The rhetoric of online conferencing.

Abstract

Despite the ubiquitous concern for improving student online communication and learning, many writing center scholars are unsure whether or not to foray into this often confusing world of pedagogical pros and cons. Some feel that issues of power and authority could get out of hand. But others feel that we have come a long way in cyber-talk, including the metacognitive aspects, and we can't pretend that online communication doesn't exist and is not important for our students and our better academic communication.

**********

Just a year ago, if you had asked me what I (Corbett, the main researcher, is the "I" referred to throughout this essay) thought about online tutoring or OWL(s) (Online Writing and Learning, or Online Writing Labs) as it is commonly called, you would have received a curt, scoffing reply that may have sounded something like this: "I don't think they're such a good idea because I just don't see how you can mimic all the aspects of a face-to-face (f2f) conference without actually being f2f." And if this sounds like a slightly technophobic reply from a six year veteran of writing center theory and practice, including coaching tutors, and directing, you probably wouldn't be surprised to hear that in our supposedly techno-savvy 21st century, other writing center professionals share the same online conferencing (OC) apprehensions. So we decided to investigate the ample research and ongoing rhetoric on whether to try and fly an owl or not. The first place we turned to was the WCENTER Mailing List Digest, a list-serve for writing center personnel. Luckily, Caroline Mann, the Director of the Writing Center at Morgan State University, had just posted a question on Feb. 11, 2003. Mann, who recently established an online tutoring program, asked whether online tutoring is just another form of "drop-off" service that is anathema to most writing center philosophy. Answers poured in from fellow directors. These responses ranged from concise reasons for not tutoring online--we don't do it because too much is lost or answers would be too abstract, to just as concise reasons why we should (or could)--online conferencing (OC) works well if you use follow-ups via email, or we don't use it but if there is some sort of dialogue taking place then I guess it would be ok.

Thus, scholars continue to probe the sticky problems associated with f2f versus screen-to-screen conferences, especially lack of non-verbal cues, issues of power and authority, and issues of time/space in OC. One area of contention has been the question of whether or not we can make up for the lack of f2f non-verbal cues in OC. Scholars like Harris and Pemberton, Wallace, Carino, and Blythe agree that the subtle body cues that distinguish f2f conferences are obviously absent during an OC. But most of these same scholars would agree, along with Coogan ("Email"), Monroe and us that students and tutors can (and do) develop online personas that effectively mimic f2f sessions. Monroe, for example, asserts how refining such practices as balancing praise and criticism and inserting emoticons can help tutors mimic the positive aspects of f2f conferences (11-14). Harris and Pemberton (538) and Jackson further advise using the minimalist open-ended questioning approach made popular by Brooks in order to allow the students to do all the metacognitive work and thereby maintain agency over their own texts.

Another area of debate involves the issue of time/space. The question is: How far should the writing center extend its services to university students? Hobson points out the perennial time and expertise problem that lies behind directors' apprehension of OC (477). As a possible solution, Healy suggests that tutor slack times could be filled with OC (545). This falls in line with ideas of decentralizing writing centers (Healy 542-3; also see Kearcher 101-2 and Colpo, Fullmer and Lucas 76). Importantly, scholars have also pleaded the case for students who may not enjoy full access to a writing center (Harris and Pemberton, Blythe) or, an even deeper problem, access to online communication in general (Selfe). Harris and Pemberton report the convenience with which students with physical disabilities, learning disabilities, part-time students, students with jobs could find in OC (534). Still other proactive researchers report the positive outreach of OWLs to high schools and local communities and businesses (Kimball; Brown; Monroe, Rickly, Condon, and Butler). Since ample attention has been paid to the issues of non-verbal cues and space/time, we turn the focus of this essay over briefly to the other major concern: power and authority. Some scholars worry that OC allows for too much panoptic surveillance. We will contend that not only is the panoptic argument tenuous, but there are more important writing process issues at stake with OC, especially the concept of metacognition. Students and tutors negotiate the writing process by talking out loud about the strengths and weaknesses of the writer. But interesting and critical things happen when students must meta-cog about their writing through the act of writing.

We may begin by considering the reality that OCs could be used as a panoptic device to monitor every word discussed between tutor and tutee. This ever-present, ever-leering tool could be used to enforce the current writing center regime's policies. In effect, the eyes of the OWL could be used to catch tutors in the act of sloppy tutoring. As Dave Healy, informed by Foucault, writes: "Although most directors want employees who don't require constant supervision, they also want tutors who feel flee to take risks, to try new strategies, to act on their own intuitive hunches. Panoptic principles threaten these qualities and behaviors" (550). But we would take what some scholars (Carino 513; Healy 547) call a con--the fact that because the conference does not get overheard by other tutors as it would in a normal f2f inside the writing center, therefore not allowing for collaborative knowledge transfer that occurs when tutors hear other tutors talk--to task. We would renegotiate it as either panoptic or a pro when applied to OC, depending on how you look at it. We would go even further, using this same logic, and assert that even though OC may be more observable because messages can readily be retrieved, a certain degree of panopticism exists whether online or f2f.

Our question is, isn't it just as panoptic if tutors constantly overhear other tutors? Why should we assume that just because the main person who would have access to the OWL data is the writing center director, that the director would somehow use this source to monitor good or suspect tutoring habits? Don't directors care about their tutors just as much as they do tutees? For example in both the English Department Writing Center and the satellite Dance Program Writing Center we, as directors, are in such close proximity to the space in which tutors conference, that we cannot help but overhear many of the sessions. For some reason the logic of saying that it's good for tutors to hear each other talk, but it's not good for the director to hear them talk doesn't quite persuade us that one is more collaborative or panoptic than the other. Besides, it has been my experience that most reflective tutor talk about sessions occurs after the session, when tutors (including the directors) gather informally to talk about what was good, bad or ugly about a particular session. (In fact our current Administrative Director, Teagan Decker just wrote an essay on the informal talk/reflection that occurs during our, now rapidly dwindling, downtime.) We could imagine these types of reflective conversations happening between writing center personnel for OCs as well.

What does persuade us, however, is the argument that OC allows students (and tutors) to learn about their writing process (and the process of teaching writing) through the act of writing. Coogan in "Towards a Rhetoric of On-line Tutoring" asks the pointed question: "What would happen to the idea of a writing tutorial if we decided to make the act of writing the main event?" (555). This focus on the act of writing through writing, Coogan argues, drawing on Barker and Kemp, and Roland Barthes, allows us to treat the ideas as central, rather than the personality of the writer (557). When a student sits with a tutor f2f, questions are supplied by the tutor verbally, through the air. When a student and tutor sit screen-to-screen, however, the questions are written. So, students must first negotiate the written question, look carefully at where the question might apply, then attempt to answer, we would argue this allows for more metacognitive exercise for the student, as well as the tutor, because both must apply the question for themselves, then must take the time to formulate a response. Furthermore, we prefer the asynchronous method over the synchronous because we feel asynchronous OCs allow this time for metacognitive Q&As, whereas synchronous models do not. It is standard practice (though admittedly hard sometimes) in writing centers to wait at least fifteen seconds after asking a question for the tutee to reply. As Harris asserts in Teaching One-to-One: "With increased wait-time the length of the students' responses increased, and there were notable increases in students' confidence, in unsolicited but appropriate responses, in student questions, and in speculative responses" (64). Certainly online students have more than fifteen seconds to ruminate on any given question--especially in asynchronous online formats. Tutees, given their understanding of how email communication works, may even take this into account and preempt their possible questions before emailing their papers. Jackson contends:

   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).

Thus, the tutee must communicate specifically through words, which may be a little harder to develop proficiency in, what writing concerns she has. Simultaneously, if the tutor sees the tutee stumbling or asking/answering vague questions, it is the tutor's job to try and guide the tutee towards more productive Q&As. Furthermore, we believe the conventional training/experience most tutors undergo should suffice as initial preparation for this type of virtual questioning. Moreover, since the OC provides a written transcript of every word, students, tutors and directors can use this transcript as a diagnostic tool (Harris and Pemberton, Shewmake and Lambert 165, 172-3). It's as simple as pulling up the file to see exactly what was "said": "No longer would we need to worry about how much students remembered from their conferences" (Harris and Pemberton 533). This information could subsequently be used by the student to refer back to while editing their papers, in tutor training classes by writing center directors, or by tutors themselves to gauge their own OC development.

Finally, what do we do with a student who just doesn't seem to be receiving the full benefits of OC? Or, say, we conduct a session that has too many problems (scholars identify heavy ESL issues as one such OC problem), or the above metacognitive highway of questions seems to be gridlocked? As with f2f conferences where everything is not "resolved", the best thing you can tell a student is to come back. Online conferencers could (and we would say always should) invite students to come into the writing center for a f2f visit (Monroe 7; Jackson). Often I tell students that for this thing (peer tutoring) to work, they should try their best to come back, so that I can look at how they applied what we talked about. In other words, we should make students aware of the fact that the writing process does not allow for a one-stop fix-it attitude that provides all the right answers. Angela Petit warns that "the perfect answer--is static discourse and is, after all, only necessary or possible in those places defined through the metaphor of utopia" (119). We do not believe that OC is a writing process utopia, only an extension of our tutorial services; therefore, when we can persuade students to come in to experience a f2f conference, we should.

We have attempted to highlight both sides of the online conferencing debate, focusing on issues of power and metacognition. We do not want to imply that OC technology is a panacea for improving student writing or for becoming a better tutor or writing center director. As Denis Baron points out, "the computer is simply the latest step in a long line of writing technologies" (17). And J. Rocky Colavito adds, "we need to see technology for what it is--the latest in a long line of supplemental teaching aids" (157). We would extend these admonishments to the concept of OC: OC is simply the latest tool that writing center professionals can implement, given the right context exists or is created, to help reach out to as many students as possible the benefits of peer tutoring, the writing process, and revision.

We would give a few more careful words of caution though, and that is to remember the importance of the f2f conference. Despite our firm belief that OC, especially asynchronous, hones students and tutors' metacognitive proficiency, we still believe strong irreplaceable benefits come from the close interpersonal connections and chit chat that occurs between student and tutors, tutors and students, and students, tutors and directors. The way a student might feel when faced with negotiating the writing process might be harder to glean without the warmth and resonation an experienced tutor can provide in person. So, while we agree that we must be careful not to allow OC to subsume the preferable f2f conference, we do believe that OC should be implemented when and where it is possible. We could worry about how panoptic, thus controlling, OC could potentially be. But then we must also realize how important and fruitful learning about the writing process through the act of writing can be, and how useful a complete written transcript of a session could be to students, tutors and directors. When deciding whether to fly the online sky or not, we should consider what sort of vehicle OWLs provide and how OC might help tutors, tutees, and directors develop better online--and overall--communication skills.

Works Cited

Barnett, Robert W, and Jacob S. Blumner., eds. The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 2001.

Baron, Dennis. "From Pencils to Pixels: The Stages of Literacy Technologies." Passions, Pedagogies, and 21st Century Technologies. Eds. Gail E. Hawisher and Cynthia L Selfe. Logan, Utah: Utah State University Press, 1999. 15-33.

Blythe, Stuart. "Why OWLs? Value, Risk, and Evaluation." Kairos: A Journal for Teachers of Writing in Webbed Environments 1.1 (1996). http://english.ttu.edu/kairos/1.l/owls/blythe/owl.html

Brooks, Jeff. "Minimalist Tutoring: Making the Student Do All the Work." Barnett and Blumner 219-224.

Brown, Lady Falls. "OWLs in Theory and Practice: A Director's Perspective." Inmann and Sewell 17-28.

Carino, Peter. "Computers in the Writing Center: A Cautionary History." Hobson 494-520.

Colavito, J. Rocky. "The Bytes Are On, But Nobody's Home: Composition's Wrong Turns into the Computer Age." Reforming College Composition: Writing the Wrongs. Eds. Ray Wallace, Alan Jackson, and Susan Lewis Wallace. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 2000. 149-59.

Colpo, Michael, Shawn Fullmer, and Brad E. Lucas. "Emerging (Web)Sites for Writing Centers: Practicality, Usage, and Multiple Voices Under Construction." Inmann & Sewell 75-84.

Coogan, David. "Email 'Tutoring' as Collaborative Writing." Hobson 25-43.

--. "Towards a Rhetoric of On-Line Tutoring." Barnett and Blumner 555-60.

Harris, Muriel and Michael Pemberton. "Online Writing Labs (OWLs): A Taxonomy of Options and Issues." Barnett and Blumner 521-40.

Harris, Muriel. Teaching One-to-One: The Writing Conference. Urbana, Illinois: NCTE. 1986.

Healy, Dave. "From Place to Space: Perceptual and Administrative Issues in the Online Writing Center." Barnett and Blumner 541-54.

Hobson, Eric H., ed. Wiring the Writing Center. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press, 1998.

Hobson, Eric H. "Straddling the Virtual Fence." Wiring the Writing Center. Hobson x-xxvi.

Inmann, James, A. and Donna N Sewell. Taking Flight with OWLs: Examining Electronic Writing Center Work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.

Jackson, Justin A. "Interfacing the Faceless: Maximizing the Advantages of Online Tutoring." Writing Lab Newsletter 25.2 (2000). http://owl.english.purdue.edu/lab/ owl/tutoring/JacksonOnlineTutoring.html

Kearcher, Kurt P. "The Other WWW: Using Intranets to Reconfigure the Who, When and Where of Network-Supported Writing Instruction?" Hobson 85-102.

Kimball, Sara. "Cybertext/Cyberspeech: Writing Centers and Online Magic." The Writing Center Journal 18.1 (Fall/Winter 1997): 30-49.

Monroe, Barbara J. "The Look and Feel of the OWL Conference." Hobson 3-24.

Monroe, Barbara J., Rebecca Rickly, William Condon, and Wayne Butler. "The Near and Distant Futures of OWL and the Writing Center." Inmann and Sewen 211-22.

Petit, Angela. "The Writing Center as 'Purified Space': Competing Discourses and the Dangers of Definition." The Writing Center Journal 17.2 (Spring 1997): 111-22. Selfe, Cynthia L. Technology and Literacy in the Twenty-First Century: The Importance of Paying Attention. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press, 1999.

Shewmake, Jake, and Jason Lambert. "The Real(Time) World: Synchronous Communications in the Online Writing Center." Inmann and Sewell 161-70.

Wallace, Ray. "Random Memories of the Wired Writing Center: The Modes-to-Nodes Problem." Hobson 161-70.

Steven J. Corbett, University of Washington

George L. Dillon, University of Washington

Corbett is an MA/PhD student in Language and Rhetoric and a TA. He has worked in writing centers as a tutor, tutor coach, and director for six years. Dillon is Professor of Language and Rhetoric. His works include Contending Rhetorics and Constructing Texts: Elements of a Theory of Composition and Style.