In my experience, of the perennial sources of conflict and exasperation for students in writing courses is collaborative work. Each semester, students express concerns about group assignments and, to a lesser extent, peer review and editing. They often feel uneasy about taking on leadership roles and making sure tasks are divided up equitably.

Allen et. al’s “What Experienced Collaborators Say about Collaborative Writing” provides a framework for addressing some of these students concerns. Specifically, their emphasis on knowledge a social construction, their focus on the positive aspects of conflict within groups, and their description of how groups can divide up tasks are ways of helping students understand the value of collaboration.

To begin, it is important to distinguish between group work and collaboration. Allen et. al draw upon Wiener to maintain a difference between working in groups and true collaboration in which “. . . individuals must share power in making decisions that can be accepted by the group as a whole” (p. 353). Peer review, using this definition, is not collaboration. However, the project the students in my 305 section are currently working on – a feasibility report – is a truly collaborative document, as students must work together to write one report.

Articulating knowledge as social construction can help students understand how scholars in their discipline have come to an understanding of what is true. Winsor, in “Engineering Writing/Writing Engineering,” provides a useful definition of knowledge: “that which most people in a discourse community are convinced of” (p. 343). Winsor argues that this knowledge is mediated by texts – that is, writing helps construct knowledge in engineering, for example.

Knowledge comes about through a process of consensus, and consensus, according to Allen et. al, is at the heart of collaborative writing. Students who are aware of knowledge as social construction are in a better position to see the value of the collaborative work they do; like scholars in their fields, they become knowledge-makers, and not just passive recipients of what is considered “true” or “correct.”

Before consensus comes conflict (and, of course, conflict continues even after consensus is reached – otherwise, there’d be nothing to argue about, and we’d all be out of jobs). Recently, a student came up to me after class and expressed concern about the “fighting” taking place in her group. She said that it didn’t seem to be affecting their ability to get the job done, but she also felt uncomfortable.

As Allen et. al note, conflict can be a source of creativity. In addition, it helps avoid “group think.” Ultimately, they argue, “when the group can tolerate some disharmony and work through divergent opinion to reach a consensus, their work is enhanced” (p. 360). Conflict, then, becomes positive – even necessary.

One source of conflict how to divide up tasks among group members. While our textbook discusses various methods for fairly distributing work, and we also discussed these methods in class, I have also overheard students complaining about how much work they’re doing relative to other group members. Allen et. al describe several ways of dividing up drafting: each member drafting separate sections, one member producing a draft which others comment on, each member drafting the entire document and later agreeing upon one final version, and finally, drafting the entire document together (p. 357).

Most groups in my class chose to divide up drafting by sections. Because of the length of the document, this method makes more sense. In future collaborative assignments, I will ask each group to write about their method for distributing work and why they chose that method. In other words, I will ask them to talk about how they came to a consensus about doing the work before they actually begin working on the document itself.

Overall, focusing on these three aspects of collaboration – knowledge as social construction, conflict, and work distribution – should help students understand the value of the collaborative work they do.

Allen, N., Atkinson, D., Morgan, M., Moore, T., & Snow, C. (1987). “What experienced collaborators say about collaborative writing.” In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central works in technical communication (pp. 351–364). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004.

Winsor, D. A. (1990). “Engineering writing/writing engineering.” In J. Johnson-Eilola & S. A. Selber (Eds.), Central works in technical communication (pp. 341–350). New York, NY: Oxford University Press, 2004.