ABSTRACT 
Title of Dissertation: The Effects of Peer Collaboration on 
Community College Freshmen's Writing, 
Socialization, and Attitudes 
Shirley Mae Smith Thompson, Doctor of Education, 1992 
Dissertation directed by: Professor Wayne Slater, Department of Curriculum 
and Instruction 
This was a study investigating the effects of peer collaboration on 15 
community college freshmen's narrative writing, on their socialization, and 
on their attitudes toward writing during a semester freshman composition 
course. One narrative writing sample was collected at the beginning of the 
semester and a second was collected near the end of the semester. An attitude 
survey also was administered at the beginning and at the end of the semester. 
In addition, eleven class sessions during the semester were observed and 
audio taped by the researcher. A student in the writing class served as a key 
informant to assist in assessing the validity and reliability of the researcher's 
observations. Interviews with the teacher were held also. The writing 
samples were scored holistically; the attitude surveys were analyzed; and the 
researcher's observations and audio tapes were analyzed and interpreted in 
concert with the observations made by the key informant and the teacher. 
Writing Sample A revealed a 1.86 average score; Writing Sample B revealed a 
2.35 average score, a difference of .49. Attitude Survey A revealed a 3.29 
mean; Attitude Survey B revealed a 3.75 mean, a difference of .46. 
Observations and interviews verified the writing sample and survey results. 
Results suggest that peer collaboration may have had a positive effect on 
students' writing, their socialization, and their attitudes toward writing. 
THE EFFECTS OF PEER COLLABORATION ON COMMUNITY 
COLLEGE FRESHMEN'S WRITING, SOCIALIZATION, 
AND ATTITUDES 
by 
Shirley Mae Smith Thompson 
Dissertation proposal submitted to the Faculty of the Graduate School 
of The University of Maryland in partial fulfillment 
of the requirements for the degree of 
Doctor of Education 
1992 
I 
I?, 
,\ \ ' 
Advisory Committee: 
Professor Wayne H. Slater, Chairman/ Advisor 
Professor E. G. Campbell 
Professor Mariam Jean Dreher 
Professor Jean R. Hebeler 
Professor Olivia Saracho 
? Copyright by 
Shirley Mae Smith Thompson 
1992 
ii 
DEDICATION 
To Don and the children: 
Donnie and Stephanie 
and my mother 
Gladys M. Smith 
111 
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS 
I'd like to thank the many teachers, friends, and relatives who assisted 
me in completing this dissertation: 
my advisor, Professor Wayne Slater, for teaching me how to write a 
dissertation; 
members of my dissertation committee for their professional guidance: 
Professor E.G. Campbell, Professor Mariam Jean Dreher, Professor Jean R. 
Hebeler, and Professor Olivia Saracho; 
Graduate Secretary Jane Briscoe, for her words of encouragement; 
Chesapeake College Vice President, Dr. Stuart Bounds, for his 
belief in me; 
Chesapeake College Assistant Professor of English, Gail Bounds, for her 
interest in innovative teaching strategies; 
Chesapeake College Assistant Professor of English, Lynn Hildenbrand, 
for her shoulder; 
Chesapeake College Academic Services Secretary, Kay Skinner, for her 
readiness and expertise in formatting dissertations; 
finally, I'd like to thank my closest friends and family for their support: 
Margaret Embert; Jane Groves; my son, Donnie; my daughter, Stephanie; 
most of all, I am eternally grateful to my husband, Don. 
lV 
TABLE OF CONTENTS 
Section Page 
List of Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii 
Chapter I 
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 
Rationale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 
Peer Collaboration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 
Peer Collaboration and the Teaching of Writing ............ ? ? ? ? ? 6 
Peer Collaboration and Socialization ................ ? ? . ? . ? ? ? ? ? ? 7 
Peer Collaboration and Student Attitudes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 
Statement of the Problem . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 
Significance of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 
Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 
Definition of Key Terms ..................................... ? . ? ? 12 
Limitations of the Study ..................................... ? ? ? ? 13 
Basic Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 
Chapter II 
Review of Related Literature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 
Research Questions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 
Peer Collaboration. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 
Peer Collaboration and the Teaching of Writing.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 
Peer Collaboration and Socialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 
Peer Collaboration and Student Attitudes ................ ? ? ? ? 41 
Chapter III 
Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 
Research Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53 
Design of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 
Attitude Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 
Writing Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 
Key Informant Interviews ................. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 56 
Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57 
Analysis and Synthesis .................................. ? . ? 57 
Validity and Reliability? ................... ????????????????? 57 
V 
Section 
Population and Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 
Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58 
Instructional Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59 
Course . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 
Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 
Teacher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 
Instruments and Materials . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 
Attitude Survey........................................... 61 
Writing Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 
Key Informant Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ? . . . . . . 62 
Observation Forms........................................ 63 
Researcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64 
Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 
Peer Collaborative Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 
Observation............................................... 66 
Validity and Reliability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 
Attitude Survey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 
Writing Samples . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 
Interviews/Observations ......................... ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 68 
Triangulation? ................................... ????????? 69 
Analysis, Synthesis, and Interpretation of Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 
Qualitative Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70 
Researcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71 
Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72 
Chapter IV 
Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 
Attitude Survey A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 
Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77 
Statement Mean Scores..................................... 78 
Analysis of Survey A Responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79 
Statement Mean Scores on Survey A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 
Results from Writing Sample A............................... 82 
Prompt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 
Scoring . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 82 
Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 
Observation Notes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 
Socialization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84 
Audiotaped Recordings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 
Eleven Sessions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112 
Vl 
Section Page 
Student Awareness ...................................... . 112 
Restrictions .............................................. . 113 
Key Informant Interviews .................................. . 113 
Selection ................................................ . 113 
Questions and Responses ............................... . 114 
Attitude Survey B .......................................... . 116 
Statement Mean Scores on Survey B. ...................... . 118 
Analysis of Survey B Responses ........................... . 120 
Analysis of Surveys A and B .............................. . 120 
Results from Writing Sample B .............................. . 121 
Prompt ........................................... ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 121 
Scoring ................................................. . 122 
Results ........................................... ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 122 
Summary ....................................... ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 122 
Chapter V 
Summ.rur, ~onclusions, Implications, Recommendations 
and L1m1tations ........................................ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 124 
Summary of the Problem ............................. ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 124 
Conclusions and Implications ........................ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 125 
Sample Writings A and B ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 126 
Observations ............................................ . 127 
Writing Attitude Surveys A and B ...................... , . ? 134 
Audiotape Recordings ................................... . 137 
Key Informant Interviews ........................ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 138 
Recommendations ......................................... ? 140 
Limitations .......................................... ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 142 
Summary ................................................. . 143 
References ................................................ ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 146 
Appendix A 
Survey Data ............................................... ? . ? ? ? 157 
Appendix B 
Writing Samples Data .......................................... . 165 
Appendix C 
Transcripts .................................................... . 169 
Vll 
Section Page 
Appendix D 
Interviews . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224 
Appendix E 
Syllabus ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? 238 
Appendix F 
Student Writings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 
Vlll 
LIST OF TABLES 
Table Page 
1 Statement Mean Scores on Survey A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 80 
2 Holistic Scoring Scale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 83 
3 Statement Mean Scores on Survey B. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 118 
1 
CHAPTER I 
Introduction 
Writing theorists and practitioners are finding that the development of 
socialization within a classroom may have a significant impact on fostering 
the development of students' cognitive abilities (Hays, et al., 1983; Heath, 
1983; Hillocks, 1986; Slavin, 1983). According to Kroll (1978), students with 
more advanced socialization skills, which he calls social cognitive skills, 
are better writers than those students having less advanced social cognitive 
skills. Peer collaboration is one instructional method which fosters 
socialization. Currently, writing researchers are investigating peer 
collaboration as an instructional method in order to examine its 
facilitative effects on students' writing (Bruffee, 1986; Maimon, 1983; Slavin, 
1983). 
The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the present study. The 
researcher will discuss (a) peer collaboration, (b) peer collaboration and the 
teaching of writing, (c) peer collaboration and socialization, and (d) peer 
collaboration and student attitudes. 
Rationale 
Most researchers suggest that composition instruction is in need of 
reform (Brodkey, 1987; Bruffee, 1986; Daiute, 1985; Hillocks, 1986; Slavin, 
1985a). If peer collaboration is an effective method of instruction, then 
systematic research is necessary to examine the effects of peer collaboration 
2 
in writing classrooms. George (1984) posited that peer collaborative learning 
has become a "popular method of teaching revision to undergraduates," 
maintaining that still little is known about the socialization of group 
members (p. 320). In this study, the researcher examined the effects of peer 
collaboration on the teaching of writing, on socialization, and on students' 
attitudes about writing. 
Peer Collaboration 
Hillocks (1986) described peer collaborative learning as an 
environmental method of learning which replaces passive learning with 
active learning. Hillocks (1986) defined the environmental method of 
learning as a method of instruction by which teachers "minimize lecture and 
teacher-led discussion" (p. 122). Students work on specific tasks in a group 
"before proceeding to similar tasks independently" (Hillocks,1986, p. 122). 
The Encyclopedia of School Administration and Supervision (Gorton, 
et al.,1988) defined peer collaborative learning as an instructional method by 
"which teachers structure student-to-student interactions [that] will 
influence how well students achieve academically, how they feel about 
school, ... their teachers and other personnel, ... each other, and how they 
feel about themselves as learners and as individuals" (p. 78). Peer 
collaborative learning, also called cooperative learning, is a teaching strategy 
which requires students to utilize interpersonal skills within a group to 
bring about change (Gorton, et al., 1988). According to Slavin (1985a), 
3 
students actively communicate with one another in a peer collaborative 
setting. 
Researchers continue to debate over whether or not there is a link 
between peer collaboration and achievement (Johnson & Johnson, 1985; 
Kagan, 1989 /1990; Slavin, 1983). Slavin (1983) argued that achievement could 
result from a positive reward interdependence within a collaborative 
classroom. He also argued that achievement could result from a goal 
interdependence within a collaborative classroom (Slavin, 1983). According 
to Slavin (1983), students will increase their achievement when there is a 
specific group contingency, such as positive reward interdependence and/ or 
goal interdependence. When there is a specific collaborative-skills 
contingency, cooperative behavior is enhanced, but more evidence is needed 
to strengthen the conclusion that collaborative learning experience provides a 
link to achievement (Slavin, 1983). 
Slavin (1980) asserted that collaborative learning can positively affect 
students' cognitive and affective behavior, but he warned that the results 
from studies could be situation-specific. More studies are necessary to include 
the complexity of the teacher's role, the student's role as individual, and the 
student's role as group member. Teachers are faced with the difficulty of 
teaching students a way to engage in learning activity that enhances 
cooperation. To engage in cooperative learning, students must learn new 
roles in order to respond to a new set of expectations different from their 
previous experiences. The complexity of the peer collaborative method of 
instruction requires further investigation. 
4 
The teacher'.s role changes in a peer collaboborative classroom, and 
staff development needs to be taken into account in considering peer 
collaborative instruction. The cost of peer collaborative learning includes 
teacher training. Teachers need training in order to implement the 
instructional strategy. According to Schultz (1989/1990), "Teachers must give 
adequate attention to monitoring and teaching social skills if they are to 
introduce cooperative learning successfully" (p. 43). Cooperative learning 
shifts the teacher from the front of the classroom to the center of it with the 
students (Johnson et al., 1984; Slavin, 1985b). Both the physical position and 
the role of the teacher change, which means that the teacher must be prepared 
to meet different challenges in the collaborative classroom (Schultz, 
1989 /1990). 
Johnson and his colleagues (1984) emphasized that teachers must 
outline the collaborative goals for the students. To minimize problems, 
teachers must be specific about which behaviors are appropriate and which 
behaviors are not appropriate in the peer collaborative classroom 
(Johnson et al.,1984). These researchers advised that when a problem 
arises, the teacher must be prepared to present it to the group of students, 
who should have the responsibility of solving it. Problem solving could 
enhance social skills (Johnson et al., 1984). More studies of what actually 
happens in a peer collaborative classroom could lend insight into how to 
prepare teachers to implement peer collaboration as an instructional 
method. 
5 
According to Kagan (1989/1990), "Teachers who are well versed in a 
variety of team structures can create skillful lessons that engage and enlighten 
their students" (p. 12). Kagan (1989 /1990) argued that organizing social 
interaction in the classroom is important to the success of peer collaborative 
learning. Peer collaborative learning can enhance teacher roles, student roles, 
and communication (Kagan, 1989/1990). The teacher is important to the 
success of peer collaborative learning, organizing social interaction that will 
engage and enlighten students (Johnson & Johnson, 1985; Kagan, 1989 /1990; 
Slavin, 1985b). 
The student's role changes in a peer collaborative classroom, which 
means that the student must be prepared to meet different challenges 
(Johnson & Johnson, 1985; Slavin, 1985b). According to Schultz (1989 /1990), 
in past years, students were taught to learn in a more competitve learning 
environment. In the peer collaborative classroom, students must be taught to 
learn in a more cooperative environment. Peer collaboration involves 
cooperation: positive interdependence, face to face interaction, individual 
accountability, group processing, and interpersonal skills (Johnson et al., 
1984). Smith (1987) suggested that students should be told prior to a peer 
collaborative experience that they should make contact with one another 
while speaking and listening, praise one another's responses, and express 
disagreement without hostility. The students must be prepared to meet 
different challenges in the peer collaborative classroom (Johnson & Johnson, 
1985; Slavin, 1985b). The present study was an investigation of the effects 
of peer collaboration. 
6 
Peer Collaboration and the Teaching of Writing 
Peer collaboration is a method of learning which combines learning 
and the social experience in the writing classroom. Peer collaboration 
may be an effective method for the teaching of writing because students 
learn to adjust their linguistic choices to fit the needs of the social context, 
the writing classroom (Pappas & Brown, 1987). Also referred to as 
cooperative learning, peer collaboration has both a cognitive and a social 
component (Slavin, 1985a). Students learn to write through interacting with 
their peers. 
Recent research has illdicated that writing is inherently a collaborative 
activity (Brodkey, 1987; Bruffee, 1983; Maimon, 1983). Kroll(1978) asserted that 
~tudents with more advanced socialization skills are better writers, attributing 
the phenomenon to a natural link between speaking and writing. Bruffee 
(1983) supported this notion, positing that communication is not complete 
unless it has had a response from an audience. As an active audience, peers 
respond to one other's drafts in the collaborative classroom (Bruffee, 1983). 
Students speak to one another about their writing in a collaborative 
classroom. 
Inherent in reader-writer interaction is a social factor resulting from 
two or more individuals sharing ideas (Boiarsky & Johnson, 1983). Sharing 
ideas in a peer collaborative classroom may have an impact on social 
cognition, which plays a significant role in reading and writing development 
(Boiarsky & Johnson, 1983; Bruffee, 1983; Slavin, 1985a). 
7 
Burleson and Rowan (1985) defined social cognition as "the general 
term given to a host of psychological processes through which individuals 
make inferences about the characteristics and qualities of others" (p. 26). 
Several researchers have argued that students with more advanced social 
cognitive abilities are better readers and, therefore, better writers (e.g., 
Kantor & Rubin, 1981; Kroll, 1978; and Moffett, 1968; Rubin & Rafoth, 1986). 
Social cognition, also called socialization, may enhance writing. 
Peer collaboration is a method of instruction which might enhance 
socialization and writing achievement. However, according to Schultz 
(1989 /1990), "Teachers must give adequate attention to monitoring and 
teaching social skills if they are to introduce cooperative learning 
successfully" (p. 43). Because of its socialization factor, Augustine, Gruber, 
and Hanson (1989/1990) advocate peer collaborative learning for enhancing 
achievement. Teaching writing using peer collaboration may enhance 
students' linguistic power. The present study was an investigation of the 
effects of peer collaboration on the quality of community college freshman 
writing. 
Peer Collaboration and Socialization 
Defined by the Encyclopedia of School Administration and 
Supervision (Gorton et al.,1988), socialization, called social learning, is the 
process by which individuals acquire self-identity, systems for classifying and 
describing people, social interaction skills, and a sense of belonging to a 
8 
group. According to Bruffee (1983), socialization is enhanced in the peer 
collaborative classroom for the teaching of writing. He argued that writing 
is organic to thinking, and learning to write should be an active, social 
process. 
In a peer collaborative setting, students interact with one another and 
the teacher, thus enhancing socialization. During this interaction, 
collaborative learning seems to link thinking, reading, and speaking to 
writing, which are elements of socialization. Moffett (1968) and Britton et al. 
(1975) suggested that the relationship between writing development and 
socialization has caused theoretical questions to emerge concerning the effect 
of thinking, reading, and speaking on writing development. A writer's 
conception of his/her social context may positively impinge upon his/her 
rhetorical choices (Hillocks, 1986). Peer collaboration may enhance the 
socialization of students. 
In a peer collaborative setting, students are permitted the opportunity 
to talk about their experiences while reading and writing, making personal 
and social associations with topics. Trimbur (1985) noted that peer 
collaborative learning closely approximates the conditions of writing in 
business and the real world. The social and cultural dimensions of writing 
are addressed more directly, since relationships between writer and reader are 
acted out in group instruction. Enhanced socialization may affect student 
writing skills. Bizzell (1982) argued that "what looks like a cognitive 
difference (between skilled and unskilled writers) [may] turn out to have a 
large social component" (p. 233). Students who make personal and social 
9 
associations with writing may write better than students who do not make 
those associations. The present study was an investigation of the effects of 
peer collaboration on the socialization of community college freshman 
composition students. 
Peer Collaboration and Student Attitudes 
Slavin (1983) posited that peer collaboration may have positive effects 
on students' attitudes toward writing. Daiute (1985) found that peer 
collaboration enhances writing achievement, asserting that active group 
involvement makes for positive student attitudes. Group involvement 
may provide opportunities for students to increase their language awareness 
<:3,nd sensitize them to various ways in which language can be used in 
various settings, which may improve their attitudes toward writing (Bruffee, 
1983). 
In a peer collaborative writing class, students orally communicate 
with one another, responding to one another's drafts. Slavin (1983) 
hypothesized that when students express themselves through oral discourse, 
prior to writing, they express ideas more clearly in written discourse. 
According to Slavin (1983), collaborative learning may have cognitive 
benefits because students enjoy writing more when their peers assist them in 
the process. 
Peer collaborative learning is also termed cooperative learning. 
According to Slavin (1985b), students learning to cooperate with students may 
have positive effects on achievement, intergroup relations, and attitudes. 
10 
More research is necessary to understand how cooperative learning affects 
relationships across sex and ethnic lines (Slavin, 1985b). 
Johnson and Johnson (1985) postulated that students support one 
another in a task-oriented situation, which benefits them academically. 
When students succeed, they feel good about themselves, according to 
Johnson and Johnson (1985). A peer collaborative learning experience could 
result in students feeling personally liked, supported, and accepted by their 
fellow students. Johnson and Johnson (1985) reported that students like 
learning cooperatively because they feel that other students want them to 
succeed academically. The present study investigated the effects of peer 
collaboration on community college freshman composition students' 
attitudes toward writing. 
Statement of the Problem 
Research questions have emerged concerning the socialization among 
members in a peer collaborative class and its effects on instruction and 
attitudes. Peer collaboration should be investigated for its effectiveness as a 
method of instruction for teaching students to write. This study was an 
investigation of the effects of peer collaboration on community college 
freshmen's writing, on their socialization, and on their attitudes toward 
writing. 
Open-admission colleges, in the 1970s, became populated with both 
traditional and nontraditional students. Many students described as 
nontraditional began seeking higher education. Nontraditional students 
11 
were older than traditional students and appeared to require changes in the 
traditional instructional method, since academic deficiencies seemed to 
emerge. 
Significance of the Study 
Since the report of Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational 
Reform (1983), there has been a renewed national concern regarding the 
serious writing deficiencies among college students. As evidenced by the 
research, the needs of the students are not being met in the composition 
classroom (Bartholomae, 1986; Bruffee, 1986; Slavin, 1980). Researchers 
have focused their studies on methods for teaching composition (Moffett, 
1983; Pappas & Brown, 1987; Slavin, 1983). An alternative method for 
teaching composition involves peer collaborative learning, which 
maximizes student socialization. Bruffee (1986) posited that learning to 
write exceeds the limits of the student working in isolation, because a 
writer's language originates within a social context. Peer collaboration is a 
method of instruction which requires students to actively participate in 
the learning process by which they learn to write. Peer collaboration may 
provide an effective alternative method for teaching composition. 
The writing teacher, struggling to maintain high academic standards, 
often clings to what appeared to be an effective method of instruction in past 
years. However, low writing achievement among college students 
necessitates the investigation of alternative teaching methods in 
12 
composition (Bartholomae, 1986; Bennett, 1985; Bruffee, 1986; Slavin, 1980). 
This investigation of the socialization of students in a peer collaborative 
classroom may provide a contribution to the field of research in the teaching 
of writing. 
Research Questions 
Three questions were asked in this study: 
1. What are the effects of peer collaboration on the quality of 
community college freshman writing? 
2. What are the effects of peer collaboration on the socialization of 
community college freshman composition students? 
3. What are the effects of peer collaboration on community college 
freshmen's attitudes toward writing? 
Definition of Key Terms 
The following terms were defined for the purpose of this study: 
1. Quality of Writing refers to the effectiveness of student writing as 
measured by a holistic rating scale. 
2. Attitude toward Writing refers to the student's affective response 
to expressing him/herself on paper, as measured by an attitude 
survey. 
3. Peer Collaboration Instruction, called cooperative learning, refers to 
students learning to write through student-student interaction, in a 
small group, with the teacher acting as facilitator (Mason, 1972). 
13 
4. Lecture Method of Instruction refers to students learning to write 
through a teacher's oral delivery of notes. 
5. Socialization refers to the process by which individuals acquire self-
identity, systems for classifying and describing people, social 
interaction skills, and a sense of belonging to a group (Gorton et al., 
1988). 
6. Holistic Scoring refers to a guided procedure for ranking written 
discourse (Cooper & Odell, 1977). 
7. Triangulation refers to a multi-instrument approach for collecting 
data. Data collection may include surveys, interviews, observations, 
and pre- and post-writing samples. 
8. Key Informant refers to a student who freely interacts with peers and 
the teacher and is willing to provide information to the researcher. 
The key informant is one component of triangulation. 
9. lob Training Partnership Act (JTP A) refers to a federal grant which 
funded low-income students to attend college for job training. 
10. Special Student refers to a student with a self-reported inability. 
Limitations of the Study 
This study included the following limitations: 
1. One community college freshman composition class was studied. 
2. The class was not randomly selected because of administrative 
limitations. 
14 
3. The results of the study cannot be generalized to other community 
colleges' freshman composition classes. 
4. The Hawthorne Effect may have been present. 
5. While audiotaping did not appear to affect most students after the 
first few minutes of a class session, students were aware of its 
use. 
Basic Assumptions 
The following assumptions were basic to this study: 
1. Students' writing samples represented their respective 
levels of writing proficiency. 
2. Holistic scoring was a valid and reliable measure to rate the quality 
of student writing. 
3. The class size of 15 was not the sole factor for rates of student 
achievement and changed student attitudes toward writing. The 
typical class size of a composition class was 30. 
4. Peer collaborative learning enhances socialization among 
students. 
5. Enhanced socialization among students has a positive effect 
on the quality of students' writing. 
6. Enhanced socialization among students has a positive effect on 
students' attitudes. 
15 
Conclusion 
The state of student writing at the college level is a national concern 
(Bennett, 1985; Nation at Risk, 1983). Further investigation of an alternative 
method which composition instructors use to teach students to write may 
yield significant data which could contribute to reversing student writing 
deficiencies. Specifically, the investigation of the socialization of students 
in a peer collaborative writing classroom may offer insight into what 
happens between and among students who are learning how to write. 
Chapter Summary 
Chapter I introduced the study which investigated the effects of peer 
collaboration on community college freshmen's writing, on their 
socialization, and on their attitudes toward writing. Chapter II will review 
the relevant research literature focused on peer collaboration, peer 
collaboration and the teaching of writing, peer collaboration and socialization, 
and peer collaboration and student attitudes. 
1 6 
CHAPTER II 
Review of Related Literature 
The purpose of this chapter is to review the literature relevant to the 
study. The chapter is divided into five sections: (a) a statement of the 
research questions; (b) a review of literature on peer collaboration; (c) a 
review of literature on peer collaboration and the teaching of writing; (d) a 
review of literature on peer collaboration and socialization; and (e) a review 
of literature on peer collaboration and students' attitudes. 
Research Questions 
Three questions were asked in the study: 
1. What are the effects of peer collaboration on the quality of 
community college freshman writing? 
2. What are the effects of peer collaboration on the socialization of 
community college freshman composition students? 
3. What are the effects of peer collaboration on community college 
freshmen's attitudes toward writing? 
Peer Collaboration 
The Encyclopedia of School Administration and Supervision (Gorton 
et al., 1988, p. 78) defined peer collaborative learning as an instructional 
method by "which teachers structure student-to-student interactions [that] 
will influence how well students achieve academically, how they feel about 
school, ... their teachers and other personnel, ... each other, and how they 
feel about themselves as learners and as individuals." Peer collaborative 
1 7 
learning, also called cooperative learning, is a teaching strategy which 
requires students to utilize interpersonal skills within a group to bring about 
change (Gorton et al.L 1988). According to Slavin (1990), Johnson and Johnson 
(1990), and Kagan (1989 /1990), the change could result in increased 
achievement. 
The Slavin Theory. Researchers continue to debate over whether or 
not there is a link between peer collaboration and achievement (Johnson & 
Johnson, 1985a; Kagan, 1989/1990; Slavin, 1983). In Learning to Cooperate, 
Cooperating to Learn, Slavin (1985b) advocated cooperative learning as a 
method of instruction which could enhance academic achievement in subject 
areas that included reading and writing. He identified field experiments in 
elementary and secondary schools that studied the effects of cooperative 
learning on student achievement. Of the 46 field studies, 29 studies resulted 
in favorable effects. There were no differences in 15 of the studies; in two of 
the studies, a significant difference favored the control group. 
Slavin (1985b) explained the pattern of results as a consequence of 
cooperative methods which emphasized individual accountability in terms of 
a positive reward interdependence. According to Slavin (1983), students 
should increase their achievement when there is a specific group 
contingency, such as positive reward interdependence and/or goal 
interdependence. 
He theorized that when group scores are offered for completed tasks, 
each group member assumes a separate role to satisfy the task. Slavin (1985b) 
supported his theory by citing some 27 studies in which the group members 
were rewarded on the basis of a group product. Almost 90% of the 27 studies 
1 8 
revealed enhanced achievement. When there is a specific collaborative-skills 
contingency, cooperative behavior is enhanced, but more evidence is needed 
to strengthen the conclusion that collaborative learning experience provides a 
link to achievement (Slavin, 1983). 
Slavin (1985b) stressed the importance of designing cooperative 
learning methods that would increase individual accountability. He 
suggested that when individual students are responsible for separate tasks 
which contribute to the group task, both individual and group achievement 
could be enhanced. Further, Slavin (1985b) suggested that academic 
achievement could be enhanced by designs that utilize group scores. Other 
researchers have addressed the issue of achievement and cooperative 
learning (Johnson & Johnson, 1985). 
The Johnson and Johnson Theory. In Learning to Cooperate, 
Cooperating to Learn (1985b), Johnson and Johnson discussed cooperative 
learning and academic achievement and cooperative learning and 
interpersonal behavior among students. According to these researchers, 
academic achievement can be enhanced by interpersonal behavior among 
students. To explain their theory, Johnson and Johnson (1985b) referred to 
Lewin's (1935) theory of motivation which postulated that tension within an 
individual motivated him/her to achieve the desired goal. According to 
Johnson and Johnson (1985b), motivating tension is enhanced in a 
cooperative learning situation because of the interpersonal behavior among 
students. 
Johnson and Johnson (1985b) theorized that interpersonal behavior is 
organized in three ways, each resulting in a specific goal structure: 
1 9 
cooperative, competitive, and individualistic. These researchers postulated 
that the goals in a cooperative goal structure are linked among the separate 
individuals. According to Johnson and Johnson (1985b), in a purely 
cooperative structure, group members can achieve their goals only if the 
other members of the group achieve theirs. 
Johnson and Johnson (1985b) theorized that in a competitive goal 
structure, students can achieve their goals only if the other members of the 
group do not achieve theirs. In an individualistic goal structure, students can 
achieve their goals without affecting other students (Johnson & Johnson, 
1985b). Johnson and Johnson (1985b) posited that of the three goal structures, 
a cooperative goal structure could enhance academic achievement possibly 
because of interpersonal or social interdependence. 
These researchers acknowledged the controversy which surrounds 
their assertions, stating that traditional research on cooperative learning is far 
from being complete. According to Johnson and Johnson (1985b), despite the 
numerous studies comparing the effectiveness of cooperative learning, the 
processes involved in cooperative learning and academic achievement and 
cooperative learning and interpersonal behavior among students have been 
largely ignored. Traditional research may have neglected relevant questions 
having to do with the effectiveness of cooperative learning (Johnson & 
Johnson, 1985b; Kagan, 1985). 
The Kagan Theory. According to Kagan (1985), cooperative learning is 
a small group method of instruction which provides conditions that allow 
students' natural curiousity, intelligence, and expressiveness to emerge and 
develop. To explain his educational philosophy, Kagan (1985) cited Dewey's 
20 
(1938) ideas on progressive education. Dewey (1938) described education as 
being experiential. According to Dewey (1938), experiences which lead to 
educational development are an outgrowth of environmental conditions 
which enhance socialization among students. Dewey's (1938) emphasis on 
socialization and the educational environment dovetailed with Kagan's 
(1985) theory on cooperative learning. 
Kagan (1985) advocated cooperative learning because of theoretical 
arguments and empirical data which supported that peer cooperation could 
1. enhance student achievement. .. ; 
2. improve cross-ethnic relations; 
3. aid in the successful mainstreaming of handicapped 
students; 
4. facilitate the maintenance of minority cultural values; 
5. promote positive social relations and prosocial 
development; and 
6. increase the liking among students for class, school, 
learning, and self. (p. 67) 
Kagan (1985) cited theorists and researchers such as Aronson (1978); Johnson 
and Johnson (1975); Johnson, Maruyama, Johnson, Nelson, and Skon (1981); 
Kagan (1980; 1983); Sharan (1980); and Slavin (1980; 1983). These theorists and 
researchers investigated cooperative learning and its systematic organization 
of social interaction. 
Kagan (1985) described the systematic organization of social interaction 
as a distinguishing factor that differentiates cooperative learning from other 
methods of learning. He said that in a cooperative classroom, students are 
21 
encouraged to interact with one another through grouping and reward 
and/or task structures. Kagan (1985) advised that social interaction in a peer 
collaborative classroom should emphasize positive interdependence within a 
reward and/ or task structure. 
Kagan (1985) explained that each cooperative classroom is a unique 
classroom structure. While he pointed out the commonality among 
cooperative learning classrooms, he also pointed out the vast diversity 
among cooperative task structures and forms of social organization. Slavin 
and Johnson and Johnson are proponents of Kagan's theories surrounding 
peer cooperative learning. 
Slavin (1985b), Johnson and Johnson (1985b), and Kagan (1985) are 
prominent researchers in the field of cooperative learning. They have 
authored and edited scholarly treatises on the topic (e.g., Learning to 
Cooperate, Cooperating to Learn; Cooperative Learning). Because Kagan, 
Slavin, and Johnson and Johnson are recognized authorities in the the field 
of cooperative learning, their studies are cited by other researchers (e.g., 
Sharan, 1985; 1990; Stenberg, 1981; Tackaberry, 1980), addressing issues 
concerning cooperative learning. 
The following studies investigated some of the issues concerning 
cooperative learning. These studies were selected for review from a limited 
body of research literature on peer collaborative learning. They were selected 
because of their academic orientation, hence other studies addressing peer 
collaboration which did not concern academic topics. Moreover, the 
following studies underwent rigorous research methods. 
22 
The Watson Study. Watson (1988) studied the effects of collaborative 
learning on the achievement of high school biology students as compared 
with traditionally instructed students. Watson (1988) defined collaborative, or 
cooperative learning as classroom learning with students assigned to small, 
mixed ability groups working toward a common goal. The reward system was 
group interdependent, in that each member of the group worked to enhance 
the group's reward. Traditional instruction involved a teacher-oriented 
classroom in which lectures were delivered by the instructor. Students took 
notes dictated by the instructor. The reward system was competitive, in that 
each member of the class worked to achieve a grade on a standard scale. 
There were a total of 11 teachers with 36 classes and 715 students 
included in this study. The same general subject matter was covered by all 
the teachers. An analysis of co-variance was used. Findings indicated that 
there was a significant difference between cooperative students and 
traditionally instructed students. Cooperative learning seemed to have a 
more positive effect on students' achievement. 
Watson's (1988) study may include a limitation in that there was not 
uniformity in subject matter taught. While the same general subject matter 
was taught by each of the 11 teachers in 36 classes, exact subject matter was not 
taught in the different classes. That is, the same information was not 
disseminated in the same context on the same day. Inconsistencies in subject 
matter could have factored into the significant difference between the two 
groups. Another limitation may have involved the Group Educational 
Modules (GEM), which were materials used by the cooperative group. 
Behavioral objectives were delineated in these materials, so the cooperative 
23 
students had the benefit of packaged outlined behavioral objectives. The 
traditional students did not receive the same benefit. GEM materials may 
have influenced the difference factor in Watson's (1988) study of the effects of 
collaborative learning on the achievement of high school biology students as 
compared with traditionally instructed students. Cooperative versus 
competitive studies have been the focus of other studies (Bonaparte, 1989). 
The Bonaparte Study. Bonaparte (1989) examined the effects of 
cooperative versus competitive learning on the mathematical achievement 
and self-esteem of urban second-grade pupils. The three hypotheses were that 
cooperative learning was more effective than competitive learning in 
increasing mathematical achievement, that cooperative learning was more 
effective than competitive learning in increasing self-esteem, and that the 
correlation between self-esteem and mathematical achievement is high and 
positive. 
Two hundred and forty subjects were included in this study. Bonaparte 
(1989) collected data from a population of second grade students living in the 
Middle Atlantic Region of the United States. Results indicated that the 
analyses of co-variance supported the hypotheses. In addition, a Pearson 
Product Moment Correlation was used to determine if there was a 
relationship between mathematical achievement and self-esteem. The 
hypothesis was supported. 
While cooperative learning students achieved with greater self-esteem 
than competitive students, Bonaparte's (1989) study may have ignored a 
significant fact. Increased self-esteem could be linked to achievement in 
24 
general, not necessarily mathematical achievement and not necessarily 
because of the method of instruction. 
The Lyons Study. Lyons (1982) stated that although some studies 
indicate that cooperative learning enhances achievement, there still remains 
the question as to why this is so. Lyons (1982) tested the hypothesis that "a 
variable mediating achievement in cooperative learning groups is the extent 
to which the students' oral interactions reflect elaborative cognitive 
processing of the content of the learning task" (p. 2). 
Seventy-nine high, middle, and low ability fourth, fifth, and sixth 
grade students were the subjects of this study. Students participated in the 
study for 40 minutes for 10 instructional days. Students learned a science unit 
during that time. The oral interactions of the students were examined for the 
content and level of cognitive processing in the context of performing the 
learning activities. Results of Lyons' (1982) study indicated that when 
constructive controversy was encouraged in a cooperative environment, 
there was significantly greater achievement and greater elaborative cognitive 
processing. In other words, students were able to offer more details. 
While Lyons' (1982) study was based on the assumption that 
cooperative learning increased achievement, it addressed a specific mediating 
variable. More such studies might answer the question of why some students 
achieve more in a cooperative learning environment. 
The Perreault Study. Perreault (1982) conducted a study in which he 
compared cooperative learning to noncooperative learning and their effects 
on cognitive achievement in junior high industrial arts laboratories. 
25 
Two junior high schools and two teachers participated in this study. 
Subjects were randomly selected from two seventh grade industrial arts 
classes. The Iowa Test of Basic Skills scores were used to identify two 
comparable classes from both schools. 
Both teachers were trained to use cooperative learning and 
noncooperative learning techniques. Both teachers utilized experimental 
treatments. Perreault (1982) conducted the study over a six-week period, 
during which time subjects drew a metric 500 racecar. 
A technical advisory committee examined the treatment-specific-
achievement instruments for face validity. The instrument was designed to 
assess the dependent variables which were at the knowledge, comprehension, 
and application levels taken from Bloom's taxonomy of the cognitive 
domain. The author implemented a 2 X 2 randomized blocks design for each 
dependent variable. Factors were Teacher A/ Teacher B and cooperative 
learning/ noncooperative learning treatments. 
Results from a two way analysis of variance of the data indicated that 
cooperative learning increased knowledge and comprehension achievement 
compared to the noncooperative learning. Application did not seem to be 
affected by the treatment. Questions continue to emerge as to why 
cooperative learning instruction results in positive effects in some studies 
and limited to no effects in other studies. 
The Rybczynski Study. Rybczynski (1987) hypothesized in her study, of 
cooperative learning instruction, that peer summarization was more effective 
than individualization in helping students to learn from their social studies 
text. 
26 
Rybczynski (1987) studied sixty-two sixth grade students of average and 
above average abilities. During a five-week period, ten lessons were 
conducted. Students were randomly assigned to one of three learning groups: 
individual summarization, peer summarization, and question answering. 
Students were asked to summarize from their text individually, with a peer, 
or answer questions. Teachers used scripts for instruction that were designed 
by the researcher. 
At the end of the study, students from each learning group were asked 
to write a recall of two passages from their social studies text. Recalls were 
analyzed for determining a summary score and an important ideas score. In 
addition, a short answer test was administered for assessment. An analysis of 
variance was conducted to determine if groups differed on measures of 
learning. The results did not support the hypothesis. On the contrary, 
Rybczynski (1987) reported that there was evidence which suggested that 
individualization was more effective than peer summarization, or 
cooperation. 
The Tackaberry Study. Tackaberry (1980) conducted a study to examine 
the effects of cooperation as opposed to competition on Hispanic and Anglo 
children. According to Tackaberry (1980), Spanish American children score 
lower on achievement tests than do Anglo children. She suggested that a 
factor which may contribute to this problem may be that Hispanic children 
have a low degree of interaction with Anglo children. Further, Tackaberry 
(1980) asserted that Hispanic children are never fully integrated into a 
classroom environment. 
27 
According to Tackaberry (1980), cultural difference has been identified 
as a possible handicap for Hispanic children. Even with the passing of the 
Bilingual Education Act, which mandates that bilingual children be taught in 
both their native tongue and English, Tackaberry (1980) argued that the 
cultural gap has not been bridged. In an effort to seek possible bridges to close 
cultural gaps between Hispanic and Anglo children in the classroom, 
Tackaberry (1980) examined the effects of cooperative learning. She asked: 
Does the cooperatively oriented classroom enhance relations between Anglos 
and Hispanics? 
Findings indicated that cooperative learning reduced negative cross-
ethnic nominations for playmates and that competition increased the 
number of unwanted cross-ethnic peers in math groups. Essentially, the 
cooperative treatment reduced strong negative feelings that tend to limit 
cross-ethnic interaction and socialization. 
This study does not suggest that cooperative learning is a panacea for 
bridging cultural gaps. When children were asked to choose playmates, 
friends, and work group members, the cooperative intervention did not 
increase cross-ethnic choices. In addition, the positive results may have been 
a consequence of socioeconomic homogeneity among the students, rather 
than the method of instruction. Further study is necessary to address the 
issue of socioeconomic heterogeneity and cooperative learning. 
Summary. The aforementioned studies examined some of the issues 
surrounding peer collaboration in academic education. These issues included 
interpersonal dependence, reward structures, achievement, self-esteem, 
constructive controversy, and cross-ethnic relations. 
28 
The studies mentioned were similar in that they examined the effects 
of peer collaborative learning, using rigorous research methods. The studies 
were different in that they examined peer collaboration with different 
emphases. Many of the results were the same: peer collaborative learning 
may enhance achievement. If this hypothesis is true, there are still 
unanswered questions as to why. Researchers continue to investigate 
questions such as: Why is cooperative learning successful with some 
students? Why is cooperative learning not successful with other students? 
Peer Collaboration and the Teaching of Writing 
According to Slavin (1990), peer collaboration is a method of 
instruction which combines the learning and the social experience in the 
writing classroom. Peer collaboration may be an effective method for the 
teaching of writing because students learn to adjust their linguistic choices to 
fit the needs of the social context, the writing classroom (Pappas & Brown, 
1987). 
Bruffee (1980) described peer collaborative learning in terms of reading 
aloud, interviews, collaborative group work, and peer criticism. He described 
each term as follows: 
1. Reading Aloud. The most important text is the work of the writers, 
themselves. In understanding the effectiveness of their peers' 
writing, students gain greater insight into how to write more 
effectively. 
2. Interviews. In this context teachers allow class time for students to 
pair off and discuss assignments before they are due. This activity 
i r 
I, 
I' 
I,, 
29 
provides an opportunity for students to talk through their ideas 
before committing them to paper. 
3. Collaborative Group Work. Working in small semiautonomous 
groups allows students to share in decision making. Group reports 
affirm decisions made, independent of the teacher. 
4. Peer Criticism. Learning how to evaluate one's own writing is 
effectively achieved through learning how to evaluate others' 
writing. 
Bruffee (1980) argued that the eclectic incorporation of the above methods of 
collaboration could benefit the quality of students' writing. 
Recent research has indicated that writing is inherently a collaborative 
activity in the sense that authors write to communicate with an audience 
(Brodkey, 1987; Bruffee, 1983; Maimon, 1983). Through the medium of the 
written work, a writer interacts with a reader. Kroll (1978) suggested that 
students with more advanced social skills are better writers, attributing the 
phenomenon to a natural link between speaking and writing. Bruffee (1983) 
supported this notion, positing that communication is not complete unless it 
has had a response from an audience. As an active audience, peers respond to 
one other's drafts in the collaborative classroom (Bruffee, 1983). Maimon 
(1983) theorized that students reading and speaking to one another about 
writing could enhance their writing skills. Researchers have continued to 
examine theories surrounding collaborative learning and writing (e.g., 
Carroll, 1989; Garstka, 1984; Gere & Abbott, 1985; McCleary, 1990; Shepperson, 
1989). 
30 
The following studies investigated some of the issues concerning 
collaborative learning. These studies were selected for review from a limited 
body of research literature on peer collaborative learning and writing. 
Further, the following studies on peer collaborative learning and writing 
were selected because they underwent rigorous research methods. 
The Shepperson Study. Shepperson (1989) examined reading-writing 
relations and collaborative learning. The study investigated 48 students in 
grades 9-11. Shepperson (1989) collected data through techniques of 
participant observation, key informant interviewing, and document analysis. 
Participants were remedial students involved in classroom activities 
which consisted of silent reading activities (worksheets and games) and 
writing activities (projects and journals). 
Students were seated in small groups, which developed into 
collaborative learning structures. Students talked with one another about 
writing. However, according to Shepperson (1989), affective rather than 
cognitive learning developed in this setting, because students' discussions 
revolved around how they felt about topics for writing, rather than 
mechanics. Socialization skills were developed in that students were 
interactive, and common writing themes developed from social exchanges 
that students had with their peers. 
The Shepperson study (1989) examined remedial students whose study 
skills may have been weak at the outset. Study skills and achievement may 
have been enhanced subtly. Assessment instruments may not have been fine 
enough to detect such subtle changes, which may have weakened the results 
of the study. Assessment instruments may need to be refined for research in 
31 
the field of writing (McCleary,1990). Another possibility is that the 
Shepperson study (1989) students may not have been affected by the peer 
collaborative method of instruction. 
The McCleary Study. McCleary (1990) conducted a study of the effects of 
peer collaboration in the writing classroom. Subjects included 17 students in 
a freshman composition class and were studied for one semester. 
The 17 students were divided into groups of four or five members. 
They were given a pretest essay. Groups spent time planning their papers, 
responding to each other's plan, and responding to one another's drafts. 
Group members were required to read their drafts aloud. Activity sheets were 
given to the students with a checklist of items to look for in drafts. 
Posttest essays revealed an improvement of writing. A survey of 
students' attitudes toward collaborative work groups revealed that they liked 
the experience. McCleary's study involved a small population, which reduces 
generalizability and replication. However, more such studies would be a 
contribution to the limited body of literature on writing and peer 
collaborative learning (Gere & Abbott, 1985). 
The Gere and Abbott Study. Gere and Abbott (1985) examined the 
language of writing groups at three grade levels, fifth, eighth, and eleventh-
twelfth. They studied these writing groups in order to determine how well 
students remained on task in a group learning format and what linguistic 
power was available to these students. Here, linguistic power refers to 
students' ability to use vocabulary that relates to writing. 
Gere and Abbott (1985) studied nine writing groups in regular classes 
taught by six different teachers. In this study, the researchers recorded 
32 
through observation notes what was actually said during writing group 
meetings. The researchers concluded that students stay on task and actually 
write about their discussions with greater linguistic power in writing groups. 
However, students may have remained on task because they were cognizant 
that they were being examined by the teacher and researchers. 
Gere and Abbott (1985) found that students do concentrate on writing 
in a group learning format. Further, the researchers found that students' 
linguistic power is enhanced in a group learning format which can be 
attributed somewhat to the teacher who facilitates and guides the level and 
direction of discussion. Gere and Abbott (1985) advocated group learning, or 
peer collaborative learning, for the following reasons: 
1. Group learning enables students to become conscious of 
themselves as writers. 
2. The multiple foci of consciousness demonstrate the many 
perspectives available to members in a group format. 
3. Students form a greater sense of audience in a group format. 
4. Student responses to writing range from issues of diction and verb 
tense to concerns with coherence and logic. 
According to Gere and Abbott (1985), collaborative learning provides a 
window into students' writing processes, allowing teachers to observe 
students in groups, hearing their criticisms, weaknesses, and strengths in an 
open forum. According to these researchers, students concentrate on writing 
in a collaborative setting. However, students may have been affected by 
virtue of their knowing that they were being studied by researchers. Students 
may have performed for researchers, and not necessarily the instructional 
33 
method. Further investigation may lend insight into how achievement is 
affected in a cooperative learning classroom (Carroll, 1989). 
The Carroll Study. Carroll (1989) examined the effects of cooperative 
learning compared with lecture learning on achievement in college-level 
written business communication. 
Forty-eight subjects were studied; 16 were control students and 32 were 
experimental students. A 75-item multiple choice objective pretest and 
posttest were administered to both classes at the beginning of the semester 
and at the end of the semester to measure students' achievement. A two-
sample T-test was used to analyze data. 
Findings indicated that there was no significant difference between the 
two learning methods: cooperative and lecture. Both methods were found to 
be equally effective. The 75-item objective pretest and posttest may not have 
been the best assessment instrument to measure writing achievement. 
Cooper and Odell (1977) argued that actual writing samples should be used to 
assess students' writing, because objective tests may merely measure students' 
editorial skills. 
The Garstka Study. Garstka (1984) conducted a study which focused on 
the effects of group learning on community college basic skills students. A 
case study was conducted of an evening English Reading and Writing Basic 
Skills class. Garstka (1984) employed ethnographic research techniques for 
data collection. Data were collected through participant observation, field 
notes, interviewing, and examination of records. 
Findings revealed that students were more responsive to learning 
activities that involved them in group discussion. Garstka reported that a 
34 
large percentage of the students dropped out of the class because of their 
different needs for taking the course. A follow-up study to find out why the 
students dropped out of the class could lend insight into how the students felt 
about group learning and how their feelings impacted on their achievement. 
Further, Garstka's (1984) investigation was a case study, with limited 
generalizability. 
Summary. The aforementioned studies examined some of the issues 
surrounding peer collaboration and writing. These issues included group 
discussion, attitude toward method of instruction, time on task, and 
achievement. 
Many of the findings of the above studies revealed that peer 
collaboration has positive effects in the composition classroom, but the 
studies are inconclusive. While there are many essays addressing peer 
collaboration in the composition classroom (e.g., Bruffee, 1986; Kroll,1978; 
Maimon, 1979; Maimon, 1983; Shaughnessy,1977 ), there is a limited number 
of studies which actually investigates the area. There remains the question: 
What are the effects of peer collaboration on the quality of students' writing? 
There is also the question of what happens to studies with nonsignificant 
findings. 
Peer Collaboration and Socialization 
Defined by the Encyclopedia of School of Administration and 
Supervision (Gorton et al.,1988), socialization, called social learning is the 
process by which individuals acquire self-identity, systems for classifying and 
35 
describing people, social interaction skills, and a sense of belonging to a group. 
According to Bruffee (1983), socialization is enhanced in the peer 
collaborative classroom. He argued that learning should be an active, social 
process. Johnson and Johnson (1990) posited that peer collaboration 
enhanced students' interpersonal behavior, called socialization, which could 
render positive effects in the classroom. The studies that follow revealed 
both similar and dissimilar results. 
The following studies investigated some of the issues concerning 
collaborative learning. These studies were selected for review from a limited 
body of research literature on peer collaborative learning and socialization. 
Further, the following studies on peer collaborative learning and 
socialization were selected because they underwent rigorous research 
methods. 
The Hooker Study. Hooker (1988) conducted a study which examined 
cooperative learning and socialization with four gifted and talented students. 
The students were nine to ten year olds who were taught by an investigator-
designed cooperative learning method. Hooker (1988) investigated changes 
in socialization, called interpersonal skills, and changes in attitudes. Modes 
of social interaction occurring most frequently among the four students were 
(a) interrupting, (b) expanding information beyond what is known, (c) 
admitting limited knowledge, (d) paraphrasing, (e) persuading, and (f) 
elaborating on ideas. 
Hooker (1988) reported that the results of the surveys and transcripts of 
the students' dialogue relating to socialization showed a positive change in 
the four students. Three of the four students successfully supported their 
36 
peers, while one did but in a lesser degree. All students increased the number 
of people they considered friends, including cross-ethnic friends; all students 
increased the number of people who considered them friends. 
According to Hooker (1988), all four students experienced conflict with 
socialization during the peer cooperative activities. However, no two 
students attempted to resolve the conflict in the same way. Attempts to 
resolve conflict included (a) shaming and chastizing the group, (b) ignoring 
the inappropriate behavior, (c) excluding the group member from interaction, 
(d) withdrawing or threatening to withdraw from the group, (e) trying to 
understand the other's perspective, and (f) changing the mode of operation 
that was the problem. 
While three of the students did increase their socialization skills, orie 
did not change his behavior significantly. All four of the students showed a 
favorable attitude toward school and toward the peer cooperative learning 
experience. Most of the students believed that (a) they had helped others, (b) 
they had received help, and (c) their group work was better than their 
individual work. According to Hooker (1988), all four students experienced 
improved attitudes about themselves and others after the socialization and 
group learning experience. 
The four gifted and talented students under study had been socialized 
and conditioned to the educational system by virtue of the label gifted and 
talented. These students had been successful in previous educational 
experiences, and therefore, it should follow that they would be successful in 
subsequent educational experiences -- which would include the cooperative 
experience. 
37 
The Gunter~ann Study. Finding the opposite, of Hooker's study 
0988), Guntermann (1988) conducted a study which examined the effects of 
group learning in a fourth grade class. The sixty students were divided into 
pairs. The students completed two tasks; they programmed two separate 
computer programs on two separate days. 
Data for social interaction, computer contact, and achievement were 
recorded through audio tape recordings, observation notes, and a computer 
program evaluation. 
Guntermann (1988) utilized a modified version of Bales Interaction 
Process Analysis Scale to code students' social interaction. Categories named 
were positive social interaction, negative social interaction, questions, and 
statements. Guntermann's study suggested that there was no link between 
socialization and achievement. Slavin (1990) warned that studies can be 
situation-specific and that one study may not be seminal necessarily. 
The Prague Study. Prague (1988) hypothesized that cooperative 
learning increases students' achievement scores, social skills, and attitudes 
toward self, peers, and school. Prague's (1988) study required junior high 
school science students, in grades six through eight, to identify and define the 
social skills that they considered important to them while working in peer 
collaborative groups. 
Prague (1988) identified social skills through interviews with 30 
students and through the administration of questionnaires to 465 students 
and 6 teachers. The teachers were trained prior to the study. 
Specific socialization skills identified by both students and teachers 
included cooperating, listening, explaining, involving everyone, being 
38 
courteous, and being patient. Prague (1988) reported that junior high school 
students required similar socialization skills while working in cooperative 
learning groups. 
The Prague study (1988) relied on self-reported data from students to 
confirm the hypothesis. A second source of data collection was the teachers. 
Perhaps a more rigorous triangulation method of data collection may have 
included researcher observations and audio and/ or video tape recordings to 
further verify the findings. More studies of cooperative learning and 
socialization may answer questions regarding how students are socially 
accepted in the classroom (Madden, 1980). 
The Madden Study. Madden (1980) studied the effects of cooperative 
learning on the social acceptance of mainstreamed academically handicapped 
students. In this study, a cooperative intervention was compared to a control 
group. Each teacher in the study taught a cooperative group and a control 
group for a period of seven weeks. The classes were randomly assigned to 
treatment. 
Madden (1980) examined the relationships between children with 
learning problems and their peers in a team learning situation. 
Heterogeneously grouped learning teams consisted of 4-5 members. Low 
ability and high ability students could contribute equally to the team task. 
The reward for good performance was for the team to be named in a weekly 
newsletter. 
Madden's (1980) findings indicated that mainstreamed academically 
handicapped students in the cooperative groups were less frequently rejected 
than mainstreamed academically handicapped students in the control groups. 
39 
In addition, the findings indicated that students' achievement and self-
esteem were more enhanced in the cooperative groups than they were in 
control groups. The researcher suggested that socialization and friendship 
were key factors. Madden (1980) recommended that more research be done to 
investigate the effects of socialization and friendship on self-esteem and 
achievement. One such study is the Stenberg study (1981). 
The Stenberg Study. Stenberg (1981) investigated the effects of 
friendship, gender, and communication on cooperative behavior. The 104 
subjects were first and second graders in two elementary schools, with a mean 
age of 7 years 6 months. A survey was administered prior to the learning 
experience and again, two weeks later to assess friendship among the subjects. 
Dyads were assigned as (a) friends, each child named the other on both 
occasions, or (b) non-friends, neither child named the other as a friend. 
Analysis of the data revealed that males made significantly more 
choices than females; males tended to have wider friendship groups than 
females. Block towers were built by groups in order to establish group 
performance cohesiveness. Male non-friendship groups built higher block 
towers than female non-friendship groups. 
Cooperative performance was gauged in terms of the total number of 
blocks per tower. A tower was a stack of blocks. The score was taken after a 
15-second time interval. The investigator noted that the block towers that 
tumbled over oftentimes received the same score as those towers which were 
built with a minimal number of blocks. Because of procedural limitations, 
major hypotheses were not supported -- much like the Kenderski study(1983). 
40 
The Kenderski Study. Kenderski (1983) conducted a study which 
examined the effects of group interaction, or socialization, on achievement 
and attitudes. There were 33 third-grade minority subjects. Groups were 
comprised of 3-4 members. Groups were audio-tape recorded for two ten-
minute sessions on two different days. 
According to Kenderski's (1983) observations, variables significantly 
relating to achievement were group composition, sex, individual 
competition, interaction, or socialization, and attitude toward mathematics. 
Ethnic background and self-esteem did not affect achievement. 
Variables significantly relating to group interaction were individual 
cooperation, individual competition, individualization, ethnic background, 
self-concept, and attitude toward mathematics. 
Kenderski (1983) found that interactive behavior was not stable over 
time for individuals or for groups. In addition, she warned that there is need 
to clearly define the constructs being measured by cooperation, competition, 
and individualization scales. Further research is necessary to understand 
group process and socialization and the effects on achievement. Socialization 
may impact achievement (Pappas & Brown, 1987). 
The Pappas and Brown Study. Pappas and Brown (1987) conducted a 
case study of a preschool child and found that an essential factor in becoming 
socialized to linguistic patterns is through developing an understanding of 
the workings of written language. According to Pappas and Brown (1987), 
students learn to adjust their linguistic choices to fit the needs of social 
context to which such choices are bound. Pappas and Brown (1987) suggest 
that children learn to adjust linguistic choices by written language read aloud. 
41 
The child who was studied by Pappas and Brown (1987) was read to and 
then given books to read, which she pretended to read by emulating the 
readers who read to her. The researchers generalized that the more read 
aloud experiences a student has, the more socialized he/she becomes because 
of an increased familiarity with the ways in which authors organize their 
linguistic messages. 
The Pappas and Brown (1987) study examined only one child, which 
restricts generalizability, as well as replication. While the case study has 
merit, it may benefit from other studies for reinforcement. 
Summary: The aforementioned studies addressed issues surrounding 
peer collaboration and socialization. These issues included attitudes about 
self and others, achievement, social skills, social acceptance, friendship, 
gender, communication, and linguistic patterns. While there has been 
research which suggested that there is a no difference factor in peer 
collaboration and socialization, there has been research which suggested 
otherwise. More research is necessary to investigate the question: What are 
the effects of peer collaboration on the socialization of students? 
Peer Collaboration and Student Attitudes 
Slavin (1985a; 1985b) posited that peer collaboration may have positive 
effects on students' attitudes toward writing. In his book entitled Cooperative 
Learning, Slavin (1985b) underscored the effectiveness of group learning. He 
asserted that when students spend much of their class time working in four-
to six-member heterogeneous groups, they achieve more and experience 
improved attitudes about themselves, their peers, and school. 
42 
To illustrate his theory, Slavin (1985b) cited a study conducted by 
Slavin, Leavey, and Madden (1984). The study investigated the effects of 
cooperative learning on attitudes of peers toward mainstreamed academically 
handicapped students in mathematics. These researchers studied 504 
students in grades 3, 4, and 5. 
The students were in six schools and 18 classes, located in a middle-
class suburban Maryland school district. Schools were assigned randomly to 
one of three conditions: Team-Assisted Instruction (TAI), Individualized 
Instruction (II), and Control. 
The TAI students worked in teams on worksheets for team scores and 
certificates. The II students used the same materials as the TAI students, but 
the II students worked alone. Control students worked in traditionally group-
paced instruction, with small homogeneous teacher-directed math groups. 
A pre- and post peer-rating form was given by the researchers to assess 
the acception and the rejection of mainstreamed students. A class list was 
given to each student who was asked to mark each classmate as best friend or 
okay. Analyses of covariance for the academically handicapped subsample 
revealed that TAI students were more accepted than control. There were no 
signifcant differences between TAI students and II students. An explanation 
for this occurrence might be that II students do not work in competition with 
other students. The individualization might reduce rejection between peers, 
while cooperation might enhance acceptance between peers. 
In his book, Slavin (1985b) advocated that cooperative learning 
structures must be founded on sound psychological and pedagogical theory. 
In addition, he suggested that cooperative classroom practice be rigorously 
43 
evaluated by both practioners and researchers to examine the effects of the 
instructional method on students' achievement and attitudes. The studies 
that follow address peer collaboration and students' attitudes. 
The following studies investigated some of the issues concerning 
collaborative learning. These studies were selected for review from a limited 
body of research literature on peer collaborative learning and students' 
attitudes. Further, the following studies on peer collaborative learning and 
students' attitudes were selected because they underwent rigorous research 
methods. 
The McCollum Study. McCollum (1988) examined the effects of peer 
collaboration on an Algebra II class. McCollurn studied two similar Algebra II 
classes for three weeks. One class of 24 students was taught using the lecture 
method of instruction; one class of 26 students was taught using the 
collaborative method of instruction. 
Slavin's (1985b) Student Teams-Achievement Division Model (STAD) 
was adapted for this study. In the STAD cooperative learning method, 
students are grouped into four- or five- member heterogeneous learning 
teams. Teams consist of high, middle, and low ability students, male and 
female, and students of various racial or ethnic backgrounds. Each team 
represents a microcosm of the entire class. Students work together on 
worksheets to achieve team scores. 
At the beginning of the study, a teacher-researcher developed pretest of 
25 items was administered to measure achievement. At the conclusion of the 
study, a teacher-researcher developed posttest of 25 items was administered to 
measure achievement. To assess students' attitudes a questionnaire was 
44 
administered at the end of the treatment. Results indicated that the lecture 
method of instruction produced higher achievement scores, although the 
collaborative method of instruction produced more positive attitudes. 
McCollum (1988) recommended the development of additional 
materials for further research. Moreover, another source of data collection 
might have been through observations to note students interactive patterns. 
Their interactive patterns may have provided some answers as to why the 
achievement tests scores were different. 
The Davis Study. Finding similar results that McCollum (1988) found, 
Davis (1988) studied the effects of peer collaboration on student achievement 
and attitudes in mathematics for 75 days, for 43-minute periods. The study 
was designed to investigate whether or not there are significant differences in 
attitude and achievement in students who use group process skills of think 
aloud and summaries. 
Subjects included 104 seventh grade students of average ability. There 
was a treatment group and a control group; both groups were instructed peer 
collaboratively. In a series of group cooperative lessons, the treatment 
students were asked to think aloud and orally summarize lessons. 
Achievement and attitudes were measured at the end of a 25-day 
problem solving unit. Achievement was measured by the Iowa Problem 
Solving Project Tests. Attitudes were measured by a classroom life 
questionnaire, addressing the following: (a) teacher academic support; (b) 
teacher personal support; (c) student academic support; (d) student personal 
support; (e) goal interdependence; (f) resource interdependence; (g) 
45 
cooperation; and (h) alienation. The results indicated that there were no 
significant differences in achievement and attitudes. 
The researcher observed the treatment and control groups. He 
reported that there were differences between the two groups' interactive 
patterns. The treatment group was more verbal, more interactive, more 
concerned about others in the group, and more process-oriented, using think 
aloud means to solve problems. 
A pretest at the beginning of the study and a posttest at the end of the 
75-day study may have revealed different findings. Further, a follow-up study 
to examine retention of learned material could be beneficial to research in 
peer cooperative leaning. 
The Carney Study. Carney (1988) examined the effects of cooperative 
learning on the acquisition of keyboarding skills, with a focus on the extent to 
which students' attitudes toward their peers changed as a consequence of the 
cooperative learning experience. 
Two schools participated in the study, with a total of 119 fourth grade 
students. At school A, three fourth grade classes participated; there were two 
experimental groups and one control group. At school B, two fourth grade 
classes participated; there was one experimental group and one control group. 
Keyboarding rate was measured before, immediately after, and ten 
weeks after the keyboarding unit. A questionnaire was administered before 
and after the keyboarding unit to measure students' attitudes toward their 
classmates. 
The results showed no difference between students learning in a 
cooperative classroom structure and students learning in a traditional 
46 
classroom structure. The results showed no difference in students' attitudes 
in the cooperative group and the traditional group. However, keyboarding 
skills may be more motor skill dependent and may be less affected by 
cooperative learning than a discipline emphasizing conceptual skills. The 
motor skill dependency of keyboarding in computer courses may limit peer 
interaction. On the other hand, perhaps the peer cooperative method of 
instruction had no significant effect on CAI students (Tanamai, 1989). 
The Tanamai Study. Tanamai (1989) investigated the comparative 
effects of cooperative and individualistic uses of computer-assisted 
instruction (CAI), in regard to achievement and attitudes. 
Sixty-two undergraduate Fine Arts students participated in this three-
week study. Students' participation was based on matched scores on pretests. 
Students were assigned to cooperative and individualistic instruction 
through random selection. Cooperatively instructed students worked in 
small groups in the Design Basic Studies course. Individualistically 
instructed students worked alone in the Design Basic Studies course. 
Pre- and posttests indicated no differences in achievement. In addition, 
pre- and posttests indicated no differences in attitude toward computer use 
between cooperative and individualistic uses of CAI. Students' attitudes 
toward method of instruction were not assessed. In terms of achievement, 
Computer-Assisted Instruction with cooperative learning was not 
significantly different than Computer-Assisted Instruction with 
individualistic learning. However, students' preference for method of 
instruction may have added a beneficial dimension to the study. 
I/ 
/1 
/If 
i1 
47 I! i.r 
1, 
II 
II 
The Kacer ~tudy. Kacer's study (1989) did measure students' attitudes I 11 11 
,1.1  
toward method of instruction. Kacer (1989) examined the impact of small 
if 
group instruction on attitude and achievement of students learning 
computer applications. She asked two questions in the study: How does 
small group learning of computer applications affect individual 
achievement? How does small group learning of compu.ter applications 
affect individual attitudes? 
Subjects involved forty-nine students randomly selected to work as 
members in dyads or individualistically. Three computer applications were 
demonstrated in class during each of the three consecutive weeks: 
Wordprocessing, spreadsheets, databases. After each demonstration, the 
students met in their respective instructional condition (dyads, individuals) 
to complete an assigned task. A performance test was administered after each 
of the three units. 
Results indicated that there was no difference in performance between 
students working in dyads and students working individualistically. Further, 
questionnaires were administered before and after instruction to measure 
students' attitudes toward the computer and instruction. Results indicated 
no significant difference. 
The no difference factor may be a direct consequence of the subject 
matter, rather than the methods of instruction. As mentioned previously, 
computer instruction may involve more motor skills of the student, which 
may be acquired more individualistically. Further investig_ation may answer 
emergent questions regarding cooperative learning and students' attitudes. 
ma.2.u:,,"saau &aa:a ?" 
48 
The Lang Study. Lang (1983) studied the use of cooperative learning to 
determine if the use of Slavin's Teams-Garnes-Tournament (TGT) would 
increase academic achievement and improve attitudes toward economics 
among college students. TGT is a group method of instruction which 
involves worksheets and academic games to master subject matter. Team 
members compete with opposing groups at tournament tables where there is 
a reader of questions. 
Subjects involved sixty students in an intact class of microeconomics. 
Tests to determine ability level of the groups indicated that the groups did not 
differ. Students were randomly assigned to two groups. A post-test was 
administered to the thirty students in the control group (lecture) and to the 
thirty students in the experimental (TGT) group. 
Students participated in the study for a ten week quarter. All students 
met together for a class lecture until the fifth day. Then students were 
divided into two groups: the TGT group and the control group. The TGT 
group participated in cooperative learning, using team study and 
competition. The control group participated in the study using the same 
study materials on an individual basis for lecture-discussion. 
Achievement was measured by a SO-item modified version of the Test 
of Understanding College Economics. Attitude toward economics was 
measured by a 20-staternent Likert-new survey, Survey of Attitude Toward 
Economics. Findings indicated that Slavin's TGT had no significant effect on 
achievement or attitudes. 
Lang (1983) stated that the small sample size resulted in too few people 
in each ability group and unequal cell frequencies. This may have caused the 
49 
lack of Slavin's TGT treatment effects. According to Slavin (1990), TGT 
should enhance achievement and attitudes. 
The Slavin and Karweit Studv. Slavin and Karweit (1984) examined 
the effects of three instructional methods on mathematics achievement and 
attitudes. 
The three instructional methods included an individualized model, 
Team-Assisted Individualization (TAI); an ability grouped model, Ability 
Grouped Active Teaching, (AGAT); and a group-paced model, Missouri 
Mathematics Program, (MMP). There was also an untreated control group. 
Two randomized field experiments on pupils in grades 4-6 and 3-5 
were conducted for 16 and 18 weeks, respectively. An analysis of variance on 
achievement scores indicated that in both experiments, TAI and AGAT 
exceeded MMP. findings on the effects of methods of instruction on attitudes 
toward math indicated that TAI was favored. 
In a later publication by Robert Slavin (1987), he warned that ability 
grouped class assignment is the least effective form of instruction. Slavin 
(1987) warned against ability-group class assignment, arguing that it could be a 
harmful method of instruction because of the narrow attitudes that students 
develop in homogeneous grouping. 
Slavin (1985b) argued that cooperative learning had significant impact 
on achievement and attitudes, affecting relationships between and among 
races, sexes, and cultures. Slavin (1980) explained his theory in terms of 
performance cohesion. Performance refers lo individual and group 
productivity on a given task. Cohesion refers to the affective domain of 
behavior of students liking one another. According to Slavin (1985b), 
50 
students achieve on a given task because they like one another. Slavin 
(1985b) argued that collaborative learning has positive effects on students' 
attitudes. 
Slavin (1980) explained the no difference factor in research studies 
results from possible limitations in measurement instruments. Slavin (1980) 
argued that achievement and attitudes may not have been adequately 
measured in studies reporting no difference between cooperative learning 
and competitive learning. According to Slavin (1983), students learn from 
other students, which can be modeled in the writing classroom. More 
research is necessary. There are inconsistencies in research findings. 
Summary. The aforementioned studies addressed issues surrrounding 
the effects of peer collaboration on the attitudes of students. These issues 
included achievement, attitudes, and interactive patterns. 
Many of the findings of the above studies revealed that peer 
collaboration has positive effects on students' attitudes, but some of the 
studies reported no effect. For example, the McCollum study (1988) reported 
results indicating that the lecture method of instruction produced higher 
achievement scores -- the collaborative method of instruction produced more 
positive attitudes. The Kacer study (1989) reported results indicating no 
difference in students' achievement or attitudes. The Slavin and Karweit 
study (1984) reported results indicating students favoring peer collaborative 
learning. 
There are inconsistencies in the findings of the studies. There is 
enough evidence to suggest that peer collaboration and students' attitudes 
51 
should be investigated further to address the question: What are the effects of 
peer collaboration on students' attitudes? 
Chapter Summary 
Chapter II reviewed the research literature focused on peer 
collaboration, peer collaboration and the teaching of writing, peer 
collaboration and socialization, and peer collaboration and students' attitudes. 
The literature on peer collaboration examined some of the issues 
surrounding peer collaboration and interpersonal dependence, reward 
structures, achievement, self-esteem, constructive controversy, and cross-
ethnic relations. Many of the studies reported results which indicated that 
peer collaborative learning may enhance achievement. There remains 
unanswered questions: Why is collaborative learning successful with some 
students? When is collaborative learning not successful with some students? 
The literature on peer collaboration and writing examined some of the 
issues surrounding group discussion, attitude toward method of instruction, 
time on task, and achievement. Many of the studies reported results which 
indicated that peer collaborative learning may have positive effects on the 
quality of students' writing. However, the limited number of studies of peer 
collaborative learning and writing render the results of the literature 
reviewed in this chapter inconclusive. There remains the question: What 
are the effects of peer collaboration on students' writing? 
The literature on peer collaboration and socialization examined some 
of the issues surrounding attitudes about self and others, achievement, social 
skills, social acceptance, friendship, gender, communication, and linguistic 
52 
patterns. While some of the research results indicated that peer collaboration 
enhanced socialization, some of the results indicated a no difference factor. 
The inconsistencies of the results heighten the question: What are the effects 
of peer collaboration on the socialization of students? 
The literature on peer collaboration and students' attitudes examined 
some of the issues surrounding achievement, attitudes, and interactive 
patterns. Some of the research results indicated that peer collaboration may 
enhance students' attitudes, but again, there were inconsistencies in the 
findings. Further research is necessary to address the question: What are the 
effects of peer collaboration on students' attitudes? 
Chapter II reviewed the research literature focused on peer 
collaboration, peer collaboration and the teaching of writing, peer 
collaboration and socialization, and peer collaboration and student attitudes. 
Chapter III will present the methodology used to investigate the effects of peer 
collaboration on community college freshmen's writing, on their 
socialization, and on their attitudes toward writing. 
53 
CHAPTER III 
Methodology 
The purpose of this chapter is to present the methodology used to 
investigate the effects of peer collaboration on the quality of college freshman 
composition students' writing, on their socialization, and on their attitudes 
toward writing. The data collected were elicited from four sources: the 
students, the key informant, the teacher, and the observer. This triangulated 
method of inquiry was adopted for data collection to clarify, verify, and 
reinforce the interpretation. Data were utilized to reveal emergent patterns 
of socialization of students with students and students with the teacher, 
affecting the quality of writing and attitude toward writing. The various 
techniques and instruments used to gather and interpret the data are 
described in the chapter as follows: (a) statement of the research questions; (b) 
design; (c) population; (d) procedures; (e) instruments and materials; (f) 
validity and reliability; (g) analysis, synthesis, and interpretation; (h) and pilot 
study. 
Research Questions 
Three questions were asked in this study: 
1. What are the effects of peer collaboration on the quality of 
community college freshmen's writing? 
2. What are the effects of peer collaboration on the socialization of 
community college freshman composition students? 
54 
3. What are the effects of peer collaboration on community college 
freshmen's attitudes toward writing? 
Design of the Study 
The study was designed to gather data relative to the effects of peer 
collaboration on the quality of community college freshmen's writing; the 
effects of peer collaboration on the socialization of community college 
freshman composition students; and the effects of peer collaboration on 
community college freshmen's attitudes toward writing. 
The researcher chose an intact composition class to study. The class 
was typical of other compositon classes at the college and yielded important 
data. 
Attitude Survey 
Pre- and Post-surveys were administered to students participating in 
the peer collaborative composition course at the beginning and end of the 
semester. The pre- and post-surveys were exactly the same survey, except the 
pre-survey was labeled Survey A; the post-survey was labeled Survey B (see 
Appendix A, pp. 159-160). The survey was designed to elicit students' 
attitudes toward writing. 
Writing Samples 
Writing samples in the narrative mode were obtained from all 
students at the beginning and end of the semester. The narrative mode was a 
pattern of development taught in the standard curriculum. Prompts used 
55 
were similar to those utilized in the Maryland Functional Writing Test, in 
that they were simple, directive, and topic-specific (see Chapter IV, p. 122). 
Procedure. The procedure for scoring was practiced by two raters on 30 
pieces of student writing samples similar to the samples used in this study. 
Training of the raters was conducted by an active member of the Northeast 
Regional Conference on Teaching English in the Two-Year College, who had 
trained under Lee Odell. Training time was 4 hours. Raters did not mark 
corrections on the paper. Spending no more than two minutes on each 
writing sample, the raters achieved an interrater reliability of .90. Raters were 
given 10 anchor papers to rate, and 9 times out of 10 they reached a consensus. 
Consensus between the raters was achieved by assessing a writing sample on 
the items listed in the modified analytic scale. 
Holistic Scoring. Writing samples were scored holistically by two 
raters, using a modified analytic scale modeled after Cooper and Odell's 
(1977). The scale listed prominent characteristics of writing in the narrative 
mode. The characteristics ranged from 0-4 points and were described in some 
detail. These points were identified along a scoring line for each characteristic 
(see Appendix B, p. 166). 
Holistic scoring is a "guided procedure for ... ranking written pieces" 
(Cooper & Odell, 1977, p. 3). Holistic scoring remains controversial because it 
occurs impressionistically. However, holistic scoring was the preferred 
method of measurement over a machine-scorable objective test or a 
frequency count of word or sentence elements, because a human respondent 
is a natural link to writing. Moreover, Cooper and Odell (1977) argued that a 
56 
machine-scorable objective test may measure editorial skills, rather than 
writing skills. 
Validity. According to Cooper and Odell (1977), holistic scoring is a 
valid instrument of measurement, because scores are based on actual student 
writing samples. Raters responded impressionistically to student writing 
samples and reached a concensus about the assigned scores. Raters' responses 
were guided by a list of prominent writing characteristics. The holistic rating 
scale was designed to check a student's writing for clarity, diction, 
organization, and punctuation. 
Reliability. The procedure for scoring was practiced by two raters on 30 
pieces of student writing samples, similar to the samples used in this study. 
Raters did not mark corrections on the paper. Generally, spending no more 
than two minutes on each writing sample, the raters achieved a scoring 
reliability of .90. Scores were indicated for the levels of writing ability denoted 
on the rating scale: 0 indicated a limited to no ability level; 1 indicated a low 
ability level; 2 indicated an average ability level; 3 indicated an above average 
ability level; and 4 indicated a high ability level. 
Key Informant Interviews 
Three informal, impromptu interviews were conducted with a key 
informant, a selected student, who freely interacted with peers and the 
teacher. The key informant was a student who was willing to participate in 
interviews with the researcher, because she wanted to learn more about the 
research process (see Appendix D for interviews, p. 224). 
57 
Observations 
Out of a total of 30 class sessions, eleven class sessions were observed 
and audiotaped by the researcher. Recorded on paper and audiotape were 
student-student interactions, student-teacher interactions, and teacher-
student interactions (see Appendix C for transcripts, p. 169). The eleven class 
sessions were selected because of the particular topics of writing instruction 
(see Appendix E for syllabus, p. 238). Other class sessions were not selected 
because of guest speakers and library tours, etc. 
Analysis and Synthesis 
All data collected were analyzed and synthesized to determine 
emergent patterns of student-student socialization, student-teacher 
socialization, and teacher-student socialization which may have affected the 
quality of students' writing and students' attitudes toward writing. Recurrent 
themes were noted and labeled under specific categories. Each category 
represented an approximate percentage of the observation notes. Percentages 
were derived from subjective demarkation of the number of sentences, which 
demonstrated specific themes. 
Validity and Reliability 
Validity and reliability were achieved through triangulated data 
collection. Interviews were conducted with a key informant student, at least 
three other students, and the teacher to address emergent themes within the 
classroom. Observation notes were recorded on paper and audiotape. 
58 
Population/Setting 
Students 
A small population, an English composition class at a rural 
community college, was chosen to be studied in some depth. There were five 
males and ten females in the class. There were three black females; the rest of 
the students were white. An undetermined number of students were JTP A 
students. The mean age of the class was 31. 
The study was conducted at a small rural community college; all 
students attending the community college were commuters. The college was 
built for the purpose of serving a five-county area of commuters in the 
"traditionally strong liberal arts and sciences, career, occupational, and 
technical curricula ... " (College Catalog,1987-88, p. 4). The total student 
population was 2,023 in January 1988. The total number of freshmen 
attending the college during the fall 1987 was 1,417. Entering college students 
were not required to take an ACT or SAT test. 
The college for this study was selected because of an educational 
interest that the researcher possessed for a rural community college, which 
serves many students from rural families. In addition, the researcher taught 
at the college and had access to classroom research. This researcher noted that 
a majority of the students at the College must work in order to pay tuition 
and commuting expenses, which oftentimes precludes much peer 
socialization. Students attend class and, in most cases, leave campus 
immediately after class to go to work. Class time is usually the only 
a 2 &Jzauucm 
59 
opportunity for most students to socialize with their peers at this rural 
community college. 
The College programs are divided into two major categories: Career 
Programs and Transfer Programs. Most transfer students continue their 
studies at Salisbury State University and University of Maryland. Other 
transfer students continue their studies at Towson State University, 
Washington College, and colleges outside the state of Maryland. 
The College programs are taught by 38 full-time teaching faculty. The 
number of faculty holding Doctoral degrees is 14; the number of faculty 
holding Master's degrees is 21. Three full-time faculty hold certification in 
their respective areas of expertise. Adjunct faculty are appointed on a 
semester-by-semester basis. 
Instructional Method 
The class for this study was selected because of the use of peer 
collaboration. Generally, English composition was taught as a lecture course; 
however, the college was seeking alternative methods for teaching 
composition in order to address the serious writing deficiencies characteristic 
of college students across the nation. The number of students taught, using 
the lecture method of instruction as the primary teaching strategy, was 
generally 30. The number of students taught using the peer collaborative 
method of instruction was reduced to 15 in order to accommodate peer 
collaboration as the primary teaching strategy. A peer collaborative teaching 
strategy relies upon student interaction for composition instruction. 
60 
Course 
"English Composition 101" was a freshman level composition course 
required by all degree programs. The English faculty designed this 
composition course, which was a course that adopted the process approach for 
teaching students how to write themes. Using a step-by-step approach, 
students were taught to write in the following modes of discourse: narration, 
description, compare/ contrast, process, definition, and persuasion. In 
addition, students were required to write an expository research paper in 
which they incorporated many of the skills they learned to use in the various 
modes of discourse. A step-by-step approach was likewise used to teach 
students how to conduct library research for the purpose of writing an 
expository research paper. Students were required to turn in bibliography 
cards, note cards, a topic outline with thesis statement, and at least two drafts 
of the paper. The course was designed to prepare students for writing in other 
college courses, as well as for writing in their respective careers. 
Study 
The study was designed to gather descriptive data of a small, rural 
sample of a community college composition class. An intensive study of a 
small sample may benefit the population being studied, yielding internal 
validity, and may have additional benefits as a model for replication with 
other similar populations. Although generalizability is limited by this study, 
because of a small sample, detailed, more specific information is an important 
advantage. For this purpose, this researcher chose a small sample of a 
population to study in some depth for one college semester. 
61 
Teacher 
There were three full-time faculty in the English department at the 
College. The three English faculty held Master's degrees. The teacher who 
used the peer collaborative method of instruction was one having 15 years of 
composition teaching experience at the community college level. She 
received an A.B. degree in 1966 in English and Religion. She received an 
M.A. degree in 1970 from a major university, where she majored in English. 
She earned 15 credits beyond her M.A. in English and Education. She agreed 
to participate in the pilot and the present study in order to contribute to the 
advancement of composition research. 
Instruments and Materials 
Attitude Survey 
One survey form, modeled after Spradley's (1979) and White's (1986), 
prescriptions, was developed for the purpose of this study (see Appendix A, 
pp. 159-160). The same survey was administered at the beginning and end of 
the semester, Survey A and Survey B. The results were compared at the close 
of the semester. 
The survey was designed to elicit students' attitudes toward writing 
before and after the peer collaborative learning experience. In addition, data 
regarding sex, race, age, G.P.A., income per year, expected grade in the course, 
and attendance were elicited from students on the survey. The statements 
were worded so that they would not prompt the student to answer in any 
prescribed way. 
62 
Validity. The survey was checked for validity by two composition 
teachers, each having ten years of teaching experience, a director of 
institutional research, and a former director of institutional self study, 
currently a vice president of a community college. The survey was deemed to 
have face validity, since it purported to measure attitude toward writing, 
dealing with relevant content in this area. 
Reliability. The survey was checked for reliabilty, or repeatability, in a 
pilot study of composition students similar to those in this study. Results 
were comparable from both samples of the population. 
Writing Samples 
Writing samples were obtained from the students at the beginning and 
at the end of the course. The writing samples were written in the narrative 
mode. Prompts used were similar to those utilized in the Maryland 
Functional Writing Test, in that they were simple, directive, and 
topic-specific. 
Holistic Scoring. Writing samples were scored holistically by a panel of 
two raters who had at least five years of composition teaching experience. 
The raters were impartial, disinterested parties who agreed to participate in 
this study for the purpose of advancing educational research. 
Key Informant Interviews 
Interviews were developed from observational notes taken by the 
researcher from the course objectives, textbooks, class sessions, and student 
writing samples. Sources such as Spradley's (1979) The Ethnographic 
63 
Interview, and Spindler's (1982) Doing the Ethnography of Schooling were 
consulted. Interview questions were designed to obtain information in both 
direct and indirect ways. Interviews were held with a key informant, a 
selected student, at the beginning, midway through, and at the end of the 
course. 
Observation Forms 
The forms (see Appendix C, p. 169) which were used for recording 
observations, by the researcher, were structured in accordance with those 
prescribed by Spradley (1979), and White (1986). The form was structured with 
two columns, headed Observation and Interpretation. When patterns began 
to emerge, the form was versatile to allow specific items to be checked which 
were relevant to this study. 
An open-ended category system was devised whereby any observation 
could be categorized as being essentially either student or teacher behavior, 
and then designated as verbal or nonverbal, positive or negative. At the end 
of the form space was allotted to accommodate observer comments and 
insights. The observer reported anything that she believed was relevant to 
this study of peer collaboration and its effects on the quality of students' 
writing, on the socialization of students, and on students' attitudes toward 
writing. 
The observation form was kept simple in order that a detailed record of 
verbal and nonverbal responses by each student and the teacher could be 
maintained. Further, the simple form permitted a wide range of themes to 
64 
be recorded, such as what students said to one another, what students said to 
the teacher, what the teacher said to students, the tenor of the statements, and 
even if the teacher and students referred to one another by first name, last 
name, or by a sobriquet. Details recorded on the observation form were 
compared with the results of other instruments and materials utilized in this 
study. 
Researcher 
The researcher was the classroom observer and participated in this 
study, being a primary instrument for data collection. She had ten years of 
composition teaching experience. She held a Bachelor's degree in Education 
with a concentration in English, a Master's degree in English, and was 
working toward a doctorate in Education. The researcher was a primary 
instrument for collecting, analyzing, and synthesizing data. 
While it was not the intention of the researcher to impose a set of 
normative standards on this study, she brought to this study many 
assumptions of what is effective student-student, student-teacher, and 
teacher-student interaction. These assumptions formed a backdrop for this 
study and interpretation, but they by no means imply that there is any one 
way to interact effectively in the classroom. Conversely, a strong personal 
voice brought to this study was a conception of worthy educational practice. 
Caution was taken to record and describe the reality of the classroom under 
study having to do with student socialization as it may have affected the 
quality of students' writing and their attitudes toward writing. 
65 
Procedures 
Peer Collaborative Method 
Single Group. The peer collaborative method of instruction studied 
contrasts many of the previous studies of group instruction in that there was 
a single group of 15 students, with unplanned subgrouping. The teacher 
assumed the role of task facilitator, guiding the group into discussion which 
primarily was student-dominated. 
Writing Assignments. Students were given writing assignments listed 
on the course syllabus (see Appendix E, p. 238), which the teacher briefly 
introduced in class. Most writing assignments were written outside of class, 
since class time mainly was devoted to each student reading his/her own 
writing to the group, while the other group members followed along on a. 
photocopy, provided by the writer. Immediately following the reading, group 
members discussed the strengths and weaknesses of the essay. Moreover, 
each student was responsible for presenting constructive criticism to peers, 
orally and in writing. While students read essays silently, they jotted down 
brief comments to be discussed immediately after the reading. 
Seating Arrangement. During the readings and discussions, students 
sat in a circle so they faced each other. The teacher also sat in the circle, as a 
facilitator to involve students in a predominantly student-oriented class 
discussion, hence the peer collaborative method of instruction. The peer 
collaborative method of instruction with a single group and facilitator is a 
unique teaching strategy, since most peer collaborative classes are divided 
into two or more groups functioning simultaneously. 
66 
Observation 
Eleven Classes. During the 15 weeks of a semester, there were two one 
and a half hour sessions of class time scheduled per week for English 
Composition 101. The English composition course met two days a week, 
Tuesday /Thursday, for a total of 30 class sessions. Eleven of the 30 sessions 
were selected to observe, based on the objectives for instruction of the various 
modes of writing which were delineated on the course syllabus. During each 
observed session, notes were taken in log format on the socialization relative 
to the quality of students' writing and students' attitudes toward writing. 
Notes taken were clarified by an audiotape recording of the 11 observed 
sessions. 
Validity and Reliability 
Attitude Survey 
The survey was constructed for the purpose of this study (see 
Appendix A, p. 157). The survey was designed to elicit students' attitudes 
toward writing before and after the peer collaborative learning experience. 
The survey administered to the students, adopted from a Likert-type scale, 
was designed to reflect change in students' attitudes toward writing. 
Statements on the survey were generated by the English faculty at the 
community college. 
Validity. The survey was checked for validity by two composition 
teachers, each having ten years of teaching experience, a director of 
institutional research and a former director of institutional self study, 
currently a vice president of a community college. The survey was deemed to 
67 
have face validity, since it purported to measure attitude toward writing, 
dealing with relevant content in this area. 
Face validity "refers to the evaluator's appraisal of what the content of 
the test measures" and directly impacts upon the interpretation of the data 
(Borg & Gall, 1983, p. 276). Face validity is a subjective evaluation of the items 
or content of a measurement. A panel of four experts deemed the attitude 
survey to have face validity. 
Reliability. The survey was checked for reliabilty, or repeatability, in a 
pilot study of composition students similar to those in this study. Results 
Were comparable from both samples of the population. 
Writing Samples 
Writing samples were scored holistically by two raters, using a modified 
analytic scale designed by Cooper and Odell (1977). The scale listed prominent 
characteristics of writing in the narrative mode. The characteristics ranged 
from 0-4 and were described in some detail. These points were identified 
along a scoring line for each characteristic. (See Appendix B, p. 166). 
Holistic Scoring. Defined by Cooper in the preface of Cooper and Odell 
0977), holistic scoring is a "guided procedure for ... ranking written pieces" 
(p. 3). Holistic scoring occurs impressionistically. The procedure for scoring 
Was practiced by two raters on 30 pieces of student writing samples similar to 
the samples used in this study. Nine out of ten times, the raters agreed on the 
Writing scores. 
! -?- -- :-- / 
68 
Other times the raters discussed the writing and arrived at a concensus. 
Raters did not mark corrections on the paper. Generally spending no more 
than two minutes on each writing sample, the raters achieved a scoring 
reliability of .90. 
Validity and Reliability. Holistic scoring was the preferred method of 
measurement over a machine-scorable objective test or a frequency count of 
word or sentence elements, because a human respondent is a natural link to 
writing (Cooper & Odell, 1977). Further, holistic scoring is a valid method of 
measurement in that scores are based on actual student writing samples. The 
holistic scoring method of measurement was practiced on 30 composition 
students' writing samples by two raters. The raters found similar results. 
Therefore, the holistic scoring method of measurement was determined to 
have reliability. 
Interviews/Observations 
Interviews with students and classroom observations were also 
methods of data collection. Informal interviews were conducted with a key 
informant, a student freely interacting with peers and teacher, who was 
willing to report information to the researcher. In addition, informal, 
impromtu interviews were conducted with at least three other students and 
the teacher. Observations were conducted during eleven of the thirty class 
sessions for collecting information relevant to peer collaboration and its 
effects on the quality of students' writing, on their socialization, and on their 
attitudes toward writing. 
69 
Analysis of Observations. In addition to observations, the researcher 
conducted analysis of the number of sentences in the observation notes. The 
purpose of this analysis was to provide an approximate assessment of the 
proportion of sentences devoted to emergent themes. 
Triangulation 
Surveys, writing samples, interviews, and observations are 
components of triangulation. According to Wolcott (1977), effective 
fieldwork, ethnography, depends on "triangulation" which is often referred 
to as the "multi-instrument approach." 
The need for verification is everpresent in an ethnography to 
determine how the data collected ties in with existing knowledge and theory. 
Validation of significant propositions can result from a multi-instrument or a 
multi-perspective approach to collecting data. Triangulation is a validating 
procedure to affirm that the data are demonstrably empirical. 
For example, the results of the writing samples were tested against the 
perceptions of the teacher; the perceptions of the teacher were tested against 
the perceptions of students; the perceptions of students were tested against 
perceptions of the observation records: notes and audio recordings. 
Consensus. A consensus, derived from data collected, using the multi-
instrument approach, bears impact upon the repeatability or reliability of the 
Work. The results of the survey were compared with interview and 
observational notes to verify whether the measure discriminated adequately, 
thus determining the reliability of the measurement. These varied methods 
70 
of collecting and analyzing data are referred to as triangulation, which aids in 
ruling out some of the extraneous factors which can confound a study. 
Because of the nature of an ethnographic study, replication and 
generalizability are impaired. 
There are questions such as: Would another researcher have reached 
the same conclusions about the same classroom culture? Would another 
researcher, analyzing only the raw data, reach the same conclusions? The 
field researcher must view a social reality which is infinitely complex. While 
evidence may support internal validity, external validity is limited in that 
each researcher will view a classroom culture from a different angle (Miles & 
Huberman, 1984). 
The written interpretation is the result of analysis and synthesis of? 
valid and reliable data, derived from what the researcher understood to be a 
reality of the classroom culture, to defend a proposition scheme, an 
hypothesis. 
Analysis, Synthesis, and Interpretation of Data 
Qualitative Research 
Analysis, synthesis, and interpretation of data result in educational 
criticism. Educational criticism has three major components: description, 
interpretation, and evaluation. Though logically distinct in theory, these 
three components are rarely distinct in practice. 
For instance, what a researcher chooses to describe is partially 
dependent upon an evaluative judgment of what he/she deems worth 
71 
describing (White, 1986). Data collected in a study are a final analysis of a 
complex interaction among three major components of criticism. Descriptive 
data of qualitative research do not simply appear before the researcher. In 
essence, they are inferred. 
Qualitative research yields rich data which can be confirmed, 
tested, and substantiated. Miles and Huberman (1984) asserted that " 
concepts without corresponding facts are hollow, just as facts without 
concepts are, literally, meaningless" (p. 229). Miles and Huberman (1984) 
argued that researchers should use an eclectic method of data collection, 
which utilizes various methods of analyzing, synthesizing, and 
interpreting data. 
Researcher 
The researcher analyzed, synthesized, and interpreted data exploring 
what they meant and if and how they may bear implications for further study. 
There was a focus on transcribing observation notes and listening to 
audiotaped sessions of peer collaborative classes, with attention to notes 
taken during the student interviews and notes taken on pre- and post-
collaboration writing samples and surveys. 
An effort was made to discern salient educational themes in the 
classroom as a culture. This process of reflection was not linear, but 
recursive. That is, earlier data were studied against data collected in the latter 
stages of this study. Earlier data were discarded when deemed irrelevant to 
72 
emergent themes and an hypothesis, which presented themselves in the 
latter stages of this study. 
Because of the exploratory nature of ethnography, the researcher's 
perspective may have changed because of time spent in the classroom 
(Spindler, 1982, p. 28). Clarity of themes and an hypothesis were wrought at 
the expense of time and energy spent on taking notes, analyzing them, 
synthesizing them, and interpreting them. Such is the nature of 
ethnographic research, which seeks to discover what salient generalizations 
are extant in a classroom culture for the purpose of highlighting implications 
for educational improvement. 
Pilot Study 
During the Spring semester of 1988, a pilot study was conducted of 
an English Composition 101 class which consisted of one teacher and 15 
students. 
Teacher. Three interviews with the teacher were conducted 
immediately before, during, and immediately following the semester to gain 
a perspective on her thoughts and feelings regarding peer collaboration. She 
reported that such a teaching method required more time than the English 
Composition 101 lecture courses in that she spent much time personalizing 
the course to fit the needs of the individual students, while recognizing the 
need to maintain high standards. She noted that there was much pressure to 
pace the course to fit the 90- minute time constraint of each class session, 
since class sessions were discussion sessions which had no outlined 
73 
beginning, middle, and end as might a lecture course. Moreover, she 
expressed concern about student affective needs, which required the 
sensitivity of an alert facilitator who must redirect the focus of the discussion 
if a student felt overwhelmed by the analysis of his/her writing. By the end 
of the semester, the teacher believed the peer collaborative experience to be a 
profitable one for the students and, therefore, a worthwhile investment of 
her time and efforts. 
Procedure. Students were required to write most of their essays outside 
of class, since class time was devoted to reading students' writing and 
analyzing it. Individual writers read their own essays aloud while other (
,,,
!
,, 
 
 
1,,?: 
students read silently, marking strengths and weaknesses of the essay. ,,,,  
t~  
Immediately following the reading, 2-3 minutes were given for the students ,'.  
~ 
r,, 
to reread and analyze the essay. On a volunteer basis, students then proffered r: 
comments about the essay read. 
Survey. Survey A revealed a mean score of 3.1; Survey B revealed a .:; . 
mean score of 4.4. While student survey respondents initially indicated 
apprehension about participating in a peer collaborative learning 
environment, follow-up surveys reflected that students enjoyed the 
experience and that they believed their writing had improved because of it. 
Some students said they would be reluctant to recommend the method of 
instruction to others unless those students understood its intensity. When 
asked if they believed other students could benefit from a peer collaborative 
learning experience, most students replied "strongly agree." Most believed 
that because of the instructional method, their writing received more 
74 
p:1structional time and that the instruction was more individualized than in 
iecture courses. A limitation of the peer collaborative experience was that 
stt1dents felt they were under pressure to perform each day, because of the 
s!Jlall number of students in the class. Many students wrote under the 
??comments" section that they would recommend the peer collaborative class 
0 t1ly to students who really wanted to learn to write. 
Writing Samples. Writing samples were taken from the students 
at the beginning and end of the semester and scored holistically. The 
average score was 2.1 at the beginning and 2.2 at the end of the semester. 
While there did not appear to be any major difference, it should be noted 
that holistic scoring affords a minimal view of change. Difference 
reflected more visibly in the surveys eliciting students' attitudes toward 
writing. 
Key Informant Interviews. The key informant provided an additional 
perspective to the researcher. The key informant reported that initially, .,.  
students were uncomfortable with peer collaborative learning, feeling "put . 
on the spot," but after the third week of classes, students seemed to relax. 
Students arranged their desks in a circle at the outset of every class. By the 
third week, the circle became smaller. The key informant reported that there 
was less apprehension about volunteering to give constructive criticism. By 
the end of the semester, all but one student eagerly participatecl. ;n the 
democratic, active learning method. However, other students, according to 
the key informant, cajoled him into participating. 
75 
Observations. At the beginning of the semester, the researcher 
observed that students appeared reticent about actively participating in the 
peer collaborative learning experience. After the third week, students 
appeared to be more socially interactive, and they actively participated in the 
learning experience. Students participated in discussion about the writing 
assignments, without visibly having to be coerced by the teacher. By the end 
of the semester, students appeared to be cohesive, in that they laughed with 
one another and openly discussed topics about their writing, as well as their 
personal lives. 
Analysis and Synthesis. Students reported that they enjoyed writing 
much more by the end of the semester than at the beginning of the semester, 
because of the audience's role in building their confidence and writing skills. 
By the end of the semester, only one student was no longer in attendance, 
attesting to low attrition. The pilot study justified its worthiness in that the 
quality of student writing improved and students' attitudes toward writing 
improved. Students claimed that these changes were the result of the active 
participation offered by a peer collaborative method of instruction, since they 
actually read their own writing to an audience of peers. In addition, the 
audience of peers responded, offering immediate feedback about the writing. 
Further investigation of a similar population could add more insight into 
what happens in a peer collaborative classroom and how it affects the quality 
of student writing, the socialization of students, and students' attitudes 
toward writing. 
~---:-:---.~-- -- ---- ---
76 
Chapter Summary_ 
Chapter III presented the methodology used to gather descriptive data 
for investigating the effects of peer collaboration on the quality of college 
freshman composition students' writing, on the socialization of students, and 
on their attitudes toward writing. Chapter IV will report the analysis of the 
data collected from the investigation. 
77 
CHAPTER IV 
Data Analysis 
The purpose of this chapter is to analyze data collected from the 
investigation of the effects of peer collaboration on the quality of community 
college freshman composition students' writing, on their socialization, and 
on their attitudes toward writing. Three questions were asked in this study: 
1. What are the effects of peer collaboration on the quality of 
community college freshmen's writing? 
2. What are the effects of peer collaboration on the socialization of 
community college freshman composition students? 
3. What are the effects of peer collaboration on community college 
freshmen's attitudes toward writing? 
Data were collected from four sources: the students, the key 
informant, the teacher, and the observer. The various techniques and 
methods used to organize and analyze the data are described in this chapter 
Under the following categories: (a) survey A; (b) writing sample A; (c) 
observation notes; (d) audio-taped notes; (e) key informant interviews; (f) 
survey B; (g) writing sample B; and (h) summary. 
Attitude Survey A 
A survey was administered to the 15 students during the first week of 
the course to elicit responses which would reflect the students' attitudes 
78 
toward writing (see Appendix A, pp. 159-160). In addition, students 
responded to statements addressing attitudes toward writing frequency, 
writing in other courses and career, writing as being easy and grades in 
English, attendance, and peer collaboration. 
Survey A provided students' numerical responses, utilizing a scale 
with a range of 1-5 (1- Strongly Disagree; 2- Disagree; 3- Neither (neither agree 
nor disagree); 4- Agree; 5- Strongly Agree; and DK- Don't Know). Number 1 
indicated a strong dislike for writing, and 5 indicated a strong like for writing. 
The DK response was counted as having no value. 
Statement Mean Scores 
Statement mean scores are listed under Table 1 (pp. 80-81). The mean 
of the subjects' responses to statements addressing liking and enjoying 
writing was 3.15 (.31). Henceforth, stmdard deviations will be included 
within parentheses. The mean of the subjects' responses to statements 
addressing writing frequency was 3.14 (.19). The mean of the subjects' 
responses to statements addressing writing in other courses and career was 
4.13 (.58). The mean of the subjects' responses to writing as easy and grades 
was 2.69 (.23). The mean of the subjects' responses to attendance was 2.76 
(1.20). The mean of the subjects' responses to peer collaboration was 4.13 (.18). 
All fifteen student responses were averaged together, except those 
students who responded DK, for Don't Know. The DK responses were 
counted as having no value and were not included in the mean scores. The 
79 
total mean of the statement mean scores was 3.29 (.66). Table 1 lists actual 
statements, clustered according to topic, mean scores, standard deviations, 
and DK responses. 
Subject mean scores for survey A are listed in Appendix A, p. 161. 
Analysis of Survey A Responses 
Statements 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, and 15 addressed students' attitudes 
toward writing. The mean score of these statements was 3.15 (.31). There was 
a total of 11 DK responses. 
Statements 9 and 11 addressed students' writing frequency. The mean 
score of these statements was 3.14 (.19). There was a total of O DK responses. 
Statements 8, 10, and 19 addressed students' attitudes toward writing in 
other courses and their careers. The mean score of these statements was 4.13 
(.58). There was a total of O DK responses. 
Statements 2, 13, and 17 addressed students' attitudes toward writing as 
easy and grades. The mean score of these statements was 2.69 (.23). There was 
a total of 3 DK responses. 
Statements 6 and 18 addressed students' attendance. The mean score of 
these statements was 2.76 (1.2). There was a total of 9 DK responses. 
Statements 16 and 20 addressed students' attitudes toward peer 
collaboration. The mean score of these statements was 4.13(.18). There was a 
total of 12 DK responses. 
80 
Table 1 
Statement Mean Scores on Survey A 
(Standard Deviations are within Parentheses) 
Statement 
LikesLEnjoys Writing Mean Score DK 
1. I like to write essays. 3.29 (.83) 1 
3. I enjoy developing paragraphs. 2.77 (.93) 2 
4. English courses are enjoyable. 3.13 (.99) 0 
5. I enjoy creating transitions. 2.80 (.92) 5 
7. I like my peers to read my writing assignments. 2.93 (1.07) 1 
12. I enjoy talking about my writing with my teachers. 3.20 (1.31) 1 
14. I enjoy talking about topics that I plan to write about. 3.50 (1.16) 1 ,?1,r-?::11 l??"'.~. . ?11 
;:.;:";~:: 
15. I like my teachers to read my assignments. 3.60 (1.18) 0 f.?' f~,i'I 
Mean 3.15 (.31) 11 
i1 ,,,~: 
I~:;~, 
Writing Frequency ,,? :, 
i1 :~:.: 
9. I write in a journal often. 3.00 (1.20) 0 ::/ ,, 
,, .. 1 
11. I use my writing ability every day. 3.27 (1.10) 0 .,,1??. . 1 ,.??_, 
::f-: 
Mean 3.14 (.19) 0 
Writing in Other Courses and Career 
8. Learning to write will help me in my other courses. 4.40 (1.06) 0 
10. Writing should be a requirement in other academic 
courses. 3.47 (1.36) 0 
19. Learning to write will help me in my career. 4.53 (.64) 0 
Mean 4.13 (.58) 0 
81 
Table 1 (Continued) 
Statement Mean Scores on Survey A 
(Standard Deviations are within Parentheses) 
Statement 
Writing as EasyLGrades Mean Score DK 
2. Writing essays is easy. 2.43 (.94) 1 
13. Choosing topics to write about is generally easy 
for me. 2.87 (1.25) 0 
17. I get good grades in English. 2.77 (.93) 2 
I?? 
Mean 2.69 (.23) 3 ,. ,;, 
I? 
,,. 
:'  
Attendance ,, 
;1'?J ' 
6. I rarely miss more than three classes during !1 
1\, 
one semester. 1.91 (.83) 4 
18. I never miss more than 3 classes during a semester. 3.60 (1.43) 5 /1?1 
,i 
' 
::: 
Mean 2.76 (1.2) 9 .,?  ,. 
Peer Collaboration 
16. I would recommend peer collaborative learning 
to my friends. 4.00 (.94) 5 
20. Peer collaboration could help other students to 
improve their writing. 4.25 (1.16) 7 
Mean 4.13 (.18) 12 
---------------
Composite Mean 3.29 (.66) 
82 
Results from Writing Sample A 
During the first week of class, students were asked to write a narrative 
essay. The prompt, modeled after criteria set by the Maryland Writing Project 
(Project Basic Office, 1985), read as follows: "Write a well developed essay 
telling a story about an incident which drastically changed your attitude 
toward a person." 
~coring 
The 15 essays were scored holistically by two raters, having at least five 
years experience in teaching composition. A modified analytic scale designed ,1.1.  !,  
': .~ 
j,1'1 
from Cooper and Odell (1977) focused on skills emphasized in the English )~,' ' 
1: 
Composition 101 course taught at the community college. The scale listed r, ,., 
lu, 
prominent features of writing emphasized in the English Composition 101 
course. A rating was indicated by a 4 or 3, high, 2, medium, 1, low, and 0, 
indicating no observable presence of the feature. A 4.0 rating scale was .~,? ..   
modeled after the letter grades of A-F, with respective quality points. The ..  
Values of high, medium, and low were used as a general means to describe a 
student's rating, and thus quality of writing. The subjects' total number of 
quality points were averaged to assess the students' quality of writing on a 4.0 
scale. The analytic scale was adopted because of the attention to specific 
features of writing and distinctions made regarding the quality of writing. 
The scale listed clarity, diction, organization, and punctuation as prominent 
features of narrative writing (see Appendix B, p. 166). The total points 
83 
ranged from 0-4. The items, as they were listed on the rating sheet, are listed 
in Table 2. 
~ 
Writing sample A scores are listed in Appendix B, p. 167. The average 
score of the subjects was 1.86 (1.13) on a 4.0 scale. 
Table 2 
~tic Scoring Scale 
l. Clarity (Are the ideas clearly stated?) 
I,.,,
'J,,,,, . . 
2. Diction (Are words used appropriately?) ,::: f-1'' 
I j1,J 
,, JJ:',{ 
3. Organization (Are the ideas arranged in a recognizable shape to 
guide readers, helping them to see how ideas, parts relate to the 
whole?) 
4. Punctuation (Is punctuation appropriately utilized in the essay?) 
Observation Notes 
Recurrent themes emerged from students' behavior and students' 
choices of essay topics (see transcripts of observation notes in Appendix C, p. 
169). The researcher noted themes from the group interaction, during peer 
collaboration. The definition of socialization and specific themes are 
n
i cJuded under the following categories: (a) definition of socialization, with 
L 
84 
illustrations; (b) individual and group response; (c) females' and males' roles; 
(d) minorities' and special students' roles; (e) nonverbal communication; and 
(f) problem solving. Each category includes an approximate percentage of 
theme representation in the observation notes. Percentages were derived 
from subjective demarkation of the number of sentences, which 
demonstrated specific themes. If totaled, percentages will exceed 100% 
because of the overlap in themes. That is, students' interaction was complex 
in that it consisted of more than one theme at one time. 
Socialization 
Definition. Defined by the Encyclopedia of School Administration and !~ j I,?' 
Supervision (Gorton et al., 1988), socialization, ca]ed social learning, is the 
process by which individuals acquire self confidence, systems for classifying 
and describing people, social interaction skills, and a sense of belonging to a 
group. Socialization among students was the focus of the observation notes. 
,,, 
Illustrations of the definition for socialization are below. .,,. ''  
Self Confidence. By the third week of the semester, the process of 
socialization within the peer collaborative classroom became apparent. 
During the process of socialization, students appeared to be developing self 
confidence among a group of peers. Self confidence seemed to be coupled 
with camaraderie, in that students appeared to reach a level of informality 
which permitted dialogic interaction. Students seemed to be confident 
enough in themselves to relate to one another informally. Students sat in a 
circle; the room resembled a dining hall, where students sit at close proximity 
85 
to one another and socialize in a group. Through socialization, students 
seemed to be developing self confidence. 
During the socialization, group members acquired the self confidence 
to refer to one another by first name; many used familiar, affectionate 
nicknames when referring to one another. For example, Stuart soon became 
Stu. Susan became Sue, and Annette became Net. Nicknamed students 
seemed to accept their peer collaborative classroom identity. There were no 
apparent objections to using nicknames. According to the teacher, nicknames 
seemed to be characteristic of the group's informal identity. The teacher said, 
"I believe they are indicators of how students feel about themselves and one 
another. Nicknames are students' ways of being social with one another to 
achieve a sort of identity within the group" (see Appendix D, p. 233). 
Nicknames appeared to be linked to self confidence, in that students felt 
comfortable enough to relate to one another informally. The use of familiar, 
affectionate nicknames seemed to be part of the process of socialization in this 
peer collaborative classroom. 
By the fourth week, humour seemed to become part of the 
socialization process to form a group identity. Sometimes humour appeared 
to be used to temper criticism having to do with weaknesses of a student's 
writing. For example, while Susan read her essay, she stumbled over certain 
sentences. She laughed saying they were too long and she needed a breath 
before punctuation indicated that she could take one. 
86 
Stuart joked that Susan could read her writing to "practice underwater 
swimming," meaning that she had to hold her breath for long intervals while 
reading because of improper punctuation (see Appendix C, p. 207). 
Another time, Annette joked, "That's okay; we're in delinquent 
spelling class" (see Appendix C, p. 208). 
Another time a student joked, "Women [have] no place on a 
workboat" (see Appendix C, p. 217). Humour comprised approximately 30% 
of the sentences on the pages. Humour seemed to be a significant element of 
socialization within the peer collaborative classroom. The teacher suggested 
that humour within the peer collaborative classroom enhanced the group's 
cohesiveness. The teacher said, "Jokes sort of help the students bond with 
one another. Students are friendly with one another through joking" (see 
Appendix D, p. 233). Students were friendly with one another through 
humour, which seemed to be characteristic of the socialization process to 
form group identity. 
Before the fifth week, the group's identity of being informal seemed to 
promote self reports of errors and weaknesses. Students recognized their own 
errors and weaknesses in the writing. For example, Annette told her peers 
during a reading that she knew her transitions were weak because she, 
herself, was having difficulty making connections between the ideas: 
"I had problems with transitions, for sure." Annette reported that she 
was having difficulty writing. "I had a problem with writing that paper," 
Annette confessed (see Appendix C, p. 178). Students often asked questions, 
having to do with their own writing weaknesses. 
87 
"I have problems with tense, too. Mrs. B., what do you do with 
pronouns that don't match nouns as far as tense?" (see Appendix C, p. 185). 
Students appeared to pose criticism in question form, sometimes 
saying, "I want to ask a question for me. .. like she used ... what should I do?" 
(see Appendix C, p. 181). 
Self-reporting of errors and weaknesses comprised a relatively small 
percentage of the sentences on the pages. Students' self-reporting was 
noteworthy because of its possible link to self and group identity, affecting 
students' writing. The teacher said that she encouraged students' reports of 
errors and weaknesses in writing, because she believed self-reporting could 
enhance identity. The teacher said, "Jokes ... accompany self-reporting of 
errors; they seem to enable students to feel more comfortable with their roles 
as writers in a group. I encourage jokes and self-reporting of errors" (see 
Appendix D, p. 234). Through self-reporting, students seemed to be 
developing self-identity as writers, as well as group identity. Students also 
seemed to develop a sense of classifying and describing people. 
Classifying and Describing Other People. Within the collaborative 
classroom, students seemed to separate into two social groups, one JTP A 
group and one self-paid group. A misuse of standard English seemed to be 
employed by students belonging to the JTPA group, while the self-paid group 
seemed to employ standard English. Intentional misuse of standard English 
by JTP A students occurred after the third week when students appeared to be 
comfortable in the classroom. Intentional misuse seemed to be indicated by a 
change in intonation and loudness of the words. 
88 
For example one JTP A student, Yvonne, wrote a compare/ contrast 
composition about JTP A students and self-paid students, in which she 
addressed negative attitudes of what appeared to be opposing factions in the 
classroom. Apparently, Yvonne felt that she and her cohorts were being 
discriminated against because their tuition had been provided for by a special 
grant. 
Yvonne prefaced her reading with the statement: "This ain't what you 
might be expectin"' (see Appendix C, p. 187). Nonstandard English was 
employed at the outset of the reading, perhaps to prepare Yvonne's peers for 
the difficult lesson they were about to receive. 
'. 
~ . ,,, 
The composition appeared to be written to say that there was an ' 
inherent problem which prevailed over the classroom at times, and Yvonne 
wanted to end the misunderstandings which caused it. While the essay was I, '. 
being read, Yvonne's peers read copies of Yvonne's paper silently along with 
her, as they fidgeted in their seats. 
Yvonne read, "Paying students need to open their eyes instead of their 
mouths ...."  No one else spoke. (see Appendix C, p. 187) 
After the reading, Yvonne appeared to apologize, "I thought there 
needed to be somethin' read, since others know [of this problem]" (see 
Appendix C, p. 188). Yvonne seemed to speak with confidence, explaining to 
her peers in her own choice of words that there was a problem which needed 
to be resolved. 
Yvonne's choice of words, at times, was a combination of nonstandard 
English and profanity (see Appendix C, p. 188). No one expressed objection to 
~---
89 
her Word choice, thus making it acceptable for the occasion. Her use of the 
English language seemed to indicate her security in an environment which 
permitted open discussion of student concerns. A debate ensued, which 
addressed a problem and possible solutions. 
Mark, a self-paid student, seemed to apologize for the 
misunderstanding, "I guess I never really knew there was a difference" (see 
Appendix C, p. 188). 
A minority student stated, "I don't know what a financially funded 
st
udent is." There seemed to be some confusion. (see Appendix C, p. 188) 
During the three-minute, silent reading of Yvonne's paper, students 
Whispered to one another, evidencing opposing factions which had not been 
as visible to the researcher before the reading of the composition. Some 
stu
dents who were not governmentally funded expressed that they were 
offended bY  Yvonne's compos1?t 1?0 n. 
Annette: "We don't think we're better than you!" 
Frank: "I didn't even know you were JTPA students." 
Yvonne: "There have been several comments coming from that side 
of the room about us comin' here for free. And we, on this side of the room 
Wanted to tell you that it's not easy for us to be here" (see Appendix C, p. 188). 
Yvonne's writing had explained to her peers that before most ]TPA 
stu
dents could leave home for class, they had to feed, bathe, and clothe 
children, taking some to a sitter, others to meet a school bus. Yvonne seemed 
to be telling her peers that JTPA students worked hard before coming to 
90 
college, for no pay, and that perhaps JTPA students had a right to an 
education -- even one paid for by a government grant. 
Yvonne argued, "We have children and must get them off to school in 
the morning before coming to class -- because [God] knows, we don't want 
them to suffer what we have" (see Appendix C, p. 187). 
Self-paid students seemed to be sympathetic, expressing their feelings 
through facial features and whispers. However, many of the students did not 
seem convinced that the JTP A students were any different than self-paid 
students. 
Annette: "You think we don't work? Well my parents do not pay my 
tuition. I have to do house chores in order to reimburse my mom and dad 
for college tuition" (see Appendix C, p. 189). 
Mark: "I work at a fast food chain to pay my college expenses" (see 
Appendix C, p. 189). Other students joined in the dialog to express that they 
worked to pay their expenses. The classroom was tense and uncomfortable 
for at least twenty minutes, but afterward a bonding seemed to occur between 
the groups, the JTP A students and the self-paid students. According to the 
teacher, "The students got to know one another on a more informal level," 
because of Yvonne's essay which described and classified the two groups that 
she observed to be existing in the class (see Appendix D, p. 234). Classifying 
and describing other people comprised approximately 90% of the sentences 
on the pages. The teacher believed that the students' ability for classifying 
and describing other people enhanced students' social interaction. The 
91 
teacher said, "I think [the students] may have grown from the skills that it 
took to 'mend those fences'" (see Appendix D, p. 234). 
Social Interaction . The controversy over Yvonne's essay seemed to 
cause tension in the classroom, which required social interaction. The 
teacher often redirected the focus of discussion, when students seemed to be 
at a loss as to what to do. 
For example, after Yvonne's reading, the teacher joked, "No one had 
any trouble understanding what Yvonne was trying to say, I suppose." 
Annette responded, "I am upset by the paper" (see Appendix C, p. 189). 
Other students appeared to be uneasy. After much discussion the teacher 
redirected students' attention to the technical devices used in the writing. 
The teacher asked, "How could Yvonne have said this better?" (see 
Appendix C, p. 190). 
Students seemed to follow the teacher's example in abandoning any 
further discussion which might continue the controversy. The day's lesson 
seemed to include more than a study of writing. The teacher seemed to 
demonstrate social behavior to the students on how to exit a difficult 
situation. JTP A students and self-paid students joined together in regaining a 
shared purpose for the reading of the essay. Its content was discussed 
extensively which led to its mechanics, organization, and tone. The focus 
shifted from content to mechanics; the choice of words and disposition of the 
class shifted to a more formal level. The shift seemed to require social 
interaction among the group members. 
92 
The J1P A students and the self-paid students seemed to share a 
coh esi? veness because they learned more about one another, specifically how 
each group felt about how tuition was paid. After class, Yvonne and Annette 
Walked together - talking and smiling. One student, Susan, proudly 
announced that she and her peers did not lack for topics about which to write 
(see Appendix C, p. 190). 
Another student smiled and shook her head from side to side, saying, 
"You never know what's going to happen in this class" (see Appendix C, 
p. 190). The teacher suggested that the tension between the two groups 
enhanced social interaction. She said, "While we were very uncomfortable 
.:1,,\, l'.j.  
th ,?;i ;, Wi the topic and the language used by Yvonne, the conflict had a positive : ', ,, .~ 
outcome" (see Appendix D, p. 234). The problem between the JTP A and the ;:,,1?,: 
,., 
self-paid students appeared to be resolved through social interaction. Social I ; 
I ', 
intera c ti on comprised approximately 75%-80% of the sentences on the pages. i .. 1': . 
S.ense of Belonging to a Group. Students, seated in a circle, appeared to 
be closer to one another in ways other than proximity. They had a common 
goal, and they seemed to like working together for the purpose of learning 
how to write. Students seemed to like to write for one another. In their 
wr?it?i ng they were willing to share personal experiences with one another, 
which seemed to provide a warm learning environment. One example of 
this sharing was the student who shared private anecdotes about being a 
waterman's daughter. 
One reason this particular anecdote was noted was that Eastern Shore 
watermen and their families have a reputation for being private people who 
93 
distrust those whom they refer to as outsiders. Anyone who is not a native 
Eastern Shoreman is considered an outsider. Cindy's positive attitude toward 
her peers seemed to prompt her to trust them enough to share water 
adventures that were rarely shared with non-natives. 
In her writing, Cindy explained the routine of the waterman. 
She read, "To be a successful clammer you must first get up very early, 
Way before sun up. You should eat a big breakfast, preferably hot. Dress very 
Wann if it's winter time and pack a hearty lunch. Carry a large thermos of 
coffee and cigarettes if you smoke" (see Appendix C, p. 216 and Appendix F, 
p. 246). Cindy later described her waterman father, telling of the ritualistic 
th
errnos of coffee (the blacker, the better), the idling motor of the old pickup 
truck that sheltered the clammer who surveyed the "cam" water 
surrounding his clam boat. 
Cindy also told that the clammer had outsmarted the keen eye of the ,,':,11 ??,, 
It ": 
marine man" by placing the small clams in the bottom of the basket and the ' 
larger ones on top - representing his catch of the day. 
"The old timers," Cindy explained, "weren't used to no rules for 
catchin' clams." She winked and smiled at her peers. A warm laughter filled 
the classroom as Cindy spoke of the Eastern Shore waterman -- "a dying 
breed" (see Appendix C, p. 217). 
Joyce exclaimed, "I loved it!" 
Stuart teased, "Do you clam with your father?" 
Cindy quipped, "Often!" (see Appendix C, p. 217). 
The class pressed her to tell more about the life of the clammer. 
94 
Cindy concluded with, "After you pick your limit, head on in. Gossip 
with all the old watermen about your catch. Unload your boat and take your 
clams to market" (see Appendix C, p. 217 and Appendix F, p. 246). Every 
member of the group seemed to be actively involved in the class discussion, 
asking questions and even telling a few stories they had heard about 
watermen. In an interview with the researcher, the teacher suggested that 
students liked writing about topics that they could share with their peers. 
According to the teacher, sharing topics seemed to be a catalyst for 
promoting group membership. The teacher said, "Students need to feel 
comfortable with the topics that they write about -- after all in the peer 
collaborative class, there is a rather active, participating audience. I find that 
students like to find topics that they want to share with their peers" (see 
Appendix D, p. 234). Shared topics seemed to affect the group's sense of 
belonging. Sense of belonging to a group comprised approximately 80% of the 
sentences on the pages. The students appeared genuinely interested in 
socializing with one another about personal experiences, which seemed to be 
indicative of students sharing a sense of belonging to the group. 
Socialization is defined in terms of (a) self confidence, (b) classifying 
and describing people, (c) social interaction, and (d) a sense of belonging to a 
group. Through socialization, within the peer collaborative classroom, 
distinct themes emerged: (a) individual and group response, (b) females' and 
males' roles, (c) minorities' and special students' roles, (d) nonverbal 
communication, and (e) problem solving. These themes are discussed and 
illustrated in the following sections. 
--------------------- ?- -? - - -- -- -- --
95 
Individual and Group Response. Individual response refers to a 
reaction by one member of the group. Group response refers to a reaction by 
more than one member of the group. In the peer collaborative classroom 
each individual student was held accountable to the group of peers, the 
teacher, and self for reading and writing assignments. By the end of the 
fourth week, students seemed to be engaged in analyzing writing to prepare 
individual and group responses. Students were required to become familiar 
with their textbooks. For example, during silent readings students referred to 
their English handbook, dictionary, and notes in order to make corrections on 
their peers' papers. 
Modeling of this behavior was demonstrated by the teacher. In 
addition, stronger students modeled behavior for weaker students. 
Immediate feedback was necessary to present to the author of the essay, so 
students could not delay in looking up rules and words in reference sources. 
Further, not only were students responsible for determining what was weak 
in a peer's paper, students were responsible for suggesting how to strengthen 
specific words, sentences, paragraphs, and essays. Students were responsible 
for responding both individually and as a group. 
At the beginning of the class period, individual students promptly 
placed their desks in a circle to form a contingent group. Usually one student 
initiated the dissemination of papers, saying, "I'll go first this time; I want to 
see what you all think about my story" (see Appendix C, p. 200). After the 
teacher entered the room and took her seat in the circle, one of the students 
instructed his/her peers to "follow along silently" (see Appendix C, p. 200). 
96 
Students appeared to work independent of the teacher. The students took 
their cue and responded to their peer's request. During the reading, 
individual students used their pens to mark on the paper as they recognized 
strengths and weaknesses, critical to the group discussion after the reading. 
Through individual and group response, students offered one another 
feedback. 
Joyce, during the reading of a peer's paper, wanted to know how to spell 
the word "field," so she immediately searched her dictionary for the correct 
spelling (see Appendix C, p. 192). She circled the word, and later corrected her 
peer, instructing the group that "i-e" words were problematic for most writers. ,,,, 
II 
Later, Yvonne, a take charge type, instructed Kevin and the group on how to 
spell the word, "accommodate." 
Kevin responded somewhat defensively, with his shoulders back and his 
head cocked, "Oh yea?" (see Appendix C, p. 208). 
Annette came to the rescue of Kevin and the group with humor, "That's 
okay; we're in delinquent spelling class" (see Appendix C, p. 208). 
Kevin laughed and corrected his spelling, saying, "I should have looked 
that up" (see Appendix C, p. 208). 
Tonesia seemed to sum up the group's feelings, "It's embarrassing to 
spell a word wrong in this class -- you have to face your friends" (see Appendix 
C, p. 209). She grinned. Individuals seemed to temper their comments for the 
benefit of the group. According to the teacher, students responded to one 
another's writing as individuals and as a group during the socialization 
97 
experience of peer collaboration for the purpose of enhancing the quality of 
Writing. 
At the end of the semester, the teacher had a backlog of students' 
essays, so she divided the class into four small groups. Since the students 
Were familiar with the process of collaborative learning, they immediately 
began reading and responding to one another's paper. They did not depend 
on the instructor for guidance; they acted independently as they offered 
constructive criticism to their peers. The teacher briefly sat in on each group, 
acting as facilitator. Sometimes she asked questions about writing mechanics. 
If the students seemed unable to respond to a certain question, the teacher 
Would tell them where to find the answer; otherwise, the students acted 
individually and as a group to analyze one another's writing. 
Students seemed to become individual and group learners. They 
referred to the English handbook and dictionary -- and even reminded the 
teacher of what rules had been stressed during previous sessions. They made 
notations on peers' writing. They proffered immediate feedback in an open 
discussion, explaining strengths and weaknesses of the writing (see Appendix 
C, p. 208). The theme of individual and group response comprised 
approximately 75%-80% of the sentences on the pages. Students actively 
Participated in learning to write, as individuals and as a group, even while 
controversial themes emerged: females' and males' roles . 
.Eemales' and Males' Roles. There were 10 females and 5 males in the 
class. The 2:1 ratio between females and males in the class presented 
differences in opinion, which seemed to be based on gender. Topics such a 
. .,--- - ?---------
98 
baseball, teen pregnancy, contraception, changing oil in a car, and sewing a 
Pillow seemed to result in debates between the sexes. The aforementioned 
to pi?e s occurred by the seventh week of the semester. For example, after Greg 
read hi's  essay on baseball, there was banter among the males about the game. 
Most of the females remained silent until Cindy complained that she was 
"absolutely lost" in the discussion. 
Greg's response was that he "thought everybody knew a little 
something about baseball" (see Appendix C, p. 195). 
A visible difference of opinion seemed to result between the female 
students and the male students. Mark was appalled that anyone could be so 
,,:1~11 
uninformed about sports. } fi;i/ ?: r,,t11, 
1 ~:11 I 
1 
~1 I~' I 
Mark asked Annette, "Where have you lived all your life? Baseball is 
the American sport!" (see Appendix C, p. 195). Susan protested, arguing that 
tennis could be considered the American sport and that one was not 
UnAmerican just because she did not understand baseball. While the female 
students and the male students debated the issue, neither appeared to be 
offended. They seemed to enjoy rehashing an age-old issue. According to the 
teacher, socialization in the peer collaborative learning environment seemed 
to Permit open debate, which may have affected the quality of students' 
Writing and their attitudes toward writing (see Appendix D, p. 235). 
Other topics which provoked gender roles to be more distinctive were 
the issues of teen pregnancy and contraceptives. Tonesia read her essay on 
Preventing teen pregnancy, which suggested that both females and males 
should guard against it. Tonesia read, "Both sexes are responsible -- boys and 
99 
girls" (see Appendix c, p. 204). The discussion resulted in distinct lines 
between those who thought the responsibility of using contraceptives rested 
more with the female and those who thought the responsibility rested more 
with the male. 
The female students and the male students verbally dueled. A 
consensus formed: Both the teenage fem ale and the teenage male should 
share an equal responsibility for using contraceptives. The group was spirited 
and maintained a positive attitude. Students seemed to actively participate in 
class discussion, socialization, which may have affected the development of 
written communication skills. 
The teacher said, "There is always going to be the battle of the sexes, so 
students need to gain a better understanding of where they stand on various 
issues" (see Appendix D, p. 235). According to the teacher, the controversial 
female versus male issues seemed to encourage the students to socialize with 
one another in the peer collaborative classroom. 
Another topic which seemed to divide the genders dealt with car 
maintenance. Joyce read her essay on the process of changing the oil in a car. 
When she read the title of her essay, Keven winked at Mark who 
smiled as if to say, "How can a woman write about such a process usually 
viewed as a man's job?'" (see Appendix C, p. 218). 
When Joyce completed her reading, Kevin confessed, "I'll bet she can 
do it better than I can!" (see Appendix C, p. 218). 
Apparently, the content of the paper convinced the males that females 
have the ability to perform oil changes just as do males. The teacher said, 
100 
"After the essay on car maintenance, students seemed to have a better 
understanding of one another. You could say they respected one another's 
point of view" (see Appendix D, p. 235). The teacher suggested that the 
discussion which followed the reading seemed to unite the genders in the 
classroom, making them respectfully aware that gender had little or no effect 
on one's ability to change oil in a car. 
Annette's essay on how to sew a pillow seemed to create a division 
between the genders. While the females were willing to learn to change oil 
in a car, it appeared that the males were not willing to learn to sew a pillow. 
Greg drummed his fingers on his desk as Annette read through terms such as 
basting, staystitching, seam, and gather. He rolled his eyes at Kevin, who 
grinned as if in approval of his peer's rudeness. Annette stumbled over 
many of her words. She seemed to be nervously responding to her audience. 
After the reading Annette was dismayed saying, "It's not a good essay, 
anyway." Susan tried to comfort her saying, "I found it very informative, 
since it's been a long time since I've sewn" (see Appendix C, p. 214). The 
males had little to say, although their long audible sighs hurried the group on 
to the next essay. The teacher suggested that while the writing topic of sewing 
did not unite the genders, it appeared to aid them in better understanding 
their audience. The teacher said that writing for a diverse group, such as 
males and females, may "have a bearing on audience awareness" (see 
Appendix D, p. 235). Since the male members of the audience did not appear 
interested in the topic, there was a concession made - students moved 
quickly to the next essay, and to a different topic. 
101 
The 2:1 ratio between females and males in the class presented 
differences of opiltlon, which seemed to be based on gender. The theme of 
females and males comprised approximately 10% of the sentences on the 
pages. Topics such as baseball, teen pregnancy, contraception, car 
maintenance, and sewing seemed to result in debates between the sexes. 
Open debate seemed to permit students to express their differences of opinion 
-- and in some cases, students agreed to disagree. 
The socialization within the peer collaborative learning environment 
seemed to permit open debate, which may have affected the quality of 
students' writing and their attitudes toward writing. The teacher said, "I 
think debates [between the sexes] encourage students to participate in class. 
Debates are a way of socializing in the real world, so to speak" (see Appendix 
D, p. 235). The students seemed to benefit from the experience, including 
Ininorities and special students. 
Minorities' and Special Students' Roles. Minorities and special 
students routinely registered for their course selection on the campus, which 
included this English compositon course. The peer collaborative instructional 
method is dependent upon the interaction between and among students. 
Minorities and special students experienced an equal part in the educational 
exchange. Minorities, while at the outset of the semester grouped together, 
integrated with the other students as the semester progressed. Students 
seemed to become comfortable with one another; racial discrimination was 
not apparent in the peer collaborative classroom. The topic, such as the 
102 
previously discussed issue of teen pregnancy, aided in illustrating this 
observation. 
For example the student, Tonesia, informed the group, in her writing, 
that the problem of teen pregnancy was not indigenous to any one race or 
socioeconomic group. Tonesia said that the problem of teen pregnancy was 
not limited to one race or socioeconomic group (see Appendix C, p. 204). 
Minority students and others agreed that the issue exceeded the bounds of the 
aforementioned factors and was one to be reckoned with before American 
society reached a crisis. 
The teacher said, "Students socialize with one another in this peer 
collaborative class, so they get to know one another, and they do not seem to 
allow race to be a problem. It is a problem in America, and I don't deny its 
existence. But it truly does not seem to be a problem in the peer collaborative 
class. Students must work together to achieve a common goal." (see 
Appendix D, p. 236). 
According to the teacher, while racial discrimination continues to 
survive in American society, it seemed to diminish in this classroom while 
minority and other students worked together to achieve a common goal --
students were working to improve their writing through socialization in a 
peer collaborative class. 
Special students also actively participated in the peer collaborative 
class. During the fourth week, Stuart, a student with multiple sclerosis, 
wheeled his chair to class, strategically placing it where he could be visible to 
103 
all his peers. Previously, he had been placing his wheelchair behind another 
student, where he was not visible (see Appendix C, p. 184). 
He later confided in the researcher that the class was so comfortable to 
him that he felt it was therapeutic. Stuart said, "I like this way of learning. 
I'm involved at all times -- talking to other people about writing and 
everything. It's like therapy!" (see Appendix D, p. 232). He was excited when 
he told the teacher and the researcher, that he appreciated the peer 
collaborative learning experience, believing he had benefitted from it 
extensively. The teacher said, "[Stuart] represents all the others .... He seems 
to like the group activity and has benefitted a great deal from it" (see .0.,\.  ,?.I  
"" '"',! 
,, ~j, .. , 
Appendix D, p. 236). According to the teacher, Stuart's testimony about his l1 ~:.:? 
experience, as well as his success in the course, seemed to reflect other 
students' attitudes toward the course and writing. 
Greg, a student with a speech impediment, read his essays although he 
had difficulty pronouncing words having "r" sounds. At the beginning of the 
semester, he stumbled over many of the "r" wards, but as the semester 
progressed, during the fifth week, his reading seemed to improve, and he 
seemed to relax more (see Appendix C, p. 182). His face did not appear to 
redden and his hands did not appear to tremble after the fifth week. He had 
not informed the teacher about his handicap, so it was never directly 
addressed. 
However, the other students were aware of Greg's handicap and 
seemed to approach his writing with positive emphasis -- even when there 
were writing weaknesses to be discussed. Greg seemed to appreciate the 
104 
feedback and his writing seemed to improve. The teacher said that 
oftentimes, Greg would "thank his peers"for their comments (see Appendix 
D, p. 236). 
Susan, a student with a self-reported emotional handicap (see 
Appendix D, p. 180), began the course saying that she could not read in front 
of the class. No pressure was placed upon her, but she was told to do the best 
she could. When it came her turn to read, she was asked to try. She did. Her 
face grew red from her neck up, and her fingers trembled (see Appendix C, 
p. 180). Each time, however, she grew less nervous. 
Once, she hesitated saying, "I just don't think I can do it." (see 
Appendix C, p. 180) Her peers were aware of her handicap and they cheered 
her on before she read, and after she read they actually applauded (see 
Appendix C, p. 180). In her case, success seemed to breed success. In an 
interview with the researcher she stated that the class was the "best thing" for 
her (see Appendix D, pp. 227). 
Dawn, another student with an emotional handicap, entered the 
course with a note from a psychologist saying that she should not be required 
to give oral presentations. The teacher and the researcher were perplexed as 
to what to do with her, so the teacher approached her outside of class 
reiterating what the researcher had advised the class concerning the peer 
collaborative teaching strategy. 
Dawn insisted on staying in the class, preferring it to the traditionally 
taught course which was offered on the same days during the same time. 
Dawn never read her essays aloud in class, and she rarely spoke about others'. 
105 
She did, however, respond nonverbally, shaking her head in affirmation, 
smiling, frowning, etc. For example, during Cindy's reading of her essay on 
the habits of a waterman, she seemed to enjoy what was expressed. Dawn 
smiled during the reading as her eyes took in the words (see Appendix C, 
p. 218). 
Afterward, Dawn looked at Cindy and smiled with approval. When 
another student commented on how cleverly the essay was written, Dawn 
looked at Cindy and nodded her head. During Annette's reading of the rough 
draft of her research paper, there was a lack of transition at one point. Dawn's 
eyebrows furrowed and she looked up at her peers, indicating that something .'  ,",,,  
I ~I 
I ? 
was wrong. Others appeared to recognize her signals and responded verbally 
(see Appendix C, p. 214). 
During an interview with the researcher, Dawn extolled the many 
advantages of peer collaborative learning. 
When queried about whether or not she would register for another 
peer collaborative learning course, Dawn replied, "Absolutely, I learn more 
this way" (see Appendix D, p. 230). According to the teacher, Dawn's attitude 
toward writing was positive, and the teacher believed the socialization in peer 
collaboration helped Dawn to improve the quality of her writing. The teacher 
said, "I think socializing and camaraderie with the students actually helped 
Dawn to improve her writing" (see Appendix D, p. 237). 
The peer collaborative classroom seemed to maximize the socialization 
between and among the students, including minorities and special students. 
The theme of minorities and special students comprised approximately 35% 
106 
of the sentences on the pages. Minorities and special students experienced an 
equal opportunity for exchanging ideas with their peers for the purpose of 
learning to write in the peer collaborative classroom. Minority and special 
Students mixed with their peers, which reflected in both verbal and 
nonverbal communication. 
Nonverbal Communication. Nonverbal communication appeared to 
be prevalent in the peer collaborative classroom. Students seemed 
compassionate toward one another as human beings. Students could touch 
one another. For example, moments before Mark read his essay Annette 
patted his arm, offering him encouragement. She did not communicate 
/ ~-I~: j 
, ,,.,;r1I 
verbally, but her gestures seemed to provide an expression of compassion for i ~:~:111 / ' ~ ,,., 1 
,:!??111 
another human being, which seemed to aid Mark, who was a red head with 
fair skin that revealed his blood flow when he grew nervous. Annette looked 
him in the eyes and smiled; he returned her gesture and began reading his 
essay-- seemingly with confidence (see Appendix C, p. 198). 
The teacher noted that a camaraderie appeared to exist among the 
students, which appeared in their nonverbal communication. The teacher 
said, "[The students] seem to share an affection for one another and show it 
oftentimes without words" (see Appendix D, p. 233). Students' nonverbal 
communication seemed to demonstrate affection which may have bonded 
the group together for the purpose of learning how to write. 
The student called Cindy is a prime example of how the students 
interacted with one another using nonverbals and touch. Cindy always 
angled her chair in the circle and sat on one leg. Her demeanor was 
__ ;,..,---' 
107 
exemplary in that she smiled at her peers across from her, while her right 
arm almost touched her neighbor's. She usually presented constructive 
criticism with an audible clearing of the throat which seemed to indicate the 
humble position that she took (see Appendix C, p. 215). Her caricatured 
gestures infectiously evoked smiles and even laughter from her peers. 
In an interview with Cindy, a ]TPA student, she told the researcher, "I 
needed these guys or I never would have made it. I'm a high school dropout 
-- I never thought I could learn how to write. Besides I was bored sittin' in 
those classes where you had to just listen and take notes. I mean I take notes 
in this class but I talk a lot, too" (see Appendix D, p. 229). 
When the researcher asked Cindy if she thought she could succeed in 
classes without her peers, she responded with, "Of course -- I know I can do it 
now. Your peers give you faith in yourself" (see Appendix D, p. 229). Cindy's 
confidence level seemed to be enhanced because of her experience with peer 
collaborative learning. Cindy thought that the quality of her writing 
improved because of the peer collabortive method of teaching. 
At the close of the interview, she winked and touched the researcher's 
arm saying, "I never knew teachers were just people who taught." Cindy 
smiled, offering the researcher a nonverbal communication of appreciation 
(see Appendix D, p. 229). The theme of nonverbal communication 
comprised approximately 15% of the sentences on the pages. Nonverbal 
communication seemed to be an element of the socialization process within 
the peer collaborative classroom, which also yielded to problem solving. 
108 
Problem Solving. The teacher o~ten delivered a problem solving task 
to the peer collaborative group. After each student reading, the teacher would 
ask the students to analyze the organization of the essay, naming the method 
of introduction, the thesis statement, some transitional words and phrases, 
and method of conclusion. Students were required to examine each essay, 
marking its components, for the purpose of evaluating strengths and 
weaknesses and to suggest ways to make the essay more effective. While each 
student presented suggestions to the group, each was responsible, 
individually, for solving the problem of finding ways to improve the essay. 
Near the end of the semester, when the teacher divided the group into 
four subgroups, she asked the students to examine each other's writing. The 
teacher said, "I believe that subgrouping works only after students have been 
trained or socialized to working in a group, without constant teacher 
direction" (see Appendix D, p. 237). 
According to the teacher, the small groups worked effectively to 
analyze each student's writing, itemizing its components and addressing 
strengths and weaknesses, which was a task of problem solving. Each student 
seemed to actively participate. Whether in the large group or small group, 
students debated over issues of strengths and weaknesses and how to 
improve the communication in the paper. 
Based on group interaction, observation notes seemed to indicate that 
students learned that there is no one way to write an essay. The multiple 
perspectives of the peer collaborative class demonstrated the lesson. Susan, 
explained the lesson: "But that's not the only way [the idea] could be stated." 
109 
Susan told her peers, "I like [the essay] -- but we're here to learn better ways to 
write" (see Appendix C, p. 187). Usually there was a consensus formed about 
issues of mechanics, but almost always students were obliged to solve 
problems, providing solutions as to how and why an essay could be 
improved. 
The teacher said, "[Students] are given a problem and solve it quite 
readily." She continued, "Students seem to like solving problems, and I 
think it helps them to become more effective writers" (see Appendix D, 
p. 237). The teacher suggested that the problem solving tasks seemed to lead to 
more positive attitudes toward writing and a higher quality of writing among 
students experiencing the peer collaborative learning course in composition. 
Problem solving tasks appeared to be characteristic of peer collaborative 
learning. Class assignments were only one level of problem solving, which 
existed on various levels for students sharing a common task, coming from 
diverse backgrounds and abilities. For example, Yvonne presented a problem 
when she addressed the conflict between JTPA students and self-paid 
students. When she confronted the problem, her peers were visibly 
uncomfortable. 
Students were faced with the problem of how to react to Yvonne's 
essay. There was much disagreement, accompanied by tense moments of 
debate, which was handled responsibly by all parties. Students expressed their 
views without shouting. An understanding seemed to result from students 
joining to solve the problem. 
!~,/:/ ~/ ) 
! 
1 1 0 
Another problem-solving task was introduced when the teacher was 
unable to attend class because of illness. Annette expressed discontent 
because she had worked hard on an assignment and wanted teacher feedback. 
Other students echoed Annette's sentiment. When the substitute teacher 
disseminated instructions to the class, the group banded together for the 
purpose of solving the problem of the next assignment. Students, in small 
groups of 3-4, read the instructions, and peers participated in discussing what 
strategy they would use for the next writing assignment (see Appendix C, 
p. 197). 
Although the group was faced with the problem of a break in their 
routine because of the teacher's absence, they solved it by working together on 
a new problem. Also, without being told to do so, students read one 
another's essays offering constructive criticism. 
~!' 
Students in the peer collaborative classroom were faced with problem ,,,.,. 
solving tasks on a multitude of levels. They were faced with a weekly writing ,~. ,J .,.?  I 
, .. 
assignment which introduced a variety of problems that each student had to 
deal with both independently and collectively. The problem of selecting a 
topic and tone were seriously considered by the writer, because the peer 
collaborative audience represented a multiple perspective which critically 
addressed the message of the writing. According to the teacher, audience was 
another form of problem faced by the students with each writing assignment, 
since the audience was not a undefined entity. The teacher said that "the peer 
collaborative audience is a live [one]" (see Appendix D, p. 235). The audience 
1 1 1 
was an entity that would react to the writing, engaging in communication 
with the writer concerning the strengths and weaknesses of the writing. 
According to the teacher, "Students are faced with the problems of 
having to determine what method of introduction best suited a particular 
topic, diction, method of discourse, paragraph development, transitions, and 
method of conclusion" (see Appendix D, P? 237). Mechanics and content were 
major considerations for each student in the peer collaborative class. 
Both mechanics and content presented problem solving tasks assigned 
to each student, and each student was required to solve the problems as 
individuals and as a group. The theme oi problem solving comprised 
approximately 25% of the sentences on the pages. The teacher suggested that 
the problem-solving tasks enhanced socia:ization and seemed to contribute to 
improving the students' quality of writing and their attitudes toward writing. 
Summary. Socialization is a process defined in terms of (a) self-
identity, (b) classifying and describing people, (c) social interaction, and (d) a 
sense of belonging to a group. Socializaticn seemed to be key to the 
development of the peer collaborative group in which emergent themes 
became apparent. Emergent themes were (a) individual and group response, 
(b) females' and males' roles, (c) minorities' and special students' roles, (d) 
nonverval communication, and (e) problem solving. The socialization 
experienced by the students in the peer collaborative classroom may have 
affected the quality of these community college freshman composition 
students' writing and their attitudes toward writing. 
112 
Audiotaped Recordings 
fileven Sessions 
The eleven class sessions observed by the researcher were usually tape 
recorded in order to clarify recurrent themes which emerged. The researcher 
listened to and took notes from audiotaped recordings approximately two to 
three days after the observed session in order to gain a greater perspective of 
What took place inside the classroom. Audiotaped recordings were measured 
against observation notes and interview notes for clarification and 
exemplification. 
fil.udent Awareness 
Audiotaped recordings appeared to be noted by the students. 
Cindy, on the first day of observation, asked, "Are you going to tape 
us?" She pretended to object, and when this researcher asked her if she 
minded, Cindy said, "No, not really" (see Appendix C, p. 171). 
Others looked at the researcher rolling their eyes, feigning to be afraid. 
Some seemed to be somewhat ill at ease with the audiotaping at first. 
When the researcher asked if anyone objected, Susan said, "Not at all --
We're just giving you a hard time" (see Appendix C, p. 172). The researcher 
turned on the recorder and began taping. The teacher noted that in minutes 
the group seemed to have forgotten that it was on. During subsequent 
observations, the click of the recorder seemed to receive less notice by the 
Students. Most students seemed to take little, if any, notice of the recorder. 
~c~ 
====~---
1 1 3 
Restrictions 
Restrictions for audiotaping were placed on the researcher, however, by 
a student with an emotional handicap. On occasion, Dawn would ask the 
researcher not to audiotape on a certain day or during certain minutes of a 
class session. Complying with the request, the researcher pressed the stop 
button on the tape recorder and continued to write detailed notes based on 
the observation. The student's request was honored without question, since 
it was the researcher's ethical responsibility to avoid impeding the teaching-
learning process, as well as to observe human rights. 
Key Informant Interviews 
,S_election 
This researcher selected a student to assume the role of key informant. 
The selection was based on a student's ability to freely interact with peers and 
the teacher and the student's willingness to provide information to the 
researcher. Susan was selected because she seemed to be articulate and did not 
hesitate to ask her teacher and peers questions. She appeared to easily interact 
With group members, and she agreed to provide information to the 
researcher. The researcher was not aware of Susan's emotional handicap 
When she was selected, but it did not appear to cause any serious problem 
With her acting as a key informant. Three interviews were conducted with the 
informant. All three were conducted informally (see Appendix D for 
interviews, p. 224). 
114 
Questions and Responses 
The role of the key informant was to provide information about her 
peers to the researcher. During each interview, the student was asked three 
questions: What are your feelings about the peer collaborative class? How do 
you think your peers feel about the class? Would you and your peers prefer 
to be in a traditional lecture class? 
First Interview. During the first interview, the student responded to 
the first question that she was apprehensive about the teaching strategy 
because it required the students to teach one another, actually sharing writing 
assignments. She said, "I'm not sure about this class - I can't read in front of 
a Whole group of people" (see Appendix D, p. 225). Responding to the second 
question, she told the researcher that her peers agreed with her. She said, "I 
think everyone is afraid of writing -- and reading in front of the class is 
Worse!" (see Appendix D, p. 225). 
In response to the third question, the informant told the researcher 
that she preferred the traditional lecture course because she was accustomed 
to the lecture teaching strategy. She said, "I think I like regular teaching 
better. I'm used to it." However, she reported that several of the other 
Students, especially the ]TP A students, preferred the peer collaborative 
strategy because they were "more comfortable" in the classroom (see 
Appendix D, p. 225). 
Second Interview. During the second interview, the informant was 
asked the same three questions: What are your feelings about the peer 
collaborative class? How do you think your peers feel about the class? 
115 
Would you and your peers prefer to be in a traditional lecture class? The 
student responded to the first question that she was somewhat apprehensive 
about the teaching strategy, because she had difficulty reading aloud to her 
peers, but she was "surviving." She said, "I'm surviving -- but I still don't 
like reading in front of people" (see Appendix D, p. 226). 
Responding to the second question, she told the researcher that her 
peers were enjoying the experience -- that they seemed to have gotten used to 
reading aloud to their peers. She said, "Everyone else seems to like it -- they 
adjusted to it quickly." Susan still continued to have reservations about the 
peer collaborative method of instruction, because she did not like to read 
aloud in front of other people (see Appendix D, p. 226). 
In response to the the third question, the informant told the researcher 
that she preferred the collaborative teaching strategy to the traditional lecture 
strategy, despite her discomfort with reading aloud to her peers. She said she 
Was "working on the problem" and with more experience she hoped to 
overcome it. She said, "I ended up liking to read in front of the class -- I just 
needed more practice at it" (see Appendix D, p. 227). She, again, reported that 
her peers preferred the peer collaborative strategy because of the flexibility of 
the class and the personal, individual attention given to each student. She 
said, "My friends really like the class!" (see Appendix D, P? 227). 
Ihird Interview. During the third interview, the same three questions 
Were asked: What are your feelings about the peer collaborative class? How 
do you think your peers feel about the class? Would you and your peers 
Prefer to be in a traditional lecture class? The student responded to the first 
,V 
1 1 6 
question that she was no longer apprehensive about the teaching strategy, 
since she had gained so much from the experience. She reported that she 
"apparently needed the experience of reading aloud" to her peers, because she 
no longer felt the intense discomfort about doing it (see Appendix D, p. 227). 
Susan seemed to be more comfortable with reading aloud in front of her 
peers; thus she seemed more comfortable with the peer collaborative method 
of instruction. 
Responding to the second question, she told the researcher that her 
peers were enjoying the experience -- that "they liked reading to their peers" 
(see Appendix D, p. 227). In response to the third question, the informant told 
the researcher that she and her peers much preferred the collaborative 
-teaching strategy to the traditional teaching strategy, because of the flexibility 
of the class, the personal, individual attention given to each student, and 
because the students "had experienced English Composition rather than 
English Composition experiencing [them]" (see Appendix D, p. 228). 
Attitude Survey B 
A survey was administered to the 14 students during the fourteenth 
week of the course; survey B was worded exactly the same as survey A. The 
student responses were different in the fourteenth week than they were in 
the first week. Since one student withdrew from the course because of a job 
conflict, 14 students remained to respond to the survey. 
The mean of the subjects' responses to statements addressing liking 
and enjoying writing was 3.66 (.40). The mean of the subjects' responses to 
1 1 7 
statements addressing writing frequency was 3.97 (.15). The mean of the 
subjects' responses to statements addressing writing in other courses and 
career was 4.23 (.41). The mean of the subjects' responses to statements 
addressing writing as easy and grades was 3.43 (.19). The mean of the subjects' 
responses to statements addressing attendance was 3.00 (.30). The mean of the 
subjects' responses to statements addressing peer collaboration was 4.36 (.21). 
The composite mean of the statement mean scores on survey B was 3.75 (.5). 
The statement mean scores on survey B are listed under Table 3 (pp. 118-119). 
The mean score of the subjects was 3.74 (.78). The subject mean scores 
on survey Bare listed in Appendix A. 
1 1 8 
Table 3 
Statement Mean Scores on Survey B 
(Standard Deviations are within Parentheses) 
Statement 
Likes/Enjoys Writing Mean Score DK 
1. I like to write essays. 3.86 (1.10) 0 
3. I enjoy developing paragraphs. 3.29 (1.07) 0 
4. English courses are enjoyable. 3.79 (1.05) 0 
5. I enjoy creating transitions. 2.86 (1.10) 0 
7. I like my peers to read my writing assignments. 3.93 (1.14) 0 
12. I enjoy talking about my writing with my teachers. 3.86 (1.10) 0 
14. I enjoy talking about topics that I plan to write about. 3.64 (1.34) 0 ,,..1 ,,fl 
'?:r( 
15. I like my teachers to read my assignments. 4.07 (.997) 0 :'!??.; 
:???,?,1.  
Mean 3.66 (.4) 0 :-1 ;?' 
Writing Frequency 
9. I write in a journal often. 3.86 (1.10) 0 
11. I use my writing ability every day. 4.07 (1.) 0 
Mean 4.0 (.15) 0 
Writing in Other Courses and Career 
8. Learning to write will help me in my other courses. 4.36 (1.01) 0 
10. Writing should be a requirement in other academic 
courses. 3.77 (1.42) 1 
19. Learning to write will help me in my career. 4.57 (1.09) 0 
Mean 4.23 (.41) 1 
119 
Table 3 (Continu~d) 
Statem 
~ en t Mean Scores on Survey B 
andard Deviations are within Parentheses) 
~ 
~ as Easy/Grades Mean Score 
2 DK 
? Writing essays is easy. 3.21 (1.12) 0 
13. Ch 
oosing topics to write about is generally easy 
for me. 3.50 (1.51) 
17 0 
? I get good grades in English. 3.57 (1.16) 0 
Mean 3.43 (.19) 0 
,io'I 
_,JI i 
:;,r:; ''I   ~ /\I I ,,,, I 
6 "' I I 
? I rarely miss more than three classes during " I'  
' 
one semester. 2.79 (1.53) 0 /'I ' 18 (:, 
? I never miss more than 3 classes during a semester. 3.21 (1.67) ,,?, 0 
,'I'i  
,, ' 
Mean 3.00 (.3) 0 '' ,, ' I 
I 
': I 
' 
,'?': i I : 
~ ?.. ', I 16
? I Would recommend peer collaborative learning 
to my peers. 4.21 (1.31) 0 
.20. Peer collaboration could help other students to 
improve their writing. 4.50 (1.09) 0 
Mean 4.36 (.21) 0 
--------------
Composite Mean 3.75 (.5) 
120 
Analysis of Survey B Responses 
Statements 1, 3, 4, 5,7, 12,14, and 15 addressed students' attitudes toward 
writing. The mean score for these statements was 3.66 (.4). There was a total 
of O DK responses. 
Statements 9 and 11 addressed students' writing frequency. The mean 
score for these statements was 4.0 (.15). There was a total of O DK responses. 
Statements 8, 10, and 19 addressed students' attitudes toward writing in 
other courses and their careers. The mean score of these statements was 4.23 
(.41). There was a total of 1 DK response. 
Statements 2, 13, and17 addressed students' attitudes toward writing as as 
easy and grades. The mean score of these statements was 3.43 (.19). There was a 
total of O DK responses. 
Statements 6 and 18 addressed students' attendance. The mean score of 
these statements was 3.00 (.3). There was a total of O DK responses. 
Statements 16 and 20 addressed students' attitudes toward peer 
collaboration. The mean score of these statements was 4.36 (.21). There was a 
total of O DK responses. 
Analysis of Surveys A and B 
A comparison was used to analyze Survey A and Survey B. The results 
were as follows: 
Statements 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12,14, and 15 addressed students' attitudes 
toward writing. The mean of statements 1, 3, 4, 5, 7,12,14, and 15 in survey A 
was 3.15; the mean of statements 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, and 15 in survey B was 
3.66. The difference was .51. 
1 21 
Statements 9 and 11 addressed students' writing frequency. The mean 
of statements 9 and 11 in survey A was 3.14; the mean of statements 9 and 11 
in survey B was 4.0. The difference was .83. 
Statements 8, 10, and 19 addressed students' attitudes toward writing in 
other courses and their careers. The mean of statements 8, 10, and 19 in 
survey A was 4.13; the mean of statements 8, 10, and 19 in survey B was 4.23. 
The difference was .1. 
Statements 2, 13, and 17 addressed students' attitudes toward writing as 
easy and grades. The mean of statements 2, 13, and 17 in survey A was 2.69; 
the mean of statements 2, 13, and 17 in survey B was 3.43. The difference was 
.74. 
Statements 6 and 18 addressed students' attendance. The mean of 
statements 6 and 18 in survey A was 2.8; the mean of statements 6 and 18 in 
survey B was 3.00. The difference was .25. 
Statements 16 and 20 addressed students' attitudes toward peer 
collaboration. The mean of statements 16 and 20 in survey A was 4.13; the 
mean of statements 16 and 20 in survey B was 4.36. The difference was .23. 
Results from Writing Sample B 
Prompt 
During the fourteenth week of class, the 14 students were asked to 
write an essay written in the narrative mode of discourse. A similar prompt 
to the one used at the beginning of the semester was provided by the 
instructor. The prompt was modeled after the Maryland Writing Project 
--
122 
(Project B ? o ? 
asic ff1ce, 1985). It read as follows: "Write a well developed essay ? 
telling 
a story about a childhood memory which shaped your attitude toward 
a person, place, or thing." 
~ 
The essays were scored holistically by the two raters who scored the 15 
essays 0 f W .. riting Sample A. 
~ 
The scores are listed in Appendix B, page 156. The average score of the 
subjects Was 2.4 (.93) on a 4.0 scale. 
Chapter Summary 
''?/ 
The purpose of this study was to examine the effects of peer I 
co1Jab ? 
oration on the quality of community college freshman composition 
tu
S dents' Wr?i ti? ng, on their socialization, and on t h e?i r attl?t u d es toward  
~~ A . 
g. n analysis of the data was conducted to forge an hypothesis. 
Survey A revealed a 3.25 mean score for the peer collaborative 
sub? 
1ects; survey B revealed a 3.74 mean score, a difference of .49. Writing 
salllple A revealed a 1.86 average score for the peer collaborative subjects; 
~~ . 
g sample B revealed a 2.35 average score, a difference of .49. 
Observations of the socialization in the peer collaborative classroom 
revealed emergent themes: (a) individual and group response; (b) females' 
nd 
a Inales' roles; (c) minorities' and special students' roles; (d) nonverbal 
comrn . 
unication; and (e) problem solving. 
123 
Chapter IV presented the analysis of the data. Chapter V will present 
summary, conclusions, implications, recommendations, and limitations 
found from the investigation of the effects of peer collaboration on the quality 
of community college freshman composition students' writing, on their 
socialization, and on their attitudes toward writing. 
124 
CHAPTER V 
Summary, Conclusions, Implications, Recommendations, and Limitations 
The purpose of this chapter is to present a summary of the problem, 
conclusions and implications, recommendations, and limitations that were 
found from the investigation of the effects of peer collaboration on the quality 
of community college freshman composition students' writing, on their 
socialization, and on their attitudes toward writing. Three questions were 
asked in this study: 
1. What are the effects of peer collaboration on the quality of 
community college freshmen's writing? 
2. What are the effects of peer collaboration on the socialization of 
community college freshman composition students? 
3. What are the effects of peer collaboration on community college 
freshmen's attitudes toward writing? 
Peer collaboration was investigated for its effectiveness as a method of 
instruction in the composition classroom. 
This chapter will report (a) a summary of the problem, (b) conclusions 
and implications, (c) recommendations, and (d) limitations. 
Summary of the Problem 
Composition instruction is in need of reform and currently is being 
modified (Brodkey, 1987; Bruffee, 1986; Daiute, 1985; Hillocks, 1986; Slavin, 
1985a). According to researchers, composition instruction is being modified in 
125 
an effort to teach students to write more effectively. One means to modify 
composition instruction may be to include peer collaboration as a method of 
teaching. Although peer collaborative learning has been used often as a 
method of teaching revision to undergraduates, still little is known about the 
interaction among group members. A better understanding of what 
transpires between and among peers joined for the purpose of learning how 
to write could derive from data provided by qualitative research on peer 
collaborative learning. 
An analysis of research data could be conducted to form an hypothesis 
to suggest that peer collaborative learning in English composition, under 
certain conditions, exerts a positive influence on freshmen students learning 
to write at the community college level. 
Peer collaborative learning is a method of instruction, structured so 
that students interact, or socialize, with one another to practice behavior that 
is modeled by peers and teacher. Peers and teacher mutually interact with one 
another. What occurs during the interaction and how it affects the quality of 
students' writing, students' socialization, and students' attitudes toward 
writing requires investigation. This was the focus of the study. If 
composition instruction is in need of reform, peer collaborative learning 
could be one means to address the problem of teaching students how to write 
more effectively. 
Conclusions and Implications 
Given the design and small population of this study, observations 
suggest that peer collaboration, within the conditions of this investigation, 
126 
has the potential to improve the quality of students' writing. In addition, the 
implications of this study suggest that students' socialization and attitudes 
toward writing can improve within the peer collaborative classroom. Specific 
implications are discussed in the paragraphs that follow, addressing (a) 
Writing Attitude Surveys A and B; (b) observation notes; (c) Writing Samples 
A and B; (d) audiotaped notes; and (e) key informant interviews. The three 
research questions are listed below: 
1. What are the effects of peer collaboration on the quality of 
community college freshmen's writing? 
2. What are the effects of peer collaboration on the socialization of 
community college freshman composition students? 
3. What are the effects of peer collaboration on community college 
freshmen's attitudes toward writing? 
Sample Writings A and B 
Sample Writings A and B addressed the first question: What are the 
effects of peer collaboration on the quality of community college freshmen's 
writing? Writing Sample A was compared with Writing Sample B. Writing 
Sample A revealed a 1.86 (1.13) average score for students before they 
experienced the peer collaborative learning method. Writing Sample B 
revealed a 2.35 (.93) average score for students after they experienced the peer 
collaborative learning method. There was a difference of .49. The holistic 
scoring scale may not be as discriminating as other instruments. The 
difference appears to be positive. 
127 
Although holistic scoring was the preferred method of measurement, 
holistic scoring has major shortcomings. Holistic scoring was the preferred 
method of measurement over a machine-scorable objective test or frequency 
count of word or sentence elements, because a human respondent is a natural 
link to writing. Holistic scoring is widely used among writing researchers 
(Cooper & Odell, 1977) because raters are human beings reacting to other 
human beings' writing. Moreover, holistic scores are based on actual student 
writing samples. 
However, holistic scoring is not without its shortcomings. One major 
shortcoming is that holistic scores are characteristically general, rather than ,.,, f 
' 
specific. Thus fine points regarding specific strengths and weaknesses are 
not necessarily registered in the holistic scores. Holistic scores may present 
a limited view of students' actual writing strengths and weaknesses. 
Holistic scores may present a limited view of the differences between 
students' scores. 
Observations 
Observation notes addressed the second question: What are the effects 
of peer collaboration on the socialization of community college freshman 
composition students? Socialization is defined in terms of (a) self confidence, 
(b) classifying and describing people, (c) social interaction, and (d) a sense of 
belonging to a group. The peer collaborative method of instruction seemed to 
enhance socialization. 
A,' 
128 
Self Confidence. Students appeared to develop a self confidence among 
a group of peers. Students appeared to gain a self confidence within the group 
through camaraderie. Camaraderie became apparent as peers sat at close 
proximity to one another in the circle, designed for socialization. During 
socialization, peers quickly referred to one another by first name, and some 
used nicknames (see Appendix C, p. 184). Self confidence and camaraderie 
seemed to grow out of the socialization. Students seemed to become familiar 
with one another, which seemed to enhance self confidence. Students 
became familiar with one another and sometimes used humour to offer both 
criticism and support. They gently joked about errors, and they rescued one 
another with humour, when criticism appeared to cause some students to 
become defensive. Students seemed to_ become familiar with themselves ahd 
with one another through the use of humour (see Appendix C, p. 193). 
Humour seemed to yield to a self confidence (Peck, 1978) in a group of peers. 
Self confidence seemed to yield to self-reporting of writing errors and 
weaknesses. 
Students' self-reporting of writing errors and weaknesses was 
noteworthy. Students often reported their own errors and weaknesses 
while examining a peer's essay. Students asked questions about their peer's 
essay, in an effort to prevent making the same errors in their own writing 
(see Appendix C, p. 185). Through socialization, students seemed to develop 
a self confidence, which reflected in their camaraderie, use of humour, and 
self-reported writing weaknesses. While developing a self confidence, 
129 
st
udents also appe~red to be developing a sense of classifying and describing 
people.  
.Classifying: and Describing People. Students' sense of classifying and 
describ"m g people became apparent in the peer collaborative classroom. 
While? 
in t h e peer collaborative classroom, the students seemed to 
separate m.  t o two groups. Some of the students described .t heir differences 
as JTpA  students and self-paid students. Differences resulted in classifying 
one another, as one student described the us and them factions. 
While factions formed, they quickly seemed to dissipate. When one 
st
uctent described a separation, her peers appeared to unite, in an effort to ,I,  
,. t 
I 
regroup W1? tho ut the separation (see Appendi?x  C, p. 191 ).  Th e um?t ed students 
seemed t ,, o want to classify and describe themseJ v es as one group. St udents I 
I 
I 
Were individuals, who seemed to want to be one group in a peer collaborative 
class that emphasized social interaction. 
?ocia1 Interaction . The peer collaborative learning method 
I 
' 
I ' 
seemed to emphasize social interaction among the students and the ' ' 
teacher. Students and the teacher socially interacted to highlight the quality 
of the Wr?i t?i ng, also pointing out weaknesses o f th  e wn? t?m g. Wh en 
Problems arose, students and the teacher socially interacted to solve the 
Problems. 
The division between JTP A students and the self-paid students was one 
Problem wherein a peer seemed to need comforting. Students and the 
teacher socially interacted in order to solve the problem. Through social 
130 
interaction, problems were addressed about the quality of writing and about 
the members of the group. 
Another problem became evident when one student's spelling was 
corrected by a peer. Another student comforted the student by joking, saying 
that they were members of a delinquent spelling class (see Appendix C, 
p. 208). Students seemed to become socially responsible in the class. Social 
interaction seemed to be key in the peer collaborative composition class, 
which yielded to a sense of belonging to a group. 
Sense of Belonging to a Group. There seemed to be a sense of 
belonging to a group among the members in the peer collaborative classroom. 
In the class, students sat in a circle and formed one group. The group had a 
common goal of learning more about the quality of writing. Group members 
seemed to like socializing with one another to share topics and knowledge 
about writing. Students shared personal experiences and beliefs with their 
writing. 
Sharing experiences and beliefs seemed to be a catalyst for promoting 
group membership. The group actively socialized in a dialogic exchange to 
express ideas about writing topics and method (see Appendix C, p. 208). A 
sense of belonging to a group seemed to be maximized during the 
socialization in the peer collaborative class. 
Socialization is defined in terms of (a) self confidence, (b) classifying 
and describing people, (c) social interaction, and (d) a sense of belonging 
1 31 
to a group. Socialization seemed to be enhanced in the peer collaborative 
classroom. Through socialization, distinct themes seemed to emerge to 
become characteristic of the peer collaborative class: (a) individual and 
group response, (b) females' and males' roles, (c) minorities' and special 
students' roles, (d) nonverbal communication, and (e) problem solving. 
Individual and Group Response. Individual and group response 
seemed to promote self confidence as students engaged in socialization. 
Individual students were responsible for writing their own essays and 
analyzing their peers' essays, hence individual response. The group of 
students were responsible for determining elements of weak writing and 
suggesting elements for strong writing, hence group response (see Appendix 
C, p. 208). Individual students and the group of students focused on specific 
words, sentences, paragraphs, and essays. 
Individual and group response seemed to be key in the peer 
collaborative learning method. Students did individual assignments and 
group assignments, writing and analyzing essays. Roles of individual 
students within the group were sometimes determined by gender. 
Females' and Males' Roles. Females and males seemed to assume 
gender roles in the peer collaborative class. The 2:1 ratio between females and 
males in the class presented differences in opinion, which seemed to be based 
on gender. Topics such as baseball, teen pregnancy, contraception, car 
maintenance, and sewing seemed to result in debates between the sexes. In 
some cases, students agreed to disagree when there did not appear to be a right 
answer during the debate (see Appendix C, p. 216). For example, when male 
132 
students seemed to lack interest in the essay on sewing, both male students 
and female students quickly moved on to the next essay, not belaboring the 
issue. 
Open debate between females and males seemed to permit students 
to express their differences of opinion in the peer collaborative class. 
Females and males seemed to openly express gender-related opinions 
during debates. Such debates could be beneficial to students in the real 
world, composed of females and males, and even minority and special 
students. 
Minorities' and Special Students' Roles. In the peer collaborative 
class, minority and special students joined other students to become one 
group. The peer collaborative method of learning seemed to yield to a 
camaraderie among students. Students tended to unite with their peers, 
ignoring prejudice based on racism and physical and emotional 
handicaps. 
The peer collaborative class maximized the interaction between and 
among students so that minorities and special students experienced an equal 
part in the educational exchange. Minorities, while at the outset of the 
semester grouped together, integrated with the other students as the semester 
progressed (see Appendix C, p. 177). Students seemed to become comfortable 
with one another, despite racial and other differences. 
Special students also actively participated in the peer collaborative 
classroom (see Appendix C, p. 192). Physical handicaps, speech 
133 
imped1' ments, and emotional problems seemed to blur because of the 
camaraderie of the students, which was observable -- even in nonverbal 
comm uni cation. 
Nonverbal Communication. Nonverbal communication seemed to be 
prevalent in the peer collaborative classroom. Students used various 
.tneth0ds of communication., which included nonverbals and touch to express 
their th h 
oug ts to one another. Students seemed to wink at one another and 
~u~ . 
one another as a means to show support for their peers' efforts toward 
quality Writing (see Appendix C, p. 214). The group bonded together for the 
Purpose of learning to write and they seemed to show it through nonverbal 
communication. 
The peer collaborative learning method seemed to yield to time spent 
on soci a I i?n teracti?o n, thus human compass1?0 n was expresse d w h1'l e  students 
learned more about quality writing. Nonverbal communication seemed to be 
an element of socialization within the peer collaborative classroom, which ' 
' I 
also y?i e Id ed to problem solving. : .I 
f.robiem Solving. The peer collaborative method of instruction 
seemed to encourage problem solving. Students were responsible for 
analyz i? ng the organization of an essay, namm? g th e meth  o d o f m? tro d uct1? 0n, 
th
e thesis statement, some transitional words and phrases, and method of 
conclusion (see Appendix c, p. 221). Students were required to examine each 
essay, marking its components, for the purpose of evaluating strengths and 
'weaknesses and to suggest ways to enhance the quality of the essay. All 
Stud ents were responsible for solving the probl  em of ,1 mprov.m g an essay, an d 
134 
th
ey seemed to actively participate in the process? of peer collaborative 
learning. 
Further, students were faced with the problem of learning how to deal 
W"h 
It one another as human beings in the face of adversity. They solved such 
problems responsibly by openly discussing issues. At times a consensus could 
be reached; other times, students agreed to disagree. In the peer collaborative 
classroom, students socialized to solve problems, while they improved the 
quality of their writing, and they seemed to like it. The peer collaborative 
meth0ct of instruction seemed to encourage problem solving, a component of 
socialization. 
Socialization appeared to be key to the success of the peer collaborative 
method of instruction. Students freely interacted with one another and the 
teacher in an effort to improve the quality of their writing (see Appendix C, 
p. 195). Moreover, students seemed to enjoy socializing with one another, 
and they seemed to enjoy the writing assignments. The social interaction was 
auct?i otape recorded, addressing the question: What are the effects of peer 
collaboration on the socialization of community college freshman 
composition students? 
~Writin A th?t ude Surveys A and B 
Writing Attitude Surveys A and B addressed the third question; 
What are the effects of peer collaboration on community college 
freshznen's attitudes toward writing? Writing attitude survey A was 
compared with writing attitude survey B. Because of the small population, 
135 
the differences were not tested statistically. Interpretations of the results are 
as follows: 
Statements 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 12, 14, and 15 addressed students' attitudes 
toward writing (see Appendix A, pp. 159-160). Students' responses, when 
Survey A was compared with Survey B, suggest a positive difference. Only 4 
out of 15 students responded to these questions in Survey A, which may 
reflect that many students did not know enough about their attitudes toward 
writing to respond to this cluster of statements before the peer collaborative 
learning experience. Also, the students may have been reacting to the format 
of the survey. Eleven more students responded to Survey B than to Survey 
A. This may reflect that students' attitudes toward writing improved after 
the peer collaborative learning experience. After the students experienced 
peer collaborative learning, their attitudes toward writing seemed to 
improve. 
Statements 9 and 11 addressed students' writing frequency (see 
Appendix A, pp. 159-160). Students' responses, when Survey A was 
compared with Survey B, suggest a positive difference. After the students 
experienced peer collaborative learning, their writing frequency seemed to 
improve. 
Statements 8, 10, and 19 addressed students' attitudes toward writing in 
other courses and their careers or intended careers (see Appendix A, pp. 159-
160). Students' responses, when Survey A was compared with Survey B, 
suggested a positive difference. One less student responded to Survey B than 
to Survey A, which may reflect that the student was uncertain about writing 
136 
in other . . 
courses and/or m his/her career. Also, this could be the student's 
reaction t h 
o t e format of the survey. After the students experienced peer 
collaborative 1e arnm? g, t h ei? r att1? tu d es towar d wn?t m? g m?  oth  er courses and 
their ca reers seemed to i.m prove. 
Statements 2, 13, and 17 addressed students' attitudes toward writing as 
b? 
eing easy and students' attitudes toward their grades in English (see 
Appendix A, pp. 159-160). Students' responses, when Survey A was 
colllpared With Survey B, suggest a positive difference. Three more students 
responded to Survey B than to Survey A, which may reflect that students 
beca111 e more comfortable with the survey after the peer collaborative 
learning experience. After the students experienced peer collaborative 
learning, their attitudes toward writing as being easy and their attitudes 
toward grade s m.  En gh.s h seemed  to 1. mprove. 
Statements 6 and 18 addressed students' attitudes toward 
attend ance. Students' responses, when Survey A was compared  wi? th  
' I 
survey B, suggest a positive difference (see Appendix A, PP? 159-160). Nine 
In.ore Students responded to Survey B than to Survey A, which may reflect 
th
at Students became more comfortable with the survey after the peer 
Collab orati?v e learning experience. After the stu d ents  experi?e nce d pee r 
Collaborative learning, their attitudes toward attendance to class seemed to 
iznprove. 
Statements 16 and 20 addressed students' attitudes toward peer 
Collaboration (see Appendix A, p. l59-160). Twelve more students responded 
to Survey B than to Survey A, which may reflect that students' attitudes 
137 
toward 
peer collaboration improved after the peer collaborative learning 
experien ce. Aft er the students experienced peer collaborative learning, their 
attitud 
es toward peer collaboration seemed to improve. 
. Writing attitude Surveys A and B also were compared across the 
different 1 
c usters of questions. This comparison seemed to suggest that the 
stu
dents' attitudes toward writing improved after the peer collaborative 
learn?i ng experience. 
The eleven class sessions observed by the researcher were audiotaped, 
except on those few occasions when one student requested that the recorder 
be turn ed  off. Other students were aware .o f the tape recorder also, though 
fuey all seemed to be Jess aware of it as the class proceeded with the day's 
lesson ? Th e audiotape recording seemed to have mm. 1. ma 1 i.m pact on th  e 
students' behavior. 
Audiotape recordings were played approximately two to three 
days after the observed sessions in order for the researcher to gain a 
greater perspective of what took place inside the classroom. Audiotape 
record?1 ngs were measured against observati.o n notes an d m. terv1. ew notes 
for clarification. One example of this clarification was when the student 
callect Cindy cleared her throat in an unusual manner. It seemed as though 
she Was J? ust clearing her throat, upon m? 1?t 1?a  1 o bs erva t1'o n ? 
The tape recorder signaled a forceful sound, which was later observed 
to be Cindy's method of gaining attention from her peers. She cleared her 
138 
throat al . 
most every time she was offering constructive criticism which 
focused -
on the weaknesses of a writing. The tone of her throat clearing, 
recorded 
on tape, seemed to indicate that she was jesting in an effort to soften 
th
e blow of the noted weaknesses in a peer's writing. Audiotape recordings 
captured sounds that contributed to the interpretation of the observation 
notes and k . 
ey informant interviews. 
~?n o rmant Interviews 
Key informant interviews addressed the question: What are the 
effects 0 f peer collaboration on community college freshmen's attitudes 
toward .. 
Writing? Three informal interviews, asking the same three 
question s were conducted wi.t h a key m. formant: What are your feelings 
about th e peer collaborative class? How do you think your peers feel about 
the class? wo uld you and your peers prefer to be in a tra d1' t1? ona1 1 ecture 
class? 
The first interview indicated that the key informant was apprehensive 
about peer collaboration. While the informant preferred a traditional lecture 
class h . , r 
. ' er peers preferred peer collaboration, accordmg to the miormant. The 
Inforlllant had been familiar with traditional lecture and had never 
e>cpe ri?e nced peer collaborative learning, and she m? d1? cated concern a b out the 
Unfanuliar mode of instruction. Many of her peers had experienced the 
tradir 1 io na1 mode of instruction but had been unsuccess f~- m?  s ch 00I  Th w ? e 
Peers seemed to have associated lack of success with the traditional lecture 
lnode and preferred a more informal environment that the peer collaborative 
139 
classroom offered. . At the beginning of the semester, the informant seemed to 
dislike the peer collaborative learning method, while other students seemed 
to like the peer collaborative learning method. 
The second interview indicated that the key informant was 
apprehensive about peer collaboration. Her peers seemed to be enjoying the 
mode of instruction. Both the key informant and her peers preferred peer 
collaboration to the traditional mode of instruction. Students enjoyed the 
informal structure, flexibility of protocol, and personal attention afforded by 
peer collaboration. In the middle of the semester, the informant seemed to 
like the peer collaborative learning method; the other students also seemed to 
like the peer collaborative learning method. 
The third interview indicated that the key informant was no longer 
apprehensive about the peer collaborative mode of instruction, and she and 
her peers enjoyed it. All the students liked the comfort in the peer 
collaborative classroom, as well as the personal, individual attention. At the 
end of the semester, the informant and the other students seemed to like the 
peer collaborative learning method. 
The three interviews with the key informant seemed to indicate 
that the students enjoyed the peer collaborative learning experience in 
the composition class. While the key informant seemed to be 
apprehensive at first, she gradually preferred the peer collaborative 
learning method to the traditional lecture method, because of the informal 
structure, flexibility of protocol, and personal attention afforded by peer 
140 
collaboration. Findings from the key informant interviews were supported 
by triangulation. 
Attitude Surveys A and B, observation notes, Writing Samples A 
and B, audiotape recordings, and the key informant interviews indicated 
that students' writing quality improved, students' socialization was 
enhanced, and students' attitudes toward writing improved after the peer 
collaborative learning experience in freshman English Composition 101. The 
investigation of peer collaboration resulted in recommendations. 
Recommendations 
As a result of this investigationL the following recommendations seem 
warranted by this study: 
1. Further research is needed to study the effects of peer collaboration 
on community college freshman composition students, using 
fewer questions on the survey instrument. Many of the questions 
on the survey used in this study were general rather than specific 
to writing in English composition. For example, general questions 
that referred to writing frequency, writing in other courses and 
careers, writing as easy and grades in English, and attendance to 
class could have been eliminated. 
2. Further research is needed to study the effects of peer collaboration 
on students who have been trained for the peer collaborative 
classroom, with a clear set of guidelines. Training students to learn 
to write in a peer collaborative classroom should be a priority, 
141 
according to Schultz (1989/1990). More investigation of how 
students could be trained to learn in a peer collaborative classroom, 
with a clear set of guidelines, may be beneficial. 
3. Further research is needed to study the effects of peer 
collaboration on students, whose teacher has been trained for the 
peer collaborative classroom, with a clear set of guidelines. 
Training teachers to teach writing in a peer collaborative classroom 
should be a priority, according to Schultz (1989/1990). More 
investigation of how teachers could be trained to teach writing in a 
peer collaborative classroom, with a clear set of guidelines, may be 
beneficial. 
4. Further research is needed to study the effects of peer 
collaboration, with a more indepth analysis of the target population 
of community college freshman composition students. There is a 
limited body of research literature devoted to the effects of peer 
collaboration and community college freshmen composition 
students. Further study is necessary to investigate peer 
collaboration and community college freshmen composition 
students. 
5. The present study of the effects of peer collaboration on 
community college composition students could serve as a model 
for further study. The present study is valid because of the 
triangulated method of data collection and analysis. More valid 
142 
studies are needed in peer collaborative learning and composition. 
There is a limited body of research literature in this area. 
As the list of recommendations may suggest, there were limitations to 
the investigation of the effects of peer collaboration on the quality of 
community college freshman's writing, on their socialization, and on their 
attitudes toward writing. 
Limitations 
This study has limitations which are listed below: 
1. One community college freshman composition class was studied. 
A control group could be beneficial in order to note the differences 
between the two groups: the treatment group and the control 
group. 
2. The class was not randomly selected because of administrative 
limitations. The class was assigned to this researcher by the 
administration. 
3. The results of the study cannot be generalized to other community 
colleges' freshman composition classes. Because of the absence of 
randon selection and the small population, generalizability was 
restricted. 
4. The Hawthorne Effect may have been present. This researcher 
conducted a pilot study of peer collaboration and composition 
which seemed to yield positive results, so this researcher may have 
been affected by the pilot results. 
143 
S. While audiotaping did not appear to affect most students after the 
first few minutes of a class session, students were aware of it~ 
use. Student awareness of the audiotaping may have affected the 
students. 
Below is a summary of the investigation of the effects of peer 
Collaboration on the quality of community college freshman's writing, on 
their socialI.Z a ti' on, and  on t h e1. r att1. tu d es toward  wn.t m. g. 
Chapter Summary 
The purpose of this study was to investigate the effects of peer 
collaboration on the quality of community college freshmen's writing, on 
th
eir Socialization, and on their attitudes toward writing. An analysis of ~e 
data Was conducted to form an hypothesis which suggested that peer 
coHabora  t1? ve 1e arning in English compos1?t 1? 0n, und  er cer ta m?  con d1. t?i ons, 
e)(erts a positive influence on freshman students learning to write at the 
conununity college level. The data collected in this study suggest that in a 
Peer collaborative learning environment, community coUege freshmen's 
WrH' ?i ng u? nproved, their socialization was enhanced, and students b?k ed 
learning to write. 
Survey A revealed a 3.29 (.66) mean score for the peer collaborative 
sub? 
1ects; Survey B revealed a 3.75 (.5) mean score, a difference of .46. The 
difference suggests that students' attitudes toward peer collaborative learning 
changed after the peer collaborative experience, and that they liked peer 
Collab orati?o n more after they experi?e nce d 1? t?  
144 
Writing Sample A revealed a 1.86 (1.13) average score for the peer 
collaborative subjects; Writing Sample B revealed a 2.35 (.93) average score, a 
difference of .49. The difference suggests that students' quality of writing 
changed after the peer collaborative experience, and that students' writing 
improved after they experienced peer collaboration. 
Observation notes revealed emergent themes: (a) individual and 
group response; (b) females' and males' roles; (c) minorities' and special 
students' roles; (d) nonverbal communication; and (e) problem solving. 
The theme of individual and group response comprised approximately 
75%-80% of the sentences in the observation notes. Students seemed to 
participate actively in learning to write, as individuals and as a group. 
Females' and males' roles comprised approximately 10% of the 
sentences in the observation notes. Students seemed to participate in open 
debate over gender issues. 
The theme of minorities' and special students' roles comprised 
approximately 35% of the sentences in the observation notes. Students 
seemed to experience an equal opportunity to exchange ideas in the peer 
collaborative class. Minority and special students seemed to interact with 
their peers. 
The theme of nonverbal communication comprised approximately 
15% of the sentences in the observation notes. Nonverbal communication 
seemed to be an element of socialization within the peer collaborative class. 
The theme or problem solving comprised approximately 25% of the 
sentences in the observation notes. Problem solving seemed to enhance 
145 
Socialization and seemed to improve the quality of students' writing within 
the Peer collaborative class. 
Observation notes and key informant interviews supported the results 
of the surveys and writing samples. The data suggest the hypothesis that peer 
collaboration, under certain conditions, can have positive effects on the 
quality of community college freshmen's writing, on thefr socialization, and 
on their attitudes toward writing. Peer collaboration can be an effective 
method of instruction in the composition classroom. 
As stated in the recommendations, this study could serve as a model 
for other studies on the effects of peer collaboration in community college 
freshmen composition students. The limited body of research in this area 
indicates a need for further study. 
146 
References 
Aronson, E. (1978). The jigsaw classroom. Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage. 
Augustine, D.K., Gruber, K.D., & Hanson, L.R. (1989 /1990). Cooperation 
works! Educational Leadership, 1.Z, 4-7. 
Bartholomae, D. (1986). Released into language: Errors, expectations, and the 
legacy of Mina Shaughnessy. In Donald McQuade (Ed.), The territory of 
language. Edwardsville: Southern Illinois University Press. 
Bennett, W. (1985). To reclaim a legacy. American Education, 21, no 1: 4-15. 
Bizzell, P. (1982). Cognition, convention, and certainty: What we need to 
know about writing. Pre-Text,~ 213-243. 
~oiarsky, C. & Johnson, C. (1983, December). The excellence in education 
report: Connecting reading, writing, and thinking. Curriculum 
Review, .f.fi 37-40. 
Bonaparte, E.P. (1989). The effects of cooperative versus competitive 
classroom organization for mastery learning on the mathematical 
achievement and self-esteem of urban second-grade pupils (Doctoral 
dissertation, Morgan State University). Dissertation Abstracts 
International, 50/07A , 1911. 
Borg, W., & Gall, M. (Eds.). (1983). Educational research: an introduction 
(4th ed.). New York: Longman. 
Britton, J., Burgess, T., Martin, N., McLeod, A., & Rosen, H. (1975). The 
development of writing abilities (pp. 11-18). London: Macmillan. 
147 
Brodkey, L. 0987). Modernism and the scene(s) of writing. College 
English, 49, 396-418. 
Bruffee, K. (1980). Collaborative learning. A short course in writing. 
Cambridge: Winthrop. 
Bruffee, K. (1986, December). Social construction, language, and the authority 
of knowledge: A bibliographical essay. College English, 1lt, 773-790. 
Bruffee, K. (1983). Teaching writing through collaboration. In Clark 
Bouton and Russell Y. Garth (Eds.), Learning in groups (pp. 23-29). San 
Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. 
Burleson, B. , & Rowan, K. (1985). Are social-cognitive ability and 
narrative writing skill related? Written Communication, 2, 25-43. 
Carney, C.C. (1988). Using cooperative learning strategies to enhance 
computer-assisted keyboarding instruction (Doctoral dissertation, 
University of Oregon). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50/0lA, 
120. 
Carroll, E.R. (1989). A comparative study of achievement in college-level 
Written business communication using lecture and cooperative 
learning teaching methods (Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State 
University). Doctoral Dissertation Abstracts International, 50/12A, 
3832. 
~eake Co11ege Catalog, 1987-88. 
Cooper, C., & Odell, L. (1977). Evaluating writing. Buffalo: Suny. 
148 
Daiute, C. (1985, March). A social model for inner dialogue in young 
writers. In B. Bruce (Ed.), The impact of social processes on writing 
activities. Symposium conducted at the American Educational 
Research Association in Chicago. 
Davis, R.G. (1988). A study on the effects of students' use of selected group 
process skills on student achievement and attitude during a seventh 
grade cooperative learning mathematics problem solving unit 
(Doctoral disseration, The University of Iowa). Doctoral Dissertation 
Abstracts International, 49/11A, 3263. 
Dewey, J. (1938). Experience and education. New York: Macmillan. 
Garstka, P.A. (1984). Inside a community college basic skills class: A case 
study (study, dropouts, adult learners) (Doctoral dissertation, 
Pepperdine University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 45/03A, 
732. 
George, D. (1984, October). Working with peer groups in the composition 
classroom. College Composition and Communication, 35, 320-336. 
Gere, A., & Abbott, R. (1985, December). Talking about writing: The language 
of writing groups. Research in the Teaching of English, 19, 362-385. 
Gorton, RA., Schneider, G.T., & Fisher, J.C. (Eds.). (1988). Encyclopedia of 
school administration and supervision. New York: Oryx Press. 
Guntermann, E.L. (1988). Group computer-assisted learning: Differences 
among male, female mixed pairs of fourth grade students with respect 
to social interactions, computer contact, and achievement (Doctoral 
149 
dissertation, Concordia University, Canada). Dissertation Abstracts 
International, 49 /1 lA, 3339. 
Hays, J., Roth, P., Ramsey, J., & Foulke, R. (1983). The writer's mind: writing 
as a mode of thinking. Urbana: NCTE. 
Heath, S. (1983). Ways with words. New York: Cambridge University Press. 
Hillocks, G. (1986). Research on written compositon: New directions for 
teaching. Urbana: NCTE. 
Hooker, S. K. (1988). Cooperative learning with four gifted and talented 
students: A case study focusing on interpersonal skills (Doctoral 
dissertation, The University of Arizona). Dissertation Abstracts 
International, 50 /04A, 921. 
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985a). Classroom conflict: Controversy 
versus debate in learning groups. American Educational Research 
Journal, 2Z, 237-56. 
Johnson, D. W. , & Johnson, R. T. (1990). Cooperative learning and 
achievement. In S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and 
research (pp. 23-37). New York: Praeger. 
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1985b). The internal dynamics of 
cooperative learning groups. In Robert Slavin, Shlomo Sharan, 
Spencer Kagan, Rachel Hertz Lazarowitz, Clark Webb, and Richard 
Schmuck (Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 103-
124). New York: Plenum Press. 
Johnson, D. W. & Johnson, R. T. (1975). Learning together and alone. 
Englewood Cliffs, N. J.: Prentice Hall. 
150 
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Holubec, E., & Roy, P. (1984). Circles of 
learning. Alexandria, Va.: ASCD. 
Johnson, D.W., Maruyama, G., Johnson, R.T., Nelson, D., & Skon, L. (1981). 
Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures 
on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin,~ 47-62. 
Kacer, B. A. (1989). The impact of small group instruction upon attitude and 
achievement of students learning computer applications (Doctoral 
dissertation, The University of Iowa). Dissertation Abstracts 
International, 50/1 lA, 3465. 
Kagan, S. (1980). Cooperation-competition, culture, and structural bias in 
classrooms. In S. Sharan, A.P. Hare, C. Webb, & R. Lazarowitz (Eds.), 
Cooperation in education. Provo, Utah: Brigham Young University 
Press. 
Kagan, S. (1985). Dimensions of cooperative classroom structures. In R. 
Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R.H. Lazarowitz, C. Webb, & R. Schmuck 
(Eds.), Learning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 67-96). New 
York: Plenum. 
Kagan, S. (1983). Social orientation among Mexican-American children: A 
challenge to traditional classroom structures. In E. Garcia (Ed.), The 
Mexican-American child: Language, cognition, and social 
development. Tempe, Ariz.: Center for Bilingual Education. 
Kagan, S. (1989 /1990). The structural approach to cooperative learning. 
Educational Leadership, 12, 12-15. 
151 
Kantor, K., & Rubin, D. (1981). Between speaking and writing: Processes of 
differentiation. In B.M. Kroll and RJ. Vann (Eds.), Exploring: speaking:_ 
}Yriting relationships: Connections and contrasts (pp. 55-81). Urbana: 
NCTE. 
l<encte k' 
rs 1, C. M. (1983). Interaction processes and learning among third 
grade black and Mexican-American students in cooperative small 
groups (Doctoral dissertation, University of California, L.A.). 
Dissertation Abstracts International, 45/0lA, 126. 
l<roU, B. 0978, October). Cognitive egocentrism and the problem of audience 
awareness in written discourse. Research in the Teaching of English, 
lb 269-281. 
Lang, N. A. (1983). The effects of a cooperative learning technique, teams-
games-tournament, on the academic achievement and attitude toward 
economics of college students enrolled in a principles of 
microeconomics course (Doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia). 
l2issertation Abstracts International, 44/0SA, 1517. 
Lewin, 1<. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill. 
Lyons, V. M. (1982). A study of elaborative cognitive processing as a variable 
mediating achievement in cooperative learning groups (Doctoral 
dissertation, University of Minnesota). Dissertation Abstracts 
International, 43/04A, 1090. 
Madden, N. A. (1980). Effects of cooperative learning on the social acceptance 
of mainstreamed academically handicapped students (Doctoral 
152 
dissertation, The American University). Dissertation Abstracts 
International, 41 /06B, 2332. 
Maiman, E. (1983). Graduate education and cooperative scholarship. 
In Clark Bouton and Russell Y. Garth (Eds.), Learning in groups 
(pp. 57-63). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc. 
Maimon, E. 0979). Talking to strangers. College Composition and 
?ommunication, 30, 364-369. 
Mason, E. (1972). Collaborative learning. New York: Agathon. 
McCJe ary, B. (1990, September). Using collaborative writing. Composition 
?hronicle, ;t 5-6. 
Mceollum, M. A. (1988). Achievement and retention in probability and 
statistics: A comparison of two teaching strategies (Doctoral 
dissertation, The University of Alabama). Dissertation Abstracts 
International. 50/04A, 892. 
Miles, M. & Huberman, A. (1984). Drawing and verifying conclusions. 
Qualitative data analysis. Beverly Hills: Sage. 
Moffett, J. (1983). Rationale for a new curriculum. fu Miles Myers and James 
Gray (Eds.), Theory and practice in the teaching of composition (150-
158). Urbana: NCTE. 
Moffett, J. (1968). Teaching the universe of discourse. New York: 
Boughton Mifflin Company. 
~at risk: The imperative for educational reform. (1983, April). 
Washington, DC: The National Commission on Excellence in 
Education. 
153 
Pappas, C., & Brown, E. (1987, May). Learning to read by reading: Learning 
how to extend the functional potential of language. Research in the 
Teaching of English, 21, 160-177. 
Peck, M. S. (1978). The Road Less Traveled. New York: Simon & Schuster. 
Perreault, R. J. (1982). An experimental comparison of cooperative learning? 
to noncooperative learning and their effects on cognitive achievement 
in junior high industrial arts laboratories (Doctoral dissertation, 
University of Maryland, College Park). Dissertation Abstracts 
International, 43/12A, 3830. 
Prague, S. A. (1988). Identifying social skills important to junior high school 
science students working in cooperative groups (Doctoral dissertation, 
Texas A & M University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 49/I"lA, 
3255. 
Project Basic Office. (1985). Appropriate assistance programs in Maryland 
schools for reading, writing, mathematics, citizenship. Baltimore: 
Maryland State Department of Education. 
Rubin, D., & Rafoth, B. (1986, February). Social cognitive ability as a predictor 
of the quality of expository and persuasive writing among college 
freshmen. Research in the Teaching of English, 20, 9-21. 
Rybczynski, M. A. (1987). The effects of peer collaboration and 
summarization instruction on the ability of grade six students to learn 
from expository prose (Doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota). 
Dissertation Abstracts International, 48/09A, 2298. 
154 
Schultz, J. L. (1989 /1990). Cooperative learning: Refining the process. 
&ducational Leadership, 12, 43-45. 
Sharan, S. (1985). Cooperative learning and the multiethnic classroom. In R. 
Slavin, S. Sharan, S. Kagan., R.H. Lazarowitz., C. Webb, & R. Schmuck 
(Eds.), Learning to cooperative, cooperating to learn (pp. 255-262). New 
YorK: Plenum. 
Sharan s ( 
' ? 1980). Cooperative learning in small groups: Recent methods 
and effects on achievement, attitudes, and ethnic relations. Review of 
Education Research, fil}., 241-271. 
Sharan, S. (Ed.). (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory and research. New 
York: Praeger. 
Shaughnessy, M. (1977). Errors and expectations. New York: Oxford 
University Press. 
Shepperson, G. M. (1989). Reading, writing, relations: A year in secondary 
remedial reading (Doctoral dissertation, Arizona State University). 
Qissertation Abstracts International, 50/06A, 1615. 
Slav? 
In, R. E. (1987). Ability grouping and its alternatives: Must we track? 
American Educator: The Professional Journal of the American 
&deration of Teachers, 1.L 32-36, 47-48. 
Slav? 
in, R. E. (1990). Comprehensive cooperative learning models: 
Embedding cooperative learning in the curriculum and the school. In 
S. Sharan (Ed.), Cooperative learning: Theory and research (pp. 261-
283). New York: Praeger. 
155 
Slavin R E 
' ? ? (1980, Summer). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational 
Research, 50, 315-342. 
Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman. 
Slavin R E 
' ? ? (1985a). Cooperative learning: Applying contact theory in 
desegregated schools. Tournal of Social Issues, 4t 43-62. 
Slavin, R E. (1985b). An introduction to cooperative learning. In R. Slavin, 
S. Sharan, S. Kagan, R.H. Lazarowitz, C. Webb, and R. Schmuck (Eds.), 
l&arning to cooperate, cooperating to learn (pp. 5-15). New York: 
Plenum Press. 
Slavin R 
' E. & Karweit, N. L. (1984, January). Mathematics achievement 
gffects of three levels of individualization: Whole class, abilitx 
ID:ouped, and individualized instruction. ERIC/RCS. Washington, D. 
C. : National Center for Educational Research and Development. 
Slavin R E 
' ? ., Leavey, M., & Madden, N. A. (1984). Combining cooperative 
learning and individualized instruction: Effects on student 
mathematics achievement, attitudes, and behaviors. Elementary 
Ssbool TournaL 84, 409-422. 
Sll"lith, R. (1987, May). A teacher's views on cooperative learning. Phi Delta 
~ fil1 pp. 663-666. 
Spradley, J. (1979). The ethnographic interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart 
and Winston. 
Spindler, G. (1982). Doing the ethnography of schooling. New York: Holt, 
Rinehart and Winston. 
156 
Stenberg, L. I. (1981). The effects of friendship, gender, and communication 
on cooperative behavior (Doctoral dissertation, Fordham University). 
Dissertation Abstracts International, 42/04A, 1561. 
Tackaberry, S. N. (1980). Cooperation versus competition: Effects on 
Hispanic and Anglo children (Doctoral dissertation, The American 
University). Dissertation Abstracts International, 41 /06B, 2395. 
Tanamai, A. (1989). A comparison of computer-assisted cooperative learning 
with independent learning (Doctoral dissertation, University of 
Kansas). Dissertation Abstracts International, 50/11A, 3471. 
Trimbur, J. (1985). Collaborative learning and teaching writing. In Ben W. 
McClelland and Timothy B. Donovan (Eds.), Perspectives on research 
and scholarship in composition. New York: MLA. 
Watson, S. B. (1988). Cooperative learning and group educational modules: 
Effects on cognitive achievement of high school biology students 
(Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida). Dissertation 
Abstracts International, 50/0lA, 72. 
White, J. (1986). An ethnographic approach. In C. Cornbleth (Ed.), An 
invitation to research in social education (pp. 51-77). Washington, 
D.C.: National Council for the Social Studies. 
Wolcott, H. (Speaker). (1977). Study guide for ethnographic research 
methods in education (Cassette Recording). American Educational 
Research Association, Richard M. Jaeger (Editor). 
157 
APPENDIX A 
158 
January 24, 1989 
Fresh 
Che ll1an Composition Students 
B sapeake College ox 8 
Wye Mills, MD 21679 
Dear Student: 
This sem 
ll1eth ester I am planning to conduct a study of the peer collaborative 
the f~d of Instruction in English Composition. My purpose is to describe 
on t~ ects ~f peer collaboration on students' attitudes toward writing and 
equality of students' writing. 
lfslan to observe ten class sessions and interview at least one student. 
of t~' I Plan to assess two writing samples, written by you at the beginning 
resp en sde mester and at the end of the semester. Further, I plan to have you ser?~n ,?ester.t o two surveys, one at the beginning and one at the end of the 
I am a k' . . 
not s .mg for your participation in the study. Pl~ase md1cate w~ether or 
spa You Intend to participate in the study by checking the appropriate 
ces below and signing your name. 
Sincerely, 
Shirle Y Th ompson 
---1 Will participate in the study. 
---I Will not participate in the study. 
Student's Signature_ ________________ _ 
-
159 
STUDENT SURVEY A & B 
MPlaerars.e  did  en ti. fy yourself by filling in the blanks below: 
1e s?m g1 e _ Separated._ _ Household Income: 
0-10,000 
Age 10,000-20,000 
Sex 30,000-50,000 
Race 50,000-More 
Major Work hours per week? ----
Total Number Credits 
GCrPeA d its th?i s semester_ _ ----Expected Grade in 
Composition 
bDeilroewct ioTns : c?i rcle the most appropriate response to the statements listed 
1-Stro ? he .numbers correspond to the following responses: 
ngly Disagree 2-Disagree 3-Neither (neither agree nor disagree) 
4-Agree 5-Strongly Agree DK-Don't Know 
1 2 3 4 5 DK 
1. I like t 0 wri? te essays. 
2 1 2 3 4 5 DK ? Wrifm g essays is easy. 
I 2 3 4 5 DK 
3. I en1? oy d eveloping paragraphs. 
4 r 1 2 3 4 5 DK ? En g is h courses are enjoyable. 
I 2 3 4 5 DK 
S. I enJ? oy creat.m g transitions. 
6. I rarely miss more than three classes during one I 2 3 4 5 DK 
semester. 
7 1 2 3 4 5 DK ? I like m Y peers to read my wri?t i? ng ass1? gnmen t s. 
1 2 3 4 5 DK 
8. Learning to write will help me in my other courses. 
9 1 2 3 4 5 DK ? I Write in a journal often. 
10. Wr?r 
1 mg should be a requirement in other aca d em1.c  1 2 3 4 5 DK 
courses. 
-
160 
ll. I use my writing ability every day. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 
12
? I enjoy talking about my writing with my teachers. I 2 3 4 5 DK 
13
? Choosing topics to write about is generally easy for me. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 
14
? I enjoy talking about topics that I plan to write about. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 
15
? I like my teachers to read my assignments. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 
16
? I Would recommend peer collaborative learning to 
my friends. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 
17
? I get good grades in English. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 
18. 
I rarely miss more than 3 classes during a semester. l 2 3 4 5 DK 
19
? Learning to write will help me in my career. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 
20
? ~eer collaboration could help other students to 
improve their writing. 1 2 3 4 5 DK 
C011JvfENTS: 
1 61 
Subject Mean Scores on Survey A 
Subject Mean Score 
1 3.4 
2 3.0 
3 2.6 
4 3.3 
5 1.9 
6 3.2 
7 4.2 
8 2.5 
9 2.5 
10 2.6 
11 3.2 
12 2.6 
13 3.8 
14 3.5 
15 1.4 
... 
162 
S,tuden  t 5 , s cores on Survey A 
S,_tatements 
10 111213 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 
Subject 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 
9 
2 3 4 4 3 5 5 2 4 4 
1 3 4 3 2 4 4 3 1 3 5 3 - 5 5 
1 5 3 4 5 
5 5 5 5 -
2 2 1 1 1 1 3 
2 4 3 3 4 
4 - - - 4 
3 3 3 4 3 3 - 4 5 2 
4 4 3 4 5 - 4 3 5 5 4 
4 4 2 3 4 4 1 - 5 2 
4 - 2 - 3 - - 3 5 
5 3 2 - 3 - - 3 5 2 
3 
3 4 4 4 4 -
2 3 5 
6 3 2 2 5 5 
5 
3 2 3 4 
5 5 5 5 5 
5 4 1 5 5 
5 
7 3 5 5 3 3 3 3 5 4 5 -
1 2 3 3 
4 2 4 2 -
8 - 2 4 5 4 3 2 1 3 3 - 4 -
2 3 3 3 
2 2 4 5 
9 3 2 3 4 - - 3 4 5 -
5 2 1 1 
2 2 4 2 5 
10 2 2 2 4 2 1 2 5 
2 
4 3 5 3 5 5 5 3 2 1 
11 4 3 3 3 2 1 3 
2 3 4 
2 2 4 2 5 3 -
2 4 5 3 
3 2 2 
12 3 2 3 3 2 5 5 4 3 2 4 
4 
5 3 4 4 
13 4 4 3 3 3 4 3 4 5 3 
3 3 4 3 3 
4 3 4 4 4 
14 4 4 3 3 4 3 2 3 
5 
2 1 - 4 5 
1 1 1 3 2 
2 
15 1 2 2 
1 
163 
Subject Mean Scores on Survey B 
Subject Mean Score 
1 3.7 
2 4.7 
3 3.3 
4 4.5 
5 2.2 
6 3.8 
7 4.7 
8 2.6 
9 4.4 
10 2.6 
11 4.3 
12 3.8 
13 3.9 
14 4.2 
164 
Students' Scores on Survey B 
Statements 
Subject 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 
1 3 3 2 2 1 4 4 5 3 2 5 4 3 4 5 5 4 4 5 5 
2 5 5 5 4 4 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 2 5 5 
3 3 3 3 4 2 3 1 3 2 2 4 4 5 5 4 3 2 3 5 4 
4 4 4 2 5 3 3 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 
5 2 2 2 3 2 3 3 3 4 1 2 2 1 1 2 2 1 2 2 4 
6 3 4 3 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 4 4 1 2 3 5 3 1 5 5 
7 5 5 5 5 4 1 5 5 5 4 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 
8 2 2 2 2 1 1 3 4 2 - 3 4 2 3 4 4 3 1 5 4 
9 5 4 4 5 2 3 5 5 5 5 5 4 4 4 4 5 4 5 5 5 
10 4 2 3 3 3 1 4 2 5 3 3 1 2 2 3 1 3 4 2 1 
11 4 4 4 3 4 4 4 5 3 5 4 5 5 5 5 5 5 1 5 5 
12 5 3 4 4 3 4 3 5 4 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 2 5 5 
13 5 2 3 5 3 1 4 5 4 4 4 4 3 3 5 5 3 5 5 5 
14 4 2 4 4 4 1 4 5 4 5 5 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 5 5 
165 
APPENDIX B 
166 
HOLISTIC SCORING 
Rating Scale 
Instructions: 
Rater, please rate the student's essay, utilizing the 4-point scale below. If the 
student's essay is satisfactory in the following area, give one point for each. 
The student receives no point in an area for which the essay is unsatisfactory. 
Note: No more than 2 minutes should be spent on evaluating an essay. 
(Critical marking is not necessary.) 
Student's Identification Number: 
1. Clarity (Are the ideas clearly stated?) 
2. Diction (Are words used appropriately?) 
3. Organization (Are the ideas arranged in a 
recognizable shape to guide readers, helping 
them to see how ideas, parts relate to the whole?) 
4. Punctuation (Is punctuation appropriately 
utilized in the essay?) 
*Inter-rater reliability checks were conducted on practice essays and on two 
sets of narrative essays written for the pilot study. 
167 
Subjects' Holistic Scores on Sample Writing A 
Subject Score 
1 2 
2 1 
3 1 
4 2 
5 2 
6 4 
7 1 
8 3 
9 3 
10 1 
11 4 
12 1 
13 1 
14 1 
15 1 
168 
Subjects' Holistic Scores on Writing Sample B 
Subject Score 
1 2 
2 2 
3 2 
4 3 
5 2 
6 4 
7 2 
8 3 
9 3 
10 1 
11 4 
12 2 
13 2 
14 1 
169 
APPENDIXC 
170 
Administration of Questionnaire A and Writing 
Sample A 
January 24, 1989 
Objective: Course Introduction 
students Present: 15 
Observation: 
I . 
introduced the peer collaboration study Students' attitudes: fear 
to the class. Students looked somewhat and perhaps negative. 
beWiJdered, with widened eyes. Students 
sat ri? gi? dly facing me, the speakc:. Some 
took notes. They smiled and noddv.' 
their heads when I asked them if they 
Would be willing to participate in the 
study. One woman (heavy, with dark 
hair) said, "This'ill be fun - huh?" 
Sorne of her peers nodded in agreement. 
One student looked scared, as she 
mocked a frown then smiled. When I Students' attitudes: fear 
I 
handed out the questionnaire, students and perhaps negative. 
qUickly read through the questions, 
jotting down answers. Immediately 
following the administration of the 
questionnaire, the teacher instructed the 
',;i' --- ... ~ 
======-
171 
students to write a sample essay for the 
Study. She said, ''This essay is for the 
research project, only, and will not be 
graded." She wrote the instructions on 
the board: Write a well developed essay 
telling a story about an incident which 
drastically changed your attitude toward 
a person (250-500 words). The heavy 
student, with dark hair, asked, "And you Students' attitudes: fear 
say this essay won't be graded?" The of writing seemed to be 
teacher smiled, "Not this one." The linked to grading. 
students began shuffling through papers 
and backpacks, searching for their 
Writing tools. One boy drummed his 
fingers on his desk. Another student 
Was squinting her eyes, staring at the 
blank page. Within minutes, all 
Students were writing. As the students 
finished their writing, Ondy asked me, 
the researcher, "Are you going to tape 
us?" She pretended to object. She was 
asked, "Do you mind?" She said, "No, 
not really." Others looked at her, rolling 
their eyes and pretending to be afraid. 
a 
????~=-====~ 
172 
students were asked if they objected to 
being taped. While some appeared ill at 
ease, Susan acted as spokesperson, 
sayin& "Not at all, we're just giving you 
a hard time." After the writing 
assignme nt, students sat spaced apart 
from one another, rigidly watching the 
teacher. The teacher gave her office 
hours, "I'll be in my office Monday 
th
rough Thursday, 9:00-9:30, and 
Monday/Wednesday from 1:30-3:00. H 
I' m not in my office, I'll be in H-108 
havi ng coffee." She laughed. Students Lecture style teaching: 
laughed. Students' eyes looked straight Students look straight 
forward, their eyes shifting sideways to ahead -- at teacher, 
look at other students, from time to with limited student 
ri me. Two females talked with one socialization. 
another, one saying, "I don't know about 
this?"  Th e other responded with, "Me Prior to peer collaborative 
nei ther." The teacher explained the experience, students 
course further, emphasizing expository have a fear of writing. 
w?? 
nting. She explained, "In other words, 
You Will not be writing poems." 
students looked at the teacher and then 
// 
173 
looked down at the syllabus. They did 
not look at one another. All students Lecture style teaching: 
ro- . 
'-J.4lamed quiet. The teacher talked. limited socialization. 
Students took notes. No questions were 
asked. The teacher explained the course, 
looking at the faces. One (black) student 
5rni1ed at the teacher, when she 
rnentioned journal writing. Then the 
teacher said, "No tests, no exams in this 
course." Most students smiled at the 
teacher. One (black) student said, "Yay!" 
Under her breath. Teacher continued 
talking, "Attendance is vital to a peer 
collaborative class . ... " The teacher then 
Went on to explain the research paper. 
One student asked, 'Will the research 
Paper have to be typed??" Another 
Student asked, 'Will it require 
footnotes?" Teacher answers. One 
student nibbled on her pen as the teacher Lecture style: Students 
talked. Another jiggled his leg. All appear nervous. 
students were attentive to what the 
teacher was saying. They looked directly 
at her. The teacher shifted the topic back 
IQ 
/! 
174 
to Peer collaborative writing: "In this Peer collaboration defined: 
class we will learn to write as a team. Team learning. 
You Will write your themes at home and 
bring them in so your peers can read 
them. Then, you may make revisions to 
Your themes, after input from your peers 
and me, and turn them in for a better 
grade." Some of the students nodded in Students' attitudes toward 
approval; one smiled at the other. The peer collaboration positive. 
teacher explained the peer collaborative 
Procedure: "I will not be lecturing to you Students' attitudes toward 
as I am now. I"ll sit with you in a circle peer collaborative learning 
and we will talk about writing together." seem positive. 
One student grinned at the student 
seated across the aisle. Then the teacher 
assigned the first writing assignment in 
the examples mode of discourse: Write a 
Well developed essay giving 3 examples 
of television shows that distort reality. 
"I'll accept anything other than 
cartoons." Students laughed. One joked, 
"Not cartoons. ... " Teacher laughed, 
"Let's not talk about cartoons." The 
teacher wrote the prompt on the board: 
2 U;c;.;;; IC~~ 
~=-?=?= ===-
175 
Many television shows distort reality. 
Give 3 examples using concrete details -
names of characters, scenes, etc. (At least 
one page) The teacher explained that the 
students would have enough time to 
beoo--in?  th e essay, but they would have to 
complete it at home. 'Will we be graded 
on this essay?" one student asked. 
Teacher: "Yes, this one will be graded. 
And since it is your first, we'll keep it 
short - one page. One student 
cornplained, "A whole page?" and under 
her breath mumbled, "I can't write a 
whole page." Students began writing, Students' attitudes toward 
but one student loudly wadded up her writing seem negative 
Paper and threw it in the trashcan. prior to peer 
Another student shuffled about looking collaborative learning. 
for his paper in a backpack (book bag). 
There were many sighs; papers were 
shuffled and wadded; and one student 
tapped his pen on the desk. Students 
were preparing to write. 
a a == 
176 
February 9, 1989 
Objective: Narrative/Descriptive 
Students Present: 15 
Observation: 
Students gathered in a circle and sat with Socialization seemed to 
one another. Laughter could be heard as enhance in peer 
the teacher walked into the classroom. collaborative learning 
The teacher returned thesis statements to arrangement -- a circle. 
students. All were attentive, looking at 
the teacher as she spoke. Some students 
sat with arms around chairs, their legs 
stretched out. Some students nodded 
their heads and smiled at the teacher, at 
one another. Teacher smiled back. She 
asked who would read first. Frank 
complained, "I don't want to read my Students' attitudes toward 
paper out loud." "Me either," cried reading their writing 
another student. Still another asked, seemed negative before 
"We don't have to if we don't want to, the peer collaborative 
do we?" The teacher smiled, 'Well I'd experience. 
really like everyone to at least try." 
Annette asked, 'Will you grade our 
papers today?" Teacher said, "Yes, you Students' attitudes seem 
177 
will receive a grade on your paper today, positive toward receiving 
after you read it. to the class." Annette immediate feedback, a 
(blonde student) said, 'Then I'll read component of peer 
first." She nervously read, stumbling collaborative learning. 
over some of the words. Dawn frowned Nonverbal communication. 
and furrowed her brows, indicating 
discord - something was wrong with the 
writing. Other students recognized her 
signals. Dawn exchanged frowns with 
some of her peers. The teacher asked 
Kevin to close the door, calling him by 
name. Another student said, "Thanks, 
Kevin." Three black students sat together Socialization among peers 
in the circle. Students freely discussed seemed positive. Systems 
the main point of Annette's essay. One for classifying people/ 
male student said, "I liked all the details. racial segregation at 
But on the second page, maybe you could outset of peer 
change the word 'walks' to 'walked' and collaborative experience 
it would make more sense." Other (minorities). 
students chimed in with their 
comments. There was active dialog Socialization among peers 
going on back and forth in the circle. seemed positive. 
Students looked at one another as they 
spoke. The students began talking about 
178 
the topic, when the teacher redirected the 
focus to the thesis statement: 'Where is 
the thesis statement?" There was a 
moment's pause. ... "I think it is in the 
first paragraph." The teacher asked the 
student to read it She did. Another 
student said, "Yea, that's what I thought, Socialization among students 
too." The teacher said, "Good detective devoted to quality of writing. 
work! Now, how clear is the thesis 
statement?" There was discussion about 
the clarity. One student said 
apologetically, "I didn't think it was that 
clear. It was kinda vague." Annette 
confessed, "I had a problem with writing 
that paper." The teacher asked, "In that Self-identity; group 
middle part where you stumbled?" identity: self-reported 
Annette: "Yes, I think so. . . I don't errors. 
know exactly what the problem was. . . . I 
had problems with transitions, for sure." 
The teacher said, "Okay, let's everyone 
help Annette find the problem, so she 
can correct it." A male student said, "I Socialization among students 
really liked your paper. But maybe on devoted to quality of 
page 2 after . . . you could stop this writing. 
179 
sentence and begin a new one here." He Individual and group 
looked at her as he spoke. Kevin response/independent, 
interjected, "Also on page 2, there is no critical thinking. 
paragraph break." "oh yea," said 
Annette, "but where should I break?" Individual and group 
Yvonne advised, 'Well maybe you could response/independent, 
break right after the word. ..."  Mark also critical thinking. 
made a suggestion, as did another 
student. The circle was active with 
dialog. The teacher reminded the 
students, "Make sure you write your 
comments on your copy of Annette's 
essay, so you can give them to Annette." 
Yvonne said, "Some of the lines seem Classifying people: 
jumbled with too many words." As she Student limits eye contact 
spoke, she looked at the teacher - not to teacher ( nonverbal 
Annette. Cindy commented that she socialization). 
thought "the language in the lines 
seemed more conversational, 'like went 
to leave,' instead of 'leaving."' The 
teacher clarified, "Yes, there is what is Socialization among students 
referred to as colloquial language, or and teacher devoted to 
language that is usually spoken rather quality of writing. 
than written." Susan asked, "Could this 
--
180 
have been made dearer if. ... ?" Annette 
took notes on her peers' comments. She 
responded with a smile and a nod to 
Susan. Then the teacher asked, 'Was 
spelling a problem?" Some of the Socialization: self-
Students laughed .... Cindy confessed, identity; group identity. 
"We all have that problem!" The 
teacher agreed. Specific spellings were 
discussed. Students referred to their 
d' . 
Ictionanes. Soon the teacher asked for 
the next paper to be read ..... "Susan's." 
Susan hesitated, "I just don't think I can 
do it." Susan rendered, "I have a lot of Classifying people/ 
a . 
IlXiety about having to read out loud - handicapped (emotionally) 
shortness of breath, and all, but I'll try." student was supported 
Susan's face and neck were red. Her by the group. 
hancts trembled and so did her voice. 
After she read the last word, a few of her 
Peers applauded. One said, "Good!" Socialization . Self-
Another said, "I can relate to that." identity; group identity; 
Susan patted her chest in relief. During sense of belonging. 
the silent reading, Kevin whispered to a 
Peer, "I am impressed." The teacher 
asked, "Do you have any comments for 
a w 
181 
Susan?" Yvonne answered, "It's great! I Socialization: group 
can relate to what she says." Others support. 
Praised the writing. Frank said, "I have a 
question about the first sentence. 
Yvonne explained, 'The point she is 
I 
trying to make is ... I also have a I 
problem with apostrophes. ... " The 
teacher referred students to English 
handbook. Yvonne said, "Good, I want Peer collaboration: 
to know for myself. I have a problem." Team learning. 
The teacher consoled her, "It is not just 
Your problem. We all have a problem 
With apostrophes sometimes." Kevin 
laughed, "You should have looked at 
Your L,ittle Brown Handbook for that 
license plate." Students laughed (inside Nonverbal communication: 
joke). One student patted Yvonne's Touch: Sense of 
shoulder. There was more discussion belonging. 
about writing. Cindy raised the point 
about repetition, "There are too many 
Self-identity; group 
goods. Mark said, "I liked them." Then 
identity. 
Mark said, "I have a question for me.?? 
like she used ... what should I do about 
repetition?" The teacher responded. 
Q A 
182 
Students took notes as teacher and 
students talked. One student Classifying people/ 
(handicapped) sat outside the circle. He handicapped student 
contributed to the dialog - though ( with MS) sat outside 
reluctantly at first. He did not speak as the group at outset of 
soon or as often as some of the others. peer? collaborative 
The topic involved age-teenagers--the experience. 
generation gap. There was much 
laughter. Cindy looked at Susan and Socialization: Classifying 
said, "That's how mommies feel!" and describing people 
Susan said, "I understand what you (age). 
mean. Next paper: Greg's. The teacher 
asked Greg to read. He agreed to do it, 
but rolled his eyes at Frank. Greg 
stumbled over the "r" words. Susan 
comforted him, "I enjoyed that essay; it 
was an adventure!" Yvonne yelled, "But 
when you see it's going to rain, get the Socialization: Casual 
hell out of the water. ..."  She was idiolect. 
addressing the content. Yvonne rolled 
her eyes and said, " S. ___. " The teacher 
nervously laughed at the profanity. 
Susan talked seriously about ideas 
expressed, redirecting the flow/ tone of 
.. 
1/ 
183 
the diseussion. The topic of the essay 
concerned thunderstorms and how 
many could go on at one time. The I 
teacher redirected the focus of the 
ct1? 5CUssion to paragraph development. 
One student looked to her English 
handbook. Yvonne commented that she Individual and group 
liked Greg's paper. He responded with a response. Independent, 
gentle, "Thank you." The students were critical thinking. 
ct1? smissed after the teacher told them 
that they had run out of time. She told Students' attitudes 
the students that they would continue twoard course: They 
their discussion of writing when they had to be reminded to 
returned. leave; sense of 
belonging. 
184 
March 16, 1989 
Objective: Cause/Effect 
Students Present: 14 
Observation: 
The circle had changed. Students were 
closer and more freely interacted with 
one another. Stu, (as Stuart was Self-identity: group 
affectionately called by his peers), in his identity: Handicapped 
wheelchair, had moved to become part student sat inside the 
of the circle. In addition, men and circle with his peers. 
women were interwoven, rather than Nicknames were 
clustered together by gender. Further, affectionately employed 
black students were interwoven with by the student. 
other students. Black students were no Racial integration of 
longer clustered together by race. There black students with 
was informal interaction among the white students; sense 
students before the teacher arrived. of belonging (minorities 
For example, one black girl sat chatting with others) . 
and smiling with a white girl. When the 
teacher arrived, she sat in the circle. The 
students were prepared to read their Students' attitudes were 
papers, already circulating them to one more positive toward 
another. One student volunteered to reading their writing. 
185 
read first, without having to be called on 
by the teacher. During the reading of 
students' papers, all students acitively Peer collaboration: 
participated, reading along and taking Active particpation. 
notes. One student said, "I have 
problems with tense, too. Mrs. B., what 
do you do with pronouns that don't 
match nouns as far as tense?" Another 
asked, "I want to ask a question for me. .. 
like she used ... what should I do?" 
During the critical analysis, students 
offered criticism on content, 
punctuation, diction, and organization. 
There was criticism accompanied by Self-identity; group 
laughter. There was direct eye contact identity: via jokes and 
between students. For example, when laughter; sense of 
Stu critiqued Cindy's essay, he looked belonging. 
her directly in the eyes from across the Individual and group 
circle. Annette, (affectionately called Net response/independent, 
by her peers), chimed in with, "I like it critical thinking. 
the way Cindy has it." Others examined 
the point being made, looking at the copy 
of Cindy's paper in front of them. Joyce 
said she thought Stu made a "good 
186 
point." Joyce read her essay next. All Individual and group 
students actively participated during the response/independent, 
reading, marking the papers. All eyes critical thinking. 
faced downward. Pens rigorously 
stroked the paper. The essay was neatly 
typed but riddled with error. During the 
2-3 minute session for silent reading, all 
students participated, diligently writing. 
The teacher prompted responses by 
asking questions. The students had been 
looking down, reading until her prompt. 
Students were asked, "What is the main 
point of the essay?" Students began 
offering criticism about the paper. For 
example, Annette said, "She did not 
explain what is meant by 'house' or 
'apartment."' Joyce responded, looking Active socialization 
at Annette, "I meant that. ..."  Stuart devoted to quality of 
said, 'Well I think it would be better to writing. 
say. ..."  Mark said, "Do you think that it 
could be written ...? " Susan said, "But 
that's not the only way it could be stated . 
. . ."  Stu and Sue, (Susan was nicknamed 
by her peers), could not agree on the 
187 
discussion about phrasing. The teacher 
offered her view to break what seemed to 
be a standoff. The teacher then 
instructed the students to return the 
copies to Joyce. Susan told Joyce that she 
liked the paper: "I like it - but we're 
here to learn better ways to write." Joyce Positive socialization: 
shook her head and smiled at Susan. social interaction skills. 
She agreed, "Right." The next student to 
read her paper was Yvonne, who wrote Classifying and 
about JTP A (Job-Training Partnership describing people. 
Act) Students vs. Paying Students, a 
paper written in the contrast mode. 
Yvonne pointedly volunteered to read 
her paper . She said, "This ain't what 
you might be expectin'." She read, 
"Paying students need to open their eyes Problem solving. 
instead of their mouths .... We have 
children and have to get them off to 
school in the morning before we can 
come to class. . . . Christ knows we don't 
want them [the children] to suffer what 
we have." No one else spoke. All 
students were tensely quiet after the 
... 
188 
reading. Students shifted their eyes at Classifying and 
one another, studying the faces of their describing people. 
peers. Yvonne spoke, "I thought there 
needed to be somethin' read, since others 
know about this, too. I mean Christ I 
thought you should know." Yvonne's 
diction grew vulgar, as she attempted to 
describe the conflict between JTP A 
students and the others. Mark sighed 
and stated, "I guess I never really knew 
there was a difference." A minority 
student said, "I don't know what a Problem solving. 
financially funded student is." There 
was confusion. During the silent 
reading, students began whispering to 
one another. Finally, Annette retorted, 
"We don't think we're better than you!" 
Frank argued, "I didn't even know you 
were JTP A students." Yvonne 
complained, "There have been several Problem solving. 
comments comin' from that side of the 
room about us comin' here for free. And 
we, on this side of the room wanted to 
tell you that it's not easy for us to be 
189 
here." She continued, "Damn it, we Self-identity: 
can't help it the way we are." Annette Casual, informal idiolect. 
was visibly perturbed, fidgeting in her 
seat, flashing her eyes, shaking her head: 
"You think we don't work? Well my 
parents do not pay my tuition. I have to 
do house chores in order to reimburse 
my mom and dad for college tuition." Self-identity. 
Mark was less visibly irritated, but 
wanted to make a point: "I work at a fast 
food chain to pay my college expenses." 
Factions seemed to emerge. There was Problem solving. 
continued controversy regarding 
Yvonne's essay. Finally, the teacher 
joked, "No one had any trouble Jokes to soften the 
understanding what Yvonne was trying tone of the problem 
to say, I suppose." Mark reiterated, "I presented. 
guess I never really knew there was a 
difference." The teacher said, "We don't 
want to stereotype groups. In writing, 
the writer must be careful to take an 
objective tone - otherwise the writer, 
you, will antagonize the other side, your 
audience." Annette remarked, "I was 
190 
upset by the paper. ...."  The teacher 
asked, "How could Yvonne have said 
this better? Let's look at the 
diction/tone." Content was abandoned 
somewhat to examine the paper's 
mechanics, organization. Students 
offered constuctive criticism. When Problem solving. Social 
class ended, Yvonne and Annette walked interaction skills. Self-
out together; they were talking and identity; group identity. 
smiling. Susan said, "Well we don't lack 
for topics in this class." Another student Problem solving. Social 
.smiled and shook her head from side to interaction skills, Sense 
side, saying, "You never know what's of belonging. 
going to happen in this class." (After 
class, Stuart and the teacher talked. 
Stuart was excited about the class. He 
smiled and said, "This class is sort of 
therapeutic for me. It's like being a 
member of a team. We can all talk 
whenever we want to and about almost 
anything we want to. I've never had a 
class like this before. And I can actually 
say that I am learning more about 
writing.") 
191 
March 23, 1989 
Objective: Compare/Contrast 
Students Present: 13 
Observation: 
Stuart's paper was passed around while 
students chatted quietly. I arrived a few 
minutes before class to watch students 
interact. Surprisingly, Yvonne and Social interaction skills. 
Annette were talking with one another -
although they were across the room 
from one another. Their loud 
conversation and laughter invited others 
to join in as students entered the 
classroom. This interaction was different 
from the interaction observed during 
and after the reading of Yvonne's essay 
about JTP A students. Yvonne was Social interaction skills. 
teasing Annette for "being so skinny; she 
could eat anything she wanted and not 
get fat." When the teacher arrived, Sense of belonging. 
Stuart read his paper about green beans. 
After the silent reading, students 
expressed delight in the essay, despite the 
192 
to ? 
pie on green beans. One student said, 
"Th 
e description is good - reminds me Self-identity; group 
of John Denver's songs about country identity; cohesiveness. 
life" J 
? oyce said, "I like the paper, too, but Sense of belonging. 
isn't th 1?  , . , 
e me 3 minutes to the second a 
trite e:rn . . d 
--l"'ress1on?" The teacher answere 
th
at it COuld be, but she wasn't sure if it 
detracted from the content. Cindy said Socialization devoted to 
she did 
not think it did, but asked the quality of writing. 
question: "Is 'lay' right? It dudn' sound Idiolect. 
right.'' Yvonne asked, "Should it be that 
way,?, , Stu sai' d h e meant to wn?t e "li e. " 
The te ac he r responded with an answer 
nd 
a a question to teach the students the Socialization devoted to 
correct form and to quiz them quality of writing. 
izrunediately after. Unlike during 
PrevioUs sessions, students did not wait 
to be Called upon. They did not raise 
th
eir hands, but spoke at will, making for 
5
ZllOOth dialog. .. democratic learning. Individual and group 
Joyce asked, "Is 'field' spelled with 'ie' or response; independent, 
'ei''" 
? She had drded the word on the critical thinking, 
Paper. Joyce corrected her peer Social interaction skills. 
e)(pl::i, .... :_ Individual and group 
-......u.ug that "i-e" words were a 
LL.XQ 
193 
problem for most writers. Another response /independent 
Stud . 
ent agreed. The teacher confirmed critical thinking. 
the correct answer. Another student was 
100king up the word in the dictionary. 
Joyce, a minority student, sat between Self-identity; group 
hvo White students. Joyce read with identity: Racial 
Conf"I dence her paper about self-esteem, integration. Sense 
talking about the detriments of low and of belonging. 
th
e benefits of high. During the silent 
react? 
ing, two students whispered about 
the C0 ntent of the paper: "I feel the same Socialization: 
way at times." The teacher asked the Camaraderie. Sense of 
stu
dents what they thought of the belonging, informal 
cont . 
ent. Joyce kidded, "Well ain't ya idiolect. 
gonna say nothin'?" Yvonne answered 
th
at there were times that she felt exactly 
what the paper said. Other students 
agreed with Yvonne. The teacher 
directed the students to look at the 
org;ini .... _ th. . Quality of writing 
-~tion. Mark said, "I think 1s is 
Joyce's best paper so far." Frank, "Me, improved. 
too?  '' 'lu""1t_ e teacher said,"You are n? gh  t. I 
azn very pleased with the organization of 
thi 
s Paper. Joyce has come a long way. 
?~====?--?-= ?= =-
194 
In fact, you all have." Students smiled at 
one another, proudly. Susan spoke, 
Self identity; group 
''y 
ou know I think we've been very identity. Nicknames 
creative a t pi" ckin g out topi.c s." The were used and accepted 
teacher sai" d , "Yo u are right; I never by the group. 
th
ought of that, Sue." Cindy said, "We Quality of writing 
are getfin? better and better!" The teacher improved. 
Said "W I 
' e ve become a good team." The 
nextp 
aper read was Greg's. While Greg Handicapped student 
react hi 
' s speech impediment was noted (with speech impediment) 
(had d?CC 
.uucuJty pronouncing "r"), but he read with confidence -
react With confidence, unlike at the group identity. Sense 
beginning of the semester. (His hands of belonging. 
did not tremble.) During the silent 
react? 
.zng, Annette took out her book 
entitled Improving Spelling to look up a 
word. She then made corrections on Individual and group 
Greg' 
s Paper. Scanning the room, I saw identity; independent, 
each Student examining Greg's paper. critical thinking. 
Frank Wrinkled his nose and slitted his 
eyes. Frank leaned over to Mark and 
asked Mark what did he think. He 
seeznect confused about something he 
Was reading in Greg's paper. Mark 
195 
Whispered, "I think he meant to say. .. ?" 
The two male students bantered back and Classifying people/ 
forth about topic of the essay: baseball vs. females vs. males. 
football. The female students remained 
silent until c?m  d y comp1 a m? ed  , " I' m 
absolutely lost." Greg complained, "I 
th
<>ught everybody knew a little 
solllething about baseball. Mark 
froWn e d ? .. and asked, "Where have you 
1' 
IVed all your life?? Baseball is the Classifying people/ 
Alllerican sport!" Kevin and Frank females vs. males . 
. laughed S . 
? usan said, ''Now wait a 
ll'linute, tennis could be considered the 
Alllerican sport. And it is not un-
Atrterican to not know anything about 
Self-confidence; 
baseba11 and football." The males and 
the fi _group identity. 
eznales scrapped about the 
significance of the games. Neither side 
seetrted to win the debate. Neither side 
seellled to mind. Students just laughed 
at one another for not agreeing. When 
th
e topic discussion had been exhausted, 
th
e teacher focused on the mechanics of 
th
e "Writing. Stu wanted to know about a 
Si .. ?~ 
196 
sentence that he considered a fragment. 
Students examined the line for a subject 
and verb, to discover that there was no 
verb - the line was, indeed, a fragment 
sentence. When the class was dismissed, 
students lingered still talking to one 
another about writing; some were still 
talking to the teacher about writing. 
Almost fifteen minutes passed before the Socialization - sense 
room was cleared of students. of belonging. 
197 
April 4, 1989 
Objective: Research Paper Drafts 
Students Present: 14 
Observation: 
Today there was a substitute teacher. 
The Students were instructed to form 
8
Zlla11 groups and analyze one an other's Self-confidence: group 
essay. While Annette complained that identity. Nicknames 
she wanted feedback from the teacher, were accepted and used 
0
ther Students echoed Annette's by the group? 
senti111ent. Students formed small Problem solving. 
groups. In a short time, the room was 
h 
U111ining with students of?r erm? g one 
another criticism on how to write In d1.V 1" dual and group 
effectively. Students referred to response /inde-pendent, 
dictionaries and textbooks to find critical thinking. 
ans-wers to problems that arose in the Self-reporting. 
group. For example, Stuart sai? d ' "Net'  
I'Zll not sure but I don't think you can Individual and group 
Use single quotation marks fke that." response 
I2i1: in~ d ~e::.tp:;:e.::n..:..:d_en_t_, 
1 . 
lie critical thinking. referred to his textbook to co nfinn his 
0
P int. Other students followe d his lead. 
The Peer made the suggested correction. 
__________ ,._ -
198 
Srudents consulted one another about 
the next assi~ent. Others read to one 
another without being told to. Students 
aided one another. Before Mark (red Nonverbal communication. 
ha.ir ) read his essay, Annette patted hi.s  
arm, as she often did. His red face grew 
somewhat pink; he appeared to be 
th
comforted. Students aided one ano er. 
For example, before Mark read, Net 
patted his arm, as usual. His red face 
grew pink, as usual. When the class 
period ended, some of the students left 
nd 
for their next class. Others stayed on a ~-
contt? nued their discussion of wn.n.n g. 
199 
April 13, 1989 
Objective: Research Paper Drafts 
Continued and Process Papers 
Students Present 13 
Observation: 
lne ~ing of the class period was Lecture devoted to 
addressed to teaching students methods quality of writing. 
of doeumentation of the research paper 
(approx. 25 minutes). A straight lecture 
lllethod was Utilized. The desks 
relllained in straight rows. The students Lecture strategy seemed 
relllained quiet as the teacher talked. to limit socialization. 
When students wished to speak, they 
raised their hands. Stuart wanted to ask 
a question and raised his hand, patiently 
Waiting for the teacher to call on him. 
When the teacher asked questions, 
Slt.zdents seemed reticent to respond -
e"en shy. The aersonality of the dass 
ch~......" .. ged from previous ti?m es. At 11:25 
th
e was Pee:.!C:orl~la~b:o:r..a:t:i-o-n- seeemed class told by the teacher that 1't  
e socialization? 
iva s okay for them to form t h ei?r  circle ? to enhanc 
~A " -1' -11ette appointed herself to go f1 r st, "I'll 
200 
go first this time - I want to see what you Self identity; group 
think about my story." Annette identity; sense of 
enthusiastically passed around copies of belonging. 
her paper - standing up to do so. She 
took her seat and instructed her peers to 
"follow along" with her reading. As 
students read, there was little sound 
except Annette's voice. At some points, 
Annette corrected her own mistakes. For 
example, Annette corrected, "I know I Self identity; group 
should have used the offset indention identity; self-reported 
? for that quotation. It is long. But I didn't errors. 
know how to footnote it." The teacher 
interrupted, "All right, we'll make note 
of that and come back to it." The reading 
took several minutes (approximately 15), 
which seemed Ion& but the students 
appeared interested, circling words and 
making notes in the margins. The topic 
of the paper involved oral 
contraceptives. After the reading, Stu 
said, "That's a long paper!" The teacher 
asked, "Does anyone have any 
suggestions for Annette to shorten her 
201 
paper?" Stu laughed, "She could single- Sense of Belonging; 
space it!" Others laughed at his joke. jokes. 
"Let's look at the organization and 
substantiation," instructed the teacher. 
There was much dialog among the Group identity - team 
teacher, Annette, Stu, and Mark for a work. Quality of 
time about organization and mechanics. writing. 
While Mark said Annette's conclusion 
should be her introduction, Stu did not 
agree and gave his reasons. Other 
students were attentive, watching and . 
listening to their peers. Annette looked 
at her silent peers and said, "Please, tell Self identity; group 
me what you think - I need your help to identity. 
get a better grade." Cindy spoke up about 
transitions; Stu addressed the same 
weakness in the writing. Annette teased, 
"You should come to my house and 
tutor me." Stu laughed. Mark Social interaction skills. 
contributed to the dialog, "Remember 
Annette about presenting both sides -
yours and the opposite point of view?" 
Annette giggled, "Oh yea ... I forgot." 
Stuart teased, "But we are still trying to 
202 
shorten the pap er." Annette asked 
where she should cite the experts. Stuart 
answered her question, but turned to 
teacher to ask one of his own. As Stuart 
and teacher debated an issue, some of the 
students began chatting with one 
another. The circle was smaller and lazy; Social interaction skills: 
the students appeared comfortable. Camaraderie. 
(Their postures indicated a relaxation: 
someone sprawled his legs; someone else Informality/ self 
sat on one leg; someone else twirled her confidence. 
hair and leaned to one side.) The teacher 
told the group to take the copies of 
Annette's paper home and make 
corrections that they could return to her 
the next time. Joyce and Tonesia looked 
at one another; Tonesia said, "I need 
more time to look at it." 
------------
- ----
203 
ApriJ 18, 1989 
Objective: Rese~ch Paper and Process 
Students Present: 12 
Observation: 
Before class, Annette and Yvonne chatter 
about Personal topics, such as Annette's 
doctor's appointment and Yvonne's 
hunger. Susan returned to class after Class1' fJv ?i ng people/ 
having been absent - it was her turn to emotionally han dI.C a pped 
react after Tonesia. Susan was one of the students expresses fear stu
dents who had trouble reading in of reading aloud. 
front of People. She expressed concern 
over having to read: "I am so nervous 
today. I am scared to read in front of the 
class;? she told Cindy. The teacher came 
in ilrid Tonesia was to read her paper on 
''Pr eventing Teenage Pregnancy. " As she 
read Q~,J .Oud, her peers read s1. en tly along, 1 
iottuig doWn comments in the margins 
?d circling words to be considered later. 
Sine e topi.c s were chosen by th e students, Individual and group 
th
/independent' 
e Papers reflected students' attitudes response~~--
<1bout controversial issues. riro ne sia was critical thinking. 
204 
a ll:tinonty student addressing a soaring 
Problem. She read about curbing the rise 
of teenage pregnancy, sayin~ "Both sexes 
are responsible - girls and boys." 
Tonesia read on, 'Teenagers have sex to 
finct love. . . . They need more education 
on b1? , , 
rth control, and how to say no. 
Teenagers need counseling if they do 
become pregnant." Tonesia informed 
th
e group that the problem of teen 
Pregnancy was not limited to one race or 
socioecononuc group. Many of her peers 
a.greed With her. Students were asked to Individual and group 
ta1( ea few minutes, after the rea din ~ to response..  Independent, ,,. 
Jot doWn their comments." Each critical thinking. 
st
udent read without whispering to 
Peers. They appeared serious about the 
t<tsk at hand. Students discussed the 
high Pregnancy rate in America and 
a.greed that the problem had to be dealt 
With before it became a crisis. Susan's 
brow f . u_ as 
s llrrowed; she was frowrunc,, 
her p en sped across the paper. Later she 
told th  e group, "Since the fem al e would 
205 
be trtost accountable to the child, she 
shoUld take the responsibility." Yvonne 
Vehemently disagreed, "No way! The Classifying people/ 
trtan should be responsible for his Issue of males vs. 
actions. "Come on, Yvonne, you know females. 
better. Men have never been the ones to 
take the responsibility, so the women 
have to - they still do." Mark argued, 
"'That's not true." Greg shook his head 
nd 
a leaned back in his chair. The group 
hras Spirited and actively involved in e 
. d1' 
th
8
CUssion. The teacher redirected the 
discussion to mechanics, directing the 
students to look for the thesis statement, 
10
cation and clarity. The students 
discussed the strengths and weaknesses 
of the 'Writing. Yvonne commented, 
''lne Paper is organized according to 'al interaction skills: the SoCI 
outline, but it is not formal enough to be Gentle criticism. 
a research paper. .. is it?" Annette 
colllplained that the paper was 'JUSt 
Op1? ked Individual and group 
.?tion and no facts." The teacher as 
th . Independent' 
e &roup where Tonesia should add response. 
facts s critical thinking. ? usan specified certai?n  lin es  and 
206 
told Tonesia that there was a good book 
on sex education that she had and could 
1
end her. Yvonne said, "Yea, there's a 
fiI.ni Called Where Babies Come From, 
Wh.i ch is excellent. You could look at ?t 1 
?d indude some of the information in 
You.r paper. But Tonesia, make sure you Individual and group 
emphasize that the baby is not the responses.. Independent, 
ll'listake. Make it clear that the critical thinking. 
Pregnancy was the mistake that the 
teenager made." Yvonne gently hit Nonver b a1  communication: 
Cindy, asking, 'Where is your mouth Touch (casual, friendly). 
at??? The students laughed. Cindy said, 
''I'zn not sure about how to match up my Self-identity; group 
authors With the Works Cited page. rt identity? Self-reporting 
h
T e teacher explained. Frank asked, "Do errors. 
we  ha ve to double space the un,o rk s Cited 
Page, too?" Seriousness seemed to 
Prevail. Documentation appeared 
tAr-1! 
'""'-lOUs for the students as they 
laughlessly Smiled, but asked many 
questions Handicapped student about research paper wn? ting?  
Nex.t it (emotionally) feared Was Susan's turn to read her 
?n(7' aloud. 
Process paper. She kidded, "I'd rather rea di o 
207 
read someone else's paper - not my Jokes. 
own." But Susan read her own paper, Self-identity; group 
articulately and clearly, stumbling over a identity. 
few sentences. Her face was red. After 
the reading, she held out her hands, 
saying, "See my hands shake." The 
teacher told her, "You did very well." 
Some of Susan's sentences were long Self-identity; group 
and complex. Stuart joked, "Sue, as long identity: Camaraderie. 
as your sentences are, you could practice 
underwater swimming." After a few 
minutes of silent reading, tension was 
broken when Yvonne asked the question 
about potting plants. Content helped 
launch the discussion into mechanics. 
Frank contributed laughingly suggesting 
that "the plants would destroy the dining 
room table." Both the students and the 
teacher agreed that Susan's paper was Touch and nonverbals. 
very well written. Students rewarded 
Susan by patting her on the back and 
telling her what a good writer she was. 
The next paper to be read was Kevin's. Social interaction skills: 
Annette teased the teacher, telling her Jokes with teacher. 
208 
that she should have stapled Kevin's 
pages since she photocopied them for 
him. Other students laughed, So did 
teacher. Kevin read his process paper -
self-consciously, stumbling over some of 
the Words (his writing was good), His 
topic w as "Ch angm? g a r?i re. " His face 
reddened as he read. After the reading 
th e teacher said, "Give him some he 1P ? II 
C1' ndY piped up, 'Where do you put the 
jack?" Mark tried to explain, adding that 
''th ere are different types of jacks, so 
different places to keep them." Getting 
students back on task, Yvonne asked 
abo ut mechanics, 'What about this, ? ? ?? " 
Yvonne instructed Kevin on his spelling 
of the word accommodate. Kevin's 
. n skills: 
shoulder stiffened and he cocked his. . 1 i?nterac t10 soc1a 
ften criticism? 
head as he said, "Oh yea?" He seemed Jokes to so 
defens i?v e. Annette came to th e r escue 
With humour: "That's okay; we're i.n  
delin quent spelling class." Kevi.n  
laughed and corrected his spelling, 
sa Y.l ng, "I should have looked that up. " 
209 
l'onesia add d . , 
e , 1t s embarrassing to spell Social interaction skills: 
awo rd  Wro . 
f ng m this class - you have to Jokes to soften criticism. 
ace yo u c-.:. r uiends.  ,. Sh e gn.n ne d . Da wn Emotionally handicapped 
etriained . 
e quiet, as usual,  although her 
student maintained 
Ye contact . 
was involved with the other nonverbal communication. 
students 
? In addition, she smiled and 
nodd.n,.J 
q_i respon  din g to her peers' 
CQill 
Inents. 
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
210 
A..prij 20, 1989 
Objective: Research Paper and Process 
Students Present: 14 
Observation: 
Students assembled, arranging their Lecture strategy: 
desks in a lazy circle after the teacher's Seemed to limit 
lecture on how to structure a definition socialization. 
essay. Dunng the lecture, students sat in 
4~~te.i r line up seats with the usual spatiru 
bubble, Which isolated them from tbeir 
Peers. After the lecture, the class Peer Collaborative 
transfonned from a clearly structured stra tegy seemed to 
clasSroom, With desks neatly placed in enhance  socialization, 
8
Pedfic rows - to the lazy circle which 
had little structure, with its shape barely 
resenibling a circle. Some of th e students Socialization: 
'were seated further into the circle closer Camaraderie. 
0 
t fl "?l ends - peers. No studen t 1?solated Sense of belonging.  
hiniself/ herself outside the circle. 
Dl lri?n g the lecture students , eye s focused 
0
n the instructor looking down only to 
}0
. t notes on the topic at han d ? During 
th
e Peer collaborative portion of class 
211 
tune, students sat in the lazy circle. 
""t'1n.. ere Was a noticeable di?H erence m?  their Nonverbals seemed to 
deineanor. In the circle, students sat on indicate a comfort in the 
th
eir legs, leaned back in their seats, and peer collaborative 
apPearec1 to be more comfortable. environment. 
5
h..tdents sat close enough to touch one 
another and they did. For example, 
be fore ll'loVing to her regular place m?  the 
cir,.4,1 e, Yvonne grasped Anne tte  's hand, 
expressing support to her about her 
ll'ledica1 problem. Annette's eyes filled? 
With tears and her face reddened, but tbe 
0 
tw students interacted m? an m?  timacy 
llot Previ. ously observed beiro re. When 
Cindy took her place, she leaned into 
Dawn askin& "Did you finish your 
Pr0cess essay?" Dawn responded WI' th a 
8 r concern)? 
ll'lile, "Yea, it wasn't bad." Placing their Touch (pee 
heads together during the time for 
iotting reactions in the margins, Kevin 
nd 
a Mark whispered. Since their eyes 
fo C'll 5ed on the essay the ex ch ang e was 
app arently addressing a wn? t ing issue. 
Su sa.n teased her cohorts from a cross the 
212 
room as one said she had no teeth in her 
mouth (Yvonne). Susan asked, 'What Sense of belonging. 
happened to them?" Susan consoled 
Yvonne for having to be "dressed 
without her teeth." Students sat with 
crossed legs and relaxed postures. 
213 
April 27, 1989 
Objective: Proc~s Mode 
-St-ud-en-ts -Present: 12 Observation: 
Annette dreulated copies of her essay on Self-identity; groue_ 
how to Sew a pillow. Frank cynically identity: Self-reported 
r~arked, "Oh great! Just what I wanted errors. 
to know!" Annette nervously laughed at 
his leasing and began her reading. Greg 
drtunined his fingers on the desk as 
Annette read through sewing terms: 
hasting, staystitclting, seam, gather. Greg 
rolled hi s eyes at Kevm. . K evm?  gnnn? ed. 
Allnette stumbled over her woTcls. She 
Stopp e d reading and sai" d , 'This doesn't 
ll1ake sense." Then she asked, "Do I 
a.ctu!>< qJJr y h ave to rea d this?? " The teacher 
ins!J-uctec1, 'This illustrates what your 
t~tbook says - if you don't see your 
l-\r',".;l,-"; ng for about a week, it will look 
Q"f 
l ferent to you. You are actually 
Poi.nung out your own mistakes." 
Annette continued reading her paper, 
214 
5
hunbling over some of her own 
Wording. All other students read along 
silently - Stuart furrowed his brows, Nonverbal communicatin. 
Zl'laJcing a serious effort to make sense of 
Annette's Writing. Susan looked up 
fro111 tinte to time at Annette, seeming to 
empathize with her struggling peer. 
Da-wn, Who rarely spoke, wrote 
labonoUsly and looked up from time to 
0
ll1e at Annette. Frank patted Annette's Touc h and nonverbal 
shoulder at one point and Annette's communication. 
reading flowed more smoothly. Mark 
c~e in late and sat between Frank and 
Annette. Annette finished her essay, 
saYing, "It's not a good essay, anyway." 
~ark and Frank sighed audibly. Susan 
coZl'lforted, "Net, I found it very 
illforlllative, since it's been a long time 
s1?1 1ce I've seWn." The teacher spok  e.?  
,, .<:\ -1
?~ nette caught may mecham?c a l errors, Self-iden tI? ty?,  group 
herself, but let's mention in general identity; self-reporting 
'what things to look for." Kevin forced a errors. 
response, "Well, phrasing is off on her 
Paragraphs. I mean the sentences are 
215 
awkward" D 
Th ? awn nodded in agreement. 
e circle 
was relaxed, as were the Self-identity; group 
Students 
? Posture: Dawn's (age approx. identity; students seemed 
19) legs w 
. ere propped up on the chair; relaxed and comfortable 
cllldy (a 
ge approx. 39) sat with her legs in the peer collaborative 
spraddl . 
ed, Susan sat cross-legged; so did 
Stu.Ann environment. 
' ette sat on one leg. The teacher 
eJ<pJained i.1. 
l.ue use of the semicolon and 
Colon. c? . 
T llldy gamed eye contact with Quality of writing emphasis; 
s onesia Who had asked the question? she Nonverbal communication: I 
llliled at h 
er peer. She said, "I needed to Eye contact and smile. 
. know th 
at, too. The teacher redirected 
the Stud 
ents to Annette's paper: 'What 
about 
,, Punctuation?" Susan responded, 
Collttn 
as are where semicolons are 
St.zp 
Posed to be" 
? Cindy sat with her legs Individual and group 
crossed? 
' her chair was angled. She response/independent, 
audibJ 
b Y cleared her throat, clownishly, critical thinking. 
efore .. 
givmg her criticism - as she 
always did . 
? Cmdy said, 'Wording Social interaction skills: 
daesn?t s 
0
. und right" - she laughed and Gentle criticism. Jokes. 
Sald " . 
1 ' either like it or poke it." Annette allghed . 
With her classmate, noting the 
Stiggested 
corrections. Mark handed the 
216 
corrections to Annette - with a smiley 
faee on it. Students moved quickly to e 
th
next Pilper. Cindy read her paper next. 
She Prefaeed it with a laugh when the 
Sense of belonging; 
ieacher asked the class to examine it. She 
Idiolect. 
told the class that this essay was about 
he r father, a waterman, who woul d "kill 
Ille if he knew he knew I wrote this for 
You a.II." (She was joking.) She also fold 
fhe class that waterman's language was 
llsed in her essay. She had underlined ? 
fhe Word Cf!!a. In her process essay, 
Cindy explained the routine of the 
Wc1terznan. Cindy read, 'To be a Self-identity; group 
successful clanuner you must first get up 
"ery early, way before sun up. You culture explored. 
ShoUJd eat a big breakfast, preferably hot. 
Di-ess very wann if it's winter time and 
Pac1c a hearty lunch. Carry a large 
fhel?lllos of coffee and cigarettes if you 
sllioke." Cindy's peers quietly read along Class1. f.1 y.m g and describing 
With h er. Dawn's eyes drank m?  the people..  Local culture? 
Word s. She stopped at van.o us m?  tervals 
8
ta "1ile at Cindy, who was reading. 
217 
Annette twirled her hair. Joyce swung Nonverbal communication. 
her legs. Mark read with a half grin on 
his lips. Cindy told that the clammer Sense of belonging. 
had outsmarted the "marine man" by 
Placing the small clams in the bottom of 
th
e basket and the larger ones on top. 
5
She a.id, "The old-timers weren't used 
to no rules for ca tchin' dams." She 
Winked and Smiled at her peers. Cindy Soci.a 1  1?nteraction skills 
read the last lines of her essay, "After you 
Pick Your limit, head on in. Gossip with 
all the old watermen about your catch. 
lrnioad Your boat and take your clams to 
ll1 arket." Joyce exclaimed, "I loved 1't i?"  
t
S llart teased, "Do you clam with your 
father?? " c?i n d y qm? pped,  "Often?'"  The 
class buzzed With discussion regarding 
th
e dying breed of the Eastern Shore. 
One student kidded that "women had no Self-identity; group 
Place on a workboat." There was a debate. identity:; jokes. 
t . . g people/ 
S ttart Pointed out, "The fact is c1ass1fym that 
wo'l?'~h ,en do go out on those work boats - fem ale  S vs. males. 
no lllatter what some of you th ink?"  A 
lllinority student shook her head in Non verbals. 
218 
agreeznent. One student confessed his 
&randfather?s ntischievous adventures 
on a crab boat. Another expressed Sense of belonging. 
concerns about the waterman as a dying 
breed - and the pollution of the 
Chesapeake Bay. Another spoke of tbe 
I.rtany rules of the marine men. Ano ther 
spoke of the abuse of the Bay by pleasure 
boaters. The students were actively 
involved in discussion when Susan 
began the discussion on organization Jokes. 
nd 
a tnechanics. Susan said, "I loved 
Yotir essay! It was certainly well 
Written!" Dawn nodded and smiled at 
nd
Ci y. The next essay read was Joyce's 
on ho".-?v?  to change the o il m.  a car?  When 
Sh ' 
e react the title of the essay, Kevin 
Wi 'fving people/ nkect at Mark, who smiled as if to as k'  c1ass1 J-
"I-[ 0 a males. 
w females vs. can a woman write about such 
Process - a man's job?" Joyce read on. 
Wh en she completed the rea d m? g, Kevin 
col'lfessed, "I'll bet she can do it better 
than I can!" There Wu.:, discussion about 
how changing the oil has been viewed as 
219 
a ntan 's job. Students agreed that 
tvornen can do it too. Mark was not 50 
convinced. He was surprised that he and 
she had chosen the same topic about 
tvhich to write. Students laughed at 
him. 
220 
A.fay 2, 1989 
Objective: Definition 
-St-ud-e-nt-s P-reses:en:t:~. ~1~3---------------Obsenration-: 
Since the teacher had so many essays to 
~Yze, she decided to divide the group 
into SllJaJJ groups of three (four in one 
case). The groups seemed flexible in that Social interaction skills: 
Uiey "'ere accustomed to reading one Group m.  valved in team 
?other's Papers and they went to work. effort -- WI" Jling to 
11ie teacher sat with each group for form small groups. 
apProXUnately five to ten minutes. 
stu
dents freely interacted with her and 
one ?ot1ter. Debates began over 
ll'lechanics (commas, semicolons, etc.). 
stu
dents referred to their textbooks to Problem solving. 
soli-e Problems. Rarely did they ask the Individual and group 
tea.Ch The 
er to solve the problem. response / I? ndependent, 
te acher was busy in that she was havm. g  critical thinking. 
col'lferences with individual students 
about resI>ective essays. From the three Soci.a  1 intera_ct_. wn_  skills. 
&rotrps, Phrases such as "I like this" and Emphas1. z.m g the positive? 
~& Ood job" could be heard. Also, th os e 
221 
5
ilnle Phrases were being spoken by tlle S0c1? a1 1?nteraction skills. 
teacher to individual students. Students 
<lnd teacher were responding to the 
Writing very positively. Near the end of 
class, Cindy teased the teacher, "I just 
&<tve SUsan an "A." The teacher 
1a ughect, "Did you look for transitions.? " 
8
llsan 5aid, "Yes she did - and they were Quality of writing. 
there this ti.me, too!" 
222 
May 4, 1989 
Objective: Administration of 
Questionnaire B and Writing Sample B 
stu
dents Present: 14 
Observation: 
stu
dents received questionnaire B and Students' attitudes: 
wtote diligently. All eyes observed tbe Seemed positive as 
questions on the page. Melissa stopped they seriously 
0
at ne point, rolling her eyes, searching answere d the question. 
he,- brain for an answer to a question. 
She then looked at me, smiled, and 
qlJ..ickly Went to the next question. Cindy 
t0ok llluch time, and asked for more 
linie. DaWn was so determined to do a 
&Ood job that she even came to me and 
as  k ed how exact she needed to be m?  her 
?.swer for "income." Annette Students' attitudes 
0211
c .tnented aloud on one answer, seeme d Positive about 
saying, "Yea, I would rather take ano er peer co1 1 a borative learning th
class like this one." Mark and others in Eng1 i s h Composition, 
011
c centrated and frowned from til?1 1 e to 
till1e, Very seriously answering the 
questions. After the administration of 
223 
the questionnaire, the students were 
asked to Write another writing sample 
(B) for the research project. The teacher 
0
\\1r te the prompt on the boa rd  : 'Write a 
well developed essay telling a story about 
a childhood memory which shaped your 
ilftitude toward a person, place, or thi ng"  
<250...soo words). One student said, "And Students' att1? t u d e s toward 
this Will not be graded. .. " The teacher grades seemed to be 
responded, "No, this essay will not be linked with fear. 
&raded." Students began shuffling Nonver b a 1 communication. 
through notebooks and backpacks studen t s I attitudes toward 
1
0oking for writing tools. Soon sounds writing seeme d Positive 
dill'linished and the only audible sounds (no so unds of wadding 
Were students writing. up paper or fingers 
drumm1? ng the desk). 
224 
APPENDIXD 
225 
KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS 
First Interview with Susan 
February 9~ 1989 
,Research 
er: "W 
hat are your feelings about the peer collaboration class?" 
Sos an: "I' 121 
ofp not sure about this class -- I can't read in front of a whole group 
eople I 
don't k ? never have liked reading or even talking in front of a group. I 
nowwh 
Y -- I envy others who can." 
,Research 
er: "r.:r 
i.1ow do you think your peers feel about tl1e class?" 
Sllsan: "I . 
th
cJa . ink everyone is afraid of writing -- and reading in front of the 
ss is 
Worse! ur 
vve are all very nervous." 
,Research 
1 er: "Would you and your peers prefer to be in a traditional lecture c ilss??? 
So sa11, "I 
c? ? think I like regular teaching better. I'm used to it. But I think 
ll1dy, J . 
s 0 Yce,. and some of the others like this kind of teaching better. They 
ee111 
lllore 
comfortable than I am." 
226 
Second Interview with Susan 
March 23, 1989 
~esearcher: "Wh 
at are your feelings about the peer collaborative class?" 
Susan: "I 
don't k . . 
?rs B now. I still get so nervous every time I have to read. But 
. ounds a d h 
iv001 n t e others tell me I do a good job. Sometimes I think it 
d have b . . 
I w een easier 1f I had been in the 101 lecture class. Well, not really. 
OuJdn?t h 
but I ave learned as much. I guess it's not too bad. I am surviving, 
Still don't  l'k 1 e reading in front of people." 
~esearch er: "1-r 
L iow do your peers feel about the class?" 
Susan: "Th 
Pr b ey are scared but not as much as I am, except for Dawn -- she's 0 abJ 
fr y ll'lore so. Most of the others have gotten used to reading out loud in 
r? ont of the . . . . class. Everyone else seems to like it - they ad;usted to 1t qwckly. 
Ill a 
? Perfectionist -- I'm afraid of making mistakes. I want to do things right. 
ter the 
st reading, "I feel good about myself and I like it when the other 
lldents 
it Pat me on the back. r mean r don't need it, but -- well, I guess I need 
. 1'h 
at's wh a t gi.v es me courage to read the next page. " 
~esearch 
er: "Would you and your peers prefer to be in a traditional lecture 
cJa.ss?'' 
227 
Susan: 
"Well, I h 
front ave been working on the problem I have with reading in 
lllor of a group. I ended up liking to read in front of the class -- I just needed 
e Practice at . , 
the t lt. So, I guess that means that I prefer this kind of teaching to 
raditiona11 
class b ecture class. We get more attention in the peer collaborative 
, eca.use th 1 . 
taugh e c ass is flexible. My friends really like the way the course is 
t- b 
like t etter than the traditional way. I like the class and my friends really 
he class." 
Third Interview with Susan 
May 2, 1.989 
~esearch 
er: "What are your feelings about the peer collaborative class?" 
Su 
san,.  "I 1tv l
? ke d the class __ but I was scared every time I read. But, I guess if  I 
as th 
Of r at scared I should have read, right? I apparently needed the experience 
ea.din. 
co g aloud. I used to hide behind the person seated in front of me. I 
uldn 't 
do that in the circle. In the circle, I learned a lot from my peers." 
~ese 
archer: "How do you think your peers feel about th  e c1 a ss.1 " 
Susc1n: 
corn. ''They liked it. They liked reading to their peers. They seem to enjoy 
'4Llll.o, 
0 to class." 
228 
.Researcher: "W 
cla857,, Ould you and your peers prefer to be in a traditional lecture 
Sllsa.n: ''l'I.. r 
.Lvoooo00, l'l..r 
so  I left it. ? J.vooooooo! I began a 101 lecture course and I was bored 
It Was . .d  . . 
Sett th ngi ? Mrs. Murphy was even gomg to assign us seats! I've 
rough rna . 
Peer ny lecture courses - my mind wanders sometimes. But in the 
colJaborati 
Pay ve dass, you have to be attentive. The pressure is always on to 
attention 
'I'he ? As for my peers, they liked the peer collaborative class, too. 
Y Were 11? k 
With e 1 Was, scared at first, but they liked it. We all got comfortable 
one another. 
and th I even liked the day Yvonne read the paper about Annette 
e Other 
the s. I knew it was coming! . I would like to add that we all liked 
Peer collab . . . 
l?n . orative class even during shaky times -- we all experienced 
glish Conipo ?t? . . . . , 
l'he 81 ion, rather than the English Compos1t10n experiencing us. 
Peer coll b . . 
ea a orative dass was very flexible and gave personal attentwn to 
cJi Sftzde.nt," 
229 
lN~RVIEWS WITH KEY INFORMANT'S PEERS 
Interview with Cindy 
April 29, 1989 
~ esearch er: ''Wh 
at are your feelings about the peer collaborative class?'' 
c?l lldy, ''I 
high ? like it?'  I needed these guys or I never would have made it. I'm a 
School dr 
Was b opout -- I never thought I could learn how to write. Besides I 
ored .. 
Slfbn' ? 
lliec1 in those classes where you had to just listen and take notes. I 
n I taken . 
this Otes m this class but I talk a lot, too. I felt kinda alone. But in 
class I h 
gi"e ' ad my friends. Of course - I know I can do it now. Your peers 
You faith . 
lnist m yourself. They gave me confidence - even when I made 
akes. I le 
llet, arned a lot in that class a'bout myself, my peers, and teachers. I 
er kn 
re eiv teachers were ;?ust peonle who taught." Cindy was touching the 
search r 
~~ . . 
arm. Cindy winked and smiled. 
____ .-::::....::..:~-----::-- ---.,~ ..... ..__________ 
230 
Interview with Dawn 
March 23, 1989 
Researcher: "What are your feelings about the peer collaborative class?" 
Dawn: "I like this class. It's better than my other English classes because 
sometimes the teacher would talk over our heads. In this class, you get 
special atttention. I'm shy, but I manage to comment every now and then. 1 
even go to the teacher's office sometimes, since I've really gotten to know 
her. 
Researcher: "Would you register for another peer collaborative class?" 
Dawn: "Absolutely, I learn more this way." 
231 
Interview with Yvonne 
March 23, 1989 
ap avmg class, Yvonne walked J,ehind me and said, "! owe you an 
As I was le . 
kn m sorry for the other day, but I needed to get it out of my systetn? I 
ology. 1 a 
to r udents felt the same as I did about JTPA students and I needed 
ow othe st
defend us. 
er: "Do you think bringing conflict to the surface was healthy?'' 
Research 
? es, I do because after c1ass ,\nnette and I got together and talked. 
Yvo nne? "Y 
f . er she had made some comments that hurt mY feelings - and my 
1- told h ' 
sai
riend s,.  She ?a  she was gonna try not to do .it  agai.n . " 
er: ''What are your feelings about the peer collaborative class?'' 
Re search 
nne? "I h' ? 't right we 
kn ? ike it, we get a lot of attention and if somet ,ng ,sn ' 
Yvo~ ~ 1 out it right away and can make it right in the next paper. . 
er: "Wh" h d f l cture or peer collaboration?' 
Research 1c o you pre er, e ' 
Yll vonn e: "Without a doubt this kind? In high school I got bad grades m.  
ngJish - now I am getting'  almost a ?B" - about a 781,,0,  average.,  
-~???-,?-? __ .,.. ....... -" - ?? i 
.- __ =' . *:C* .'li_iii -,-
-----------------------
232 
Interview with Stuart 
March 1989 
As I was walk.m g across campus, I rnet swart. 
? ow do you Jike the peer co!laborati"e classr' 
Rese archer- "H 
Oth ike this way of learning- !'Ill in110!11ed at all times - talking to 
Stuart: "I 1? 
ope about writing and e,rerything. It's like therapy!" 
er pe 1 
--------~? 
t I ?,en ::xn-.x,mr::c:::rr r E 
233 
INTERVIEWS WITI-i TI-IE TEACHER 
January 1989 - May 1989 
class?" hat do you think is the significance of the nicknames in the 
Research er: "W 
anct eheve they are indicators of hoW students feel about themselves 
Teach er: "I b . 
an another. Nicknames are students' ways of being social with one 
one 
?ff . achieve a sort of identity within the group. They seem to share an 
other to . 
n or one another and shoW it oftentimes without words." 
ectio f 
er- "D ?d t?t 1? k d 
? ? o you believe that self-identity and group 1 en 1 y are 1n e 
Re search 
lnthe  peer c 11 ab 0  orat.i ve classroont?" 
a er: "Yes I do. I mean these students are role playing ... they are 
Teach 
th mg the role of students_ and students in a different kind of class, so 
ssum? 
ey need t f eel accepted as individuals i. n thi.s  group. " 
0 
archer: "Wh d . k t be prevalent in the peer collaborative 
Rcleas e Y o JO es seent o 
ssr oom?" 
er- "J d ? h another Students 
Ta eacrhi en? dl oke. s sort of help the students 1. ,on JW kit  s one 0 accornpa?n Y sel -
r ref. eporting Yf  with one another through joldngd- te  f?e e? 
f 
0 l?  rnore cornf ortable 
errors; they seem to enable stu ents 
0 
waccr IXi 
234 
ir roles as writers in a group- I encourage jokes and self-reporting of 
With the? 
errors." . 
? at happened in the peer collaborative class when Yvonne 
Rese ar ch er "Wh 
ay on JTP A students and nonfederallY tunded students?" 
read h er ess 
? ell, I think a great deal was happening. While we were all very 
Teacher "W 
h rtable with the topic and the language used by Yvonne, the conflict 
uncomfo 
. s,nve outcome. students got to J.<nOW one another on a more 
ad a po .. 
eve!. Plus they had to work with one another closely for an entire 
informal 1 
ester' so they had to seek ways to ?mend their fences. ' I think they may 
sem 
e grown from the skills that it took to ?mend those fences.'" 
hav 
Research er..  " What ,. s the advantage of aJloW.i llg stu de nts to ch  oose th ei. r own 
topics f or writing?" 
T~ea-ch-er: "Students need to feel comfortable with the topics that they write - after all in the peer co!labOrative c1ass, there ,.s  a rather acti.v e, 
:?rticipating audience. I find that students like to find topics that they want 
o share wi.t h their peers." 
Researche r: "Do you think that students write onlY for an au d., ence ?" 
------~ .---?-- -
-?---==---- ;t.p?---------
235 
certain! ot necessarily. Students in the peer collaborative writing class are 
Teacher: "N 
id ve au ience, but I think students develop a writing 
Y aware of a li d' ? 
entitY  as m. dividuals." 
t ere any significance in the female-male debates? 
Research er: "I 8 h 
ere 1S always going to be the battle of the sexes, so students need 
Teacher: "Th . 
p e ter understanding of where they stand on various issues. In a 
t oga?m  ab t 
u,? orative classroom, open debates are encouraged. And frankly, I 
eer collab . 
. tes encourage students to participate in class. vebates are a way of 
ink deba 
izmg students to the real world, so to speak- If you wi1l recall, after the 
social' . 
maintenance, students seemed to have a better und e rstan d'm g of Yon car ? 
essa 
nother?  y ou could say they respected one ano th er 's  poi?n t o f vi?e w- Th is 
one a 
should h ave a bearing on audience awareness." 
"But what does this debating/socialization have to do with 
Researcher.? 
wr1?t 1? ng?' 
er: "Students will learn to write for practical purposes - they may even 
leach 
b rn to li' ke  writing. If they like to write, theY maY wri?t e more o ft en an d 
lea 
etter!" 
er: "How do racial differences affect th? peer collaborative class?" 
Research 
236 
B rutially, the students remain seated with students of the same race. 
Teacher: "I .. 
b ter the semester gets started, students intermingle - I think 
ut soon af 
thi simtlar1ties in personality. Students socialiZe with one another in 
ecause of . . . 
se a orative class, so they get to know one another, and they do not 
s peer coll b . 
d ow race to be a problem- It is a problem in America, and I don't 
em to all 
eX1stence. But it truly does not seem to be a problem in the peer 
eny its . 
ative class. Students must work together to achieve a common goal." 
collabor . 
Do 
cher-? "The re are some students with han d., caps i.l l th e c1 a ss, 
Resear 
students have difficulty with hypersensitivity?" 
d ? erhaps, at first. Each handicap must be dealt with, But Stuart 
Teacher- "P 
ealt With his  handicap. fie represents all the others.... fl e seems to l"1k  e th e 
nd
I' ctivity and has benefitted a great deal from it fie e ed up rea Y 
group a . ll 
?king the  other students and the other students reallY 1.t ked hi.m , Toe 
Wheelch ai. r seemed visible at first and then it kind of d", sappear? d?  Gr eg's  
s peech i? mpediment was a stumbl'i ng block for rum, but wh  en h e recogru? z? d 
e other students did not find it a problem, he was okay. Greg even 
that th 
thanke d his peers for their criticistn!" 
Researcher: "Wh h t d nt who would not read in front of 
at about oawn, t e s u e 
the c 1a ss?" 
Teacher: "A bout hoW pawn would work 
s you know I had som? concerns a 
ut in a peer collaborative class, But sh? did fin?? students seemed to accept 
Q I 
NW??if..------
237 
stud e of her handicap. I think socializing and camaraderie with the 
her , m?  spit 
Y helped Dawn to improve her writing." 
ents actuall 
cl ? n your infornted opinion, does subgrouping work in the 
Rese archer- "I 
ass room?" 
lrai eheve that subgouping works only after students have been 
Teach er: "I b . 
ct? oci 1zed to working in a group, without constant teacher 
ned ors ?a1? 
? S!udents are faced with the problentS of having to determine what 
irection 
ct? of introduction best suited a particular topic, diction, method of 
rnethod . 
Af se, paragraph development, transUions, and method of conclusion-
iscour 
the ents have worked in a large peer collaborative group, yes, I think 
ter stud 
qu?Y  Work qm?t e well in small groups. They are gi? ven a prob l em an1 d1  so 1v e 1?1  
th ite read'l Y? Students seem to Uke solving problems, and  Ith 'i nk  ? h e1 p s 
1 
ern to b ecome more effective writers." 
er: "Do you like the peer collaborative teaching strategy?'' 
Research 
er: "Yes, I do. But it does not come without problems for both the 
Teach 
er a the student. Both must be trained to use it." 
teach nd 
tP:Pt '.%'CF 
238 
APPENDIXE 
! 
I 
ENG IOI Couru Sc1>eaule StJHng I 91J9 I 
' 
DATE WRITING DUE GROUP CRITI UIN6 READING CLASS DISCUSSION 
.JNIJNf'f 2? en ?b.,.,lu Tllffw n1r..,.1io.1ec-.. 
,U....el,>C.#,e-,c~,...... ,....,.... - I It 
..S..,,,26(R) j I I l8 2-28; i.'6 - - ..,,._.,. - Cl',.._. l I\ 
P'A 1-14 (Yntiftt Mc....) Or~O..."-' 
111-\lO(b. .....) ~ by. .. 
\l-~;42-"4U&arrat-> , ..... n.-
61-16;U-el;\OO-\OI buwcn ,..., -..,.ttDM \ ll 
~ 1\'tolllt>ttor. .\ 'c>a \ kWT1\-./t>Hc,~ lB 442-4'?; 25 n- l~ (RH..-1111) 
l'ltlor.-., l-
lll"4WchP...,-'TM1'11 
~"'-' 
rw_.,,.~(R) "-v \e .... ~I~ 
1 
?10-C\oss Theme 
I\) 
u) 
(0 
IKltr'PF( . _ 
240 
~f f1 l" J I Hr t?f 
U' I Jiu 
,.. 
? ,~~ ~' 
0-1 u, .. 1. 11 ~1 r u11 .....~.   1~ !: I ?E  ~ j ~ ~iA Hi n?  ~i s?;  ~~ ,..-,.  .! " :i~ 0 ::, u 
'0 ... '"' I 
CII 
.c: =
~ J ?  
;?
~
  ' - J f 0 
t.J I-
,, 
- Q-& l cJ 1 l u l ~ 4 - ~ GIi 0 CL ::, 
Cl 
;z: 0 
~ Q& u, 
:"'J  
!J 
!: 11: 
l~ ,.. 
? C g,..  CJ flJ ,..... .~..,  
(1 i 
.G_e,  ... ~ 
- (1 I l f .f..  ... ... 
ENG IO I Course Schedule Spring I 989 
OATE WRITING OUE GROUP,. .,C.cf.l,l.cT,I, QUlfl6 REAOIN6 CLASS DISCUSSION H.w?7 (T) Not? C,ru C,) l'A 2m-292 
Cem,.,.,son T,..,,_ (C-1. [tt..t) 
H.lldl' (R) C~1sOQT....,_ LB 14-36; '?4~ (Mt ..... , [ctltftt ......... 
(<Mta.,.) 
~ \~fl) 11.-11~ p~ o.A'IIM Renwcl\ P~ Olrt\\M 
~,~ Ot) \.O'J'O b??- p~~\2 \.. 
-*'-' \.8 ,m-no 
0...0) 
"'-*' '2 \ (."t) Ruuuh Or ,na 11.Htllct\ l)rlf\s \.B ~22 
a>,.\loon) 
"'--'nUl) R.s.wct10r1f\s 
? 1n-C\ess Theme f\:) 
~.......  
ENG IO I Course Schedule Spring 1969 
DATE WRITING DUE &ROUP CRITIQUING READING CLASS DISCUSSION 
Afrtl4(T) 1.u,1110r1n, 
.-11, (II) a.-.,-0r,n, LI tt-,0 
,A lt')-201; 227-231; 
(Pu~u) 
.-,111 (T) IPrO(:tU'TherM 
Afrll I J (A) lt(S(A.RCH,Al'Otl Pr-uT~ 
.-n ,a m ProwssThMM LB 421..,.14 
~t---10) 
~20 (It) LI 41S-61l Oicfer. ~ Dtat. .. 
Otll--, .. lllf. ..)  .....,, .......... 
LI 14-?S ~"'-?? ... ,,. IOt-117 ;111-141 
(o.fwlWI) 
?in-Closs Theme 
I'\) 
~ 
I'\) 
243 
!
u- , 
V'I 
~ 
u 
-V'I 0 f 
en 
V'I 
<_,  
u 
~ 
01 
Cl) - ~ -01 j -...... i ~1 
~ - ._ 0 .,c.  .-:. t i s; 
:i < ... ~ ~ ~-~ Qt N?  ~ ..,,  . 
.! !3 ---I 0 ::, -u "0 I 
CD - C 
.c 
CJ 
Ol ? 
CD 
Cl) 
I:.:.,.  
0 
t.., t-: j j j 
- Qt u 1 -;: ji 0- j CL .... & ~ (,::) ~ 
~ Cl 
I.A.I Dcae  
~ 
~J 
z- I t;: 
,: 
?~  
M 
l 
244 
APPENDIXF 
245 
HOW TO BE A SUCCESSFUL CLAMMER by Cindy 
bi b To be a real success as a clammer you must first get up very early, eat a 
h g reakfast, preferably hot. Dress very warm if it's winter time and pack a earty 1 
llnch. Carry a large thermos of coffee and cigarettes, if you smoke. 
all t Go out and start the truck. Let it run about a half an hour. That's what 
he old Watermen do. It's part of their routine. 
th When the truck is warm enough, ride down to the dock and park by 
e Water ? h 
All Wit all the other watermen. Then wait for the sun to come up. 
th
tvh e old Watermen do this. They say if the wind is gonna blow, it'll blow 
en the sun comes up. 
( If it is too windy to work, go home and back to bed. If it is cam out tvaterm 
( en 1
. 
a nguage) you can start loadmg the boat. Gas up and head on out 
tvaterm 1 . . en anguage). Watch for crab lmes along the shoreline. 
1. . Pick your spot and let down the conveyer. Make sure you know the llllit 0 
n clams. When I was working, forty bushels were allowed. 
Clam's also have to be picked by a standard size, two inches when I was 
tvorki 
b ng. The marine police pull regular checks, so make sure you keep a 
Ushel 0 f standard size clams. If you see them comm? g, dump th  ese on top o f 
th
an ose little ones you picked! Be careful, there's a pretty heavy fine. I can't 
rellle1 11 b er how much. I would have to ask Dad. 
After you've picked your limit, head on in (watermen's language). 
Gossi ? 
take P .W ith all the old watermen about your catch. Unloa 
d your bo at an d 
Your clams to market. 
th Now you can go home and eat a hearty dinner. Just like Dad and all 
e 0ther local watermen. 
Purpose: To tell people what fun it is to be a local waterman. 
Audience: People who would be interested in clamming as a career. 
[Stud t' 
en s Errors Included 1 
246 
HOW TO CHANGE THE OIL IN YOUR CAR by Joyce 
Before you start you need to get a few things together. To begin to 
change the oil, you need a pan, an old pan that holds about 6 quarts of fluids. 
You have to buys quarts of oil to replace the oil that is drain from the car, 
also buy a oil filter for your car too. find a wrench the size of the bolt to the 
oil pan and a oil filter wrench too. Get a couple of old rags to wipe excess oil 
from your hands and around the oil pan. 
Now after getting all this together we can now change the oil in the car. 
Put the pan that you are going to use to catch the oil under the oil pan where 
the bolt is to drain it. Take the bolt wrench and remove the bolt to drain the 
oil. 
After all the oil is drained from the oil pan into the catch pan, remove 
the oil filter and let that little bit of oil drain. Put the bolt back in the oil pan, 
make it tight enough where oil will not leak out. 
When all the oil has drain from the filter area take the old rag that you 
have and wipe around the filter area where oil drained from. Take the new 
filter and replace it where the old filter was removed. Tighten it just so only 
no oil leaks out of it. 
Remove the catch pan from underneath the car. Lift the hood of the 
car. Put the five quarts of oil you brought in the car. Where it says oil on the 
side of the motor. Remove the cap and put the oil in. 
Pull the dipe stick out to check the level of oil in the car make sure that 
it is to the full mark on the dipe stick. When it is put the dipe stick back and 
close the hood of the car. 
You are now done changing the oil in your car. 
Take the old oil you remvoed to a salvage yard. 
Audience: Anyone wanting to change the oil in a car. 
Purpose: To let someone know. 
[Student's Errors Included ]