Promoting scholarship through writing groups.

Abstract

This article describes the work of a writing group over a two year period organized to help seven tenure track faculty members increase scholarly productivity. This story documents efforts to organize a writing group, reviews research on writing groups, and identifies benefits of participation in a writing group. The article concludes with the promise of a community created to solve problems, resolve conflicts, and share decisions.

Introduction

The idea of working in groups in a work environment is not new. In the business world, groups are often formed to create or evaluate new ideas and new products. The members in these groups often learn to complement each others' skills, sharing purpose, commitment, and accomplishment (Kirkman & Rosen, 2000; Baloche, 1998). Collaborative work groups in K-12 education have also been found to be effective and serve a similar purpose: students are encouraged to support their peers, work toward the same goal, and build a community of learners (Johnson, Johnson, & Stanne, 2000; Jennings & Di, 1996). If these ideas are effective in the business world and in K-12 education, then why not apply them to academia? In addition to teaching and service, faculty members are required to produce public evidence of scholarship. Consequently, faculty members must formulate research ideas, collect necessary data, analyze data, and summarize findings. Scholarship, while difficult, can be collaborative in nature; however, many faculty members conduct their own research, often failing to seek feedback from fellow faculty members during the crucial part of writing research results.

This article documents the efforts of a writing group over a two year period organized to help faculty members increase scholarly productivity. The authors serve also as subjects: seven pre-tenured, tenure-track assistant professors participating voluntarily in a writing group designed to support individual research agendas. This story documents efforts to organize a writing group, reviews research on writing groups, and identifies benefits of participation in a writing group. We contend that a sense of community has emerged that promises to provide the essential tools for collaborative problem solving, conflict resolution, shared decision-making, continuous improvement, and lateral accountability. This journey is the search for new ways to connect individual benefit to the promise of scholarship through a writing group.

Intuitively, we knew that academic success could be enhanced by the experiences and expertise of others. We also believed that a writing group would provide an opportunity to work with others who were engaged in similar pursuits. As participants, we wanted to increase our publications. Would our investment be worth the time and effort expended? Would we become more proficient in publishing? As researchers, we wondered how participation in the group would promote scholarship. What role would the writing group play in meeting the needs of the individuals involved? Did those involved believe more was accomplished collectively than could have been accomplished individually?

Organizing a writing group

In the fall of 2004, the associate dean in the College of Education called a college-wide meeting for those interested in forming writing groups. During the meeting, the associate dean spoke of the significance of writing in our profession and of the importance of collegial support in helping promote scholarship. Encouraged by this call, faculty members in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction (C&I) began assembling writing groups and organizing them by who was available at which times. Our writing group was formed in the fall of 2004 and represented a cross-section of disciplines: literacy, early childhood, secondary education, special education and music. The associate dean served as our writing group coordinator during the 2004-2005 school year. Her work held the writing group together early that first year by the nature of the authority she carried in her position. She organized and supported the group members, reminding us to write with "precision and accuracy." Under her tutelage, we were diligent with our writing responsibilities: organized, prepared, on time, and eager to participate. No one wished to disappoint her or give her the sense that we were not participating fully in the professoriate.

Each month one group member would submit a draft manuscript to the group members a week before the scheduled group meeting. The next week the group would convene and each group member would suggest improvements to the manuscript, noting strengths and weaknesses. Our writing group would consider a potential audience for the manuscript and make suggestions for preparing the manuscript for publication. The review process encouraged conversation about scholarship. As junior faculty, we wrote about what we knew: teacher education classrooms, PK12 schools, and college students struggling with applications of theory. During peer review sessions, we reviewed information about publications, themed journal issues and editorials requests. Time was spent brainstorming strategies for getting work accepted followed by an analysis of how to match research interests and writing styles to different publications. We lamented the solitary nature of academia and commiserated about the need to make ideas public. We admitted feeling anxious about balancing responsibilities of teaching, service and scholarship. We discussed ways to support individual scholarship and wondered how to seek support from successful senior faculty.

Promoting a new understanding of scholarship

Year two (2005-2006) brought changes in membership and a renewed desire to provide peer review of works-in-process. The associate dean assumed a position in the Provost Office and left the group. Three new C&I faculty members, social studies, child development and literacy, joined the writing group. The flexible nature of the group allowed for members to suspend participation when their schedules changed. For example, colleagues from music and special education, unable to arrange a convenient time due to new teaching schedules, agreed to attend as schedules permitted. We continued the process of scheduling a sign-up at the beginning of each semester for opportunities to share a scholarly paper with the group. The group met on alternative weeks with works sent for review one week before the group meeting. Shared decision making became the rule as different individuals assumed responsibility for organizing dates, schedules, and meeting times.

The group structure evolved in the middle of the second year as members expressed a willingness to consider different formats. A revised format allowed each member to submit a paper for each meeting and be paired with a colleague for reciprocal feedback. Consequently, different pairings occurred during each group meeting. This new process encouraged ongoing writing, allowed for more personal feedback and promoted the display of work connected to the expertise of the respondent. For example, one week might be an opportunity to provide a technical writer with a finished manuscript, while another week might be an opportunity to discuss an administrator's ideas about a work-in-progress concerning teacher empowerment. At the same time, this format limited group feedback. In year two, we appeared comfortable modifying the process in response to the needs and dispositions of its members. In two academic years, our writing group reviewed eighteen manuscripts. Topics included shared governance, professional development schools, inclusion, induction, special education, literacy, reading adoptions, adolescence literature, teacher preparation, and social justice. Of the eighteen articles reviewed, ten have been submitted for publication and nine have been published in some form (textbook, journal, presentation, paper).

Developing a scholarly learning community

Johnson & Johnson (2006) explain that groups exist for a reason: "People join groups to achieve goals they are unable to achieve themselves." (page 129). The first step in developing a successful writing group involves a determination of members' writing needs and goals, just as pre-assessment of learner needs represents the first step in effective instruction. Some members may have full research/publication agendas and need feedback on manuscripts; others may need guidance in developing theoretical ideas that lay the groundwork for data collection. The optimal group structure represents a response to member needs. However, the longevity of the group depends on member response to the structure and continued commitment to the process. A successful writing group needs the proper mix of personalities willing to demonstrate positive support through a mutual acceptance of scholarly backgrounds.

During year two, we identified benefits of participation in the writing group. One member believed the writing group had improved scholarship by "encouraging her to play different academic roles: reader, writer, listener, speaker, editor, critic, examiner, confidant, friend, advocate and learner." Another member praised the interaction with colleagues stating that the writing group "provided a forum to learn about what others were doing in their research which could lead to future collaboration." Participation in the writing group changed our understanding of scholarship as individual and group goals started to emerge. By definition, the writing group was a professional learning community: an intentional group formed for the mutual benefits of its members, agreeing to work collaboratively and share decisions. Moreover, the review process reflected the characteristics of a professional learning community: necessary, timely and supportive feedback shared by advocates to improve performance on important tasks worth doing.

Participation in the writing group promoted a sense of professional accountability. One member described the benefit of writing for colleagues: "I love to write, but for whatever reasons, it is always the last thing on my to-do list. Our writing group reaffirmed my conviction that good work takes collaboration, social support, and the willingness to share one's vulnerability." Another member believed participation increased conversation about research expectations: "Institutional expectations appeared confusing. Once we agreed that differing interpretations of expectations were not the issue, but a solid research agenda was, I began to develop a research agenda which reflected my interests." A third member believed the writing group provided an important structure: "I believe each of us benefited by the lateral accountability that comes from the deadlines and timelines necessary for the success of the group. We created a scholarly momentum for each other that might not have been possible if initiated separately."

High stakes issues of retention and promotion require new faculty members to document expertise in scholarship, teaching and service. Publish or perish: advice, warning or mandate? We still struggle with this question. Yet, the writing group certainly helped us realize that understanding the nature of scholarship is essential to establishing a personal and meaningful research agenda.

Writing as a professional learning community

Collaborative learning is supported by the work of cognitive developmental theorists such as Piaget (1965) and Vygotsky (1978). The main ideas behind these theories are that social interaction is needed to push our thinking more than we can do on our own. When it comes to our own work as tenure-track faculty members, however, we often overlook the importance of collaboration. Collaborative writing can be effective and be applied in different ways such as peer editing, peer tutoring, coauthoring, and workshopping (Reither & Vipond, 1989). In a study of writing groups in a college classroom, McAllister (2005) found that students participating in collaborative writing groups were more active in sharing their ideas, attended class more frequently, and showed a higher improvement in their writing than did students who wrote individually. In addition, students who stayed in the same groups across the semester improved their writing more than groups who changed group members frequently. School-aged children also seem to benefit from the collaboration of a co-author by sharing their perspectives and creating new strategies (Daiute, 1986). Another important aspect of collaborative writing activities is the critical reflection that can occur due to the collaborative efforts (Higgins, Flower, & Petraglia, 1992). In their study, Higgins, Flower, and Petraglia (1992) found that college students demonstrated reflection to identify problems, create and evaluate new plans, and to elaborate on ideas. These outcomes, however, were more prevalent if reflection was sustained through many conversations.

Padgett and Begun (1996) described a writing group at their university which increased faculty productivity of both publications and paper presentations. They also found that the group helped faculty feel less isolated and more motivated to return to manuscripts that had been rejected. In a more recent study of faculty writing groups, Lee and Boud (2003) described the writing process as the beginning point of research rather than an ending. They found that writing groups at their university were successful in assisting faculty in their research development not just the actual writing of manuscripts. Based on their study, Lee and Boud concluded that writing groups were important because they encouraged peer reciprocation, made research development a consistent part of faculty lives, and provided desire and identity to the participating faculty. Writing groups also allow us to share our work with others who possess diverse perspectives, experiences and opinions as both readers and writers (Highberg, Moss, & Nicolas, 2004).

Rankin (2001) found that writing groups provide guidance for new faculty learning to understand the nature of scholarship: l) they contribute to the professional conversation; 2) they meet readers' needs and expectations; 3) they encourage faculty to find professional voices; and 4) they provide structure to see the projects through.

Modeling scholarship as a writing community

The writing group process paralleled the experience of submitting a manuscript to a journal. At each meeting, group members reviewed a manuscript for its potential as a publication. Such discourse produced conversations about content, context, audience, and purpose. Despite different specializations, individual contributions led to the development of the writing group, increasing our knowledge, empathy, and perspective. Differences in experience, personality and expertise made little difference: our common interests were to serve as needed, listening and observing, leading and following, and learning and teaching. Gradually, we came to understand that our primary obligation was to model scholarship for each other.

Our writing group provided a sense of community. Common interests, a sense of commitment, voluntary participation, and effective facilitators provided the background for collaborative problem solving, conflict resolution and shared decision making (Lieberman & Grolnick, 1997). In the foreground, the review of peer publications offered purposeful work completed with good intentions. Ultimately, our writing group succeeded as a community because it provided a sanctuary for reasonable ideas to be challenged in a spirit of negotiation shared for mutual benefit. Pencil draft ideas were given the time to mature as colleagues suspended judgment knowing that thinking could develop later in proper fashion. Similarly, personal growth proceeded at its own natural pace as individuals became more independent. Ownership in the process provided incremental practice at continuous improvement while lateral accountability developed expectations of responsible behavior.

Learning to manage the need for scholarship amid the other demands of academic life is a crucial, yet largely untaught, skill (Padgett and Begun, 1996). The introduction of colleagues to a writing group of their peers is a hopeful and critical time for scholarship to be celebrated, honoring what a research community might become: a place where trusting and collaborative relationships cultivate an understanding of scholarship. We expect that our writing group will continue to help us manage our different professional responsibilities, providing the necessary collegial support to help each of us navigate successfully through a dynamic academic environment of institutional expectations, personal goals, and collegial opportunity.

References

Baker, P. & Vogt, B. (September 2004). Leadership and school reform: Moving from contradictions to coherence. Paper presented at International Conference, Bangkok, Thailand.

Baloche, L.A. (1998). The cooperative classroom: Empowering learning. NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.

Daiute, C. (1986). Do I and 1 make 2? Written Communication 3(3), 382-408.

Higgins, L., Flower, L., & Petraglia, J. (1992). Planning text together: The role of critical reflection in student collaboration. Written Communication, 9(1), 48-84.

Jennings, C. & Di, X. (1996). Collaborative learning and thinking: The Vygotskian approach. In L. Dixon-Krauss (Ed.), Vygotsky in the classroom: Mediated literacy instruction and assessment (pp. 67-91). NY: Longman.

Johnson, D. & Johnson, F. (2006). Joining together: Group theory and group skills. Boston: Pearson Education, Inc.

Johnson, D., Johson, R., & Stanne, M. (2000). Cooperative learning methods: A metaanalysis. Cooperative Learning Center at the University of Minnesota. Retreived September 10, 2006, from http://www.cooplearn.org/

Highberg, N.P., Moss, B.J., & Nicolas, M. (2004). Introduction: Writing groups as literacy events. In B.J. Moss, N.P. Highberg, & M. Nicolas (Eds.), Writing groups inside and outside the classroom (pp. 1-10). New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Kirkman, B. & Rosen, B. (2000). Powering up teams. Organizational Dynamics, 28(3), 48-66.

Lee, A. & Boud, D. (2003). Writing groups, change and academic identity: Research development as local practice. Studies in Higher Education, 28(2), 187-200.

Lieberman, A. & Grolnick, M. (1997). Networks, reform and the professional development of teachers. In Hargreaves, A. (ed.). Rethinking educational change with heart and mind. (pp. 192-215) Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

McAllister, C.H. (2005). Collaborative writing groups in the college classroom. In T. Kostouli (Ed.), Writing in context(s): Textual practices and learning processes in sociocultural settings (pp. 207-227). NY: Springer.

Padgett, D. & Begun, A. (1996). The writer's guild: A model of support for social work faculty. Journal of Social Work Education, 32(2). 237-244.

Piaget, J. (1965). The moral judgment of the child (M. Gabain, trans.). NY: The Free Press.

Rankin, E. (2001). The work of writing: Insights for strategies for academics and professionals. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Reither, J.A. & Vipond, D. (1989). Writing as collaboration. College English, 51(8), 855-867.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. (Cole, M., V. John-Steiner, S. Scriber, & E. Souberman, eds.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Gary S. O'Malley, Illinois State University, IL

Alan Bates, Illinois State University, IL

Nancy Latham, Illinois State University, IL

Tom Lucey, Illinois State University, IL

Barbara Meyer, Illinois State University, IL

Ellen Spycher, Illinois State University, IL

Linda Wedwick, Illinois State University, IL

O'Malley, Ph.D., Bates, Ph.D., Latham, Ed.D., Lucey, Ed.D., Meyer, Ed.D., Spycher, and Wedwick, Ed.D are all Assistant Professors in the Department of Curriculum and Instruction.