Are we talking about the same thing?


with transposing the understanding of collaboration in the literature directly into EAP contexts is that most collaboration research tends to focus more on shorter, in-class activities, where students are co-constructing a text and are negotiating on an individual word choice level (Storch, 2019). Expecting the same level of discussion and negotiation on an assignment which may last weeks, or potentially a semester, is not realistic, especially as collaboration may be taking place synchronously or asynchronously, either face-to-face or in online environments. The use of online environments or


computer-mediated communication (CMC) has grown in popularity along with collaborative writing and indeed, they complement each other (Godwin-Jones, 2018). Godwin-Jones (2018) also identifies that, in writing assignments that utilise CMC, learners engage greatly with the writing process and he echoes Elola and Oskoz’s (2017, p. 63) findings that employing digital tools in collaborative writing leads to ‘drafting and revising in a more recursive way’ than more traditional writing with pen and paper. Zheng and Warschauer (2017) highlight that literacy no longer simply means being able to read and write, but also includes digital literacy. CMC and collaborative writing are natural bedfellows in the modern EAP course.


BRIDGING THE GAP


Given the range of practitioner responses as to what collaboration is, and the distance some of those are from the understanding of collaboration in the literature, the following is proposed as a definition of student collaboration in EAP. A collaborative assignment is one where learners work together and make equitable contributions


101


to develop an indivisible artefact for which they share responsibility and ownership. During the development of the artefact, learners may work synchronously or asynchronously, face-to-face or online, but there is interdependence between group members, drawing on all their strengths.


This definition brings together the focus of the understanding of collaboration in the literature, in terms of students working together with shared responsibility to create a product over which they have shared ownership, and the realities of the EAP context, wherein students may be engaged in the process of developing extended assignments over a longer period of time. It is hoped this definition will enable EAP practitioners to reflect on practice, to change the way we talk about collaboration, to develop new ways of supporting collaborative assignments, and to open new avenues for research.


In relation to practitioner reflection, it is worth considering the case of the task most widely accepted as collaborative in the survey. There was almost complete agreement amongst practitioners that students presenting together represented collaboration (97% of respondents) and clearly the students are all involved during the delivery of the presentation and share responsibility for how it goes. However, marking rubrics for group presentations the authors are familiar with tend to assign grades to the group for presentation features like content, organisation, visual aids and use of support, with individual grades awarded to each speaker on delivery and, perhaps, how they deal with questions from the audience. While this general approach to the assessment of group presentations has face validity, a potential concern is that it ignores the process of how the presentation


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34  |  Page 35  |  Page 36  |  Page 37  |  Page 38  |  Page 39  |  Page 40  |  Page 41  |  Page 42  |  Page 43  |  Page 44  |  Page 45  |  Page 46  |  Page 47  |  Page 48  |  Page 49  |  Page 50  |  Page 51  |  Page 52  |  Page 53  |  Page 54  |  Page 55  |  Page 56  |  Page 57  |  Page 58  |  Page 59  |  Page 60  |  Page 61  |  Page 62  |  Page 63  |  Page 64  |  Page 65  |  Page 66  |  Page 67  |  Page 68  |  Page 69  |  Page 70  |  Page 71  |  Page 72  |  Page 73  |  Page 74  |  Page 75  |  Page 76  |  Page 77  |  Page 78  |  Page 79  |  Page 80  |  Page 81  |  Page 82  |  Page 83  |  Page 84  |  Page 85  |  Page 86  |  Page 87  |  Page 88  |  Page 89  |  Page 90  |  Page 91  |  Page 92  |  Page 93  |  Page 94  |  Page 95  |  Page 96  |  Page 97  |  Page 98  |  Page 99  |  Page 100  |  Page 101  |  Page 102  |  Page 103  |  Page 104  |  Page 105  |  Page 106  |  Page 107  |  Page 108  |  Page 109  |  Page 110  |  Page 111  |  Page 112  |  Page 113  |  Page 114  |  Page 115  |  Page 116  |  Page 117  |  Page 118  |  Page 119  |  Page 120  |  Page 121  |  Page 122  |  Page 123  |  Page 124  |  Page 125  |  Page 126  |  Page 127  |  Page 128  |  Page 129  |  Page 130  |  Page 131  |  Page 132  |  Page 133  |  Page 134  |  Page 135  |  Page 136  |  Page 137  |  Page 138  |  Page 139  |  Page 140  |  Page 141  |  Page 142  |  Page 143  |  Page 144  |  Page 145  |  Page 146  |  Page 147  |  Page 148  |  Page 149  |  Page 150  |  Page 151  |  Page 152  |  Page 153  |  Page 154  |  Page 155  |  Page 156  |  Page 157  |  Page 158  |  Page 159  |  Page 160  |  Page 161  |  Page 162  |  Page 163  |  Page 164  |  Page 165  |  Page 166  |  Page 167  |  Page 168  |  Page 169  |  Page 170  |  Page 171  |  Page 172  |  Page 173  |  Page 174  |  Page 175  |  Page 176  |  Page 177  |  Page 178  |  Page 179  |  Page 180  |  Page 181  |  Page 182  |  Page 183  |  Page 184  |  Page 185  |  Page 186  |  Page 187  |  Page 188  |  Page 189  |  Page 190  |  Page 191  |  Page 192  |  Page 193  |  Page 194  |  Page 195  |  Page 196  |  Page 197  |  Page 198  |  Page 199  |  Page 200  |  Page 201  |  Page 202  |  Page 203  |  Page 204  |  Page 205  |  Page 206  |  Page 207  |  Page 208  |  Page 209  |  Page 210  |  Page 211  |  Page 212  |  Page 213  |  Page 214  |  Page 215  |  Page 216  |  Page 217  |  Page 218  |  Page 219  |  Page 220  |  Page 221  |  Page 222  |  Page 223  |  Page 224  |  Page 225  |  Page 226  |  Page 227  |  Page 228  |  Page 229  |  Page 230  |  Page 231  |  Page 232  |  Page 233  |  Page 234  |  Page 235  |  Page 236  |  Page 237  |  Page 238  |  Page 239  |  Page 240  |  Page 241  |  Page 242  |  Page 243  |  Page 244  |  Page 245  |  Page 246  |  Page 247  |  Page 248  |  Page 249  |  Page 250  |  Page 251  |  Page 252  |  Page 253  |  Page 254  |  Page 255  |  Page 256  |  Page 257  |  Page 258  |  Page 259  |  Page 260  |  Page 261  |  Page 262  |  Page 263  |  Page 264  |  Page 265  |  Page 266  |  Page 267  |  Page 268  |  Page 269  |  Page 270  |  Page 271  |  Page 272  |  Page 273  |  Page 274  |  Page 275  |  Page 276  |  Page 277  |  Page 278  |  Page 279  |  Page 280  |  Page 281  |  Page 282  |  Page 283  |  Page 284  |  Page 285  |  Page 286  |  Page 287  |  Page 288  |  Page 289  |  Page 290  |  Page 291  |  Page 292  |  Page 293  |  Page 294  |  Page 295  |  Page 296  |  Page 297  |  Page 298  |  Page 299