Documentos de Académico
Documentos de Profesional
Documentos de Cultura
Fall 2011
ECWCA
Fall 2011
ARTICLES
Queer Consulting: Assessing the Degree to which Differences Affect a Writing Consultation
Fall 2011
Writing Center Data: What Do We Need and How Should We Use It?
Diane Boehm, Jacob Blumner, Mary Ann Krajnik Crawford, Sherry Wynn Perdue, and Helen Raica-Klotz
A Writing Center is always about peopletheir words, their thoughts, and their aspirations. To understand our users, to tell our story, and to present our work professionally to colleagues and administrators, however, we also need data. The data we collect and analyze depends on numerous factors: the programs and systems we use to collect the data, the questions we bring to our analysis, and the arguments we wish to make about the quality and quantity of our work. This article compares and contrasts perspectives from four different Michigan universities: Central Michigan University, Saginaw Valley State University, University of Michigan - Flint, and Oakland University. Though our centers have much in common, we also have significant differences in our perspectives, as you will see. Table 1 provides an overview of data collection in our four centers, followed by commentary written by each center. Continued on page 3
Articles
Topics: Issues relevant to writing center work. Length: 1000-2500 words. Style: APA or MLA.
Tutor Voices
Topics: Opinion pieces/reflection pieces relevant to you and your writing center work. Length: 500-750 words.
Regional Announcements Tutor Achievements Director Achievements Calls for Conversation Resources Photographs And More!
Writing Center date: What do we need and how should we use it?
1 7
The Accidental Writing Center: Program Growth through Negotiation and Collaboration Communicating Across Borders: Consulting ESL Students Online To Game or Not to Game: The Affects of Gamifying Our Website Notes of a Fortunate Writing Center Consultant: What My Students with Learning Disabilities Have Taught Me about the Writing Process Assessing Our Success: The 2011 East Central Writing Centers Association Conference
12
Center Profiles
Topics: Issues relevant to the operations of your writing center. Can include details about your center and highlight individuals, projects, or other information. Length: Varies.
Send submissions and inquiries to ecwcanewsletter@gmail.com. Submissions are accepted on a rolling basis. Newsletter issues are released in September/October and January/February.
14
15
17
ADDITIONAL CONTENT
A Letter from the President of ECWCA Tutor Voices 2012 ECWCA CFP Regional Announcement Calls for Papers 2 19 23 23 24
Learning writing center methodology means learning to collaborate with others, not to assume we have all the answers, but to help others find their own; to keep broad goals in mind even as we weave the needs of others into our practice. -Jeanne Smith et al. Kent State University
Fall 2011
Sri Upadhyay
Sri Upadhyay is a senior majoring in Psychology and English at Kent State University in Kent, Ohio. After graduating this spring, she will pursue her Ph.D. in Cognitive Psychology and continue working in academia and research. She will complete her Honors thesis titled Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition in College Students and plans to bring the fields of Psychology and English together in research on language acquisition and learning processes, reading, memory, and metacognition. The most inspiring part of the tutoring experience for her is the opportunity to work with many different people on many different projects, and the chance to teach and share her passion for analysis, creativity, and love of the writing process.
Rori Hoatlin
Rori is a recent graduate of Grand Valley State University (2010) in Allendale, MI with a B.A. in Writing. She worked at the Fred Meijer Center for Writing and Michigan Authors for one year. She is currently attending Georgia College & State University (GCSU) to pursue her M.F.A in creative non-fiction. While at GCSU, she will be working in the writing center as Assistant to the Supervisor and reading for GCSUs literary journal Arts & Letters. Being a writing consultant has showed her just how important the words people pen truly are. She loves when she can help students communicate their ideas in the way they want towhen students are able to stop worrying about the micro-level detailsthe spelling, the punctuation, the grammarand start seeing their work in the big picture, then she feels like she has done her job.
23
Fall 2011
1) Student Sign-In Sheets (on-site) 2) Student Web form for Online 3) Student Surveys 4) Faculty Surveys 5) Consultant Observation Form 6) Graduate Assistant Evaluations
3)
Emily Standridge
- Ball State University Writing Center. - 5+ years tutoring. - English major.
Saginaw Valley State University (SVSU) 1) SVSU Writing Center Session Record 2) Writing Center Tutor evaluation 1)
The combination of methods gives speed, consistency, and convenience, while allowing us to store, sort, analyze, and report on large amounts of data. It provides good quality control over accuracy of input and immediate access to information but also accommodates multiple sites easily. The interface with the student database provides additional group data that would not be possible via other methods. Advantages: ease of record keeping, ability to sort data easily, speedy updates and changes.
1) Administrative Reports 2) Billing for service 3) Tutor Training 4) Public relations 5) Policy/program development 6) Forecasting, planning 7) Resource allocation 8) Research
2)
During the last three years, I have been a Ball State University tutor and Assistant Director as I worked on my PhD. This has been the most rewarding of all my writing center work because I have gotten to do it all: I work with students at all levels of writing, I work with tutors to improve their tutoring, and I work with faculty to learn the power of writing outside the English Department. This semester, I begin my new job as a full-fledged writing center director at a small school back in East Texas. The pure joy of helping someone as they work on a writing project remains the same after seven years of tutoring. As I approach anyone in the writing center, tutors, students, or faculty, my aim is to work with them to figure out something, anything, that will help them with their current project and will make the next one easier. If I can achieve that, I have been successful. Through this approach, I have learned many things: to tackle one thing at a time, to negotiate with others so both feel satisfied rather than let down, to let people and situations surprise me in the most positive ways. The best advice I can give anyone in the world, but especially those working in writing centers, is to trying things out. There is no single, sure-fire way to make working with other people successful. But in being open to them and in trying new things, you can figure out what works best for you. If you can find that, you will enjoy the work as much as I do.
3)
1) Paper form transferred to computer 1) Print form from which data is collated into Excel 2) Electronic data from our online scheduler
Paper form is convenient in sessions and digital form is helpful for analysis We want an immediate record of client and consultant perception. We currently dont have a way to collate demographic data with the session log electronically
1) Staffing and hiring decisions 2) Annual Report to administrators (accompanies budget request) and colleagues 3) Program planning 4) Tutor training 5) Research and development of new initiatives (e.g., grantfunded projects, presentations, publications) See SVSU
1) Administrative Reports 2) Needs Assessment 3) Consultant Training 4) Evidence -based research for publications and for grant applications
asked. The same was true of faculty: only a few even knew the program existed. Thankfully, the CMU Writing Center was awarded a new initiative grant for fall 1998 that revitalized its life. At the heart of that grant was a promise to record and report accurate information about services and to assess the benefits to the students and campus community. The program would need to be accountable to its stakeholders: the dean, the provost, the faculty, the consultants, and, most importantly, the students. We have kept good on that grant promise, and the Center has been growing since. The Center needed to become data conscious if not exactly data driven.
22
Fall 2011
also shown me that part of being a leader means that you help others learn to lead, and when everyone, who shares the trust, works together they can all benefit.
Colin Payton
- Wittenberg University Writing Center. - A little over one year tutoring. - English major. Q: How has being a writing tutor/consultant helped you in your interactions with peers, either academically or professionally? Well, to start off, I stare for minutes now every time I see tutor/consultant in a questionnaire and debate over the proper and polite way to say Im an advisor at my university while not sounding like a snob. Or dweeb. Or whatever. I guess being an advisor slows me down quite a bit in other areas, too. I stop to analyze my speech patterns and my writing to make sure it is grammatically correct, and then I stop again and wonder if, after having inevitably messed up somehow, someone is thinking it ironic that I am an advisor. That is the bad part of being slow: clearly recognizing my insecurities. The good part is that Ive learned to be very patient in my listening so as to actively participate in every conversation. After starting my love affair with the Writing Center, Ive noticed that people really like it when they can know someone is paying attention to them. Just another way to build a good relationship, I suppose. So, the Center has made me very slow. Like a turtle. Not like the bad processors on my campus computers. Q: When you think back on your time as a writing center advisor, can you describe a high point? The firsts, of course: the first time I walked away to get a drink mid-session to let a writer, well, you know, write; the first time I had a session with an ESL student or a special needs writer and my first Writing Center conference presentation. But what Ive found lately is that the small things bring greater highs out of my job than the grand situations. I love brainstorming with someone who speaks another language. I love showing the new advisors (whom I have dubbed plebes, affectionately) how to make coffee. I love the most challenging sessions of all: my fellow advisors. I
21
Fall 2011
their friends and other students. I admit that we havent done all we can with data collection; many institutions are doing much more meaningful and thorough collection than we do. And we are working to collect more and different data that can better help us work with students and faculty on writing, speaking, and reading needs. Data are a vital tool to ensuring success in our and any writing center. But this short narrative is really a short cautionary about data, and I would like to offer considerations when selecting and using data. First, the data that administrators want or request may not be the most valuable data for them or your center. Administrators often want to things to be quantifiable or they may simply not know the kinds of information that would best report on a writing centers activities. Its important for writing center administrators to educate other administrators, faculty, and students about what a writing center does and what kinds of data show how it is benefiting writers and the larger campus community. For example, one of our deans asks us for usage data how many appointment slots are filled with one-on-one meetings with students. Through meetings, I have been able to show him that, though usage is something to track, it shows only part of the story. Our tutors visit classes and meet with faculty; they do research, work on professional development, and produce marketing materials. Those things dont show up on usage statistics focused on oneon-one appointments. The second caution I would like to forward is that by collecting and studying certain kinds of data, other data are inherently neglected. Ultimately, as SVSUs narrative demonstrates, we regularly need to ask, Are we asking the right questions? Finally, I would encourage readers to remember the power of storytelling. At every meeting, our staff members debrief on positive and negative experiences in the writing center, and collectively we praise, commiserate, console, and problem-solve to create a better writing center for writers and staff. Some may not consider storytelling data, and it is difficult to fit stories into a quantifiable box that appeases some administrators demands, but it is a vital way to make meaning and meaningful change in a writing center.
Leigh Hastings
- Wittenberg University Writing Center - One year being a tutor. - English major. Q: How has being a writing tutor/consultant helped you in your interactions with peers, either academically or professionally? Working as an advisor has helped me in my interactions with peers as I have learned to benefit from them as resources in the Writing Center. Just as writers come in to the Center to work with me, I have gone to the Center as a writer to work with other advisors. Sharing my work with others has helped me gain a greater sense of respect for those who work in the Center and an appreciation for their genuine interest in collaborating with writers.
Eric Werner
- Wittenberg University Writing Center. - One year as writing advisor. - English and French major with a minor in Creative Writing. I like to use my work in the Center as a jumping board into getting to know people. Wittenberg is a small campus, so when you have a session with a student, it's very likely you'll see that student again either in a class or in the lunch line or what have you. I already know something about that student and it's much easier to start a conversation. It's nice to have something in common right off the bat with people I wouldn't normally know.
20
Fall 2011
Tutor Voices
worry about how a different consultant would respond or what a professor will think (to a degree, of course). Leader of the Year, March 2011 Respond as an honest reader and your feedback will be better than anything you say if you second guess - Grand Valley State University, yourself. This sort of answers the question below as well, Fred Meijer Center for Writing but I was so afraid of messing up during my first and Michigan Authors. couple of months as a writing consultant that I would - Three years experience, lead freeze. Once I learned to trust myself and my natural consultant for two of those three responses to the writing, I improved as a writing years. - English Language and Literature consultant a thousand times over. major with a minor in Classics. Q: What skills have you acquired, from being a tutor/consultant, which you will take with you Q: How has being a writing tutor/consultant helped you throughout life? in your interactions with peers, either academically or professionally? Being a writing consultant improved my communication skills in every waylistening, speaking, observing body Writing consultants discuss very personal issues with language, all of it. But listening is probably the most students, often by asking questions about the writings subject matter, but also by discussing writing itself. I have important. Being a great listener is a rare and very valuable skill. The writing center taught me how to listen, never met someone who is truly detached from his or her writing, so part of the job of a consultant is to gain the trust to have confidence, and to never underestimate how of students and be encouraging while still being honest. A much I can help someone or brighten a persons day. good writing consultant tries to get to know a person quicklyby asking questions, noticing body language, and making other observationsand uses what she/he learns Allie Oosta to help the student become a better, more confident writer. Tutor of Year, March of 2011 These are skills that are useful in every sort of interaction academically, professionally, and personally. - Grand Valley State University, Fred Meijer Center for Writing and Q: When you think back on your time as a writing center Michigan Authors. tutor, can you describe a high point? - Two years experience. - Writing major. I have many favorite memories from my time as a writing As a writing major, I navely consultant, but this is one that sticks out in my mind. I was believed that my writing skills could be useful to any working with a nontraditional nursing student who was kind of student but only to a certain extent. A physics finishing her degree after taking twenty years off to be a stay at home mother. She was two days away from turning or nursing major would sometimes enter the center and request to work with a tutor whose major was sciencein her first paper in twenty years, and she was terrified. based. As a younger consultant, I respected those Because she was so afraid of failing, she had spent an students, and even thanked them, because physics is incredible amount of time doing research, writing, and revising her paper, and it showed. After she read the paper scary! Only later on in my career did I realize the magic of writing centers where cross-discipline ideas hang thick aloud, I explained the things she had done right and used the positives to show her the areas that she could improve. in the air and tutors can learn from the students. She was so excited that she hadnt screwed up her first paper that I spent the rest of the day with a smile because I One specific afternoon, I worked with a nursing student. I remember that her report was on the study of some could not get hers out of my mind. Its the great disease, and the results were shocking. The study consultations I always remember. unveiled that one in three women were at risk for Q: What advice might you give other tutors/ consultants? developing this crazy paralysis that could lead to the inability to have children. I remember looking at the nursing student and saying, WOW! Can you believe Though consultants should always strive to improve, I this? I cant believe this! This could completely change think the most important thing is to trust yourself. Dont
Jen Torreano
19
Fall 2011
-Sherry Wynn Perdue is the Director of the Oakland University Writing Center (OUWC), Joan Rosen Writing Studio, where staff provided 6,500 writing consultations to undergraduate students, graduate researchers, faculty, and staff last year. Her innovations include Dissertation 101: A Research and Writing Intervention for Education Graduate Students, a program she co-piloted with Kresge Librarian Anne Switzer and which is described in the summer 2011 issue of Educational Libraries. -Helen Raica-Klotz is the current SVSU Writing Center coordinator, a position she has held for five years. She is a Lecturer in the English Department, teaching composition and general education literature courses.
Queer consulting: Assessing the degree to which differences affect a writing consultation
Curtis Dickerson & Jonathan Rylander In our discussion at the 2011 ECWCA conference, Queer Consulting: Assessing the Degree to which Differences Affect a Writing Consultation, we hoped to add to conversations surrounding issues of difference and nonnormative/queer moments in the writing center. Through a combination of our own experiences, interviews with other consultants who identify as LGBTQ, and the experiences of attendees to our panel, we hoped to provide new insight on one essential question: How does a consultant react to discovered differences in a writing consultation? To us, focusing purely on student needs during a consultation is dangerous. Or, perhaps better said, the student writer and his or her development is certainly still important, but equally as significant is the consultant who has inherent rights in a workplace, namely for our discussion, to operate in a space free of discrimination or perceived discrimination. For individuals with queer identities, a discussion-based occupation can seem like a daily minefield of taboo topics and insensitive, off-hand comments. How can a queer consultant, or a consultant who perceives a queer student, possibly navigate such a potentially explosive landscape? No consultation is neutraleach one is full of identity assumptions and the political biases of both consultants and writers. Yet, should the inherently unstable and often explosive situations that we confront alter our practice as consultants? Although we do not know the answer to this question, we have noticed moments in writing centers
that seem to disrupt notions of what might be perceived as normal approaches to working with student writers. Take, for example, Curtis reflection on a consultation that was suddenly thrown off track by a student-writers comment: As one student read his work aloud, he paused for a few seconds mid-sentence. I was looking at his computer, unsure whether he was stuck on a word or thinking about the phrasing of the sentence. As I looked up, he was staring off into another part of the library. Sorry, he said, Hot chick. I laughed politely, and tried to get back to the paper. But he wouldnt let it go. Do you think shes hot? he asked me directly. This was a problematic question for me as a gay man. I laughed again, but as a consultant new to the job, I was not comfortable with outing myself at that moment. Though I doubt my face showed it, there was an intense war happening behind the scenes. A split second calculation of the pros and cons. Even if I did choose to out myself, how would I phrase it? Besides, what would have been the point of overtly outing myself? The paper the student brought had nothing to do with LGBTQ individuals. This was less of a queer moment and more of just an awkward moment, yet one that still placed me in the position of deciding what parts of my life I could and could not share in a professional setting. Since that moment happened two years ago, Ive often wondered whether there was an added level of complexity to the situation. The students question was so far removed from the subject at hand, I cant help but wonder if he placed me in that position intentionally. Perhaps he already sensed that I was gay, and this was his clumsy attempt to confront me on the matter.
18
Fall 2011
Assessing Our Success: The 2011 East Central Writing Centers Association Conference
Kim Ballard, kim.ballard@wmich.edu, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI
The 2011 East Central Writing Centers Association Conference included a number of firsts for our association as well as a number of successes. Held at Western Michigan University (WMU) in Kalamazoo, MI, from March 3 through 5, our associations 2011 annual conference occurred earlier in the spring than any other conference; drew participants from far outside of our conference area (California, Nevada, Florida, etc.); involved the largest number of high school consultant presenters (26) ever at our conference; and was structured by a Call for Proposals (CFP) focused on one current writing center topic assessmentalthough slightly more sessions on topics not related to assessment were presented. The conference was attended by 310 high school, undergraduate, graduate, and professional consultants/tutors, writing center directors/coordinators, writing center associate/assistant directors, faculty members, administrators, librarians, and students. Forty-seven institutions from two countries (South Korea and the US) and eight states (MI, OH, IN, IL, PA, CA, NV, and FL) were represented in 88 sessions that lasted 75 minutes each for a total of 110 hours of sessions. Sixtyseven single topic workshops and talks were presented by ECWCA members, including one workshop led by the vendor RichCo; fifteen sessions that combined twenty-nine presentations into multiple part panels were offered; and three double-session workshops (150 minutes each) were presented during back-toback sessions.
administrators, parents, and taxpayers. Weve often answered those demands with arguments based on program assessment, but another type of assessment has also always functioned at the heart of writing center consultations, as consultant and writer collaborate to assess the writers needs, a focus that encourages conversation and insights . . . As the first regional conference devoted to assessment of our work, we seek to center writing center assessment discussion, in several connotations of the verb. Through quality panel discussions, round tables, workshops, and poster sessions we hope conference participants will focus, equalize, highlight, and pinpoint writing center assessment theory, practices, issues, and ideas.
Conference Theme
The ECWCA Board approved a conference Call for Proposals (CFP) different from any CFP in ECWCA history. Although the 2011 ECWCA Conference CFP, titled Centering Assessment: Roles, Relationships, Respect, Resistance, clearly indicated any writing center topic would be considered for inclusion in the conference program, the CFP also focused on writing center assessment and, as the excerpt below shows, explored the purpose of attempting to structure a writing center conference on that topic:
. . . [W]riting centers have always faced demands to prove their worth to students, faculty, staff,
Of the 104 individual and panel talks and workshops offered during the two-day conference, 48 addressed writing center assessment. Among other topics, sessions devoted to assessment considered program assessment (including Assessing High School Writing Centers: What We Can Do and How We Can Do It, Assessing (and Advocating for) What We Value: Documenting Our Contributions to Students Learning Processes in College Writing Programs and Writing Centers, and A Fall for Fellows: Creating and Assessing a Writing Fellows Program); assessment theory (including Evaluation Capacity Building in Writing Center Assessment and What Writing Centers Really Value: Applying Dynamic Criteria Mapping to Writing Center Work); assessment strategies within tutorials (including Assessment of How to Begin Sessions Through Inquiry: The Practical Application of VARK and The SOAP Note: A Cleaner Approach to the Assessment of Writing) and assessment politics (including Using Assessment for Sustainability: Strategies for Staying Effective in a Volatile Economic Environment, Writing Center Data: What Do We Need and How Should We Use It? and Self-Assessment: The Dangers and the Challenges.) In addition, luncheon keynote speaker, Dr. Eileen Evans, former WMU Writing Center director and ECWCA Conference host and current WMU Vice Provost for Institutional Effectiveness, offered a talk about writing centers roles in institutional assessment and
17
Fall 2011
The Accidental Writing Center: Program Growth through Negotiation and Collaboration
Jeanne R. Smith, Doug Sheldon, Heather Kaley Will McSuley, Allison Machnicki, and Joe Greenwell - Kent State University We did not begin with the aim of creating a high school writing center, but with the more modest goal of improving our tutor training program. In the process of working toward that goal, we reached for opportunities, joined with various partners, and journeyed through a process of negotiation. Our university writing center, the university administration, our service-learning office, our English department, the incoming tutors, various community partners, and the different constituencies of the high school each came to the project with differing agendas. Managing this potential conflict and remaining flexible resulted in much more than we ever set out to do: we created a new writing center, improved our tutor training program, enhanced the university writing centers reputation, and established a service-learning program. Negotiating the Agenda Part 1: The Writing Center, The University, and The Community Our writing center had always wanted a 3-credit hour preservice training course but had never been able to launch one, so we settled for a 1-credit hour course during a tutors first semester of employment. A new opportunity, however, presented itself. In response to a grant offered by the universitys new service learning office, we proposed The Writing Center Project. It would be a way for our preservice tutors to learn writing center theory in a 3-credit hour course, while serving as volunteer tutors in established literacy programs in the community. The service learning grant opportunity allowed faculty to re-envision any course as a service-learning experience leading to significant opportunities for undergraduates to participate in disciplinary research. Because writing center work and tutor professional development have always dovetailed with service learning and undergraduate research, the grant represented an opportunity to formalize and recognize the tutors experiential learning as central to our universitys undergraduate teaching and research missions. We solicited community partners who would accept our prospective tutors into their programs: adult literacy programs, programs for immigrants learning English, university bridge programs. Some prospective community partners had had negative experiences with service learning programs and needed to be persuaded that we would not release untrained, unsupervised students into their organizations, creating substantial additional work for
them. Other community partners needed to be shown that service learning is not the same as free labor, that the service is a learning experience woven into the course content. Conspicuously absent from the list or partners, though, were the area high schools--perhaps because university entities often do not want to be perceived as large outsiders imposing agendas on area schools. Offering a new course outside the normal channels for proposing and vetting a new course at the university posed substantial logistical issues for our English department, and made the course difficult to fill. These difficulties ensured that the only students who enrolled were very committed to service and less concerned about degree credit requirements. From this group of students, one proposed developing his own community partner site and program: starting a writing center at the local high school. The rest of the class elected to take on the high school as our sole community partner for our first semester. And our project began. Negotiating the Agenda Part 2: Starting Over with a Single Community Partner Our initial meeting with school officials revealed that they had wanted a writing center for years but had never been able to start one. While the English department Chair was eager to host our students, neither she nor any of her teaching staff would have time to coordinate the center. The Principal expressed concern over how we would sustain the writing center, not wanting to see his building come to rely on it, only to have it evaporate after a semester. We offered to fill the high school site first, before offering future students other community partner site choices, and the project earned the very enthusiastic support of the Chair and Principal. The school viewed the university students as not only tutors supplementing classroom instruction, but also as mentors and role models for the students. For our project to function, one student tutor (Doug) served as the liaison between the university and community partner. Before beginning the project, he provided the high school with a list of our services. Tutoring sessions would provide distance from the classroom teacher but also create a bridge between the student and the educator. The student would witness a mentor performing writing tasks and providing a model of writing-in-action, demonstrating that writing is a craft learned through practice, revision, and mentoring. If the state of Ohio requires a student to ...[c]ompose writings that convey a clear message and include well-chosen details, (English
16
Fall 2011
Carse, J. P. (1987). Finite and infinite games: A vision of life as play and possibility. New York, NY: Ballantine. McGonical, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York, NY: Penguin. McGonical, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make us better and how they can change the world. New York, NY: Penguin. Thompson, C. (2011, March). Clive Thompson on how games make work seem like play. Wired, 19(3). Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/02/st_tho mpson_living_games/
John Lauckner, is a Masters student in Digital Rhetoric and Professional Writing at MSU and a TA and Graduate Writing Consultant at Writing Center at MSU. His research interests focuses on alternative learning spaces, videogames, beer, and learning. Dianna Baldwin, PhD is the Associate Director of the Writing Center at MSU. Her research interests primarily focus on technology in education in many forms, including gamification, virtual worlds, and social media. She also dabbles in blogging and studying comics.
Notes of a Fortunate Writing Center Consultant: What My Students with Learning Disabilities Have Taught Me about the Writing Process
Caroline Le, M.A. In the Robert & Jane Weiner Writing Center at Beacon College, the only accredited four-year college in the country exclusively for students with learning disabilities, Michael likes to use Kurzweil, a program which allows him to listen to his assignments, his textbooks, and his own writing, aloud; David prefers I personally read articles for U.S. Government class to him, and Tom uses Word Q, a box of word suggestions which follows as he types. Once we are finished with our one-on-one writing consultations, I know they will continue to have questions as they edit, so I keep myself available to answer them, long after I have
officially signed off on his visit. I must be as familiar with my students needs as I am with the writing skills I am trying to show them. I need to meet my students where they are--not wait for them to find me. According to Stephen North (2004), Writing centers attempt to produce better writers, not better writing, through a student-centered process-oriented approach, which chiefly means talking to writers about writing. Because of their learning disabilities, my students leave me with no option but to deal with all of these elements. I am extremely fortunate to frequently encounter the anxiety and frustration of not being understood; I am forced to create individualized dialogue and struggle, my students same struggles, with dissecting the communication process. The fundamentals of college-level writing are taught at Beacon College just as they are at any other
10
15
Fall 2011
student demonstrated classic tutoring lessons: slowing down, listening to the learner, isolating single concerns, blending directive and non-directive methods, and using multiple modalities. Working on multiple types of grammatical errors at one time became confusing to the student and she began to guess at an answer. Narrowing down the scope of the lesson to one or two types of errors helped, but the student was still inclined to guess at answers and had trouble slowing down to think about an answer before she said it. Reading sentences with errors aloud to the student helped her think about the writing and catch errors. The student read her writing aloud and read examples from custom worksheets. She repeated passages, especially when dealing with editing concerns, so that she heard the sentence before and after she made edits. The tutor always first asked what the student would like to work on, or why she thought a certain usage error needed to be addressed, but the tutor would sometimes step in and make suggestions, explain, and make the correction with her. These skills were easier to practice in the high school setting, where we needed to set aside our university writing center ideals and address the needs of the high school community partner. The tutor developed skills for working with students with learning disabilities and gained experience in lesson planning and general tutoring. Another tutor (Joe) chose to investigate the underlying reasons for high school students reluctance to engage in school-sponsored writing. His project investigated the teacher-student relationship, and response to student writing. In his project, Writing is Communicating: Responding to Student Writing, he argued that to encourage student writing, teachers should emphasize the message, voice, and content of the writing over the grammar and usage. By recognizing and responding to students ideas, students will feel heard and not judged, and, consequently, proud of their writing voice and more willing to invest time in revision. Naturally they will be more inclined to nurture their voice, including editing for usage. This route seems more natural than learning writing through studying grammar, an approach sometimes emphasized in our schools. The Writing Center Project experience challenged his notions of tutoring and writing. He says, What I thought would be as simple as imparting my writing knowledge to others became a semester of questioning the relationships of student writers to writing, and peers and teachers to student writing. Assessment and Renegotiation: Moving the Project Forward After listening to feedback from the high school and the tutors, we are ready to move into a long-term relationship with the high school. Our tutor training
government officials (Thompson, 2011). So whether it is using a credit card instead of other forms of payment, increasing physical activity, or uncovering bogus government spending, gamification exists to impact the way people act or the task at hand. Our first thoughts on gamifiying centered on incorporating some type of gamification into our main site at writing.msu.edu. However, we realized the difficulties it might present to people unfamiliar with our research, so we opted to experiment with a newly developed site-writingcenterexplorations.org--being used for two writing center theory based classes. Both instructors required students to blog on a weekly basis, so fresh content was not an issue. Instead, we hoped to determine whether or not associating points with both blog posts and comments would increase the frequency of these. We decided that logging in would be worth 1 point, a post 5 points, and a comment 3 points. These values are based on the importance of the tasks to be completed. The leader board displays prominently on the home page and lists the top 5 point-scorers for that week. Each Sunday night, we reset the leader board, or Users who Rock, and kept track of the results. Our Findings: At the time of our presentation at ECWCA, posts and comments, primarily comments, showed a significant increase. We attributed some of the increase to the novelty of the idea, but how much could be contributed to the newness factor was impossible to know. By the end of the semester, however, it became evident that the numbers had declined, and that the effect of gamifying in an attempt to increase content was a short lived success. After further consideration and research, we learned that this outcome was not surprising. According to Carse (1987), one of the key ingredients to play is that it be voluntary; otherwise it is not play. McGonigal (2011) echoes this concept when she argues that voluntary participation requires that everyone who is playing the game knowingly and willingly accepts the goal, the rules, and the feedback (p.
14
11
Fall 2011
Responsible, a comment like Grammatical issue: Preposition+ noun = with+ responsibility can be more understandable and helpful for a non-native writer because of its clear and simplified reference to grammatical terms. This same comment, however, may be confusing or ambiguous for a native writer. Keep comments on global issues separate from those on surface level issues. If consultants mix up the focus on global and surface issues, students tend to focus only on surface level corrections like grammar and punctuation; they might not comprehend the importance of global issues like a thesis, organization, and development (Rafoth, 2009). In fact, consultants should emphasize meaning (global issues) when working with students and should help students clearly express their ideas (Rafoth, 2009; Shin, 2002; Harris & Silva, 1993). Do not fix the sentence(s). Fixing sentences encourages the ESL writer to depend on the consultant. A consultant should not be a proofreader, but rather a guide who helps the writer understand his or her difficulties in writing (Harris & Silva, 1993; Gocsik, 2004). While making comments on a grammatical error in an ESL script, consultants should explain the grammar rules in addition to modeling the correct sentence. Consultants suggestions should be clear and confident. Consultants should deliver a consistent message and reinforce it throughout the paper so that the writer can see how important it is (Rafoth, 2009, p.158). When working with an ESL writer, consultants should be as direct and assured as possible; they should avoid expressions like I think, It seems, Probably. Doing so allows the ESL writer to feel more confident in their revisions. Consultants should first focus on what has been done well in the paper, acknowledge that, and go from there (Harris & Silva, 1993, p. 526). An effective comment might be: As a reader, I really like the way this paper is organized. Youve condensed material into specific sections and allow each section to build on one another.
Awareness of cultural differences is especially key; understanding that American rhetorical patterns can be baffling to the ESL student is also key. Keeping these results in mind, a consultant working with and ESL student in an online session can become an attainable and very beneficial task. The ESL student can gain skills and confidence in his or her writing ability. References Gocsik, K. (2004). Addressing specific problems: English as a
12
13