 |
|
This is a reproduction of an article from the Writing Lab Newsletter. Please cite all references to this article as:
Jackson, J.A. "Interfacing the Faceless: Maximizing the Advantages of Online Tutoring." Writing Lab Newsletter 25.2 (2000).
You can also download a Microsoft Word version of this article for easier printing.
My concern here is with the ways in which the online tutorial, though through a seemingly antithetical medium for its purpose, can in fact appropriate many of the same gestures f2f tutorials employ when engaging writers. I am not arguing that online tutorials can ever replace f2f tutorials; they cannot, and it would be dangerously naive to believe so. In fact, when Purdue students engage us online, we try our hardest to convince them to come into the Writing Lab to talk with us. Online tutorials, however, do offer the tutor unique opportunities when he or she engages the writer and vice versa; it is up to the tutor to minimize the inherent disadvantages of the online tutorial while maximizing its distinct advantages. Much like the f2f tutorial, each tutor must come to identify his or her strengths as an online tutor, understand the limits and opportunities of the online "dialogue," and, perhaps most importantly, develop an online "voice." Although I have had the opportunity to work with MOO on several occasions, I do not have any practical experience tutoring writers via this medium; I could only theorize as to its advantages and disadvantages, predict the way in which one-to-one pedagogy may work in a MOO. Therefore, I will only concentrate on the medium I have been working with for the past thirteen months (as both tutor and coordinator of online tutorials at Purdue University’s OWL): tutoring via email. My focus will be three-pronged: 1) to demonstrate the ways in which traditional one-to-one teaching pedagogy can be utilized online; 2) more specifically, to demonstrate the ways in which writer-centered self questioning (and its inherency in this online process), tutor-based questioning, and the use of information-based direction (via hyperlinks) can be employed to give the online tutorial a unique flavor not experienced in a face-to-face setting; 3) to demonstrate how when one remains conscious of these first two aspects, and vigilant in their application, can online tutorials avoid the unpleasant fate of becoming a "glamorized grammar hotline."
Before discussing online tutoring, I offer the following background information as to how we coordinate online tutorials at Purdue University’s OWL. There are five graduate tutors who currently work online, and all also engage in f2f tutorials in the writing lab as well. Each tutor is assigned to a particular day of the week when he or she responds to any writing-related inquiries. Because of obvious time constraints, each tutor works online only one hour per week. I find it helpful to ask each tutor to respond on his or her given day for only about forty to forty-five minutes; this allows up to twenty minutes for additional response if a writer has follow-up questions/concerns (which is often the case). Most of our tutors put in more than one hour per week, and are happy to do so, when engaged with a writer in an ongoing dialogue. We are very fortunate at Purdue to be able to also have an "hourly" tutor (i.e., a tutor who works for an hourly rate outside of the lab) to "clean up" any of the day’s unanswered requests (and to attend to weekend inquiries), as we try to respond to all requests within twenty-four hours; our "hourly" tutor is one of our regular online tutors who agrees to these extra duties. Being the coordinator, along with having my own online tutoring day, it is also my responsibility to answer any question that the other tutors cannot (usually administrative questions), and to help in the "clean up" process. The most important aspect is for all of us to communicate with one another (usually via email), letting a tutor know if he or she has a follow-up response to an initial inquiry. We also ask each other to respond to an email if the question is in a tutor’s particular area of study/specialization. This unique characteristic of the online tutorial has become one of our most valued commodities, especially considering the variety and range of questions we receive–from how one should go about constructing a research grant proposal to how one can distinguish between countable and uncountable nouns. The writer benefits from this format because the specialized tutor can ask appropriate questions, offer helpful insights, or recommend various source material (writers find this last one extremely valuable). Though our online tutorials still act as a supplement to our writing lab and even to our OWL, the online tutorial is becoming a more oft-used service from a variety of writers, from a variety of countries, with a variety of needs. Undeniably, the more online tutorials proliferate, the more administrative concerns will need to be addressed; subsequently, this will entail more pedagogical dialoging that I hope my essay addresses.
In 1995, Muriel Harris posited that, "as the Internet grows and develops, on-line writing centers will take on new shapes and provide learning environments for writers in ways we cannot yet predict" (4). And as these new learning environments morph, they simultaneously transform the tutoring environment, challenging instructors to "do what we do" in this new setting. Do we ignore the new tutoring opportunities afforded us by this new medium in order to preserve every aspect of traditional one-to-one pedagogy, the very foundation of which is the f2f experience? Or does our application of one-to-one pedagogy really even risk becoming non-extant, ineffectual within this new medium–a paranoid invention of techno-phobes? Ultimately, one must not work within the confines of this dichotomy?1 One’s approach to tutoring online will undoubtedly have to undergo some changes, but virtually everything one is taught about effective f2f peer tutoring lies at the core of successful online interaction between tutor and writer: make sure the writer takes ownership of his or her own work, always ask questions, and allow the writer to make the necessary corrections.
Having had been exclusively a f2f tutor for six years prior to going online, I was slightly hesitant about the new medium. I was uneasy about the absence of a face across from me. I was worried that the writer who seeks help online loses the most important aspect of the tutoring process: confirming/preserving his or her own writerness. The only thing one finds in the online experience, I thought, is the writing on the screen, the product minus the producer. I quickly found this to be untrue. For example, every tutor is familiar with the "I’m just not a good writer" confession. Online, however, this "confession" takes a new shape, and it provides the writer, this seemingly absent participant, a medium in which to unabashedly vent writing frustrations. In many cases, this faceless individual shares writing woes in a short paragraph or two, indicating what frustrates her the most, what troubles she has had consistently throughout the years (and this gives the online tutor invaluable insight and a great place to start). For the writer, this "confession" acts as a pseudo-apology, and (though the writer usually isn’t aware) it acts as a first stage of the self-reflection process (more importantly, this takes place through writing). Even more paradoxically, it seems to be the very absence of the tutor’s face, and the online "screen" of anonymity for writers, that allows the cathartic ability to say whatever they wish–about writing in general or about themselves specifically as writers.
This inherent self-critiquing process of the online tutorial, beginning as early as the "confession" stage, eventually will empower the writer if the tutor can harness this obvious advantage of the medium. In fact, what I believed to be a "faceless" medium turned out to be anything but "faceless." From the beginning, it was a miscalculation of the place of the face. The online tutorial can in fact become a f2f tutorial–the writer facing herself through her own writing. The online tutorial, because of the medium itself, cannot help but aid the online tutor in helping the writer critique her own writing, facilitating the first step for the writer-centered tutorial: "to develop their critical powers in order to appraise their work as they progress. Without this ability to draw back from what has been written–to question its content, consider alternatives, or wonder what’s missing–writers are less apt to revise in any meaningful way" (Harris, Teaching One-to-One 22). The critical powers are already put in motion, however, before the online tutorial begins. Because the tutor has no face, because we are dealing in an asynchronous medium (as opposed to a synchronous f2f tutorial), because we cannot ask a series of questions to garner a response, writers often appraise their work before the tutorial, realizing that their guidance will be needed in the process, and that the more specific they are with their concerns, the more specific the tutor can be with responses/follow-up questions (and if writers are not aware of this, it is the tutor’s job to make them conscious of this aspect of the medium). The online tutor will often find very general self-evaluation from the writer in a specific area within the writing process–"I can’t get started," "I don’t know how to use commas," "I don’t know if my introduction is clear enough." There is undeniably a greater onus of writer-centered responsibility online; the "faceless" tutor online does not sit across the table with a friendly smile, nor can the writer await the questioning process that has proved so successful in the past. Without writer-prompted questions, the online tutor cannot tailor a response to suit the writer’s needs and must make sure the online writer is aware of this; it is perhaps one of the most crucial aspects of "building rapport" online.
The above theoretical frame is perhaps misleading to those who have yet to experience an online tutorial. Writers do not always come prepared with specific questions–or any questions at all. As in the f2f tutorial, writers oftentimes come into the online tutorial seeking an editor not a tutor, or are simply unaware as to what it is we do. Like the f2f tutorial, the online tutor’s job is to explain our role as tutor, what we hope to accomplish, and what it will take from the writer in order to accomplish this (namely, specific questions or some sort of guidance from the writer–"help us to help you"). I have often been confronted with: "To whom it may concern, here’s my essay. Can you correct whatever needs to be corrected. I need this by Wednesday. Thank you." We have created a number of files (boilerplates) that respond to oft-repeated requests: basic MLA and APA documentation information (and some common specific citation requests as well), for example. If we receive "proofreading" requests, we call up the file "policies," which fully explains to the writer what it is we do. We may then tailor a couple of general questions to give writers an idea as to what they can do to help us help them. We then, of course, always invite writers back once they have figured out a specific question or two. Ultimately this accomplishes two very important things for the writer (and for the tutor): 1) it allows writers to decide if this is a service they would like to use; 2) if the answer to the first question is "yes," then it initiates a writer’s evaluative process. Writers must begin to pinpoint their specific areas of concern, then design questions to aid our comprehension of these concerns.
This inherent self-reflective quality of the online tutorial has been often recognized, though sometimes with quite a bit of reservation and skepticism: "More theoretically, some writing center folks point out that an OWL locates learning about writing ‘in’ writing–as writers online must gloss their own text with questions and commentary for the tutor, and then must interpret the tutor’s written response" (Spooner 6). From my experience, the online tutor will have little trouble at all finding the practical use within this "theoretical" aspect. Writers often become startled when they realize they can discuss themselves in the third person, that their writing is something they not only produce but can critique (a crucial step in claiming ownership)–and via online the writer must critique. The simultaneity of the writer’s writer-reader-writer mode begins almost as immediately as the tutor asks the first question. To counter the seemingly Pollyanna theoretical assumptions presented here, Spooner goes on to question the practicality of the online tutorial, noting that a lack of participation from the student may kill the whole process. As the online tutor develops his or her online questioning/writing skills (and this takes some time for even the most experienced f2f tutor), a lack of writer participation will begin to decrease rapidly; in fact, student-writers can become so comfortable with the online medium in general that they rarely hesitate to ask follow-up questions (even in the form of thank you notes). As more and more people use the internet, the comfort level increases, barriers of communication resistance break down, and this of course will trickle down into the online tutorial (as will some of the negative aspects of "point-and-click" consumerism, which I will address later).
At the heart of this discussion is the inter-relatedness of the questioning process and the writer-centered tutorial (both f2f and online), and this is certainly nothing new to one-to-one pedagogy. Spooner asserts that while creating a "student-centered, non-directive, response oriented" dynamic is difficult enough in a f2f setting, it becomes "impossible" to do so via an online medium "for all but the most accomplished of tutors" (7). Spooner is perhaps being too dismissive here. For some reason, it seems that the onus has shifted from the writer in this writer-centered pedagogy to the tutor. What if the tutor becomes a present absence (there but not there)? This seems to be one of the tenuous roles of the tutor–to establish one’s presence online, to establish a "voice," but to avoid becoming the faceless Superman with all of the answers. We want our presence known without really establishing our presence; we want writers to discover their writerness not because of us but because of the questions they ask, because of the guidance they give us. The uniqueness of this situation, this present absence, is not a liability; it can very much be an advantage to the writer, as the online medium establishes the necessity for writer-centered responsibility, a responsibility that must be delicately fostered by the online tutor.
Perhaps fittingly, much of this is accomplished by utilizing the same one-to-one pedagogy as the f2f tutorial. Over the past year, I witnessed an online tutor struggle to first try to find his "face" online, to establish his presence; then, once he discovered that the existence of his "face" could possibly mean a de-centering of the writer-centered tutorial, I watched him quickly try to annihilate his "face," replacing it with an online "voice," which shifts the focus back on the writer and away from the tutor. The transformation happened almost overnight. When Geoff began tutoring online in the fall, he was not doing f2f tutorials concurrently. He and I talked about online tutoring pedagogy, but it was slightly difficult, as I was attempting to bridge the online and the f2f medium utilizing similar pedagogy. Geoff, however, had not experienced either. When he began tutoring online, he seemed to establish his "face" in a very pointed way: by answering questions directly, by providing straightforward responses to the questions being asked. The process became tutor-centered for Geoff–how else was he supposed to do his job? In the spring, however, a tutoring position opened up in the lab, and Geoff was invited to join the staff. Almost instantly, as soon as he began doing f2f tutorials, as soon as he saw the importance of de-centering himself as tutor and establishing a writer-centered dynamic (through both direct and non-direct questioning), Geoff’s online voice emerged and silenced his presence. No longer were his responses direct answers; rather, he found online writers responding more positively to his "Socratic" questioning. More intriguing was how his online "voice" developed so quickly. His online voice became very engaging, and writer follow-up questions increased dramatically (as did the thank you notes). Geoff has noted that his focus shifted from the writing to the writer, but that the only way to do this was to let the writer do most of the work. He needed only to ask the questions to which, as a reader, he wanted answers. Geoff came to realize that when he answered questions directly (even the vaguest of questions), he was focusing on the writing; when he asked questions, however, the focus shifted back to the writer (hence the proliferation of follow-up questions from writers).
What is writer-centered tutoring if not question-based? In fact, when the writer asks the online tutor a question, the tutor needs to read the question in its proper context: that is, this is not a question posed to me but a question that the writer has posed to herself using me as a mirror. The inter-facing here is between the writer and herself, hence my role as a present absence. This characteristic of the questioning process must be kept in mind at all times if the tutor is to stay focused on the writer and not the writing. Jan C. Thompson has aptly labeled this writer-centered questioning process metacognition: "ways of thinking about their own thought and communication processes," which will act as "a foundation for more successful and independent thinking and communicating in the future" (2). In fact, many of the self-questioning ideals Thompson highlights in the f2f tutorial are indeed inherent within the online tutoring experience. For example, she writes, "If helping students become more independent writers is one of our goals, and if questioning is a metacognitive strategy that can foster their independence, then it seems reasonable to have as another central goal that students learn to formulate their own questions" (3). The online tutorial can never not be doing this. The writer, as I have noted before, must help the tutor help him or her. Furthermore, writers must formulate these questions about their writing through writing.
Oftentimes, writers, in communicating their concerns/questions answer their own concerns/questions. One of the most exciting moments for the online tutor is when a writer answers his or her own question. For example, we’ve had writers send their introductory paragraph(s) and express concern over the absence of a thesis: "Here’s my introduction, but I can’t think of a good thesis that sums up my argument." The tutor may respond, "What do you think your argument is?" The writer at that moment, whether aware of it or not, must construct a thesis in order to respond to the initial question (and a series of further questions can stem from this). The writer often replies, "O.K., here’s my argument . . ." Many times, by the end of the statement, the writer will ask, "will this line work as my thesis?" And it usually does. Sometimes, the writer still doesn’t discover that he has constructed a thesis, so the tutor simply has to ask, "what’s wrong with the sentence you have provided me? Does it state your main claim?" Unlike the f2f tutorial where there is the oral-aural relationship between tutor and writer, online provides only one medium–writing. How many times has the f2f tutor experienced this same thing in verbal communication, only to find the writer asking, "what did I say again" or "I just can’t write what I say" when the tutor points out that the writer just uttered a perfectly usable thesis. I have found that writer-centered metacognition is one of the greatest advantages of the online medium, and to maximize its potential, I have formed my approach to online tutoring around this core.
It should be noted, however, that the questions one asks online have to be carefully formulated, which obviously takes practice. Too vague a question at the wrong time may frighten writers away; too direct of a response at the wrong time may place too much focus on the writing. This of course leads to the ever-popular dichotomy of directive versus non-directive tutoring. Oftentimes the writer will ask a two-pronged question, though the writer may see it as simply one question. The question may be both about the writing in front of the tutor, but it may also be an information-based question. These types of inquiries are very common for the online tutor, and can be very tricky to answer–tricky not in the sense that they are difficult but in the balancing act the tutor must perform between directive and non-directive response. Sometimes, as Harris notes, a directive approach–"telling"–can be far more productive in the tutorial than leading the writer through questioning (One-to-One, 69). But what if the writer’s request weaves a question-based concern within an information-based need?
Many ESL questions fit this two-pronged variety. There are a number of metacognitive questions the tutor can ask, but there is also an abundance of information-based material the writer may need. Here again, the online medium affords the tutor a unique opportunity. We often receive very specific requests from ESL writers, usually concerned with grammatical/syntactical issues. Very often, the ESL writer will provide the tutor with a number of sentences, inquiring as to which one is "correct." This of course can become difficult to explain when more than one of the constructions is indeed "correct." For example, the writer may indicate that there is a "tense problem" in the sentences provided: "Dear Teachers, which one of the sentences is correct? 1) I have gone to the store. 2) I had gone to the store. 3) I will have gone to the store. Thank you." One may begin by shifting the focus back on the writer by asking, "What do you think the differences are? It will be helpful for me to understand how you see the tense differences? Can you explain them to me?" One may then wish to follow up this questioning phase with some information-based direction. This becomes extremely interactive online, as the tutor can provide hyperlinks in his or her response. Purdue’s OWL has over one hundred and thirty handouts that act as our foundation for information-based responses. In the above example, I would provide a couple of hyperlinks that deal explicitly with tense. I would then ask the writer some more questions regarding the information I provided and try to get him to make some connections between the information, his request, and my initial questions. What becomes even more advantageous is that all of this takes place on pop-up screens on the computer. Here, the writer can look at his sentences, my questions, and the information provided all on one screen, all simultaneously. Writers appreciate the mixture of information-based direction and questioning. It allows the tutor to "intrude" with the information and then step out of the picture again when he or she asks pertinent questions, leaving writers to face their own writing. This also makes it much easier to explain the concept that there may not be one "correct" answer for every question. When writers are engaged in the two-pronged process, they are provided with the information that demonstrates the occasional difficulty of finding one "correct" answer along with the questions that lead to this discovery. Here’s a writer’s reply to my questions regarding the "correct" use of "skin" or "skins" in a local paper:
To your question "What's the difference?" my answer is simply, I felt comfortable with my opinion. It didn't occur to me to think in terms of how my cousin could be right. I thank you for asking that question. Having described my thinking, perhaps the question tells me more than what it literally asks. The idea that the printed message could be correct and conveying a slightly different meaning never entered my mind. The next time I encounter a similar problem, the slight difference in wording should call forth the red flag you have given me. Again many thanks.
This is a common response to much of our information-based questioning. It allows the writer to engage himself in not only a thinking process but to see the applications to the writing process as well.
A lot of the success of the online tutorial is founded upon the idea of this metacognitive process, writer-centered self-questioning, facilitated of course by the online tutor. But what if the tutor’s questions go unanswered? That is to say, what if we receive no follow-up feedback from the writer. Unfortunately, this scenario is not that uncommon. But it’s not nearly as dim a picture as Spooner suggests: "Further, it’s my bet that typical online writing conferences will amount to only one round of turn-taking: the student sends a text with a question, and the tutor replies; exit" (7). Eric Crump has already responded to Spooner’s assumption and concedes Spooner’s "one round" assumption to be true. Crump, however, maintains that this may attributed to "lack of familiarity with the technology and its culture," and that "it’s certainly not a product of technology itself" (7). Since the Spooner-Crump debate in 1994, internet technology, access, and familiarity has grown exponentially. Perhaps this is why at Purdue’s OWL we have seen the number of "one-round" tutorials decrease. Perhaps our online tutors deserve much of the credit. Over the past year, as our online tutorials became more organized, as our online tutors began addressing real pedagogical concerns, as we each began looking at each other’s responses (all responses are saved in a folder), "one-round" tutorials decreased drastically, while "multi-round" dialogues have increased. We have become more comfortable with our roles as online tutors, have accepted these roles, and have begun to take advantage of the opportunities the online medium provides. Furthermore, why does the "one-round" have to stop with the student? Does the tutor simply sit in silence for the whole f2f tutorial if the writer does not respond? Or does the tutor seek clarification? I have, on occasion, posted follow-up questions to writers who have asked very engaging and complicated questions. I did not wait for a response to my questions from the writer. For the most part, what I found is that writers very much appreciated our help but simply did not respond. These "one-rounders" tend to be student-writers who are used to asking questions, getting a response, job accomplished. Our questions "answered" their questions, leaving them quite comfortable with where they were in the writing process. They are quite simply not used to having someone interested in feedback, especially online. Usually, when student-writers have a follow-up question, it is my experience that they do not hesitate to ask (sometimes responding up to three times in a day to our various questions). Writers in the business world, however, rarely fail to respond to our initial questions/response, even if it is a simple "thank you." As internet use grows, writers will become more comfortable with posing multi-rounded questions; it is the tutor’s job to facilitate this process. Often, a simple invitation can aid in creating a dialoging atmosphere: for example, "I hope these questions help. If you have any more questions/concerns, please do not hesitate to email us." And when writers are faced with a genuine question/concern, they rarely balk at the opportunity.
I hope this discussion helps to alleviate worries that online tutorials may only act as a glamorized grammar hotline. There is no doubt that there are many pitfalls facing the online tutor; she must be aware that anything that is written as an "example" may be usurped by the writer; even "helpful language" provided by the tutor may be inserted into the text "uncritically" by the writer (Spooner 8). These are aspects of the medium the online tutor needs to remain extremely conscious of. But if the online tutor holds tightly to the foundations of one-to-one pedagogy, many of these pitfalls can be avoided. Ask questions, give information-based direction, but avoid taking over the role of the writer. For example, I find that a helpful way to answer grammatical/syntactical questions/concerns is by constructing my response in the very form of the sentence construction in question, and calling the writer’s attention to this. Depending on staff size, time that can be invested to individual online inquiries, and various pedagogical concerns, each OWL’s online tutorial will have to define its own parameters when it comes to responding to texts. I am very hesitant, for example, about replying to complete drafts of long papers (long being defined as four or more pages), though specific concerns regarding overall organization can be addressed. The questioning process alone for a longer paper can become quite a burden for both the tutor and the writer. It can very easily become a guessing game–each individual’s guessing the other’s expectations. Perhaps this is where a synchronous online medium such as a MOO could be helpful. At Purdue, we encourage shorter excerpts and specific writer-generated questions regarding the excerpts. This allows us to ask questions that writers can tackle in a single sitting. We of course invite writers back to ask more questions regarding the paper. Even in a f2f medium, however, rarely do I find myself necessarily reading through a whole paper in order to help the writer (especially in a thirty-minute session). In fact, having the writer point out specific areas of concern is a major stepping stone in the f2f tutorial, allowing the writer to take ownership of the paper. Essentially, this is all the online tutor asks: show me where you need help, help me to understand what concerns you may have so that I may ask you pertinent questions or provide you with some information-based direction. Perhaps overly simplistic, but I tell our online tutors at Purdue: if you don’t want to be a grammar hotline, then don’t be one. In effect, what I’m recognizing is that online tutors and writers will engage in a pattern of communication, a process of negotiation. It is our job to interface writers by providing them with their own faces, which means establishing our present absence. Our facelessness may be our greatest asset.
Of course, it may also be one of our greatest dangers. As the internet expands, and users become very comfortable with it as a medium, a place where one can find information, buy a computer, sell a home, get a college degree, we also have to be mindful of the ramifications of our facelessness: we have the potential to become just another tool to be used and consumed. Because of the nature of "point-and-click consumerism," internet users often forget the face on the other side of the screen. As a tutor one must constantly be aware of the face on the other end; at the same time, a tutor must somehow remind the writer that the tutor also has a face, without ever really asserting that face. It is a balancing act indeed, but one that has already been taken up, and will continue to be addressed, by writing labs across the globe in the very near future. The writer-centered tutorial has nothing to fear in cyberspace; in fact, the transition to this new medium may serve as a helpful reminder to all tutors that the face to be preserved/confirmed is the writer’s–his process, not his product. Paradoxically, it may just be the absence of a face that facilitates this process.
J.A. Jackson
Purdue University
West Lafayette, IN.
1 This dichotomy has been often described as "instrumental theory of technology" versus "substantive theory of technology." According to Blythe, "An instrumental approach in writing center literature might suggest that on-line work & interaction isn’t fundamentally different from face to face interaction. Such an approach might lead one to question how students and tutors are using technology, rather than questioning how the technology itself changes interaction. . . . A substantive approach in writing center literature might suggest that the design of a particular piece of technology fundamentally changes the nature of student/tutor interaction." Please see Stuart Blythe’s "Why OWLs? Value, Risk, and Evaluation." Kairos 1.1 (1996). 10 May 2000 <http//www.english.ttu.edu/kairos/1.1/3.html>.
Blythe, Stuart. "Why OWLs? Value, Risk, and Evaluation." Kairos 1.1 (1996). 10 May 2000 <http//www.english.ttu.edu/kairos/1.1/3.html>.
Crump, Eric. "Some Thoughts on Michael Spooner’s Thoughts." Writing Lab Newsletter 18.6 (1994): 6-8.
Harris Muriel. Teaching One-to-One: The Writing Conference. Urbana: NTCE, 1986.
---. "From the (Writing) Center to the Edge: Moving Writers Along the Internet." Clearing House (September/October 1995): 1-5.
Spooner, Michael. "Some Thoughts About Online Writing Labs." Writing Lab Newsletter 18.6 (1994): 6-8.
Thompson, Jan C. "Beyond Fixing Today’s Paper: Promoting Metacognition and Writing Development in the Tutorial Through Self-questioning." Writing Lab Newsletter 23.6 (1999): 1-6.
|
owl home || writing lab and owl || handouts || workshops and presentations || internet resources This page is located at http://owl.english.purdue.edu/lab/owl/tutoring/JacksonOnlineTutoring.html
Copyright ©1995-2004 by OWL at Purdue
University and Purdue University. All rights reserved. |