An Annotated Bibliography (continued)
Abdullah, Mardziah H. “The Impact of Electronic Communication on Writing.” ERIC Clearing House on Reading, English and Communication Dec. 2003: 3-5.
In this Digest article, Abdullah summarizes popular studies about the affect of “e-writing” on students’ writing skills, behavior, and performance. She points out that students tend to be more apt to working on the process of writing, or seeing it, because it is easily manipulated on the screen. It is easier for them to break things down. Students are also more engaged during online conversation, due to anonymity. These conversations then lead to more collaborative writing where students can learn from each other, as well as from the instructor. While plenty of research shows that the electronic age is helping students become better writers, there are still some downfalls. The main concern of researchers is that students tend to write formal prose in the format of conversational prose, similar to what is found in e-mail and online culture. I agree with this point to a certain extent, but not entirely. If students are taught the difference between these two genres, then they are more likely to be eventually versatile in both. I think this article is helpful for a general overview about technology and student writing, but it doesn’t really lead me to new insight on the subject of OWLs.
Arkin, Marian. “Developing a Hybrid Tutoring Model in an Urban Community College.” Annual Teaching in the Community Colleges Online Conference. Kapiolani Community College. 17-19 Apr. 2001.
This source provides a look at the writing center at LaGuardia Community College of City University of New York, and its struggle to maintain a personalized tutoring environment due to an increase in student enrollment. They also want to provide relief for students who are also parents of young children. Having an online source will give them an opportunity to avoid finding childcare, in order to visit the center. The solution is to work more closely with the university-wide CUNY (City University of New York) WriteSite program. Located at http://www.writesite.cuny.edu/, CUNY used to be a cross-campus resource with only static information. Once paired with the efforts of writing centers across the university, CUNY will become a resource for tutoring as well. This source provides a look at what can happen when tutoring efforts are combined, yet it only provides an introduction of what is to come. I would like to know more about how the program works now, after being in service for a few years.
Enders, Doug. “Making synchronous, on-line tutorials easier: Microsoft’s NetMeeting 3.1.” The Writing Lab Newsletter 8 (2001): 14-16.
Enders discusses the advancements in synchronous communication for online writing centers — more specifically, the move from NetMeeting 2.1 to 3.1. The software can be downloaded from Microsoft’s web site free for distance learners, who cannot attend a face-to-face conference at the writing center. The program “allows a client to send his or her paper online to a writing consultant who then formats it on-screen for both to use alongside a chat window, where the two can discuss it in real time.” The greatest change from NetMeeting 2.1 to 3.1 is that it allows adjustments to be made to one screen, without changing the other. Like the tools on Microsoft Word, NetMeeting 3.1 allows users to highlight a particular phrase of the paper to call attention to it. The program also has more affordable audio/video options that can make the meeting resemble a face-to-face conference. Though software has made great advancements, Enders mentions that “it would take three synchronous, online sessions to achieve what one could do in a single face-to-face meeting.” This is mainly due to the fact that we type slower than we speak, and the absence of nonverbal communication. Indiana State University still uses face-to-face conferences, but this advancement has helped them take a giant step forward in the capabilities of online tutoring.
Harris, Muriel. “Preparing to Sit at the Head Table: Maintaining Writing Center Viability in the Twenty-First Century.” Writing Center Journal 20 (2000): 13-21.
Harris writes of the growing pressures facing writing centers, and how they plan to deal with them as technology moves forward. She asks writing centers to stick more than a “toe” into the cold waters of online tutoring for the benefit of students, more than the benefit of administration or commercial intervention. However, writing centers need to be more aware of the “bean counters” who are looking for ways to eliminate on-site tutors to save money on real-estate, salaries, and equipment. They need to stand their ground, while still moving forward with advancements in technology. Finding numbers that show that an on-campus writing center is more beneficial than a commercial online center is one way to prove their point. Harris points to higher SAT verbal scores and higher overall grades that result from students who visit on-campus centers. Being specific about the benefits and drawbacks of both on-site and online centers is the best way to fight this uphill battle, according to Harris. If they don’t, faculty will turn to the “experts” that will. This source is helpful because it cites quite a bit of research to prove how writing centers affect student learning.
Hewett, Beth L. “How Do You Feel? Attitudes About Tutoring Online.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal 2 (2004): 15 Nov. 2004 <http://uwc3.fac.utexas.edu/~praxis/Archive/04_spring/04_spring_files/training_online.html>.
This article focuses on informing tutors about what lies ahead when they decide to use an online format. The author poses a series of questions for tutors to decide if online tutoring should be a resource in their own labs. Questions mainly focus on how confident a tutor is with his or her computer skills, and how a tutor values online learning overall. The author does not want tutors to feel the pressure of appealing to the needs of teachers, students, or administrators, if they are not comfortable with running an online writing service. I think that the most important part of these questions lies in how comfortable the tutor feels. Online writing centers will not be as successful, if tutors (the background of the establishment) are under-prepared, or forced into an uncomfortable environment. These questions could serve as a way to screen candidates for writing centers, in order to decide which tutor will perform the best in a particular situation. It gives me an idea to think more about the perspectives of tutors, rather than just students.
Honeycutt, L. “Comparing e-mail and synchronous conferencing in online peer response.” Written Communication 18 (2001): 26-60.
Honeycutt takes a look at how students respond to synchronous vs. asynchronous communication during the peer review process. He thoroughly dissects the codes associated with the discourse involved in online communication; but more importantly, he looks at the practical response of individual students involved in this writing process. He concludes that most students prefer e-mail to chat conversations, due to the depth of communication and well-thought-out nature of the comments. Chat conversations resembled face-to-face speech more than the e-mail exchanges. Though students prefer e-mail, Honeycutt does not attempt to say that synchronous communication should be outlawed. It is possible that it has its place during the brainstorming or outlining process of writing, where quick feedback inspires the mind to come up with multiple ideas. This article is important, with respect to online tutoring; many centers rely on asynchronous communication for all stages of the writing process. What are the possibilities or constraints if writing centers consider adopting both synchronous and asynchronous methods of communication?
“International Writing Centers Association.” 29 Oct. 2004. 14 Nov. 2004. http://writingcenters.org/index.php.
This website is a wonderful resource for writing centers and people looking to develop their own writing centers. The International Writing Centers Association is an NCTE assembly, and is governed by a board of representatives from university writing centers across the country. It provides information and links for starting a writing center, peer tutoring, OWLs, resources for writers, and more. The association is also responsible for publishing The Writing Lab Newsletter and The Writing Center Journal, which focus on “concerns during the academic year” and “writing center theory and research” respectively. An interesting aspect of the “tutor” link is a peer-centered blog where “peer writing tutors/consultants can blog with their colleagues from around the world.” The site seems like a well-anchored source for writing center members.
Moe, Holly K. "Smarthinking.com — Online Writing Lab or Jiffy-Editing Service?" Diss. Modesto College, 2000.
In this study, conducted by a writing center tutor at Modesto College, the goal is to determine how students and instructors react to the online tutoring from Smarthinking.com. The writing center tutors at Modesto College had thought about ways to implement their own online tutoring service, but they were forced to resort to a semi-commercially driven resource, Smarthinking.com. Moe briefly describes the goals of Smarthinking.com as being ones that will “supplement institutions’ academic support systems to better serve the changing needs of students.” She also mentions that Smarthinking.com aims to be more than just an editing service for students and instructors alike. However, there is some skepticism on the part of the author. Her skepticism leads her to conduct a series of surveys from both students and instructors at her institution. The most interesting part of her findings was that the student sample seemed equally divided on the issue of preference. Half of the students preferred online tutoring, based on convenience, anonymity, and rate of feedback. The other half preferred face-to-face tutoring because they didn’t have to wait for responses, it was more familiar, and more personal. Only three instructors (ones who asked their students to use Smarthinking.com) provided the information for this study. All three like the idea that students can get a sense of audience and an outsider’s perspective, but they dislike the emphasis on grammar and editing conventions. This study is useful to see how one particular group of people feel about this online tutoring program; but due to the small size of the sample, it is hard to say that these ideas can resemble those of other institutions. It does cause me to question whether universities should conduct their own OWL, or if they should use a service such as Smarthinking.com.
Mooney, T.R. “Launching Loyola’s E-Tutor.” National Writing Across the Curriculum Conference. Bloomington, IN. 31 May 2001.
Mooney discusses the WAC’s response to distance learners’ requests for online writing tutors. Before adding the option of receiving tutoring, via email, students had the option to meet face-to-face, or by combining telephone and fax services. Due to an increase in distance learning programs at Loyola, the WAC department looked for ways to ease the lives of its students. After the e-tutor program was implemented, Mooney asked students to give feedback about how they used it. He found that, even though students requested this service, they continued to prefer the original methods of conferencing. The only problem with Mooney’s “study” was that he could not get accurate feedback on why students still preferred the old methods. He believes that it may have to do with participants being uncomfortable with the new method, due to its unfamiliarity. I have to agree.
“Online Writing and Learning: OWL.” 5 Nov. 2004. U of M Sweetland Writing Center. 14 Nov. 2004. <http://www.lsa.umich.edu/swc/help/owl.html - form>.
This page gives you information about the process of submitting your paper online to a writing center tutor. The timeframe for receiving feedback from a peer tutor is between 48 and 72 hours (when busy). It gives you information on: how to submit papers to the OWL, using the online submission form, and the online submission form itself. The guidelines for submission include sending papers that are eight pages or less, notification of privacy issues, and using e-mail vs. the online submission form. The online submission form itself is a system that allows you to enter name, e-mail, year in school, purpose, due date, and the title/topic of your paper. Text boxes allow the user to describe the assignment, ask for help in specific areas, and cut/paste the paper itself. While the format of this online service seems user friendly, I don’t think that it can compare to face-to-face conferencing.
In this Digest article, Abdullah summarizes popular studies about the affect of “e-writing” on students’ writing skills, behavior, and performance. She points out that students tend to be more apt to working on the process of writing, or seeing it, because it is easily manipulated on the screen. It is easier for them to break things down. Students are also more engaged during online conversation, due to anonymity. These conversations then lead to more collaborative writing where students can learn from each other, as well as from the instructor. While plenty of research shows that the electronic age is helping students become better writers, there are still some downfalls. The main concern of researchers is that students tend to write formal prose in the format of conversational prose, similar to what is found in e-mail and online culture. I agree with this point to a certain extent, but not entirely. If students are taught the difference between these two genres, then they are more likely to be eventually versatile in both. I think this article is helpful for a general overview about technology and student writing, but it doesn’t really lead me to new insight on the subject of OWLs.
Arkin, Marian. “Developing a Hybrid Tutoring Model in an Urban Community College.” Annual Teaching in the Community Colleges Online Conference. Kapiolani Community College. 17-19 Apr. 2001.
This source provides a look at the writing center at LaGuardia Community College of City University of New York, and its struggle to maintain a personalized tutoring environment due to an increase in student enrollment. They also want to provide relief for students who are also parents of young children. Having an online source will give them an opportunity to avoid finding childcare, in order to visit the center. The solution is to work more closely with the university-wide CUNY (City University of New York) WriteSite program. Located at http://www.writesite.cuny.edu/, CUNY used to be a cross-campus resource with only static information. Once paired with the efforts of writing centers across the university, CUNY will become a resource for tutoring as well. This source provides a look at what can happen when tutoring efforts are combined, yet it only provides an introduction of what is to come. I would like to know more about how the program works now, after being in service for a few years.
Enders, Doug. “Making synchronous, on-line tutorials easier: Microsoft’s NetMeeting 3.1.” The Writing Lab Newsletter 8 (2001): 14-16.
Enders discusses the advancements in synchronous communication for online writing centers — more specifically, the move from NetMeeting 2.1 to 3.1. The software can be downloaded from Microsoft’s web site free for distance learners, who cannot attend a face-to-face conference at the writing center. The program “allows a client to send his or her paper online to a writing consultant who then formats it on-screen for both to use alongside a chat window, where the two can discuss it in real time.” The greatest change from NetMeeting 2.1 to 3.1 is that it allows adjustments to be made to one screen, without changing the other. Like the tools on Microsoft Word, NetMeeting 3.1 allows users to highlight a particular phrase of the paper to call attention to it. The program also has more affordable audio/video options that can make the meeting resemble a face-to-face conference. Though software has made great advancements, Enders mentions that “it would take three synchronous, online sessions to achieve what one could do in a single face-to-face meeting.” This is mainly due to the fact that we type slower than we speak, and the absence of nonverbal communication. Indiana State University still uses face-to-face conferences, but this advancement has helped them take a giant step forward in the capabilities of online tutoring.
Harris, Muriel. “Preparing to Sit at the Head Table: Maintaining Writing Center Viability in the Twenty-First Century.” Writing Center Journal 20 (2000): 13-21.
Harris writes of the growing pressures facing writing centers, and how they plan to deal with them as technology moves forward. She asks writing centers to stick more than a “toe” into the cold waters of online tutoring for the benefit of students, more than the benefit of administration or commercial intervention. However, writing centers need to be more aware of the “bean counters” who are looking for ways to eliminate on-site tutors to save money on real-estate, salaries, and equipment. They need to stand their ground, while still moving forward with advancements in technology. Finding numbers that show that an on-campus writing center is more beneficial than a commercial online center is one way to prove their point. Harris points to higher SAT verbal scores and higher overall grades that result from students who visit on-campus centers. Being specific about the benefits and drawbacks of both on-site and online centers is the best way to fight this uphill battle, according to Harris. If they don’t, faculty will turn to the “experts” that will. This source is helpful because it cites quite a bit of research to prove how writing centers affect student learning.
Hewett, Beth L. “How Do You Feel? Attitudes About Tutoring Online.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal 2 (2004): 15 Nov. 2004 <http://uwc3.fac.utexas.edu/~praxis/Archive/04_spring/04_spring_files/training_online.html>.
This article focuses on informing tutors about what lies ahead when they decide to use an online format. The author poses a series of questions for tutors to decide if online tutoring should be a resource in their own labs. Questions mainly focus on how confident a tutor is with his or her computer skills, and how a tutor values online learning overall. The author does not want tutors to feel the pressure of appealing to the needs of teachers, students, or administrators, if they are not comfortable with running an online writing service. I think that the most important part of these questions lies in how comfortable the tutor feels. Online writing centers will not be as successful, if tutors (the background of the establishment) are under-prepared, or forced into an uncomfortable environment. These questions could serve as a way to screen candidates for writing centers, in order to decide which tutor will perform the best in a particular situation. It gives me an idea to think more about the perspectives of tutors, rather than just students.
Honeycutt, L. “Comparing e-mail and synchronous conferencing in online peer response.” Written Communication 18 (2001): 26-60.
Honeycutt takes a look at how students respond to synchronous vs. asynchronous communication during the peer review process. He thoroughly dissects the codes associated with the discourse involved in online communication; but more importantly, he looks at the practical response of individual students involved in this writing process. He concludes that most students prefer e-mail to chat conversations, due to the depth of communication and well-thought-out nature of the comments. Chat conversations resembled face-to-face speech more than the e-mail exchanges. Though students prefer e-mail, Honeycutt does not attempt to say that synchronous communication should be outlawed. It is possible that it has its place during the brainstorming or outlining process of writing, where quick feedback inspires the mind to come up with multiple ideas. This article is important, with respect to online tutoring; many centers rely on asynchronous communication for all stages of the writing process. What are the possibilities or constraints if writing centers consider adopting both synchronous and asynchronous methods of communication?
“International Writing Centers Association.” 29 Oct. 2004. 14 Nov. 2004. http://writingcenters.org/index.php.
This website is a wonderful resource for writing centers and people looking to develop their own writing centers. The International Writing Centers Association is an NCTE assembly, and is governed by a board of representatives from university writing centers across the country. It provides information and links for starting a writing center, peer tutoring, OWLs, resources for writers, and more. The association is also responsible for publishing The Writing Lab Newsletter and The Writing Center Journal, which focus on “concerns during the academic year” and “writing center theory and research” respectively. An interesting aspect of the “tutor” link is a peer-centered blog where “peer writing tutors/consultants can blog with their colleagues from around the world.” The site seems like a well-anchored source for writing center members.
Moe, Holly K. "Smarthinking.com — Online Writing Lab or Jiffy-Editing Service?" Diss. Modesto College, 2000.
In this study, conducted by a writing center tutor at Modesto College, the goal is to determine how students and instructors react to the online tutoring from Smarthinking.com. The writing center tutors at Modesto College had thought about ways to implement their own online tutoring service, but they were forced to resort to a semi-commercially driven resource, Smarthinking.com. Moe briefly describes the goals of Smarthinking.com as being ones that will “supplement institutions’ academic support systems to better serve the changing needs of students.” She also mentions that Smarthinking.com aims to be more than just an editing service for students and instructors alike. However, there is some skepticism on the part of the author. Her skepticism leads her to conduct a series of surveys from both students and instructors at her institution. The most interesting part of her findings was that the student sample seemed equally divided on the issue of preference. Half of the students preferred online tutoring, based on convenience, anonymity, and rate of feedback. The other half preferred face-to-face tutoring because they didn’t have to wait for responses, it was more familiar, and more personal. Only three instructors (ones who asked their students to use Smarthinking.com) provided the information for this study. All three like the idea that students can get a sense of audience and an outsider’s perspective, but they dislike the emphasis on grammar and editing conventions. This study is useful to see how one particular group of people feel about this online tutoring program; but due to the small size of the sample, it is hard to say that these ideas can resemble those of other institutions. It does cause me to question whether universities should conduct their own OWL, or if they should use a service such as Smarthinking.com.
Mooney, T.R. “Launching Loyola’s E-Tutor.” National Writing Across the Curriculum Conference. Bloomington, IN. 31 May 2001.
Mooney discusses the WAC’s response to distance learners’ requests for online writing tutors. Before adding the option of receiving tutoring, via email, students had the option to meet face-to-face, or by combining telephone and fax services. Due to an increase in distance learning programs at Loyola, the WAC department looked for ways to ease the lives of its students. After the e-tutor program was implemented, Mooney asked students to give feedback about how they used it. He found that, even though students requested this service, they continued to prefer the original methods of conferencing. The only problem with Mooney’s “study” was that he could not get accurate feedback on why students still preferred the old methods. He believes that it may have to do with participants being uncomfortable with the new method, due to its unfamiliarity. I have to agree.
“Online Writing and Learning: OWL.” 5 Nov. 2004. U of M Sweetland Writing Center. 14 Nov. 2004. <http://www.lsa.umich.edu/swc/help/owl.html - form>
This page gives you information about the process of submitting your paper online to a writing center tutor. The timeframe for receiving feedback from a peer tutor is between 48 and 72 hours (when busy). It gives you information on: how to submit papers to the OWL, using the online submission form, and the online submission form itself. The guidelines for submission include sending papers that are eight pages or less, notification of privacy issues, and using e-mail vs. the online submission form. The online submission form itself is a system that allows you to enter name, e-mail, year in school, purpose, due date, and the title/topic of your paper. Text boxes allow the user to describe the assignment, ask for help in specific areas, and cut/paste the paper itself. While the format of this online service seems user friendly, I don’t think that it can compare to face-to-face conferencing.
posted by Meredith @ 11:38 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home