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.
Friday, October 24, 2008
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
