Stuart Blythe. Practitioners normally adopt either an instrumental, substantive or critical theory of technology. These are theories of technology that have been developed by Andrew Feenberg.
Ø The instrumental theory places emphasis on the way in which the technology is used. Technology is viewed as a tool that does not necessarily alter practice. Those who apply this theory to online tutoring may argue that it replicates f2f tutoring and may focus on how the technology is used and not on how it may alter the student-tutor relationship.
Ø The substantive theory, in contrast posits that the technology fundamentally alters practice. Those who apply it to writing center practice argue that online tutoring changes the nature of the student-tutor relationship.
Ø The critical theory of technology agrees that technology changes practice but maintains that technology users can determine what kind of practices they want and choose technology during the design phase that would support these practices. In so doing, they can use the technology in an instrumental way. After technologies are implemented, it is difficult to alter them or work against them, short of rejecting them outright. Hence it is essential that users of the technology influence its design.
Wednesday, November 5, 2008
Ways online tutoring supports writing center pedagogy
Ø Hobson. Those who support the creation of OWLs claim that they democratize writing centers, encourage collaboration, remove authority and enhance tutor training. OWLs support social constructivist practices which underpin the ideology of writing centers.
Ø Harris and Pemberton. Synchronous chat force students to reflect, in written form, on their writing. Such reflection is viewed as a feature of the successful f2f tutorial. Students can also save the transcript of their online conversation and refer back to it as they revise their draft.
Ø Because online texts contain fewer clues to the composing process, students who are reserved may be emboldened to join the discourse. In addition, stereotypes of race, gender, and ethnicity may be less likely to impact the discourse.
OWLs democratize writing center access making it easier for groups such as the physically disabled, the learning impaired, part-time students, those with jobs that make it difficult for them to visit the writing center, commuting students as well as those who may not be members of the particular academic community to access the services provided by writing centers
Ø Harris and Pemberton. Synchronous chat force students to reflect, in written form, on their writing. Such reflection is viewed as a feature of the successful f2f tutorial. Students can also save the transcript of their online conversation and refer back to it as they revise their draft.
Ø Because online texts contain fewer clues to the composing process, students who are reserved may be emboldened to join the discourse. In addition, stereotypes of race, gender, and ethnicity may be less likely to impact the discourse.
OWLs democratize writing center access making it easier for groups such as the physically disabled, the learning impaired, part-time students, those with jobs that make it difficult for them to visit the writing center, commuting students as well as those who may not be members of the particular academic community to access the services provided by writing centers
Ways online tutoring undermines writing center pedagogy
Ø Hobson. Enthusiasm for technological innovations may promote a hierarchy between writing centers on the basis of those that are technologically savvy and those that are not. This may give rise to exclusionary practices that run counter to the goals of the writing center community which aims to celebrate diversity.
Ø Writing centers may also come to be seen as redundant. Although not often posed, this is perhaps the most important question writing centers face as they “[wrestle] with the task of if and how it is possible to take the writing center online with its services and guiding philosophies and value systems intact” (482).
Ø Some OWLs that function merely as resource mediums that provide access to skills and mechanistic activities reinforce the idea that OWLs are grammar centers. This seems to reinforce current-traditional pedagogy that writing centers worked hard to distance themselves from. [This also reinforces the view of writing as an individual as opposed to social activity. The reason for the instrumental approach to technology may stem from the difficulty of updating and maintaining web pages and websites. It may be relatively easy to format a static web page but up keeping them proves to be time-consuming.] Hobson argues that this is misplaced energy in that there is no need for writing centers to create such sites for themselves when they can provide links to such sites.
Ø Harris and Pemberton. Online texts, because of the nature of print, may seemed imbued with more authority than is intended and may replicate current-traditionalist strategies of learning that writing centers seek to avoid. Moving online conversations away from a mere question/answer format to true collaborative discussion requires practice.
Ø The online environment makes it easier for students to appropriate tutor feedback as their own. This raises ethical issues of plagiarism.
Ø Writing centers may also come to be seen as redundant. Although not often posed, this is perhaps the most important question writing centers face as they “[wrestle] with the task of if and how it is possible to take the writing center online with its services and guiding philosophies and value systems intact” (482).
Ø Some OWLs that function merely as resource mediums that provide access to skills and mechanistic activities reinforce the idea that OWLs are grammar centers. This seems to reinforce current-traditional pedagogy that writing centers worked hard to distance themselves from. [This also reinforces the view of writing as an individual as opposed to social activity. The reason for the instrumental approach to technology may stem from the difficulty of updating and maintaining web pages and websites. It may be relatively easy to format a static web page but up keeping them proves to be time-consuming.] Hobson argues that this is misplaced energy in that there is no need for writing centers to create such sites for themselves when they can provide links to such sites.
Ø Harris and Pemberton. Online texts, because of the nature of print, may seemed imbued with more authority than is intended and may replicate current-traditionalist strategies of learning that writing centers seek to avoid. Moving online conversations away from a mere question/answer format to true collaborative discussion requires practice.
Ø The online environment makes it easier for students to appropriate tutor feedback as their own. This raises ethical issues of plagiarism.
OWLs and the instrumental theory of technology
Hall, Mark and Thia Wolf. “One Writing Center’s First Steps Onto the Web.” The Writing Lab Newsletter 28.3 (2003): 1-6. Oct. 2008
Ø These writers subscribe to the instrumental theory of technology. They argue that technology should extend but not alter practice. They created an OWL that was designed to extend, not change, the social constructionist based pedagogy upon which their writing center was based. This ensured that tutors could work in both f2f tutorials and online tutoring.
Ø They also added links to online resources such as the OED, and grammar and style manuals.
Ø They opted to use synchronous online tutoring for this better fits with the goals of writing center pedagogy, emphasizes a non-hierarchical environment and mimics the f2f conference. They view asynchronous tutoring as “a virtual ‘drop-off’ proofreading and editing service, in which students might simply e-mail papers to a tutor, and then receive a single written response” (3). These writers echo the view shared by many other theorists that synchronous tutorials are better able to promote writing center pedagogy.
Ø These writers subscribe to the instrumental theory of technology. They argue that technology should extend but not alter practice. They created an OWL that was designed to extend, not change, the social constructionist based pedagogy upon which their writing center was based. This ensured that tutors could work in both f2f tutorials and online tutoring.
Ø They also added links to online resources such as the OED, and grammar and style manuals.
Ø They opted to use synchronous online tutoring for this better fits with the goals of writing center pedagogy, emphasizes a non-hierarchical environment and mimics the f2f conference. They view asynchronous tutoring as “a virtual ‘drop-off’ proofreading and editing service, in which students might simply e-mail papers to a tutor, and then receive a single written response” (3). These writers echo the view shared by many other theorists that synchronous tutorials are better able to promote writing center pedagogy.
OWLs and the substantive theory of technology
Breuch, Lee-Ann Kastman. “Virtual Peer Review as ‘Remediation.’” Virtual Peer Review: Teaching and Learning About Writing in Online Environments. State Univ. of New York P: 2004. 7-35.
Ø Using Bolter and Grusin’s notion of remediation, Breuch applies it to electronic communication, specifically peer review, to ascertain the extent to which online peer review draws on or remediates f2f peer review. She defines virtual peer review “as the activity of [peers] using computer technology to exchange and respond to one another’s writing for the purpose of improving writing” (10).
Ø She concludes that while virtual peer review draws on the same theoretical principles as f2f peer review, in practice, there are fundamental differences. Virtual peer review is therefore “a remediation of face-to-face peer review in the sense that it emphasizes stark differences rather than similarities” placing emphasis on written communication over oral communication and highlighting the way in which “differences of time, space and interaction in Internet environments” affect response (8).
Ø It should not be taken for granted that the shift from f2f peer review to online peer review is natural and intuitive. Rather, in the same way in which f2f peer review is systematically taught, techniques of online peer review also need to be modeled. This view reflects the substantive theory of technology in that it emphasizes the way in which computers as a medium impact the online tutorial.
Ø Using Bolter and Grusin’s notion of remediation, Breuch applies it to electronic communication, specifically peer review, to ascertain the extent to which online peer review draws on or remediates f2f peer review. She defines virtual peer review “as the activity of [peers] using computer technology to exchange and respond to one another’s writing for the purpose of improving writing” (10).
Ø She concludes that while virtual peer review draws on the same theoretical principles as f2f peer review, in practice, there are fundamental differences. Virtual peer review is therefore “a remediation of face-to-face peer review in the sense that it emphasizes stark differences rather than similarities” placing emphasis on written communication over oral communication and highlighting the way in which “differences of time, space and interaction in Internet environments” affect response (8).
Ø It should not be taken for granted that the shift from f2f peer review to online peer review is natural and intuitive. Rather, in the same way in which f2f peer review is systematically taught, techniques of online peer review also need to be modeled. This view reflects the substantive theory of technology in that it emphasizes the way in which computers as a medium impact the online tutorial.
OWLs and the critical theory of technology
Thomas, Sharon, Danielle DeVoss and Mark Hara. “Toward a Critical Theory of Technology and Writing.” The Writing Center Journal. 19.1 (1998): 73-86.
Ø These writers outline the way in which their writing center, after first using both an instrumental and then a substantive theory of technology, finally opted for an approach that embraced a critical theory of technology.
Ø They first established an OWL that acted primarily as a resource site, and then they began to engage in asynchronous online consulting via email, and eventually synchronous online tutoring in the form of chat rooms.
Ø Both types of tutoring disrupted pedagogical practices. The dialogue that is crucial to tutoring was absent in the first type of tutorial and prevented tutors from assessing student response while the dialogue in synchronous tutorials tended to be one-sided. This undermined the writer-centered/directed conference that informed this center’s pedagogy.
Consequently, they stopped online tutoring.
Ø When a new technology initiative, that sought to facilitate the passing of information, was implemented on their campus these writers sought to adapt this technology and make it a part of their student-directed pedagogy by encouraging dialogue and inviting students into the work of the academic community. The writing center conducted sessions on how to use the technology such as email, MOOs, MUDs and chat rooms, to extend class discussion and support student writing. They also taught students to use the Internet to conduct research and publish on the web.
Ø The writing center’s success in this endeavor led to the creation of an Internet Writing Consultant program that was designed to offer support to students and staff interested in web publishing. IWCs had difficulty integrating writing center goals with their online practices and sessions became overly directive. The computer also intruded as a medium with some consultants feeling as though they needed to teach computer skills before they could address issues related to content.
Ø To combat this, they met f2f with students, established the goals of the session then moved to the computer. This provided an alternative to a simple outright rejection or acceptance of the technology. Using technology to invite students into academic dialogue worked so well, it altered teaching practice which became more interactive and student centered.
Ø Technology supported the student focused writing center pedagogy. It was not used simply to ascertain student knowledge but was also used to provide an avenue for them to enter into academic discourse and highlight their abilities and potential.
Ø These writers conclude that while writing centers may not be able to shape the technology they can “shape the design of the instruction that accompanies that technology so that the instruction is congruent with [their] particular pedagogy” (84). This experiment indicates that OWLs may need to adopt a hybrid approach to tutoring in which f2f and online tutoring are combined in the same session. It also indicates that the critical theory of technology can be extremely useful in integrating technology into writing center pedagogy.
Yergeau, Melanie, Kathryn Wozniak, and Peter Vandenberg. “Expanding the Space of f2f: Writing Centers and Audio-Visual-Textual Conferencing.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy. 13.1 (Fall 2008)
Ø These writers explore the benefits of synchronous audio-video-textual conferencing (AVT), arguing that it not only provides the benefits of the f2f tutorial (in that it allows for paralinguistic communication which is not present in other forms of online tutorials) but that it also takes advantage of features of the online environment, which are not present in the f2f tutorial, such as the possibilities for real-time modeling and web-based referencing. AVT is thus a viable alternative to f2f and email tutoring.
Ø They apply Bolter and Grusin’s “double logic of remediation” to the AVT arguing that they are both transparent and opaque. AVTs are transparent in their simulation of the f2f tutorial but opaque in that there is interaction with the hypermediated interface (dragging the mouse, closing and opening text etc.). The f2f tutorial in some ways remediates the AVT. In addition, the blurring of the line between the public and private spaces that occur in AVTs may help those students with a high degree of comfort with the technology, their space and the consultant to take greater ownership of the session. Conversely, students who are uncomfortable with any of these elements may relinquish authority in the session.
Ø In keeping with the critical theory of technology, these writers argue that AVT should not be viewed merely as a tool. Instead, they recommend that writing centers consider their resources and design their own technologies by mixing and matching various applications as they attempt to meet their needs.
Ø AVTs complicate the debate about asynchronous versus synchronous online communication. They indicate that technology is developing to a point it is possible to combine elements of both types of online conferencing as well as elements of the f2f tutorial. This underscores the increasing relevance of the critical theory of technology.
Ø These writers outline the way in which their writing center, after first using both an instrumental and then a substantive theory of technology, finally opted for an approach that embraced a critical theory of technology.
Ø They first established an OWL that acted primarily as a resource site, and then they began to engage in asynchronous online consulting via email, and eventually synchronous online tutoring in the form of chat rooms.
Ø Both types of tutoring disrupted pedagogical practices. The dialogue that is crucial to tutoring was absent in the first type of tutorial and prevented tutors from assessing student response while the dialogue in synchronous tutorials tended to be one-sided. This undermined the writer-centered/directed conference that informed this center’s pedagogy.
Consequently, they stopped online tutoring.
Ø When a new technology initiative, that sought to facilitate the passing of information, was implemented on their campus these writers sought to adapt this technology and make it a part of their student-directed pedagogy by encouraging dialogue and inviting students into the work of the academic community. The writing center conducted sessions on how to use the technology such as email, MOOs, MUDs and chat rooms, to extend class discussion and support student writing. They also taught students to use the Internet to conduct research and publish on the web.
Ø The writing center’s success in this endeavor led to the creation of an Internet Writing Consultant program that was designed to offer support to students and staff interested in web publishing. IWCs had difficulty integrating writing center goals with their online practices and sessions became overly directive. The computer also intruded as a medium with some consultants feeling as though they needed to teach computer skills before they could address issues related to content.
Ø To combat this, they met f2f with students, established the goals of the session then moved to the computer. This provided an alternative to a simple outright rejection or acceptance of the technology. Using technology to invite students into academic dialogue worked so well, it altered teaching practice which became more interactive and student centered.
Ø Technology supported the student focused writing center pedagogy. It was not used simply to ascertain student knowledge but was also used to provide an avenue for them to enter into academic discourse and highlight their abilities and potential.
Ø These writers conclude that while writing centers may not be able to shape the technology they can “shape the design of the instruction that accompanies that technology so that the instruction is congruent with [their] particular pedagogy” (84). This experiment indicates that OWLs may need to adopt a hybrid approach to tutoring in which f2f and online tutoring are combined in the same session. It also indicates that the critical theory of technology can be extremely useful in integrating technology into writing center pedagogy.
Yergeau, Melanie, Kathryn Wozniak, and Peter Vandenberg. “Expanding the Space of f2f: Writing Centers and Audio-Visual-Textual Conferencing.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy. 13.1 (Fall 2008)
Ø These writers explore the benefits of synchronous audio-video-textual conferencing (AVT), arguing that it not only provides the benefits of the f2f tutorial (in that it allows for paralinguistic communication which is not present in other forms of online tutorials) but that it also takes advantage of features of the online environment, which are not present in the f2f tutorial, such as the possibilities for real-time modeling and web-based referencing. AVT is thus a viable alternative to f2f and email tutoring.
Ø They apply Bolter and Grusin’s “double logic of remediation” to the AVT arguing that they are both transparent and opaque. AVTs are transparent in their simulation of the f2f tutorial but opaque in that there is interaction with the hypermediated interface (dragging the mouse, closing and opening text etc.). The f2f tutorial in some ways remediates the AVT. In addition, the blurring of the line between the public and private spaces that occur in AVTs may help those students with a high degree of comfort with the technology, their space and the consultant to take greater ownership of the session. Conversely, students who are uncomfortable with any of these elements may relinquish authority in the session.
Ø In keeping with the critical theory of technology, these writers argue that AVT should not be viewed merely as a tool. Instead, they recommend that writing centers consider their resources and design their own technologies by mixing and matching various applications as they attempt to meet their needs.
Ø AVTs complicate the debate about asynchronous versus synchronous online communication. They indicate that technology is developing to a point it is possible to combine elements of both types of online conferencing as well as elements of the f2f tutorial. This underscores the increasing relevance of the critical theory of technology.
Saturday, November 1, 2008
AVTs- Changing the Face of Online Tutoring
Yergeau, Melanie, Kathryn Wozniak, and Peter Vandenberg. “Expanding the Space of f2f: Writing Centers and Audio-Visual-Textual Conferencing.” Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy. 13.1 (Fall 2008).
These writers explore the benefits of synchronous audio-video-textual conferencing (AVT), arguing that it not only provides the benefits of the f2f tutorial (in that it allows for paralinguistic communication which is not present in other forms of online tutorials) but that it also takes advantage of features of the online environment, which are not present in the f2f tutorial, such as the possibilities for real-time modeling and web-based referencing. AVT is thus a viable alternative to f2f and email tutoring. These writers subscribe to the critical theory of technology advocated by Blythe that posits that writing centers need to become actively involved in designing technologies that will meet their needs. They argue that with the increased potential for mixing technologies, the critical theory of technology will become even more pertinent for given the fact that “technologies structure learning environments, learning goals, and learners,” writing center theorists and practitioners will need to determine what combinations will best suit their pedagogical aims.
These writers apply Bolter and Grusin’s “double logic of remediation” to the AVT arguing that they are both transparent and opaque. AVTs are transparent in their simulation of the f2f tutorial but opaque in that there is interaction with the hypermediated interface (dragging the mouse, closing and opening text etc.). The f2f tutorial in some ways remediates the AVT. In addition, the blurring of the line between the public and private spaces that occur in AVTs may help those students with a high degree of comfort with the technology, their space and the consultant to take greater ownership of the session. Conversely, students who are uncomfortable with any of these elements may relinquish authority in the session. In keeping with the critical theory of technology, these writers argue that AVT should not be viewed merely as a tool. Instead, they recommend that writing centers consider their resources and design their own technologies by mixing and matching various applications as they attempt to meet their needs. AVTs complicate the debate about asynchronous versus synchronous online communication. They indicate that technology is developing to a point it is possible to combine elements of both types of online conferencing as well as elements of the f2f tutorial. This underscores the increasing relevance of the critical theory of technology.
These writers explore the benefits of synchronous audio-video-textual conferencing (AVT), arguing that it not only provides the benefits of the f2f tutorial (in that it allows for paralinguistic communication which is not present in other forms of online tutorials) but that it also takes advantage of features of the online environment, which are not present in the f2f tutorial, such as the possibilities for real-time modeling and web-based referencing. AVT is thus a viable alternative to f2f and email tutoring. These writers subscribe to the critical theory of technology advocated by Blythe that posits that writing centers need to become actively involved in designing technologies that will meet their needs. They argue that with the increased potential for mixing technologies, the critical theory of technology will become even more pertinent for given the fact that “technologies structure learning environments, learning goals, and learners,” writing center theorists and practitioners will need to determine what combinations will best suit their pedagogical aims.
These writers apply Bolter and Grusin’s “double logic of remediation” to the AVT arguing that they are both transparent and opaque. AVTs are transparent in their simulation of the f2f tutorial but opaque in that there is interaction with the hypermediated interface (dragging the mouse, closing and opening text etc.). The f2f tutorial in some ways remediates the AVT. In addition, the blurring of the line between the public and private spaces that occur in AVTs may help those students with a high degree of comfort with the technology, their space and the consultant to take greater ownership of the session. Conversely, students who are uncomfortable with any of these elements may relinquish authority in the session. In keeping with the critical theory of technology, these writers argue that AVT should not be viewed merely as a tool. Instead, they recommend that writing centers consider their resources and design their own technologies by mixing and matching various applications as they attempt to meet their needs. AVTs complicate the debate about asynchronous versus synchronous online communication. They indicate that technology is developing to a point it is possible to combine elements of both types of online conferencing as well as elements of the f2f tutorial. This underscores the increasing relevance of the critical theory of technology.
Friday, October 24, 2008
OWLs and Issues
Harris, Muriel and Michael Pemberton. “Online Writing Labs (OWLs): A Taxonomy of Options and Issues.” Computers and Composition 12 (1995): 145-59. Rpt. in The Longman Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice. Eds. Robert W. Barnett and Jacob S. Blumner. New York: Longman, 2008. 521-40.
These writers maintain that OWLs and online tutoring should be exploited to take advantage of the online environment. They outline the types of online communication and services offered by writing centers and explore the use of different types of online technology in the OWL focusing on the advantages and disadvantages of each. Interactive services include email, newsgroups, and synchronous chat, all of which allow for flexibility in queries and responses. Reactive services include automated file retrieval systems, Gophers and the World Wide Web that provide standardized responses to limited queries. Newsgroups, email and automated file retrieval systems do not allow for immediate contact. Conversations are indirect and usually involve a time delay. In addition, the “virtual space” intervenes and mediates communication. Hypertext programs can be placed on web pages to enable students to connect to the resources of the web. While Gophers permit access to the resources of the web, they do not permit access to hypertext tutorials. Email drop boxes and newsgroups are interactive but time displaced.
Synchronous chat systems are real time and interactive. They also have the benefit of forcing students to reflect, in written form, on their writing. Such reflection is viewed as a feature of the successful f2f tutorial. Students can also save the transcript of their online conversation and refer back to it as they revise their draft although this raises ethical issues of plagiarism in that students may appropriate tutor feedback as their own. All forms of interactive online communication is affected by the fact that texts contain fewer clues to the composing process. Hence, tutors need to devise other techniques to gain this information. The trade off to this is that students who are reserved may be emboldened to join the discourse. In addition, stereotypes of race, gender, and ethnicity may be less likely to impact the discourse. Online texts, because of the nature of print, may seemed imbued with more authority than is intended and may replicate current-traditionalist strategies of learning that writing centers seek to avoid. Moving online conversations away from a mere question/answer format to true collaborative discussion requires practice.
OWLs democratize writing center access making it easier for groups such as the physically disabled, the learning impaired, part-time students, those with jobs that make it difficult for them to visit the writing center, commuting students as well as those who may not be members of the particular academic community to access the services provided by writing centers. The latter objective may be undermined by the need to maintain a secure network which may conflict with writing center technology goals and initiatives that seek to promote equal access. There is thus a need to determine the ways in which writing center pedagogy will be affected by OWLs. How much of it is transferrable in view of the fact that dialogue in OWLs is text-driven? This is a seminal article that details many of the major issues that face OWLs formation and operation. Many of these issues are addressed in subsequent literature on OWLs.
These writers maintain that OWLs and online tutoring should be exploited to take advantage of the online environment. They outline the types of online communication and services offered by writing centers and explore the use of different types of online technology in the OWL focusing on the advantages and disadvantages of each. Interactive services include email, newsgroups, and synchronous chat, all of which allow for flexibility in queries and responses. Reactive services include automated file retrieval systems, Gophers and the World Wide Web that provide standardized responses to limited queries. Newsgroups, email and automated file retrieval systems do not allow for immediate contact. Conversations are indirect and usually involve a time delay. In addition, the “virtual space” intervenes and mediates communication. Hypertext programs can be placed on web pages to enable students to connect to the resources of the web. While Gophers permit access to the resources of the web, they do not permit access to hypertext tutorials. Email drop boxes and newsgroups are interactive but time displaced.
Synchronous chat systems are real time and interactive. They also have the benefit of forcing students to reflect, in written form, on their writing. Such reflection is viewed as a feature of the successful f2f tutorial. Students can also save the transcript of their online conversation and refer back to it as they revise their draft although this raises ethical issues of plagiarism in that students may appropriate tutor feedback as their own. All forms of interactive online communication is affected by the fact that texts contain fewer clues to the composing process. Hence, tutors need to devise other techniques to gain this information. The trade off to this is that students who are reserved may be emboldened to join the discourse. In addition, stereotypes of race, gender, and ethnicity may be less likely to impact the discourse. Online texts, because of the nature of print, may seemed imbued with more authority than is intended and may replicate current-traditionalist strategies of learning that writing centers seek to avoid. Moving online conversations away from a mere question/answer format to true collaborative discussion requires practice.
OWLs democratize writing center access making it easier for groups such as the physically disabled, the learning impaired, part-time students, those with jobs that make it difficult for them to visit the writing center, commuting students as well as those who may not be members of the particular academic community to access the services provided by writing centers. The latter objective may be undermined by the need to maintain a secure network which may conflict with writing center technology goals and initiatives that seek to promote equal access. There is thus a need to determine the ways in which writing center pedagogy will be affected by OWLs. How much of it is transferrable in view of the fact that dialogue in OWLs is text-driven? This is a seminal article that details many of the major issues that face OWLs formation and operation. Many of these issues are addressed in subsequent literature on OWLs.
OWLs and the Re-Theorizing of the Writing Center
Hobson, Eric. “Straddling the Virtual Fence.” Wiring the Writing Center. Ed. Erci H. Hobson. Logan: Utah State Univ. P., 1998. Rpt. in The Longman Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice. Eds. Robert W. Barnett and Jacob S. Blumner. New York: Longman, 2008.
Hobson explores the complexities involved in writing centers’ use of computer mediated technology to enhance writing center activity. He reviews the literature on this subject and notes that those who support the creation of OWLs claim that they democratize writing centers, encourage collaboration, remove authority, enhance tutor training and are indicative of the future of writing centers. They advocate the use of OWLs based on the view that they support social constructivist practices which underpin the ideology of writing centers. Hobson cautions that enthusiasm for technological innovations may promote a hierarchy between writing centers on the basis of those that are technologically savvy and those that are not. This may give rise to exclusionary practices that run counter to the goals of the writing center community which aims to celebrate diversity. Writing centers may also come to be seen as redundant. Although not often posed, this is perhaps the most important question writing centers face as they “[wrestle] with the task of if and how it is possible to take the writing center online with its services and guiding philosophies and value systems intact” (482).
Some OWLs reinforce current-traditional pedagogy that writing centers worked hard to distance themselves from for they function merely as resource mediums that provide access to skills and mechanistic activities that reinforce the idea that OWLs are grammar centers. Hobson argues that this is misplaced energy in that there is no need for writing centers to create such sites for themselves when they can provide links to such sites. This also reinforces the view of writing as an individual as opposed to social activity. The reason for the instrumental approach to technology may stem from the difficulty of updating and maintaining web pages and websites. It may be relatively easy to format a static web page but up keeping them proves to be time-consuming. OWLs may need to re-theorize their mission to reflect the influence of technology. Hobson focuses not only on the implications of technology for writing center practices in terms of pedagogy, he also extends this examination to look at the overall implications of technology. He looks at the way in which technology may influence the relationship that writing centers have with each other and with the larger academic community of which they are a part. He also explores the challenges of dynamic publishing.
Hobson explores the complexities involved in writing centers’ use of computer mediated technology to enhance writing center activity. He reviews the literature on this subject and notes that those who support the creation of OWLs claim that they democratize writing centers, encourage collaboration, remove authority, enhance tutor training and are indicative of the future of writing centers. They advocate the use of OWLs based on the view that they support social constructivist practices which underpin the ideology of writing centers. Hobson cautions that enthusiasm for technological innovations may promote a hierarchy between writing centers on the basis of those that are technologically savvy and those that are not. This may give rise to exclusionary practices that run counter to the goals of the writing center community which aims to celebrate diversity. Writing centers may also come to be seen as redundant. Although not often posed, this is perhaps the most important question writing centers face as they “[wrestle] with the task of if and how it is possible to take the writing center online with its services and guiding philosophies and value systems intact” (482).
Some OWLs reinforce current-traditional pedagogy that writing centers worked hard to distance themselves from for they function merely as resource mediums that provide access to skills and mechanistic activities that reinforce the idea that OWLs are grammar centers. Hobson argues that this is misplaced energy in that there is no need for writing centers to create such sites for themselves when they can provide links to such sites. This also reinforces the view of writing as an individual as opposed to social activity. The reason for the instrumental approach to technology may stem from the difficulty of updating and maintaining web pages and websites. It may be relatively easy to format a static web page but up keeping them proves to be time-consuming. OWLs may need to re-theorize their mission to reflect the influence of technology. Hobson focuses not only on the implications of technology for writing center practices in terms of pedagogy, he also extends this examination to look at the overall implications of technology. He looks at the way in which technology may influence the relationship that writing centers have with each other and with the larger academic community of which they are a part. He also explores the challenges of dynamic publishing.
OWLs and the Critical Theory of Technology
Thomas, Sharon, Danielle DeVoss and Mark Hara. “Toward a Critical Theory of Technology and Writing.” The Writing Center Journal. 19.1 (1998): 73-86.
These writers outline the way in which their writing center, after first using both an instrumental and then a substantive theory of technology, finally opted for an approach that embraced a critical theory of technology. They first established an OWL that acted primarily as a resource site, then they began to engage in asynchronous online consulting via email, and eventually synchronous online tutoring in the form of chat rooms. Both types of tutoring disrupted pedagogical practices. The dialogue that is crucial to tutoring was absent in the first type of tutorial and prevented tutors from assessing student response while the dialogue in synchronous tutorials tended to be one-sided. This undermined the writer-centered/directed conference that informed this center’s pedagogy. Consequently, they stopped online tutoring. When a new technology initiative, that sought to facilitate the passing of information, was implemented on their campus these writers sought to adapt this technology and make it a part of their student-directed pedagogy by encouraging dialogue and inviting students into the work of the academic community. The writing center conducted sessions on how to use the technology such as email, MOOs, MUDs and chat rooms, to extend class discussion and support student writing. They also taught students to use the Internet to conduct research and publish on the web.
The writing center’s success in this endeavor led to the creation of an Internet Writing Consultant program that was designed to offer support to students and staff interested in web publishing. IWCs had difficulty integrating writing center goals with their online practices as sessions became overly directive. The computer also intruded as a medium with some consultants feeling as though they needed to teach computer skills before they could address issues related to content. To combat this, they met f2f with students, established the goals of the session then moved to the computer. This provided an alternative to a simple outright rejection or acceptance of the technology. Using technology to invite students into academic dialogue worked so well, it altered teaching practice which became more interactive, less teacher-centered and focused more on teacher and students sharing knowledge. Technology supported the writing center pedagogy that is student focused. It was not used simply to ascertain student knowledge but was also used to provide an avenue for them to enter into academic discourse and highlight their abilities and potential. These writers conclude that while writing centers may not be able to shape the technology they can “shape the design of the instruction that accompanies that technology so that the instruction is congruent with [their] particular pedagogy” (84). This experiment indicates that OWLs may need to adopt a hybrid approach to tutoring in which f2f and online tutoring are combined in the same session. It also indicates that the critical theory of technology can be extremely useful in integrating technology into writing center pedagogy.
These writers outline the way in which their writing center, after first using both an instrumental and then a substantive theory of technology, finally opted for an approach that embraced a critical theory of technology. They first established an OWL that acted primarily as a resource site, then they began to engage in asynchronous online consulting via email, and eventually synchronous online tutoring in the form of chat rooms. Both types of tutoring disrupted pedagogical practices. The dialogue that is crucial to tutoring was absent in the first type of tutorial and prevented tutors from assessing student response while the dialogue in synchronous tutorials tended to be one-sided. This undermined the writer-centered/directed conference that informed this center’s pedagogy. Consequently, they stopped online tutoring. When a new technology initiative, that sought to facilitate the passing of information, was implemented on their campus these writers sought to adapt this technology and make it a part of their student-directed pedagogy by encouraging dialogue and inviting students into the work of the academic community. The writing center conducted sessions on how to use the technology such as email, MOOs, MUDs and chat rooms, to extend class discussion and support student writing. They also taught students to use the Internet to conduct research and publish on the web.
The writing center’s success in this endeavor led to the creation of an Internet Writing Consultant program that was designed to offer support to students and staff interested in web publishing. IWCs had difficulty integrating writing center goals with their online practices as sessions became overly directive. The computer also intruded as a medium with some consultants feeling as though they needed to teach computer skills before they could address issues related to content. To combat this, they met f2f with students, established the goals of the session then moved to the computer. This provided an alternative to a simple outright rejection or acceptance of the technology. Using technology to invite students into academic dialogue worked so well, it altered teaching practice which became more interactive, less teacher-centered and focused more on teacher and students sharing knowledge. Technology supported the writing center pedagogy that is student focused. It was not used simply to ascertain student knowledge but was also used to provide an avenue for them to enter into academic discourse and highlight their abilities and potential. These writers conclude that while writing centers may not be able to shape the technology they can “shape the design of the instruction that accompanies that technology so that the instruction is congruent with [their] particular pedagogy” (84). This experiment indicates that OWLs may need to adopt a hybrid approach to tutoring in which f2f and online tutoring are combined in the same session. It also indicates that the critical theory of technology can be extremely useful in integrating technology into writing center pedagogy.
Thursday, October 23, 2008
Technology Theory and OWLs
Blythe, Stuart. “Why OWLs? Value, Risk, and Evaluation.” Kairos 1.1 (1996). Oct. 2008.
Blythe examines some of the pros and cons of OWLs as well as some of theories that have been brought to bear on the functioning of OWLs. Practitioners normally adopt either an instrumental, substantive or critical theory of technology. These are theories of technology that have been developed by Andrew Feenberg. The instrumental theory places emphasis on the way in which the technology is used and stresses that the efficiency of the technology should be judged on the way it is used. Because the technology is viewed as a tool, it does not necessarily alter practice. Those who apply this theory to online tutoring may argue that it replicates f2f tutoring and may focus on how the technology is used and not on how it may alter the student-tutor relationship. In contrast, the substantive theory places emphasis on the technology and posits that the technology fundamentally alters practice. Those who apply it to writing center practice argue that online tutoring changes the nature of the student-tutor relationship. The critical theory of technology agrees that technology changes practice but maintains that technology users can determine what kind of practices they want and choose technology during the design phase that would support these practices. In this way, they would be using the technology in an instrumental way. After technologies are implemented, it is difficult to alter them or work against them, short of rejecting them outright. Hence it is essential that users of influence technology design. Computers can act as tools that help design texts and store information or as environments that create a virtual space in which students and tutors interact. When these two functions are combined, the computer becomes a medium that “enables certain practices while suppressing others.” This article gives insight into the theories that are most commonly applied to technology use as it relates to OWLs. It also implies that the critical theory of technology may be the most useful one for writing centers for writing center personnel to adopt.
Blythe examines some of the pros and cons of OWLs as well as some of theories that have been brought to bear on the functioning of OWLs. Practitioners normally adopt either an instrumental, substantive or critical theory of technology. These are theories of technology that have been developed by Andrew Feenberg. The instrumental theory places emphasis on the way in which the technology is used and stresses that the efficiency of the technology should be judged on the way it is used. Because the technology is viewed as a tool, it does not necessarily alter practice. Those who apply this theory to online tutoring may argue that it replicates f2f tutoring and may focus on how the technology is used and not on how it may alter the student-tutor relationship. In contrast, the substantive theory places emphasis on the technology and posits that the technology fundamentally alters practice. Those who apply it to writing center practice argue that online tutoring changes the nature of the student-tutor relationship. The critical theory of technology agrees that technology changes practice but maintains that technology users can determine what kind of practices they want and choose technology during the design phase that would support these practices. In this way, they would be using the technology in an instrumental way. After technologies are implemented, it is difficult to alter them or work against them, short of rejecting them outright. Hence it is essential that users of influence technology design. Computers can act as tools that help design texts and store information or as environments that create a virtual space in which students and tutors interact. When these two functions are combined, the computer becomes a medium that “enables certain practices while suppressing others.” This article gives insight into the theories that are most commonly applied to technology use as it relates to OWLs. It also implies that the critical theory of technology may be the most useful one for writing centers for writing center personnel to adopt.
Wednesday, October 22, 2008
OWLs and Oversight
Baker, Lori B. “Looking On and Overlooking: An Analysis of Oversight in Online Tutoring.” Praxis 5.2 (2008): 6 pp. Oct. 2008.
Online tutoring needs to preserve “the theoretical and pedagogical foundations that are […] most important in a writing center” (3). It can benefit oversight for it allows for transparency in the tutoring process and it can promote collaboration and extend writing center theory. However, caution needs to be exercised to ensure that the oversight environment does not become oppressive. This writer seems to hold an instrumental view of OWLs and is in favor of exploiting the technology not only in terms of tutoring but also in terms of the way in which it can help writing center administrators monitor tutoring.
Online tutoring needs to preserve “the theoretical and pedagogical foundations that are […] most important in a writing center” (3). It can benefit oversight for it allows for transparency in the tutoring process and it can promote collaboration and extend writing center theory. However, caution needs to be exercised to ensure that the oversight environment does not become oppressive. This writer seems to hold an instrumental view of OWLs and is in favor of exploiting the technology not only in terms of tutoring but also in terms of the way in which it can help writing center administrators monitor tutoring.
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Challenges of Asynchronous Tutoring
Ascuena, Andrea and Julia Kiernan. “The Problem of Email: Working to Decentralize Consultant Authority in Online Writing Centers.” Praxis 5.2 (2008): 5 pp. Oct. 2008.
Online tutoring increases the pressure to preserve the balance between authority and cooperation. Some worry that OWLs will resort back to proofreading and editing that writing centers worked hard to escape. While synchronous consultations can reduce such fears, asynchronous tutoring predominates. This presents a number of challenges. Asynchronous tutoring has the potential to focus attention on the product and not the process in that the print text and consultants may be invested with more authority than is intended. This may lead to the writer viewing any changes made to drafts as final and the text as closed to revision. Because consultants cannot use the dynamics of the f2f tutorial to establish the nature of the desired tutor-tutee relationship, they need to compensate for this by establishing their roles as peers and not as authorities thereby emphasizing the collaborative nature of the consultation. This can be done by shaping comments in such a way that they underscore that the writer has authority in the tutoring process. The technology can facilitate this in that it encourages short, imperative comments which emphasize the writer’s authority. The principle that writers must retain control over their own writing that is central to f2f tutorials also holds true for online tutorials. This article underscores the importance of the dialogue that is crucial to establishing a collaborative relationship between tutor and tutee that promotes the goals of writing center pedagogy. It shows the way in which this dialogue is hampered in the asynchronous online tutorial. It also emphasizes what many theorists see as the one redeeming feature of the online tutorial – the fact that it encourages focus and clarity in student comments.
Online tutoring increases the pressure to preserve the balance between authority and cooperation. Some worry that OWLs will resort back to proofreading and editing that writing centers worked hard to escape. While synchronous consultations can reduce such fears, asynchronous tutoring predominates. This presents a number of challenges. Asynchronous tutoring has the potential to focus attention on the product and not the process in that the print text and consultants may be invested with more authority than is intended. This may lead to the writer viewing any changes made to drafts as final and the text as closed to revision. Because consultants cannot use the dynamics of the f2f tutorial to establish the nature of the desired tutor-tutee relationship, they need to compensate for this by establishing their roles as peers and not as authorities thereby emphasizing the collaborative nature of the consultation. This can be done by shaping comments in such a way that they underscore that the writer has authority in the tutoring process. The technology can facilitate this in that it encourages short, imperative comments which emphasize the writer’s authority. The principle that writers must retain control over their own writing that is central to f2f tutorials also holds true for online tutorials. This article underscores the importance of the dialogue that is crucial to establishing a collaborative relationship between tutor and tutee that promotes the goals of writing center pedagogy. It shows the way in which this dialogue is hampered in the asynchronous online tutorial. It also emphasizes what many theorists see as the one redeeming feature of the online tutorial – the fact that it encourages focus and clarity in student comments.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Writing Center Pedagogy in the Online Environment
Breuch, Lee-Ann Kastman. “Challenges of Virtual Peer Review.” Virtual Peer Review: Teaching and Learning About Writing in Online Environments. State Univ. of New York P: 2004. 79-107.
The use of online media and the textual nature of commentary raise complications relating to ownership and authorship. The collaboration used in online peer review may differ from that of f2f peer review in that written comments may be integrated into texts. This is an “illustration of the remediation of peer review to virtual environments” (80). To address these challenges, the relationship between virtual peer review and collaboration needs to be made clear. Virtual peer review and f2f peer review are similar in that they are both forms of responding to writing but differ in that virtual peer review lends itself to editing more easily. To minimize appropriation, Breuch suggests that “explanatory editing” (85) be used to promote student learning. Virtual peer review is a form of collaborative learning but should never be confused with collaborative writing. Collaborative learning aims to improve writers’ ability to produce their own text. This is done through interaction between the reviewer and writer. Hence, the reviewer should not make extensive additions to text. Breuch outlines an important way in which technology may undermine writing center pedagogy. This is an example of the substantive view of technology. She also discusses ways in which tutors may have to adjust their practices to adhere to theoretical principles of writing centers.
The use of online media and the textual nature of commentary raise complications relating to ownership and authorship. The collaboration used in online peer review may differ from that of f2f peer review in that written comments may be integrated into texts. This is an “illustration of the remediation of peer review to virtual environments” (80). To address these challenges, the relationship between virtual peer review and collaboration needs to be made clear. Virtual peer review and f2f peer review are similar in that they are both forms of responding to writing but differ in that virtual peer review lends itself to editing more easily. To minimize appropriation, Breuch suggests that “explanatory editing” (85) be used to promote student learning. Virtual peer review is a form of collaborative learning but should never be confused with collaborative writing. Collaborative learning aims to improve writers’ ability to produce their own text. This is done through interaction between the reviewer and writer. Hence, the reviewer should not make extensive additions to text. Breuch outlines an important way in which technology may undermine writing center pedagogy. This is an example of the substantive view of technology. She also discusses ways in which tutors may have to adjust their practices to adhere to theoretical principles of writing centers.
Remediation in the Online Environment
Breuch, Lee-Ann Kastman. “Virtual Peer Review as ‘Remediation.’” Virtual Peer Review: Teaching and Learning About Writing in Online Environments. State Univ. of New York P: 2004. 7-35.
Using Bolter and Grusin’s notion of remediation, Breuch applies it to electronic communication, specifically peer review, to ascertain the extent to which online peer review draws on or remediates f2f peer review. She defines virtual peer review “as the activity of [peers] using computer technology to exchange and respond to one another’s writing for the purpose of improving writing” (10). She concludes that while virtual peer review draws on the same theoretical principles as f2f peer review, in practice, there are fundamental differences. Virtual peer review is therefore “a remediation of face-to-face peer review in the sense that it emphasizes stark differences rather than similarities” placing emphasis on written communication over oral communication and highlighting the way in which “differences of time, space and interaction in Internet environments” affect response (8). This has pedagogical implications. Not only does it support social theories of language espoused by Bruffee and others, it emphasizes the need for technological literacy. It should not be taken for granted that the shift from f2f peer review to online peer review is natural and intuitive. Rather, in the same way in which f2f peer review is systematically taught, techniques of online peer review also need to be modeled. This view reflects the substantive theory of technology in that it emphasizes the way in which computers as a medium can impact the online tutorial.
Using Bolter and Grusin’s notion of remediation, Breuch applies it to electronic communication, specifically peer review, to ascertain the extent to which online peer review draws on or remediates f2f peer review. She defines virtual peer review “as the activity of [peers] using computer technology to exchange and respond to one another’s writing for the purpose of improving writing” (10). She concludes that while virtual peer review draws on the same theoretical principles as f2f peer review, in practice, there are fundamental differences. Virtual peer review is therefore “a remediation of face-to-face peer review in the sense that it emphasizes stark differences rather than similarities” placing emphasis on written communication over oral communication and highlighting the way in which “differences of time, space and interaction in Internet environments” affect response (8). This has pedagogical implications. Not only does it support social theories of language espoused by Bruffee and others, it emphasizes the need for technological literacy. It should not be taken for granted that the shift from f2f peer review to online peer review is natural and intuitive. Rather, in the same way in which f2f peer review is systematically taught, techniques of online peer review also need to be modeled. This view reflects the substantive theory of technology in that it emphasizes the way in which computers as a medium can impact the online tutorial.
Developing an OWL
Hall, Mark and Thia Wolf. “One Writing Center’s First Steps Onto the Web.” The Writing Lab Newsletter 28.3 (2003): 1-6. Oct. 2008 .
OWLs provide greater access to writing centers thereby democratizing them. In this way, they can benefit non-traditional students. The OWLs which Mark and Wolf created was designed to extend, not change, the social constructionist based pedagogy upon which their writing center was based. This ensured that tutors could work in both f2f tutorials and online tutoring. They also added links to online resources such as the OED, and grammar and style manuals. They opted to use synchronous online tutoring for this better fits with the goals of writing center pedagogy, emphasizes a non-hierarchical environment and mimics the f2f conference. They view asynchronous tutoring as “a virtual ‘drop-off’ proofreading and editing service, in which students might simply e-mail papers to a tutor, and then receive a single written response” (3). These writers echo the view shared by many other writers that synchronous tutorials are better able to promote writing center pedagogy. They also subscribe to the instrumental theory of technology which they think should extend but not alter practice.
OWLs provide greater access to writing centers thereby democratizing them. In this way, they can benefit non-traditional students. The OWLs which Mark and Wolf created was designed to extend, not change, the social constructionist based pedagogy upon which their writing center was based. This ensured that tutors could work in both f2f tutorials and online tutoring. They also added links to online resources such as the OED, and grammar and style manuals. They opted to use synchronous online tutoring for this better fits with the goals of writing center pedagogy, emphasizes a non-hierarchical environment and mimics the f2f conference. They view asynchronous tutoring as “a virtual ‘drop-off’ proofreading and editing service, in which students might simply e-mail papers to a tutor, and then receive a single written response” (3). These writers echo the view shared by many other writers that synchronous tutorials are better able to promote writing center pedagogy. They also subscribe to the instrumental theory of technology which they think should extend but not alter practice.
Wednesday, October 15, 2008
Research on Synchronous Online Tutoring
Shewmake, Jake and Jason Lambert. “The Real (Time) World: Synchronous Communications in the Online Writing Center.” Taking Flight With OWLs: Examining Electronic Writing Center Work. Eds. James A. Inman and Donna N. Sewell. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., Inc., 2000. 161-170.
These writers conducted research on synchronous online tutoring and found that these sessions were effective in that some students found them less intimidating than f2f tutorials; they encouraged clear, crisp communication; and students were more focused and tended to remain on task. This article is research-based. In contrast to much of the literature that explores the impact of OWLs from the perspective of writing center personnel, this article examines the issue from the point of view of the student.
These writers conducted research on synchronous online tutoring and found that these sessions were effective in that some students found them less intimidating than f2f tutorials; they encouraged clear, crisp communication; and students were more focused and tended to remain on task. This article is research-based. In contrast to much of the literature that explores the impact of OWLs from the perspective of writing center personnel, this article examines the issue from the point of view of the student.
OWLs and the Process Model of Writing
Thurber, Jamie. “Synchronous Internet Tutoring: Bridging the Gap in Distance Education.” Taking Flight With OWLs: Examining Electronic Writing Center Work. Eds. James A. Inman and Donna N. Sewell. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., Inc., 2000. 151-159.
In online tutoring, there is a tendency to focus on the product and on low-level concerns instead of on the writer and the higher level concerns of the writing. To avoid this, emphasis needs to be kept on the process model of writing. This article explores the effect of OWLs on pedagogical concerns and emphasizes the need to maintain the integrity of writing center principles as their services are extended to the Internet.
In online tutoring, there is a tendency to focus on the product and on low-level concerns instead of on the writer and the higher level concerns of the writing. To avoid this, emphasis needs to be kept on the process model of writing. This article explores the effect of OWLs on pedagogical concerns and emphasizes the need to maintain the integrity of writing center principles as their services are extended to the Internet.
Advanatges of Asynchronous Tutoring
Mabrito, Mark. “E-Mail Tutoring and Apprehensive Writers: What Research Tells Us.” Taking Flight With OWLs: Examining Electronic Writing Center Work. Eds. James A. Inman and Donna N. Sewell. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., Inc., 2000. 141-147.
E-Mail tutoring is potentially advantageous in that it decenters the writing center and promotes collaboration; reduces the hierarchy of authority between tutor and writer; and promotes an environment that benefits those students who suffer from writing apprehension. This writer explores some of the potential benefits of e-mail tutoring. This is in contrast to much of the literature on this subject that tends to focus on the negative aspects of this kind of tutoring.
E-Mail tutoring is potentially advantageous in that it decenters the writing center and promotes collaboration; reduces the hierarchy of authority between tutor and writer; and promotes an environment that benefits those students who suffer from writing apprehension. This writer explores some of the potential benefits of e-mail tutoring. This is in contrast to much of the literature on this subject that tends to focus on the negative aspects of this kind of tutoring.
The Potential of Online Tutoring
Jackson, J. A. “Interfacing the Faceless: Maximizing the advantages of online tutoring.” The Writing Lab Newsletter 25.2 (2000): 1-7. Oct. 2008 .
As yet there is no consensus about the purpose of OWLs. There is general agreement that they are a resource medium but there exists doubts about their potential to become online tutoring sites. As resource mediums, OWLs are just another tool available to writers. However, as tutoring sites, they may profoundly alter the way writing centers operate. Although asynchronous online tutorials have the potential to take the focus away from the writer and place it on the product, they may re-establish many of the characteristics of the f2f tutorial. Online tutorials may alter pedagogy, but at the same time, they still rely on the principles of f2f tutorials. They are beneficial in that: writers are more willing to share their frustrations with writing and in so doing, initialize the reflection process that is so crucial to improving as a writer; they promote writer-centered tutoring for they aid writers in developing critical facilities essential to meaningful revision, a process which may begin even as writers prepare for the tutorial; and they place more responsibility on the writer who is forced to ask questions in the process of articulating his/her needs. Even the challenges for the tutor-the need to maintain an online presence but not become overly and solely directive-can be beneficial by encouraging writer responsibility. The hypermediated online environment is an additional benefit that is unique to the online tutorial. Hyperlinks in the form of pop up screens can be used, along with questioning, to provide information-based direction. If tutors adhere to the principles of f2f tutorials, and successfully balance their active involvement in the tutoring process with the need to ensure that the focus remains on the writer and the process, they will avoid many of the pitfalls of online tutoring. This writer adopts a very optimistic view of online tutoring. While admitting that there are challenges to online tutoring, he shows ways in which these potential disadvantages can be converted into benefits. He implies that, depending on the way in which they are used, OWLs can conform to either the instrumental or substantive view of technology.
As yet there is no consensus about the purpose of OWLs. There is general agreement that they are a resource medium but there exists doubts about their potential to become online tutoring sites. As resource mediums, OWLs are just another tool available to writers. However, as tutoring sites, they may profoundly alter the way writing centers operate. Although asynchronous online tutorials have the potential to take the focus away from the writer and place it on the product, they may re-establish many of the characteristics of the f2f tutorial. Online tutorials may alter pedagogy, but at the same time, they still rely on the principles of f2f tutorials. They are beneficial in that: writers are more willing to share their frustrations with writing and in so doing, initialize the reflection process that is so crucial to improving as a writer; they promote writer-centered tutoring for they aid writers in developing critical facilities essential to meaningful revision, a process which may begin even as writers prepare for the tutorial; and they place more responsibility on the writer who is forced to ask questions in the process of articulating his/her needs. Even the challenges for the tutor-the need to maintain an online presence but not become overly and solely directive-can be beneficial by encouraging writer responsibility. The hypermediated online environment is an additional benefit that is unique to the online tutorial. Hyperlinks in the form of pop up screens can be used, along with questioning, to provide information-based direction. If tutors adhere to the principles of f2f tutorials, and successfully balance their active involvement in the tutoring process with the need to ensure that the focus remains on the writer and the process, they will avoid many of the pitfalls of online tutoring. This writer adopts a very optimistic view of online tutoring. While admitting that there are challenges to online tutoring, he shows ways in which these potential disadvantages can be converted into benefits. He implies that, depending on the way in which they are used, OWLs can conform to either the instrumental or substantive view of technology.
The Web-based Environment and Online Tutoring
Hewett, Beth L. “How Do You Feel? Attitudes About Tutoring Online.” Praxis 1.2 (2004): 5 pp. Oct. 2008.
The main rhetorical principles of f2f tutorials, such as that of content, organization and audience, do not change with the use of online tutorials. The difference between online and f2f tutorials lies in the fact that online tutorials introduce a new channel or medium of communication, that is, the web-based environment. Online consultants need to make choices about the extent to which this web-based environment can be used to enhance learning. This article stresses the need to make use of the possibilities provided by the communication context in which online tutorials occur. The writer seems to imply that OWLs can function as both a resource medium and as tutoring centers.
The main rhetorical principles of f2f tutorials, such as that of content, organization and audience, do not change with the use of online tutorials. The difference between online and f2f tutorials lies in the fact that online tutorials introduce a new channel or medium of communication, that is, the web-based environment. Online consultants need to make choices about the extent to which this web-based environment can be used to enhance learning. This article stresses the need to make use of the possibilities provided by the communication context in which online tutorials occur. The writer seems to imply that OWLs can function as both a resource medium and as tutoring centers.
OWLs, Collaboration and Community
Godbee, Beth. “Community Building in Online Writing Centers.” Praxis 2.2 (2005): 5 pp. Oct. 2008.
Online tutorials can only strengthen writing center activities if they facilitate the growth of community. This can be done by exploiting their potential for networking and using tutoring practices that promote collaboration. Such communities promote democracy in education for they are more inclusive. They reduce the golf between the production and consumption of texts in that the interactive, dynamic nature of online texts encourages readers to be a part of their creation. They also allow students to see that writing is a social and community activity that fosters collaboration. OWLs also eliminate the historical debate over writing center location by decentralizing them. Conferences are not purely instrumental for they do not simply re-produce the f2f tutorial. Synchronous online tutorials provide a hypermediated environment that encourages collaboration. There is a need to take full advantage of this collaborative environment and move from the one to one model that limits interaction towards a collaborative model that incorporates work-shopping and small group sessions. Online tutorials also reduce the view that power is focused in the tutor. They also force writers to become more aware of the writing process in that they must write online. This writer adopts a very positive view of online tutorials. In contrast to other writers who argue that the online tutorial undermines collaboration that is so important to writing center tutoring, she explores the way in which online tutorials can promote and enhance collaboration. She also extends the notion of collaboration, which has been primarily viewed as collaboration between tutor and student, to include the idea of community collaboration. In so doing, she seems to hold an instrumental theory of technology.
Online tutorials can only strengthen writing center activities if they facilitate the growth of community. This can be done by exploiting their potential for networking and using tutoring practices that promote collaboration. Such communities promote democracy in education for they are more inclusive. They reduce the golf between the production and consumption of texts in that the interactive, dynamic nature of online texts encourages readers to be a part of their creation. They also allow students to see that writing is a social and community activity that fosters collaboration. OWLs also eliminate the historical debate over writing center location by decentralizing them. Conferences are not purely instrumental for they do not simply re-produce the f2f tutorial. Synchronous online tutorials provide a hypermediated environment that encourages collaboration. There is a need to take full advantage of this collaborative environment and move from the one to one model that limits interaction towards a collaborative model that incorporates work-shopping and small group sessions. Online tutorials also reduce the view that power is focused in the tutor. They also force writers to become more aware of the writing process in that they must write online. This writer adopts a very positive view of online tutorials. In contrast to other writers who argue that the online tutorial undermines collaboration that is so important to writing center tutoring, she explores the way in which online tutorials can promote and enhance collaboration. She also extends the notion of collaboration, which has been primarily viewed as collaboration between tutor and student, to include the idea of community collaboration. In so doing, she seems to hold an instrumental theory of technology.
The Benefits of Online Tutoring
English, Joel A. “Putting the OO in MOO: Employing Environmental Interaction.” Taking Flight With OWLs: Examining Electronic Writing Center Work. Eds. James A. Inman and Donna N. Sewell. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., Inc., 2000. 171-179.
Online tutoring may encourage students to reflect more on the tutor’s advice which may in turn lead to greater reflection on their own writing. They may also encourage students to reflect metacognitively on their writing processes. The writer seems to hold a substantive view of technology but in contrast to much of the literature that focuses on the negative effect of the technology, he explores the potential benefits of online tutoring.
Online tutoring may encourage students to reflect more on the tutor’s advice which may in turn lead to greater reflection on their own writing. They may also encourage students to reflect metacognitively on their writing processes. The writer seems to hold a substantive view of technology but in contrast to much of the literature that focuses on the negative effect of the technology, he explores the potential benefits of online tutoring.
Synchronous Versus Asynchronous Online Tutoring
Castner, Joanna. “The Asynchronous, Online Writing Session: A Two-Way Stab in the Dark?” Taking Flight With OWLs: Examining Electronic Writing Center Work. Eds. James A. Inman and Donna N. Sewell. London: Lawrence Erlbaum Ass., Inc., 2000. 119-128.
Some asynchronous e-mail tutoring may undermine the ability to foster dialogue and collaboration which are fundamental principles of the social constructionist theory upon which writing center work is based. These tutorials may hinder the development of genuine understanding between consultant and writer that is more readily developed in f2f tutorials. They can also foster the view that writing centers are places of remediation. Synchronous tutoring may better support writing center pedagogy and should be privileged over asynchronous e-mail tutoring which should only be used as a last resort. This writer holds a substantive view of technology and is in favor of simulating the f2f as much as possible to ensure that writing center pedagogy is upheld.
Some asynchronous e-mail tutoring may undermine the ability to foster dialogue and collaboration which are fundamental principles of the social constructionist theory upon which writing center work is based. These tutorials may hinder the development of genuine understanding between consultant and writer that is more readily developed in f2f tutorials. They can also foster the view that writing centers are places of remediation. Synchronous tutoring may better support writing center pedagogy and should be privileged over asynchronous e-mail tutoring which should only be used as a last resort. This writer holds a substantive view of technology and is in favor of simulating the f2f as much as possible to ensure that writing center pedagogy is upheld.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
