View
230
Download
0
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
Supporting Students’ Transition to University Writing
The role of peer writing mentors
3rd Annual Students Writing in Transition Symposium Nottingham Trent University
September 2010
Kathy Harrington and Peter O’NeillWrite Now Centre for Excellence in Teaching and Learning
London Metropolitan University
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
3Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010Write Now CETL
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
Write Now CETL Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 4
Welcome to the Writing Centre at London Met
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnZ0Yn5OuZs
Write Now CETL Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 5
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
Write Now CETL 6Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010
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.
Write Now CETL 7Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010
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)
Write Now CETL 8Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010
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)
Write Now CETL 9Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010
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)
Write Now CETL 10Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010
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…
Write Now CETL 11Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010
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.
Write Now CETL 12Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010
Adapting the US experience: discipline specific
• Cf. US experience• UK disciplinary degrees • WC online booking (screenshot)
Write Now CETL 13Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010
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)
Write Now CETL 15Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010
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.
Write Now CETL 17Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010
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
Write Now CETL 18Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010
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
Write Now CETL 19Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010
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)
Write Now CETL 20Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010
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”
Write Now CETL 21Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010
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”
Write Now CETL 22Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010
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.”
Write Now CETL 23Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010
Students’ areas of study
Write Now CETL Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 28
87
52
80
95
70
39
87
109
101
50
99
99
25
98
77
60
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
1 (2006-07)
2 (2007-08)
3 (2008-09)
4 (2009-10)
Year
Applied Social Sciences ComputingHumanities, Arts, Languages & Education Life Sciences (includes Psychology)Law, Governance & IR Business SchoolArt, Media & Design Not stated
London Met and the Writing Centre1st year - 2006-07
• approximately 400 students
• approximately 675 tutorials 0 20 40 60 80
Males
Females
A comparison of gender distribution of students at London Metropolitan University and the Writing
Centre in 2006-07
London Met
WritingCentre
The ethnic group distribution of students who visited the Writing Centre in 2006-07
35%
17%22%
21%
3%
2% White
Asian
Black
Mixed
Other
Not Stated
The ethnic group distribution of students at London Metropolitan University in 2006-07
45%
55%
White
Non-White
Write Now CETL 29Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010
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
30Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010Write Now CETL
• 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
Write Now CETL Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 31
Aspects of research
Phase 1: mentors’ experiencesWhat 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?)”
Write Now CETL Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 32
Phase 1 - findingsWhat 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
33Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010Write Now CETL
Phase 1 – findings continuedTheme 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
Write Now CETL Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 34
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
Write Now CETL Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 36
Students’ satisfaction
Write Now CETL Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 37
91%
7%2%
Students' degree of overall satisfaction with the tutorials they have had (n=67)
Very satisfied or satisfied
Neither satisfied nor dissatisfied
Dissatisfied or very dissatisfied
Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 38
Motivations for attendingImportance of factors influencing
students' decisions to book their first tutorial (n=77)
0 20 40 60 80 100
Wantingencouragement to help
me stay motivated
Being able to talk aboutmy writing withsomeone else
Wanting assurance thatI'm on the right track
A lecturer'srecommendation
Very or fairly importantNeither important nor unimportantOnly a little important or not important at all
Write Now CETL
Specific writing concerns
Write Now CETL Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 39
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
%
Addressing the question
Critical evaluation/analysis
Developing an argument
Motivation to write
Writing paragraphs
Referencing
Spelling, punctuation and grammar
Content
Structure
Using evidence
Writing in an academic style
Subject- specific writing
Other
Students' reasons for booking their first tutorial (n=78) [multiple answers per student possible]
Specific concerns met?
Write Now CETL Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 40
83%
11%6%
Degree to which students' felt that the reasons for booking their first tutorial were addressed (n=77)
Very or fairly well
Not sure
Not very well or not at all
Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 41
Students’ confidence as writersStudents' self-ratings of confidence about their own writing
BEFORE/AFTER coming to the Writing Centre? (n= 68/69)
0
5
10
15
20
AFTER
BEFORE
Write Now CETL
Write Now CETL Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 42
Thematic analysis of open-ended comments (n=66)
1. Mentor’s approach/process of sessions 25.8% (17)– “laughed about things like bibliographies, and learnt
about it together, as she was not sure how it worked either”
2. Received “help” or “feedback” 25.8% (17)
3. Non-judgemental atmosphere/tone of sessions 18.2% (12)
4. Learnt an aspect of academic writing 10.6% (7)– “building argument and critical analysis”, “how to structure”
5. Attitude to self/writing as a result of session 7.6% (5)– “got more confident about my writing”
6. One-to-one nature of sessions 6.0% (4)
7. N/A 3.0% (2)
8. “don’t know”/”one-off”/other 3.0% (2)
Students asked: What did you like most about your tutorials?
Disciplinarity of tutorialsDegree to which students found it helpful to have a
Writing Mentor from A DIFFERENT/THE SAME subject area (n=66)
30.6
20.323.8 25.4
68.8
13.1
1.6
16.4
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Very or fairly helpful Neither helpful norunhelpful
Only a little helpful or nothelpful at all
N/A
different subject same subject
43Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010Write Now CETL
Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 44
Students’ commentsOn 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.
Write Now CETL
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
Write Now CETL
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)
Write Now CETL Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 46
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?
Write Now CETL Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 47
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
Write Now CETL Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 48
Economic challenges
• Broader context• Demonstrating effectiveness• Criteria for success
– value for money– quality of students’ learning and writing– achievement levels – employment and further study
49Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010Write Now CETL
Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 51
ReferencesAngier, Carole and Palmer, William (2006). Writing Solutions. In Davies, Stevie; Swinburne, David and Williams, Gweno (Eds.) Writing
Matters: The Royal Literary Fund Report on Student Writing in Higher Education, London: The Royal Literary Fund, p15-25.Bruffee, Kenneth A. (1984). Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind’, College English, 46, 635-52.Carino, Peter (1995). Theorizing the Writing Center: an uneasy task. Dialogue: A Journal for Writing Specialists 2.1, 23-27, in Longman Guide
p124-138.Devet, Bonnie; Orr, Susan; Blythman, Margo; and Bishop, Celia (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, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, p196-211.
Ender, Steven C. and Newton, Fred B. (2000). Students Helping Students: A Guide for Peer Educators on College Campuses, Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA.
Lea, Mary R. & 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, Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan, p30-45.
Lunsford, Andrea (1991). Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center. The Writing Center Journal, 12.1, 3-10.Murray, Nicholas and Kirton, Bill (2006). An Analysis of the Current Situation. In Davies, Stevie, Swinburne, David and Williams, Gweno (Eds.)
Writing Matters: The Royal Literary Fund Report on Student Writing in Higher Education, London: The Royal Literary Fund, p7-13.Newman, Melanie (2007, March 16). ‘Appalling’ Writing Skills Drive Tutors to Seek Help. Times Higher Education Supplement, 6.North, Stephen M. (1982). Training Students to Talk about Writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 434-441.Smith, J.A. & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis. In J.A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to
Methods, London: Sage.Tinto, Vincent (1993). Leaving College: Rethinking the Causes and Cures of Student Attrition, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. Vygotsky, Lev. (1986). Thought and Language, revised and edited by A. Kozulin, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.Wingate, Ursula (2006). Doing away with ‘study skills.’ Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 457-69.Yeats, Rowena; Reddy, Peter; Wheeler, Anne; Senior, Carl and Murray, John (In press, 2010). What a difference a writing centre makes: a small
scale study. Education and Training.Yorke, Mantz and Longden, Bernard (2003). The first-year experience of higher education in the UK. HEA Final Report.
Write Now CETL
Write Now CETL Students' Writing in Transition, September 2010 52
Contact:
Kathy Harrington, k.harrington@londonmet.ac.uk, 020 7320 2254Peter O’Neill, peter.oneill@londonmet.ac.uk, 020 7320 1086
Recommended