Jack Egan
Hand sanitizing stations, social distancing dots, donned masks—2020’s fall semester has been anything but ordinary. For those of us that have had the privilege of returning to campus, the pandemic has reshaped almost everything, including the Writing Center. Many institutions, including Oberlin, have opted to move their physical writing centers to an online space. In my capacity as a new writing tutor, I recognize both advantages and disadvantages to the virtual sphere. In my limited experience, online tutoring facilitates writer autonomy and effort, but hinders the fundamentally conversational aspect of writing tutoring.
For some students, remote tutoring promotes writer engagement by removing obstacles that might prevent them from visiting the Writing Center in the first place. Students can now access it from anywhere on or off-campus; although our Writing Center was in a fairly central location, some dorms are a significant walk away. Many students prefer to work in the comfort of their rooms and might be more motivated to give us a visit when we’re only a click away. When the session starts, Zoom provides a feeling of privacy to both writers and tutors, especially if a writer is shy or discusses something personal. In Oberlin’s physical Writing Center, one could overhear conversations easily, which might make some writers uncomfortable.
Another advantage of online tutoring (at least in Zoom) is the ability to share screens. I find it quite helpful, as a tutor, when writers share their screens with me, so I can clearly read their writing and easily follow any changes that they make. Zoom also prevents tutors from overstepping boundaries and commandeering a writer’s work. For instance, even though we are advised not to write directly on a writer’s work, we might write down suggestions for them that are based on their ideas. What makes this problematic is the fact that, even if we base our suggestions on what writers have told us, they might lose confidence in their ability to articulate their own ideas. Sharing screens rather than documents forces the writer to make all of the changes to their work which could develop a sense of writer autonomy and give them the feeling that they accomplished something over the course of the session. This seems to help writers feel confident and stay engaged.
Despite Zoom’s capacity to encourage students to write, it can also complicate a session because tutoring writing is fundamentally conversational. At this point, we’re all familiar with the ways Zoom can disrupt normal conversation: poor connections, talking over the other person, distracting backgrounds, and more. In “Peer Tutoring and the ‘Conversation of Mankind,’” Kenneth Bruffee argues that peer tutoring is valuable because tutors can converse with writers. He says that writing “always has its roots deep in the acquired ability to carry on the symbolic exchange we call conversation” and that because of this, tutors should mold the conversations in the center to what they want writers to talk about in their work (Bruffee, 328).
Zoom complicates that conversation. I find that Zoom often discourages writers and tutors from getting acquainted. In-person, writers and tutors have the opportunity to casually interact while they sit down, get comfortable, and pull out their work. However, in many of the Zoom sessions I’ve done, writers often come in ready to hit the ground running, which leads to missing out on small talk that “can lead to greater satisfaction for tutors and writers” (Ianetta & Fitzgerald, 57). Although it’s possible to engage in small talk over Zoom, it feels quite awkward; for example, nobody engages in casual conversation before classes over Zoom in the same way they do in-person. Additionally, I’d have a much easier time engaging writers in productive conversations if I could better gauge their facial expressions and body language. Interpreting non-verbal language is hard enough over Zoom, but is especially challenging because a writer is primarily sharing their screen—which is usually for a majority of the session—and their face is confined to a tiny window in the corner.
Despite Zoom’s limitations, I’ve still been able to have some very productive sessions in my first months as a writing tutor. Some of the best experiences have been with writers I either know personally or with writers that I’ve met on previous occasions. For this reason, I believe that we should find a way to emphasize the “peer” aspect of peer tutoring by strengthening the personal relationships between tutors and writers. This might take the form of matching tutors and writers with some sort of quiz that matches interests—similar to those on dating sights. Another possibility is asking writers to make a follow-up appointment at the end of a session. We might also consider adding a specific section in our writer-feedback form that asks for input about their Zoom experience. Changes like these could make engaging writers easier and lead to them being more enthusiastic about coming back. In light of the pros and cons of Zoom, we need to know if the current situation is lonely and isolating—if it is, we should reconsider the relationships we form with our tutees and perhaps think about the value of getting to know them before their work.
Works Cited
Brufree, Kenneth. “Peer Tutoring and ‘the Conversation of Mankind.’” The Oxford Guide for Writing Tutors: Practice and Research, edited by Melissa Ianetta and Lauren Fitzgerald. Oxford University Press, 2016
Ianetta, Melissa, and Lauren Fitzgerald. The Oxford Guide for Writing Tutors: Practice and Research. Oxford University Press, 2016.
About the Author
Jack is a second-year student at Oberlin College, majoring in Sociology and minoring in Rhetoric and Composition. He is from Boston, MA, and some of his favorite hobbies include playing the piano, sailing, and playing cards. He has worked as a Writing Associate in Oberlin’s writing center since the beginning of the fall 2020 semester, and is excited to continue learning about writing pedagogy.