Academic paper writers
For both pairs of writers, planning for this task did not require the exu nsive evaluation and re- structuring of content knowledge according to the con- straints or multiple audiences or specific text struc- tures. Thus, academic paper writers their planning sessions were appropri- ately simpler and focused on sharing information.
Summary and Impucations The two most salient issues illustrated by these case studies are the adaptation of collaborative plan- ning techniques by the college writers and the need for students to understand the purpose of planning and to engage in defining rhetorical issues in planning as illustrated by the experiences of the high school stu- dents. The college writers showed both the ability to transform content knowledge to meet rhetorical con- cerns and flexibility in adapting to the demands of different writing tasks. Although the college students adapted more quickly to collaborative planning than the high school students, Nancy, Julie, Fred, and Dana did not follow a predesigned pattern in theii planning sessions. In fact, they proved adept at both adapting their collaborations according to great differences in the state of their con- id ERIC Collaborative Planning: Concepts, Processes, and Assign-ments S3 79 tent knowledge and nveeting the different rhetorical and practical constraints of assignments.
The final planning session for both pairs of writers illustrates that knowledge-driven plan- ning may fruitfully dominate planning sessions when the writers recognize that such strategies are a good match with the task at hand. These portraits also illustrate that instruction interventions like collaborative planning must be seen by both teachers and students as flexible heuristics and must be adapted both to the constraints of a writing task and to the needs of a given writer. The experiences of the high school students argue that students must take charge if instruction interventionssuch as collabo- rative planning are to lead to rhetorical planning and knowledge transfomnation. For Craig, Ed, Alicia, and Maria, talcing charge meant that first they had to see the sessions as something that could help them and not as something that the teacher wanted them to do. But it also meant that the writers needed to see that success in planning depends on their willingness and ability to apply the rhetorical prompts to the specific needs and situation of a writer.
In contrast, the college students, who were writing majors, had little difficulty taking charge of their planning sessions.
These case studies suggest that through collaborative planning student writers may be able to help each other manage the interplay arranging topic knowledge and addressing rhetorical concerns. However, they also illustrate that students need to understand that while the planning sessions are meant to help them focus on rhetorical issues, differences in task or context may require them to deal more directly with topic knowledge.
Flower, Linda, Karen Schriver, Linda Carey, John R.
Lytle and academic paper writers Botel point out that in order for students to gain from their participation in col- laborative learning groups, how- ever, they need talking strategies "to make implicit thinking pro- cesses explicit (123). Collaborative planning via the Blackboard Planner provides students with the talking strategies needed for suct assful collaborative learning. The supporter, in him, asks questions, utilizing the Blackboard Planner, to focus the discussion of the plan. Thus, the supporter is provided with the opportunity to begin to ask, not only the writer, butalso himself, meaningful questions about text production. Being a classroom teacher, however, has made me realize that the ideal does not always translate to reality (i. As a teacher-researcher and an advocate of the COI. My research was conducted in two classes of grade 11 gifted students (Center for Advanced Stud- ies), Peabody High School, Pittsburgh Public Schools. There were a total of 18 students in these classes. The snapshots will be interspersed with my observations on the planning session and its relationship to the student text, which is included in its entirety.
Assignment: Plan and writs a character sketch IN WHICH YOU CONVEY A DOMINANT IMPRESSION OF THE CHARACTER.
The first two snapshots are excerpts from a plan- ning session in which a student attempts to establish a setting for a character sketch in relation to a key point or dominant impression of her chosen character. Her planning gives evidence of confusion about her chosen character. Notice, however, that she does not defend her initial decision to use the Colombian setting when challenged by Supporter 1. She does, however, express surprise at the question. This suggestion will once again surface academic paper writers in Snapshot 2 with the sugges- tion of the use of "flashback" by Supporter 2. Supporter 1 challenges the writer to think further about the text conventions she will use to create the character for her audience.