The Mission of the Writer's Studio: Your Help Requested

Guest blogger: William Donahue

My goal in this post is to involve the Lincoln University community in writing the mission statement for the Roscoe Lee Brown Writer’s Studio. Located in University Hall B-3 with hours this semester on Tuesdays from 3:30 until 5 p.m. and Wednesdays from 4 until 6 p.m., the RLB Writer’s Studio is based on a writing center model—a collaborative place to create better writers. We offer non-evaluative, one-on-one consultations on any writing matters, for any student at any level, as well as specialty workshops for groups. We also house the English Department’s component of the Humanities Tutoring Program in the core.

Let me start with an anecdote from a class in that core:

In yet another English Composition II class, this first day of midterm week, I explained my “revision” midterm assignment. Students need to take their short story analysis essay, write a revision, then write a meta-cognitive reflection of how they attempted to revise each graded entity on the rubric (thesis, support, etc), and finally address grammar and punctuation issues by writing the rule for their particular pattern of error as well as demonstrating application of that rule to their own writing.

No Scantron here. We are quickly climbing Bloom’s taxonomy and addressing numerous SLOGs.

The students are writing, revising, engaging in critical thinking, and learning about their writing process. But a finer point escaped the students—the difference I was trying to elicit between “editing” and “proofreading.” Even after my powerpoint and class discussion, a student response to the midterm assignment was to “fix the errors” as if there was nothing more to revision than fixing a mistake. That a thesis, although “somewhat effective” on the grading rubric, could not be revised further.

As I discussed with my students today and as I talk about the RLB Writer’s Studio as a “writing center” at Lincoln, I am often reminded of Stephen North’s 1984 essay in College English titled “The Idea of a Writing Center,” which was the basis for a “new” model of writing center that differed from the “basement, fix-it” shop approach to writing (VISIT US IN THE BASEMENT OF UNIVERSITY HALL!) Instead, North argued, “it represents the marriage of what are arguably the two most powerful contemporary perspectives on teaching writing: first, that writing is most usefully viewed as a process; and second, that writing curricula need to be student-centered” (438) as opposed to the “older” model where “instruction tends to take place after or apart from writing, and tends to focus on the correction of textual problems” (439).

Writing centers focus on creating better writers through collaborative, dialogue/question driven, non-directive measures. The goal is often a better writer, not necessarily a better written text. The analogy I often use is teaching people to fish so that they will never go hungry.

The more recent criticism of the process approach to writing, which developed in 60s through the 90s, comes from post process scholars such as Kent (2003) who assert that writing is social—a situated, public, and interpretative act. The product cannot be ignored.

So the Writing Center is stuck in the middle—which is right where we want to be.

WE DON'T FIX STUDENT WRITING (but we can help students fix their own writing).
WE DON'T DO REMEDIATION (but we can help remediate student writing).
WE WANT STUDENTS TO COME TO US (but any encouragement to help students find us will be accepted).
WE WORK WITH ANY WRITING ISSUE (believe it or not there is more to writing than grammar).
WE WANT TO PROMOTE WRITING (we want to promote writing).

After all as North stated, “if writing centers are going to finally be accepted, surely they must be accepted on their own terms, as places whose primary responsibility, whose only reason for being, is to talk to writers” (446).

So I now enter into a dialogue with you. Help us create our Mission Statement. What do you see as the mission of the Roscoe Lee Browne Writer’s Studio?

References

Kent, T. (2003). “Introduction.” Post-Process Theory: Beyond the Writing Process Paradigm. Ed. Thomas Kent. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP.

North, S. M. (1984). “The Idea of a Writing Center.” College English, 46(5), 433-446.

How Can the Learning Resource Center Better Assist You and Your Students?

Guest Blogger: Patricia Fullmer

All of us at the LRC are interested in continuously improving our services and ensuring that we are effectively helping students and assisting professors. We would like to know your ideas about improving our services.

Tutoring, Persistence, and Retention

Several research studies provide evidence that tutoring can significantly assist a student in earning a higher GPA, persist in their education, and increase the retention of students. Rheinheimer, et al (2010) tracked 129 incoming Act 101 students at a public university in Pennsylvania and found that "…students who were tutored were 13.5 times more likely to graduate than students who were not tutored…" (p. 28). The total number of hours tutored significantly predicted cumulative GPA, credits earned towards graduation, and graduation. This recent study demonstrated that tutoring helps improve students’ academic performance, persistence, and retention.

The immediate positive feedback of an online tutoring system has been linked to an increase of metacognitive and cognitive skills (Saadawi, et al, 2009). In addition, Hodges and White (2001) found that tutoring is a contributing factor to the academic success of students, and Boylan, Bliss, and Bonham (1997) found that the training of tutors related significantly (p=<0.05) to higher first term GPA, higher cumulative GPA, and the retention of students. With the above evidence in mind, the LRC tutors, both professional and peer, are trained and certified through the International Tutoring Program Certification process of the College Reading and Learning Association.

Request for Your Response

We, in the LRC, would like to know how we can work more closely with faculty and rectify any problems faculty see. We also welcome your suggestions on how to have more students utilize the LRC so we can be more effective in aiding students to persist in their education and graduate.

References:

Boylan, H., Bliss, L., and Bonham, B. (1997). Program components and their relationship to student performance. Journal of Developmental Education, 20(3).

Hodges, R. and White, W. (2001). Encouraging high-risk student participation in tutoring and supplemental instruction. Journal of Developmental Education, 24(3), 2-11.

Rheinheimer, D.C., Grace-Odeleye, B., Francois, G.E., and Kusorgbor, C. (2010). Tutoring: A support strategy for at-risk students. Learning Assistance Review, 15(1), 23-34.

Saadawi, G., Azevedo, R., Castine, M., Payne, V., Medvedeva, O., Tseytlin, E., Legowski, E., Jukic, D., and Crowley, R. (2010). Factors affecting the felling-of-knowing in a medical intelligent tutoring system: The role of immediate feedback as a metacognitive scaffold. Advances in Health Science Education, 15, 9-30.

Lincoln's Center for Teaching and Learning Enhancement: What Can We Offer?

Guest Blogger: Yvonne Hilton

The Center for Teaching and Learning Enhancement (CTLE) is this year working to make a remarkable impact in the area of faculty development at Lincoln University. As the director of this program, I see it as a resource providing various workshops, seminars and activities to help strengthen the pedagogical acumen of faculty. CTLE wants to provide opportunities to glean from the wealth of wisdom we have within our walls, as well as from other knowledgeable professionals that reside outside of our campus.

We (the CTLE Advisory Board) believe a good place to start is to hear from you. We want to know what are your interests and challenges as university faculty. To this end, we have developed a survey that we will ask you to complete at this week’s faculty meeting. Feedback from this survey will give us insight on the types of programs faculty want and need to be the best they can be.

CTLE is very small as it is in the beginning stages of existence. Therefore, we ask for your cooperation, your understanding, and your patience as we grow and mature. Meanwhile, please share with us some of the things you would like to see CTLE do this year. Perhaps you have taught at other institutions with similar programs. Share the types of programs and services you experienced there. Tell us your thoughts and opinions so that we can work toward making this year beneficial for everyone.