Download - ECWCA Newsletter Fall 2011

5/10/2018 ECWCA Newsletter Fall 2011 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/ecwca-newsletter-fall-2011 1/24

East Central Writing Centers Association Fall 20

ECWCAWriting Center Data: What Do We Need

and How Should We Use It?

Diane Boehm, Jacob Blumner, Mary Ann Krajnik Crawford,

Sherry Wynn Perdue, and Helen Raica-Klotz

I am thrilled with this current issue of ECWCA. Not only should it begin to express theariety of work going on in our geographic region, it should inspire each of us to find

ways to transform the how we conduct our writing center affairs. The pieces in thisissue give me reason to pause and consider how data can be collected and used todocument Writing Center work but also reveal Writing Center work to do. The piecesmake me ask myself how I might see Writing Center spaces as collaborative spaces forpersonal and group growth and as zones for open dialogue and change. I am taken

ack to sessions I’ve had to reflect on best practices and better practices in the future.

And I am encouraged by the dedication directors, tutors, administrators, andcommunity partners have to Writing Center ideas and how these stakeholders revealtheir dedication through their work.

I hope you will gain something from this issue and find ways to challenge the ideashere or push them to the next level. Dialogues like the ones begun here are essential toour identity and wonderful ways for us to look beyond our individual center walls andat the larger region. I look forward to seeing more of your contributions in the nextissue and at our next conference!

-Anthony Garrison

This Issue: A Note from the Editor

Fall 2011

Learning writing center methodology means learninto collaborate with others, not to assume we have all

the answers, but to help others find their own; to keepbroad goals in mind even as we weave the needs of

others into our practice.

- Jeanne Smith et al. – Kent State Universi

A Writing Center is always about people—their words, theirthoughts, and their aspirations. To understand our users, to tellour story, and to present our work professionally to colleagues andadministrators, however, we also need data. The data we collectand analyze depends on numerous factors: the programs andsystems we use to collect the data, the questions we bring to our

analysis, and the arguments we wish to make about the qualityand quantity of our work.

This article compares and contrasts perspectives from fourdifferent Michigan universities: Central Michigan University,Saginaw Valley State University, University of Michigan - Flint,and Oakland University. Though our centers have much incommon, we also have significant differences in our perspectives,as you will see.

Table 1 provides an overview of data collection in our four centers,followed by commentary written by each center.

Continued on page 3

ARTICLES

Writing Center date: What do we needand how should we use it?

Queer Consulting: Assessing theDegree to which Differences Affect aWriting Consultation

The Accidental Writing Center:Program Growth through Negotiationand Collaboration

9

Communicating Across Borders:Consulting ESL Students Online

1

To Game or Not to Game: The Affects ofGamifying Our Website

1

Notes of a Fortunate Writing CenterConsultant: What My Students withLearning Disabilities Have Taught Me

about the Writing Process

1

Assessing Our Success: The 2011 EastCentral Writing Centers AssociationConference

1

Tutor Voices 1

2012 ECWCA CFP 2

Calls for Papers 2

A Letter from the President of ECWCA

ADDITIONAL CONTENT

Regional Announcement 2



2

East Central Writing Centers Association

In my writing classes, I often teach ethnography. What Ireally like about teaching and doing ethnographies is thatethnography asks us to reconsider what is “normal.” Theidea is for the ethnographer to immerse him or herself into a

culture to such a degree that he or she can see (or at least tryto see) the world from a different point of view. Anethnographer listens, observes, and participates until anunfamiliar community becomes familiar.

When we gather at the ECWCA conference each year, eachof us carries intimate knowledge of the writing centerswhere we work, research, or get writing feedback. Thosewriting centers are familiar and “normal” to us. Part of theoy of the annual conference comes by listening, observing,and participating, and thus we learn to see how our ownassumptions and practices are not the “norm;” they are justsimply familiar. As with ethnography, these sorts of

discoveries at conferences have the potential to beenlightening to us. For that potential to be fulfilled,however, we have to be there and be open to new ideas.

Over the years of attending the ECWCA conference, I haveconsciously tried to set aside my own assumptions of whata writing center is and does in order to really listen. This iseasier said than done since conference pace is dizzying andthe travel and such make quieting down and being presentdifficult. Yet, even with the busy-ness of conferences, I amalways glad I attended and am surprised how long theideas planted at conferences stick with me. Even ideas Ihave no means or intention of implementing in my own

context are helpful in how they show me other ways ofdoing writing center work, for giving me a sense of the

Letter from the President of ECWCA – Jackie Grutsch McKinneybroader context in which we work.

What I want to underscore is something that you all aswriting center scholars, administrators, and practitionealready know: we can learn a lot from another. The annECWCA conference is like the tutorial writ large. It is atwo-way street—I need you to be there and you need mto be there. Please join me this spring in Indianapolis fothe 2012 conference by submitting a proposal (see the Cfor Proposals in this newsletter) or simply by attending

Moreover, this very newsletter is another venue where learn from one another if we all take an active role in it.that end, share this newsletter with others you know ware interested in writing center issues in the region orsubmit your ideas to the newsletter editor forconsideration (Anthony Garrison:

[email protected]). I look forward to learninfrom you.

Sincerely,ackie Grutsch McKinney

Meet the Associate Editor

Sri Upadhyay

Sri Upadhyay is a senior majoring inPsychology and English at Kent StateUniversity in Kent, Ohio. Aftergraduating this spring, she will pursueher Ph.D. in Cognitive Psychology andcontinue working in academia and

research. She will complete her Honorsthesis titled “Incidental Vocabulary Acquisition in CollegeStudents” and plans to bring the fields of Psychology andEnglish together in research on language acquisition andlearning processes, reading, memory, and metacognition.

The most inspiring part of the tutoring experience for her isthe opportunity to work with many different people onmany different projects, and the chance to teach and shareher passion for analysis, creativity, and love of the writingprocess.

Meet the Assistant Editor

Rori Hoatlin

Rori is a recent graduate of Grand ValleyState University (2010) in Allendale, MIwith a B.A. in Writing. She worked at theFred Meijer Center for Writing andMichigan Authors for one year. She iscurrently attending Georgia College & State University (GCSU) t

pursue her M.F.A in creative non-fiction. While at GCSU, she wibe working in the writing center as Assistant to the Supervisorand reading for GCSU’s literary journal Arts & Letters.

Being a writing consultant has showed her just how important thwords people pen truly are. She loves when she can help studencommunicate their ideas in the way they want to—when studenare able to stop worrying about the micro-level details—thespelling, the punctuation, the grammar—and start seeing theirwork in the big picture, then she feels like she has done her job.

What I want to underscore issomething that you all as writing

center scholars, administrators, and practitioners already know: we canlearn a lot from another. The annual

ECWCA conference is like the tutorialwrit large. It is a two-way street—I

need you to be there and you need me

to be there.



Fall 20

Writing Center Data CollectionInstruments

Data CollectionMethod(s)

(paper/electronic/ combination)

Rationale forMethod(s)

How Data Are Use

Central Michigan

University(CMU)

1) Student Sign-In Sheets

(on-site)2) Student Web form forOnline

3) Student Surveys4) Faculty Surveys5) Consultant

Observation Form6) Graduate Assistant

Evaluations

1) Combination: paper

and web form datatransferred to Excel2) Student/faculty

surveys are via Survey Monkey (electronic)with paper formsavailable on-site

3) Consultantobservations andevaluations are papernotes, then written inWORD

The combination of

methods gives speed,consistency, andconvenience, whileallowing us to store, sort,analyze, and report onlarge amounts of data. Itprovides good qualitycontrol over accuracy ofinput and immediateaccess to information butalso accommodatesmultiple sites easily.

1) Administrative

Reports2) Billing for service3) Tutor Training4) Public relations5) Policy/program

development6) Forecasting, plannin7) Resource allocation8) Research

Saginaw Valley StateUniversity(SVSU)

1) SVSU Writing CenterSession Record2) Writing Center Tutor

evaluation

1) Electronic; use campusLearning ManagementSystem (VSpace),

adapted by SVSU stafffor our purposes

2) Paper intake formtransferred toelectronic SessionRecord of tutorialsessions

3) Electronic TutorEvaluation surveys

The interface with thestudent database providesadditional group data that

would not be possible viaother methods.Advantages: ease ofrecord keeping, ability tosort data easily, speedyupdates and changes.

1) Staffing and hiringdecisions2) Annual Report to

administrators(accompanies budgetrequest) and colleagues3) Program planning4) Tutor training5) Research anddevelopment of newinitiatives (e.g., grant-funded projects,presentations,publications)

University of Michigan –Flint(UM - Flint)

1) UM-Flint SessionRecord2) Student Evaluation

1) Paper form transferred tocomputer

Paper form is convenientin sessions and digitalform is helpful for analysis

See SVSU

Oakland University(OU)

1) Session Log2) Student Evaluation

1) Print form from whichdata is collated into Excel2) Electronic data from ouronline scheduler

We want an immediaterecord of client andconsultant perception. Wecurrently don’t have a wayto collate demographicdata with the session logelectronically

1) Administrative Repo2) Needs Assessment3) Consultant Training4) Evidence -basedresearch for publicationand for grant applicatio

CMU: A Lesson from History

It’s hard for me to imagine a writing center that wouldn’treligiously keep usage data these days. Yet, that wasexactly the case in 1997/98 when the Writing Center atCMU lost its funding. When I became interim director tofinish out the school year, the program showed a budgetand almost no evidence of services provided. Questionsflew. Consultants were hired, trained, and paid, but whoaccessed their help? No one really knew. Apparently,some students came once, others returned, but no oneknew how often. Did most students come wanting topolish grammar and punctuation, or were sessionsfocused on developing ideas and fostering criticalthinking? Both, some said, but where was the evidence?Did students think sessions were helpful? No one had

asked. The same was true of faculty: only a few evenknew the program existed.

Thankfully, the CMU Writing Center was awarded a“new initiative” grant for fall 1998 that revitalized its

life. At the heart of that grant was a promise to recordand report accurate information about services and toassess the benefits to the students and campuscommunity. The program would need to beaccountable to its stakeholders: the dean, the provost,the faculty, the consultants, and, most importantly, thestudents. We have kept good on that grant promise,and the Center has been growing since. The Centerneeded to become data conscious if not exactly datadriven.

Continued form page 1

Table 1: Data collection in our four centers



4


To me, there is an important difference between beingdata conscious and being data driven. Being data drivenmeans seeing data as the end, a way of “proving” worthby doing what’s required. To be data conscious meansbeing aware of what kind of data might be availablecompared to what information is important, for whatreasons, to whom, and at what cost. Data can be

valuable, but it is never “free.” Gathering, inputting,sorting, and analyzing data uses resources, which requiretime and money. Being data conscious means thinking incost-benefit terms about the bits and pieces ofinformation that we collect as related to the mission ofthe Center.

At the CMU Center, we begin collecting data on paperwith “sign-in” session sheets and logs. These record agreat deal of information: who came, for how long, fromwhich class, whether native English speaker or ESL, thestage of a paper, what they want to work on, and, afterthe session, what actually was worked on. It takes timeto input those bits of information to an Excel spreadsheet.Consultants sometimes ask: Isn’t there a computerprogram to do that automatically? Our answer hasconsistently been: yes, and no. Yes, we know there arecomputer programs that could automate our data system,but it would increase the problems as well. For example,having four sites on one campus, as we do, wouldincrease the costs and complicate access. Time would bea significant cost factor, but only if students came toevery hour offered; our consultants work on data whentheir appointments don’t show up and walk-ins are slow.

More importantly, however, we continue collecting datathe way we do because we value what we learn throughthe process. We have international consultants who bringdiversity to our Center but who may not be ready toconsult with native English speakers; working with thedata immerses them in the life of the Center at the sametime that they learn American names and the variety ofwriting issues and concerns that students bring. Bycross-checking information, consultants gain anappreciation for accuracy and details. By inputting data,consultants see first-hand who is coming to the Center,from which classes; they begin to see patterns in the kindof issues being discussed and to identify gaps—who is

not coming, from which classes, about what kind ofpapers or issues.

Consultants are also involved in the process of sortingand analyzing the data and creating the reports that weprovide to the dean and that we use to maintain separateservice contracts with other units on campus (off-campusprograms, athletics, and the foreign languagedepartment). In doing this, consultants begin to seethemselves and their work as part of a largerorganizational unit and its mission within the university,

and they begin to understand the multiple stakeholdersto whom they and the Center are accountable.

Data, like our writing centers, need to respond to theneeds of our students and our campus community. Ifwe believe that our writing center provides anindispensible service on our campus, then our data

should also be indispensible and serve as evidence thatsupports our core values. Being data conscious hasserved our Center well. By tapping a variety of fundingsources, CMU’s Writing Center has grown into a large,well known program across campus, the place forworking with writing for students and faculty alike; ourevaluations, distributed regularly, have consistentlygarnered high praise. We now have four on-campussites and a large online service, staffed by 55 to 60 peerconsultants. In 2010-11, the Center held almost 16,000sessions, a number that staggered even us. That’s a lotof students, a lot of sessions, and a lot of data, but it’swhat we do and what we want to do because it helps usto help writers.

SVSU: Data in the Center

The SVSU Writing Center collects sign-in data similar toCMU. Our center is primarily a walk-in center(appointments are limited to graduate students anddevelopmental students in an embedded tutorprogram). At our center, the data we consider essentialis our usage data: we need to know the number ofstudents who visit our center and the number of tutoriasessions completed every semester. This type of data

collection is de rigueur for most writing centers; it is,after all, the basis for our center’s funding and supportfrom our university administration.

However, our writing center studies more types of datathat inform our practices: data about our students, ourservices, and the state of writing on our college campusThese data frame our work in the center—they shapeour tutorial sessions with students, our training of ourtutors, and our (constant) conversations about writingwithin the larger university community. In fact, we liketo think that all the practices we engage in at our center,both inside and outside these walls, are informed by

data, observational or numeric.

We use data to understand more about the students weserve: their race, gender, ethnicity, language of origin,major, course standing, and GPA. If we have apopulation of students at our university whom we donot see inside our center, we can ask: why not? We canbegin to examine barriers that might prevent thesestudents from using our services, create ways to addressthe barriers – and, through examining later data, see ifthese changes made a difference.



Fall 20

For example, based on our data collection aboutdevelopmental writers at our university, we discoveredthat only one-third of students enrolled in English 080(developmental writing) visited the writing center from2006-2009. Why? After all, this was a population thatcould benefit from tutorial writing services, perhaps

more than most other students. Through furtherconversations with the First Year Writing Program, wesecured a university grant to imbed tutors in the 080classrooms to provide further support for these students.This program, which began in fall 2010, has alreadydemonstrated an increase in the number of writingcenter visits for these students—a 45% increase for AY2010-11--not to mention the direct assistance given bythe tutors while in the classroom. This change hasaffected both students’ success and our university’sawareness of—and commitment to—developmentalwriters on our campus. And these changes may nothave been possible without first knowing which

students were visiting our center—and which were not.

We also collect information evaluating the tutoringservices we provide, assessing what our tutors do well,and not so well, through student surveys completedafter tutorial sessions. Based on this data, we noted thatsome Nursing students felt the tutors did not have astrong knowledge of APA. Two of our tutors hadworked with the Nursing Department to create a seriesof presentations on APA, and this presentation wasadapted for a staff meeting, where the tutors learnedmore about APA format, specific to the NursingProgram. While a minor example, this too demonstrates

how the data we collect from student surveys informand shape our practice, allowing us to work with thestudents and the university as a whole.

UM – Flint: What Data Won’t Tell You

For years the University of Michigan-Flint WritingCenter has collected limited data similar to what manywriting centers collect: course, instructor name,department, and what was worked on in theappointment. Intermittently, we have done studentsatisfaction surveys. The data we collected hastraditionally been the kind that convinces administratorswe are a valuable service to students and they shouldcontinue to fund us, but that data provided littlemeaningful information about what was happening intutoring sessions. We used the data to targetdepartments and instructors who referred or didn’t referstudents to us. We also looked at the data about whatstudents and tutors worked on in sessions as well assatisfaction surveys. Generally, students who use ourservices are satisfied and will recommend our services to

their friends and other students. I admit that we haven’tdone all we can with data collection; many institutions ardoing much more meaningful and thorough collectionthan we do. And we are working to collect more anddifferent data that can better help us work with studentsand faculty on writing, speaking, and reading needs. Da

are a vital tool to ensuring success in our and any writingcenter.

But this short narrative is really a short cautionary aboutdata, and I would like to offer considerations whenselecting and using data. First, the data thatadministrators want or request may not be the mostvaluable data for them or your center. Administratorsoften want to things to be quantifiable or they may simplnot know the kinds of information that would best reporton a writing center’s activities.

It’s important for writing center administrators to educat

other administrators, faculty, and students about what awriting center does and what kinds of data show how it ibenefiting writers and the larger campus community. Forexample, one of our deans asks us for usage data – howmany appointment slots are filled with one-on-onemeetings with students. Through meetings, I have beenable to show him that, though usage is something to trackit shows only part of the story. Our tutors visit classes anmeet with faculty; they do research, work on professionadevelopment, and produce marketing materials. Thosethings don’t show up on usage statistics focused on one-on-one appointments.

The second caution I would like to forward is that bycollecting and studying certain kinds of data, other dataare inherently neglected. Ultimately, as SVSU’s narrativedemonstrates, we regularly need to ask, “Are we askingthe right questions?”

Finally, I would encourage readers to remember the powof storytelling. At every meeting, our staff membersdebrief on positive and negative experiences in the writincenter, and collectively we praise, commiserate, console,and problem-solve to create a better writing center forwriters and staff. Some may not consider storytelling datand it is difficult to fit stories into a quantifiable box that

appeases some administrator’s demands, but it is a vitalway to make meaning and meaningful change in a writincenter.

OU: Evidence-based Practice

Two years ago I gained a new colleague with whom Ishare a passion for writing centers and a disappointmentwith writing center research. She was planning the firstiteration of WRT 320: Peer Tutoring in Composition, the



6


course from which I hire new writing consultants(although I’ve been fortunate to snag two “seasoned”ones from Jacob at UM-Flint), and I was creating anembedded tutor program. We longed to demonstrate toher students, my consultants, and our non-departmental peers that the field’s “best practices” werebased upon evidence-based practice or what RichardHaswell calls RAD: replicable, aggregable, and data-supported research. The majority of what we found,however, could be classified only as theory and lore(important precursors to evidence but not themselvesevidence).

This kinship has led to a rewarding research andpublishing partnership through which we have workedto create the studies we previously sought. Moreimportantly, it has encouraged me to rethink therhetorical purpose and audience of writing center data.Initially, I employed data to justify writing center

funding to my direct supervisors, the Dean of Arts andSciences and the Provost. I have not found this type ofdata difficult to assemble or to frame. To be brutallyhonest, the “higher ups” are usually appeased bygrowing numbers, something I have been fortunate toexperience. When I can connect growing numbers toretention, even in a loose manner, I have been able topry open the institutional purse.

While I still collect demographic data and evaluationsto ensure the survival of my center, I am now in thepractice of creating surveys and interviews tailored tospecific needs and to diverse constituents, and I conduct

textual comparisons of writing consultant and clientsession feedback to answer specific questions about ourservices. When I think I see a trend, I seek collaboratorswho are willing to look at the same issues in theircenters or classrooms, and/or I compare my findings tothose of OU’s Office of Institutional Research. By doingso, I hope to challenge or validate the lens throughwhich I view my findings, to determine if our writingcenter programs are organic to OU student needs, etc.Today, I collect data for my consultants, my colleagues,and myself. Collectively, we need to know that ourpractices have efficacy beyond a large number ofclients, a colleague’s recommendation, or a theory.

To argue for more data is not to neglect the importanceof the narrative that frames the data and the questionsthat inspire its collection in the first place. In my view,evidence-based practice is an important but oftneglected part of the writing center story that we tell.

Reflections and Perspectives

Though our assessments have evolved in response tothe needs of our centers, they also align with the four

benefits of externally mandated assessment identified byIsabelle Thompson (33):

• Externally mandated assessment can make oureffectiveness visible to administrators and, henceincrease our power and prestige on campus

• Assessment involves our centers in a constant

process of data collection and analysis and,hence, can enhance writing center research

• The on-going collection and analysis of dataincreases the opportunities for reflective practiceand brings reflection to the forefront of dailyactivities

• Routine assessment is the intelligent,professional, and ethical thing to do.

In the end, what data collection means for writing centersis that as we gain insight into the state of writing on ourcampus, we become agents of change, one of the basictenets of most writing centers’ missions. When we

understand more about our practice, we can moreeffectively assist students in tutorial sessions. We canbecome a resource for faculty who have questions, seekguidance, or wish to try new approaches to writing. Wecan more effectively advocate for university programs tohelp develop and support student writing on campus.Clearly, it is not the data, but what we do with the data--how we read, analyze, and communicate the informationwe know--that makes a difference. And it is a differenceworth making.

Thus, from our collective perspectives, it’s useful forevery Writing Center to ask central questions about data:

• What data are essential to have? Why?• What data are useful to have? Why?

• What purposes do our data serve?

• How are our data used for assessment of ourwork?

The answers to these questions allow us to makecomparisons with the past, keep our fingers on the pulseof current practices, and project the directions we wishour writing centers to take in the future.

Works Cited

Haswell, Richard. “NCTE/CCC’s Recent War onScholarship.” Written Communication 22.2 (2005):198-223.

Thompson, Isabelle. “Writing Center Assessment: Whyand a Little How.” The Writing Center Journal 26.1(2006): 33-61.

-Diane Boehm has been Director of the University Writing Program aSaginaw Valley State University since 1995. She founded and directsthe SVSU Writing Center, which conducts some 5,000 individual



Fall 20

-Sherry Wynn Perdue is the Director of the Oakland UniversityWriting Center (OUWC), Joan Rosen Writing Studio, where staf provided 6,500 writing consultations to undergraduate students graduate researchers, faculty, and staff last year. Her innovationinclude “Dissertation 101: A Research and Writing Intervention for Education Graduate Students,” a program she co-piloted withKresge Librarian Anne Switzer and which is described in the

summer 2011 issue of Educational Libraries.

-Helen Raica-Klotz is the current SVSU Writing Center coordinator, a position she has held for five years. She is a Lecturin the English Department, teaching composition and generaleducation literature courses.

tutorial sessions each year. She is also the director of the SaginawBay Writing Project, a site of the National Writing Project. Sheteaches writing courses, including both first-year composition andupper level professional writing courses.

-Jacob Blumner is the Director of the Marian E. Wright WritingCenter and Associate Professor of English at the University of Michigan-Flint. He teaches writing classes that range from first-

year writing to graduate writing courses. His research focuses onwriting centers and writing across the curriculum.

-Mary Ann Krajnik Crawford has been director of the WritingCenter since 1998 and is Professor of English at Central MichiganUniversity. She teaches graduate and undergraduate classes incomposition and linguistics. Her research areas include writingcenters, writing across the curriculum, ESL writing, and discourseissues.

Queer consulting: Assessing the degreeto which differences affect a writing

consultationCurtis Dickerson & Jonathan Rylander

In our discussion at the 2011 ECWCA conference, “QueerConsulting: Assessing the Degree to which DifferencesAffect a Writing Consultation,” we hoped to add toconversations surrounding issues of difference and non-normative/queer moments in the writing center.Through a combination of our own experiences,interviews with other consultants who identify asLGBTQ, and the experiences of attendees to our panel,we hoped to provide new insight on one essential

question: How does a consultant react to discovereddifferences in a writing consultation? To us, focusingpurely on student needs during a consultation isdangerous. Or, perhaps better said, the student writerand his or her development is certainly still important,but equally as significant is the consultant who hasinherent rights in a workplace, namely for our discussion,to operate in a space free of discrimination or perceiveddiscrimination.

For individuals with queer identities, a discussion-basedoccupation can seem like a daily minefield of taboo topics

and insensitive, off-hand comments. How can a queerconsultant, or a consultant who perceives a queerstudent, possibly navigate such a potentially explosivelandscape?

No consultation is neutral—each one is full of identityassumptions and the political biases of both consultantsand writers. Yet, should the inherently unstable and oftenexplosive situations that we confront alter our practice asconsultants? Although we do not know the answer to thisquestion, we have noticed moments in writing centers

that seem to disrupt notions of what might be perceiveas “normal” approaches to working with student

writers. Take, for example, Curtis’ reflection on aconsultation that was suddenly thrown off track by astudent-writer’s comment:

As one student read his work aloud, he paused for a fewseconds mid-sentence. I was looking at his computer, unsurwhether he was stuck on a word or thinking about the phrasing of the sentence. As I looked up, he was staring off into another part of the library. “Sorry,” he said, “Hot chickI laughed politely, and tried to get back to the paper. But hewouldn’t let it go. “Do you think she’s hot?” he asked medirectly.

This was a problematic question for me as a gay man. I laughed again, but as a consultant new to the job, I was notcomfortable with outing myself at that moment. Though I doubt my face showed it, there was an intense war happeninbehind the scenes. A split second calculation of the pros andcons. Even if I did choose to out myself, how would I phraseit?

Besides, what would have been the point of overtly outingmyself? The paper the student brought had nothing to do wLGBTQ individuals. This was less of a queer moment andmore of just an awkward moment, yet one that still placed min the position of deciding what parts of my life I could andcould not share in a professional setting.

Since that moment happened two years ago, I’ve oftenwondered whether there was an added level of complexity tothe situation. The student’s question was so far removed frothe subject at hand, I can’t help but wonder if he placed me that position intentionally. Perhaps he already sensed that Iwas gay, and this was his clumsy attempt to confront me onthe matter.



8


In the end, I ignored the question completely. I didn’t see anybenefit to the consultation, so I let it drop.

What is most interesting about this student’s direct andheterosexist question—which perpetuates not onlygender stereotypes but sexist thinking—is that it takes

the focus off of the writing project and seems to forceCurtis’ queer identity into the spotlight. But should aconsultant, when confronted by a queer moment likethis, try to challenge the student’s (possibly misguided)normative worldview, or is that not the consultant’sresponsibility? Does the inherent discussion-basednature of a consultation put the consultant in an activistrole, when confronted by perceived narrow-minded orbackwards thinking? During our panel in March, oneaudience member asked whether we thought it wasasking too much of consultants to become activists anddisrupt the kinds of normative and stereotypicalthinking that could potentially harm certain groups—

especially when these comments are not in the student’sactual piece of writing but made during the broaderdiscussion. As we reflected more deeply on thisquestion, both of us began to disagree on the extent towhich consultants should become activists.

On the one hand, Jon argues that we should view thewriting center as an activist space. In talking aboutresearch that he conducted in relation to LGBTQconsultants, he shared the following reflection toaddress his point:

When talking with other LGBTQ consultants, I was

surprised to find that Aloysius—a consultant I interviewed—talk about ways in which his writing center supported hisactivist actions on campus. He said,

And while in working at the writing studio, well, itwas kind of strange because during my senior year at[my undergraduate university], several others and I were also trying to create a group for gay and lesbianstudents on campus. And [the writing center director] was part of the effort for that, she was reallyinto it and thought it was just so wonderful so shewould cut out articles from the newspaper and post

them in the writing studio and things like that.

As I heard Aloysius say this I was immediately taken aback.Whenever I had thought about queer issues and LGBTQidentity, specifically, in the writing center, I often thoughtabout the negative or less desirable scenarios, such as how torespond to a student’s homophobic piece of writing. I thus didnot expect to hear a consultant describe his writing center asa space that helped him launch an on-campus activist group.Yet since the interviews, this particular response has led me

to think about the potential of consultants to become activisin ways that go beyond helping students become better writers.

On the other hand, Curtis finds that the consultant isfirst and foremost a worker, an individual who was

hired to increase the quality of writing on a campus onstudent at a time. He argues that asking consultants toengage in activities or discussion beyond what isrelevant to the text—such as supporting the rights ofLGBTQ people on campus—is better left in the hands ostudent organizations and support resources for queeridentifying individuals. Yet this is not to say that hebelieves employees should be indifferent orunsympathetic. Ideally, all institutional employeeswould be strong advocates for non-normativeidentifying peoples, but he also thinks that asking aconsultant to view himself or herself as an activist,when the vast majority of employees are not expected

to have this mentality, is unfair. For him, either allemployees within an institution should be charged witcombating backwards worldviews, or none should. Thconsultant’s position has clearly stated goals, butforcing consultants to view themselves as an instrumenof change in the social and political climate of aninstitution is an unreasonable request for a part timeemployee, and potentially disruptive to theconsultation.

If authors within a collaborative article disagree, thensurely an easy answer will not be found. The debate isparticularly muddled when a consultant is expected to

be an activist, but does not feel comfortable promotingthe social and political direction that the writing centerdirector seems to be advocating. We merely pose thesequestions for consideration and discussion, in the hopethat a consensus can eventually be reached. More studis certainly necessary, but the issue remains a currentand important one, particularly for queer identifyingconsultants.

-This piece is an extension of a group presentation. We would like tthank Chelsea Milligan and Lucy Manley for contributing to our presentation and discussion in Kalamazoo, MI.

Curtis Dickerson is pursuing his bachelor’s degree in EnglishEducation at Miami University. He has been employed at the HowCenter for Writing Excellence at Miami for two years. He can bereached at [email protected].

Jonathan Rylander recently completed his M.A. in Composition anRhetoric at Miami University. He worked at the Howe Center for Writing Excellence at Miami during the spring of 2009 and fall of 2010 school years. He can be reached at [email protected].



Fall 20

The Accidental Writing Center: ProgramGrowth through Negotiation and

Collaboration

Jeanne R. Smith, Doug Sheldon, Heather Kaley WillMcSuley, Allison Machnicki, and Joe Greenwell - Kent

State University

We did not begin with the aim of creating a high schoolwriting center, but with the more modest goal of improvingour tutor training program. In the process of workingtoward that goal, we reached for opportunities, joined withvarious partners, and journeyed through a process ofnegotiation. Our university writing center, the universityadministration, our service-learning office, our Englishdepartment, the incoming tutors, various communitypartners, and the different constituencies of the high schooleach came to the project with differing agendas. Managing

this potential conflict and remaining flexible resulted inmuch more than we ever set out to do: we created a newwriting center, improved our tutor training program,enhanced the university writing center’s reputation, andestablished a service-learning program.

Negotiating the Agenda Part 1: The Writing Center, TheUniversity, and The Community

Our writing center had always wanted a 3-credit hour pre-service training course but had never been able to launchone, so we settled for a 1-credit hour course during a tutor’sfirst semester of employment. A new opportunity, however,

presented itself. In response to a grant offered by theuniversity’s new service learning office, we proposed “TheWriting Center Project.” It would be a way for our pre-service tutors to learn writing center theory in a 3-credithour course, while serving as volunteer tutors inestablished literacy programs in the community. The servicelearning grant opportunity allowed faculty to re-envisionany course as a service-learning experience leading tosignificant opportunities for undergraduates to participatein disciplinary research. Because writing center work andtutor professional development have always dovetailedwith service learning and undergraduate research, the grantrepresented an opportunity to formalize and recognize the

tutors’ experiential learning as central to our university’sundergraduate teaching and research missions.

We solicited community partners who would accept ourprospective tutors into their programs: adult literacyprograms, programs for immigrants learning English,university bridge programs. Some prospective communitypartners had had negative experiences with service learningprograms and needed to be persuaded that we would notrelease untrained, unsupervised students into theirorganizations, creating substantial additional work for

them. Other community partners needed to be showthat service learning is not the same as “free labor,”that the service is a learning experience woven into thcourse content. Conspicuously absent from the list orpartners, though, were the area high schools--perhapbecause university entities often do not want to beperceived as large outsiders imposing agendas on are

schools.

Offering a new course outside the normal channels foproposing and vetting a new course at the universityposed substantial logistical issues for our Englishdepartment, and made the course difficult to fill.These difficulties ensured that the only students whoenrolled were very committed to service and lessconcerned about degree credit requirements. Fromthis group of students, one proposed developing hisown community partner site and program: starting awriting center at the local high school. The rest of theclass elected to take on the high school as our sole

community partner for our first semester. And ourproject began.

Negotiating the Agenda Part 2: Starting Over with aSingle Community Partner

Our initial meeting with school officials revealed thatthey had wanted a writing center for years but hadnever been able to start one. While the Englishdepartment Chair was eager to host our students,neither she nor any of her teaching staff would havetime to coordinate the center. The Principal expresseconcern over how we would sustain the writing cente

not wanting to see his building come to rely on it, onlto have it evaporate after a semester. We offered to fithe high school site first, before offering futurestudents other community partner site choices, and thproject earned the very enthusiastic support of theChair and Principal. The school viewed the universitstudents as not only tutors supplementing classroominstruction, but also as mentors and role models for thstudents.

For our project to function, one student tutor (Doug)served as the liaison between the university andcommunity partner. Before beginning the project, he

provided the high school with a list of ourservices. Tutoring sessions would provide distancefrom the classroom teacher but also create a bridgebetween the student and the educator. The studentwould witness a mentor performing writing tasks andproviding a model of writing-in-action, demonstratinthat writing is a craft learned through practice,revision, and mentoring. If the state of Ohio requiresstudent to “...[c]ompose writings that convey a clearmessage and include well-chosen details, (“English



10


Language Arts Academic Content Standards”) thenthe tutor’s duty is to create an environment that willnurture a student’s ability to create competentwriting and sustain that competency in futurewriting. Student writing must also exhibit “. . .[proper] grammatical structures in written work,”(English Language Arts Academic Content

Standards).

The school librarian worked with us to develop awork space in a section of the school libraryexclusively for our tutoring center, providing storagespace for tutors’ belongings and access to theschool’s wireless internet. The school library is theoptimum choice for the development of a writingcenter because the location is well known andaccessible to all students, faculty and staff.

Initially, we involved only the Principal and theEnglish Department faculty members. Over time,

the scope of the project widened, involving theparticipation of other departments. The teaching staffwas made aware of our presence because it isconsidered a courtesy to all departments that thefaculty be made aware of outside tutors in contactwith their students. Making these connections letthe school know that our tutors would be able tomeet the needs of not only English students, but alsoof students from any class that required academicwriting. As a result, we received many studentsfrom disciplines outside of English.

Our tutors were also expected to be ambassadors to

the school faculty. If a faculty member’s questioncould not be answered by a tutor, the liaison wouldbe readily available to meet with that teacher.

Our overall approach to the high school was toprovide service. We were responsible for meetingthe demands of the community partner with not onlyskilled tutoring, but also with the professionalismneeded to sustain a relationship with the school.

To better communicate with a community partner,the liaison must be familiar with all rules andregulations demanded by state standards. If we

encountered a serious disciplinary problem, weneeded the full cooperation of the administrativestaff. The liaison needs knowledge of the state andlocal regulations to ensure a productive workingrelationship between school and university. Wefollowed the proper chain of command to handlediscipline, and followed state regulations. If aproblem could not be solved by the tutor, thelibrarian would contact the school’s vice principals(who are charged with the school’s disciplinary

responsibilities). The location of school administrativeoffices was made known to all tutors and whichadministrator to contact in case of an emergency. Each tutocarried a criminal background check because all personsworking with high school students must have both federaland state background checks before they can set foot on theschool premises (Background Check FAQ). All

administrators (from vice-principals to administrativesecretaries) were informed of our incoming tutors.

Negotiating the Agenda Part 3: If You Build It, Will TheyCome?

We quickly learned that faculty buy-in does not necessarilyequal student buy-in. After the rush of excitement of startinthe writing center, lack of student traffic came as a harshdose of reality. Even with the unwavering support of theEnglish Chair and the Principal, we were not reaching thevolume of students we had expected. We had to find ways tprovide service, whether the students seemed to want us or

not.

The Chair arranged for us to participate in a workshop daywith her classes, in order to publicize the writing center andto introduce the students to the tutors. Each of the tutors(Will, Heather and Doug) worked with several students frothe high school. Our morale boosted by our first studentcontact. We became a semi-permanent fixture of the highschool library, and that stability sent an important messageto students and faculty: we weren’t going anywhere.

To bide our time in the library, and to show the students thawe worked hard too, we researched differences between

university and high school tutoring. We adopted theproblem of student reluctance to approach our tutors as ourcollaborative research problem for the semester. We readscholarship on high school writing centers and used what wfound in conjunction with what we learned from observatioin our workshops. We concluded that the tutoring objectivewere similar in high schools and universities, but that highschool tutoring required a more firm style and greaterconfidence than university tutoring. Having not yet tutoredfellow college students -- let alone high school students whoexpected us to have all the answers -- we jumped into theproject feeling ill-prepared. However, as we continued, wecollected experiences and knowledge, and learned a little

with every step.

First Lesson: We Really Don’t Have All the Answers

Being pioneers, we did not realize the troubles we wouldface attempting to create the high school writing center. Wefailed to understand what our presence communicatedunintentionally. We had support from the Principal and thechair of the English department; however, it seemed thatmuch of the school viewed us with suspicion, our presencecommunicating that we young college students thought we



Fall 20

knew it all. We started by visiting classrooms to workwith the students and to explain what we do. We neverplanned to go against what their teachers had wantedthem to do or criticize them. In fact, our objective was theexact opposite. We wanted to work alongside theteachers and give their students extra help with theirwriting. The teacher has only so much time to work with

each student, and yet there is always insufficient time toget everything done. Our objective was to give theteachers a little breather and help them and theirstudents. Though some teachers were on board, somesaw us as an overreaching university and did not wantanything to do with us at first. We needed to betterunderstand the needs and concerns of the faculty andstudents.

Adapting and improvising are important skills in anytutoring session. We realized we needed to adapt to oursituation and learn from our mistakes. Our first misstepswere assuming enthusiastic support from all faculty and

assuming student motivation to write. High schoolstudents do not see writing as “cool” or “fun.” They wantto fit in socially, and fitting in does not include academicwriting and research. This social pressure to avoidacademic writing did not seem real to us until weexperienced it.

Dealing with the maturity level of high school studentspresented us with another challenge we had notconsidered carefully until experiencing it. We were usedto college students, who despite their difficulties want tobe there, on some level. We experienced a huge cultureshock dealing with the maturity level of the high school

students. For example, it was a great shock to see theunwillingness to cooperate with the teacher to write asimple paragraph.

Overall, it might seem that jumping right into a highschool without much experience would be a bad idea.However, we found it to be a good experience. We took achance, made mistakes, and got messy. We improvised,and we learned. We are more confident university tutorsbecause of the experience of being leaders at the highschool and creating something new in the face ofunexpected challenges.

Collaborative Learning: Drawing Deeper Lessons fromTutoring and Service

One regular user of our new writing center had alearning disability. Over the course of many sessions, hertutor (Allison) implemented different aspects of theoriesshe had studied for her required course project, and shetried to determine which methods worked well. Outlinesand word webs worked extremely well for the student,but that pictorial diagrams did not. Learning to help this

student demonstrated classic tutoring lessons: slowingdown, listening to the learner, isolating single concerns,blending directive and non-directive methods, and usinmultiple modalities. Working on multiple types ofgrammatical errors at one time became confusing to thestudent and she began to guess at an answer. Narrowindown the scope of the lesson to one or two types of erro

helped, but the student was still inclined to guess atanswers and had trouble slowing down to think about aanswer before she said it. Reading sentences with errorsaloud to the student helped her think about the writingand catch errors. The student read her writing aloud andread examples from custom worksheets. She repeatedpassages, especially when dealing with editing concernsso that she heard the sentence before and after she madeedits. The tutor always first asked what the studentwould like to work on, or why she thought a certainusage error needed to be addressed, but the tutor wouldsometimes step in and make suggestions, explain, andmake the correction with her. These skills were easier to

practice in the high school setting, where we needed toset aside our university writing center ideals and addresthe needs of the high school community partner. Thetutor developed skills for working with students withlearning disabilities and gained experience in lessonplanning and general tutoring.

Another tutor (Joe) chose to investigate the underlyingreasons for high school students’ reluctance to engage inschool-sponsored writing. His project investigated theteacher-student relationship, and response to studentwriting. In his project, “Writing is Communicating:Responding to Student Writing,” he argued that to

encourage student writing, teachers should emphasizethe message, voice, and content of the writing over thegrammar and usage. By recognizing and responding tostudents’ ideas, students will feel heard and not judged,and, consequently, proud of their writing voice and morwilling to invest time in revision. Naturally they will bemore inclined to nurture their voice, including editing fousage. This route seems more natural than learningwriting through studying grammar, an approachsometimes emphasized in our schools. The WritingCenter Project experience challenged his notions oftutoring and writing. He says, “What I thought would b

as simple as imparting my writing knowledge to othersbecame a semester of questioning the relationships ofstudent writers to writing, and peers and teachers tostudent writing.”

Assessment and Renegotiation: Moving the ProjectForward

After listening to feedback from the high school and thetutors, we are ready to move into a long-termrelationship with the high school. Our tutor training



12


outcomes have been encouraging. Because of ourinvolvement with the high school, we have newprograms for professional development in the universitywriting center: tutors create workshops for the highschool classroom in a new “adopt-a-classroom” project.The end of semester projects are some of the best we haveseen. The students learned the purpose of a writing

center by being in real leadership roles, solving realproblems; their inquiry projects were all genuine searchesfor solutions to real life issues in their practice, and leadto deeper questions about the nature of tutoring --outcomes we all hope for in our tutor-training classes.The materials produced by the tutors in their projects willbe used in training future tutors in the university writingcenter. The inquiry and research the students began inthe course have become the base for presentations,publications, and -- most importantly – continuedresearch and professional development.

The new tutor training program has a bright future.

Additional community partners have come forward,including more high schools. Our university recentlypassed an experiential learning requirement forgraduation, increasing demand for the course. Finally,the university continues to increase its support for theuniversity writing center, ensuring a continual need formore tutors and more capacity to accommodate tutortrainees.

Communicating Across Borders:Consulting ESL Students Online

Alexander F. Grabski, Bo Ram Lee, and TamannaMostafa (Central Michigan University)

Working with ESL students presents very specificchallenges for writing centers. ESL students oftenexperience difficulty working with grammar, learning theparameters of a particular assignment, or adjusting theirwriting styles to best suit the task at hand. In order tobest work with ESL students, an awareness ofcommunication in writing center sessions is essential. Noone session is ever the same, and this is particularly true

when working with ESL students; as such, theapproaches writing center consultants take in a sessionmust be flexible. This is very much apparent in anasynchronous online writing center session.

While scholars have published much regarding thepreferred approaches for interacting with ESL students inthe classroom and in face-to-face sessions, little has beenpublished in the way of communicating with ESLstudents online. Asynchronous online sessions pose aparticular challenge to consultants in that communication

Conclusion: Challenges or Opportunities? Build thePath as You Walk It

Our meandering path to a successful new writing centillustrates the value of the “writing center approach” tchallenges and opportunities: an approach thatcontinuously negotiates agendas, builds collaborative

relationships, and allows surprising new developmentto emerge in the process. Learning writing centermethodology means learning to collaborate with othernot to assume we have all the answers, but to helpothers find their own; to keep broad goals in mind eveas we weave the needs of others into ourpractice. Writing center administrators can learn fromour story to practice what they teach in their tutortraining courses by becoming better collaborative rolemodels for their tutors. Tutors can see that negotiatioand collaboration are useful far beyond the tutoringsession. They are the skills that build partnerships andprograms.

References

Background Check FAQ. Ohio Department ofEducation. 09 Jun. 2010. Web. 12 Aug. 2011.

English Language Arts Academic Content Standards.Ohio Department of Education, 09 Jun 2010. Web12 Aug. 2011.

is less fluid than in a face-to-face session; consultantsreview drafts and rely on the clarity of the languageused in comments to convey suggestions.Miscommunication between a consultant and an ESLstudent in online sessions can be disastrous in thatambiguous feedback might impact the student’sconfidence in their writing and also leave them at a losas to how to improve on what they have written. This,of course, goes against everything writing centers aredesigned to do: improve a student’s writing andincrease his or her willingness to engage in the writingprocess. A number of factors must be considered inorder to better address the concerns of ESL students.Our presentation at the 2011 ECWCA conferencefocused on some of the best practices for consulting ES

students online; in this regard, we collaborated withboth native and non-native consultants regarding whakinds of comments/suggestions they felt are morebeneficial for ESL students while working online andalso conducted a literature review to round out bestpractices.

In their response to the question of how consultantsshould respond to ESL texts, Rafoth (2009) and Gocsik(2004) emphasized the importance of understanding“cultural difference.” Along with the difficulties in the



Fall 20

language itself, ESL students might not be familiarwith American academic writing conventions andits rhetorical patterns such as a direct statement oftopic and linear way of thinking. Thus, consultantsshould be aware of the cultural and stylisticdifferences existing in an ESL student’s text and beprepared to explain how to approach different

academic conventions.

Additionally, ESL students often struggle withEnglish grammatical conventions. This means thatbefore addressing the issue in developing aparagraph, consultants might have to help ESLwriters better understand what the problem s/hehas with sentence structure and what specific issuesexist in her or his writing. Thus, consultants oftenneed to play the role of an “informant” of both thelanguage and culture (Powers, 1993, p. 45).Furthermore, many beginning ESL students havedifficulty communicating with the consultant due

to their language proficiency. Discussing all of theconcerns that ESL writers have with their writing,in regards to both surface and global issues, mightbe neither possible nor ideal. Too many commentson an ESL writer’s paper can intimidate the student(Raforth, 2009; Gocsik, 2004; Harris & Silva, 1993).Ultimately, a consultant should decide what is mostimportant and focus on the student’s priorities.

In addition to a review of relevant literature, weconducted a study based on our experiencesworking with ESL writers and determined whatwas effective in ESL sessions online. To assess bestpractices, we selected two sample ESL papers; thesecontained some common problems found in ESLwriters’ papers, for example, subject-verbagreement problems, grammatical awkwardness,ambiguity in meaning, etc. Two non-nativeconsultants then reviewed the drafts and providedcomments. The drafts reviewed by the twoconsultants were distributed among all theconsultants of the Writing Center for their opinionsand views on which comments worked well andwhy. Through an open discussion, the consultantscollaborated to discern what feedback is more

beneficial for ESL writers online; interestingly, mostof their opinions matched the views represented inthe literature review. Results included:

• Use short, direct, and simple sentences. Instead of using wordy and tediousexplanations, direct, and simple commentsare ideal (Gocsik, 2004). For example, inresponse to a grammatically incorrectexpression, “Freedom Comes with

Responsible,” a comment like “Grammatical issue:Preposition+ noun = with+ responsibility” can bemore understandable and helpful for a non-nativewriter because of its clear and simplified reference togrammatical terms. This same comment, however,may be confusing or ambiguous for a native writer.

• Keep comments on global issues separate from

those on surface level issues. If consultants mix upthe focus on global and surface issues, students tendto focus only on surface level corrections likegrammar and punctuation; they might notcomprehend the importance of global issues like athesis, organization, and development (Rafoth, 2009)In fact, consultants should emphasize meaning(global issues) when working with students andshould help students clearly express their ideas(Rafoth, 2009; Shin, 2002; Harris & Silva, 1993).

• Do not “fix” the sentence(s). Fixing sentencesencourages the ESL writer to depend on theconsultant. A consultant should not be a proofreader,

but rather a guide who helps the writer understandhis or her difficulties in writing (Harris & Silva, 1993;Gocsik, 2004). While making comments on agrammatical error in an ESL script, consultantsshould explain the grammar rules in addition tomodeling the correct sentence.

• Consultants’ suggestions should be clear andconfident. Consultants should “deliver a consistentmessage and reinforce it throughout the paper sothat the writer can see how important it is” (Rafoth,2009, p.158). When working with an ESL writer,consultants should be as direct and assured as

possible; they should avoid expressions like “Ithink…,” “It seems…,” “Probably….” Doing soallows the ESL writer to feel more confident in theirrevisions.

• “Consultants should first focus on what has beendone well in the paper, acknowledge that, and gofrom there” (Harris & Silva, 1993, p. 526). Aneffective comment might be: “As a reader, I reallylike the way this paper is organized. You’vecondensed material into specific sections and alloweach section to build on one another.”

Awareness of cultural differences is especially key;

understanding that American rhetorical patterns can bebaffling to the ESL student is also key. Keeping these resultsin mind, a consultant working with and ESL student in anonline session can become an attainable and very beneficialtask. The ESL student can gain skills and confidence in his orher writing ability.

References

Gocsik, K. (2004). Addressing specific problems: English as a



14


second language. Retrieved fromhttp://www.dartmouth.edu/~writing/materials/tutor/problems/esl.shtml

Harris, M., & Silva, T. (1993). Tutoring ESL students:Issues and options. College Composition andCommunication, 44(4), 525-537.

Powers, J.K. (1993). Rethinking writing center

conferencing strategies for the ESL writer. TheWriting Center Journal, 13 (2), 39-47.

government officials (Thompson, 2011). So whether it isusing a credit card instead of other forms of payment,increasing physical activity, or uncovering bogusgovernment spending, gamification exists to impact theway people act or the task at hand.

Our first thoughts on gamifiying centered onincorporating some type of gamification into our main sit

at writing.msu.edu. However, we realized the difficultieit might present to people unfamiliar with our research, swe opted to experiment with a newly developed site--writingcenterexplorations.org--being used for two writincenter theory based classes. Both instructors requiredstudents to blog on a weekly basis, so fresh content wasnot an issue. Instead, we hoped to determine whether ornot associating points with both blog posts and commentwould increase the frequency of these. We decided thatlogging in would be worth 1 point, a post 5 points, and acomment 3 points. These values are based on theimportance of the tasks to be completed. The leader boardisplays prominently on the home page and lists the top

point-scorers for that week. Each Sunday night, we resetthe leader board, or “Users who Rock”, and kept track ofthe results.

Our Findings:

At the time of our presentation at ECWCA, posts andcomments, primarily comments, showed a significantincrease. We attributed some of the increase to the novelof the idea, but how much could be contributed to the“newness” factor was impossible to know. By the end ofthe semester, however, it became evident that the numbehad declined, and that the effect of gamifying in anattempt to increase content was a short livedsuccess. After further consideration and research, welearned that this outcome was not surprising.

According to Carse (1987), one of the key ingredients toplay is that it be voluntary; otherwise it is notplay. McGonigal (2011) echoes this concept when sheargues that “voluntary participation requires thateveryone who is playing the game knowingly andwillingly accepts the goal, the rules, and the feedback” (p

Rafoth, B. (2009). Responding online. In S. Bruce, & B.Rafoth (Eds.), ESL writers: A guide for writingcenter tutors (pp. 149-159). Portsmouth, NH:Boynton/ Cook Publishers.

Shin, S. J. (2002).Understanding ESL writers: Secondlanguage writing by composition instructors.Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 30 (1), 68-

75.

To Game or Not to Game: The Affectsof Gamifying Our Website

John Lauckner and Dianna Baldwin, PhD

Introduction:

Games are everywhere. They are on our TVs, on our

cell phones, part of credit card companies’ pointsystems, and slowly they are creeping into schools. So,recently when our writing center’s website was havingtrouble with content creation, we began thinking ofways to motivate people to create content, and welanded on games, or more specifically gamification.And it was with gamification that we thought ourcontent problems would be solved. Or would they?

Description of our site:

From a technical standpoint our writing center’s

website has two main functions. First, and foremost,clients access our scheduling system for individualappointments and workshops. Second, it serves as aplace for writing resources such as writing help anddiscussions about what we do in the center, which isall user generated. User generated content typicallymeans contributors feel passionate about a topic andwrite without much prompting, but this is usuallyinfrequent and unscheduled. The latter seems to betruer with our site and hence the site suffers from stalecontent. Enter . . . gamification.

Gamification/Our Study:

Gamification at its core uses games or game mechanicsto affect the motivation of the people using a productor service, which in our case is a website. In this way,we see gamification as giving users points or badgesfor performing tasks. Prominent examples ofgamification already exist, such as credit cards whichaward miles, the REPLAY watch by Switch2Healththat awards points for physical activity, or the UK’sGuardian newspaper which got readers involved in agame that helped uncover bogus personal expenses by



Fall 20

21). Our experiment with the writing centerexplorations website, using these definitions, did notmeet the requirements of play because students hadto post at least once a week. This was not voluntaryparticipation; the students did not willingly acceptthese goals or rules. The students did not have anyother means by which they could fulfill this grade

requirement, so their only choices were to blog, losethose points toward a 4.0, or drop the class. Forcedplay is not play at all.

Conclusion:

While we have not given up on the concept of gamingand gamification, we believe that we need to proceedwith caution and trepidation. We take Bogost (2011)seriously when he asserts that “game developers andplayers have critiqued gamification on the groundsthat it gets games wrong, mistaking incidentalproperties like points and levels for primary features

like interactions with behavioral complexity” (para.11). Furthermore, gamification is not a quick fix;adding points will not save a website or instantlycreate interest. Gamification works when it is wellthought out, the mechanics heavily consider theaudience that you are trying to work with, and mostimportantly the people want to participate. In ourwriting center’s case, this was our latest of numerousattempts to motivate content creators to provideresources for our campus and community, but itwon’t be our last. Despite lackluster statistical results,this study succeeded by reminding us that fun,motivation, and work are a tricky formula, and thatunderstanding audience is always the most importantpart of our work.

References:

Bogost, I. (2011, August 8). Gamification is bullshit:My position statement at the Whartonsymposium [Web log post]. Retrieved fromhttp://bogo.st/wm.

Carse, J. P. (1987). Finite and infinite games: A vision of life as play and possibility. New York, NY: Ballantine.

McGonical, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make usbetter and how they can change the world. New York,NY: Penguin.

McGonical, J. (2011). Reality is broken: Why games make usbetter and how they can change the world. New York,NY: Penguin.

Thompson, C. (2011, March). Clive Thompson on howgames make work seem like play. Wired,

19(3). Retrieved fromhttp://www.wired.com/magazine/2011/02/st_thmpson_living_games/

John Lauckner, is a Masters student in Digital Rhetoric andProfessional Writing at MSU and a TA and Graduate WritingConsultant at Writing Center at MSU. His research interests focuseon alternative learning spaces, videogames, beer, and learning.

Dianna Baldwin, PhD is the Associate Director of the WritingCenter at MSU. Her research interests primarily focus ontechnology in education in many forms, including gamification,virtual worlds, and social media. She also dabbles in blogging andstudying comics.

Notes of a Fortunate Writing CenterConsultant: What My Students with

Learning Disabilities Have Taught Meabout the Writing Process

Caroline Le, M.A.

In the Robert & Jane Weiner Writing Center at BeaconCollege, the only accredited four-year college in the countryexclusively for students with learning disabilities,“Michael” likes to use Kurzweil, a program which allowshim to listen to his assignments, his textbooks, and his ownwriting, aloud; “David” prefers I personally read articlesfor U.S. Government class to him, and “Tom” uses Word Q,a box of word suggestions which follows as he types. Oncewe are finished with our one-on-one writing consultations,I know they will continue to have questions as they edit, soI keep myself available to answer them, long after I have

officially signed off on his visit. I must be as familiarwith my students’ needs as I am with the writing skillI am trying to show them. I need to meet my studentswhere they are--not wait for them to find me.

According to Stephen North (2004), “Writing centersattempt to produce better writers, not better writing,through a student-centered process-oriented approachwhich chiefly means talking to writers about writing.”

Because of their learning disabilities, my students leavme with no option but to deal with all of theseelements. I am extremely fortunate to frequentlyencounter the anxiety and frustration of not beingunderstood; I am forced to create individualizeddialogue and struggle, my students’ same struggles,with dissecting the communication process.

“The fundamentals of college-level writing” are taughat Beacon College just as they are at any other



16


accredited four-year college in the United States-- justin different ways. As frequently lamented in writingcenters, we are not editors. But we are consultants, andwe have the responsibility to be responsive to ourstudents. Robinson (2009) argues we must encourageour students to build intrinsic motivation and helpthem view the Writing Center not as a grammar-

checking station, but as an eye-opener to the use oflanguage in college. Robinson’s idea is realized atBeacon College. In fact, with 5,106 visits in the2010/2011 academic year from a population of 150students, the Robert & Jane Weiner Writing Center,staffed with only one Director, one full-time WritingConsultant, and two part-time Peer WritingConsultants, it was more than apparent we did nothave time to pick at grammar. What we did was payattention to our students’ individual needs. Ourstudents, motivated by the companionship we offeredas they navigated the writing process, and respondedaccordingly: 5,106 times.

Writing is a terribly frustrating process. It is long,arduous, requires many times of being told you arewrong, to do it again so you can be less wrong, and tryit one more time - but in MLA format. Our studentsneed us to stick it out with them when the going getstough, when they feel like they have absolutelynothing else to give.

Many writing centers require papers be pre-typed andprinted out before a writing consultation. However,this practice seems to encourage the widemisperception of the writing center as a final editingservice. This requirement also suggests consultants willnot watch you eek out a first paragraph; they have toomany other students to see; this is not in their jobdescription; it is too agonizingly mind-numbing forthem; the writing center does not want to deal withyou if you’ve got nothing. But what if you really feellike you’ve got nothing? What if you’ve gotdysgraphia? I consider myself fortunate to work withstudents with learning disabilities, students for whomthe very act of transferring a single thought to paperseems an impossible task. I am honored with theinvitation of a blank page because that is an invitation

for a journey together.

The Robert & Jane Weiner Writing Center is a place ofactive writing. Students at various stages of the writingprocess sit at computers or tables, whichever theyprefer, and the writing consultant(s) providesconstructive inquiry, suggests an outlining ortechnology aid, and addresses concerns as they arise.The students stay for as long as they wish, talk to eachother about their writing, always have access to help,and most importantly, are never just another session.

Because of this consultation style, I am privy to manyadventures at once.

Writing centers at universities with student populations inthe tens of thousands may scoff at the idea of an open andhighly-individualized writing center. Anything can be donwith only 150 students to handle, they may retort. I am no

suggesting all writing centers adopt this approach and betrampled by their students. Instead, I challenge my fellowwriting center consultant to show the student seeking youexpertise that even if time is limited to thirty minutes,during that time the student will not be alone. It is time yowill spend showing the student not what you know, butuncovering what she knows. You will help one find thetreasure he didn’t know he had. And who can resist anadventure like that?

References

North, Stephen M. (1984). The idea of a writing center.

College English, 46(5), 433-446.

Robinson, Heather M. (2009). Writing center philosophyand the end of basic writing: Motivation at the siteof remediation and discovery. Journal of BasicWriting, 28(2), 70-92.



Fall 20

The 2011 East Central Writing Centers AssociationConference included a number of firsts for ourassociation as well as a number of successes. Held atWestern Michigan University (WMU) in Kalamazoo,MI, from March 3 through 5, our association’s 2011annual conference occurred earlier in the spring thanany other conference; drew participants from faroutside of our conference area (California, Nevada,Florida, etc.); involved the largest number of highschool consultant presenters (26) ever at ourconference; and was structured by a Call for Proposals

(CFP) focused on one current writing center topic—assessment—although slightly more sessions on topicsnot related to assessment were presented.

The conference was attended by 310 high school,undergraduate, graduate, and professionalconsultants/tutors, writing centerdirectors/coordinators, writing centerassociate/assistant directors, faculty members,administrators, librarians, and students. Forty-seveninstitutions from two countries (South Korea and theUS) and eight states (MI, OH, IN, IL, PA, CA, NV, andFL) were represented in 88 sessions that lasted 75

minutes each for a total of 110 hours of sessions. Sixty-seven single topic workshops and talks were presentedby ECWCA members, including one workshop led bythe vendor RichCo; fifteen sessions that combinedtwenty-nine presentations into multiple part panelswere offered; and three double-session workshops(150 minutes each) were presented during back-to-back sessions.

Conference Theme

The ECWCA Board approved a conference Call forProposals (CFP) different from any CFP in ECWCA

history. Although the 2011 ECWCA Conference CFP,titled “Centering Assessment: Roles, Relationships,Respect, Resistance,” clearly indicated any writingcenter topic would be considered for inclusion in theconference program, the CFP also focused on writingcenter assessment and, as the excerpt below shows,explored the purpose of attempting to structure awriting center conference on that topic:

. . . [W]riting centers have always faced demands toprove their worth to students, faculty, staff,

administrators, parents, and taxpayers.We’ve often answered those demands witharguments based on program assessment, butanother type of assessment has also alwaysfunctioned at the heart of writing centerconsultations, as consultant and writercollaborate to assess the writer’s needs, afocus that encourages conversation andinsights . . . As the first regional conferencedevoted to assessment of our work, we seekto center writing center assessmentdiscussion, in several connotations of the

verb. Through quality panel discussions,round tables, workshops, and poster sessionswe hope conference participants will focus,equalize, highlight, and pinpoint writingcenter assessment theory, practices, issues,and ideas.

Of the 104 individual and panel talks and workshopsoffered during the two-day conference, 48 addressedwriting center assessment. Among other topics, sessionsdevoted to assessment considered program assessment (including “Assessing High School Writing Centers:What We Can Do and How We Can Do It,” “Assessing(and Advocating for) What We Value: Documenting OurContributions to Students’ Learning Processes in CollegeWriting Programs and Writing Centers,” and “A Fall forFellows: Creating and Assessing a Writing FellowsProgram”); assessment theory (including “EvaluationCapacity Building in Writing Center Assessment” and“What Writing Centers Really Value: Applying DynamicCriteria Mapping to Writing Center Work”); assessmentstrategies within tutorials (including “Assessment of Howto Begin Sessions Through Inquiry: The PracticalApplication of VARK” and “The SOAP Note: A CleanerApproach to the Assessment of Writing”) and assessment politics (including “Using Assessment for Sustainability:

Strategies for Staying Effective in a Volatile EconomicEnvironment,” “Writing Center Data: What Do We Needand How Should We Use It?” and “Self-Assessment: TheDangers and the Challenges.”)

In addition, luncheon keynote speaker, Dr. Eileen Evans,former WMU Writing Center director and ECWCAConference host and current WMU Vice Provost forInstitutional Effectiveness, offered a talk about writingcenters’ roles in institutional assessment and

Assessing Our Success: The 2011 East Central Writing Centers Association Conference

Kim Ballard, [email protected], Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, MI



18


accreditation processes, which was titled, “LessonsLearned: Reflections on the Future.” Three dinnerkeynote speakers took turns helping conferenceparticipants consider shared concerns about writingcenter assessment in a talk titled, “It’s Like aConsultation: Writing Center Assessment as a Means ofReflection and Revision.” These speakers included EllenSchendel, director of the Fred Meijer Center for Writing& Michigan Authors at Grand Valley State University inGrand Rapids, MI; William Macauley, Director ofWriting at the College of Wooster in Wooster, OH; andBrian Huot, former director of the Writing Center at theUniversity of Louisville in Louisville, KY, and currentfaculty member in the Department of English at KentState University in Kent, OH.

Other Conference Business

In addition to the professional presentations and shared

conversations, the conference also featured six otherimportant activities: (1) a Silent Auction to support 2012tutor travel awards, which were suspended in 2011 dueto budget concerns; (2) presentations, tables ofinformation, and free materials from eight vendors; (3)an Ideas Exchange that allowed participants to sharecopies of favorite consulting strategies; (4) theannouncement and presentation of ECWCA TutorAwards (Jen Torreano, Tutor Leadership Award andAllie Oosta, Outstanding Tutor of the Year, both ofGrand Valley State University); (5) the announcementand distribution of the first ECWCA Newsletter , whichhas been developed and edited by Anthony Garrison of

Kent State University; and (6) the announcement of theresults of the Board of Directors election (Kim Ballard ofWestern Michigan University and Ashley Ellison of BallState University).

The ECWCA Silent Auction earned the association $545thanks to a number of generous vendors and conferenceparticipants. RichCo donated $200 to the auction;Bedford-St. Martin’s contributed two $50 gift cards toPanera and ten $5 gift cards to Biggby’s Coffee as wellas a number of textbooks; Utah State University Pressprovided more than a dozen books, and Chef Arne ofSolvang, CA, provided 12 Danish Cookbooks. Various

ECWCA participants and WMU departments provideda wealth of items that ranged from a basket of MichiganState University paraphernalia and WMU College ofEducation and Human Development coffee mugs tocopies of her latest poetry book from Julia Moore,director of the Writing Center at Cedarville University.

Bedford-St. Martins also contributed $400 to ourconference to cover the majority of the expenses for ourbreakfast snacks and coffee both Friday and Saturday.

In addition, the publisher provided 250 copies of TheBedford Guide for Writing Tutors, 5th ed., which were givento all conference participants who wanted a copy. A tablefull of Bedford books was on prominent display, andconference participants could submit requests to havematerials mailed to them.

Other Donated Conference Items

To eliminate the cost of conference bags and swag, WMUWriting Center representatives solicited donations fromWMU departments and Discover Kalamazoo, a localtourist office, which also negotiated the reduced ratesoffered at the conference hotels listed on the conferencewebsite. Various WMU departments provided pencils andmagnets, and Discover Kalamazoo provided maps andcoupon books to local restaurants. The WMU bookstoreprovided 350 plastic bags that we used to distribute theconference programs, pencils, magnets, city maps, and

coupon books.

Measuring Conference Success

While conference participants suggested the eventincluded many successes, from launching the careers offirst-time presenters and starting new friendships tosharing useful ideas and providing citations for futureworks about writing centers, perhaps the best way toconsider the value of the conference is by reflecting onwhat participants took with them in terms of a betterunderstanding of writing centers, heightened awareness owriting center assessment and strategies for use in writing

center activities, and germs of ideas about futurepublications and presentations. Those things will extendthe 2011 ECWCA for years to come, and I, for one, hopeparticipants will consider turning their presentations intoarticles for journals devoted to writing center theory andpedagogy, such as The Writing Lab Newsletter, The Danglin Modifier , Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, and The WritingCenter Journal, as well as to other publications devoted towriting instruction, mentoring, higher education,assessment, and tutoring.



Fall 20

Tutor Voices Jen Torreano

Leader of the Year, March 2011

- Grand Valley State University,Fred Meijer Center for Writingand Michigan Authors. - Three years’ experience, leadconsultant for two of those threeyears. - English Language and Literaturemajor with a minor in Classics.

Q: How has being a writing tutor/consultant helped youin your interactions with peers, either academically orprofessionally?

Writing consultants discuss very personal issues withstudents, often by asking questions about the writing’ssubject matter, but also by discussing writing itself. I havenever met someone who is truly detached from his or herwriting, so part of the job of a consultant is to gain the trustof students and be encouraging while still being honest. Agood writing consultant tries to get to know a personquickly—by asking questions, noticing body language, andmaking other observations—and uses what she/he learnsto help the student become a better, more confident writer.These are skills that are useful in every sort of interaction—academically, professionally, and personally.

Q: When you think back on your time as a writing centertutor, can you describe a high point?

I have many favorite memories from my time as a writingconsultant, but this is one that sticks out in my mind. I wasworking with a nontraditional nursing student who wasfinishing her degree after taking twenty years off to be astay at home mother. She was two days away from turningin her first paper in twenty years, and she was terrified.Because she was so afraid of failing, she had spent anincredible amount of time doing research, writing, andrevising her paper, and it showed. After she read the paperaloud, I explained the things she had done right and usedthe positives to show her the areas that she could improve.She was so excited that she hadn’t “screwed up” her firstpaper that I spent the rest of the day with a smile because Icould not get hers out of my mind. It’s the greatconsultations I always remember.

Q: What advice might you give other tutors/ consultants?

Though consultants should always strive to improve, Ithink the most important thing is to trust yourself. Don’t

worry about how a different consultant would respondor what a professor will think (to a degree, of course).Respond as an honest reader and your feedback will be

better than anything you say if you second guessyourself. This sort of answers the question below as welbut I was so afraid of “messing up” during my firstcouple of months as a writing consultant that I wouldfreeze. Once I learned to trust myself and my naturalresponses to the writing, I improved as a writingconsultant a thousand times over.

Q: What skills have you acquired, from being atutor/consultant, which you will take with youthroughout life?

Being a writing consultant improved my communicatio

skills in every way—listening, speaking, observing bodylanguage, all of it. But listening is probably the mostimportant. Being a great listener is a rare and veryvaluable skill. The writing center taught me how to listeto have confidence, and to never underestimate howmuch I can help someone or brighten a person’s day.

Allie Oosta

Tutor of Year, March of 2011

- Grand Valley State University,Fred Meijer Center for Writing an

Michigan Authors. - Two years’ experience. - Writing major.

As a writing major, I naïvelybelieved that my writing skills could be useful to anykind of student— but only to a certain extent. A physicsor nursing major would sometimes enter the center andrequest to work with a tutor whose major was science-based. As a younger consultant, I respected thosestudents, and even thanked them, because physics isscary! Only later on in my career did I realize the magicof writing centers where cross-discipline ideas hang thicin the air and tutors can learn from the students.

One specific afternoon, I worked with a nursing studentI remember that her report was on the study of somedisease, and the results were shocking. The studyunveiled that one in three women were at risk fordeveloping this crazy paralysis that could lead to theinability to have children. I remember looking at thenursing student and saying, “WOW! Can you believethis? I can’t believe this! This could completely change



20


everything. ONE IN THREE! You absolutely NEED totalk about how this will affect the world in your Analysissection!”

I’ll never forget her reaction. She laughed slightly, thensaid, “That’s not really what the Analysis section is for.It’s mostly just to analyze the study, what they could

have done differently, and what they discovered. It laysthe grounds for the next researcher. But it certainlydoesn’t theorize or speculate about huge ripple effects. Inreality, this is only one study. One study could still bewrong.” I sunk a little lower in my chair, consideringwhat she had said. I felt almost like I had been caught inthe check-out line at the grocery store, getting all workedup about an article in The National Enquirer . Sciencewasn’t about psychoanalyzing how one study willchange the world. I might as well have told her to writean anthropological response in her Analysis section. Thatstudent, along with many others, helped open my eyes tothe reality that each field sees things a little differently.

I came to realize that if I was open to, aware of, andcapable of utilizing the information that I gained fromdifferent papers in the center, I could use thatinformation to unearth the values and demands of eachdiscipline. That knowledge could then allow me a specialinsight into each discipline that is usually only achievedby those fully engrossed in the field, and those insightscould help me later that week as a tutor, later that year asa student, or later in my life as a professional. A littleadvice to those who have the same lessons to learn as Idid: As writing consultants or tutors, we shouldn’t treateach appointment as an isolated experience, but instead

use every experience as a means towards become cross-discipline jedis who can wield the power of any majorand aren’t scared of anything, not even physics.

Eric Werner

- Wittenberg UniversityWriting Center.- One year as writingadvisor.- English and French major

with a minor in CreativeWriting.

I like to use my work in the Center as a jumping boardinto getting to know people. Wittenberg is a smallcampus, so when you have a session with a student, it'svery likely you'll see that student again either in a classor in the lunch line or what have you. I already knowsomething about that student and it's much easier to starta conversation. It's nice to have something in commonright off the bat with people I wouldn't normally know.

As a tutor, my high point is anytime someone says"Thanks, that really helped," and I know that they reallyunderstood what we were working on in the paper. Inone instance, a good friend of mine came into the Centeand scheduled an appointment with me. The sessionwent really well and he was very appreciative of the

changes. What’s more, I got a look into what he waspassionate about by reading his paper and he got thechance to see me doing what I love to do. It was a greatmoment that really strengthened our friendship.

I think what really helps me is to think about "shelvingyour day." When you step into the Center, you're in theCenter. You can't worry about what's for dinner or anupcoming calc test, because that distraction and stressleak into the session. You get sloppy and rushed. Andmore likely than not, the student will feel distracted andstressed from their day too. I liken it to rock climbing.When you're climbing, every inch of your focus is on

your hold and feet positioning. If you think about fallinyou're going to fall. If you think about dinner, well, youget the point. Call it Writing Center zen, call it what youwill. It really helps to shelve your day.

Something that being a writing advisor has forced me toconfront is the fact that not everybody thinks like me. Ican't always explain how to use a comma to someone thway I understand it. Honing that ability to creatively geideas across to people has forced me to get out of myown head and, not only truly understand the conceptsmyself, but also to understand the student a bit better. It

always good to appreciate how different we all are.

Leigh Hastings

- Wittenberg University WritingCenter- One year being a tutor.- English major.

Q: How has being a writing tutor/consultant helped you inyour interactions with peers,either academically or

professionally?

Working as an advisor has helped me in my interactionwith peers as I have learned to benefit from them asresources in the Writing Center. Just as writers come in the Center to work with me, I have gone to the Center aa writer to work with other advisors. Sharing my workwith others has helped me gain a greater sense of respecfor those who work in the Center and an appreciation fotheir genuine interest in collaborating with writers.



Fall 20

Q: When you think back on your time as a writing centertutor, can you describe a high point?

My “favorite session” occurred last winter as the semesterwas coming to a close and we were in our last week offinals. I had been working throughout the semester with a Japanese student who many other advisors in our center

had been afraid to work with. He was very quiet, verysmart, and questioned everything; he wanted to know exactgrammatical rules and clear explanations for anysuggestions that we made, and he was always sure to tell uswhen we made a suggestion that conflicted with how hewas taught English.

As our last session came to a close, he asked, “In America,do you say ‘Thank you so much’ or ‘Thank you verymuch?’” I was shocked at his question because he was notusually one to express great satisfaction with his sessions inthe Writing Center. Usually, he would let us know when wehelped answer his questions, and then he would leave for

class. But on this day, as he walked out of the Center tocatch a plane for Japan, he turned back and in his stern,quiet voice said, “Thank you very much.”

Q: What advice might you give other tutors/ consultants?

Be friendly! Writers come in to the Center looking fordifferent things, but I think the one thing that they have incommon is that they are looking for someone who caresenough to read their writing. Being friendly and expressinginterest in a writer’s work can make a world of difference ina session; timid writers will open up, and frustrated writerswill calm down.

Q: What do you wish you would have known sooner?

I wish I would have known that not everyone wants to visitthe Writing Center. At Wittenberg, some professors requiretheir students to visit the Center during each semester,resulting in a few sessions that are painfully one-sided. Iwish I would have known how to better engagedisinterested writers so that the first few sessions I had withthem wouldn’t have been such a shock and so that theywould have seen the benefits of having a session in theCenter.

Q: What skills have you acquired, from being atutor/consultant, which you will take with you throughoutlife?

Working as an advisor has made me more able to sharetrust and power and to collaborate. I have learned thatwriters trust me to guide them, and I have learned that Ihave to trust writers to take control of their own work.Sessions are about working together, each participant givingand taking and sharing, and none of that is possible withouttrust. Being an advisor has helped me be a leader, but it has

also shown me that part of being a leader means thatyou help others learn to lead, and when everyone,who shares the trust, works together they can allbenefit.

Colin Payton

- Wittenberg UniversityWriting Center. - A little over one yeartutoring.- English major.

Q: How has being awriting tutor/consultant helped you in yourinteractions with peers, either academically orprofessionally?

Well, to start off, I stare for minutes now every time Isee “tutor/consultant” in a questionnaire and debateover the proper and polite way to say “I’m an advisoat my university” while not sounding like a snob. Ordweeb. Or whatever. I guess being an advisor slowsme down quite a bit in other areas, too. I stop toanalyze my speech patterns and my writing to makesure it is grammatically correct, and then I stop againand wonder if, after having inevitably messed upsomehow, someone is thinking it ironic that I am anadvisor. That is the bad part of being slow: clearlyrecognizing my insecurities. The good part is that I’v

learned to be very patient in my listening so as toactively participate in every conversation. Afterstarting my love affair with the Writing Center, I’venoticed that people really like it when they can know someone is paying attention to them. Just another wato build a good relationship, I suppose. So, the Centerhas made me very slow. Like a turtle. Not like the baprocessors on my campus’ computers.

Q: When you think back on your time as a writing center advisor, can you describe a high point?

The firsts, of course: the first time I walked away to

“get a drink” mid-session to let a writer, well, youknow, write; the first time I had a session with an ESLstudent or a special needs writer and my first WritingCenter conference presentation. But what I’ve foundlately is that the small things bring greater highs out my job than the grand situations. I love brainstorminwith someone who speaks another language. I loveshowing the new advisors (whom I have dubbed“plebes,” affectionately) how to make coffee. I love thmost challenging sessions of all: my fellow advisors.



22


even love explaining why I won’t edit papers.

Q: What advice might you give other advisors?

To the new kids on the block: Enthusiasm is yourgreatest asset. You won’t get every situation right thefirst time, and you certainly won’t know every use of

the ellipses right off the bat. Heck, I don’t know all ofthem. There might just be one. Who knows (insertscoffing at me being an advisor)? But your attitude inthe first few months is essential to smoothly adaptingto the ins and outs of center protocol. A warning,though: don’t mistake enthusiasm with blindambition. Listen to everyone and everything you hearabout the “right” way to do things. Next, filter out theegos, the academic, the absurd, and the personal, andthen slowly use the things you’ve learned to developwho you are as a tutor/consultant/advisor/etc.

To the battle-worn, overworked, wizened consultants.

Take a breath and relax. You’ve made it past theinfatuation stage with your work. Don’t yearn for thatzeal the new kids have now; realize the subtle, lastingaffection you have for your work which is nowtempered with experience. Try something new once ina while, but don’t forsake what time has provenworthy of your writers. Don’t look down upondifferent ways of doing things as wrong, unless theyare wrong, but as unique. Offer your advice whereyou see fit, but more useful is developing a rapportwith new advisors which is conducive to themwanting to ask you questions unprompted.

Q: What do you wish you would have knownsooner?

There is not a single learning experience that I’ve hadthat I would erase purely for the sake of flashing(climbing term) unknown circumstances the first timethrough. For me, part of the joy I’ve had as an advisoris developing a protean, improvisational, minimalistic,and feminist approach to my advising. An example: Icouldn’t have figured out most of those wordswithout having not known them at one point, which,

in a center, not knowing vocab is a laughable offense.Writers are mostly forgiving, and, odds are, they don’teven realize when you are a little too dominant or alittle too “teachy.” But it is getting to the point ofseeing the things you don’t like in yourself that reallyleads to true development. I’ve fallen in sessionsplenty of times, and I’m sure I will again falter in thefuture, but I know it won’t be the same things twice.

Q: What skills have you acquired, from being an advisorwhich you will take with you throughout life?

How can I answer? I’m going to avoid any sense that I’vemastered anything and list some things I’ve learned toappreciate: I can only hope that I maintain a sense ofinterest in people. I hope I never have so much pride I wri

off a person simply because they have a question I had toask once before. Humility is something I’ve learned fromthe center, and I’ve still got a long way to go before I everconsider myself humble. I hope I can be as patient as I am the center. I hope I never forget that the best thing about mcollege experience was my time spent as a writing advisor

Emily Standridge

- Ball State University WritingCenter.- 5+ years tutoring.- English major.

During the last three years, Ihave been a Ball State University tutor and AssistantDirector as I worked on my PhD. This has been the mostrewarding of all my writing center work because I havegotten to do it all: I work with students at all levels ofwriting, I work with tutors to improve their tutoring, and Iwork with faculty to learn the power of writing outside thEnglish Department. This semester, I begin my new job as

full-fledged writing center director at a small school back iEast Texas.

The pure joy of helping someone as they work on a writinproject remains the same after seven years of tutoring. As Iapproach anyone in the writing center, tutors, students, orfaculty, my aim is to work with them to figure outsomething, anything, that will help them with their currentproject and will make the next one easier. If I can achievethat, I have been successful.

Through this approach, I have learned many things: totackle one thing at a time, to negotiate with others so both

feel satisfied rather than let down, to let people andsituations surprise me in the most positive ways.

The best advice I can give anyone in the world, butespecially those working in writing centers, is to tryingthings out. There is no single, sure-fire way to makeworking with other people successful. But in being open tothem and in trying new things, you can figure out whatworks best for you. If you can find that, you will enjoy thework as much as I do.



Fall 20

ECWCA Conference 2012Friday, March 30 - Saturday, March 31

IUPUI Campus

CALL FOR PROPOSALS

It’s the End of the World As We Know It: Negotiating Change in a Writing Center Context

The Mayan calendar predicts that the world will end in 2012. Writing center work is full ofendings and new beginnings. Sessions end, semesters end, only to be replaced by somethingnew...

We invite you to consider some of the ways you cope with change in your writing center. Youmight consider how you train and integrate new tutors, your experience as a new tutor oradministrator, how you set up new spaces/rearrange old spaces, how you implement newpolicies or adjust existing ones to shifting circumstances, adjust to new administrative demands,try new techniques, tweak old techniques, reinterpret and apply theory, integrate technology,outreach, assessment, etc. The possibilities are endless.

Proposals should include a 50-word abstract and a 500-word narrative description that commen

as specifically as possible on the role of the presenters, the participation of other attendees, andthe contribution the session makes to writing center studies.

Proposals will be accepted beginning October 1, 2011. Deadline for proposals is November 14, 2011.

Visit ecwca.org for more details.

5th Annual NEOWCA Conference

Negotiating Identity and Ideology: Writing Centers as Agents of Change

Saturday, Oct. 15, 20119:00 a.m.-4:30 p.m.

Kent State University at StarkNorth Canton, OH

Register online:http://www.stark.kent.edu/about/neowca.cfm



East Central Writing Centers Association Fall 20

ECWCA is a newsletter published for the benefit of its members. Reproduction of its contents is permissible only for use by those writing center

professionals in our geographic region. All other reproduction requests should be made via e-mail at [email protected].

The Writing Lab Newsletter

The Writing Lab Newsletter (WLN ) is a bi-monthly publication (September to June) for those who work in the tutorial setting of writing labs or centers (or in writing centers within learning centers). Articles focus on writing center theory, administration, andpedagogy. The website, http://writinglabnewsletter.org , contains an open archive of past volumes.

Call for Papers: WLN invites articles, reviews of books relevant to writing centers, and revisions of papers presented at regionalconferences. We also regularly include a Tutors' Column with essays by and for tutors. Recommended maximum length is 3000words or less (including the Works Cited) for articles and 1500 words or less for the Tutors' Column. Please use MLA format. Allsubmissions are peer reviewed. Send your manuscripts as attachments via e-mail to [email protected]. For editorial questions, contact Muriel Harris ([email protected]), editor, or Michael Mattison ([email protected]) or JaneAuten ([email protected]), associate editors. Subscriptions to WLN are U.S.$25 per year for subscriptions mailed in the U.S. and U.S.$30 for subscriptions mailed to CanadaInternational and digital subscriptions are also available by contacting [email protected]. Please order WLN through our Web site: <http://writinglabnewsletter.org/index.html>.

Call for Engagement!Submit content to ECWCA and keep the conversations going. There are many ways to contributeand be heard. ECWCA is a semiannual publication designed to open and extend conversations

between people invested in writing center work in our geographic region. Tutors, directors,assistant directors, administrators, tutees, and more are encouraged to engage in the dialogue.Below are just some of the ways you might consider contributing. We look forward to hearingfrom you all and advancing the work we do.

ArticlesTopics: Issues relevant to writing center work.Length: 1000-2500 words.Style: APA or MLA.

Tutor VoicesTopics: Opinion pieces/reflection piecesrelevant to you and your writing center work.Length: 500-750 words.

Center ProfilesTopics: Issues relevant to the operations ofyour writing center. Can include details aboutyour center and highlight individuals,projects, or other information.Length: Varies.

• Regional Announcements

• Tutor Achievements

• Director Achievements

• Calls for Conversation

• Resources

• Photographs• And More!

Send submissions and inquiries [email protected]. Submissionsare accepted on a rolling basis. Newsletterissues are released in September/October

and January/February.

The deadline for the next newsletter

is December 31.