Academic Exchange Quarterly Summer
2010 ISSN 1096-1453 Volume 14, Issue
2
To cite, use print source
rather than this on-line version which may not reflect print
copy
format
|
This article should not be
reprinted for inclusion in any publication for sale without author's explicit
permission. Anyone may view, reproduce
or store copy of this article for personal, non-commercial use as allowed by
the "Fair Use" limitations (sections 107 and 108) of the U.S. Copyright law. For any other
use and for reprints, contact article's author(s) who may impose usage fee..
See also |
Building Community Through
Co-Authorship
Tara
B. Perry,
Anna
Eblen,
Brian
Launius,
Perry, Ph.D., is Department of
Communication Assistant Professor, Eblen, Ph.D., is
Department
of Communication Professor, Launius, Department of Communication undergraduate, and
Peterson, Department of Communication undergraduate.
Abstract
At the university level, research
collaboration between faculty and students has been promoted as a way to
improve professional development. This qualitative study examined the
relationship outcomes of successful college teachers’ and students’
collaborative co-authorship. The researchers gathered perceptions of
co-authorship through focus groups and face-to-face interviews. Participants
described four significant outcomes of co-authorship including: professional
outcomes, fluid collaboration, communication building trust and community, and
voice development. Results indicate that collaborative co-authorship is
important for professional development, relational and personal growth of both
teachers and students.
Introduction
Collaborative co-authorship involves two or more people working in
partnership on writing projects for publication or curriculum development
(Nguyen & Nguyen, 2006). In
education, we see a trend toward multiple authors, specifically more teacher
and student co-authorship (Arthur, Anchan, Este, Khanlou, Kwok, & Mawani,
2004). Researchers emphasize the professional advantages of
co-authorship such as publications and grant support. However, more happens in
a successful co-authorship than just professional gain. For example, teachers switch roles from
expert to learner so that students develop expertise (Panitz,
1997); faculty members have higher quality work by having multiple perspectives
from colleagues (Manton & English, 2006); students excel academically and
professionally, both parties gain publication and recognition, and
collaborative research informs academics and professions (Oddi
and Oddi 2000). The literature implies that these significant advantages
rest upon mutually satisfying interpersonal dialogue. Our thesis is that
collaborative co-authorship can create relationships and personal benefits
beyond the professional advantages more widely recognized by scholars.
The purpose of this study is to explore
the outcomes (e.g. personal, relational) of collaborative co-authorship between
teachers and students. We intend to examine the benefits of collaborative
co-authorship and more specifically find out why teachers and students think
collaborative co-authorship is worthwhile; and we want to encourage others to
try it. Concurrently, we explain how to implement co-authorship because our
article demonstrates the process and is itself a product of such collaboration.
First, we investigate the background of democratic communities, action
research, and teacher-student voice as elements of collaboration. Next, we
describe how we gathered data about the co-authoring experience. Although qualitative
research has limitations to generalizability, the
rich data has implications for advantages related to co-authorship. This method
can guide other researchers who seek a procedure for collaborating and
understanding the outcomes of collaborative co-authorship. Finally, we relate
four perceptual themes in the words of students and teachers who collaborated.
They emphasized relationship building as well as professional development. We
believe that their words provide guidelines for collaborative dialogue and
incentives toward co-authorship.
Democratic
Communities and Action Research
Scholars conceptualize collaborative relationships as democratic
communities that are inclusive of many voices. Researchers similarly describe
democratic classroom communities as teachers who care about their students,
open to equality, facilitate independent thinking, and develop a safe classroom
climate for open discourse of
self-expression (Gould, 2001; Kesici, 2008, &
Pryor, 2004). Engaging participants as good listeners and active
learners encourages diverse voices for teachers and students. The current study
involves “action research” about collaborative
co-authorship.
Action research occurs when teachers critically analyze their practices through research and theory (Deemer, 2009). It is a reflective process whereby teachers as well as students take action to improve their educational practices (Foreman-Peck & Murray, 2008), in this case, co-authorship. Through action research, teachers have shared ideas, changed practices, and located their voices by reflecting on their experiences (Lobo & Vizcaino, 2006). The additional advantage of action research is that students are more involved when they reflect on how practices directly relate to them. The practice of concern in this study, collaborative co-authorship, warrants exploration through action research. Since action research emphasizes personal voice, the following section will examine interpersonal issues of voice and the development of relationships.
Teacher-Student Voice
Collins’ (1990) and Navarro’s (1992)
earlier perspectives on voice, provides a foundation regarding how one’s voice
builds individual self-concept. According to Collins (1990), voice refers to a
person’s freedom to express thoughts openly with others who are willing to
listen. Collins’ definition of voice positions the concept within the
interpersonal communication realm, highlighting issues of verbal expression and
listening. Navarro (1992) provides a comprehensive review of teacher voice and
investigates the term from different perspectives: voice as personal/private,
voice as representative action, and voice as collectively critical. Each
explanation of voice focuses on the value of individuals having a say or the
will to make a change through action. Although the voices of
teachers have been crucial in action research, student voices and the issue of
voice in teacher-student relationship have also intrigued researchers (Flutter, 2007; Veugelers
& De Kat, 2002). Flutter (2007) defines pupil voice as
students who are permitted to actively share their views in decision-making.
When teachers integrate student voice, students are inspired to learn as the
sense of community develops (Pratt, 2008). Similarly, Mitsoni
(2006) notes that students’ interest comes alive when they can ask questions
about puzzling ideas.
Some scholars have investigated listening aspects of voice and the teacher-student relationship. When teachers listen to the diverse learning experiences of students, both parties’ attitudes and behaviors may be positively impacted. Tedder, Jones, and Mauger (2008) suggest that researchers need to listen to students’ ideas and ask them how they should be taught. By listening and responding to students experiences, teachers are able to improve their own practices (Flutter, 2007). Ackley, Colter, Marsh, and Sisco (2003) have indicated that teachers can have a positive influence on student achievement when they listen and offer students a voice in decision-making.
It would be naïve to underestimate the difficulties of developing collaborative relationships and voice. The traditional university power differentials may make it more difficult for teachers and students to work collaboratively. Teachers must give up some of their authority in order to facilitate student voice. The practical costs of giving time to collaboration may seem too great. The ideals of a democratic community demand not only shifts in power, but also require both parties to exert the time and effort to develop their relationships.
This study examines participants’ perceptions of relationships while collaboratively
co-authoring. The researchers posed the following research questions: RQ1. What are teachers’ perceptions of
co-authoring a writing project with college students? RQ 2. What are students’ perceptions’ of
co-authoring a writing project with teachers? RQ3. What do these perceptions
reveal about personal and relational outcomes in co-authored projects?
Methodology
The participants were 10 teachers and
eight college students at a regional Northwest university in 2009. One male and
nine female teachers represented six different academic departments, including
humanities, social and physical sciences, where they had taught from one to
twenty-four years. Two males and six females, including one graduate student
and seven undergraduates, represented seven academic majors.
Purposive sampling permitted the
researchers to select participants with particular characteristics required for
the study, in this case, teachers and students who had co-authored a project
(Baxter & Babbie, 2004). Most were university
grant-supported teacher-student writing teams, while others were identified by
participating colleagues and then contacted by email. The collaborative writing
projects ranged from conference presentations to
publications or curricular materials.
Researchers implemented a qualitative
research approach: focus group and face-to-face interviews (Gill, Stewart,
Treasure, & Chadwick, 2008; Saulnier, 2002).
These action research strategies guided participant reflections and allowed
researchers to examine perceptions about co-authoring. Each participant
completed a demographic and consent form. The semi-structured, audio-recorded
focus groups and interviews (teachers and students separately) ranged from one
to two hours.
The qualitative analysis utilized open
coding technique “During open coding, data are broken down into discrete parts,
closely examined, and compared for similarities” (Strauss & Corbin, 1990,
p. 102). The process involves “constant comparative analysis” by labeling
statements, categorizing larger conceptual groupings, and finally interpreting
central themes. Researchers transcribed interviews verbatim, identified
discrete participant statements (sentence to paragraph length), and printed
them onto index cards. After reading each statement, the researchers labeled
the data conceptually and sorted cards according to initial labels. Through
constant comparative analysis, they sorted cards into larger yet similar categories.
The categories were collapsed and interpreted into overarching themes.
Researchers, working as a team and
independently, analyzed data three times to ensure conceptual grouping
agreement. The open coding method allowed the team to constantly compare interview
data with recently coded categories (Yin, 2003). The resulting themes
represented interpretation of participants’ experiences with co-authoring.
Results
Results
indicate when collaborative co-authorship is done effectively, both teachers
and students may gain more than an end product; instead they create successful
relationships. The relational factors that contributed to the teacher-student
collaborative co-authorship were inter-reliance, shared mutual respect, trust,
listening, accountability, and the ability to express ones voice.
Teachers’ and students’ experiences in
co-authoring can be characterized into four themes: 1) professional outcomes,
2) fluid collaboration, 3) communication building trust and community, and 4)
voice and personal development. The
following narrative offers a brief explanation and examples typical of each
theme.
Theme 1: Professional outcomes. The participants reaffirmed past
researchers’ findings about professional benefits of working together. Reaching
past the well-known benefit of publishing journal articles, teachers discussed
their opportunities to engage in a new perspective and teach the research
process:
That whole
fresh outlook and way of looking at things. Energy, my goodness, I need that
sometimes the energy, but also the level of excitement they [students] can
bring.
I get to
teach my students about writing an article and the process like locating a
journal, writing to fit that journals’ language. Also, we have two great
publishing opportunities.
Students included gaining knowledge,
building resumes, and developing scholarly achievement.
It’s such a
great opportunity for professional development I think co-authorship really
responds to what scholarship is, …it’s not only researching something together,
but disseminating the results. . .there’s the building a project and then
sharing it with others with either writing or with a conference presentation.
We get to go
to a conference and hold a workshop. . .about our writing process and [that]
encourages other professors and students to work together. . . Just having the
opportunity of getting published, working with the professor, gaining more
knowledge on the topic that we’re writing about, and just writing a research
paper. . .keeps me going back because I do want to learn more.
Theme 2: Fluid collaboration. Teachers and students described
inter-reliance from the beginning through the end of the project. Each person
shared writing responsibilities and leading the project. Samples of teachers’
comments included:
. .
.collaborative co-authorship is when two or more people come together and work
on [a] project as a team and in this case, collaborative, …just the faculty and
the students working together … sharing ideas, brainstorming.
I think
co-authorship is more a continuum of reciprocity where the participants share
their expertise in creating a common product. Working together from the
beginning of the project, designing the research question together.
Similarly, students noted that collaborative co-authorship is a joint effort in which mutual relationships develop and each person contributes. Students concluded:
. .
.personally you get to build some really great interpersonal relationships.
They [teachers] want to know what I know too. . .a mutual learning, which is
really great because it gives me confidence. . .My professor, she’s my teacher,
my boss, my mentor, my friend. I feel
like I don’t want to let her down. I feel responsible to her and so we have
this great professional relationship and a really great close personal
relationship too, but it’s just so many levels.
Equal in a sense that I mean, you’re valued and your work is valued and you’re seen as equals in their eyes. So you’re not seen just a student…but as a colleague.
Theme 3: Communication building
trust and community. When working together, both students and teachers emphasized trust,
accountability, listening, support, and fun as crucial communication factors
that helped to deepen their relationship. Teachers noted:
I kind of
give them that trust. Trust is one way of making the partnership work. I’m also
held accountable for getting everything done on time. In a team it is very
important to be able to help the other person, support the other person and I
have to say, this team, we’re close and we’re cohesive and we’re there to
listen to each other.
The main
motivator for me, I think it helps me have more confidence in my thinking when
I can work with a student and have that sense of trust. The results are better.
Similarly, students also discussed trust
and accountability as motivating factors in completing their tasks and
maintaining the partnership.
The professor
trusts me to do good work because they asked me to be a part of that group and.
. .project. So having that trust motivates me to do my best and to complete my
work on time.
Working
together and saying hey I’m going to help you, I’m going to work on this with
you. That means you’re going to do your part, I’m going to do my part.
Teachers noted that their renewed commitment to listening was an
important communicative skill to gain insight about themselves and their
students. They commented:
It really
helped my listening skills and I realize that even over a short period of time
could we have built a sense of trust. So when this student had some
constructive things to say about the way something was written, I’d listen to
her and say, oh you’re right, that sounds better.
My student
co-authors had really valuable views and insights that I could not have gotten because
I’m in a different place than they are.
Participants described how they were able
to build close relationships by engaging in extra-curricular activities such as
sharing meals and attending campus events together. Participants explained the
need for balance between work and social activities. A teacher explained the
importance of non-work activities:
It’s a
relationship I think that needs to be built over time. For example yesterday we
went to lunch because we haven’t eaten together for a while so I think it’s
really important to hang out together spend time together.
A student also emphasized the importance
of creating an open and comfortable atmosphere when working with a team of
co-authors:
Fun with each
other was a nice balance to all of those very long hard hours that we’ve been
working together on research, data analysis, and coding. We sometimes would
take you know a couple minutes in the beginning of our meeting just to be able
to unwind and talk about our day. During our meetings we crack jokes. .
.lighten the mood so that everyone is really comfortable working together. We
have food at our meetings, we do a little potluck thing … to be able to build
up energy. But we have fun together and that’s what you need to have to be able
to balance the work load that you are doing.
Theme 4: Voice development. Both students and teachers explained
that the collaborative co-authorship helped them share their voices through
writing. They emphasized the significance of action research in gaining personal
insights and developing empathic understanding.
Teachers stated:
We examined
our relationship. Student as teacher, teacher as student, and for me it was
valuing their narratives with sharing the space together so that my voice
wasn’t necessarily the lead voice or the most important. But it goes back to me to honoring the voices of
all the participants.
We came to understand how participatory action research is something that could be used for teaching, learning kinds of organization for bringing in the student voice. . .We’re working in partnership and expressing how we think other people might want to use this model so see if it would work for them.
Students reflected on their writing
experience and how they had grown in understanding and responsibility. The
students concluded:
. . .benefits
of writing with my professor. Obviously it’s great to have a personal
connection with your professor because I think people view professors as. .
.you can’t get into contact with them, they’re not real people, they don’t have
real lives. . .they don’t have personalities.
Students
voices to me is just sharing what the students have to say about their learning
and what they have to say about what’s being taught in classes. And so student
voice is empowering students to share on a non-hierarchal level … where they
feel safe that they can talk to a professor.
In summary, this qualitative study
illustrates four important relationship themes surrounding teacher-student
collaborative co-authorship.
Discussion
In this study, researchers investigated
teacher and student perceptions of co-authoring a writing project and
perceptions of their relationship. The authors used qualitative methods, with
action research focus groups and interviews. Open-coding analysis uncovered
four themes with links to interpersonal communication. Theme one specifically, supported previous
scholarship which concluded that co-authorship provides professional benefits
for teachers and students, this study also pushed beyond professional gains to
demonstrate personal and relationship benefits. Prior researchers discussed
professional benefits of co-authorship such as publishing, conference
presentations, and student academic growth (Arthur et al., 2004; Oddi & Oddi, 2000). In theme
one, teachers and students in this study reported additional professional
outcomes, such as improved writing skills, fresh outlooks, mentorship, and the
opportunity to get to know each other as scholars. Researchers discovered three
additional themes that emphasized the importance of interpersonal communication
in productive co-authorship. For example, as theme two (fluid collaboration)
demonstrates, students and teachers found that mutual support was crucial to
their success. Their reliance on each other emphasized the need for
communicating mutual respect and an open climate to share unique ideas.
In theme three, the participants
established communication about trust and participation that enhanced their
sense of community. Teachers mentioned a new commitment to listening. Students
and teachers discussed non-work activities that enhanced a sense of equality.
Students and teachers advocated balance between work and fun in order to
succeed. Interaction that improved trust and accountability helped this
egalitarian balance.
In theme four, teachers and students
gained personal knowledge and voice by reflecting on their learning. Teachers’
thoughts about writing and curriculum were transformed by their student
insights (Pratt, 2008). Participants felt that they gained their voice by
presenting their results to each other as well as others.
Limitations of the study included concerns
about dependability of analytic interpretation because researchers developed
categories and themes through filtered personal lenses. Researchers cannot
completely overcome preconceptions during qualitative data analysis, although
awareness of bias mitigates the effects. To increase dependability, researchers
followed a tracking method, coded transcripts multiple times, and debriefed to
check for interpretive consensus.
The fact that narratives are specific to
these participants, a distinctive group of co-authors, also challenged
researchers’ interpretation of meaning. Yet, the themes drew directly on
participants’ words. The teacher-student reflection processes allowed them to
discover and explain their experience. With study participants who represented
different academic disciplines, credentials, and experience, researchers found
a rich range of meanings along with thematic commonalities. The diversity of
the teacher-student research team added to our confidence in synthesis and
interpretation.
Future researchers may focus on the
academic guidelines and ethics needed to facilitate successful teacher and
student co-authorship. Studies may also focus on potential relational and
communication challenges during co-authorship to prepare future participants
undergoing writing projects. A continued dialogue about teacher-student
co-authorship can evolve so that educators, researchers, and administrators may
further examine the dynamics of interpersonal communication needed for
successful collaboration. Given that teacher and student co-authors spend a
significant time establishing their relationship, further research may examine
the process of teacher-student co-authorship, from beginning to end.
Teachers from all fields can benefit from this research study by
resolving to listen in order to create a climate where interpersonal
communication is valued. Such focus
can foster a respectful partnership between teachers and students. This study
demonstrates that teachers’ research and practices are positively impacted by
integrating their students’ perspective. Contrary to the literature, we learned
that co-authors spend a great deal of time getting to know each other by
socializing before and after the meetings. This type of open relationship
allows for more informal and relaxed conversations. The co-authors often shared
meals, stories, and found ways to integrate humor into their relationship.
Effective communication, trust, and community building were key factors in
successfully undertaking these writing projects. Through co-authorship, both
students’ and teachers’ had increased feelings of safety in expressing their
voices. They were open to sharing diverse
experiences, challenging each others’ thoughts, and listening to one another’s
viewpoint to develop collaborative writing partnerships. With the move toward
collaborative work in academia, future teacher and student co-authors may
benefit from the personal outcomes of co-authorship as well as how to foster
effective interpersonal relationships. As one teacher concluded:
I teach what
I believe, I learn and value what students believe, and in turn the many voices
create a democratic education.
References
Ackley,
B. C., Colter, D. J., Marsh, B., & Sisco, R. (2003, April). Student
achievement in
democratic
classrooms. Paper presented at the 2003 annual meeting of the
American Educational Research Association,
Arthur, N., Anchan,
J. P., Este, D., Khanlou,
N., Kwok, S., & Mawani, F. (2004). Managing
faculty-student
collaborations in research and authorship. Canadian Journal
Counseling,
38(3), 177-192.
Baxter, L. A., & Babbie,
E. (2004). The basics of communication research.
Collins, P. H. (1990). Black feminist thought.
Deemer, S. (2009).
Using action research methodology to unite theory and practice. Teaching
Educational
Psychology, 3(3), 1-3.
Retrieved
Flutter, J. (2007). Teacher development
and pupil voice. The Curriculum Journal, 18(3), 343-
354. doi: 10.1080/09585170701589983
Foreman-Peck, L., & Murray, J. (2008).
Action research and policy. Journal of Philosophy of
Education, 42(S1), 145-163.
Gill, P., Stewart, K., Treasure, E., &
Chadwick, B. (2008). Methods of data collection in
qualitative
research: Interviews and focus groups. British Dental Journal,
204(6), 291-295.
Gould, C. A. (2000). Building classroom
communities at the university level. Childhood
Education, 77(2), 104-106.
Kesici, S. (2008).
Teachers’ opinion about building a democratic classroom. Journal of
Instructional
Psychology, 35(2), 192-203.
Lobo, J.,
& Vizcaino, A. (2006). Finding a voice through
research. Arts and Humanities in
Higher Education, 5(3), 305-316. doi:10.1177/147022206067627
Manton, E., & English, D. (2006).
Reasons for co-authorship in business journals and the extent
Guest
or gift authorships. Delta Pi Epsilon Journal,
48(2), 86-95.
Mitsoni, F. (2006). ‘I
get bored when we don’t have the opportunity to say our opinion’:
Learning
about teaching from students. Educational Review,
58(2), 159-170.
Navarro, J. J. (1992). Will teachers say what we
want to hear? Dilemmas of teacher voice.
Retrieved
Research on
Teacher Learning Web site http://ncrtl.msu.edu/
(
Nguyen, T., & Nguyen, T. D. (2006).
Authorship ethics: Issues and suggested guidelines for the
helping
professions. Counseling and Values, 50, 208-216.
Oddi, L. F., & Oddi, S. A. (2000). Student-faculty joint authorship:
Ethical and legal concerns.
Journal of
Professional Nursing, 16(4), 219-227.
Panitz, T. (1997). Collaborative versus cooperative learning: A comparison of the two
concepts
which will help us
understand the underlying nature of interactive learning. Retrieved
Pratt,
D. (2008). Lina’s letters: A 9-year-old’s perspective
on what matters most in the
classroom. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(7), 515-518.
Pryor, C. (2004). Creating a democratic
classroom: Three themes for citizen teacher reflection.
Kappa Delta Pi Record, 40(2), 78-82.
Saulnier, C. (2002). Groups as data collection
method and data analysis technique:
Multiple
perspectives on urban
social work education. Small Group Research,
31(5), 1-16. Retrieved
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1990). Basics to qualitative research:
Grounded theory
procedures and techniques (2nd ed.).
Tedder, M., Jones, P., & Mauger, S. (2008). Listening to learners. Adults Learning, 19(10),
24-26.
Veugelers, W., & De
Kat, E. (2002). Student voice in school leadership: Promoting dialogue
about
students’ views on teaching. Journal of School
Leadership, 12, 97-106.
Yin, R. (2003). Case study research:
Design and methods. Applied Social Research
Method
Series: Vol. 5 (3rd
ed.).