Researching the Writing Center is an evidence-based text that emphasizes the importance of
vigorous empirical research that can and will inform best practices in writing
centers across the country. The authors, writing center professionals (an
Associate Professor of English and a Writing Center Director) have put writing
centers and their tutoring sessions under a scientific microscope, to examine
the various ways we can investigate and study academic tutoring—what works and what doesn't?
In
this comprehensive text, Babcock and Thonus describe the current status of
research in writing centers (or lack thereof), give readers a crash course in
research basics (what aspects have and can be explored), and discuss the
various contexts of tutoring, including studies of different tutoring
populations and some of the existing recommendations for practice. They then
examine the sequence of events (specific actions and responses) followed in a
typical tutoring session; “What defines a successful tutoring session?”
(143-169). While they give some potential answers to this question, the authors
reiterate the need for more scientific RAD (replicable, applicable, and data
driven) research that builds on existing studies and methodology. The text
concludes with various agendas for future writing center research: questions
and approaches, methods, data analyses, and possibilities in terms of modifying
professional practice (170-179).
Babcock
and Thonus view writing center scholarship as “largely artistic or humanistic,
rather than scientific, in a field where both perspectives can and must inform
our practice” (3). They are concerned with connecting “theory, inquiry, and
practice” (3) in the same way that other fields must question, examine,
theorize, and put into action recommended changes. Writing centers are not a
hot topic of research, like health and medicine, and do not garner even as much
attention as classroom teaching practices in public and private schools, though
the similarities are evident. In a field
such as medicine and pharmaceuticals, the necessity of empirical research,
repeated testing, and experimentation is obvious. But every field can benefit
from a more scientific approach—where statistically sound data and evidence
using different methodological approaches (often a combination) that builds on
past research—is used to help make changes in the way professionals approach their
work, companies manage their employees and their products, and services and
product quality are enhanced. It is too easy to use “anecdotal evidence or
hasty surveys” to serve some other purpose, such as making an institution look good
on paper, but backing up claims with solid research (that requires time and
funding) is the real impetus for change and can result in a fundamental shift
in the way professionals view and approach
problems.
The
authors serve as a model for the very practices they wish to encourage: Babcock
and Thonus provide the reader with background and a slew of published and
unpublished dissertations and theses (“grey literature”) that explore various
aspects of writing centers and give us a detailed picture of what work has
already been done, as well as offer suggestions and potential questions for
further research: What do current writing centers look like, what populations
do they serve, and who staffs them? What tutoring methods are effective for
various populations (deaf, second language learners, culture)? What types of
consultations are preferred and result in the best outcomes? What do tutoring
sessions look like and what kinds of actions appear to work best in various
contexts? What specific details in
linguistics (directives, suggestions, politeness, tone) affect consultations
and in what ways? (172-178).
“Researching
the Writing Center” is exactly as the title suggests: It is a type of research
and discourse about research that serves both as an informational tool for
researchers and writing centers, but also as a generative, thought and question
provoking text that gives anyone involved with a writing center new avenues to
explore (in terms of critical thinking and potential for revision). It is NOT a how-to manual for what a writing
center should be like and how a
consultation should enfold.
Though Babcock and Thonus give us
recommendations for practice, based on current and past research, they do not subjectively
argue for any particular course of action. Some of these recommendations
include: considering private space for tutoring in addition to open space,
lengthen consulting times, rethinking the required consultation, considering
open negotiations between tutor and tutee, encouraging writing consultants to
really listen to the tutee, considering tutor vs. tutee centered sessions, and
exploring the incorporation of read-alouds and pauses during the session. Many of
these are less recommendations as they are considerations, as it is always
important to take context into account; each writing center serves different
populations and different needs. It seems that a more encompassing
recommendation would be that writing professionals learn sensitivity to the
needs of various populations, become flexible in the way that they structure a
consultation, and be open to changes in implementation. If we return to the
important question of what makes a successful consultation, it seems that most
writing centers define success as making “better writers” as opposed to
satisfying course instructors or tutees, or even just improving a given paper
(145).
This
is a critical perspective to consider; making better writers is something that
is hard to quantify and measure and is something that is more inherently
concerned with process (how does the writer write?) as opposed to product (what
grade did the writer earn on his or her paper?). Babcock and Thonus would argue
that it is essential to research the unquantifiable elements in whatever ways
we can. And it is even more essential to look for ways to be better at the
process of writing and tutoring writers, as it is essential to focus on the
process of research—collecting information methodically, analyzing and replicating
studies in order to learn more about the role of the writing center and the
ways in which it can be improved.
“Researching
the Writing Center” offers some provocative questions that can serve to incite
researchers and writing centers to action—perhaps some will continue the
research and use this text as a mine of valuable information and potential methodologies;
or perhaps this book will serve as an educational point of discourse for
writing center professionals—helping to increase reflective practices and
thoughtfulness in their work.
Researching the Writing Center: Towards an Evidence-Based Practice is available on Amazon.
About the Authors:
Rebecca Babcock is Associate Professor of English at UT Permian Basin where she teaches courses in writing and linguistics. Visit Rebecca's website: http://www.rebeccababcock.com/
Therese Thonus is the Director of the University of Kansas Writing Center and a trained linguist who has published extensively on writing centers and tutoring. She teaches courses at the graduate and undergraduate level.
The writing center field has needed a book like this for a long time. Babcock and Thonus have written a clear, readable, and interesting explanation of ways that tutors in all writing centers can use existing research and create their own investigations. I highly recommend.
ReplyDelete- Ben Rafoth, IUP Writing Center
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete