The meme I am going to go with on this one is the Purdue Owl (or the online writing center in general).
https://owl.english.purdue.edu/
How does an online writing center change the nature of how information flows in a writing center?
The information available from the Purdue OWL is far more scripted and static than the information possible in a face-to-face site (if we define a face-to-face site as one designed by the original architects of writing center pedagogy: Harris, Bruffee, Kail, Trimbur, North, Grimm). The Purdue interface presents in a square with a scripted and finite menu, whereas the traditional on-site writing center is arranged in a series of circles (round tables), and because the consultants are listening beings, there is infinite potential in what can happen in those conversations.
A highly scripted site, like the Purdue OWL, slows down the flow of information, or at least changes its nature, because it controls what can and cannot be discussed. The issue then becomes not just about information as "free," (because the Purdue OWL is open access), but how the proxemics, speed and the structure of the information shapes the impact of the message.
Because the Purdue OWL presupposes what questions students will ask, it instantiates a set of values about what is important to know, whereas an on-site writing center has room for the spontaneity of casual conversation. In an on-site space, the consultant has to be ready for the conversation to move in an infinite amount of directions since there is only a loose script that the consultant follows and there is no script that the student follows.
The tutorial in an on-site writing center makes me think of a ping pong game: you don't know (beyond the limits of the table, the court or the actual rules of the game) where the ball will be placed when it comes flying back at you. So you pay attention so you can respond as quickly and effectively as possible. The impromptu nature of a writing center conversation means that the conversation can be nimble, can move very quickly; but as a result, it may not have a lot of impact (it is a low pressure and low stakes environment). The more structure something has, the more impact (like a fire hose as compared to a garden hose, or an SUV as compared to a Mini-Cooper).
Even in an online writing center that is interactive, but asynchronous (like the one that the Western E-Tutoring consortium hosts for WSU http://www.etutoring.org/), there is more time for the consultant to respond, more time to craft a message. The more honed and crafted a message, the more impact it has the potential to have.
But here's the rub: Writing centers are based on the theory that the student is the authority (the WC ostensibly seeks to move the student from a vision of him/herself as subordinate of a education to a vision of him/herself as a writer with a voice to challenge and change the status quo). The WC enacts this theory by having the consultant ask prompting questions that build upon each other depending on what the student says in response. In other words, the main communication skill for a consultant in an on-site space is listening. In an online space the consultant does more reading and writing--(listening in an online space looks like absence more than it looks like presence). The more writing the consultant does, the more it changes the relationship so it appears the consultant has more authority. So it is a conundrum. The main thing is to recognize that it is different; the configuration of the space changes the message.
Information is never free (even in open access like the Purdue OWL) because everything has a material instantiation with constraints; the best we can do is make sure the spaces we create for the visions we have are consistent with our original principles.
No comments:
Post a Comment