Supporting Students’ Transition to University Writing

Write Now CETL 1Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

Supporting Students’ Transition to University Writing

The role of peer writing mentors

3rd Annual Students Writing in Transition Symposium Nottingham Trent University

September 2010

Kathy Harrington and Peter O’NeillWrite Now Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning

London Metropolitan University

London Met Writing Centre• established in October 2006 with CETL grant funding• objectives:

– avoid institutional duplication (existing Learning Development Unit)

– offer something innovative in context of UK writing support

– conduct research into effectiveness– evaluate a model of student-led writing support

that might be implemented in other HEIs

3Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010Write Now CETL

More specifically...

• We wanted to:– support students’ transitions to the next step in

their academic and disciplinary writing journeys, whatever their starting point

– help students feel more confident and competent as writers in a university context

– facilitate students’ learning and engagement with the subject matter of their studies

Write Now CETL Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 4

Welcome to the Writing Centre at London Met

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnZ0Yn5OuZs


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnZ0Yn5OuZs

Origin of Writing Mentor schemes

• US experience: writing centres served by “peer tutors” – up to 20000 tutorials per semester.

• Relationship to US Comp programmes and “Rhetoric and Composition” theorising


US responses to “student writing”

• US “Freshman Composition” (Harvard 1874) and Writing Labs (Writing Centres)

• WAC / WID / CAC

US response assumes that attention to writing is for all students and integral to the curriculum.


Supplementary writing support• Writing Centres and peer tutors• Bruffee: “near desperate response” of US institutions in 1970s to non-

traditional/under-prepared students (open admissions etc). • “Why Johnny can’t write”… (Newsweek, 1975)• “The common denominator among both the poorly prepared and the

seemingly well-prepared was that, for cultural reasons we may not yet fully understand, all these students seemed to have difficulty adapting to the traditional or ‘normal’ conventions of the college classroom” (1984 p.637)– “it was the traditional classroom learning that seemed to have left

these students unprepared in the first place. What they needed… was help of a sort that was not an extension but an alternative to the traditional classroom” (1984, p.637)

• Alternative to traditional classroom needed• Peer tutoring and collaborative learning, influenced by British school

education in 1960s (1984, p.636-37)


Widening participation• Cf. UK context 1990s and 2000s – expansion of

HE/WP has parallels to US 1970s experience. • Lamentations about writing: psychology lecturers in

THES bemoaning “appallingly bad” written English (Newman 2007)


Writing Matters• No optimistic gloss can be put on it. No artfully crafted

explanation will work. Large numbers of contemporary British undergraduates lack the basic ability to express themselves in writing. Many students are simply not ready for the demands that higher education is making – or should be making – of them… There may be debate about the causes, and about the prognosis, but there is unanimity about what the fellows have seen. The single word that crops up more than any other in describing what they have found on entering higher education institutions is “shock” (Murray and Kirton, 2006 p.7)


Using peer writing mentors

• St Mary’s University College, Belfast (number two in recent national student satisfaction survey)

• UCL postgraduate scheme• More recent schemes being implemented

• But not without some controversies…


Responsibility for writing instruction• LDU: cf. Devet and Orr (2006) – LDU: more life experience;

less “middle-class” and “mono-lingual”; do not see themselves as “better” than students they are working with; equally capable of non-directive pedagogies (n.b. may reflect unique context of an elite art school)

• RLF Writing Matters: “Writers themselves, however, are the best teachers of writing…” (Angier and Palmer, 2006, p23)

• Role of peer tutors• Role of lecturers

Complementary role of these?Need to know more about what happens in an LDU tutorial, an

RLF tutorial, a writing centre peer tutorial.


Adapting the US experience: discipline specific

• Cf. US experience• UK disciplinary degrees • WC online booking (screenshot)


Towards “Writing Mentors”

• “It should be careful noted that in forming a mentoring relationship the point is not to create dependency but to promote self-direction. A mentor may serve as a catalyst for change – but when a goal is achieved or a skill accomplished the partner must be able to own the achievement as their own” (Ender and Newton 2000, 16-17)


Rationale for Writing Mentors


Rationale 1: London Met and retention/widening participation

• Vincent Tinto (drawing on Durkheim's work on suicide - which he considered to be analogous) argues that it is above all successful integration into the academic and social culture that brings about what he calls "student persistence". By contrast, failure of students to integrate academically and socially is the main predictor of withdrawal.

• Academic component alongside traditional mentoring programmes.

• Yorke and Longden on student retention: poor choice of course; financial difficulties; unsatisfactory learning experiences.


Rationale 2: AcLits• Need “to move away from a skills-based, deficit model of

student writing and to consider the complexity of writing practices that are taking place at degree level in universities” (Lea and Steet, 1998, p157)

• Writing not a skill to be mastered but an issue “at the level of epistemology and identities” (159) and literacies as “social practices” (159)

• AcLits pedagogies: Lillis – likely to involve dialogues between student-writers and tutor-readers which “enable participation in dominant academic literacy practices as well as provide opportunities for challenging aspects of such practices” (Lillis, 2006 p33)

• Role of lecturers


Social constructionism/AcLits• Lecturer should help students understand

complexities of discipline and enable them to become better disciplinary writers– addressing “epistemological assumptions”– demonstrating “how knowledge is constructed in the specific

discipline”– making “it explicit that students are not recipients of, but active

contributors to knowledge”– demonstrating “rhetorical processes in academic writing, for instance

ways of integrating one’s own voice with existing knowledge” (Wingate, 2006, p464)

• Role of peers – informal space to negotiate dominant literacy practices expected of students


Rationale 3: Cognition• Reflective thinking emerges out of internalisation of

public/social talk/conversation (Vygotsky)• Bruffee: “If thought is internalised public and social

talk, then writing of all kinds is internalised social talk made public and social again. If thought is internalised conversation, then writing is internalised conversation re-externalised” (p641).

• Need for good talk around writing: role of talk in clarifying thought as well as in allowing participation in and contestation of academy (AcLits)


Rationale 4: Collaborative learning• Move to collaboration reflects an epistemological shift away

from seeing reality and knowledge as exterior, immediately accessible and unproblematically knowable. Instead, we now view “knowledge and reality as mediated or constructed through language in social use, as socially constructed, contextualised, as, in short, the product of collaboration” (Lunsford, 1999 p.4)

• For real collaboration, hierarchies inherent in traditional university serve as obstacle: hence peer tutors as ideal collaborators for student writers

• Zone of proximal development (Vygotsky)• “I’m very pleased. This mentor is great. We had a long session

today, probably longer than either of us expected but we made it through and I’m well on my way with my essay”


Rationale 5: Voice / confidence• Role of informal encouragement and feedback

“We talked a lot about writing in German and in English, as she is a native speaker of German … and Hanna felt she eventually reconnected with the ability to say what she wanted to say.”

“I felt that my session went very well and am very pleased. Before attending the tutorial I didn’t believe that I could write a coherent conclusion. By the end of the tutorial I have a new found confidence in my ability. I also found that I understood more about the module than I did initially”


James Berlin: four theoretical paradigms for teaching composition

• Current-traditional (writing as product/correctness/form)• Cognitive (thinking process). Cf. Vygotsky/Bruffee• Expressionist (developing voice/identity/argument)• Social constructionist

(Carino 2008, p. 125f)

Devet: peer tutoring encompasses all these approaches except current-traditional (but might it not in fact also encompass this?)“It was very useful. It really helped me specifically for references and bibliography. I now know how to write an introduction. I have some examples of bibliography, as it is important for the reference and bibliography system.”


From rationale to reality...


Number of tutorials conducted


Who comes for a tutorial?


Students’ first language


Students’ areas of study


87

52

80

95

70

39

87

109

101

50

99

99

25

98

77

60

0 100 200 300 400 500 600

1 (2006-07)

2 (2007-08)

3 (2008-09)

4 (2009-10)

Year

Applied Social Sciences ComputingHumanities, Arts, Languages & Education Life Sciences (includes Psychology)Law, Governance & IR Business SchoolArt, Media & Design Not stated

London Met and the Writing Centre1st year - 2006-07

• approximately 400 students

• approximately 675 tutorials 0 20 40 60 80

Males

Females

A comparison of gender distribution of students at London Metropolitan University and the Writing

Centre in 2006-07

London Met

WritingCentre

The ethnic group distribution of students who visited the Writing Centre in 2006-07

35%

17%22%

21%

3%

2% White

Asian

Black

Mixed

Other

Not Stated

The ethnic group distribution of students at London Metropolitan University in 2006-07

45%

55%

White

Non-White


Research into scheme• importance of evaluating effectiveness• need for an evidence-based approach • dissemination and impact

– lecturers– students– senior managers

• informing ongoing practice• since 2006, engaged in multi-phase study

investigating effectiveness of peer writing tutorials in context of UK Higher Education


• Phase 1: mentors’ experiences• Phase 2: students’ experiences

• Phase 3 (ongoing): relationship between peer writing tutorials and student learning, achievement and retention– “Mentoring for Success” project (Aston University)

• includes focus on specific students who may be at a higher risk of dropping out (mature, disabled, first generation)

– Tutorial recordings archive– Göttingen exchange: international students’ experiences


Aspects of research

Phase 1: mentors’ experiencesWhat did mentors’ comments reveal about what was taking place in the process of a peer writing tutorial?

• qualitative study, Oct 06 – Dec 07• thematic analysis of open-ended comments following

674 hour-long tutorials, with 400 students– Informed by Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis

(IPA) (Smith & Osborn, 2003)– Prompt: “Please reflect on your session. (E.g. How do you

feel you were able to help the student? What could have gone better?)”


Phase 1 - findingsWhat makes for a successful tutorial from the Writing Mentors’ perspective?

• Four broad themes emerged from analysis of mentors’ reflections

• Theme 1: Interpersonal relationship between student and mentor– Building a rapport– Encouragement/emotional support– Setting expectations– Non-directive enabling

• Theme 2: Student’s relationship to own writing– Confidence/anxiety– Finding own voice


Phase 1 – findings continuedTheme 3: Student and mentor working together

– Collaborating/writing together– Informal talk

Theme 4: Mentor self-reflections– Challenges– Satisfaction

• Overarching importance of relational and collaborative aspects of learning, affective and practical dimensions– between mentor and student – between student and writing self – between mentor and reflective self

Findings informed training for year two of Scheme, 2007-08


Phase 2: students’ experiences


Phase 2: Students’ experiencesTo what degree did students feel that the mentors provided an environment supportive of their own writing development?

• motivations for attending tutorials• specific writing concerns and degree addressed• students’ attitudes to own writing before and after tutorials• nature of relationship between student and mentor

• qualitative and quantitative study, Oct-Dec 07• cross-sectional survey via online questionnaire (n=99;

representative of Writing Centre users)• descriptive statistics and inferential tests• thematic analysis of open-ended responses


Students’ satisfaction


91%

7%2%

Students' degree of overall satisfaction with the tutorials they have had (n=67)

Very satisfied or satisfied

Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied

Dissatisfied or very dissatisfied

Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 38

Motivations for attendingImportance of factors influencing

students' decisions to book their first tutorial (n=77)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Wantingencouragement to help

me stay motivated

Being able to talk aboutmy writing withsomeone else

Wanting assurance thatI'm on the right track

A lecturer'srecommendation

Very or fairly importantNeither important nor unimportantOnly a little important or not important at all

Write Now CETL

Specific writing concerns


0 10 20 30 40 50 60

%

Addressing the question

Critical evaluation/analysis

Developing an argument

Motivation to write

Writing paragraphs

Referencing

Spelling, punctuation and grammar

Content

Structure

Using evidence

Writing in an academic style

Subject- specific writing

Other

Students' reasons for booking their first tutorial (n=78) [multiple answers per student possible]

Specific concerns met?


83%

11%6%

Degree to which students' felt that the reasons for booking their first tutorial were addressed (n=77)

Very or fairly well

Not sure

Not very well or not at all


Students’ confidence as writersStudents' self-ratings of confidence about their own writing

BEFORE/AFTER coming to the Writing Centre? (n= 68/69)

0

5

10

15

20

AFTER

BEFORE

Write Now CETL


Thematic analysis of open-ended comments (n=66)

1. Mentor’s approach/process of sessions 25.8% (17)– “laughed about things like bibliographies, and learnt

about it together, as she was not sure how it worked either” 2. Received “help” or “feedback” 25.8% (17)

3. Non-judgemental atmosphere/tone of sessions 18.2% (12)

4. Learnt an aspect of academic writing 10.6% (7)– “building argument and critical analysis”, “how to structure”

5. Attitude to self/writing as a result of session 7.6% (5)– “got more confident about my writing”

6. One-to-one nature of sessions 6.0% (4)

7. N/A 3.0% (2)

8. “don’t know”/”one-off”/other 3.0% (2)

Students asked: What did you like most about your tutorials?

Disciplinarity of tutorialsDegree to which students found it helpful to have a

Writing Mentor from A DIFFERENT/THE SAME subject area (n=66)

30.6

20.323.8 25.4

68.8

13.1

1.6

16.4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Very or fairly helpful Neither helpful norunhelpful

Only a little helpful or nothelpful at all

N/A

different subject same subject



Students’ commentsOn improved confidence in own writing• It was fantastic when I found my personal abilities for writing during the tutorial.

• The session has really helped me. My mentor…helped me understand how to structure an essay properly…and identify strengths of mine, as I’d only been able to identify weaknesses. The session has given me the confidence to believe that I can get a good mark on this module assignment.

On benefits of peer discussion around writing• The session was very helpful. I really enjoyed discussing my paper and finding ways to

improve it.

• The discussion between my mentor and me is motivating me to get better in my writing style.

• With her help, I locate my problem and find the solution. I really enjoy this tutorial.

Write Now CETL


Phases 1 & 2 - conclusions• Key factors contributing to effective peer writing tutorials

– centrality of collaboration and non-directive enabling– student flexibility and willingness to adopt collaborative

approach, even when initial expectations may differ– training programme that emphasises collaborative ethos and

encourages continuous reflection on practical application in tutorials

• Appropriately trained students are able to facilitate the kind of dialogue around writing that can help fellow students develop into confident academic writers

Write Now CETL

Phase 3: Relationship between writing tutorials and student learning, achievement and retention

• Part of the larger “Pathways to Success through Peer Mentoring” project – led by Aston University– funded by HEFCE and the Paul Hamlyn Foundation– involving eight institutions (UK and Canada)


Research questions• Does participation in peer writing tutorials promote

student success?

• Sub-questions:– What demographic, pedagogic and other factors influence

the outcomes of peer writing tutorials?

– What is the long-term pedagogical impact of participating in peer writing tutorials?

– What are the determining characteristics in the process of conducting peer writing tutorials?


Building on earlier study• Small-scale study into effect of Writing Mentor tutorials on

students’ grades in Business module at Aston University (Yeats et al., in press 2010)

• Found higher grades amongst students who had tutorials (statistically significant)

• However, did not control for students’ motivation or entry level– so higher grades could be a reflection of more motivated and

academically stronger students opting for peer tutorials, rather than an effect of the tutorials themselves

• Our phase 3 study aims to take these variables into account– motivation: use of a Learning and Study Skills Inventory (LASSI)– entry level from University database – hoping for preliminary results by end of year


Economic challenges

• Broader context• Demonstrating effectiveness• Criteria for success

– value for money– quality of students’ learning and writing– achievement levels – employment and further study



ReferencesAngier, Carole and Palmer, William (2006). Writing Solutions. In Davies, Stevie; Swinburne, David and Williams, Gweno (Eds.) Writing

Matters: The Royal Literary Fund Report on Student Writing in Higher Education, London: The Royal Literary Fund, p15-25.Bruffee, Kenneth A. (1984). Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind’, College English, 46, 635-52.Carino, Peter (1995). Theorizing the Writing Center: an uneasy task. Dialogue: A Journal for Writing Specialists 2.1, 23-27, in Longman Guide

p124-138.Devet, Bonnie; Orr, Susan; Blythman, Margo; and Bishop, Celia (2006). Peering across the pond: The role of students in developing other

students' writing in the US and UK. In Lisa Ganobcsik-Williams (Ed.), Teaching Academic Writing in UK Higher Education, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, p196-211.

Ender, Steven C. and Newton, Fred B. (2000). Students Helping Students: A Guide for Peer Educators on College Campuses, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.

Lea, Mary R. & Street, Brian V. (1998). Student Writing in Higher Education: an academic literacies approach, Studies in Higher Education, 23, 157-72.

Lillis, Theresa M. (2006). Moving Towards an ‘Academic Literacies’ Pedagogy: Dialogues of Participation. In Lisa Ganobcsik-Williams (Ed.), Teaching Academic Writing in UK Higher Education, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, p30-45.

Lunsford, Andrea (1991). Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center. The Writing Center Journal, 12.1, 3-10.Murray, Nicholas and Kirton, Bill (2006). An Analysis of the Current Situation. In Davies, Stevie, Swinburne, David and Williams, Gweno (Eds.)

Writing Matters: The Royal Literary Fund Report on Student Writing in Higher Education, London: The Royal Literary Fund, p7-13.Newman, Melanie (2007, March 16). ‘Appalling’ Writing Skills Drive Tutors to Seek Help. Times Higher Education Supplement, 6.North, Stephen M. (1982). Training Students to Talk about Writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 434-441.Smith, J.A. & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J.A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to

Methods, London: Sage.Tinto, Vincent (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Vygotsky, Lev. (1986). Thought and Language, revised and edited by A. Kozulin, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Wingate, Ursula (2006). Doing away with ‘study skills.’ Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 457-69.Yeats, Rowena; Reddy, Peter; Wheeler, Anne; Senior, Carl and Murray, John (In press, 2010). What a difference a writing centre makes: a small

scale study. Education and Training.Yorke, Mantz and Longden, Bernard (2003). The first-year experience of higher education in the UK. HEA Final Report.

Write Now CETL


Contact:

Kathy Harrington, [email protected], 020 7320 2254Peter O’Neill, [email protected], 020 7320 1086

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Write Now CETL Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

53

Supporting Students’ Transition to University Writing

Documents

Transcript of Supporting Students’ Transition to University Writing