3/6 Emi

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 questioning that arise in face-to-face sessions cannot be guaranteed in online formats.  Also, the perspective that Ramington takes applies best to papers that are at least fleshed out or almost final. Therefore, it would not really work for students who are looking to do brainstorming or would like to do some discussion of ideas.

Finally, it is very true that for online tutors the written feedback “is an example of how writing is supposed to be done”. However, one could also argue that the discussion tutors have with the tutees is also an example of how writers may become more analytical and ask themselves questions about their own text as they reread it.


So from my perspective, I think face-to-face and online tutoring provide different kind of advantages and also different kind of opportunities for students. Offering both options is probably the safest and most convenient option.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Writing to Learn, Learning to Write

I'm familiar with different approaches in different contexts. As an instructor, I'm most familiar with learning to write, because even my content-based assignments receive extensive writing attention. As a student, though, I was and am more familiar with writing to learn. But I'm still displeased that as a student in English at the undergraduate, MA, and PhD levels, there was/is not more attention placed on learning to write. At this stage, this seems to be something professors take for granted. (I was recently told: "That's not how you title a dissertation chapter." And I responded: "Can you please tell me how you title a book chapter? I have never done this.") I think also in liberal arts required courses, writing to learn is prioritized in many (most?) disciplines. I'm not particularly persuaded by one form over another, though I have never succeeded in writing to learn language models. But I am partial to the idea that learning to write sho...
Read more

Emi 03/27

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...
Read more

4/17

In my tutoring sessions, I've been most familiar with the 'learning to write' paradigm. I felt Ortega's statement that "...LW places at the center of attention the cognitive activity of the writer and her or his authorial voice" encapsulates the work my students have called on me to do. Whether they're working on a Peace Corps application, a psychology paper, a global health paper or a speech for Rhetoric, I've found my work can be described in Ortega's twofold statement: helping students put in writing first, their cognitive activity (their opinions, arguments, and questions) and second, their authorial voice (by airing confusions, doubts, and identifying needs for further research). In class, I'm wondering if we can have a discussion about the overlap between LW and WLL when it comes to students picking up specific language necessary for academic assignments. As Ortega writes, there is a difference between students "learning to write abo...
Read more