Writing center operations

One of the WCRP’s principal goals in conducting this survey is to provide writing center administrators with comparable benchmark data for assess-ing their programs, planning budgets, requesting funding and resources, hir-ing and training personnel, and docu-menting accountability. At the same time, we recognize that this kind of in-formation is highly contextual; thus, respondents were first asked to help identify their centers’ local institu-tional contexts.

Writing center directors from a variety of institutions participated in the survey. Of the 194 respondents, 67 (or 35% of the total) directed writing centers at research universities, 59 (30%) at 4-year comprehensive universities, 32 (16%) at 2-year post-secondary col-leges, and 30 (15%) at 4-year liberal arts colleges. Only six secondary school writing center directors (only 3% of the total) participated, and no di-rectors from elementary schools re-turned the survey.² Respondents were also asked whether their writing cen-ters were “independent” (137 centers or 71%) or “part of a larger unit” (57 centers or 29%); whether they operated satellite locations (44 centers or 23%); and whether their centers remained open during one or more summer terms (137 centers or 71%).

directly involve staffing, the third sec-tion of the survey gathered information about non-administrative personnel. The survey’s findings show that the average number of consultants per cen-ter for AY 2000-2001 was 16. The highest was 100, and the lowest was 1. Respondents also reported that 79% or 153 centers employed undergraduate writing consultants (peer tutors); al-most half (43.5% or 84 centers) em-ployed graduate student consultants; almost a third (28.5% or 55 centers) employed faculty consultants; and a quarter (24.35% or 47 centers) em-ployed professional staff. Respondents who chose the “other” category for this item were asked to identify these “other” consultants. This group in-cluded “members of the community,” journalists, free-lance writers, high school teachers, and “retirees.”

Finally, respondents identified tutor/ consultant compensation. Overwhelm-ingly, they indicated that consultants were paid by the hour (see Table 2).

When hourly rates were correlated with consultants’ employment/educa-tional status, we found that peer tutors received the lowest average pay rate at $6.40 per hour. At $17.94 per hour, faculty consultants received the highest average pay rate, and graduate students ($12.22 per hour) and professional staff ($17.94 per hour) fell in the middle.

Writing center administrators

The final section of the survey has much to offer those interested in re-search on writing center administra-tors. First, the survey results show that as of spring 2001, a large number of directors had held their positions for five years or more, and very few reported having held positions for less than one year (see Table 3).

In addition, the survey asked for the highest degree held by the director, the director’s tenure status, and the percentage of the director’s annual appointment in the writing center. Consistently, directors reported holding ad-vanced degrees, with most either at the master’s (45.36% or 88 directors) or doctoral (52.06% or 101 directors) lev-els. One director held the specialist’s and three held the bachelor’s as their highest degree. At the same time, the tenure status of directors varied widely. Forty-two percent or 81 direc-tors reported either tenure-track or ten-ured faculty positions, and 58% or 112 directors reported holding non-tenurable faculty or staff positions. Table 4 details these findings.

Finally, respondents were asked how much of the director’s annual appoint-ment was in the writing center. Analy-sis of this item proved quite challeng-ing—and quantification of the data proved impossible—because respon-dents used various methods of deter-mining administrative workloads. For instance, several directors reported their annual appointments as “full time.” However, many of these “full time” directors’ responsibilities in-cluded regular or sporadic classroom teaching or other administrative re-sponsibilities such as directing other writing programs. For instance, one di-rector described herself as a “full time writing center director [who] teaches at least one class per semester (by choice),” which left unclear whether she received additional compensation for teaching. Another “full time” direc-tor clearly addressed this issue, stating that she was “full time, but I teach Methods of Teaching English, Usage and Composition for Graduate Stu-dents, Advanced Grammar, Advanced Composition, and American Indian Literature, for which I am not compen-sated.” Although this data is not quan-tifiable, writing center directors’ narra-tive statements about working conditions serve as an example of how

the WCRP database can be a rich source for researchers, even those who repudiate “bean counting.”

Conclusion

I hope that by previewing the myriad possibilities of this database, I have en-couraged greater participation in an on-going project that will facilitate posi-tive change in writing center theory and practice. In concluding this discus-sion, I offer a few suggestions for di-rectors who either experienced diffi-culties completing the survey last year or did not complete the survey at all. First, respondents might find it useful to print a copy of the survey from the web (or download a printable copy) and complete it by hand before enter-ing data into the online form. Because section four of the survey asks for the writing center’s usage data, gathering this information beforehand would ex-pedite the process. In addition, direc-tors who are unable to provide data for some survey questions should not be discouraged from submitting partially completed surveys and should respond to as many questions as possible. Par-ticipating in this manner is important since all new respondents will be added to the WCRP mailing list and since providing some information for a writing center is far better than provid-ing none at all. Furthermore, writing center directors who completed the survey for AY 2000-2001 will be happy to know that many items only need to be checked for accuracy since only items that change from year to year will need to be resubmitted with each update.

In the coming years many writing center directors will be using WCRP benchmark information for various ad-ministrative purposes. In order to meet this demand, we hope that all directors will complete a survey for AY 2001-2002. In fact, one of the purposes of conducting this survey longitudinally is to encourage consistent record keep-ing. Writing center administrators who keep records responsibly discover that they can be useful rhetorical tools— that quantitative data can be empower-ing and can result in substantial posi-tive change for writing centers, writing consultants, administration, and most importantly, for clients. In the end, we hope that our work on this survey and database helps writing centers serve the mission that most of us share: to make better writers.

Christopher Ervin Assistant Director, Writing Centers Research Project University of Louisville Louisville, KY chris.ervin@louisville.edu

Notes

Book Review

Perhaps the title of this review should be “The Politics of The Politics of Writing Centers.” After all, a collec-tion of essays about “the terrain of power in which writing centers are lo-cated” (xi), in the words of its editors, Jane Nelson and Kathy Evertz, will by its very nature be political. What such a collection might include and exclude, privilege and penalize, assert and as-sume will certainly have political im-plications for the scholarship of writing centers and for the physical places themselves.

Along these lines, the editors tell us that while the authors who make up this collection find ways to celebrate writing center success, they also ac-cuse the writing center community of complicity in sustaining the political conditions of marginalization. They find entry into the twenty-first century to signify the transition to a new stage for writing centers. Having performed the important “inside” work of estab-lishing writing centers as sites for im-portant intellectual work in educational institutions, the writing center commu-nity now needs to take the next step of communicating to and connecting with broader political and intellectual audiences (xiii).

If this collection is a map, then, of where writing centers have politically been and where, therefore, they need to move, we have to report that at times we lost our way. The writers’ maps conflicted with other maps, with our lived experience, with available evi-dence. Still, maps only go so far; at some point, one needs to put the map aside and simply experience the local terrain. Not surprisingly, this collection allows one to do that, as well. Overall, The Politics of Writing Centers is an important addition to our writing cen-ter libraries, important not only be-cause it won an International Writing Centers Association scholarship award, and not only because its chapters sum-marize and re-cast discussions that have taken place on WCenter, in previ-ous literature, and at conferences, but because this collection raises new questions—if not controversy and dis-cussion—about vital writing center issues.

One of these issues is evident in the editors’ preface when they offer a “cri-tique [of] our approach to putting this collection together” (xiii). We are told that they sought contributors first by “approach[ing] writing-center people whom [sic] we thought would be strong, potential contributors to the volume” (xiii), and based upon these submissions, the editors “selected the proposals that best fit our chapter top-ics and the political thrust of the book” (xiv). But, lo and behold, the editors admit in retrospect that

we had never once—for a book

about the politics of writing cen

ters—thought about including chap

ters on race or ethnicity or class in

writing centers. It never once

dawned on us, as we met over the

course of months of talking about

this project, to consider the racial

and economic politics of our own

choice of topics and contributors.

(xiv)

While this admission comes across as honest and fresh—and a lesson in how easy it is for us to be limited by a narrow political gaze—the editors’ so-lution was to refer in the preface to a conference presentation they gave on the issue and to offer a list of questions for readers to consider. Next, they put the onus on the National Writing Cen-ters Association (or NWCA, now IWCA), who the editors think should discontinue “prize money for winners of the NWCA scholarship awards” and instead “[use] funds to assist tutors or directors from community colleges to travel to and present at NWCA meet-ings” (xv). The editors also urge writ-ing center publications to work harder to feature the voices of those too-often silenced in discussions of writing center issues.

So far, we have primarily addressed what is not in this book rather than what is. Readers will find familiar ter-ritory in this collection, including the politics of location, tutor/student roles and relationships, accreditation, professionalization, intellectual work and tenure, and, of course, what we call ourselves. At times the contribu-tion is largely a narration of making one’s way through the treacherous path of institutional politics, such as Pat McQueeney’s account of the creation of writing tutoring at the University of Kansas, and Pamela Childers and James Upton’s excellent offering of the challenges of creating and sustaining high school writing centers. Others take more of a research-based ap-proach, such as Jane Cogie’s account of Janelle, an undergraduate, and Ken, her peer tutor. Cogie offers a fine ex-ample of a close reading of tutorial in-teraction, demonstrating how our no-tions of directive and non-directive tutoring are complicated when examin-ing actual practice. More research, in the form of surveying, comes from Eric Hobson and Kelly Lowe, whose subject is the IWCA and whose ques-tions concern the identity and role of this organization in the eyes of its past presidents, members, and non-mem-bers. While we would like to have known the response rate to Hobson and Lowe’s survey, we found ourselves reading a familiar account of the stops, starts, and growth of a professional or-ganization with which we have long been involved. While we don’t neces-sarily share the dire warnings these writers offer (“If the NWCA doesn’t politicize itself, it will be politicized by external forces or will implode under the weight of its own atavistic desire to remain forever rooted in the good old days” [119]), we do appreciate the in-clusion of the professional association among the topics presented. The poli-tics of professionalization, whatever its forms, continues to be a vital issue for our field.

Other than narrative accounts and re-search reports, the bulk of these chap-ters operate along familiar lines: largely “thought” pieces drawing from previous literature on the topic or fairly broad descriptive pieces. We include in this group Pete Carino’s review of writing center literature vis-à-vis its perceived relationships to writing pro-grams, and we were particularly fond of his conclusion: “The center’s rela-tionship to the writing program will re-main a challenge constantly refigured and negotiated, and well it should be” (11). Carol Peterson Haviland, Carmen Fye, and Richard Colby, drawing largely from postings to the listserv WCenter, describe the possible physi-cal locations of writing centers and the political implications of each. Finally, Katherine Fischer and Muriel Harris offer a compendium of metaphors used to describe writing centers and writing center work, from the familiar lab and clinic, to the less familiar studio and writery. Overall, Fischer and Harris wisely remind us of the politics of metaphor and that “constructing meta-phors and then dissecting them to find their limitations is, finally, a useful exercise” (34).

Of the contributions that seem more polemical in nature, we include Linda Shamoon and Deborah Burns’ Marxian analysis of writing center work, a thought-provoking master narrative of the university as “Fordist factory” that, if true, makes one wonder how it could be that occasional “products” develop the ability to critique the university it-self, as well as get hired to direct its writing centers. As Fischer and Harris point out in their chapter, like most metaphors, Shamoon and Burns’ is most interesting at its point of breaking down. Also in this group, we put Jeanne Simpson and Barry Maid’s reminder as to why the IWCA should engage in the business of offering writing center ac-creditation, a call that has been ad-dressed in part by an agreement between the IWCA and the WPA Consultant-Evaluator program. The IWCA now has two of its members on the WPA con-sultant board, ready to offer perspec-tives on writing center issues when the WPA is evaluating an entire writing program. Finally, Margaret Marshall makes a thorough argument as to why and how writing center work—particu-larly the reports and accounts we amass within our institutions—should be counted as “intellectual” when it comes to promotion and tenure decisions. However, we were disappointed that she did not address other crucial factors, such as the need for time to pursue scholarship, whatever its form.

No one ever knows who or what will walk through the door of a writing cen-ter on any given day— a paper on po-litical movements in the Baltic region, a generic book report on The Bell Jar, a résumé for tweaking or, on rare occa-sions, a highly personal paper address-ing religious concerns. It is this “un-known factor” which makes tutoring exciting and challenging.

In spite of the tacit agreement that religion has a marginalized, if any, place in many educational settings, tu-tors should be prepared to read reli-gious discourse. When assignments are opened, some students can be expected to choose religion or spirituality, in a broader sense, as a topic. This selec-tion should be permitted because if prohibited “we will lose [students] if we refuse to listen to their arguments that emerge from strongly held values” (Neuleib 43). Students should write themselves as they see fit and tutors need to be equipped to handle such writings.

With an expanding of academic dis-course comes additional responsibili-ties for tutors. Tutors are not social workers or psychologists, but it is not uncommon for them to be confronted with emotionally charged (highly per-sonal/ confessional/ explicit/ inappro-priate) writing. On occasion a student may choose to reflect on her faith and its affect on her life. Religion, like money and politics, can quickly be-come a tense and volatile topic, a topic which can potentially close down, if not destroy, channels of communica-tion between tutors and students. It is best, although not always possible, to diffuse any potential problems at the beginning of the tutoring session. When dealing with such sensitive is-sues, “whether the tutor has had a simi-lar experience or not, it is best to ac-knowledge rather than ignore the burden of the writer’s task” (Agosti-nelli, Poch and Santoro 35). Tutors should tackle the paper at hand: Who is the writer’s audience? Does the student’s topic address the assignment? Is the student’s choice of rhetoric the most effective? Although oftentimes more difficult, the revision of religious writing should be seriously addressed and handled by both the tutor and write.

It should also be acknowledged that there is a broad spectrum of religious discourse which can be submitted for composition courses— from unsophis-ticated, proselytizing rantings to illu-minating (intellectually and/or person-ally) and inquisitive reflections. Tutors should be prepared, in the rare occa-sions called upon, to respond to all types of religious writings. A tutor, un-like the teacher, does not have the luxury of reflecting on a perhaps highly charged, dogmatic and, in some instances, offensive (sexist, homopho-bic) essay in the privacy of her office. She must read the paper “cold” and control her initial reactions (body lan-guage, facial expressions, exclama-tions). The tutor is sitting with the stu-dent and should strive not to destroy the session before even opening her mouth.

Although students should be free to write on all topics, they should also be willing to listen to the ideas offered by the tutor. Tutors are charged to assist students with finding their own voice and expressing their own ideas in their writing. Tutors should, in turn, be able to address this writing as critically and objectively as possible. “When a writer decides to use a personal experience or a deep-seated personal value for an academic paper, it is a tutor’s responsi-bility to help the writer articulate the ideas he has and to provide a fair-minded response, even if it means reaching deep inside ourselves to do so” (Agostinelli, Poch and Santoro 34). Tutoring can be draining work and, in the case of religious discourse, it can be emotionally as well as intellectually draining. The session may stay with a tutor long after the student leaves the building or even submits the paper. Handling sensitive issues can push tu-tors to re-evaluate their tutoring ap-proaches as well as their own personal beliefs and prejudices. Tutors learn from each session, but those which force them to re-examine their ac-cepted techniques and philosophies may be the most frustrating but, ulti-mately, the most enriching.

Michele L. Petrucci Indiana University of Pennsylvania Indiana, PA

Works Cited
Agostinelli, Corrine, Helena Poch, and
Elizabeth Santoro. “Tutoring

Emotional Issues.” A Tutor’s Guide: Helping Writers One to One. Ed. Ben Rafoth. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann, 2000. 32-41.

Berthoff, Ann, Beth Daniell, et al. “Interchanges: Spiritual Sites of Composing.” College Composition and Communication 45 (1994): 237-263.

Dively, Ronda Leathers. “Censoring Religious Rhetoric in the Compo-sition Classroom: What We and Our Students May Be Missing.” Composition Studies 25 (1997): 55-66.

Last year, as part of an increased uni-versity-wide emphasis on accountabil-ity, our writing center was asked to de-velop a formal, outcomes-based assessment plan. In this article we re-count some of the initial phases of de-signing that plan in the hope that one of its distinctive features—the inclu-sion of tutors as part of the population served by the writing center—may prove useful for others involved in writing center assessment.

From mission statement to assessment

Before we could develop a formal, outcomes-based assessment plan, our first step was to create a mission state-ment (although our writing center has been in operation—and growing steadily—since 1978, it had no formal mission statement). To be consistent with the larger mission of our univer-sity, which aims, in part, to meet “the need for an educated citizenry dedi-cated to lifelong learning and service,” our primary goal needed to link indi-vidualized writing consultation to the “larger” benefits that we know it can provide, including lifelong learning.

Such unsolicited comments invited systematic inquiry, so we developed a survey to determine what former con-sultants found most and least valuable about their work here. We crafted the survey to allow anonymous responses, unlike our end-of-year conferences and work-related writings. Although the elapsed time between separation and ad-ministration of the survey meant that former consultants might recall specific writing center experiences less readily, this time permitted them to observe the impact of their writing center experience as they pursued graduate degrees and found jobs.

We sent the first surveys in summer 2000 to 35 former consultants who had worked at least three quarters in the writing center. While our sample was small (29 surveys returned), the return rate of over 80% thrilled us. Nearly ev-ery respondent provided current ad-dresses and phone numbers for follow-up questioning, with only three returned anonymously. Our numerical data have not been analyzed, but our preliminary look at the breadth of the narrative com-ments surprised—and pleased—us.

Former consultants’ observations about the Writing Center

Naturally, many students noted im-proved communication and writing skills. Others commented about current and former administrative staff. Some discussed the physical environment of the writing center: one person longed for the “fish wall,” the underwater mural that graced the writing center’s former space, while another lamented the some-times-distracting noise level. A couple of respondents who now work in other writing centers as professional tutors or graduate assistants indicated that their current work benefits from the training they received at WSU. Two respon-dents even lauded the writing center as a good place to find a spouse.

Former consultants in the “real world” of work

We received similar answers regard-ing the way writing center work af-fected former consultants’ professional lives. Two respondents mentioned that their experience had improved their in-terviewing skills. One observed the parallels between tutoring and inter-viewing: “This job has made inter-viewing easier. At the Writing Center, I had to meet ‘strangers’ every day and converse with them. The same happens in an interview. In both situations, I had to be the ‘outgoing’ one.” Several consultants noted that peer tutoring ex-perience was an advantage when ap-plying for jobs and entering graduate programs. Most consultants felt that they did not acquire a discrete set of skills applicable only to tutoring but that they have learned skills transfer-able to other academic and profes-sional settings. As another former con-sultant commented, “I could write a book (and I may, some day). The things I picked up at the Writing Cen-ter often seem a part of nearly every-thing I do in my professional work.”

Toward a conclusion

Measuring the impact of writing cen-ter work on consultants—both during their time at the university and later— can be a valuable component of an as-sessment plan that also includes such measures as client success tracking, faculty surveys, committee evaluation, and other standard measures. Not only does this approach provide information useful in improving our daily opera-tions; such measures as a consultant post-employment survey may well prove to be a viable means of demon-strating some part of the writing center’s contribution to the larger mis-sion of the school, including the foster-ing of “lifelong learning.”

Jacoby, Jay, and Stan Patten. “Chang-ing the Ways We Teach: The Role of the Writing Center in Profes-sional Development; or, the Virtue of Selfishness.” The Writing Center: New Directions. Ed. Ray Wallace and Jeanne Simpson. New York: Garland, 1991. 157-68.

Johnson-Shull, Lisa. “Tutors’ Column: Teaching Assistants Learn Teaching Tips by Tutoring.” Writing Lab Newsletter 18.9 (May 1993): 13.

Neuleib, Janice. “Training Potential English Teachers in the Writing Center.” Writing Lab Newsletter

Rottenberg, Annette T. “Learning to Teach by Tutoring.” Writing Lab Newsletter 12.10 (June 1988): 11-

Zelenak, Bonnie, Irv Cockriel, Eric Crump, and Elaine Hocks. “Ideas in Practice: Preparing Composition Teachers in the Writing Center.” Journal of Developmental Educa-tion 17.1 (1993): 28-34.

Beyond the writing lab Need a writing prompt?

^{(continued from page 7)} LeCount, David E. Nonstandardized Quests: 500+ Writing

Prompts That Matter. Portsmouth: Heinemann, 2002. $15.00. ($13.50 on Heinemann’s Web site: <www.heinemann.com>)

This handy little book might serve several purposes in your writing lab’s resource bookcase. It offers over 500 prompts for writing that can be used in both high school and post-secondary writing centers where writers are given practice writing exercises or are in need of a topic to write about. Some prompts will require a bit of research (good for practicing search strategies), some seek opinions, some ask the writer to take an unusual perspective on a common topic, and some call for personal or affective responses.

For some of the prompts that need to be researched, companion Web sites are offered and can be used for practice in how to search the Web. (The Web sites are referenced to the prompt number in the book.) Some of the topics are more appropriate for high school writers, and some can be made more challenging for college students. And, finally, the book might offer a quick bit of help for a teacher who comes in seeking suggestions for what to ask the class to write about.

Muriel Harris, editor Department of English Purdue University 1356 Heavilon Hall West Lafayette, IN 47907-1356

Address Service Requested

Non-profit Organization
U.S. Postage
PAID
Purdue University