The Writing Center Goes Online: Are Online Writing Labs the Future?

Introduction

The advent of the word processor has been a boon for writing centers everywhere. Students are now able to take their writing through several stages of revision, some of which now may include electronic feedback from a professor or even a run through an electronic spell-checker. This sort of electronic revision shares a common goal with the writing center, which Anderson-Inman (1997) describes as, “to improve students’ skills as writes and enhance their understanding of writing as a process of communication and collaboration” (pp. 650). It only stands to reason, then, that these electronic resources would make their way into the writing center, and what has resulted is something called an Online Writing Lab, or OWL.

The OWL in the contemporary writing center can take a variety of forms. The OWL at Purdue University, created in 1984, was the first OWL. It was created “to provide a resource for students who sought writing help but couldn't make it into the physical Writing Lab during operating hours” (Purdue OWL, 2010). Its current iteration exists as an online reference available to anyone who visits the website. Users can consult handouts for APA and MLA citations or consult grammar guides. Other OWLs (including the George Mason University Writing Center) offer asynchronous tutoring, where students submit a paper via email and a tutor responds within a certain time frame; the student and the tutor are not working together on the paper at the same time as takes place in face to face (f2f) tutoring sessions.

The type of online tutoring that most resembles f2f tutoring, however, is synchronous tutoring. Synchronous tutoring allows students and tutors to “converse electronically, view a draft onscreen, and/or share files and references with one another as they collaborate (Harris & Pemberton, 1995, 532), all in real time. The purpose of this paper will be to explore the implications of synchronous tutoring for an OWL, including its benefits and hurdles that a writing center might face in setting up this type of tutoring.

Background

Neiderhiser and Wolfe (2009) identify several consultation methods that can be used during a synchronous tutoring session, many of which are often combined with one another by the same program. They consist of the following:

· Text-Based Instant Messaging. Writer and tutor discuss the paper via a chat client, using text-based messages in real time. This could be the most familiar of the consultation methods, but it has its drawbacks, the main one being that while writert and tutor are able to talk real-time about the paper, they lack a physical grounding in the paper—there is now way for the tutor to point to or highlight a section of text to demonstrate an example. AIM and Yahoo! Messenger are two examples of this type of program.

· Real-Time Screen Sharing. This method allows the writer and the tutor to view a common document while they discuss it, potentially via text or voice chat. Both participants are able to essentially share a desktop, where they can open a file in a word processor and both make changes at the same time. Neiderhiser and Wolfe (2009) note that this method is similar to a f2f tutoring session that would take place at a computer; however, one disadvantage of this method is the large amount of bandwidth required to hold a conference. AIM Pro offers real-time screen sharing.

· Voice over IP (VoIP). In this method, the writer and the tutor discuss the text in voice chat, using a program like Skype. Participants require a microphone and speaker for their respective computers. This voice chat pairs well with the real-time screen sharing mentioned above.

· Real-time video. Many of the programs that offer real time audio also offer video using a webcam.

· Telephone. Like VoIP, this common communication method can be useful, but limited by a common frame of reference. It could be combined with a real-time screen sharing program, as well.

· Online Collaboration Programs. Google Docs is a good example of this method. Users submit a document to a writing tool that allows collaboration, so the tutor and writer can both access the document and insert comments directly into the text. If users are online at the same time (which would involve scheduling), then they could use one of the above methods to discuss the text, or use a conferencing tool available in the software itself.

Potential Benefits

Synchronous tutoring promises a host of potential benefits. Godbee (2005) summarizes these as “increasing student access, participation, collaboration, and diversity.” Increased student accessibility is the main benefit of synchronous tutoring. Anderson-Inman (1997) notes that “writing centers have found they can better serve students who have to work during hours that the center is open or students who live at a considerable distance from campus” (pp. 650). Along with working students and distance learners, synchronous tutoring could also provide easier access to students with disabilities; for example, it would be easier for a tutor to work with a deaf student using text chat where both individuals were not obligated to share the same mouse and keyboard. These all work to achieve a writing center’s goal of diversity, as it brings writers to the center who might otherwise not have been able to take advantage of its services.

Another broader benefit of all online tutoring is what Neaderhiser and Wolfe (2009) describe as “offering the best of both worlds, for tutor and student can actively discuss things online and both must articulate their contributions in writing where they can be saved for later reference” (pp. 50-51). While tutors often try to use the final minutes of a f2f session to recap what has been discussed and work on a plan for the writer’s future writing, having a concrete transcript of what the writer and the tutor have discussed could prove invaluable to both parties, who will be able to review the session and have it for their records should any confusion result.

Hurdles

Unsurprisingly, the largest hurdle mentioned in the research for this paper was funding. Neiderhiser and Wolfe (2009) noted that about three quarters of the writing centers in their survey reported zero funding for online writing centers. What this probably indicates is that at least some of the centers do not distinguish funding for online tutoring from other tutoring, but also that OWLs are considered as an “extra” service instead of one separate from and equally important to f2f tutoring.

Writing centers need to take into account their student bodies when considering the potential price of synchronous tutoring. Eodice (2005) points out that “thinking about ‘cost’ in the broadest sense is not leaving out the human element…the cost of any service, whether virtual, outsourced, or face-to-face, should be set net to the return on investment in our students.” Many of the programs available are actually free, but this type of tutoring will also require increased support from Information Technology Departments, as well as any kind of additional training or hiring of tutors to meet the additional workload.

One of the more surprising results of the Neiderhiser & Wolfe’s (2009) survey is that over 90% of the online tutorial consultations surveyed were conducted through email, asynchronously; they note that “email’s lack of support for informal conversation about writing seems to work against the collaborative, interactive ethos of the face-to-face writing center” (pp. 69). Several survey respondents informed the researchers that they would be interested in providing synchronous tutoring, but lacked the technical capability or funding. The researchers note that these type of responses may indicate that writing center professionals are unaware of the simplicity of acquiring this software—often only an Internet connection and a free software download are required. If this is true, one of the larger hurdles may simply be scheduling conferences so both writer and tutor are able to attend.

One potential trend for the future is the outsourcing of tutoring. Under pressure to add online elements to their tutoring services, Neiderhiser & Wolfe (2009) note that many schools have outsourced to a company called Smarthinking.com. While this may be in an effort to conserve cost, this website only offers feedback via asynchronous email and so students do not receive the value of synchronous tutoring.

Further Research

The data gathered by Neiderhiser & Wolfe (2009) suggest that “more research and experimentation into the costs and benefits of different methods” (pp.73) are needed for synchronous tutoring to advance. Their study indicates that research universities are more likely than other institutions to provide innovative methods of online consultation. Larger, better-funded, and more experimental institutions may have to lay the groundwork for smaller schools by working out which methods provide the most value for the student body. Further examination of the level of information about synchronous tutoring available to writing center directors might also be useful, as no information exists on that subject at this time.

Conclusion

While online tutoring may not be the ideal environment for tutoring, it might be useful to note that the role of a writing center is to provide their services to the student body. The very students who are unable to come to the writing center during regular business hours are quite possibly the writers who might benefit the most from their visits. Writing center administrators should examine synchronous tutoring as a workable substitute for face-to-face tutoring.

References

Anderson-Inman, A. (1997). OWLs: Online Writing Labs. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 40(8), 650-654. Retrieved from ProQuest Research Database (October 3, 2010): http://mutex.gmu.edu:2048/login?url=http://proquest.umi.com.mutex.gmu.edu/pqdweb?did=11638589&sid=2&Fmt=4&clientId=31810&RQT=309&VName=PQD

The Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy is a peer-reviewed journal published by the International Reading Association.

Eodice, M. Do we really need that? Choosing technology for the Writing Center. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 2(2). Retrieved from: http://projects.uwc.utexas.edu/praxis/?q=node/20

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal is an electronic publication produced by the University of Texas’s Undergraduate Writing Center. While it exists only as a website and is not a peer-reviewed journal, it is affiliated with a reputable academic institution.

Godbee, B. Community building in Online Writing Centers. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 2(2). Retrieved from http://projects.uwc.utexas.edu/praxis/?q=node/21

Harris, M. & Pemberton, M. (1995) Online Writing Labs (OWLs): A taxonomy of options and issues. Computers and Composition 12. In Barnett, R. & Blumner (Eds.) (2001), The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice, (pp. 521-540) Needham Heights, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon.

This is from a book of scholarship about Writing Centers. Muriel Harris, one of the authors, is one of the main authorities on this subject and the founder of the first Online Writing Lab.

Neaderhiser, S. & Wolfe, J. (2009). Between technological endorsement and resistance: The state of Online Writing Centers. The Writing Center Journal, 29(1), 49-77. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Online Database (October 1, 2010): http://search.ebscohost.com.mutex.gmu.edu/login.aspx?direct=true&db=ehh&AN=37245232&site=ehost-live

This is a peer-refereed journal focusing specifically on Writing Centers. It is the official publication of the International Writing Centers Association, which is an affiliate of the National Council of Teachers of English, the main professional association for teachers of language arts and literacy.

Purdue OWL (2010, Sept. 30). OWL Fact Sheet. Retrieved from: http://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/resource/612/01/

The Purdue OWL is the first Online Writing Lab in existence. It is cited in most of the literature concerning OWLs. The Writing Center at George Mason University has several large posters concerning MLA and APA citations from the Purdue OWL on its walls.