The Writing Centre abroad: researching its efficacy in the UK

1. The Writing Centre abroad: researching its efficacy in the UK Katherine Harrington Peter O’Neill Savita Bakhshi

2. 1. Introduction

3. London Met Writing Centre • WRITE NOW CETL (Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning) • FIVE YEARS HEFCE FUNDING • LONDON MET WRITING CENTRE (opened Oct. 2006) • AVOIDING INSTITITUTIONAL REDUPLICATION (existing Learning Development Unit etc) • OFFERING SOMETHING INNOVATIVE (in a UK context) • PEER TUTORING (WRITING MENTORS) • COLLABORATING INSTITUTIONS: LIVERPOOL HOPE UNIVERSITY AND ASTON UNIVERSITY

4. Need for Research • CETLS and research • Research and dissemination interlinked (especially in UK context?) • Five years timeframe • Small scheme; emphasis on training and development; does it work in UK context? How does UK context affect nature of scheme compared to established, large-scale north American schemes • Research informs on-going practice • Aim: an effective “writing mentor” programme which has been developed through research findings and which is an effective model for dissemination purposes across the UK Higher Education Sector

5. Objections to peer tutors in the UK Peer-assisted Learning Schemes are used increasingly. However, peer tutors are rarely used for writing tutorials in UK (exception: St Mary’s University College, Belfast; also postgraduate writing tutors at University College, London). Pre-emptive objections to peer tutors by UK Learning Development lecturers Bonnie Devet, Susan Orr, Margo Blythman and Celia Bishop (2006). Peering Across the Pond: the Role of Students in Developing Other Students’ Writing in the US and UK. In Lisa Ganobcsik-Williams (Ed.), Teaching Academic Writing in UK Higher Education (pp. 196-211). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. • Peer tutors likely to lack life experience • Peer tutors likely to see themselves as better than fellow students • Peer tutors likely to be “middle-class, monolingual” students Therefore, in the UK context we cannot take such schemes for granted: imperative to research their effectiveness.

6. 2. Method

7. RESEARCH • Year one: mentors’ experiences • Research informs training for year two • Year two: student experiences

8. London Met Writing Centre, 06-07 Approximately 400 students Approximately 675 tutorials

9. London Met Writing Centre, 06-07

10. Researching the scheme year one: method Random selection of mentors’ open-ended reflections collected after each tutorial, spread across the 11 mentors Mentors asked to comment on how session went: “Please reflect on your session. (E.g. How do you feel you were able to help the student? What could have gone better?)” Thematic analysis Informed by Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) Independent readings of same text by 3 researchers, followed by comparison and discussion of findings 1st reading of 10-page selection to compare coding patterns and establish common themes 2nd reading with additional 20-page extract to validate and further refine themes and sub-themes Further reading of all comments

11. Four emergent themes 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 Theme 3: Student and mentor working together Collaborating/writing together Informal talk Theme 4: Mentor self-reflections Challenges Satisfaction

12. Relationships between the four themes Self-reflections of the mentors Interpersonal relationship between student and mentor Student and mentor working together Student’s relationship to own writing Direct relationship Indirect relationship

13. 3. Results

14. 4. Discussion

15. No evidence for objections raised to peer tutors. • To the contrary: evidence of collaboration and rapport and considerable student satisfaction. • Disciplinarity: students seem to want mentors in their subject. This is understandable in UK context of disciplinary degrees. However, can we ensure that collaborative, non-directive tutorials are taking place and that disciplinary-based mentors do not take on the expert role? Role of training is crucial.

16. Academic Literacies • Writing problems often a result of confusions surrounding disciplinary epistemologies (Lea and Street, 1998) • Academic Literacies pedagogy: likely to involve increased dialogue around writing – dialogues which “enable participation in dominant academic literacy practices as well as provide opportunities for challenging aspects of such practices” (Lillis, 2006, p.33). Lea, Mary, R. and Street, Brian, V. (1998). Student Writing in Higher Education: an academic literacies approach. Studies in Higher Education, 23, 157-72. Lillis, Theresa, M. (2006). Moving Towards an ‘Academic Literacies’ Pedagogy: Dialogues of Participation. In Lisa Ganobcsik-Williams (Ed.), Teaching Academic Writing in UK Higher Education (pp. 30-45). Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. • Bruffee on need for talk about writing (thinking and writing) “If thought is internalized public and social talk, then writing of all kinds is internalized social talk made public and social again. If thought is internalized conversation, then writing is internalized conversation re-externalized” (Bruffee, 1984, p. 641). Bruffee, K. A. (1984). Collaborative learning and ‘the conversation of mankind’. College English 46, 635-52

17. Student Mentors and academic literacies Wingate: Real understanding of the complexities of disciplinary writing “can only be achieved within the subject and through explanations, modelling and feedback by subject tutors” (2006, p. 463). Wingate, Ursula (2006). Doing away with ‘study skills.’ Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 457-69. OUR CONCLUSION: Students who are themselves engaged with coming to terms with the complexities of their disciplinary discourse may also have a role to play in helping other students. Moreover, they are close enough to their peers to recognise the confusions that they are going through, confusions which may not be so apparent to a lecturer who has thoroughly internalised the epistemology of her or his discipline.

18. An emerging model for Writing in the Disciplines in UK HE • Academic literacies thinking suggests that Writing in the Disciplines approaches are likely to be the most effective model of writing development in the UK context (and – given the lack of compulsory writing courses in the UK - the only way to reach all students) • Therefore, the responsibility for writing must ultimately be the lecturers. • Peer tutoring – especially within disciplines -can support this model and promote WiD work in UK Higher Education. • Disciplinary-focused tutorials can promote an outward –facing Writing Centre, supporting collaborations with academic staff on WiD initiatives and also removing associations of remediality often associated with generic writing support.

19. www.writenow.ac.uk • k.harrington@londonmet.ac.uk • peter.oneill@londonmet.ac.uk