A JOURNAL OF WRITING CENTER SCHOLARSHIPWLN

42:5-6 | JANUARY/FEBRUARY 2018

LECLUYSE and STOCK PRINCE, WILLARD, ZAMARRIPA, and SHARKEY-SMITH

POOLE | SCHACHT | KNEISLEY

WLN

Table of Contents1 From the Editor Muriel Harris

2 Religious Identity and Writing Center Tutoring: Perceptions from Latter-day Saint (LDS) Tutors Christopher LeCluyse and David Stock

10 Peripheral (Re)Visions: Moving Online Writing Centers from Margin to Center

Sarah Prince, Rachel Willard, Ellen Zamarripa, andMattSharkey-Smith

18 Tutors' Column: "Ramblings of an Insecure Writer: Viewing Writing Tutorials as Stories" Megan Poole

22 Tutors' Column: "I Don’t Grok You: When Unfamiliar Subjects Can’t Be Translated" Christopher Schacht

26 Tutors' Column: "Exposing the Draft Addiction: Prioritizing Prewriting in the Writing Center" John Kneisley

30 Announcements

32 Conference Calendar

Although WLN occasionally has special issues on a single topic, thisissueincludesarticlesondiversesubjects.Givencurrentpublicconversationsabouttheinfluenceoffaith,thearticlebyChristopherLeCluyseandDavidStockisparticularlyrelevant.LeCluyseandStockarebothatinstitutionsinUtahwithmanytutors who are members of the LDS church. LeCluyse andStock’s article explores ways in which the tutors’ Mormonreligiousidentityinfluencestheirtutoring.Inthenextarticle,fourmembers ofWaldenUniversity’s onlinewriting center, SarahPrince, Rachel Willard, Ellen Zamarripa, and Matt Sharkey-Smith,pointtothegrowthofresearchdocumentingconnectionsbetweenonlinestudentsupportandonlinestudentsuccess.Theauthorsarguethatmoreonlinewritingtutoringscholarshipandcollaborationcanpositionwritingcenterpraxisatthecenterofonlineeducation.

When WLN issues are devoted to special topics, those issues include aTutors’Columnrelevant to that topic.Doingsohasdelayed thepublicationofourregularlyacceptedtutors’essays,sowe’replayingcatch-upby includingthreeTutors’Columnessayshere.Forthosewhousetheseessays instaffmeetingdiscussions,youhavethreetochoosefrom.Althoughthetutors’articlesareaboutwhattutorslearnaboutthemselves,abouttutoring,andaboutthestudentstheyworkwith, theconcernsofeachessayarequitedifferent.MeganPoole introduces herself as an insecurewriterwho draws on thepowerofstories fromher tutoring tosharehowshe learnedthatshetooisawriter.Whenatutorcannotunderstandthecontentofapaper,ChristopherSchachtwritesthatthetutorcangrokthepaper.Schachtexplainswhatitistogrokapaperandshowsushowthatapproachcanhelptutorsandwriters.Anotherwaytoassistwritersistoworkwiththemattheprewritingstage,butasJohnKneisley’sdataanalysisreveals,fewstudentsasktutorsforhelpatthisvaluablestageinhiswritingcenter.

Ifyounoticeaheavyemphasisontutorsinthisissue,that’sbecause asweallknow,theheartofawritingcenterisitstutors.

1

WLN

From the EditorMuriel Harris

2

Although robust conversations on race, class, gender,andsexual identityhaveemergedwithinwritingcenterstudies,religionasacategoryofidentityremainslargelyunexamined.Thisisnotthecaseforcompositionstudies.Surveyingthepasttwenty-fiveyearsofresearchonstu-dents’religiousbeliefsandexperiences,PaulLynchandMatthewMiller conclude that the field has taken reli-gionseriously.Whilethe“problematicreligiousstudent”informsastrandofpastscholarship,moreof itreflectsscholarsandteacherspracticing“widespreadsensitivityand self-critical awareness,”usingencounterswith stu-dents’ religious beliefs “as opportunities to interrogatetheirownassumptions”(LynchandMiller).Highlightinghowcurrentresearchrejectsboththenotionthat“reli-

giousfaithisathreattoacademicdiscourse”andthetendencyto“reduc[e]religiousspeechtoitsmostreactionaryarticulations,”LynchandMillerconcludethatcompositionispursuing“awiderandmorediverseunderstandingoffaith.”Yet,thedisciplinestillknowstoo little“aboutourstudents’actualbeliefsandpractic-es”—anobservationthat,webelieve,appliestostudentsworkinginwritingcenters.

Existingwritingcenterscholarshiptypicallyfocusesonstudents’religiousbeliefsinwritingconsultations(Parker;foranexception,seeFitzgerald).AsdirectorsofwritingcentersinUtah,ourinstitu-tionalcontextscompelustoacknowledgetheimpactofreligiousbeliefsandpracticesonourwritingtutors,particularlythosewhoidentify as Latter-day Saints (LDS), or Mormons. Long consid-eredaminorityreligion intheChristiantraditionwithamisun-derstoodtheologyandahistoryofpersecution,theLDSChurchhasreceivedincreasedmediaattentionrecently,notablyduringMittRomney’s2012presidentialcampaign.A2015PewResearchCenterstudy indicatesthat,whileAmericansarebecoming lessreligious, Latter-day Saints remain one of the most religiously

Religious Identity and Writing Center Tutoring: Perceptions from Latter-day Saint (LDS) Tutors

Christopher LeCluyse WestminsterCollege|SaltLakeCity,Utah

David Stock BrighamYoungUniversity|Provo,Utah

WLN

3

observantgroupsintheUnitedStates(PewResearchCenter11).Knowingthatreligiousidentityfeaturedprominentlyinmanyofourtutors’lives,weconductedanexploratory,cross-institutionalstudytoexaminetutors’perceptionsofhowtheirreligiousidenti-tyinfluencestheirworkaswritingtutors.

Following IRB approval, we interviewed eleven undergraduateLDS peer tutors at our respectivewriting centers:WestminsterCollege, a small, secular comprehensive private university in Salt LakeCity,UT;andBrighamYoungUniversity (BYU),a large,reli-giouslyaffiliatedprivateuniversityinProvo,UT.Ninewritingtu-torsatBYUwere interviewedbyDavid; twowritingconsultantsatWestminsterwereinterviewedbyChris.Participantswere20to26yearsoldandmembersoftheLDSChurch,mostfortheirentirelives;theirChurch-sponsoredserviceopportunitiesrangedfromteachingSundaySchooltocompleting18-to-24-monthpros-elytizingmissions.Weasked13questionsthatpromptedtutorstoconsiderhowvariousfactors—religiousidentity,LDSbeliefsorpractices, Church-sponsored service opportunities, institutionalmission—were relevant to tutoring, includingworkingwithstu-dents on religious writing.1 The interviews, which lasted 15-45minutes,were semi-structured, allowingus toprobe responseswhilepermittingcomparisonacrossinterviewdata(BernardandRyan29).Weanalyzedinterviewtranscriptsusingaholisticcodingmethod,manuallyandindependentlycodingeachinterviewbe-forecomparinganalysestorefineourcodesandcategories(Sal-daña142-43).

In this article, we highlight two contrasting findings: 1) tutorswe interviewedperceive their religious beliefs and experiencesas compatible with or highly relevant to writing center praxis;2)when consultingon religiouswriting, tutorswhowere inter-viewed elide differences in religious beliefs by discussing aca-demicrhetoric.Despiteasmallsamplesize(n=11),thesefindingssuggest that LDS tutorsexperienceaproductive, though some-what conflicting, relationship between religious and academicidentitiesanddiscourses.Assuch, thesefindingssupportLynchandMiller’sobservationaboutthecompatibilityofreligiousfaithandacademicdiscourse,whichcompelsustourgewritingcenterprofessionalstoseereligionasacategoryofidentitythatmeritsincreasedattentionandresearch.

Beforeproceeding,wewishtoemphasizethatmanyoftheeleventutorsnotedthechallengeofconsideringtheirreligiousidentityapartfromtheirholisticidentities.Oneexplained,

4

Ifeellikeit’skindofhardtoseparate[religiousidentityandwritingcenterwork]becauseIfeellikebothofthemareanimportantpartofwhoIamorhowIwoulddescribemyself.Idon’tfeellikethere’s,youknow,thereismewhoisLDSandthenthere’smewho’sawritingtutorandthattheyaresep-arate,compartmentalizedpeople.Ifeellikebothofthemarepartofwho I am.Thereareotheraspectsofme, too, youknow,metheastronomymajor,thekidwholikestogohiking,andallthatstuff.(Interview6)

Anotherofthetutorswhowereinterviewedexplained,“IliketothinkthatthewayIlivemyreligioniskindofmoreapartofwhoIamversussomethingthatIhavetoconsciouslythinkabout”(In-terview5).Becausereligiousbeliefiscentraltothesetutors’ho-listicidentities,itinevitablyinfluencestheirwritingcenterwork,butthedegreeof that influence isoften inconspicuous.Hence,these tutors did not construe writing center tutoring, or theirrolesastutors,asinherentlyreligious.Further,weacknowledgethepotentialbiasinourresearchfromaskingtutorstoconsiderconnections between their religious experiences and tutoring.However, twofactors—our lackofhypothesesabout tutors’ re-sponses, and the fact that several tutorsmade similar connec-tions independently of each other—suggest that we tapped atopic many tutors had already considered and, in several cases, discussedwitheachotherlongbeforeweinvitedthemtopartic-ipateinthisresearch.

MORAL VALUES AND WRITING CENTER PRAXISWhenaskedwhichLDSbeliefsorpracticesinfluencedhowtheyworkwithwriters,nearlyalltutorsappealedtosuchmoralvaluesaskindness,friendliness,andencouragement;severalmentionedrespect and service, and somementionedhumility,mercy, andlove.ThesevaluesarenotuniquetoChristianityorreligiousbe-liefsystemssincetheyfeaturein“natural”virtueethics.However,theydoexpressaChristianfocusonloveofothersasaprimaryvirtue, traditionally expressed as “caritas, charity, or self-sacri-ficing love” (LawlerandSalzman444,465–6).Thefollowingre-sponserepresentshowthesetutorstypicallyconnectedtheirre-ligiousbeliefsandwritingcentertutoring:

[B]eingkindandencouragingand supportivearevery, like, importanttenetsofLDSpractice[...].[A]ndteachingisalsoareallybigpart[...that]playsoutinwritingcenterpractices.[B]eingdirectbut,uh,notalwaysdirective,Iguess,inteach-ing,inalwaystryingtobekindandunderstandingandsym-patheticasyou’reofferingsuggestions.[...]Learningtolovepeopleassoonasyoumeetthem,Ithink,isalsoanimport-antpartoftutoring.(Interview4)

5

As illustrated, these tutorsoftenexpressedmoralvaluesalong-sidenormativeprinciplesofwritingcenterpraxis.Manystressedtheimportanceofvaluingandengagingeachwriterandofferingindividualized support and validation. Several associated theirrolesascollaborativepeerswithasenseofselflessserviceandrespectforawriter’sabilityandautonomy.Whilereferencestonondirective tutoringmethods,whichwere common, likely re-flectedtutors’trainingandexposuretowritingcenterliterature,tutors also implied that suchmethodswere vital to preservingstudents’ agency2 and their development as writers. Further,whilenearlyalloftheintervieweesparaphrasedStephenNorth’saxiom“thatweaimtomakebetterwriters,notnecessarily—orimmediately—bettertexts”(441),tutorsoftenimplicitly infused“better”withamoralmeaning(i.e.,hopingtheinteractionwouldhelpwritersbecomebetterpeople,orbetteroffthantheywerebefore).

Thesetutors’responsesrevealhownotionsofloveandservice,inspiredby religiousbeliefsandexperiences, intersectwith thecollaborative, nonhierarchical ethos of writing center praxis.Manyof these tutors seewriting conferences as an individual-izedandhumanizingencounterwithawriterandeffectivetutor-ingassettingasideone’sownagenda.Theirresponsesreinforcemany“mandatesfromwritingcenterlore”:tutorsshould“makestudentsfeelcomfortableduringconferences,”“providepositivefeedback,”“actmoreaspeersthaninstructors,”“avoidusingdi-rective tutoring strategies,” and “lead students to answer theirownquestions”(Thompsonetal.83).WhileIsabelleThompsonetal.andotherwritingcenterscholarspointtothelackofempir-icalevidencetosubstantiatesomeofthesedictates,ourresearchdocuments that tutors share these values and appeal to them as normsfortheirwritingcenterpraxis.Intheseinstances,religiousvaluesmayreinforcesuchwritingcenternorms.

INVOKING LDS BELIEFS AND MISSION EXPERIENCESWhenpromptedtoidentifyrelevantreligiousbeliefsorpracticesuniquetotheLDSChurch,manyofthesetutorsreferredexplicitlyor implicitlytotwoaspectsofLDSdoctrine:thedivineheritageandpotentialofeachpersonasachildofGod,andtheroleoflearning in furthering one’s eternal progression. These aspectsaregroundedinacentraltenetofLDStheology,thatthepurposeoflifeonEarthistoexperiencejoyandprepareforexaltationinthehereafterbylivingtheGospelofJesusChrist,andthatanyone,throughChrist’sgraceandindividualeffort,mayeventuallyattainanexalted,God-likestate.3Fromthisperspective,one’schoices,experiences,andrelationshipscanhavefar-reachingimplications.In the contextof LDSChurch-sponsorededucation,whichaims

6

tointegratespiritualandsecularlearning,tutorsseetheirworkasabroaderformofservicethatcanmovebeyondhelpingstudentsimproveaswritersandpromotestudents’personaldevelopment,learning, and, albeit indirectly, spiritual progression.4 One tutor,acknowledgingthatthecorrelationwassomewhatstrained,drewaparallelbetweendivinepotentialandwritingdevelopment:“[E]veryoneisawriterandeveryonehaswritingpotentialthattheycanreach.Andwe’re[writingtutors]heretohelpthemalongthatwayandfindthatpotential,findtheirstrengths,findtheirweaknesses,andhelpthembethebestwriterthattheycan[be]”(Interview11).

Institutionalcontextcertainlyshapestutors’perceptionsofwriting centers as sitesof service and learning.However, our interview-eesattributedlessinfluenceontheirtutoringfrominstitutionalorChurchcontextsandmorefromtheirexperiencesasmissionaries,often drawing extensive comparisons.When asked to elaborateontheimpactofmissionaryexperiences,manyoftheinterviewedtutors discussed (1) opportunities to encounter and learn fromdifferences and/or (2) training in and experience using teachingstrategies.Thesetutorsdescribedtheirmissionsasopportunitiestoencounter,respect,andlearnfromdifferencesinideas,cultures,identities,andexperiences.Theyfelttheseencountershadhelpedfostergreaterawareness,open-mindedness,sympathy,andtoler-ance,whichinfluencedhowtheyviewedandworkedwithwriters.Onetutor,whowasamissionaryinRussia,explained,

Iwas interactingwithpeople thathadsuchdifferentexperi-encesfrommineandatthebeginningofmymission Ioftenfeltlike,“Youknow,yes,Idon’tunderstand,”butIwouldresentthatpeoplewouldbelike,“You’rejustayoungAmericanthathaseverything,”[...]andIstartedtofeeltowardstheendofmymissionthatIcouldvalidatetheirexperiencesalotmoreandvalidatetheirfeelingofmylackofunderstanding.Like, IjustbecameveryawareofhowmuchIcouldlearnfromthem,andthatissomethingIthinkaboutwhenI’mtutoring.(Inter-view3)

ThesetutorsalsofrequentlynotedoverlapbetweenwritingtutortrainingmanualsandteachingmethodsfromtheLDSmissionarytrainingmanual,whichincludesachapteroneffectiveteachingskillswithguidelinesforbuildingrapportandtrust,adaptingcontenttomeetindividualneeds,explainingconceptsclearly,askingeffectivequestions,activelylistening,andunderstandingandresolvingcon-cerns.Readersfamiliarwithwritingcenterpraxismayseeparallelsin such manuals as The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors (17-28)and The Longman Guide to Peer Tutoring(28-29).Askingquestionswasthemostcommonoverlapthesetutorsmentionedbetweenteachingexperiencesasmissionariesandastutors.Asonetutor, whowasamissionaryinJapan,explained,

7

[A]samissionaryIfeellike[...]mymostsuccessfulteaching momentswerewhenIaskedtherightquestionsandthepeo-plewewere teachingwere able tofind answers for them-selvesor,Iguess,comeupwiththeirownbeliefsinsteadofustellingthemwhattobelieve,andIfeellikewritingtutoringisthesamewhereyoucanaskcertainquestionsandtheydon’thelp,oryoucanaskotherquestionsandtheymakesome-thingclick.(Interview7)

Whilebeliefs andpracticesdiffer greatly among religions, evenamong branches of the same religion, identifying connectionsbetweenreligiousandacademiccontextsdemonstratesthattheformercanbringnewparadigmstothelatter.Forinstance,thesetutors’ characterization of asking questions, derived from theirmissionaryexperiences,ofteneschewedthedirective/non-direc-tiveparadigmoftypicalwritingcenterpraxisandinsteadfocusedonwhetherquestionsfacilitatedlearning.

NEGOTIATING DIFFERENCES IN BELIEFS BY ATTENDING TO ACADEMIC RHETORICInresponsetoquestionsaboutconsultingonreligiouswriting,alltutorsmentionedencounteringdifferencesofbelief.Westminstertutorsgenerallydiscussedworkingwithnon-LDSorformerlyLDSwriters,whilemanyBYUtutorsidentifiedencounteringdifferenc-esofbeliefwithfellowLDSwriters.Severalnotedthataddress-ingthesedifferenceswasparticularlychallengingorcomplicated:Thesetutorsdidn’twanttooffendstudentsorunderminetheirbeliefsbutalsowantedtochallengestudents’thinking,especial-lywhentutorsfeltthatstudentswereexpressingtheirbeliefsinsimplisticordogmaticways.Indescribingtheirresponsestothesesituations,thetutorsoftenexpressedadesiretoavoidimposingtheirbeliefsandinsteadfocusedonunderstandingandstrength-eningstudents’writing.

Onetutorparticipantexplainedthattutoringreligiouswritingattimesconfrontedhimwithassumptionsandargumentshefoundproblematic:

It’s definitely interesting because you run up against newideas thatmakeyouthinkabout,orthatmakemethinkaboutwhat I believe. [S]ometimes you will hear something andyou’llthink,“Isthatreallyhowit is?DoIagreewiththat?”Andyou justhavetoremoveyourself from itand [...]viewitalmostnotasreligion[but]almostasyouwouldanyothersubjectandlookattheirideasandthestructureoftheirargu-mentsandhowtheypresentitratherthantheactualcontentofwhattheyaresaying.(Interview6)

Thetutoradded,“I’malwayskindofworriedabouttellingstudents,‘Oh,thisiswrong’or‘Youneedto’—Idon’twanttocomeacrossas,

8

‘Oh,yourbeliefiswrongorinvalid,’”andrelatedanexperienceofencounteringadifferentinterpretationofscripturebutrefrainingfromcommentingonthecontent;rather,hemadesuggestionsforclarifyingandstrengtheningthestudent’sposition(Interview6).

Expressingsimilarmisgivings,anothertutorexplained,“Itrytobereally—howdoIsaythis?—notremovedfromthecontent,butmypersonalreligiousviewsareoftenprettydifferentthanthethings[students]aresaying [. . . .] I trynot tocommentspecificallyonareasof testimonyoron content toomuchwhen it’s really reli-giousbecauseIfeellikemostofthetimethat’skindofdangerousground.Ioftendisagreewiththethings,orIjustfeellikethat’skindofculturalratherthandoctrinal”(Interview9).Thistutordescribeddeferringquestionsaboutcontent,suchasChurchdoctrine,toaTAoraprofessorandinsteadfocusingonansweringquestionsaboutthestudent’swriting.

Thetendencyoftutorsinourstudytoemphasizeacademicrhet-oricasawaytohelpstudentsstrengthenfaith-basedargumentswithoutdirectlyengagingindifferencesinbelief,whetherground-edinreligiousoracademicdiscourse,reflectsacommontropeinscholarship on religion in thewriting classroom and thewritingcenter(Parker).Thistendency,likelymotivatedbythenotionthatreligiousandacademicrhetoricaremutuallyexclusive,mayhaveinhibitedthetutorsweinterviewedfromengaginginchallengingbut potentially productive conversations that stem from openlyacknowledgingdifferencesofbelief.Weinterpretthistendencyasalostopportunity,andweencouragewritingcenterprofessionalstomodelwaysofunderstandingandengagingwithdifferencesofbeliefbytreatingreligionasalegitimatecategoryofidentityandbyreplacingthestereotypeofthe“problematicreligiousstudent”withresearch-drivenaccountsofhowtutors’andstudents’actualreligiousbeliefsandpracticesinformtheirexperiencesinthewrit-ingcenter.

NOTES1.Forthisstudy,religiouswritingwasunderstoodbroadlyaswritingproduced

inanacademiccontextonsomeaspectofreligiousdoctrine,practice,orexperience,typicallythroughthelensofLDStheology.

2.InLDStheology,agencyreferstoanindividual’sGod-givenrighttochooseandtoactforone’sself.Tutors’useofthetermevokesthenormofwritingcenterpraxisthataimstopreservestudents’autonomyaswritersandownershipoftheirwriting.

3.ForanoverviewofbasicLDSbeliefs,consulttheChurch’sArticlesofFaith:<www.lds.org/topics/articles-of-faith>.

4.TounderstandhowBYUimaginestheintegrationoffaithandlearning,seeBYU’smissionstatementandaimsdocuments:<aims.byu.edu>.

u u u u u

WORKS CITEDBernard,H.Russell,andGeryW.Ryan.Analyzing Qualitative Data: Systematic Ap-

proaches.Sage,2010.Fitzgerald,Lauren.“‘ToraU’Madda:Institutional‘Mission’andCompositionInstruc-

tion.”Negotiating Religious Faith in the Composition Classroom,editedbyEliz-abethVanderLeiandBonnieKyburz,Boynton/Cook,2005,pp.141-154.

Gillespie, Paula, andNeal Lerner.The Longman Guide to Peer Tutoring. 2nd ed.,Pearson,2008.

Lawler,Michael G., and Todd A. Salzman. “Virtue Ethics: Natural and Christian.”Theological Studies,74,2013,pp.442–473.

Lynch,Paul,andMatthewMiller.“Twenty-FiveYearsofFaithinWriting:ReligioninComposition,1992-2017.“Present Tense: A Journal of Rhetoric in Society,vol.6, no. 2, 2017, <www.presenttensejournal.org/volume-6/twenty-five-years-of-faith-in-writing-religion-and-composition-1992-2017>. Accessed 10 Oct.2017.

North,Stephen.“TheIdeaofaWritingCenter.”College English,vol.46,no.5,1984,pp.433–446.

Parker,CourtneyBailey. “TheSpiritualConnection:HonoringFaithTraditionsandPolishing‘SpiritualLiteracies’atChristianInstitutions.”Praxis: A Writing Center Journal,vol.11,no.2,2014,<www.praxisuwc.com/parker-112>.Accessed27June2017.

Pew Research Center. “U.S. Public Becoming Less Religious,” 3 Nov. 2015, <assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/11/2015/11/

201.11.03_RLS_II_full_report.pdf.>Accessed27June2017.>Ryan,Leigh,andLisaZimmerelli.The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors.5thed.,Bed-

ford/St.Martin’s,2010.Saldaña, Johnny. The Coding Manual for Qualitative Researchers. 2nd ed., Sage,

2013.Thompson, Isabelle,AlysonWhite,DavidShannon,AmandaMuse,KristenMiller,

Milla Chappell, andAbbyWhigham. “ExaminingOur Lore:A Surveyof Stu-dents’andTutors’SatisfactionwithWritingCenterConferences.”Writing Cen-ter Journal,vol.29,no.1,2009,pp.78–104.

9

10

At IWCA’s 2015 conference, staff fromWaldenUniversity’sfullyonlinewritingcenterfacilitatedaSpecialInterestGroup(SIG): “Refocusing the Conversation: Creating Spaces forOnlineWritingCenterCommunity,Support,andDiscussion.”ThisSIGgrewfromconversationswithotheronlinewritingcenterstaffatpastIWCAconferencesinwhichwecollectivelyexpressed our desire for a continual, centralized space todiscuss the unique needs of writing centers working withstudentsonline.SIGparticipantsenvisionedaconversationalspace for writing centers to discuss guiding practices,innovations, new technology, and other writing tutoringtopics within distance-based learning environments. Thisspace would specifically engage individuals conductingor planning to conduct online writing tutoring (OWT),whether as part of a fully online center, or as part of acenterwith both online andon-site tutoring. Basedon SIGparticipants’ feedback, in October 2016 we began buildingsuchacommunitybycreatingtheOWT listserv to facilitatedialogue around online-specific issues, questions, practices,instructional resources,andconferences (WaldenUniversityWritingCenter). Incontrasttopreviousdefinitionsofonlinewriting labs (OWLs), which have included writing centersthatonlyshareliteracyresources(e.g.,blogs,handouts,textexplanations,etc.)viaawebsite(“OWLs”),2wedevelopedtheOWTacronymandlistservtospecificallyaddressmethodsofconductingOWTconferenceswithstudents insynchronous,asynchronous,orhybridonline formats.However, theOWTlistservprovidesonlyaninitialspaceforaddressingimportant,oftenoverlookedOWTpedagogyandpractice.Tofurthersuchdiscussions,wehavealsopartneredwiththeGlobalSocietyof

OnlineLiteracyEducators(GSOLE),arecentIWCAaffiliate,toensurepartoftheaffiliate’smissionwithinIWCAistosupportOWT.3

AlthoughthenumberofwritingcentersconductingOWTiscurrently unknown,thesustainedgrowthinonlinepost-secondaryeducation

Peripheral (Re)Visions: Moving Online Writing Centers from Margin to Center 1

Sarah Prince, Rachel Willard, EllenZamarripa,andMattSharkey-Smith

WaldenUniversity<www.academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/home>

WLN

11

enrollment(BabsonCollege),createsacorrespondingneedtoofferequitablesupportservicesfordistance-basedstudents.ThisneedaswellastheuniqueinstructionalchallengesofOWTandincreasedliteracyloadinvirtualenvironments(Hewett,ReadingtoLearn8)demandsustaineddiscussionfromanIWCAcommunitydedicatedtothedevelopment,concerns,andcontinuedscholarshipofOWT(“IWCAMission”).Tobegintoaddressthisgapincurrentdiscussionand practice, we offer this article, which traces the growth ofonline post-secondary education and highlights the resultingneedforequitablewritingsupportfordistance-basedstudents.Toencouragesuchsupport,wecallonstaffengagedinOWTandtheIWCAboardtoworktowardtwointerrelatedgoals:(a)toalignwithIWCA’smissionbyengagingwithcurrentscholarshipon,reviewingbestpracticesfor,andbuildingresourcesandpositionstatementsaroundOWT,and(b)tosupporttherecentlycreatedIWCAOWTaffiliateandcollaboratetoprovidestudentswithequitablewritingtutoringinonlineenvironments.

ONLINE POST-SECONDARY EDUCATION: CURRENT STATEShiftingfromon-siteclassroomstoavirtualframeworkofonlineandhybrid(withonlineandon-sitecomponents)coursesisaseachange in higher education that has escaped few, asmore andmore postsecondary students are pursuing online education atbothpublicandprivateinstitutions(OnlineLearningConsortium).Asof2015,morethan6millionstudentsenrolledinatleastonedistance-basedcourse(OnlineLearningConsortium).Inthatsameyear,despitesomevariations,theoverallpercentageofstudentstaking distance courses increased for the thirteenth consecutiveyear(BabsonCollege).However,despitetheconvenience,flexibleprogramcompletion,andworkschedulecompatibilityoftenofferedindistance-basedcourses(RuffaloNoelLevitz4),onlinestudentsaremorelikelytoreportdissatisfactionwithandultimatelydropout of those courses than are their peers in traditional courses(Sapp and Simon 2). Some significant reasons online studentsprovidedforfailuretopersistaredeficitsintheirself-determinationand self-efficacy (Street 212), both of which university supportservices (such as writing centers, libraries, etc.) can help build.Notsurprisingly,universitiesweremorelikelytoseeretentionandstudent successwhen students deemed distance-based supportserviceseffective(LaPadula128,Moser16).

Whileonlinestudentsoftenhavelessreadilyavailableinstitutionalsupportthantheiron-sitepeers,thosewhoselectfullyonlineorhybridcoursesarguablyneedmoreguidancetonavigatetheuniquechallengesoflearningonline(CrawleyandFetzner7).Amongsuchchallengesistheincreasedrelianceoncriticalreadingandwriting

12

skillsintext-heavyvirtualenvironments(Hewett,Reading to Learn 8).BethHewettexplainsthatstudentsengagedinonlineorhybridcourses face a “rich, but heavy literacy load” (Reading to Learn 169), as distance-based education requires learners to read andwritecriticallyinallormostpeer,interpersonal,andinstructionalconversations(Reading to Learn8-9).Ifproperlyequipped,centersthat offer OWT are well positioned to address this increasedliteracy loadbyprovidingstudentswithpedagogicallysoundandtheoreticallyappropriatewritingsupport.

ONLINE WRITING SUPPORT: CURRENT STATEThe number of online students highlights the necessity forequitableacademic support for thisgrowing studentpopulation.OnlineWritingInstruction(OWI)Principles13and14,codifiedbytheCCCC’sCommitteeforEffectivePracticesinOWI,maintainthatstudentstakingonline/hybridcoursesshouldhaveaccesstoonlinesupport resources, and staff serving these students should betrainedspecificallytoworkwithstudentsonline.Correspondingly,manywritingcenterssupportstudentsonline.Whiledetermininghowmanycentersofferonlineservicesisdifficult,the2014-2015WritingCentersResearchProject(WCRP)surveyrevealedthat59%ofrespondentsofferedonlineorvirtualservices(TheWritingLab& TheOWL at Purdue).4 This increase from 53% offering onlineservicesin2006(NeaderhiserandWolfe59)excludesmanycentersthatdidnotrespondtotheWCRP.

Asonlinesupportserviceshavespread,writingcenterstaffhaveengagedintwoprimarymodesofonlinetutoring—(a)synchronous (real-time consultant and student communication via live audio,text,orvideochat)and(b)asynchronous(consultantandstudentcommunication at different times within a text document oremail)—as well as combinations of these modes (Mick andMiddlebrook129-130).WhilesynchronousOWTmayseemmorecloselyalignedwiththedialogic,nondirective,traditionalwriting-center pedagogy, the best modality for OWT depends heavilyon institutional contexts and students’ unique needs (Hewett,“Grounding” 81,Mick andMiddlebrook 130).More importantly,centersusingeitherorbothOWTmethodscantranscendbarriersof scheduling and geography to reach students who might nototherwisereceivewritingsupport.

ROOM FOR GROWTH IN OWT SUPPORTAs online student numbers increase, corresponding OWTscholarship and pedagogy should grow to meet student needsanddriveinstructionalpractice.In“GroundingPrinciplesofOWI,”

13

Hewettexplains thisneedasa rationale for thedevelopmentofCCCC’s Committee for Effective Practices in OWI’s A Position Statement of Principles and Example Effective Practices for Online Writing Instruction(35).However,despitebroaderOWIprinciples,popular writing center journals and tutoring manuals providelimited guidanceonOWT-specific theory and effectivepractices.For example, somemanuals brieflymentionOWT, but they relyheavily on Hewett’s publications (Fitzgerald and Ianetta, Oxford Guide) or refer toOWI principles (Ryan and Zimmerelli,Bedford Guide)asstand-insforOWT-specificprinciples.ThesemanualsofferonlyoneOWTchaptereach.OthermanualsconflateorcombineOWT with special interest topics. The Bedford Guide combinesOWT discussions withwebsite credibility (Ryan and Zimmerelli);The Longman Guide to Peer Tutoring’s OWT chapter focuses onWACandother interdisciplinaryfields(GillespieandLerner);andthe Oxford GuidemergesOWTwithmultimedia literacy tutoring(FitzgeraldandIanetta).

Reviews of popular writing center journals resulted in similarfindings.Outofthe373resultsgeneratedwhenwesearchedWLNarchivesforthekeywordonline,themajorityofarticlesandeditorcommentsdidnotspecificallyaddressOWTorsimplymentionedthewordonline inpassing.We found similar trends inPraxis: A Writing Center Journal and The Writing Center Journal (WCJ),withPraxispublishingfivearticleswiththewordonlineinthetitlesince2003, and WCJpublishing17since2005.

Despite the lack of OWT-specific information in writing center-specific manuals and journals, work in OWI more broadly doesexist,andthisscholarshipcouldbeusedasafoundationforOWT-specificconversationsandresources.Asearlyas2004,BethHewettand Christa Ehmann created Preparing Educators for Online Writing Instruction,acomprehensiveguide for thoseengaged inOWI. In2010,Hewett’sThe Online Writing Conference: A Guide for Teachers and Tutors(revisedandrepublishedin2015)focusedspecificallyoneffectivelyconductingonlinewritingconferences.InMarch2013,CCCC’sCommitteeforEffectivePracticesinOWIpennedA Position Statement of Principles and Example Effective Practices for Online Writing Instruction (OWI).Later,in2015,DianeMartinezandLeslieOlsen expanded the CCCCs’ guidelines, addressing accessibilityandinclusivityforstudentsalongwithpracticesforchoosingandtraining online writing tutors (183-210), and Hewett publishedReading to Learn and Writing to Teach: Literacy Strategies for Online Writing Instruction, detailing standards and ideal criticalreadingandwritingskillsforonlineinstructorsandstudents.

14

Whilethesesourcesprovideguidingprinciplesforeffectivegeneral OWI,OWT-specificprinciplesareeitherabsentfromtheliteratureorconflatedwithOWIprinciples.OWIprinciples,createdforteachingonline courses, donot address tutoring as pedagogically distinctfromclassroomteaching.However,MurielHarrisstatesonIWCA’swebsitethattutoringandteachingarefundamentallydifferent—“Tutorsarecoachesandcollaborators,notteachers.”ThisabsenceofOWT-specificpedagogyseemstoleavetutorsengaginginOWTwithmuddledguidanceaboutstudent-tutorconferences.WithfewconsistentdiscussionswithinIWCAconcerningOWT,nocurrentorplannedIWCApositionstatementsthatexplicitlyaddresstheworkofonlinewritingcenters(Grogan5),andanIWCAbibliographyonOWTthat,duringtheyearweworkedonthisarticle,includesonlyfour sources—all published before 2001 (“IWCA Bibliography”),OWT professionals are left with important questions: Despitetheconflationofteacherandtutor,dowealignourpracticewiththeCCCC'sCommitteeforPractices inOWI,whichhasembracedOWT research as exhibited inOWI Principles 13 and 14?Or, dowe integrate OWT concepts with IWCA’s traditional writing-center-as-separate-from-classroomposition,buildingonpreviouswritingcenterscholarshiptodefineOWTasdistinctfromwritinginstructionthatoccursinonlineclassrooms?

Our call to action aligns with the latter. Over a quarter ofpostsecondarystudentsareengagingindistanceeducation(OnlineLearningConsortium).Correspondingly,we suggest that scholarsand publishers focus a more representative portion of theirconference presentations,writing center-specific journal articles,andtutoringmanualsonservingthisstudentpopulation.InsteadofcategorizingOWTunderthecatch-alltermofOWIorconflatingitwithWACorothertopics,thoseengagedinOWTcurrentlyhavetheimportant,timelyopportunitytodeveloptheirownnecessarilyuniquepedagogy,theory,andpractice.

ROADMAP FOR OWT’S FUTURETodate,thelackofsustainedengagementwithOWTresearchhasledOWTprofessionalstocreateonlineresourcesandbestpracticesin a vacuum (Hewett, “Grounding,” 34). Others, as StephenNeaderhiser and Joanna Wolfe note, eschew online teachingtechnologiesbecausetheylackfunding,are“unawareofthetoolsavailableforonlineconsultation,orjustassumethesetechnologiesare out of their reach” (69). To reengage and support centersconductingorconsideringOWT,anecessaryfirststepistobuildacommunitytoaddresscurrentchallengesoffunding,training,andtechnology.

15

TodevelopOWTscholarship,conversations,andguidingpractices,we propose creating a virtual association—a group that worksto accomplish shared goals, develop professional relationshipsbased on shared contexts, and build professional developmentopportunities(HewettandEhmann20-21).In2013,CCCCaffirmedfosteringsuchassociationsasanimportantpracticeforonlinetutorsand administrators, calling for access to virtual associations for“supportandprofessionaldevelopment”(EffectivePractice14.13).We began forming this association by creating theOWT listservto discussOWT-specific needs.However,moremust be done toensurethetraditionalwritingcenterethosisbroadenedtoincludeOWTprinciples. Specifically,we inviteOWT staff to joinGSOLE’sIWCAaffiliate,which is thecurrentonlinewritingcenteraffiliate(Grogan), to participate in conversations about online-specificissues,effectivepractices,andresources,andtopresentatregionaland national IWCA conferences so that virtual contexts becomecentraltowritingcenterconversations.Becausethenewaffiliatewascreatedonlyrecently,inOctober2016,positionsaroundOWTsupport, theory, andpractice remain largelyundecided (Denora)and, therefore, are still open to development based on OWT’suniqueneeds.

IWCA GSOLE affiliatemembers could encourage our associationto craft a position statement explicitly addressing unique OWTmethods—tutoring methods that are necessarily different fromsome foundational practices informing on-site tutoring (Hewett,Online Writing106-107)—andtoworkwithOWTstafftoupdateIWCA website resources about working with students online.Further,we couldworkwith IWCA to create research grants forOWTscholarship,buildawardsforOWTinnovations,anddesignatetravel grants for OWT staff. Such IWCA-driven guidance andencouragement forOWTstaffwouldhighlight the importanceofOWTandprovideacommontheoreticaloriginfromwhichtobuildfuturediscussionsandresources.

We believe OWT professionals should unite to educate IWCAregardingthesevitalneedsandtosupportIWCAinimplementingthis important work. Such education has never been timelier,as IWCA’s president recently indicated that the board does notperceive developing explicit online writing center support to bea pressing need in 2017 (Grogan5). Developing more equitableresources for writing center staff working online to serve themillionsofstudentspursuingdistance-basededucationshouldbean immediate IWCApriority. To this end,we inviteOWTstaff tohelpdevelopthecollectivevirtualassociation,conversations,and

scholarshipthatwillshiftonlineandhybridstudents’needsfromthemarginstothecenterofwritingcenterdiscourse.

NOTES1.TheauthorsandWLNeditorsthankBethHewettforherinvaluableadvice

withthisarticle.2.IWCA’s2017websiteupdateremovedthedefinitionofOWLsweusehere.3.TheOnlineWritingTutorNetworkistheworkingaffiliategroupwithinIWCA.

Togetinvolved,see<www.glosole.org/online-tutoring.html>.4. Because theWCRP survey uses the phrase “online/virtual services” and

doesnotaskwhetherrespondentsofferonlineconsultations,wecannotdeterminewhetherthisfigurereferstoonlineconsultations,websiteresources,orboth.OtherWCRPquestions,however,focusonaspectsofonlineconsultations,sorespondentslikelyinterpreted“online/virtualservices”asmeaning“online/virtualconsultations.”

5.AtthetimeweinterviewedShareenGrogan,shewasservinginherfinalyearofatwo-yeartermastheIWCApresident.

u u u u u

WORKS CITEDBabsonCollege.“BabsonStudy:DistanceEducationEnrollmentGrowthContinues.”

Babson College, Babson Survey Research Group, 2015, <babson.edu/news-events/babson-news/Pages/2016-babson-releases-2015-survey-of-online-learning.aspx>.Accessed2June2016.

CCCCCommitteeforEffectivePracticesinOWI.“APositionStatementofPrinciplesandExampleEffectivePracticesforOnlineWritingInstruction.”NCATE, 2013, <ncte.org/cccc/resources/positions/owiprinciples>.Accessed5March2017.

Crawley,Anita,andMarieFetzner.“ProvidingServiceInnovationstoStudentsInsideandOutsideoftheOnlineClassroom:FocusingonStudentSuccess.”Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks,vol.17,no.1,2013,pp.7-12.

Denora,Mary.Personalinterview,5March2017.Fitzgerald,Lauren,andMelissaIanetta.The Oxford Guide for Writing Tutors: Practice

and Research.OxfordUP,2016.Gillespie, Paula, andNeal Lerner.The Longman Guide to Peer Tutoring. Pearson/

Longman,2008.Grogan,Shareen.Personalinterview,1March2017.Harris,Muriel.“SLATE(SupportfortheLearningandTeachingofEnglish)Statement:

The Concept of aWriting Center.” International Writing Center Association, 2006. <writingcenters.org/writing-center-concept-by-muriel-harris/>.Accessed5March2017.

Hewett, Beth. “Grounding Principles of OWI.” Foundational Practices in Online Writing Instruction,editedbyBethHewettandKevinDePew,onlineedition,TheWACClearinghouseandParlorP,2015.pp.33-92.

---.The Online Writing Conference: A Guide for Teachers and Tutors.Boynton/Cook,2010.Bedford/St.Martins,2015,Revised.

---.Reading to Learn and Writing to Teach: Literacy Strategies for Online Writing Instruction. Bedford/St.Martin’s,2015.

Hewett, Beth, and Christa Ehmann. Preparing Educators for Online Writing Instruction: Principles and Practices.NCTE,2004.

“IWCA Mission Statement.” International Writing Centers Association, 2007.<writingcenters.org/2007/11/07/iwca-mission-statement>.Accessed5March2017.

16

17

“IWCABibliographyofResourcesforWritingCenterProfessionals.”2009.<writingcenters.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/bibliography_of_resources.pdf>.

Accessed4May2017.LaPadula,Maria. “AComprehensiveLookatOnlineStudentSupportServices for

DistanceLearners.” The American Journal of Distance Education,vol.17,no.2,2003,pp.119-128.Taylor and Francis,doi:10.1207/S15389286AJDE1702_4.Accessed4Apr.2016.

Martinez,Diane,andLeslieOlson.“OnlineWritingLabs.”Foundational Practices in Online Writing Instruction, edited by BethHewett and KevinDePew, onlineedition,TheWACClearinghouseandParlorP,2015.pp.183-210.

Mick,ConnieSnyder,andMiddlebrook,Geoffrey.“AsynchronousandSynchronousModalities.” Foundational Practices of Online Writing Instruction, edited byBethHewettandKevinDePew,TheWACClearinghouseandParlorP,2015,pp.129-148,<wac.colostate.edu/books/owi/>.Accessed24Feb.2017.

Moser, Henri Joseph. Online Learning and Academic Support Centers: How Synchronous Support Opportunities Affect Graduate Students’ Interactions with the Content.Dissertation,U.ofNewEngland,2016.DUNE:DigitalUNE,<dune.une.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1055&context=theses>.Accessed12Apr.2016.

Neaderhiser,Stephen,andJoannaWolfe.“BetweenTechnologicalEndorsementandResistance:TheStateofOnlineWritingCenters.”Writing Center Journal,vol.29,no.1,2009,pp.49-77.

Online Learning Consortium. “The Distance Education Enrollment Report 2017.”Online Learning Consortium, 2017, <onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/digital-learning-compass-distance-education-enrollment-report-2017>.Accessed6May2017.

“OWLs.” International Writing Centers Association, 2015, <writingcenters.org/owcdb/index.php>.Accessed11Jan.2016.

Ruffalo Noel Levitz . 2015-16 National Online Learners Satisfaction andPriorities Report. Ruffalo Noel Levitz, <www.ruffalonl.com/documents/gated/Papers_and_Research/2016/2015-16OnlineLearnersReport.pdf?code=7659535201778>.Accessed5March2017

Ryan,Leigh,andLisaZimmerelli.The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors.Bedford/St.Martins,2016.

Sapp, David, and James Simon. “Comparing Grades in Online and Face-to-FaceWritingCourses:InterpersonalAccountabilityandInstitutionalCommitment.”Computers and Composition,vol.22,no.4,pp.2005,471-489.doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2005.08.005.Accessed5March2017.

Street, Hannah. “Factors Influencing a Learner’s Decision to Drop-Out or Persistin Higher Education Distance Learning. Online Journal of Distance Learning Administration.Vol.XIII,no.IV.

WaldenUniversityWritingCenter.“About:OnlineWritingCentersEmailDiscussionList.”Walden University Writing Center, Laureate International Universities, 2015, <academicguides.waldenu.edu/writingcenter/about/forwritingcenters/owc>.Accessed11Nov.2016.

TheWriting Lab&TheOWLat Purdue andPurdueUniversity. “OWL ScholarshipandResearch:WritingCenters Research Project Survey.”The Writing Lab & The OWL at Purdue and Purdue University 2016, <owl.english.purdue.edu/research/survey>.Accessed13May2016.

18

Tutors' Column: "Ramblings of an Insecure Writer: Viewing Writing Tutorials as Stories"

Megan Poole TexasChristianUniversity|FortWorth,Texas

Before we become writing tutors, we are first writers.But as a new tutor, I did not realize this truth. Thoughhesitanttorefertomyselfasa“writer,”Isomehowman-aged tohelp studentsdiscover theirown ideas, voices,andstyles.AsIwitnessedinsecurestudentsbecomecon-fidentwriters,Ibegantounderstandthewritingtutorialinanentirelydifferentway:thewritingtutorialisitsown

uniquerhetoricalsituationinwhichgeneratingideasandfollow-inggrammaticalrulescoalescetoforeveralterwriterswhomeetwithtutors.Becausewritingtutorialscontainthisimmensepowerofchange,theyarebesttoldthroughstories,andIwillbeginwithoneofmyown.

Thoseearlymorningmomentsatthewritingcenterweremyfa-vorite.Beforeanyonehadarrived, Iwould closemyeyes, sigh,andthinkabouthowIwasafraudforproclaimingmyselfawritingtutor.HowwasIsupposedtoteachpeopletowritewhenIhadneverbefore thoughtofmyself as a “writer?” I had always ex-celledincompositionclasses,soclearlyIpossessedsomewritingability.Ijustneverconsideredmyselfawriter.Ofcourse,Icouldnevervoicethisopinion. Icouldn’tevenconvincemyselfthat itwastrue.Iprobablywasawriter.Ijustdidn’tknowhowtowrite.Ihadneverthoughtaboutthewritingprocessbefore,andnowthatIwasthinkingaboutit,IwasconvincedthatIcouldnotdoit.

Iabandonedmycontemplativemusingandconsultedmymorn-ingschedule:IwouldworkwithMacie,astudentrequestinghelpwith“transitionsandthewritingprocess.”WhenImetMacie,shementionedthatshewaswritingaresearchpaperforagraduateseminar.Iaskedtoseewhatshehadwrittensofar,andshepulledoutablanksheetofpaper.“Ijusthavenoideawheretostart!”sheexclaimed. Iaskedhertoexplainher insecuritiesaboutwriting,andsherespondedthatshewasnotagoodwriter,shecouldnev-erfindtherightwords,andherideaswerenevergoodenough.

WLN

19

ConsideringStephenM.North’s“TheIdeaofaWritingCenter,”IknewthatMacieand Ineededto look“beyond [the]particularproject”andprivilege“theprocessbywhichitisproduced”(50).YetIalsoknewthatanabstractcompositiondiscussionwouldnotbenefitMacieifitwerenotgroundedwithconcreteartifacts.Assuch,Iaskedtoseetheresearchwithwhichshewasplanningtowork.

Maciepulledoutsixjournalarticles;Iaskedhertoexplaineachsourceandidentifytheideasshewantedtoincorporateintoherpaper.Wemadethreestacksofpapers—oneforeachmainideashewishedtocover.Next,wediscussedatentativeoutlinethathelpedhertoformthecruxofherthesis.Finally,shewhispered,“Now, I justhavetowrite it.” Iaskedaboutherwritingprocessandshedeclaredthatittookher“forever”tofinishapaperbe-cause shewould stop toanalyzeeveryword shehadwritten. Ithenbegantotalktoherabouttheprocessofdrafting.IexplainedAnneLamott’stheoryin“ShittyFirstDrafts”that“almostallgoodwritingbeginswithterriblefirstefforts”(95).Iendedthesessionbysaying,“Justgetthefirstdraftdownandthenwecanlookatittogether.”

MytutoringsessionwithMaciewasonFriday.Mondaymorningshecameintothewritingcenterwithacompletedraft—awon-derful,completedraft.Shementionedthatmycommentsabout“notstoppingtoanalyze”and“gettingadraftdown”helpedhertokeepgoingwhenshewouldhavenormallystopped.Shethenadded,“Youmustbeabrilliantwriter.”Ismiledslowlyandcon-fessedtoher,“IstruggleeverydaytofollowthesameadvicethatIgaveyou.”ThatwasthemomentIknew:Iwasawriter.Iwasex-perimentingwithmycraftandmystyle,butthisdidnotdiminishmyabilityasawriter.Indeed,Iwasawriterwhocouldsuccessful-lydoleoutadvicethathelpedotherstudentslearntowrite.

Ratherthanservingastheexception,thisstoryaboutmyinterac-tionwithMaciemodelstheremainderofmywritingtutorialsforthatacademicyear.Beforethis tutorial, Iassumedthat Iwouldteachstudentsaboutdanglingmodifiers, commas,andsemico-lons.However, I soon found thatmost studentwritingcontainsgreater structural and rhetorical issues that tutors must address beforetheycandiscussgrammarwithstudents.Andtheface-to-facediscussionsthattakeplace inwritingtutorialsserveastheideal environment in which to discuss these higher-order con-cerns.InCollaborative Learning and Writing,KathleenM.Hunzerexplains that“talkingthroughher ideashelpsawriter focuson

20

higher-order concerns . . . [all the] while helping her becomeawareoftheethosproblemsthatsurfacefromlower-levelcon-cernsofgrammarandclarity”(37).AtthispointIsurmisedthatmyroleasatutorwastohelpstudentsbecomeconfidentintheirideas,nottheirgrammar.

YetitwasthenthatHannah,afellowgraduatestudent,broadenedmyunderstandingofgrammarinhermaster’sthesisdefensethatinvolvedadetaileddiscussionof“rhetoricalgrammar:”grammarthatisnotjustaboutpolishingafinishedproduct,butalsoaboutdiscussionsofinventionandcompositionthathelptoignitethecriticalthinkingprocess.AsHannahposited,thearrangementofstudents’ words reflect not only their understanding of formalgrammar,butalso their thoughtprocess ingeneral.By theendofherdefense,Ihadpinpointedmyroleasawritingtutor:teachrhetoricalgrammarandshareformalgrammarlessonsasneed-ed.Hannahalsohelpedmeunderstandthereasonthatdifferenttutorialsvarysomuchonacase-to-casebasis—rhetoricissitua-tional,andsotooisgrammar.

Perhapstheteachingofgrammar is itsownrhetoricalsituationbesttoldthroughthestoriesofoureverydaywritingtutorials—thestoryofawritingtutorcomingtogripswithherownauthor-shipor thestoryofastudentwhoentersawritingcenterwithablanksheetofpaper.AsIreflectuponsharingmyownstory,IcannothelpbutgobacktoThomasKing’swordsfromThe Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative:“Take[the]story...It’syours.Dowithitwhatyouwill.Tellittoyourfriends....Forgetit.Butdon’tsayintheyearstocomethatyouwouldhavelivedyourlifedifferentlyifonlyyouhadheardthisstory.You’vehearditnow”(29).Maybeeachwritingtutorial isastoryall itsown,encasedinauniquerhetoricalsituationinwhichwords,ideas,andgram-mardonotconstituteanargument,butaretheargument.Maybethesestoriesthatwe,aswritingtutors,arecomposingonadailybasisarechangingthelivesofstudentwriters.Andmaybeintheprocessofmoldingthesestories,wetooarechanging.

Macie’sstorychangedme.Hannah’sstorychangedme. If IhadneverenteredtheTexasChristianUniversityCenter forWriting,Imayhavelivedmyacademiclifedifferently,doubtingmyselfasawriterandquestioningmyadequacyasateacher.Buttherhe-toricalpowerofthewritingtutorialalteredmywayofthinking.Inowbelievethatallstudentsarewriters,thatallstudentwritingwarrants discussions based primarily on ideas and secondly onrhetorical grammar, andfinally thatwriting center tutorials are

21

more thanmeetings—they are stories that have the power tochangeus.AndnowthatIhaveheardstoriesofwritingcentersandbeguntotellmyownstoryofworkinginawritingcenter,Iwillneverbethesame.

u u u u u

WORKS CITEDDavis,Hannah.“RhetoricalGrammar:AVision forResearch-BasedGrammar Initi-

tivestoBridgetheGapbetweenSecondaryandCollegeWritingInstruction.”MAthesis,TexasChristianU,2015.

Kalish,CatherineSimpson,JenniferL.J.Heinert,andValerieMurrenusPilmaier.“Re-inventingPeerReviewUsingWritingCenterTechniques:TeachingStudentstoUsePeer-TutorialMethodology.”Collaborative Learning and Writing: Essays on Using Small Groups in Teaching English and Composition.EditedbyKath-leenM.Hunzer,McFarland,2012,pp.30-42.

King,Thomas.The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative.U.ofMinnesotaP,2003.Lamott,Anne.“ShittyFirstDrafts.” Language Awareness: Readings for College Writ-

ers.EditedbyPaulEschholz,AlfredRosa,andVirginiaClark,9thed.,Bedford/St.Martin’s,2005,pp.93-96.

North,StephenM.“TheIdeaofaWritingCenter.”The St. Martin’s Sourcebook for Writing Tutors.EditedbyChristinaMurphyandSteveSherwood.4thed.,Bed-ford/St.Martin’s,2012,pp.44-58.

22

Tutors' Column: "I Don’t Grok You: When Unfamiliar Subjects Can’t Be Translated"

Christopher Schacht UniversityofNebraska-OmahaandClarksonCollege

Omaha,Nebraska

WLN

Asawritingcenterconsultantwhoprimarilyworkswithhealthcarestudents,IreadalotofpapersIdon’tunder-stand.Buttheword“understand”isatrickyone.WhileImightnotunderstandthewaymathematicalmodelsleadtotheresultsofaresearchproject,Idounderstandthattheprojectisaboutimplantingradioactiveseedsinapa-tientasacancertreatment.BecauseIcanconceptualize

theoverall study,and I know thegeneral format for sucha re-searchpaper,Icanofferfeedbackaboutorganization,transitions,clarity,andcohesion.

Withonegraduatestudent,thissimplywasn’tthecase.Shecameinwithacryptanalystpapermeantforaprofessionalconference,andhoped Icouldhelpwiththestandardrequestsoforganiza-tion and grammar. After a few questions and reading just thefirstparagraph,Iknewthatrespondingtothestudent’srequestwouldn’tbethateasy.Therewerelotsofwords,like“attack”and“box,”thatIknewwerebeingusedwithdefinitionsspecifictoherfield.Withsomewords,Istruggledtotellwhatwasanounandwhatwasaverb.WhenIaskedthewriterthegoalofherstudy,thinkingsomecontextmighthelpme,shedoverightintocomplexlanguageIcouldn’tunderstand.Iaskedhertobackupandgivemealayman’sview,butheranswerwasjustasopaque.

Afteracoupleofparagraphs,Iconfessedtoher,“Ihavenoideawhat’sgoingonhere.”

Thewriternoddedandexplained,“Okay,butIfeellikesomeonecouldreadthisandgrokwhatI’mtryingtosay.”

Forthosepuzzlingovertheword“grok,”don’tworry;you’renotalone.“Grok”wasinventedbyauthorRobertA.Heinleinforhisclassic novel Stranger in a Strange Land,whichisaboutahumanraisedonMarswhotravelstoEarthandteachesMartiancustoms.Togroksomeoneistounderstandthemonanemotional,com-

23

munallevelwithoutnecessarilybeingabletodescribewhatitisyouunderstand.I’vealwayscompared“grok”tothosewordsyoumightknowhowtouse,butcan’tgiveadefinitionfor.Grokrep-resentsan intuitive,contextualunderstandingratherthanade-scriptiveone.OfthemanywordscreatedinStranger in a Strange Land,grokmadethestrongestimpressiononmodernEnglish.It’sasurprisinglyusefulwordthatcontinuestopopupinsci-fi,aswellasothergenresandmedia.Itisnot,however,acommonlyknownword,andIhadtosmileatthewriter’scasualuseoftheword,asifIwouldofcourseknowwhatitmeant.Butthiscasualusealsorevealedtheattitudethatmadethewriter’spapersodifficulttoread:sheassumedeveryonespokeherlanguage.AndwhileIdospeak the languageof thesci-figeek, Idonotspeakciphertextalgorithms.

Whatthewritersaidisgenerallytrue;Iusuallycangrokwhatawrit-ermeans,evenifIdon’tunderstandthecontent.Unfortunately,thiswriter’spaperwassofulloftermsspecifictoherfieldthatIcouldnotgrok it. Ihadtroubleeven identifyingsentencestruc-ture.ShemightaswellhavebeentalkingtomeinMartian(whichinawayshewas).Inordertoevengrokthepaper,Iwouldneeddozensoftermsdescribed.Ididnot,however,feelthatworkingthroughapaperinthiswaywouldbeagooduseofthewriter’stime.Thoughweareoftenencouraged,asconsultants, topushwriters towards imagining an educated layperson reader, goingthatroutecouldhavebeenahindrancetothewriter’sconferencegoals,notabenefit.

SinceIworkwithmedicalstudentsandgraduatestudents,Iamusedtocrossingthedisciplinegap.IcommonlyaskmanyofthequestionsCatherineSavinisuggestedinherWLNarticle,suchaswhatmaybe “commonknowledge” in thewriter’s community,or ifanadvisorhasalreadygivenfeedback(4). Iamquiteusedto“notbeinginvitedtotheparty”bythewriter,andhaveusedSavini’s suggestions to help find my way. Unfortunately, thesequestionsdidnotbringmebacktoEarth.Ikeptaskingthewriterwhatherprofessorhadsaid.Wasthissentencehowsomethingwaswritteninherfield?Thequestionseitherbaffledorannoyedher.Evenwhen I suggestedshehavesomeone inherfield lookatherpaper,sheassuredmethat,atthispoint,suchreviewwasunnecessary.Ibecamesuspiciousthataprofessionalinherfieldwouldfindthepaperunacceptable,eventhoughIhadnounder-standingofwhatIwasreading.Afterreflectingonthesituation,IrealizedmysuspicionsurfacedbecauseIfeltsolostinthepaper.Ultimately,Iwasmakingthesamemistakethewriterhadmade.

24

Iwas expecting everyone to speakmy language, including thewriter’sadvisor.WhenIaskedthewriterwhatheradvisorwouldsayaboutmyquestions, thewriterprobablycouldn’tgrokme,either.Whytalktoheradvisor?She’dalreadydonethatdozensoftimes.

Ihavefailedtounderstandapieceofwritingmanytimesbefore,butthisconsultationwasthefirsttimeIcouldn’tevengrokit.Inearliersituations,therewereavenuesformetofollowthatledtosomebenefitsforthewriterIwasassisting.Inthissituation…Isimplyfeltlost.Ashasbeenpointedoutbefore,thegeneralisttutor has limits.Heather BlainVorhies suggests graduatewrit-ing tutorshaveexperience in thedisciplineof thewriters theyhelp.While ideal, such arrangements are impractical formanydisciplines.Acryptanalystconsultantislikelyjustnotworththecosttoawritingcenter.ThekindofconsultationIencounteredcantakeanemotionaltollonaconsultant.Thefrustrationofnotunderstandingthepapercanleadtofrustrationwiththewriterfornotbeingabletoexplain,andfrustrationwithone’sselffornotknowinghowtobetteraddressthesituation.

Inmyfrustration,Ihadforgottenthemostbasictrainingacon-sultantreceives:letthewritersettheagenda.IfIcouldnotgrokthe content of the paper, I could at least go back to thewrit-er’soriginalgoalstatedatthebeginningofthesession.Inoth-erwords, I could grokherdesires as awriter.Myneed toun-derstandthetextrancontrarytothegrammarandorganizationagenda this writer had set at the beginning. If thewriter justwantedtoreadthroughthepaperwithmebecausesheneededanotherpersonasawaytohelpherseethroughareader’seyes,thenIcoulddothat.WhatIcouldnotdowasgrokherpaperinthewaysheexpected.Whenweastutorsrunintoaproverbialbrickwallinthecontent,thefirststepistoacceptwewilllikelynotgrokthepaper.Sowemustrewindtothebeginningofthesessionanddoourbesttoaccomplishwhatthewriterwants.Ifnecessary,tellthewriteryourpredicamentandaskagainforthewriter’sagenda.Inmycase,Irantherestofthesessionwiththewriter’soriginalagendainmind. Icontinuedreadingthepaperaloud,occasionallyaskingherifshefoundthisapproachhelpful.Ohyes,shesaid,herenthusiasmpalpable.Sowekeptgoing.Wenoticedthreeminorissuesofgrammarandphrasing,allofwhichshe found throughmy reading aloud. Thewriter, for her part,feltthatthesessionwasagreatsuccess.Sheplannedongoinghome,makingafewchangesandturningthepaperin.

25

Wheneverweas consultantsfind somethingwe can’t grok,wehavetobeabletofindthethingwecangrok,whetheritbethewriter’smotives,thewriter’sfeelings,orthepieceofwritingitself.MymistakeinthissituationwastofocussofullyonthepuzzleofthepaperthatImissedmyotherobligationsasaconsultant.Thewriter’svocalexpectationthatareadershouldbeabletogrokthepaperonlyfurthernarrowedmyfocus,atexactlythetimeIshouldhavebeen steppingbackand reassessinghow toapproach thesession.Buteachindividualdecideshowheorshegroks.WhileIcouldnotgrokthewriter’spaper,Icouldgrokherdesiresasawriter. Itwas this realization that led toa satisfying session forher,andhersatisfactionbecamemyown.Ithinkthat’safeelingwecanallgrok.

u u u u u

WORKS CITEDHeinlein,RobertA.Stranger in a Strange Land. 1961.Ace,1991.Savini,Catherine.“AnAlternativeApproachtoBridgingDisciplinaryDivides.”Writing

Lab Newsletter,vol.35,no.7-8,2011,pp.1-5.Vorhies,HeatherBlain. “BuildingProfessionalScholars:TheWritingCenterat the

GraduateLevel.”Writing Lab Newsletter,vol.39,no.5-6,2015,pp.6-9.

26

BeforeIbecameatutoratDickinsonCollege’sNormanM.EberlyWritingCenter,IdidnotunderstandtheCenter’spurpose, nordid I fully understand thedifferent stagesofthewritingprocess. Iknewonlythat Iwassupposedto leave theCenterwith a better version of the draft Ihadbroughtwithme.Tomyveryfirsttutor, Iexplainedthatmyprofessorrequiredmyclasstoscheduleappoint-

ments,andIwantedthetutortocheckforgrammarmistakesandhelpmewiththeclarityofmylanguage.Ithoughtthatthewrit-ing centerwas aplacedesigned to improvedrafts.Only after Ibecameatutormyselfandtookacourseonwritingcentermeth-odologydidIlearnthatcentersarenotsimplydraftworkshops;instead,theycanassistwithanywritingprocessstage.However,even though many students used Dickinson’s Writing Centermuchmoreproductivelythan Ididduringmyfirstvisit, I foundmost continue to focusonwhat theyhavealreadywrittenandignorewhatisarguablythemostimportantstageofthewritingprocess:theprewritingandbrainstormingstage.

Whilemytutortrainingcoursetaughtmetheimportanceofeachwritingprocessstage,Isawthatmanynon-tutorsdidnotexhibitasimilarunderstanding.MostofthestudentsIworkedwithex-pressedconcernoverspecificdraftelements,andfewwantedtobrainstormorprewrite.Writing centers, however, have alreadypresentedtheirgoalofhelpingwithallstagesofthewritingpro-cess.GrowingcuriousaboutthedisparitybetweenourCenter’smissionanditsactualuse,Ianalyzedarandomsampleofourses-sionlogsandfoundthatonly6%ofourstudentsrequestedapre-writingorbrainstormingsession.Oneexplanationcouldbethatour students lacked the incentive to schedule an appointmentearlyinthewritingprocess,butanothercouldbethattheymis-understoodtheCenter’spurposeasIhad.Eitherway,myfindingsleadmetoarguethatalthoughourWritingCenter,likemanywrit-

Tutors' Column: "Exposing the Draft Addiction: Prioritizing Prewriting in the Writing Center"

John Kneisley Dickinson College

Carlisle, Pennsylvania

WLN

27

ingcenters,triestobeexplicitaboutitsmission,tutorsandfac-ulty couldbetteradvocate itsbrainstorming-conduciveenviron-mentanditsabilitytoassistwithanypartofthewritingprocess.

Myrandomsampleof250sessionlogsrepresentsapproximately15%oflogsavailableduringthe2014springsemester.Foreachlog, I identifiedthestudent’sgoalandplacedit intooneoffivecategoriesasseeninFig.1below.Ofstudentsinmysample,22%wishedtocorrectlowerorderconcerns,includinggrammarmis-takes,punctuation,wordchoice,andtheclarityoftheirwriting;25% wanted to discuss paragraph structure and organization;another25%wantedtoreviewtheirargument’slogicandcohe-sion;andanother22%wantedtoensurethattheyeffectivelyad-dressedtheiressay’sprompt.Overall,94%ofstudentsfocusedondrafts,while the remainder, amere6%, focusedonprewriting.Althoughrepresentingasmall sampleofmycenter’s total logs,thechartbelowhelpsusvisualizestudents’tendencytonottakeadvantageofthecenter’sprewritingassistance.

FIGURE 1: Student Goals in Tutoring Sessions

Composition scholarship justifies thewriting center in advocat-ingprewriting.D.GordonRohmanidentifiesprewritingasawayofthinkingandexplainsthatit“bringsforthanddevelopsideas,plans, designs,” instead of simply acting as an “entrance of anideaintoone’smind”(106).Heassertsthat“withoutgoodthink-ing,goodwritingisimpossible,”andthatqualityworkreliesonaperiodofreflectionandplanningbeforeseriousdraftingoccurs.Similarly,forVivianZamel,prewritingis“theprocessofexploringone’s thoughts and learning from the act ofwriting itselfwhatthesethoughtsare,”areiterationofE.M.Forster’sfamousques-tion:“HowdoIknowwhatIthinkuntilIseewhatIsay?”(Zamel197). InourWritingCenter, andperhaps inmost, tutors act assoundingboards for students’ thoughts, and through conversa-

22%

6%

22% 25%

25% Grammar/punctuation/wordchoice/generalclarity(22%)

Brainstorming/Prewriting(6%)

Doesmypaperaddresstheprompt/assignmentwell?(22%)

Ismyargumenteffective/logical?(25%)

Howismyparagraphstructure/organization?(25%)

28

tiontutorscanpromotethedeepeningandexpansionof ideas.Such conversation may impact a student’s eventual argumentoranalysisbecause itwouldoccurearly in thewritingprocess.Without an opportunity to flesh out thoughts, writers can behard-pressedtoelicitsuccessfulwork.

After examining prewriting’s poor representation among stu-dents’sessiongoals, Iwonder if thegapbetweenatutor’sandastudent’sunderstandingofthewritingprocessistoovast.Idonotmean to imply thatourWritingCenter isopaqueabout itspurpose;Dickinson’swebsitestatesthatthewritingcenterisde-signed to: “engagestudents in conversationabout theirwritingat any point in thewriting process” (Dickinson CollegeWritingProgram).However,mydatadonotreflectpopularacknowledg-mentthatthewritingcenterisaplacetoexploremultipleareasof one’s writing process. To help improve overall perception,tutoringstaffscouldbetter informstudentsoftheircenter’sca-pabilities.Tutorscouldfindopportunitiestoengagestudents inconversationabouttheirideasinsteadofdevotingentiresessionstodrafts’mechanics. In“Invention,”IreneClarkaffirmsthattheprewritingstageisheavilyinfluencedbydiscussion,andsheun-derlinesthevalueofsharingthoughtswithothersbeforeorinbe-tweenmomentsofdrafting(74).Tutorsmightusesuchdiscussionasanopportunity todiscuss their center’sability toassistwithanyaspectofwritingandrecommendthatastudentscheduleabrainstormingsessioninthefuture.Tutorsmightalsohostwritingworkshopsonprewritingskillsandassignbrainstormingchartsorfree-writingprompts.Workshopswouldbegreatopportunitiestoadvertiseprewriting,toinvitestudentstotheCenterwhomightnotnormallyvisit,andtoalertthemofitspurpose.

Tutorsandwritingcenteradministratorsmightalsochangetheirwriting center’s name. For a tutor and administrator, theword“Writing”in“WritingCenter”encompassesallstagesofthewrit-ingprocessandincludesprewriting.Butforastudent,“Writing”mightsimplydescribethepaperthatshebringstohernextap-pointment.Infact,thiswasmyexactframeofmindwhenIfirstvisited ourWriting Center. To ensure students are properly in-formedoftheircenter’spurpose,writingcenterstaffmightworkwithfacultytoinventanamethatencapsulatesthewritingpro-cess.Possibilities include“TheWritingand IdeaCenter,”or the“TheBrainstormingandCompositionCenter,”bothofwhichdis-suade students fromviewing thecenter simplyasafix-it shop.FloridaStateUniversityaptlytitlesitscenter“TheReading-WritingCenter,”whichemphasizesthatwritingentailsreadinganddiscus-

29

sioninadditiontodrafting(FSUDepartmentofEnglish).Althoughnamesmightvaryforeachcenter,amoreprocess-encompassingnamemayletstudentsviewwritingcentersasplacestodevelopideasinadditiontodrafts.

Whileprewritingandbrainstormingareessentialaspectsofthewriting process, many students may find them difficult to en-gage in because they require substantial conversation.Writingisagatewayintoone’sthoughts,andhavingthosethoughtsondisplaycanbeintimidating,evendiscouraging.Thewritingcen-ter’sgoal should thereforenotbe to forcestudents topracticeprewriting,but toensure that they know that they can. Figure1showsmanystudentsarewillingtodiscussdiverseaspectsoftheirdraftsandfocusonhigherorderconcerns,butmoreimpor-tantlyitdemonstratesthattheyarenotusingourcentertoitsfullpotential.Studentswillalwaysexpressgoalsthatfalloutoflinewiththewritingcenter’sadvantages,asIdidwhenIfirstvisited,butourresponsibilityastutorsistohelpstudentsunderstandtheextenttowhichtheycantakeadvantageofwhatweoffer.Doingsowouldstrengthenstudents’individualwritingabilitiesandful-fillthewritingcenter’slargergoalofdevelopingamoreliteratecitizenry.

u u u u u

WORKS CITEDClark, Irene L. “Invention.” Concepts in Composition: Theory and Practice in the

Teaching of Writing,editedbyIreneL.Clark,LawrenceErlbaum,2003,pp.71-93.

“Mission,Values,andStudentLearningOutcomes.”The Norman M. Eberly Multilin-gual Writing Center,27Sept.2015,<www.dickinson.edu/info/20158/

writing_program/2829/the_norman_m_eberly_multilingual_writing_center>.“ReadingWritingCenter.”Florida State University,30Sept.2015,<wr.english.fsu.edu/

reading-writing-center>.Rohman,GordonD.“Pre-WritingtheStageofDiscoveryintheWritingProcess.”Col-

lege Composition and Communication,vol.16,no.2,1965,pp.106-112.Zamel,Vivian.“Writing:TheProcessofDiscoveringMeaning.”TESOL Quarterly,vol.

16,no.2,1982,pp.195-209.

30

Mid-AtlanticWritingCentersAssociationMarch23-24,2018Glassboro,NJRowanUniversity“WritingCentersandActivism:UncoveringEmbeddedNarratives”Keynote:VershawnAshantiYoungandFrankieCondon

MAWCA’s2018conferencethemeexplorestheconnectionsbetweennarrativeandactivismasameanstouncoverembeddednarrativesofwritingcenterwork.Forsuggestionsfortopicstopropose,seetheconferencewebsite:<www.mawca.org>.ThedeadlineforconferenceproposalsisJanuary20,2018.Forinformationaboutproposalsandtheconference,contactCelesteDelRusso:<conference@mawca.org>.

RockyMountainWritingCentersAssociationMini-RegionalConferenceMarch 30, 2018SaltLakeCity,UTUniversityofUtah

Thismini-conferencewillactasaspaceforadministratorsandtutorstolearn,shareresearch,giveandreceivesupport,anddevelopaswritingcenterprofessionals.MostattendeeswillbefromUtahinstitutions;however,participantsfromotherstatesareverywelcometoattend.ContactAnneMcMurtrey:<anne.mcmurtrey@utah.edu>;conferencewebsite:<akernest.wixsite.com/rmwca>.

ColoradoandWyomingWritingTutorsConferenceApril13-14,2018Denver,CORegisUniversity“ReimaginingandNegotiatingStudentSuccess”

OnApril13,therewillbeworkshopsforwritingcentertutorsandadministrators,andonApril14,therewillbeindividualandpanelpresentations.Formoreinformationabouttheconferenceandaboutsubmittingproposals,seetheconferencewebsite:<www.cwwtc.org>orcontacttheconferencechair,MichaelEnnis:<mennis@regis.edu>.

WLN

Announcements

CanadianWritingCentresAssociationMay24-25,2018Saskatoon,Saskatchewan,CAUniversityofSaskatchewan“Resilience,Resistance,Reconciliation”Keynote:SheelahMcLean

ContactSarahKing<sking@utsc.utoronto.ca>;conferencewebsite:<cwcaaccr.com>.

MiddleEast/NorthAfricaWritingCentersAllianceConferencemovedtofall2018

Contact:ElizabethWhitehouse:<Ewhitehouse@uaeu.ac.ae>;conferencewebsite:<http://menawca.org/home-page/conference>.

31

GET INVOLVED WITH WLN Interested in serving as a reviewer? Contact KimBallard<kim.ballard@wmich.edu>andLeeAnnGlowzenski<laglowzenski@gmail.com>.

Interested in contributing news, announcements, or accounts of work in your writing center to the Blog (photos welcomed)? Contact Brian Hotson<brian.hotson@smu.ca>.

Interested in guest editing a special issue on a topic of your choice? ContactMurielHarris<harrism@purdue.edu>.

Interested in writing an article or Tutors' Column to submit to WLN? Check the guidelines on the WLNwebsite:<wlnjournal.org/submit.php>.

32

WLN

Conference CalendarFebruary 22-24, 2018: SoutheasternWritingCentersAssociation,inRichmond,VAContact: Brian McTague: <bjmctague@vcu.edu>; conferencewebsite:<www.iwca-swca.org>.

February 28-March 3, 2018: MidwestWritingCentersAssociation,inOmaha,NEContact:Conferencewebsite:<www.midwestwritingcenters.org>.

March 3, 2018: SouthernCaliforniaWritingCentersAssociation,inThousandOaks,CAContact: Scott Chiu <chchiu@callutheran.edu> and Tanvi Patel<tanvipatel@callutheran.edu>;conferencewebsite:<sandbox.socalwritingcenters.org/2018-tutor-conference>.

March 23-25, 2018: East CentralWriting Centers Association, inColumbus,OHContact: Genie Giaimo: <Giaimo.13@osu.edu>; conferencewebsite:<ecwca.org/conference/current-cfp>.

March 23-24, 2018: Mid-AtlanticWriting Centers Association, inGlassboro,NJContact: Celeste Del Russo: <conference@mawca>; conferencewebsite:<www.mawca.org>.

March 24-25, 2018: Northeast Writing Center Association, inWorcester, MAContact:RobertMundy:<rmundy@pace.edu>;conferencewebsite:<newcaconference.org>.

March 30, 2018: RockyMountainWritingCentersAssociation, inSaltLakeCity,UTContact: Anne McMurtrey: <anne.mcmurtrey@utah.edu>:conferencewebsite:<akernest.wixsite.com/rmwca>.

April 13-14, 2018: Colorado andWyoming Tutors Conference, inDenver,COContact:MichaelEnnis:<mennis@regis.edu>;conferencewebsite:<www.cwwtc.org>.

May 24-25, 2018: Canadian Writing Centres Association, inSaskatoon,Saskatchewan,CAContact: Sarah King: <sking@utsc.utoronto.ca>; conferencewebsite:<cwcaaccr.com>.

WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship, publishedbi-monthly,fromSeptembertoJune,isapeer-reviewedpubli-cationoftheInternationalWritingCentersAssociation,anNCTEAssembly,andisamemberoftheNCTEInformationExchangeAgreement. ISSN1040-3779.All Rights andTitle reservedun-lesspermission is grantedbyWRITINGLABNEWSLETTERLLC.Material can not be reproduced in any formwithout expresswrittenpermission.However,upto50copiesofanarticlemaybereproducedunderfairusepolicyforeducational,non-com-mercialuseinclasses,orcoursepackets.Properacknowledge-mentoftitle,author,andpublicationdateshouldbeincluded.

Editor: Muriel Harris (harrism@purdue.edu)BlogEditor: Brian Hotson (brian.hotson@smu.ca)

Managed and Produced by TWENTYSIXDESIGNLLCunderagreementwithWRITINGLABNEWSLETTERLLC52RileyRoad#380,Celebration,FL34747(866)556-1743<www.wlnjournal.org><support@wlnjournal.org>

Subscriptions, Archives and Manuscript Submissions:Visit <www.wlnjournal.org> for subscription information, freearchiveaccess,andmanuscriptsubmissionguidelines.

WLN: A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship

WLN

33

Prsr

t Std

US

Post

age

PAID

Milw

auke

e, W

IPe

rmit

#449

6

WLN

A Jo

urna

l of W

riting

Cen

ter S

chol

arsh

ipWRITINGLA

BNEW

SLET

TERLLC.

52RileyRo

ad#38

0Ce

lebrati

on,FL347

47

wln

jour

nal

W

LNjo

urna

l