An Annotated Bibliography (1-10)
Anderson-Inman, Lynne. “OWLs: Online Writing Labs (Technology Tidbits).” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 40 (1997): 650-654.
This article offers “tidbits” to those with little or no knowledge or experience with OWLs. It briefly discusses the increase in numbers of OWLs for primarily post-secondary institutions. According to Anderson-Inman, there are three types of information (resource materials, online tutoring, and information gateways) that you will find in a typical OWL. She mentions that resource materials tend to be student-centered as opposed to teacher-centered, yet she does not pose this as a problem with OWLs. A look at online tutoring shows that it can range from “grammar hotlines” to more in-depth “synchronous discussions” for complex writing issues. Though some OWLs restrict access to students who attend the sponsoring institution, it does not mean that OWLs cannot be used by the public. The end of the article focuses on how OWLs can be used as information gateways to help students find an endless amount of writing resources. It provides a useful alternative to navigating through gateways such as Yahoo or Google. This source may be only useful for basic information on OWLs, but it does provide useful links to a variety of OWLs that have been established at institutions around the country.
Breuch, Lee-Ann M. Kastman, and Sam J. Racine. “Developing Sound Tutor Training for Online Writing Centers: Creating Productive Peer Reviewers.” Computers and Composition 17 (2000): 245-263.
Breuch and Racine maintain the belief that tutors who are trained for face-to-face writing centers are not necessarily prepared for what they may encounter by working online. Their goal is to provide an overview of how writing centers can provide adequate training for these tutors. To reach this goal, the focus on three aspects of changing our thoughts about online writing centers. We need to teach tutors to appreciate text-only environments. Among other things, they point out “text-only environments encourage students to write…[while] considering audience’s needs, anticipating readers’ reactions to text, and writing in a clear, concise, and informative style.” They also mention that specific procedures, such as commenting approaches, need to be developed for responding online. This will help writing centers formulate “appropriate roles for online tutors,” which include being more directive and modifying the traditional coach or guide approach. The main point is to avoid comparing online writing centers to face-to-face centers, and instead recognize them as separate entities that can both supplement teaching strategies.
Hewett, Beth. “Generating New Theory for Online Writing Instruction (OWI).” Kairos: A Journal for Teachers of Writing and Webbed Environments 22 Oct. 2004
.
Hewett’s main focus is to discuss her theories surrounding “individualized writing instruction within OWLs with references to computer mediated communication.” She believes that OWL research must go beyond anecdote and move to practice-based study that originates in natural settings found in both classrooms and onsite tutorial centers. Following with a background that focuses on her own biases toward OWI, Hewett discusses previous literature that inspired her to ask questions about OWI today. In this literature review, she explores several composition theories (current-traditional, expressivist, neo-classical, and social constructivist) and how they can be “extended in various ways to online writing instruction practices.” Her final note is that to obtain effective synchronous instruction in OWL, we must use a variety of designs to incorporate chat functions, multi-user dimensions, document sharing, and feedback models.
Hobson, Eric H., ed. Wiring the Writing Center. Logan: Utah State University Press. 27 Oct. 2004.
This book includes several submissions from teachers and researchers who have explored the genre of OWLs. Due to the many approaches mentions in this book, the editor offers a cautionary note that says, “the technology does not provide a writing center with anything that can replace the people who work there, who train the staff, and whose experience, intuition, and common sense underlies a very powerful form of guiding insight.” One chapter of interest focuses on the OWL practices at the University of Michigan and is authored by Barbara Monroe. She takes an in-depth look at methods for providing feedback in an online environment. Using “front notes” “intertextual commentary” and “endnotes” provides an opportunity for tutors to engage with student writers who respond to a variety of commenting strategies. This OWL provides a model for finding that delicate compromise between criticism and praise in peer review that exists both on and offline. Her chapter ends with a positive outlook on asynchronous communication and how can benefit and supplement real-time feedback for either face-to-face or online tutoring.
Hongmei, Li. “Distance Education: Pros, Cons, and the Future.” Western States Communication Association, Long Beach. 2-5 Mar. 2002.
This paper takes a look at the aspects of distance education and online instruction to provide multiple perspectives of the truth behind this new commodity. Hongmei first takes a look at the student’s perspective to see who is most successful. Distanced learning tends to give control to “self-motivated and self-disciplined students with adequate reading and writing ability, good time management skills and comfort level with computers”. It is this group of students who succeed the most from this type of instruction. She then makes not of the differences between online and traditional learning with results in the conclusion that whatever your opinion, it is important to remember that student-based pedagogy is the most important factor. Her look at the support, or lack of it, by faculty members leads into the potential disaster of allowing “big business” to take its chunk of the pie. Fortunately, she ends on a positive note with an in-dept look at positive on-line writing programs at State University of New York and the University of California, Long Beach.
Leander, Kevin M. “Laboratories for Writing.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43 (2000): 662-668.
This article seeks to answer the question, “what does the development of online writing centers show us about the creation of ‘new’ spaces for literacy?” Leander takes an in-depth look at the “genrification” of online writing centers by exploring various shared characteristics. Most online writing centers have information about their offline counterparts (i.e. basic services, location, staff, hours). They also may include links to general writing resources for accessing style or grammar handbooks. Many contain ‘handouts’ that specifically target problem areas that writers face in their papers. Finally, more and more online writing centers are working toward providing e-mail links that permit students to submit their papers for prompt online feedback. After the author briefly explores online writing center hybrids, the risks of market-driven motivations of distance education, and student-centered learning the article ends with a look forward. “What if online writing centers became academic leaders as spaces for the advancement of multiliteracies?”
Palmquist, Mike. “A brief history of computer support for writing centers and writing-across-the-curriculum programs.” Computers and Composition 20 (2003): 395-413.
The article provides an in-depth look at how computer support has evolved since the 1970s in writing centers and WAC programs. Palquist begins with a discussion of computers being used as tools for individual work; little was networked within the program. The next stage involved using computers to run the administrative work of the writing center (i.e. accounting, notes on conferences, etc.). He then gets to the introduction of spell- and grammar checkers and how they represent a way to quantify writing into a mathematical equation. Word-processing programs play the next important role in attracting students to writing centers, whereby supporting outreach efforts. Gradually, there is an effort to use the pioneering technology of e-mail and inter-department networks to connect these programs to the rest of the academic community. His article finally concludes with a description of networking on the World Wide Web while looking forward to possible advancements in writing center technology. He expects a move toward more real-time instruction and critique, similar to conference technology being used in the corporate/business world.
Shadle, Mark. “The Spotted OWL: Online Writing Labs as Sites of Diversity, Controversy, and Identity.” Taking Flight with OWLs: Examining Electronic Writing Center Work. Eds. James A. Inman and Donna N. Sewell. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2000.
In this chapter, Shadle discusses his findings from a survey that he conducted at small and large institutions across the country. In his survey, primary questions focus on basic concerns with OWLs: resistance, practice, and successful vs. unsuccessful programs. His findings give him extensive information that focuses on how various OWLs are constructed given the implications of finding funding, support for servers, hardware, and software to run a successful center. He also extensively covers information related to updating existing OWLs. He suggests that writing centers approach issues of access, multiple audiences, resource materials, and the need for interactive features. On a last note, his brief look at tutor training and a “checklist” for creating an OWL may or may not be useful for practical application (based on the previous knowledge of potential writing center creators).
Swarts, Jason. “Live from the Writing Center: Technological Demands and Multiliterate Practice in a Virtual Writing Center.” Northeast Writing Centers Association, Worcester. 31 Mar. 2001.
This paper focuses on a writing center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute that pilots an Online Writing Tutorial. It is a 2-3-credit course designed to help students develop professional as well as academic based writing skills. Being a compliment to a co-op program, this course is unique to traditional essay-based courses. According to the author, there were several successes in this course. It allowed students to experiment with changing conventions based on their writing work. The program also had the ability to provide quick feedback via email, but not necessarily “real-time” feedback. The failures tended to be based on mainly logistics: supervisors restricting student access to company materials needed for course work and workday schedules causing awkward breaks between class periods. In the end, this paper provides yet another example that may be helpful to teachers who are looking for models for future pedagogical approaches.
Terryberry, Karl. “The Online Writing Lab (OWL) and the Forum: A Tool for Writers in Distance Education Environments.” Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning (IMEJ) 23 Oct. 2004.
This is an article focusing on the “asynchronous” nature of online writing instruction through OWLs and other web-based tutorials. Terryberry discusses how to integrate basic web pages with courseware and “take advantage of threaded discussion groups that offer quality control over asynchronous environments and collaborative learning environments that writing students need.” He believes that OWLs can be used to deal with problems with peer editing, by allowing students to feel uninhibited by distanced confrontation. They can be used as grading tools by color-coding errors found in individual papers and their solutions via the web. And used as pedagogical tools for visual, auditory, and tactile learners. It is a close look at his pedagogical approach to teaching writing, which provides a model for teachers who intend to use OWLs in their classrooms.
This article offers “tidbits” to those with little or no knowledge or experience with OWLs. It briefly discusses the increase in numbers of OWLs for primarily post-secondary institutions. According to Anderson-Inman, there are three types of information (resource materials, online tutoring, and information gateways) that you will find in a typical OWL. She mentions that resource materials tend to be student-centered as opposed to teacher-centered, yet she does not pose this as a problem with OWLs. A look at online tutoring shows that it can range from “grammar hotlines” to more in-depth “synchronous discussions” for complex writing issues. Though some OWLs restrict access to students who attend the sponsoring institution, it does not mean that OWLs cannot be used by the public. The end of the article focuses on how OWLs can be used as information gateways to help students find an endless amount of writing resources. It provides a useful alternative to navigating through gateways such as Yahoo or Google. This source may be only useful for basic information on OWLs, but it does provide useful links to a variety of OWLs that have been established at institutions around the country.
Breuch, Lee-Ann M. Kastman, and Sam J. Racine. “Developing Sound Tutor Training for Online Writing Centers: Creating Productive Peer Reviewers.” Computers and Composition 17 (2000): 245-263.
Breuch and Racine maintain the belief that tutors who are trained for face-to-face writing centers are not necessarily prepared for what they may encounter by working online. Their goal is to provide an overview of how writing centers can provide adequate training for these tutors. To reach this goal, the focus on three aspects of changing our thoughts about online writing centers. We need to teach tutors to appreciate text-only environments. Among other things, they point out “text-only environments encourage students to write…[while] considering audience’s needs, anticipating readers’ reactions to text, and writing in a clear, concise, and informative style.” They also mention that specific procedures, such as commenting approaches, need to be developed for responding online. This will help writing centers formulate “appropriate roles for online tutors,” which include being more directive and modifying the traditional coach or guide approach. The main point is to avoid comparing online writing centers to face-to-face centers, and instead recognize them as separate entities that can both supplement teaching strategies.
Hewett, Beth. “Generating New Theory for Online Writing Instruction (OWI).” Kairos: A Journal for Teachers of Writing and Webbed Environments 22 Oct. 2004
Hewett’s main focus is to discuss her theories surrounding “individualized writing instruction within OWLs with references to computer mediated communication.” She believes that OWL research must go beyond anecdote and move to practice-based study that originates in natural settings found in both classrooms and onsite tutorial centers. Following with a background that focuses on her own biases toward OWI, Hewett discusses previous literature that inspired her to ask questions about OWI today. In this literature review, she explores several composition theories (current-traditional, expressivist, neo-classical, and social constructivist) and how they can be “extended in various ways to online writing instruction practices.” Her final note is that to obtain effective synchronous instruction in OWL, we must use a variety of designs to incorporate chat functions, multi-user dimensions, document sharing, and feedback models.
Hobson, Eric H., ed. Wiring the Writing Center. Logan: Utah State University Press. 27 Oct. 2004
This book includes several submissions from teachers and researchers who have explored the genre of OWLs. Due to the many approaches mentions in this book, the editor offers a cautionary note that says, “the technology does not provide a writing center with anything that can replace the people who work there, who train the staff, and whose experience, intuition, and common sense underlies a very powerful form of guiding insight.” One chapter of interest focuses on the OWL practices at the University of Michigan and is authored by Barbara Monroe. She takes an in-depth look at methods for providing feedback in an online environment. Using “front notes” “intertextual commentary” and “endnotes” provides an opportunity for tutors to engage with student writers who respond to a variety of commenting strategies. This OWL provides a model for finding that delicate compromise between criticism and praise in peer review that exists both on and offline. Her chapter ends with a positive outlook on asynchronous communication and how can benefit and supplement real-time feedback for either face-to-face or online tutoring.
Hongmei, Li. “Distance Education: Pros, Cons, and the Future.” Western States Communication Association, Long Beach. 2-5 Mar. 2002.
This paper takes a look at the aspects of distance education and online instruction to provide multiple perspectives of the truth behind this new commodity. Hongmei first takes a look at the student’s perspective to see who is most successful. Distanced learning tends to give control to “self-motivated and self-disciplined students with adequate reading and writing ability, good time management skills and comfort level with computers”. It is this group of students who succeed the most from this type of instruction. She then makes not of the differences between online and traditional learning with results in the conclusion that whatever your opinion, it is important to remember that student-based pedagogy is the most important factor. Her look at the support, or lack of it, by faculty members leads into the potential disaster of allowing “big business” to take its chunk of the pie. Fortunately, she ends on a positive note with an in-dept look at positive on-line writing programs at State University of New York and the University of California, Long Beach.
Leander, Kevin M. “Laboratories for Writing.” Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy 43 (2000): 662-668.
This article seeks to answer the question, “what does the development of online writing centers show us about the creation of ‘new’ spaces for literacy?” Leander takes an in-depth look at the “genrification” of online writing centers by exploring various shared characteristics. Most online writing centers have information about their offline counterparts (i.e. basic services, location, staff, hours). They also may include links to general writing resources for accessing style or grammar handbooks. Many contain ‘handouts’ that specifically target problem areas that writers face in their papers. Finally, more and more online writing centers are working toward providing e-mail links that permit students to submit their papers for prompt online feedback. After the author briefly explores online writing center hybrids, the risks of market-driven motivations of distance education, and student-centered learning the article ends with a look forward. “What if online writing centers became academic leaders as spaces for the advancement of multiliteracies?”
Palmquist, Mike. “A brief history of computer support for writing centers and writing-across-the-curriculum programs.” Computers and Composition 20 (2003): 395-413.
The article provides an in-depth look at how computer support has evolved since the 1970s in writing centers and WAC programs. Palquist begins with a discussion of computers being used as tools for individual work; little was networked within the program. The next stage involved using computers to run the administrative work of the writing center (i.e. accounting, notes on conferences, etc.). He then gets to the introduction of spell- and grammar checkers and how they represent a way to quantify writing into a mathematical equation. Word-processing programs play the next important role in attracting students to writing centers, whereby supporting outreach efforts. Gradually, there is an effort to use the pioneering technology of e-mail and inter-department networks to connect these programs to the rest of the academic community. His article finally concludes with a description of networking on the World Wide Web while looking forward to possible advancements in writing center technology. He expects a move toward more real-time instruction and critique, similar to conference technology being used in the corporate/business world.
Shadle, Mark. “The Spotted OWL: Online Writing Labs as Sites of Diversity, Controversy, and Identity.” Taking Flight with OWLs: Examining Electronic Writing Center Work. Eds. James A. Inman and Donna N. Sewell. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 2000.
In this chapter, Shadle discusses his findings from a survey that he conducted at small and large institutions across the country. In his survey, primary questions focus on basic concerns with OWLs: resistance, practice, and successful vs. unsuccessful programs. His findings give him extensive information that focuses on how various OWLs are constructed given the implications of finding funding, support for servers, hardware, and software to run a successful center. He also extensively covers information related to updating existing OWLs. He suggests that writing centers approach issues of access, multiple audiences, resource materials, and the need for interactive features. On a last note, his brief look at tutor training and a “checklist” for creating an OWL may or may not be useful for practical application (based on the previous knowledge of potential writing center creators).
Swarts, Jason. “Live from the Writing Center: Technological Demands and Multiliterate Practice in a Virtual Writing Center.” Northeast Writing Centers Association, Worcester. 31 Mar. 2001.
This paper focuses on a writing center at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute that pilots an Online Writing Tutorial. It is a 2-3-credit course designed to help students develop professional as well as academic based writing skills. Being a compliment to a co-op program, this course is unique to traditional essay-based courses. According to the author, there were several successes in this course. It allowed students to experiment with changing conventions based on their writing work. The program also had the ability to provide quick feedback via email, but not necessarily “real-time” feedback. The failures tended to be based on mainly logistics: supervisors restricting student access to company materials needed for course work and workday schedules causing awkward breaks between class periods. In the end, this paper provides yet another example that may be helpful to teachers who are looking for models for future pedagogical approaches.
Terryberry, Karl. “The Online Writing Lab (OWL) and the Forum: A Tool for Writers in Distance Education Environments.” Interactive Multimedia Electronic Journal of Computer-Enhanced Learning (IMEJ) 23 Oct. 2004
This is an article focusing on the “asynchronous” nature of online writing instruction through OWLs and other web-based tutorials. Terryberry discusses how to integrate basic web pages with courseware and “take advantage of threaded discussion groups that offer quality control over asynchronous environments and collaborative learning environments that writing students need.” He believes that OWLs can be used to deal with problems with peer editing, by allowing students to feel uninhibited by distanced confrontation. They can be used as grading tools by color-coding errors found in individual papers and their solutions via the web. And used as pedagogical tools for visual, auditory, and tactile learners. It is a close look at his pedagogical approach to teaching writing, which provides a model for teachers who intend to use OWLs in their classrooms.
posted by Meredith @ 9:57 AM
1 comments
