tp=&arnumber=1255525
Singh-Gupta, V., & Troutt-Ervin, E. (1996). Preparing students for teamwork through
collaborative writing and peer review techniques. Teaching English in the Two
Year College, 23(2), 127.
40
 Web Based Resources
Colorado State University. (n.d.) Teaching Guide: Using Student Peer Review.
http://writing.colostate.edu/guides/teaching/peer/
CUNY School of Law. (2010). Faculty Resources: Planning for Peer Editing.
http://www.law.cuny.edu/academics/WritingCenter/faculty/peer-editing.html
Dawson, M. (2010). Peer Editing Guide. University of Richmond Writing Center.
http://writing2.richmond.edu/writing/wweb/peeredit.html
Science Education Resource Center at Carleton College. (2010). Peer Review.
http://serc.carleton.edu/introgeo/peerreview/index.html
41
Insert 2.1a Sample Assignment
Peer Reviewed Argument Assignment
This assignment can be adopted and modified to fit in almost any course. Faculty can
choose a specific topic from their content area, or students can generate topics based
on the course content.
1. Purpose/objective
Students will apply material from the course by selecting a controversial issue from the
field and defending a position on this issue with evidence from research. Students are
asked to consider both sides of the issue but to argue only for one. Students will
● Conduct original research
● Write individually
● Review and critique peer arguments
● Reflect on the peer evaluations and revise for a final argument
2. Resources
Students will share a paper version of their arguments (though this plan could be
modified so that papers were shared in a Google Document).
3. Process
Nearing the end of the semester, students will conduct independent research on a
chosen or assigned controversial issue from the field. Students will compose a 4-6
page research position paper that supports this argument. On a selected due date,
students will bring a copy of the argument to class. Students will sit in a circle, and
exchange papers three times. Each reviewer will be directed to a specific set of
questions to read for peer review. (See Insert 2.1c for a sample). Students will revise
their arguments and complete a debriefing reflection which outlines the material that
was changed or altered due to peer review.
4. Timeline
Pre-class preparation- Determine whether students will select an issue or whether it is
more appropriate to assign one. Write up the assignment and create a rubric, peer
evaluation forms, and a debriefing form for the student writer. Set aside class time for
the peer review session.
In and out of class collaboration- Hand out assignment at least two weeks before the
first draft is due. On the peer review day, have one copy of each peer review sheet for
42
each student. Arrange desks in a circle. When students get to class have them pass
their papers to the right. Students will complete the first Peer Review Evaluation (which
will then travel with the original paper). After 10 minutes, students are asked to pass
papers to the right again. They will then complete the second Peer Review Evaluation
based on a new paper. After 10 minutes, students will pass papers to the right a final
time. They will complete the third Peer Review Evaluation. After the final review, all
sections of the peer review should be filled in. Papers should then be passed back to
their original owners. Students will consider the critiques, ask questions of one another
if needed, and revise the argument for final submission.
Post-project evaluation- Evaluate the final argument and the student author debriefing
form. Faculty members may wish to modify this assignment for future classes based on
responses from students on the debriefing form.
5. Suggestions for Evaluation
Faculty may want to weight the collaborative process differently, depending on course
goals. If the course goal is to facilitate the collaborative process and to teach team
building and conflict resolution strategies, then an instructor may want to design a rubric
that perhaps more heavily weights the collaborative process.
43
Insert 2.1b Sample Assignment Peer Reviewer Form
Directions for Peer Reviewer 1: Read the student argument. You may make editing
marks and suggestions on the document itself as you read. Your focus is on your
classmate’s assertion or thesis. Be sure to fully answer each of the following questions.
1. What is the author’s thesis? Is it as clear as it could be? Do you have any
2.
3.
4.
5.
suggestions?
What does the author do well in the paper?
Does each paragraph support the thesis? Explain.
What areas do you think the author could improve? Explain.
By the end of the paper, has the author proven his or her thesis? Why or why
not?
Directions for Peer Reviewer 2: Read the student argument. You may make editing
marks and suggestions on the document itself as you read. Your focus is on your
classmate’s evidence. Be sure to fully answer each of the following questions.
How many sources has the author utilized? How do you know?
Do the sources support the thesis? Explain.
Are the sources correctly formatted? Provide an example.
Did the author consider and respond to the “other side” of the argument? Do you
have any suggestions here?
5. What did you like about the paper?
1.
2.
3.
4.
Directions for Peer Reviewer 3: Read the student argument. You may make editing
marks and suggestions on the document itself as you read. Your focus is on your
classmate’s writing style. Be sure to fully answer each of the following questions.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
How would you describe the tone or voice in this argument?
What is the author’s writing strength?
What grammatical or mechanical trouble spots did you see?
How would you describe the author’s word choice and sentence structure?
Did you see any other areas for improvement?
44
Insert 2.1c Sample Questions for Peer Review
Sample A
Directions to the Peer Reviewer: Use the following questions to guide your analysis and
evaluation of your partner’s draft.
1.
What did you like best about this paper?
2. What is the thesis? Does it have a strong, argumentative claim? (Would anyone
disagree with it?)
3. Does the author provide evidence/proof that is concrete, specific, and logically
related to the thesis?
4. Does the author include adequate use of film analysis of visual details? Are the film
terms used correctly?
5. Does the organization form a coherent whole rather than a random sequence of
paragraphs?
6. Does each paragraph have a logical structure, i.e., beginning with a topic sentence
and building logically through supporting sentences?
7. Overall, is the sentence structure grammatical? If you see one or two errors that
recur, note them here.
8.
What connects the introductory and concluding paragraphs?
9.
If applicable: Are secondary sources used accurately and effectively?
10. What suggestions can you offer for improvement? (Answer this question via your
letter to the author and attach this worksheet.)
Directions to the Writer: After receiving your draft from your reviewer, address the
following questions, using the back of the sheet if necessary. Be specific in your
statements; avoid using only "yes" or "no" as a response.
1. Was your paper returned to you on time? If not, explain.
45
2. Were the written comments on your paper and on the peer review sheet specific,
clear and helpful? Explain.
3. How did you use these sets of comments in revising and developing your paper?
Explain.
4. During this process, what did you find most helpful? Least helpful?
5. Make any additional comments you feel would make this process smoother, easier,
or clearer, both for you and the other members of the class.
Sample B - used for small group exchange
Name of Writer: _________________
Peer Response Guide
As you read this paper, make marginal comments that indicate:
- Places that you think are well written (why?)
- Places where you need more information (why and what?)
- Places where you need examples (what kind? suggestions?)
- Places where you get confused (why? what would help?)
Now, answer these questions briefly on this page, and then discuss them as a group.
1. What overall strengths did you see in this paper? What does the writer do well?
2. What overall weaknesses do you see in this paper? What in general needs
improvement?
3. Sum up the writer’s point in one sentence.
4. Where did you have the most trouble following the writer? Why? How could the
writer clarify his or her idea(s)?
5. What specific suggestions for improvement do you have?
46
Insert 2.2a Sample Rubric—Emphasis on Collaborative Process
First draft
Exemplary/5
The first draft is
complete and
submitted on time.
The student has
put forth maximum
effort in writing a
robust first draft.
Peer editing
contribution
The student very
fully responds to
each of the three
drafts he or she
read in the editing
circle. The
comments are
useful and will
contribute to the
peer’s revision.
Final draft
The final draft is
well argued. The
position is clear,
well supported, and
there is ample
evidence of
revision.
The student very
thoroughly and
thoughtfully
completed the
debriefing
reflection. The
student comments
are constructive.
Debriefing
Reflection
Proficient/4
The first draft is
complete and
submitted on time.
The student has
put forth
acceptable effort
in authoring the
first draft.
The student fully
responds to each
of the three drafts
he or she read in
the editing circle.
The comments are
thoughtful and will
likely contribute to
the peer’s revision.
The final draft is
well argued. The
position is clear,
well supported,
and there is some
evidence of
revision.
With one or two
exceptions, the
student very
thoroughly and
thoughtfully
completed the
debriefing
reflection. The
student comments
are constructive.
Satisfactory/3
The first draft is
complete, but the
student could
have put forth
more effort.
Unsatisfactory/2
The first draft
seems
incomplete.
The student
responds to each
of the three drafts
he or she read in
the editing circle,
though one essay
may be edited
more fully than
another. Some of
the comments
and suggestions
could be more
complete.
The argument is
clear, though the
support may be
lacking. There
may be little
evidence of
revision.
The student
responds to the
debriefing
questions, but not
as thoroughly or
thoughtfully as
expected.
The student
contributed very
little during the
editing process.
There are very
few comments,
and those that
exist are not
particularly
helpful.
Either the
argument is weak
and unsupported
or there is
absolutely no
evidence of
revision.
The student does
not thoughtfully
respond to the
debriefing
reflection
questions.
Total Points
_____ (out of 20
possible
points)
47
Insert 2.2b Sample Rubric—Emphasis on Writing Product
Thesis
(Assertion)
Logic and
Reasoning
Exemplary/5
The position is
clearly and
strongly stated
within the
introduction.
The assertion is
thoughtful and
logical.
Logic and
reasoning are
clear and adept
throughout the
argument. The
student
considers and
responds to the
opposition.
Evidence and
Support
There is APA or
MLA formatted
research in
support of the
argument. The
student includes
more than the
required
sources.
Grammar and
Mechanics
The paper is free
of grammar and
mechanical
errors.
Stylistically, the
writing is strong.
Proficient/4
The position is
stated within the
introduction.
The assertion is
logical.
Satisfactory/3
The position can
be inferred, or it
may seem
somewhat
illogical.
Unsatisfactory/2
The position
does not clearly
emerge.
With one or two
exceptions, the
logic and
reasoning are
clear and
coherent
throughout the
argument. The
student could
have more
thoroughly
considered and
responded to the
opposition.
With one or two
exceptions, there
is APA or MLA
formatted
research in
support of the
argument. The
student includes
the required
sources.
There may be
one grammatical
or mechanical
error.
Stylistically, the
writing is good.
The final draft
includes at least
three reasons
that attempt to
support the
thesis/assertion.
The student did
not attempt to
respond to the
opposition’s
stance.
The logic and
reasoning may
not be clear or
coherent
throughout the
argument.
The research
may be
incorrectly
formatted or
cited, or the
student may be
one source shy
of the
requirement.
Either the
student does not
properly format
the research or
the source
requirements are
not met.
There are two or
three errors
within the paper.
There are four or
more errors
within the paper.
Total Points
_____ (out of 20
possible points)
48
Insert 2.2c: Author Debriefing Reflection
1. As a reviewer, did you find the peer review process helpful? Explain.
2. As a writer, did you find the peer review process helpful? Explain.
3. Did you make any revisions based on your 3 peer reviews? If so, what did you
change or revise?
4. Were there any suggestions from your peers that you chose to ignore? If so,
which suggestions and why?
5. Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for completing peer reviews
in future classes?
49
Module 3/Google Documents
Overview
More than seven million students at high schools, colleges and universities
across the country are now using Gmail as their official email provider. Each of those
email accounts comes with a suite of other free applications to produce spreadsheets,
calendars, presentations, drawings, and word processing documents. The huge base
of students and faculty with access to the same suite of free tools holds enormous
promise for the future of collaborative writing. One of the goals of our May seminar was
to work with the Google Docs applications to learn more about how they work in
practice and how we might use them with our students in teaching and research. Using
the Google Docs interface is commonly referred to as working “in the cloud” because
the product is not housed on an individual’s computer. Rather, the document is located
in cyberspace.
Our experience in writing this document using Google apps suggests that these
applications offer an entry point to collaboration midway between “single author peer
review” and the more wide open culture of the public wiki. Potential products of the
collaboration range from short papers or essays to multi-section documents (such as
this booklet) that can easily be shared on the Internet or in more traditional formats.
The Google tools are far from perfect, but they offer a range of potential benefits that
extend the capabilities of traditional office applications. When assignments are carefully
structured and managed, using Google Docs can enhance the process of collaboration
by providing additional tools for communications and sharing.
Benefits
Several benefits exist for those using Google Docs. The fact that these tools are
familiar to most users helps shorten the learning curve for using the technology. There
are several options available for editing, including options to include comments and to
track changes. Google Docs allows for real-time collaboration, making it an option to
use in-class as well as with out-of-class assignments. The technology allows for
controlling the various versions of the documents that allows for tracking of changes
50
over time. The openness of the writing space allows more flexibility compared to typical
paper-oriented collaborative writing.
 Familiar Interfaces
Google documents offers a variety of document templates, including
presentations, spreadsheets, and word processing documents. Most faculty members
have grown up with word processing documents. Depending on our disciplines, most of
us use some combination of Word, PowerPoint, and Excel in our daily work. While
some of the more advanced formatting features aren’t available in Google Documents,
the tools we use most often, such as character formatting, footnotes, tabs, and
numbered lists and bullets, are incorporated in the most recent version of Google Docs.
The applications are under constant development and new features are being
incorporated. Our students, too, are just as familiar with the interfaces offered within
Google Documents. Students are able to start collaborating in Google Docs with
minimal training. Not only that, but Google offers extensive training pages on each of
the aspects of Google Docs: http://docs.google.com/support/bin/topic.py?topic=15114
 Multiple Methods for Commenting and Revising
Unlike the Microsoft Office applications, which were designed primarily to be
used by individual users on stand-alone machines, the Google Apps suite has
collaboration “baked in rather than bolted on.” Here, the ability to collaborate is
integrated into the application versus merely an add-on tool that may have fewer
optional features to support collaboration. Google Docs was designed from the ground
up to be used “in the cloud” and to take advantage of the interactive nature of the
Internet. While editing or writing, collaborators can either make suggestions in the
margins with the new comments feature, or they can edit or revise the text directly.
Multiple methods offer different styles of collaboration for different styles of student
learners and writers.
51
 Real-Time Collaboration
The most distinguishing feature of Google Docs is that it enables simultaneous
editing by multiple users at the same time. If you and another collaborator are editing
the same document at the same time, a box with the name of the collaborator appears
at the top of the screen. As your collaborators make changes, you'll see their edits in
real time. It’s also very easy to set up a chat window with other editors within the
document. This feature allows for additional exchanges to take place concurrently with
the writing process. Figure 3.1 below shows a screen shot of this feature.
Fig. 3.1: Screen Shot of Editing Features in Google Docs
 Automatic Version Control
Collaboration is also enhanced by the automatic version control embedded in the
application--a feature that has been missing from the last several revisions of Microsoft
Word. While the version control in Google Docs is far from perfect, the application does
keep a complete history of all changes while still allowing everyone to be working on a
single up-to-date copy. Google versioning also provides multiple levels of automatic
backup. The revision history feature enables the group or original author to revert back
to an older version of the document, if necessary. This feature also allows you the ability
52
to trace the history of the shared writing assignment, allowing a view of individual
student participation and group collaboration.
 Open and More Transparent Writing Space
Working in the Cloud offers a writing space that is freed from the confines of the
classroom or the restrictions of the physical page. Students can easily control who has
access to participate, and members of the group can monitor participation through the
revision history. Such transparency also invites you as the faculty facilitator into the
collaboration (if this is deemed preferable for the collaboration). For instance, you can
add comments and suggestions and even redirect the project during the writing
process.
Application
Students will need an opportunity to practice collaborating in Google Documents
in a class session. Groups should discuss options for a “Plan B” in the event that a
student has an issue with Google Documents. (For example, a group might be able to
email or Facebook a working outline.) Faculty should also lead a discussion on how to
collaborate on the final document. During the post-viewing class session, student
groups can divide the tasks for the final document (by assigning sections to author).
They can copy and paste their assigned and completed sections or coauthor and edit
(synchronously) during a selected time. You should address any concerns students
might have about a team member not contributing to the collaboration. Remind
students that through “Revision History” there is evidence of each individual’s
collaboration. Finally, while the collaboration should occur within Google Documents,
the final product should be exported into a Word Document to turn in for the
assignment. The rationale for exporting into Word is to allow editing of the final version
to take advantage of a wider range of formatting features.
Google Documents includes word processing, spreadsheet, presentation, and
drawing applications. Thus, a variety of forms of collaborative writing can be supported.
From brainstorming ideas to coauthoring a presentation, students can collaborate in real
time regardless of their geographic location. Google Documents, then, is a useful tool
53
which allows students a means to extend their collaboration beyond class time. The
ability to collaborate synchronously is Google Documents biggest draw. Insert 3.1
provides a sample assignment using Google Docs.
Classroom uses for Google Documents can include

Brainstorming sessions

Peer Editing

Concept mapping

Coauthoring text

Creating and compiling data sets

Coauthoring a presentation

Co-building rubrics or plans
To begin with Google Documents, both you and your students should log into your
Gmail accounts. From the options in the top left screen, choose “Documents.”
Students and faculty can begin a new document by selecting “Create New” or they can
upload an existing document by clicking “Upload.” Figure 3.2 provides a screen shot of
this action. You may create folders for student groups or different classes you are
teaching that use this form of collaborative writing.
54
Fig. 3.2: Screen Shot to Set Up a Google Document
Once a document has been uploaded or created, collaborators can share the document
with others. Once the document is opened, click “Share.” Figure 3.3 shows the location
of this feature. Collaborators will be able to enter the email addresses of those with
whom they would like to collaborate. For classroom management purposes, it is a good
idea for you to create or upload the initial document and to invite the students who will
be collaborating.
Fig. 3.3: Screenshot of Sharing Feature
55
To edit a document, collaborators simply open the shared file and begin typing. Student
writers can change font color or highlight to indicate changes, if they wish. If students
wish to insert comments into a text, the comments will appear along the margins of the
word processing document. If the collaborators wish to go back to an earlier version of
the document, they can click the “Revisions” tab and “Revert to this one.”
Considerations
Google Documents is a widely used tool for supporting synchronous
collaboration. Faculty who are interested in exploring how Google Documents can
support collaborative writing in their classes may find the following management tips
helpful before initiating a Google Documents project or assignment.

Collaborators must have Google accounts (not necessarily Gmail).

Faculty should work with the application before making an assignment.
Recruiting a colleague in order to practice with the real-time collaboration
features can help you to get a sense of how they work in practice.

Give students a chance to practice some with the interface as well so that
everyone is familiar with the details of how to complete specific tasks. It can
be helpful to have a common assignment to start the process. For example,
Assignment #1 at
http://connectedcampus.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/google/ outlines a simple
procedure for introducing students to Google Documents.

Most classes will also require some time for students to establish the ground
rules of how they are going to manage the writing process. The form of those
“rules of engagement” will be determined by the scope of the project--ranging
from a simple email summary to a more extensive and formal “charter.”

Be aware of the formatting limitations. While the capabilities of Google
documents are improving all the time, the developers are the first to admit
that the formatting features still lag behind those of a full-featured desktop
word processor. (One of the lead programmers recently stated that today’s
Google Doc is roughly analogous to Word 2003. The current shipping version
of Word is 2010, so there are numerous features that are missing in Google
56
Docs that students may be accustomed to using.) Getting the precise
formatting for document can be tricky, particularly with lots of tables or
embedded figures.

If the final product is to be a printed document, students should do most of
their drafting directly in Google Docs and download the finished work to a
more full featured word processor. Uploading and downloading multiple Word
documents can produce formatting problems that are difficult to resolve.
Evaluation Options
As with single authored peer review assignments, you may want to weight the
collaborative process differently, depending on course goals. If the course goal is to
facilitate the collaborative process and to teach team building and conflict resolution
strategies, then you may want to design a rubric that weights the collaborative process
more heavily. (See Insert 3.2a). On the other hand, you may wish to use the
collaborative process as a means of encouraging thoughtful reflection while still
evaluating only the merit of the final product. An alternative rubric for the final product of
this assignment appears in Insert 3.2b. In an effort to promote fair participation in the
collaborative process, instructors could also choose to include peer assessments of the
collaboration as a part of the assignment grade.
One method of including an individual’s collaborative effort as a part of that
student’s final grade is to average the group’s assessment of that student with the final
grade for the final product. For example, let’s imagine Group 1 consists of Adeline,
Kathryn, and John and that this team obtained a final grade of 18/20 points (or 90%)
using the rubric depicted in Insert 3.2b. Individual students also complete the following
peer evaluation form to show how they felt each group member’s contribution to the
collaborative effort. See Figure 3.4. (An editable version of this Peer Evaluation form is
located in Insert 3.2c.)
57
Fig. 3.4: Sample of Peer Evaluation of Individual Member Contributions
Continuing with the example above for our sample group, the average of
Adeline’s effort score (the rate she gave herself averaged with the rates that Kathryn
and John submitted) is 100. A faculty can average the collaborative effort (for Adeline
100%) with the score from the final product (90%) to get a final project grade of 95% for
Adeline. Let’s imagine that Kathryn rated her contribution at 100 points, Adeline rated
her contribution at 90 points, and John rated her contribution at 80. Kathryn’s averaged
rating (90%) averaged with the group score on the final project (90%) makes her final
grade for this project 90%. John realizes that he did not contribute as much as the
other group members. Therefore, he rates his contribution at 80. Adeline and Kathryn
both give him 50 points. The average of John’s rated contribution (60%) averaged with
the group score on the final project (90%) makes his final grade for this project 75%.
Another version of peer evaluation is to have individual group members distribute
100 points among group members, excluding themselves. The scores for each
individual are summed providing a participation grade which can then be averaged with
the final product grade. For example, using the same group members, Adeline might
complete the form in figure 3.5 in order to evaluate Kathryn and John’s participation. (An
editable version of the form in Figure 3.5 is located in Insert 3.2d).
58
Fig. 3.5: Sample of Point Distribution Peer Evaluation
The resulting evaluations will be summed together to get a final participation score. The
scores will add up to around 100 points for each student, with students who contributed
more likely receiving more than 100 points and students who contributed not so much
likely receiving less than 100 points. This score can be averaged with the overall final
product grade in order to get each group member’s final grade for the collaborative
project.
These are only a few examples of the multiple methods of evaluation for
collaborative writing. You can design the method of evaluation to suite your comfort
level and to best meet the objectives of the assignment. Students will want to be clear
on grading criteria at the outset, so it is important the instructors establish the rubrics
and method of evaluation before implanting the assignment.
59
Resources for Google Documents
Below is a list of some additional information that can help you as you structure
your peer review assignments.
 Articles
Educause Learning Initiative. (2008). 7 Things you should know about…Google Apps.
Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELI7035.pdf
Reyna, J. (2010). Google Docs in higher education Settings: A preliminary report. In
Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and
Telecommunications 2010 (pp. 1566-1572). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Retrieved
from http://www.editlib.org/p/34846.
 Web Based Resources
Byrne, R. (n.d.). Google for Teachers…Books, Docs, Maps, and More.
http://content.yudu.com/Library/A1na6j/GoogleforTeachers/resources/index.htm?referre
rUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freetech4teachers.com%2F2010%2F03%2Ffree-33-pageguide-google-for-teachers.html
Google Docs Help: http://docs.google.com/support/bin/topic.py?hl=en&topic=15114
Kaechele, M. (n.d). How to upload, create, and share using Google Documents.
https://docs.google.com/present/view?id=dct37q7n_207hf39z7cf
Strickland, J. (n.d.). How Google Docs Works.
http://communication.howstuffworks.com/google-docs.htm
Warner, M. (n.d). 32 Interesting Ways (and Tips) to use Google Docs in the classroom.
http://www.ideastoinspire.co.uk/googledocs.htm
60
Insert 3.1 Sample Assignment
Collaborative Documentary Response
This assignment is based upon student reactions to a selected PBS Frontline
documentary. Therefore, the assignment can be adapted to fit any course for which
there may be a documentary pertaining to the discipline. This assignment may also be
used in a Writing or Media studies course. (The process outlined in this lesson could
also be duplicated in a movie, newscast, or radio program reflection and response.)
1. Purpose/objective
Students will apply material from the course by responding to the ideas put forth in a
selected Frontline documentary. (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/) Students
will
● Critique and reflect upon the issues raised in the documentary
● Write collaboratively
● Edit and publish a collaboratively authored written response to the film
● (Faculty might also encourage students to conduct research on order to provide
facts in support of their responses)
2. Resources
Students will need access to a television and PBS channel if the documentary is to air in
real time. Frontline offers a collection of 97 archived documentaries for free older
programs for viewing online. To watch archived documentaries and to collaborate in
Google Documents, students will need computers with internet connections.
3. Process
Students will watch a selected documentary at the Frontline archived films page
(http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/view/?utm_campaign=homepage&utm_mediu
m=bigvideo&utm_source=bigvideo). (The faculty can select the film that most
appropriately fits the content area. If this assignment is argument for analysis for a
Writing or Media course, then student groups may select the film.) Students will select a
time to watch the documentary. They will watch it in their own rooms, but will watch it at
approximately the same time. While viewing the film, students will outline the major
arguments put forth in the documentary. This will be a collaboratively authored outline
in Google docs. Once the video is completed and students have authored the outline,
they will decide upon the major themes of the argument. Students will come to the next
class session ready to share their outlines and themes. The instructor will then direct
them to complete the second part of this collaborative writing assignment during the
subsequent week. Students will coauthor a response/reflection to the themes espoused
in the documentary.
61
4. Timeline
Pre-class Preparation- Assign groups and determine whether students will watch
a pre-selected documentary or whether groups will select a documentary. Write up the
assignment and create a rubric. Create blank shared documents for each group. This
way, individual students do not have to deal with account creation and management. If
students are not familiar with Google Documents, plan to use some class time to allow
students to “practice” in Google Docs. A practice assignment is located at
http://connectedcampus.wordpress.com/2008/07/21/google/
In and out of class collaboration- Hand out assignment at least two weeks before
the first draft is due. In class, student groups will determine a time (a two-hour window
on a selected date) during which they will view the film and collaboratively outline the
argument. At the end of this two hour window, students should have generated a list of
the major themes in the documentary. During the next class session, students will
discuss the documentary within their groups. They will make a plan for completing the
written reflection collaboratively within Google Documents during the subsequent week.
Post-project Evaluation- Evaluate the documentary responses. Student groups
may wish to share their responses with the rest of the class through discussion or a
more formal product (presentation).
5. Suggestions for Evaluation
Faculty may want to weight the collaborative process differently, depending on course
goals. Two sample rubrics are provided below. One evaluates the collaborative
process (Insert 3.2a) and one evaluates the final product (Insert 3.2b). Additionally,
faculty can modify the rubric located in Insert 1.3a.
62
Sample Student Directions:
Your group will select a documentary from the Frontline archived programs to watch,
critique, evaluate, and respond to. You will use Google Documents as the method for
collaborating on this project. Use the following timeline to plan your project:
Class Session Date_______ Meet in your groups to browse through and select the
documentary. Establish a two hour time period that you will all view the film and
collaborate in Google Documents. During this class session, you will also practice
collaborating in Google Documents.
Two-Hour Window_______ Log into your Gmail account and open the shared
document. While viewing the documentary, collaborate with your group members to
construct a general outline of the argument established in the documentary. Be sure to
list any questions you may have or any areas of the argument that you find
questionable. Once the outline is generated, your group should generate a list of the
major themes of the argument or issue as well as any areas of the argument that your
group calls into question.
Class Session Date________ Meet in your groups in order to discuss the documentary
and to determine the schedule for collaboratively authoring the reflection piece. Be sure
to address the following points in your reflection:





Briefly outline the issue raised in your documentary.
What does the filmmaker’s perspective seem to be regarding this issue?
What evidence does the filmmaker offer in support of this argument?
In your group’s opinion, which aspects of the argument are strong? Which are
weak? Discuss.
What is your group’s final critique/evaluation of this documentary?
Due Date________ By this date, the final polished paper will be submitted to your
instructor. (Be sure this is a Word Document).
63
Insert 3.2a Sample Rubric—Emphasis on Collaborative Process
Documentary
Outline
Theme List and
Questions for
Consideration
Evidence of
Collaboration
Reflection Paper
Exemplary/5
The group
produced a
comprehensive
outline of the
documentary.
Proficient/4
The group
produced a good
outline of the
documentary.
Satisfactory/3
The group
produced a basic
outline for the
documentary.
The group
concluded the
outline with a
thorough theme
list that outlines
each of the major
points in the
documentary.
Additionally, the
group listed
engaging
questions for
consideration that
facilitated
discussion and
reflection.
The revision
history indicates
substantial group
collaboration.
The group
concluded the
outline with a
thorough theme
list and thoughtful
questions for
consideration.
The group
concluded the
outline with a
theme list and
questions for
consideration,
though the list
could have been
more
comprehensive.
The revision
history indicates
an appropriate
amount of group
collaboration.
The group
authored reflection
paper responds to
the major themes
in the
documentary and
asks engaging and
probing questions
in response to the
argument.
The group
authored reflection
paper responds to
the most of the
major themes in
the documentary
and explores
relevant questions
and counterpoints.
There is some
evidence of group
collaboration. It
looks as though
one student may
have carried the
group or that the
collaboration took
place only briefly.
The group
authored reflection
paper responds to
the major themes
in the
documentary,
though somewhat
superficially.
Unsatisfactory/2
There was a
problem with the
initial collaborative
effort. Students
did not find a
solution to the
conflict and
therefore did not
satisfactorily
complete the
outline of the
argument.
The group may
have overlooked
either the themes
or the questions
for consideration.
The revision
history indicates
little group
collaboration.
Either it appears
that one or more of
the group did not
contribute to the
paper or the
reflection paper
does not critically
consider and
respond to the
argument or issue
posed in the film.
Total Points
_____ (out of 20
possible points)
64
Insert 3.2b Sample Rubric—Emphasis on Final Product
Argument/Issue
Summary
Argument/Issue
Response
Probing
Questions or
Counterpoints for
Consideration
Grammar and
Mechanics
Exemplary/5
The group
successfully
conveys the major
themes posed in
the documentary.
The group
thoughtfully and
critically responds
to the
issue/argument.
The group asks
probing questions
or makes
engaging
counterpoints in
response to the
documentary. The
discussion is
supported with
examples. Great
evidence of logic
and reasoning
skills.
The paper is free
of grammar and
mechanical errors.
Stylistically, the
writing is strong.
Proficient/4
The group
successfully
conveys the most
major themes
posed in the
documentary.
The group reflects
on the
issue/argument.
The group asks
questions or
makes
counterpoints in
response to the
documentary. The
discussion may be
supported with
examples.
Evidence of logic
and reasoning
skills.
There may be one
grammatical or
mechanical error.
Stylistically, the
writing is good.
Satisfactory/3
The group
conveys the basic
stance/issue
posed in the
documentary.
Unsatisfactory/2
The group seems
to miss the mark
on some of the
major themes in
the documentary.
The group
responds to the
issue/argument,
but perhaps only
superficially so.
The group asks
questions or
makes
counterpoints.
The discussion
may lack evidence
or may be limited
in logic and
reason.
There is little to no
reflection on the
issue/argument
raised in the
documentary.
The exploration of
probing questions
or counterpoints is
minimal.
There are two or
three errors within
the paper.
There are four or
more errors within
the paper.
Total Points
_____ (out of 20
possible points)
65
Insert 3.2c Sample Peer Evaluation Form
Directions: Using a 100 point scale, rate each of your group member’s collaborative effort in this
project (including you). For example, if each student fully contributed to the collaborative effort,
then each student should get 100 points. If a student did not contribute anything to the
collaborative effort, that student should get 0 points
Group Member’s Name_____________________________________ Effort______________
Group Member’s Name_____________________________________ Effort______________
Group Member’s Name_____________________________________ Effort______________
Group Member’s Name_____________________________________ Effort______________
Directions: Using a 100 point scale, rate each of your group member’s collaborative effort in this
project (including you). For example, if each student fully contributed to the collaborative effort,
then each student should get 100 points. If a student did not contribute anything to the
collaborative effort, that student should get 0 points
Group Member’s Name_____________________________________ Effort______________
Group Member’s Name_____________________________________ Effort______________
Group Member’s Name_____________________________________ Effort______________
Group Member’s Name_____________________________________ Effort______________
Directions: Using a 100 point scale, rate each of your group member’s collaborative effort in this
project (including you). For example, if each student fully contributed to the collaborative effort,
then each student should get 100 points. If a student did not contribute anything to the
collaborative effort, that student should get 0 points
Group Member’s Name_____________________________________ Effort______________
Group Member’s Name_____________________________________ Effort______________
Group Member’s Name_____________________________________ Effort______________
Group Member’s Name_____________________________________ Effort______________
66
Insert 3.2d Sample Peer Point Distribution Evaluation Form
Directions: You have a total of 100 points to distribute to your group members.
Consider the contribution made by each group member. Divide the 100 points among
your group members to indicate who contributed more, and who contributed less. If
each group member contributed equally, then they should receive the same number of
points. Include a brief rationale for your point assignment for each group member.
Divide the 100 points among your team members; do not evaluate yourself.
Group Member’s Name
Points
________________________________
_________
Rationale:
________________________________
__________
Rationale:
________________________________
_________
Rationale:
________________________________
__________
Rationale:
67
Module 4/Wikis
Overview
The word “wiki” comes from the Hawaiian term “wiki wiki” which generally means
“quick” (for an interesting correspondence on the etymology of the term, see
“Cunningham Correspondence on the Etymology of Wiki” at
http://c2.com/doc/etymology.html). A wiki is a digital space that provides tools for multiauthor content building. Wikis can provide significant advantages for multiple-authored,
large-scale collaborative work both for instructors and students. Faculty and students
can access wiki platforms from various locations. For example, at William & Mary,
faculty and students can utilize the wiki built into Blackboard or the wiki supported by
Wikispaces at www.wmwikis.net. (WM Wikis a more feature-rich wiki editor for
coursework projects and research. WM Wikis [a Wikispaces private label] will be used
as the demonstration wiki in this module).
While each wiki tool has unique features, at its most basic level, a wiki enables a
user to create a basic Web site and invite multiple collaborators to assist in the
development the site. All work is done directly in a Web browser with a simple editor
that requires no advanced technical skills. A wiki can contain multiple pages and link to
or embed a variety of media including text, images, audio, and video. Privacy settings
can often be selected to allow the creator to determine who can view and contribute to
the content created in the wiki.
Wiki-supported collaborative writing can help students develop skills in writing,
revision, and editing; group dynamics; web work; audience consideration; and selforganization. Some college students may already be familiar with wikis as this
technology is finding its way more and more into pre-collegiate teaching, in some cases
as early as elementary school.
Benefits
 Faculty
As with the other collaborative writing techniques presented, wikis provide a
platform that allows for ease of coordination among collaborative writers. What differs
with wikis is the range of options of presentation tools. Wikis move beyond traditional
68
writing formats and extend to other forms of communication, such as video, podcasts,
and links to outside media. A summary of some of the benefits of wikis follows.

Because the instructor can define the parameters of the project, a large scale
project in a wiki can focus on important content, skills, and processes relevant for
a specific course. In particular, a wiki supports both individual and group
research projects.

The ability to share the wiki development among multiple student authors allows
the faculty member to structure a project of greater scope and depth than might
be possible for an individual student.

The concise nature of content on the Web challenges the students to synthesize
information in a more focused way and requires them to make choices regarding
the organization and presentation of information far beyond what is required in
writing a paper.

In terms of assessing student work, the instructor can choose to grade the final
output of the group holistically or track individual students' contributions to the
project over time using the “History” feature embedded in wiki sites.

A wiki allows instructors to empower their students to create a Web publication
without the technical expertise required in building a conventional Web site.
 Students
As a collaborative tool, students can build on the multi-media aspects of social
media with which they are already familiar. The interface for developing wikis is user
friendly and capitalizes on existing information, providing students with opportunities for
synthesis and application.

Developing a Web-based publication can provide students with an audience for
their work beyond their classmates and instructor. Because wiki sites are
indexed in search engines in much the same way as conventional Web sites,
wikis have a global audience. (Wikis can be set to private or public depending on
the ultimate objectives of the project).
69

This public audience may both provide students with a more meaningful final
product and incentive to self-monitor the quality of their work.

The collaborative nature of wiki development can afford students the ability to
contribute in multiple ways. For example, a strong writer can focus on polishing
the final text for a particular page, while the more artistic students can contribute
to the quality of the work through visual elements.

Working collaboratively on a long-term project helps students to develop their
organizational skills and provides them with valuable opportunities to learn to
work effectively in a group.

Online content building is a real world skill that will be required of many of our
students upon graduation. Collaborative writing in a wiki provides practice for
this skill, even for students who do not have a technical background.

A tangible, public product can be gratifying for the students and be included in a
portfolio of their academic work.
Application
Wikis can facilitate group writing and collaboration (such as shared space for
posting research) as well as individual student performance (such as a personal
portfolio). With the ability to embed videos, links, and other multimedia texts, wikis can
provide a platform for media rich content building.
Classroom uses for wikis can include

Coauthored projects and texts

Coauthored annotated bibliographies

Electronic portfolios

A shared space for research compilation

A working lab book

A collaboratively built and maintained accompaniment to course
material

A place to build a professional toolkit (that can be accessed even after
the class is completed)
70

Projects that span the course of a semester or of one class

Projects that span the space of the institution (state, national, or global
collaboration)
Before beginning a wiki assignment, you will want to spend some time planning the
actual assignment and implementation of the assignment. For example, you should
consider how the wiki can help to meet the goals of the course and project. Begin with
the end in mind. What is the goal of the project? Is this reflected in the rubric? What is
the timeline? How much time will be needed to learn the technology? To complete the
assignment? Who is the intended audience? What support is available? (For
example, Academic Technologists and Information Technology Staff).
To begin a wiki,
go to the selected
Fig. 4.1 WM Wikis Homepage
wiki tool (such as WM
Wikis). See Figure 4.1
to locate how to create
a new wiki. There will
generally be a login
space to create an
account or, if you
already have an
account, to create a
new wiki. If the goal of the project is to have the class as a whole contribute to the wiki,
then you should create just one wiki for the project. If smaller groups are to author
group wikis, you can create the necessary number of wikis and invite group members to
join, or, the individual groups can create wikis themselves. If you wish to view the
progress of the wiki, you will need to be a member of the wiki (and therefore the former
method may be preferable).
In the age of social media, many of us (faculty and students alike) have some
experience in writing multimedia rich content on the web. Despite this experience,
learning a new tool or platform requires some “hands on” practice. Therefore, for a
71
smooth implementation of wiki writing, you should build in some class time for students
to “play” and experiment with the wiki authoring tools. (You, too, should spend some
time getting to know the technology before assigning it in class). Specifically, students
should explore how to set up a page, upload a file, add an image, create a table of
contents, and insert a link. (For William and Mary faculty, support for these tasks is
provided at http://www.wmwikis.net/). Appendix A provides a tutorial for using WM
Wikis, which is also located online at the web address just listed in the previous
sentence. Additionally, you can find a sample Wikispaces assignment in Inserts 4.1 and
4.2. Note that these assignments are compatible with Wikispaces. The assignment
presented in Insert 4.1 includes a link to a class created wiki site, which provides an
example of a final class project. Other wiki platforms may have slightly different features
and steps. As noted at the beginning of this module, the Blackboard platform also has a
wiki feature. The difference between the Blackboard application and the Wikispaces
option concerns the number of features available for posting and editing and the
intended audience. In Blackboard wikis, you must be a enrolled in the class to access
the wiki, making for a smaller audience. You may ultimately export the wiki to post
online at the conclusion of class, but if this is your intention, you will find it easier to work
with WM wikis throughout and simply change the viewing option from private to public.
Once students are familiar with the technical aspects of the wiki, explain the wiki
assignment and student responsibilities. What will the checkpoints be? Are students
assigned specific roles? (For example, “Editor-in-Chief” or “Artistic Editor” or “Technical
Editor”). When students are clear on the technical workings of the wiki and on the
assignment requirements, work in the wiki can begin.
Considerations
Wikis offer a great platform for long-term multi-authored texts and projects.
While wikis do allow for multimedia embedding, the primary function of the wiki is text
based collaboration. The formatting features within a wiki page can sometimes have
“glitches,” particularly when students use many images and clips or when authors
attempt to copy and paste from a prewritten text. Users might find that an image
72
displays just a bit off center or that dragging an embedded icon shifts the formatting.
However, wiki editing tools are gradually improving and becoming more sophisticated.
Students will need an opportunity to practice working in the wiki during a class
session. Groups should discuss methods for collaboration. Students may wish to write
fully collaboratively or to divide sections of each page. If students divide tasks (for
example, one student completes the class summary, one the definitions, one the
examples, one the artifacts) they may wish to vary who takes which role for subsequent
class sessions. If groups divide tasks, they can still use the wiki to edit and revise their
group member’s contributions. It is a good idea to be mindful of the following tips for
working with wikis.

Students can be invited by a faculty member to join a wiki or they can make a
wiki of their own. It is a good idea to determine the process for wiki account
creation and joining before assigning the project.

Both faculty and students will need opportunity to practice with the technology
before completing the assignment.

Avoid copying and pasting when possible, as formatting often does not “stick”.
The best advice is to format the page after the writing is complete rather than
before. Often, students who author a nicely formatted page in Word feel
frustrated when their text does not copy exactly into the wiki. For students
who are more comfortable writing first in a personal document, then pasting
into the wiki, they should be advised to save their text as a Rich Text File (.rtf)
and to avoid and major formatting.

Use general file extensions (.doc, .rtf, .pdf, etc.) to upload and share files
within the wiki. Only audio files saved as .wav or .mp3 will reliably play in the
wiki. Original videos should first be uploaded to a hosting site (like YouTube
or TeacherTube or GoogleVideo). Once hosted, the video can be embedded
into the wiki.

Be mindful of audience. The wiki organizer can control who can view and edit
the wiki. It is a good idea to make students aware when the wiki is permitted
to be viewed by the general public.
73
Evaluation Options
The sample assignments in Insert 4.1 and 4.12 each contain a sample rubric for
evaluation. The format of evaluation is based on the intentions of the assignment. As
with general class assignments, learning outcomes and course objectives will drive the
focus of the evaluation to evaluate student learning. The assignment presented in Insert
4.1 is a final project that creates a wiki with the intention of making the wiki space public
upon the completion of the course. Insert 4.2, on the other hand, creates a wiki with an
internal audience in mind—in this case the students in the class. The learning
objectives for each assignment differs and as a result, the form of evaluation shifts.
Resources for Wikis
Below is a list of some additional information that can help you as you structure
your peer review assignments.
 Articles
Caverly, D. C., & Ward, A. (2008). Techtalk: Wikis and collaborative knowledge
construction. Journal of Developmental Education, 32(2), 36-37.
Educause Learning Initiative. (2008). 7 Things you should know about…Wikis.
Retrieved from http://net.educause.edu/ir/library/pdf/ELi7004.pdf
Kolowich, S. (2010). Whither the wikis? Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from
http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2010/07/14/wikis
University of Delaware. (2008). Wikis in higher education: An exploratory report about
the value of wikis in higher education, from a faculty perspective. Retrieved from
http://www.udel.edu/saka/training/printable/wiki/Wikis_in_Higher_Education_UD.pdf
 Web Based Resources
74
Barton, M., & Cummings, R. (Eds.). (2008). Wiki writing: Collaborative learning in the
college classroom. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=dcbooks;idno=5871848.0001.001
Commoncraft. (2007). Wikis in plain English. Retrieved from
http://www.commoncraft.com/video-wikis-plain-english
Jones, J. (2009). Wikis (part1): In the classroom. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/wikis-part-1-getting-started/22678
Jones, J. (2009). Wikis (part 2): In the classroom. The Chronicle of Higher Education.
Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/wikis-part-2-in-theclassroom/22686
Schroeder, B. (2008). 10 Best practices for using wikis in education. Technology
Teacher. http://itcboisestate.wordpress.com/2008/05/21/10-best-practices-for-usingwikis-in-education/
75
Insert 4.1 Sample Rubric and Assignment
Faculty Development Wiki Rubric
Points Points
Poss. Awarded
Criteria
5
Professional design of Wiki page; all links work; visual appealing
5
Collaborative work—evidence of equal participation, active involvement
7
Draws from course literature, discussion, and review to cover key issues
4
Provides historical overview of selected topic
4
Posits future challenges and areas on the horizon
25
Total
Faculty Development Wiki (25%)
With retirements occurring in community colleges, many of these institutions are hiring large
numbers of new faculty for the first time in years. Not all of these new hires have had
experiences with the culture and expectations of community colleges. This group project
intends to produce a training Wiki that community colleges can access to help new hires to
acclimate to the community college environment. Likewise, this Wiki will be of interest to new
community college leaders, who are increasingly coming from outside of higher education
contexts and do not have a depth of knowledge regarding community college evolution or
pressing concerns.
The following pages will be included on the site. Each page should include a summary of topic,
a list of resources, attractive presentation, video as appropriate. Teams will be assigned for
each page and may be linked to the discussion board groups as appropriate.







History of Community Colleges
Organization and Governance
Community College Leadership
Academic Instruction
Community College Students
Outreach Functions
Future Issues
The wiki is located at http://communitycollegeoverview.wikispaces.com/
76
Insert 4.2 Sample Rubric and Assignment
Collaborative Class Notes
This assignment is adapted from Associate Professor of English at Central Connecticut
State University Jason B. Jones’ “Classroom Notes” assignment (Jones, 2009 retrieved
from http://chronicle.com/blogs/profhacker/wikis-part-2-in-the-classroom/22686). This
semester long wiki assignment can be adapted and modified to fit any course.
1. Purpose/objective
Students will summarize class lecture and discussion by coauthoring class notes into a
class wiki. Students will also explore extension material to make connections to and
further support the course content. Students will
● Work in groups to summarize and coauthor class content and notes.
● Define course terminology.
● Use the web to find extension material for course content (related articles, data
sets, artwork, documentaries, virtual exhibits, maps, etc.).
2. Resources
Students will need access to a computer with an internet connection.
3. Process
Students will work in predetermined groups to coauthor class notes on selected class
sessions. After each class session, the selected group will author the class notes for
that class sessions content.
Sample Student Directions:
You will work in a group throughout the semester to collaboratively author class notes
for each of your assigned class sessions (see Class Notes Schedule or Syllabus). Your
task is to work collaboratively to effectively summarize and synthesize the information
presented in class. Within your group, you will create a wiki page for each of your
assigned class sessions. Each wiki page will include:



A 200-300 word summary on the class content
A list of key terms, defined. Additionally, there should be supporting examples
(at least one) for each definition.
Artifact links. Link to 3 or more artifacts that support or extend the content for
that particular class session. Artifacts could include a peer reviewed scholarly
77
article, a map, a painting, a data set, an editorial, a news cast, a podcastwhatever your group deems a support or extension of the course content for that
day. (Note that 3 is the minimum requirement).
Your wiki pages should also be free from errors, grammatical or otherwise. Supporting
graphics, fonts, and formatting can enhance your pages’ “look” and “feel”.
To gain access to the class wiki, check your email. I have emailed you each an
invitation to join the class wiki. From the wiki link, click “join”. Remember to keep your
username and password in a safe place.
We will practice writing, editing, linking from, and uploading to the wiki in class before
you begin the collaborative note taking assignment. Additionally, you can find tech help
for the wiki at http://www.wmwikis.net/
4. Timeline
Pre-class Preparation- Divide the class into an appropriate number of groups. Each
group will be responsible for one or more day’s notes. A sample schedule for a Spring
semester course with 5 groups appears below (Figure 1). Notice that one early class
session is devoted to wiki exploration.
78
Fig. 1: Sample Class Notes Assignment Semester Timeline
Additionally, faculty will want to create the initial wiki and invite students to join the wiki.
It might also be helpful to provide a sample page as a model for acceptable class notes.
In and out of class collaboration- Early on in class, allow students an opportunity to
explore the wiki in their groups. They can practice writing, editing, uploading files, and
inserting links. Once the assignment has been explained and once students have
practiced in the wiki, the actual collaborative writing can take place outside of class time
as homework.
Post-project Evaluation- Evaluate each group’s class notes. In the sample assignment
adapted from Professor Jones, he provides a “working” draft grade so that groups can
add, edit, and update their class notes until the end of the semester. Students should
also be reminded to use the class wiki as a resource for exam review.
5. Suggestions for Evaluation
79
Instructors can determine whether to evaluate an individual day’s notes or to evaluate
the collective effort of the group’s wiki notes. An example rubric for evaluating the
collective group wiki notes is provided below (Figure 2). Additionally, faculty can modify
the rubric located in Insert 1.3a.
Fig. 2: Sample Class Notes Evaluation Rubric
Exemplary/5
The group has
authored 5
comprehensive
class summaries.
The summaries
fully cover course
material.
Proficient/4
The group has
authored 5 class
summaries. The
summaries
adequately cover
course material.
Terminology
Definitions &
Examples
The group clearly
lists and defines all
terms and
operational
definitions from
each of the
assigned class
sessions. The
group also includes
thorough examples
for each definition.
The group lists and
defines all terms
and operational
definitions from
each of the
assigned class
sessions. The
group also includes
examples for each
definition.
Supporting &
Extension
Artifacts
The group exceeds
expectations for
providing extension
artifacts on each
page.
The group meets
the requirements for
providing extension
artifacts on each
page.
Collaborative
Effort & Style
The collective
notes are wellauthored. It seems
as if the group
worked together
seamlessly. Each
wiki page entry
looks great, with
supporting images
and media.
The collective notes
are well-authored.
It seems as if the
group worked
together
seamlessly. Each
wiki page entry
looks great.
Class Summaries
Satisfactory/3
The group has
authored 5 class
summaries, though
they may not meet
the length
requirement or be as
complete as they
could.
With one or two
exceptions, the
group lists and
defines terms and
operational
definitions from the
assigned class
sessions. The group
includes thorough
examples, though
one or two may be
missing.
The group provides
three links or
extensions on each
page. The artifacts
may not be diverse,
or may not fully
support the course
content.
With one or two
exceptions, the
collective notes are
complete. For the
most part, the group
worked well as a
team.
Unsatisfactory/2
The group missed
one or more of the
required 5 class
summaries.
The group
overlooked some of
the key terms from
the assigned class
sessions. The group
may also have failed
to provide examples
of the definitions.
The group fails to
meet the
expectations for
providing extension
artifacts on each
page.
The group seemed to
have difficulty
working together.
The class notes may
read as though they
were written
individually rather
than as a group
effort. The wiki
pages include errors.
Total Points _____
(out of 20
possible points)
80
Module 5/Blackboard
Overview
Learning Management Systems (LMSs) are software packages that provide
comprehensive sets of tools for course authorship and content building, student
evaluation and assessment, peer collaboration, and general course management.
There are currently over 90 available Learning Management Systems, including
Blackboard, Desire2Learn, and eCollege, to name a few. This module will focus on
Blackboard, though many of the tools discussed here (blogs, discussion boards, grade
books, group tools, journals, wikis) are tools that are typically part of many LMS
packages. Many, if not most, colleges and universities now utilize a Learning
Management System for both face to face classroom support and e-learning. With the
emergence of free open source LMSs like Moodle and Sakai, even institutions with
budgetary concerns can experiment with Learning Management Systems.
As a platform for collaborative writing, Learning Management Systems can
effectively promote writing as process. Because there are multiple entry points for
authorship (both individual and group) located under the umbrella of one LMS, a
platform like Blackboard can support the progression of the writing process. Students
can move an idea from an individual personal journal reflection, to a discussion board
conversation, to a collaboratively authored wiki page or to a more formal individual
researched response.
Learning Management Systems can also aid in creating a student-centered
course because of the opportunities for student contributions outside of class meeting
times. LMSs typically offer more than just text based methods of communication, so
students can vary or complement their textual interactions with one another with audio,
images, or even multimedia. Students who may be more inclined to utilize images or
audio to convey a message can effectually participate in the collaboration. LMSs also
provide opportunities for student- initiated discussions, posts, and collaborations,
thereby offering chances for students to control their participation. Permitting student
initiated authorship (without a student having to “raise a hand”) coupled with providing
student choice about which tools or instruments to use veritably puts the student “in the
81
driver seat” of his or her learning. The locus of power can shift from the instructor to the
student, at least perceivably so, thereby enabling the emergence of the student as
inquirer. The online option for contributing to class discussion also provides a means to
reach a broader array of student learning styles.
Benefits
 Faculty

Provides multiple tools in one location.

Promotes environmental sustainability- assignment areas provide a way
for students to submit digital files.

Promotes efficiency and ease of grading- links assessments and
assignments directly to the grade book.

Provides tools for times when instruction must take place at a distance
(Wimba, Lecture Capture, discussion boards).

Affords ease of course revision. Courses can be copied and updated from
semester to semester.

Integrates Web 2.0 technologies (wikis, blogs, discussion boards, file
sharing, etc.).

Aids in establishing a sense of class community.

Offers a safe space for inquiry and exploratory learning.
 Students

Provides multiple tools in one location.

Provides various platforms and tools for either student initiated or
instructor led group work and collaboration.

Facilitates multiple entry points into writing and communicating- students
can choose a platform and customize responses with audio, images, or
video.

Enables learning-on-the-go. Course content can be accessed from a
mobile device.

Increases accessibility to course instructor and material.
82

Increases interaction with students and instructor.

Delivers course content and communication tools in a familiar platform
(when institutions subscribe to one LMS).

Offers a safe space for inquiry and exploratory learning.
Application
Blackboard can provide a “one stop shop” for facilitating a collaborative writing
project from beginning to end. From individual reflection to group discussion, from
group planning to peer editing, from task management to group content building,
Blackboard, and many LMSs, provide tools that support each potential step in the group
writing process.
A sample of possible Blackboard supported classroom activities includes:

Pre-class reading journals

Post-class discussion board debriefings

Virtual class sessions

Audio peer editing and feedback

Wiki building for a non-public audience

Blogging for a non-public audience

The ability to file share and collaborate in groups to support an ongoing
research or writing project
What distinguishes Blackboard from the other entry points we have discussed in earlier
modules is the ability to manage groups and group work in one location. Therefore, our
discussion of LMS supported collaboration will focus on the group tools within
Blackboard.
The available tools included in Blackboard group features include blogs,
collaboration, discussion boards, email, file exchange, tasks, and wikis. The blog tool
allows a group to maintain a blog for which each group member can contribute. This
group blog is visible to the entire class. The blog can be tied to the grade book for ease
of grading. Collaboration offers two tools
83
for students to collaborate in real time: chat
Fig. 5.1 Blackboard Collaboration Tools
and virtual classroom. (Both provide
opportunities for live chats, though the
lecture hall also offers a basic whiteboard
for sharing. A Java plugin is required to
run both collaboration features). The
group discussion board provides an
area for group members to hold threaded
discussions. Email allows group
members a location to compose an email
to group members, though this email is
actually delivered through the students’
regular school email account (not within
the Blackboard course shell). File
exchange offers a way to share files (word documents, images, presentations, pdf
articles, etc.) with other group members. Group members can share research or even
share a document that is co-authored by the group. The task tool allows group
members to list and describe tasks that must be completed. They can select due dates
and the level of importance. Group members can set tasks as “Not Started,” “In
Progress,” or “Completed.” The tasks tool provides a great way for group members to
efficiently manage work. Finally, there is also the option to create a group wiki. Recall,
this wiki function is accessible only to those enrolled in the class and is not public.
While the blog, discussion board, and wiki all provide a way for students to
collaborate on some level, the differences between the tools should be considered
when determining which tool best suits curricular needs. The blog provides an
individual student or group with an opportunity to self-author and reflect. Other
classmates can reply to an individual’s post, but primary mode of discourse is individual
authorship. In a group blog, any group member can author a blog entry. The entries
are visible to the entire class or only to those in an assigned group should you opt to
create groups within the larger class. So, group members might take turns updating or
adding to the blog. (Group members, as well as the rest of the class, can comment on
84
individual blog posts). A discussion board differs from a blog in that the purpose is to
exchange and discuss information and ideas. Discussions boards offer a platform for
sharing insights, asking questions, and offering support. As with the blog feature, you
may set up the discussion board for the entire class’s participation or you may create
sub-groups and set up a discussion board within the sub-group that only students in the
group can access. Discussion boards are useful for engaging in scholarly debate,
continuing a class discussion, exploring open ended questions, and sketching out the
“how” and “why” of a project. Wikis provide a place for a collaboratively built web page
of content. The final product is a group authored page (or pages) of relevant content.
Depending upon the goals of the assignment, faculty will want to determine ahead of
time which tools best align with the assignment goals.
Facilitating collaborative writing within a Learning Management System like
Blackboard can support inquiry based learning as well as help foster a sense of class
community. One of the benefits of utilizing the tools within an available LMS is that the
course work and collaboration remains private in the sense that it does not move
beyond the scope of the class participants. From reflective blog entries to exploratory
discussions to collaboratively authored wikis, Blackboard supports student exploration
in a safe space. With opportunities for one to one student-instructor interaction as well
as peer collaboration and communication, such a safe place for inquiry can encourage a
virtual community of exploration and scholarship.
You can easily set up student groups within Blackboard. Before doing so, you
will want to map out the goals and methodologies of the assignment in order to
determine which grouping features to enable for student groups. Additionally, you will
want to consider which features will be associated with a grade. You can initially set up
student groups, group tools, and associated grades in one fell swoop. (You can always
add or alter these features and grades and groups at any time during the course).
To begin creating groups
Fig. 5.2 Creation of Groups in Blackboard
in Blackboard, log in to
Blackboard and select
“Groups.” Select “Create
Single Group.” You have
85
the option to select “Self-enroll” or “Manual Enroll.” If you wish to determine the group
members ahead of time, you should select “Manual-enroll.” If you wish to allow
students to select groups (for example, perhaps students can sign up for a project topic)
then you will select “Self-enroll.”
Faculty will then be directed to a screen where there are 5 steps to complete in
order to create a group.
1. Name the group and add any necessary information or description.
2. Determine which collaborative tools you will enable for each group. At this step,
you can tie the blog and wiki tool to the gradebook, if you wish.
3. Decide whether or not to “Allow Personalization.” (Allowing group members to
customize their collaborative space by changing the color and atyle and by
adding modules like “What’s New”).
4. In step four, select group members or create sign-up options, depending on
whether the groups are “self-enrolled” or “manual-enrolled.”
5. Click “Submit”.
Considerations
Blackboard offers a wide range of tools and options for customizing course work
and student collaboration. At the very least, LMSs provide a shell for course content
and file management. At the most, LMSs make effective e-Learning possible. An LMS
like Blackboard can support a low-tech or high-tech collaboration, as well as a short
(one class) or long (semester long) time-frame for collaboration. You will want to be
sure that they enable the tools that best meet the needs of their assignments and that
they spend time exploring the tools themselves. You should have a working knowledge
of the tools that you ask your students to utilize. It might be a good idea to create a
“Non-Academic Course” within Blackboard just to use for exploring the available tools.
In this sample Blackboard shell, you might engage in testing out the features of
Blackboard with a group of your peers. This type of faculty development could be a part
of Teaching Project though the Charles Center or hosted within a department or school.
Additionally, while LMSs offer robust tools, the tools themselves will not
necessarily inspire student participation and engagement. For example, if students are
86
only briefly and superficially responding on a discussion board, you will want to work to
moderate and redirect the discussion. It is important to provide clear expectations
about participation on the discussion board and to tie these expectations in to course
objectives. So, while the tools provide the platforms for collaboration, you must provide
the model and direction.
Evaluation Options
Faculty may wish to use a point value system to award grades for participation in
the process of the collaboration and a rubric to evaluate the final product. See Insert
5.1 for an example of a discussion board assignment and associated rubric. Since
blogs, discussion boards, and wikis within Blackboard can be directly linked to the grade
book, you can insert points as tasks get completed. (For example, 10 required blog
entries may be worth a total of 10 points, or 10 required discussion board posts a total
of 10 points).
We have included a sample assignment on authentic assessments in Insert 5.2.
The rubric for the authentic assessment will differ depending on both the discipline and
the task. A non-discipline specific rubric has been provided that may be adaptable to a
variety of course topics. Additionally, faculty can explore rubrics for authentic
assessments here http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/rubrics.htm as well
as peruse sample authentic tasks and rubrics here
http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/examples/authentictaskexamples.htm.
Resources for Blackboard
Below is a list of some additional information that can help you as you structure
your peer review assignments.
 Articles
87
Bradford, P., Porciello, M., Balkon, N., & Backus, D. (2007). The Blackboard learning
system: The be all and end all in educational instruction?. Journal of Educational
Technology Systems, 35(3), 301-314.
Gerdes, C., & Kuhr, P. (2004). The Blackboard course makeover of ethics and the
media. TechTrends: Linking Research & Practice to Improve Learning, 48(5),
73-76.
Johnson, E. L., & Green, K. H. (2007). Promoting mathematical communication and
community via Blackboard. Primus: Problems, Resources & Issues in
Mathematics Undergraduate Studies, 17(4), 325-337.
Larkin, T. L., & Belson, S. (2005). Blackboard technologies: A vehicle to promote
student motivation and learning in physics. Journal of STEM Education:
Innovations & Research, 6(1/2), 14-27.
Osborn, D.R. (2010). Do print, web-based, or Blackboard integrated tutorial strategies
differentially influence student learning in an introductory psychology class?
Journal of Instructional Psychology, 37(3), 247-251.
 Web Based Resources
Blackboard Inc. (2010). Blackboard Release 9.1 Help
http://library.blackboard.com/ref/cfe7cf10-620a-43d2-ba13-7ac99b3cd1d2/index.htm
College of William and Mary. (n.d.). Blackboard FAQs.
http://www.wm.edu/offices/it/academics/blackboard/faqs/index.php
Davis, E., & Hardy, S. (n.d.). Teaching writing in the space of Blackboard.
http://www.bgsu.edu/cconline/DavisHardy/index.html
Duke Center for Instructional Technology. (n.d.). Blackboard great ideas.
http://cit.duke.edu/ideas/projects/category/type/blackboard-great-ideas/
Mueller, J. (2010). Authentic assessment toolbox.
http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/index.htm
88
Insert 5.1 Sample Rubric and Assignment
Current Event Article Rubric
Points Points
Poss. Awarded
1
Appropriate Article Section
Criteria
2
Linked Discussion Questions. Consider—How does the change
theory to date inform this topic? How prevalent of an issue is this for
colleges? Does this differ depending on type of institution?
2
Discussion Dialogue: links theory to date with the article. Responds
appropriate number of times; depth of analysis and thoughtful
responses
5
Total
Contemporary Article (5% each assignment date—total 25%)
Issues are constantly emerging in higher education. Groups of three will be assigned
for this project. During the semester there are a set of five times in which your group
will engage in a discussion board conversation about a current higher education issue.
For each of the assignments, you will select and post an article pertaining to a
contemporary issue. You should select an article that corresponds with the weekly topic
(for example, if the topic is student issues—pick a current event article on students,
etc.). These articles should be short, news oriented, and accessible for other students
to read either as a PDF or a link. The assignment consists of three portions: A)
selection and posting of current event article; B) creation of 2 discussion questions that
tie in the course readings with your article; C) response to the other two students’
questions and their replies to the questions you have posed.
89
Insert 5.2 Sample Rubric and Assignment
Authentic Inquiry and Task Collaboration
An authentic assessment is an assignment that reflects a real world task in a given field.
Whereas more traditional forms of assessment have typically taken the form of objective
tests and teacher constructed writing prompts for student response, authentic
assessments replicate those tasks that students might actually be asked to complete
within a discipline or field (Mueller, 2010). For example, students in the School of
Business might be asked to complete a market analysis and come up with an
appropriate marketing campaign for a product while students in the School of Education
might be asked to evaluate an educational program and to then offer recommendations
for program policy change and implementation. For this assignment, the instructors
may select a set of authentic tasks from their field or they might have students generate
their own authentic inquiry topic and task. Blackboard will be used as the platform for
group work on this authentic assessment. (For more on Authentic Assessments,
explore http://jonathan.mueller.faculty.noctrl.edu/toolbox/index.htm).
1. Purpose/objective
Students will collaborate to author and produce an authentic product (for example, a coauthored article for a mock scholarly journal, a conference presentation, a co-produced
documentary). Students will
● Reflect on authentic tasks and topics from within the selected field.
● Maintain a reflective journal on the group collaboration and inquiry
● Work in groups to generate ideas and methodologies for critical inquiry.
● Share and synthesize relevant readings and research.
● Co-author and “publish” an authentic product (ex. critique, scholarly journal entry,
documentary, marketing campaign, meta-analysis, etc).
2. Resources
Students will need access to a computer with an internet connection. Instructors will
need to build their Blackboard course shell and any required content.
3. Process
Students will work in predetermined groups to critically read, explore, and author a
product in response to an authentic task from the discipline. Students will use the
following Blackboard tools to complete the associated tasks:
Group Blogs: Reflective journals
Group Discussion Boards: Reading reflection and discussion
90
Group Tasks: Organizing and delegating group work and due dates
Group File Exchange: Sharing research and reflection; Co-authoring and content
building
At the end of the project, each group will present their authentic assessment to the
class.
Sample Student Directions:
In this 10 week long project, you will work in a group to tackle a real world issue or
problem from our field of study. Using Blackboard as the primary platform for your
collaboration, within your group, you will read and discuss relevant research on the
issue and participate in ongoing discussions in response to the readings. Your final
goal is to produce a group product (a co-authored scholarly journal article, a conference
presentation, a co-produced documentary) in which you detail and outline your critique,
evaluation, findings, and suggestions based on your authentic task. Throughout the
project, you will utilize the following tools in Blackboard for your collaboration:
Blog: Weekly reflective journal entries on the process of the authentic inquiry. Your
blog entries will serve not only as documentation of the process of the group work and
authentic inquiry, but also as a place where you can post any reflections, questions, or
“a-ha” moments. Group members will take turns being in charge of the weekly group
blog post, though all group members (as well as class members) will be able to read
and comment on the reflective journal blog posts.
Discussion Board: Each group member is required to initiate a discussion based on a
piece of academic research related to the authentic task. All group members are
responsible for participating in each Discussion Board reading reflection. At the
beginning of the project (in class), group members will determine the order of the
Discussion Board posts. (Each group member will participate in the reading reflection
discussion each week). You are encouraged to ask probing and exploratory questions
in these weekly discussions. Your goal is to evaluate synthesize the existing research
and information in such a way that aids in your authentic inquiry and task completion.
Tasks: Group members can create a “to-do” list and prioritize tasks. Individual group
members can indicate when a task is “in progress” or “complete.”
File exchange: Group members can share documents for collaboration and research
using the File Exchange tool. You may use other platforms as needed, but do rely on
collaborative tools like File Exchange to facilitate cooperative research and collaborative
writing.
91
Final Product: Your group will determine the format of your final product. The final
product must be both collaboratively authored and co-presented to the class. Examples
of authentic assessments include authoring political campaigns, creative texts, school or
social program evaluations and critiques, market analyses, philosophical discourses,
legal arguments, case studies, scientific investigation, and algorithm manipulation, to
name a few.
This project is worth 40 points. The points will be distributed as follows:
10 Group Blog (Reflective Journal) Entries: 10pts
5 Discussion Board Reading Responses and Discussions: 10pts
Final Product and Presentation: 20pts
4. Timeline
Pre-class Preparation- Determine student groups. Set up group tools in Blackboard:
User Groups, Group Blogs, Group Discussion Board, and Group File Exchange.
In and out of class collaboration- Early on in class, allow students an opportunity to
explore the assigned or potential authentic assessments within their groups. Students
should also be given a timeline so that groups can determine the order for posting to the
Discussion Boards. A sample timeline appears below.
Sample Student Timeline:
Week 1: Either your instructor will provide you with an authentic task for inquiry and
reflection, or your group will begin reflecting upon the authentic issues from the field.
Begin your Group Blog (Reflective Journal). In your first entry, explore the issue (or
possible issues/tasks). What do you know about the task or issue? What do you want
to find out about the task or issue? How might you go about completing the authentic
task?
 Reflective Journal Blog Entry #1
Week 2: Continue exploring the task and issue within your Blog. Group members
should respond to this week’s post so that the group can narrow and specify the focus
of the authentic inquiry.
 Reflective Journal Blog Entry #2
Week 3: Discussion Board Post 1: The first group member will send a link or journal
article to group members and will initiate a reading reflection and response discussion in
92
your group’s discussion board area. Update your group’s progress and findings in your
blog.
 Discussion Board Post #1
 Reflective Journal Blog Entry #3
Week 4: Discussion Board Post 2: The second group member will send a link or journal
article to group members and will initiate a reading reflection and response discussion in
your group’s discussion board area. Update your group’s progress and findings in your
blog.
 Discussion Board Post #2
 Reflective Journal Blog Entry #4
Week 5: Discussion Board Post 3: The third group member will send a link or journal
article to group members and will initiate a reading reflection and response discussion in
your group’s discussion board area. Update your group’s progress and findings in your
blog. Your group should now be considering the format of the final product.
 Discussion Board Post #3
 Reflective Journal Blog Entry #5
Week 6: Discussion Board Post 4: The fourth group member will send a link or journal
article to group members and will initiate a reading reflection and response discussion in
your group’s discussion board area. Update your group’s progress and findings in your
blog. Your group should now finalize the format of the final product.
 Discussion Board Post #4
 Reflective Journal Blog Entry #6
Week 7: Discussion Board Post 5: Discuss and finalize the format of the final product.
Come to a consensus (on the Discussion Board) about the methodology of your group’s
final product (who does what, how, when). Update your group’s progress and findings in
your blog.
 Discussion Board Post #5
 Reflective Journal Blog Entry #7
Week 8: Use the File Exchange to continue putting together your final product. Update
your group’s progress and findings in your blog.
 Reflective Journal Blog Entry #8
 Group Work
93
Week 9: Use the File Exchange to continue collaborating on your authentic task. Begin
finalizing this process. Update your group’s progress and findings in your blog.
 Reflective Journal Blog Entry #9
 Group Work
Week 10: Collaboratively present your authentic assessment to the class. Submit a final
blog entry in your reflective journal. How do you feel about the final product? What
about the process?
 Final Product and Presentation
 Reflective Journal Blog Entry #10
Post-project Evaluation- Instructors may wish to award points for blog and discussion
board posts as the project progresses. Instructors can use a customized rubric to
evaluate the final product.
5. Suggestions for Evaluation
The evaluation of the collaborative process is somewhat built in to the blog and
discussion board posts and associated points. Instructors can monitor (and respond to)
these posts at any time during the collaborative process in order to redirect the
collaboration or to pose questions. The final rubric, then, might be geared more
specifically toward the final product. The rubric will change based on the discipline and
associated authentic task. A sample non-discipline specific rubric appears below in
Insert 5.3. The fields can be expanded to include more content specific requirements.
94
Sample Evaluation Rubric for Authentic Task Blackboard Collaboration
Knowledge of
the field/issue
Logic &
rationale
Supporting
evidence
Clarity & style
Exemplary/5
Product and
presentation
exhibit mastery
of the issue and
task.
Proficient/4
Product and
presentation
exhibit a good
understanding of
the issue and
task.
The response
offered by the
product is both
logical and
rational, rooted
in critical inquiry
and
investigation.
The response
offered by the
product is both
logical and
rational, and
tends to be
rooted in critical
inquiry and
investigation.
There is clear
There is
and persuading evidence that
evidence that
the group has
the group has
synthesized the
synthesized the current research
current research and information
and information from the field in
from the field in order to
order to
complete the
complete the
task.
task.
The final
product is well
written and the
presentation
strongly
delivered.
Good final
product and
presentation.
Satisfactory/3
Product and
presentation
exhibit a
superficial
understanding of
the issue and
task.
The response
offered by the
product is
somewhat logical
and rational,
though the level
of critical inquiry
may need
improvement.
There is some
evidence that the
group has
attempted to
synthesize some
current research
from the field,
though the group
may have
misunderstood or
misrepresented
one or two of the
findings.
Acceptable final
product and
presentation.
Unsatisfactory/2
Product and
presentation do
not exhibit an
acceptable
understanding of
the issue and
task.
The response
offered by the
product is not
very logical and
rational, most
likely because it is
not rooted in
critical inquiry and
investigation.
There is minimal
evidence that the
group has
synthesized the
current research
and information
from the field in
order to complete
the task.
Unacceptable
final product and
presentation.
Total Points
_____ (out of
20 possible
points)
95
Conclusion
Looking ahead
Our goal is that this document begins a discussion about collaborative writing. In
order to continue this conversation, we have set up a wiki site to allow faculty an
opportunity to join in this emerging discussion. We hope that the wiki site becomes a
place where we can share collaborative instructional strategies that have worked as well
as those that may not have worked so well. In the spirit of authentic collaboration,
faculty can join the wiki to add their own content and expertise. There will be an area
for discussion, an area for resources, and an area for shared best practices. We
envision that the wiki will provide a space for dialogue on collaborative writing and a
stage for sharing of teaching materials. To join the William and Mary Collaborative
Writing Project Wiki, visit http://collaborate.wmwikis.net/ and click “join.”
Reflecting on collaboration
Our task with this project is an authentic one- we modeled the collaboration that
we espouse within this document. This manual was written collaboratively using
Google Docs and many of the included samples are taken directly from our courses. In
the process of working together on this project, we have come away with some lessons
learned about the collaborative process from a user perspective.

Writing collaboratively requires getting used to multiple voices.

Trust is required for real collaboration to occur.

The developing framework for the collaborative project requires interrogating
assumptions about how writers approach writing together and what we
assume about student learning.

The space for processing the collective project benefits from face-to-face
dialogue.
Throughout the process of our writing we found that there were multiple types of
individual and group communication that meant different types and frequencies of
96
intersections with different contributors and participants over time. While we certainly
utilized some of the available tools in order to support the collaboration (email, Google
Documents, wikis), we also found substantial value in the face-to-face processing
space. Others that are doing collaborative writing from a distance can mimic this direct
type of communication taking advantage of conference calls, Skype, Adobe Connect, or
other technologies. The five-day faculty workshop and the face to face meetings during
the compiling and editing phase facilitated emergent idea-making and an ease of
sharing of ideas and frameworks. Not only that, the face-to-face meetings provided a
space to organize the path and tasks of the collaboration. Finally, the face-to-face
sessions provided opportunities to get validation from other contributors about ideas
and to gather suggestions, thereby building efficacy in the collaborative process.
Our collaborative process can be envisioned as gradually narrowing up to the
point of production, and then a gradual broadening as more and more people are
welcomed into the collaboration (see Figure 6.1). On several levels, the success of our
collaboration relied on trust. First, the collaboration necessitated that faculty and other
participants trusted each other to share and exchange ideas, to co-author and cocontent build, and to allow the process and fruits of the collaboration emerge as a
natural outgrowth of mutual interest. Second, in order for this collaboration to be truly
fruitful, the participants had to buy-in to the concept that as a piece of collaborative work
that the product was malleable and response to change given various inputs. The
product was dissected, adjusted, and refashioned by the participants in various forms in
order to create a tangible instructional outcome—namely this manual. Finally, by
recognizing the assumptions that we brought to the collaboration, specifically, that there
is value in the constructivist theory of learning, we were able to build trust among the
group.
97
Fig. 6.1 Concept Map of the Collaborative Process for this Project
5 Day May Seminar Workshop
Continued collaboration in
Google Docs
Document
Production
Document
Release
Participation in the W&M
"Collaborate "Wiki
Ongoing faculty collaboration and
development
98
In reflecting on our collaborative process, one conclusion became clear. Namely,
the authors believed in a learning centered approach to classroom teaching versus an
instructor centered paradigm. Since the seminal work of Barr and Tagg (1995), a shift
in how we think about teaching is occurring. The authors outline the assumptions
behind each of these approaches and weigh the merits for improved teaching that
occurs when learners are the focus in the classroom setting. Inherent in this ongoing
discussion are differences in disciplinary orientation that preferences content over
learning-directed outcomes. Additionally, we are aware that the risks for faculty in
teaching are different depending on institutional type, position (untenured versus
tenured), and discipline (those with licensure requirements). The participants in this
project came from a position in which they felt free to take risks. Those faculty who are
tenured and participated did not have to worry about the potential impact of poor
teaching evaluations.
By putting ourselves in the position of learners, we were able to experience
firsthand what our students might feel when they are presented with a new form of
learning—namely, collaborative writing. As a result, we now have more empathy for the
student perspective and also can understand better the importance of clarity in
assignment design and ease of use of the technology. We all got to touch the
technology, experiment with a variety of tools, and determine what worked best for us.
Challenges
Any collaboration is not without challenges, this one included. One of the
challenges we faced was figuring out when and how to move from the collaborative
brainstorming, discussing, and contributing stages to final production. In the same way
that we have suggested implementing a timeline for collaborative writing projects for our
students, we had to navigate the stages from initial group meetings in the May seminar
to the production of the final manual to share publically. Initially, we had to get used to
the messy process of writing jointly, which included the presence of multiple voices in a
single document and different assumptions we each brought to the table regarding
collaborative writing. The process began as a collaborative effort among many
participants. This collaboration started in Google Documents, with edited versions
99
tracked in this platform. At the time of document production, the collaboration was
narrowed to involve two editors so as to produce a final product by a given date. At the
narrowest point of the collaboration (completing and publishing this document), the
editors worked to capture the essence of the group voice, to smooth out transitions
among the topics on collaborative writing, and to include additional examples that
represented a variety of disciplines. Now that the document is completed, we have set
up our collaborative wiki site to allow others to join in the dialogue about collaborative
writing.
Synthesizing the work of the seminar into this document also posed challenges.
The first challenge was how to author the document in such a way that upheld a
collective voice while still respecting individual contributions. This process of final
compilation meant that editorial decisions had to be made, such as shifting point-ofview, rewording for parallel structure, and deleting redundancies. A second challenge
was how to take a wealth of collaboration from a 5 day workshop and translate it into a
manageable and streamlined resource. The attempt to efficiently and effectively
translate the collaboration into a document picked up momentum once we set some
parameters and frameworks. Once we decided on a template for organization and a
method for including sample lesson plans and rubrics, the document began to emerge.
Establishing an organizational framework allowed us a way to split and parcel all the
participants’ contributions.
Another challenge was representing a diversity of voices and perspectives in the
document for a wide range of disciplines. Even though participants in the May seminar
came from a variety of departments and experience levels, our group was by no means
representative of all the fields of study on campus. As a result, we strove to make our
examples as generic as possible for wide application. However, we are certain that a
wider array of best practices are also available and not represented in this final
document.
Shifting paradigms
100
We began our document by admitting that within the scope of our collaboration
we realized that we held the assumption that learning can effectively occur when the
student is able to use his or her social context to actively build knowledge. We end by
admitting that this constructivist paradigm shifts the roles of the instructor and student
from the more traditional instructor-led class session to a student-centered class
session (Barr & Tagg, 1995). Through this lens, the student is no longer solely a
consumer of knowledge (that has been dispensed from the podium), but also a
producer of knowledge. Admittedly, this movement away from instructor-centered
college teaching will be difficult for some faculty to accept. We invite instructors who
have traditionally taught from a primarily lecture based style to join in this conversation
and contribute to the dialogue on collaboration. We recognize that this shift in
orientation to teaching is a substantial one. Yet, we hope that through building
relationships based on trust and through sharing and exchanging ideas and best
practices we can collectively and actively build a professional space where we can
freely share and explore instructional strategies in order to improve teaching and
learning within the academy.
101
References
Barr, R. D., & Tagg, J. (1005). From teaching to learning: A new paradigm for
undergraduate education. Change, 27(6), 12-25.
Creamer, E.G. (2004). Assessing the outcomes of long-term research collaboration.
Canadian Journal of Higher Education, 34, 24-41.
Gappa, J.M., Austin, A.E., & Trice, A.G. (2007). Rethinking faculty work. San Francisco:
Josey-Bass.
Janssen, J., Kirschner, F., Erkens, G., Kirschner, P., & Pass, F. (2010). Making the
black box of collaborative learning transparent: Combining process-oriented and
cognitive load approaches. Educational Psychology Review, 22:139-154.
Nilson, L.B. (2010). Teaching at its best: A research-based resource for college
instructors. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Pratt, D. D. (2002). Five perspectives on teaching in adult and higher education.
Malabar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company.
Wolfe, J. (2010). Team writing: A guide to working in groups. Boston: Bedford/St.
Martin’s.
102
Appendix: W&M Wikis Tutorial
103
W&M Wikis Orientation
A Tutorial to Help You Get Started
College of William and Mary
Academic Information Services
104
WM Wikispaces Orientation Tutorial
So you’ve been asked to work in a wiki. What is a wiki anyway? Essentially, a wiki is a web
space where you can easily create text or content using the available wiki editing tools. While
you can build an individual wiki, the main appeal of a wiki space is that one space can support
multiple authors. In one wiki space, you and your peers or colleagues can collaborate to build
pages and web content.
This assignment is intended to introduce you to the main editing tools within WM Wikispaces.
Upon completing this assignment, you will be able to
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Create a new wiki
Choose a wiki theme
Edit and create pages
Upload and link to files
Link to the web
105
Create a New Wiki
1. You will need to “join” William and Mary’s Wikis in order to create a wiki space (and to
join and explore other wikis). Visit http://www.wmwikis.net/
2. From this page, click join in the top right corner of the screen. You will be directed to
this page:
You will be able to select your username and password. It is a good idea to use your
William & Mary username and password so that you do not forget your login
information.
106
3. When you complete the form, you will see the following screen. Here you have the
option to name and create a new wiki. Go ahead and give it a shot (don’t worry; you
can always delete or edit this wiki later).
Notice that you can set your wiki to public, protected, or private. You might want to
select private for now. This way, only you will be able to see your wiki. You may choose
one of the existing wiki templates, or you may leave that area blank. Leaving the area
blank will give you a blank wiki shell to work with.
107
If you are a student in the School of Education and you are attempting to create your
Electronic Portfolio, be sure to select the appropriate E-folio template from the Wiki
Template dropdown menu.
4. Click “create”.
Congratulations! You have created your wiki!
108
You should now see the following wiki help dialogue box on the screen:
You are welcome to explore
this help menu or you may
select Turn Off Getting
Started. Don’t worry, you’ll
always be able to access the
Wikispaces help menu from
the help tab in the top right
corner of your screen.
109
You are ready to start writing in your wiki! (Note, you may always create more wikis by clicking
on your name or account in the top right corner of your screen).
When you do, you will find a Make New Wiki tab in the far left column.
Let’s start editing your new wiki.
110
Choose a Wiki Theme
If your wiki assignment requires you to join an existing wiki, then you will not have the option
to change the theme (the colors and layout) of your wiki. However, if you are the organizer
(creator) of a wiki, then you can select the theme. To explore and select a theme
1. Click Manage Wiki
111
2. Select Look and Feel under “Settings”.
112
3. Unless you are proficient in writing Cascading Style Sheets [CSS], do not click Edit
your wiki stylesheet. If you wish to change the icon in the upper left corner (the
plant), you may explore inserting a Logo. For now, we will focus on changing the
basic look and feel of your wiki. Click Themes and Colors.
113
4. Select an existing theme. For example, “Bubble”.
5. Explore the different color schemes.
6. Once you are satisfied with your theme and colors, click “Apply”.
Congratulations! You have selected your wiki’s theme. You can change this theme at any time.
To get back to your wiki’s front page, click Home. (Note: Some themes change the location of
the sidebar from the left to the right side of the screen).
114
Edit and Create Pages
1. Click Edit This Page
115
2. Try adding and editing the current text. Explore some of the editing features from
the toolbar.
3. Always click Save after editing your page. (This is important).
Congratulations! You have successfully edited a page. Let’s try adding a new page to
your wiki.
116
1. Click New Page.
2. From here, name your new page. If
you wish to tag your page you may,
though this is not required. (Tagging is
useful if you need to categorize your
information for your own use. You can
see your tags from “My Page”). Click
Create.
3. The visual editor will appear and you may enter content into your new page. Notice
that by default, your new pages now appear in your navigation list. (You can edit
your navigation at any time by clicking edit navigation).
117
Create a page shortcut
Sometimes writers think of a page to link to while they are writing. Perhaps you might
not want to include your new page as part of your menu on the navigation bar, but
rather as a page that exists within a page. There is a quick and easy way to create a
page from any page that you are typing. Try this:
1. From the page that you are editing, try highlighting some text.
2. Click Link.
3. Name your new page and click Add Link. (You can also decide if you want the page
to open in a new window).
118
4. Remember to save your changes.
5. You now have a link to a new page. Try clicking the link.
6. You will notice that your newly created page does not exist yet. Simply click edit
button to begin this new page.
Congratulations! You have now created a new page (and link) from within an existing
page!
119
Upload and Link to Files
1. Click Manage Wiki
120
2. Select Files under “Content
nt”.
3. Click Upload Files and then select the file(s) you wish to upload. Click Open.
121
Your upload files now appear under the Files tab:
Let’s try linking one of these files in one of your wiki pages.
1. Go to one of your wiki pages and click edit this page.
122
2. Click file from the visual editor toolbar.
3. Notice that you can click to embed your file or change the dropdown menu to link your
file.
123
If you select click to embed, your file will appear as a widget on your page. This might be
preferable if your document is an image. Alternatively, you can click to link your file. This
creates a link to your file, which may be preferable if your file is a text based document. Check
out the difference between embedding and linking files in your wiki page now.
Congratulations! You have uploaded, embedded, and linked to files in your wiki!
Link to Web Pages
1. Open a separate tab or window in order to search for a web page that you would like to
link to from your wiki.
2. Highlight the electronic address of the page you would like to link to. (Ctrl + C or
highlight and click copy with your mouse).
3. From one of your wiki pages, click edit this page.
124
4. Click Link from the visual editor toolbar.
5. Select External Link.
6. Paste in (Ctrl + v) the electronic address of the site you wish to link to.
7. In the Link Text box, type in the words you would like to appear in the link on your wiki
page.
8. Decide whether you want this page to open in a new window.
9. Click Add Link.
Congratulations! You have added a web link to your wiki page.
125
WM Wiki Orientation Checklist and Review
We have covered the basic skills you will need to begin work with your wiki. Once you are
familiar with these basic skills, you can explore the more advanced wiki features. For example,
there are many cool tools and options located under the Widget tab in the visual editor of your
wiki page. But, before you go off to explore the more advanced features, let’s be sure you
know the basics. Do you know…
YES!
No. I’ll need to revisit
the page titled
How to create a new
wiki?
How to change the
color and layout of your
wiki?
How to edit a page in
your wiki?
Create a new wiki
How to create a new
page?
How to edit your
navigation menu?
Edit and create pages
How to create a page
that does not appear in
the navigation menu?
Edit and create pages
How to upload file from
your computer into
your wiki?
How to link to an
uploaded file?
Upload and link to files
The difference between
embedding and linking
a file?
Upload and link to files
How to link to a web
page?
Link to web pages
Choose a wiki theme
Edit and create pages
Edit and create pages
Upload and link to files
When you answer “Yes” to each of these tasks, you are wiki certified! Thanks for completing
the tutorial, and have fun exploring the world of the wiki!
126