studies in self-access learning journal, 4(1)

SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 1-4 !

! "!

Contents: Volume 4, Number 1, March 2013

Special Issue on Self-Access Writing Support

Edited by Rachael Ruegg

• Editorial by Rachael Ruegg (1-4)

Articles

• Writing Centers: Who are they for? What are they for? by Elton LaClare and Tracy Franz (5-16)

• So You Want to Start a Peer Online Writing Center? by Christine Rosalia (17-42)

• The Learner as Researcher: Student Concordancing and Error Correction by Jacqueline Mull (43-55)

Reviews and Reports

• Announcing the ESL-WOW for Self-Directed Writing Support by Thaddeus M. Niles (56-61)

• JASAL Forum 2012: Making a Difference Through Self Access. Report on the Japan Association of Self Access Learning (JASAL) Forum held in Hamamatsu, Japan in October 2012 by Satomi Shibata (62-69)

Announcement Upcoming special issue: Call for papers!

• Special Issue on Accessing and Accessorizing for Self-Access Language Learning (SALL). December, 2013 (Volume 4, Issue 4)

o edited by Carol J. Everhard!!


! #!

Editorial

Rachael Ruegg, Akita International University, Japan

Welcome to this special issue of SiSAL Journal on Self-Access Writing Support.

I believe that writing is a skill for which self direction is particularly important because it is so

output oriented and as such is often such a solitary activity. Whether in the middle of a thriving

Self-Access Centre, or at home alone in the middle of the night, writers need to know tools they

can turn to for help, and need to understand how they can use those tools to best advantage. I am

therefore glad to have had the opportunity to bring you this special issue on Self-Access Writing

Support.

Articles

In the first article, Elton LaClare and Tracy Franz look at a writing centre in an EFL

context in Japan, investigating who uses the centre and what they use it for. The findings suggest

that in an EFL context, a writing centre has a different function from that of ESL contexts. A

majority of the users in the writing centre investigated were either graduate students or faculty

members. These users came, not seeking advice about how to write, but rather seeking help with

editing of the written product after its completion. The findings suggest that, while different from

the role played by writing centres in ESL contexts, the writing centre plays a crucial role in the

academic endeavours of the university.

In the following article, Christine Rosalia gives an overview of three peer online writing

centres she has been involved in, in three different college contexts. The first one was run on

Moodle in an EFL Japanese context. The second was run on Drupal for Generation 1.5 writers in

American first year composition courses. The third used Google Apps and catered for

international students in an American ESL context. From her involvement in these three different

peer online writing centres, Rosalia offers advice for others who may be interested in setting up

their own online writing centre. She suggests that feedback is best co-constructed by peer tutors

and that peer tutors should be given responsibility for decisions about the online platform, work

guidelines, and protocols. In this way autonomy, interdependence and collaboration can be

developed to enhance the experience for everyone involved.


! $!

Finally, Jacqueline Mull experiments with learner use of a concordancer to self-correct

errors in their writing. While some research has been conducted into the use of concordancers by

second language learners, how much training learners need in order to benefit from the use of a

concordancer is still unclear. Mull addresses this question in her research. Rather than offering

an extensive teacher-led training session, the coordinator offered a five-minute introduction.

Following this, learners played with the concordancer in a more self-directed way and asked the

coordinator if they had any questions. After this training, learners had some success with using

the concordancer to correct errors in writing. This study offers promise for the use of

concordancers as a tool for the self-directed editing of language errors.

Reviews and Reports

Thaddeus M. Niles reviews a writing support website called ESL Writing Online

Workshop (ESL-WOW). The website offers instruction on the writing process, focusing on

grammar and rhetorical conventions and could be useful as a reference tool for learners. It would

be particularly suitable for learners of lower English proficiency levels, for those in EFL contexts

or for learners who are struggling to understand writing instruction in the classroom.

Satomi Shibata reports on the Japan Association of Self Access Learning

(JASAL) Forum held in Hamamatsu, Japan in October 2012. The issues discussed in this report

include: Developing understanding of self-access among faculty, fostering a culture of active

self-access use, integrating language learning into everyday life and integrating self-access with

the curriculum. As stated by Shibata, it is not easy to develop understanding of self-access

learning among faculty or to integrate it into the curriculum. For educators struggling with these

issues, the JASAL Forum would seem to be a good place to get ideas.

Notes on the editor

Rachael Ruegg is a lecturer at Akita International University and the coordinator of the

Academic Achievement Center. She is also a PhD candidate at Macquarie University. She has

been a teacher of English for 13 years in New Zealand, Japan, Germany and China. She is

interested in writing; especially self-review, peer and teacher feedback and the development of

learner autonomy in writing.


! %!

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to thank the writers who contributed to this Special Issue. I would also like to thank the reviewers for the time they devoted to reading and manuscripts and offering valuable feedback and finally the editorial team for their help.

Upcoming special issue: Call for papers! Special Issue on Accessing and Accessorizing for Self-Access Language Learning (SALL). December, 2013 (Volume 4, Issue 4) edited by Carol J. Everhard

SiSAL Journal Vol. 4, No. 1, March 2013, 5-16

!

! 5!

Writing Centers: Who are they for? What are they for?

Elton LaClare, Sojo University, Japan Tracy Franz, Sojo University, Japan

Abstract!

The focus of this paper is the writing center: its users as well as its function within a given context. Four semesters of data were examined for the purpose of identifying trends in writing center usage and assessing how these have fulfilled the stated objectives of the center at the time it was founded. It was discovered that more than half of all users were either graduate students or members of faculty, suggesting a vital role for the center in assisting emerging and established scholars in bringing their work to publication. The data also revealed that the vast majority of writing center users came in search of assistance with editing, indicating that users regard the service as product-oriented. !

Keywords: writing center, L2 writing, EAP, writing tutor, writing process, Japanese university, EFL writing, peer tutoring!

!

Shamoon and Burns (2001) present the modern American university as a Fordist

institution, a site of production where the next generation of professionals across the range of

academic and technical disciplines are, for want of a better word, manufactured. Their

purpose is not to portray a deliberately dystopian view of the academy and its work, but

rather to reveal how industrial practices such as the maximization of efficiency and the

reduction of costs have shaped institutional attitudes toward entities like writing centers and,

by extension, writing center labor. To draw on an example commonly raised at writing center

conferences, it is often taken for granted that tutors, being well-equipped to remediate an

array of writing problems, should have no qualms about doing so without the participation of

the original author. Likewise, there is an expectation that tutors perform their services for

little or no pay as their contribution to enhancing the status and competitiveness of the larger

institution.

The situations mentioned above are illustrative of the type of attitudes directors and

tutors have noted, discussed, and struggled against for decades. It seems quite natural for

those involved in writing centers and their work to campaign against what Shamoon and

Burns (2001) refer to as a “market-driven” (p. 72) educational environment, where centers

simply perform the functions demanded by the various stakeholders. However, in a climate of

declining enrollment and increasing competition, such as that faced by universities in many


!

! 6!

countries, it makes sense to question whether one can afford to cling to fixed (and often

foreign) notions of what a writing center is or ought to be.!Even when limiting the focus from writing centers in general to those located within

universities in Japan (as we would like to do here), it is still important to acknowledge a large

amount of diversity. Existing studies have examined the appropriateness of using an

American model of the writing center in Asian contexts (McKinley, 2010), but these have

focused mainly on cultural variables and overlooked more fundamental distinctions that are

trans-cultural, specifically the differences between public and private institutions, or between

institutions that provide liberal arts education and those that specialize in science and

engineering. The imperative to add ‘value’ to the institution and make the most of limited

resources has constrained writing centers from the early American pioneers to the more

recent iterations that have appeared throughout Asia. In light of Shamoon and Burns’ (2001)

explanation of writing center operations as being governed by the Fordist principles of the

larger institution in which they occur, it is easy to see why this imperative is likely to be

greater in a private university, or a university whose choice of academic offerings makes it

more at ease with the metaphor of higher education as a form of industrial production.!

The perception of writing centers as offering a service has been nurtured by tutors and

directors alike from the earliest incarnations right up to the present. However, it is a service

that has always sought to impose limits and restrictions upon the types of assistance on offer.

While in the majority of cases these limitations have a sound rationale, perhaps to maintain

the boundary of what constitutes a student’s own work, or to prevent faculty members from

dropping off papers to be collected at a later date, others are what Clark and Healy (2008)

refer to as “defensive strategies” (p. 245), more reflective of political than instructional

concerns. Itemizing these concerns or attempting to address whether or not they are justified

is beyond the scope of this paper. Rather, we will explore our own writing center data in an

effort to determine whether or not it is desirable or even feasible to place an embargo on

certain types of services, those which writing center orthodoxy suggests are off limits. !

The Birth of a Writing Center!

The addition of a writing center was first proposed to the administration of Sojo

University (a private science and engineering institution located in Kumamoto, Japan) in late

2010. It is worth mentioning that the initial proposal was among the earliest initiatives of a


!

! 7!

newly-formed English language learning center (known as the Sojo International Learning

Center or SILC) that had been established, resourced, and staffed at considerable expense. As

such, it is fair to assume that the idea of creating a writing center was born (at least in part) of

an eagerness to demonstrate value to both the administration and the broader university

community. This eagerness is heavily reflected in the wording of the original project proposal,

which states the writing center’s objectives as follows: !

1 Provide English writing support for students

2 Support the publication of faculty research in English

3 Provide an opportunity to build closer ties between the SILC and the rest of the

university

4 Provide an avenue of research for the SILC faculty

5 Be a unique service available at few Japanese universities, one which increases

the inherent and perceived value of the English language program

!While the proposal also mentions that the center would “adhere to basic tenets of

L1/L2 writing center theory and practice” (personal communication, July 12, 2010), the

tenets themselves are never made explicit. The vagueness owes more to a concern for those

tasked with translating and explaining the proposal than any desire to obfuscate the intentions

of the center. Although it may not have been by design, this vagueness has served a valuable

function during the past two and a half years as the center has struggled to find its niche. !As with many fledgling writing centers, the number of appointments during the first

several months was disappointing. The poor response was likely the combination of

numerous factors (such as students and faculty not knowing about the center, lack of

understanding of the services offered and absence of writing from the curriculum). The

unfortunate consequence of this slow start was that the center’s hours of operation were cut

back and the tutors assigned to different tasks. Despite an eventual rise in the number of

appointments, the original schedule has yet to be restored. It should also be noted that records

show a natural ebb and flow in the number of appointments made throughout the year, a

phenomenon most likely resulting from the demands of the students’ departmental courses.!Underuse is not a problem unique to new centers. Many directors have reported drops

in appointments or fluctuations they cannot easily explain to university administrators. The

existing literature on writing centers is replete with accounts of various interventions, from

scavenger hunts (Durhman, 2003), to referral forms, to orientations (McKinley, 2011).


!

! 8!

However, in circumstances of scant human resources, there is little incentive to attempt to

dramatically increase the number of writing center appointments. The danger of this is that by

failing to challenge the status quo, opportunities to expand and enhance our mission may be

missed. !

The Users!

As the title of this paper suggests, there are two fundamental questions we would like

to answer: who are the users of writing centers such as ours (those situated in private science

and engineering-focused institutions), and how are they using the center (prewriting, focus,

organization, development and support, editing)? In the paragraphs to follow we will tackle

the first of these questions by referring to data collected during the 2011/12 and 2012/13

school years. !

Table 1 shows that of the total number of appointments, 94 were attended by

undergraduate students, 46 by graduate students, and 36 by faculty. Though it would appear

that undergraduates are making the most use of writing center services, it is worth pointing

out that graduate students and faculty often collaborate on research projects. For this reason it

may be more illuminating to consider these two groups together. Thus, undergraduates make

up roughly half of the appointments (53%) while graduate students and faculty make up the

remainder (46%).!

Table 1. Distribution of Writing Center Appointments across the Three Types of User (Undergraduate, Graduate, Faculty)

Type of user! Number of appointments!

Approximate percentage of total appointments!

Undergraduate! 94! 53%!

Graduate! 46! 26%!

Faculty! 36! 20%! !

However, looking at the number of individuals attending appointments from the

various groups, a different picture emerges. Table 2 reveals that, while just over half the total

appointments were attended by undergraduates, they represent only 35 percent of the total


!

! 9!

number of individuals attending sessions. Graduates meanwhile represent a third (34%), with

the remainder (31%) being members of faculty. !Table 2. Raw Numbers of Writing Center Users from Each Type (Undergraduate, Graduate,

Faculty) and Percentage of the Total Population of Users!

Type of user! Number of individual users!

Approximate percentage of total individual users!

Undergraduate! 24! 35%!

Graduate! 23! 34%!

Faculty! 21! 31%!!

A distinguishing feature of writing centers embedded in ESL/EFL contexts is that

they extend their services to graduate students and members of faculty, groups presumed to

be in little need of such assistance in places where English is the L1. Much has been written

about the struggles of emergent scholars faced with the double burden of remaining at the

forefront of research in their own fields while trying to elevate the level of their English

composition skills (see Ammon, 2000; Belcher, 2007; Canagarajah, 2003; Casanave, 1998;

Curry & Lillis, 2004; Flowerdew, 2000). If nothing else, scholarship in the field has

established the need for writing centers staffed with professionals who can assist the global

community of scholars in bringing their work to an international audience through

publication in English. !Flowerdew and Li (2009) report that “publication has become a graduation

requirement for Master’s and PhD students” (p. 160) in many mainland Chinese universities.

Indeed, for those studying science in PhD programs at elite universities, publication must be

in an English-medium overseas-based journal. While we are aware of no such requirements at

Japanese universities at present, publishing in English is clearly encouraged and regarded as

beneficial to both the student and the university as a whole. Meanwhile, there is a growing

expectation among supervisors that graduate students prepare presentations in English for

international conferences.!Another factor that sets ESL/EFL embedded writing centers apart from those situated

in English speaking countries is the absence of peer tutors. While nearly all American writing

centers rely on what Riley (1994) refers to as the “happy amateurism” (p. 32) of student labor,

formalized peer tutoring within the writing center is notably rare elsewhere. The most


!

! 10!

obvious reason peer tutoring does not take place in our particular context is the shortage of

competent writers among the student population. Although there are also cultural factors that

complicate peer tutoring, we will not attempt to explore these here. Instead we will focus on

the ramifications for a center unable to offer its users support from more skilled peer tutors.!

Although the situation is gradually changing, it has long been thought by Japanese

secondary students that science and engineering universities are ideal places from which to

escape the burden of English study. It is a notion that universities themselves have done little

to dispel until quite recently. However, despite the clear commitment of many institutions to

improve their English language programs, the culture of underachievement in English persists.

Many students of science and engineering seem to feel that if they are poor in English, they

are at least in good company. The presence of peer tutors might be sufficient to disrupt the

cozy apathy that maintains the status quo. Murphey (1998) has written of the importance of a

near peer role model, someone whose language skills exceed most others – though by a

margin that is more likely to inspire than intimidate. In addition to being more approachable

than native English speaking tutors, peer tutors can offer much-needed L1 support and

encouragement. Although we are aware of no studies offering empirical evidence that the

presence of peer tutors in ESL/EFL contexts increases writing center use among

undergraduates, it is not unreasonable to assume they would have such an effect. !To conclude, our data reveals that graduate students and faculty account for a large

percentage of the total writing center appointments (46%) and an even larger percentage of

the total number of users (65%). This surely distinguishes our center not only from those

which operate in English-speaking countries but also from those located in the liberal arts

faculties of international universities in Japan, such as Sophia University (see McKinley,

2011). Undergraduates comprise just 35 percent of the total number of writing center users.

Scholars of second language writing in Japan have identified a number of conditions that

might assist us in explaining this: de-emphasis of writing in the secondary EFL curriculum

(Reichelt, 2009), lack of recognition of EFL writing as important (Reichelt, 2009), or lack of

authentic purposes for EFL writing (Hirose, 2001). The absence of peer tutors is another

likely explanation for the low percentage of undergraduate users.!

The Uses!


!

! 11!

As with most writing centers, regardless of context, the foundation of our service is

the one-on-one tutorial session. Although some highly innovative centers offer a workshop-

only program, ours has made no such attempts to break with orthodoxy. In addition to limited

human resources (at present just three tutors are responsible for handling all writing center

appointments), the types of services sought by our users do not lend themselves to such

innovative approaches. In our tutorial log, tutors were asked to indicate the main focus of a

session by choosing options from a drop-down menu. Table 3 shows these options and how

the writing center appointments of 2011/12 and 2012/13 were distributed across them. !

Table 3. Distribution of Writing Center Appointments across Pre-selected Areas of Focus!

Prewriting! Focus! Organization! Development & Support!

Editing! N/A!

3! 2! 3! 8! 146! 12!!

A great preponderance of tutorial sessions (nearly 84%) were dedicated to assisting

users with issues related to editing. The reasons for this are varied and will be explored in

detail in the paragraphs to follow, but let us start with a couple of general observations. As

mentioned previously, a large number of the center’s users are graduates and faculty, nearly

all of whom arrive with text-in-hand. Indeed, only a small number of appointments (less than

2%) were attended by users without a prewritten text of some description. Of all the

appointments during the period in question, no more than a few involved tutoring that

extended beyond the issues raised by the text itself.!If we may return for a moment to the “market-driven” nature of writing center work,

it is easy to see where demand lies in a science and engineering institution such as ours.

Considering the data presented in Table 3, it is hard to imagine that our writing center would

survive an outright prohibition on editing. McKinley (2011) reports that students visiting his

writing center “expected tutors…to read their papers and correct their grammar” (p. 293).

This he cites as an example of the “misconceptions of the writing center service” (McKinley,

2011, p. 294). However, in circumstances where the vast majority of users are coming in

search of a particular service, is it desirable or even feasible to deny it? Clearly the writing

center service is highly context-dependent, and it should be pointed out that the center


!

! 12!

McKinley describes is located within a liberal arts faculty whose students are required to

complete their academic work in English.!The high value undergraduate users place on grammar correction likely stems from

previous EFL writing experiences. Translation tasks are common in the secondary classroom,

but these rarely go beyond the sentence level (Hirose, 2001). Thus, the emphasis remains on

accuracy, with little attention given to broader structural issues. For example, according to

Dyer and Friederich (2002), Japanese secondary students are unaware of the concept of

process writing. In the case of members of faculty, most making appointments with writing

center tutors do so for the purpose of fine-tuning scholarly articles in preparation for

publication. Nearly all express an eagerness that their papers be rendered error-free. While

this preoccupation may have its origins in EFL writing practices that date back to secondary

school, it is more than justified by the rigorous standards of academic publishing. !

Perhaps it is worthwhile to turn our attention for a moment from the services users

want to those they seem not to want. Referring once again to Table 3, one can see that few

come in search of assistance with what most Western-trained tutors would identify as the

basic steps of the writing process. This is not surprising when one considers that

undergraduate users are unlikely to have had any exposure to the rhetorical frameworks of

English language writing (Heffernan, as cited in Reichelt, 2009). On the other hand, faculty

and most graduate students arrive with what Shamoon and Burns (2001) describe as “an

operative familiarity with the steps in the writing process” (p. 66). Considering the

experience of these writers and the nature of their texts, the categories shown in Table 3 are

mostly irrelevant.!In addition to indicating the main focus of the session, writing tutors were also asked

to record the specific task requested by the user. These are listed in Table 4, with a distinction

made between the number of sessions dedicated to the task and the number of users

requesting the task. This distinction was made because, while at first glance it may appear

that “Testing” was of significant concern to writing center users, in fact it was of significant

concern for only two users. Also, it should be noted that three tasks – “Editing of abstracts,”

“Editing of titles,” and “Editing of scholarly research papers” – may be combined as these

tasks were all in service of one goal: scholarly research paper publication. When combined,

these items make up the bulk of tutorial tasks. !


!

! 13!

Table 4. Tasks from Tutorial Sessions Including Number of Appointments Dedicated to the

Task and Number of Users Requesting the Task!

Task! Number of sessions!

Number of users!

Testing: TOEFL (TWE), IELTS! 18! 2!

Editing of abstracts of scholarly articles! 7! 5!

Editing of titles of scholarly articles! 8! 8!

Editing of scholarly research papers! 54! 29!

Essays of application (Graduate school essay for study abroad, Scholarship essay)!

3! 2!

Job application, resumes, CV! 6! 4!

Presentation—scholarly and contests (slides, speeches)!

29! 21!

In-house publications: (announcements, brochures, etc.)!

4! 3!

General English writing practice!!

40! 4!

!

One of the strongest rationales for foregoing the one-on-one tutorial in favor of

workshops is that it increases efficiency by reducing duplication of tasks or work. However,

in situations such as ours where the work is non-standardized, the opposite effect is observed.

Indeed, attempting to create workshops or other learning opportunities in the absence of

either supply (tutors) or demand (users) is without practical or ideological justification.

However, we acknowledge that the situation is unlikely to remain exactly as it is now, and

that we should prepare for new eventualities. As writing begins to take a more prominent

place in the undergraduate curriculum, demands on the center and its services will no doubt

change. Perhaps these new demands will best be met by offering workshops, perhaps not.

Only time will tell.

Conclusion!

In our own context, we expect that graduate students and faculty will remain the

primary consumers of writing center services. It is also clear that for the foreseeable future at


!

! 14!

least, editing work will remain the cornerstone of what we do. Although some in the field of

writing center theory may view this as a form of exploitation, we prefer to regard it as “a

coming together of means and circumstances that serve the productivity of both the university

and the center” (Shamoon & Burns, 2001, p. 65).

As English continues to gain traction as the lingua franca of academic discourse, it is

likely that we will witness the appearance of more and more writing centers throughout the

non-English speaking world. It is not hard to imagine that ESL/EFL embedded writing

centers will eventually outnumber those situated in English language contexts. Perhaps they

already do. As such, it is time to take a fresh look at writing centers and the work they do.

Who are they for? What are they for? If nothing else, it is time to recognize the diversity that

exists and initiate an open and frank exchange of ideas that will assist in shaping the future

course of writing center labor. The resulting discussions will inevitably offer up differing and

contradictory visions of our mission and service, but the process of redefinition can hardly

take place otherwise. !

Notes on the contributors!

Elton LaClare is a lecturer at the Sojo International Learning Center at Sojo University in

Kumamoto, Japan. His research interests include learner autonomy, second language writing,

reading fluency, and CALL.!

Tracy Franz also serves as a lecturer in Sojo University’s International Learning Center in

Kumamoto, Japan. In addition to writing center work, her professional interests include L2

composition and developmental writing. !!

References!

Ammon, U. (2000). Toward more fairness in international English: Linguistic rights of non-native speakers? In R. Phillipson (Ed.), Rights to language: Equity, power and education (pp. 111-116). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. !

!Belcher, T. (2007). Seeking acceptance in an English-only research world. Journal of Second

Language Writing, 16(1), 1-22. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.12.001!!Canagarajah, A. S. (2003). A somewhat legitimate and very peripheral participation. In C. P.

Casanave & S. Vandrick (Eds.), Writing for scholarly publication: Behind the scenes in language education (pp. 197-210). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.!

!


!

! 15!

Casanave, C. P. (1998). Transitions: The balancing act of bilingual academics. Journal of Second Language Writing, 7(2), 175-203. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(98)90012-1!

!Clark, I. L., & Healy, D. (2008). Are writing centers ethical? In R. Barnett & J. Blumner

(Eds.), The Longman guide to writing center theory and practice (pp. 242-259). New York, NY: Pearson Longman.!

!Curry, M. J., & Lillis T. (2004). Multilingual scholars and the imperative to publish in

English: Negotiating interests, demands, and rewards. TESOL Quarterly, 38(4), 663-688. doi:10.2307/3588284!

!Durhman, L. (2003). Greatly improving writing center attendance. The Writing Lab

Newsletter, 27(10), 6-7.!!Dyer, B., & Friederich, L. (2002). The personal narrative as cultural artifact: Teaching

autobiography in Japan. Written Communication, 19(2), 265-296. doi:10.1177/074108830201900202!

!Flowerdew, J. (2000). Discourse community, legitimate peripheral participation, and the

nonnative-English-speaking scholars. TESOL Quarterly, 34(1), 127-150. doi:10.2307/3588099!

!Flowerdew, J., & Li, Y. (2009). The globalization of scholarship: Studying Chinese scholars

writing for international publication. In R. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 156-182). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters.!

Hirose, K. (2001). Realizing a giant first step toward improved English writing: A case in a

Japanese university. In I. Leki (Ed.), Academic writing programs (pp. 35-46). Alexandria, VA: TESOL.!

!McKinley, J. (2010). English language writing centers in Japanese universities: What do

students really need? Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 1(1), 17-31. Retrieved from http://sisaljournal.org/archives/jun10/mckinley/!

!McKinley, J. (2011). Group workshops: Saving our writing centre in Japan. Studies in Self-

Access Learning Journal, 2(4), 292-303. Retrieved from http://sisaljournal.org/archives/dec11/mckinley/!

!Murphey, T. (1998). Motivating with near-peer role models. In B. Visgatis (Ed.), On

JALT ’97: Trends & transitions (pp. 201-205). Retrieved from http://jalt-publications.org/archive/proceedings/previous/jalt97.pdf!

!Reichelt, M. (2009). A critical evaluation of writing teaching programmes in different foreign

language settings. In R. Manchón (Ed.), Writing in foreign language contexts: Learning, teaching, and research (pp. 156-182). Tonawanda, NY: Multilingual Matters. !

!Riley, T. (1994). The unpromising future of writing centers. The Writing Center Journal,

15(1), 20-34.!!


!

! 16!

Shamoon, L. K., & Burns, D. H. (2001). Labor pains: A political analysis of writing center tutoring. In J. Nelson & K. Evertz (Eds.), The politics of writing centers (pp. 62-73). Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.!

!


! "#!

So You Want to Start a Peer Online Writing Center? Christine!$%&'()'*!+,-./0!1%((/2/*!1).3!4-)5/0&).3!%6!7/8!9%0:!!!

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to share lessons learned in setting up three different peer online writing centers in three different contexts (EFL, Generation 1.5, and ESL). In each center the focus was on the language learner as a peer online writing advisor and their needs in maintaining centers “for and by” learners. Technology affordances and constraints for local contexts, which promote learner autonomy, are analyzed. The open-source platforms (Moodle, Drupal, and Google Apps) are compared in terms of usability for peer writing center work, particularly centers where groups co-construct feedback for writers, asynchronously. This paper is useful for readers who would like a head start or deeper understanding of potential logistics and decision-making involved in establishing a peer online writing center within coursework and/or a self-access learning center.

Keywords: peer feedback, open source technologies, online learning, second

language writing, online writing center

The benefits of peer learning for student writers has a long and well

documented history, with research evidence of success across higher education

(Falchikov, 2005; Topping, 2003). In the United States, Whitman (1988)

summarized systematic benefits of peers teaching peers for students, teachers, and

institutions. They found that students gained “a more active role in the learning

process” when engaged in peer teaching because “reviewing and organizing

material as a ‘teacher’ was more cognitively rigorous than simply receiving it as a

‘student’ alone—to teach was to learn twice” (p. 5). Other benefits for peer review1,

often cited specifically for language learners, are that the giver of feedback gains

self-evaluation skills for assessing their own writing (Chien, 2002) and improves

their own writing proficiency (Lundstrom & Baker, 2009), especially their

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1 In this paper peer review, peer feedback, peer tutoring, and peer teaching are used synonymously. Although I recognize the political implications of each term and the time period or group that tends to use each term, I use them synonymously because of the practical similarities I want to highlight.


! "#!

appreciation of audience (Tuzi, 2004). Improvements have been documented even

in cases when the peer reviews a paper written above their current writing

proficiency (Marcus, 1984).

For classroom language teachers, the facilitation of peer review can be a rich

and regenerating resource. With proper student training and structure, adding peer

review to a class increases the amount and promptness of individualized instruction

to writers. For example, in an efficient thirty minutes with a class of 30 writers a

teacher can circulate the classroom making sure 30 writers get and give feedback on

the ideas of their essay. In large classrooms, as Laurillard (2008) notes, each student

would normally get as little as 5 minutes of individualized teacher attention per

week. However, in a “flipped”2 reading and writing classroom, in which a teacher

sets up “reciprocal teaching” activities that include peer review, he or she is

circulating around the room refining (and learning from) peer dialogues. The

teacher is using peer feedback to notice information about the student reviewer and

writer simultaneously (Paulus, 1999). How does the student use metacognitive

strategies? How is the student summarizing theirs and others’ texts? How are they

questioning, clarifying, and predicting as they read and write? Do they find one

role--being a reviewer or the reviewee--easier? Is the dialogue real, encouraging,

helpful, and productive?

Peer dialogue and its written artifacts are not only very telling for assessing

metacognitive literacy skills. Teachers might also use the artifacts of peer review to

understand ways to innovate and reset their own pedagogy. One example of this can

be seen in Black’s (2005) study of English language learners who formed a

homegrown fan fiction network online, outside of formal school. She observed the

“stickiness” of these writers’ online feedback: when an author left feedback on

another author’s blog, the two authors were automatically “linked”. Once linked,

Black observed her reluctant second language writers thrive in a professionalized

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!2 The “flipped classroom” is a term used by educational technologists to refer to an approach whereby the traditional PPP approach (teacher Presents, students Practice, students Produce as the teacher assesses) is reversed: the teacher gets students to produce (take a quiz or problem solve first), to help each other (practice), and then, students to present to each other. The initial lesson (teacher presentation) is replaced by asking students to do homework such as watching a youtube video lecture the night before classroom time.


! "#!

community of writers, where writers gave each other moral support and concrete

resources, such as story skeletons. She found that writers using socially mediated

technology gained voice--became more autonomous multilingual writers--and it

inspired her to think of why this productivity so sharply contrasted with these

writers’ school experiences. We may take blogging as a writer/audience tool for

granted today, but in the early 2000s, the time of Black’s research, paying attention

to this peer learning (the stickiness of blogs) meant a teacher gleaning pioneering

teaching techniques from the students she might have expected learning from the

least. Capturing ideas for professional development from students’ peer learning

may be particularly important for teachers of academic writing who may not have

taken course work in the teaching of writing during their training. Second language

scholars, still today, cite the dearth of professional preparation of writing teachers

(Leki, Cumming, & Silva, 2006; Ortmeier-Hooper & Enright, 2011).

A keen eye on peer tutoring and learning is not only helpful to teachers, but

also to institutions. When students work as ‘teachers’ they consider teaching as a

future profession; thus, peer tutoring serves as a form of informed teacher

recruitment (Whitman, 1988), with many writing center peer tutors becoming

teachers (Gillespie & Lerner, 2007). However, teacher recruitment is not the limit of

peer tutoring’s effect. One research project by Hughes, Gillespie, & Kail (2010)

looked at 126 former peer tutors across three universities who had had their peer

tutoring experience in the 1980s (24%), 1990s (33.6%), or 2000s (42.4%), and who

later had careers in and outside of education. This study found that peer tutoring

gave peer tutors “a new relationship with writing; analytical power; a listening

presence; skills, values and abilities vital in their professions; skills, values and

abilities vital in families and in relationships; earned confidence in themselves; and

a deeper understanding of and commitment to collaborative learning” (Hughes et

al., 2010, p. 14).

Peer tutoring by multilinguals in centers for English writing

While writing centers have been normalized on many college campuses, it is

relatively new that peer tutors be English as a Foreign or Additional Language (EFL


! "#!

or EAL) writers and tutors. Some reasons for a lack of inclusion of EAL peers

tutors in writing centers (in English and non-English dominant countries) include:

lack of exposure or acceptance of writing center pedagogy; language teachers

already successfully grappling with peer review in their action-based research

classrooms (Min, 2005; Hu, 2005); insufficient student readiness for learner

autonomy (Cotterall, 1995), and lack of financial, institutional, and/or philosophical

structure for supporting peer tutors (Mynard & Almarzouqi, 2006). In addition, in

some contexts there may still be perceptions by students (and some teachers) that

language learners do not want peer review by nonnative speakers because of a

privileging of the native speaker (Kramsch, 1997) or because of previous classroom

experiences that did not successfully use peer review in tandem with teacher and

self-assessment (Nelson & Carson, 2006). Teachers and students might worry that

the writing center experience would be a mere replication of classroom peer

feedback, a negative experience, or, if outside the classroom, something difficult for

self-access learning centers to consistently fund. Indeed, Bedore and O’Sullivan

(2011) used multiple research methods (surveys, focus groups, and follow-up

interviews with students, novice teachers, teacher educators, and a program

director) to document how at one university there was a “complicated” and “deep-

rooted ambivalence” toward peer review, despite appreciation of its potential

benefits. Confidence and commitment to peer review correlated with one’s teaching

experience. As one research participant explained:

I think we all struggle… [H]ow do we teach peer review? How do

we model it? Not just, why it's useful, but how to actually do it. I

mean, we've had so much trouble finding an effective way to teach it.

(Bedore & O’Sullivan, 2011, p. 11)

Benefits of online peer writing centers

Online peer writing centers offer several ways to combat logistical,

philosophical and/or training issues related to peer tutoring for and by language

learners. Affordances include the possibility for the exchange of papers to occur

outside the classroom, the extension of time for response (self-, peer, and teacher


! "#!

response) and the allowance of different kinds of anonymity (i.e., “blinding” of

reviewers, authors, and/or the use of aliases), all of which are important if learners

and teachers lack confidence in facilitating peer feedback. A common issue

undermining confidence includes language learners’ (as tutees and tutors) not

having enough metacognitive awareness or prior experience with English

metalanguage to discuss writing deeply and at various levels. Tutors worry about

how to respond to a writer who may ask a question such as “How is my grammar?”

(when the paper they are reading has many categories of grammatical error) or

“How are my prepositions?” (when the tutor feels the writer’s paper has more

important content-related weaknesses that ought to be addressed first). Because

online written feedback given asynchronously is automatically recorded, these

records can be used by writing center directors or teachers as learning objects. They

can be used for recursive training on the doing and facilitating of peer feedback.

Therefore, in situations where teachers and/or learners lack confidence, or simply

want to exploit the interaction for more learning, an online record of the process

(Hounsell, 2007) is helpful. Unlike in face-to-face centers, if a tutor wants to

“observe” another tutor as a way of professionally developing, they do not need to

schedule an observation: the “evidence” they want to observe is already available to

them. Staff of an online writing center automatically share experiences, and can

“data-mine” for feedback they wish to emulate, or further discuss.

Choosing the Technology, Work Protocols, and Mission for Your Center

The technology necessary for an online peer writing center depends on the

needs, resources, and quality of feedback hoped for by its constituent users. In the

three peer online writing centers this article describes, peer advisors would write

feedback and a teacher would lead a discussion (give feedback-on-feedback) of how

well the feedback:

(1) capitalized on the writer’s strength(s),

(2) paid attention to affect,

(3) was organized so that it was noticeable and salient on a computer

screen,


! ""!

(4) fostered more learning,

(5) modeled good language use, and

(6) considered multiple self-assessments (the writer’s and the peer advisors’)

In each project, facilitating peer feedback to reach these six criteria was

purposefully designed to improve the peer advisors’ own writing, self-regulation,

and ability to give quality feedback to writers (Rosalia & Llosa, 2009). It was

important in all projects that feedback was not just a product sent to a writer, like

putting a coin into the feedback machine and waiting for feedback to come out.

Though providing quality feedback was important, equally important was the

process of negotiation, for and with peer advisors. Therefore, in each system there

were three readers for every submission: reader 1, reader 2, and a facilitator that

helped to check that together reader 1 and reader 2 wrote quality feedback. In other

words, a facilitator made sure that the finished feedback satisfied the six criteria, but

also that in the process of feedback generation, that the peer advisors wrote notes to

each other. Instances of notes were about where one reader had left off and had

expected the next reader to continue, or about what one reader assessed the quality

of the feedback to, currently, be. A recurring thread was making sure peer feedback

(re)triggered and sustained self-assessment (theirs and the writer center client’s) and

the use of teachers--as means, and as resources, not as ends (Ciekanski, 2007). A

writer’s own self-assessment was considered to be a critical feature of a good online

peer writing center because it signaled the extent to which the writer was able to

self-monitor and demonstrate metacognitive awareness.

Comparisons of Technologies Used in Support of Centers

Given that sustainability of any online writing center depends on its ability

to fund or sustain itself, open-source and free technologies were used in all the

settings of the centers discussed. Limited budgets were used to pay for staff, when

available. In all of the settings described here, a writing center director was present,

but this may not need to be the case in all contexts. Table 1 compares peer tutors,

their contexts, technologies chosen, level of administrative control given to the


! "#!

writing center director (e.g., ability to directly make user accounts or customize

users’ experiences), and how writers submitted writing for feedback. While one

center paid peer tutors, two used a classroom model, at first, in which students did

peer tutoring as a course requirement, and later competed for a limited number of

“paid” positions. Peer tutoring as an initial course requirement can serve two

purposes: it can be used as a “pilot” to document to funders that a center is worth

implementing, and, second, as unpaid training. As such, both the peer tutor(s) and

the director of a center are able to see if online peer tutoring is a good fit.

The author recognizes, too deeply, the struggle for funding to pay peer tutors

(or a director). While a program might not be able to fund peer tutors, some creative

solutions used include winning funds to buy peer tutors’ textbooks for courses in

their major, asking for semester stipends for tutors (rather than hourly pay), and

providing tutors one-on-one tutoring on their own homework, as a form of

bartering. One-on-one tutoring, while time-consuming for a director / teacher, is

rewarding in that tutors’ homework is often the same kinds of assignments they

would later see submitted to a center. Finally, while paying students for the

painstaking work of providing quality online feedback to writing center clients is

still the best option, when interviewed about pay issues, tutors have often said, after

the experience, that money was not the key motivator for them. Indeed, online user

logs and records consistently show that tutors work beyond the time they have been

paid for--a clear indicator that the work is engaging enough in its own right.

However, part of valuing peer feedback is paying tutors and a director for their time

and growing expertise. Despite positive research in support of peer tutoring (e.g.,

Hughes et al., 2010), funding will likely always be an issue. Documenting the

positive and lasting benefits of peer tutoring can only help both tutors and

administrators find creative solutions for a valuable service. (See Neal Lerner’s

work, especially Lerner (2001), for more on writing center assessment issues).


! "#!

Table 1. Comparison of Peer Online Writing Centers in Three Contexts

Contexts and peer advisors!

Technology platform chosen!

Instructional Technology support!

Role given to writing center director!

How writers submitted writing for feedback!

Context 1- EFL Undergraduates; Self-Access Learning Centre (paid tutors)

Moodle moodle.org

Open-source, university IT department shared access

Administrator Dreamweaver- designed web-site linked to a list of genre-specific Moodle questionnaires (set so that no login was required and so that users could elect to submit an essay or a summary, for example)

Context 2- American college Freshmen; composition class (Generation 1.5 writers), (paid tutors only after one semester of training within required coursework)

Drupal drupal.org

Open-source; no university IT support, hired project programmer

Member of design team, no direct administrative control

Users logged into Drupal, a one-size fits all questionnaire was part of the user dashboard

Context 3-International ESL students in first semesters at an American college (paid tutors with some prior volunteer or class work with the director)

Google Apps $%%$&'()%* /enterprise/apps/education/

Free, no hosting needed, no university IT support

Administrator Peer advisors elicited questions from writers about their writing directly into a shared document (no separate questionnaire)


! "#!

Contexts 1, 2, and 3 were, in order: a center for EFL undergraduate writers

in Japan, a center for an intact undergraduate class of multilingual computer

systems majors in the United States, and a center for ESL pre-college and

community college writers, also in the United States. In order to promote writer

learner autonomy, feedback began and ended in each of these systems with a

writer’s help-request. That is, in order to submit writing for feedback, writers were

required to self-assess their own writing and complete a help-request. !Peer tutors were then to address this help-request, even if it did not match

what they felt should be a priority in making the writing better. They were also to

do this even if the question was vague, such as the always popular: “How is my

writing?”.

Context 2 was unlike the other two contexts in that, initially, the peer

advisors had a dual role of being both peer advisors and writers who submitted their

own writing in the online system. They were required to do this as part of three

classroom assignments. Later, students in Context 2 applied and competed for five

limited paid positions (one-time semester stipends). These five tutored a

composition class on assignments similar to the ones they had just completed in

their composition class.

It is important to note that in each center, peer advisors, over time, chose the

way to present their online center. In the EFL context, the peer advisors chose a

mascot and splash page as their gateway for submissions, whereas when peer

advisors were Generation 1.5 (Roberge, Siegal, & Harklau, 2009) computer

systems’ majors, they felt their peers would prefer to go directly into a content

management interface. In the American ESL project, where Google Docs were

being used heavily in higher education, peer advisors focused on integrating their

online center into what users were already using. Likewise, this last group, instead

of recommending resources to writers via a discussion board (as in Contexts 1 and

2), the ESL group experimented with a Facebook page, again using tools that

already had currency in their context.


! "#!

Figure 1. Center for EFL undergraduates: Splash page >> Submission self-select page

Figure 2. Center for undergraduate generation 1.5 computer systems majors: Drupal login page>> “submission central” dashboard for submitting and reviewing peer writing

Figure 3. Center for ESL pre-college writers: Gmail invitation to share a Google Doc >> writer opens up their Google Drive

The author’s experience in directing these centers (Context 1 for 4 years,

Context 2 for 1.5 years, Context 3, the newest, for 1 year), is that it is not so

important which technology or bundle of technologies the peer advisors use, but


! "#!

rather, that peer advisors are active participants in the initial and the continued

choosing of technological solutions.

Shared decision-making

Shared decision-making is particularly important in deciding how peer

advisors and staff work together to co-construct feedback to writers: peer advisors

need to feel comfortable in how they work together through technology because the

process of giving feedback requires complex layered readings of screen text and

dynamic “feedback-on-feedback.” Figure 4, is a sample of complex layered reading

and talk about feedback between three peer advisors in Context 3. Reader 1 used

blue font to show her voice (and says to the writer: “this is one of the best essays we

have worked on in the writing center, so far.”), Reader 2 used orange font, and

Reader 3 (the “Facilitator”) used green font. The writing center director used a

comment bubble to check in with peer advisors about the overall process.

I wonder however, if we should say that “this is one of the best essays we have worked on in the writing center, so far.” While this tone is encouraging, I’m not sure that it gives our center a slightly biased tone. What do you think, facilitator? I agree. I do think it is not appropriate to say that.

Figure 4. Sample colored in-text feedback-on-feedback among three peer advisors,

plus writing center director comment bubble on overall process

When this process is collaborative, I have seen comments like the following in

Figure 5 from peer advisors about their work:

It's a lot of accounts to keep track of, but I'm glad that we're finally being productive.

I loved reading Joy’s (pseudonym) final feedback because it really shows how nitty gritty the process is. In the internal feedback portion, there is so much negotiation and colorful mess! And with the facilitator comment bubbles, oh boy! But the final version looks sooo neat. This is looking better and better. =) I am having trouble accessing the Facebook page, period.


! "#!

Figure 5. Peer advisor open reflection regarding state of writing center work

Note that Appendix 1 shows the finished feedback that this advisor refers to.

While this reflection on how technology trials are going (using two Google App

logins and a third Facebook login) is mixed, there is no question that the peer

advisor is involved and positive about where she and her colleagues are going in

evaluating technologies for their center. The post is open and has a spirit of

collaborative experimentation.

An important consideration in setting up an online peer tutoring system is a

belief in a few fundamental values: that students’ words are their own and not to be

appropriated; that the role of a tutor is to be respectful of a peer’s writing (a fellow

tutor’s or the writer’s), no matter what the level of ability; that co-construction of

feedback is beneficial because it requires negotiation of the degree and direction of

feedback to the writer; and that the end goal of peer tutoring is not to “fix” a peer’s

essay (the “put developing essay in, get perfect essay out” model), but to promote

learner autonomy with attention to affect and camaraderie.

Because staff of an online center do most of their communication mediated

by technology and the written word, sensitivity to writing, response, and protocol

are critical. This is precisely what helps improve peer advisors writing skills, but it

takes some practice for new peer advisors depending on their readiness for learner

autonomy (Cotterall, 1995) and experience collaboratively editing the same text

online. For example, in a chain of feedback production, if a second reader does not

give a rationale or note changes they made to a first reader’s text, the third reader

will likely be confused. Consider, in Figure 6, how a third reader would need to

reconstruct what is so far given to a writer, Joyce (pseudonym), to be helpful. For

orientation, in Figure 6, we see the work of Taro, a peer advisor still in training,

who had confused other writing center staff by logging into the center outside his

assigned hours, and then working on a submission as if he were the only constructor

of feedback. Unlike the first reader of the submission (her work is in blue font

and/or underlined) who addresses other writing center staff with a “Hi everyone”,


! "#!

Taro does not write anything to the group, nor does he respond to the first reader’s

request for feedback on her feedback. She had worried if her feedback had been

“too self-centered”, helped “too much”, or had addressed the writer’s request for

“verb tense” help. As a second reader, Taro (whose work is in italics and/or red

font) did not respond to his colleague’s opening dialogical remarks or feedback

assessment. Additionally, Taro appropriates the writer’s text (the bold and black

text) giving a novice and, perhaps, unhelpful reason for revision: he writes that the

writer should use his version, as it is “more smooth”. Here is the post verbatim:

[Reader 1’s separated note to the group] Hi everyone, I think I gaved too self-centered advice which was too much help for her in this essay... ! Please check if my advice is good for her. Also, I think there are more points to improve about her word choice, so I'd like you to check it as well. In my opinion, her verb tense has no problem, but if you have a different idea, please correct it. Thank you! ******************************************************************************************** [Reader 1’s feedback to the writer] Dear Joyce (pseudonym for writer), Your essay is very easy to follow because you explained in detail about your teacher! However, we had some sentences whose meanings are not so obvious for us. Let's have a look at the sentences underlined. [Writer’s text from the writer’s essay] She gave us a lot of assignments and test. They were really terrible things. For example, if I made a mistake on her test which we have to write 80 sentences, I had to write again 10 times each sentence. It took really long time to finish writing. 1. "They were really terrible things. We can understand what you mean, but you need to make sure whether the meanings are clear if you have audience. Also, this sentence means like you had a lot of assignments and tests and it was so hard for you, but some audience might take this sentence is negative. Maybe you wrote about great points of your teacher, so you might want to write it in more positive way. For example, you can say like "She gave us tremendous quantity of /quite a few assignments and tests, which told on me." or "We had so many assignments and tests that we couldn't ..." etc. [Taro’s response as Reader 2] We rewrote some sentences with other words which might be more smooth to read.We hope avobe examples would be helpful for your further improving. Please challenge. => She gave students lots of assignments and tests that were very hard for us. For instance, when errors on the test were found she required us addional writing of 80 lines on the error points that took really long time to finish.


! "#!

Figure 6. Sample of Taro’s lack of negotiation with other peer tutors during online advice co-construction

Taro was not used to a layered collaborative approach to co-constructing

feedback. Still in his first weeks of training, this approach was understandably new

to him. One can see the difference between his response to a writer’s work, and the

response of the first reader, a peer advisor with more experience. Though still with

weaknesses, the first reader’s advice to Joyce considers “audience” and a conflict in

tone between the writer saying “great points” about the subject of the essay (a loved

former high school teacher) and then “terrible things.” It can be inferred that this is

why she worried that she should say more to the writer about “word choice.” There

is some indication that Taro internalized some of the first reader’s advice not only

because he uses the subject-pronoun “we”, but also, because his revision uses the

first reader’s suggestion to adjust “word choice” or to better explain the “terrible

things” sentence. However at this stage of his collaborative writing development,

Taro is not showing the higher order skill of providing feedback on feedback or

eliciting critique of his work. As a second reader, rather than improving Reader 1’s

feedback, Taro brings more confusion to the text. Nor is his feedback convincingly

promoting Joyce’s learner autonomy. His “please challenge” will likely be

ineffective because of its vagueness.

When asked about working outside his assigned time, Taro used metaphors

of needing to get a product back out to a customer: “Process talk” among staff

meant less to him than finishing many submissions in a short time. Thoughts about

whether he had been appropriating a writer’s words instead of addressing their

questions about their own writing, or his responsibility to respond to colleagues’

questions about the quality of their feedback, in his mind, slowed production down.

Defensive of his more authoritative style for feedback giving, Taro explained,

verbatim:

I wonder if my style will not fit to the students [sic] expectation. The

posted essay contents are very friendly and they are contents to be

written in the e-mail such as on the mobile phone and/or home PC. If


! "#!

the Prof. accept the such [sic] form (style) of essay or letter, I am a

not right person to touch to their posted essay.

To the outside reader, it may be hard to understand that Taro is talking about

peer advisor work. In contrast to the reflection on advising work of the peer advisor

in Figure 5, Taro does not feel shared ownership of the co-construction process, yet.

After just initial peer training, he was not ready to give up the traditional hierarchy

of schooling roles—and some learners never are. The “students” Taro refers to are

his co-workers who got angry with him for working outside of his assigned time (it

meant submissions they were to have worked on had already been taken by Taro).

The “essay” Taro refers to is the feedback post, and “the Prof” is the writing center

director, who attempted to discuss word by word Taro’s advice to the writing center

client, Joyce. More training or group discussion was needed to address Taro’s

conflicts more directly and clearly. This is why it is recommended to build in

regular face-to-face meetings with staff. Initially, writing under the micro lens of

shared online forums, even if one uses anonymous aliases, can be uncomfortable.

Taro was not expecting so much attention to be drawn to how he was giving

feedback or to give so much attention to others’ feedback. Likewise older peer

advisors were used to work in a certain way. A risk that peer feedback systems

sometimes take is the time that is required for a group to define, understand, and

refine their collaboration. A group may need up to one semester to find their

working grove--another reason for piloting peer advisor work carefully.

Because all communication occurs through writing, workflow protocols in

an online writing center may be more important than that of a face-to-face center.

Appendix 2 shows the workflow systems co-designed with peer advisors in the

respective centers. As explained earlier, an affordance of an online center is that

feedback to writers is co-constructed. In an online center based upon a philosophy

of group co-construction, peer tutors are interdependent, unlike in a face-to-face

center where a peer tutor works with a writer in a one-to-one exchange. Taro’s not

following protocol and not responding to Reader 1’s call for feedback on her

feedback (Figure 6), meant the third reader had more work to do because Taro had


! "#!

not drafted feedback with Reader 1. The third reader or facilitator would need to

write back to Taro and Reader 1 separately (giving each feedback about the quality

of what was written individually) and still make choices about condensing and

synthesizing final feedback to the writer. Protocols and communicating through

writing are paramount, and are good pressures on peer tutors, if they see them as

opportunities for refining both their applied technology and writing skills. The

absence of physical context presents an authentic communicative context in which

clear communication through writing becomes the need driving peer tutors’ efforts.

Recommendations. Having peer advisors develop their center’s work

manuals and protocols, themselves, is one way to make sure that a peer online

writing center is by and for peer tutors. Because it is common and practical for

writing centers to have peer tutors with varying amounts of expertise, older tutors

can initially lead newer tutors in this work. When writing protocols (and revisiting

them over time), peer tutors internalize and personalize a complex process.

Innovation is spurred because in their explaining and negotiating protocols with

other members, better ways of working are often realized. Table 2 shows how peer

advisors in each center were first shown a method, which after one semester they

could elect to change. First using one system helped them to later be in a position of

comparing and appreciating other technologies. Thus, for example, in Center 1 peer

advisors experimented with online chat before deciding to use asynchronous

discussion boards. In Center 2, peer advisors first used the Drupal system as a

requirement for their freshmen composition class, but later altered the system to

include Skype chat for managing who was reading which submission. In Center 3,

peer advisors had first used Moodle and then chose Google Apps. In each case, it

was not the technology chosen that was important, but that choices were informed

by experience and feelings of ownership. In all three of these centers, weekly face-

to-face meetings were led or co-organized by peer advisors to discuss work that the

staff had done the previous week together online.


! ""!

Table 2. Technology-based Comparison of Peer Advisor Management Across Centers

Peer Advisor Choices!

Moodle-based system!Context 1

(EFL, Japan)!

Drupal-based system!Context 2

(Generation 1.5, NYC)!

Google-App system!Context 3!#$%&'!()*+!

Means of co-construction !

Peer advisors choose a discussion board and different colored fonts to show role (Reader 1, Reader 2, and Reader 3/ Facilitator)!

Peer advisors choose track changes in Word, with some Skype !

Peer advisors choose different colored fonts for the roles of reader 1 and 2, but then comment bubbles for reader 3 or for facilitation.!

Previously trialed technology!

Live text chat! Track changes in Word and email !

Moodle-based system!

Means of anonymity !

Online: Peer advisor uses an alias at Moodle login page!

Computer: Peer advisor must go to computer system preferences to set track change user stamps !

Online: Peer advisor can choose to use a personal, work, or shared work email address !

Means of receiving submissions and writer self-assessments!

Moodle questionnaire tool which allows for radio buttons or open field questions!

Drupal questionnaire tool which uses open field questions (no radio buttons)!

Inside a shared doc, writer is asked to change black text to blue text, as the way of indicating multiple choice answers !

Means of delivery of feedback to writer!

A text inside the body of an email!

Word file with Track Changes emailed !

As a shared Google Doc (email notification); writer can comment on each piece of comment bubble feedback by pressing “resolve comment button”!

Means of checking who is working on what: !

Shared wiki; and sometimes, Moodle messenger/ audio ping!

Customized “submission que”: Submissions are locked until reviewer is finished; Skype chat !

Additional Google Doc used as a “submission tracker”; chat feature within documents and Google Chat !

Constraints Found!

If users (writers or writing center staff) copy and paste text from Word into Moodle, Moodle will generate strange “MSNormal” code in text boxes (e.g.,

For the administrator, uploading and downloading numerous documents can be tedious, overwhelming, and can lead to errors. !!

Google is moving toward a system called Google Drive that asks users to sync files to their home computers--this would be a problem for using a shared Google account among peer advisors (e.g.,


! "#!

@#%@%). In addition, sometimes Moodle page will not load, text will “disappear,” be truncated, or user will get an error message about “a script” readability issue!

For peer advisors, Microsoft Word Track Changes will crash the computer operating system or the Word Application, if users have made too many comments or if they are too long (e.g., over 50 words long)!

syncs cause loss of work among too many computers). !!Multiple simultaneous account logins (e.g., $%&'()*+,-./,01, 0234205*+,-./,01)!are not allowed!

Heuristics and work-arounds!

Users use mail programs such as gmail to write, autosave, or clear formatting from Word file text before pasting it into Moodle!

Users must name their files very carefully (e.g., CindyEssay_Reader1); administrators need to back-up word files used in co-construction, because Drupal file management is not easy to search!

Continue using the old version of Google Docs; At the Google App administrator level, take away from users the “Drive” plug-in; Organize docs into folders, be aware of notification settings; Share one master account (e.g., $%&'()*+,-./,01) for setting up “invites” and use another gmail account outside of work network (e.g., 43($6*1'3(7/.,') in order to “tab” between accounts as one works!

Affordances!!

Moodle allows multiple users to share editing rights to not just one page but to multiple tools (questionnaires, wikis, timed quizzes that can mimic timed writing tests); Moodle has a good interface for “hiding” some features from some users; it was created by an educator, and anticipates educator needs!

Drupal is highly customizable with more plug-ins and templates compared to Moodle; has a professional clean look!

An educator account comes with mail accounts for up to 3000 users (useful in contexts where email administrative oversight is a concern); allows mobile device integration!


! "#!

As Table 2 demonstrates, especially for “heuristics and work-arounds”,

using open source or free technologies necessitates regular communication among

staff. Choice, flexibility, and problem solving are indigenous to peer writing center

practice.

!Conclusions

At question in this paper was not whether online peer tutoring works or not.

In the author’s experience, if peer tutors decide how, are actively involved, listened

to, and supported by teachers and writing center directors, the benefits are rich and

can be shared by many constituents. Instead, at question is what an online peer

writing center might look like for learners in your setting. This paper has reviewed

different tools used in different contexts (to give you a head start) and encourage

you to focus on (1) how learners will manage technology choices, and (2) become

resilient to the “messiness” inherent in choosing tools and protocols to take charge

of their own learning. The need for regular revisits by the staff of work protocols is

emphasized because the main affordance of an online writing center is also its

challenge: peer tutors use technology and writing to communicate and to be

interdependent. This approach argues for the co-construction of peer feedback

facilitated by a teacher and later, as the center grows, with senior peer advisors. Co-

constructing online feedback requires layered readings of feedback-on-feedback.

Groups learn how to do this together, over time, and with much collaboration.

Regular face-to-face meetings with staff make possible a cohesive online life. So

you want to start an online writing center? Make sure it is built upon

interdependence, a commitment to social autonomy, and collaboration over time.

Notes on the contributor !Christine Rosalia is an Assistant Professor of TESOL. Her research interests include

second language writing, educational technology, and the fostering of self-regulated

learning among language learners. She is currently applying her experience

directing online writing centers to her work with NYC language teachers.


! "#!

!"#$#%#&'#(!

!Bedore, P., & O'Sullivan, B. (2011). Addressing instructor ambivalence about peer

review and self-assessment. WPA Journal, 34(2), 11-36. Black, R. W. (2005). Access and affiliation: The literacy and composition practices

of English language learners in an online fanfiction community. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(2), 118-128. doi:10.1598/JAAL.49.2.4

Chien, C. L. (2002). Strategy and self-regulation instruction as contributors to

improving students' cognitive model in an ESL program. English for Specific Purposes, 21(3), 261-289. doi:10.1016/S0889-4906(01)00008-4

Ciekanski, M. (2007). Fostering learner autonomy: Power and reciprocity in the

relationship between language learner and language learning adviser. Cambridge Journal of Education, 37(2), 111-127. doi:10.1080/03057640601179442

Cotterall, S. (1995). Readiness for autonomy: Investigating learner beliefs. System,

23(2), 195-205. doi:10.1016/0346-251X(95)00008-8 Falchikov, N. (2005). Improving assessment through student involvement: Practical

solutions for aiding learning in higher and further education. New York, NY: Routledge Falmer.

Hounsell, D. (2007). Towards more sustainable feedback to students. In D. Boud &

N. Falchikov (Eds.), Rethinking assessment in higher education: Learning for the longer term (pp. 101-113). New York, NY: Routledge.

Hu, G. (2005). Using peer review with Chinese ESL student writers. Language

Teaching Research, 9(3), 321-342. doi:10.1191/1362168805lr169oa Hughes, B., Gillespie, P., & Kail, H. (2010). What they take with them: Findings

from the peer writing tutor alumni research project. Writing Center Journal, 30(2), 12-46.

Gillespie, P. & Lerner, N. (2007). Longman guide to peer tutoring (second edition).

New York, NY: Longman. Kramsch, C. (1997). The privilege of the nonnative speaker. PMLA, 112(3), 359-369. Laurillard, D. (2008, April). Digital technologies and their role in achieving our

ambitions for education. Professorial lecture conducted at the Institute of


! "#!

Education, University of London, UK. Retrieved from http://eprints.ioe.ac.uk/628/1/Laurillard2008Digital_technologies.pdf!

Leki, I., Cumming, A., & Silva, T. (2006). Second-language composition teaching

and learning. In P. Smagorinksy (Ed.), Research on composition: Multiple perspectives on two decades of change. (pp. 141-170). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.

Lerner, N. (2001). Choosing beans wisely. The Writing Center Newsletter, 26(1), 1-

5. Lundstrom, K., & Baker, W. (2009). To give is better than to receive: The benefits

of peer review to the reviewer’s own writing. Journal of Second Language Writing, 18(1), 30-43. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2008.06.002

Marcus, H. (1984). The writing center: Peer tutoring in a supportive setting. English

Journal, 73(5), 66-67. doi:10.2307/816981 Min, H-T. (2005). Training students to become successful peer reviewers. System,

33(2), 293-308. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.11.003 Mynard, J., & Almarzouqi, I. (2006). Investigating peer tutoring. ELT Journal,

60(1), 13-22. doi:10.1093/elt/cci077 Nelson, G., & Carson, J. (2006). Cultural issues in peer response: Revisiting

“culture”. In K. Hyland & F. Hyland (Eds.), Feedback in second language writing: Context and issues (pp. 42-59). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Ortmeier-Hooper, C., & Enright, K. A. (2011). Mapping new territory: Toward an

understanding of adolescent L2 writers and writing in US contexts. Journal of Second Language Writing, 20(3), 167-181. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2011.05.002

Paulus, T. M. (1999). The effect of peer and teacher feedback on student writing.

Journal of Second Language Writing, 8(3), 265-289. doi:10.1016/S1060-3743(99)80117-9

Roberge, M, Siegal, M., & Harklau, L. (Eds.). (2009). Generation 1.5 in college

composition: Teaching academic writing to U.S.-educated learners of ESL. New York, NY: Routledge.

Rosalia, C., & Llosa, L. (2009). Assessing the quality of online peer feedback in L2

writing. In R. de Cássia Veiga Marriott & P. Lupion Torres (Eds.), Handbook of research on e-learning methodologies for language acquisition (pp. 322-338). Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.


! "#!

Topping, K. (2003). Self and peer assessment in school and university: Reliability,

validity and utility. Innovation and Change in Professional Education, 1, 55-87. doi:10.1007/0-306-48125-1_4

Tuzi, F. (2004). The impact of e-feedback on the revisions of L2 writers in an

academic writing course. Computers and Composition, 21(2), 217-235. doi:10.1016/j.compcom.2004.02.003

Whitman, N. A. (1988). Peer teaching: To teach is to learn twice (Report No. 4).

Washington, DC: ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Reports. Retrieved from Education Resources Information Center website: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED305016.pdf!

!


! "#!

Appendix 1

Example Final Feedback to a Writer from the ESL Peer Online Writing Center !

Hi Joy,

We are so happy you are sharing your writing with us at the Writing Center. We will do the best we can to make this feedback a vehicle to speed your writing abilities. Be very welcome to work with us! You have told us about your writing: “ Writing in english is not easy for me. This is the first time I’m studying how to write essays or statements in English. I also believe that my vocabulary is very simple and limited for a graduate level. I will need to focus on grammar, sentence structure and vocabulary while I gain practice in academic writing.” You have also told us: 1) Your purpose with this writing is practicing for the TOEFL and GRE essays as well as for the Personal Statement for Graduate School applications. 2) For content, you would like us to focus our feedback on the development of your Ideas. 3) Related to structure and mechanics, you would like our focus be on Verb Tenses and in Vocabulary.

4) This is the first draft of the essay. 5) You think it is important for us to know your opinion on your writing (your personal assessment)

And here is the feedback we have prepared for you:

This is an interesting piece of writing that includes a variety of complex sentence structures and a good exploration of ideas. We liked your thesis statement because you set yourself up to explore the merits and drawbacks of technology.

There are a couple of things that we have provided feedback on –

This is a well written essay:

Vocabulary -- essentially, the vocabulary you use is precise and rich . We liked your use of "obsolete" “mediate” and " permeated"

Grammar is good (not a problem with verb tenses at all and few mistakes)


! "#!

Sentence structure used in the essay shows fluency in your writing. We saw many complex sentence structures like this one:

The old fashion way of sending hand-written letters is a very antiquated way to send a warm greeting to a friend, compared to all the options Facebook, Twitter, Gmail and smart phones can bring to your hand.

We caught two sentences that have some structure you have to work on and marked them below.

Strengthening the development of your essay: We like the example that you gave of your brother and Internet research. But perhaps it may also be good to consider why it’s not good enough to just look on the Internet for your answer. What kind of research is good to do on the Internet and what kind is not as powerful? Why?

TOEFL or timed writing strategies: Time your work. it is important to develop this topics in a short time (20 minutes approximately, so you have to write less but well). If you want some more practice on typical TOEFL topics check out the WRITER RESOURCES we put here on our home page: powc.org We’d love to know what you think of the ETS site. By the way we do not see a title for your essay, was there a prompt?

A small change -- don’t forget to indent paragraphs.

Your essay with some comments that you can discuss more with us (if you like by pressing REPLY) I’ll (Christine) facilitate this advice on behalf of our tutors. We’d be happy to know any questions or feedback on our feedback you had for us :-D You can ask us questions by using comment bubbles yourself or emailing us at [email protected]. We’d also love to see more of your writing :-D

The contemporary world is regulated in most part by technology. Electronic devices mediate everything we do, from the moment we wake up until the time we close our eyes to go to sleep. Our thoughts, feelings and ideas are compromised by technologies which make communications faster, easier and more efficient. There is a new way of communication that human beings are adapting to, changing our traditional means of interconnecting with each other, but at the same time creating a big gap between individuals, until the point of isolation. Electronic devices are becoming more common every day. We are constantly front of new technologies, which will make our lives more efficient. It is true that some machineries and artifacts can make our lives, easier and faster than ever. For example, going shopping, paying bills, studying and even meeting people was never so simple. Also (by using?) new technologies like smartphones and computers, one person can reach another one in a fraction of the time; but are we really communicating to each other? One

1/1/13 5:49 PM

1/1/13 5:49 PM

1/1/13 5:49 PM

1/1/13 5:49 PM

1/1/13 5:49 PM

Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$We think you meant the idiom FOR THE MOST PART here? See http://idioms.yourdictionary.com/for-the-most-part$

Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$(parallelism: you wrote faster and easier, so the last word must also reflect this comparative.)$

Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$A reviewer said to you here: This is a good thesis statement that shows that you will explore the new way of communication as well as its drawbacks. You mention very specifically the drawback (isolation), but perhaps this statement can be stronger by mentioning what this new way of communication is.$

Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$(Perhaps the word you’re looking for is confronted by, is it right?) Or did you mean IN FRONT OF? What is the effect you want to have on your reader here? If you use CONFRONTED you get our emotion. If you use IN FRONT OF we have an image of a person in front of a computer screen. Which do you want?$

Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$WITH is the appropriate preposition to use here. See ozdic.com and look up “communicate” See how WITH is used with PEOPLE?$


! "#!

of my biggest concerns is the amount of time that we spend connected to the Internet, chatting with friends, checking this and that, without realizing that we’ve been actually alone, without moving, without doing more than looking at a screen. Younger generations are even more attached to electronic devices. In the last ten years technology has permeated almost all aspect of our behavior. Social networks are frequented by teenagers who find themselves more comfortable communicating trough (spelling?) a computer than having a face to face conversation in real life. As an example, when I ask my teenage brother for something, his first and most frequent tool for research is the Internet. The answers are there, and everyone can post them. It seems like we are forgetting our traditional way of communication and human beings are getting used to be isolating(isolated) from each other, interconnected only trough (spelling? through?) the computer networks. The old fashion way of sending hand-written letters is a very antiquated way to send a warm greeting to a friend, compared to all the options Facebook, Twitter, Gmail and smart phones can bring to your hand. One short text updating your profile and you receive notifications from everyone. It is simple and definitely saves our time. But the truth, however, is that we are loosing complex conversations between each other and our interactions with the rest of the world is every day becoming more simple and venal. Technology, indeed, make our lives easier and efficient. The way we go about accomplishing our daily duties is simpler because we have new technologies that allow us to save time, money and avoid some complications. But Life is definitely more complex than that. A lot of ordinary actions such as informal conversations in the company of others or writing letters are now obsolete. We are getting use to live isolating from each other becoming dependent to electronic devices as the easiest way to keep in touch.

1/1/13 5:49 PM

1/1/13 5:49 PM

1/1/13 5:49 PM

1/1/13 5:49 PM

1/1/13 5:49 PM

1/1/13 5:49 PM

1/1/13 5:49 PM

1/1/13 5:49 PM

1/1/13 5:50 PM

1/1/13 5:50 PM

1/1/13 5:50 PM

1/1/13 5:50 PM

Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$We completely agree!$If you actually want to see an interesting TED TALK on this subject, Shirley Turkle is really interesting! She points out a similar point to you here. http://www.ted.com/talks/sherry_turkle_alone_together.html -$

Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$(How many aspects - one or more than one?)$

Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$(Can you think of a more precise word than behavior, perhaps one that makes us think about our actions connecting with others?)$

Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$(Can you think of a drawback related to just using the Internet to research a question without communication? Perhaps a question to consider is: What is knowledge without communication and verification?)$

Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$This is a good complex sentence, but if you divide it into two simple sentences, you can see that the first part is a fragment.)$Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$(check spelling)$

Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$One reviewer said: ( I guess venal in English means corrupted, and you meant vacuous, isn’t it?)$

Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$One reviewer said: (You bring up a good point here, Diana. I have to wonder though -- are you saying that hand-written letters are something we should continue, or should it be replaced by a greeting from social media? That’s not exactly clear because in the beginning you say it’s a “warm greeting”, but that it’s also efficient. But we also don’t know how to maintain conversations anymore. Furthermore, I think this paragraph may be much better as your first body paragraph. It follows the sequence of your thesis statement better -- that there is a newer and more efficient way to communicate, but that there are problems.)$

Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$(check subject- verb agreement)$

Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$(getting “used to”? Did you leave out a ‘d’ here?)$

Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+-$(Hum... this grammar is hard: getting used to living isolated from each other: USED TO + Noun form; TO LIVE + ADJ FORM)$

Comment: !"#$%##&$'()*+,&+- (Check your collocation: http://www.ozdic.com/collocation-dictionary/dependent )$

... [1]

... [2]

... [3]

... [4]

... [5]

... [6]


! "#!

Appendix 2

Comparative Workflows of Peer Advisors in Three Online Writing Centers EFL Center (Moodle-based system)

1. Peer Advisor checks survey for submissions 2. Updates a shared wiki so that the group knows what submission they are

working on 3. Goes back to submission, transfers writer’s help-request into a private

discussion board thread for negotiating and co-constructing feedback 4. Writes draft 1 of advice 5. Updates the shared wiki telling of the work that they did, then starts another

reading if more time on their shift; may act as a first reader or as a second reader on a different “open submission”

6. Waits for feedback-on-feedback from other peer readers and teacher regarding the quality of their feedback.

Generation 1.5 classroom center (Drupal-based system)

1. An assignment for class is due; peer advisors are also writers and submit their writing to a Drupal system. A questionnaire is used to spur self-assessment and to direct peer advice.

2. After personal submission, acting as feedback givers, peer advisors download a Microsoft Word file and give feedback using the track change tool. Preferences are changed in Word so that an alias is used as the comment name. A submission “lock” button is pressed and others cannot download the same submission thus making it impossible to mistakenly have two people working on the same submission at once.

3. Give feedback as a first reader. 4. Upload Word file with track changes, saving file with the name of the writer +

first reader. 5. Fill out a form to Reader 2 telling of their concerns about the current state of

feedback to the writer. 6. Download another submission; lock the submission; work as a second reader,

helping to improve the peer feedback of a first reader. 7. Upload and give comments. 8. Wait for feedback-on-feedback from other readers and/or teacher.

Pre-college ESL center (Google App-based system)

1. Peer advisor checks shared email for enquiries to use online writing center 2. When finding an enquiry, shares a Google document that is a questionnaire

with writer 3. Waits for writer’s response 4. Uses another Google document shared with other staff as a “submission

tracker” 5. Acts as first or second reader on other submissions as needed. 6. Waits for feedback-on-feedback from other readers and/or teacher

!


43

The Learner as Researcher: Student Concordancing and Error

Correction

Jacqueline Mull, Research Institute of English Language Education, Kobe, Japan

Abstract The idea of language learners using a concordancer, to autonomously investigate vocabulary and structure in a target language was suggested over 30 years ago. Since then, some research has explored this idea further, but the potential benefit of concordancers in the hands of learners is still largely unexplored – especially with regards to structure. This study investigates what learners are able to accomplish when asked to investigate an English corpus with a concordancer in order to correct grammar errors in an essay. The study was conducted after only 30 minutes of training on a concordancer. Participants reactions to the software and to analyzing the target language autonomously are also shared. While participants’ reactions were mixed with regards to using a concordacer for error correction, all participants expressed an interest in using a concordancer during their writing process – something which was beyond the scope of this study – but which suggests a potential value for learner exposure to concordancers for autonomous language investigation.

Keywords: centred, writing centre, Japanese university, EFL writing

Proponents of autonomous learning have long encouraged educators to

rethink the traditional, teacher-centered classroom and instead explore ways to help

students build the skills and confidence they need to seek out answers on their own.

According to Dam (2011), autonomy is not about learners studying completely on

their own or doing all the work independently of an instructor. Rather, it is a

partnership between learners and instructors with the purpose of encouraging the

learner to pay attention to their own gaps in knowledge, create their own goals and

find strategies that will address both. Of course, with proper support, guidance and

tools to answer their own questions, a learner can do a great deal of language

exploration and skill building on their own, as well.


44

Literature Review

Writing offers an excellent opportunity for students to reflect on their own

language ability and notice gaps in their interlanguage. While struggling to create

language, learners are likely to generate a wide variety of questions. If a student is

not comfortable acting in an autonomous way, they will likely bring questions to a

teacher or other “expert” for answers. Legenhausen (2011) argues that “learners

need to be encouraged to also pay attention to formal structures but without being

explicitly taught or instructed” (p.36). If learners are familiar with language

structure, they are better equipped to analyze language when they see it. This

ability to analyze opens doors for learners to research answers to their own

questions as those questions are relevant.

Johns (1991) proposed teaching learners to analyze authentic target

language sentences as a way to promote learner autonomy. The tool he used was a

concordance. A concordancer is a simple piece of software designed to search

through large, principled collections of text, pull out every instance of the search

term, and list those instances for analysis. For example, a simple Key Word in

Context (or KWIC) search for the term “who” produces a list of results such as the

following (Figure 1):

Figure. 1. An Example of a Concordancer

Concordancers have been used to gain insight into researchers’ first

languages, and Johns was enthusiastic about the potential of such a research tool in


45

the hands of second language learners. Tribble and Jones (1990) suggested a

number of ways corpus results might be used in the classroom and Reppen (2010)

gives an updated, easy-entry guide to using corpora in the classroom for beginners.

Since the early nineties a number of studies have shown the value of using a

concordancer for vocabulary exploration (Cobb, 1997; Todd, 2001). Cobb’s study

found that learning vocabulary with concordance results led to better retention than

doing the same activities with a single example sentence. With concordancers,

learners can quickly see their target vocabulary in authentic contexts. They can find

out how frequent a particular word is and what other words tend to collocate with

it. If the corpus is designed carefully of writing samples that match the target style

of writing (academic essays or medical documents, for example) language variation

can be taken into account and help inform writing choices (Reppen, 2010).

Along with vocabulary, it is also important to learn grammar in an authentic

context. Ideally, learners could analyze concordance results to make conclusions

about the target language structure, but this is a more complicated task than

analyzing vocabulary. In order to use a concordancer to analyze language structure,

learners must be able to find suitable language samples and look beyond the

vocabulary to find patterns in the structure. To ease some of the difficulty when

crossing over to structure analysis, instructors may find suitable concordance lines

for the students, so that students need only focus on analyzing the language for a

result that is certain (Tribble & Jones, 1990). While this certainly eases the burden

on the student, it may hurt student autonomy.

Gaskell and Cobb (2004) attempted to mediate this challenge by starting

their study by giving teacher-selected concordance results to students. Results were

associated with a highlighted grammar error and the students then used these

results to create a hypothesis about the target language that could correct their

errors. Once students were familiar with analyzing the results, they were asked to

use the concordancer to find their own samples to analyze. While the first half of

the program was quite successful, fewer than half the students persisted in finding

their own results in the second half of the program. Gaskell and Cobb noted that


46

students who failed to persist tended to be lower level than the group who

persisted, and also suggested that more training may have improved their numbers.

Kennedy and Micelli (2011) conducted a case study where students were given

extensive training with the concordancer and then used the tool to investigate

vocabulary and grammar while writing. Two of their three participants succeeded

in making the software their own by developing personal strategies for finding

useful information through simple searches as described above. They both noted

the value of searching openly through the corpus for expressions and phrasing that

may not have occurred to them otherwise. The third participant, who struggled with

the concordancer, noted difficulty with the user interface and a lack of confidence

analyzing the resulting concordance lines.

While student use of concordancers still holds promise, what kind of

training and how much training is needed to help students be fully successful with

it is currently under investigation. Kennedy and Miceli (2010) had a full apprentice

program that resulted in very promising use of a concordancer. Chambers (2005)

argued against excessive training, pointing out that the goal was not to create full

linguistic researchers. Even so, her own study into student use of concordancers

required 9 hours of training before participants started her core project. Similarly,

O’Sullivan and Chambers (2006) required 3 weeks of training before asking

students to correct grammar errors in their own essays using a concordancer.

Unfortunately, studies investigating student use of concordancers for

analyzing target language structure have been few and we are still a long way off

from identifying what, if any training, can help students truly take command of the

software to make their own inquiries into the target language. Another question that

has not been asked is how much learners can do without training. While it is safe to

assume training will not have a negative impact, and will likely improve learners’

effectiveness with a concordancer, there seems to be an unspoken assumption in

student concordancing literature, like the studies mentioned above, that training is a

prerequisite for using a concordancer. This case study calls that assumption into

question. It asks the following questions:


47

Assuming virtually no prior training with a concordancer:

1. What do students do intuitively with the software when peer editing for

grammar with a concordancer?

2. How do students react to the software as a tool for writing autonomy?

Methodology

Participants

This study involved two pairs of students from the upper-intermediate

level of the Intensive English Language Program (IELP) at a University in the

United States. All participants had TOEFL scores of 520 or better and eventually

hoped to fully matriculate into a degree program at the university. All four

participants were clearly motivated as evidenced by their participating in this study,

which promised them nothing more than the opportunity to learn more about

English.

For anonymity, pseudonyms (of the participants’ own choosing) were used.

The first pair consisted of Edison (from South Korea) and Y (from Thailand). The

second pair were Emmy (from South Korea) and Maria (from Thailand). First

languages were mixed to promote English discussion during the work sessions.

Task

The study centered around grammar error correction in peer essays and

therefore, before the study, three essays were prepared for the participants to

correct. Each essay was written by the researcher but modeled after authentic

persuasive essays that had come from students in the IELP and dealt with topics

and essay styles the participants were familiar with. The introductory essay

contained ten grammar errors styled after common errors found in authentic essays

from students at the same level as the participants. The next two persuasive essays

each contained five grammar errors styled after the most common grammar errors

found in the level above the participants. These errors included articles, agreement,

prepositions, tense and clause construction. All errors in all essays were highlighted


48

but no indication was given as to the nature of the error. No other errors appeared

in the essays.

Study

The participants took part in four sessions. The first session included an

introduction to the task above and 30 minutes to practice using the concordancer

while correcting the grammar errors in the introductory essay. The goal of the first

session was to introduce the participants to the concordancer. Participants could ask

the study coordinator if they had any questions about the technology or the task at

hand. The coordinator showed them one term search at the very beginning of the

study and pointed out how the resulting samples could be used to determine

English structure. This initial introduction took no more than five minutes of the

allotted 30 and the participants used the rest of the time to experiment. After the

work session, participants had ten minutes to journal about their experience.

The next two sessions were the core of the study and were structured to

match each other. Both began with a 15-minute interview to investigate journal

comments more fully. Next, students were given an essay with five grammar errors

(a different essay for each session) and asked to rate the errors for difficulty so as to

gain insight into how much, if any, previous knowledge might be playing into their

concordancer use. Once the errors were rated, the participants corrected the errors,

using the concordancer if they chose. In the first of these two core sessions

participants were given a worksheet to help guide them through the error correction

process with the concordance. In practice, participants only filled in this worksheet

after the error was fully corrected and their process was finished, so its intended

use as a guide was null and did not figure into the results of this study. In the

second session the worksheet was optional and participants chose not to use it.

Both core sessions ended with another ten minutes for journaling. Finally,

participants met for a fourth session. This final wrap-up session consisted of a final

interview both about the previous journal writing and the experience as a whole.


49

Data collection

The results of this study were based on several different forms of data. The

previously mentioned journal entries and video-tapes of the interviews were a

primary source of participant opinions and insight into their work sessions. Video

of the participants’ computer screen (showing their concordancer searches and

results) along with audio of their discussion during work sessions was also used to

track their thought process and strategies with the software itself.

Corpus and concordancer

A corpus of 80 persuasive essays was specially built for this study. All

essays were taken from two free use essay sharing websites: 123HelpMe

(www.123helpme.com) and All Free Essays (www.allfreeessays.com) and were

verified to contain native-level English. The corpus itself was very small by

modern standards but consisted of precisely the style of writing (though not

necessarily the topic) the participants were working with. Participants used

MonoConc 2.2 (Barlow, 2002) as their concordancer to search through the essays

that had been collected.

Results

Perhaps not surprisingly, the participants were not at all intimidated by the

simple search interface of the concordancer. Edison mentioned that it was not

unlike doing Google searches, which he sometimes used when he had questions

about English phrasing. All participants seemed comfortable with the software.

Finding useful results and noticing useful patterns in the target language was

considerably more difficult, however. Even so, between the two pairs of

participants, 11 of a possible 20 errors were corrected with the concordance during

the core work sessions. Keeping in mind that the students were not specially trained

with the technology, participants used the concordancer to three different ends.


50

Student uses for the concordancer

1. Theory checking. The primary benefit participants received from the

concordancer was as a theory-checking device. Both pairs of participants

consistently discussed previous knowledge in order to predict how the highlighted

error might be corrected. If they were at all uncertain about their answer, they

would search in the concordancer for samples that backed up their theory. In this

study, participants tended to be fairly confident of their answers before they

checked, and used the concordancer successfully to confirm their theories a total of

seven out of the 11 times between the two core work sessions.

In fact, the two pairs were able to confirm their theories a grand total of

nine out of 11 times, but two of those theories (both for the same error) did not lead

to a fully accurate correction in the end. The cause of this was unfortunately

coordinator error. One grammar error highlighted in the first core work session, the

couple live to an apartment contained two errors – agreement and preposition.

Each pair noticed one of the two errors, but they had been told that each

highlighted section contained one error, so they moved on after making one

correction. Edison and Y noticed the preposition and submitted the correction the

couple live in an apartment. Emmy and Maria noticed the agreement problem and

submitted the correction the couple lives to an apartment. Even though their

corrections were both improvements, the end sentences were not fully accurate.

2. Changing the original meaning. In one instance, Edison and Y were

trying to correct the error they can save money for better future. Edison noticed the

use of “future” and instantly thought of the chunk “in the future”. He was

convinced that the sentence should be they can save money in the future. When

Edison and Y checked this theory in the concordancer, they did find samples that

used “in the future”. Y was uncomfortable with this answer, however, since it

seemed to change the original meaning, but she couldn’t think of an alternate

search to help her find a better correction. In the end, they decided to propose two

different possible corrections. Edison stuck with they can save money in the future


51

and Y proposed they can save money in the better future. Both changed the original

intent of the writer.

3. Discovery learning. For the previously noted error corrections, the

concordancer was successfully used to confirm what the participants believed they

knew. While that may be helpful, for fully autonomous learning participants would

ideally discover something new about the language as a result of their searches. For

Edison and Y, this was never possible. However, Emmy and Maria had one error

that led them into new territory. For the error they can save money for better future,

the same error that had given Edison and Y trouble, Emmy and Maria thought they

knew the answer when they turned to the concordancer. At first, they believed there

should be an article, but when they typed in “future” there were no results. As it

turned out, none of the articles in the corpus of essays used that word. Now, they

were no longer confident that the problem was the article. They searched for “best

future” and “better future”- these, too, with no results. Finally, no longer sure what

the problem was, they typed in “better” alone. In the resulting sentences, they

found the indefinite article “a” before better with a variety of other nouns

following. They recognized the pattern and were able to accurately correct the error

to read, they can save money for a better future.

Participant reactions

Participants had mixed reactions to the concordancer, though most of their

complaints seemed to focus around using the concordancer for grammar error

correction. After less than 90 minutes total using the concordancer, both pairs of

participants commented that the concordancer seemed better suited as a reference

during writing than for correction after the fact. Edison explained that while he was

correcting errors, he had been focused on the narrow goal of finding a problem and

fixing it, as opposed to exploring the target language. In retrospect, he felt that he

had missed the point of the concordancer. Participants also likened the

concordancer to other resources they use while they write, but they seemed to feel


52

that the concordancer could fill a unique gap in their studies, especially since it

represented authentic English from persuasive essays, which was the kind of

writing they were expected to do for class. Edison noted that the results from the

concordancer were similar to sentences in online dictionary searches but more

useful. Interestingly, all participants asked if they could have a concordancer to

take home after the study.

Even so, there was plenty of frustration with the technology. All four

participants felt that it was challenging to interpret the concordancer results and

they never felt confident they had come to the right conclusion, even if they did

find results that supported their theories. They wished there were some way to get

instant feedback on whether they had interpreted the results correctly. Edison

suggested that it would be useful for students to use the concordancer at home,

where they could relax, but then bring a journal of results to class to share with

other students and get confirmation from a teacher.

All four participants were impressed that the corpus was made of persuasive

essays of a native English level and more than one comment suggested that their

faith in the source material was a key motivator for persisting with the technology.

Emmy and Maria noted that when they did not get the results they expected for in

the better future they both kept searching, even though they were frustrated,

because they believed that if the proficient writers (represented by the corpus) had

not written a particular term they were searching for, there must be another answer.

Discussion

The results of this study are tentatively positive. The participants benefitted

from the concordancer by double-checking their theories and even doing a little

exploration into the target language. Of course, for real autonomy, one would hope

for more discovery learning to come from the interaction. It appears from the

student reactions that part of the problem was the focus of the project, or rather,

using the concordancer after writing for correction rather than during writing. It


53

would be interesting to investigate in future studies how students might use a

concordancer to inform their writing process, given a similarly basic level of

training.

It is heartening to see participants showing so much enthusiasm for the

technology in spite of frustrations. They clearly felt they were getting value from

the concordancer even though they had little training. This suggests it is still worth

investigating this technology for autonomous learning and especially as a tool

during the writing process.

Even so, it is important to remember that these students were highly

motivated and were already seeking technologies for autonomous exploration of

the target language. They were also well versed in analyzing grammar structure.

For this kind of student, simply providing access to or creating a relevant corpus of

target language and providing them a concordancer may be enough. However, even

for these highly motivated students, there were complaints that the technology was

not guiding them enough. If students are not comfortable learning autonomously,

they may need extra support to encourage them to investigate answers on their own,

without an instructor to guide them. They may also need more structured activities

in the beginning to illustrate what kind of information they can discover for

themselves while using a concordancer (common collocates, expressions, structures,

etc). It is also possible that some students may not be used to thinking of language

as a structure. In this case, they may well need training and support in more basic

grammar structure in order to understand the patterns they are uncovering below

the lexical level when they investigate the target language with a concordancer.

It is also highly likely that with more sophisticated training with a

concordance these highly motivated students would be able to get even more out of

their corpus searches. The Kennedy and Miceli (2011) case study did provide

significantly more training and did promote open searches while writing. As a

result, two of their participants were able to delve into the concordancer results

much more deeply than the participants in this study.


54

Conclusion

Student use of concordancers for autonomous investigation of the target

language is not a new idea, but it is still under-researched. While the technology is

not difficult to use, the results can be intimidating and off-putting. Sample

sentences are composed of authentic language which may be complicated, and

users must be able to recognize the structure below the sample sentences for

themselves. However, learners need exposure to authentic language if they aspire

to push their language ability to an advanced level. Learners also need the

confidence to develop theories about the target language autonomously while still

having an opportunity to check those theories later for accuracy.

As proponents of autonomous learning, we need to help learners find

opportunities to answer their own questions and give them the confidence to find

their own answers independently when they need them. A concordancer is one tool

available that can expose learners to the target language in an organized fashion to

help them answer some of these questions and inform their own manipulation of

the target language. There are still many questions that remain to be answered as

we try to find the best way to introduce concordancers and corpus searches to

learners, but there are useful things learners can do with this technology with little

training. There is still plenty of reason to be excited by the prospect of

concordancers for autonomous language exploration, especially as it relates to

writing.

Notes on the contributor

Jacqueline Mull is Vice Dean and Lecturer at the Research Institute of English

Language Education in Kobe, Japan. Her research interests include corpus

linguistics, materials development and assessment.

References Barlow, M. (2002). MonoConc Pro (Version 2.2) [Computer software]. Houston,


55

TX: Athelstan. Chambers, A. (2005). Integrating corpus consultation in language studies.

Language Learning & Technology, 9(2), 111-125. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol9num2/pdf/chambers.pdf

Cobb, T. (1997). Is there any measurable learning from hands-on concordancing?

System, 25(3), 301–315. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(97)00024-9 Dam, L. (2011). Developing learner autonomy with school kids: Principles,

practices, results. In D. Gardner (Ed.), Fostering autonomy in language learning (pp. 40-51). Retrieved from http://ilac2010.zirve.edu.tr/Fostering_Autonomy.pdf

Gaskell, D., & Cobb, T. (2004). Can learners use concordance feedback for writing

errors? System, 32(3), 301-319. doi:10.1016/j.system.2004.04.001 Johns, T. (1991). Should you be persuaded: Two samples of data-driven learning

materials. English Language Research Journal, 4, 1-16. Retrieved from http://wordsmithtools.net/wordsmith/corpus_linguistics_links/Tim%20Johns%20and%20DDL.pdf

Kennedy, C., & Miceli, T. (2010). Corpus-assisted creative writing: Introducing

intermediate Italian learners to a corpus as a reference resource. Language Learning & Technology, 14(1), 28-44. Retrieved from http://llt.msu.edu/vol14num1/kennedymiceli.pdf

Legenhausen, L. (2011). The place of grammar in an autonomous classroom: Issues

and research results. In D. Gardner (Ed.), Fostering autonomy in language learning (pp. 27-38). http://ilac2010.zirve.edu.tr/Fostering_Autonomy.pdf

O’Sullivan, I., & Chambers, A. (2006). Learners’ writing skills in French: Corpus

consultation and learner evaluation. Journal of Second Language Writing, 15(1), 49–68. doi:10.1016/j.jslw.2006.01.002

Reppen, R. (2010). Using corpora in the language classroom. New York, NY:

Cambridge University Press. Todd, R. W. (2001). Induction from self-selected concordances and self-correction.

System, 29(1), 91-102. doi:10.1016/S0346-251X(00)00047-6 Tribble, C., & Jones, G. (1990). Concordances in the classroom: A resource book

for teachers. Harlow, UK: Longman.


! 56

Announcing the ESL-WOW for Self-Directed Writing Support

Thaddeus M. Niles, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, New York, USA. !

Overview

ESL-WOW (Writing Online Workshop), a new online resource for students aiming to

develop academic writing skills, has been available to the public at no charge since December

2012. Students can visit www.esl-wow.org to learn more about the academic conventions that

confound new entrants into academic discourse communities, or to learn more about what makes

writing clear and cogent in general. While the site is designed for adult learners and students

entering community colleges, a wide variety of intermediate and advanced learners can certainly

benefit from the materials offered by the ESL-WOW.

Background

A team from a private college in New York along with an advisory committee of

researchers and writing directors from other universities and community colleges developed the

ESL-WOW. A professional graphic design concept and attractive videos enrich what is a

standard pre-college writing curriculum, hopefully engaging self-directed learners more than a

text-only web resource. Development costs were supported by a grant from the U.S. Department

of Education, and the developing college will continue to host the web site so that students from

around the world can connect to academic writing resources free of charge. Visit www.esl-

wow.org/additional/about.html for more details.

As part of the development and testing phase, the program was included in online courses

at a large community college in California, a private college in New York, and a “flipped”

writing classroom at another private college in New York, where students learned content at

home before practicing or discussing what they learned together in a physical classroom. Besides

the important evaluative feedback that these trial runs have provided, students may take heart in

knowing that their self-directed instruction program is included in various college curricula.

“Flipped” Classrooms and Self-Directed Learning

“Flipped” classrooms, a topic that is enjoying somewhat of a surge these days (e.g.,

Watters, 2012), can be thought of as a course divided between two environments: a self-directed

learning environment (i.e. the student’s home) and a traditional classroom environment where


! 57

teachers and peers can provide clarification and feedback. At home, students learn content that

used to be covered in lectures, and they return to the classroom to apply what they’ve learned

(something that used to be homework) or ask questions. It is important to note that while this

ESL-WOW course has had trial runs under “flipped” conditions, as well as in online classrooms,

it was designed to be a free resource for students to access anywhere in the world. Thus, while it

is certainly advantageous to have a writing instructor or roomful of peers with which to confer,

this course always targeted self-directed learners working towards academic membership or at

least academic literacy.

Mastering the conventions of academic writing would seem to require both reflection and

action, both knowledge and practice. Without feedback from an instructor, there is a question of

whether the practice component would be worthwhile for self-directed learners (Myles, 2002). I

make no great claims that the ESL-WOW can take the place of a qualified instructor and a

community of reflective learners; however, I am prepared to assert that this tool makes a real

contribution to the world of online writing instruction. The course focuses on grammar and

rhetorical conventions (such as topic sentences, thesis statements, and employing evidence) with

the understanding that students approach academic writing from different perspectives.

Rhetorical awareness, as a prerequisite to intercultural communication, can help a self-directed

student express themselves in academic or professional contexts and ultimately prepare future

him or her to enter a Western academic culture that exhibits unique (if not quirky) composition

practices (Spack, 1997). Beyond this, even those students who have no plans to enter a Western

university can benefit from carefully examining their own writing practices and considering

strategies that might lead to greater clarity or efficiency as they move from ideas to a finished

product. In short, sparking students to think about their own writing would seem to be at the

core of any program of instruction, be it in a classroom or as a self-directed online course.

Program Description!

The online program divides instruction into modules based on a process-centered

approach to writing, beginning with the invention phase, then continuing to the drafting,

revising, and editing phases. Each module includes a series of pages that discuss issues

pertaining to that stage in the writing process. For example, Figure 1 shows how “Developing


! 58

Your Ideas” covers “Using Others’ Ideas,” which then includes discussions of citations,

paraphrasing, summarizing, and so on. The modules do provide great depth and range: “Editing

and Polishing,” for instance, includes five subheadings and 31 individual topics.

This organization clearly invites a student to follow a rather linear writing process

alongside the program, perhaps turning a composition into a self-directed workshop, or perhaps

assuming too much about the student’s writing practices, which may be more unique. The web

site has therefore proposed an approach to writing that may be too rigid or ethnocentric for every

student and context. Yet, many should still find the program useful as a reference tool as they

focus on areas that concern them during a particular moment.

Figure 1. Screenshot from ESL-WOW


! 59

For those who follow along with the program’s sequence, videos and reflection questions

at the end of each module replace the teacher and test. The videos apply the lessons of the

module or topic to model essays (or rather, chunks of material extracted from essays). For

example, the topic of outlining is explored through a sample argumentative essay on air travel.

This chance to see the concepts of the lesson being demonstrated though an example can be

crucial for self-directed learners who, for instance, might not have an instructor to explain what

an outline might look like and how it is used to structure an essay.

It is important to note that this program offers no evaluation of the student’s writing;

instead, the aim is to promote thoughtful writers who can benefit from a working knowledge of

the expectations of academic discourse communities. For example, the reflection section may

ask, “Which strategies [for editing and polishing your work] are you currently using?” “Which

do you plan to use [in the future]?” The ESL-WOW does its part by providing instructions on

how to use Microsoft Word’s grammar features and offering links to numerous commercial and

free automated writing evaluation programs. In addition, the website’s section on “Editing and

Polishing” includes video explanations and interactive quizzes on aspects such as identifying

phrases vs. clauses, run-on sentences, fragments and punctuation.

An additional tutorial covering plagiarism can be found at the bottom of the navigation

pane. This tutorial was developed before the rest of the ESL-WOW, and features a different

visual design and real-life actors. Its aim is to help students learn about the cultural norms that

account for differing views towards plagiarism, and it includes tips on identifying and avoiding

plagiarism. Obviously, this is directed towards future academic writers.

As a general description, a colleague’s remark that the ESL-WOW is “an online version

of a reference guide” is not too far off. The scope and sequence is similar, right down to the

cursory look at common grammatical errors and the reliance on the argument essay as the model

for Western-style, academic writing. Given these similarities, why not simply purchase a popular

reference text like The Prentice Hall Reference Guide? The ESL-WOW was designed explicitly

for English language learners to use when a teacher is not present (besides being free and more

interactive than a book). There are countless online websites devoted to ESL writing, and plenty

of academic reference texts written by experts in the field; the ESL-WOW combines the two in a

novel way that suggests the curriculum will be more accessible to self-directed learners without

sacrificing too much rigor and depth.


! 60

The program’s decision to grant access to any user makes it an attractive tool for self-

directed learners, especially those entering academic communities.

How to Learn More

The best way to learn more is to visit the website at www.esl-wow.org and browse the

program’s content. It may also be helpful to review the program’s objectives and a note from the

developers describing what students will learn (links below). The website also includes a short

instructor’s guide and notes on how to use the program.

!

Links

About ESL-WOW. (n.d.). ESL Writing Online Workshop (ESL-WOW). Retrieved February 8,

2013, from http://esl-wow.org/additional/about.html

What You Will Learn . (n.d.). ESL Writing Online Workshop (ESL-WOW). Retrieved February 8,

2013, from http://esl-wow.org/app/webroot/additional/what.htm

Instructor Guide. (n.d.). ESL Writing Online Workshop (ESL-WOW). Retrieved February 8,

2013, from http://esl-wow.org/app/webroot/additional/guide.htm

How to Use ESL-WOW. (n.d.). ESL Writing Online Workshop (ESL-WOW). Retrieved February

8, 2013, from http://esl-wow.org/app/webroot/additional/how.html

Notes on the author

Thaddeus M. Niles teaches English composition and coordinates a summer English program at

Skidmore College in Saratoga Springs, New York, USA. He also serves as the ESL Specialist

for the school’s Writing Center, sparking his interest in understanding and teaching the rhetorical

conventions of Western universities.

References

Myles, J. (2002). Second language writing and research: The writing process and error analysis in student texts. The Electronic Journal for English as a Second Language, 6(2). Retrieved from http://tesl-ej.org/ej22/a1.html


! 61

Spack, R. (1997). The acquisition of academic literacy in a second language. Written Communication, 14(1), 3-62.

Watters, A. (n.d.). Top ed-tech trends of 2012: The flipped classroom. Hack Education. Retrieved from http://hackeducation.com/2012/11/28/top-ed-tech-trends-of-2012-flipped-classroom/


62

JASAL Forum 2012: Making a Difference through Self Access Satomi Shibata, Tokoha Gakuen University, Japan

Abstract

This article reports on the JASAL Forum held at the JALT Conference in Hamamatsu on October 13th, 2012. JASAL, the Japanese Association of Self Access Learning, was set up in 2005 by Garold Murray and Lucy Cooker to provide a support network for educators and administrators involved with self-access language learning centers (hereafter SACs) in Japan. It holds a forum annually at JALT (the Japan Association for Language Teaching) conference. It has been a great success and providing information and support to those who are involved with SACs in Japan. I am also blessed with all the information and support from the JASAL Forum as I work for a SAC as the director. The 2012 JASAL Forum consisted of a poster session, three paper presentations and an open forum discussion, with the theme of ‘Making a difference through Self Access.’ The presentations this year focused on how to foster autonomy, how to develop understanding of the value of self-access among faculty and administration, and how to integrate self-access with the curriculum. All the presentations provided a brighter vision for SACs in Japan.

Key words: self-access, peer advising, faculty development, autonomy

The theme of the 2012 JASAL forum, ‘Making a difference thorough Self

Access’ was consistent with the theme of JALT 2012, ‘Making a difference.’ One of the

differences SACs hope to make in their students’ lives is to help them develop the skills

to become more successful language learners. In the last two decades, a number of

SACs have been established in Japan with the purpose of offering effective self access

support. Many face challenges, then find solutions, but still there are many more

difficulties to be tackled. One of the common difficulties that many institutions face is

how to develop understanding of the value of self access among faculty and

administrators. Over ten years ago, Benson (2001) pointed out that “in many institutions,

self-access centres have been established without any strong pedagogical rationale.”

Now that is widely recognised as one of the most important factors, and most SACs do

have strong pedagogical rationale, but some administrators or educators who are


63

relatively new to SACs may still not be familiar with the importance of the pedagogical

rationale behind SACs. That could create the situation that what SACs actually do may

not be completely understood among those who are not strongly involved with SACs.

Establishing “a box” does not bring learners there automatically. Nor does it foster

autonomy automatically. Not only learners but also teachers need to be trained to be

more autonomous in order to create a rich self-access environment.

Reflecting on the content of the different presentations and posters, I identified

two distinct themes: what SACs can do outside and inside of SACs. No matter how

great a SAC is, if there are no users, it will turn out to be just space with some

equipment and staff. We, those who are involved with SACs, need to consider what

brings users there. In addition, not all the institutions have SACs and there are adult

language learners who do not belong to any language institutions. In the Forum, how we

could help those who have no access to SACs was discussed. I categorised both cases as

what we can do outside of SACs. On the other hand, inside SACs, we could always

make systems and an environment more beneficial to users. We think of what we can do

to foster autonomy at SACs or in classrooms, which I define as something we can do

inside of SACs.

What Can SACs Do Outside of SACs?

The existence of SACs does not guarantee frequent and effective use of them.

Educators and administrators need to work not only inside but also outside of SACs in

order to lead learners there and help them to make the most of SACs. I believe the key

concepts, discussed in the Forum, for bringing learners to SACs would be developing

understanding of self-access among faculty, fostering a culture of self-access learning,

and spreading the idea of autonomy outside of SACs. Developing understanding of self access among faculty

Darrell Wilkins and Greg Lindeman from Soka University in Tokyo discussed

challenges they faced when they encouraged students to use self-access language

programs. They pointed out since the value and efficacy of self-access language


64

programs often exist outside of the classroom, what students could do through

self-access programs was not always clear to the teaching faculty, especially part-time

teachers, who were not directly involved with them. Therefore a team at Soka

University redesigned and developed their programs, highlighting their benefits and

providing the faculty with the confidence to encourage students to use the facilities.

They delivered the information to the faculty by holding lunchtime information sessions

and introduced how their writing centre and Global Village work. The writing centre

offers students a variety of one-to-one 30 minute sessions and students can also choose

what level of support they want to receive from paragraph level to essay level. The

writing centre is well staffed with ten to twelve current students as its staff members

each semester, which enables it to offer eighty sessions a week. Global Village offers

ten language programs with a variety of levels from beginner to high advanced level,

making it practical for students. Redesigning the self-access programs at both facilities

and delivering precise information on the facilities to both full-time and part-time

teachers seemed to have helped to encourage students to use the SAC more. Wilkins

and Lindeman suggested that it is important to develop understanding of the value of

the facilities among the faculty and making the facilities more user-friendly. Fostering a culture of active self-access use

Developing a culture of active self-access use plays a significant role as well as

developing understanding of the value of SACs among faculty. Some SACs struggle

with bringing students there, and they remain underused. Toyo Gakuen University was

once one of those SACs which were used only among a limited number of students. As

Mynard (2012) points out ongoing action research is essential for continuous

development, a team of Toyo Gakuen University has been working on their action

research project to try to improve the situation there. They presented the action research

project this year, following the 2011 JASAL Forum poster presentation. In 2011, Taylor

et al. (reported in Kodate, 2012) investigated how to promote independent learning in

the freshman English course, focusing on a stamp card system which was designed to

help learners become more familiar with the facilities, materials, and systems there.


65

This year Clair Taylor, Michael Stout, Jerry Talandis Jr, and Keiko Omura talked about

how to build a culture of self-access learning, focusing on the importance of teacher

training. They emphasised the necessity of more teacher involvement. They also

insisted that making a visit to the facility part of the grade is effective. Although making

‘visits to the facility’ mandatory is likely to be inconsistent with the idea of self-access,

it actually gives students opportunities to be familiar with the facility and eventually

lead them to use it continuously in a voluntary basis. The team of Toyo Gakuen

University concluded that the system has fostered a developing culture of independent

learning on campus, with more students engaging in self-access study.

Integrating language learning into everyday life

Satoko Kato and Hisako Yamashita of Kanda Institute of Foreign Languages

explained how educators can help learners take great advantage of self-access learning,

focusing on the importance of integrating their language learning into everyday life.

Their aim is to help not only those who are fortunate enough to access SACs but also

those who have no access to such facilities. Some institutions do not have SACs, and

others suffer from not getting the desired support from their institutions. Therefore, they

insisted that it is important to spread the concept of self-access learning to those who are

not familiar with it.

Both Kato and Yamashita have eight years of experience as learning advisors

and have conducted over 4000 advising sessions. Based on their considerable

experience and various research studies they have conducted, they found three

important keys to helping students to develop good learning habits: skills to control

their own learning, metacognitive awareness, and reflective skills as language learners.

For the purpose of scaffolding learners to integrate language learning into everyday life,

Kato and Yamashita developed a new tool, called the English Learning Planner

(hereafter ELP): a planner, a booklet and a website. The ELP consists of a personalized

day planner, a booklet, and a website which learners can use to manage their own

learning. Developing good learning habits does not happen immediately, but comes by

everyday reflection on one’s own learning. The personalized day planner is designed to


66

help learners to go through a preparation phase with nine activities, such as goal setting

and finding a role model in order to raise metacognitive awareness. Kato and Yamashita

set monthly themes based on the theories of learner autonomy. The booklet which

comes with the day planner is written for the purpose of helping learners to develop

knowledge on learning strategies and self directed learning skills. Furthermore, the ELP

website offers more information to help learners find out their learning styles and other

supporting materials. Since the ELP is written in Japanese, it may be the most beneficial

for Japanese learners. Kato and Yamashita also suggest that the ELP can be used as

supplementary material for classroom teaching, and in their institution over 700

students are going to take a self-directed language learning course with the ELP.

What Can SACs Do Inside of SACs?

It is important for learners to become familiar with SACs if SACs are accessible

to them. Then what can we do inside of SACs once learners get used to using them? In

the Forum, the potential of integrating self-access with the curriculum was discussed by

a few institutions. Others discussed how autonomy could be fostered in the classroom.

The idea of having visible ideal language learning models is also discussed as one of the

important concepts in successful language learning within SACs. . Integrating self-access with the curriculum

Herman Bartelen from Kanda Institute of Foreign Languages described how

SACs would play an influential role in the English curriculum by providing

opportunities and resources for self-directed learning in the classroom. Bartelen

introduced five programs integrated with the curriculum. For instance, all the first year

students visit the SAC, to know what they can do there. All English teachers are

required to use the facility three times per semester, and then they are expected to teach

in a mix of blended learning and self-directed learning. That gives students

opportunities for self-directed studies. Learning advising in L1, not in L2, the target

language, is also available at the centre. Advising in L1 may sometimes be necessary if

learners are at a lower level of language proficiency and not yet ready to reflect on and


67

talk about themselves in L2. Bartelen suggests that integration between SACs and the

curriculum should be carefully designed to foster autonomy.

Similarly, Anthony DiGiulio of Kanda Institute of Foreign Languages also

talked about how to foster autonomy through reflections in the classroom. DiGiulio

conducted some classroom-based research to investigate the effects of

classroom-reflections in fostering autonomy. He used “class reflection sheets” (hereafter

CR), giving students opportunities to reflect on themselves. CRs had a number of

positive effects: students were more motivated to engage in classroom learning because

they had to reflect later on, and rapport was strengthened between the teacher and the

students because they were could have a different type of communication with CR.

DiGiulio emphasized that regular, written self-reflections in the classroom can be an

effective method in fostering “the first steps” towards learner autonomy.

Elizabeth Lammons from Kanda University of International Studies also talked

about reflections focusing on self-assessment of reading strategy use. Lammons

conducted research over the course of a 15 week semester, giving her students

opportunities to choose the authentic materials that they wanted to read and then use

different reading strategies to make sense of the texts they chose: writing a summary

after reading, writing unknown vocabulary, choosing self-assessed reading materials,

and continuing the cycle. Samples Lammons showed in her poster presentation

suggested the students perceived this learning cycle to be effective and learned to reflect

on what they learned.

Lindsay Mack from Ritsumeikan Asia-Pacific University discussed the design

and implementation of exploratory research with the purpose of examining peer writing

advisors’ reflective journals for the issues and problems they encounter. Based on

observations and reflective journals of peer writing advisors, she suggested that since

peer writing tutors are non-native English writers, they are more likely to be able to

draw on their experiences as successful language learners to help learners. The

effectiveness of peer advisers or teaching assistants is often discussed in the field of


68

SAC research. Mack’s study confirmed that peer advising or support from student

teaching assistants can also be effective in writing.

Summary

In the 2012 JASAL Forum, two themes emerged from reflecting on all the

presentations and poster presentations: what we can do outside and inside of SACs in

order to foster autonomy. Outside of SACs, to encourage learners to use SACs, two key

concepts were discussed: to develop understanding of the value of self-access language

learning among educators and administrators, and to develop culture of self-access

language learning on campus. It was also discussed that if SACs were not accessible to

learners, they could possibly use an assisting tool such as the ELP to integrate language

learning into their everyday life. Inside of SACs or classrooms to foster autonomy, the

presentations suggested the effectiveness of integrating self-access language learning

with the curriculum. In both SACs and classrooms, it may be possible to help learners

become more autonomous through reflections with the help of educators and peers. The

2012 JASAL Forum gave us opportunities to reflect on what we can do both inside and

outside of SACs.

Conclusion

I remember when I first attended the JASAL Forum in Shizuoka in 2009. That

was the year I started to be involved with establishing a new SAC. Although I was

fortunate to have had experience of establishing a SAC previously and it was my second

SAC, I still needed a lot of support. Since both of the SACs I worked for were relatively

small, I had to work as a director, an advisor, a program coordinator, and an

administrator. I wanted to share my ideas and feelings with other colleagues, but it was

not easy to develop understanding of SACs among faculty. I attended the JASAL

Forum then, and it definitely encouraged me to keep working, motivated me to make a

better SAC, and even helped me to have confidence in what I was doing. If there are

such educators who are struggling with working and facing difficulties, I believe the

annual JASAL Forum would be a perfect place to find information they need


69

Acknowledgments

I would like to thank the two anonymous reviewers for thoroughly reading the

paper and providing their valuable and thoughtful comments and suggestions to

improve the quality of the paper. I would also like to thank all the presenters who shared

their ideas at the JASAL Forum, giving me opportunities to think and broaden my

vision.

Notes on the contributor

Satomi Shibata is the Director of Foreign Language Study Support Center, Tokoha

Gakuen University. She is also a lecturer there. She has been involved with self-access

centers for over eight years.

References Benson, P. (2001). Teaching and researching autonomy in language learning. London:

Longman. Kodate, A. (2012). The JASAL Forum 2011: Growing trends in self-access learning.

Studies in Self-Access Learning Journal, 3(1), 122-13 Mynard, J. (2012). Does ‘Self-Access’ Still Have Life in It?: A Response to Reinders

(2012) Retrived on Feb 24th from http://blog.nus.edu.sg/eltwo/2012/06/13/does-%E2%80%98self-access%E2%80%99-still-have-life-in-it-a-response-to-reinders-2012/2.

studies in self-access learning journal, 4(1)

Documents

selfaccess writing support

selfdirected writing

peer online writing

thriving selfaccess

special issue of sisal

peer tutors

esl contexts

efl context