Collaboration Is Not Collaboration Is Not Collaboration

Similar to Rebecca Moore Howard, Muriel Harris (1992) recognizes the need for collaboration in the writing process. As she examines writing center tutoring and peer responses, in Collaboration Is Not Collaboration Is Not Collaboration: Writing Center Tutorials vs. Peer-Response Groups, readers learn the significant differences and benefits to the approaches. To sum it all up, Harris (1992) explains, "Collaborative writing thus refers to products of multiple authors while collaboratively learning about writing involves interaction between writer and reader to help the writer improve her own abilities and produce her own text - though, of course, her final product is influenced by the collaboration with others" (370). Tutors focus on the quality of the writer regarding all works, where peers focus on a single writing - usually referring back to instructors' expectations and guidelines for the assignment. For instance, when I visit Temple's Writing Center I often get feedback on reoccurring writing errors: awkward phrasing and no more than two themes per paragraph. Therefore, I have learned when proofreading to recognize phrasing that is difficult for my reader and to move lines for appropriate placement or order. Peers often do not point out grammatical errors. In my experience they focus on the content. Is the argument, of my paper, clear and comprehensible. Have I spent enough time developing the material? All this is helpful to me as writer and reader. Through both processes, I can provide constructive feedback for my peers' and students' papers.

Harris (1992) informs us that tutors have more free range and time to "find out what a particular writer's needs and interests are" (375).  Although writing tutors are discouraged from using directive comments, they are trained to use a product-oriented method to identify strengths and weaknesses; which focus on successful questioning and listening skills. The more information a tutor receives from a writer, the more material there is to work from in generating ideas, approaches, and evaluation of outlines or drafts. Tutors are guides, not editors. Their role leads writers to their own answers. Instructors who believe they are a resource for a process and not a product encourage writing tutors and peer responses. Teachers use peer-response groups to provide opportunities for students to build awareness of readers and critical reading skills, as well as motivate students to revise following the exposure to various writing styles. Some, educators use structured response sheets that express specific suggestions and highlight areas of concern. Providing a handout may be limiting to students; however, it provides a series of focal points for the peer reader, emphasizes the instructor's assignment expectations, and requests constructive feedback within an allotted time frame.
Obviously there are disadvantages to both collaborative writing processes. Harris (1992) communicates, "Given the advantages and disadvantages of tutoring and group work, then, there is indeed a solid argument to be made for helping our students experience and reap the benefits of both forms of collaboration" (381). Tutors may take over writer's work or contradict a student's instructor's feedback. Peer responses may not be as helpful due to a lack of constructive criticism or a writer's rejection to peer response. Whichever method is put into practice, it is important to note there is a significant amount of preparation that takes place for writer development.  Writing centers train tutors and provide a space to be productive. Teacher's spend time grouping students, planning for misunderstandings, and developing useful response sheets. All benefit the writer. Adopt the both/and belief for good writing.
Writing Center + Peer Response = Developed Writing!