In preparing peer tutors for responding to student writers in an asynchronous Online Writing Lab (OWL), writing center administrators must engage tutors in activities that focus on writing about students’ writing rather than talking face-to-face with writers.
This study directly compares face-to-face writing center consultations with two closely related variations of Online Writing Instruction (OWI). Although the study takes place in a busy, dynamic writing center, the authors try to make their comparisons as systematic as possible so they can better foreground some of the benefits and disadvantages of various conferencing environments.
I’ve gotten hung up on the word asynchronous: I’d like writing centers to stop using it, and I would like them to stop believing the things they must believe if they take the label “asynchronous” seriously.
Writing centers can help multilingual students who hear many varieties of World Englishes and need to learn to write academic English, but in order to do this, writing center directors must guide their tutors on questions such as the following: In a digital environment, how can tutors engage L2 students in dialogs that are productive for academic writing? How can online tutors overcome comparisons that pit the many varieties of students’ writing against a hegemonic “ideal text”? What are the alternatives for responding to perceived errors of form?
When writers come through the doors of the Main Writing Center (WC) at UW-Madison, it’s worth considering how we instructors can process many bits of information about them.
Researchers from Kaplan University present findings from a media-rich feedback pilot program that targets students from developmental writing courses. One study of student reactions reveals how screencasting feedback encouraged more formative, holistic feedback and students’ awareness of writing process, audience, and revision.
This study highlights the writing difficulty of tertiary students in ESL or EFL contexts. It describes two successful innovations, writing center and online writing lab, initiated by North American institutions of higher learning to intervene in the writing crisis.
Only recently has the community problematized space, moving the dialogue from what a center should do to what it means when a center does. In this critical vein, we approach our review of writing centers as spaces that impact their participants. Our treatment of writing center spaces follows a continuum. We move from the material, tangible, physical writing center to the more ethereal, digital space. We explore what it means to occupy a particular space and what identity constructions are possible in our physical and digital spaces.
David Coogan did report his work on e-mail-based tutoring with his own tutees and graduate student tutors, but he did not focus particularly on faculty as tutors (32). So, as we continued our work with faculty and student tutors, we wondered whether there is, indeed, a significant difference between faculty tutors and student tutors in our online setting.
Today’s deaf college students are expected to succeed academically despite language and learning challenges (Paul, 2009). As a support service, the benefits of tutoring have been well documented; however, research using remote tutoring with deaf college students is lacking. This Action Research study examined the activities (actions and interactions) that occurred during twenty-two remote-tutoring sessions with nine deaf students in my English class.