Supporting Students’ Transition to University Writing

1. Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

2. Supporting Students’ Transition to University Writing Kathy Harrington and Peter O’Neill Write Now Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning London Metropolitan University The role of peer writing mentors 3rd Annual Students Writing in Transition Symposium Nottingham Trent University September 2010

3. London Met Writing Centre • established in October 2006 with CETL grant funding • objectives: • avoid institutional duplication (existing Learning Development Unit) • offer something innovative in context of UK writing support • conduct research into effectiveness • evaluate a model of student-led writing support that might be implemented in other HEIs Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

4. More specifically... • We wanted to: • support students’ transitions to the next step in their academic and disciplinary writing journeys, whatever their starting point • help students feel more confident and competent as writers in a university context • facilitate students’ learning and engagement with the subject matter of their studies Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

5. Welcome to the Writing Centre at London Met http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnZ0Yn5OuZs Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

6. Origin of Writing Mentor schemes • US experience: writing centres served by “peer tutors” – up to 20000 tutorials per semester. • Relationship to US Comp programmes and “Rhetoric and Composition” theorising Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

7. US responses to “student writing” • US “Freshman Composition” (Harvard 1874) and Writing Labs (Writing Centres) • WAC / WID / CAC US response assumes that attention to writing is for all students and integral to the curriculum. Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

8. Supplementary writing support • Writing Centres and peer tutors • Bruffee: “near desperate response” of US institutions in 1970s to non-traditional/under-prepared students (open admissions etc). • “Why Johnny can’t write”… (Newsweek, 1975) • “The common denominator among both the poorly prepared and the seemingly well-prepared was that, for cultural reasons we may not yet fully understand, all these students seemed to have difficulty adapting to the traditional or ‘normal’ conventions of the college classroom” (1984 p.637) • “it was the traditional classroom learning that seemed to have left these students unprepared in the first place. What they needed… was help of a sort that was not an extension but an alternative to the traditional classroom” (1984, p.637) • Alternative to traditional classroom needed • Peer tutoring and collaborative learning, influenced by British school education in 1960s (1984, p.636-37) Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

9. Widening participation • Cf. UK context 1990s and 2000s – expansion of HE/WP has parallels to US 1970s experience. • Lamentations about writing: psychology lecturers in THES bemoaning “appallingly bad” written English (Newman 2007) Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

10. Writing Matters • No optimistic gloss can be put on it. No artfully crafted explanation will work. Large numbers of contemporary British undergraduates lack the basic ability to express themselves in writing. Many students are simply not ready for the demands that higher education is making – or should be making – of them… There may be debate about the causes, and about the prognosis, but there is unanimity about what the fellows have seen. The single word that crops up more than any other in describing what they have found on entering higher education institutions is “shock” (Murray and Kirton, 2006 p.7) Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

11. Using peer writing mentors • St Mary’s University College, Belfast (number two in recent national student satisfaction survey) • UCL postgraduate scheme • More recent schemes being implemented • But not without some controversies… Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

12. Responsibility for writing instruction • LDU: cf. Devet and Orr (2006) – LDU: more life experience; less “middle-class” and “mono-lingual”; do not see themselves as “better” than students they are working with; equally capable of non-directive pedagogies (n.b. may reflect unique context of an elite art school) • RLF Writing Matters: “Writers themselves, however, are the best teachers of writing…” (Angier and Palmer, 2006, p23) • Role of peer tutors • Role of lecturers Complementary role of these? Need to know more about what happens in an LDU tutorial, an RLF tutorial, a writing centre peer tutorial. Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

13. Adapting the US experience: discipline specific • Cf. US experience • UK disciplinary degrees • WC online booking (screenshot) Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

15. Towards “Writing Mentors” • “It should be careful noted that in forming a mentoring relationship the point is not to create dependency but to promote self-direction. A mentor may serve as a catalyst for change – but when a goal is achieved or a skill accomplished the partner must be able to own the achievement as their own” (Ender and Newton 2000, 16-17) Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

16. Rationale for Writing Mentors Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

17. Rationale 1: London Met and retention/widening participation • Vincent Tinto (drawing on Durkheim's work on suicide - which he considered to be analogous) argues that it is above all successful integration into the academic and social culture that brings about what he calls "student persistence". By contrast, failure of students to integrate academically and socially is the main predictor of withdrawal. • Academic component alongside traditional mentoring programmes. • Yorke and Longden on student retention: poor choice of course; financial difficulties; unsatisfactory learning experiences. Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

18. Rationale 2: AcLits • Need “to move away from a skills-based, deficit model of student writing and to consider the complexity of writing practices that are taking place at degree level in universities” (Lea and Steet, 1998, p157) • Writing not a skill to be mastered but an issue “at the level of epistemology and identities” (159) and literacies as “social practices” (159) • AcLits pedagogies: Lillis – likely to involve dialogues between student-writers and tutor-readers which “enable participation in dominant academic literacy practices as well as provide opportunities for challenging aspects of such practices” (Lillis, 2006 p33) • Role of lecturers Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

19. Social constructionism/AcLits • Lecturer should help students understand complexities of discipline and enable them to become better disciplinary writers • addressing “epistemological assumptions” • demonstrating “how knowledge is constructed in the specific discipline” • making “it explicit that students are not recipients of, but active contributors to knowledge” • demonstrating “rhetorical processes in academic writing, for instance ways of integrating one’s own voice with existing knowledge” (Wingate, 2006, p464) • Role of peers – informal space to negotiate dominant literacy practices expected of students Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

20. Rationale 3: Cognition • Reflective thinking emerges out of internalisation of public/social talk/conversation (Vygotsky) • Bruffee: “If thought is internalised public and social talk, then writing of all kinds is internalised social talk made public and social again. If thought is internalised conversation, then writing is internalised conversation re-externalised” (p641). • Need for good talk around writing: role of talk in clarifying thought as well as in allowing participation in and contestation of academy (AcLits) Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

21. Rationale 4: Collaborative learning • Move to collaboration reflects an epistemological shift away from seeing reality and knowledge as exterior, immediately accessible and unproblematically knowable. Instead, we now view “knowledge and reality as mediated or constructed through language in social use, as socially constructed, contextualised, as, in short, the product of collaboration” (Lunsford, 1999 p.4) • For real collaboration, hierarchies inherent in traditional university serve as obstacle: hence peer tutors as ideal collaborators for student writers • Zone of proximal development (Vygotsky) • “I’m very pleased. This mentor is great. We had a long session today, probably longer than either of us expected but we made it through and I’m well on my way with my essay” Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

22. Rationale 5: Voice / confidence • Role of informal encouragement and feedback “We talked a lot about writing in German and in English, as she is a native speaker of German … and Hanna felt she eventually reconnected with the ability to say what she wanted to say.” “I felt that my session went very well and am very pleased. Before attending the tutorial I didn’t believe that I could write a coherent conclusion. By the end of the tutorial I have a new found confidence in my ability. I also found that I understood more about the module than I did initially” Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

23. James Berlin: four theoretical paradigms for teaching composition • Current-traditional (writing as product/correctness/form) • Cognitive (thinking process). Cf. Vygotsky/Bruffee • Expressionist (developing voice/identity/argument) • Social constructionist (Carino 2008, p. 125f) Devet: peer tutoring encompasses all these approaches except current-traditional (but might it not in fact also encompass this?) “It was very useful. It really helped me specifically for references and bibliography. I now know how to write an introduction. I have some examples of bibliography, as it is important for the reference and bibliography system.” Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

24. From rationale to reality... Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

25. Number of tutorials conducted Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

26. Who comes for a tutorial? Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

27. Students’ first language Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

28. Students’ areas of study Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

29. London Met and the Writing Centre 1st year - 2006-07 approximately 400 students approximately 675 tutorials Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

30. Research into scheme • importance of evaluating effectiveness • need for an evidence-based approach • dissemination and impact • lecturers • students • senior managers • informing ongoing practice • since 2006, engaged in multi-phase study investigating effectiveness of peer writing tutorials in context of UK Higher Education Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

31. Aspects of research Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 • Phase 1: mentors’ experiences • Phase 2: students’ experiences • Phase 3 (ongoing): relationship between peer writing tutorials and student learning, achievement and retention • “Mentoring for Success” project (Aston University) • includes focus on specific students who may be at a higher risk of dropping out (mature, disabled, first generation) • Tutorial recordings archive • Göttingen exchange: international students’ experiences

32. Phase 1: mentors’ experiences What did mentors’ comments reveal about what was taking place in the process of a peer writing tutorial? • qualitative study, Oct 06 – Dec 07 • thematic analysis of open-ended comments following 674 hour-long tutorials, with 400 students • Informed by Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) (Smith & Osborn, 2003) • Prompt: “Please reflect on your session. (E.g. How do you feel you were able to help the student? What could have gone better?)” Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

33. Phase 1 - findings What makes for a successful tutorial from the Writing Mentors’ perspective? • Four broad themes emerged from analysis of mentors’ reflections • Theme 1: Interpersonal relationship between student and mentor • Building a rapport • Encouragement/emotional support • Setting expectations • Non-directive enabling • Theme 2: Student’s relationship to own writing • Confidence/anxiety • Finding own voice Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

34. Phase 1 – findings continued Theme 3: Student and mentor working together • Collaborating/writing together • Informal talk Theme 4: Mentor self-reflections • Challenges • Satisfaction • Overarching importance of relational and collaborative aspects of learning, affective and practical dimensions • between mentor and student • between student and writing self • between mentor and reflective self Findings informed training for year two of Scheme, 2007-08 Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

35. Phase 2: students’ experiences Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

36. Phase 2: Students’ experiences To what degree did students feel that the mentors provided an environment supportive of their own writing development? • motivations for attending tutorials • specific writing concerns and degree addressed • students’ attitudes to own writing before and after tutorials • nature of relationship between student and mentor • qualitative and quantitative study, Oct-Dec 07 • cross-sectional survey via online questionnaire (n=99; representative of Writing Centre users) • descriptive statistics and inferential tests • thematic analysis of open-ended responses Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

37. Students’ satisfaction Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

38. Motivations for attending Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

39. Specific writing concerns Students' reasons for booking their first tutorial (n=78) [multiple answers per student possible] Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

40. Specific concerns met? Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

41. Students’ confidence as writers Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

42. Students asked: What did you like most about your tutorials? Thematic analysis of open-ended comments (n=66) 1. Mentor’s approach/process of sessions25.8% (17) • “laughed about things like bibliographies, and learnt about it together, as she was not sure how it worked either” • Received “help” or “feedback” 25.8% (17) 3. Non-judgemental atmosphere/tone of sessions18.2% (12) 4. Learnt an aspect of academic writing10.6% (7) • “building argument and critical analysis”, “how to structure” • Attitude to self/writing as a result of session7.6% (5) • “got more confident about my writing” 6.One-to-one nature of sessions6.0% (4) • N/A3.0% (2) 8.“don’t know”/”one-off”/other 3.0% (2) Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

43. Disciplinarity of tutorials Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

44. Students’ comments On improved confidence in own writing • It was fantastic when I found my personal abilities for writing during the tutorial. • The session has really helped me. My mentor…helped me understand how to structure an essay properly…and identify strengths of mine, as I’d only been able to identify weaknesses. The session has given me the confidence to believe that I can get a good mark on this module assignment. On benefits of peer discussion around writing • The session was very helpful. I really enjoyed discussing my paper and finding ways to improve it. • The discussion between my mentor and me is motivating me to get better in my writing style. • With her help, I locate my problem and find the solution. I really enjoy this tutorial. Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

45. Phases 1 & 2 - conclusions • Key factors contributing to effective peer writing tutorials • centrality of collaboration and non-directive enabling • student flexibility and willingness to adopt collaborative approach, even when initial expectations may differ • training programme that emphasises collaborative ethos and encourages continuous reflection on practical application in tutorials • Appropriately trained students are able to facilitate the kind of dialogue around writing that can help fellow students develop into confident academic writers Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

46. Phase 3: Relationship between writing tutorials and student learning, achievement and retention • Part of the larger “Pathways to Success through Peer Mentoring” project • led by Aston University • funded by HEFCE and the Paul Hamlyn Foundation • involving eight institutions (UK and Canada) Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

47. Research questions • Does participation in peer writing tutorials promote student success? • Sub-questions: • What demographic, pedagogic and other factors influence the outcomes of peer writing tutorials? • What is the long-term pedagogical impact of participating in peer writing tutorials? • What are the determining characteristics in the process of conducting peer writing tutorials? Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

48. Building on earlier study • Small-scale study into effect of Writing Mentor tutorials on students’ grades in Business module at Aston University (Yeats et al., in press 2010) • Found higher grades amongst students who had tutorials (statistically significant) • However, did not control for students’ motivation or entry level • so higher grades could be a reflection of more motivated and academically stronger students opting for peer tutorials, rather than an effect of the tutorials themselves • Our phase 3 study aims to take these variables into account • motivation: use of a Learning and Study Skills Inventory (LASSI) • entry level from University database • hoping for preliminary results by end of year Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

49. Economic challenges • Broader context • Demonstrating effectiveness • Criteria for success • value for money • quality of students’ learning and writing • achievement levels • employment and further study Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010

50. Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010