Online Writing Labs (OWLs): A taxonomy of options and issues

Computers and Composition

12, 145-159 (1995)

Online Writing Labs (OWLS): A Taxonomy of Options and Issues

MICHAEL PEMBERTON Utzitwsity

0f’Illirwi.~

As increasing numbers of writing centers consider instituting Online Writing Labs (OWLS) as adjuncts to existing tutorial services, careful plonning decisions must be made about the nature, purpose, and feasibility of online offerings. In this article, we offer an overview and schema for understanding some of the most frequently used network technologies available for OWLS-e-mail, Gopher, Worldwide Web (WWW), newsgroups, synchronous chat systems, and automated file retrieval (AFR) systems. We also consider ways in which writing centers’ choices among these technologies are impacted by such factors as user access, network security, computer illiteracy, institutional missions, writing center goals, computing center priorities, and computer progrommers’ attitudes. Successful OWLS, we believe, are those which navigate institutional and technological constraints while still managing to enhance the services provided writers and to uphold pedagogical goals.

cyberspace Online

Writing Internet

writing

Lab (OWL) resources

centers tutoring

in writing

online online

centers

writing

centers

computers electronic

in writing

writing

centers

services

Writing centers using

computers are not a new phenomenon, but extending tutorial services by going online is, and the term Online Writing Lab (OWL) has gained popularity as a name for such projects. As writing centers move into this new online environment, there is great potential, but planning and shaping of effective, user-friendly OWLS takes considerable thought and energy. Attempting only to replicate familiar faceto-face tutorial settings in an electronic, text-oriented environment can lead to frustration and to defeat as OWL planners find themselves unable to simulate all characteristics of effective tutorials. Instead, it is important to recognize that OWLS can have a number of very different configurations-configurations that take advantage of the strengths of online environments and that work with, not against, both local conditions and writing center theory. For those colleagues interested in the shapes of OWLS that have already taken wing and for those exploring options, considering configurations, and/or weighing issues, we offer a model that outlines some choices and relates them to degrees of interaction and time-displacement, as well as to institutional and writing center concerns. We hope that by doing so, we will offer useful considerations for configuring OWLS. In Althoughthe

names of the co-authors of this essay are. by default. listed alphabetically. they would prefer

some alternative. nonhierarchical

means of characterizing the equal contributions made to thi\ collaboratively

written article. Correspondence and request\ for reprints should be sent to Muriel Harris. University, West Lafayette. IN 47907-1356, Department

of

English.

University

Department of English. Purdue

e-mail: harrismfir mace.cc.purdue.edu, of

Illinois.

Urbana-Champaign,

or 10 Michael Pemherton. IL

61801.

e-mail:

. 145

146

HARRIS AND PEMBERTON

addition.

we hope others will

\ee OWLS

as yet another service offered by writing

which enhances and expands present work, valuable and effective

in writing

particular

partly

combination

to be offered svhtem.

center will

whereas

about drafts

that both

students

providing complex As

opportunities

specific or flexible

and tutors

view

resource\.

All

possible

For

center from campus.

dynamic

Generally

technologies

example.

using

all or

restrictions

this n&cl

for example-

offerings

mm

is

the writer.

The

interaction

to personal

interaction.

Worldwide

Webs

decontextualizcd for variation. newsgroups. particular permit

variations

in

whether

two kinds individual

Gopher,

immediate. Newsgroups,

online e-mail.

immediate.

Conversations

file

queries

fcnturcs. in possible

and interactive

between

center online. according to can

between the service

:~nd

Users

are handled chat systems.

for

systems.

or

cxamplc.

a time delay between the moment in which

the inquiry

need about

systcm4

responses. according to

or over ;I period are structured while

ol ti)r

sitting

at

that they can then respond to. on the other hand. do not allow

person-to-resource

mediated by an intervening

questions

OI- give directions

and automated file retrieval

without

chat systems,

of contact differ

immcdiatcly

and

reactive.

contcxtualizcd

and in possible

and points

ask questions

inquires

text-specific

interactive.

inquiries

These

arc synchronous

to ask tutors Thcsc

arc Gophers

systems.

to simple

responses

are indirect.

or

time dimension

for example.

retrieval

and they receive immediate person-to-person

that exist

into four categories

dimension

interactions

and responses

interactions.

ot not

as ;I ccntcr at another

when putting ;L writing

responses

allow students

of computerized

WWW.

computer terminals. direct,

which

model

and does

programming

relationships

dimension.

automated

and rhetorical

Thi4

the

be used

on the other hand. ranges t‘rom automated reaction

provide standardized

and c-mail. problems

will

may prevent a writing

purposes

can be grouped

At the other end of the interaction

a high degree of variation

These time.

systems

and

Ii)1

ofUer more

t’actorh in

I which

reductive

at one institution

some critical

On one side of this

(WWWs)

they

assistance.

or reaction to delayed response

dimension.

have strengths

important

clearly

site-specific

illustrates

interaction

students

or offering

of access arc better

their relative tl~,~gt~~c of’ir7~crrrc~tio77 and the tli.v/llrrc.c,77rc,77t i/7 ri777c. The range from immediate

with

onscrcen

because

ti)r online

models.

on e-mail

these interactions

online

wc ofl’cr Figure

capacity and pedagogical opportunity

speaking.

to standardi~cd

typch

it in the same: way and for the SUIIC

Nevcrthclcss.

technological

of the opportunities like

then a

assistance.

writers.

li)r writin, (7 centers.

and intersections.

all

hardware.

Some

online

xccss

these potential arc prcl&-able

types

ways to interact with

our consideration

encompass

other

m-vice4

or to a Gopher

agrccmcnt.

simllltaneollsly

of undcrstandin, (7 and interrelating

technology/pedagogy contact points

to provide

and subject-verb

and limitations.

information;

one mans

to discuss

choose only

to create r?r-lrctrl ~c’~i~ir~~y .s/MK~~s. chatting

students

be determined

don’t knmv how, to u\e these services.

might

easy gateways to Internet

and weaknesses.

will

by types 01‘ writing

want to choose other vt’nucs for providing

some centers

may wish

till- an OWL

provide access to newsgroup\

comma usage. resume formats.

others

writers

and/or systems

doesn’t

or if most

probably

the same token.

handouts-on

INTERACTIONS

available on campus and partly

If ;I campus

for example.

writing By

online.

FOR OWL

of software

by computer facilities

center!,.

what WC‘find so

center tutorials.

A MODEL The

but not as a service displacing

virtual

contact

in

the same

space, and usually

way.

require

is made and the moment when ;I

Online

Writing

147

Labs

interactive

e-maillnewsgroups lime-displ;&

synchronous

chat

(eahime

aulomated hle rctrleval

reactive Figure

1: A model of computer

interactions.

response is returned. Under some circumstances, these conditions may be sufficient for writers’ needs and preferable for a writing center’s daily operations. Interestingly enough, we decided to collaborate on this article, in part, because though we each opted to institute online writing assistance at our respective campuses-Purdue University and the University of Illinois-at about the same time, we either chose or were forced to use completely different avenues for providing that assistance. In Purdue’s first configuration of its OWL (now incorporated into a much larger complex of options), students could use either an automated file-retrieval system or an e-mail dropbox. At Illinois, students can use either a dedicated newsgroup or a branch of the campus Gopher system. Purdue’s OWL has developed and grown since its inception, partly in response to problems we perceived and partly because we started to explore new options and services. Dave Taylor, the system designer at Purdue, has written WORDS (Writers’ On-line Reference Desk Services), a software program for local use that serves as a writer’s desk too-a set of references for writers linked to the campus network-and Purdue now has a Gopher site and a WWW page, with both serving several purposes. Neither Illinois nor Purdue has, as yet, established an online chat system. Our reasons for selecting-or not selecting-these systems as extensions of our writing centers should become clear as we describe each system.

AUTOMATED

FILE

RETRIEVAL

Automated file retrieval (AFR) systems vary in their mechanics and in the means by which files can bc requested. but they generally require two things: (a) a user-owned e-mail account from which requests can be sent and to which files can be returned, and (b) a formal command structure that will tell the writing center’s computer program what to do with requests it receives. Purdue’s OWL provides an example of how such a system can be structured. We offer it here as representative. The Purdue AFR is located at an e-mail Internet address that also supports the Writing Lab’s interactive e-mail OWL (which also responds to user messages either sent directly or through WORDS). When an e-mail message is received, the OWL system first scans the Subject: header for information. If the keywords “owl-request” appear, the message is handled by AFR; if any additional or other words appear in this line, the text of the message is saved in the writing center’s e-mail box for handling by a tutor. Once the OWL system has determined that a user wishes to use AFR. it checks the message’s first line to

HARRISAND PEMBERTON

148 find our, more specifically. possible

request a list of files filename).

what sort of request is being made. Typically.

to request ;I help file with intitrmation

commands:

available for downloading.

At Purdue,

these commands

and “Send<
or to request ;1 specific

art:.

Everything

rc\pectivcly.

cont‘iguration

The

University

in that it has some online

have three

“Send

to

file (by its unic!uo

Help.”

“Send

In&x.”

in the mesrage beyond these few keywords

and after the request has been responded

are purged from the syatcm.’

AFRs

about using the systctn.

to. virtually

of Richmond’s

is

al! trace\ of its aistcncc

writing

center ha\ ;I \imitar

interactive cxcrciscs

and quick rckrcncc \het’t\ fix txtltx of punctuation. dyte. xx! nxchanicx. plus advice &oets on pwwriting. writing. met tcvising fEssid. 1993; tfiukcy. 19%). Thcx arc avail;~hle in the Univct-sity of Richmond’\ public

labs as well

as in the lvriting

center is also bllil~ii~?~ an online AFRs

that

predictable.

will-assuming invariant

system

capacity

anywhere

from

the

ways.

of time t’or the system

their

mai t-reader profr;ims. offers

files.

Dependin, (r on the volume delay

to several

(At Purdue,

and mdil’y

over

When

\z.riting

requests

to it computct in

must wail varying

Icngths

of usc‘r tral‘t‘ic and on tbc and response

the rcspon\e

can bc

(either

21 list

users can read andi~~r maniputatc

ti)r cxampte.

handouts

at Austin‘\

correctly-respoIlrl

rcc!ucst

between

minutes.

iiicutty

across campus arc arlviscd ncccis.

) Purdue’s conctrns

be described

according

ol‘

it wifh

100 hanclouts on ~r~liiiii~~Ir ant! mechanics. on writing

language and con&ales\.

as will

.scnd c-mail

r~‘qucsts. users

text t‘itc) ih t‘inalty rcccivcd.

[hat they czn downtoad

of T+zts

in addition to other scrGcc\.

have been phrased

sending their

institution.

sever-at seconds

such as nonsexist

request\

to respond.

or a particular

!)resently

At&r

at H given

files

These

Liniversity !i?r writers,

arc ~-c~KY;~Y. ri/ll~-tli,sl,lrrc.c,tl systcrnh. Uhcrs

system

AFR

center. The

hct of resource>

to individual

on rcsumc

writing.

anti on ~it~Itit~n t&mat.

later, can also bc mac!e available through

;t Gopher

or

www.

A FURTHER Which

users

should

as they do through an c-mai

be allowed lo avail themsclvcs Internet c-mail cxchangcs,

AFRx

USER ACCESS ot’ materials

being ofl:rcd‘!

has received thousands

districts

in British

offices.

new writing

universities

Columbia. tcntcrs

in Europe

cd’ file

t‘rom tcchnicat xtartin, ir their

a17ci Asia.

companies

all over the globe who surf

problem.

depending

centers’ instructional

on the server’s missions,

put. the bigger the computer restrictive supporting.

an institution’s If a system

writing

The

Purdue

alI over the \vorld: groups

on several

at NASA with

Unlimited

AFR.

from

and from

and funding.

is not ovcrtoarted

users

access may or may not btz :I financing.

and on writing Simply

can be ~~ccommodatcd; the ICSS

the witler

an audicnco it can rationalize

and it’ the campus

and 3s inexpensive

l’rom

in~ivi~lll~i

we csplorC in the followin g discussion). the more

tbr


2nd ~o~/~rniii~llt

these handouis.

continents.

capacity, on institutional

system.

mission

from

own eoltcctions

the Internet.

(an issue

access as both a kind OF “outreach” number ot’ users

rqncsts

Operating

are gencratty available to anyone with

I account that can scnct messages to ;I host computer.

example.

users

CONSIDERATION:

publicity.

wit! be seen as a benefit rather thorn a liability.

looks

upon intcrnationat

then an incrcasc

in the

On the other hand. ii’ the

Online

Writing

Labs

149

computer system is being asked to respond to more user requests than it can handle, if the institution feels it has responsibilities to its own students and no others, or if computer budgets are pinched to the point that international e-mail messages are discouraged (remember. e-mail may be cheap, but it’s definitely not free), then a writing center may think seriously about restricting access to local users.

GOPHERS

AND WORLDWIDE

WEB PAGES

Gopher is an international network of servers and databases that can be accessed by a common system of commands from nearly every other Gopher server in the world. One of Gopher’s most powerful features, in fact. is the ease with which users can access servers anywhere in “Gopherspace”-in Finland, in Japan, or at the other end of the state. By keying the command “gopher” at the system prompt. users can enter the Gopher system and explore its many nooks and crannies. Gopher, a menu-driven system, usually requires that its users know only how to operate the arrow keys on their keyboards and to hit the “RETURN” key when they wish to make a choice. Gopher servers at educational institutions typically offer information about the institution and its community, as well as information of scholarly interest. They also offer gateways to thousands of other Gopher servers and their resources. With just a few keystrokes, working their way through a series of menu choices and selecting options like “Other Gopher servers in the USA” or “All the Gopher servers in the world.” users can find themselves connected to Gopher servers in distant countries, all ripe for investigation as rich sources of information. The main Gopher server at the University of Illinois is typical of such systems and can be accessed in one of two ways. The slower but more user-friendly way is for users to log into their campus Gopher system and by moving through a series of hierarchicallyarranged menus reach the University of Illinois server. At Illinois, this entails selecting “Other Gopher servers in the USA,” then “Gopher servers in Illinois,” and finally “University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.” A quicker but less user-friendly way to connect is to key in the command at the system prompt. Once connected, users can choose item “#9 Libraries and Reference Information” to get a menu that includes: “#6 Writers’ Workshop On-line Handbook” where the University of Illinois’ version of an OWL can be found. The On-lin~~ Hcrr~dhook contains a highly structured and organized database of information about bibliography formats-MLA. APA, and Old-MLA (notes and bibliography). It will be expanded to include information about punctuation, mechanics, and basic grammar. The Purdue University Writing Lab Gopher can bc accessed directly by keyin g the command <> at the user’s main prompt. Once there, users find a topical guide to writing skills handouts and can “Read.” “Save.” and/or “Print” files. To build a national pool of writing center online resources, the Purdue Gopher also lists other writing centers and their writing resources. The Gopher also enables users to immediately connect to these. Also. for users who want to get to the Internet to find information in a variety of disciplines, the Purdue Writing Lab Gopher provides a gateway to link to particularly rich sites of information we’ve located. The intent here is to assist students gathering information in preparation for writing research papers-to become their easy gateway out-a particularly important service for novices learning to surf the Internet. Gopher systems are recrctive. rml-time systems. They offer uniform. standardized responses to inquires and commands given online by users. Users remain connected to the Gopher system/server at all times; they gradually navigate their way into and out of file

150

HAERIS AND PEMBER~ON

locations that are of interest. Files that users locate can easily be saved, printed and/or read off-line. Gopher’s real attraction is the opportunity for users to browse through a succession of files, to move up and down through menu trees, to pick and choose what they want to read before moving on. For this reason, files at Illinois are brief. specific, and compact. The Writers Workshop On-lint Hadhook at Illinois contains over 100 distinct files of bibliographic information. but each file’s average length is only between one and two computer screens of text. The files can each be located easily and read quickly, and, then, users can move elsewhere if they wish. By comparison. a file in the Purdue OWL usually contains a more complete discussion of a specific topic. Thus, the MLA file includes all material offered on MLA bibliographic inforn~ation. As with AFRs. system capacity and ext~-instituti~?n~~l access may become a problem at some campuses and with some servers. However. because Gopher was conceived as an international network, long-distance access is generally considered to be a part of normal operating practice and is usually provided for. In addition. Gopher file structures can easily be transferred among servers, so users frequently “move up” to a server with greater capacity. Gophers also permit a writing center to offer a panoply of services. At the University of Delaware. the university Gopher includes their writing center handouts and some general information about the center (Penna, 1994). Kennesaw State College’s writing center plans are for an online information center on the college Gopher that will provide various information services (Barrier, 1994). Because Gophers permit writers to roam the Internet’s vast resources and because students will also need to know how to download files, how to use e-mail, and so on. the Purdue Writing Lab is devel~~p~I1~hypertext tutorials aimed at assisting students with these processes. Howcvcr, because hypertext tutorials are not accessible on Gophers and because of the growing popularity of the WWW (which permits hypertext links) as a different and more visually compelling way to connect to the vast pool of lntcrnet resources, Purdue has constructed ;I WWW papc, on which hypertext programs will be available. Also available through its Web are writing ccntcr handouts (visually formatted in more readable ways). direct links to other online writing centers and their services. and immediate links to an even more vast univer\c of materials than are available through Gophers. Student novices will oventuatty learn how to search the Web on their own. but initially. with :I click of a mouse. they can st;lrt with the Purdue Writing Lab‘s home page. and link from the lob page. for cxampic. to the Library of Congcss’s page or to Carnegie Mellon’s page whcrc they can brolvse through the Etlt,\c.iol~etiiir &itmnira. ’

E-MAIL

DROPBOXES

AND NEWSGROUPS

In some respects, e-mail dropboxes are the easiest type of OWL to envision because they are simply an extension of the kind of e-mail messaging many of us engage in every day. Students send papers and/or writing-related questions to OWL e-mail addresses; the writing center’s tutor (or tutors) responsible for monitoring the c-mail box read and respond to inquiries in a timely fashion. Some OWLS invite students to send papers and questions about writing. At the University of Minnesota. online consulting is available both for texts that are sent in and for questions. Whole papers can be sent via POPMAIL (tier

Online

Writing

Labs

151

the Macintosh) or MINUET (for DOS). Students who don’t have access to either of these software programs copy their papers into an e-mail message (Healy, 1994). The writing center at SUNY-Albany invites students to send papers via their VAX e-mail (Coogan. 1994). At the City College of New York, David Tillyer (1994) reported that his writing center’s e-mail service invites papers, but funding and software problems have kept that OWL from flying. Other writing centers offering e-mail service are listed at the Purdue Gopher and WWW sites. E-mail dropboxes and newsgroups are intemctive. time-clisplcrced systems. Users send questions to an electronic site and wait for a response. Delays from several minutes to several hours (or even days) are possible, depending on question complexity, frequency of tutor logins, transmission delays, and other interfacing factors. For the most part, questions that users ask of writing center tutors on these systems are text-based. contextdriven, and situationally embedded. Because they often address issues of language use, stylistics, organization, and tone within the context of a specific paper or rhetorical situation, the questions do not lend themselves to standardized responses and prepackaged handouts. Tutors must engage each writing problem individually, with all of the corresponding demands on their time and effort. Sometimes this includes questions from the tutor asking for clarification, expanding the time required to respond to even the simplest problems. E-mail dropboxes may seem to invite quick questions in the same manner that Grammar Hotlines do, but Purdue’s experience indicates that the questions sent via e-mail are-for the most part-vastly different. Phoned-in questions tend to be focused on brief, sentence-level concerns or format issues that can be answered by checking a handbook. E-mailed questions, because they are presented as text messages, tend to be larger and more complex, asking about audience concerns, writing strategies, and so on. The e-mail environment also permits long, complex explanations from the sender, such as in a two-page question to Purdue’s OWL about hyphen use, sent by a Dutch engineer working in a Bell laboratory in Belgium. As the writer explained. his first language permits word combining in ways that English does not, so he began by asking for a general orientation to hyphenation in English. He went on to explain that, as an engineer, his need for clarity leads him to misuse hyphenation rules in English as he understands them, and he finally wound up asking for a rationale for breaking rules in the name of clarity. Such messages are very different from Grammar Hotline calls. Newsgroups may be less familiar to students and more awkward to use than dropboxes, but their intent and operation are essentially the same. Students can post questions to newsgroups using specialized software (such as READNEWS or NONEWS); tutors monitor these newsgroup postings at regular intervals, replying to questions soon after they appear. One important difference between these two posting systems exists, however: messages posted to a newsgroup are accessible to the general public. Users other than “official” tutors may choose to monitor newsgroups and may, in fact, choose to respond to student questions posted there. Unauthorized response may or may not be seen as a problem, depending in part on the quality of advice and/or information provided by “rogue” tutors and, in part, on the degree to which writing centers wish to open themselves to this kind of opportunistic collaboration. Ideally, on one hand, newsgroups moderated by campus writing centers could provide a forum for multiple student and tutor voices, creative brainstorming, and mutual support-not unlike activities that take place on newsgroups many of us participate in as professionals. On the other hand, students hoping for quick responses to simple questions from people working in the writing center may be annoyed, overwhelmed, or intimidated by a flurry of responses from people they

152

HARRIS AND PEMBERTON

never expected or cared to hear from.

( 1991) at the University these reasons.

of Missouri

The campus newsgroup

part. an underwhelming

response.

<> questions’!

The On-line

all

FURTHER

at the University

Corner

of Illinois

aet up by Eric

and not due to ;I lack

network

security

CONSIDERATIONS: COMPUTER

has drawn.

of questions

Fewer than a hantil‘ul

year.

Two more reasons:

Writers’

Crump

at Columbia has not drawn much interest. perhaps for

of publicity.

and computer

NETWORK LITERACY

for the most

have been posted on Why

‘so few,

literacy.

SECURITY

AND

Network Security Without OWL.

question,

security

but writing

account security

issues

center directors network.

account abuse by students, e-mail

be ~~ust~lt~~l

pyramid duty-often

to trc>,jan programs

with

good reason-to

The sad result of this difference

of a kw.

that writing

of services Convenience experts f&w. ‘I

might

is the case at Illinois.

swiftly

quashed by 21 university

don’t.”

was the tersely policy

arbitrary

An

worded ruling.

was network

c(~l~~pLlter services

(Gopher,

proposal

IRC.

access to all. The

workable

in a writing

only

way to cnsurc

back to them.

center setting,

tutor:

no single tutor would want to be rcsponsiblc

hours

a day, five days or rnori:

network

administrators

such accounts. responsibility

;I week.

But

of‘ a writing

However.

SOIIX institutions

of writing

ccntcrs which

center director. respond

to e-mail

and mmingly

act responsibly

obstacle.

questions

who hnvc

be acccssihle

is to have

tiropboxe3 by mm

all incoming

to bc

than one mail I?-

accounts will

LISCI-. witle institutions

who closely

have overcome this

was

place\

is only one of many

for e-mail

tbr n~ttnitorinp

may only permit

system

accounts:

SLILIIan accot~nt. Acccsx

hec~~sc multi-user

to track abuses to il sin&

whereas other institutions

system.

the needs of the

etc.) available to users without

that users

they must generally

the ahuses on the typex

dropbox

o-mail

Unl’ortunately.

\vith

it their

or. as (he compuler

reason given for this inflexible

~~n~~iiyr~ioi~sftp. telnet.

some way to trace violations

from

have c-mail

institutions.

user

computing

for an e-mail

computer accounts. and thcrc is no such thing as c-mail to one entails

institution‘s

manager. “Pcoplc At most

to

cvcry

needs of the many outweigh

The

security.

their

on the altar of security.

initial

systems

to

passwords,

they consider

of‘ users

01

(referral

often can be restrictions

through

“The

software

nearly

abuser;

protect the majority

can offer

put it.

specialists.

is a potential

in prioritic\

and case of use are sacrificed

and Trekkers

Such

centers

to the people in charge of are replete with stories

that steal other users‘

In the cycs of tomputcr

i~~~in~~~i~~~compufcr

an

that as ii~i~or~~~n~ as

from the exchange of copyrightcd

ranging

schemes.

when establishing

to discover

0 communities

Computer-usin,

as “wara”)

pirates

access to a university’s special

will

might bc to them. it is far, tar more important

the campus computing by software

must hc taken into consideration

Ih

not allt~w

may pi-ohibit

accounts a\ long as they arc the monitors

;KXX~~ to the account.

as is cvidcnt

on the Purtluc

in the growing

list

Gophci- and WWW

page.

Computer Cornputcr

illiteracy

institutions OWLS.

Most

among students.

has also proven students

simply

Illiteracy

particularly

to bc it rnqior

humanities

obstacle

do not LISC university

students.

to the successful computing

systt‘mx.

at our rcspectivc in~plemcntation

of

Our cxpcriences

153

Online Writing Labs

OWLS and informal surveys of students bear this out. One of us, for example, asked an upper-division English class of juniors and seniors how many class members had used the campus computing system-for e-mail, newsgroups. class assignments. etc. Onfy 3 students of 34 raised their hands. Those few students who do use university computers tend to use them for e-mail alone and, then, usuaily only to correspond with friends and classmates. Fewer students know what newsgroups are, and fewer than that read them with any regularity. At both Purdue and Illinois, the campus computing centers do not offer courses or training sessions for students interested in learning about newsgroups. Small wonder that so few messages were posted on the Illinois writing center newsgroup over the course of a year. The WOKIISprogram at Purdue was developed in part to answer the problem of students’ lack of familiarity with e-mail.

with

SYNCHRONOUS

CHAT SYSTEMS

Another computerized support service that a writing center might offer is a synchronous chat system, which offers students the possibility of connecting online directly with a tutor and engaging in an extended, typewritten conversation about a text. an issue, or a rhetorical problem. Synchronous chat systems are inreructhv. rdtime systems. Depending on the sophistication of the technology involved. students and tutors can converse electronically. view a draft onscreen, and/or share files and references with one another as they collaborate. Again, depending on the sophistication of the technology available, it is foreseeable that several students and/or tutors could link simultaneously, all working on the same document in different ways. The writing problems and situations addressed in these conversations are as unpredictable, complex, and varied as any writing problems are likely to be. Students and other users ask questions, get responses or new questions, and then respond. Both user(s) and respondent(s) are online silnultaneously, directly connected, and reacting to one another in realtime. True conversational interactions are played out onscreen, though with occasionally tortured slowness as both participants must take the time to write-rather than speak-their observations and commentary. Interactions fostered by this system are time- and tutor-intensive. Tutors must “listen” to what students are saying about their papers. consider these comments. and respond in much the same way as they would in a traditional conference. Students must do the same. Wilkie Leith (1993), director of the writing center at George Mason University, posted the following message to the WCENTER electronic bulletin board: One of the the PHONE

methods we’re “testing” (meaning we have yet to find real time to proceed) is component of VAX.

By setting appointment times.

having students send

the PHONE to have an inte~ctive conversation about the text. This process is clumsy, hard to ad,just to. and can be drafts through e-mail. annoying, but-for

downloading and then using

students (writers) who feel more comfortable on computers or cannot

be on campus, this process can produce some interesting results. The tutor and writer can “converse”

IN WRITING

about the draft.

Dave Coogan (1993a). at SUNY-Albany. compared it to his e-mail interactions:

has had a few tutorials

over VAX PHONE and

1 found the experience much closer to the f2f [face-to-face] tutorial-l

could hear the

1 had been I could no longer craft my “image” or my rhetoric of the tutor. This. most of ail, reminded me of the back-and-forth

silences, get a good sense of the pacing. and a better sense of who the person tutoring via e-mail actually was. It also felt more exposed:

HARRISAND PEMBERTON

154

whcrc thinking on your feet is everyttung! I have hope Ibr VAX 1 think it‘s a little too obscure for the average student. And the idea of

style of f2f interaction Phone. but.. making virtual of the VAX.

Certainly,

appointments-while

tempting-may

he counter-intuitive

to the rhythms

user room access. etc.

are advantages

there

to this sort ol‘ interaction.

To begin

with,

to use the

system. students must do the one thing we work hardest to get them to do: write. must not only reflect composing,

upon their texts and respond to our questions:

by putting

this act alone

their thoughts and ideas into written

to be the mark

of a successful

They

they must do so by

form. Don‘t we often consider

conference?

In this respect.

then.

the

c(~nvers~ti~~ns facilitated by synchr~~n(~us chat systems achieve success from the moment a student question is first tr~nslnittcd. Another

benefit oC chat systems is the ease with which students can save transcripts

online conversations

to a fite and later re\iiew them when they are revising

discussed. No longer would we need to worry

ot’

the papers they

about how much students remembered

from

their conferences.

The entire confcrcnce

pressing

concern

would

would

have too much of the conference

available

to them and might be tempted to appropriate

tutors‘ words as their own (Baker,

1994: Spooner.

be whether

would be laid out before them. In fact. a more

students

1944).

A particularly

promising

students in a MOO, defined

direction

for synchronous

by Jennifer Jordan-Henley

chat systems is that of meeting as “a computer

space designed for

people to lop on and converse while buifdin, ‘7 a textual cnvil-(~liI~~ent.. (Jord~~n-Heni~~/, 1994). The Virtual Writing Center built by J(~rd~~n-~~niey and Barry Maid allowed students at J~~rd~ln-Henley’s college Maid’s

graduate

in Tennessee to receive

students in Arkansas.

( IWS), is that along with enthusiasm

online

The result. concluded for this new environment.

more interest in revision on the students’ part. Describing

tutorial

help from

Jordan-Henley

and Maid

there was significantly

another MOO environment,

the

On-line Writery at the University of Missouri. Eric Grump (1994a) detailed li)r us one experience of working online with a student. After some initial c-mailing back and forth with a tutor. [Tjhe student then showed up at DaedalusM00 comments. L&r. and

:md tnlkocl with the tutor about the tutor’s

the student postccl via c-moii a rcvid

version of the introduction.

He

I met at the MOO. 1 had his various drafts in one window ;tncf ;I rt_dtime di\cusxion

going with him in another. We rctkrrecl to his texts and talked ahout ways to improve ~~r~~llli~~ti(~nand phrasing. When necc~sary

I

CLIIhits f’rom the text and ptltctl

the discussion. Hc ~;as keeping if log oi’the discussion. so when one point,

what he meant by a particular

phrase. hc WI\

them into

1ashedhim to explain. at abk to capture his nttw

explanation (which was ;I whole lot clearer to mc). anti paste it right into the tlcvcloping text.

We were both more litcrallp engaged in the revision process. There was no pap

between discussion

and iniplementation.

Wc wcrcn’t tdkin, (7 about writing.

We \vere

tloiyq it.

THE

INSTITUTIONAL

MlSSION

With the varieties of electronic c(~n~i~ui-~ti~)ns in mind, WC turn now to Iocal issues that also factor into shaping an OWL. and ant of’the most iiiip~)rt~nt of such issues. ax we have inelltion~d, is the mission of‘ the instituti~~n in which a writing center resides. The degree to which an institution will support a writing center’s online initiative depends on whether an OWL complements the institution’s stated missions. For example, when an institution

Online

Writing

Labs

155

values its forward motion in the use of technology, a writing center’s OWL is likely to be viewed as valuable in being yet another bit of visible evidence that the school is at the cutting edge of computer use. Research institutions may also regard OWLS as a marvelously rich source of research data, for these projects can be studied in a variety of disciplines, from very divergent perspectives. Of merit also is the public visibility that some institutions may gain when their writing center’s work becomes valuable to the local community or to lnternet users everywhere. Where community outreach is important, the institution will value an online service that is also available to the local community and to area high schools. Or this kind of outreach may be seen as a good recruiting tool for the institution. In such cases, OWLS need to be accessible from the Internet so outside users can enter the system through e-mail, a Gopher, or the WWW. But as we have mentioned, this also means that OWLS are open to use from anywhere in the world. If an institution does not want to expend its limited resources outside the campus, then an OWL should be aimed at-and only accessible to-the institution’s students and faculty. Another institutional consideration is the degree to which it promotes accessibility to university services for all students. Physically disabled students, students with learning disabilities, hearing-impaired students, part-time students, students with jobs that leave them little free time during the hours of the writing center’s operation, and commuting students are likely to find an OWL far more convenient than attempting to journey to the writing center. On a large university campus, an OWL offers accessibility to students who have no time to trek across long distances or who rarely visit that part of the campus where the writing center is located.

WRITING

CENTER

GOALS

Perhaps the largest set of options facing writing center directors are those that will shape OWLS’ configuration within the context of a writing center’s goals. For example, directors must decide to what degree OWLS will dominate a center’s work. This is a question of what constitutes augmenting present services and when an OWL seems to take over and consume too much of a center’s resources-and a director’s energies. Centers also need a clear sense of what their present student population is and who OWL users will be. If centers view OWLS as outreach to new populations, then options exist to explore in locating those populations, in considering how they can be served and what they need. At institutions with large populations of commuting students, a service that offers opportunities to interact with tutors at their convenience may be the most useful emphasis-if those communicating students have online access (as some do in their work environments). At Purdue, another target populatic 1 are writers (especially novice Internet browsers) who profit from tapping into Internet resources for papers they are writing in various disciplines. Another major focus of Purdue’s energies at present is on developing online hypertext tutorials aimed at giving these students strategies for searching the Internet and helping them learn how to download what they find. This expands a writing center’s goals so it also becomes a resource center for writers, providing opportunities to learn new tools for writing that may not be taught in courses. Yet a different goal for an OWL, provided at Dakota State University, is a set of services intended both as a faculty resource and as a student tutorial environment (Ericsson, 1993). People who configure or plan OWLS must also weight other options and make decisions as to which aspects of writing center theory and pedagogy are to be retained and which cannot be replicated exactly. In other words, there has to be some degree of

HARRIS AND PEMBERION

156

ncccptance of‘ (and ;I sense Dialogue

online

nonsynchronic immctliutc

of challenge

c;Ln be interactive talk

situations

back-and-forth

sessions.

All

(not

dialogue in online

“ininimalist

tutoring”

LIntI other

drafting

the students’

I99 I ). Onscrcen

(those

ancl written

products.

mcl

race

and social cues. Voices nornlally

are Icss

likely

to impact world

that writing

The

politics.

of avail;tble rcsourccs.

rcccptivc to new challenges have

massive

silence,

personnel No nlattcr their

student

li)r scientific

service

that

will

CENTER

we can help

computing

argun~nt IKQ

strain

rcsourcc4

computing

knowledge

to off&

;lssist

training How

ccntcrs

or short courses?

even

may

stonewalling

policy

Inore. 2s

acln~inistrators about

Eric

in the computing Crunip

in

the writing

interaction

set

yet another

Grump

( I994b)

center. \ve think sugestecl,

such

thereby

_ they. have to worr!

is mininlal

dtwarc

center. xnd

of

if‘ the

yaining

we the

about. III C:ISCS

where ;I writing

;I\ I’urciuc‘4

in the degree IO which

Does

tactor in setting

\\OI
thq

ma!;

center hvc

to

i\ bc

w:uit to OI- ;lrc able to

u p OWLs.

Do \tudunts hil\.C

the coniputin, 0 ccntcr (or son1e course)

ccntcr

available’? Do all students

in assisting

students

may dictate sonic of these concerns.

by its assistance. control

enthusiastic

about teachin, (7students ho\\ to use c-tnail.

is ;I nl;Lior

is the computing

University

01‘ computer-ccntel

tiIne-conslII11ing~expcricnce.

example.

la good documentation

there is not ;I university-wide center

vary

LISC, this

to coniputin g Illbs’!

ilggrcssive

literate?

or they III+

cloors i\ met M,ith

the way.

computing

student conlputer

easy ;Iccess

on their

is macle. Sony

for one Icss responsibilitv

scrvica.

can

of‘ Iociil

I-‘crsonneI IIMV bc vq

Iill- the hum;ulitics.

be less than

For

sessions

of online

online

developed to smooth Because

center.

training

ccntcr’s gratitude

where student determined

the coquting such

administrators.

IO get the attention

USC. or they

ccntcr is less than enthusiastic

can ot’i’er to hold

in dcvclop~nent of OWL4

01‘ v;Irious

recommenclod that when WC‘arc: tl-ying to win fricncls wqs

and wm.

inordinatcl!,

their

except through li~ccless.

trying

often-the

in ;I

ancl stcrcotypcs

;IS well

or of computin g center priorities.

how oloqucntly--or

priorities

ha\c to learn to

;I setting

of personalitie\

or hostility

to the

between

in this

vicwecl ;IS personal

frustrating-:&

thus. evident

arc losses

In those CLICS whcrc hnocking

indifference.

can be ;1 highly

bring

contact may seern to ci&umani/c

anti new uses of computers

dil‘l‘erent agendas.

very

thcrc

stutlents

ancl clearer.

centers are wilin s to Lissist

It may be ;I matter

greatly

But

also

;iI-row 4. inserts.

al\o n~;~n mcctinf

will

bc stronger

(;~s in the

text will

in the clisparit!

:u-c not immcdiatcly

COMPUTING;

degree to which computing

vary

sonic tutors.

onscreen

shy rnq

the tutorial.

centers have traditionally

Although

mcctlny

~1s the lack of the personal

THE

copy that

th;lt become cvidcnt

the subtle

ovt’r to them

scratched out option\.

in the hard

arc.

disembodied

eliminating

by

rely on other clues ;IS to who writers lexical

bc text driven.

Hrods,

the

ti~ce~to-ti~ce tutoring

cliscu\sed

evident

world where gender. ethnicity.

in

is turned

learnin g dis:tbilities

conversations

so procluctive

will

cngagc in

ma> not cxperiencc

that control

processes

techniques

center) and to possible

they

environments.

and students

to students

strategies

have fewer clues to composing

option).

that is

configuration\

new tutorial

but if tutors

in ;I “chat”

clarific;ltion

ancl body cues that indicate

voice

in incluirin, ~7 into)

and collaborative.

mandate (or resources) by its inability,

the clcgree to which

in becoming

li)r computer will

computc~

but in those c;~scs whcrc

by its incliffcrencc.

students

provitle

get ilccounts’!

LISC OWLS.

literacy.

the computing

OI- by its capacity

fi)~

Online

Writing

THE COMPUTER

Labs

157

PROGRAMMER

Yet another major consideration is the skill level, creativity, and philosophical orientations of the people who actually set up OWLS. Some programmers who delight in the complexities of their creations also see merit in user-friendly systems; others simply delight in the complexities. No matter how much coordination there is between the writing center staff who are planning their online environment, at some point plans turn into reality through program designers’ abilities, ingenuity, and general approach to creating software. Complications can develop. systems can be created that seem infested with glitches and bugs, and environments can be friendly or not. Or ingenious solutions and clever additions may be introduced by imaginative program designers. whereas others less imaginative may settle for more limited or unnecessarily complicated ways to do things. Moreover. from the perspective of the writing center. there may be preferencesfor example. keeping records-that can be easily dismissed by program designers who do not see the importance of building systems in which they have to work around such preferences or who have to worry about how to incorporate them in the software. It becomes important to find programmers who will attempt to understand a writing center’s goals, methods. and philosophy as well.

STUDENT

COMPUTER

LITERACY

As mentioned earlier, a critical factor in setting up an OWL is the computer literacy of student users. By and large, the experiences of those who have fledgling OWLS aloft seem to indicate that while e-mail is a viable option for connecting to students who want to send questions and/or drafts of papers, electronic mail is not something at which most undergraduates are adept. Because it is likely that students become more familiar with uses of computers beyond word processing as they progress through college, writing centers that serve mainly first-year students may find this population least likely to find e-mail a convenient process. Groups who might benefit from an e-mail connection are commuter students sufficiently affluent to have home modems, physically handicapped students who have specialized (and networked) computer equipment available to them elsewhere on campus, students who use networked computers in areas of a large campus remote from the writing center, and students at satellite locations off-campus or in residence halls with networked computers.

WRITING

CENTER

TUTORS

Another factor that shapes the particular configuration of an OWL is the writing center staff, their attitudes toward online interaction, and their level of enthusiasm. Tutors who see this new opportunity for a somewhat different and potentially exciting means of communication with students will look upon the inconveniences and system breakdowns, the training period, and the struggle to find an “online voice” as opportunities to grow in new directions and to meet students in a new environment. Other tutors, themselves not adept at e-mailing, who haven’t made it part of their lives, or who are suspicious about this cyberspace universe, will proceed with more grumbling, hesitancy, and uneasiness about giving up the face-to-face interaction they value and thrive on, a situation already noticed by Jordan-Henley and Maid in their MOO project (1995). As Paula Gillespie

158

HARRIS AND PEMBERTON

(1994)

has noted, directors

must work

have to see tutor preparation slowly

until tutors

they’ve

If OWLS

tutors

than printing

WC have

may need practice responding

option of printinf

the

holding

messages.

It works,

will

comments

get sucked

into

tentativeness tutors

find

can bc left

away from

strategies

onscrcen

and a vocahulq

through

copied

collaboration

writers’

into

text

of text onscreen rather reported.

but

rarely

through

the way

UK

the text

in separate

mail

(Baker.

Spooner.

the

with

students.

;I concern

Online

of Lvhcre online

discussed

interaction

in Writiq

L,trlj

is also problematic

move tutoring

of the more

tutors‘

can be used more

questions

not approached thoughtfully-to

and to take on the characteristics

also. is

tutorial.

may appear on the

responses

already

the

Of concern.

and. ultimately. ethical

the

Moving

tahcs practice 21s

In a filce-to-face

But onscrecn

indicating

answers.

to a true discussion

raising

1994).

intonation

delivcrcd

response.

thus

begins.

a question or comment thrown

with

Ihr OWL-ing

papers.

1994;

in ways that overcome the inherent

suggests

consciousness.

students’

in that it has the potential-if collaboration

in a

then hard-

at SUNY-Albany

along

thought processes

ends and plagiarism

Nc~.\/rf/c/. articles

margins

hanging

of the permanence of the tutors’

page. fittered

tutors

to papers.

commentin@

Although

mere questionianswcr

may become part of writers’

directly,

before

to the end or commcntinf

of the comment.

the question words

It also means training

but it is hard to get used to: it‘s ;I lot to hold in your head at one time!

conversation

interaction

and directors

may mean moving

the screen-scrolling

also need help learnin g how to respond

LI tutorial

This

to large chunks

;I student’s paper

tendency of onscreen text to appear authoritative.

online

OWLS.

begun to read the test onscrccn:

and either

into

not against them,

are going to provide a space to respond

more often we let ouraclves

Tutors

staffs,

successful

out a paper to read it. As Dave Coogan ( I993b).

successfully

it.

their

are ready to take on online interaction.

number of ways. copy oriented

with

as part of building

Inmiliar

away

respon\c

from in the

01’ a paper.

CONCLUSION As

we have tried

to demonstrate

cannot handle others. challenges,

OWLS

here, OWLS

can meet a variety

can also take a variety

of shapes.

extend our reach, and tnake us ask finally

of needs just

as they

and they can create new

what our rationales into--and

students

move into-a

future

Internet’!

which

will

include

we want to reach new groups

Do

writing.

of students

access to the center’! Given the changing demographics part-time importance These

of considering students

retrain. many

often

work

and as a result writins

face-to-race significant

centers

full

time.

they

are often

are available. skills,

take, they promise with

have

lamilies.

to commute

As much

as WCs

must

Selfe

( 1994)

warned

us

of

the

ways:

unable

they

who don’t have easy

education as increasing

Dickie

status,

needs in new

also

they

need

recognize

to school to

are returning

to schools

during

to protect that

this

the hours

and develop very

strength

that their is a

to a growing number of students.

are uppermost

in the planning

access to online computers.

major component arc f’amiliar

they

interactive burden

If such considerations off-campus

their

help our

researching.

in 21 service

then providing

that assists

this

of OWLS tutorial

population.

to lcad us into interestin, (7 new directions. exploring

new paths.

and if these students interaction

Whatever

online

will

have be a

shapes our OWLS

Fortunately.

writing

cvcn as WC wonder where thcv will

centers

lead us.

Online

Writing

159

Labs

Muriel Harris is a professor of English and Director of the Writing Lab at Purdue University; editor of the Writing Lab Newdefter and author of numerous articles on writing center theory and pedagogy and several books, including her most recent text. the Prentice Hnll Reference Guide to Gmmmar NIKI Usage. 2nd edition (1994). Her e-mail is . Michael A. Pemberton. an Assistant Professor of English at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. directs the Writers’ Workshop and writes a monthly column on Writing Center Ethics for the Writing Lab Ne\i9sletter. His e-mail is: .

REFERENCES An ethical question about on-line tutoring m the writing lab. Writing Lab Nwslrtwr.

Baker, J. (1994).

IK (5).

67. Barrier. B. (1994.

April).

The on-line writin g and reference center. Poster presented at the National Writing

Centers Association Conference. New Orleans. LA. Brooks, J. (I991 ). Minimalist tutoring: Makine the student do all the work. Writing LohNrnd~ttc~r. Cooean.

D. (1993a.

December

IS). On-line-why

In WCENTER

not use PHONE?

I.5 (6). 14.

[Onlinel.

AvaIlable:

. Coogan.

D.

(1993b.

December

14).

On-Line

Writing

Lab.

WCENTER

In

[OnlineI.

AvaIlable:

. Coogan,

D.

(1994.

May

20).

(e-mail

to

Muriel

Harris).

Question

(a

brief

one).

(Internet].

. C r ump,

E.

(1993,

December

IO).

What’s

up

with

wlole?

WIOLE-1~.

[Online].

Available:

your

. Crump.

E.

(lYY4a.

November

4).

On-line

WC.

In

WCENTER

. Grump. k. ( lYY4b. March). Politlcb: Conflicts between humanist\ and technologlcs and how tension\ affect the dcvclopment of on-line writin f environments. Paper presented at Conlerence on Collcfe and Communicution, Ericsson.

P. (1993.


Joe.

Nashville.

November

MIZZOUI (1904.

Compohltion

TN. 2).

The

OWL

in

flight.

WHOLE-L

In

[Onlinei.

Available:

.missouri.edu.>. May

20).

(e-mall

to

Muriel

Harri\).

A

question.

[Internet).

. Gillespie. P. ( 1994). Tutors’ roles in developing an OWL.

Paper presented at the meeting of East Central Writing

Centers Association Conference. Toledo. OH. Healy.

D.

(1994.


D.

May

(1994,


20).

(e-mail

to

Muriel

Harri\)

Our

(e-mail

to

Muriel

Harri\).

A

OWL.

[Internet).

mace.cc.purdue.edu.>. May

20).

question.

[Internet].

mace.cc.purdue.edu.>.

Jordan-Henley.

J.

(1994,

November

7).

Trends.

In

WCENTER

[Online].

Available:

ilistservicc unicorn.acs.ttu.edu.>. Jordan-Henley.

J. & Maid.

B. (1995).

MOOving

cyberspace. Wriring Ltrb Nendrtrw, Leith.

W. (1993.

December

14). On-line-why

. Penna. C. (1994, May 16). (e-mail
D.

along the information

superhighway: Writing

center\

in

19 (5). l-4.

to Muriel

not use PHONE? Harris).

Writing

In WCENTER Centers

&

[Online]. Gophers.

Available: [Internet].

mace.cc.purdue.edu.>.

(1994,

January


24).

Some

stats.

In

WIOLE-L

[Online].

A dialogue on OWLin g in the writing lab: Some thoughts about on-lint

Wrrrirf~ Ltrh Nrwderm.

Available:

I .missouri.edu.>. I8 (6). 68.

writing labs.