Computers and Composition 12, 237-246 (1995)

Online Tutor Training: Synchronous Conferencing in a

professional Community

CINDY JOHANEK

Bull Stute Universitv

Daedalus Interchange, an Mine synchronous conferencing program, fits well with writing center tutor training philosophies that are based on the social and dynamic construction of knowledge with each member of a community having a voice. Providing examples of four interchange transcripts from writing center staff meetings at Ball State University, we discuss goals for tutor training at Ball State, the rationale for choosing synchronous conferencing as o tutor training technique, and benefits of using synchronous conferencing as a port of tutor training. We present survey results from tutors who participated in online tutor training, suggesting a favorable response to Interchange from tutors.

conferencing, online online tutor training tutor troining

synchronous conferencina writina centers

Scholarship on computers in writing centers-particularly since the I987 special issue of The Writing Center Journal entitled Computers, Computers, Computers-has contributed valuable information about the effects of computer-aided instruction on student writing, tutor-student interaction, and changing pedagogy. Scholarship on computers and writing and scholarship on writing centers have both emerged naturally from parallel philoso- phies and purposes: individuafizing instruction; fostering writer independence; and meeting the needs of schools, communities, and changing job markets.

Until this special issue of Computers and Composition, however, the focus has been primarily on computer issues related to students or administrators, and we have yet to merge computer discussions with ongoing discussions about training tutors and teachers. Past scholarship remains focused instead on these areas:

. Using computers to help “special groups” of writers, such as basic writers, (Ricker, 1991; Vasile & Ghizzone, 1992), nonnative speakers (Ridpath, 1992L learning disabled students (Berta, 1991; Quinn & Flint, 1990; Towns, 1989). and student

researchers (Clark, I99 I) . Using computers as aids to record keeping (Brodersen, Kasselbaum. Pregter, &

Marts, 1992; Hollis, 1990) . Planning for the physical and administrative merging of writing centers and computer

labs (Grump, 1993; Field-Pickering, 1993; McKenzie, 1989; Simpson, 1993) . Understanding potential benefits of features of word-processing software, of prewrit-

Correspondence and requests for reprints should be sent to Cindy Johanek, English Department, Writing

Center, Ball State University, Muncie, IN 47306. e-mail: <00cljohanek.hsuvc.bsu.edu>.

237

238 JOHANEK AND RICKLY

ing and drill software, and of style- or spell-check options (Brown, 1990; Hollis. 1990)

. Tracking the emergence of online writing centers (Crump, 1994; Spooner. 1994) and the writing center community via Internet (Crump. 1992; Hobson, 1993: Sears, 1992)

Although these explorations have been valuable to writing centers. we hope to add to current scholarship an examination of synchronous conferencing (through Daedalus INTERCHANGE, a feature of Daedalus INTEGRATEI~ WRITING SYSTEM) and tutor training-a merging of two issues critical to writing centers and their success. Our examination includes an overview of the Daedalus INTERCHANGE. program, a brief outline of goals for tutor training in Ball State’s writing center and how INTLRCHANGL works within those goals, examples of tutors’ discussions on INTERCI-IANGE, and responses to INTERCHANGE from a tutors’ survey.

OVERVIEW OF DAEDALUS INTERCHANGE: THEORY AND TOOLS

Briefly, Daedalus INTEGRATED WRITING SYSTEM (DIWE) is an integrated networked software package that includes. among other features, a word-processing package, a heuristic program, synchronous conferencing. a revision program, and mail capabilities. The most impressive part of this networked package. however, is the synchronous conferencing program, INTERCHANGE.

Set up like a conference call in which everyone can “talk” at once (yet no one is interrupted), INTERCHANGE allows participants to hold an electronic, online, written conversation. In the examples we will discuss here. Ball State tutors used INTERC‘HANC;~ to engage in an online conversation during meetings for Writing Center staff. In these online meetings, a topic was introduced by one or more staff members. On INTERCHANGE. tutors

composed comments, questions. and responses in a small window, then sent their text to other participants who were able to view every individual message sent to theil computers.

During INTERCHANGE meetings. tutors became adept at following threads, or different topics that continued throughout the discussion. threads that appeared in a chronological order but did not necessarily follow in a logical order. For instance. if tutors were discussing X. Y, and Z, those topics would appear in the order they were sent to the file server, and those messages would most likely be intertwined as we see in the following messages’ in which two threads have begun: one functional, about a tally that a tutor had to mark for students unable to schedule an appointment: and one about different in-class tutoring experiences (through a program in which tutors were placed in composition classes to help facilitate small group and individual work), a thread that expanded and subdivided later in the conversation.

Nancy+ Airight. I have a question. The little piece of paper on the desk that say\. “Students we have to turn away because we arc too busy,” do you mean students that we‘re too busy IO

Online Tutor Training 239

take at the time that make appointments for later dates, or just students that go away and don’t come back‘?

Susan: Well, the students in [my teacher’s] class keep asking me if [he] realizes that I am an in class tutor and not a student. He only uses me about fifteen minutes a week at the most. The rest of the time 1 have to pick my nose. Lisa: Nancy-That paper is for students who we try to make an appointment for later, but they say they’ll just come back, etc. If they make an appointment, then we didn’t really turn

them away.

During INTERCHANGE sessions, multiple conferences were created to help keep the meeting more organized, much like small groups would be used in a traditional, face-to- face meeting. For instance, tutors participated in one of three subconferences during the meeting. (Topics might include a discussion on developing handouts, an evaluation of the tutor observation forms, and a scenario for tutors to discuss.) Subconference topics helped them to focus their thoughts and energy, much like small group interaction would.

The Daedalus system, then, fits naturally into a writing center philosophy. The epistemology that undergirds the Daedalus system, much like that upon which writing centers are based, is one of social construction: Meaning is constructed dynamically within a community, with each member having a voice; and dissension and chaos, in addition to consensus, are necessary for dialogue that defines a community. Not only does INTERCHANGE work well within a writing center philosophy, but it also enables Ball State’s writing center to reach specific goals for tutor training.

GOALS FOR TUTOR TRAINING

For the past several years, Ball State’s Writing Center has been directed by doctoral students in composition who are assigned to the Writing Center on graduate assistant- ships. Although the nature of the director’s position may change in the future, Writing Center leadership has changed hands several times in recent years, bringing changes in hiring and training practices, philosophies, and areas of emphasis. In addition to rapidly changing leadership, we have no tutor training course at this time. Although a course is being developed at the time of this writing, current training depends on a l-day orientation prior to fall semester and on weekly staff meetings throughout the academic year. Staff meetings serve multiple purposes:

. To help tutors establish and define themselves and the community in which they work.

By defining themselves as professionals, as tutors, and as students of writing center theory, each tutor can better identify what she or he might best contribute to the community at large. By listening and reacting to what others say in staff meetings, tutors are able to see how the rest of the community operates.

. To encourage tutors to explore the theoretical and pedagogical issues unique to writing centers.

Each week, tutors discuss topics both practical and theoretical, integrating what others say into their realm of experience and sharing their own experiences with others.

. To allow tutors to share their own tutoring experiences, creating a “symposium oj ideas” (Sams, 1991).

240 JOHANEK AND RiCKtY

Discussions in staff meetings often include past discussions, creating an endless string of ideas and experiences. In this sense, lN’rEKCH.4N(iE staff meetings are

especially valuable, for everything that is “said” on INIMWHANGE can be saved and

printed for future use. To,fi~ster tutors’ growth us rrv-item ad their rtillirlgwss to share their o~v~ text,s Mdl

others. Writing center tutors should be writers themselves, and they should be willing to participate in activities they ask others to engage in. such as peer response. Face-to- face staff meetings sometimes contain a writing component or an evaluative/peer response component. On INTEKCHANG~. the two are combined.

7i, provide tutors more pmttice us c.riticwl rtwler.s of’ (rml responders to) te..vts. This occurs, of course, in tutorials with students and in face-to-face staff meetings as tutors respond to ideas put forth by their colleagues. in INTEKCHANGE meetings, tutors gain practice critically reading and responding to each others’ texts.

Although many means are available for achieving these and other goals. holding staff meetings on INTERCHANGE enables Ball State’s Writing Center to meet these goals simultaneously. Because tutors engage in synchronous conferencing that involves reading and writing, establishing a community, and sharing ideas and experiences, INTERCHANGE

has become an efficient means of tutor training-complementing other staff meeting activities. such as face-to-face dialogue, reading, and guest speakers.

EXAMINATION OF INTERCHANGE TRANSCRIPTS

Tutors participated in 4 INTERCHANGE sessions during 4 of 2X Writing Center staff meetings throughout the 1995 1994 academic year. The contexts for each transcript included in this article are briefly described below:

Two transcripts from Fall 19Y.i

. a follow-up to a previous meeting in which tutors reflected on in-class tutoring

experiences . a brainstorming session in which tutors assessed existing instructional materials and

generated ideas for new materials

Two transcripts from Spring 19Y4

. an examination of tutors’ roles in student/teacher conflicts

. a session in which tutors evaluate their experiences over the past year and suggest changes for the writing center for the coming year

Initial analysis of the four printed transcripts of INTERCHANGE staff meetings reveals the nature of INTERCHANGE meetings and several benefits associated with synchronous conferencing.

First. tutors seem to be more willing to challenge each others’ ideas via INTERCHANGE than in face-to-face meetings. In one passage from a discussion of the tutor’s role in student/teacher conflicts (and tutors’ roles generally), for example, tutors expressed opinions freely, whether or not they were in agreement with colleagues. In this discussion. tutors explored their own identities as individuals and as a group of professionals:

Susan: I believe that a tutor’s first responsibility is to the student. Of course. that is not the tutor’s only responsibility. I also believe that the tutor has more of a responsibility to the student

Online Tutor Training 241

than to the text. I just don’t think that a tutor should be a mediator between the prof and

the student.

Amy: most times, i wish i had more contact with the professors of students. one of the most frustrating things i’ve run into is not understanding the professor’s assignments or comments to the student. and many times, the student doesn’t understand either. anyhow. i don’t know how to go about getting together witha prof to discuss a student.

Danielle: Responsibility is a hard concept to throw on just one individual. 1 do not think that responsibility should completely ride on the tutor: instead, the tutor should just be a coach and allow the student to feet like he/she is in complete control of their writing. if this is the case then the tutor does not need to step in between the student-tutor relationship.

Kathy: I feel we act as a mediator sometimes, between the professor/teacher and the student. I can’t help but feel that we should be relating to both. because we work for the university. I think that we make the teacher’s job easier most of the time because most time spent with their students is time they can be spending on other things.. .often the student is encouraged to make an appt with the prof/teacher in addition to ask more questions, settle a misunderstanding, etc.

Mark: I think that as tutors we cannot take a student’s writing out of the context of the class. College composition assignments are often not journalistic “What did you do on your summer vacation”-type essays. Rather, they are specific interpretations of text as described by the teacher. So. in effect. the student’s paper will be a reflection of what the teacher/cfass members focused on most. This is not to say that there is not true sense of authorship, but that the class and teacher influence and provide a context for the writing.

Here, tutors were examining their roles as tutors, aware of all elements in each tutoring situation (teachers, texts, students, tutor). Each tutor in this exchange expressed an opinion, not always agreeing with each other but articulating their views for others to consider. In a face-to-face meeting, these five comments alone would take up much time; on INTEKCHANGE, however, these discussions can occur simultaneously without interrup- tions. Perhaps because INTERCHANGE messages may be composed simultaneously (as these five most likely were), tutors, not yet influenced by each others’ opinions, “speak” more openly.

Tutors who are generally quiet in face-to-face meetings tend to speak more frequently on INTERCHANGE. For one tutor, Susan, (known by her colleagues to be quiet and shy) the number of INTERCHANGE messages in one online meeting far exceeded her comments in all face-to-face meetings combined, as she sometimes sat through staff meetings without saying a word. In the 4 INTERCHANGE sessions, however, Susan averaged 13 comments per session-a number her colleagues agree she never reached in face-to-face discussions. Susan’s comments range from playful questions (“Does anyone know a dermatologist who can get me in before Thanksgiving?!“) to serious considerations (such as questions about the logistics and philosophy of in-class tutoring and a concern she has had for a student’s ability to organize his papers). Through INTERCHANGE, tutors like Susan are drawn in to the community via a medium that seems more comfortable for them than face-to-face discussion.

Because many issues and problems can be discussed on INTERCHANGE, tutors frequently offer each other advice; some tutors generate solutions to problems on their own as they write about them. The following messages, for example, range from asking

242 JOHANEK AND RICKLY

for advice from other tutors. to suggesting solutions to problems, and to identifying both probIems and solutions simultaneously within the community of tutors-as tutors themselves see it:

Stacy: Cindy. this week a student came in wanting advice on his writing completency examl. His

writing was so bad that I literally could not read it. I asked him if he could possibly type it

out and bring it hack. Can you give me some advice concerning this’?

Nancy: On Monday* my class got into groups to do some work. and like the professor. I got up and

circulated around the room as I am used to doing in my other classes. As I approached the

first group, a student made a comment something like, “Are you walking around just to

feel important or what?” I was so taken aback by his, shall I say. rudeness. that I

answered probably too quickly. “No. I‘m just walking around-that’s my job.” What

should we be doing in such situations’~

Julie: Nancy, did this rude guy know you were the tutor’!

Julie: I thought of a good question: When you all are in the classes (tutoring). do you participate

in class discussions’?

Lisa: Julie. I do. I think most of the time it depends on how the discussion is alreadygoing. or if

i have anything pertinent to add.

Charles: The problem with approaching students is they arent always receptive to the idea that

someone closer to their own age could have anythins to offer them. I’ve posted my WC

hours, answered questions in class. tap danced. told jokes, dressed wounds, etc but it still

seems like they don’t totally trust me. Don’t 1 have an honest face’? Any suggestions as to

how I can gain their confidence’!

Stacy: Charles I don’t think it’s a matter ofase. I really don’t think it would matter if you were 23

or 3.1. Our students are going to he intimidateId by us. However, I agree with janother

tutor]: maybe you should try something else other than tap dancing. Try falling out of

your chair. (ha! just kidding. Stacy)

As tutors explore questions and issues related to their work, they begin to ask for guidance and advice from each other; staff meetings serve as a forum for colleagues to share views and advice with each other-a purpose that does not change whether meetings are held face-to-face or electronically on INTERCHANGE. In spite of these similar purposes of face- to-face and INTERCHANGE meetings, tutors still tend to rely on the director’s authority and experience in face-to-face meetings; in contrast, tutors more willingly seek guidance from (and give guidance to) each other via INTERCHANGE. as the director becomes more anonymous, perhaps. in INTERCHANGE sessions. resulting in the kinds of messages we show earlier.

Finally, tutors share stories and experiences with each other. In the following messages, no particular advice is being sought; however. stories are being told-some with anger. some with humor, and some with only the facts:

Robin: I was working with the student at the time, and we were both stuck as to what the

instructor wanted, so we went down and spoke to the instructor. We both learned we

needed to head in another direction, so this was well worth the price of admission.

Online Tutor Training 243

Julie: We are so concerned with not crossing the line between student and teacher, but sometimes we have no control. A teacher came in to question me today about a student, and I was kind of angry at first at what she was insinuating, but later I realized that I am glad she took the time to talk to me. She sent her student to the WC, and I worked with him for about an hour, and asked him when he wanted to come in again. His teacher had sent a note to the WC saying that he needed to come in regularly. Instead of making more appointments, he said he would call. Well, he never did, his writing didn’t improve, and his teacher was upset. After I explained that he didn’t want to make an appointment, and that he never called. She said, “Okay, so it’s not your fault. He tried to put the blame on someone in the writing center.”

Charles: Offering an answer didn’t help in this case, he had a preconceived notion of what he wanted to say; even though it didn’t fit the type of essay [the teacher] assigned, he didn’t want to change it and refused to see what was wrong with it.

Here, tutors did not directly ask for or give advice; instead, they shared a variety of experiences, telling tutor tales they hope their colleagues will understand within their own experiences as tutors. Sharing stories on INTERCHANGE ensures that the stories will be heard-either by individuals who are currently tutoring or by later tutors who read and hear these tutors’ voices on printed transcripts. These texts, then, are subsumed into tutors’ individual experience and into the current and future communal knowledge of Ball State’s writing center.

TUTORS’ SURVEY

To us, tutors’ voices are most important in the growth of a professional community. Because the epistemology behind synchronous conferencing-and, in fact, Ball State’s Writing Center-is collaboration, such that every participant is allowed a voice in initiating and evaluating staff activities, we invited the staff of 16 tutors to share, via a questionnaire, their perspectives on the use of INTERCHANGE. The first 5 questions asked tutors to reflect on all 4 INTERCHANGE sessions during the 1993-94 academic year and to rate on a 5-point scale how strongly they agree or disagree with statements about INTERCHANGE. The percentage of responses for all categories is shown in Table 1.

Overall, responses to the use of INTERCHANGE were favorable. Eighty percent of the tutors reported that they enjoyed using INTERCHANGE in meetings (Question 2), and almost as many tutors (75%) said that INTERCHANGE allowed them to learn more from colleagues than in a normal face-to-face staff meeting (Question 3). Over 60% of the tutors thought they were able to discuss more issues on INTERCHANGE than face-to-face (Question 4). However, some tutors were undecided in their reactions to INTERCHANGE, and tutors expressed divided opinions in response to some questions. For example, although in response to Question 5, 69% agreed or strongly agreed that they were able to discuss issues more in depth on INTERCHANGE than in face-to-face meetings, 19% were undecided and 12% responded negatively.

On our survey’s last question, we asked tutors to consider three arguments for and three arguments against synchronous conferencing in staff meetings: “For the following arguments, both for and against using a program like INTERCHANGE, place a + by all that you agree are important to you.” Table 2 reflects the percentage of the 16 tutors agreeing with each statement. Again, tutors’ responses to INTERCHANGE were positive, overall. Tutors selected argu-

244 JOHANEK AND RICKLY

TABLE 1

Tutors’ responses on the value of INTERCHANGE

STATEMENT 5 4 3 2 1

Strongly Agree Undecided Disagree Strongly

Agree Disagree

1. I participate more on 19.0% 31 .O% 0.0% 37.5% 12.5%

INTERCHANGE than in “regular”

staff meetings.

2. I enjoyed using INTERCHANGE in

our meetings.

44.0 37.5 12.5 6.0 0.0

3. INTERCHANGE allOWS me t0 k?tlrn

more from my colleagues than I would in “regular” staff

meetings,

37.5 37.5 12.5 12.5 0.0

4. We are able to discuss more

issues on INTERCHANGE than in o

“regular” staff meeting.

31.0 31.0 6.0 31 .o 0.0

5. We are able to discuss issues

more in depth on INTERCHANGE

than in “regular” staff meetings.

19.0 50.0 19.0 6.0 6.0

Note: Because some tutors checked arguments both for and against using INTERCHANGE,

percentages exceed 100%. Totals for some questions do not total 100% due to rounding.

ments for ~N'~~~~HA~~E more frequently than ar&um~nts against, suggesting they, too. delieve that INTEKCHANGE allows more voices to be heard and that INTERCHANGE helps them reach their goals as a community of writing tutors.

CONCLUSIONS

Using this available technology in a writing center merely because it is available is a dangerous application of an otherwise valuable tool. Before INTERCHANGE was introduced

to staff meetings in Ball State’s Writing Center, the center’s tutor training goals, overall

TABLE 2

Percentages of Comments For and Against the Use of INTERCHANGE

For Against

(75%) allows tutors to talk about writing and (37.5%) more impersonal than face-to-face

tutoring writing in writing discussions

(87.5%) allows more individuals to contribute (37.5%) some individuals will not participate

equally in discussion as much and will, therefore, be “silenced”

(56%) encourages a stronger sense of

“community”

(44%) encourages too much goofing around

Online Tutor Training 245

philosophy, and the potential contributions of this technology needed to be assessed. Once these features of Ball State’s Writing Center were assessed, INTERCHANGE was introduced as a fitting addition to tutor training. From our analysis of 4 INTERCHANGE transcripts from staff meetings and from tutors’ comments on the questionnaire, we are further convinced that synchronous conferencing-though not intended to replace face-to- face discussion-has been a valuable expansion of the tutor-training program at Ball State.

Responses to INTERCHANGE in staff meetings suggest tutors respond favorably, overall-sensing a stronger community, an invitation to participate, and a value of communicating via a tool that allows them to write in a conversational setting that is both written and oral in nature. Negative responses, however, should be attended to to help implement INTERCHANGE more productively not only for the majority of tutors but for all

tutors in Ball State’s Writing Center. For tutors who approach computer technology with apprehension (or with loathing),

following INTERCHANGE sessions with additional face-to-face discussion may help not only extend the conversation begun on INTERCHANGE but may coax fearful tutors into accepting the role technology plays in our changing world. Until now, our INTERCHANGE sessions have been follow-ups to face-to-face meetings or have been electronic meetings intended to stand alone. In addition to these strategies, future INTERCHANGE sessions will be followed by face-to-face meetings in which tutors can review transcripts, thereby combining the most beneficial elements of both face-to-face and electronic conferencing

in as many ways possible. Each year, more students are using technology in their writing classes or on their own

as a part of their writing processes. At Ball State, for example, all Basic Writing courses are computer-assisted, as are many other writing courses. By using INTERCHANGE in tutor training, tutors become comfortable with the technology and, therefore, better able to assist students using computers in their classes, helping students with writing problems by facilitating their incorporation of this technology into their writing processes. At Ball State, peer tutors help in classrooms through an in-class tutoring program; peer tutors who are comfortable with the technology can help students and teachers more effectively

in the technologically rich classroom setting. Although conferencing in networked classrooms has been discussed by others,

incorporating synchronous conferencing and other means of networking within profes- sional communities of tutors and teachers needs to be addressed further. Growth in technology has given us professional networking via, for example, Internet and virtual writing centers; this same growth has provided valuable tools for classroom use, such as INTERCHANGE, that have enabled the growth of student writers. All these online environments allow for and encourage communication and community building and, as a result, serve as excellent tools not only for classroom use but also for tutor training. We must examine all available networking capabilities from all of our roles-as teachers, as professionals, and as students ourselves, critically examining each environment for its potential in tutor training and in developing a professional community of writing centers and writing tutors.

Cindy Johanek is currently completing her course work for her doctorate in Composition at Ball State University where she directs the Writing Center. She is currently chair of the East Central Writing Centers Association and hopes to write her dissertation on research methodology in composition. Her e-mail address is <OOcljohanek@bsuvc.bsu.edu>.

246 JOHANEK AND RICKLY

Rebecca Rickly is currently a member of the English Composition Board at the University of Michigan. Her interests include gender studies and LAN and internet-based computer- mediated communication. She is currently codesigning an “interclass” in which peer tutors from three universities collaborate using e-mail and the Daedalus MOO. Her e-mail address is <Becky.rickly@ umich.edu>.

REFERENCES

Berta. R ( 190 I. January). Computrrs lor the dibahled Wvi/ing Lrrh Nw~,.s/rrtet: /6. X.

Brodrrvzn. L.. Kasselbaum. K.. Pregler, D.. & Marrh, R. (IYY2. February). A databaw ~nvadr\ the witins

center. Wrrtrrt,y IA/I Newsletters: 17. I I - 14.

Brown. A. ( 1990. December). Coping with computer\ III the writing center. U’rrtrqy Ld ~Vr~~~s/~~trt~~: /.F. I ?- 15. Clark. I.L. ( 1991 1. The urlting center and the research paper: Computers and collaboration In J. S~mpwn M R

Wallace (Eda. 1. l’he lL,ritirfx c c~~wr; WN’ clrrcctiow (pp. 205-2 IS I. New York: Garland.

Grump, E. ( I’K?. October). Online community: Writing center\jnin the networh world. W~/II~I,~ Lob ,N~~~drttc~~: 17. l-5.

Grump. E. (lYY3. February). Voices tram the net. Writiyy /.uh Ncn,.\/cttrr, /7. 1-6.

Grump. E. (IYY4. February). A dialogue on OWLinp in the writing lab: Some thought\ on Michael Spooner‘\

thoughts. Wririyq L<rh Nrn~.\/cttrr; IS. 6

Field-Picherlnf. J. ( lYY.3. October). The burden of proof: Demonstrating the ettcctiwne\\ of a computer writing

center program. U’ritiu,~ Ltrh N~~nd~~ttcv: /X. I-3. Hobson. E. C 1993. February). Comlng in out ot the silence. Writiqy Lab New.d~m~~: IN. 7-X.

Holli\. K. (IYYO. September). Scheduler. record keeprt-. teacher: The computer 111 the wt-Itins proyrnm at

Dichlnwn College Writiq Lrrh h’cw\/cvrt,t; IS. I I I3 McKenr~r. L. ( IYXY. November). The umon ol a writin: center uith ;1 computer center. Mi-irr,r,y /_oh N~w~lrtw~:

15. l-3. x. Quinn. H.. Kr Flint. C. ( IYYO, May). The technical commumcation resource center and writing lab: Special

services for basic. technical. and learning disabled writers. Wt-itirrg Ltrh Nrn~tl~ttcv: /S. IO- 14.

Rlcker. C.E. (IYYI 1. Creating a learning crnter to assist developmental studies students acres the curriculum.

In J. Simpson & R. Wrlllace (Ed\.), 7‘lw writirtl: cmtcr: Nw dwctiom (pp. X3-275). New York:

Garland.

Ridpath. S. (lYY2, November). The uw of computer5 in the tutoring procrs\. Overcoming communication

obstacle\ between the tutor and the ESL student. Writiq Ltrh Nrwxlrtt~~r. 17. 7-X.

Sams. E. (1991, May). The weekly tutor meeting. Wt-irirlfi Ltrh Nol,.s/rttcr: 16. l-4.

Sear\, E. (IYY2. October). S&scribing to WCentrr. Writiq Lrrh Newslrttcr. 17. 7.

Simpson. J. ( 1993, March). Planning for computers in the writing center: First dratt\. Wririq Luh Newletter.

IX. 13-14.

Spooner, M. (lYY4, February). A dialogue on OWLins in the urlting lab: Some thought\ about online writing

labs. Wrrtiqy Ltrh Nrw~s/mrr; /Y. 6.

Towns, C.H. (1989. November). Serving the disabled in the wrltmg center. Wroiy LO/J &‘cws/ettc/: /4. l3- 16.

Vasile. K., & Ghizzone. N. C 1992, May-June). Computer-integrated tutoring. U’r’itiux Lob Nwslrttrr. 17.

l7-IY.