COLLABORATIVE EXPERIENCES OF TECH COMM STUDENTS 1

“Collaborative Experiences of Technical Communication Students”

Alyssa Herman

Illinois State University, Fall 2019

COLLABORATIVE EXPERIENCES OF TECH COMM STUDENTS 2

In the field of technical communication, collaboration is absolutely necessary and often

unavoidable. Wolfe (2010) gives two main reasons why instructors might assign collaborative

work:

1. “To prepare students for the workplace by providing opportunities to learn the

social and organizational skills necessary for productive teamwork” (p. 5).

2. “To improve the educational experience through collaboration with fellow

students. Educational research suggests that people learn the most when working

with peers toward a common goal” (p. 5).

In most workplaces, teamwork and collaborative writing have become the norm because

individual work is rarely as productive or insightful (Wolfe, 2010; England & Brewer, 2018).

This is especially true for technical communicators, as they regularly work in teams and consult

subject matter experts to gather accurate information. For this reason, England & Brewer (2018)

argue that technical communication courses must incorporate collaborative work because

“[e]ffective use of collaboration supports rich and authentic contexts where students are more

engaged and where their learning accurately reflects workplace contexts” (p. 159). In addition,

collaboration in the technical communication classroom “often results in superior work, learning,

and retention . . . Collaborative assignments can also result in learning that simply was not

addressed before, or learning that is more readily transferred” (England & Brewer, 2018, p. 173).

Collaborative work gives students the opportunity to teach and learn from each other, which in

turn allows students to rely on each other’s expertise rather than solely on the instructor’s. While

collaboration in the classroom has many benefits, we must acknowledge that it is not directly

equivalent to collaboration in a workplace setting. Wolfe (2010) notes that “[u]nlike school-

based teams, work-based teams can develop longer histories of working together and are more
COLLABORATIVE EXPERIENCES OF TECH COMM STUDENTS 3

likely to have clear-cut lines of authority. Thus, school-based teams have some unique

challenges that are not present in work-based teams” (p. 5-6). For this reason, if collaborative

work is not carefully handled, students may have a negative experience and leave the class

feeling like their learning has been compromised (England & Brewer, 2018). As instructors, it is

important to respect students’ past experiences with collaborative work and consider where

teamwork tends to break down. I believe the best way to do this is by asking technical

communication students directly and considering their collaborative experiences from a student’s

perspective rather than solely from an instructor’s perspective.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY AND METHODS

Grounded Theory

First, it is important to note that this pilot study is informed by grounded theory. In

Constructing Grounded Theory, Charmaz (2014) draws upon the work of Glaser and Strauss

who “advocated developing theories from research grounded in qualitative data rather than

deducing testable hypotheses from existing theories” (p. 6). Similarly, Charmaz (2014) argues

that grounded theory “researchers construct a theory ‘grounded’ in their data. Grounded theory

begins with inductive data, invokes iterative strategies of going back and forth between data and

analysis, uses comparative methods, and keeps you interacting and involved with your data and

emerging analysis” (p. 1). In other words, instead of preselecting existing theories and trying to

force data to fit those theories, grounded theory allows the data to speak for itself. Rather than

coming in with preconceived notions and trying to find data to prove those notions, researchers

practicing grounded theory must analyze—and reanalyze—data with an open mind to create

theories based on the data as a whole. Charmaz (2014) contends that grounded theory researchers
COLLABORATIVE EXPERIENCES OF TECH COMM STUDENTS 4

“evaluate the fit between their initial research interests and their emerging data. We do not force

preconceived ideas and theories on our data. Rather, we follow leads that we define in the data,

or design another way of collecting data to pursue our initial interests” (p. 32). Grounded theory

is an important methodological framework—especially for a study such as this—because as a

researcher, I do not want to impose my theoretical interests on the experiences of others. I could

easily apply pedagogical theories to this data and only study it from my perspective as an

instructor. However, I believe this would be a disservice to the student participants and would

not accurately reflect their experiences and contributions to this study.

Survey and Participants

When I first began this study, I wanted to better understand how technical

communication students experience and personally assess collaborative work and collaborative

writing in the classroom. With this goal in mind, I crafted the following research questions:

• How do technical communication students experience collaborative work in the

classroom, especially collaborative writing?

• How do students personally assess collaborative work/collaborative writing in the

classroom?

• How do students determine if a collaborative experience has been positive, negative, or

neutral?

These three research questions ultimately informed my decision to create a 7-question survey

(see Appendix A) where I asked participants to:

• Identify the kinds of group work they had previously participated in;
COLLABORATIVE EXPERIENCES OF TECH COMM STUDENTS 5

• Share specific instances or stories regarding their collaborative work and collaborative

writing experiences;

• Rate their overall experience with collaborative work and collaborative writing in a

classroom setting.

I specifically decided on a Qualtrics survey as my method of data collection because it allowed

me to ask students about their experiences in a totally anonymous way. Since I would be

surveying students who did not know me, I suspected that they would be more comfortable

sharing their collaborative experiences—positive or negative—in an anonymous online setting.

After my study was approved by the IRB1, I distributed the survey to 28 students at Illinois State

University who were currently enrolled in either English 249: Technical Writing I or English

349: Technical Writing II. These participants are mixed majors and are both undergraduate and

graduate students. Having taken one or two technical communication courses, I knew these

participants would have a unique perspective on collaborative work in the classroom and would

be able to answer my research questions. In my coding and data analysis, I exclusively used in

vivo codes to preserve students’ authentic experiences and empower student voices. To continue

to protect student anonymity, I will refer to participants as P1, P2, P3, etc, and I will use the

gender neutral they/their pronouns. I will also refer to questions as Q1, Q2, Q3, etc in the

following sections.

CODING, DATA ANALYSIS, AND FINDINGS

Comparing Qualitative and Quantitative Data

In this survey, I collected both qualitative and quantitative data. In Q3 and Q6, I asked

1
Illinois State University IRB-2019-481
COLLABORATIVE EXPERIENCES OF TECH COMM STUDENTS 6

participants to share a specific story or instance that came to mind (qualitative data), then in Q4

and Q7, I asked participants to rank their overall experience as positive, neutral, or negative

(quantitative data). I specifically asked for the qualitative data first because I did not want the

quantitative ranking to affect or change the stories participants wanted to share. For example, if

participants ranked their overall experience as positive first, then they might be more likely to

share a positive story following that ranking. In Q3 and Q4, I asked participants about group

work in general, and in Q6 and Q7, I specifically asked participants about group writing, which I

defined in Q5 as producing a written document with one or more team members. In the

following paragraphs, I will compare the qualitative and quantitative data I received for these

questions.

For Q3, I asked the following: “What has been your overall experience with group work

in a classroom setting? Is there a specific instance that comes to mind? If so, please share your

story!” When coding this qualitative data, I went through and sorted participants’ stories into

three categories: positive, neutral, or negative. If participants shared a positive experience or

explicitly labeled the experience as “good,” then I coded it as positive. If participants shared both

a positive and negative experience and compared the two different experiences, then I coded it as

neutral. I also coded participants’ stories as neutral if they explicitly labeled their experience as

“mediocre,” “average,” or “okay.” Finally, if participants shared a negative experience or

explicitly labeled the experience as “bad,” then I coded it as negative. From my coding of Q3, I

found that 9 participants shared positive stories, 4 participants shared neutral stories, and 15

participants shared negative stories.

COLLABORATIVE EXPERIENCES OF TECH COMM STUDENTS 7

For Q4, I asked the following: “How would you assess your overall experience with

group work in a classroom setting?” Participants then had to choose either positive, neutral, or

negative to rank their overall experience with group work. From this quantitative data, I found

that 13 participants ranked their overall experience as positive, 11 participants ranked their

overall experience as neutral, and 4 participants ranked their overall experience as negative.

From this combined qualitative and quantitative data, I created a table to compare Q3 and Q4

(see Table 1).

Table 1: A comparison of the qualitative data from Q3 and the quantitative data from Q4.

From Table 1, it is important to note that while 15 participants shared negative stories or

experiences with group work, 13 participants still ranked their overall experience with group

work as positive. From this data, we can see that participants were more likely to share a

negative experience they had with group work—possibly because the negative experience was an

instance that first came to mind or best illustrated their concerns regarding group work.
COLLABORATIVE EXPERIENCES OF TECH COMM STUDENTS 8

However, the experiences participants chose to share did not necessarily reflect their overall

attitude toward group work in general.

Interestingly, similar data emerged from Q6 and Q7. Since I was asking about a particular

form of group work—group writing—I set up Q6 and Q7 by asking Q5: “Have you ever

participated in collaborative writing (or group writing) in a classroom setting? (e.g. Have you

ever produced a written document with one or more team members?).” Here, I defined group

writing for participants who may have had a different definition of group writing or had not

realized they had participated in group writing in the past. If participants responded that they had

not been a part of a group writing project or they weren’t sure if they had or not, then they were

taken to the end of the survey. These participants would not be able to answer Q6 and Q7 if they

had not participated in group writing. Therefore, only participants who answered yes to Q5 were

taken to Q6 and Q7. For this reason, there were only 25 participants who responded to Q6 and

Q7, as 3 participants opted out.

For Q6, I asked the following: “What has been your overall experience with collaborative

writing (or group writing) in a classroom setting? Is there a specific instance that comes to mind?

If so, please share your story!” When sorting this qualitative data, I went through the same

process as I did for Q3. Based on participants’ responses, I coded the experiences they shared as

positive, neutral, or negative. From my coding of Q6, I found that 7 participants shared positive

stories, 7 participants shared neutral stories, and 11 participants shared negative stories.

For Q7, I asked the following: “How would you assess your overall experience with

collaborative writing (or group writing) in a classroom setting?” Participants then had to choose
COLLABORATIVE EXPERIENCES OF TECH COMM STUDENTS 9

either positive, neutral, or negative to rank their overall experience with group writing. From this

quantitative data, I found that 14 participants ranked their overall experience as positive, 10

participants ranked their overall experience as neutral, and 1 participant ranked their overall

experience as negative. From this combined qualitative and quantitative data, I created a table to

compare Q6 and Q7 (see Table 2).

Table 2: A comparison of the qualitative data from Q6 and the quantitative data from Q7.

From Table 2, it is important to note that while 11 participants shared negative stories or

experiences in regards to group writing, 14 participants still ranked their overall experience with

group writing as positive. Again, we can see that participants were more likely to share a

negative experience, but they did not necessarily view group writing in general as negative. This

data suggests that the negative cultural narrative surrounding collaborative work may not

accurately reflect students’ lived experiences. While students may be more willing to share—and
COLLABORATIVE EXPERIENCES OF TECH COMM STUDENTS 10

more likely to remember—negative experiences with collaborative work and writing, these

specific instances do not directly correspond to overall experiences.

Collaborative Work as Metaphorical Labor

From the qualitative data I collected (Q3 and Q6), two in vivo codes emerged that used

metaphors to explain collaborative work as a form of manual labor: “hit or miss” and “falls short

of their work” / “does not pull their weight.” The in vivo code “hit or miss” emerged from P2

and P26. P2 noted that “Group work in the classroom setting can be hit or miss.” Similarly, P26

wrote that “Overall, working in groups has been hit or miss.” I thought it was interesting that two

participants specifically used the phrasing “hit or miss,” so this became an in vivo code for group

work that has varied drastically depending on the peers that participants are paired with. This

code also represents participants who felt their group work experience has been average or

mediocre—meaning they’ve had just as many positive group work experiences as negative. In

total, 11 participants used similar language to describe their overall group work experience and

fall under this code.

The in vivo code “falls short of their work” / “does not pull their weight” emerged from

P3 and P4. This grouping of codes emerged because participants felt they took on more

responsibility than their group members, or more responsibility “fell” on them because group

members weren’t “pulling their weight.” This grouping of codes specifically deals with a lack of

contribution from other group members, so participants were left feeling frustrated and

overwhelmed with the amount of work they had to take on by themselves. In total, I have placed

16 participants under this code because they used similar language to describe their experiences

with other group members. I was specifically interested in the metaphors of “falling” and
COLLABORATIVE EXPERIENCES OF TECH COMM STUDENTS 11

“pulling,” which refer to group work as manual labor. Three participants used “fall” as a

metaphor:

P2: “Group work . . . tends to fall on certain members.”

P3: “Most of the time there is at least one person who falls short of their work in one way

or another.”

P8: “Most of the work at the end of the project fell into my lap.”

In these cases, participants used “fall” as a metaphor to indicate that the experience was out of

their control. Group members did not complete their work, so participants were forced to take up

additional responsibilities. Similarly, two participants used “pull their weight” as a metaphor:

P4: “There is always someone who does not pull their weight in the group and it requires

others to take up more work than planned.”

P15: “I think that group work goes well when everyone is on the same page and everyone

is pulling their weight for the work.”

In these cases, participants are concerned with equity and group members who do not do their

“fair” share. Overall, I find it interesting and significant that participants expressed their negative

collaborative experiences in metaphors—especially metaphors that deal with physical work or

manual labor. This suggests that students view collaborative work as a mental and physical

activity that may be more than just emotionally taxing.

Collaborative Writing as Disjointed and Lacking Cohesion

Two in vivo codes emerged specifically in relation to collaborative writing: “separate but

‘group’ effort” / “split up” and “lacks cohesion.” The in vivo code “separate but ‘group’ effort”

emerged from P5. This participant expressed that group writing was almost always disjointed
COLLABORATIVE EXPERIENCES OF TECH COMM STUDENTS 12

and more of an individual effort. Similarly, P22 wrote “We did not collaborate, we just sectioned

off the essay to assign each other different parts. In the end we got a good grade but I didn’t

understand why we didn’t just write a paper individually.” 5 participants specifically mentioned

that group writing seemed “split” or “divided,” and in total, 9 participants fall under this code.

Ultimately, this grouping of codes deals with the ways in which collaborative writing is divided

amongst team members—specifically divided to the point where team members are no longer

communicating or collaborating with each other.

Similarly, the in vivo code “lacks cohesion” emerged from P24 who noted that group

writing felt divided because the final document often lacks cohesion. P21 also noted “With

collaborative writing, people tend to split up the work so it’s not so overwhelming. However, this

is when the paper finds problems in its cohesiveness; not everyone has the same writing style.”

In total, 5 participants fall under this code and used similar language. 3 participants were

concerned with the “flow” of the final document, while 2 participants specifically mentioned

“cohesion” as a common issue. In this way, the in vivo code “lacks cohesion” closely relates to

the previous code. Participants were concerned with the cohesion of final collaborative

documents because the separate sections still appeared to be individually written. These

participants complicate assumptions we often make about collaborative writing and how it

operates. Collaborative writing is not automatically or inherently collaborative, as students may

divide work and write individually without ever collaborating with their team. These participants

have experienced and expressed that divide, which for some has led to a negative collaborative

writing experience.
COLLABORATIVE EXPERIENCES OF TECH COMM STUDENTS 13

Student Solutions to Collaborative Complications

While the above sections deal more with participants’ negative collaborative experiences,

participants also expressed positive experiences and articulated what made those experiences

positive, as the in vivo codes “smaller groups” and “Google Docs” / “simultaneous

collaboration” emerged. The in vivo code “smaller groups” emerged from P9, P18, and P24, who

directly link positive group work experiences to smaller groups:

P9: “With group work that includes usually three or more people, I feel as if there is

always one or more people who do not contribute substantially to the work/project. I

think this happens because they assume the other two or more people can do it instead of

being held more accountable by one person.”

P18: “I have had good experiences with working in smaller groups of three students. I

believe smaller groups allow for work to be evenly shared among group members.”

P24: “Generally, with work and discussions that are done in class in small numbers, I

have a positive experience. However, in larger groups (especially 4) and those that meet

outside of the classroom, I have had a large amount of negative experiences.”

In these 3 cases, participants linked positive experiences to smaller groups and negative

experiences to larger groups. In total, there were 9 participants who expressed positive

experiences in smaller groups and fall under this code. Overall, participants considered smaller

groups to be more productive in terms of communication and participation.

Surprisingly, the in vivo code “Google Docs” was specifically mentioned by 5

participants, and each participant spoke positively about the platform. P19 wrote that “we . . .

work simultaneously on a Google Doc until it’s complete, spot checking each other’s work as we

go along. Simultaneous collaboration is my favorite form of group work.” These participants

COLLABORATIVE EXPERIENCES OF TECH COMM STUDENTS 14

specifically valued Google Docs because it gave them the ability to collaborate simultaneously—

or read, write, and comment on the same document at the same time—which made their group

writing experiences more positive. These codes suggest that students would prefer to work in

smaller groups and would prefer to work on a platform that allows for simultaneous, real-time

collaboration, as these group settings encourage higher levels of participation.

IMPLICATIONS FOR FURTHER RESEARCH

The goal of this study was to see how technical communication students at Illinois State

University experience collaborative work and collaborative writing in the classroom and how

they personally assess collaborative experiences. Through the use of grounded theory and in vivo

codes, I aimed to preserve student voices and accurately represent their lived experiences. Since

this was a small pilot study and I was limited to only one semester of research, further research

could be done to investigate the collaborative experiences of technical communication students.

Through the investigation of technical communication students’ embodied knowledges, I hope

we can reveal ways to shape more equitable, accessible, and positive collaborative experiences

for students.
COLLABORATIVE EXPERIENCES OF TECH COMM STUDENTS 15

References

Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing Grounded Theory. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

England, P. S., & Brewer, P. E. (2018). What Do Instructors Need to Know about Teaching

Collaboration? In T. Bridgeford (Ed.), Teaching Professional and Technical

Communication: A Practicum in a Book (pp. 159-175). Logan, UT: Utah State University

Press.

Wolfe, J. (2010). Team Writing: A Guide to Working in Groups. Boston, MA: Bedford/St.

Martin’s.
COLLABORATIVE EXPERIENCES OF TECH COMM STUDENTS 16

Appendix A: Survey Questions

1. Please provide the following demographic information. These are short answer questions

so that you can self-identify as you normally would. If you are not comfortable sharing

any of the following demographic information, then you may leave that field blank.

Note: Do not include any information that could personally identify you.

a. Declared Major

b. Age

c. Gender

d. Race/Ethnicity

e. Disability (Write N/A if not applicable)

2. What experiences have you had with collaboration in the classroom? In other words,

what experiences have you had with group work in a classroom setting? Please select all

that apply.

a. Small-group discussions

b. Think-pair-share (e.g. think individually, pair up in groups, share with class)

c. Reciprocal teaching (e.g. group teaching, leading group discussions, etc…)

d. Group assignments (e.g. small, informal group assignments)

e. Group projects (e.g. large, high-stakes group projects)

f. Other

3. What has been your overall experience with group work in a classroom setting? Is there a

specific instance that comes to mind? If so, please share your story!

4. How would you assess your overall experience with group work in a classroom setting?

a. Positive
COLLABORATIVE EXPERIENCES OF TECH COMM STUDENTS 17

b. Negative

c. Neutral

5. Have you ever participated in collaborative writing (or group writing) in a classroom

setting? (e.g. Have you ever produced a written document with one or more team

members?)

a. Yes

b. No

c. I’m not sure

6. What has been your overall experience with collaborative writing (or group writing) in a

classroom setting? Is there a specific instance that comes to mind? If so, please share

your story!

7. How would you assess your overall experience with collaborative writing (or group

writing) in a classroom setting?

a. Positive

b. Negative

c. Neutral