Behind the Screens
by Foster Collins, Writing Center Consultant; Ryleigh Gebers, Writing Center Consultant; Caitie Leibman, Director of the Writing Center and Assistant Professor of Practice
“I was heartbroken and confused.”
That was Foster’s first reaction when he learned that Doane University would be moving its activities online. Foster Collins is a senior: he’s also spending his last semester as a Writing Center consultant working remotely.
When we first had the conversation about moving our services online, however, Foster says this change was music to his ears. Within minutes in our group chat, the other staffers chimed in with responses like “Put me in, coach!” and “Let’s do this thing.”
That’s not to say there haven’t been growing pains. Online writing feedback is a new offering from the Doane University Writing Center. Since 2009, we’ve focused our efforts on face-to-face consultations, led in our own dedicated room on campus. Now, we’re working from couches and kitchen tables, “home offices” that force us to rethink our work.
More Access Means More Variety
Although we’ve had to give up one form of consulting, this change technically means we’re a little more accessible now. For students who may have struggled to find time to come to us during our hours in the past, they can now schedule sessions based on what they have done rather than based on a meeting time. For those who may have struggled with social anxiety or physical mobility, joining us in person is no longer the default they’re faced with.
The new structure actually makes things a little more flexible for us as staff members, too. Foster explained, “Not only was I lucky enough to keep some form of income, but I have also kept access to a major support system for my academic success.” (Writing consultants “need” the center, too: feedback is crucial for all writers, at all levels.)
Now that students who may not have used our services before can join us in a new way, we’re experiencing greater variety in the types of writing we get to work with. Foster has completed nearly a dozen rounds of writing feedback since we’ve moved online: “I’ve gotten personal narratives, ethics papers, and song studies, which are all types of writing I hadn’t gotten to work with much before.” We can’t meet the same way we used to, but the range of writing in our community is almost more noticeable now.
A New Mode Means New Learning
The biggest practical change for us, of course, is not being able to talk with writers in person. Ryleigh Gebers, a junior and a Writing Center consultant, explains, “A big piece of our training as consultants has always been about asking the right questions to find out what the student wants to do with their writing. Often it’s the conversations that help a writer figure out what they want to do next.” Now we have to learn to trust ourselves as readers: we have to imagine what the writer was intending and respond in compassionate, specific, and constructive ways.
It’s not just the writers’ company that we’ve lost. Foster says that “without my fellow consultants in the room with me, I’m forced to teach myself how to become a better writer alongside the peers I’m helping! When we did consultations in person and I came across a question I didn’t know the answer to, I could always rely on another consultant for help. Now, I usually have to use online resources to teach myself.” That background work, however, is hardly a waste. According to Severino and Prim’s 2015 study, consultants offering remote feedback online should feel empowered to “model the use of resources that students can consult on their own” (136). Having a peer support system means that students share not only conceptual knowledge about writing but also strategic knowledge: we share processes.
Once the feedback is typed, Foster explains, “The biggest challenge I face is not knowing if I’m really helping.” Foster says he feels like he’s either “over- or under-explaining a concept to a writer, which can impact how helpful the comments are.” The research echoes Foster’s concern but points out the limits that were true in-person, too. Face-to-face “experiences,” writes Merry A. Rendahl, “may have become too comfortable, leading us to rely on familiar signals and processes as proxies for real learning and understanding” (135). Sure, we don’t have the option to watch the writer’s face as they react to our comments now, but we weren’t mind-readers before, either.
“Here” We Are Now
Like we’ve probably made clear, we don’t take our work lightly: we believe that consultants need professional training, real experiences, and a commitment to the best practices in our field. We can’t prepare for every curveball, but our approach helps us be prepared enough — ready with a “Put me in, coach!” when things suddenly change.
The Writing Center Journal gives one argument for “a multiplicity of tutoring approaches that are grounded in what students need, how these students do work, and how they can best receive feedback, with asynchronous tutoring serving as one of several options available to students” (Denton 189).
Well, Tigers, you’ve got this option available now. And what do the staff want you to know?
“Seriously, to all Doane students,” Foster pleads, “use the Writing Center.”
“We may not be there in person, but we still want to help however we can,” says Ryleigh.
Sources
Denton, Kathryn. “Beyond the Lore: A Case for Asynchronous Online Tutoring Research.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 36, no. 2, 2017, pp. 175–203, www.jstor.org/stable/44594855. Accessed 2 Apr. 2020.
Rendahl, Merry A. “It’s Not The Matrix: Thinking about Online Writing Instruction.” The Journal of the Midwest Modern Language Association, vol. 42, no. 1, 2009, pp. 133–150. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25674361. Accessed 16 Apr. 2020.
Severino, Carol, and Shih-Ni Prim. “Word Choice Errors in Chinese Students’ English Writing and How Online Writing Center Tutors Respond to Them.” The Writing Center Journal, vol. 34, no. 2, 2015, pp. 115–143, www.jstor.org/stable/43442807. Accessed 2 Apr. 2020.
