...FROM THE EDITOR...

• Muriel Harris, editor

...INSIDE...

Computers and the Perception of the Writing Center

• Barbara Kossman 1

Reader Comment and Response. . . .

• Beth L. Hewett and Christa Ehmann 7

• Holly K. Moe 7

Tutors’ Columns: “Personal Revelations in the Tutoring Session”

• Jane Honigs 9

“Head ‘Em Off at the Pass: Strategies for Handling Emotionalism in the Writing Center”

• Tracy Hudson 10

Conference Calendar 12

Job Announcements 13

Quotable Tutor Quote

• Teresa Goodlett 15

Computers and the perception of the writing center

If I were to write a recipe for how computers contribute to the present-day functioning writing center, it would read something like this: Take one small room, too large to be a closet, too small to be anything else, fill with a minimum of two tables seat-ing four comfortably, five not so com-fortably. Add at least one three-drawer filing cabinet for consultant handouts, schedules, timesheets, and session re-ports. Squeeze in one bookshelf hous-ing several handbooks for quick refer-ence on how to improve writing skills; include the MLA Handbook and the Heath Handbook. Decorate with a peg-board for messages and news, car-toons, pictures, etc. Toss one telephone in an easily accessible corner. Add a dash of pencils and sprinkle with pads or piles of paper. If funding is avail-able, top with a computer or two for in-creased efficiency.

For most universities, writing centers are becoming increasingly common en-hancements of campus life. For some of these centers, computers are becom-ing increasingly incorporated into their practices. Because funding is often marginal, the addition of computers in these writing centers is sometimes as topical as the last sprinkle of powdered sugar in a recipe; com-puters are seen as mechanisms to increase production and extend reach rather than a means to de-velop writing proficiency. Often, either the computers are too out-dated and lack the capacity to ad-equately perform and meet the needs of the students, or the use of the computer is stymied by inad-equate application of the technolo-

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 Managing 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 web site:http://owl.english.purdue.edu/lab/

newsletter/index.html

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 Managing Editor. Prepayment is requested for all subscriptions.

Manuscripts: Recommended length for articles is 10-15 double-spaced typed pages, 3-5 pages for reviews, and 4 pages for the Tutors’ Column, though longer and shorter manuscripts are invited. If possible, please send as attached files or as cut-and-paste in an e-mail to mjturley@ purdue.edu. Otherwise, send a 3 and 1/2 in. disk with the file, along with the paper copy. Please enclose a self-addressed envelope with return postage not pasted to the envelope. The deadline for announce-ments is 45 days prior to the month of issue (e.g. August 15 for October issue).

gies it can offer. If the writing center is to continue to grow, to influence, to succeed as more than a contemporary phenomenon, then it must, at the very least, make optimal use of the computer technology available to it.

It is my intention here to demonstrate how present computer technology af-fects peer tutoring and collaboration within the writing center. In particular, I examine the emergence of on-line writing labs and how they change the role and perception of the writing cen-ter. Given the significance of comput-ers now and forevermore, it is impor-tant for us as teachers, administrators, and consultants not only to understand and effectively use the technology within the context of the writing cen-ter, but also to apply it for the im-proved perception of the writing center at large.

To understand the impact of on-line technology (and by on-line technology, I’m referring specifically to on-line writing labs) on collaboration in the writing center, we should first look at collaboration within the center without such technology.

In her essay, “Collaboration and Eth-ics in Writing Center Pedagogy,” Irene Clark illustrates the importance of col-laborative learning in the writing cen-ter; this is learning that involves an ac-tive role for both the consultant and the student, learning that becomes a true partnership in the exchange of knowl-edge, where students make discoveries for themselves as well as benefit from the knowledge imparted by the con-sultants (88-96). Collaboration, then, includes a mutual effort between stu-dents and consultants to communicate and engage in social interaction.

With this in mind, it is easy to understand how the exchange between students and consultants is rooted in conversation. “If thought is internalized public and social talk, then writing is internalized talk made public and social again,” Ken Bruffee writes (90-1).

In talking with consultants about their writing, students can clear their think-ing, ask questions, organize their thoughts and most importantly discuss ideas with an interested, informed sec-ond party. Talking creates a dynamic exchange between the student and con-sultant because it requires immediate response and mutual dependence. As Andrea Lunsford’s research indicates, “collaboration engages the whole stu-dent and encourages active learning; it combines reading, talking, writing, thinking; it provides practice in both synthetic and analytic skills” (111). Following Bruffee and Lunsford, then, talking in the writing center makes the relationship of student to consultant a truly symbiotic one.

The second party, in turn, becomes the group from which the student can gain a sense of comfort and with which the student can share a feeling of be-longing, because when students enter the writing center seeking help, they are also seeking a community that ac-knowledges and welcomes them. They want to know that not only are there people they can come to, with whom they can discuss their writing issues, but also that these people will be inter-ested in discussing intellectual issues with them while helping them become better writers.

When consultants work face-to-face with students, they are affirming student’s decisions to improve their writing by giving students the personal attention they seek and deserve. The physicality and conversation that takes place in face-to-face sessions foster a link between consultants and tutors that emulates the intimacy of a writing community, a community of individu-als dedicated to thinking, talking, shar-ing their discoveries and developments in, about, and through writing and the writing process. This intimacy is nur-tured by students sitting down with consultants for a block of time deliber-ately set aside for concentrating on the issues at hand, issues of writing and development as writers.

Face-to-face sessions can also dimin-ish the detachment students sometimes fear because they view writing as a solitary, isolated task that requires more talent than knowledge. Having a partner to work with makes the task less daunting, more fun, more reason-ably accomplishable for some. To-gether, these elements of the face-to-face sessions (conversation/dialogue, proximity, and partnership) create an atmosphere of encouragement and stu-dent-evolvement, where students take the most responsibility for their own personal growth as writers, turning to the consultants for guidance.

In managing sessions this way, we are assuming a predominantly minimalist approach to consultation. Our definition of collaboration as a two-way street, however, enables us also to lend a stronger helping hand when necessary. As Clark suggests, in “the early phases of the learning pro-cess, it might be beneficial for the tutor to assume a more active role” (92). This active role may include anything from setting examples for the student to demonstrating ways to organize a paper before it is written or ways to go through a paper after it is written.

In either case, sitting down to work with someone directly encourages dia-logue, which is crucial to the progress of becoming a better writer. The face-to-face interaction gives students an active role, empowering them to think independently as writers, to voice ideas and concerns as writers, to question writers as writers, and to make deci-sions as writers with the support and aid of individuals as interested in their writing as they are themselves. The dy-namics of dialogue and the active ex-change of both verbal and non-verbal language (eye contact, facial expres-sions, posture, etc.) between the stu-dent and consultant are what make vis-its to the writing center effective.

Incorporating on-line technology in writing center practice risks diminishing this intimacy and shifts the collaborative focus to a consultant-dominated environment by altering the possibilities of conversation and intimacy. Although the consultants are no less interested in the student’s growth as writers, the nature of the technology inhibits an interactive partnership. A look at the on-line writing labs that currently exist demonstrates this shift.

In studying on-line writing labs, or OWLs, I first discovered that they dif-fer significantly in function from on-line writing centers. I studied a total of twenty-five on-line writing labs and on-line writing centers, and have cho-sen to focus primarily on OWLs. The on-line writing centers tend to be just that, centers transposed on-line consist-ing of information on staff hours, staff biographies and telephone numbers. They are what they simply claim to be, that is centers for information as op-posed to labs of interaction. It is the importance of this interaction that I wish to look at here.

My research revealed that there are two general categories of on-line writ-ing labs, which, for the purposes of this paper, I’ve defined as basic and basic+.

The basic OWL is a site on the Internet accessible by an html address to anyone with access to the Internet. Much like the on-line writing centers, the OWLs are linked to their respective college or university writing centers and typically carry a menu of citation and documentation information, guides to writing essays, grammar tips and guidelines, dictionaries, thesauruses and links to other writing related sites, including other OWLs.

North Carolina State University’s OWL is a typical basic model. It pro-vides writing-help handouts, which consist of style documentation, biblio-graphic citation, grammar guides, and dictionaries. It hosts links to other re-sources available on the Internet, in-cluding “Bartlett’s Familiar Quota-tions,” “The Editorial Eye” which consists of newsletter articles for lan-guage professionals, and “The Voice of the Shuttle,” available through The University of California at Santa Bar-bara to supply information for research in the humanities. The site also pro-vides information on the staff director, staff hours, and staff consultants, as well as what the philosophy of the cen-ter is and how to contact the center via telephone. The distinguishing feature of the basic on-line writing lab is that it provides an e-mail question-and-an-swer grammar hotline, which, to quote the NCSU Lab “answers questions about specific writing problems and provides help with the structure of in-dividual sentences” (http://www2.ncsu. edu/ncsu/grammar/). Students submit specific grammar or syntax-related questions via e-mail to the writing cen-ter tutors. The tutors provide answers to the questions and offer other sugges-tions within a specified turn-around time, usually 24 hours.

While this on-line question-and-an-swer hotline serves to bridge the gap between students and the writing cen-ter by providing a convenient means for them to access the information and help they need, it also inhibits the growth of each student as a writer. Of course, using computers in the writing center expands our reach by opening the discourse to everyone, regardless of race, gender, creed, character (Handa 160-194) and “develops a sense of community that extends be-yond the classroom” (Schroeder & Boe 28-46). But if collaboration is a give-and-take relationship between the stu-dent and consultant, the question and answer hotline becomes a less produc-tive option. It creates a situation in which the student can hide behind the technology, submitting general proof-reading inquiries and receiving ready responses within a 24-hour period. For example, an ESL student can submit a paper that he or she had not written, but we would not be able to discern this without speaking directly to the student. The hotline also encourages a kind of instant gratification by its con-venience. Students are likely to grow accustomed to having others access and adjust their difficulties while they attend to other, perhaps more “important” issues in their academic lives.

The limited question-and-answer structure suppresses the need for con-versation while perpetuating a consult-ant-dominated session. The consultant answering the question becomes the container of knowledge pouring into the spaces the student needs filled without the student ever having to leave the comforts of home, or more importantly, without ever having to re-ally think about the consultant’s re-sponse. The writing center becomes a place that provides answers instead of guidance, and the consultants become experts in a hierarchy that develops only writing ability and not abled writ-ers. From the outside looking in, the on-line writing lab becomes an avenue for a quick fix like the quick reference of the MLA or Heath Handbook.

The basic+ OWLs take the submis-sion of grammar and syntax questions a step further, incorporating on-line tu-toring via e-mail into their repertoire of writing assistance. I chose one such OWL to examine here. It not only demonstrates the general functions and capacity of the typical basic+ OWL, but also enhances these functions and capacity to create a more dialogue ori-ented tutoring session.

The University of Michigan OWL offers all the features of the basic, or NCSU, version of the OWL plus the opportunity to forward an entire paper to a “cybertutor” for review and re-sponse. To do this, students simply en-ter their names, e-mail addresses, year in school, the class the paper is written for/purpose for writing the paper, the paper topic, and its due date into the spaces provided by the OWL. The OWL also requires students submitting papers via e-mail to state exactly what kind of help they hope to receive, and promises a response within a 48-hour period.

To see what kinds of responses are generally received, I sent a paper I had written to the University of Michigan OWL. The paper was an explication of a passage in Shakespeare’s King Lear. After describing the assignment, I re-quested the cybertutor(s) to review the paper for logic, clarity and conciseness and within 24 hours I received a re-sponse. The cybertutor introduced her-self, made some general comments about my paper, and then proceeded to more specific critiques. She enclosed her comments in asterisks as a separa-tion device, and interjected them into the body of my paper which she e-mailed back to me. The comments ranged from suggestions regarding dic-tion to particular direction in thesis de-velopment and idea support. While re-ceiving this feedback from the cybertutor did encourage me to review my paper once more, the fact that I had no way to directly respond to the tutor’s comments or ask further ques-tions that my second reading provoked, turned the exercise into one reminis-cent of a typical red-pen grading by a teacher; I turned the paper in to the cyber”teacher” and the “teacher” made corrections for me to address.

Granted, I could have jumped back on e-mail to initiate a dialogue regard-ing her comments. However, due to the nature of the e-mail exchange, techni-cal difficulties, or a lack of immediate responsiveness by the tutor, the dia-logue could last hours, even days or weeks with lapses in between. And this was in fact the case. Even though I tried to initiate a dialogue, the dialogue was frustrated and inevitably suffo-cated by the strains of technology and distance. To the credit of the tutor, she did make suggestions in her initial cri-tique beyond the structural range of grammar and syntax by raising con-tent-related questions. But she also an-swered these questions herself. For in-stance, the tutor made the point that a portion of my thesis was not suffi-ciently addressed. “So, speak more of this aspect or get rid of this part of your thesis,” she wrote (Ancharski 2/ 22/98). She went on to indicate exactly where in the paper I can expand on this second half of my thesis and just how to do it: “you can suggest that [Lear] learns to look beyond the superficial, and, then, explain briefly why you feel that this is so” (Ancharski 2/22/98).

Without speaking directly to her, I can only assume that the space be-tween us prompted her to fill the gaps in conversation herself; that this was a reaction to the fact that I was not there with her trying to answer the questions she raised before she could answer them herself. It could also be that she is an impatient consultant whose ap-proach to tutoring is not minimalist. In any case, I was left with a paper sliced by comments and directions, some of which I wasn’t quite sure how to take and all of which left no room for me to work through in my own writing. I didn’t get the chance to discover for myself where my paper and my devel-opment as a writer needed help and what I could do to improve. Instead, I was fed with options that I could sim-ply choose to accept or decline.

The ideal student would of course think through and evaluate the cybertutor’s comments and suggestions to reach a decision and follow through for him-/herself. But we all know and, at one point or another, have fallen to the temptation of passivity. The ab-sence of dialogue promotes exactly this sense of passive receiving instead of active deliberation. As Jay David Bolter states in his research on Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext and the History of Writing, “computer-as-sisted instruction, although meant to encourage the participation of the stu-dent, can often reduce the student reader to a state of televised passivity” (229). Again, the student becomes the vessel into which the knowledge is poured, sometimes all too eagerly.

To test the consistency of the cybertutor’s evaluation and the nature of the University of Michigan’s OWL, I sent this same paper to several other OWLs receiving much the same response in terms of the following:

• Timing—all cybertutors responded to me within 48 hours save one; sometimes I received responses from two or three cybertutors.

• Method—comments tended to be interspersed within the body of my paper and separated by asterisks or brackets; there were also some tutors who wrote summaries of well-developed points and points that needed improvement either at the beginning or end of my paper.

• Attitude—every response I received included both positive and negative aspects of my writing; every response raised questions and provided answers; every response ended with an invitation to send more papers, but only one response invited questions regarding the critique at hand.

The lack of extended dialogue facili-tated by the current structure of on-line writing labs is cause for concern, not only because it discourages active par-ticipation in one’s own writing, but more importantly because the passivity that the deficiency encourages brings the function and perception of the writ-ing center itself closer to a fix-it shop. The convenience of sending a paper via e-mail is much like the conve-nience of dropping a paper off and picking it up later after it has been re-viewed. Sarah Sypniewski, a writing consultant at DePaul University, makes this disconcerting comparison:

Until orientation for the WritingCenter, I had no qualms aboutproofreading or editing someoneelse’s paper. I allowed manypeople to slip a paper under mydoor and I would return it an hour later. While it was accompaniedby explanations of my markingsand [comments] about the paper,my service was still just a quickfix (Online posting 6 Oct. 1997).

How is this practice of sliding papers under a door or dropping papers off to be picked up later any different from the current practice of on-line writing labs? To be sure, some universities acknowledge the limitations of the technology as it exists on-line. The Purdue University OWL and many others, for example, state directly that they are not proofreading services. Acknowledging these limitations is only a first step.

Aside from accounting for the usual fallibility of computer technology, such as malfunctions, breakdowns, and inaccuracies of formatting, what can we do to move the use of on-line writ-ing labs in the writing center away from what seems to be a quick-fix? Some colleges and universities are al-ready making adjustments. The Uni-versity of Iowa offers face-to-face con-sultations as a follow-up to cybertutoring. Washington State Uni-versity offers an “OWL Writers’ Ex-change” through which writers can read and respond to the writings of oth-ers and these responses are posted for all to see as well as respond to, much like a listserv. The Exchange is orga-nized into a table according to the title and author of the paper. The date and time of each paper entry is also listed, and each entry has an icon onto which the visitor can click for viewing re-sponses as well as responding to the writing. The author of a paper that has been responded to is notified of the re-sponse via e-mail and must visit the site to view the response. This encour-ages an ongoing, although somewhat stilted, on-line discourse. The Univer-sity of Missouri-Columbia offers links to MOOs, which are a kind of elabo-rate chat room, on writing and writing related issues. Even requiring a follow-up telephone conversation regarding comments made to a paper would prove more beneficial to a student’s development as a writer and illustrate that the function of the writing center and technology within the writing cen-ter go beyond proofreading and provid-ing answers.

If, as consultants, instructors, and ad-ministrators, we believe as Roy Pallido, another DePaul University consultant says, “Collaboration . . . ne-cessitates a give-and-take relationship between the consultant and student. I provide answers when necessary, but I expect a student to help me find an-swers when we both hit a problem” (On-line posting 5 Oct. 1997), then our desire for efficiency, productivity, and convenience must be backed by a stronger concern for and attention to the quality of interaction in writing.

The ability to access information via computers is convenient and unlimited in scope. Students and non-students alike, all across the world can get as-sistance with writing any time of day or night. This extended reach pushes the writing center beyond its circle of academia, expanding its exposure and influence to the world at large. But the common concerns addressed in on-line writing labs currently, as we can see, focus mainly on mechanical aspects of writing and supply quick fix remedies. While these aspects are essential ele-ments of writing, by offering only them to the community, we risk the perception of the writing center as a station for mechanical recourse, an en-cyclopedia of writing tidbits.

“The beauty of the Internet,” Muriel Harris says, “[is] it’s free and acces-sible. It’s a worldwide sharing of ideas.” But she also admits that “there seems to be something about two people talking, talking out problems and asking questions that you can’t seem to duplicate” (http://www. jconline.com/boiler/punews/ 1105p02.html).

DePaul is experimenting with an on-line annotations environment which promotes internal dialogue within the text of a body of writing. Anyone can submit a text at any stage of develop-ment—first draft, revision, etc. The an-notations environment separates the paper into its component paragraphs and establishes comment windows in which the consultant can post com-ments to the paragraph either next to or above the particular paragraph being addressed. After receiving the tutor’s comments, the student submits a re-sponse to the tutor within the same comment windows, creating a pseudo-discussion. Comments can be high-lighted, edited, deleted to suit the needs of the “discussion.” Music and pictures can also be submitted to the annotations environment for “discus-sion.” Still in an embryonic stage, it is not entirely clear how effective the en-vironment will be. If we remember to incorporate dialogue into our on-line environments, however, we are that much closer to encouraging better writ-ers and not just fixing weak writing.

Before we can even begin to address issues that this on-line technology raises, issues of confidentiality, lan-guage development and ethics, we must first consider how the incorpora-tion of this technology will affect the mission and perception of the writing center. We can work with the technol-ogy to overcome the barriers it creates. When we do this, the addition of com-puter technology to the writing center will be more substantial in sustaining the positive impact we have upon both writing and writers.

Barbara Kossman DePaul University Chicago, IL

Works Cited

Ancharski, Karen. “Re: Explication of passage in Lear.” ancharsk @umich.edu (22 Feb. 1998).

Bolter, Jay David. Writing Space: The Computer, Hypertext, and the History of Writing. NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, Inc., 1991.

Bruffee, Kenneth. “Peer Tutoring and the ‘Conversation of Mankind.’” Landmark Essays on Writing Centers. Ed. Christina Murphy and Joe Law. CA: Hermagoras Press, 1995. 87-98.

Clark, Irene Lurkis. “Collaboration and Ethics in Writing Center Pedagogy.” The St. Martin’s Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. Ed. Christina Murphy and Steve Sherwood. NY: St. Martin’s Press, 1995. 88-96.

Handa, Carolyn. “Politics, Ideology, and the Strange, Slow Death of the Isolated Composer or Why We Need Community in the Writing Classroom.” Computers & Community:Teaching Composition in the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Carolyn Handa. NH: Boynton/ Cook Publishers, 1990. 160-84.

Lunsford, Andrea. “Collaboration, Control and the Idea of a Writing Center.” Landmark Essays on Writing Centers. Ed. Christina Murphy and Joe Law. CA: Hermagoras Press, 1995. 109-16.

North Carolina State University’s Online Writing Lab. NCSU. 3 March 1998 <http://www2. ncsu.edu/ncsu/grammar/>.

Pallido, Roy. “prompt #3.” Online posting. 5 Oct. 1997. Writing Center Theory and Pedagogy by thread. 3 March 1998 <http:// www.depaul.edu/archives/lists/ wcweb/>.

Purdue University Writing Lab. Purdue University. 6 Nov. 1997 <http:// www.jconline.com/boiler/punews/ 1105p02.html>.

Schroeder, Eric James and John Boe. “Minimalism, Populism, and Attitude Transformation: Approaches to Teaching Writing in Computer Classrooms.” Computers & Community: Teaching Composition in the Twenty-First Century. Ed. Carolyn Handa. NH: Boynton/Cook Publishers, 1990. 28-46.

Sypniewski, Sarah. “ethics in writing.” Online posting. 6 Oct. 1997. Writing Center Theory and Pedagogy by thread. 3 March 1998 <http://www.depaul.edu/archives/ lists/wcweb/>.

The University of Michigan OWL. U of M. 3 March <http:/www.lsa. umich.edu/ecb/OWL/owl.html>.

Letter to the Editor

We appeal to our colleagues in writ-ing center work to engage in a fruitful exchange of ideas that will enhance student learning support services at all educational institutions that support a common mission—to help students de-velop into better writers. To that end, we would like to address some of the issues raised in Holly Moe’s research paper, published in The Writing Lab Newsletter (25.2, October 2000). The following points will be considered: the relationship between Ms. Moe’s data and her reported findings as well as the reasoning she employs in her consideration of SMARTHINKING’s writing program.

As presented, there seems to be a disconnect between Ms. Moe’s re-ported data and the conclusions that she draws. For example, regarding student satisfaction (question 1), Ms. Moe states that 44 of 65 students found the service to be highly beneficial and that 18 or 65 found it to be moderately beneficial. Regarding the helpfulness of the tutor, she presents similar find-ings: 48 of 65 students rated the tutors in the 8-10 satisfaction range while 16 rated them as moderately beneficial. Regarding convenience, 49 of 65 stu-dents rated the service highly, while 14 rated it as moderately beneficial (13). For any writing center, traditional or online, these are positive ratings. However, Ms. Moe interprets these data from the negative, explaining that, “students are pleased with the SMARTHINKING program,” but in-validating their satisfaction on the grounds that students “are not always aware of what is best for them”; one wonders whether she would have had the same response if the students didn’t like the service. She reduces the three statistical questions to one of conve-nience, assumes that convenience is the major issue for students (despite her evidence to the contrary), and deduces that “I doubt whether SMARTHINKING is really helping students become better writers” (14). Additionally, her claims about how writers learn, how tutors achieve their goals, and how issues of authority are manifested in tutorial relationships are not supported by an analysis of writing samples or tutorial responses.

Such odd reasoning follows Ms. Moe throughout the research paper and leads her to numerous unsupported claims. Perhaps the weakest claim re-gards the use of the college dictionary to parse terms and “define” SMARTHINKING’s mission. Some-how, she concludes that the “online en-vironment of SMARTHINKING is not a laboratory,” evidently disliking our use of a common metaphor. Further, she suggests that the company’s prom-ise to return a student’s writing within 24 hours implies a “jiffy” service and, despite other students’ and her own claims that they have received assis-tance on higher order concerns, or “FOD” in her lingo, that SMARTHINKING’s OWL is exclu-sively an “editing service” (15).

Moreover, Ms. Moe cites responses from the WCenter list participants, who were asked a question without proper consideration of context; she did not reveal to them that the writing center where students might “drop off” papers was an online writing lab (15). Because the respondents had not been told that the writing center in question was an OWL, it seems natural that they responded strongly to this question; best practice in traditional writing cen-ters eschews dropping off papers and requires student-tutor interactions. Adding to the misperceptions that this survey presents, a review of the WCenter archives from that period re-veals more than one respondent, not quoted in her paper, who mentioned not only asynchronous OWLs but also lengthy papers as exceptions to the “drop off” rule.

In light of these issues, the validity of Ms. Moe’s methodological approach must also be considered. Although a comprehensive review of the principles and procedures of her data collection and analysis would indeed be inappro-priate for The Writing Lab Newsletter, questions about her methodology do arise. In the absence of a critical ex-amination of this information, the va-lidity of Ms. Moe’s study needs to be taken with the proverbial grain of salt.

We appreciate this opportunity to address Ms. Moe’s article and would welcome further discussion.

Beth L. Hewett, Online Writing Lab Coordinator, SMARTHINKING, Inc.; bhewett@smarthinking.com Christa Ehmann, Vice President of Education, SMARTHINKING, Inc.; cehmann@smarthinking.com SMARTHINKING, Inc. 1819 H St. NW Suite 500 Washington D.C. 20006

Personal revelations in the tutoring session

Head ‘em off at the pass: Strategies for handling

emotionalism in the writing center

Calendar for Writing Centers Associations

Feb. 16-18, 2001: Southeastern Writing Centers Associa-tion, in Auburn, AL Contact: Isabelle Thompson, Auburn University (thompis@groupwise1.duc.auburn.edu) and Glenda Conway, University of Montevallo (conwayg@montevallo.edu)

March 3, 2001: Northern California Writing Centers Association, in Rohnert Park, CA Contact: Scott L. Miller and Rose Gubele at the Sonoma State University Writing Center, 1801 E. Cotati Ave., Rohnert Park, CA 94928. Ph: 707-664-4401; e-mail: writing.center@sonoma.edu. Confer-ence website: <http://www.sonoma.edu/programs/ writingcenter/ncwca2001>

March 23-24, 2001: East Central Writing Centers Associa-tion, in Granville, OH Contact: Cindy Johanek, English Dept, Denison University, Granville, OH 43023. Ph: 740-587-5793; e-mail johanek@denison.edu. Conference website:<http://www.denison.edu/ecwca2001>

March 29-31, 2001: South Central Writing Centers Association, in Lafayette, LA Contact:James McDonald, Department of English,

P. O. Drawer 44691, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA 70504-4691. Phone: (337) 482-6907; e-mail: jcm5337@louisiana.edu

March 31, 2001: Northeast Writing Centers Association, in Worcester, MA Contact: Anne Ellen Geller, Writing Center/Writing Program, Clark University, 950 Main Street, Worces-ter, MA 01610, (508) 793-7469, angeller@clarku.edu. Conference website: <http://www2.clarku.edu/ resources/writingcenter/NEWCA/>

June 18-20, 2001: European Writing Center Association, in Groningen, The Netherlands Contact: e-mail: eataw.conference@let.rug.nl; fax: ++31.503636855. Conference website: <http:// www.hum.ku.dk/formidling/eataw/>

Sept. 14-15, 2001: Midwest Writing Center Association, in Iowa City, IA Contact: SuEllen Shaw, shaws@mnstate.edu, or Cinda Coggins, CCoggins66@aol.com. Conference website: <www.ku.edu/~MWCA>.

Alexander P. and Adelaide

Quotable Tutor Quote:

One way to think about handling global before local concerns in a client’s paper is to “Focus on the head wounds instead of the knee scrapes.”

Teresa Goodlett College of Charleston Charleston, SC

THEW RITING LAB

NEWSLETTER