developing students’ academic writing through collaborative peer mentoring katherine harrington...

Developing students’ academic writing through collaborative peer mentoring

Katherine HarringtonPeter O’NeillSavita Bakhshi

www.writenow.ac.uk EARLI-SIG Writing, Lund, 2008 2

Scope of presentation• Selected findings from multi-phase research study

investigating effectiveness of peer writing tutorials in context of UK Higher Education

• Report on first 18 months of Writing Mentor Scheme based on feedback from around 1300 tutorials focusing in particular on:1. Peer tutors’ views on degree to which they were able to

work collaboratively and non-directively 2. Students’ views on degree to which Scheme supported

their writing development

• Reflect on key factors shaping student experiences of peer-led writing tutorials


London Met Writing Centre• Open in October 2006• Student Writing Mentor Scheme (peer tutoring

programme)

- Avoid institutional duplication (existing Learning Development Unit)

- Offer something innovative in context of UK writing support where peer tutoring is very rare

- Develop an effective, small-scale, evidence-based peer tutoring programme for London Met with emphasis on training and development

- Evaluate a model of student-led writing support that might be implemented in other Higher Education institutions


Rationale and ethos of Writing Mentor Scheme• Fundamental connection between writing and

thinking

• Reflective thought is public or social conversation internalised (Vygotsky, 1986). Cf. Bruffee (1984: 641):

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.

• It follows that engaging students in constructive conversation is likely to lead to better thinking and therefore to better writing


• Such conversation complements a social constructivist view of learning

• Move toward dialogue and collaboration reflects epistemological shift away from seeing reality and knowledge as exterior, immediately accessible and unproblematically knowable (Lunsford, 1991)

• Instead, we have come to view knowledge and reality as mediated by or constructed through language in social use, as socially constructed, contextualised, as, in short the product of collaboration… (Lunsford, 1991:4).

Making meaning through dialogue and collaboration


Peer collaboration• For collaboration to be real, there must be an attempt to

reduce as far as possible the hierarchies inherent in the university (cf. Lunsford 1991).

• As such trained undergraduate peer tutors likely to be ideal facilitators of collaborative learning in fellow students

• Collaborative peer tutorials in writing as an excellent means of getting students engaged in their writing – of cutting through doubts and getting them to actually do something

• “Tutoring in writing is … intervention in the composing process. Writers come to the writing centre sometime during the writing of something looking for help. Often, they don’t know what kind of help is available, practicable, or sensible…. They seem to think that tutoring in writing means either coming to know something new or getting something done to or for them. In fact, though, they need help doing something…” (North, 1982: 434)


Peer writing collaborators and Academic Literacies“Doing away with study skills”• Real understanding of the complexities of disciplinary writing “can

only be achieved within the subject and through explanations, modelling and feedback by subject tutors” (Wingate, 2006: 463)

OUR HYPOTHESIS:• Students who are themselves engaged with coming to terms with

the complexities of their disciplinary discourse 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

• Collaborating – working together – might be even more effective for real understanding than “explanations, modelling and feedback”


1. Mentors’ experiences of Scheme

• To what degree did mentors feel they were able to work collaboratively and non-directively with fellow students?

• Research: Phase 1– Qualitative study, Oct 06 – Dec 07– Thematic analysis of open-ended comments following

1300 hour-long tutorials– 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?)”


Findings: year 1Theme 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


Findings: year 2• Findings from year 1 informed training

programme for year 2

• Same themes emerged from data in year 2

• However, awareness of the importance of working collaboratively (e.g., working as enabler/facilitator, rather than teacher/assessor) was

– more pronounced in tutors‘ reflections on and evaluations of tutorials

– evident across all mentors, rather than concentrated in comments from a few


Mentors’ comments• I think it went very well because she had a lot of ideas and

how to write coming to her practically without my help. It was just a matter of getting her to think about what she is good at.

• She wanted me to do more for her, but I put my foot down and explained that we could work on things together. A tiring, but productive session.

• I got Sally to ask herself questions when reading the paper and she started evaluating [her own work] more throughout the session.

• She felt quite embarrassed at first at asking so many questions, but after that, it became more informal and she realised that I was there to help her and not to assess her.


2. Students’ views of Scheme• To what degree did students feel that the

mentors provided an environment supportive of their own writing development?– Motivations for using Scheme– Students’ specific writing concerns– Students’ attitudes to own writing before and after

tutorials

• Research : Phase 2– Qualitative and quantitative study, Oct 06 – Dec 07– Feedback following over 1300 tutorials– 6 focus groups (n=34)– Cross-sectional survey via online questionnaire (n=99)

• Descriptive statistics and inferential tests• Thematic analysis of open-ended responses


Questionnaire participants

•N = 99•Gender distribution: females (81%), males (19%)•Native languages other than English (71%)•Studying a variety of different subjects, including Psychology (26%), IR and Politics (14%), Art and Design (14%)•Including undergraduate (75%), postgraduate (21%)


F ig ure 10: S tudents' deg ree of ove ra ll sa tisfa c tion with the tutoria ls the y ha ve ha d (n= 67)

90%

8%

2%

V erys atis fied ors atis fied

Neithers atis fied notdis s atis fied

Dis s atis fiedor verydis s atis fied


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?


Motivations for using the Scheme

Figure 6: Importance of factors influencing students' decisions to book their first tutorial (n=77)

0 20 40 60 80 100

Wantingencouragement to

help me staymotivated

Being able to talkabout my writing

with someone else

Wanting assurancethat I'm on the right

track

A lecturer'srecommendation

Very or fairly importantNeither important nor unimportantOnly a little important or not important at all


Specific writing concerns

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

Figure 7: Students' reasons for booking their first tutorial (n=78) [mulitple answers per student possible]


F ig ure 8: De g re e to whic h stude nts' fe lt tha t the re a sons for booking the ir first tutoria l (F ig ure 7) we re a ddre sse d in tha t tutoria l (n= 77)

84%

10%6%

V ery orfairly well

Not s ure

Not verywell or notat all

Specific concerns met?


Students’ attitudes to own writing before and after tutorials

Figure 9: Students' 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


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.


Conclusion

Key factors shaping student experience of Scheme

• Mentor training programme that makes working collaboratively the heart of the scheme and which encourages continuous reflection on its practical application in tutorials

• Students‘ flexibility and willingness to adopt colloborative way of working, even when initial expectations of tutorials may differ (e.g., wanting to have something done to or for them)


Where do we go from here?

• Research: Phase 3 (in preparation)• Relationship between tutorials and

quality of student writing and achievement– Intervention study– Observation and recording of tutorials– Content analysis of student writing, using

discipline-specific assessment criteria– Correlation with essay and examination grades


References

Bruffee, K.A. (1984). Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind’, College English, 46, 635-52.

Lunsford, A. (1991). Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center. The Writing Center Journal, 12.1, 3-10.

North, S.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.

Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language, revised and edited by A. Kozulin, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.

Wingate, U. (2006). Doing away with ‘study skills.’ Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 457-69.


www.writenow.ac.uk

Centre for Excellence in Teaching & Learning

[email protected] [email protected] [email protected]

developing students’ academic writing through collaborative peer mentoring katherine harrington...

Documents

writing support

writing means

writing developmentreflect

students academic writing

london met writing centreopen

student experiences

peer tutors views

social talk