...FROM THE EDITOR...

As you browse through the middle column on this page—listing the contents of this month’s newsletter— you’ll find an interesting mix of new and old issues. Should we go online? Are computers really welcome in our labs, or do they invite students to view us as merely places to print out their disks or check their e-mail? Katie Stahlnecker, Bryan Kopp, and Don Vescio find that new technology offers rationales for increasing our collaboration with instructors, enhancing staff morale, and making our services more widely available.

But as we explore what technology can add to a writing lab, we continue to deal with familiar issues: tutoring ESL students, overcoming expectations about our services as proofreading shops, using writing to find answers to tutoring questions, and mediating between students and their instructors. Other essays in this issue revisit these recurring topics.

And to add some new horizons to our familiar organizational structures, NWCA President Al DeCiccio tells us of the possibility of an international meeting in Europe.

• Muriel Harris, editor

...INSIDE...

Virtually transforming the Writing Center: On-Line Conversation, Collaboration, and Connection

• Katie Hupp Stahlnecker 1

“Climate Control” for the Writing Center: A Collaborative Web Project to Improve Staff Morale

• Bryan M. Kopp 5

Web Site Design for a Writing Center

• Don Vescio 7

Conference Calendar 9

Tutors’ Columns:
“Coping with ESL Tutoring
Fear by Using Effective
Strategies”

• Monica Ward 10

“Philosophical Warming Trend”

• Jon T. Scott and

C. Elizabeth Wilson 11

Preparation

• Mary M. Dossin

NWCA News

• Al DeCiccio 13

Writing Center Ethics: “Mediating between

Students and Faculty”

• Michael A. Pemberton 14

kidding? I took AP English in high school.” Similarly, uninformed instructors in other departments often fear that sending students our way in some way suggests a weakness on their part or that encouraging students to visit us means that they endorse the absurd rumor that we will write the papers for the students. In fact, I know of one professor at Creighton who has actually announced to his classes that the Writing Center should be avoided because he doesn’t want the tutors doing his students’ work; students who have

The Writing Lab Newsletter, published in ten monthly issues from September to June by the Department of English, Purdue University, is a publication of the National Writing Centers Association, an NCTE Assembly, and is a member of the NCTE Information Exchange Agreement. ISSN 1040-3779. All Rights and Title reserved unless permission is granted by Purdue University. Material will not be reproduced in any form without express written permission.

Editor: Muriel Harris; Asst. to the Editor: Mary Jo Turley, English Dept., Purdue University, 1356 Heavilon, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1356 (765)494-7268. e-mail: harrism@cc.purdue.edu

mjturley@purdue.edu

Subscriptions: The newsletter has no billing procedures. Yearly payments of $15 (U.S. $20 in Canada) are requested, and checks must be received four weeks prior to the month of expiration to ensure that subscribers do not miss an issue. Please make checks payable to Purdue University and send to the editor. Prepayment is requested from business offices.

Manuscripts: Recommended length for articles is ten to fifteen double-spaced typed pages, three to five pages for reviews, and four pages for the Tutors’ Column, though longer and shorter manuscripts are invited. If possible, please send a 3 and 1/4 in. disk with the file, along with the hard copy. Please enclose a self-addressed envelope with return postage not pasted to the envelope. The deadline for announcements is 45 days prior to the month of issue (e.g. August 15 for October issue).

Please send articles, reviews, announcements, comments, queries, and yearly subscription payments to the editor.

visited the Writing Center receive an automatic “F” for the paper. Equally astonishing, professors in the English department often consider an assignment in the Writing Center as a step down, even punishment. Just last year, for instance, a first-time instructor in our department was outraged when the chair assigned to her one composition class and 10 hours a week in the Writing Center. After all, she was a “good teacher,” and everyone knows that “good teachers” teach only in the classroom.

We tutors, however, know that all of these reactions and concerns, even fears, are unfounded. However, the reality is that misconceptions exist, and they stand in our way both of serving the entire campus community and of commanding due respect. As Molly Wingate points out, “these writing center policies might make good, pragmatic sense, but if they are misunderstood throughout the institution, they hinder the center’s ability to function” (106).

Furthermore, claims Bob Whipple, writing centers “are often excluded because they are seen as a ‘fix-it,’ a clinic, a lab, an ancillary. Writing center faculty need to take more power so that they can exercise more power, and, in so doing, give more power to the university writing community.” Obviously, we need to concentrate our efforts on improving the image of our centers. With instructors both in and outside of the English department, we somehow need to position ourselves as white-collar colleagues rather than blue-collar comma cops. Similarly, with the students we need to present ourselves as tutors for those on the cutting edge not just the remedial level as is commonly associated with the need for a tutor.

Hence, I contend that tutors can elevate the image of the writing center across the university by incorporating technology on as many levels as possible, thereby not only connecting with professors and growing with the students’ needs but also, as Eric Crump puts it, “increasing [our] chances of survival into the next century.” The services that we currently offer lend themselves nicely to such a transition. According to Muriel Harris, “Because writing centers focus on one-to-one interaction with writers and because they invite collaboration and dialogue about writing as part of their tutorial approach, on-line programs developed in various writing centers are continuing this emphasis as they reach out to writers in new ways” (1).

Even if the ratio of face-to-face to

online writing centers is still

weighted strongly toward face-to

face, a fundamental shift has

occurred. Face-to-face may have

the numbers still, but it is no

longer the default, no longer the

inevitable starting point for writing

assistance nor its benchmark. That

point of reference has shifted

online.

With e-mail notifications, on the other hand, the one-sided notification becomes an invitation for conversation among colleagues. As Linda M. Harasim points out, “New communication technologies introduce powerful environments to enhance social and intellectual connectivities” (39). The instructors receive the notifications on the same day as the tutorial (which is often the day before the paper is due), and because of the ease of composing a quick response to a message received, the instructors usually comment on or even ask questions regarding the content of the tutorial. In the five years that I have tutored in Creighton’s Writing Center, less than five percent of the instructors to whom I have sent notifications via traditional mail have ever made the effort to contact me regarding my work with their students. Conversely, of the e-mail tutorials that I sent in a recent semester, over eighty percent prompted some response via e-mail from the instructors. For instance, a biology professor replied with “Thanks for the help. I think we are making progress, but slow at times. It’s hard to get all the students the help that they need. Thanks for all the support.” A theology instructor assured me that he “will capitalize on what [I] recommended” to his student. And, a professor in the Classics department said, “I received your notification for your meeting with Ryan, and it sounds as if you said everything that I would want him to hear.” Many others thanked me for my work with their students, agreed with my concerns regarding their students’ writing, or asked what I think they could do to help their students improve their writing.

By engaging in even semi-regular conversation and in many cases collaborating with instructors to help their students become better writers, I sense a new level of respect between us. The instructors seem to realize that we share the same goals for their students. Suddenly, it has become a teacher-toteacher exchange rather than one of professor and helper—i.e., the tutor is comma cop turned colleague. A virtual step in the right direction. Through mere association with fellow educators, outside instructors’ impressions of the writing center are bound to improve. Once this electronic exchange brings instructors to a higher level of understanding of the work we do in the writing center by involving them more directly, they will see the value of our work; hence, they will undoubtedly begin, or continue in some cases, to promote rather than voice skepticism regarding our services.

The next step, then, is to improve our image first among these students who will be urged to familiarize themselves with our service and ultimately among the student population in general. We can start by replacing the remedial-only labels traditionally stuck on us by students who have some degree of competency in writing. One way of doing this is by offering tutorials on such cutting-edge modes of writing as hypertextual documents and web pages and by developing Gopher and World Wide Web sites that link students to instructional handouts and other useful tools for writing. At Creighton, as surely is the case at most schools in this information age, we now have computer specialists in the English department and plenty of campus computer assistance; therefore, we have the resources to train our tutors to conduct various types of electronic tutorials.

Historically, the social, affective,

and cognitive benefits of peer

interaction and collaboration have

been available only in face-to-face

learning. The introduction of on

line education opens unprec

edented opportunities for educa

tional interactivity. The mediation

of the computer further distin

guishes the nature of the activity

online, introducing entirely new

elements to the learning process.

(42)

When tutor and student work side by side or even from remote sites with the student in charge of her document, she is bound to feel less like she is being corrected and more like she is working on her project with the help of someone else. Such empowerment of the student will inevitably improve student attitude and involvement. In fact, in an analysis of electronic interchanges, Ruberg and Taylor found that “student on-line behavior showed that students were taking more responsibility for the interchanges” (5). Thus, by thoroughly explaining not only the content but also the process of these tutorials in instructor notifications and by inviting instructors and their classes to tour the writing center during working hours, we could illustrate the benefits of the added resource. Instructors, particularly those who fear that tutors take charge of students’ writing, would undoubtedly find this method of tutoring appealing since it more obviously puts the students in control. Plus, once other teachers, particularly in the English department, see the very workshop approach that they teach in their classes working in an ideal one-to-one setting with tutors, perhaps they will gain a new respect for the level of instruction in the writing center. Furthermore, when these instructors realize that tutors are advancing perhaps more than they are technologically, probably they will even come to welcome rather than deplore an assignment to tutor for a semester.

Those of us who already see such an assignment for what it is—a privilege rather than a punishment—need to initiate such virtual leaps in our writing centers. As always, our main objective is to keep up with the changing needs of our students; therefore, as classes in cyberspace grow in number and as interest in the Internet increases, so does the need for us to work with students on computers and computer projects. Obviously, technology will define the future of all aspects of education, even the writing center, so we tutors need to make sure that the university does more than just add a few computers to the lab. In essence, we need to participate in what Tim Mayers terms “the challenge of composition teaching for the present time and into the near future . . . to help students (even as we help ourselves) become skillful navigators between the various types of literacy required of them” (153). We, as tutors, need to recognize and pursue our role in the virtual transformation of education.

The exciting thing is that, as Harris asserts “as the Internet grows and develops, on-line writing centers will take on new shapes and provide learning environments for writers in ways we cannot yet predict” (4). Furthermore, according to Grimm, “as places of research and knowledge-making, writing centers are uniquely situated to invite undergraduates into intellectual work that makes a difference” (546). Therefore, adding these and the many other electronic resources being used in writing centers today to our repertoire will inevitably present our service to the university in a more positive light so that instructors and even A.P. students realize that we, indeed, promote all that they promote in a quest for higher learning.

Katie Hupp Stahlnecker Creighton University Omaha, NE

Works Cited

Crump, Eric. E-mail interview. 1 November 1997.

Faigley, Lester and Susan Romano. “Going Electronic: Creating Multiple Sites for Innovation in a Writing Program.” Resituating Writing: Constructing and Administering Writing Programs. Eds. Joseph Janangelo and Kristine Hansen. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton, 1995. 46-58.

M. Harasim. Praeger: New York, 1990. 39-64.

The work in writing centers is surprisingly seasonal; the staff drowns in floods of students panicked by Spring deadlines, or wanders through desert heat seeing mirages—is that, could it be, yes, it’s a student! The waves of students follow more or less predictable patterns, because teachers have a way of always giving the same deadlines, but the problem remains for tutors: what to do in down times. Homework, study for exams, gossip, e-mail friends? While a staff certainly needs rest between the storms, a tutor without a tutee is truly unfortunate, and a tutor with nothing to do is even more so. This problem is intensified for new writing labs and new tutoring programs, for which “word of mouth” hasn’t spread and business is slow.

At Purdue, we had been developing a staff of specialized undergraduate tutors for business writing when our efforts ground to a halt. On the one hand, we had a staff of highly motivated, talented, and professional tutors; on the other, we had few clients. Not only did we want to raise awareness of our specialized services within the larger context of the Writing Lab, but we also needed to update our instructional materials in both on-line and print formats. Finally, as the Coordinator of the Business Writing Tutoring Program, I put the proverbial two and two together, and it equaled collaborative web project. Since our lab is equipped with computers and much of the staff was computer savvy, the solution was obvious. Why not spend our down time developing Writing Lab resources that will, in turn, help us promote our services?

The Business Writing staff decided the résumé handouts were our number one priority, and we began setting more specific goals. After critiquing existing materials, each tutor volunteered to draft sections of new handouts to be placed on the Web and photocopied as handouts. During staff meetings, we devoted time to exchanging feedback, and it was during such a meeting that I realized what was happening. Not only had we found “something to do”; we had started to reap all the benefits of true collaboration. We were becoming colleagues, pooling knowledge and experience, fostering a group identity, and, what’s more, we were getting to know each other better. As an added bonus, by plunging into unknown terrain, we were giving ourselves an opportunity for personal growth and professional development. All of these benefits, I’m convinced, will help us tutor more effectively, allowing us to learn alongside each other.

When tutors were scheduled to take appointments—but there were none to take—they spent time working on our collaborative web project. Some tutors researched their topics on the Internet, others discussed their topics with each other, and yet others sat at computers drafting handouts. One tutor, Marcella, took it upon herself to start playing with the technical side of the web design we had agreed upon as a staff. Marcella continued to learn new web skills as she experimented with formats she had never used on her own homepage. Although we preferred to be tutoring, helping students face-toface, we were comforted to know that our slow times would not be wasted. After all, in an era of distance learning and web-based instruction, we can help writers write better even when they are not physically present in the room with us.

Indeed, the web project will help us tutor in cyberspace, but it will also help us with our traditional “flesh and blood” tutorials. We’ll have improved handouts and, more exciting yet, we’ll have made possible a new tutorial environment. Our tutors will have another option for computer-mediated instruction because Writing Lab clients, who are often either computer literate or want to be, will be able to sit down with a tutor at a computer connected to our web page.

Many a lab director has lamented the loss of all her most experienced tutors upon graduation. A collaborative web project could help minimize the losses. The new materials we are creating will help us forge a link with future tutors, allowing existing tutors to share their insights and experiences. In effect, we are opening a dialog across time. The web project could even function as a training tool for new tutoring staff.

Clearly, a writing center profits in numerous ways from the constructive use of down time, but tutors also benefit from a collaborative web project. They gain marketable experience in web authoring and computer technology, and they grow as communicators by developing their skills in collaboration. As they create instructional materials, they also learn strategies to improve their own writing, whether they are developing their own résumés or other documents. As learners learning, tutors grow both personally and professionally, and the abilities they develop in the writing center translate into credentials in the work world or in graduate school.

As with all collaborative projects, of course, expectations need to be adjusted or frustration runs rampant. Collaboration is more than the sum total of its parts, but it would be a mistake to assume that the “more” is always measurable in its visible products. With the web project we’ve undertaken, the “more” has been primarily affective: deeper interest in the goals of a writing center, broader understanding of its audiences, and greater confidence in tutoring. Moreover, by stretching out our timeline and by dividing our work into manageable pieces—giving us more time to do less—we’ve kept the headaches at bay.

Bryan M. Kopp Purdue University West Lafayette, IN

As Director of Wilkes University’s Writing Center and faculty member of the Department of English, I am always looking for ways to promote writing on campus. Wilkes has a strong tradition of supporting writing across the curriculum, and students who attend the Writing Center come from a variety of disciplines. When I first arrived at Wilkes, however, I found that the Writing Center was not always accessible to students, nor did it integrate well with daily classroom activity. Limitations in staffing and funding prevented any substantial physical expansion of the Center, and the difficulty of printing and duplicating material on campus made it impractical to revise paper handouts and guides on a consistent basis. In order for Wilkes’ Writing Center to become more central in the education of its undergraduates, I wanted to come up with a way to make it more useful to students outside normal hours of operation and faculty who wished to use its resources as part of their class activities.

It seemed to me that the Web would be a natural medium for expanding the outreach of the Writing Center. If students and faculty could create virtual environments by using email and designing home pages, then the Writing Center certainly should be able to do the same. The Web, widely accessible and easy to use, offers a way to publish and update general and course-specific material in a cost effective fashion. Additionally, it enables the Writing Center, through external links and email, to become part of a broader academic community. Finally, as the Web becomes more of a part of the Writing Center, issues of proximity are much less important. For instance, students frequently could not meet with peer tutors because the Center’s hours were inconvenient for their schedules. Similarly, faculty who taught early morning or evening courses were excluded from using the Writing Center during class periods. While direct interaction with Center staff is still the most effective means of delivering instruction, placing its collection of reference material on the Web and enabling email queries went a long way in making the Center more accessible.

Before working on the Wilkes’ Writing Center site, I first wanted to see how other writing centers were using the Web. As I surveyed the sites, I noted the content, structure, and design of each page. Most were consistent in content and design, relying on single frame constructions that contained both internal and external links.¹ Perhaps the most comprehensive (and frequently linked to) site is Purdue University’s On-line Writing Lab (http://owl.english.purdue.edu). Purdue’s site contains an impressive collection of handouts, reference material, writing-related links, and search tools and indexes in a relatively easy-to-use format. Missouri University’s Online Writery (http://www.missouri .edu/~writery/) is especially friendly for teachers and students, listing links to course outlines at other institutions and offering a simple newsgroup structure to encourage students to publish and solicit feedback in their writing. George Mason University Writing Center (http://osfl.gmu.edu/~wcenter/) solicits and responds to client writing via email, while the University of Maine Writing Center Online (http:// www.ume.maine.edu/~writing) is especially strong in its layout and design, offering simple graphics and a format that would be easy to update.

Based on the survey of these and many other sites, I next developed the design criteria for Wilkes University’s Writing Center site. After consultation with faculty and students, I concluded that the Center’s Web site should:

• be easily updated;

• load quickly;

• rely on as few external links as possible to lend greater consistency in design and to minimize access delays;

• contain information and materials useful for students, teachers, and Writing Center staff;

• be useful in individual, writing center, and classroom contexts;

• contain basic information on computer and Internet skills.

Another advantage in using the Web to deliver Writing Center services is its ability to solicit user interaction. I considered developing forms for clients to submit queries to Center staff via the Web, but instead decided that a simple email link in the left fixed frame and in the header of the opening page of the variable content frame would make the site easier to administer and simpler for clients to use.³ Clients can click on the email link to send a message to Writing Center staff, and they can attach drafts of their work for review and commentary. Email questions and submissions broaden the outreach of the Writing Center—faculty and students can connect to the Writing Center site at any time and from almost any place, assured that they will have access to the latest handouts and guides, and that they will receive a response to their requests in a timely fashion.

While most users of Wilkes University’s Writing Center Web site express their satisfaction with its current content and design, further refinements can be made to make it more effective and interactive. One natural addition to the site would be a section that enables writers to publish works in progress. Such a section could be established as a moderated or unmoderated newsgroup forum.⁴ Similarly, a listserv might be another way for writers to share ideas, while a directory of student writers and editors could encourage notions of community that extend beyond the immediate group of one’s classmates. But as is the case with any digital publication, it is easier to add new material to a Web site than it is to administer consistently its content, and a simplicity of design and a limited range of opportunity is sometimes more preferable to cutting edge presentation and interactive capabilities. In developing and administering the Writing Center site, I found that there is a relationship between a site’s complexity and the likelihood that it will be maintained in a consistent fashion. As a result, I opted for a more limited range of options, putting aside such possibilities as a virtual chat writing center, to concentrate on the delivery of high quality and course-specific content. While the present version of the Center’s site is not the most sophisticated, its design is stable enough to function as a base for future expansion and development.

But the Web can never replace the richness of direct contact between people. As a tool that enables broader definitions of community and wider spheres of influence, the Web is unparalleled; what needs to be remembered, however, is that the Web must be part of a more comprehensive environment that emphasizes a variety of different forms of interaction and response. The key to designing effective writing center and educational Web sites is consistency—consistency in design, and more importantly, consistency in maintenance. Wilkes University’s Writing Center Web site was designed with both types of consistency in mind. As the site continues to grow and evolve, these principles will become even more important in maintaining a stable user experience. This approach to Web design might not be appropriate for all institutions, but it does demonstrate how a site’s design should be informed by the realities of practical classroom and writing center instruction.⁵

Don Vescio Worcester State College Worcester, MA

Notes

⁴ An unmoderated newsgroup would be accessible to anyone who wishes to share their writing with others, though such a forum might be confusing to the casual user. Moderated newsgroups have the advantage of filtering material before publication, thus encouraging consistency in standards, content, or approach. There are disadvantages to each newsgroup structure. Unmoderated newsgroups inevitably drift from their original intent, occasionally becoming a forum for personal attacks and commentary, and there is the risk that inappropriate or even damaging material might be published. Moderated newsgroups require someone to filter material prior to publication, a task which can become overwhelming in a very short time. Additionally, issues of censorship and freedom of expression inevitably arise when even the most simple principles of selection are applied to newsgroup submissions.

⁵ I used Adobe’s PageMill 2.0 to design and maintain the Writing Center’s Web site, though there are a number of equally capable products on the market that have essentially the same features. For those who have no knowledge of html and who do not wish to learn a Web building application, most major word processing programs will allow documents to be saved in html format. While such word-processed documents might not be sophisticated, they do enable the novice user to define links and publish a basic Web site.

Associations

Oct. 8-10: Rockey Mountain Writing Centers Association, in Salt Lake City, UT Contact: Jane Nelson, U. of Wyoming Writing Center, Center for Teaching Excellence, Coe Library, Laramie, WY 828071; phone: 307-766-5004; fax: 307-766-4822; e-mail: jnelson@uwyo.edu.

Oct. 23-24: Midwest Writing Centers Association, in Milwaukee, WI Contact: Allison James, Hawley Academic Resource Center, Simpson College, 701 North C St., Indianola, IA 50125; phone: 515-961-1524; fax: 515-9611363; e-mail: james@storm.simpson.edu

Feb. 3-6: Southeastern Writing Center Association, in Charleston, SC Contact: Tom Waldrep, Director, The Writing Center, The Medical University of South Carolina, AA 113 Harper Student Center, 45 Courtenay Street, Charleston, SC 29401. Fax: 843-792-9179; e-mail: motenb@musc.edu.

April 15-18: National Writing Centers Association, in Bloomington, IN Contact: Ray Smith, Campus Writing Program, Franklin 008, Indiana University, Bloomington, IN 47405; phone: 812-855-4928; e-mail: nwca99@indiana.edu; http:// www.indiana.edu/~nwca99.

’

Coping with ESL tutoring fear by using effective strategies

Illustrating pictures helps ESL students to understand the meaning of words or phrases that I use often enough. The funnel drawing is one method which is not a difficult concept since almost everybody is familiar with the kitchen tool, the funnel. If I want to dilute some vinegar, I add water with the aid of a funnel so I will not spill the liquid on the floor. The funnel concept can be applied with audience. For example, if Ramona tells me that her audience is people, I will draw the funnel and place the word people at the top. I then go ahead and explain to her that it would be a good idea if her audience would be narrower just like the tip of the funnel. This particular method of using the funnel picture is a strategy which can be applied with ESL students who like to learn methods by viewing drawings.

One other strategy that I use with an ESL student is writing out his/her unclear sentence on another scrap sheet. This method can be applied when addressing clarity. I turn his paper upside down and ask the student to rewrite the exact same sentence on scrap paper. The tutee then rephrases the same statement in a more clear, understandable sentence which will be usually be revised in a more logical way. Being able to visualize the sentence by itself, the student can concentrate and verbalize and revise the meaning in a more clear manner.

As new customers slowly trickled in, we tried to convince them that the old way had been limiting, but many continued to question the value of a face-to-face consultation with a reader. For many writers we simply had to try to explain ourselves while acknowledging their concerns. We followed this with an invitation to try our kind of consultation and judge for themselves if they learned anything of value. A few brave souls tried us out, and the dialogue between us began.

This dialogue about meaning helped make the organization of a paper, or lack of organization, visible. It helped to sharpen dull ideas and pointed out places where minimal foundation had been provided for towering ideas. It helped writers to discover where their own thinking was unfinished, or where they had settled for stock ideas rather than advancing their own thinking.

After the writer addressed the issues of meaning, organization, and development and support of ideas during our consultations, he or she was in a better position to make choices about the smaller issues of word choice, verb tense, and punctuation. At this point, language could be used by the writer to serve his or her meaning, and the writer retained authorship and responsibility. He or she remained active in the revision process and participated in

Preparation

Everything I attempt in my three-credit, semester-long course, Training for Writing Tutors, boils down to two main objectives: (1) preparing students for collaborative work with writers, and (2) preparing them to be true professionals.

I accomplish these goals by following the advice I give to tutors: talk less, listen more. Many questions arise during the training course, which includes an apprenticeship to an experienced tutor in the writing center. I have learned not to hand these prospective tutors answers but to encourage them to write their way to their own answers. I want them to be makers of knowledge in the field, not just recipients of knowledge. That means the essays they write for the course should not be simply a regurgitation of the text, readings, and class discussions. The A’s and B’s go to those who make a personal connection and bring new insight to the issue.

A paraphrase of May Sarton’s statement about writing poetry is the nub of it: a good piece of writing grows out of a question that you need to answer for yourself. The questions about tutoring, as about any field, have not all been answered. I impress upon my students that they are part of the continuing search for answers and that their insights are important.

This works, of course, only if I am part of the process myself. Professionals continually read, write, observe, practice, and discuss in their fields. I need to do these things just as much as my tutors do, both while they are being trained and while they are working as tutors. Many of my articles which eventually are published begin as I write along with the students in my tutoring class. As all of us read our works-in-progress, we see how writing originates at points of confusion, contradiction, and surprise. Our best writing happens as we struggle toward clarity on issues important to us.

After fifteen years in the field, I continue to encounter questions that I need to answer for myself: How can we answer in a practical and principled way the ubiquitous question, “Can you proofread this for me?” (“Helping Students to Proofread”). What should we do about tutoring sessions that flounder? (“Letter to New Writing Tutors”). How can we clarify the understanding of faculty of what we do in the writing center? (“Expectations,” “Your Piece or Mine: How Writing Tutors Work”). I didn’t have immediate answers to any of these questions. Clarity and direction evolved as I persisted through the drafting process.

I noticed the counterproductive tendencies of untrained tutors—focusing on lower order concerns, ferreting out all the errors they can spot, and dominating the talking—long before I developed, through writing, ways to counteract these tendencies with effective training (“Untrained Tutors”). Until I wrote my way to an answer, I was flummoxed by the question of one of my tutors: the paradox of claiming to move writers to independence while encouraging all writers to come to us (“Something for Everyone”). Another tutor, a young man who strongly resisted the non-directive, questioning style of tutoring that I teach, led me to contemplate what are the essential attributes of tutors and what things can be left open to varieties of personality, talents, and background (“The Sine Qua Non for Writing Tutors”).

A colleague asked me to talk with the tutors in an academic support program at our college who had been criticized by a faculty member for essentially rewriting students’ papers. Their question: “Well, if we can’t correct the errors, what CAN we do with ESL writers?” The colleague, also a close friend, jokes that I never know what I think about anything until I write about it for awhile. That was certainly true in this case (“ESL Quandary”). A quotation which I have seen attributed to both E.M. Forster and Flannery O’Connor expresses it nicely: “How do I know what I think until I see what I say?”

Mary M. Dossin Plattsburgh State University of New York Plattsburgh, NY

Writing Lab Newsletter 20.5

(January 1996): 9-10.

Dossin, Mary M. “ESL Quandary.” Writing Lab Newsletter 20.9 (May 1996): 15.

—. “Expectations.” Writing Lab Newsletter 14.8 (April 1990): 12.

—. “Helping Students to Proofread.” Writing Lab Newsletter 11.2 (October 1986): 3-4.

—. “Letter to New Writing Tutors.” Writing Lab Newsletter 12.5 (January 1987): 6.

—. “Something for Everyone.” Writing Lab Newsletter 18.6 (February 1994): 15.

—. “The Sine Qua Non for Writing Tutors.” Writing Lab Newsletter

19.2 (October 1994): 5.

—. “Untrained Tutors.” Writing Lab Newsletter 15.4 (December 1990):

11.

—. “Your Piece or Mine: How Writing Tutors Work.” Indiana English

15.1 (Fall 1991): 24-26.

Mediating between students and faculty

THEW RITING LAB

NEWSLETTER