SLWIS Newsletter - October 2013 (Plain Text Version)
|
||
|
In this issue: |
SCAFFOLDING THE SCAFFOLDERS: PEER TUTOR TRAINING IN A MULTILINGUAL CONTEXT
Introduction The proliferation of American universities abroad in recent years has also prompted the growth and development of writing centers in international contexts (Bazerman et al., 2012; Eleftheriou, 2011; McHarg, 2011; Thaiss, Brauer, Carlino, Ganobcsik-Williams, & Sinha, 2012). This expansion has transformed the way writing centers are established and shaped, as many of the clients are multilingual learners. While it is not unusual for writing centers worldwide to devote a considerable amount of time to international and ESL students, it is a relatively new phenomenon to have multilingual learners supporting their multilingual peers (Eleftheriou, 2011; Ronesi, 2009, 2011). This demographic shift has transformed the nature of peer tutor training, and this project sought to contribute to the development of this shift. In this article, I describe one training activity I developed and implemented at Virginia Commonwealth University in Qatar’s Writing Center. The impetus for this project was Lynne Ronesi’s publication, “Theory In/To Practice: Multilingual Tutors Supporting Multilingual Peers: A Peer-Tutor Training Course in the Arabian Gulf” (2009). Ronesi showcased the course syllabus she developed to appropriately build upon the strengths of multilingual peer tutors who could then support their peers. She built on existing scholarship by emphasizing the role and value of peer tutors who share similar and recent experiences in their own educational experiences. However, Ronesi went further by challenging the U.S.-centric scholarship and looking for ways to expand upon it in the Middle Eastern context. She articulated her approach to discussing “notions like additive and subtractive bilingualism and code switching as well as prestige, status, and identity with regard to first and second language use” (p. 80); Ronesi noted that most of these language issues were already employed, unconsciously, by the peer tutors in their everyday lives. Ronesi’s work built upon established scholarship related to ESL, cultural studies, and writing centers, and her work has offered a solid foundation for peer tutor training programs in the Gulf region. In addition to Ronesi’s article, I have been inspired by the growth and development of peer tutoring initiatives around Doha. Through my participation in Doha Writing Center Network meetings, I listened to many writing center directors proclaim resounding success of peer tutoring programs. Many directors expressed enthusiasm about the increase in the number of students visiting the center, enthusiastic faculty support, and more. They all professed to attracting and recruiting high achievers—consequently, many writing center directors looked to faculty for recommendations. I also discovered that, despite being situated in the same context, Doha, the various training programs were considerably different at each institution. Some institutions had absolutely no training, assuming that selected tutors were sufficiently competent, while others required new hires to go through 15 hours of training prior to work. With these vast differences across the institutions, I felt empowered with a certain kind of liberty in developing my own peer tutor training program in accordance with my expertise in TESOL, writing center pedagogy, and my professional experiences over 7 years in Doha. At my current institution, Virginia Commonwealth University in Qatar (VCUQatar), which was established in 1998, there had never been an attempt to develop a peer tutor program. Faculty and staff repeatedly issued warnings that “The students’ English is not strong enough” and “They are busy students and they don’t have time.” However, with the future budget always an uncertainty, the talk of success with peer tutoring at other institutions, and the increased workload for our understaffed center, I decided it was worth an attempt. I researched the programs that had been developed at neighboring universities, consulted with experienced colleagues, consulted WCENTER and other writing center resources, and formulated a plan. VCUQatar launched its first semester of peer tutoring during the spring 2012 semester. Recruitment and training (a series of observations, readings, and workshops) ensued for a number of weeks. Finally, a sash ceremony was held to mark training completion and the tutors began holding their own tutorial sessions. I felt that my dreams were at last realized, and the VCUQatar Writing Center was on the path to developing a culture of collaboration, peer support, and writing—everything the current writing center literature indicates centers should strive to achieve. A Reality Check From my standpoint, the center was thriving. Although my office is located down the hall from the central writing center, I frequently pass through the main area. Any time I walked by and the peer tutors were on duty, I sensed a site of vibrant activity. Students were actively engaged in conversation with peer tutors, and there were many faces I had not seen in the writing center previously. Unfortunately, the old adage “don’t judge a book by its cover” prevails, and I quickly discovered this when I began reading the submitted tutorial reports. What I was seeing in the writing center was not at all clearly articulated in the written summaries. First, a brief word about our reporting system: Our online reporting database (developed in-house by our database developer) was set up so that, initially, only professional staff had access to the system.1 Consequently, peer tutors were required to write all reports, submit them to me, and then I would process them through the database and send them to the faculty members on behalf of the peer tutor. All tutorial sessions are reported to the faculty unless the student requests it remain confidential. In reviewing the written summaries, I could see that the peer tutors were weak in their tutorial report writing skills. Although they had been selected for the peer tutor positions because of their relatively strong English abilities, report writing is a specialized genre to which they had previously not been exposed sufficiently. We had reviewed a few brief examples in the course of training, but clearly it had not been enough. Most concerning to me, however, was that this was what faculty would be seeing. As this was the first semester launch of the peer tutor employment, I felt the pressure to establish a solid program foundation. Taking Action I immediately recognized two issues: 1. I have struggled with report writing myself, and 2. many of the reports written by tutors were repetitive in that they covered the same topic.2 This became a ripe opportunity for our next training workshop, but I struggled with how to approach the topic. I reverted back to standard ESL classroom techniques and recognized the need for providing written models. Furthermore, I felt that it was important to maintain the integrity of writing center practice by fostering a sense of collaboration and mutual production of texts, as opposed to directive instruction.3 The result was my development of the template chart. This chart includes three columns: “What you’re thinking,”
“What you might say in a tutorial,” and “What you might write in a
report.” The scenarios in the left-hand column, “What you’re thinking…”
came directly from the tutors themselves; these comments had been
repeated to me many times verbally, so they were good launching points
for discussion (and much
laughter, as tutors could
easily identify with them and reflect on their tutoring experiences).
Working together, we drafted language in order to appropriately and
professionally respond to the potential client verbally, as well as in
writing to the instructor. While the peer tutors worked to complete the
chart together, I offered some suggestions, posed questions, and we
worked through revisions collaboratively and interactively. The final
production resulted in a reference chart with template language that can
be tailored for individual conferencing and reports.4 Reflections & Future Research This activity served a wide variety of purposes. Specifically, it provided
Tutors became more aware of the genre of report writing, with a distinct attention to audience, purpose, and tone. We were also able to discuss the value of writing templates and how they differ from plagiarized work.5 Tutors are now able to comfortably and confidently speak with peer clients as well as send written reports to faculty. Finally, it simply became a time-saving tool. Tutors are often under pressure to finish working with clients and complete tutorial session reports before their shift ends. Having the report template language can facilitate faster responses and a more effective use of tutor time. The verdict is still out in terms of the long-term outcome of this activity. Have the tutors internalized the activity? Has it created too much structure in report writing, or will they still be willing to break out of the box? How will faculty respond if they begin to see repeated, similar reports (and will they even notice or comment)? What other unintended consequences will result? We have just begun the start of a new semester at VCUQatar, which means the start of a new cycle of recruiting, hiring, and training peer tutors. It is hoped that this document, in its blank template form, can be used as a training opportunity for newly hired peer tutors. Furthermore, these completed documents can serve as an ongoing professional development activity for continuing and new tutors. End Notes 1 Credit goes to Mirza Baig, without whose constant support we would be technologically lost! 2 It would be valuable, in a future study, to see how similar or different reports are in different contexts—I would hazard a guess that they contain very similar language. At present, however, there has been very little research related to tutorial reports. 3 I acknowledge that directive versus nondirective instruction is a very controversial topic in TESOL and writing center pedagogy. However, for the purposes of this activity, I believe a collaborative approach was most appropriate. 4 See Appendix. 5 For more on templates in academic writing, “They Say/I Say” (Graff, Birkenstein, & Durst, 2012) is an excellent source. References Bazerman, C., Dean, C., Early, J., Lunsford, K., Null, S., Rogers, P., & Stansell, A. (Eds.). (2012). International advances in writing research: Cultures, places, meaures. Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press. Eleftheriou, M. (2011). An exploratory study of a Middle Eastern writing center: The perceptions of tutors and tutees. (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of Leicester, Leicester. Graff, G., Birkenstein, C., & Durst, R. (2012). "They say/I say": The moves that matter in academic writing with readings (2nd ed.). New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc. McHarg, M. (2011). Money doesn't matter. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 8(2). Ronesi, L. (2009). Theory in/to practice: Multilingual tutors supporting multilingual peers: A peer-tutor training course in the Arabian Gulf. The Writing Center Journal, 29(2), 75–94. Ronesi, L. (2011). "Striking while the iron is hot." A writing fellows program supporting lower-division courses at an American university in the UAE. Across the Disciplines, 8. Retrieved from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/ell/ronesi.cfm Thaiss, C., Brauer, G., Carlino, P., Ganobcsik-Williams, L., & Sinha, A. (Eds.). (2012). Writing programs worldwide: Profiles of academic writing in many places. Fort Collins, CO: The WAC Clearinghouse and Parlor Press. Molly McHarg is a writing center instructor and adjunct English faculty member in Qatar. She has taught at various American branch campuses in Doha, including Virginia Commonwealth, Georgetown, and Northwestern Universities. She is president of the Middle East-North Africa Writing Center Alliance (MENAWCA). She recently completed her PhD in composition and TESOL at Indiana University of Pennsylvania. |
|