Writing Center Class Spring 2018

The question I had reading both articles this week was, how does this differ from online tutoring of native speakers? In the case of Fei, I thought that perhaps native speakers who request grammar help are likely to have texts that are less error-dense, which would affect the overall percentage of grammar comments. But I think Fei's writing process is not dissimilar from a native speaker college student, and her ability and desire to take on suggestions is probably similar to the average native speaker. To what extent do online tutoring students respond to global feedback, or suggestions about rhetoric? I mean, I don't know--but I think they mostly want to do the easy fixes, the quick editing, and not the intensive revisions. I'm guessing that the graphs on 170-171 likely reflect how native speakers respond to feedback, too, although they'd have different quantities of each type of comment, and perhaps syntax would be less of a concern. I thought it was funny reading ...

The academic case study seems to be able to bring in previous research more effectively than the nonfiction case study. Because the latter is concerned with constructing a narrative (for example, ends in a satisfying way, with Lorraine and Brian exchanging a concluding joke), bringing in other research might feel clumsy and ruin the fluidity of the prose. It's interesting that Brian writes about this tension between academic and creative writing and in doing so constructs his argument creatively. The benefits to this form are in demonstrating the point he is trying to make with Lorraine: that impressive, political writing can be conveyed creatively. Another advantage to a creative nonfiction case study is that we are better able to understand the relationship between the tutor and the student. Since many of the studies we have read for this class are attempting to understand the relationship between tutor and student, this seems a refreshing and honest take on how the tutor feels a...

These two case studies consider two different research methods that will inevitably lead to very different discussions and presentation of the ideas.  T he non-fiction case study (Lorraine) is purely qualitative, while the academic case study (Fei) is a mixed methods study in which qualitative data is quantitized and the rest of the collected qualitative data (e.g. interview) mainly serves to enhance legitimation. These two different focus, qualitative (Lorraine) and Mixed methods with a focus on quantitative (Fei) are well accepted in research. However, the way that readers approach them may be very different. The qualitative (non-fiction) case study is more engaging, more relatable, and easier to read. As promoted in Qualitative research, the authors present the data as if it were a story and include very detailed anecdotes (called vignettes) that represent the main point to be conveyed. The study is not replicable, but the authors do provide additional information to ensure...

In writing/teaching fields, creative essay-like pieces such as "Lorraine's Story" are attractive in the way that the authors  can do what they say, practice what they preach , demonstrate through research and writing the very point they are trying to make.  It is all very meta.   I find these types of essays very useful in both validating practices and/or motivating me to reflect/change practices.  I don't have to stop to understand the stats, or re-read complex sentences in this type of work.  The readability allows me to simultaneously understand, appreciate, relate, and have an ongoing response in the background of my mind. I find academic pieces, such as the Severino and Prim article much less readable, but not necessarily any less useful.   I approach these texts very differently as a reader.  I tend to read the abstract and then flip back to the references to see where the authors are coming from.  I like to read the motivation for...

                We tell our students to “show” in their writing rather than “tell” all the time – so Goedde’s piece resonated with me as an example of pedagogy through example. Goedde doesn’t just tell us “that it happened,” he shows us “how it all happened” (63). The story about Lorraine’s story tracks an individual student’s improvement through discussion in the writing center, so while it doesn’t have statistics on its side, it does make the work we do feel more palpable and real. I could see myself taking a non-fiction approach with my case study, as well.                  On the other hand, the article about Fei was humbling in that it made me realize that our feedback – however painstaking – is not a panacea for writing errors. I groaned out-loud when I read about how Fei would not even bother to read the explanations her tutors gave her and would just copy...

I think the advantages of non-fiction "case studies" can, in many ways, be best summed up by the article itself. Goedde says, "the rhetorical stance of the personal essay has been valuable in educating students of color who have been traditionally marginalized by the academy." Shifting that to account for goals and audience, the case study reminds readers the writing center is not monolithic. The more narrative case study makes underrepresented students' experience in the writing center more than simple numbers in a data driven study. That said, those numbers are also important. We don't have enough time to read case studies that cover every angle of every experience, so some synthesis of data is valuable. I think both academic studies and case studies are useful, because the one gives us best general practices and the other reminds us, in no uncertain terms, the need to adapt those practices to meet students' needs.

Hi All!  Sorry about missing class Tuesday.   First a basic question: in Writing Center usage, what is the difference between syntax and grammar? The biggest disadvantage I see to the more academic case study is that the sample size is so small, and the samples themselves are so varied, it’s difficult to make broader claims.   For example, as noted in Severino and Prim (2016), if fluency is defined by length of a written piece, it’s difficult to judge the writer’s skill when length depends on the assignment.   However, the more academic piece is taking steps towards understanding what works and doesn’t work with the intent of advancing the field.   We need to know what works and doesn’t work if we hope to improve our strategies and help students write better.   In order to know what works and doesn’t, we need to codify and classify our variables-types of mistakes, types of feedback, improvement.   An academic case study offers direct i...

For me, the most challenging aspect of asynchronous online tutoring is that there are a lot of times when it would be so much easier to just ask the student a quick question, and that's not an option. I think online tutoring is a better option for someone later in the writing process, but someone who's brainstorming or outlining isn't going to find it very helpful, because there's no conversation happening. I do think there are a few key advantages to asynchronous online tutoring, though. For example, if you're working with nonnative speakers who have patterns of error, it can be easier to identify the error and the context it happens in, rather than getting caught up in individual sentences. That means you can provide the student a clearer answer as to what the problem is. In person, it can be hard to say exactly what the problem is, just that there is one. I also think it's easier to give more thorough feedback on smaller concerns--but it's harder to dra...

Challenges: I find online tutoring challenging precisely because it allows me to take much more time with a student's work, and that's time I don't always have. I've realized reading work on the computer (whether a student's, colleague's, or my own) makes comprehension difficult, and I often need to reread multiple times before commenting. I also find that responding takes more time because, as Remington suggested, a job of the tutor in written responses is to model good writing. (Trying to explain certain concepts is also more difficult with online tutoring because there is no discussion to supplement one person's speaking and it generally takes more words.) It's also difficult to supply suggestions online because I don't want to the student to copy and paste what I'm saying (what Remington notes about plagiarism), but I also don't want to confuse them if I vaguely suggest they reorder a sentence, or consider new word choices. Benefits: ...

Before doing our readings for this week, I thought that online tutoring would be more time-consuming for the tutor and less effective for the student, but now that I've read about some of the possible benefits of the format, I'm eager to try more online tutoring! I hadn't thought about this idea of modeling the example in writing -- that getting feedback from a tutor in a full and written format from a tutor could be more helpful for the student. She would then have time to sit with the information, can re-read and Google things without the pressure of a tutor waiting for a response. This of course means that the tutor must be more careful in giving feedback -- and I like Remington's discussion of implicit and explicit modeling. The comments themselves can be examples of good writing for the student, so it's imperative to proof-read before sending. Remington highlights another benefit I hadn't considered: that the student does not have the fallback of backing up...

Advantages : Asynchronous online tutoring seems to me a lot more flexible than face-to-face tutoring. Tutors can provide feedback at any time and from the place that is most convenient to them. They can go from one computer to another, and the comments they give can be saved online. Beyond the logistic issue, tutors also take the role of being real readers, and therefore can provide comments that are more honest. And if they start working towards creating a stock of responses, they can save a lot of time in providing feedback. In this regard, I really liked the examples that Ramington provided. The concept of “writing about writing” while offering students some modeling and examples of writing it’s probably ideal for any online tutor. On the other hand, providing asynchronous online feedback is definitely a challenge . The negotiation that may occur between the tutor and the tutee when interacting face to face is not an option. The potential discussions, clarifications, or questio...

For me, the biggest challenge with asynchronous tutoring is establishing rapport and my own tone/voice.  I find the nature of my feedback varies depending on who the writer is/my relationship with this person.  So, when I was at a conference last week, I did two of my weekly regular grad enrollment appts online (I've been working with both of these writers in person --one for 2 semesters, and the other just this semester.) Because I know these individuals and their work (as well as what we've discussed related to their writing in the past), I found it easy to tutor online, make suggestions, and give comments. However, if I do not know the person, I find that my tone is somewhat generic, and my feedback is more conservative (this has been the case in the past).  I think this is partly due to not having already established face to face rapport with the writer. I do see the benefits of online tutoring (many of which were mentioned in our readings this week).  Obvious...