Study shows improved writing and team writing experience

Joseph Moses and Jason Tham
Department of Writing Studies, University of Minnesota

Preparing students for team-based writing: assessing an agile writing framework for college classrooms

This report summarizes classroom trials of team-based learning using an agile writing framework. We compare student essays about their experience of working in writing teams before and after learning the Agile writing framework in technical communication courses. Second, we explore the framework’s impact on student writing by comparing essays using six analytical measures: focus, purpose, analysis, style, structure, and clarity.

Methods

Researchers used a two-part strategy for measuring 1) instructional effectiveness of the framework and 2) its impact on student attitudes toward writing in teams. In fall of 2016, the Agile Writing Project (AWP) held rating sessions on writing from two sections of technical and professional writing, an advanced undergraduate writing-intensive course at the University of Minnesota.

Three readers rated six featurs of student writing--focus, purpose, analysis, style, structure, and clarity--on a four-point scale, assessing whether each features was Not present, Insufficiently Present, Approaching Sufficiency, or Sufficiently Present. An agile writing survey during weeks two and twelve captures student attitudes toward team writing prior to experience with agile writing and after ten weeks of experience using the model.

Results

Table 1, below, shows levels of writing achievement by the end of the course, based on assessment of six writing features. Raters near the end of the semester assessed 57.58% of essays at higher levels of achievement, 30.30% at the same level of achievement as near the beginning of the semeseter, and 12.12% of essays at lower achievement in the six criteria.

Table 1. Assessing the same student essays about perceptions of team writing, independent raters measured achievement prior to and after using the Agile Writing framework.

When students wrote short essays in Week 2 of the semester, of the thirty-three students who also completed the week 12 essay assignment, 48.48% reported having had mostly positive team writing experience in past college courses, and 45.45% reported having had mostly negative team writing experience in past college courses. About 6% reported having had no prior team writing experience.

In week twelve of the semester, of the same thirty-three students, 84.85% described their team writing experience as mostly positive regardless of previous experience. Changes in attitude represent a 75% increase in positive team writing experience and 66.67% decrease in negative team writing experience. From these early early results, we hypothesize that Agile writing is a feasible framework for improving student team writing experience, while aksing whether improvements represent correlations of specific elements of the framework with qualities of student writing.

Table 2. A strong majority of students described their team writing experience when using Agile Writing as mostly positive whether previous team writing experience had been mostly positive, mostly negative, or non-existent.

Table 3, following, outlines student perceptions of positive and negative experiences with team writing during the ten-week period between surveys.

Positive experience with team writing

Combinations of skills contribute to overall team performance

Questions answered by teammates

Giving and receiving help when teammates are “stumped” by a requirement

“I feel like my writing has developed well along with my teamwork in an academic setting. I found that communication is key and being accountable for yourself and your teammates will go a long ways.”

“During Project 2, my group met up outside of class to work on the project and this proved to be helpful for me. It was also helpful for me to have group meetings during class time where we were able to share ideas and answer questions.”

“Overall, group work this semester was a positive experience because our team had a good work ethic and we were able to combine our unique talents to complete the work. “

“I was most worried about my topic of wearable technologies in Youth Studies, but with the help of my team mates, I was able to push through and find a topic that worked with my field and it was thanks to my team mates.”

“The projects being on google drive helped with inspiration of what to write, as well ideas for how to organize my writing while still staying within the binds of how the project needed to be assembled.

"The Structure of my group also contributed positively to the experience through a decisive yet not elongated decision making process.

"This decision making process was enhanced by the consistent attendance and engagement provided by team members.

"Last up is the revision history on google docs; this feature allows teammates to see when and what a team member added to or worked on. This information means that assigning accountability for the completion of work on schedule was easy and clear. The increased accountability contributed positively to the experience.”

Negative experience with team writing

Writing problems persist (vague pronouns, vague passives)

“During one project my team decided to write our thesis in a way that reflected the opposing opinion of mine. I felt that the research led to points that would have been easier to support with a different thesis.”

“There were a few slip ups, such as a few of my group members missing multiple class periods”

“My team experienced some minor conflict in the storming stage where a team member deleted materials on accident and missed planned deadlines and class time."

“two of my teammates dropped in the first few weeks because they couldn’t handle the work load or the team writing, which shows they didn’t have faith in the team working together.“

“My peer edits weren’t done until the night that they were due, giving me less time to do my edits for the final drafts.”

“My team took its time developing a thesis, took its time deciding the exact types of research we did, and took its time its time writing the analytical report until the day it was due. This last point caused lots of stress on us to meet all the requirements for the paper. “

“One reason for the negativity was because of my team coordinating poorly with the class’s projects.” “Most of the time, the writing experiences made me believe that only about half of the group was on the same page or willing to put in sufficient effort in comparison to the rest of the group when it came to our projects."

Table 3. Positive and negative experiences with team writing projects point to the presence or absence of commitment and trust in writing teams--and to fruitful new directions in instructional design for team-based writing and learning.

Data are based on a small number of students and are subject to the limitations of quasi-experimental research designs, including the inability to control for all factors that may have influenced outcomes. For example, were levels of achievement due to student experience in agile writing teams or to situational factors while writing essays? We will continue to assess student writing and student attitudes toward writing and learning in teams to identify patterns and themes that emerge from the data.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the suggestions and insights of many colleagues at the University of Minnesota. Thank you to members of the Wearables Research Collaboratory who supported this project: Ann Hill Duin, whose Joan Aldous Diversity Grant funded independent rater assessments, conducted by Azana Adefris, Alexander Westgaard, Nathan Ernst; Megan McGrath and the entire WRC team for vital contributions throughout the research process. The UMN Center for Educational Innovation(CEI) and Liberal Arts Technology Innovation Services (LATIS) supported our research design: J.D. Walker, CEI, Paul Baepler, CEI, Thomas Lindsay, LATIS, Andrew Sell, LATIS, and Michael Beckstrand, LATIS. The WAC/WEC Program for insights on the agile writing framework: Pamela Flash, Molly Bendzick, Daniel Emery, Matthew Luskey, and Katie Levin.