An L2 writing group: Task and social dimensions

JOURNAL

OF SECOND

LANGUAGE

WRITING,

1

(3), 171-193

(1992)

An L2 Writing Group: Task and Social Dimensions L. NELSON JOHN M. MURPHY GAYLE

Georgia State University

Although peer writing groups are frequently used in ESL writing classes, little research hos been conducted on what actually occurs in these groups. This study examined two aspects of L2 writing groups: the task dimension and the social dimension. Using a case-study methodology, we videotaped one L2 writing group for six consecutive weeks. The data collected included (a) the videotapes, (b) transcripts of the videotapes, (c) student compositions, (d) student dialogue journals, and (e) student interviews. Using transcripts of the six videotapes, coders divided the participants’ utterances into thought groups. Using o modified version of Fanselow’s (1987) classroom observation instrument, we then coded their thought groups using the following categories: study of language, life general knowledge, life personal knowledge, procedure, and format. Two troined raters independently coded the transcripts. An intercoder reliability of .91 was determined by comparing their rotings. Results indicated that the percentage of utterances reloting to study of language ronged from 70% to 80% and increased slightly across the six sessions. These findings suggest thot students stayed on task by discussing each other’s texts. To examine the group’s social dimension (i.e., group dynamics), oil data were examined. The literature on writing groups tends to idealize writing group interactions as writers constructively helping each other. This present onalysis suggests otherwise. For example, one student was characterized by the group as the attacker because of her sharp, negative comments. Due, in part, to the attacker’s critical comments, another student expressed dissatisfaction with the writing group.

An ESL composition

student from Peru writes in his journal:

I don’t like work[ing] in groups, I think [it] is better if you work [by] yourself without any help because, you know, I don’t like it when my partners in groups make bad comments about my work. I know that [it’s] good for me because I realize my mistakes but [I] feel sometimes disappointed when I hear too much critics.’ We would like to acknowledge Patricia Byrd, Joan Carson, Alice Gertsman, Wendy Newstetter, and the two anonymous reviewers for their insightful comments on earlier drafts of this article. Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Gayle Nelson, Department of Applied Linguistics and ESL, 1024 Urban Life Building, Georgia State University, Atlanta, GA 30303-3083. 171

172

GA. Nelson and J.M. Murphy

This student offers a perspective on peer collaboration that differs from the current enthusiasm for talking about writing in groups. As suggested by the student’s journal entry, some second language (L2) students do not like participating in writing groups. Although student groups are common in L2 writing classes (Hall, 1990; Johns, 1990), little research has been done on student responses to or the interactions that emerge in such groups. In addition, many of the arguments supporting the use of L2 writing groups are based on first language (Ll) research. This study investigates student interactions within an L2 writing group. The study described here is exploratory. It developed out of a general lack of research on L2 writing groups and in response to concerns that most classroom interaction processes and dynamics are not adequately described (Enright, 1983; Fanselow, 1987; van Lier, 1988). The overriding question is: What happens in L2 writing groups? More specifically, we examined two closely related dimensions of the group: the tusk and social dimensions (Bales, 1950, 1970; Bormann, 1975). The task dimension refers to the job at hand; in this case, discussing each other’s papers (e.g., Are the group participants “on task” or “off task”?). The social dimension includes the way members “perceive, relate, and interact with one another” (Bormann, 1975, p. 142); the social dimension of groups is frequently referred to as group dynamics (e.g., Do they work well together?). The current popularity of writing groups is, in part, due to a recognition of the social nature of writing and to a shift in theoretical perspectives from an emphasis on product to an emphasis on process in the teaching of composition (Emig, 1971; Flower, 1985; Hairston, 1982; Hayes & Flower, 1983; Zamel, 1987). Hairston characterizes the process paradigm as one that focuses on audience and purpose, and views prewriting, writing, and revision as overlapping and interconnecting stages. This emphasis on audience, feedback, and revision has led to an increased use of writing groups in L2 classrooms, permitting L2 students to use other students’ comments while revising their texts. Writing groups also developed from the theoretical frameworks of collaborative learning (Bruffee, 1980, 1984; Elbow, 1973) and communicative language teaching (Hedge, 1988). Ll RESEARCH

ON WRITING

GROUPS

Ll studies provide a persuasive argument in favor of writing groups. In her study of an Ll freshman writing group, Thomas (1984) observed and audiotaped one small-group writing conference over a lo-week period. She found that (a) conferences on drafts tend to be text-centered, and (b) writers talk about writing in progress in order to clarify and expand their writing. However, she also found that evaluative responses from readers often result in the writer becoming defensive

12 Writing Groups

173

Nystrand (1986) also examined peer conferencing in Ll college freshman writing instruction and found that students who write for each other are more likely to (a) view their readers as collaborators in a communicative process, and (b) develop a more positive attitude toward writing than those who write solely for a teacher. In a follow-up study, Nystrand and Brandt (1989) concluded that Ll students who write for their peers (a) learn to write better than students whose sole audience is the instructor, (b) have more insight into their writing, and (c) are more concerned with striking a balance between their intentions as writers and their readers’ expectations. They caution that students do, indeed, listen to each other’s responses and student improvement in writing is significantly related to the kinds of responses students get from their readers and the ways in which they view their readers. Additional Ll studies indicate that writing groups contribute to critical thinking (Lagana, 1973), to an increase in writer confidence (Fox, 1980), and to finding alternate strategies and solutions to writing problems (Beach, 1989). Students in writing groups also learn and use appropriate terminology to describe academic writing and are exposed to different styles of writing (Gere & Abbott, 1985). At first, it may appear that the advantages of Ll writing groups would also apply to L2 writers. A closer look, however, suggests differences between Ll and L2 populations. L2 students come from cultural backgrounds that reflect different attitudes toward working in groups and different expectations concerning group norms. For example, the function of a group in China and Japan is to serve the needs of the group, whereas the function of peer-response groups in writing classes in the U.S. is to serve the needs of individual writers (Carson, 1992). L2 students also have different attitudes toward student-centered activities such as peer review of other students’ compositions. Students from countries that perceive the teacher as the knower, the one who provides direction, are likely to have difficulty in accepting their peers’ responses to their writing (Hofstede, 1986). These differences are compounded when members of a group come from different cultures, each with its own attitudes and beliefs about educational practices in general and the value of group work in particular. In the U.S., for example, it would be common to find an ESL writing group composed of learners from several different parts of the world. Another difference between Ll and L2 writing groups is related to language. Ll students are speaking and writing in their native languages whereas L2 students are using a second (or foreign) language, often with differing sociolinguistic rules of speaking (Wolfson, 1981). Allaei and Connor (1990), for instance, suggest that sociolinguistic differences in expectations concerning the amount of talk, the role of the speaker and listener, and politeness strategies contribute to conflict or high levels of discomfort in multicultural peer-response groups. In addition, L2 students often have differing notions concerning the

174

G.L. Nelson and

J.M. Murphy

characteristics of “good” writing (Grabe & Kaplan, 1989; Kaplan, 1967). Nonnative speakers may respond to other students’ drafts based on notions of good writing in their native language and “lead the writer in a totally inappropriate direction” (Leki, 1990b, p. 12). Because of these differences between Ll and L2 writers, it is important to investigate L2 writing groups. Limited investigation has been done in this area. For example, in Kroll’s (1990) text, Second Language Writing: Research Insights for the Classroom, three chapters (Cohen & Cavalcanti, 1990; Fathman & Whalley, 1990; Leki, 1990) focus on teacher feedback to L2 writers, but no chapters focus on peer feedback in L2 writing groups. In addition, a recent TESOL Quarterly article on L2 writing (Goldstein Kz Conrad, 1990) examines student-teacher interactions, but not peer interactions.

METHOD AND DISCUSSION Because we were interested in group interaction, we decided to use a case-study methodology. As Yin (1984) points out, case studies are appropriate when studying processes or interactions. Yin defines a case study as one that investigates “contemporary phenomenon within its real-life context” (p. 23). In this study, the real-life context is an ESL writing classroom. In that classroom, we collected information on one writing group over a six-week period. Six of the group’s 45minute in-class interactions were videotaped and examined.

Participants Four students in an intermediate ESL writing class at a large metropolitan university in the U.S. participated in the study. Students were placed at this level based upon a combination of listening, grammar, vocabulary, reading, and writing scores from a university-developed placement exam. Scores for students in this class corresponded to TOEFL scores ranging from 360 to 400. To assess the students’ writing levels at the time they began the course, timed in-class writing samples were scored by two trained raters using the 6-point Test of Written English (TWE) scale, in which a score of 1 indicates incompetence in writing and a score of 6 demonstrates both rhetorical and syntactic competence (Educational Testing Service, 1989). Three of the students’ were scored at level 2 and one scored at level 3, all relatively low scores. The four participants will be referred to as Julio, Raphael, Cecilia, and Gloria. Students were selected based on gender (two females and two males) and nationality (they came from four different countries). Julio, a 32-year-old male from Chile, had been in the U.S. for 6 months. He had studied English for 4 years in Chile, had a Doctor of Law degree from his home country, and was planning to enter an American graduate program in international law. During the course, he frequently said he liked to write, he had his own Macintosh at home, and his papers were neatly produced.

12 Writing Groups

175

Raphael, an 18-year-old Peruvian male, had been in the U.S. for 7 months. He had studied English “many years” in Peru and wanted to enter an American undergraduate program in economics. Raphael was the youngest in the group, and his papers were always handwritten. Cecilia, a 38-year-old female from Taiwan, had been in the U.S. for 4 months. She, too, had studied English for “many years” and wanted to enter an American graduate program in English education. She was the oldest member of the group. Cecilia was the only participant to score 3 on her placement essay. Some of Cecilia’s papers were handwritten, and others were written on a word processor. Gloria, a 26-year-old female from Colombia, had been in the U.S. for 18 months but had studied ESL for only 3 of those months. She had attended a university in Colombia for three years, wanted to enter an American undergraduate program in computer science, and wrote her papers on a word processor.

Writing Class These students were taking a IO-week writing course that met five days a week for 45 minutes. The overall course objective was to produce eight focused and coherent paragraphs incorporating evidence to support a thesis. The instructor used a process approach to teach writing, including heuristics such as listing, brainstorming, and free writing to generate students’ ideas, and writing groups in which students responded to each other’s work. Students were eased into writing groups for, as Leki (1990b) suggests, “ESL students need initiation into peer responding” (p. 16). First, the instructor explained the role of peer response in the process of writing and revising drafts. Students were then instructed in using reader-based comments (Flower, 1985) such as, “From your topic sentence, I expected you to discuss X, so I was confused when you discussed Y.” The instructor illustrated reader-based responses by writing several example comments on the board. Next, students received copies of a first draft by a former student, read it, and practiced writing reader-based responses on the draft. The teacher asked students what they had written, wrote the responses on the board, and discussed them. In addition, as Chaudron (1983) and Mittan (1989) suggest, the instructor gave the students a set of guiding questions addressing areas such as (a) having a thesis or focus, (b) supporting a thesis or focus, and (c) using cohesive ties. Questions varied for each composition (see Appendix A for examples of questions used). Students were also instructed in Elbow’s (1973) four general guidelines for peer-response groups: (a) never quarrel with someone else’s reaction, (b) be quiet and attentive, (c) give specific reactions to specific parts, and (d) do not reject out of hand what readers tell you without giving their concerns careful consideration (see Appendix B for the handout distributed to students). Students were also repeatedly reminded to say positive things about the paper, to be kind, and to consider the writer’s feelings. They were told not to

176

GA. Nelson and J.M. Murphy

correct each other’s grammar, spelling, or punctuation and were told that the instructor would correct such errors. Students responded to their first two compositions in pairs, not in groups. Pairs were used because the instructor felt that initially students would be more comfortable sharing their work with only one other student. Students were then assigned to a four-person writer-response group to discuss the remaining six compositions. Group membership was fixed for the duration of the course. This model assumes that group cohesion and effectiveness are more likely to develop if group membership remains constant. Once a week, students brought in copies of their drafts in progress and distributed one copy to each member of their group who read and wrote responses before the following day’s class. Such an approach follows Moffett’s (1968) advice that writers exchange copies of their papers, read them, write on them, and discuss them. As students were responding to each other’s drafts in groups, the instructor moved around the room, answering students’ questions and attending to the overall functioning of the groups. Procedure Case-study methodology necessitates multiple perspectives (Yin, 1984) in data collection and analysis in order to reach a fuller appreciation of the phenomena under investigation (Allwright & Bailey, 1991). Our data included (a) videotapes, (b) transcripts of videotapes, (c) student journals, (d) student interviews with the instructor during the course, (e) student interviews with a third-party interviewer on the last day of class, and (f) students’ drafts. One writing group was videotaped once a week for six consecutive weeks. These six sessions were later transcribed verbatim by the researchers. A graduate research assistant also examined the videotapes and recorded the students’ uses of nonverbal behavior. Part 1: Task Dimension

of Group

Coding The videotape transcripts provided the data for assessing whether or not the group was on task. In order to be classified as on task, a student’s response needed to be about (a) some aspect of the students’ writings, and not, for example, about unrelated aspects of their social lives; (b) the writers’ intentions or how well these intentions were fulfilled in written texts; or (c) aspects of the students’ lives, as long as the speakers were making connections to the drafts under discussion. In summary, for their responses to be considered on task, the students needed to be responding to the content or form of each other’s writings or they needed to be relating other kinds of information to the sample of writing at hand. To examine the content of the group interactions, a coding scheme was agreed Before determining the specifics for a upon by the principal investigators.

12 Writing Groups

177

coding scheme, the entire set of data was examined recursively for several weeks in order to let the participants’ original language suggest categories for coding and analysis. While the two researchers were initially reading and rereading the transcripts, they divided the students’ utterances into separate thought groups, also referred to as idea units (Chafe, 1980) or T-units (Hunt, 1965). The notion underlying the identification of thought groups is that spontaneous speech is “a series of brief spurts which reflect the speaker’s object of consciousness” (Gere & Abbott, 1985, p. 367). A thought group is often defined as a single independent clause. The six writing group sessions produced a total of 1,249 thought groups distributed across the discussion of 22 composition drafts. While examining the data in a recursive manner, the investigators noticed that the students discussed particular kinds of topics and that the topics they discussed indicated whether or not the students were on task. Therefore, as suggested by a preliminary examination of the transcripts, the investigators decided to formalize their analysis of the data by identifying the content areas that emerged during the peer interactions (i.e., what did they taLk about?). The investigators agreed that it would be useful to examine all of the content areas of the topics revealed in the transcripts and that an adaptation of one of the major categories of Fanselow’s (1987) classroom observation instrument, FOCUS, would be useful for analyzing and coding this feature of the data. For those unfamiliar with Fanselow’s work, FOCUS is an acronym for Foci for Observing Communications Used in Settings. The investigators used combinations of the FOCUS categories in order to analyze and code the content areas revealed in the data. The FOCUS system is useful because it was originally designed “for those who have the time to describe in specific terms very small details of communications” between and among everyone present in L2 classroom settings (Fanselow, 1987, p. 19). The investigators decided to adapt components of the FOCUS system in order to generate a coding scheme because (a) FOCUS categories identify and quantify characteristics of the classroom communications of interest to the investigators (e.g., content areas of the topics introduced by the participating students); (b) FOCUS was originally designed for coding L2 classroom interactions; and (c) it is a system for analyzing L2 classroom interactions that is widely used in the L2 literature, taught in many graduate courses, and therefore familiar to many in the ESL profession (c.f. Allwright & Bailey, 1991; Fanselow, 1988; Gebhard, Gaitan, & Oprandy, 1987). The subcategories adapted from the major category area Fanselow labels Content were (a) study of language, (b) life general knowledge, (c) life personal knowledge, (d) procedural concerns, and (e) format issues. ‘Bvo trained raters independently coded each thought group revealed in the transcripts. An intercoder reliability of .91 was determined by comparing their ratings. All but nine of the thought groups uttered by the participating students fit into one of these categories for data analysis.

178

G.L. Nelson and J.M. Murphy

Study of Language. In FOCUS, the study of language subcategory encompasses students’ comments that address language issues such as the analysis of word order, rhetorical organization, lexical ties, cohesive devices, style, and usage (see Fanselow, 1987, pp. 254-255). To this list, the investigators added a subcategory called (I writer’s intentions because Fanselow accounts for references to a writer’s intentions in his definition of “the ways of life (interpretive)” under the study of language (p. 255). An example of thought groups coded as study of language are as follows: “You say here what is important and interesting, but then you talk about the position and natural resources and then you talk about Panama and then you talk about attack. It’s like another paragraph.” It should-be pointed out that the FOCUS system also includes references to a writer’s grammar, spelling, or punctuation as part of the study of language. However, the students in this study had been told by the classroom teacher not to correct each other’s papers for these items. If a student mentioned a grammar item, another student was likely to tell him or her that the group was not supposed to correct for grammar. For the purposes of this study, such an interaction was not coded as study of language.

Life General Knowledge. The life general knowledge subcategory encompasses students’ comments that address information about life outside the classroom. It is commonly referred to as background knowledge and includes comments that make connections to information from the outside world (e.g., something one has read, listened to, or watched on TV). For example, one student was interested in another student’s paper on the environmental organization Greenpeace and asked, “How can someone be[come] a member? How long [has] this organization exist[edl ?” Questions of this kind were coded as life general knowledge. Sometimes a student’s utterance would be coded as a combination of both life general knowledge and the study of language, a coding which recognizes that a student is making a connection between general knowledge and the writing being discussed. Fanselow (1987) observes that “when two. . . subcategories are contained in the same communication, the major category ‘study of language’ is used to code the communications” (p. 255). Such utterances were coded as study of language if they contributed substantively to the group’s discussion of the student’s writing. For example, in the discussion of Greenpeace cited previously, if the student had recommended that the writer incorporate information in the composition on how someone becomes a member of Greenpeace instead of simply asking about Greenpeace for his own information, then the comments would have been coded as study of language. Life Personal Knowledge. This subcategory encompasses students’ comments that address one’s personal knowledge and feelings about the world and

12 Writing Groups

179

includes personal biography, emotional disclosure, and connections between the content of a selection and one’s own personal feelings, thoughts, and opinions. In one paper, a student described the process of growing Bonsai trees. During the peer-response group session, another student said, “I know what a Bonsai is because I once had a Bonsai tree. . . . I love the Bonsai.” These comments were coded as life personal knowledge. Sometimes a student’s utterance would be coded as a combination of both life personal knowledge and the study of language, a coding which recognizes that the student was making a connection between personal knowledge and the sample of writing being discussed. In such instances, the investigators would make a decision parallel to the one cited previously. If the utterance seemed relevant to the group’s discussion of the student’s writing, it was coded as study of language. Procedural Concerns. A procedural comment concerns the administration of the group such as turn-taking, clarifying the task at hand, keeping records, and monitoring group behavior. For example, thought groups such as “Which one [of us] is going to talk first?” and “Just let me say what I think and then you can say what you think” were coded as procedural. Format. Although Fanselow (1987) lists format as one of the subcategories under the study of language, in the analysis of the data, it became clear that many of the participants’ comments addressed this topic area. Therefore, we included format as one of the five identified categories. Format refers to the layout or appearance of written material. Thought groups such as “the draft is indented” and “I think you need more space between lines” were coded as format. Results of Coding

We analyzed the distribution of the 1,249 thought groups across the five content subcategories of study of language, life personal knowledge, life general knowledge, procedural concerns, and format issues. By far the greatest number of thought groups were identified as addressing the study of language. The mean for study of language thought groups across six sessions was 151, or 73% of the total number of student comments. The mean for procedure comments was 25.5, or 12%, and the mean for life personal comments was 19, or 9%. Life general knowledge had a mean of 6, or 3%, and format had a mean of 4, or 2.3%. Table 1 (p. 180) summarizes the results of the coding across all six group sessions. In examining the patterns of content areas addressed in the students’ thought groups, we found the most noticeable patterns occurred with those coded as procedural and life personal. Not unexpectedly, the percentage of procedural comments decreased as the group established norms of interaction. For example,

G.L. Nelson and J.M. Murphy

180

TABLE1 Coding of Thought Groups Across Sessions Coding

1’

2b

3b

Study of language

4’

5’

6’

224 (71%)

166 (82%)

131 (71%)

,lZk,

(4k,

15 (8%)

Procedure

Life personal

19

17

(lEO, Life general &?!a,

(2;)

(3;)

(2;)

(L

Unclear

Total

258 (100%)

162 (100%)

Note. Total number of thought groups across all “n = 4. b n = 3.

316 (100%)

204 (100%)

184 (100%)

sessions was 1,249.

after the first session, they always began the discussion with the same person’s paper. The percentage of student comments addressing the life personal content area increased after the second session. Task-Related Elements Not Related to Coding One task-related pattern not apparent from the coding emerged-a move away from the teacher-produced prompts. During the first two sessions, the questions handed out by the instructor seemed to control the direction of the discussion. Students read the drafts and then answered the teacher’s questions. However, by the third session they seldom referred to the teacher’s questions. When the instructor asked about this phenomena during an interview, they responded as follows: Cecilia: Julio: Raphael:

If we follow [the] questions, it’s repetitious, so we give [our] general ideas. We [have] learn[ed] to read the paragraphs and analyze these paragraphs; we don’t [need to] repeat [the] same questions. It’s easy now. We can analyze the paragraph without following [the] questions.

Students discussed task-related advantages of the group in their interviews with the instructor and the third party, and also in their dialogue journals. They

12 Writing Groups

181

indicated that group participation (a) increased their sense of audience, (b) caused them to work harder because their peers read their work, (c) increased their vocabulary, (d) improved their spoken English, (e) made them familiar with other styles of writing, and (f) made them more aware of the need to revise. In describing his revision process as a result of his peers’ comments, Julio stated, “I read and read and take out and replace and change.” Discussion of lhsk Dimension The consistently high percentage of thought groups focusing on the study of language indicates that the students stayed on task and talked about writing in their groups. These findings are consistent with Ll research (Gere & Abbott, 1985; Thomas, 1984) that found writing groups to be text-centered and taskoriented. Results also indicate that students spent more time discussing procedural issues (e.g., turn-taking) in the early sessions, and once procedural norms were established, the number of procedural comments decreased. Additional findings that are consistent with the Ll studies include exposure to different kinds of writing (Gere & Abbott, 1985) and an increased awareness of audience (Nystrand & Brandt, 1989) and of the writing process (Nystrand, 1986). It is tempting to view this group as effective because the students stayed on task by discussing each other’s papers. However, before labeling this group as successful, it is necessary to examine the social dimension. The small group literature (Bormann, 1975) demonstrates the importance of a positive social milieu in the functioning of a group. In fact, as Bormann stresses, “in no cux where human beings are involved will the social dimension be unimportant” (p. 142). Part 2: Social Dimension

of the Group

Analysis As previously stated, a group’s social dimension includes the way participants perceive, relate to, and interact with each other. All of the data were used to examine the social dimension of the group. The videotapes and videotape transcripts were used to assess the group dynamics, paying particular attention to the emergence of roles within the group. Student journals and interviews were used to assess students’ points of view and attitudes about participating in a peer-response group. Because the students’ interactions related to their perceptions of each other’s writings, their drafts were also used to help explicate the group’s social dimension. Results of Analysis This group was not an ideal community of writers helping writers. Perhaps, more apt metaphor for describing the group participation patterns is a duel.

a

G.L. Nelson and J.M. Murphy

182

Group Roles. Roles refer to a set of “common perceptions and expectations shared by the members [of the group] about the behavior of an individual in. __group interaction” (Bormann, 1975, p. 201). Roles are part of the informal group norms that emerge during the interactions of a group. The roles that emerged in this group are as follows: Cecilia-the attacker Raphael-the weakest writer Juho-the best writer Gloria-the mediator and facilitator It is important to note that the professional TWE rater did not rank Raphael as the weakest writer and that the TWE raters ranked Cecilia as the best writer, not Julio. Therefore, the roles of weakest and best writer were negotiated by the group. It is also important to note that roles are interrelated; roles are negotiated in response to other roles. Cecilia frequently played the role of attacker, and the others defended themselves or the other group members against her. Her role was pivotal, and the other roles seemed to develop in response to hers. The dominance of her role is suggested by the large number of utterances she makes; she produced 35% of the thought units averaged across all group sessions with the percentage increasing from 30% in the first session to 42% and 39% in the fifth and sixth sessions. Her attacker role began to emerge early in this first session when she told Raphael, “You are the worst one.” Near the end of the first session, after she had criticized their drafts, she pleaded, “Be nice to me,” and laughed, seeming to recognize that she had been critical of them and anticipating their negative responses to her. Her criticism continued during the second session when she began her discussion of Gloria’s paper. Cecilia (to Gloria):

First, I have to say your words are very difficult to read. Well, you just have not clearly point[ed] out the number of differences you’re going to say; you just say “some differences” . . . I can’t understand why you didn’t give it real clearly to the reader.

As Cecilia talked, Gloria pulled back and stopped looking at her. Julio articulated Cecilia’s attacker role and lent credence to the duel metaphor when she began to discuss his paper. Julio: Cecilia:

OK, Cecilia. Attack me. OK. Prepare [i.e., “en garde,” as she mimicked a fencing posture]

Cecilia then proceeded strongly.

to attack Julio’s paper. After she finished,

Gloria reacted

183

12 Writing Groups

Gloria:

And now I’ll try to say the good things, the positive things about this paragraph. You [Cecilia] always start arguing about the bad things.

Cecilia’s aggressive attacking was not limited to comments papers. She also interrupted while others were talking. In dialogue, she tried to wrench control of the discussion away from had begun to comment on Julio’s paper, but Cecilia stepped in and turn. Gloria: Cecilia: Gloria: Cecilia: Gloria: Cecilia:

Gloria:

about student the following Gloria. Gloria tried to steal a

The topic sentence is “I want to study English for four reasons.” You mean the reason is clear? No. The topic sentence is very clear. Hey! Come on. I’m talking! Just let me say what I think, and then you can say what you think. We can disagree with you. I’m not the writer. I can disagree with you. (She is referring to Elbow’s suggestion that writers not quarrel with readers’ responses.) It’s okay, Cecilia. It’s okay You have to wait Vi1I say [what I think], and then you say what you think.

Cecilia’s attacking role was further confirmed during instructor interviews students. Cecilia was absent on the day of this particular interview. Instructor: Gloria: Raphael: Julio:

with

Talk about how you felt about the group today. Cecilia, she fights always. It feels different [without her]. Yes, it’s different because Cecilia is very-(he points emphatically with his fingereshe say[s], “Bad point! Bad sentence!”

In spite of the instructor’s repeated suggestions to make positive comments, Cecilia continued to directly attack the others’ writings. In the final interview with the instructor, Cecilia brought up the duel metaphor herself when she said that if the discussions were not being videotaped, “we’d attack more. . . ; there

would be [even] more violence.” Cecilia’s criticism seemed to annoy the other participants, but it appeared to affect Raphael the most and may have contributed to Raphael’s low-status role as the weakest writer of the group. Raphael’s role and status emerged early in the first session as students discussed the procedural issue of whose draft should be discussed first. During this first session, students began to characterize Raphael as the weakest writer: Julio (to Raphael):

You’re the last paper because I have many comments for you, my friend (laughter from group).

184

G.L. Nelson and J.M. Murphy

Cecilia (also to Raphael): Raphael: Cecilia: Instructor: Cecilia:

You are the worst one. Julio is the first one, OK: And Gloria is second one. I’m third and Raphael. (laughter). What? Me the last one? Why? We will take the longest to talk about you. Remember to say positive things about the paper. (Laughs and waves a copy of his paper derisively at Raphael).

During all of the writing group sessions, Raphael’s low-status role remained constant. He was frequently interrupted by others and commonly withdrew from the group by sitting with his chair tilted back and arms folded tightly across his chest. Not surprisingly, Raphael uttered the fewest number of thought groups across all six sessions. He produced an average of 17% of the thought groups, half of Cecilia’s average of 35%. Julio, on the other hand, seemed to enjoy the high-status role of best writer. In the third session, Gloria legitimized Julio’s role. Gloria (to Julio): Julio: Gloria: Julio: Gloria: Raphael:

I want to make a question. Did you take this class before? Before what? Did you take level 3, a writing class before? No. Writing and grammar together-same course, but I like so much this writing. Yeah. You write nice. I can’t do it like this. Congratulations. You must be the best [writer] in our class. You might be a writer.

Julio averaged 24% of the thought groups spoken across the six sessions. Raphael’s and Julio’s conference drafts and the transcripts of the videotapes were analyzed to determine why these roles developed. This analysis indicated that the students appeared to be responding primarily to surface features (e.g., format issues) of the text. Raphael printed his papers sloppily in pencil and his writing was difficult to read. In virtually every session, he was asked by the others to either skip every other line on the paper or to use a word processor so his writing would be easier to read. For example, in the fifth session, Cecilia said, “You still have no spaces. Once, just once [you should] have good punctuation and type!” Julio, however, produced word-processed papers that were clear and easy to read. To examine the text of their conference drafts, the students’ last two drafts were typed and independently assessed by two raters using a 6-point scale. Raphael’s average score was 3.2 and Julio was 3.8, indicating that Julio may have been a better writer than Raphael, but the difference was less significant than the group perceived. Other factors such as students’ attitude toward Raphael or Raphael’s reticence to participate may also have contributed to Raphael’s lowstatus role.

12 Writing Groups

185

Gloria seemed to have two roles, facilitator and mediator. Her role as facilitator began in the first session when she controlled the allocation of turns. For example, after the group discussed Julio’s paper, she said, “Raphael,” indicating that they would discuss Raphael’s paper next. She was giving him a turn. At the end of the second session, Gloria signaled its completion with “We’re finished,” and she began the third session with, “We’ll start with Julio, then with you (indicating Raphael), and then me.” Her role as mediator began to emerge in the second session. Cecilia and Julio were arguing and Gloria said, “Both of you stop!” In the third session during another argument, Gloria said, “Stop, one second!” and she later told Cecilia to relax. Gloria’s role as mediator may have developed in response to Cecilia’s role as attacker. Without arguments, a mediator may have been unnecessary. Gloria produced 24% of the thought groups across sessions.

The Dominant Role. Cecilia’s attacker role seemed to dominate the group. When Cecilia criticized the students’ writing, they, in turn, criticized her. For example, Cecilia was highly critical of one of Raphael’s papers summarizing an article on American suburbs. Cecilia suggested that he mixed up the advantages and disadvantages of suburban growth. When they later discussed Cecilia’s about the suburban paper, Raphael said, “She told me for ten minutes consequences, and then she didn’t write [anything] in her paragraph about that.” Cecilia seemed to play “get the student,” and the other students, in turn, played “let’s get Cecilia.” If Cecilia criticized their papers, they criticized hers. The topic of one composition was “Why I chose to study at Metro U.” Julio stated that one of his reasons for selecting Metro U was that he had friends in Collegeville where Metro U is located. Cecilia was highly critical of this reasoning. Cecilia:

Gloria:

Teacher: Gloria and Cecilia: Teacher: Cecilia:

OK, Julio. I don’t think, maybe I’m wrong, but Ms. Jones said the topic was Why I’m study[ing] English at Metro U, not Why I’m Studying in Collegeville. You give us four reasons and only one is why I go to Metro U. The rest is Collegeville, to stay here. That’s my problem [as a reader]. Collegeville is not Metro U. Is it true? Including the whole thing about Collegeville is the reason I want to know that. Are you going to tell us about Collegeville or Metro U? (By this time, Julio had dropped his head in his hands in despair.) Teacher, I want to know if we can argue here. You want to disagree with Cecilia? Right. I’d say just make your comments and then Julio, as writer, can choose whether or not he agrees. Right, but my opinion say[s] it’s not right. He’s away from the topic, so that’s a zero, right? I just want to know. I want to say that.

186

G.L. Nelson and

J.M. Murphy

Later, when the group was discussing Cecilia’s paper, Gloria referred back to Cecilia’s criticism of Julio’s paper. Cecilia had stated that one of her reasons for choosing Metro U was that her parents lived in Collegeville. Gloria said, “It’s the same case here. You’re talking about your parents here. We are talking about all the reasons we came here. I want to compare. ” This phenomenon of critical comments circling back to the person who responded critically continued throughout all six sessions. At times, this circle of criticism seemed to work against the students being helpful with each other’s writing; for example, they seemed more concerned with getting back at Cecilia than with providing helpful comments about her paper.

Student Attitzules Toward the Group. Raphael, the student quoted at the beginning of this article as writing, “I don’t like work[ing] in groups. . sometimes [I feel] disappointed when I hear too much critics,” was expressing displeasure and discomfort at having to participate in this group. The other students, however, in spite of the disharmony, reported that they benefited from the group. Julio wrote in his journal: I like working in groups in our composition [class] because it is better for me [for] three reasons. First, in this opportunity I know different styles of writing. Second, I practice my oral skills and increase my vocabulary. Third, usually I review and improve my composition according to observations that my classmates make. In short, I like working in groups because I learn English quickly. During third-party interviews at the end of the term, Julio, Cecilia, and Gloria stated that they benefited from participating in the group and would recommend similar experiences for other writing classes. The students, however, did express displeasure about some aspects of this particular writing group. They all agreed that they did not feel competent to comment on each other’s papers, and that they would have liked the teacher to be part of the group, or, at least, to have assigned someone to be in charge. Considering that these students come from cultures with a more teacher-centered approach to education and that their English was less than proficient, this wish is not surprising.

Discussion of Social Dimension The social dimension of this group was less than ideal. The analysis of the group’s interactions illustrate the negative impact that one critical individual can have on the social dynamic of the group, particularly when that individual plays a dominant role in the group’s interactions. When Cecilia made critical comments about the others’ writings, they withdrew from the interaction (e.g., Raphael folded his arms, tilted his chair back, and stared at the wall), became defensive, or later criticized her writing. This defensive response to negative criticism is consistent with the findings of Ll research (Gere, 1987; Thomas, 1984),

L2 Writing Groups

187

suggesting that students need to learn to critique writing in constructive ways. These findings also suggest that the experiences of the participants in a writing group are not the same for all group members. Individual group members often differ in their satisfaction with the group experience. Consistent with the research on small group interaction (Bormann, 1973, this analysis suggests that the participants’ role and status influenced their reactions to the group. For example, it is not surprising that Raphael expressed dissatisfaction with the group considering his low-status role as weakest writer. It is also not surprising that Julio enjoyed participating in the group; he was considered the best writer and frequently received praise from the group. Ll research (Fox, 1980; Nystrand & Brandt, 1989) suggests that groups increase students’ confidence in and improved their attitudes about their writing. The findings of this study suggest that one’s confidence in and attitude about writing is influenced by one’s role in the group. It is possible that Raphael left this class with less confidence in his writing than when he began the class, whereas Julio may have left with an inflated view of his writing ability. It is tempting to view the social dimension of this group as an aberration and to look for reasons as to why it developed as it did. Possible reasons include the domination of one critical member, the particular mix of this group of students, the way in which students were prepared, or the students’ level of English proficiency. However, until more case study research investigates the social dimensions of L2 small groups, we won’t know how normal or deviant this group was. CONCLUSION The present study investigated the task and social dimensions of a four-person writing group in an ESL writing class. Results indicated that students in this group were successful in the task dimension as indicated by the high percentage of thought groups that focused on the language used in their drafts. However, the social dimension of this group was less successful, as indicated by a preponderance of attacking, critical responses about students’ writing (primarily from one student), and by the negative responses to these comments. Although the task and social dimensions of this group have been discussed separately in this article, they are, in fact, inextricably interwoven. The inseparable relationship between the task and social dimensions may be best described with an example: Gloria writes a paper (task). Julio reads the paper (task) and talks about the paper in a writing group (task). No matter how he responds to the paper (task), Julio affects the social dimension (the way members perceive, relate, and interact with each other). If he is critical of Gloria’s paper, Gloria may withdraw from the group (social) or she may, in turn, be critical of his paper-not because she thinks it merits criticism but in response to his critical comments about her paper (social). Her performance of

188

G.L. Nelson and

J.M. Murphy

task (responding to Julio’s paper) is thus partly a manifestation of the social dimension of the group. Students’ reactions to other students’ compositions relate to their attitudes toward the writer and to what has happened in the group; the group dynamics relate to past and present comments on each other’s papers, and those comments then affect the future dynamics of the group. This study provides evidence that ESL writing groups are more complex than sometimes recognized. The findings suggest that ESL writing teachers cannot assume that by instructing students in group etiquette and in reader-based responses that the students will, therefore, interact in ways that are helpful to each other’s writing. As Flower (1989) notes, we cannot predict that specific student behavior will occur as a result of teachers’ “social engineering” (p. 285). As discussed earlier in this article, the findings of Ll studies make a strong case for using writing groups. It should be noted, however, that these positive findings are frequently in the task dimension (e.g., Gere & Abbott, 1985; Nystrand & Brand& 1989). In addition, L2 writing instructors (Mittan, 1989) note positive results from groups. This study also suggests some positive findings. In fact, one of the most intriguing parts of the study is that in spite of some difficulties within the social dimension, the group generally stayed on task and talked about their writing. Also, three of the group members reported that they liked being in the group throughout the course.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE CLASSROOM The findings of this study paint a challenging picture for L2 writing teachers. On the one hand, students excelled in completing their task and stated numerous advantages of working within a writing group. On the other, the interactions of the group were at times unpleasant with students being overly critical of each other’s writings. Four considerations may help clear the picture. First, the benefits of using writing groups are supported by both the findings of Ll research (Beach, 1989; Fox, 1980; Gere & Abbott, 1985; Nystrand, 1986; Nystrand & Brandt, 1989) and the experiences of many L2 writing teachers (Allaei & Connor, 1990; Mittan, 1989). The findings of this study need to be considered within the context of these benefits. Second, a possible means of decreasing critical comments is to include the teacher as part of the group. In this model, the teacher schedules writing groups so that he or she can participate in each group meeting; the teacher reads, writes comments on, and responds to drafts following the same guidelines that the students are expected to use. By participating as a member of the group, the teacher can model the kinds of responses expected of students, encourage helpful, positive responses, and discourage students’ giving critical responses to other students’ writing.2 Another alternative is to shift group membership periodically to mix the

12 Writing Groups

189

composition of groups. Shifting group membership may discourage the development of negative roles in one group because individuals will be working with different peers on different days. In this option, students work with a variety of classmates over time, thereby interacting with a wider audience of readers. Teachers can develop a rotation list for group membership, implement random selection, or explore some other means for arranging students in small groups or pairs. Examples of criteria for deciding upon group membership include the following: the initial preferences of students, avoidance of a shared first language, a mixture of males and females, and a shared or similar writing topic. Finally, there is the complex issue of training. Training is needed to establish trust and commitment, to develop collaborative skills for critiquing drafts in a way that is not negative (Gere, 1987), and to learn needed social and listening skills (Hilgers, 1984). One’s writing is an intricate part of one’s self and an attack on writing often constitutes an attack on self. An unsupportive social climate, as illustrated by this study, can lead to defensiveness or withdrawal (Gere, 1987). It is tempting to suggest that additional or different training in procedures of peer response might have led to more positive social interactions between students in this particular group. Additional training might have made a difference for these four students. At issue, however, is determining what kind of training is most appropriate. Many training procedures are available, one of which was used by the instructor in this study. Another is proposed by Thomas and Thomas (1989) who suggest training in Rogerian reflection before students begin interacting in groups. Rogerian reflection, a technique pioneered by Carl Rogers (1969), refers to repeating or “reflecting” back what one says, using expressions such as “It seems to me what you are saying is. . . . ” This technique is already widely discussed in the field of L2 instruction because it is a cornerstone of the L2 methodology known as Counseling-Learning/Community Language Learning (C-IJCLL). Leki (1990b) suggests yet additional training procedures. In one, the teacher models appropriate responses to several texts before asking students to respond. The teacher might also prepare “response guide questions to a text, allowing each student to answer the questions alone and perhaps compare answers with other students” (p. 16). A follow-up to this activity would be to compare student and teacher responses. A component of many training procedures might be practice in praising other students’ papers. Daiker’s (1989) research demonstrates that praise (a) improves student writing, (b) increases the length of student papers, and (c) affects student attitude about writing. Even if L2 writing specialists were to agree on a single set of procedures for training students in the use of peer responses, teachers who implemented such training procedures would not be able to anticipate with confidence the actual performances of L2 students in the classroom. The literature on classroomcentered research indicates that the dynamics of classroom interactions are

190

G.L. Nelson and J.&l.Murphy

highly complex (Allwright & Bailey, 1991). It may well be that no amount of training would have mediated some of the less useful interactions between the students who participated in this study. IMPLICATIONS

FOR FURTHER

RESEARCH

The results of this study also have implications for future research. Most studies on writing groups have investigated the task dimension (e.g., Gere & Abbott, 1985). This study demonstrates the importance of the social dimension and the need for research on the social dimension of writing groups. It also suggests the need for additional research on different kinds of writing groups-those with the teacher as a member of the group, those with shifting group membership, and those who receive different kinds of training. Finally, these findings strongly suggest the need for further case study research on L2, as opposed to Ll, writing groups. Notes I _ Brackets have been added throughout the article to clarify the speakers’ comments. 2. The University of Minnesota’s Freshman Composition Program uses this model; the instructor is a member of the group. REFERENCES Allael,

S.K., & Connor, U.M. (1990). Exploring the dynamics of cross-cultural collaboration in writing classrooms. The Writing Insrrucror, 10. 19-28. Allwright, D., & Bailey, K. (1991). Focus on the language classroom: An introduction to classroom research for language reachers. New York: Cambridge University Press. Bales, R.E (1950). interaction process analysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Bales, RX (1970). Personality and interpersonal behavior. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston. Beach, R. (1989). Showing students how to assess: Demonstrating techniques for response in the writing conference. In C. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 127-148). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Bormann, E.G. (1975). Discussion and group methods: Theory and practice, New York: Harper & Row. Bruffee, K.A. (1980). A short course in writing (2nd ed.). Boston: Little, Brown. Bruffee, K.A. (1984). Collaborative learning and the “conversation of mankind.” College English, 46, 635-652. Carson, J. (1992). Becoming biiiterate: First language rnfluences. Journal of Second Language Writing, I, 37-60. Chafe, W. (1980). The deplcyment of consciousness in the production of a narrative. In W. Chafe (Ed.), The pear srories: Cognitive, cultural and iingurstic aspects of narrative production (pp. 9-50). Norwood, NJ: Ablex. Chaudron, C. (1983, March). Evaluating writing: Effecrs offeedback on revision. Paper presented at the International TESOL Conference, ‘Ibronto, Ontario. Cohen, A., & Cavalcanti, M.C. (1990). Feedback on compositions: Teacher and student verbal

12 Writing Groups

191

reports. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language wriring: Research insighrs for the classroom (pp. 155-177). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Daiker, D.A. (1989). Learning to praise. In C.M. Anson (Ed.), Wriring and response: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 103-113). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Educational Testing Servtce. (1989). Testof wruren English guide. Princeton, NJ: Author. Elbow, P. (1973). Writing without teachers. New York: Oxford University Press. Emig, J. (1971). The composing process of twelfth graders. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Enright, D.S. (1983). The organization of interaction in elementary classrooms. In J. Handscombe, R. Orem, & B. Taylor @is.), On TESOL ‘83: The question of control (pp. 23-38). Washington, DC: TESOL. Fanselow, J. (1987). Breaking rules: Generatrng and exploring alternatives in language teaching. New York: Longman. Fanselow, J. (1988). Let’s see: Contrasting conversations about teaching. TESOL Quarterly, 22, 113-130. Fathman, A.K., & Whalley, E. (1990). Teacher response to student writing: Focus on form versus content. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for rhe classroom (pp. 178-190). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Flower, L. (1985). Problem-solving srrategies for writing. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Flower, L. (1989). Cognition, context, and theory building. College Composition and Communication, 40, 282-311. Fox, R. (1980). Treatment of writing apprehension and its effects on composition. Research in rhe Teaching of English, 14, 39-49. Gebhard, J., Gaitan, S., & Oprandy, R. (1987). Beyond prescription: The student teacher as investigator. Foreign Language Annuals, 20, 227-232. Gere, A.R. (1987). Writing groups: History, rheory, and implications. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press. Gem, A.R., & Abbott, R.D. (1985). Talking about writing: The language of writing groups. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 362-386. Goldstein, L.M., & Conrad, S.M. (1990). Student input and negotiation of meaning in ESL conferences. TESOL Quarrerly, 24, 443-460. Grabe, W., & Kaplan, R.B. (1989). Writing in a second language: Contrastive rhetoric. In D.M. Johnson & D.H. Roen (Ed.%), Richness in writing: Empowering ESL students (pp. 263-283). New York: Longman. Hairston, M. (1982). The winds of change: Thomas Kuhn and the revolution in the teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 76-88. Hall, C. (1990). Managing the complexity of revising across languages. TESOL Quarterly, 24, 43-60. Hayes, J.R., & Flower, L. (1983). Uncovering cognitive processes in writing: An introduction to protocol analysis. In P Mossethal, L. Tamar, & S.A. Walmsley (Eds.), Research in wriring (pp. 206-220). New York: Longman. Hedge, T. (1988). Writing: Resource books for teachers. New York: Oxford University Press. Hilgers, T. (1984). Toward a taxonomy of beginning writers’ evaluative statements on written compositions. Written Communication, I, 365-84. Hofstede, G. (1986). Cultural influences in teaching and learning. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 10, 301-320. Hunt, K. (1965). Gra-tical structures written at three grade levels. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Johns, A. (1990). LI composition theories. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 24-36). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

192 Kaplan,

G.L. Nelson and J.M. Murphy

R. (1967). Cultural thought patterns in intercultural education Language Learnrng, 16, l-20. Kroll, B. (Ed.). (1990). Second language writing: Research Insights for the classroom. Cambrtdge Cambridge University Press. Lagana, J. (1973). The development, implementation, and evaluation of a model for teachrng composition which utilizes individualized learnmg and peer grouping. Unpublished doctoral dissertatton, University of Pittsburgh, PA. Leki, I. (1990a). Coaching from the margins: Issues in wrttten response. In B. Kroll (Ed.), Second language writing: Research insights for the classroom (pp. 57-68). Cambrtdge: Cambridge University Press. Leki, I. (199Ob). Potential problems with peer respondmg in ESL writing classes. CATESOL Journal, 3, 5-19. Mittan, R. (1989). The peer review process: Harnessing students’ communicative power. In D.M. Johnson & D.H. Roen (Eds.), Rmhness in writing: Empowering ESL srudenrs (pp. 207-219). New York: Longman. Moffett, J. (1968). Teaching the universe of discourse. Boston: Houghton Mifflin. Nystrand, M. (1986). The strucfure of written communicarion: Studies in reciprocity between writers and readers. New York: Academic. Nystrand, M., & Brandt, D. (1989). Response to wrtting as a context for learning to write. In C.M. Anson (Ed.), Wriring and response: Theory, practice, and research (pp. 209-230). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. Rogers, C.R. (1969). Freedom to learn: A view of what education might become. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill. Thomas, D.K. (1984). A transifion from speahng to writing: Small-group writing conferences. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Mmnesota, Minneapolis. Thomas, D.K., & Thomas, G. (1989). The use of Rogerian reflection in small-group writing conferences. In C. Anson (Ed.), Writing and response: Theory, practice. and research (pp. 114-126). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English. van Lier, L. (1988). The classroom and the language learner New York: Longman. Wolfson, N. (1981). Compliments in cross-cultural perspectives. TESOL Quarterly, IS, 117-124. Yin, R.K. (1984). Case study research: Design and methods. Beverly Hills: Sage. Zamel, V (1987). Writing: The process of discovering meaning. In J.C. Richards & M.H. Long (Eds.), Methodology in TESOL: A book of readings (pp. 267-278). New York: Newbury House.

193

L2 Writing Groups APPENDIX A Examples of the Guiding Questions Suggested by Instructor 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

What What What What What

do you think the writer’s focus is? makes you think that is the focus? do you like best about this draft? Explain would you like to know more about? cohesion strategies did the writer use?

why you liked it.

APPENDIX B Guidelines for Students: What Do I Say? What Do

I Do?

For the Reader

For the Writer

I,

Read carefully.

1.

If you want comments about a particular part of your paper, ask.

2.

Describe your reactions as you read the paper. Think DESCRIBE, not evaluate.

2.

Be attentive

3.

Be specific-point to particular items in the paper.

3.

Don’t argue, reject, or justify.

4.

Don’t quarrel with other readers’ reactions.

4.

Remember that comments from your group members are suggestions and that it’s your paper. You make the final decisions about how to write it.

and listen carefully.

Note. These guidelines are adapted from Peter Elbow’s Writing Without Teachers (1973) and the University of Minnesota Freshman Composition Program.