(CD ROM)

The IWCA Press announces the availability of a new CD ROM: the proceedings from the 2004 Watson Conference, titled Writing at the Center, edited by Jo Ann Griffi n, Carol Mattingly, and Michele Eodice. This CD, like the OWL Guide, will be made available for $15 each, plus $2 for shipping. After initial expenses are met, $5 of each sale will be returned to the Writing Centers Research Project.

Available from:

classroom teaching? Why are these similarities/differences important?

3. What do you think every tutoring session should accomplish, regardless of the tutee? What can you do to try to make these things happen? What role(s) might you play?

This writing was the jumping off point for a fuller discussion of each of these topics. In responding to these questions, tutors were able to bring multiple identities into play as they thought about tutoring from the perspective of a writer, a teacher and a tutor. They were able to draw from various experiences to deliberate about tutoring. Further, because they were responding to a common set of questions, tutors were better able to engage in discussion rather than deliver presentations to each other on tutoring-related topics. Finally, the revised questions helped tutors articulate the assumptions and beliefs they held about teaching, learning, and tutoring, assumptions that could then be set next to and viewed in light of the philosophy and mission of the Writing Center. Bringing these spoken and unspoken principles together helped alert tutors to the differences between their beliefs and the ideas that informed the context in which they were about to work. This knowledge, in turn, helped them better understand the tensions they experienced as they tutored in the Center.

FOCUSED OBSERVATIONS: INQUIRING INTO ONE’S TUTORING

In many ways, the question-responding exercise that we completed during tutor orientation set tutors up for another tutor development opportunity that we integrated into our writing center routines: focused observations. Both practices asked tutors to study their experiences (with teaching/tutoring/learning etc.) and then to dialogue about these experiences with other tutors. The observations were “focused” in that they were not intended to provide tutors with an overall assessment of their tutoring (this is what you did “good” and this is what you did “bad”). Rather, they were intended to provide insight into a narrowly defined area that a tutor wanted to explore in his/her tutoring.

The focused observation grew out of UNL’s routinely practiced tutor observations, which have historically been used to document, on a limited basis, the work that occurs in the center. In recent years, tutor observations haven’t been very useful to tutors, who have responded to them with indifference, annoyance, or dread. Some tutors saw them as a policing mechanism or as a mandatory documentation practice. In contrast, the purpose of the observation model I envisioned would be to help tutors learn about tutoring through inquiry into their practices. The aim would be educational, not evaluative.

Focused observations worked toward this goal by positioning tutors in active, authoritative roles. The Coordinator participated in the observations, but not as the sole Observer (active) of all of the other tutors’ tutoring (passive). Instead, the Coordinator and the tutors filled identical roles: each was an Observer, and each was the Observed.

Even when a tutor was being observed, he/she was instructed to play an active role. It was as much his/her responsibility to analyze and provide insights into the tutoring area under investigation (active) as it was the Observer’s (active).

Procedure. The basic procedure of a focused observation is as follows:

1. Tutor A selects an area in her tutoring that she would like to explore.

2. She then arranges to have another tutor (Tutor B) sit in on one of tutoring sessions in order to study this particular area and report back to her on what he observes.

3. Prior to the observation, Tutor A and Tutor B meet and discuss the area being explored. Tutor B considers what will be important for him to watch for in order to learn more about the area that Tutor A has selected.

4. The tutee arrives. The tutors obtain consent to carry out the observation. The tutors then carry out the observation, with Tutor B taking notes on what he observes during the session.

1. After the observation, both tutors write about what they noticed during the session in relation to the area under examination. They reflect on what seemed to go well, what didn’t seem to go as well, what questions they had, what moments stood out, and any other observations they made—all in relation to the designated area. They then discuss their observations.

2. At that point, the tutors reverse roles and follow the same procedure, with Tutor B selecting an area in his tutoring he is curious to learn more about. When both tutors have had an opportunity to observe and be observed, they report back to the group on what they learned from the experience.

In the fall, we completed two rounds of focused observations. For each observation, tutors worked with a new partner (or group of three). Tutors picked partners based on the proximity of a tutor’s observation interest to their own and on scheduling convenience. In many cases, tutors carried out observations of other tutors when they were both scheduled to work in the Center. Importantly, the time that tutors invested in carrying out their focused observations took the place of an equal share of their regular tutoring hours for the week. Thus, the observations did not increase the week’s workload but were integrated into the work they already had to do.

Outcomes. The focused observation model that we employed provided for tutor-directed inquiry into questions and issues that are relevant and important to the tutors. Tutors explored a range of topics in their tutoring, including working on higher order concerns; writing on tutees’ papers; fostering effective communication; question-posing; working with teachers of writing in the writing center; using affect to guide the tutoring session; listening; and addressing ELL issues. Leslie used the focused observation to assess how much the tutoring practices she had picked up at a previous institution had transferred to her work at UNL, where the center’s philosophy was significantly different. She relates, The writing center that I previously worked at promoted a model where tutors read student texts silently to themselves, made corrections and suggestions on the paper, and handed it back to the student. As a result, when I am came to the WAC at UNL I was worried that I had internalized this model and was writing excessively on student texts rather than allowing them to have control over

their own texts and put our discussion into writing in a way that made sense to them. She goes on to explain that the observation “quiet[ed] some of [her] fears” about the ways she wrote on student texts and helped her better understand why/in what circumstances she did so.

Jason, a tutor who was interested in seeing the writing center assist teachers across the disciplines in teaching writing, used his focused observation to assess his interactions with a TA from Business that he worked with regularly. Jason wanted to know what his response practices were implicitly communicating to the TA about responding to student writing. As Jason’s partner, I was able to delineate some of the messages that I saw him sending, including the idea that “responding to writing” doesn’t merely mean correcting grammar and that asking questions can be a productive approach to offering response.

Overall, what I’ve hoped to illustrate are ways in which I’ve worked to attune our writing center’s tutor development practices to the institutional context in which we’re working. Integrating tutor development into our regular writing center routines has been the means through which I’ve worked to promote tutor growth apart from a classroom and credit hours dedicated to Writing Center work. This approach has allowed me to capitalize on the benefits of my situation and to respect the long hours and incredible energy that my tutors put into their tutoring. Because of the setting in which I’m working, I have the opportunity to help tutors see learning as a natural, integrated part of the tutoring process. There is the potential for a fluidity between intellectual development and tutoring practice that is difficult to achieve in a classroom setting. Working toward this fluidity seem like a worthwhile tutor development goal for my writing center.

Bokser, Julie. “Pedagogies of Belonging: Listening to Students and Peers.” The Writing Center Journal 25.1 (Fall/ Winter 2005): 43-60.

Boquet, Elizabeth. Noise from the Writing Center. Logan: Utah State UP, 2002.

Jackson, Rebecca, Carrie Leverenz, and Joe Law. “(Re)Shaping the Profession: Graduate Courses in Writing Center Theory, Practice, and Administration.” The Center Will Hold: Critical Perspectives on Writing Center Scholarship. Ed. Michael Pemberton and Joyce Kinkead. Logan: Utah State UP, 2003. 130-150.

Yancey, Kathleen. “Seeing Practice Through Their Eyes: Reflection as Teacher.” Writing as Research: Extending the Conversation. Ed. Paula Gillespie, Alice Gillam, Lady Falls Brown, and Byron Stay. Mahwah, N.J.: Lawrence Erlbaum , 2002. 189-202. �

OHANA FOUNDATION LEARNING PORTAL MATERIALS

The Ohana Foundation Learning Portal consists of several sites through which the Foundation seeks to provide “multiple facets of education.” These facets include skills in basic English usage (“Ohana EFL”) and writing (“Ohana English Language Basics”), business conversation and vocabulary (“Ohana Business English”) and creating presentations (“Ohana PowerPreso”).

1) “Ohana EFL” covers English basics from the beginner level, starting with the alphabet, to the senior level, with lessons in vocabulary and reading comprehension.

Olsen: Intended for high school students interested in learning English, the “EFL Senior 1,2,3” software has also been used by adults. Using multimedia, it emphasizes grammar, vocabulary, pronunciation, and comprehension. A student can watch and listen to a video while reading the supporting text. At the end of each scenario, the student must answer a series of questions, and a printable worksheet facilitates the exercise. These exercises provide a great opportunity for adult learners to practice pronunciation, and the multimedia technique used will appeal to many different types of learners. The scenarios themselves are basic, and although they do increase in difficulty as students progress, the fundamental level might detract from their appeal to students at more advanced levels.

Johnston: While the senior level materials would not really be useful for improving writing, they are organized so students can work on their own to improve listening, increase passive vocabulary and gain some content knowledge. The PDF files allow easy downloading of the material and the video is a great support for the audio. The format of having the questions appear first without answers, then followed with the answers allows students to work independently. In addition, the topics are good for helping students develop knowledge in content areas. For example, topics in “EFL Senior 3” such as “Feed the World” and “Body Language” could be used to support content courses in my college, as students could read for more background.

Adell: The goal of our tutoring approach is to empower students to become stronger and more autonomous writers. However, we regularly face the problem of a developing sense of dependency among ESL students on the writing appointments. To alleviate students’ sense of dependency, we integrate into our writing appointments training on how to use language resources available to them outside of appointments. A body of practice material like “EFL Senior” would be a valuable resource for ESL students wishing to practice their language skills more generally on their own.

In addition, “EFL Senior” contains reading comprehension material. We continually advise ESL students to read as much as possible to help them recognize strong English writing, but we do not have the opportunity to work on reading comprehension on an individual basis. It would be useful to have reading comprehension materials like these available for students to work on individually yet with tutors available to provide support.

2) “Ohana English Language Basics” uses a step-by-step approach that teaches how to write effective sentences, paragraphs, and essays as well as letters. Exercises are provided to help students analyze and evaluate sentences and paragraphs.

Olsen: True to its title, “Language Basics” provides a foundation for understanding the basics of sentence, paragraph, and essay structure. Sentences are explained in terms of subject and predicate, and could benefit by including more in-depth, less complicated, explanations and examples. For instance, the section titled “Unusual Sentences” confuses rather than explains by grouping together two very different sentence constructions and warning against using them instead of explaining how they do or don’t work. Adding a section that reviews the clause and phrase structures of sentences would be particularly helpful in this section.

The paragraph section, the strongest section of “Language Basics,” describes different rhetorical choices for paragraph structure, and it provides good examples followed by exercises, allowing students to practice identifying the different structures. The section on topic sentences is particularly helpful, and would benefit students more if placed before the descriptions of rhetorical structures of paragraphs, since topic sentences play a major part in the paragraph structure examples.

The essay section breaks the essay down into three parts: introduction, body and conclusion. Each part is then explained according to purpose, content, and structure. This basic description of essay structure is juxtaposed with more advanced terms for developing essays: assertion, critical discussion, references, quotations, and evidential support. However, the terms are not explained. With more development and explanations, this section could be helpful to students exploring the subject on their own; as is, it lays a foundation for a great discussion between student and tutor in a writing center conference.

Johnston: This section would probably not be very helpful for EFL students in our Japanese college.

WRITING CENTER DIRECTOR MICHIGAN STATE U.

This is an annual year appointment in the Academic Specialist system (fixed term with annual renewals contingent on performance reviews, program need and availability of funding; possibility of moving from fixed-term to a continuing track).

Qualifi cations:

M.A. (Ph.D. strongly preferred) in Rhetoric/ Writing, English, or English education; knowledge of current writing/writing center theory and practice; experience working in a writing center (administrative experience preferred); experience teaching English and/or writing (experience teaching on-line or hybrid courses preferred), and experience with digital and multi-media writing.

Review of applications will begin March 30, 2007, and will continue until the position is filled. The anticipated start date is August 1, 2007. Interested candidates should submit (1) a cover letter explaining their interest in and qualifications for the position,

(2) a vita, (3) a writing sample, and (4) a list of names, e-mail addresses, and phone numbers of not fewer than 3 references.

CONCLUSION

If we consider the Ohana Foundation Learning Portal from a wide perspective in supporting student learning in writing, content-area, and presentations, the site provides materials for students to independently review some English-language basics through a varied multimedia approach. “EFL Senior” offers explanation and exercises in pronunciation, vocabulary, and reading comprehension. “Language Basics” provides similar support in writing, and the “Business English” and “Power Presentations” sites offer instruction beyond reading and writing for students seeking to work in English. All of these would be very useful for students who are self-motivated and can learn on their own.

However, the Ohana Foundation Learning Portal suffers at times from overly complicated explanations and diagrams or a lack of explanations, definitions, and examples. In addition, the materials are not interactive and thus cannot provide the multiple layers of assessment and support that are unique to individualized writing tutorials.

That being said, the more supplemental material a writing center can provide, the deeper ESL students will be able to delve into the English language. Despite their limitations, the extent and variety of the Ohana Foundation’s online English language materials offer a valuable addition to the resources of any writing center used by ESL students. Writing Centers interested in incorporating this material into their collection of resources might also consider training their tutors on how to integrate the materials into their one-to-one sessions with students, where there is plenty of room for interaction, explanations, and discussion. �

WRITING CENTER DIRECTOR MONTCLAIR STATE U.

We are re-opening our search for the Director of a fully funded Center for Writing Excellence. We invite applications to fill an associate or full professor of English position to develop and direct the university’s new Center for Writing Excellence to start in the fall 2007 semester. Applicants should have expertise in composition/rhetoric and writing center theory and practice, with secondary expertise in such areas as WAC/WID, teacher education, community writing, or ESL. The Director will need to be able to reach across disciplinary boundaries and develop programs with college as well as university-wide programs. Initial interviews to be held by phone. Search open until filled. Applications are accepted immediately and will be reviewed as they come in.

Qualifications: Ph.D. and strong record of scholarship and an active and evolving research agenda in composition/rhetoric or related field; administrative success in writing centers, first-year writing and/or WAC/WID; grant seeking/writing experience; record of excellence in teaching composition/rhetoric at various levels.

Send letters of application, a CV, and three letters of recommendation to Professor Emily Isaacs, Chair,Writing Center Director Search, Box VF13, College of Humanities and Social Sciences, Montclair State University, Montclair, NJ 07043. Montclair State University is an AA/EOE institution. For more information about MSU’s recent work in envisioning the Center for Writing Excellence, please review the Task Force Proposal that led to this search at <http://english.montclair.edu/isaacs/ WCTFproposal.htm>.