Technology in the Writing Center
The introduction to The Writing Center will Hold discusses Muriel Harris's unique contribution to writing center scholarship. She has been influencial in every aspect in the growth of writing centers, including creating a stage for professionals to collaborate, prompting research about WCs, encouraging collaboration between tutors and teachers, and also taking great leaps forward into the study and application of virtual WCs. The last point mentioned discusses Harris's interest in the potential WCs have to grow and expand via the www. It is fitting that the introduction ends with this point because technology is in the forefront of everyone's mind. OWLs can solve some of the problems that are faced by overcrowded writing centers and a lack of funding for the tutors to be present in the center. OWLs have become increasingly popular in a world where people have unprecedented access to the internet.
In Grimm's article, "In the Spirit of Service," technology is embraced as a way to further research about writing centers. This article questioned whether OWLs threaten on-campus writing centers. I don't believe so. Not only is the internet a fast and effective way to disseminate information about what's going on in writing center scholarship, but it also broadens the the reach of the tutors. This opens up another facet of research about tutoring writing. What (if anything) is lost in translation? Are on-line tutorials more candid than face-to face tutorials? What role does response time play in the success of the tutorial? There are a lot more questions that can be raised, both potentially positive and negative. Any application worth mentioned will dominate in a space between two extremes.
The last article I would like to mention is Neal Lerner's "Searching for the "Proof" of Our Effectiveness." This article strives to find ways writing center assessment is most productive. first he talks about the pressure that directors are faced with in order to keep their funding. This pressure has led to a counting heads type of assessment. However, students merely showing up to the writing center is not the only and definitely not the most telling statistics that can be offered to a supervisor. Lerner goes into detail about how comparing SAT scores and FYC grades provide mounts if information for the writing center researcher. Although his hypothesis was proven wrong the information is still poignant. As he proves in his later more intensive evaluation. What does this all have to do with technology? Statistical analysis is very mush reliant on program and computer technologies. In my previous writing center, we used Word Access to collect data on our students. Some of information included was as follows: year (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior), major (including undecided), class paper is for (to assess needs across the curriculum), when the paper is due (this provided information on whether there was a correlation between grades and time student gave themselves to edit their papers and grades they received), and who recommended them to the writing center (to gauge where information about the writing center is coming from). These types of inquiry give more incite into what's really going on in WCs. Merely counting heads is counterproductive; it devalues what tutors, directors, and teachers do.
In Grimm's article, "In the Spirit of Service," technology is embraced as a way to further research about writing centers. This article questioned whether OWLs threaten on-campus writing centers. I don't believe so. Not only is the internet a fast and effective way to disseminate information about what's going on in writing center scholarship, but it also broadens the the reach of the tutors. This opens up another facet of research about tutoring writing. What (if anything) is lost in translation? Are on-line tutorials more candid than face-to face tutorials? What role does response time play in the success of the tutorial? There are a lot more questions that can be raised, both potentially positive and negative. Any application worth mentioned will dominate in a space between two extremes.
The last article I would like to mention is Neal Lerner's "Searching for the "Proof" of Our Effectiveness." This article strives to find ways writing center assessment is most productive. first he talks about the pressure that directors are faced with in order to keep their funding. This pressure has led to a counting heads type of assessment. However, students merely showing up to the writing center is not the only and definitely not the most telling statistics that can be offered to a supervisor. Lerner goes into detail about how comparing SAT scores and FYC grades provide mounts if information for the writing center researcher. Although his hypothesis was proven wrong the information is still poignant. As he proves in his later more intensive evaluation. What does this all have to do with technology? Statistical analysis is very mush reliant on program and computer technologies. In my previous writing center, we used Word Access to collect data on our students. Some of information included was as follows: year (freshman, sophomore, junior, senior), major (including undecided), class paper is for (to assess needs across the curriculum), when the paper is due (this provided information on whether there was a correlation between grades and time student gave themselves to edit their papers and grades they received), and who recommended them to the writing center (to gauge where information about the writing center is coming from). These types of inquiry give more incite into what's really going on in WCs. Merely counting heads is counterproductive; it devalues what tutors, directors, and teachers do.
posted by Anonymous | 1:13 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home