Much of the scholarship on writing centers narrates the stories of writers and their texts as told by tutors, administrators, and researchers. In an effort to bring writers' voices to the forefront, this empirical study examines the types of questions and concerns writers have about their writing as submitted through the Purdue Writing Lab's OWL Mail, an online, asynchronous question-and-answer email platform.
In recent years, scholars within the writing center community have urged for improved research practices within the field. Lore and experience have long been the field's guiding influence.
Keywords digital literacy; digital divide; multiliteracy centers; underserved populations; two-year colleges Abstract Many publications on multiliteracy work in writing and multiliteracy centers have addressed how to respond to complex multimodal…
Motivated by increasing international student writing center use to learn more about second language writing development and its assessment, we conducted a case study of an undergraduate writer who submitted drafts to online tutoring over two years. Synthesizing the perspectives and methods of Applied Linguistics with those of First-Language Composition, we assessed the writer's short- and long-term progress in the rhetorical, linguistic, and writing process components of her writing development.
In September of 2006, the director of the Writing Center at UMBC (University of Maryland–Baltimore County), Mary Hickernell, asked me to research the practice of online peer tutoring. Specifically, Professor Hickernell wanted to know how other schools were approaching the idea of online tutoring in writing and what would be involved in the incorporation of such a program at UMBC. My initial research focused on the “spaces” involved in online tutoring—chat rooms, message boards, emails, and other such environments—as well as the types of methods and tutor training necessary to begin an online tutoring program.
This chapter offers a different perspective on asynchronous online writing tutoring based on the teaching practices in place at the Centre for Academic Writing (CAW), Coventry University, England. It develops a new theoretical framework for existing tutorial practices and suggests juxtaposition through parenthetical comments as a pedagogically-sound strategy for teaching critical thinking in asynchronous online student-tutor communication and potentially in other teaching contexts.
The case for Online Writing Center services has been built upon arguments of geographical needs, cost effectiveness, and overall time efficiency. A largely overlooked population who would benefit from these online services is that of students with disabilities.
OWI should be supported by online writing centers, most often referred to as online writing labs or OWLs. Developing these support structures, however, can be a daunting endeavor for many institutions, as OWLs are plagued with issues related to the perception that it is a deficit model for tutoring, accessibility issues, appropriate tutor training, and technology.
Just as the mediums in which we compose have shifted throughout the millennium, the modes of evaluating student work have likewise shifted. This shift is reflected in our own experience as Graduate Assistants in our recently reached out to students whose needs cannot institution’s Writing Center.
Examining 200 word choice errors from Chinese students' drafts submitted to a writing center's online asynchronous tutoring program, the present study demonstrates that second language writers need help with word choice. Word choice problems, a natural part of second language learning, can negatively affect rhetorical effectiveness and readers' comprehension and evaluation.