Writing centers: the student retention connection.

Abstract

Writing Center programs have long integrated many of the factors retention researchers have indicated as contributing to student retention in higher education. However, neither writing center nor retention scholarship has discussed this connection, perhaps due to the traditional separation of college and universities' academic and student affairs divisions. Writing center programs hold much promise as participants in institutions' wider retention efforts.

Introduction

While discussing ways writing centers can get involved in their campuses' retention efforts in "The Role of Writing Centers in Student Retention Programs," Jeanne Simpson suggests that "writing centers and retention are a natural combination." However, Simpson also points out that they can suffer from a narrow focus: "We need to ask if we look at the centers where we work in a large enough context.... we sometimes suffer from forest-and-tree syndrome" (Simpson, 1991; p. 108).

Indeed, while the literature devoted to writing centers from the past twenty-five years has intensely examined writing center programs as a branch of composition studies, it has rarely addressed possible links to broader institutional goals. And in an interesting example of reciprocal myopia, the literature reporting higher education's retention research, while giving art occasional nod toward lower division composition courses, pretty much ignores the existence of writing center programs.

But as Linda Poziwilko posits in "Writing Centers, Retention, and the Institution: A Fortuitous Nexus," examining retention literature can be a fruitful and worthwhile effort for anyone involved in writing center work. She suggests that such research supports concepts and programmatic qualities that are the core of writing centers and thus "reveal that what we do in our centers is precisely what research has shown to be a significant factor in retention" (1997; p. 3).

In an effort to look more closely at the role writing centers may play in contributing to student retention, we will 1) examine possible causes for writing center scholars and retention researchers overlooking each other; 2) review key retention research; 3) examine the literature on peer tutoring programs' contribution to retention; 4) apply items 2 and 3 to writing centers.

The Missing Link: Writing Centers and Retention

Before moving on to explore the findings of retention literature as it relates to writing centers, it might be fruitful to ask why it is necessary to do so. In other words, why have writing center scholars and retention researchers seemingly ignored each other? The answer has less to do with deliberate oversight as much as it does with the traditional compartmentalization of United States higher education, as is effectively described by Terenzini and Pascarella (1997):

   The academic and student affairs functions of most institutions have
   been running essentially on parallel but separate tracks: academic
   affairs tends to students" cognitive development while student
   affairs minister to their affective growth.... It [the
   academic/student affairs separation] has surely not evolved from any
   conception of how students learn, nor is it supported by research
   evidence.... A whole new mindset is needed to capitalize on the
   interrelatedness of the in-and out-of-class influences on student
   learning. (p. 178)

As Terenzini and Pascarella suggest, academic divisions (with which writing centers are often associated, if not always institutionally located) and student affairs divisions (where retention efforts are often located) have a long history of mutual avoidance.

Therefore, while campus programs located in student affairs (first-year experience, student orientation, academic advising, student athlete services, etc.) have a body of literature concerning their contribution to retention, writing centers do not because academic programs traditionally have not. So it is not surprising that retention has not been examined in light of writing centers, since retention is often viewed as a student affairs issue. The concept of the writing center has grown out of primarily composition studies, and such programs tend to be run by faculty or staff who align themselves with traditional academic disciplines and departments, or at the very least have received their training in such places. Nonetheless, writing centers represent a unique blend of academic and student affairs approaches. It is such a blend that much of the retention research identifies as important.

Retention Research

A significant amount of research exists that examines the factors that can contribute to the retention of undergraduate students in higher education. Rather than examining specific programs and/or institutions, these researchers have attempted to identify those efforts that seem to work at a cross-section of institutional types. Although the literature on retention in colleges and universities has in no way come up with a prescriptive retention "answer," the evidence points to a number of concepts that are closely associated with student retention. These concepts are briefly described below:

Campus Environment: Retention research indicates that what students experience campus-wide (i.e., in the environment outside the classroom) has a significant effect on student retention. In extensive case studies of campuses, Kuh and Shuh (1991) find that retention and student success is enhanced at institutions they term "involving colleges," which they define as those that provide "high-quality, out-of-class learning opportunities for their students" (p. v). Likewise, Pascarella and Terenzini find academic and non-academic experiences inside and outside the classroom both affect student learning (1997). Tinto (1993) stresses that it is important that an institution work on "breaking the campus down into smaller parts" so that students are able to interact more effectively with departments and programs and have key affiliations with various portions of the campus, rather than experiencing the university as an intimidating monolithic structure (p. 199). In fact, Tinto suggests that in many cases the fault of student departure is appropriately placed with the institution, especially within the first few critical semesters (Tinto: 1996, 1993).

Interaction with Campus Representatives." A thread running through much of the retention research is the importance of students having sustained, positive interaction with campus professionals outside the classroom, be they faculty, staff, or peers employed by the campus. While Pascarella & Terenzini (1997, 1991) conclude that interaction with "faculty" may increase students' persistence, other researchers' findings suggest that a broader approach is more appropriate, indicating that interaction with peers and campus staff is also significant (Austin, 1997; Tinto, 1993). If, in fact, we expand the definition of "faculty" to include any campus representative that works with the student on an academic subject, then it is safe to say that retention research demonstrates that positive interaction with instructors, academic advisors, learning resource specialists, librarians, tutors (peer or otherwise) can be associated with student retention.

Focus on Academics: While many campus retention efforts have focused on a variety of out-of-class experiences in an effort to develop the social life of students, Tinto suggests that academics are most important to retention: "I have increasingly come to think that the main reason for the modest gains [in student retention] is that most retention programs are largely non-academic in nature." Tinto further speculates that "existing retention programs have done little to improve the daily academic experiences of students ..." (Tinto, 1996; p. 3).

Alternatives to the Traditional Classroom: Another common thread that runs throughout retention research is that alternatives to the traditional large lecture classroom environment are needed. Although he does not directly address the topic of student retention, Smith (1990) sums up the issue quite well:

   The most conclusive argument against the lecture system is that all
   true education must involve response. If there is no dialogue,
   written or spoken, there can be no genuine education. The student
   must be lured out of his or her instinctive passivity. (p. 215)

Likewise, it seems retention research has found that the student will be more likely to persist if "lured" away from the passive learning that Smith decries, indicating that students do well with alternative instructional approaches that promote active involvement in learning (Pascarella & Terenzini, 1991). In short, higher education needs "alternatives to the large lecture hall" (Tinto, 1993; p.200). Having briefly surveyed some of the factors that retention researchers have associated with student retention, we shall next take a look at a specific programmatic type that is often cited as significantly contributing to increasing student retention in higher education: peer tutoring.

Peer Tutoring and Retention

Research examining what programmatic characteristics contribute to retention across a broad range of institutional types indicates that when carefully implemented, peer tutoring programs have a significant and positive effect on student persistence. In an extensive examination of survey data supplied by more than 900 institutions, Beal and Noel (1980) find that peer tutoring is considered to be one of the most effective retention efforts reported. More recently, research and resultant policy recommendations by the National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience and Student In Transition supports the concept that peer tutoring and advising are significant factors in ensuring first-year and transfer student success (Gardner, Barefoot, & L., 2001; Swing, 2000).

Other research focusing on students identified by their institutions as "at-risk" or "remedial" indicates that peer tutoring, when combined with other academic support ensures a higher rate of student persistence and success. Studies examining specific institutions' remedial efforts indicate that the availability of such support services beyond the semesters students take remedial coursework may be a determining factor in remedial students' persistence (Purvis, 1987; Salter, 1994). Levin and Levin (1991) identify tutoring as one of several distinctive program components that are critical to the retention of at-risk minority students. Similarly, data from the National Study of Developmental Education demonstrate that the presence of well-trained tutors is among the most significant elements related to student success in remedial programs (Boylan, Bingham, & Cockman, 1988; Boylan, Bonham, & Bliss, 1997; Boylan, Bonham, & Rodriguez, 2000; Boylan & Bonham, 1992; Boylan, Bonham, & Bliss, 1994; Boylan, Bonham, & White, 1999).

The Link to Writing Centers

So far, we have examined some key concepts from retention research that applies to peer tutoring in higher education, and we have seen how research on the effect of peer tutoring shows that such programs are associated in a positive way on student persistence and retention. The task that remains is to separate out writing centers from the rather general category of "peer tutoring programs" and see what aspects of the general retention and peer tutoring research might be specifically relevant. Though space does not permit a full examination of the disciplinary parameters of the modern "writing center," it is clear that such programs integrate best practices for retention: Writing centers contribute to making their campuses "involving" by providing accessible learning experiences outside the classroom; they are firmly grounded in the academic discipline of composition (Carino, 1995; Carino, 1996; Clark, 1998; Harris, 1995; Sherwood, 1999); they enhance the campus environment for students by providing interaction with campus representatives, that, while being less formal and evaluative than the classroom (Bruffee, 1978; Bruffee, 1984; Clark, 1998; Ferruci, 2001; Harris, 1995; Leahy, 1990; North, 1984), nonetheless focus on academics. Finally, writing center literature has long paid attention to the power of using peers as tutors/teachers and the importance of providing ongoing training to maximize the effectiveness of this peer interaction (Bruffee, 1978; Bruffee, 1984; Sherwood, 1999; Simpson, 1985).

Conclusion

This list of features, then, when compared with what researchers have discovered concerning those factors contributing to retention on campuses in general, and peer tutoring programs in particular, provides powerful support to the contention that writing centers blend a significant number of the factors that the research suggests contribute to student retention. However, we must be wary of thinking that writing center programs or other peer collaboration efforts are "the answer." Retention, like so many other campus issues (e.g. language acquisition, accountability, literacy instruction, diversity), must be a broadly distributed responsibility and as a multi-faceted effort, does not lend itself to easy or quick solutions. Tinto (1993) provides a vivid portrayal of the dynamic and complex factors that swirl about the concept of retention effectiveness:

   In the interactive system of a college, almost any institutional
   action, whether in admissions, counseling, advising, academic
   programs and classrooms, or student life, will eventually affect
   student persistence and will do so in often unintended and quite
   unexpected ways. (Tinto, 1993; p. 205)

Institutional leadership must be particularly careful not to fall into the trap of thinking that peer collaboration provides some magical, cost-efficient guarantee of student learning or retention. DiPardo (1993) stresses that without careful and ongoing tutor training and supervision designed to help tutors develop into educators that are constantly rethinking and evaluating their teaching--especially when working with students from cultural and socio-economic backgrounds different from their own--peer collaboration can do more harm than good. Likewise, Bruffee (1984) insists that training tutors to become competent collaborative educators "requires more than merely selecting 'good students' and, giving them little or no guidance, throwing them together with their peers" (p. 14). Clearly, an effective writing center--like any other academic program--takes institutional commitment and sustained effort to produce the desired results.

Writing centers then, offer no guaranteed path to student success and persistence, but can contribute significantly to an ongoing institution-wide commitment to this area. Thus, retention should not be seen as a single life-line thrown to a student who is already falling off the ship, but rather a railing that keeps him or her from going over the edge in the first place. Writing centers, with their blend of innovative theory, student-centered pedagogy, and teaching-learning focus, occupy a unique position to help keep students on board and on course.

References

Austin, A. (1997). Student Involvement: A Developmental Theory for Higher Education. In E. J. Whirr (Ed.), College Student Affairs Administration (pp. 199-211). Needham Heights: Simon & Schuster.

Beal, P., & Noel, L. (1980). What Works in Student Retention: The Report of a Joint Project of the American College Testing Program and the National Center for Higher Education Management Systems. Boulder City.

Boylan, H., Bingham, E., & Cockman, D. (1988). Organizational Patterns for Developmental Education Programs. Research in Developmental Education, 5(4), 1-4.

Boylan, H., Bonham, B., & Bliss, L. (1997). Program Components and Their Relation to Student Performance. Journal of Developmental Education, 20(3), 2-4, 6, 8.

Boylan, H. B., Bonham, B. S., & Rodriguez, L. M. (2000). What Are Remedial Courses and Do They Work: Results of National and Local Studies. Learning Assistance Review, 5(1), 5-14.

Boylan, H. R., & Bonham, B. (1992). The Impact of Developmental Education Programs. Research in Developmental Education, 9(5), 1-3.

Boylan, H. R., Bonham, B. S., & Bliss, L. B. (1994). Characteristic Components of Developmental Programs. Research in Developmental Education, 11 (1), 1-4.

Boylan, H. R., Bonham, B. S,, & White, S. R. (1999). Developmental and Remedial Education in Postsecondary Education. New Directions for Higher Education, 27(4), 87-101.

Bruffee, K. (1978). Discussion: Training and Using Peer Tutors. College English, 40(4), 443-49.

Bruffee, K. (1984). Peer Tutoring and the "Conversation of Mankind". In G. A. Olson (Ed.), Writing Centers: Theory and Administration (pp. 3-15). Urbana: National Council of Teachers of English.

Carino, P. (1995). Early Writing Centers: Toward a History. Writing Center Journal, 15(2), 103-115.

Carino, P. (1996). Open Admissions and the Construction of Writing Center History: A Tale of Three Models. Writing Center Journal, 17(1), 30-48.

Clark, I. L. (1998). Writing in the Center: Teaching in a Writing Center Setting. (3 ed.). Dubuque: Kendall/Hunt.

Cummins, G. (1999). Stating in the Places Where We Are: What to Think About When Starting College and University Writing Centers. In B. B. Silk (Ed.), The Writing Center Resource Manual (2nd ed., pp. 116.1-6.7). Emmitsburg: NWCA Press.

Ferruci, S. (2001). Composition's Professionalism and the Writing Center Director: Rethinking the Director as a Teacher." The Writing Instructor, accessed online at <www.writinginstructor.com/essya/ferruci.html>. Date of access: 11-2-01.

Gardner, J., Barefoot, B. O., & L., S. R. (2001). Guidelines for Evaluating the First-Year Experience, 2nd Edition (Four-Year College Version): National Resource Center for the First-Year Experience & Students in Transition; Accessed online at <http://www.brevard.edu/fyc/> Date of access: 11-02-01.

Harris, M. (1995). Talking in the Middle: Why Writers Need Writing Tutors. College English, 57(1), 27-42.

Harris, M. (1981) Process and Product: Dominant Models for Writing Centers. In New Directions for College Learning Assistance: Improving Writing Skills. T. Hawkins & P. Brooks, eds. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1-8.

Leahy, R. (1990). What the College Writing Center Is--and Isn't. College Teaching, 38(2), 43-49.

North, S. M. (1984). The Idea of a Writing Center. College English, 46, 433-446.

Poziwilko, L. (1997). Writing Centers, Retention, and the Institution: A Fortuitous Nexus. Writing Lab Newsletter. 22(2), 1-4.

Sherwood, S. (1999). Philosophy, Methods, and Ethics. In B. B. Silk (Ed.), The Writing Center Resource Manual (2nd ed., pp. III.2-1.7). Emmitsburg: NWCA Press.

Simpson, J, (1985). What Lies Ahead for Writing Centers: Position Statement on Professional Concerns of Writing Center Directors. Writing Center Journal, Spring/Summer, 36-39.

Simpson, J. (1991). The Role of Writing Centers in Student Retention Programs. In R. Wallace (Ed.), The Writing Center: New Directions (pp. 102-109). New York: Garland Publishing.

Swing, R. L. (2000). Transfer Student Support Programs. Brevard: Policy Center on the First Year of College.

Tinto, V. (1993), Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition. (2nd. ed.). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Tinto, V. (1996) Reconstructing the First Year of College. Planning for Higher Education, (25) Fall issue, 1-6.

Griswold, Ph.D., is an assistant professor of English at California State University, Long Beach where he directs CSULB's writing center, the Writer's Resource Lab, which he founded in 1992.