Olalekan ’Tunde Adepoju
Introduction
The transition from in-person writing consultations to written feedback and live video chat appointments in the wake of coronavirus pandemic is undoubtedly a creative move made by writing center administrators in reaction to the pandemic challenges. The written feedback has proven to be an effective tutoring approach and, especially, afforded tutors a new way of thinking about asynchronous tutoring.
Previous scholarship on asynchronous tutoring has raised concerns about the effectiveness of achieving the traditional goals of writing center work. Hewett (2015b) explains that critics argue that asynchronous consultations do not promote conversation between tutors and students because it is delayed communication and any interactions that may occur over email, for instance, are short-lived. Likewise, Denton (2017) notes that the primary fears that writing center scholars have about asynchronous online tutoring stem from mistrust that the practices surrounding this format do not align with writing center lore and look too different from other tutoring practice. Other studies, as outlined in Bell (2020), have also discussed the many advantages of asynchronous writing center consultation. However, none paid specific attention to recurring written feedback appointments from a conversational perspective.
Hence, this paper examines recurring written feedback consultations and argues that the effectiveness of written feedback consultations lies in the conversational approach adopted by both the tutor and the writer during such asynchronous appointments. Contrary to the critique that asynchronous appointments are not conversational––“even though there is potential for students to email additional questions to a tutor” (Hewett 2015b)–– this paper examines how the change in technology has disrupted this notion and how this disruption has caused the widely used asynchronous (written feedback) consultations to now be deemed conversational. In this paper, I will be extending an essay of mine published on University of Louisville’s Writing Center blog and specifically repurposing its focus on the conversational approach for an effective tutoring during recurring written feedback appointments. I will also be drawing from my experiences tutoring writers who make recurring asynchronous appointments with me.
Conversational Approach to Written Feedback Consultations
In a previous attempt to examine the written feedback consultation as a conversational space (Adepoju, 2020), I argue that tutors need to position themselves in “a dialogic mode with an ‘imaginary’ writer as if it were a face-to-face interaction with the aim of extending the conversation to the writer for their thoughtful responses and opinion to the questions through revision.” While this might be obtainable across board, the occurrence of the envisaged conversation is not as frequent in regular one-time consultations as in recurring appointments by a writer working, for instance, on their dissertation or book project; in addition, revisions are not the only way of engendering such conversation.
In my experience tutoring writers who make recurring appointments with me, I have discovered that the technology and the nature of the tutor’s comments combine to solidify the conversational function of recurring written feedback appointments. Studies have acknowledged that email technology used to be the primary mode of tutoring asynchronously (Martinez and Olsen, 2015; Denton, 2017). In recent decades however, the introduction of a different, more sophisticated scheduling platform, WCONLINE, has provided writing centers a centralized domain for recording writers’ concerns and tutors’ feedback. The appointment form on WCONLINE is especially crucial to our understanding of the conversational approach to written feedback consultations because it creates the avenue for the writer to enunciate the details of their writing concerns. These concerns raised during the first of many recurring appointments serve as the context for the tutor to have a meaningful interaction with the writer’s project.
I have discovered that conversations in written feedback consultations occur on three contextual layers: first is opening comments; second is dialogue; and third is closing comments. When I started working with a writer who had made recurring appointments for their dissertation draft, their first sets of questions— opening comments— provided me with some contextual knowledge about them, their project and the writing issue(s) on which they require help. This knowledge subsequently shapes the nature of my comments. Busekrus (2018), quoting Kjesrud (2015), has outlined comments/questions framed as non-interrogative (give more information about this point.); leading (isn’t this approach too simple?); tags (the author does not give facts to support it, does she?); and open-ended (How does the author further this discussion throughout the book?) as moves a tutor can make to foster a asynchronous consultation that is conversational. In my experience utilizing these conversational moves for drafting my marginal comments, I have observed that writers are always inclined to ‘Reply to Comment’––a useful function in the MS-Word Review function. This technological function thus plays a crucial role in helping both the tutor and the writer engage in dialogue (second layer of the conversational moves) related to the specific writer’s concerns or that leads to some quick lessons on grammatical conventions.
Furthermore, tutors engaged in written feedback consultations provide a summary of their comments as headnote on the writer’s draft. In recurring appointments specifically, the headnote serves as the tutor’s closing comments on which the writer bases the opening comments for their next appointment. Instances such as “Thank you so much for your comments,” “Revised research question (I have one question now). How is this revised question?,” “I have addressed issues from earlier feedback and I want you to review the last section,” are some of the opening comments that followed my closing comments on a writer’s draft. These three contextual layers show that tutors and writers involved in recurring appointments consider written feedback appointments as a conversational space for back and forth interactions in the form of appreciation, comments about accomplished revisions, and follow-up questions, among others.
Conclusion
This paper, therefore, concludes that written feedback consultations are a viable means of realizing the lore of writing center of making better writers and not just better writing. Although it might seem very easy for tutors to unwittingly conduct their written feedback appointments as editing/fix-it appointments, rethinking such asynchronous appointments from a conversational lens will help writing center tutors to improve on their tutoring practices as they navigate this new mode of online consultations.
Works Cited
Adepoju, Olalekan. “Writing Center Tutoring in the Time of Pandemic: A Focus on Written Feedback as a conversational Space.” University of Louisville Writing Center, https://uoflwritingcenter.com/2020/09/08/writing-center-tutoring-in-the-time-of-pandemic-a-focus-on-written-feedback-as-a-conversational-space. Accessed 29 Oct. 2020.
Bell, Lisa. “Rethinking What to Preserve as Writing Centers Move Online.” Connecting Writing Centers Across Borders (2020).
Busekrus, Elizabeth. “A Conversational Approach: Using Writing Center Pedagogy in Commenting for Transfer in the Classroom.” Journal of Response to Writing 4.1 (2018):100–116.
Denton, Kathryn. “Beyond the Lore: A Case for Asynchronous Online Tutoring Research.” The Writing Center Journal (2017): 175-203.
Hewett, Beth L. The online writing conference: A Guide for Teachers and Tutors. Boston, MA: Bedford/St. Martin’s Press, 2015b.
Martinez, Diane, and Leslie Olsen. “Online Writing Labs.” Foundational Practices of Online Writing Instruction (2015): 183-210.
About the Author
Olalekan Adepoju is a PhD student in Rhetoric and Composition program of the English Department, University of Louisville. He obtained his Bachelor of Arts degree in English Education and Master of Arts degree in English from University of Ilorin, Nigeria and University of Ibadan, Nigeria respectively. His research interests lie in writing studies, institutional rhetoric, discourse analysis, ESL teaching, and technical writing among others. He has continued to pursue these interests by publishing papers on the subjects and other issues of academic interest to him in peer-reviewed journals.