17.1 Full Issue

PR AXIS a writing center journal

17.1 Feedback and Input in the Writing Center

VOL. 17, NO. 1 (2019): FEEDBACK AND INPUT IN THE WRITING CENTER TABLE OF CONTENTS ABOUT THE AUTHORS COLUMNS

From the Editor: Feedback and Input in the Writing Center Tristin Hooker & Fiza Mairaj Closing the Gap: A Practical Guide to Science in the Writing Center Ashna Schome

FOCUS ARTICLES

From A Service-Learning to A Social-Change Model Catherine Savini ‘I was kind of angry’: Tutors Receiving Feedback in Order to Understand Writer Resistance Julia Bleakney, Michael Mattison, and Jennifer Ryan A Practitioner’s Inquiry into Professionalization: When We Does Not Equal Collaboration Georganne Nordstrom Writing Groups: An Analysis of Participants’ Expectations and Activities Claire McMurray Student Identity Disclosed: Analysis of an Online Student Profile Tool Kristen Nichols-Besel, Katie Levin and Kirsten Jamsen

BOOK REVIEW Review of Re/Writing The Center: Approaches To Supporting Graduate Students In The Writing Center, Edited By Susan Lawrence And Terry Myers Zawacki Katherine Field Rothschild

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Julia Bleakney, PhD is Director of the Writing Center in the Center for Writing Excellence and Assistant Professor of English at Elon University, where she is also co-chair of the Center for Engaged Learning’s 2019-2022 “Writing Beyond the University” research seminar. She was co-chair of IWCA Summer Institute for 2018 and 2019 and at-large board member for IWCA from 2014-2018.

Katherine Field-Rothschild, MFA is a doctoral candidate at Indiana University of Pennsylvania in Composition and Applied Linguistics conducting a multi-university study of transfer into STEM courses. She is adjunct Associate Professor of English Composition at St. Mary’s College of California and her scholarly work has appeared in Curriculum & Pedagogy, the Purdue Handbook Series, and is forthcoming from Feminist Media Studies.

Kirsten Jamsen, PhD is the Director of the Center for Writing at the University of Minnesota – Twin Cities and Co-Director of the Minnesota Writing Project. She began her work in writing centers at Carleton College and continued at the University of Wisconsin–Madison, where she received her M.A. and Ph.D. She is active in many national and regional professional organizations, and co-founded the Writing Center Professionals of Minnesota and the E12 Writing Centers Collective. With her colleagues, she studies writing consultancy, writing across the curriculum, teacher professional development, and academic technologies in writing centers and classrooms.

Katie Levin (she/her/hers), PhD is a Co-Director at the Center for Writing at the University of Minnesota–Twin Cities. She began her work in writing centers at Skidmore College and continued to Indiana University–Bloomington, where she received her M.A. and Ph.D. in English and wrote a qualitative dissertation study of a large WAC writing center. She is particularly interested in collective work for racial and social justice in and through writing centers.

Claire McMurray, PhD is the Graduate Writing Specialist at the University of Kansas Writing Center where she coordinates graduate-level writing resources, such as graduate/research write-ins, Thesis/Dissertation Accelerators, thesis/dissertation coaching, and graduate writing groups.

Michael Mattison, PhD is Director of the Writing Center, Associate Professor of English, and Associate Provost at Wittenberg University, where he teaches courses in writing center theory, composition, and rhetoric and grammar. He has served as an at-large board member for IWCA, co-chaired the 2019 IWCANCPTW conference, and is currently the president of NCPTW. He also often recognizes in himself the same resistance to feedback described in this study.

Kristen Nichols-Besel, PhD is Multilingual Coordinator and Writing Center Faculty Tutor in the Academic Enrichment and Support Center and Adjunct Faculty in English Education at Bethel University. She teaches writing courses for multilingual students, consults with faculty and student tutors on best practices for working with multilingual learners, and supervises English Education student teachers. Kristen earned her Ph.D. in Literacy Education at the University of Minnesota, where she also served as a graduate writing consultant in the Center for Writing.

Georganne Nordstrom, PhD is an Associate Professor of Composition and Rhetoric and Director of the University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa’s (UHM) Writing Center. Her research and teaching focus on writing center studies, critical and place-based pedagogy, and examinations of Indigenous and minority rhetorics, with a specific focus on Hawaiʻi’s Creole, Pidgin. She is the co-editor of Huihui: Aesthetics and Rhetorics of the Pacific (UH Press, 2015). Her work has also been published in College English, College Composition and Communication, and The Writing Center Journal. A 2018-19 Fulbright Scholar to Ireland, Nordstrom is also the recipient of UHM’s 2016 Chancellor’s Citation for Meritorious Teaching and the 2012 Richard Braddock Award for the article “Ma ka Hana ka ‘Ike (In the Work is the Knowledge): Kaona as Rhetorical Action.

Jennifer Ryan, BA is a former advisor for the Wittenberg Writing Center. She served on the hiring committee for the Writing Center for two years, and she was the recipient of a Burkean Parlor Grant from NCPTW in 2017 and served on the NCPTW Grants Committee in 2018. She received her Bachelor of Arts in English in May of 2019, and she is currently pursing graduate studies at the University of Dayton.

Catherine Savini, PhD, associate professor of English, is the writing center director and WAC coordinator at Westfield State University. Her work has appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Writing Lab Newsletter, Writing Spaces, and Community Literacy Journal, Scary Mommy, and MotherShould?. She writes about critical service learning, writing center pedagogy, and motherhood.

Ashna Schome, BA is a graduate of Barnard College, with a B.A. in Neuroscience and Behavior. At Barnard, she served as a member of the Writing Center staff for three years as a student, and was the first Coordinator of the Science Fellows program as a graduate. She is now a student at New Jersey Medical School, where she is pursuing an MD

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17 No 1 (2019)

EDITORS’ INTRODUCTION: FEEDBACK AND INPUT IN THE WRITING CENTER Tristin Hooker University of Texas at Austin praxisuwc@gmail.com We here at Praxis are proud to present our fall issue, the last issue of this calendar decade. We address the value of input and feedback from the communities the writing centers aim to serve in this issue. Although it is important to work on continuous improvement of the services the writing centers offer, we often end up looking within the writing centers to do that. This issue shows us the ways through which input and feedback from the outside can be helpful in reshaping and ultimately improving the services and behaviors withinin and across the writing centers.

Our issue begins with Ashna Schome’s column, “Closing the Gap: A Practical Guide to Science in the Writing Center,” in which Schome explores some of the mismatches between writing center and science writing pedagogy, but also argues that science writing is more rhetorical than many consultants might think.

Schome offers practical suggestions for working with science writers, drawn from the experience of science writing fellows.

Continuing the theme of tutor preparation, in Catherine Savini’s “From A Service-Learning to A Social-Change Model,” we see an example of a radically different approach for tutor education that the researcher implemented in her own classroom. The course discussed in this article was informed by the principles advanced by the critical service learning movement. It invited students to design and implement campus-based community building projects that prepared students to be peer tutors with awareness of social inequities and a deep investment in the campus community. The researcher discusses two iterations of the course, goes over the components of each iteration and students’ satisfaction and outcomes of students’ projects at the end of the course. “‘I was kind of angry’: Tutors Receiving Feedback in Order to Understand Writer Resistance” from Julia Bleakney, Michael Mattison, and Jennifer Ryan also addresses tutor preparation, presenting the results of a study conducted with writing tutors-in-training at two different schools, who provided feedback to one another. Ultimately, this study provides new insights and new questions about writers’ resistance to feedback in consultations, and suggests ways to prompt better understanding of and preparedness for resistance during tutor preparation.

Fiza Mairaj University of Texas at Austin praxisuwc@gmail.com

Georgeanne Nordstrum keeps the focus on tutor preparation, with an eye toward professionalization in “Practitioner Inquiry for Praxis and Research: Professionalization vis-a-vis Collaboration in the Writing Center.” In this piece, Nordstrum explores the potential of Practitioner Inquiry models to promote collaboration and learning for consultants, particularly in consultant-director collaborations and relationships. Nordstrum’s replicable, aggregable, and data-supported research also helps to bolster evidencebased determinations of effectiveness for this model, and for writing center practice.

Claire McMurray then turns our attention from the writing consultation to writing groups in, “Writing Groups: An Analysis of Participants’ Expectations and Activities.” This article advances the literature on writing groups by examining the expectations and actual activities of writing group members. This study uses surveys and interviews to gather data on writing group expectations and satisfaction rates of those who participated. Some major themes emerge related to the expectations and actual activities of writing group participants. The author recommends ways to improve writing group participation and outcomes based on the findings.

Kristen Nichols-Besel, Katie Levin and Kirsten Jamsen then move us to consider student experience, and to advocate for creating and expanding space for students to claim and express their own identities in the writing centers. Their piece “Student Identity Disclosed: Analysis of An Online Student Profile Tool” goes over the students’ preferences about disclosing aspects of their identity when they were asked an open-ended question rather than asking them to check some predetermined boxes about their race, gender, national origin and linguistic abilities. Their findings uncover the ways that students’ identities are formed and/or reformed throughout the higher education.

Keeping our attention on service to students, our issue concludes with Katherine Field Rothschild’s review of Re/Writing the Center: Approaches to Supporting Graduate Students in the Writing Center, edited by Susan Lawrence and Terry Myers Zawacki, ultimately finding it, “a strong message from excellent researchers in the field that if we are to lift up scholars who will create

Feedback and Input in the Writing Center • 2 knowledge in their disciplines, we must invest time in graduate students’ writing development” (81).

Finally, we here at Praxis want to moment to formally welcome our new Assistant Editor, Fiza Mairaj to Praxis this semester. She is a second-year doctoral student in Educational Policy and Planning program, and her research agenda involves studying refugee students’ experiences in education systems of host countries. Working at Praxis, she aims to indulge with the peer-review research processes in academia to strengthen her training as a researcher. Her prior work experience as a consultant has helped her reflect on her own journey as an international graduate student writer in academia and through her work at Praxis, she also hopes to further the agenda of making writing centers more facilitating and accessible to non-native English speakers.

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17 No 1 (2019)

CLOSING THE GAP: A PRACTICAL GUIDE TO SCIENCE IN THE WRITING CENTER Ashna Shome Barnard College ashome@barnard.edu At the undergraduate level, science writing can be perceived as technical, dense, and even incompatible with the pedagogy of Writing Centers. Students are often unaware of the power and necessity of scientific writing as a tool for communication and conceptual understanding, despite a wealth of theoretical work that highlights the importance of clear communication, argument, and rhetoric in science. Our effort to create a science-specific program within the Erica Mann Jong ‘63 Writing Center at Barnard College has indicated that Writing Centers can play a strong role in reframing scientific communication, and that doing so can lead to positive outcomes for students. Writing centers can and should take advantage of their ability to build students’ confidence in communicating and creating a bridge between rhetorical skills learned across disciplines. In a successful science conference, the student is given space to discuss their writing, and is able to come to her own conclusions about how best to improve the communication of ideas. In creating this experience for science students, writing centers can broadly support the development of science literacy skills, creating a future generation of competent scientists, and moreover a generation that is able to better understand the implications of science communication in day-to-day life. This paper details our specific approach to science writing in the writing center, with the hope that it can provide a blueprint for others looking to diversify the ways in which they serve students across disciplines.

In order to support undergraduate science students, it is important to understand that science writing is taught primarily through mimicry. Students are presented with example lab reports/review articles along with a rubric, and often expected to stitch the two together to formulate a mental schema for successful science writing. Intentional writing instruction is much less common, despite research showing that science students benefit from writing instruction at primary and undergraduate levels (Brownell et al. E9). In one analysis, the only factor found to influence performance on scientific writing metrics was previous experience, indicating that students require practice and experience in this area in order to be successful at writing required in undergraduate academia and eventual careers in !

scientific fields (Jerde 37). This pedagogical ‘gap’ can be filled by Writing Centers; we can create space to think about writing more intentionally (both within and beyond their curriculum), and promote scientific literacy skills rooted in critical reading and writing. By working across disciplines, we can provide students with a toolkit to understand evidence of all kinds (numerical or written data), create sound conclusions, and make rhetorical choices that support and empower their arguments (Brownell et al. E6).

In order to achieve these goals, we have recently implemented a program made up of trained undergraduate writing tutors with an academic background in science. We held open dialogues with science professors, science students, and current writing tutors in order to best support students in developing the communication skills required in scientific disciplines. Our “Science Fellows” now work with students on introductory lab reports, mid-level reports and reviews, and upper level thesis work. We have chosen to partner with a small selection of classes longitudinally and work on all assignments for the semester via one-on-one conferences. We have also performed workshops for science and non-science courses in order to promote data literacy and discipline specific writing skills. Additionally, we have introduced open hours (some by appointment and some drop-in) specifically for science assignments, with the intention of creating trust between students and the Writing Center, and to combat the notion that science does not belong in writing center spaces. Our goals for are ambitious. We want nothing less than a cultural change at our institution, wherein writing is prioritized and even enjoyed by students. We hope to see writing assignments as a component of our curricula that are valued by instructors and students alike for their capacity to improve knowledge and create necessary toolkits for communication. Students should be able to look at their experimental data and feel confident in their own analysis and its presentation, as well as their ability to evaluate and execute ways to improve it. By conferencing with students and emphasizing the process of writing as something dynamic and collaborative that requires time and self-criticism, we are beginning this shift. We hope to convey that our Writing Center is capable of handling the discipline-

Closing the Gap • 4 specific issues in science and supporting all students. In a short time, we have seen a huge increase in students using our services, with more science students attending writing conferences every semester.

Our experiences indicate that Writing Center pedagogy, with a focus on non-directive and inclusive pedagogy that emphasizes the writer’s agency, can be applied to scientific writing (with some minor modifications) in order to improve writing performance, and create important interdisciplinary connections for students. Science-specific writing tutors are not practical at all institutions. Instead, Writing Centers should aim to offer services that are useful and accessible to science students. This requires a flexible pedagogical approach, recruiting tutors from varied academic backgrounds, and an understanding of science pedagogy at the undergraduate level.

An Explanation of Scientific Writing Structure Science writing and other academic writing have much in common. Both emphasize structure as a way to direct and guide readership. However, science writing is often viewed (by students and academics alike) to be more rigid, uncreative, and limited than other academic writing. However, this is not necessarily the case. Like all academic writing, scientific writing strives to draw accurate conclusions based on evidence. Instead of a claim rooted in textual analysis, science uses more numerical/empirical data to draw conclusions. Students should be encouraged to use a common set of rhetorical skills to analyze evidence across disciplines and create sound conclusions.

However, it would be remiss to purport that scientific writing is structured identically to all types of academic writing. Scientific writing tends to follow a more prescriptive structure, though the general flow of information follows a similar pattern: general context and knowledge from the field narrows to the writer’s own evidence and analysis, then its importance is explained to provide context. The specific sections of a scientific report outlined in Appendix B show the rhetorical purpose of each section.

Most academic writing contains structure that serves a rhetorical purpose. Scientific writing is similar to other academic writing in this way. So why is the perception of undergraduate scientific writing so negative? It may be attributable to the difference in style expected in different fields, as previously described. Scientific writing is often expected to be concise to the point of sparseness. The voice of the reader is supposed to be nearly undetectable. Instead, the flow of the information in the report is designed to

appear unbiased as though it is a self-evident truth from the data at hand. It is worth noting that these conventions are loosening in academic journals (J.T. 33), but undergraduates are still often taught the most rigid version of scientific style. This does not account for the many nuances in scientific data—any conclusions can be biased by how the data was collected, the initial question that was asked, the evidence from the field that was presented, and more.

By mischaracterizing the scientific process within the positivist version of writing, this anti-rhetorical writing pedagogy blocks scientific creativity, criticism, and discourse. In writing centers, we should strive to educate students who are critical of rigid communication requirements across disciplines.

Working with Writing Center tutors can help students to understand the underlying purpose of science writing conventions, and find ways to have agency within them.

Concerns with Student Writing In order to best serve our students, we worked to acquire discipline-specific knowledge by understanding of how writing works in science courses across departments. We worked with a group of science, writing, and English professors alongside members of the Writing Center to create the theoretical structure backing our efforts. Our conversations about writing in science yielded some concerns with student work that across scientific disciplines. We now work to identify these concerns when working with students, and help students understand the way to improve their work in terms of the concerns their professors identified. The three most common concerns from these professors, and the ways we work to address them, are as follows: Clarity We have worked to formulate ways to discuss both higher-order structural clarity, and more microscopic sentence-level clarity with student writers. We most commonly address issues of structural clarity while working with introductory lab courses. In these conferences, we utilize the ’bowtie’ structure (see fig. 1 in Appendix A) as a basic guide to organization. Our conversations with professors have indicated that clarity and the scientific structure posed here are inextricable. This framework provides clarity by organizing the ideas into a universally understandable flow. When discussing the structure in a conference, we prompt students to create an outline (or reverse outline an existing work) according to this framework, while discussing ways to synthesize individual facts

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

!

Closing the Gap • 5 gleaned from research into an organized and rhetorically powerful argument.

We focus most on sentence level clarity when working with upper level students, who have written and read a larger number of scientific articles, and are familiar with basic conventions like the bowtie structure. When discussing these issues, we often use terminology developed in “The Science of Scientific Writing,” including the idea of topic and stress positions (Gopen and Swan 552). This framework (see fig. 2) guides students to think about sentence structure and clarity as inextricably linked. It is an attempt to break down the expectations of a reader, and provide a way to structure one’s own rhetoric around the reader, thus creating a clearer format to present data.

Finally, the third way we consider clarity in the science conference is by reframing it in terms of the audience. This involves asking the student to consider the audience: what do they need to know? We often ask students to consider an audience of their peers: how would they communicate to peers, and how would that change their work so far? We have found that this framing seems to result in students noticing places where their writing is unclear. Of course, reifying the audience is a fundamental Writing Center strategy, but it has particular utility in science, where students are often overwhelmed by the concepts and therefore struggle to organize their presentation. We particularly developed this model after hearing an emphasis from professors (in our meetings with them, and while conducting joint workshops in their classrooms) on considering the specifics of the audience and how to write for them. This method allows students to address the higher order concerns of both scientists and writers when considering communication.

Organization While the notion of organization is inextricably tied to clarity, our conversations with science professors indicated that there is a discipline-specific distinction between the two. In order to support students with improving their ability to organize their writing, we first came to our own understanding of the rhetorical structure of a scientific article (see Appendix B). We have found significant value in breaking down the utility of each section with our students. This often gives a foothold in a slippery world, and allows them to evaluate their own work more critically. Moreover, we encourage writers to use it to their own advantage by interesting and convincing their reader of the value and necessity of their work, particularly into the introduction and discussion sections.

This can be challenging because students often struggle with the guidelines/rubrics provided, and cannot discern just how broad to be when providing general context, how much detail to include, and how/when to integrate evidence from various sources with their own data. Obviously these are difficult questions, and it often falls out of the scope of a Fellow’s purview to answer these questions when posed directly. However, prompting students to think about the argument inherent in the structure of the article can sometimes provide a sense of what information to include. Asking students about how they use the framework to communicate, and reflecting the experience of the reader often leads to a productive moment wherein the student sees an area of misunderstanding or friction in her own work. This can sometime be the most useful part of a conference, since it allows the student to catch and prevent their own errors, without requiring the Fellow to be directive or professor-like.

Scientific Tone The third major problem that we identified amongst science writing students is a lack of understanding of ‘scientific tone’. Much like we did with organizational issues, we wished to break down the vagueness of this term into tangible guidelines that students can apply to their own work. Instructors often focus on the following: 1. Grammar, particularly verb usage 2. A removal of the author via word choice 3. Concision when discussing the scientific style.

The difficulty of discussing grammar in a writing center conference has been well-documented (Bibb 92). However, in this context it becomes even more challenging. Within an already rigid framework, the grammatical and stylistic rules governing this type of writing seem like one more arbitrary rule that students feel compelled, by the power of the rubric, to follow.

We look to be the student’s ally in this: how can we help them catch their own mistakes, and promote writerly habits of revision and editing? Science students are notorious for completing their writing assignments at the last minute, possibly trusting that the strength of their science will carry them through their assignments.

However, by working with classes on rough drafts, we are automatically promoting revision and selfreflection. During our conferences, we convey these conventions of tone: using the past tense and passive voice to describe their methods, using ‘objective’ language designed to remove the perception of

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

!

Closing the Gap • 6 authorial bias, and concision as tools to access the scientific discourse community.

The discussion of style is further complicated by the fact that students frequently believe that scientific style requires deft usage of high level vocabulary and conceptual understanding. We find that this fear can be alleviated by prompting students to answer clarifying questions that get to their ideas in simpler terms. In students, this anxiety indicates a deeper misunderstanding of the purpose and form of science writing. Some students feel that they must “write like a scientist” in terms of vocabulary, but often ignore the writerly habits of organization and revision that underlying professional writing. In being able to communicate in the standardized language of science and utilize habits of strong writers, we hope that students will access higher-level scientific knowledge, and be able to manipulate these writing conventions to strengthen their rhetoric.

Strategies Students

for

Working

with

Science

As we have worked toward building a sciencespecific program in our writing center, our Science Fellows have developed several strategies to best serve science-writing students. While these are variations of techniques commonly used in conferences and not necessarily specific to a discipline, this practical guide should help writing tutors who are uncomfortable with science writing gain a sense of how to use their existing tools in this context. Like any conferences in our writing center, we emphasize relationship-building with the student, and we promote their agency over the work via non-directive pedagogical strategies. We attempt use specific questions to get to the heart of their ideas, and then create necessary deliverables via an outline or a written plan for work moving forward.

These specific strategies provide insight into the ways we have found to create connections with science students.

Our Fellows have found that one of the largest barriers between writing tutors and science students is purely linguistic. The terminology of science is often perceived as dense, dry, and complicated. At times, this can be true, but there is a great value in simply asking the writer to define the terms and explain scientific conceptual underpinnings to a naive reader. This process yields fruitful conversations about the student’s understanding of the concepts at hand, provides the tutor with the necessary knowledge, and points our areas requiring growth and development on the part of the student. Students sometimes feel frustrated with this, especially those who hold the

notion that writing tutors are unable to support science writing. We have found that explaining our practices and making things transparent to students helps to create trust between student and Fellow, and eases some of these tensions.

Another key component of these conferences is being able to diffuse student anxiety. While this can certainly be a part of any conference, we feel that there is a higher level of fear and anxiety around writing in lab courses. This may be due to the lack of formal instruction, leading students to feel adrift. It may also be due to the pressure placed on students who are prehealth in these courses, or on those attempting to meet requirements for certain majors. One way we have found to be effective, beyond providing comfort and connection to other resources at the school, is to ask the student to push the paper away and simply speak about the experiment. Doing so can help disconnect from the perceived flaws in the writing and simply formulate her own thoughts about the experiment and its significance. We also work to frame the way we discuss these assignments in productive terms. We often discuss them as “practice” or “exercises” designed to help understand the structure of more complex science writing. This seems to reduce student anxiety since it emphasizes the role of practice and repetition, instead of making the student feel that it should be a perfected, professional quality report.

Reducing student anxiety can often yield a more productive conference, where students are open to feedback and willing to revise their existing draft.

We have also found that using resources during a scientific conference can be more necessary than in others. Our Fellows frequently use published journal articles as reference to help clarify the feel of the scientific style, or to show how the structure of the report mirrors the assignment the writer is working on.

We also use handouts showing the bowtie structure explained above, and help students create a visual diagram of how their ideas could fit into it. We hope that creating a bridge between undergraduate and professional work helps students see the value in scientific writing, and their own ability to “write like a scientist.”

Conclusions The power of language to facilitate entrance into discourse communities and access knowledge is significant. Competent scientists must be able to wield scientific writing as a tool to create spaces for collaboration and creation of new knowledge, a necessary part of a career in a variety of fields (Mogull

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

!

Closing the Gap • 7 357), and of a successful student experience (O’Donnell 51).

In the modern world of “fake news” and scientific misinformation, these skills are important for nonscience students as well. It is necessary to train writing tutors in skills around science communication, and to help disseminate them on campus. Being able to appropriately understand and analyze data can counteract the current lack of science literacy and fear of data that seems prevalent in certain communities today. Scientific literacy skills are fundamentally compatible with general writing center pedagogy: both encourage critical thinking and self-evaluation. Our experiences simply show the importance and capacity of shifting writing center discourse to empower students across disciplines.

Works Cited

Contemporary Government and Business Settings.” Technical Communication, vol. 55, no. 4, 2008, pp. 357–369, www.jstor.org/stable/43095381.

O'Donnell, Michael. “Science Writing, Wikis, and Collaborative Learning.” Web Writing: Why and How for Liberal Arts Teaching and Learning, edited by Jack Dougherty and Tennyson O'Donnell, U of Michigan P, 2015, pp. 47–54. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctv65sxgk.9.

Schickore, Jutta. “Doing Science, Writing Science*.”

Philosophy of Science, vol. 75, no. 3, July 2008, pp.

323–43.

Walker, Kristin. “The Debate over Generalist and Specialist Tutors: Genre Theory's Contribution.”

The Writing Center Journal, vol. 18, no. 2, 1998, pp.

27–46. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43442046.

Bibb, Bethany. “Bringing Balance to the Table: Comprehensive Writing Instruction in the Tutoring Session.” The Writing Center Journal, vol.

32, no. 1, 2012, pp. 92–104. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/43442384.

Brownell, Sara E., et al. “Science Communication to the General Public: Why We Need to Teach Undergraduate and Graduate Students This Skill as Part of Their Formal Scientific Training.” Journal of Undergraduate Neuroscience Education: JUNE: A Publication of FUN, Faculty for Undergraduate Neuroscience, vol. 12, no. 1, Oct. 2013, pp. E6–10.

Gopen, George D., and Judith A. Swan. “The Science of Scientific Writing.” American Scientist, 1990.

Jerde, Christopher L., and Mark L. Taper. “Preparing Undergraduates for Professional Writing: Evidence Supporting the Benefits of Scientific Writing within the Biology Curriculum.” Journal of College Science Teaching, vol. 33, no. 7, 2004, pp. 34–37.

JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/26491316.

J.T. “Science Writing Is Stylish.” The Science Teacher, vol.

53, no. 8, 1986, pp. 33–33. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/24142411.

Merkle, Bethann Garramon. “Writing Science: Transforming Students’ Science Writing by Tapping into Writing Instruction Scholarship and Best Practices.” The Bulletin of the Ecological Society of America, vol. 100, no. 1, 2019, p. e01487, doi:10.1002/bes2.1487.

Miller, Carolyn R. “A Humanistic Rationale for Technical Writing.” College English, vol. 40, no. 6, 1979, p. 610, doi:10.2307/375964.

MOGULL, SCOTT A. “A Call for New Courses to Train Scientists as Effective Communicators in Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

!

Closing the Gap • 8

Appendix A Figure 1

Figure 2

!

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

!

Closing the Gap • 9

Appendix B Scientific Writing Structure The specific sections of a scientific report are outlined below to show the rhetorical purpose of each section.

Abstract The abstract should provide the reader with a summary of the experiment. The summary should provide broad context for the necessity of the work, a brief sense of the methods and results. It should also clearly state conclusions and implications of the work. Students frequently struggle with deciding what information should be included since concision is highly emphasized in this section.

Introduction The introduction is intended to provide macroscopic importance for the experiment at hand, present relevant knowledge in the field, and identify a gap in the existing knowledge that the experiment sets out to fill. Then, the writer typically presents a hypothesis (backed by relevant scientific evidence) and a brief summary of the experiment.

Methods This section is typically the briefest and most technical portion of the report. The writer is obligated to present only the barest minimum of information about how the experiment was performed. It is typically assumed that a reader is similarly educated and can follow the procedure without excessive details.

Results The results section, like the methods, is typically fairly sparse. The experimenter is expected to present the raw data and statistical analysis. This data is typically reported both in text and via a visual medium such as tables or graphs. In this section, it is generally not expected that any conclusions (particularly with regard to the previously stated hypothesis) will be formed or explained. Some commentary on the accuracy of the data can be included.

Discussion The discussion section is typically the most verbose section of a report. Here, the writer should form some conclusions about their data and provide evidence for their rational. Any errors in the experiment should be addressed, as well as avenues for further experimentation. This section should also provide macroscopic importance for the experiment and connect to the broader questions being asked in the field at large. Students tend to struggle with the distinction between this and the results section, though professors prefer concise delivery of data in the results, with subsequent explanation and analyses in the discussion.

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

!

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019)

FROM A SERVICE-LEARNING TO A SOCIAL-CHANGE MODEL: RADICALLY RETHINKING TUTOR EDUCATION Catherine Savini Westfield State University csavini@westfield.ma.edu Abstract Tutor education courses that prepare students to serve as peer writing consultants often include service learning; a typical servicelearning tutor education course involves sending students to tutor in local schools, usually in underserved neighborhoods. Existing writing center scholarship on service learning tends to overlook the limitations of this model. This article advances a radically different approach for tutor education where the course acts as an incubator for social change on campus. Informed by the principles advanced by the critical service learning movement, the course described here invites students to design and implement campus-based community building projects. Ultimately, this article demonstrates that a course focused on community building, rather than tutoring theory and strategies, can effectively prepare students to serve as peer writing consultants while imparting a heightened awareness of social inequities and a deep investment in the campus community.

“Anything that any center is doing is considered ‘writing center work’” (89).

—Jackie Grutsch McKinney, Peripheral Visions for Writing Centers The first time I taught a three-credit tutor education course I included a service-learning component: tutors were prepared to provide residents with support on resumes and cover letters at the local library. I believed this partnership would benefit tutors and community alike. The tutors-in-training would learn about resumes and cover letters from career services, apply this knowledge immediately, and practice assisting writers on high-stakes projects. The local residents would benefit from feedback on their job materials in a tight market. A few weeks before our arrival, our library liaison sent out an impressive press release, but when the day came, our library liaison was not there and the librarians on duty received the students tepidly. Worse still, no one from the community showed up. The students, who arrived excited about serving the local residents, left feeling frustrated.

This moment and a few other service learning failures led me to the “critical service learning” (CSL) scholarship, which identifies the limitations of a charity approach and provides a model for socially-just community engagement. According to Tania Mitchell’s (2008) review of the literature, CSL prioritizes a “social change orientation,” seeks to create a more level

playing field, and enables students and community members to develop “authentic relationships” (50).

This scholarship put my service-learning missteps into sharp focus. I presumed we knew what the community wanted, positioned the university as the expert, swooped in and out without developing any meaningful connections, and used service as an add-on to the course rather than a defining feature.

The CSL scholarship provokes a number of questions for writing centers invested in community engagement: How can service-learning oriented tutor education courses avoid the pitfalls identified by the CSL scholarship? How can tutor education courses impart the skills, knowledge, and dispositions necessary for tutoring and promote social change? Can a tutor education course, and by extension the writing center, plant the seeds for social change? Guided by these questions and the CSL scholarship, I redesigned my three-credit tutor education course from the bottom up. This course is a radical departure from a typical tutor education course and from the typical servicelearning course in that it is essentially an incubator for social change on campus.

Now, instead of teaching students about tutoring or introducing students to writing center scholarship, the primary goal of my course is to enable students to see the social inequities on our campus and to work with community members to develop and implement projects that tackle these inequities. Students in this course read articles from the field, are introduced to essential terminology (such as higher and lower order concerns), and practice some tutoring approaches (such as a task-based approach), but this material is secondary to creating social change projects. This shift responds to Laura Greenfield and Karen Rowan’s call for re-envisioning tutor education by moving “away from understanding our courses as preparation for tutors to perform a job or service while in school and towards seeing such courses as a critical part of their [students’] broader educational experiences that carries implications for how they will negotiate their greater role in the worlds” (126). The tutor education course described here prepares students to be change agents in their communities, to tackle inequities and to navigate complex organizations. While tutoring theory

From a Service-Learning to a Social-Change Model: Radically Rethinking Tutor Education • 11! ! and practice is not the central focus, students develop racism agenda, and empowering tutors to question essential skills for effective tutoring, such as revision norms, such as standard English, academic discourse, strategies, rhetorical awareness, reading texts as and white privilege (Geller et al; Denny; Greenfield and models, working collaboratively, asking questions and Rowen; Godbee and Ozias). Ultimately, using tutor identifying assumptions, and breaking larger writing education courses for creating a more equitable projects into manageable tasks. Further, tutors can and community extends this work. A social-change do learn to tutor on the job and in regular professional oriented tutor education course is not only within the development sessions. scope of writing center work but should be central to To demonstrate the value of a social change it. model, this article provides an overview of the CSL principles, describes my process for overhauling tutor Critical Service Learning Movement education using these principles, examines the risks Service learning emerged in the 1970s as an and rewards of this approach, and highlights the lasting innovative pedagogy with several goals: to position changes made by students in this course, such as the students as active learners, to expose students to creation of a veterans’ lounge and an LGBTQ living people from different backgrounds, and to produce learning community. To explore the value and the good citizens. According to the National Youth pitfalls of this social change approach to tutor Leadership Council, “service-learning is an approach to education, I describe two iterations of the course and teaching and learning in which students use academic draw on student reflective writing and surveys which I knowledge and skills to address genuine community collected with IRB approval. needs.” Over the past twenty years, service learning has Writing center directors trying to ensure tutors undergone a shift reflected by a change in the receive the nuts-and-bolts training on a shoestring terminology. The terms “civic engagement” or budget might see this approach as overly ambitious or “community engagement” replaced the terms worse, irrelevant. Too often though, students do not “community service” and “service learning.” The word make it to the writing center because other problems “service” imagines a community that needs fixing, with loom large. They are struggling with their mental students and the universities as the saviors and the health, experiencing prejudice, or generally feeling community’s “needy” as the passive recipient of these marginalized. A social-change approach enables us to services, whereas “community engagement” defines build a more equitable community, ideally providing community neutrally and positions students as active students’ more opportunities to focus on academics participants. and building bridges between the writing center and Since the 1990s, scholars have been exposing the marginalized groups. flaws of service learning, particularly its basis in the A social-change approach to tutor education also charity model. Here is a popular fable that exemplifies cements writing centers’ roles in the larger community this problem: a father and his teenaged son spend an engagement movement, a priority in higher education. evening serving meals at a soup kitchen. As they walk Service learning has been identified as a “high-impact out, the son says, “That was great. I hope to be able to practice” by the American Association of Colleges and take my kids here someday.” The son’s uncritical Universities (AAC&U) and certificate programs, response, his lack of concern about food insecurity, the minors, and majors are emerging. Many writing root problem, reveals the inadequacy of the charity centers across the country are already engaged in approach. community work and have integrated this goal into The CSL scholarship shows that in addition to their mission statements.1 Writing centers are uniquely preserving the status quo, a charity approach can suited to community engagement work since we are actually have a negative impact on both the community not tied to a semester schedule and since writing and the university’s relationship with the community. consultants are immersed in the collaborative ethos According to Lori Pompa, traditional service learning essential to effective community involvement. reinforces power dynamics: “If I ‘do for’ you, ‘serve’ Tutor education courses that focus on social you, ‘give to’ you—that creates a connection in which I change rather than service make sense in the context of have the resources, the abilities, the power, and you are writing center scholarship. As Nancy Grimm pointed on the receiving end. It can be—while benign in out in Good Intentions: Writing Center Work for intent—ironically disempowering to the receiver, Postmodern Times our work is not neutral. Heeding granting further power to the giver. Without meaning Grimm’s call, writing centers have made efforts to to, this process replicates the ‘have-have not’ paradigm create more equitable learning environments by hiring that underlies many social problems” (68). tutors from diverse backgrounds, promoting an antiPraxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

From a Service-Learning to a Social-Change Model: Radically Rethinking Tutor Education • 12! !

Furthermore, it is difficult to work effectively with the principles into a chart to guide us as we embarked on community within the confines of a semester (see justice-oriented community interventions (see table 1).

Lewis). When partnerships dissolve before anything is The community engagement work of writing achieved, it tarnishes the community’s view of the center scholars Moira Ozias, Beth Godbee, and Tiffany university. Other problematic trends include offering Rousculp stand out as justice-oriented. In “Organizing services students are unprepared to provide (Herzberg) for Antiracism in Writing Centers: Principles for and inundating community partners with more Enacting Social Change,” Ozias and Godbee offer students than they can handle or with students whose examples of antiracist organizing and guidelines for primary goal is to meet course requirements. All this “planning and assessing our everyday work” (171). suggests that it is often the students or the university Drawing on the principles of participatory action that are served rather than the community. Students research, they aim to “share power, learn together, and experience the good feelings associated with service dismantle oppressive systems” (171). To this end, the and the university gets to promote its good works.

Midwest Writing Center Association Antiracist Recent scholarship warns that service-learning Activism special interest group is working to create courses can have a negative influence on students too. partnerships between writing centers and underfunded Traditional service learning has the potential to high schools and forge relationships with regional reinforce negative stereotypes among students and lead tribal colleges. students to overlook systemic causes for social Like Ozias and Godbee, Rousculp complicates the inequities (Butin). In the worst-case scenarios, such narrative of writing centers “doing good work” as she charity work can confirm negative perceptions of “the describes the emergence of the Salt Lake City other” and lead students to blame the recipients of Community Writing Center. She is critical of the charity for their positions in life. This is particularly terminology of “empowerment” which positions the true when students are not also learning about university as the bestowing power on “deficient structural inequities and have been inculcated with the beings”; instead, she contends, that the CWC staff narrative of the “self-made man.” Additionally, a “needed to respect [community members] for whom, charity model can lead students to conflate community what, and where they were at a particular moment” engagement with volunteerism. Ultimately, charity(54). Ultimately, through this work, Rousculp seeks to based service-learning courses can actually have a “challenge” and “disrupt” traditional notions of negative impact on both the community and students service, such as the belief “that higher education can and strain the relationship between the community and know what a community needs or wants without the university. entering into full and mutually beneficial partnership In “From Charity to Justice: The Potential of with that community” (55).

University-Community Collaboration for Social While the social justice ethic reverberates through Change,” Sam Marullo and Bob Edwards advance four our scholarship, our service learning courses typically tenets for a social change model of community reinforce the charity model. The typical model for a engagement. First, initiatives should aim to create a service learning peer education course is to send more just society through sustainable change. Second, students to tutor in regional schools (Rousculp, community and student outcomes should be weighed “Connecting the Community”; Green; Zimmerelli). equally.

One of the persistent problems with When we focus the CSL lens on service-learning tutor traditional service-learning is that course outcomes education, it reveals the limitations of this model which drive the initiatives prioritizing the students’ needs tends to reinforce the hierarchy between town and above the community’s. Marullo and Edwards explain gown and position the university as expert. This is that “the resources of the community should be particularly problematic when white and/or middledeveloped and expanded as a top priority (taking class students are going into the communities of color precedence over the enrichment or gains experienced and/or low-income areas to teach students to write in by the volunteers)” (901). Third, a diverse group of standard academic discourse. In “A Place to Begin: individuals should work together for a common goal.

Service-Learning Tutor Education and Writing Center Finally, these partnerships should build community.

Social Justice,” Lisa Zimmerelli enhances this approach The community should be involved in decision making by teaching students about systemic injustices and from the beginning, the knowledge of community asking them to reflect on their positionality, but what if members must be valued, and community members instead of enriching the traditional approach, we adopt must be empowered “to do as much work as its a “social change model”? In the next section, I use resources allow” (907). I broke down these four CSL principles to rethink tutor education.

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

From a Service-Learning to a Social-Change Model: Radically Rethinking Tutor Education • 13! ! advance or limit our involvement to the campus. I Throwing out the Guide Book: Iteration decided against prearranging partnerships as I worried One of Change-Oriented Tutor Education that students would be disengaged if they didn’t choose While I believe this approach could be adapted to the cause. Additionally, when the cause or community any context, it is important that I describe my social partners are chosen in advance, students do not gain location and my university: I am a straight, cisgender the experience of identifying a social issue, initiating a white woman with a middle-class upbringing, and for community partnership, or creating a plan for the past eight years, I have directed the writing center improving the community. As a result, I limited the at a small public institution in western [Redacted] with terrain by selecting potential community partners and approximately 5,000 students. The student body is defining our campus as our community. Originally, I predominantly white with a large proportion of Pell had planned to have the class vote to work with one Grant recipients, first generation students, and students group, either multilingual students or veterans and with learning disabilities. In 2013, our university military, but while the majority of the students voted to received a grant from [Redacted] Department of work with multilingual students, a group of four Higher Education’s Vision Project to support students in the class of ten were committed to working “democratic learning and civic engagement.” with the veterans on campus. So, I abandoned my plan Our writing center is staffed by both professional and decided to allow these students to pursue the and peer writing consultants. I launched the peer tutor partnership that they were most invested in. program in 2011 by offering a three-credit tutor Initially, I worried that limiting our work to the education course which relied heavily on The Bedford campus would not really “count” as community Guide for Writing Tutors. In 2014, I offered my first engagement but working to improve the campus tutor education course shaped by CSL principles, and community made sense for a number of reasons. First, in 2016, I offered the second iteration. To determine the campus is the students’ community and it is a the effectiveness of each section, I received IRB community with social inequities that students are approval to survey students at the beginning and the affected by and have the agency to tackle. Second, end of the course and to collect reflective writing remaining on campus removes the logistical challenges throughout the course. that often plague service-learning courses, particularly The first decision I made was to make community for students who work, as most of our students do. engagement the course’s focus. As a result, we did not Third, working on campus enabled students to practice “cover” the writing center canonical texts, such as initiating partnerships and projects. In most serviceStephen M. North’s “The Idea of the Writing Center,” learning courses students do not have this opportunity Jeff Brooks’ “Minimalist Tutoring: Making the to identify a problem that matters to them and develop Students Do All the Work,” Linda K. Shamoon and a method for tackling that problem. Finally, because Deborah H. Burns’ “A Critique of Pure Tutoring,” or the campus is a learning environment, there is room Kenneth A. Bruffee’s “Peer Tutoring and the for students to make mistakes and learn from them.

‘Conversation of Mankind” (see Landmark Essays on Essentially, when we allow ourselves to acknowledge Writing Centers and The St. Martin’s Sourcebook for that our campuses are communities, we avoid the Writing Tutors). Nor did we rely on a nuts-and-bolts problems associated with traditional service learning guide, most of which devote a chapter or two near the and empower our students to practice the skills end of the book to working with students with learning necessary for community building. disabilities or second language writers (see The How would students initiate these partnerships? In Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors and The Longman “Community Centered Service Learning: Moving from Guide to Peer Tutoring). By shifting the focus from Doing For to Doing With,” Kelly Ward and Lisa Wolfthe canonical to the community and by centering the Wendel explain that “‘doing for’ is typically aligned marginalized, I seek to “work collaboratively with our with a charity perspective and emphasizes the position tutors to re-imagine what writing center work can be” of privilege of campuses in relationship to their local (Greenfield & Rowan 126). Rethinking tutor education communities, whereas a ‘doing with’ perspective of through the lens of CSL enabled me to develop a service emphasizes collaboration and mutuality” (767). course that invites tutors to work with me, with each To do this “with” the community, we took a other, and with our campus community to shape our participatory planning approach that focused on our center’s identity. community partners’ assets and the institution’s The CSL scholarship taught me that if we wanted existing limitations. to accomplish anything within the semester, I needed A participatory approach involves all stakeholders to either forge connections with an organization in in the planning process (Rabinowitz).2 Not only is a Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

From a Service-Learning to a Social-Change Model: Radically Rethinking Tutor Education • 14! ! participatory approach the most just, but it is more working collaboratively to create a tutoring likely to work because everyone is invited to contribute tips handout. their ideas from the beginning. The benefits are many: “a participatory process provides community The projects came to fruition but the process of ownership and support of the intervention; making meaningful partnerships was time consuming information about community history, politics, and and uncertain. When the group working with past mistakes; and respect and a voice for everyone” multilingual students was having trouble making (Rabinowitz). Of course, the level of participation will contact, one student asked nervously, “What is the vary depending on the community and the back-up plan here?” Another student felt wary of intervention. defining the major project for the semester; she wanted Following the participatory approach, the next step a typical writing assignment designed by the professor. was for students to make contact. One group of Two other students worried that they were not learning students attended the veterans’ club meetings, and after enough about how to tutor; one stated that she was several meetings, they identified a project together: afraid we had “lost our way.” In this first iteration, I advocating for a veterans’ lounge. It was more difficult too worried that the students might not be learning to make contact with international students: we essential tutoring skills and that the projects would organized a pizza party but no one showed. This was flop, but the projects did not flop and according to discouraging, but it was also a good lesson. We needed surveys conducted at the end of their first semester of to accommodate their schedules and consider they tutoring, all eight tutors indicated that they felt might prefer meeting one-on-one. The students prepared to work in the center.3 As one student wrote, emailed the international students individually and “working on the projects helped us to become better invited them for coffee. To forge these connections, community members and tutors.” In fact, being lost the students needed to listen closely to the concerns proved to be an essential part of the process as it and values of their partners, an important skill for a enabled the students to develop mutual partnerships, writing consultant. problem solve, and take charge of their learning.

Once they uncovered the ways in which our Students and their community partners became university was not supporting multilingual students and architects of the course. As the students developed and veterans, students developed the following projects: pursued their projects with the community, the classroom became a studio. In each class, students • A proposal for a “veterans’ sanctuary”: four identified their writing, research, or revising tasks. students co-wrote this proposal with the Despite the fact that only one of the three projects veterans’ club calling for the creation of a completed in this class is related to tutoring, each “Veterans’ Sanctuary.” According to a survey project provided students with the skills and of club members, most had transferred from knowledge essential to tutor. Each group of students community colleges with lounges and felt less connected with peers from different backgrounds, welcome at our university; they sit in their cars worked collaboratively, learned to use models to write in between classes to avoid crowds; and they in an unfamiliar genre, engaged in a variety of research long for camaraderie and sanctuary. The techniques, and practiced writing for a real audience proposal drew on results from a survey, for a genuine purpose. Throughout the process, they research on the challenges veterans face in reflected on their work and identified the kind of help higher education, and a list of peer institutions they needed. I devoted time in class to teaching them with veterans’ lounges. to provide effective feedback to each other.

• A proposal for a mentor program for Furthermore, they were all required to use the writing international students: three students co-wrote center to improve their projects and reflect on their this proposal drawing on interviews with experience in a session. international students, discussions with the There was one major issue with this iteration: I International Programs Office, and unintentionally reinforced a charity dynamic by descriptions of similar programs at other selecting two groups to which none of the students institutions. belonged. There were no veterans, international, or • A workshop for subject-area tutors to improve multilingual students in the class. That this can be their ability to work with multilingual students: problematic is revealed by one student’s reflection three students designed this workshop that when asked about the benefits of the participatory involved viewing the documentary, Writing approach: Across Borders, leading a discussion, and Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

From a Service-Learning to a Social-Change Model: Radically Rethinking Tutor Education • 15! ! we fostered a partnership with the group who is based on their interests. They identified key concepts being affected (veterans), we figured out what they from these articles and wrote summaries to ensure that need most is…we were able to put into words why they internalized the readings and to practice it matters to them so much, we gave them a voice rearticulating others’ ideas—one of the building blocks in the campus community, we became invested in of academic and civic discourse. the issue as well and we began to care about Next, drawing on the articles and their experiences, getting a veterans’ lounge also and realize our we made lists to identify issues across campus related veterans’ importance to the campus. to mental health, LGBTQ, gender identity, (dis)ability, While I value this students’ recognition that the veteran and race. The fact that students in this section have and military students actually improve our campus, her been marginalized in different ways throughout their claim that “we gave them a voice” bristles. With lives enabled them to quickly make a list of issues. distance from this course, I realize that I missed an From there, I asked students to rate their preferred opportunity to discuss what it means to speak for issue and then form groups. Each group had at least others. This is an especially valuable discussion to have one student who had been affected by the oppression among future writing center consultants who might that they intended to fight. To give students an feel compelled to let their own ideas overtake their opportunity to partner with existing organizations, I clients’. invited student activists to class to talk about their work, including the president of the Black Student Union and the leadership of the Active Minds Club, a Letting Go Even More: Iteration Two national nonprofit organization aimed at “raising My goals for the second iteration of the course mental health awareness among college students.” included the following: recruit more students of color To ensure that the students were internalizing the (the previous section was predominantly white and principles of participatory planning, I asked them to didn’t match the demographics of our campus), spend work together to identify guiding principles. Once the more time in class teaching about systemic inequities, projects started, students wrote weekly progress provide students more opportunity to reflect on their reports reflecting on their achievements and struggles. positionality, and allow students more freedom in This reflective writing enabled me to prioritize process choosing their projects. above product and it provided me a window into the I managed to recruit a more diverse group for the challenges they faced. Over the course of the semester, second iteration of the course: of the thirteen students four specific challenges emerged. To recognize that in this section, there was one black student, one bithese are problems inherent in this kind of work, I will racial student who is black and white, two Latinx name each one: the “you’re just doing this for class” students, and nine white students. One student had a challenge, the ally challenge, the avoiding race problem, physical disability, one student identified as gay and and the self-care concern. another student openly discussed her PTSD and The “you’re just doing this for class” challenge is anxiety and others discussed their depression likely to crop up when students partner with clubs. diagnoses. This group better reflected the Two students from this section, a gay cisgender white demographics of the campus community with one man and a straight cisgender white woman, met with exception. Each time I taught the course the majority the Queer Student Alliance (QSA) and were received of the students identified as female suggesting that I skeptically. Neither of these students had been part of should actively recruit men, transgender and gender these clubs which consisted primarily of women of non-conforming students. That said, the projects color and gender fluid individuals. The students from implemented in this course will demonstrate that a my class suggested two possible projects: create more classroom filled with students who are marginalized in gender-neutral bathrooms or launch a campaign to different ways enabled us to see social inequities that raise awareness of transgender rights. Club members otherwise would have likely remained invisible. were worried my students were just doing this work for So that students could identify inequities on a grade. campus, I assigned articles about racism, sexism, In retrospect, I can see that I set these two homophobia/heteronormativity, classism, ableism, and students up for this conflict. While we devoted time to transphobia. In this new iteration, only three out of internalizing the principles of participatory planning the 52 articles in our reader were directly about writing and practicing active listening, I also asked the students center work. While we shared a few common readings, to begin to identify problems and solutions. For some including Vershawn Ashanti Young’s “Should Writers groups, this worked out because they were able to Use They Own English?,” students selected readings launch their own initiatives. For this group, it created Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

From a Service-Learning to a Social-Change Model: Radically Rethinking Tutor Education • 16! ! complications because they arrived eager to share their the class, I would’ve dismissed many of the ideas when they attended their first QSA meeting. We communities’ concerns because they didn’t sound discussed why the members of QSA might feel intellectual or may have spoken broken English." frustrated. These students have been working on these Another conflict, this one emerging within the issues for as many as four years and it was aggravating microaggressions group, could be called the “let’s to have two new faces propose ideas. Furthermore, avoid race” problem, a problem that is well students of color, women, and gender fluid individuals documented in the critical race scholarship. Two of the have likely all experienced others taking credit for their students in the group (a black woman and a mixed race ideas. To create a better working partnership, I woman) were intent on focusing on raising awareness suggested that they invite the president of QSA to our of racial microagressions whereas two others (a white class to work on the proposal. She accepted the man and a mixed race woman) wanted to focus cultural invitation and her name is on the proposal as a microaggressions. To address this shift from racial to contributor. In the future, if students are working with cultural, I emailed the group to ask why and explain existing clubs, I will insist that they attend at minimum that conversations about race often shift to focus on two meetings to listen and ask questions. Of course, class or ethnicity, and I attached “My Class Didn’t this emphasis on listening and questioning transfers Trump My Race: Using Oppression to Face Privilege” directly to tutoring.

by Robin J. DiAngelo and “Difficult Stories” by Ann Another issue that emerged with this group was M. Green. Each of these articles identifies the tendency the ally problem. The student who is gay reported of white people to sidestep conversations about race. experiencing both homophobia and heteronormative The group returned to racial microaggressions, but assumptions on campus. The straight woman in the they needed a nudge from me, the person with the group made a conscious decision to let him take the most power, so that the concerns of the people with lead in meeting with the QSA but felt uncomfortable the least power, the women of color in the group, were with that choice: “I’m concerned it will come off as not minimized.

I’m not doing as much work or putting in as much While this intervention was effective, I see now effort as [my partner] when I let him take the lead on that I did not adequately support the women of color talking to people since he's gay and I’m straight.” In in this group. These women were gathering racist the future I need to ensure that students who are part statements that had been uttered all over our campus, of a marginalized group are not left to do the heavy and while I praised them regularly for their work on lifting by teaching students how to be effective allies. the project, I did not effectively acknowledge or The question of how to be an ally also cropped up mitigate their emotional labor. This oversight is in the group working to raise awareness of racial something I will need to attend to in future iterations microaggressions. The one white male cisgender of this course. straight student in this group emailed me to ask if he These complex interactions well prepare students could/should be doing this work as a white man. I sent for difficult sessions and the projects that emerged him a link to the website of anti-racist activist Tim have helped to level the playing field on our campus.

Wise, so that he could see that there is room for white Ultimately, the tutors-in-training partnered with the men to actively resist racism. This student, a regional Counseling Center, the QSA, the Active Minds club, planning major, plotted the microaggressions the Residential Life, the Office of Diversity and Inclusion, students collected via a survey onto a digital campus and the Black Student Union to design and implement map. This visual was extremely powerful as it the following projects: demonstrated the pervasiveness of these racial microaggressions, countering the narrative that our • A proposal for an LGBTQ-friendly living and campus is inclusive. Once the course was over, the learning community written by two students. three women continued to work on the project. The • A multimodal project, designed by four white male decided not to be a writing consultant and students, aimed at raising awareness of racial was only minimally involved in the project after the microaggressions on our campus: an event, a course ended. Despite this, he did find value in the Tumblr page, and an interactive map of our course and has begun to acknowledge and resist his campus that indicates where racial prejudices. He explains, “As an aspiring urban planner, microaggressions were uttered. both my classes and personal interests have brought • An event called “Tell Me About Your Day” me to many public meetings where I listen to based on an initiative at MIT designed to predominantly white planners discuss their plans for destigmatize mental health issues and predominantly black or Hispanic communities. Before normalize conversations among peers about Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

From a Service-Learning to a Social-Change Model: Radically Rethinking Tutor Education • 17! ! the challenges of college life. Three students number of ways: they can help students examine the worked on this project. expectations of particular genre, explain why particular • A revision of the Counseling Center website choices seem inappropriate, cue previous knowledge of so that it is warm and welcoming rather than a genre (for example, didn’t you write an annotated cold and clinical. Three students completed bibliography before in English 101?), help students this project. understand why a particular writing assignment may be challenging (i.e. you have never written a lab report It is worth reiterating that at least one of the students before so you are learning the expectations of the in each of these groups was directly affected by the genre), and support students in purposefully subverting problems they chose to tackle. generic expectations (Savini; Gordon; Walker).

Each of these projects had an impact on our Furthermore, it is useful for writing consultants to campus. While some launched conversations, others be able to read texts as models. Reading texts as led to sustainable institutional changes. The models requires that students and tutors consciously microaggressions project culminated with a discussion shift gears as they are accustomed to reading for on campus attended by 20 people and a map of content. When tutors are working with students in microggressions on campus that has been distributed unfamiliar disciplines and genres, they can act as coto the campus and is now on display in our center. investigators with the tutees, not only searching for One student continued to lead workshops educating resources together (such as “how to write a lab the community about microaggressions. The TMAYD report”) but also by examining mentor texts together project also led to an event attended by 20 people and (Savini; Gordon). has become an official club on campus. The LGBTQ These excerpts from two students’ metaLiving Learning community was launched in the fall of reflections suggest that this work did in fact heighten 2017 housing 45 students. The Counseling Center their awareness of rhetorical context: website now includes interviews with the staff I have also really learned the importance of conducted by the students. Additionally, members knowing and understanding our genre and from the microaggressions, TMAYD, and LGBTQ audience for the piece of writing we are doing. living learning community groups presented their Before this class, I mostly had two audiences either projects at the Northeast Writing Center Association the teacher or the teacher would have us write as if conference and an undergraduate research conference the reader was unfamiliar with the texts... I better on campus. understand the nuances that are involved when writing to different audiences and how much work it can be to get it right for that audience.

The Value of a Social-Change Model for

Tutor Education Ultimately, a social-change tutor education model not only provides students with a sense of agency and responsibility to their community, but it also changes their relationship to writing. They learn to write for a real purpose and a real audience. Students left this course with heightened genre awareness and a strong understanding of rhetorical context. To complete these projects students worked in a variety of genres. They designed and conducted surveys, wrote interview questions, applied for IRB approval, designed publicity materials including posters and social media campaigns, wrote professional emails, created budgets, wrote notes to prepare for meetings with stakeholders or to speak in front of large audiences, wrote business proposals, and designed posters for a conference.

Tutors armed with genre awareness are better prepared to tutor. In “Addressing Genre in the Writing Center,” Irene L. Clark makes a convincing case for discussing genre in all sessions. Tutors with an understanding of genre can better support students in a

Working on this project helped me to develop rhetorical flexibility through forming the questions for the surveys we distributed. When the questions were being written, we tried our best to take our audience into consideration. Knowing that students would be taking the surveys, we wanted to make sure that it was not too lengthy or difficult to understand. Since there are many who do not know what racial microaggressions are, we also made sure to include a definition that participants could use as a reference. Therefore, we made sure to use language as well as a structure that would appeal to college students.

This meta-awareness positions them well to help their peers develop rhetorical flexibility.

In addition to regularly reflecting on rhetorical context, the tutors in this course learned how to break larger projects into manageable tasks and how to perform tasks that will help with revision. Our writing center takes a task-based approach, which is to say that in addition to helping students take longer assignments

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

From a Service-Learning to a Social-Change Model: Radically Rethinking Tutor Education • 18! ! and break them into smaller tasks, in almost every skills do not go by the wayside, but tutors receive this session consultants ask tutees to complete some sort of knowledge as they need it. The students who writing or revision task.4 For example, a student who completed the social change version of tutor comes in asking if their argument is clear will be asked preparation have a strong foundation, which is to write their argument in one-two complete sentences reinforced by regular professional development while the writing consultant reads the paper. A student sessions. who comes in asking for help with organization will be asked to write a reverse outline.

Conclusion Students also developed a genuine appreciation of In using the CSL principles to revise tutor revision. One student wrote, “I have lost count of how education and in teaching two separate iterations of many times we have revised [the proposal] so it can be this course, I’ve developed additional principles. First, just right for the people we are giving it to. It is a lot of if we want students to conceptualize their own projects work but this course has helped me to appreciate all and work in an environment where we can focus on the work that goes into writing.” Many students, the process of community building, then it makes especially students who have received As on first sense to define the campus as the community. This drafts, see revision as a hoop to jump through, as this possibility tends to be overlooked in the CSL reflection suggests: “Before this class I never revised scholarship. Second, process is as important as my work, I was always able to get by with doing things product. Some of the projects might not be realized just once.” With each round of feedback from me, the but what is most important is that we adhere to the writing center, their classmates, and their community process of participatory planning and focus on building partners, the students revised their work. These strong relationships. These principles make this students developed faith in revision, an important approach applicable in any three-credit tutor education quality in writing consultants. program but it doesn’t make this work neat.

These students learned how the writing center In Noise from the Writing Center, Beth Boquet urges works by using it, a requirement of the course. Here is that instead of “training our tutors” to be a representative excerpt from the end of the semester “institutionally competent tutors who help to produce reflective writing: institutionally competent writers,” we could adopt a I have learned that they [writing tutors] do not “higher-risk/higher-yield model for writing center operate just by giving feedback, but by asking work” (81). Although I am guided by a set of where the writer thinks there may be problems and principles, I am nervous each time I prepare to teach what the writer would like to focus on. They focus this course because it is a high-risk model for writing on the higher-level problems first, such as content center work. Boquet draws an analogy between and organization, and then work their way down to improvisation and tutoring, noting that “the most smaller problems. They give students skills that interesting improvisations work because they are will not only help them with the current project, always on the verge of dissonance. They are always just but with projects in the future. about to fail. They are risky. But when they work well, This excerpt reveals the student’s internalization of they are also really, really fun. They leave you wide essential writing center approaches, such as prioritizing eyed” (76). This course requires that we improvise our higher-order concerns, working to support writers as way through the semester and as a result, each time I they improve rather than fix the writing at hand, and wonder, will students find projects that motivate them? ensuring that students maintain ownership of their Will they or will I say something offensive? Will I guide projects. them effectively in the height of the semester’s Of course, being an effective writing consultant busyness? Each time I teach this course it is teetering requires more than an understanding of the writing on the edge of failure and there are plenty of difficult process, it requires emotional intelligence, empathy, moments. These difficult moments allow them to and courage. To design their projects, students in this practice and me to model the self-reflective and course needed to embrace uncomfortable work, to sit collaborative approach I want them to adopt as tutors. with uncertainty, to take risks, to act as leaders, to That the work is gratifying has been demonstrated by really listen, to be aware of their emotional responses the fact that 13 out of the 21 students enrolled in both to challenging interactions, to engage with students sections continued to work on their projects after the from different backgrounds, and to solve problems semester ended. collaboratively. As a result of their projects, they developed a strong sense of agency and responsibility to our community. Important tutoring knowledge and Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

From a Service-Learning to a Social-Change Model: Radically Rethinking Tutor Education • 19! !

Notes Center.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 2, no. 1, 2004, http://www.praxisuwc.com/new-page-5.

1. For example, The University of Delaware Accessed 29 March 2019. “contributes to the local community through writingGreenfield, Laura and Karen Rowen. “Beyond the ‘Week related community service.” St. John’s University Twelve Approach’: Toward a Critical Pedagogy for dedicates an entire paragraph of its mission to its Antiracist Tutor Education.” Writing Centers and The commitment to the community.

New Racism: A Call for Sustainable Dialogue and Change, 2. The Community Toolbox, an online resource edited by Laura Greenfield and Karen Rowan, Utah associated with the University of Kansas that aims to State UP, 2011, pp. 124-149. help “people build healthier communities and bring Grimm, Nancy. Good intentions: Writing Center Work for about the changes they envision”, provides resources Postmodern Times. Boynton/Cook-Heinemann, 1999. for participatory planning.

Grutsch McKinney, Jackie. Peripheral Visions for Writing 3. Two of the students enrolled in the class did not Centers. UP of Colorado, 2013. become peer writing consultants.

Herzberg, Bruce. “Community Service and Critical 4. See Rutger’s The Task for an example: Teaching.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 45, http://wp.rutgers.edu/attachments/article/425/The% no. 3, 1994, pp 307-319.

20Task-%20A%20Guide%20for%20Tutors.pdf Lewis, Tammy L. “Service Learning for Social Change.”

Teaching Sociology, vol. 32, no. 1, 2004, pp. 94-108.

Marullo, Sam and Bob Edwards. “From Charity to Justice: Works Cited The Potential of University-Community Collaboration for Social Change.” American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 43, Boquet, Elizabeth H. Noise form the Writing Center. Utah no. 5, 2000, pp. 895-912.

State UP, 2002.

Mitchell, Tania D. “Traditional vs. Critical Service Butin, Daniel. Service Learning in Theory and Practice: The Learning: Engaging the Literature to Differentiate Two Future of Community Engagement in Higher Education.

Models.” Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, Palgrave Macmillan, 2010. vol. 14, no. 2, 2008, pp. 50-65.

Clark, Irene L. “Addressing Genre in the Writing Center.”

Murphy, Christina and Joe Law, editors. Landmark Essays on The Writing Center Journal, vol. 20, no. 1, 1999, pp. 7-32.

Writing Centers. Hermagoras Press, 1995.

Denny, Harry. Facing the Center: Toward an Identity Politics of Murphy, Christina and Steve Sherwood, editors. The St. One-to-one Mentoring. Utah State UP, 2010.

Martin’s Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. Bedford/St. DiAngelo, Robin. “My Class Didn’t Trump My Race: Martin, 2003.

Using Oppression to Face Privilege.” Multiple National Youth Leadership Council.

Perspectives, vol. 8, no. 1, 2006, pp. 51-56. https://www.nylc.org/. Accessed 19 November 2019.

Geller, Anne Ellen, et al. The Everyday Writing Center: A Pompa, Lori. “Service Learning as Crucible: Reflections on Community of Practice. Utah State UP, 2007.

Immersion, Context, Power, and Transformation.”

Gillespie, Paula and Neal Lerner. The Longman Guide to Peer Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, vol. 9, no.

Tutoring. Longman, 2008.

1, 2002, pp. 67-76.

Godbee, Beth and Moira Ozias. “Organizing For Rabinowitz, Phil. Community Toolbox: Participatory Approaches Antiracism in Writing Centers: Principles for Enacting to Planning Community Interventions. U of Kansas, Social Change.” Writing Centers and The New Racism: A ctb.ku.edu/en/table-of-contents/analyze/where-toCall for Sustainable Dialogue and Change, edited by Laura start/participatory-approaches/main. Accessed 15 Greenfield and Karen Rowan, Utah State UP, 2011, August 2013. pp. 150-174.

Robertson, Wayne. “Writing Across Borders.” YouTube, Gordon, Layne M. P. “Beyond Generalist vs. Specialist: uploaded by Nachtjagdgeschwader, 13 May 2010, Making Connections between Genre and Theory and http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=quI0vq9VF-c Writing Center Pedagogy.” Praxis: A Writing Center Rousculp, Tiffany. “Connecting the Community and the Journal, vol. 11, no. 2, 2014, Center: Service-Learning and Outreach.” Writing Lab http://www.praxisuwc.com/gordon-112. Accessed 20 Newsletter, vol. 29, no. 8, 2005, pp. 1-6.

March 2019.

---. Rhetoric of Respect: Recognizing Change at a Community Green, Ann E. “Difficult Stories: Service Learning, Race, Writing Center. NCTE, 2014.

Class, and Whiteness.” College Composition and Ryan, Leigh and Lisa Zimmerelli. The Bedford Guide for Communication, vol. 55, no. 2, 2003, pp. 276-301.

Writing Tutors. Bedford/St Martin’s, 2010.

---. “The Writing Center and the Parallel Curriculum: Creative Writing and Service Learning in the Writing Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

From a Service-Learning to a Social-Change Model: Radically Rethinking Tutor Education • 20! !

Savini, Catherine. “An Alternative Approach to Bridging Disciplinary Divides.” The Writing Lab Newsletter vol.

35, no. 7-8, 2011, pp. 1-5.

Ward, Kelly and Lisa Wolf-Wendel. “Community Centered Service Learning: Moving from Doing For to Doing With.” American Behavioral Scientist, vol. 43, no. 5, 2000, pp. 767-780.

Walker, Kristin. “The Debate over Generalist and Specialist Tutors: Genre Theory’s Contribution.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 18 no. 2, 1998, pp. 27-46.

Young, Vershawn Ashanti. “Should Writers Use They Own English?" Writing Centers and The New Racism: A Call for Sustainable Dialogue and Change, edited by Laura Greenfield and Karen Rowan, Utah State UP, 2011, pp. 61-67.

Zimmerelli, Lisa. “A Place to Begin: Service-learning Tutor Education and Writing Center Social Justice.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 35, no. 1, 2015, pp. 57-84.

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

From a Service-Learning to a Social-Change Model: Radically Rethinking Tutor Education • 21! !

Appendix Table 1: Charity versus justice-oriented approach

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17 No 1 (2019)

“I WAS KIND OF ANGRY”: UNDERSTANDING RESISTANCE TO FEEDBACK IN TWO TUTOR EDUCATION COURSES Julia Bleakney Elon University jbleakney@elon.edu

Michael Mattison Wittenberg University mmattison@wittenberg.edu

Abstract This article examines the literature on writer resistance to feedback (Elbow, Sommers, Straub) and presents the results of a study designed to examine how tutors-in-training can develop a greater understanding of that resistance. In this study, we asked students in two writing center education courses at two different schools to provide written feedback on each other’s writing and then followed up with two interviews with selected participants. The exchange invited the tutors-in-training to engage in the challenging experience faced by every writing center client: receiving feedback on their writing. Our purpose was to identify whether this exchange improved the tutors’ ability both to give feedback and to understand how to receive feedback effectively (Stone and Heen).

Could engaging in an exchange with tutors-in-training from another school help them appreciate feedback as a problematic form of communication? Does the experience of receiving such feedback— and reflecting on it—influence future tutors’ thinking about their approach to tutoring others? We found that the experience enhanced tutors’ awareness of writers’ resistance to feedback and the need to tailor feedback respectfully and responsively.

What the student writer needs from the tutor is more than simply assistance in figuring out how to say what it is she wants to say; she also needs the affirmation that she had been heard, and not in any vague terms. . . . I didn’t just want help with my writing; I wanted a response to my writing, and I wanted to see how my writing could create a dialogue with others.

Sarah Landis, “The Vulnerable Writer”

What We Know about Feedback In 1982, Nancy Sommers argued that teachers and researchers of writing “do not know in any definitive way what constitutes thoughtful commentary or what effect, if any, our comments have on helping our students become more effective writers” (148). Thirtyfive years later, the field of composition can make a fairly confident claim that we have figured out the first part of Sommers’s concern. In fact, as early as 2006, Melanie Weaver chastised anyone who would plead ignorance: “Some academics appear to lack the knowledge of how to provide effective feedback, but in considering all of the resources available on this subject, it is a rather weak defence” (392). Those resources are grounded in the research of people like Sommers, as well as Richard Straub, who studied student responses to teacher comments and concluded that “students preferred comments that offered direction for improvement but asserted only moderate

Jennifer Ryan University of Dayton jenn.ryan@du.edu

control over the writing [and] most preferred comments in the form of advice and explanations, since these comments typically are specific, offer directions for revision, and come across as helpful” (112). Time and again, researchers have made similar discoveries, whether in terms of general studies (Chanock; Lizzio and Wilson), or for specific populations, such as L2 writers (Treglia), developmental writers (Calhoon-Dilahunt and Forrest), or for writers receiving electronic feedback (McGrath and Atkinson-Leadbeater).

Quite simply, thoughtful commentary is “honest, specific, and constructive” (Calhoon-Dilahunt and Forrest 233). It gives students the flexibility to make changes but also the reasoning for why the reader is requesting such changes. Teacher comments should ideally “feed-forward,” helping students revise their current work and/or provide advice that will prove beneficial in future assignments (see, for example, Higgins et al. and Duncan). Perhaps the strongest listing of what entails thoughtful commentary comes from Richard Straub and Ronald F. Lunsford, in 1995, when they offered seven “principles for commenting on student texts”: ● ● ● ● ● ● ●

Teacher comments should be well-developed and text-specific.

They should be focused on global, not local, concerns.

They should emphasize non-authoritative modes of commentary.

They should be carefully thought out and purposeful, with an eye to the needs and potential of the particular piece of writing.

They should be suited to the relative maturity of the draft being read.

They should be mindful of the rhetorical situation for the writing.

They should be adapted to the student writer behind the text. (373)

These principles for written commentary transfer over to face-to-face conferences between students and teachers—as noted by several authors, including

Carolyn P. Walker and David Elias and Michele Eodice—and it’s then a small step to writing center conferences. While the tutoring situation is more typically described in terms of dialogue and conversation rather than in terms of feedback, writing center tutors do aim to provide honest, specific, and constructive responses to student writing, and we have our own collection of texts that emphasize such feedback, whether the responses are face-to-face or through written commentary.

However, there is still the second half of Sommers’s claim—the effect such responses have on student writers and their writing. In this area, much remains to be done. Some research has effectively shown that writers do revise their work in response to feedback; for instance, Dana Ferris shows the impact of instructors’ written comments on multilingual students’ revised writing, and Calhoon-Dilahunt and Forrest investigated how writers at a two-year college responded to commentary. Most recently, Darsie Bowden has examined student perceptions of teacher comments; the main purpose of her project, she explains, “was to find out more about what happens between the moment a student receives a comment and the completion of a rough draft, using what students tell us as primary data.” Much of what the students in Bowden’s study said aligned with previous research, confirming that students appreciate “substantive comments [that] invited them into conversations about ideas, texts, readers, and their own subject positions as writers.” However, Bowden also highlights that commentary on writing does not occur in a vacuum, and that the “forces that influenced how students thought about comments and what they did with them went well beyond the classroom.” Home life, technology issues, stress, and other factors can all play a role in how a teacher comment does or does not influence a revised draft.

In the field of writing centers, there is also research on how writers respond to commentary. Byron Stay calculated what types of changes writers made after conferencing with tutors, dividing such changes between surface changes and text-based changes. In addition, Stay calculated the Improvement Ratio (IR) for the papers, measuring the “quality” of the changes (19). The tutors in his study, however, were instructors themselves, and therefore served “in two separate capacities: guide and evaluator” (16). Jessica Williams examined revisions made by multilingual students on their writing, charting the changes made after writing center sessions as well as the quality of the revised essay compared to the original. Though the writers did “considerable revision” and appreciated more direct comments from the tutors, their essays did not show

“I Was Kind of Angry” • 23! ! “a substantial improvement,” at least according to the independent graders Williams used (194). Julia Bleakney and Sarah Peterson Pittock also show that feedback offered by tutors in a writing center tutorial led to revisions in student writing. While Bleakney and Pittock do attend to student motivation to revise, none of these studies examine the outside forces that student writers might be dealing with, nor do they specifically consider the resistances students have to the feedback they receive. Williams does allow that “individual sessions have their own interactional features and participants have their own goals” (181), but the writing center session is primarily viewed as an independent entity, with (presumably) the possibility of a one-to-one correspondence between tutor comment and writer revision.

Thus, as a field we have more work to do to understand how students receive, interpret, and (possibly) utilize feedback to change their writing. One thing we know, from our own observations and conversations with writing center tutors, is that regardless of the quality of feedback, writers might not take it. As Bowden claims, “Too often, it seems that, even when we provide students with the types of comments endorsed by experts, students make disappointingly few changes in the final draft.” Peter Elbow explained it this way: “Even when we write clear, accurate, valid, and helpful comments, our students often read them through a distorting lens of resistance or discouragement—or downright denial” (8). Comments do not automatically lead to changes, or improved writing. Richard Higgins et al. argue that “the process of feedback as communication is inherently problematic” (272). They argue that we need to avoid thinking of feedback as “the linear transfer of information” (271)—a message from reader to writer—and instead view it as a “form of communication involving particular social relationships [and] patterns of power, authority, emotion and identity” (273). Bowden has begun to examine those relationships and patterns, as has Omer Hassan Ali Mahfoodh in his article on “university students’ emotional response towards teacher written feedback” (53). Though Mahfoodh focuses on L2 learners (and teacher comments), his article “proposes a theory of emotional responses towards teacher written feedback” and argues for how teachers can and should prepare students to handle those responses (70).

Of course, the conundrum of effective feedback is not a concern unique to writing studies. Several fields have undertaken the task of considering how best to deliver, and receive, it. For instance, in Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well, Douglas Stone and Sheila Heen consider feedback in

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

areas such as business, government, families, and romantic relationships. They argue that our focus should be on educating people on how to receive feedback more than deliver it. After all, “if the receiver isn’t willing or able to absorb the feedback, then there’s only so far persistence or even skillful delivery can go” (5). This sounds just like Elbow’s “distorting lens of resistance.” Stone and Heen recognize the emotional landmines of receiving feedback: “Receiving feedback sits at the intersection of . . . two needs—our drive to learn and our longing for acceptance. These needs run deep, and the tension between them is not going away” (8). On the one hand, we want to learn, to grow from the advice that others give; on the other, we want to be appreciated for who we are, and criticism, even of the constructive kind, chips away at that identity. Yet, Stone and Heen argue, there are immense benefits to receiving feedback well, to “engaging in the conversation skillfully and making thoughtful choices about whether and how to use the information” (8).

The authors do not claim that any and all comments should be followed, but rather that comments should provide a reason for possible change and that the receiver should try to understand that reasoning.

For those in writing centers, the relevance of Stone and Heen’s argument should be apparent. Writing center administrators take care to educate tutors on the best means of interacting and communicating with writers, including how to shape feedback that is “honest, specific, and constructive” and still allows the writer to remain in charge of their paper while understanding the context in which they are writing.

Administrators also often teach tutors about different types of students—L2 learners, first-generation students, non-traditional students, student athletes— and ask tutors to consider how the differences might affect writing conferences. Some writing center education introduces tutors to the concept of politeness theory, teaching tutors to attend to positive and negative face when delivering feedback, which suggest the need to be aware of how feedback has the potential to offend or be dismissed (see Mackiewicz and Thompson). In short, writing center administrators often focus on what Stephen North called the “verbal and non-verbal wrestling over just how the session[s] should proceed” (436). Tutors need to figure out the writing assignment, the writing context, and the stage of the writing process that the writer is in. There are a host of variables to consider for any writing center session.

But do any of these particulars matter if a student writer takes all of a tutor’s advice through a lens of resistance or discouragement? That’s a troubling question, and one that prompted the authors of this

“I Was Kind of Angry” • 24! ! essay to help our writing center tutors-in-training consider how writers resist feedback. We wanted to examine more closely this distorting lens; to do this, we put tutors in the role of writer to help them remember or discover what it is to receive feedback, and we asked them to consider how that feeling might influence or inform their tutoring pedagogy. We wanted, if possible, to capture in our tutor education the immediate, visceral response writers often have to feedback, what Alf Lizzio and Keithia Wilson term the “socioemotional aspects of feedback” (266), and what Stone and Heen believe is “triggered” in certain ways.

Could engaging in an exchange with tutors-in-training from another school help them appreciate feedback as a problematic form of communication?

Of course, our population of students for this study constitutes a particular subset of students overall, similar to those described in William Carpenter and Biana Falbo’s work on the “successful” student writer.

Like the writing associates they studied, the students in our study “identify themselves and have been identified as highly literate” (93). They too are actively involved in campus activities and have proven themselves capable of surviving, and thriving, in a college environment. In Carpenter and Falbo’s analysis of their students’ literacy narratives, they argue that the students “consider literacy as a problem-solving heuristic, and see themselves as quick-learning problem solvers” (97). Most of the narratives are hero stories in which the author encounters a problem but then overcomes it to achieve success. Tellingly, the authors suggest that “these students' identities as writers are formed first by extrinsic responses to their texts rather than by the content of their texts themselves” (105). In other words, their view has been shaped by the feedback—mostly positive—they have received on their writing. That “materialistic view” of writing is what the tutors-in-training possibly share with other students, but they may have received more favorable responses to their work.

We wanted, therefore, to investigate how the tutors-in-training received feedback from peers and whether or not they would take that experience and use it to inform their approach to working with their peers in a writing center. Thus, our guiding questions for this study were the following: ● ●

What do tutors-in-training believe about feedback on writing in general?

How do those tutors-in-training respond to feedback given to a specific piece of their writing by a peer from another institution?

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

●

Does the experience of receiving such feedback—and reflecting on it—influence their thinking about their approach to tutoring others?

Context of Study, Data Collection, and Analysis In the spring of 2018, students in two writing center education courses (n=17 in one and n=13 in the other) at Wittenberg University and Elon University completed an assignment in which they exchanged papers and then provided written feedback on those papers; the papers also included a cover note from the writer, explaining what questions they had about their paper and what they would like their responder to focus on. As students in the course, they were required to complete the assignment. However, after securing IRB exemption, we invited the students to voluntarily participate in a research study to examine how this assignment might help them understand the challenges writers face when receiving feedback. Across both courses, all but one student volunteered to participate by submitting their written materials for analysis; these materials included a pre-assignment survey, written feedback on a paper written by a student in the other course, a revision plan, and a reflection memo. The pre-assignment survey was designed to capture the participants’ attitudes toward, and prior experience with, receiving and responding to feedback; the revision plan prompted them to explain in detail what feedback they received, how they planned to use the feedback, and what revisions they planned to make to their papers; and the reflection memo, completed at the very end of the assignment, invited them to reflect on their experiences throughout the assignment and their perception of learning (see Appendix A).

As the assignment was wrapping up in the courses, we invited the students to be interviewed. At each institution, one student researcher—a tutor1 but not one in the course—interviewed participants twice. Five students in the Elon course and six in the Wittenberg course agreed to participate in this step. The first interview was conducted right after the assignment had been completed and the second interview was conducted toward the end of the semester, after the participants had a few weeks of practice consulting in the writing center. In the first interview, our goal was to capture the participants’ reactions to the feedback they received, how the feedback they received compared to the feedback they gave, how they responded to the suggestions as they revised their writing, and how this exercise might translate into their writing center practice. In the second interview, we

“I Was Kind of Angry” • 25! ! asked the participants to recall what they remembered about giving and receiving feedback and we also asked them to reflect on any insights they might have about how this experience informed their tutoring pedagogy.

The interviews lasted between 6 ½ and 27 minutes; this time range suggests variation in how well the interviewers were able to push the participant to elaborate on their ideas and how well the participants were able to reflect on their processes and explain their experiences (see Appendix B).2 To analyze the interviews, we first transcribed them using the software program TRINT. The two student researchers then listened to the original audios and corrected the transcripts, identifying preliminary themes as they listened. Working off the initial themes, the two writing center directors then coded the interviews using an emergent, holistic process to identify and refine broad patterns and additional themes across the interviews. Through continual dialogue, the directors reached consensus over the patterns and themes.

Though we collected all the writing components of this assignment, we focus our analysis in this article on the materials that capture the participants’ beliefs about and attitudes toward feedback: the pre-assignment questionnaire, the reflection memo, and the interviews.

We chose not to focus on the revision plan or the revisions the tutors made to their own writing as these materials are worthy of a separate study. Approaching our analysis of the collected data, our primary goals were to gauge the students’ beliefs about feedback as well as their response to receiving feedback and then to understand if having the experience of both giving and receiving feedback through a class assignment—and with strangers—would develop their awareness of the challenges writing center clients might have to receiving feedback; in other words, does the experience of giving and especially receiving feedback influence how they think about working with writing center clients?

To analyze the pre-assignment survey responses, we focused on the following two questions that we felt would enrich our analysis of the interviews: How do you usually feel when you receive feedback on your writing? How do you think most writers feel about receiving feedback? (Other questions in the survey were geared more directly toward the class activity.)

To understand which perceptions dominated, we coded the responses by highlighting and counting key descriptors that the tutors used to capture their feelings.

What stood out the most in the responses was that a majority of the 28 tutors who completed the surveys believed themselves better about receiving and utilizing

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

feedback than writers in general. They answered the first question in positive terms while answering the second in negative ones. For example, one tutor wrote about her response to feedback: I’m excited. I love being judged (as strange as that sounds). I like hearing what people think about my writing and taking their reactions into consideration so I can make it better.”

However, she believes other writers “are nervous and feel vulnerable.

Another tutor said he was “thankful” for feedback but believed other writers “defensive.” A third said that she tries to take the feedback “and learn from it rather than get discouraged.” Yet, other writers “are not huge fans of feedback [because they] think their work is perfect and another person’s perspective won’t matter.” Time and again the tutors positioned themselves as willing recipients of feedback and other writers as troubled by the process. One tutor did give brief, negative responses to both questions— “Nervous” and “The same way, anxious”—putting herself and other writers in the same boat. A couple of others gave primarily positive responses to both questions, believing that all writers appreciate and even welcome feedback: “I am sure most are happy.”

In sum, a few of the tutors felt that others mimicked their feelings about feedback, but the majority believed they surpassed others in their appreciation for feedback. The distinction can be further highlighted with the word clouds in Appendix C, created from the key descriptor words in the tutors’ responses. The tutors who made such a distinction between their own and others’ responses to feedback usually had the most detailed answers; in contrast, when a tutor believed feedback was either positive or negative for all writers, the responses tended to be short. For some of the tutors, the appreciation they had for feedback was hard-won. They had to overcome initial feelings of fear or anger, and as they grew as writers, they grew better at accepting feedback. One tutor explained, “Over the past year I have gotten more confident in my writing, because I realized that it is a process. I enjoy feedback because it allows me to get another person’s perspective.” Another worked through several possibilities for her reaction to feedback: I am usually responsive to what is suggested and when I do not agree, I try to see why that feedback was given. Very rarely do comments make me angry though sometimes, if I receive a plethora of negative responses, I can lose quite a bit of motivation to continue on for a short period of time.

Another captured all sides of the process:

“I Was Kind of Angry” • 26! !

There is an exciting rush of emotion when receiving feedback. You feel excited, defensive, and scared all at once. I am always interested to see how others will react to my writing but also nervous in sharing something so personal.

These tutors’ descriptions, again, contrast with their beliefs about other writers’ responses to feedback.

In one of the more interesting comments, the tutor begins by suggesting writers may respond positively or negatively to feedback, but then both of the examples are negative: I believe [response to feedback] depends largely on the writer and their level of confidence in their own ability. I could see an inexperienced writer being afraid of having their work closely analyzed. I could also see an experienced writer growing defensive in regards to a critique.

Here, the experience of the writer does not really matter in terms of utilizing feedback, as the response has changed from fear to defensiveness, neither of which will presumably prove conducive to revision. In many ways, the tutors seem to be describing Elbow’s “distorting lens of resistance or discouragement—or downright denial” (8).

Perhaps it is not surprising that those who are drawn to work as writing tutors believe themselves more practiced in receiving feedback. They talk about writing as a process, a give-and-take of writer and reader, as they have been learning about in the courses.

They also position other writers as in need of assistance, perhaps in part to justify the work they will be undertaking. Like the students in Carpenter and Falbo’s study, the tutors-in-training view themselves as “informed and intelligent readers who help students formulate tough questions about their own writing” (93). If the writers are defensive, scared, nervous, anxious, or vulnerable, then the writing tutor can prove to be an important asset, calming emotional distress as well as offering rhetorical advice. These explanations, though, are theoretical. Did the tutors in fact maintain their own positive outlook on feedback when receiving comments on their drafts from the students in the other course? This is what we aimed to discover through the interviews.

Turning to the interviews, we noticed that the tutors appreciated feedback that displayed the qualities we describe at the beginning of this essay—honest, specific, and constructive. They also often found their peers’ comments to be just that. For example, Hala (a pseudonym; we use pseudonyms throughout) said, I thought [the response] was pretty helpful— when I work with another writer or you get

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

feedback from someone you can tell what their focus is when they’re writing, which I think was interesting.

She also felt that she and her responder aligned well: We definitely have similar views when it comes to analyzing papers . . . . I mean I was never like ‘I disagree with this.’ I think all of it was helpful and I was open to her suggestions.

Dante complimented the responder on balancing his comments: “I think he did a really good job of not going overboard but at the same time really helping me out.” There were certainly moments when the tutors did display the open-mindedness that they claimed to have in the survey.

Yet the interviews also showed that the tutors’ reactions to feedback were not straightforward: openmindedness does not always come easily. Complex emotions run through their answers; there were several moments of resistance, many of which were overcome, and also an instance or two of rejection. Sometimes the resistance to feedback was a generic one, an initial feeling that the tutor moved beyond. For example, Adrian said, I always get really anxious just whenever I’m in this kind of situation because I definitely hate being critiqued. . . then like when I was reading through, I was like super involved, like I was really digging into what she was saying and it was actually really helpful.

Similarly, Troy mentioned, “At the beginning you’re a little defensive and then you start reading a little farther in and then you’re like, OK, I understand.” Meanwhile, Kelsey believed her paper rather good to begin with, so she dealt with the surprise of having critical comments: I got a good grade on it so I was a little shocked that I saw a lot of comments so initially I thought, ‘Wow, maybe this wasn’t as good as I thought it was.’

She even admitted that she “was kind of angry.” She did, though, read the comments and found them helpful: “The more I read it . . . I realized that I agreed with what she was saying.” Oona, on the other hand, was more overwhelmed at the sheer amount of comments: Every single paragraph had at least one small comment and then a synopsis of the entire paragraph and then why she commented [on] things, which was helpful but it was also very overwhelming.

Oona termed this “very meticulous feedback,” but she also claimed she did not have an emotional response to it because she was not “super emotionally attached to the paper.”

“I Was Kind of Angry” • 27! !

A few of the tutors had stronger reactions, albeit for different reasons. Violet, for example, was disappointed that her responder went out of her way to compliment her writing: [She] was happy go lucky almost. She was like, oh, this is all so great. I’m just nitpicking little things because I love so much stuff in your paper and this is such a good point here and like smiling emojis next to every response.

Violet would have preferred less of the “fluff stuff” and more direct comments on her writing, as she had requested in her cover note. As she said, “you don’t have to do this, just give me the feedback.” Kenzie also wished for more critical comments on her paper, as she did not think it was her strongest work: “[B]eing a little more critical I think would have helped because in my opinion this paper wasn’t the greatest paper.” Her responder, though, in Kenzie’s view, focused more on sentence-level issues and did not tackle the “large comments” that Kenzie had asked for: “[S]he never really said too much about the actual comment that I asked about.” Kenzie also disagreed with the responder on certain points. For instance, the responder asked for “more about the specific authors of the sources,” but Kenzie found that information irrelevant to the paper.

She was also dealing with a word count, so she believed she could not add in that information due to space constraints. In her mind, she told the responder, “You keep bringing this up and I don’t really think that’s too valid.” In both cases, the writers felt as if the tutors did not completely listen to them; they overlooked the requests the writers made—Violet’s for direct commentary, Kenzie’s for comments on the quality of her support and persuasion—and caused the writers to push back against the feedback.

Another tutor, Gloria, was not completely happy with the feedback she received, in part due to what she found was a lack of positive comments: “She didn't really say anything positive which wasn’t bad but then I was kind of like, aw, this kind of sucks; it’s a lot of changes.” Also, the tutor had displayed a particular quirk that struck Gloria as off-putting, even though the commentary overall was focused on the areas she had asked for in her cover letter: I did ask about the research feedback so I kind of expected that and I was really happy that she gave me qualitative feedback. I was a little bit annoyed with how much she hated the word ‘that’ though because it was like every other sentence.

Gloria got hung up on the idea that her reader hated a word she used, seeing that as a personal preference of the reader, but one that colored her whole experience as a writer receiving feedback. Interestingly, Gloria was

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

one of the tutors who believed that she gave better feedback than she received: “I feel like I gave a lot more diverse feedback.” Her description of her feedback, though, centers mostly on issues of punctuation and capitalization.

We mine these explanations from the tutors— students themselves—because we believe they tap into some of the reasons that students might see feedback in a writing center through a lens of distortion. If the feedback seems esoteric or random, it’s easy to resist; if the student has anxiety about their writing, it’s easy to become discouraged; if the feedback does not appear to align with the assignment criteria, it’s easy to deny the tutor credibility. Yet, because the tutors believe themselves better at receiving feedback than other student writers (and as we discuss below, sometimes believe they provide better feedback than they receive), the difficulty of assessing and accepting feedback may be that much more challenging for the students they work with. We also believe these responses illustrate some of the triggers that Stone and Heen describe as barriers to engaging in productive discussions involving feedback.

For Stone and Heen, there are three triggers: truth, relationship, and identity. Truth triggers “are set off by the substance of the feedback itself—it’s somehow off, unhelpful, or simply untrue” (16). In these cases, the recipient disagrees with what is being said, much like Kenzie did when her responder kept asking her to include information about the authors she was citing.

That information, for Kenzie, was irrelevant and added to a word count she couldn’t break. Her response to the tutor: “You keep bringing this up and I don't really think that’s too valid.” The validity, or truth, of the comment is questioned. Next are relationship triggers, which are “tripped by the particular person who is giving us this gift of feedback” (16). The focus shifts from what is being said to who is saying it. The tutors in the two classes had not met before, which may have contributed to preconceived ideas about their responder. For instance, Gloria had a negative image of her responder, based on the tutor’s dislike of the word “that.” The tutor kept asking Gloria to include a referent when using the pronoun, and Gloria questioned the advice, and the giver: “She hated ‘that.’

She’d be like, you need to always say what it was even though I just said [it], and that drove me crazy.” Gloria also said, “I was a little bit annoyed with how much she hated the word ‘that’ because it was like every other sentence.” This complaint seems not so much in disagreement with the advice, but is questioning more the type of person who could be so focused on this point.

“I Was Kind of Angry” • 28! !

Stone and Heen’s third trigger is identity, and that trigger, when tripped, causes “our identity—our sense of who we are—to come undone.” We are “unsure what to think about ourselves, and question what we stand for” (17). We hear something close to that in Kelsey’s reaction to the number of comments on her paper: “I got a good grade on it so I was a little shocked . . . . initially I thought, wow, maybe this wasn’t as good as I thought it was.” By extension, Kelsey might also be wondering about her abilities as a writer. Or, as Makenna pointed out, some comments that ask for changes in the argument of an essay or its structure lead directly to a writer’s identity: “I think that’s harder to let go of because it’s something you wrote and people feel connected to what they’re writing.” As Carpenter and Falbo discovered with their students, “success (or lack thereof) in school and, more specifically, in academic writing often serves as the foundation for writerly identities” (106). The responses that Kelsey and Makenna received seem to have triggered questions for them about their identities as writers.

However, in our reading of the interviews, other examples of identity triggers were hard to find. The foundations for the students’ writerly identities are solid; their responses were more indicative of the veteran writing associates from Carpenter and Falbo’s work, who were complicating their identities as writers by focusing less on extrinsic responses to their writing and more on their own intrinsic responses to their questions and concerns within the composing process. (106) Yet, even with a strong writerly identity, some of our tutors-in-training did have a negative response to the feedback, triggered by truth and relationships. They questioned the validity of some of the comments they received, and they questioned the people giving them.

In their eyes, some of their readers did not understand the assignment, or the topic, or the genre. For example, Gloria questioned if her responder knew as much about economics as she should: Sometimes I kind of assume everyone’s on the same level of like economics. . . as me. A lot of people aren’t so I did a lot of. . . like I don’t want to say dumbing down. . . a lot of people don’t know the principles of supply and demand which is like you know fundamental economics for a business student.

Gloria had already written for a general audience, but her tutor still did not understand.

Again, if successful students such as these tutorsin-training, who are in classes designed to discuss feedback, find some difficulty in receiving feedback, it

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

stands to reason that other students will have at least the same difficulty. Those are the students the tutors will be talking with, so does the experience of receiving feedback themselves prepare the tutors to work with those students? Do they believe their tutoring practices will be influenced by the experience of this assignment? In short, we believe yes. The tutors-intraining as a whole believed this experience valuable.

They also believed that this essay exchange and practice preparing written feedback had implications for face-to-face tutoring. One implication that crosscuts written and in-person tutoring is the need to consider the writer’s perspective. As Hala said of the assignment, “I guess it does make you put yourself in the client’s shoes . . . I’m very conscious of it now.”

Most of the tutors would make changes in how they tutor based on their experiences in this assignment. In the second interview, conducted after the tutors had had a few weeks of practice in the writing center, the two main themes that arose were time and tone. The tutors talked about taking the time to get to know the writer and the assignment; and they talked of how they needed to pay attention to the tone of their comments, either written or spoken.

Some of the tutors mentioned that they wanted to learn more about a writer and an assignment at the start of the session, and they also wanted to establish a comfortable space for the writer. As Adrian said, “I definitely need to take a moment to realize that, like, all people that come in are probably going to be really nervous like I am.” Because of those nerves, she wants to let the writer know that we can do this together, it's going to be better for you as the writer to get this feedback because. . . you're going to finally like hopefully something's going to click.

Makenna thought this assignment helped her feel less like a “hypocrite” when she gives advice, and she said it’s “important to understand your client. . . to know how they’re feeling when you say certain things.” Are you challenging something they feel strongly about?

Kelsey now wants to be “more understanding and ask more questions to get the full background” from the writer about the assignment. The tutors also talked about prioritizing the writer’s interests; this sentiment was expressed by the tutors who thought their responders did not focus on what they asked for.

Kenzie said her biggest takeaway from this exchange was “staying focused on what [the writer] wants [and] trying not to go too far off from what they are asking.”

A tutor can add in other comments or topics, but only after addressing what the writer wanted to talk about.

Much of this advice no doubt sounds familiar to writing center administrators, as it echoes what our

“I Was Kind of Angry” • 29! ! literature and our pedagogy emphasizes: taking time up front to talk with writers and gain a sense of the writing context. Steve Sherwood and Christina Murphy term the opening phase of a session the “pre-textual stage” and note that here, “tutor and student begin the process of developing the interpersonal relationship that will guide their collaborations” (11). To establish such a relationship, the tutor must respond to various personality and learning styles and be sensitive to differences in gender, age, ethnicity, cultural and educational backgrounds, and attitudes towards writing.

(11) Thomas Newkirk has examined the first five minutes of student-teacher writing conferences, and both William Macauley (“Setting the Agenda”) and Michael Mattison (“The First 150 Seconds”) have built on that idea to stress the initial moments of a writing center session in order to make the session as productive, and student-centered, as possible. While these concepts are introduced to the students in both courses through readings and discussions, the exchange assignment helped put the concepts into action for the students.

It’s one thing to read about prioritizing a writer’s interests, but another to be the writer and feel what it is like to have your interests delayed, misunderstood, or ignored.

The other main lesson learned from the assignment concerned the phrasing of feedback. Some tutors were quite cognizant of the tone of comments because of their experience receiving feedback from their peers. Troy said it simply: [C]omments can kind of like elicit an emotional response in a writer when they review their paper. I feel like it's important to, phrasing is important in when you deliver comments to people.

Hala spoke of how she would aim for “more sensitive feedback” given her experience: “[O]ne of my worries is someone will come in with something that's very like socially or ethically sensitive and I'll say something like I didn't have time to think about and maybe it wasn't intended the right way.” She now thinks about taking more time with her comments. And Dante also mentioned the possibility of being more careful with how he writes his response: “I think just looking at it since he's not hearing my voice he's just looking at my comments maybe phrase them in a little more positive cheerful way.” Oona emphasized the same: “I would say that the way that things are phrased and the tone of voice used, even in written comments in the way those come across is one of the most important aspects of our peer tutoring.” Yet there’s also a balance to be maintained, as Monica mentions: “I just remember

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

being, like, not overly nice but just like very complimentative before I gave the, like, criticism.” It is possible to be too nice at times, or to offer too much “fluff,” as Violet indicated in her analysis of her feedback. Then again, Troy argues, “You can always be nicer in the world. I guess I could have been nicer.”

Talk about the phrasing of comments to student writers should also be familiar to those in writing centers, although we do not have as much literature on tone as on time. We do talk about direct instruction and cognitive/motivational scaffolding as well as politeness (Mackiewicz and Thompson) and mitigating language (Mackiewicz and Thompson; Thonus). Yet again, this assignment seems to have given the tutors a closer look at what it means to choose their words carefully so as to best support and encourage a writer.

However, not every tutor believed the assignment made them reconsider their delivery. Violet, for example: I learned that maybe I shouldn't worry so much about the delivery of the feedback. I got feedback that had a delivery I was trying to stay away from when I was crafting my comments for other papers. I was unfazed by what I received. So I concluded that it's not as crucial as I had thought it to be.

Even with this response, though, Violet realizes that not every writer would agree: “However, I do know that not everyone has the same perspective as me, when it comes to feedback.” Overall, every tutor interviewed believed that the assignment gave them some adjustment to make in their tutoring practice.

Conclusion: Lessons Learned We wanted to know what tutors-in-training thought about feedback in general, how they responded to specific feedback on a piece of their own writing, and whether or not that experience would influence their thinking about tutoring pedagogy. We did notice a slight discrepancy between the beliefs tutors espoused about how well they accepted feedback and their responses to an actual instance of feedback, but that discrepancy reinforces Higgins, Hartley, and Skelton’s claim about feedback being “inherently problematic” (272). There is a complex set of emotions involved in receiving feedback, and the tutors’ responses showcased just that; even practiced writers can become anxious and defensive when facing comments about their work. Yet that experience— receiving a response to a piece of writing—also seemed to prove beneficial in that it allowed tutors to reflect on how the writers they work with might feel about receiving comments on their writing.

“I Was Kind of Angry” • 30! !

What the tutors claimed to have learned from the experience aligns with what writing center literature has advocated, as well as what the field of composition has argued for since Sommers first asked about thoughtful commentary: feedback should be geared towards the needs of the writer and the assignment and should be thoughtful, specific, and honest. To understand the writer’s needs and the assignment itself, tutors need to listen carefully and prompt a writer with questions (in face-to-face sessions) or read carefully (in asynchronous written feedback) to garner as many details as possible. That care helps the tutors tailor their comments to the situation. Although it is acceptable to give comments on additional aspects noticed throughout the paper, the main priority is focusing on what the writers themselves asked for.

Then, as we know from Sommers and Straub and Lunsford, when giving feedback, tutors need to be specific in their comments; simply saying “good” for praise isn’t enough, or writing “fragment” might not always be enough either. Comments need elaboration to be of most use. Tutors also need to take care to balance praise and criticism, and make sure that they respect the writer. Otherwise, tutors run the risk of the writers being more resistant to the feedback. This was true for the tutors at Wittenberg, who conduct asynchronous email sessions; one practice that seemed to stand out for them was an introductory comment at the beginning of an email response, a comment that restates what the writer wanted to focus on and explains how the commenting process will work (marginal comments followed by an endnote). The tutors thought this opening note even more important after this assignment as it established the tutor-writer relationship and could possibly reduce a writer’s anxiety. At the same time, lessons learned from the activity of giving and receiving written feedback transferred to the synchronous, face-to-face sessions conducted by Elon’s writing tutors. Appreciating the different contexts, the tutors noted the implications of the written feedback activity to their in-person practice, particularly related to appropriate tone when offering suggestions and feedback.

This experience also helped the administrators understand that teaching how to deliver feedback is not enough; we need to teach how to receive feedback and then encourage transfer between the tutors’ own reception of feedback and their understanding of how others receive feedback. Reflective writing is one way to encourage transfer, as it helps tutors acknowledge how difficult receiving feedback can be. In addition, we should continue to emphasize the pre-textual stage as described by Sherwood and Murphy. The connection made between writer and tutor is important, as is the

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

tutor’s attempt to understand what works best for the writer and what expectations they have for the feedback; to do this, we can utilize works from Macauley, Newkirk, and Mattison. And we need to talk about how to ask questions, and what questions to ask.

Some of the triggers can possibly be defused before the textual stage if the tutor is willing to ask questions and listen. They can help prepare the writer to receive feedback. Yet, as helpful as readings and conversations can be, they do not always convey in a visceral way what it means to be a writer receiving feedback from a peer. This assignment did. We believe the tutors gained a level of understanding about the writer-tutor relationship that will benefit them moving forward.

Some of the lessons learned might be beyond the scope of the writing center to provide once the course has ended. For instance, the tutors spoke of how they appreciated the feedback they received more after some time had passed. The five-week gap between interviews allowed them the space and time to appreciate the comments they received. When pushed to think back, their views were generally more positive at that point and they were more willing and more open to the comments that their tutor had given them.

Given enough time between receiving comments, more tutors realized the comments were more helpful than they originally thought. Ideally all writers would allow themselves time to receive and digest feedback on a piece of writing, but that rarely seems to be the case. Certainly few if any student writers have the opportunity to plan out a five-week window in which to receive comments, think them over, and then decide whether or not to utilize the advice. But, advocating for more time in a writer’s process is something that tutors can do in their conversations with writers, and writing center administrators can do the same with faculty colleagues. Getting feedback early is crucial in order for a writer to have the time to understand and possibly utilize those comments.

Perhaps the most telling lessons of this assignment were also the most obvious: receiving feedback is hard—and it is a learned experience. When the tutors talk about appreciating feedback, it is often with an understanding that they have arrived at that position, and that they worked to get there. As Stone and Heen argue, “if the receiver isn’t willing or able to absorb the feedback, then there’s only so far persistence or even skillful delivery can go” (5). The tutors can be persistent, and they can continually work to become more skillful in their delivery of comments. They may also now be more adept at reading writers and their circumstances, which in turn might allow them to help writers clear the “lens of distortion” and see more clearly the possibilities for their papers.

“I Was Kind of Angry” • 31! !

Notes 1. At Elon University the peer workers in the Writing Center are known as “consultants” and at Wittenberg University they are “advisors,” but this article uses the common term “tutors” for all.

2. The authors wish to recognize Madeleine McCarthy at Elon University for her extensive assistance with the interviews.

Works Cited Bleakney, Julia, and Sarah Peterson Pittock. “Tutor Talk: Do Tutors Scaffold Students’ Revisions?”

The Writing Center Journal, vol. 36, no. 2, 2019.

Bowden, Darsie. “Comments on Student Papers: Student Perspectives.” The Journal of Writing Assessment, vol. 11, no. 1, 2018, journalofwritingassessment.org/article.php?article =121. Accessed 21 Oct. 2018.

Calhoon-Dilahunt, Carolyn, and Dodie Forrest.

“Conversing in Marginal Spaces: Developmental Writers’ Responses to Teacher Comments.”

Teaching English in the Two-Year College, vol. 40, no. 1, 2013, pp. 230-247.

Carpenter, William, and Biana Falbo. “Literacy, Identity, and the ‘Successful’ Student Writer.”

Identity Papers: Literacy and Power in Higher Education.

Ed. Bronwyn T. Williams. Utah State UP, 2006, pp. 92-108.

Chanock, Kate. “Comments on Essays: Do Students Understand What Tutors Write?” Teaching in Higher Education. vol. 5, no. 1, 2000, pp. 95-105.

Duncan, Neil. “'Feed-forward': Improving Students' Use of Tutors' Comments.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 32, no. 3, 2007, pp. 271-283.

Elbow, Peter. “High Stakes and Low Stakes in Assigning and Responding to Writing.” New Directions for Teaching and Learning, no. 69, 1997, pp.

5-13.

Eodice, Michele. “Telling Teacher Talk: Sociolinguistic Features of Writing Conferences.” Research and Teaching in Developmental Education, vol. 15, no. 1, 1998, pp. 11-20.

Ferris, Dana. “The Influence of Teacher Commentary on Student Revision.” TESOL Quarterly, vol. 31, no. 2, 1997, pp. 315-339.

Higgins, Richard, et al. “Getting the Message Across: The Problem of Communicating Assessment Feedback.” Teaching in Higher Education. vol. 6, no. 2 (2001): pp. 269-274.

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Landis, Sarah. “The Vulnerable Writer.” Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 26, no. 2, 2001, pp. 10-11.

Lizzio, Alf, and Keithia Wilson. “Feedback on Assessment: Students’ Perceptions of Quality and Effectiveness.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 33, no. 3, 2008, pp. 263-275.

Macauley, William J. “Setting the Agenda for the Next 30 Minutes.” A Tutor’s Guide: Helping Writers One to One. Ed. Ben Rafoth. Heinemann, 2000, pp. 1-8.

Mackiewicz, Jo, and Isabelle Thompson. “Motivational Scaffolding, Politeness, and Writing Center Tutoring.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 33, no. 1, 2013, pp. 38-73.

Mahfoodh, Omer Hassan Ali. “‘I Feel Disappointed’: EFL University Students’ Emotional Responses Towards Teacher Written Feedback.” Assessing Writing, vol. 31, no. 1, 2017, pp. 53-72.

Mattison, Michael. "150 Seconds: Opening a Writing Center Session." Academic Exchange Quarterly, vol.

15, no. 4, 2011, pp. 116-121.

McGrath, April, and Karen Atkinson-Leadbeater.

“Instructor Comments on Student Writing: Learner Respond to Electronic Written Feedback.”

Teaching & Learning Journal, vol. 3, no. 3, 2016, pp.

1-16.

Murphy, Christina, and Steve Sherwood. The St. Martin's Sourcebook for Writing Tutors, 4th ed.

Bedford, 2011.

Newkirk, Thomas. “The First Five Minutes: Setting the Agenda in a Writing Conference.” Writing and Response: Theory, Practice, and Research. Ed. Chris M. Anson. NCTE, 1989, pp. 317-331.

North, Stephen. “Training Tutors to Talk about Writing.” College Composition and Communication, vol.

33, no. 4, 1982, pp. 434-441.

Sommers, Nancy. “Responding to Student Writing.”

College Composition and Communication, vol. 33, no. 2, 1998, pp. 148-156.

Stay, Byron. “When Re-writing Succeeds: An Analysis of Student Revisions.” Writing Center Journal, vol. 4, no. 1, 1983, pp. 15-29.

Straub, Richard. “Students Reactions’ to Teacher Comments: An Exploratory Study.” Research in the Teaching of English, vol. 32, no. 1, 1997, pp. 91-119.

Straub, Richard, and Ronald F. Lunsford. Twelve Readers Reading: Responding to College Student Writing.

Hampton, 1995.

Stone, Douglas, and Sheila Heen. Thanks for the Feedback: The Science and Art of Receiving Feedback Well. Penguin, 2014.

---. Finding the Coaching in Criticism: The Right Ways to Receive Feedback.” Harvard Business Review, 2014, pp. 108-111.

“I Was Kind of Angry” • 32! !

Thonus, Therese. “Tutor and Student Assessments of Academic Writing Tutorials: What is “Success”?

Assessing Writing, vol. 8, 2002), pp. 110 -134.

Treglia, Maria Ornella. “Feedback on Feedback: Exploring Student Responses to Teachers’ Written Commentary.” Journal of Basic Writing, vol. 27, no.

1, 2008, pp. 105-136.

Walker, Carolyn P. and David Elias. “Writing Conference Talk: Factors Associated with Highand Low-Rated Writing Conferences.” Research in the Teaching of English, vol. 21, no. 3, 1987, pp. 266285.

Weaver, Melanie R. “Do Students Value Feedback?

Student Perceptions of Tutors’ Written Responses.” Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, vol. 31, no. 3, 2006, pp. 379-394.

Williams, Jessica. “Tutoring and Revision: Second Language Writers in The Writing Center.” Journal of Second Language Writing, vol. 13, no. 3, 2004, pp.

173-201.

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Appendix A

“I Was Kind of Angry” • 33! !

Pre-Assignment Survey 1. Describe the types of feedback you’ve received on your writing previously, academic or otherwise. Feedback includes oral comments or written comments directly on your writing or in rubric sheets, etc.

2. What type or form of feedback do you prefer? Why? 3. What type of form of feedback do you least prefer? Why? 4. What is the best response you’ve ever received to your writing, and why do you believe it the best?

5. What is the worst response you’ve ever received to your writing, and why do you believe it the worst?

6. How do you usually feel when you receive feedback on your writing?

7. How do you think most writers feel about receiving feedback?

8. How often do you revise your writing based on feedback you’ve received? a. All the time b. The majority of the time c. About half of the time d. Some times e. Rarely 9. What percentage of feedback do you normally utilize and apply, either to the writing under review or to future writing? a. 100% b. 75-99% c. 50-74% d. 25-49% e. Less than 25% Anything else you’d like to add?

Revision Plan 1.

What is the assignment/ prompt? (You can copy and paste this from previous notes)

2.

What feedback and suggestions did you receive from your Elon/Wittenberg peer? Please be detailed.

3.

4.

5.

6.

What feedback and suggestions did you receive from your class peer? Please provide a detailed summary of the main suggestions you received.

Which suggestions are you planning to work on as you revise your writing, and why?

Which suggestions from either of your peers are you not planning to work on? Please explain why you do not plan to address these suggestions. (For instance, if a piece of feedback doesn’t seem relevant to you, say why.)

What additional revisions, not discussed with your peers, are you planning on tackling?

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

“I Was Kind of Angry” • 34! !

Reflection Memo What did you learn about your own writing by completing this exchange assignment?

What did you learn about crafting and delivering feedback by READING AND COMMENTING on the exchange essay?

What did you learn about crafting and delivering feedback by RECEIVING comments from your exchange reader?

What did you learn about crafting and delivering feedback from giving and receiving feedback from your classmate on this draft? (Peer sessions in either Wittenberg’s English 242 or Elon’s English 319) How satisfied are you with your revision plans?

1: Not at all satisfied 2 3 4 5: Extremely Satisfied Any other comments?

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Appendix B

“I Was Kind of Angry” • 35! !

First Interview (done right after assignment is completed) Purpose of interview: ● Capture their perspectives about learning to deliver feedback and about being a recipient of feedback ● Capture their attitudes about giving and receiving feedback First interview questions: 1. Please describe the feedback you received from Elon/Wittenberg?

—Follow up: what comments did they make on your writing? What aspects of your writing did they comment on? ***what exactly the feedback was (examples of what they said instead of evaluative comments) 2. Describe your initial reaction when you first read the response from /Elon/Wittenberg? *emotional response —How did you initially feel about the feedback you were given: were there pieces of feedback that you more open to?

Were there pieces of feedback that you were more resistant to? Or anything else?

3. Now that you have completed the assignment, have your thoughts about that response changed since that time? (If so, in what way? And why did you/do you think?)

4. What revisions did you actually make? Why? And why didn’t you choose to incorporate other pieces of feedback?

5. Please describe the feedback you wrote on the Elon/Wittenberg paper.

6. How does the feedback you received compare to the feedback you gave, as you recall?

7. In what way would your consulting/advising comments be the same or different if the session was face-to-face?

8. In what way, if any, has this experience of receiving feedback informed your practice as a WC consultant/advisor?

9. In what way, if any, has this experience of giving feedback informed your practice as a WC consultant/advisor?

10. What, if anything, might you do differently as a writing consultant/advisor given this exchange experience?

Second Interview (done at the end of semester) Purpose of interview: ● Capture their reflections/ perspectives on how much they used/ relied on the assignment experience as they continued to work in the WC through the semester ● Capture their attitudes about giving and receiving feedback 1. What do you remember about the feedback you received from Elon/Wittenberg at the beginning of the semester?

— Review feedback and ask them what was most impactful 2. Do you remember how you felt about this feedback? If so, how do you recall feeling? How do you feel about it now?

3. What comment do you remember the most? Or, what is one word you would use to summarize the response?

4. What insights do you have from the client/advisor’s perspective as a recipient of feedback from this experience?

5. Since this assignment, have you used any insights or experiences to inform your writing center consulting practice? If so, please explain how so. If not, please explain why not.

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

“I Was Kind of Angry” • 36! !

— Give me an example.

6. What do you remember about the feedback you gave to your Elon/Wittenberg counterpart?

— Review feedback and ask them if they would do anything differently now

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Appendix C Figure 1 Word Clouds

Tutors’ responses to feedback (left) and their view of general writers’ responses (right).

The larger the word in the cloud, the more frequently it occurred in their responses.

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

“I Was Kind of Angry” • 37! !

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17 No 1 (2019)

A PRACTITIONER’S INQUIRY INTO PROFESSIONALIZATION: WHEN WE DOES NOT EQUAL COLLABORATION Georganne Nordstrom University of Hawaiʻi at georgann@hawaii.edu Abstract This pilot study details how a Practitioner Inquiry methodology was implemented as both a practice and research heuristic in our center.

I explain how I draw from the foundational tenets of Practitioner Inquiry (Nordstrom) to foster collaboration among consultants and between consultants and the director in the running of our center.

At the same time, I employ Practitioner Inquiry as a framework to produce Replicable, Aggregable, Data-supported (RAD) research to determine the efficacy of this approach in terms of consultant learning and their professionalization through qualitative and quantitative discourse analysis on consultants’ end-of-semester anonymous evaluations of their experiences working in the center.

Recent scholarship points to the potential benefits that working in writing centers facilitates for consultants (Kail et al.), and represents our centers as pedagogical spaces that engender consultant learning and professionalization. This article furthers this work through an empirical investigation of the less examined subtopic of the director-consultant relationship in the context of the administration of the center. In addition, it acts as a case study that illustrates the efficacy of Practitioner Inquiry as a methodology for both practice and research.

When perusing writing center research published over the years, it quickly becomes apparent that a significant body of our literature focuses on consultant training and the relationship between the consultant and the writer. Indeed, this work has been fundamental not only for informing best practices for consultant training, but also in giving us language for talking about the services we provide to the student writers who visit our centers and, by extension, to our academic institutions. Comparatively less attention, however, has been paid to the relationship between the administrator of the center and consultants and the ways consultants benefit from their work experiences beyond the specific act of tutoring. The increasing attention on writing centers as pedagogical spaces that support consultant learning and professionalization, however, has laid a foundation for inquiry into what consultants gain from participating in the administration of the center. Harvey Kail et al.’s groundbreaking online project, The Peer Writing Tutor Alumni Research Project is dedicated to examining what students get out of their “education and experience as peer writing tutors.” In “Publications about Tutor Alumni Research and Tutor Learning,” Kail et al. identify fifty-six publications that, in different ways, address consultant learning. While a majority of these articles provide insights into the skills consultants gain through the actual act of tutoring,

several begin to explore the different skills consultants acquire through engagement in administration.

Building on this work, in this article I discuss how I applied a Practitioner Inquiry methodology to the director-consultant work relationship to foster collaboration in the management of our center, and at the same time, used Practitioner Inquiry as a framework for research to produce Replicable, Aggregable, Data-supported (RAD) research on the efficacy of this approach. This pilot study details the collaborative approaches and practices implemented over the course of one academic year in the administration of our center. In terms of benefits realized by consultants, the focus encompasses center management and consultant training, but not necessarily actual consultant-writer interactions (although arguably it is impossible to separate these).

In this article, I will discuss the ways emphasizing the consultants’ knowledge and experiences in the creation of a shared vision for our center fostered collaboration and ownership of the center. To determine the efficacy of this approach in terms of consultant learning and their professionalization, I conduct discourse analysis on consultants’ end-of-semester anonymous evaluations of their experiences working in the center.

With this study, I hope to move beyond a narrow focus on collaboration in the tutor-writer relationship.

I hope to demonstrate that implementing practices that enhance collaboration in the director-consultant relationship yields positive, practical results, which add depth to our understandings of writing centers as collaborative and pedagogical spaces that support consultant learning and professionalization.

Understanding Centers as a Pedagogical Space for Consultants While writing center literature examining consultant learning makes up a relatively small portion of writing center scholarship overall, there has been sustained attention to this important topic since the 1970s. The list of works included in Kailey et al.’s “Publications about Tutor Alumni Research and Tutor Learning” begins in 1978 and provides a comprehensive representation of scholarship that contributes to our understanding of what consultants

gain from their work.1 Moreover, looking at publication dates points to increasing interest in this area of research: among the 56 publications listed, 36 (63%) were published since 2000, and 25 of those 36 (69%) were published since 2005: eight in the Writing Lab Newsletter (WLN); three in The Writing Center Journal (WCJ); one in Praxis: A Writing Center Journal (Praxis); eight in anthologies or books; two in journals not specific to writing center studies; one in a conference proceeding; one is a dissertation, and one is a website.

To better understand how consultant learning is being treated in on our research, I focus on 12 articles published since 2005 (one not included on Kail et al.’s list) in the three journals specifically focused on writing center studies: the WLN, WCJ, and Praxis.

Among the eight articles that have been published in WLN, three focus on what consultants gain from actual tutoring (Kedia; Monroe; Dinitz and Kiedaisch), two look specifically at the transferability of skills acquired as consultants for future teachers or in other jobs (Whalen; Hammerbacher et al.; Gerald), and one examines teachers who work in centers (Moneyhun and Hanlon-Baker).

While several of these articles mention administrative roles, only one of the eight WLN articles focuses solely on the learning and skills acquired from such work. In “Shaping Careers in the Writing Center,” Kathleen Welsch “examine[s] how writing centers contribute to the professional learning experience of our student staff,” focusing on five areas: administration, public relations, client relations, writing, and personal professional development (2). Welsch discusses the creation of administrative, public relations, and client relations “jobs” in her center that were filled by consultants and provides brief anecdotes from graduate assistants who worked in these positions who attest to the positive experience and skill sets gained. In light of the positive outcomes Welsch and her team experienced, the article ends with Welsch advocating center practitioners to explore such options in their own centers.

The three articles in WCJ that address consultant learning examine different aspects of tutoring and the transfer of skills: Bradley Hughes et al. provide an overview of the skills 126 former consultants indicate their working as peer consultants facilitated; Emily Isaacs and Ellen Kolba discuss pre-service teachers working in high school centers; and Kenneth Bruffee notes important skills gained from consultants teaching other consultants, briefly mentioning administrative skills among these.

In Naomi Silver et al.’s Praxis article, “From Peer Tutors to Writing Center Colleagues,” the authors

A Practitioner’s Inquiry into Professionalization • 39! ! discuss the implementation of a summer internship made available to two consultants and how the increased responsibilities in terms of training and center oversight provided an opportunity for “tutors to move beyond self interest and gain a more holistic perspective on professional work.” And, while not specifically addressing consultant learning (and not on Kail et al.’s list), Kelli Prejean’s Praxis article “Reaching in, Reaching Out: A Tale of Administration Experimentation and the Process of Administrative Inclusion,” details the creation of several administrative positions in her center and how working with her consultants as a team enabled her to accomplish things they would not have had they adhered to a directorconsultant paradigm wherein administrative work is solely/mostly the responsibility of the director.

Collectively, this body of scholarship points to the potential for consultant learning that working in writing centers facilitates; it represents our centers as pedagogical spaces that engender consultant learning and subsequently professionalization in addition to providing support for writers across our campuses.

This article furthers this work through an empirical investigation of the less examined subtopic of the director-consultant relationship in the context of the administration of the center. Moreover, it acts as a case study that illustrates the efficacy of Practitioner Inquiry as a methodology for both practice and research.

Methodology The Practitioner Inquiry model is particularly appealing to me as a writing center practitioner because it is designed to inform both praxis and research. In Practitioner Inquiry, a practitioner also assumes the role of researcher, conducting research in their own location of practice with their professional context and the practices enacted therein being the subjects of inquiry (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, Inquiry as Stance).

Moreover, it employs a systematic approach that produces RAD research with clearly identified methods (Nordstrom). In engendering research through their practice, a practitioner’s “stance” is foundational to this model. Marilyn Cochran-Smith and Susan Lytle call it “inquiry as stance” (Inquiry as Stance), and Sarah Liggett et al. name it “reflexive stance,” but each refers to practitioners developing “a worldview and habit of mind” (Cochran-Smith & Lytle, viii)—a stance, if you will—of continually reflecting on their work, where and how it is performed, then conducting research in order to improve efficacy in terms of educational outcomes.

An essential characteristic of Practitioner Inquiry, and a foundational concept in this project, is

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 31 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

collaboration. Collaboration is one of, if not the!!!!! key term associated with writing center work, and as with most writing center practitioners, it informs my work in multiple ways. I am interested in reinforcing collaboration as part of the tutoring environment in ways that move beyond the consultants’ relationship with student-writers to include the director-consultant relationship. To elucidate my understanding of collaboration, I draw from Indigenous (Smith) and feminist (Kirsch and Ritchie) methodologies. Both Linda Tuhiwai Smith and Gesa Kirsch and Joy Ritchie argue that for a project to be truly collaborative, all participants’ interests and ways of knowing must be taken into account and all participants should realize benefits. In other words, for me to determine if our center is collaborative, the consultants must have input in and benefit from their work in ways that are equitable with my input and benefit. By employing collaboration this way, it means that in addition to informing how we, the consultants and I, work together in our center, it also means using collaboration as a defining term to assess benefits realized by all parties.

The other key concept examined in this project is consultant professionalization.

In defining professionalization, I looked to general career-advice sources as consultants may pursue a variety of jobs both within and outside of academia. Consistent in several definitions of professionalism is the emphasis on attainment of “specialized knowledge” (MindTools) or “competence” (Joseph). No matter how it is categorized, discussions of professionalization point to a commitment to, or investment in, developing and improving expertise to enhance job performance and improve the work environment. Professionalization thus has implications for confidence (confidence is specifically mentioned in both sources cited here)— particularly in the way attainment of specialized knowledge can facilitate an individual claiming agency over that knowledge in achievement of the goals (i.e., services provided) of a particular workplace. So, for the purposes of this project, in the data I would be looking for evidence of investment, confidence/agency, and specific learning outcomes in relation to the work consultants perform in the center.

The broad research problem I focus on is the need to further document the ways consultants benefit from their writing center work; however, the central research questions for this project also need to account for the intersection between collaboration and professionalization. Foregrounding the conceptual frameworks outlined above, I designed the following two central research questions:

A Practitioner’s Inquiry into Professionalization • 40! !

1. Was a collaborative environment achieved in the writing center as evidenced by consultants indicating they experienced: a) investment in the work and work environment; b) agency in interactions and the work of the center; and c) learning/acquisition of skills?

2. Did employing a collaborative approach to our work have a positive impact on consultants’ professionalization?

Following the work of Matthew Miles and Michael Huberman on qualitative research methodologies, John Creswell notes the need to articulate subquestions that “narrow the focus of the study but leave open the questioning” (129130). I thus identified two sets of subquestions, one to inform each practice and research. When doing this, I remained particularly focused on how I was using collaboration as a frame to determine what all participants, the consultants and myself, brought to and gained from our work and the equity between the same. The first set of five subquestions were designed for inquiry into collaboration in our praxis: 1. What sources of knowledge do the consultants bring to the table?

2. How am I benefiting from the work consultants do?

3. How are the consultants benefiting?

4. What is the benefit to the center and those who use it?

5. Are the benefits fairly equitable or are they skewed to favor one party?

I then articulated four additional subquestions to guide the research and provide a means to capture consutlants’ professionalization, from their perspective, vis-a-vis the collaborative framework described above: 1. Do the consultants experience the writing center as a collaborative space?

2. Do the consultants indicate they have agency in the running of the center?

3. Do the consultants indicate they are learning skills?

4. Overall, do the findings suggest a correlation between a collaborative work environment and professionalization?

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 31 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Thus, in this study, Practitioner Inquiry is employed as a framework for praxis to foster a multi-directional collaborative relationship between the teacher-director and the studentconsultants to increase consultants’ agency. At the same time, Practitioner Inquiry informs the research design, particularly the goal of producing RAD research to document the efficacy of the approaches implemented in terms of professionalization by foregrounding data triangulation, systematicity, ! ! ! ! ! and recursivity in data collection, analysis, and presentation (Nordstrom).

In the next section, I discuss the approaches and practices implemented and articulate them with the first set of five subquestions designed to guide approaches to praxis, highlighting the ways Practitioner Inquiry informed my approach. I incorporate qualitative excerpts from the responses to end-of-semester evaluations in this discussion to give a general sense of student responses to these practices. I will then follow with a more robust treatment of the data gathered from the end-ofsemester evaluations.

Collaboration as Professionalization: Interventions To better capture the approaches initiated to facilitate collaboration as defined in the previous section by the first set of subquestions, I offer here a brief explanation of the practices I implemented as director of our writing center. Throughout the discussion, I will add in parenthesis Q1, Q2, etc. to refer to the specific subquestion a particular approach or practice addresses.

During the period data was collected for this pilot study, seven graduate assistants were assigned to the center each semester: five from English and two from Second Language Studies.

Undergraduate consultants are either simultaneously enrolled in a senior-level “Teaching Composition” course and, as part of the course practicum, work five hours per week as paid consultants; or have completed the course and been invited to continue as consultants. I refer to consultants who have worked in the center for more than one semester as “experienced,” and those concurrently enrolled in the course as “new.”

My first “job” as writing center director was to physically bring our center back to the English Department from the Learning Assistance Center, where it had been relocated several years prior.

The move provided the perfect opportunity for a

A Practitioner’s Inquiry into Professionalization • 41! ! “fresh start.” I began envisioning ours as a “center for writers” rather than a writing center. I wanted to create a space where writers could come even if they weren’t working with a consultant, where they could book tables for a writing group, or just drop in to talk with other writers. Rebecca Jackson and Jackie Grutsch McKinney capture the veritable cornucopia of resources provided by writing centers that go beyond tutoring, and scholarship and listserv discussions both indicate that writing centers, in general, are “active in being resource centers for teachers and students” (Harris qtd. in Threadgill 20). Following the example of other writing centers, I also wanted to expand the services and supports we offer.

When entertaining the possibilities, it was apparent to me that my position as faculty and director distanced me in certain ways from the student body such initiatives are meant to serve. I knew I could greatly benefit from the experiences and knowledge my staff brought as both consultants and students. I wanted to articulate an approach for working with the consultants that reinforced their investment in the center and facilitated a collaborative work relationship between all of us. I believe strongly that a work environment built on these premises would nurture the invaluable resource that is our consultants.

To prepare the new writing center space, I, like so many other writing center administrators, attended to the physical nature of the center: I cleaned and brought in a couch, tables, chairs, and plants; set up a coffee and tea station; put up wall hangings; joined the listserv; subscribed to (inexpensive) appointment software (not really knowing what I needed); set up weekly consultant meetings and implemented a training plan that included readings, presentations, and time for consultants to share. The goal was to create a place where students felt welcome to hang out, working under the assumption that if students were “in” a space that was positively associated with writing, it could translate into positive relationships with writing.

Every modification was intended to engender a collaborative, supportive space, but so much of this work took place prior to my actually meeting any consultants. I attempted to counter my autonomy over these decisions by actively seeking the consultants’ advice on the physical space, training, and session protocols once the semester began. The experienced consultants were quick to

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 31 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

offer suggestions and provide input, and after the semester started, all changes, no matter how seemingly trivial, were discussed as a group.

Maintaining transparency in terms of information proved to be key in establishing a collaborative environment. These efforts informed my practitioner “stance” and set the tone for our interactions as is evidenced in one consultant’s comment in the end-of semester evaluations: “[The Director] always discussed with us matters of importance (regarding policy and related updates) and went out of her way to instill a sense of agency and authority in us.”2 Knowing there was more work than I could possibly do alone, I recruited my first Assistant Director. This student had worked as a consultant longer than any of the others and thus brought a lot of experience and knowledge to this new position (Q1). Creating this administrative position that drew on the consultant’s knowledge reflects the Practitioner Inquiry position that assumes “those who work in a particular educational context … have significant knowledge about those situations” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, Inquiry as Stance 42). The Assistant Director not only had lengthy tutoring experience, but was also a student at our institution, and, as such, possessed an understanding of the student body that differed from my own (Q1). We collaboratively agreed on the parameters of the job so that it met both of our needs and expectations. In terms of benefits: they would be graduating at the end of the semester and an administrative position would be a nice addition to their CV, so the benefits to both of us were material and immediate (Q2, Q3, and Q5).3 The addition of this position became a significant step in characterizing our consultants as both experts and professionals, who have the skills and maturity—both academic and professional— to take on administrative roles and responsibilities in the center.

Cognizant of their workload, I maintained a heightened vigilance concerning benefits to me outweighing benefits to the consultants (Q5). As I actively explored ways to expand opportunities for the consultants to have input in administration so that they could gain transferable skills and experience, I was cautious of exploiting them. I proceeded, informed by Practitioner Inquiry’s concept, “ways of knowing in communities,” because of its focus on “the conjoined efforts of teachers and students as inquirers [as a means to alter] the relations of power in the schools and

A Practitioner’s Inquiry into Professionalization • 42! ! universities” (Cochran-Smith and Lytle, “Teacher Research” 18). This pedagogical stance aligns with Andrea Lunsford’s “idea of a writing center informed by a theory of knowledge as socially constructed. . . that presents a challenge to the institution of higher education” (5). With its focus on student empowerment, incorporating this tenet into my stance helped ensure I was not exploiting my consultants’ desire to perform well in their jobs when presented with additional roles. This was and still is a tricky negotiation. The only way to really know whether someone is feeling “pushed in a direction” rather than “offered welcome opportunities” is to know—or observe—that they feel comfortable declining. I frequently asked the consultants in groups and individually if they had any concerns or felt overworked; however, I knew this didn’t entirely ensure candid responses. The end-of-semester evaluations thus became an important temperature check as did all eligible consultants requesting to continue to work in the center over the subsequent two semesters.

I continually tried to identify ways to add to my administrative support that created opportunities for the consultants to claim agency in the space. The consultants worked on miniprojects—such as updating our information flyer and the website, re-defining our mission statement, and articulating learning outcomes for both writers who visit the center and consultants who work there—while I provided oversight. I was very careful not to undo or redo anyone’s work; changes were discussed and negotiated, with the assumption that everyone brought expertise and knowledge to the conversation (Q1). I found that working with my consultants from this collaborative stance correlated to the consultants increasingly recognizing areas wherein they felt comfortable claiming agency. One student wrote in the end-of-semester evaluation, “[The Director] allows her employees room to grow and make decisions.” And, another commented: I was pretty darn satisfied with the amount of trust [the Director] had in all of us, which translated to a healthy amount of autonomy and independence she afforded her staff.

Though she was always clear and forthright about her expectations, [she] invariably treated us as emerging professionals capable of handling things well enough on our own.

If, as this statement suggests, the consultants were benefiting through academic maturation, both the center and I were also (Q2, Q3, and Q4).

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 31 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

The center was bustling with activity from 9-5 every day. Indeed, that first year, we facilitated almost 2000 appointments with students representing 123 different disciplines across campus. My colleagues often commented on the positive impact of the center, and, as a pre-tenured faculty, having this work recognized was a great benefit to me professionally (Q2).

In line with understanding our center as a pedagogical space that provides the consultants with a foundation in composition and writing center pedagogy (and now administration) (Q3), I next wanted to explore ways the experienced consultants could support the new consultants to add to their pedagogical experiences. Therefore, when it came time to incorporate the new consultants into the schedule, I turned to my experienced consultants for help with the orientation process. They are, after all, a significant source of knowledge when it comes to the everyday running of the center; in addition, some of them have worked in management and/or know quite a bit about training (Q1). Another key concern of mine was establishing a sense of camaraderie amongst all the consultants, similar to what had been established amongst the experienced consultants and myself.

We assigned each new consultant an experienced consultant “liaison” as their point of contact (Q1). Not only did this help me tremendously in the work of initiating the new consultants into the center (Q2), it worked to build a staff that became incredibly close and protective over each other. One consultant wrote on an evaluation, “Aside from the pleasure of talking to students about their writing, I really like the camaraderie the consultants had with each other.”

In the weekly meetings, which only experienced consultants attended, it was refreshing to hear how quickly the experienced consultants got to “know” the new consultants—they knew if they were having difficulties and frequently commented on tutoring styles. It became apparent to me that the experienced consultants were observing the new consultants, reflecting on their practices, and learning from them (Q3). I began to see our center as a multi-directional learning environment. It is well-documented that consultants acquire a tremendous skill set from tutoring, but consultants, in this case, were learning not only from working with and observing other consultants, but, as Bruffee points out, from teaching other consultants.

A Practitioner’s Inquiry into Professionalization • 43! !

With this basic foundation for working together in place, we decided to pursue some of our other goals for the center. Mindful of current scholarship on the robust range of services offered at other centers (Jackson and Grutsch McKinny; Threadgill), I raised the idea of creating workshops that the consultants could administer. I introduced the idea saying something like: “I have no idea what such a workshop can or should look like, I have no preconceived notions, I am open to all suggestions, who wants to take the project on?”

Several of the consultants immediately expressed interest. What transpired next was nothing short of amazing, not just in terms of the workshops produced, but also in terms of the ways these consultants engaged in this activity. What I observed as my consultants tackled this project suggests that having autonomy over a project fosters investment and adds another layer of skills to what consultants already learn from the more traditional aspects of the job (Q3). The consultants had to report each week on progress to the whole group. Several of the consultants had a unique knowledge base to draw from as they had been or were currently course-embedded peer mentors in First Year Writing (FYW) courses. While I work with peer mentors when I teach FYW, many of them had worked with several teachers, and thus brought a wide array of ideas on how to best serve the widest group of students (Q1).

At the foundation of Practitioner Inquiry is advocacy for collaboration with all participants and providing opportunities for the consultants to use their knowledge and implement their ideas align with this basic tenet. Articulating a collaborative framework for both the director–consultant and consultant-writer relationship creates the possibility for knowledge building on multiple levels. The consultants were drawing from their experiences working in the center and synthesizing that with their experiences as mentors in FYW courses, all of which was fostered by continual discussion of scholarship. These new roles that drew from their work as consultants and mentors and included leadership activities engendered professionalization in different ways than only tutoring did. Two of the consultants took the lead on the workshop project: they scaffolded the project into discrete tasks and asked each member of our group to work on one item. In addition to building a workshop template, they organized meetings, incorporated everyone’s ideas, and accomplished this work in a way that, remarkably,

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 31 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

increased the aura of collaboration in the center. In the evaluations, one consultant suggested that the workshop projects “[made] us feel like we all played an important part in a successful center,” and another stated, “I am certain that all consultants felt that we were contributing.”

By the end of that first year, there were two titled positions: Assistant Director and Workshop Coordinator. Assigning titles may seem a small thing, but, according to my staff, it changed the way they understand their roles in the center. One consultant commented: I must admit that when I was assigned the title of Workshop Coordinator, it helped me to understand the responsibilities that I had been given. I forced myself to take a more involved approach to being an administrator, and taking an active role in delegating responsibilities and effectively supporting the other consultants in their assignments.

The titled positions—which at the time had no clear job descriptions—somehow pushed the students to perform in ways they had not previously. One consultant related, “I can say with confidence that the assigning of titles along with additional duties only enhanced our prospects as emerging professionals… These duties required skills and habits that will serve me quite well in both academic and non-academic professional settings.”

Triangulation: Quantitative Data In the previous section, for anecdotal purposes I include several excerpts from the endof-semester consultant evaluations; however, selecting particular qualitative data to demonstrate positive response to a particular approach allows for a certain bias in the representation of data. To counter this bias, I triangulate these excerpts with a qualitative and quantitative analysis of the same evaluation responses. This data consists of answers to two end-of-semester writing center evaluations (Fall and Spring) made up of four questions written and administered by the Assistant Director.

The following questions were designed prior to the inception of this project, and not for the specific purpose of collecting data to address the previously noted research questions: !

1. Reflecting upon the Writing Center meetings you participated in, the supervision you received, and your overall work experience

A Practitioner’s Inquiry into Professionalization • 44! ! in the Center this semester, please identify and discuss the areas you were satisfied with.

2. Please identify and discuss the areas you would change (in other words, improve, eliminate, etc.) and, if possible, how you would change them.

3. Please identify and discuss areas, topics, or issues that you wish were addressed or addressed more during the meetings.

4. Please provide any additional comments about the training and supervision you received from [the director] this semester.

For this project, seven experienced consultants are the “participants” from whom data was gathered to evaluate the approach documented here. I focus on these consultants because they all worked in the center for an entire year; worked twice as many hours weekly as new consultants; and as the new consultants were simultaneously enrolled in the corresponding practicum course for at least one of the semesters, they filled out a different end-of-semester evaluation in adherence to departmental protocol.

For the fall semester, all seven consultants responded to the evaluation; however, inconsistently across questions: seven consultants responded to questions one and two, and six consultants responded to questions three and four.

In the spring semester, again all seven consultants responded to the evaluation, but, also again, inconsistently: seven consultants responded to questions one and four, and six consultants responded to questions two and three. Table 1 (see Appendix) reflects a breakdown of responses for the two semesters. Across both semesters, there were a total of 52 responses in 14 evaluations. All responses were included as data. I approached the analysis of the data in two ways, both which involve discourse analysis, to get at the extent to which collaboration, agency, learning, and investment were realized in terms of practice and benefits: 1. I conducted qualitative discourse analysis by coding the written responses for themes 2. To triangulate these findings, I quantified usage of collective pronouns—we, us, our— and examined their use in terms of inclusivity/exclusivity.

In my approach to coding the data at the sentence and phrase level, my goal was to identify

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 31 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

“repetitive patterns of action and consistencies in human affairs” (Saldaña 5), in terms of the consultant’s experience of our center. Following both Creswell and Johnny Saldaña’s recommended processes, I first read through! ! ! ! ! all fifty-two responses to get a general sense of the information, highlighting sentences or phrases that caught my attention in the context of the study. I then created a table with the sentences or clauses and went through them to identify in vivo codes— codes taken directly from what a participant wrote.

I employed an “Affective Coding Method” as this method “investigate[s] subjective qualities of human experience (e.g., emotions, values, conflicts, judgments) by directly acknowledging and naming those experiences” (Saldaña 86), which seemed the method most appropriate to uncover consultant’s perceptions about and reactions to their work. I then condensed codes. Except where meaning was obviously deviant, all forms of a word encompassed one code; for example, independent, independence, independently were grouped together within the code “independent.” I practiced recursivity throughout, sometimes recoding and recategorizing as I pondered different implications of written responses, codes, and categories.

Table 2 (see Appendix) lists the in vivo codes that were grouped together, the corresponding number of times a code appeared, and the category that was created for the grouping. When grouping, I looked for codes that addressed my original research questions and the subquestions, specifically investment, confidence/agency, skills acquisition/learning, and, the important overarching variable, collaboration. It is important to note that when considering the number of times a listed word appeared, only instances that aligned with actual consultant experience were counted.

For example, “Open” was counted when referring to “open discussion,” “open for feedback,” but not for “open the center earlier.” Since I had decided to use in vivo coding, if a meaning was vague or unclear, I left it out of my count.

The naming of the categories for Group 1 and 2 was rather straightforward: the cluster of codes in Group 1 represent behaviors and experiences that suggest consultants having Agency. For Group 2, the words all point to consultants being supported in some way, so I named the category Support. (Important to note here as it relates to the discussion of inclusive and exclusive we that follows is that the agent doing the support is me,

A Practitioner’s Inquiry into Professionalization • 45! ! the director; so, the director encouraged, nurtured, supported the consultants). Group 3 became the category Investment. The codes included in this group were taken from statements in which the consultants made explicit suggestions for training or administration, with 11 suggestions applicable to training and five to administration. The feature of professionalization operationalized for this this study is “a commitment to, or investment in, developing and improving expertise to enhance job performance and improve the work environment” (see pgs. 5-6). I posit that making suggestions for training and administration reflect investment in the workplace and a desire to improve job performance, both elements of professionalization as defined here. Group 4 was labeled Collaboration, as this is a primary theme in this study, and these words/phrases suggest collaboration. Lastly, as part of the collaborative approach includes ensuring all participants benefit and because in the evaluations consultants specifically (and without unsolicitation) identified what they learned, Learning was identified as the last category.

The categories are all operationalized, either directly or indirectly, in the subquestions informing this study: 1. Do the consultants experience the writing center as a collaborative space?

2. Do the consultants indicate they have agency in the running of the center?

3. Do the consultants indicate they are learning skills?

4. Overall, do the findings suggest a correlation between a collaborative work environment and professionalization?

Before addressing the categories with the highest and lowest number of references, Support (33) and Collaboration (7), I will first discuss the three categories with relatively similar numbers of references (Agency 16; Investment, 14; Learning, 12) in relation to questions two, three, and four.

Unsolicited by the questions, consultants consistently mentioned that they felt they could exercise agency in the space whether literally through decision making or having a sense of growing confidence. That Agency was referenced on average more than once per each evaluation (14 total evaluations, seven each semester), suggests that consultants felt they did have agency to some extent. The evaluation questions similarly did not

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 31 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

specifically ask about consultants’ learning; however, almost all consultants addressed specific things they learned across both semesters. The overt acknowledgment that they were learning and acquiring skills contextualize the center as a pedagogical space for consultants and indicates they realized a benefit to their work. This acquisition of skills also points to professional development in the context of how the term is defined here. In terms of the Investment category, to be fair, one of the evaluation questions specifically asks for consultant’s suggestions, although the question did not give any direction for these suggestions.

Overwhelmingly, consultants offered suggestions on training, and to lesser degree on administration. As such, these suggestions imply the consultants’ investment in their own improvement through training that enables them to better do their jobs.

Overall, I believe the findings point to adequate evidence that consultants felt they had agency, showed a level of investment through articulation of ways to expand training, and that they were actively learning skills that enabled them to perform better—outcomes all aligned with professionalization. These characteristics are also used to evaluate “collaboration” as articulated in the first central research question, as there is an indication a collaborative environment was achieved. Interestingly, however, collaboration was not alluded to as frequently in the evaluations. To further examine collaboration, I now turn to the Support and Collaboration categories.

Support had double the number of references compared to all other categories. Considering this academic year was the first year I was director and therefore the first year any of the consultants had worked with me, and indeed several of the consultants’ first time working in a center, I see this as a positive outcome. I should be providing support in terms of both soft (confidence, agency) and hard (specific tutoring strategies) skills.

Moreover, I am the director, and therefore while achieving a collaborative environment is key for me, especially in that I believe a collaborative environment fosters consultants’ professional development, I still need to provide the model and direction—at least until consultants acquire enough experience and grounding in the scholarship to claim more agency in their own development. Interestingly, direct references to collaboration were fewer than in any other category. The extent to which Support was

A Practitioner’s Inquiry into Professionalization • 46! ! referenced and collaboration was not has implications for understanding how collaboration was enacted in the center, a topic I explore in the following discussion of the collective pronoun we as inclusive and exclusive.

To more fully capture the extent to which collaboration was realized and to provide a data set to triangulate the findings discussed above, I conducted quantitative discourse analysis at the word and sentence level and compared uses of the collective pronouns (we, our, us) to the singular I. Table 3 (see Appendix) presents the number of times each pronoun was used and the ratio of plural pronoun usage to singular. I further examined uses of we in light of linguistics research that complicates the use of we in terms of how it constructs collectivity. Joanne Scheibman notes, “First person non-singular expressions reveal ways in which speakers align themselves with other individuals and groups in discourse. These uses also draw attention to the types of collectivities participants routinely identify within a given language community” (23). Specifically, research on we usage articulates “grammatical distinctions between the inclusive and exclusive” (24): Inclusivity is frequently represented through present tense predicates or use of modals (can, could, may, might, must, ought to, shall, should, will, and would) and exclusivity through past tense predicates (24). The numerical data below the dotted line in the “# of times we is used” column in Table 3 represents the number of times and corresponding percentage we appeared with past tense predicates, which would suggest exclusivity.

After examining how we is used in the evaluations in light of the linguistic scholarship on we, I identified two uses of we: 1. an inclusive we referring to the consultants and me, the director; and 2. an exclusive we that refers to only the consultants, separate from me. The data indicates that overall plural pronoun usage is close to 80% compared to the number of times consultants invoked a singular I, suggesting that the consultants do align with a group; however, examining we in terms of inclusivity and exclusivity complicates this finding.

Consultants overwhelmingly employed an exclusive use of we (68%), suggesting that the we excluded the addressee (Scheibman 24), which in this case, would be me, the director.

These findings are particularly interesting in terms of applications and claims of collaboration in writing centers. In this particular case, the data

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 31 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

suggests that efforts to facilitate a collaborative environment were realized, but not in the full extent intended. If the consultants’ use of we is representative of their experience working in the center and an indication of the collectivity they align themselves most frequently with, then they often see me, the director as apart from that group.

This finding aligns with the earlier discussion of the Support category. I do not necessarily see this outcome as negative: I am the director after all, and I should be both providing support and training to the consultants. However, these findings do complicate claims of collaboration—in particular, the extent to which a collaborative environment was achieved between the director and the consultants. Moreover, that 30% of the time the inclusive we is used could point to a shift from consultants aligning themselves mostly with only other consultants to seeing all of us as one group. This finding, in particular, would be interesting to track over time as consultants work in a center longer to determine if the ratio shifts to favor the inclusive we.

Overall, in terms of the central research questions discussed, the data gathered from the open-ended evaluation questions indicate that a collaborative environment was achieved, although perhaps not in the way I expected. Consultants noted ways they benefited from their experience working in the center, and as indicated by their suggestions for training and policy, were invested in their work, both which also point to professionalization. The data does not draw an explicit connection between collaboration and professionalization, although a correlation is implied. The collaborative approach to running the center provided space for the consultants to claim agency, and this arguably led to their feeling comfortable enough to make suggestions for improvement. It does seem that the consultants see themselves as being a part of a distinct group separate from me. I think this is both productive and points to the ways practices can be shaped going forward to facilitate a next all-inclusive level of collaboration.

Conclusion: Next Steps End-of-semester evaluations, such as the ones I quote in the previous section, are a valid form of data for assessing whether Practitioner Inquiry is a viable framework that supports both collaboration and research in the writing center; however, it is only one form of data, and in this case, has been

A Practitioner’s Inquiry into Professionalization • 47! ! used to evaluate only one year and one set of consultants. To determine the efficacy of the practices I discuss here in terms of professionalization, more data needs to be collected and outcomes need to be documented over time. The next phase of this project would therefore require further operationalizing of the term professionalization specifically in terms of collaboration, continued documentation vis-a-vis consultant evaluations of practices for at least one additional year, as well as the implementation of an assessment tool designed to gather feedback specific to the assignation of administrative roles in the center.

When we talk about collaboration in writing center pedagogy, much of the focus has been on the consultant-writer relationship. My hope is that the research presented here addresses the increasing interest in what has been a relatively under-examined, and potentially highly impactful, outcome of writing center work—consultant learning. After all, recasting our centers as not only providing a service that supports writers across our campuses, but as a pedagogical space that provides consultants with training and skills that benefit them in careers both in and out of academia, elevates the work we do in significant ways.

Specifically, I assert that implementing practices that enhance collaboration in the directorconsultant relationship adds depth to the collaborative nature of the center and ultimately has implications for consultant learning. In this study, Practitioner Inquiry informed practices that created space for us to incorporate the consultants’ wide array of skills and knowledge, and also provided a model for assessing and theorizing these practices that align with both writing center and RAD research, making it an ideal framework for conducting research in the writing center.

Notes 1. I would like to acknowledge and thank Harvery Kail, Paula Gillespie, and Bradley Hughes for making this rich resource available.

2. Although I use gender-neutral pronouns in this article, excerpts from student evaluations appear verbatim, and pronoun usage remains as originally written by the students.

3. Following their graduation, this consultant went on to secure a job as a writing center director.

Works Cited

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 31 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Bruffee, Kenneth. A. “What Being A Writing Peer Tutor Can Do for You.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 28, no. 2, 2008, 5-10.

Cochran-Smith, Marilyn, and Susan Lytle. Inquiry as Stance: Practitioner Research for the Next Generation.

Teachers College Press: 2009.

---. “The Teacher Research Movement: The Next Decade.” Educational Researcher, vol. 28, no. 15, 1999, 15-25.

Creswell, John. Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. Sage Publications, 2009.

Dinitz, Susan and Jean Kiedaisch. “Tutoring Writing as Career Development.” The Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 34, no. 3, 2009, 1-5.

Gerald, Amy S. “Back to the Center: A Former Tutor Reflects.” The Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 33, no. 8, 2009, 11-13.

Hammerbacher, Maggie, et al. “The Road Less Traveled: English Education Majors Applying Practice and Pedagogy.” The Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 30, no. 8, 2006, 14-16.

Hughes, Bradley, et al. “What They Take with Them: Findings from the Peer Writing Tutor Alumni Research Project.” The Writing Center Journal, vol.

30, no. 2, 2010, 12-46.

Isaacs, Emily and Ellen Kolba. “Mutual Benefits: PreService Teachers and Public School Students in the Writing Center.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 29, no. 2, 2009, 52-74.

Jackson, Rebecca. and Jackie Grutsch McKinney.

“Beyond Tutoring: Mapping the Invisible Landscape of Writing Center Work.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 9, no. 1, 2012, http://www.praxisuwc.com/jackson-mckinney-91.

Accessed 23 July 2018.

Joseph, Chris. "10 Characteristics of Professionalism." Small Business - Chron.com, 27 June 2018, smallbusiness.chron.com/10-characteristicsprofessionalism-708.html. Accessed 8 Feb. 2019.

Kail, Harvey, et al. The Peer Writing Tutor Alumni Research Project. 2018, http://www.writing.wisc.edu/pwtarp. Accessed 27 July 2018.

Kedia, Soma. “Everything I Needed to Know about Life I Learned at the Writing Center.” The Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 31, no. 7, 2007, 13-15.

Kirsch, Gesa and Joy Ritchie. “Beyond the Personal: Theorizing a Politics of Location in Composition Research.” College Composition and Communication, vol. 46, no. 1, Feb. 1995, 7-29.

A Practitioner’s Inquiry into Professionalization • 48! !

Liggett, Sarah, et al. “Mapping Knowledge-Making in Writing Center Research: A Taxonomy of Methodologies.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 31, no. 2, 2011, 50-88.

Lunsford, Andrea. “Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 16, no. 4-5, 1991-1992, 3-10.

Miles, Matthew B. and A. Michael Huberman.

Qualitative Data Analysis: A Sourcebook of New Methods. Sage Pub, 1994.

Mindtools Content Team. “Professionalism: Developing this Vital Characteristic.” Mindtools, Essential Skills for an Excellent Career, 2019, http://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/profess ionalism.htm. Accessed 8 Feb. 2019.

Moneyhun, Clyde and Patti Hanlon-Baker. “Tutoring Teachers.” The Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 36, no.

9-10, 2012 1-5.

Monroe, Meghan. “Reflection: How the Writing Center Rekindled My Passion and Purpose to Teach.” The Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 31, no. 6, 2007, 14-15.

Nordstrom, Georganne. “Practitioner Inquiry: Articulating a Model for RAD Research in the Writing Center.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 35, no. 1, 2015, 87-116.

Prejean, Kelli. “Reaching in, Reaching out: A Tale of Administration Experimentation and the Process of Administrative Inclusion.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 7, no 2, 2010, http://www.praxisuwc.com/prejean-72. Accessed 27 July 2018.

Saldaña, Johnny. Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers.

Sage Publications, 2009.

Scheibman, Joanne. “Referentiality, Predicate Patterns, and Functions of We-Utterances in American English Interactions.” Constructing Collectivity: ʻWe’ across Languages and Contexts. Edited by TheodossiaSoula Pavlidou, John Benjamins Publishing, 2014, 23-44.

Silver Naomi, et al. “From Peer Tutors to Writing Center Colleagues.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 7, no. 1, 2009, http://www.praxisuwc.com/silver-et-al-71.

Accessed 27 July 2018.

Smith, Linda Tuhiwai. Decolonizing Methodologies: Research and Indigenous Peoples. Zed Books, 1999.

Threadgill, Elizabeth. "Writing Center Work Bridging Boundaries: An Interview with Muriel Harris."

Journal of Developmental Education, vol. 34, no. 2, 2010, 20-22. ERIC. Accessed 6 August 2018.

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 31 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Welsch, Kathleen. “Shaping Careers in the Writing Center.” The Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 32, no. 8, 2008, 1-8.

Whalen, Lisa. “Putting Your Writing Center Experience to Work.” The Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 29, no. 9, 2005, 9-10.

A Practitioner’s Inquiry into Professionalization • 49! !

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 31 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Appendix

A Practitioner’s Inquiry into Professionalization • 50! !

Table 1 Summary of Number of Evaluation Responses for each Question

Table 2 In Vivo Groupings

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 31 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

A Practitioner’s Inquiry into Professionalization • 51! !

Table 3 Comparison of Singular to Collective Pronoun Usage

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 31 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019)

WRITING GROUPS: AN ANALYSIS OF PARTICIPANTS’ EXPECTATIONS AND ACTIVITIES Claire McMurray University of Kansas mcmurrayclaire@ku.edu Abstract Writing groups are a valuable way for writers to improve their writing, receive feedback, gain accountability, and increase their motivation. However, groups are only beneficial if participants decide to join one, stay in it, and are satisfied with the outcome.

Much of what guides these decisions is based on what participants initially expect from a group. Little is known about what potential writing group members believe they will do in a group. The current study offers data about writing group expectations and satisfaction rates gathered from surveys and interviews with writing group participants. Findings suggest that expected writing group activities fell into four separate categories: skill-based, draft-based, timebased, and emotion-based activities. Recommendations for writing groups are offered based on these trends.

Introduction “Due to my poor English grammar influencing my course paper, I think I need to join a writing group to improve my writing ability.”

“I think I could benefit from some accountability.”

“I’m interested in […] getting some serious writing done.”

“I want to take the writing lessons, look forward your help and tell what I should to do.”

“Is this group like a student organization or it is tutoring?”

The quotes above are taken from emails sent to me by graduate students and visiting scholars interested in joining a writing group in our writing center. Their words highlight how widely motivations to participate in a group can vary, how participants may hold misconceptions about groups, and how writers may not understand what a writing group is at all. At our writing center, such inquiries are par for the course at the beginning of every semester. The students’ and scholars’ common questions and hopes regarding writing groups have led me, as the coordinator of such groups, to ask questions of my own. What do participants really want from a writing group? What do they expect it to be like? What activities do they imagine they will do in a group? I ask these questions because participant expectations can often affect a writing group’s functioning, attendance record, and success. I have found that expectations guide whether a participant decides to join a certain group, continues

to participate in it, and is ultimately satisfied with the experience.

These common questions led me to investigate what participants expected from writing groups in my writing center. Over the course of several semesters I administered a series of participant surveys and conducted interviews that probed expected writing group activities. In general, expectations fell into four main categories: skill-based, draft-based, time-based, and emotion-based activities. Each category grouped together similar types of activities that happen in writing groups, such as “working on my thesis or dissertation,” “jumpstarting my writing,” or “becoming motivated about my writing.” I also looked at what actual activities these participants engaged in during the semester and how this affected overall satisfaction rates. I then created recommendations about forming and running writing groups based on these findings. I found that it is important to explain what a writing group is and how it functions to novice group members before they meet. It is also extremely helpful either to create separate groups based on my four activity categories or to conduct one’s own investigation of expected writing group activities in one’s local context. Lastly, all writing group members must understand the importance of bringing specific documents to work on in their group.

In this article, I briefly sketch out the literature on writing groups and my study’s theoretical framework in Part I before I explain how my study was designed and carried out in Part II. In Part III I present and discuss my findings before summarizing major trends in the data and offering recommendations in Part IV. In the end, I discuss the by discussing limitations of my study and providing some final thoughts about writing groups.

Part I: The Literature on Writing Groups Defining and Dividing Writing Groups Writing groups can be difficult to define and discuss because they vary so widely. Sarah Haas points out that there is no “fixed understanding” of groups, though all “involve writers coming together to support each other” and “share the common goal of improving both process and product of writing” (31). Several

Writing Groups: An Analysis of Participants’ Expectations and Activities • 53! ! types of writing groups also exist, such as groups that 195). Little consideration has been given to what use the time to write, groups that primarily provide happens before a group begins to meet. emotional support, and groups in which drafts are We know from other areas of writing center exchanged. The diversity of writing groups means that scholarship how crucial initial impressions and they can be divided and analyzed from several different expectations can be. Scholars have done much work to angles. Scholars have written about groups inside and study and combat the common misconceptions about outside the classroom (Moss et al.), undergraduate writing center consultations: papers being edited or (George; Spear; Graham et al.) and graduate groups proofread, tutors teaching grammar lessons, (Gradin et al.; Maher et al.; Aitchison, “Learning”), consultations increasing a student’s grade, etc. (North; groups with and without leaders (George), and groups Farkas; Rollins). Many researchers have also considered internal and external to universities (Aitchison, how students and faculty perceive writing centers “Writing”). A few authors have also demonstrated how generally (Hayward; Rodis; Masiello and Hayward; particular groups can also focus on certain populations, Enriquez et al.; Franklin Ikeda et al.; Inman and such as women, dissertation writers, faculty members, Silverstein). Some scholars have even examined and community members (Inman and Silverstein; particular metaphors used to reference writing centers Pololi et al.; Westbrook; Fajt et al.).

(Pemberton; Fischer and Harris; Owens; Rollins). This For the current study, I have chosen to focus on knowledge about others’ perceptions and expectations the reasons why participants join a group. A few has, in turn, led scholars to counter unrealistic scholars have briefly mentioned how groups can be expectations and to examine the ways in which we divided upon these lines. In Haas’ “Pick ‘n Mix promote writing center services (Bishop; Hawthorne; Typology,” made up of 11 different writing group Carino; Harri; Cirillo-McCarthy et al.). It has even dimensions, she describes three different “purposes” allowed researchers to analyze the kind of language for a writing group: generally provide mutual support used to advertise writing consultations and how best to to increase quantity/quality of writing of members, harness the power of such language (Hemmeter; specific activity common to members, and other Runciman; Harris; Cirillo-McCarthy et al.). This body purpose (32). Maher et al. also discuss different of scholarship, based on collected evidence, has helped “motivations to participate” in a writing group: many writing center professionals to set appropriate protected time and space, maintaining momentum, expectations about individual consultations and to accountability to others, and common purpose (199increase the success of this type of service. Similar 202). However, there are many more motivations one data-driven research on writing groups is necessary if might have for joining a group, as my research on we are to do the same for this valuable type of writing writing group participants’ expectations will support. It is for this reason that I decided to conduct demonstrate. my study exploring what potential writing group members envision before joining a group.

Writing about Groups There is a strong consensus in the literature about Theoretical Framework the positive outcomes and benefits of groups. Most of In order to provide a theoretical framework to those who write about groups agree that writing groups account for what writing group participants expect have powerful benefits, such as sustained support from before joining a group I have pieced together several other writers (Phillips), strategies for learning to write concepts from social cognitive theory, goal theory, and (Aitchison, “Writing”), metacognition about the motivation in education. I have also borrowed writing process (Ruggles Gere and Abbott), and active terminology from all of these fields. In my study, I participation in the creation of knowledge (Ruggles used the loose term expectation, rather than the more Gere). specific term goal, because I wanted to probe the full Though there are some theoretically-informed range of what writers envisioned before joining a works about writing groups, such as Anne Ruggles group. However, there is much overlap among these Gere’s Writing Groups: History, Theory, and terms in the literature. When comparing my study Implications, scholars generally approach groups results to work done by other scholars, I am often through individual case studies of successful groups. forced to use expectations and goals interchangeably.

These studies tend to be descriptive and reflective but My use of the term expectation most closely aligns contain little data, such as survey results or interviews with social cognitive theory, in which outcome with participants.1 Most discussion about writing expectations, a concept highlighted by scholar Albert groups also focuses on what has happened after a Bandura, means “the anticipated consequences of group has begun operating successfully (Maher et al. actions.” Bandura’s field defines goals broadly as Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Writing Groups: An Analysis of Participants’ Expectations and Activities • 54! ! “objectives that people are trying to accomplish” avoidance goals. In these two studies there is again (Schunk et al. 140, 141). Particularly important for my overlap with my own. All studies, my own included, study is the fact that behind every goal, consequence, revealed at least one set of students whose writing or expectation is a particular purpose, or motivation. goals included gaining writing skills and a deeper Motivation is not always apparent, but its presence can understanding of writing, either in the form of general be inferred from actions. It is conceived of as the writing goals, mastery goals, or skill-based writing system of “inner forces, enduring traits, rewards, group activities. However, all scholars, like me, beliefs, and affects” supporting one’s actions or discovered other writers who expected and were behaviors (Schunk et al. 4). My study was designed to motivated by many other things. I wanted to probe this examine both what writers expected before they join a full range of expectations and their effects on writing group and, thus, what motivated them to join one. group participants.

The field of outcome expectations is a natural place to start when examining what one expects before Research Questions engaging in a particular activity. Outcome expectations In my study I was guided by the following research are often viewed as if-then statements: “If I engage in questions: this activity, then I can expect a particular […] outcome” (Fouad and Guillen 134). Scholars in social 1. What activities do writing group participants cognitive theory often refer to outcome expectations in anticipate before they participate in a writing terms of actions, activities, or behaviors (Bandura; group?

Fouad and Guillen; Aslam et al.). Aslam et al. point out 2. What activities do participants actually engage that outcome expectations “cannot have a motivational in during their groups? effect until individuals are clear on how these 3. Does a close alignment between expected outcomes are related to actions in their particular writing group activities and actual group environment” (22). This is why I focused my interview activities predict high satisfaction rates at the and survey questions on particular writing group end of the semester? activities.

4. Does a disconnect between expected writing In addition to outcome expectations, Goal group activities and actual group activities Orientation Theory can help us to make sense of predict low satisfaction rates at the end of the writers’ goals and expectations when joining a group. semester?

Goal Orientation Theory is “concerned with why students want to attain a goal and how they approach Part II: Study Design and engage in [a] task.” The two most common goal My study was conducted at a writing center in a orientations are mastery goal and performance goal large public research and teaching institution in the orientations. Mastery goal orientation represents “a Midwest. To assess writing group participants’ focus on learning [or] mastering the task according to expectations about writing groups, actual group self-set standards or self-improvement” (Schunk et al. activities, and participant satisfaction levels, I used a 186, 187). Performance goal orientation, on the other combination of end-of-semester surveys and personal hand, involves demonstrating an ability and being interviews administered over the course of six judged by others (Schunk et al. 187). In the case of my semesters.2 Participants were graduate students study, many participants revealed an interest in mastery (masters and doctoral) and visiting scholars from a goal orientation when they mentioned writing group variety of departments, years of study, ages, and activities that would lead to mastering certain writinglinguistic and ethnic backgrounds. All groups were related skills. semester-long groups of up to 10 participants and were Studies conducted on writers’ particular writing facilitated by myself or a graduate tutor from our goals can also shed light on what we expect before writing center. Groups met once per week for two engaging in a writing-related activity. For example, hours. Tables 1 and 2 (See Appendix A) provide Zhang et al. examined student-generated writing goals information about number of participants, language, for a particular writing assignment. The goals fell into and group type for both the interviews and surveys three dimensions: general writing goals, genre writing administered. goals, and assignment goals. In another study Soylu et al. applied achievement goal theory to writing by Participant Surveys assessing students’ intentions for writing. The authors I tried my best to create the writing groups survey grouped student goals into three categories: mastery with the concept of outcome expectations in mind. goals, performance approach goals, and performance Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Writing Groups: An Analysis of Participants’ Expectations and Activities • 55! !

Rather than guess at what writing group activities face-to-face interviews with me. All 10 interviews were participants might anticipate, I let the activities appear recorded and then transcribed. See Appendix B for full organically from correspondence between myself and set of interview questions. potential writing group participants. I therefore created Using the interview transcriptions I also created a the survey based on 65 emails I received between 2014 coding scheme for the activities mentioned by the and 2016. The emails came from students and scholars interviewees. Using two rounds of coding I pulled out who were unfamiliar with writing groups and who were all verb phrases associated with writing groups (like interested in receiving more information. Using the “meet new people” and “commiserate with other emails, an office assistant and I identified eight separate students”) and found common trends so that I could writing group activities in which these writers expected group the phrases together into larger common to engage: “working on my thesis or dissertation,” activities (like “socialize with others”). Lastly, I looked “jumpstarting my writing,” “receiving grammar help,” for even larger trends among these common activities “giving/getting feedback,” “becoming motivated about until I grouped them into four main categories of my writing,” “finalizing and submitting writing for writing group activities. Interestingly, the same publication,” “learning about formatting and editing expected writing group categories emerged from the documents,” and “gaining accountability for my interviews and from the surveys: skill-based, draftwriting.” Using this list of anticipated writing group based, time-based, and emotion-based activities. activities, we created a survey focused on expected and actual writing group activities and satisfaction levels.

Part III: Findings After human subjects approval was obtained, the surveys were administered both on paper and online at Expected Writing Group Activities: Participant Interviews the end of each semester. They were sent to All 14 interview participants were asked what they participants who dropped out of groups as well as to expected of a writing group before joining. Table 3 those who stayed in groups. See Appendix B for full (See Appendix A) provides a list of these activities survey. sorted into categories. Overall, the skill-based activity Activity Categories After I had recorded the survey responses, I used grounded theory to create a coding scheme for all the writing group activities mentioned. I coded each activity into one of the four categories that emerged from the responses: skill-based, draft-based, timebased, and emotion-based activities. I considered skillbased activities to mean improving one’s writing abilities and moving beyond particular writing projects.

The draft-based category included working on specific writing projects (theses, dissertations, articles for publication) as well as the actions related to these specific projects. Another category I discovered focused on time-based activities. I considered these activities to be related to the participants’ desire to gain momentum, make progress, and move forward with their writing. One activity appeared to be emotionbased: “becoming motivated about my writing.” I considered this as related to a writer’s state of mind.

Participant Interviews I also used the trends that emerged from the body of 65 emails to create open-ended questions for interviews. The questions were similar in scope to the survey questions and focused on expected and actual writing group activities and satisfaction levels. At the end of three different semesters writing group participants were invited to answer these questions in

category was the most heavily represented, with 40% of interview participants mentioning these types of activities. It appears that many of these writing group participants expected activities that would go beyond particular drafts and that would help them improve as writers and as speakers of English.

“Improving my writing skills” was the most popular activity. Group members talked in particular about improving writing structure, improving logic, improving clarity, improving academic writing style, improving punctuation, creating more complex sentences, and strengthening writing tone. For example, one writing group member told me, “Actually joining the writing group I expected to, you know, to improve my […] scientific writing, especially the way to like write in academic way.” “Receiving accountability for my writing” was the second most popular activity, named by five participants. “Receiving feedback on my writing” was mentioned by three participants, two of whom specified receiving feedback on their argument and on their thought process. “Increasing my motivation” and “socializing with others” were both mentioned by two participants. A member of one of the multilingual groups explained that “I kind of need motivation to get together regularly and each one discuss, have something to share. So I have to share my thesis and that kind of will motivate me.” Another participant had hoped to meet new people because, as

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Writing Groups: An Analysis of Participants’ Expectations and Activities • 56! ! she put it, “writing the dissertation is a very lonely assignment.”

Actual Writing Group Activities: Participant Interviews Interview participants were asked what activities Expected Writing Group Activities: Participant Surveys they actually ended up doing in their writing groups Survey participants were also asked about the during the semester. Actual activities fell into three of activities in which they had expected to engage. Table 4 the same categories as expected activities: skill-based, (See Appendix A) provides a list of these activities draft-based, and time-based. One new activity sorted into categories. Overall, the writing group emerged: “giving oral presentations to group activities and activity categories were very similar to members” and was placed in the other category. Table those named by interview participants; however, the 5 (See Appendix A) lists by category the writing group survey participants ranked them in different ways. The activities mentioned by the interviewees. category of draft-based activities was the most popular, Draft-based activities appeared most popular (12 chosen by 38% of respondents, followed by time-based respondents), and no emotion-based activities were activities (28%). The emotion-based and skill-based mentioned. Interestingly, only two responses referred categories tied for last place with 17% each. “Gaining to skill-based activities. It appears that, rather than regular accountability for my writing” (time-based) and improving skills or increasing motivation, most “becoming motivated about my writing (emotioninterview participants felt that they had engaged in based) were the most frequently chosen individual activities related to working on and improving activities. particular drafts of their own or others’ writing. The The most interesting trend across all interview and activities most frequently mentioned were “giving survey results is the fact that in all cases the same four feedback” (6 respondents), “using time to write” (5 categories of activities emerged. The interview respondents), and “reading drafts” (3 respondents). participants were not given a predetermined list of activities, yet they mentioned doing things in writing Actual Writing Group Activities: Participant Surveys groups that aligned neatly with skill-based, draft-based, On the surveys, participants were also asked about time-based, and emotion-based activities. The the actual writing group activities in which they individual activities that were very similar in nature engaged during the semester. “Actual activities” listed across the interviews and surveys were learning about on the surveys were the same as the “expected editing, getting and giving feedback, gaining activities” and thus fell under the same four activity accountability, and increasing motivation. Each of categories: skill-based, draft-based, time-based, and these four activities fell under one of the four separate emotion-based. (See Table 4, Appendix A). As with activity categories. the interviews, draft-based activities were chosen the These four major activities and activity categories most frequently, by 32% of respondents. However, may have appeared multiple times because they hint at unlike with the interview participants, survey a core truth about writing groups, namely that several participants reported that the activities in which they distinct types of groups exist for a reason. Expecting a actually engaged were very close to those in which they group based on improving oneself as a writer differs had expected to engage. This could mean several greatly from expecting a group that will provide time things. Survey participants’ might have had particularly and accountability for writing. Similarly, joining a realistic expectations about writing group activities, or group because one anticipates exchanging feedback these participants might have done a particularly good about various drafts is clearly not the same as joining a job at placing themselves in an appropriate group. group because one needs increased motivation.

Alternatively, participants may have only elected to Obviously, writing group members may have more take the voluntary survey if they were already satisfied than one goal or expectation in mind. However, the with what they did in their groups. The top three actual overlap among actual activities can only go so far. activities chosen were exactly the same as the Someone exchanging feedback cannot simultaneously respondents’ top three expected activities: “gaining use the time to write, for example. To writing center regular accountability for my writing,” “becoming professionals this truth might seem apparent, but many motivated about my writing,” and “working on my novice writing group members may not take this into thesis or dissertation.” account. Writers may join a group with only one Across all surveys and interviews we still find three particular “category” in mind and quickly lose interest, of the same four categories: skill-based, draft-based, motivation, or follow-through if they unwittingly join a and time-based activities. There was, however, no group whose main purpose belongs to a different mention of emotion-based activities among actual category. writing group activities. This, coupled with the Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Writing Groups: An Analysis of Participants’ Expectations and Activities • 57! ! emotion-based category’s low ranking among expected participants were happy with the unexpected social writing group activities, suggests that something is very aspects of their groups: group camaraderie and creation different about this category. My guess is that of professional connections. One remarked, “Because participants are clear-eyed and practical when it comes writing dissertation is very, you know, lonely […] so to joining writing groups. These writers are more sometimes it’s always very good to discuss with concerned with the concrete activities and immediate someone else or maybe just complain.” The other told benefits of writing groups, valuing things like improved me, “You know I see the folks in the [group] in other writing skills and increased production. Perhaps these places […] So I did make some professional writers view things like increased motivation, enhanced connections that I didn’t expect to by participating.” self-confidence, and decreased anxiety as welcome Two other members expressed their pleasure with the “side effects” of a group, rather than its main purpose. collaborative nature of their groups.

More research is clearly needed to fully flesh out this A few of the participants briefly mentioned ways in issue. In the meantime, I suggest we take care to which they had been disappointed. One felt strongly separate out and clearly label emotion-based writing that using group time to write was a “waste of time” groups from other types of groups to avoid misaligned because “you can do it at home.” Conversely, another expectations. participant wanted more time to write, saying that “maybe some student, if you ask them to write at Satisfaction Rates home, they don’t do that.” Other concerns were high There is much more to writing group expectations attrition rates, lack of discussion, and lack of guidance than lists of activities and rankings. Equally important from the group’s facilitator. However, discussion of is how participants feel about what they thought would expected versus actual activities generally remained happen and what actually did happen in their group. positive, with participants expressing overall How do participants react when there are great satisfaction with their groups and appreciating the ways similarities between what they expected and what they in which their actual experience diverged from their actually did in a writing group? What happens when initial expectations. there is a large disconnect?

Satisfaction Rates: Participant Surveys Satisfaction Rates: Participant Interviews Survey participants were asked to rate how Interview participants were asked to discuss how satisfied they were with the activities in which they had their actual writing group experience differed from actually engaged. I matched their satisfaction rates to their expectations. Their responses could be grouped the number of expected activities in which they actually under four main themes. There was mixing disciplines, engaged. Figure 1(See Appendix A) presents these meaning how the members reacted to having writers findings. It appeared that the majority of writing group outside of their discipline in their group. Four participants (96%) were somewhat satisfied or very participants mentioned how pleasantly surprised they satisfied with their groups’ activities over the semester. were to be exposed to members from other disciplines I had hypothesized that if participants’ expected or sub-disciplines and listed the benefits of this type of activities closely aligned with their actual activities the exposure: making writing understandable to outsiders, satisfaction rates would be high. I had also anticipated receiving diverse feedback from fresh perspectives, and the opposite to be true: If participants’ expected learning about different disciplines. One participant activities were very different from their group’s actual discussed how the group helped writers “disconnect activities, the satisfaction rates would plummet. from the discipline to actually make you think In the first case, I found that I was correct. When objectively about what you are writing.” The theme of participants engaged in all of their expected activities, feedback referred to how members felt about the draftthey were much more likely to be satisfied. Of those in based advice they received from their fellow writers this group (38 of the 72 participants), 95% rated and from their group’s facilitator. Four interview themselves as somewhat satisfied or very satisfied with participants discussed how the feedback in the group their groups’ activities. More surprising was what surprised them. One appreciated the practical, specific happened when many or all expected activities did not suggestions; one enjoyed the active discussions; one actually occur. Though this happened in few cases, liked receiving frequent feedback; and one valued the even when there were three, four, or five expected feedback from the group’s facilitator. Socialization activities that did not occur, all but one participant still indicated members’ feelings about being part of a rated themselves as somewhat satisfied. It is possible group, and collaboration denoted how the writers that the same phenomenon was at work here as with actually worked with those group members. Two the interview participants. Those whose initial Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Writing Groups: An Analysis of Participants’ Expectations and Activities • 58! ! expectations were at odds with their actual experience answered the question with an unqualified no. It may have ended up enjoying some or many of these appeared that most participants preferred to reach their unexpected differences. It is also possible that the writing group goals through working on particular participants who declined to take the survey pieces of writing. appreciated these differences less.

Though it did not happen often that there was a The Importance of Specific Drafts: Participant Surveys large disconnect between expected and actual writing In order to probe this same issue in among survey group activities, it is clear that it is still possible to have participants, I asked them to rank the importance of a positive experience and appreciate being in a writing working on particular writing projects in a writing group even if it does not meet one’s initial group. Figure 2 (See Appendix A) shows the rankings expectations. However, we must add an important in this case. We can clearly see that, as with the caveat to this. Writing group members can only come interview participants, an overwhelming majority of to appreciate the differences between expectation and survey respondents (84%) ranked having a project to reality if they stick it out in their group. If the initial work on in a writing group as somewhat important or differences are too stark or the members too impatient, very important. participants will likely not stay in the group long The issue of specific drafts in writing groups is enough to learn this crucial lesson. most problematic in relation to novice writing group members with skill-based expectations. In some cases, The Importance of Specific Drafts these writers may envision particular drafts of their One important point emerged from both the own writing when they anticipate improving their interviews and the surveys related to draft-based writing skills through a writing group, but what writing group activities and was noteworthy enough to happens when they do not? These writers may soon merit its own brief discussion. Nearly all participants drop out of the group or exert pressure on the group’s agreed that, in order for writing groups to be truly leader to act as a presenter, educator, or de facto effective, one must have a specific draft to bring to the workshop facilitator. It is up to each writing center group. This may sound self-evident to many, but it is how it tackles this issue, but it is important to keep in not. Every semester there are at least a few students mind when forming writing groups, especially for and scholars who join our center’s writing groups anyone who is unfamiliar with how groups actually hoping to improve their overall writing skills but who function and who expects to improve their overall have no particular draft to work on. This almost always writing skills. leads to frustration on the part of the group’s facilitator and the groups’ other members. It also often causes Part IV: Main Trends and these members to drop out of the groups. It is for this Recommendations reason that I probed the issue of specific drafts in Through both interview and survey data we have writing groups in the interviews and surveys. seen what kind of activities potential writing group The Importance of Specific Drafts: Participant Interviews All interview participants were asked whether or not they thought writing group participants should have a specific writing project or draft to work on in writing groups or if groups could still be useful without one. Ten of the 14 interview participants agreed that groups only work well when members have specific drafts. Several of those interviewed felt quite strongly about this, stating things like, “You should have something, I think. Otherwise, I don’t know. What are you gonna do?” or “There is so much more that can be received from the writing group when you have a specific draft.” Participants mentioned several drawbacks to participating in a group without a draft, such as the group being “too general” for its members or creating a lack of motivation. Three participants said, “It depends,” but still felt that groups were most effective when focused on drafts. Only one participant

participants expected before joining a group as well as what actual activities these writers engaged in. We have noted what happened to participants’ satisfaction rates when there was overlap between these two sets of activities as well as how they reacted when there was divergence. Lastly, we have examined the importance of bringing specific drafts to a writing group. There were a few very clear and noteworthy trends that emerged from the overall findings in this writing group research project. It is my hope that these trends can offer important takeaways to those of us who create, run, and manage writing groups in an academic setting.

Main Trends •

Four major categories of expected writing group activities – skill-based, draft-based, time-based, and emotion-based activities –

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Writing Groups: An Analysis of Participants’ Expectations and Activities • 59! ! emerged from the majority of interview and more positive experience overall. More feedback from survey responses. dissatisfied members and from group dropouts might • When participants’ expected activities aligned have changed the findings of this study in significant closely with actual activities completed in their ways. Unfortunately, most of these group members groups, the participants were more likely to be declined to participate. Lastly, our writing center only satisfied with their groups. offered groups to graduate students and to visiting • Satisfaction rates did not decline greatly when scholars. Our results may not be applicable to expected writing group activities and actual undergraduate students, university staff, faculty, or activities did not align. Instead, participants community members. often appreciated the unexpected ways in which writing groups diverged from their Part VII: Final Thoughts initial expectations.

It is up to those of us in the writing center • Participants were in overwhelming agreement community to decide how we confront the problematic that writing group members must have a issues, misconceptions, and conflicting expectations specific draft to work on in order for groups involved in writing groups and how we educate to be effective. potential writing group members about what actually takes place in a writing group. If we take nothing else Based on the main trends that emerged from the away from this study, we should at least recognize that interview and survey responses in my study, I offer the writers with different goals often expect very different following recommendations for creating writing kinds of writing groups. We should keep in mind this groups. full range of potential goals, expectations, and motivations and use this knowledge to create and Recommendations promote the right kind of group for each type of potential writing group participant. It is also up to us • Before a group begins meeting, take care to both to examine the assumptions and expectations explain clearly what a writing group is and the related to writing groups in our own local contexts and specific activities involved in it to any potential to share these findings with one another on a larger writing group members. scale. By continuing to add to this body of knowledge • Consider creating separate writing groups we can create groups that best meet the needs of our based on skill-based, draft-based, time-based, writers. This will allow us, in turn, to maximize the and emotion-based activities. Take special care valuable benefits writing groups provide to their to separate out and clearly label any groups members. As is the case for all of the writing services with largely emotion-based goals and we offer our clients, our ultimate aim should be to find purposes. ways for our writing groups not only to function, but • Alternatively, examine the activities in which to thrive. potential participants expect to engage at your institution and tailor groups accordingly. You Notes can then allow participants to self-select and choose groups based on their main goals and 1. There are, however, a few exceptions. Maher et al. expectations. interviewed 18 writing group participants about their • Require participants in all types of groups to lived experiences in writing groups. Claire Aitchison have specific drafts to work on. also surveyed 24 past and current writing group members about their personal reflections on writing Part VI: Limitations groups.

This study had a small sample size, and results 2. It is important to note that while I was able to obtain were unique to my own university’s and writing six full semester of data, I was only able to conduct center’s context. We should be wary, therefore, of interviews with participants over the course of the first drawing large generalizations from these results. three semesters of my study.

Additionally, a majority of the study’s participants stayed in their group during the entire course of the semester. Therefore, it is possible that the students and Works Cited scholars who chose to participate in the voluntary surveys and interviews were group members who had a Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Writing Groups: An Analysis of Participants’ Expectations and Activities • 60! !

Aitchison, Claire. “Learning Together to Publish: Writing George, Diana. “Working with Peer Groups in the Group Pedagogies for Doctoral Publishing.” Publishing Composition Classroom.” College Composition and Pedagogies for the Doctorate and Beyond, edited by Claire Communications, 35, 3, 1984, pp. 320-326, doi: Aitchison et al., Routledge, 2010, pp. 83-100. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/357460.pdf.

Aitchison, Claire. “Writing Groups for Doctoral Gradin, Sherrie, et al. “Disciplinary Differences, Rhetorical Education.” Studies in Higher Education, 34, 8, 2009, pp.

Resonance: Graduate Writing Groups Beyond the 905-916, ProQuest, doi: Humanities.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 3, 2, 2006, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/0307 pp. 1-6, doi: Link.

5070902785580.

Graham, Kathryn, et al. “Writing Without Teachers, Aslam, M.M., et al. “Predicting Student Academic Writing With Tutors.” Writing Lab Newsletter, 18, 7, Performance.” International Journal of Knowledge 1994, pp. 7-8.

Management, 10, 3, 2014, pp. 18-35, doi: Link.

Haas, Sarah. “Pick-n-Mix: A Typology of Writers’ Groups Bandura, Albert. Social Foundation of Thought and Action: A in Use.” Writing groups for Doctoral Education and Beyond, Social Cognitive Theory. Prentice Hall, 1986. edited by Claire Aitchison and Cally Guerin, Routledge, Bishop, Wendy. “Brining Writers to the Center: Some 2014, pp. 30-47.

Survey Results, Surmises, and Suggestions. The Writing Harris, Muriel. “Making Our Institutional Discourse Sticky: Center Journal, 10, 2, 1990, pp. 31-44, doi: Suggestions for Effective Rhetoric.” https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43444136.pdf.

The Writing Center Journal, 30, 2, 2010, pp. 47-71, doi: Carino, Peter. “Reading Our Own Words: Rhetorical https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43442344.pdf.

Analysis and the Institutional Discourse of Hawthorne, Joan. “’We Don’t Proofread Here: ReWriting Centers.” Writing Center Research: Extending the visioning the Writing Center to Better Meet Student Conversation, edited by Paula Gillespie et al., 2002, Needs.” Writing Lab Newsletter, 23, 8, 1999, pp. 1-6.

Erlbaum, pp. 91-110.

Hayward, Malcolm. “Assessing Attitudes Towards the Cirillo-McCarthy, Erica, et al. “We Don’t Do That Here: Writing Center.” The Writing Center Journal, 3, 2, 1983, Calling Out Deficit Discourse in the Writing Center to pp. 1-10, doi: Reframe Multilingual Graduate Support.” Praxis: A https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43444105.pdf.

Writing Center Journal, 14, 1, 2016, pp. 62-71, doi: Link.

Hemmeter, Thomas. “The ‘Smack of Difference’: The Enriquez, D., et al. “To Define Ourselves or To Be Language of Writing Center Discourse.” The Writing Defined.” Weaving Knowledge Together: Center Journal, 11, 1, 1990, pp. 35-48, doi: Writing Centers and Collaboration, edited by Carol Haviland et https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43442593.pdf. al., National Writing Centers Association P, 1998, pp.

Inman, Arpana and Michael Silverstein. “Dissertation 107-126.

Support Group: To Dissertate or Not is the Question.”

Fajt, Virginia, et al. “Feedback and Fellowship: Stories Journal of College Student Psychotherapy, 17, 3, 2003, pp. 59from a Successful Writing Group.” Working with Faculty 69, doi: Link.

Writers, edited by Anne Ellen Geller and Michelle Maher, Damian et al. “’Becoming and Being Writers’: The Eodice, UP of Colorado, 2013, pp. 163-174.

Experience of Doctoral Students in Writing Groups.”

Farkas, Carol-Ann. “’Idle Assumptions are the Devil’s Studies in Continuing Education, 30, 3, 2008, pp. 263-275, Playthings’: The Writing Center, The First Year doi: Link.

Faculty, and the Reality Check.” Writing Lab Newsletter, Masiello, Lea and Malcolm Hayward. “The Faculty Survey: 30, 7, 2006, pp. 1-5.

Identifying Bridges Between the Fischer, Katherine and Muriel Harris. “Fill ‘er Up, Pass the Classroom and the Writing Center.” The Writing Center Band-Aids, Center the Margin, and Praise the Lord: Journal, 11, 2, 1991, pp. 73-79, doi: Mixing Metaphors in the Writing Lab.” The Politics of https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43440550.pdf.

Writing Centers, edited by Jane Nelson and Kathy Moss, Beverly et al., editors. Writing Groups: Inside and Evertz, Heinemann, 2001, pp. 23-36.

Outside the Classroom, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Fouad, Nadya, and Amy Guillen. “Outcome Expectations: 2004.

Looking to the Past and Potential North, Stephen. “The Idea of a Writing Center.” College Future.” Journal of Career Assessment, 14, 1, 2006, pp.

English, 46, 5, 1984, pp. 433-446.

130-142, doi: Link.

Owens, Derek. “Hideaways and Hangouts, Public Squares Franklin Ikeda, John, et al. “English Education Within and and Performance Sites: New Metaphors for Writing Beyond the Writing Center: Expectations Examples, Center Design.” Creative Approaches to Writing Center and Realizations.” Writing Lab Newsletter, 24, 8, 2000, Work, Hampton P, 2012, pp. 71-84. pp. 10-13.

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Writing Groups: An Analysis of Participants’ Expectations and Activities • 61! !

Pemberton, Michael. “The Prison, the Hospital, and the Madhouse: Redefining Metaphors for The Writing Center.” Writing Lab Newsletter, 17, 1, 1992, pp. 11-16.

Phillips, Talinn. “Graduate Writing Groups: Shaping Writing and Writers from Student to Scholar.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 10, 1, 2012, pp. 1-7, doi: Link.

Pololi, Linda, et al. “Facilitating Scholarly Writing in Academic Medicine: Lessons Learned From a Collaborative Peer Mentoring Program.” Journal of General Internal Medicine, 19, 1, 2004, pp. 64-68, ProQuest, doi: https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1111/j.152 5-1497.2004.21143.x.pdf Rodis, Karen. “Mending the Damaged Path: How to Avoid Conflict of Expectation When Setting up a Writing Center.” The Writing Center Journal, 10, 2, 1990, pp. 4557, doi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43444137.pdf.

Rollins, Anna. “Equity and Ability: Metaphors of Inclusion in Writing Center Promotion.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 13, 1, 2015, pp. 5-6, doi: Link.

Ruggles Gere, Anne. Writing Groups: History, Theory, and Implications. Southern Illinois UP, 1987.

Ruggles Gere, Anne and Robert Abbott. “Talking About Writing: The Language of Writing Groups.” Research in the Teaching of English, 9, 4, pp. 362-385, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/40171067.

Runciman, Lex. “Defining Ourselves: Do We Really Want to Use The Word Tutor?” The Writing Center Journal, 11, 1990, pp. 27-34, doi: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/43442592.pdf.

Schunk, Dale, et al. Motivation in Education: Theory, Research and Applications. Pearson, 2014.

Soylu, Meryem et al. “Secondary Students’ Writing and Achievement Goals: Assessing the Mediating Effects of Mastery and Performance Goals on Writing SelfEfficacy, Affect, and Writing Achievement.” Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2017, pp. 1-11, doi: https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.20 17.01406/full.

Spear, Karen. Sharing Writing: Peer Response Groups in English Classes. Boynton, Cook Publishers, 1988.

Westbrook, Evelyn. “Community, Collaboration, and Conflict: The Community Writing Group As Contact Zone.” Writing Groups Inside and Outside the Classroom, edited by Beverly Moss et al., Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2004, pp. 229-248.

Zhang, Fhui, et al. “Charting the Routes to Revision: An Interplay of Writing Goals, Peer Comments, and SelfReflection from Peer Reviews.” Instructional Science, 45, 5, 2017, pp. 679-707, doi: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11251017-9420-6.

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Writing Groups: An Analysis of Participants’ Expectations and Activities • 62! !

Appendix A: Tables and Figures Table 1: Participants, Language, and Group Types (Interviews) Semester Interviews Groups Spring 2016 3 3 Multilingual #1 Multilingual #2 Sciences Fall 2016 4 3 Accountability Humanities Sciences Spring 2017 3 2 Social Sciences Visiting Scholars Total 10 8 Note: Some interviews were conducted individually and some in small groups.

Table 2: Participants, Language, and Group Types (Surveys) Semester Participants Groups Spring 2016 18 3 Sciences Humanities Multilingual Fall 2016 17 7 Accountability Publishing Articles Multilingual #1 Multilingual #2 Sciences Social Sciences Humanities Spring 2017 14 4 Accountability Visiting Scholars Sciences Social Sciences Fall 2017 14 4 Accountability (x 2) Social Sciences Sciences Spring 2018 2 2 Social Sciences Sciences Fall 2018 7 4 Accountability (x 3) Sciences Total 72 24

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Writing Groups: An Analysis of Participants’ Expectations and Activities • 63! !

Table 3: Expected Writing Group Activities and Activity Categories (Interviews) Skill-Based Activities Draft-Based Activities - Improving my writing skills - Receiving feedback on my writing - Improving my English - Giving feedback on others’ writing - Discussing writing generally - Receiving individual help with my writing - Learning about revising/editing - Finishing my thesis Time-Based Activities Emotion-Based Activities - Receiving accountability for my writing - Socializing with others - Increasing my productivity/progress - Increasing my motivation - Using time to write

Table 4: Expected Writing Group Activities and Activity Categories (Surveys) Skill-Based Activities Draft-Based Activities - Receiving grammar help - Working on my thesis or dissertation - Learning about formatting and editing - Giving feedback to group members and getting documents feedback from members - Finalizing and submitting writing for publication Time-Based Activities Emotion-Based Activities - Jumpstarting my writing - Becoming motivated about my writing - Gaining regular accountability for my writing

Table 5: Interviews: Actual Writing Group Activities and Activity Categories Skill-Based Activities Draft-Based Activities - Learning to identify patterns - Giving feedback - Learning about writing terms - Reading drafts - Receiving individual help on my writing - Generating writing to discuss/critique Time-Based Activities Other Activities - Using time to write - Giving oral presentations to group members - Setting and discussing writing goals

Figure 1: Surveys: Participants’ Satisfaction Rates Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Writing Groups: An Analysis of Participants’ Expectations and Activities • 64! !

35!

Number!of!Respondents!

30!

25!

20!

15!

10!

5!

0!

All!expected! ac5vi5es! present!

Very!sa5sfied!

1!ac5vity! missing!

2!ac5vi5es! missing!

Somewhat!sa5sfied!

3!ac5vi5es! missing!

Neutral!

4!ac5vi5es! missing!

Somewhat!unsa5sfied!

All!expected! ac5vi5es!missing!

Not!satsified!

Figure 2: Surveys: Importance of Working on Writing Projects 40!

35!

Number!of!Respondents!

30!

25!

20!

15!

10!

5!

0!

Very!important!

(55%)!

Somewhat! important!(29%)!

Neutral!(8%)!

Somewhat!

Not!important!at!all! unimportant!(8%)!

(0%)!

Appendix B Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Writing Groups: An Analysis of Participants’ Expectations and Activities • 65! !

Writing Groups Survey Semester: ___________________ Type of group: Humanities Social Sciences Sciences Multilingual Publishing Accountability Did you stay in the group all semester or drop out ? ____ Stayed all semester ___ Dropped out If you dropped out – why ? _______________________________________________________ Are you a multilingual writer (English as a second language)? _____ Yes _____ No Department: ___________________________________ Year of Study: __________________________________ Are you a masters or Ph.D. student? ______ Masters

_____ Ph.D.

1. What activities did you expect to engage in prior to joining your writing group? (circle all that apply) a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i)

Working on my thesis or dissertation Jumpstarting my writing Receiving grammar help Giving feedback to group members and getting feedback from group members Becoming motivated about my writing Finalizing and submitting writing for publication Learning about formatting and editing documents Gaining regular accountability for my writing Other: ____________________________________________________________

2. What activities did you actually engage in during your time in the writing group? (circle all that apply) a) b) c) d) e) f) g) h) i)

Working on my thesis or dissertation Jumpstarting my writing Receiving grammar help Giving feedback to group members and getting feedback from group members Becoming motivated about my writing Finalizing and submitting writing for publication Learning about formatting and editing documents Gaining regular accountability for my writing Other: ____________________________________________________________

3. How satisfied are you with the activities you actually engaged in during your time in the writing group? a) b) c) d) e)

Not satisfied at all Somewhat unsatisfied Neutral Somewhat satisfied Very satisfied

4. How important was working on your particular writing projects throughout the semester?

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

a) b) c) d) e)

Writing Groups: An Analysis of Participants’ Expectations and Activities • 66! !

Not important at all Somewhat unimportant Neutral Somewhat important Very important

5. How well do you believe you fit into your chosen writing group? a) b) c) d) e)

Very poorly Somewhat poorly Neutral Somewhat well Very well

6. Based on your experience, how necessary are graduate writing groups on our campus? a) b) c) d) e)

Very unnecessary Somewhat unnecessary Neutral Somewhat necessary Very necessary

7. Rate the overall effectiveness of your group a) b) c) d) e)

Very ineffective Somewhat ineffective Neutral Somewhat effective Very effective

8. Other comments about your writing group experience:

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Writing Groups: An Analysis of Participants’ Expectations and Activities • 67! !

Writing Groups Interview Questions

1. What were your expectations of a writing group prior to joining this semester?

2. What activities did you engage in in your writing group?

3. How was your writing group different from your expectations?

4. What was your reaction to this difference? Was it positive, negative, or neutral?

5. Do you think writing group participants should have specific writing projects (papers, articles, applications, etc.) to submit to their group? Or can groups be helpful to participants who don’t have specific texts to submit?

6. If you think groups can be helpful to participants who don’t have specific texts to submit, what are some activities that could be useful?

7. What other thoughts do you have about writing groups?

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019)

STUDENT IDENTITY DISCLOSED: ANALYSIS OF AN ONLINE STUDENT PROFILE TOOL Kristen Nichols-Besel Bethel University nicho309@umn.edu

Katie Levin University of Minnesota Twin Cities kslevin@umn.edu

Abstract In the University of Minnesota’s Student Writing Support program, we gather, record, and share student and course information in order to support consultants in their work with writers; to assess and improve our own practice; and to make compelling, datadriven arguments for the center’s continued existence. Recognizing moments when these data-collection practices worked against the relationships we wanted to build with student writers, we began to critique these practices, with the goal of creating more intentional criteria and methods for soliciting client information. In Fall 2013, we developed and introduced an online Student Profile tool where clients could indicate their preferred name, provide a guide to pronouncing their name, include their gender pronouns, list any language(s) they speak and/or write, and indicate anything else they would like our consultants to know about them as writers/learners.

We have become particularly interested in what students choose to share about themselves in that last open-ended prompt: When we give students opportunities to disclose aspects of their identity, what do we learn about them and about how they construct their identities in the context of a writing consultation? In this article we share our analysis of client data we collected in 2016–17, which reveals students’ awareness of their identities as writers, students, and learners as well as the complexities of these identities in a writing center context. Our findings also speak to larger conversations about the ways student identities are constructed and created within higher education.

In the University of Minnesota’s Student Writing Support program, we formally gather, record, and share student and course information in order to support consultants in their work with writers; to assess and improve our own practice; and to make compelling, data-driven arguments for the center’s continued existence. Such institutional informationgathering is every writing center’s responsibility, as Neal Lerner noted back in 1997 in his influential “Counting Beans and Making Beans Count” article in Writing Lab Newsletter, which helped initiate important conversations about how writing centers collect and use quantitative and qualitative data and what that data reveals. Work by Lerner, Noreen Lape, and Ellen Schendel and William Macauley offers writing center professionals frameworks for using such data to educate administrators about the value of our centers and to assess our progress towards particular educational outcomes. Rather than follow in this tradition, our close look at our own data here aligns with Lori Salem’s recent analysis of the academic and

Kirsten Jamsen University of Minnesota Twin Cities kjamsen@umn.edu

demographic characteristics of students who choose to use the writing center compared with those who do not. Like Salem, we are interested in looking at student choices—in our case, what writing center users tell us about themselves—and how “their choices can reveal how society shapes understanding of implicit ideas about writers, writing, and writing instruction” (150).

Since 2002, we had been gradually refining what student data we collected and shared—a practice made easier with the 2005 development of our own homegrown (and ever-evolving) appointment-making and scheduling tool. However, starting in 2010, we began asking ourselves some harder questions about our datacollecting methods and goals. In our efforts to say “yes” to consultant and administrator requests for information, and with our desire to gather up data, we sometimes forgot to ask ourselves critical questions: What if we don’t actually need to know this information? What if we are asking for this information in hurtful ways? And what if, in the questions that we ask or fail to ask, we are missing opportunities for affirming student agency? These critical questions arose for us in three moments.

Moment 1: An online consultant asks a director: “Is there any way we can see the student’s gender?”

With this request, one of the consultants who worked in our online, text-based version of Student Writing Support was suggesting that a new piece of information be displayed in our consulting interface. We commonly tweak our home-grown, web-based database, so it’s not unusual for anyone on staff to suggest a new feature. And using the logics of the university’s Data Warehouse, information on what the University listed as “student gender” would be easily available to us.

For assessment and reporting purposes, our database system already pulled in University data associated with each student—full name, unique internet ID, unique student ID, college, and major —and all consultants could read this information when they pulled up the record of a writer with whom they were going to meet. Names, internet IDs, and student IDs were all tools to help

Student Identity Disclosed: Analysis of an Online Student Profile Tool • 11 69! ! consultants and front desk attendants create University administrators about “language appointments for the correct person. College and diversity”—which, given the high population of major information not only was useful for writers whose primary home language was reporting, but making it visible for all consultants Mandarin, Korean, Somali, or Hmong, could also also gave them some initial context about how be an indirect way of highlighting racial and ethnic familiar the writer might be with the disciplinary diversity. Asking the language question usually fell expectations of the field for which they were to the front desk attendant, who greeted writers as writing. they arrived, and who—because an answer was This consultant explained that they felt more required before they could check a writer in for comfortable “knowing” what a client’s gender their consultation—sometimes had to supplement was—something they explained they struggled this information if the writer had not included it with online in the absence of visual cues, and when they made their reservation online. These without a sense of what genders were associated moments were awkward for front desk attendants with common names in non–Romance languages. and clients alike. Attendants recognized the ways Of course, there is no way anyone can see gender: this question invoked assumptions about language, gender expression and gender identity are two race/ethnicity, and nation, and client reactions separate things, and it is not possible to see or ranged from puzzled to embarrassed to insulted.1 know someone’s gender identity by reading the Accordingly, attendants would often shift visual cues of their gender presentation. But in responsibility for this question—and only for this 2010, as cisgender women who were not yet even question—to the database: “The system is asking attuned to the idea of cisness, and as leaders who me for a first language.” welcomed suggestions about center technologies and practices, we charged ahead, pulling the “M” Moment 3: A writer reminds a consultant for at least the fifth or “F” associated with each student from the data time: “Call me Fran.” warehouse into our SWS.online interface for Just as Data Warehouse can hold inaccurate consultants. (Revealingly, that we included the information about gender identity, so can it fail to gender label only in the SWS.online interface provide the names that students wish to be called. underscored our ciscentric/transphobic belief that For trans and gender-nonconforming students it was possible for consultants to make correct who have replaced their birth name with one that assumptions about gender in face-to-face aligns more closely with their identity—especially contexts.) when the birth name and the replacement name carry very different cultural cues about gender Moment 2: A front desk attendant apologetically informs an identity—being called by their birth name from arriving client, “The system is asking me: what is your first Data Warehouse can be profoundly disturbing, language?” even traumatic. It can also put them at risk for Besides gathering student information silently violence from others. For both cis and and automatically from Data Warehouse, we also trans/gender-nonconforming writers whose birth required that every writer provide several pieces of names might not be intelligible or familiar to information: What course, if any, are you writing monolingual (read: white English-speaking for? What kind of project are you working on? and American) readers, interactions with writing center What stage are you at—brainstorming? Early staff can also be fraught with misidentification and draft? Later draft? We required this information othering. When a member of a powerful group believing that the consultant would find it useful in mispronounces or misremembers the name of a framing the session and developing a manageable person from a minoritized group (including people agenda relative to the project’s due date. These of color, immigrants, non-US citizens), that person questions were easy for writers to fill out online experiences a microaggression (Kohli and and for attendants to ask in person. However, we Solórzano).

One particular writer, an also asked another, harder question of every firstundergraduate student from China, wanted us to time visitor: What is your first language? call them by their English name, Fran, rather than Not only did we see this question as a way to the Chinese name listed in University systems. A give consultants some early information about the frequent user of the Center, Fran was always specific English-language-learning challenges that a greeted by their Chinese name as listed in our writer from a particular language background database; Fran had to ask consultants to use their might face, but it also allowed us to report to preferred name in almost every visit, even when Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Student Identity Disclosed: Analysis of an Online Student Profile Tool • 11 70! ! previous visit comments began with a reminder for Requiring an answer to this one question about identity the consultant to call the writer “Fran.” We were implied that language background (read: “English” failing in our responsibility to use the name each versus “not English”) was the only element of student writer preferred, and, whatever name they identity that was officially meaningful to us. Further, preferred, to pronounce it correctly. the question itself—“what is your first language?”— failed to recognize or value students’ multilingualism.3 Moments like these showed us that (1) we had The type of information requested, then, reveals work to do around our tendency to make assumptions how the institution sees the client; at the moment of about people’s identities—assumptions which were request, the client is asked to see themself through that underscored by the kinds of questions we did or did same frame—for example, as a non-native speaker of not ask; (2) we were creating unproductive discomfort English. Because of the complex system of stereotypes for students around core elements of their identities; related to language ability, writing ability, help-seeking, and (3) students wanted us to know parts of their and who “belongs” in a PWI like ours, questions about identities that our system did not recognize. language identity can function as microaggressions; in Because each of the three moments above is about an institutional context, they can also trigger stereotype (dis)comfort in some way, we pause here to include an threat: “a disruptive psychological state that people important caveat about the issue of “comfort.” With experience when they feel at risk for confirming a Jackie Grutsch McKinney, we recognize that the grand negative stereotype associated with their social narrative of writing centers as “cozy homes” inscribes a identity” (Aronson et al. 50). Although eliminating a limited (white) raced, (middle) classed space that is question about first language would not prevent the comfortable only for some. As many critical race real possibility of stereotype threat, we know that scholars have pointed out, “comfort” does not always language identity is one characteristic associated with mean safety, particularly for people of color—indeed, “ability stereotypes” (51) in a university setting, and much of white supremacy is based on ensuring white that, therefore, questions about it can be a strong people’s comfort at the expense of the wellbeing of contributor to stereotype threat. people of color (Shih).

We want to reconsider comfort in a writing center, Description of the Student Profile Tool particularly when that comfort comes at the expense of With these theories in mind, in 2013, we began people with marginalized identities. After all, developing a new tool within our writing center consultants should feel “uncomfortable” making scheduling and record-keeping application, accessible assumptions about writers’ gender identity. Front desk both by the consultant through our internal interface attendants should feel uncomfortable asking questions and by the student through the personal online portal about language that appear to position whiteness as the by which they make and track their own appointments. norm.2 And consultants should feel uncomfortable Using this Student Profile tool, students had options to taking for granted that the larger university systems of indicate their preferred name/nickname, provide a naming can speak for students better than the students guide to pronouncing their name, include their gender themselves can. Whose comfort was being prioritized pronouns of reference, list any language(s) they speak in our Center? And at whose expense? In other words, and/or write, and add text indicating anything else they thinking institutionally and interpersonally, what did it would like our consultants to know about them as mean for us to ask writers for any kind of identitywriters/learners. Later, thinking about the accessibility related information at the beginning of our of our online consulting interface, we added a text field interactions? And what did it mean that language was for students to indicate anything they would like the only identity-related information we officially consultants to know about their ability to perceive recorded? color or any accommodations needed when using On one level, an initial request for information is standard Google Doc highlighting or commenting part of institutional discourse (Agar)—the features. Each field of the Profile includes a mouseconversational structure between an institutional over tooltip that explains why we are making space for representative and a client of that institution. this information or offers examples of what kinds of Institutional discourse encounters always begin with a information students might wish to include. (See “diagnosis,” when the institutional representative (in Appendix, Figure 1 and Table 1, “Student Profile with our case, the front desk attendant, the writing Explanatory Tooltips.”) consultant, or both) seeks information from the client Students have had access to the Student Profile to make sense of them as a client: how do they fit tool since September 2013, and they can edit, delete, or within the structure and purpose of the institution?

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Student Identity Disclosed: Analysis of an Online Student Profile Tool • 11 71! ! add information whenever they would like. We were To protect individual student anonymity, we queried pleasantly surprised that many student clients found only whether Profile users indicated a language and the the tool and started using it even before we publicized total number of languages per student; the 2016–17 it because, for us, the Student Profile tool was built to data revealed that 65% of Profile users indicated at enact our commitment to student agency, student least one language, with the highest number of individuality, student privacy, and the fullness of their languages listed as five. Based on earlier data collection identities, which we recognize can shift and change. in our center, the most common languages chosen The tool is also about consent, since students have the among the over 125 language possibilities include choice of whether they want to give us information English, Mandarin, Korean, Somali, and Hmong. and can determine what pronouns or names are used The open-ended prompt asking students to share to describe them in our system. For example, a student anything else they would like our consultants to know who lists a preferred name will see the preferred name about them as writers/learners (what we here call the appear in the online chat interface, and a student who “About me” data) had text from 26% of Profile users. lists pronouns will have reduced their risk of being Because this prompt gives students the opportunity to misgendered in our post-consultation records. tell us about aspects of their identity they want Although we initially made the Student Profile editable consultants to know, we were interested to learn what by both the student client and the consultant (in case a they chose to include. We were especially eager to student wanted the consultant to add information to analyze what those inclusions revealed about both how the Student Profile during the consultation), we they characterized themselves and what they thought decided that only the student interface should be we needed to know about them. editable, leaving the consultant interface as read-only— both to reduce students feeling pressured to make Methods changes in the moment and as a firmer commitment to Our methods for analysis of the qualitative “About student agency and consent. We hope that the Profile me” data were inductive in that we let the themes helps us be more aware of students’ need to be emerge from the data, and iterative in that we made recognized how they want to be (e.g., “Call me Fran”), multiple passes through the data before settling on the not necessarily how they have been defined by the codes described in the next section (Patton). institution, and to not make assumptions about the The first year of data we analyzed was from 2015– complexities of their identities as writers and human 16. Our first step was to move all the text in the beings.

“About me” box from our Student Profile tool into a We became particularly interested in looking at the Word document so we could see all of the data at once.

Student Profile data for what it reveals about what In our first pass, we asked, what are the identities students think is relevant for the writing center to students are choosing to disclose? This first pass was know about them, so starting at the end of academic completed separately by two of our team members, year 2015–16, we ran a query on the Student Profile and we met to discuss our initial codes. From sharing data of each year’s student clients. For this article, we our individually-generated code names, we developed focus on 2016–17 data because we became more 12 codes, which we saw as falling into three certain of our methods of analysis after adding a third overarching themes: “Who am I?”; “What might we do team member, and when we began this article in Spring together?”; and Other. We agreed that in many cases, 2017, that was our most recent data set. We wondered: the material in a given “About me” entry contained When we give students opportunities to disclose text that was complex, requiring us to divide the text aspects of their identity, what do we learn about them into chunks, each explained by a distinct code. For and about how they construct their identities in the example, the “About me” entry below was divided into context of a writing consultation? multiple text chunks [followed by the code assigned]: “I am transfer a student in 2015 fall. [student Description of Profile Users identity] So my english writing and speaking is not In the 2016–17 academic year, 13% of our clients good. [writer identity] I can talk in a low speed.

(382 distinct students) included information in some Would you mind to talk to me in a low speed. part of their Student Profile. Most Profile users (91%) [type of help desired] Plus, I am struggle with my indicated a preferred name. In addition, 43% of Profile grammar [writer identity], can you help me how to users indicated a name pronunciation, and 62% develop the grammar? [type of help desired] Thank indicated their gender pronouns. Only 4% of Profile you so much! [appreciation]” users (14 students) indicated online preferences.

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Student Identity Disclosed: Analysis of an Online Student Profile Tool • 11 72! !

In this example and throughout our coding, no one perspective, particularly as someone who had not phrase received more than one code (see Appendix analyzed the previous year’s data and so could apply Table 2, “Development of Codes over Two Sets of the codes and subcodes with fresh eyes. As in our Data,” for the complete list of themes, codes, and 2015–16 coding, we each coded separately and then subcodes). came together to compare coding and work through We then did a second pass through the data to any differences. Our process revealed that 11 of the 12 determine the degree to which these 12 codes fully codes still accurately represented the data; we removed described the data. This second pass verified that the the code Suggested/Required to Come as no students 12 codes were sufficient, and we found that with just a in 2016–17 indicated this. Additionally, we added one few exceptions, we were able to apply them subcode for Writer Identity: Other; and removed two consistently, even when doing the coding separately. subcodes that did not appear in the 2016–17 data: For any discrepancies in our coding, we talked through Neutral Affect and Positive Self-Assessment. Finally, our reasoning and came to a consensus on which codes we added two subcodes to Consulting Preferences: should represent the specific data.

“What I want you to do” and “What you can expect Our third step was to look at all the data within a from me.” (See Appendix, Table 2 for a complete list given code to see if the data that had been assigned to of themes, codes, and subcodes, and the corresponding the same code was accurately represented by that code, number of responses for each.) or if the data revealed further distinctions. This work led to resolving additional minor coding discrepancies, Findings but more importantly helped us notice the nuances As seen in Appendix, Table 2 for the 2016–17 within each “About me” entry, in which different data, the most common types of information that words and phrases were best explained by different students provided, based on the number of times the codes. code appeared in the data, are described by the At this point, we determined that our Writer following codes: Writer Identity, Consulting Identity code needed to be subdivided to more Preferences, Student Identity, Type of Help Desired, accurately explain the data. Our fourth and final step, and Learner Identity. What follows is a discussion of then, was to go through the data we had already these codes organized by the themes in which we included under the Writer Identity code and develop grouped them. subcodes. We started with our initial insights—that much of the data seemed to be divided into comments Theme: Who am I? about grammar, anxiety about writing, and attitude In their “About me” text boxes, students most toward writing. As we worked through each piece of often wrote about what we’ve labeled Writer Identity. data together, we determined that we needed more This code encompasses student comments related to descriptive subcodes and more of them. For instance, their writing process, specific problems or challenges in the following example that was also used above, the they face when writing, their attitudes towards writing, phrases initially identified as “writer identity” have the and self-assessment of their writing abilities. additional subcodes “self-critique (general)” and “selfComments from students include the following: critique (grammar, punctuation)”: “Really want to increase writing skills, afraid to “I am transfer a student in 2015 fall. [student write individual report.” identity] So my english writing and speaking is not “I would consider myself an average writer. I good. [writer identity—self-critique (general)] I can struggle with grammar and proper use of APA talk in a low speed. Would you mind to talk to me formatting for research papers.” in a low speed. [type of help desired] Plus, I am “I’m not a very good writer.” struggle with my grammar [writer identity—self“I am not good at logical transitions and critique (grammar, punctuation)], can you help me connections between sentences and paragraphs. I how to develop the grammar? [type of help also want to make my writing read more natural.” desired] Thank you so much! [appreciation]” “I have practiced in my field for years and so have Through a process of joint coding and conversation, a lot of lived experiences which seem to influence we came up with 10 subcodes for the Writer Identity my writing...” code (see Appendix, Table 2).

In these comments alone, many aspects of writer We applied these 12 codes and 10 subcodes identity are shared: goals, fears, assessments of their generated during analysis of data from 2015–16 to writing abilities, difficulties they face, and past analyze the 2016–17 “About me” data. The third team experiences. These comments reveal a breadth of ideas member joined the first two to lend another Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Student Identity Disclosed: Analysis of an Online Student Profile Tool • 11 73! ! students shared relating to their writer identities, but harsh. I love any and all criticism and for people to the most common type of comment was self-critique. tell it like it is.”

Students in our sample were quick to point out their “I mostly just need someone to listen to me babble failings as writers. As writing consultants, we were not about my ideas” particularly surprised by this focus on self-critique; “Complex thesis topic - sorting it out one consult often in sessions, students focus on what they consider at a time.” to be their weaknesses as writers, and the feedback “It helps to write with someone during sessions to they receive from teachers often identifies failings in get started. Encouragement and positive their written work. reinforcement helps me a lot; to be reminded that The next most common type of information this is totally do-able and that I’m completely related to identity had to do with student major, year in capable of doing this.” school, undergraduate vs. graduate student status—all As can be seen by the above comments, students were of which are commonly discussed labels among not only asking for procedural help but also emotional university students: support. Emotional support is a key part of our “I’m a Freshman, major in nutrition.” consulting practices, and some of our writers “I am economics major” acknowledge this in their comments.

“New public health grad student for January 2016.

Finally, a number of students were specific about … Out of school since 2008.” the Type of Help Desired. They added ideas such as: It’s possible that providing this information was “I struggle with grammar and proper use of APA automatic for many students, given the many places in formatting for research papers.” higher education institutions where students are “I am looking for help ensuring I have presented required to identify themselves in this way. Indeed, if complete arguments/viewpoints in my writing any clients had read the online biographies of our AND I am looking for assistance with formatting writing consultants, they would have seen similar references.” information about program or major and year in The fact that students included specific information school provided by the consultants themselves. about what they wanted to work on during a given Many students also indicated what we called their consultation made sense to us since, presumably, that Learner Identity, where they stated their learning was one reason they were coming to Student Writing style(s) and/or a description of the ways in which they Support: to seek specific feedback from a writing learn best: consultant on their individual writing concerns.

“I am a multi-modal learner. I have to see it, hear it, write it, read it, and think about it, and this Discussion and Conclusions makes me a slower learner.”

Our analysis of students’ responses in the “About “I am a visual learner and find examples the most me” field reveals students’ awareness of their identities helpful to explain anything.” as writers, students, and learners as well as the These responses were likely prompted by the complexities of these identities in the context of explanatory tooltip next to the “About me” text field: visiting a writing center. We were not surprised that “If you know that you are a visual learner, for instance, students chose to focus on these identities, but the or that you like consultants to take notes for you when ways in which they did so continues to challenge our you talk, this is a great place for you to tell us that.” ideas and assumptions about the students who visit our The prevalence of discussions about learning styles and writing center. Additionally, we continue to question universal design on our campus may also contribute to the types of information we gather and the ways in this calling out of Learner Identity. which we do so. However, the data we’ve gathered affirms for us the relevance of our Student Profile tool Theme: Agenda setting/What might we do together? in showing how students understand themselves and Second to Writer Identity (and also likely their agency as writers and learners within our prompted by the above tooltip) was Consulting institution. Our findings also speak to larger Preferences, which included what writers wanted from conversations about the ways student identities are the consultants as well as how they would contribute to constructed and created within higher education, the sessions or what consultants could expect from connections between identity and writing, and issues of them: rhetorical agency.

“I don’t want consultants to feel like they have to As our findings reveal, many of the students who hold back on comments because they sound too wrote in the “About me” text box appear to be very Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Student Identity Disclosed: Analysis of an Online Student Profile Tool • 11 74! ! aware of their own goals, concerns, and experiences people to specific group identities, such classifications related to writing and see that information as important ignore other salient aspects of identity, establish to share. It is important to note that the 98 students hierarchies between the groups, and maintain who filled out the “About me” text box represent only inequitable and oppressive systems. In their analysis of 3% of our total student clientele that year; and that writing center mission statements, Erica Cirilloonly 13% of our student clients put anything in the McCarthy, Celeste Del Russo, and Elizabeth Leahy Student Profile, suggesting that many students are not note that the “practice of siloing students based on aware of the tool or do not feel motivated to use it as perceived linguistic abilities” ignores linguistic diversity, part of their interactions with our online scheduling often conflates language use with immigration status system. Yet, even with these small numbers, individual and other identity markers, and “fit[s] too neatly within student responses push us to see students as complex the narratives of deficit discourse” (68). Deficit individuals—so complex in fact that we needed to discourse suggests that students’ identities are generate multiple codes and subcodes to capture what problems rather than resources, and that these students they chose to share. need to be remediated. If students are viewed as Our work to look closely at how students are using needing to be remediated, the hierarchy between the Student Profile and what aspects of their identities student and tutor becomes more pronounced, and the they chose to disclose has also given us greater student has less power, or perceived power, in the appreciation for the complex nature of student consultation. identities within an institution and culture that is Although all students who visit the writing center continually classifying them and making assumptions must, to some degree, face the basic stigma associated about what aspects of their identity are relevant. with being A Person Seeking Help, students from one In her 1999 book Good Intentions, Nancy Grimm or more marginalized identities face actual micro- and draws on Louis Althusser’s notion of “interpellation,” macro-aggressions related to race, class, nation, or “hailing,” that is, how ideology recruits and language, ability, gender, ethnicity, and so on. Writing transforms individuals into subjects through everyday centers have become more aware of their own role in calling out of possible, seemingly natural, subject mitigating these aggressions, as Jacob Herrmann noted positions (174). Grimm encourages writing center in his discussion of the need for “brave/r spaces” for scholars to pay attention to the ways that writing LGBTQ+ writing center clients: “These students need centers are complicit in the naturalizing of particular to feel safe from negative repercussions based on their identities: gender and sexual identity. They need to feel welcomed Many teachers, students, and writing center tutors within the writing center, while also having a space in respond to institutional hailing by readily assuming which to discuss and develop their writing and the positions constructed by the institution. personal writerly identity.” Similarly, in their discussion Because we see others in the institution respond in of stereotype threat in healthcare settings, Aronson et similar fashion to interpellation and because we are al. suggest that attending to “a patient’s individuality rewarded for assuming certain positions, we come and strengths” could help disconfirm the relevance of to accept this process as normal—even good. (70) stereotype threat (54). Further, Mary C. Murphy and In our writing center, those normalized positions might Valerie Jones Taylor suggest that a critical mass of be, for example, Struggling Student, Expert Writer, “identity-safe” or “identity-affirming cues” (26) in Person Needing Help, and Responsible Tutor. Implicit academic settings could reduce stereotype threat. in these positions is a sense of academic hierarchy, with Given the importance of supporting individual tutors having more knowledge, responsibility, and identities within an institutional setting, then, we power than their student clients but less so than faculty wonder if our optional and editable Student Profile because they are positioned institutionally, as Muriel tool could be one way of reducing such threats, as well.

Harris notes, “somewhere between teachers and It is our hope that with the Student Profile tool’s students” (37). being open to what students want to disclose as well as Such normalized identities also help institutions being editable whenever the student chooses to add, maintain and exercise power, as Pierre Bourdieu argues revise, or remove information, student users are in his discussion of the “classification struggle” (482). offered a way to experience agency in identity-claiming.

According to Bourdieu, producing classificatory data is Students can share information about themselves a way of exercising power in larger social structures beyond how the larger university data systems classify because classificatory concepts create groups—think, them, and this information can serve as a for instance, of “native speakers” and “non-native countermeasure to the identities associated with helpspeakers”—who struggle for power. By reducing seeking and with what kinds of students belong in a Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Student Identity Disclosed: Analysis of an Online Student Profile Tool • 11 75! ! university. Yet, as the many self-critiques writers our writing center, this student will develop confidence include in the “About me” text box show, the tool still in their ability to write essays. Yet this student’s does not outweigh the power of institutional contexts statement marks a moment in time that has potentially where writing center clients are constructed—by been immortalized in our system. If a student’s Profile themselves and by the larger legacy of schooling—as remains unchanged over time, our consultants may deficient, remedial, or in need of “fixing.” approach their interactions with misconceptions about This is not surprising, after all, since the Student what could happen. For example, this student’s Profile tool is designed and hosted by an institution: it response links their student identity with specific determines which categories are relevant. Further, in consultation goals: “I am a new PhD student and want many ways, it has moved up parts of the institutional to improve my writing skill. So, I’d like to meet discursive moment of diagnosis—"Who is the client? regularly not for a specific writing assignment but for Why [are they] now in contact with the institution?” correcting overall writing pattern and style.” In this (Agar 149)—from an in-person interaction to a digital instance, improving writing skill might be the goal for one. Although a digital interaction on the surface can as long as the student visits the writing center. But very feel more institutional and less personal, we hoped shortly after writing this, the student will no longer be online access to the Student Profile would feel less a “new PhD student.” Both of these students, as firstcoercive and grant students the privacy and time to year undergrad and first-year PhD, imply that they are consider their responses. Nevertheless, students are not already writers but are in need of instruction and most likely to see the Profile and its prompts for correction; if they do not update their information, information about their identity when they are already they risk freezing their identities in the Profile. Even planning an institutional encounter (a writing the act of creating a data set we could study required us consultation), and so are primed to think of the Profile to set a date at the end of each academic year in which as another arm of institutional power. Ideally, the we would export the data to represent that year’s information a student provides in the Profile could student clients, with no ability to know if what was open up a conversation between the student and the written in their Profiles was what had been freshly writing consultant or allow the consultant to approach edited or was unchanged since their first visit many the initial interaction in a way that respects their years ago. claimed identity. For example, the consultant would Yet, as Amy Burgess and Roz Ivani note in their call the student by their preferred name, pronounce study of adult learners, writerly identities always shift their name correctly, use appropriate gender pronouns, through time, especially in interaction with readers: and acknowledge the information they share in the Over time, possibilities for selfhood combine and “About me” text box. recombine; new discoursal resources become That “About me” information is, in many ways, available; and context-specific patterns of the most interesting element of the Profile, since it privileging shift. For example, writing may at one gives students an opportunity to claim and reveal time be seen as something that is not done by aspects of their identity that they see as relevant for members of a particular group on a vocational their interaction with the writing center, often in ways course; over time, however, values might change that surprise us. For example, one student wrote, “I’m so that to be seen writing might become a marker a musician,” which did not fit into any of our codes of group membership, and taking on a literate (we ultimately classified it under a new Writer Identity identity might become highly admired as a marker subcode, Other). A few students have made jokes in of business acumen. Such a change, however, can the “About me” box like “I am horrible with only happen as a result of one of the group being commas,” (making sure to end the comment with a seen writing, and what she writes being read by comma, not a period). others who see it as holding out possibilities for Even as writers have made the Student Profile tool selfhood to which they might aspire. (24) their own, we recognize that the very act of putting If students take advantage of revising their Profile as text into the “About me” field can fix one’s identities their identities shift and change, then an online tool in problematic ways. For instance, one student wrote, that accounts for writerly identity is uniquely poised to “I am freshman, and a foreign student, and I am still support writers as they are “seen writing”—a goal of learning how to write essays, as I don’t know how to.” any writing center.

If this student does not revise their Profile, they will To resist freezing an identity in the moment of remain in our system as a first-year foreign student disclosure, Stephanie Kerschbaum posits a more who does not know how to write. It is our hope that dialogic understanding of identity disclosure. through experience in coursework, as well as visits to Specifically, Kerschbaum asks us to “orient to Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Student Identity Disclosed: Analysis of an Online Student Profile Tool • 11 76! ! difference as rhetorically negotiated through a process (among other things) “individuals have problems and named here as marking difference” (619). This solutions are individually-based; both success and processual and dialogic approach to difference failure are individual in nature; failure is individual and accounts for changes over time: “[I]t is with markers of often seen as weakness” (147). Another way of looking difference that people create, display, and respond to at those “About me” responses by students, then, changes in self and other and the perceived relations might be as responses to an institutional invitation to between them. To acknowledge individuals’ yet-to-beblame oneself for one’s own struggles with writing. In ness is to maintain an openness to one’s own and other words, we still have some work to do with the others’ identities and to refuse to take identity markers Profile—which individuals does it call out to? Which as fixed” (626). In its current form, the Profile risks (raced, classed, gendered) individuals does it make being a fixer, not a marker, of difference. space for? Which (raced, classed, gendered) Accordingly, to acknowledge and respect the audiences—that is, writing consultants—do clients fluidity and complexity of student identities, we’ve imagine will read their Profile responses? determined one significant change we’d like to make to We recognize that the Profile is part of larger the Student Profile tool. We plan to incorporate a popintentional and reflective work that needs to be done in up window to alert students to the tool the first time our and other writing centers. We work to recruit, they access our system each semester and remind them hire—and, crucially, learn from and retain— that they have the ability to make changes to their consultants of color, consultants with disabilities, Profile at any time. A reminder will hopefully serve to consultants who are multilingual, consultants who are challenge the idea of fixed identity and to acknowledge, nonbinary. We work to disrupt the tendency to make as Justin Hopkins describes in his account of the assumptions about gender identity, whether by Franklin and Marshall College Writing Center’s policy deliberately sharing gender pronouns (if any) in staff of asking for gender pronouns, that student “choices meetings, including pronouns (if any) on public-facing may change between filling out the form and the nametags, and developing instructional materials that session” (10). Most importantly, we hope regular deliberately deconstruct gender binaries (for example, encounters with the Student Profile will encourage we include singular they in our subject/verb agreement students to exercise their agency throughout their handout, and, among the typical resources on APA development as writers who work with Student Writing style and semicolons, we have an entire handout Support. devoted to using nonbinary gender pronouns). We Our good intentions, as Nancy Grimm reminds us, work to amplify the voices of people from are not enough; this is ongoing work. No matter what marginalized or multiply marginalized identities, new opportunities for agentive identification the whether in assigned readings or in leadership positions.

Student Profile affords, the fact remains that the tool, We also continue to make mistakes. the students, and the writing center all remain The conversations that arise, with both staff and participants in and subject to larger systems. We would clients, help us start to uncover, name, and discuss the like to think that the tool we developed would also contested intersections of identity, social location, remind those of us who are (or who serve the interests power, and privilege that have always been there. Even of) white, cisgender, middle-class, (English) as our institutional authority puts us in unequal power monolingual and/or any other number of intersecting relations with clients, the porous space of the writing powerful and “comfortable” identities in academia not center is also an opportunity. We are, of course, subject to rest within the comfortable, whitely idea of what is to institutional constraints, but we who work in writing the norm.; Nonetheless, stereotype threat is always a centers are also in a position to challenge the ways in risk in a PWI; misgendering is always a risk in a ciswhich higher education constructs student and writerly centric culture. In isolation, the Student Profile tool identities. We can do this in our own daily work, cannot overcome larger institutional and structural including but not limited to tools like the Student systems of oppression—and may even reinforce those Profile. We must intentionally create and expand space systems in some ways. for clients to claim and express their own identities in After all, the Profile’s very focus on individualism and against the university. can reinforce problematic beliefs that struggles with writing are merely individual, not the symptoms of Notes being in an oppressive system that requires people to write in a certain (white) way. Asao Inoue notes that 1. When we became aware of some of the political one core characteristic of whiteness as a discourse is and safety implications of the first language question, “the Individualized, Rational, Controlled Self,” where particularly for refugee students who had faced danger Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Student Identity Disclosed: Analysis of an Online Student Profile Tool • 11 77! ! based on their language identity in their home -----. “Rethinking Writing Center Work to Transform a countries, we took the baby step of including an System of Advantage Based on Race.” Writing Centers “undisclosed” option in case writers did not wish to and the New Racism, edited by Laura Greenfield and share a “first language.” However, when we asked this Karen Rowan, Utah State UP, 2011, pp. 75–100. intake question in person, we never formalized the idea Grutsch McKinney, Jackie. Peripheral Visions for Writing of saying “Would you like to share your first Centers. Utah State UP, 2013. language?” Instead, we continued asking “What is your Harris, Muriel. “Talking in the Middle: Why Writers Need first language?”, forcing the writer to be the one to Writing Tutors.” College English, vol. 57, no. 1, 1995, pp. introduce the possibility of refusal—a difficult move 27–42. for the less powerful person in the educational Hermann, Jacob. “Brave/r Spaces Vs. Safe Spaces for institution.

LGBTQ+ in the Writing Center: Theory and Practice 2. As Inoue points out, “language carries with it— at the University of Kansas.” The Peer Review, vol. 1, no. through our judging of it—imaginary bodies that are 2, 2017. hierarchized in our social world. We do this Hopkins, Justin B. “Preferred Pronouns in Writing Center unconsciously. We cannot help this associating of Reports.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 15, no. 2, racialized bodies with language practices” (139).

2018, pp. 9-11.

3. We thank Co-Director Jasmine Kar Tang for first Inoue, Asao B. “Friday Plenary Address: Racism in Writing sharing with us this important observation about our Programs and in the CWPA.” WPA: Writing Program website and database, which she made when she was a Administration, vol. 40, no. 1, 2016, pp. 134-154. writing consultant during her graduate program at Kerschbaum, Stephanie. “Avoiding the Difference UMN. That the Profile now gives students agency to Fixation: Identity Categories, Markers of Difference, identify their multiple languages acknowledges those and the Teaching of Writing.” College Composition and languages as resources, as discussed in the growing Communication, vol. 63, no. 4, 2012, pp. 616–644. body of writing center scholarship on multilingual Kohli, Rita and Daniel G. Solórzano. “Teachers, Please writers, specifically Bobbi Olson’s “Rethinking Our Learn Our Names!: Racial Microaggressions and the Work with Multilingual Writers” (Praxis vol. 10, no. 2, K–12 Classroom.” Race Ethnicity and Education, vol. 15, 2013), Ben Rafoth’s Multilingual Writers and Writing no. 4, 2012, pp. 441–462.

Centers (Utah State University Press, 2015), and Shanti Lape, Noreen. “The Worth of the Writing Center: Bruce and Ben Rafoth’s Tutoring Second Language Writers Numbers, Value, Culture, and the Rhetoric of Budget (Utah State University Press, 2016).

Proposals.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 10, no.

1, 2012.

Lerner, Neal. “Counting Beans and Making Beans Count.”

Works Cited Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 22, no. 1, 1997, pp. 1–3.

Murphy, Mary C., and Valerie Jones Taylor. “The Role of Agar, Michael. “Institutional Discourse.” Text, vol. 5, no. 3, Situational Cues in Signaling and Maintaining 1985, pp. 147–168.

Stereotype Threat.” Stereotype Threat: Theory, Process, and Althusser, Louis. “Ideology and Ideological State Application, edited by Michael Inzlicht and Toni Apparatuses.” Lenin and Philosophy, and Other Essays.

Schmader, Oxford UP, 2012, pp. 17–33.

Translated by Ben Brewster, Monthly Review Press, Patton, Michael Q. Qualitative Research and Evaluation 1971, pp. 127–186.

Methods. 3rd ed., Sage, 2002.

Aronson, Joshua, et al. “Unhealthy Interactions: The Role Salem, Lori. “Decisions… Decisions: Who Chooses to Use of Stereotype Threat in Health Disparities.” American the Writing Center?” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 35, Journal of Public Health, vol. 103, no. 1, 2013, pp. 50–56. no. 2, 2016, pp. 147–171.

Bourdieu, Pierre. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement Schendel, Ellen, and William J. Macauley. Building Writing of Taste. Translated by Richard Nice, Routledge, 2010.

Center Assessments that Matter. UP of Colorado, 2012.

Shih, David. “What Comfort Tells Us about Racism.” 1 Apr. Burgess, Amy, and Roz Ivanič. “Writing and Being 2015, professorshih.blogspot.com/2015/04/whatWritten: Issues of Identity Across Timescales.” Written comfort-tells-us-about-racism.html Communication, vol. 27, no. 2, 2010, pp. 228–255.

Cirillo-McCarthy, Erica, et al. “‘We Don’t Do That Here’: Calling Out Deficit Discourses in the Writing Center to Reframe Multilingual Graduate Support.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, 2016, pp. 62–71.

Grimm, Nancy Maloney. Good Intentions: Writing Center Work for Postmodern Times. Heinemann, 1999.

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Student Identity Disclosed: Analysis of an Online Student Profile Tool • 11 78! !

Appendix Figure 1: Student profile with explanatory tooltips. The figure below is the student view of the default Edit My Profile page, supplemented with all the explanatory tooltips. On the live site, each tooltip becomes visible only when the user hovers over the question mark to the left of each prompt.

Table 1: This table lists each Student Profile prompt and its associated explanatory tooltip.

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Student Identity Disclosed: Analysis of an Online Student Profile Tool • 11 79! !

Table 2: Development of codes over two sets of data. Themes, Codes, Sub-codes (number of times the code appeared in the data)

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17 No 1 (2019)

CENTERING SERVICE TO GRADUATE WRITERS REVIEW OF RE/WRITING THE CENTER: APPROACHES TO SUPPORTING GRADUATE STUDENTS IN THE WRITING CENTER, EDITED BY SUSAN LAWRENCE AND TERRY MYERS ZAWACKI Katherine Field Rothschild St. Mary’s College of California kfield@stmarys-ca.edu Lawrence, Susan and Terry Myers Zawacki, T., editors. Re/Writing the Center: Approaches to Supporting Graduate Students in the Writing Center. Utah State UP, 2018. 270 pages, $34.95.

At the Kathleen Jones White Writing Center at Indiana University of Pennsylvania (IUP), I have been both witness to and participant in myriad innovative graduate services at a generalist college writing center.

IUP’s center is fifty years in the making, and today their practices reflect recent graduate student writing scholarship—including many practices recommended in Re/Writing the Center: Approaches to Supporting Graduate Students in the Writing Center, edited by Susan Lawrence and Terry Myers Zawacki. Those writing center services include innovative approaches, such as a Graduate Editing Service, hybrid models of tutoring, partnership with the School of Graduate Studies and Research, and explicit training in access for multilingual and international students. What Re/Writing the Center offers is not just elaboration on the many writing center services that may assist graduate students to degree completion, but the argument that to support future scholarship, writing center directors and writing program administrators must strive to holistically serve all graduate students’ writing needs.

Re/Writing the Center seems both an attempt to end the conversation about whether we should support graduate student writers, and begin another about the challenges of doing so. In writing center studies, we have agreed that supporting graduate students is necessary, and the literature illustrates various successful approaches to graduate writing needs (Bell and Hewerdine, Busl, Donnelly, and Capdevielle, Medvecky, Simpson, Voorhies). Other disciplines, however, may not yet see the necessity of graduate students’ writing development. In Re/Writing the Center one frequent source of concern is the “sometimesdaunting faculty adviso[r] whose ideas of graduate writing and the needs of graduate writers may not mesh with ours” (Gillespie 6). The contributors to the

volume suggest several pathways to overcoming this issue, including WID/writing center collaborations and internal mentorship models, which will be discussed in a moment. But it is worth pausing here to explore the climate of conversation about graduate writing support services.

In 2016, responding to writing consultant Daveena Tauber’s assertion that private writing consultation may be a necessary pathway to addressing the issues that graduate student writers have in finishing doctoral work expediently or at all, Shannon Madden and Jerry Stinnett’s series of three articles on the Writing Center Journal blog asserting that while “mentorship services” for graduate students are showing up on more campuses nationwide, they “are still not present at the majority of U.S. universities.” However, Madden and Stinnett explain, there are many internal collegiate pathways that can assist these students. In other words, we writing center practitioners can do it. The suggestion that graduate students still need more support—and that such support is a systemic collegiate problem—is the strongest argument set forth in Re/Writing the Center.

In recent years, an increasing number of studies have looked at ways to serve the diverse population of graduate students. Some innovative graduate writing support services are writing camps, or retreats where doctoral students are given writing space and time, but no instruction (Busl, Donnelly, and Capdevielle), specialized tutor training for graduate writing with recommendations for tutors to be trained in WID (Vorhies), and efforts to engage peer tutors in creating their own professional development to meet the needs of students and build their vitas in the process (LeCluyse & Mendlesohn). Re/Writing the Center adds several more, including the successes of pre-tutoring intake and orientation meetings (Lawrence, Tetreault, and Deans, chapter five), hybrid consultations where tutors read online before meeting in person (Kallestinova, chapter six), and training tutors to use Comparative Genre Analysis, or CGA, to meet the

Review of Re/Writing the Center: Approaches to Supporting Graduate Students in the Writing Center • 81 needs of STEM students (Reineke, Glavan, Phillips, and Wolfe, chapter eight). And in his chapter on multilingual STEM graduate students in writing centers, Simpson suggests that writing centers position themselves as “”resources for advisors and graduate faculty” (79). But elsewhere, the contributors maintain that there is no single proven method for graduate writing success (Simpson, “The Problem of Graduate Level Writing Support”).

In recommended praxis, Re/Writing the Center’s contributors align well with Nancy Grimm’s frameworks that make space in the center for Global Englishes, for differing discourse systems and genres, and for the understanding that students live within social powers and contexts beyond their control.

Possibly growing from these ideas, the collection includes chapters on STEM writers, service to multilingual writers, graduate student identity, and proofreading. A focus on the last, however, demonstrates that as a collective body of writing professionals, we are still struggling to create space free from bias and limited service behaviors (Grimm).

Perhaps the best example of an access struggle is Joan Turner’s chapter on proofreading, or what she calls “microlevel issues of language use.” She argues the “right” kind of language is still expected (101), despite many scholar-researchers’ push for less normative standards (Young) and more flexibility and openness to multilingual writers’ written inflection. As Turner says, “proofreading can also be seen as a process of cultural sanitation, making all texts conform to acknowledged standards” (101) and according to her research, these standards are still deeply ingrained in the dissertation process. We are clearly not done with the proofreading conversation or the discussion of how writing centers can equivalently listen to and serve multilingual writers. Altogether, this book, despite its intention to revise our assumptions, illustrates that we are still grappling with them.

That said, the contributors clearly share the belief that graduate students need writing centers not just to complete degrees or to move quickly to defense (Mannon 59), but to better understand and create knowledge in their fields (Madden and Stinnett) and that learning to write for academic audiences will assist them to knowledge-create in their disciplines. Several contributors cite Anthony Paré in his efforts to link writing with knowledge creation. In chapter twelve, Lenaghan asserts that “academic writing is an iterative process through which knowledge is made” (241). This emphasis on knowledge-creation, and the necessity of supporting graduate students who will be contributors to their fields, is woven throughout the volume.

Re/Writing the Center is grounded in the call for writing

centers to be “change agents in support of graduate students” (Purdue, 256).

In Re/Writing the Center, we are reminded that scholars work collaboratively. We don’t go it alone, and we should not expect our graduate students to. In the conclusion to the book, Sherry Wynn Perdue asserts that “if [graduate students] were going to perceive of themselves as knowledge makers, their supervisors needed more explicit preparation for and knowledge of the writing process” (257). In the end, that is the story of this volume: a strong message from excellent researchers in the field that if we are to lift up scholars who will create knowledge in their disciplines, we must invest time in graduate students’ writing development.

!

Works Cited Bell, Katrina and Jennifer Hewerdine. “Creating a Community of Learners: Affinity Groups and Informal Graduate Writing Support.” Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, vol. 14, no. 1, 2016.

Bruce, Shanti and Bennett Rafoth, editors. Tutoring Second Language Writers. Utah State UP, 2016.

Busl, Gretchen, Donnelly, Kara Lee, and Matthew Capdevielle. “Camping in the Disciplines: Assessing the Effect of Writing Camps on Graduate Student Writers. Across the Disciplines: A Journal of Language, Learning, and Academic Writing, vol. 12 no. 3, 2015, pp. 1-20.

Grimm, Nancy. New Conceptual Frameworks for Writing Center Work. The Writing Center Journal vol.

29 no. 2, 2009, pp. 19-27.

LeCluyse, Christopher and Sue Mendlesohn. “Training as Invention: Topoi for Graduate Writing Consultants.” (E)Merging Identities: Graduate Students in the Writing Center, edited by Melissa Nicolas.

Fountainhead Press, 2008, pp. 103-16.

Madden, Shannon and Jerry Stinnett. “Empowering Graduate Student Writers and Rejecting Outsourced Mentorship.” Writing Center Journal Blog, July 7, 2016, http://www.writingcenterjournal.org/newblog//empowering-graduate-student-writers-andrejecting-outsourced-mentorship.

Mannon, Bethany Ober. “What do Graduate Students Want from the Writing Center? Tutoring Practices to Support Dissertation and Thesis Writers. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal vol. 13 no. 2, 2016.

Medvecky, Craig. “Chapter 3: Enter the Dragon: Graduate Tutor Education in the Hall of Mirrors.”

How we Teach Writing Tutors, edited by. Karen Gabrielle Johnson and Ted Roggerbuck. Journal of Writing Center Scholarship. 2019.

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

81!

Review of Re/Writing the Center: Approaches to Supporting Graduate Students in the Writing Center • 82 Simpson, Steve. “The Problem of Graduate-level Writing Support: Building a Cross-Campus Graduate Writing Initiative.” WPA: Writing Program Administration, vol. 36 no. 1, 2012.

Tauber, Daveena. “Expanding the Writing Franchise: Composition Consulting at the Graduate Level.”

College Composition and Communication, no. 4, 2016, pp. 634-657.

Vorhies, Heather Blaine. “Building Professional Scholars: The Writing Center at the Graduate Level.” The Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 39 no. 5-6, 2015, pp. 6-9.

Young, Vershawn Ashanti. “’Nah, we straight’: An argument against code switching.” JAC, vol. 29 no.

1/2, 2009, pp. 49-76, http://www.jstor.org/stable/20866886.

Praxis: A Writing Center Journal • Vol 17, No 1 (2019) www.praxisuwc.com!

!

82!