In The Everyday
Writing Center, the authors couch the everyday disruptions of writing
centers within the context of Etienne Wenger’s community of practice to suggest
“the ideas and concerns that may have once belonged to or originated with one
of us [become] collective matters or moments of possibility” (Geller, Eodice,
Condon, Carroll, and Boquet, 2). Such collective moments of
possibility can also extend outside the traditional, face-to-face borders of
the writing center via social media platforms like Twitter and blogs. While The Everyday Writing Center focuses
on traditional in-center interactions, this article extends the conversation
outside these borders and suggests that writing centers might utilize
social media like blogs and Twitter to create, build, or support writing communities
of practice. Centers can envision a new sense of the writing center: one that
engages in the practice of writing on a much larger scale and emphasizes the value of writing as a social practice.
The Writing Center, Social Networking and Communities of Practice
Etienne Wenger describes a community of practice as a group of
people that share interests, crafts, or professions. Wenger mentions that
through the process of sharing information, those associated with the community
exchange ideas to develop their own understanding and knowledge about a
particular practice. Communities of practice can exist in many
spaces, whether online or onsite.
Wenger defines the structure of communities of practice as
adhering to the following three components: (1) domain, (2) community, and (3)
practice. The community of practice has a shared realm or domain of
interest. Within the domain, members of the community engage in what Wenger
calls “joint activities” and share information that “enable them to learn from
each other” (Wenger). Interaction amongst participants is responsible for
fostering community, not simply the dissemination of information. The community
of practice must be practitioners who develop a “shared repertoire of
resources: experiences, stories, tools, ways of addressing recurring
problems—in short a shared practice” (Wenger).
Communities of practice can also manifest in an online
environment, beyond geographical or physical locations. Wenger advocates that
online communities of practice might increase the “possibilities for community
and [call] for new kinds of communities based on shared practice” (Wenger). If
communities of practice can function in an online capacity, then social
networking might provide a platform for communities to exist, especially within
the writing disciplines. Social networking allows individuals with similar
interests and/or expertise to share knowledge and further practice within a
domain-centric community. Practitioners of writing thrive via social
networking, and connect via blogging and Twitter to discuss and promote writing
as a process, craft, theory, teaching, tutoring and more.
Blogging
Blogs align with Wenger’s idea of a community of practice since
they support a domain (topic); generate a community of subscribers
communicating through comments, and share relevant content within a profession
or niche. The PCCC Writing Center blog publishes posts that discuss writing
best practices such as WAD, WAC, writing center theory, and writing instruction
best practices. For example, the blog post “Better Writers, Not Just Better
Writing–Even Online,” explored how writing centers supports online writers
through online tutoring, LibGuides, and portfolios (“Better Writers, Not Just Better
Writing–Even Online”). The blog post also asks its audience to comment on
how they were making decisions on writing center policy, procedure, and even
budget, as it applied to supporting students online.
The blog also promotes guest posts by outside practitioners
of writing and writing center theory such as writing center directors, tutors,
publishers and traditionally published and self-published writers across
genres. Typically, an email is distributed via the writing center listserve and
a call for submissions is tweeted through the Twitter stream. Rather than wait
for people to submit ideas for guest blog posts, reaching out to experts in the
field is also a way the blog produces guest spots. “An Interview with Muriel
Harris,” in which Harris talked about the Purdue OWL best practices, its
humble beginnings, and what's next for the online lab received 709 views within
one week of posting, and brought an unprecedented amount of traffic and
credibility to the blog (“From Local Center to Global OWL”).
In addition to offering
tutoring tips within the walls of the center, the blog allows the Writing
Center to create content relevant to writers across the spectrums. In February
2013, the PCCC Writing Center partnered with Claudia Serea, a
Romanian-born poet, to develop the first annual National Writing in
Translation Month (“National Translation Month”). Serea edited a month-long
series about the craft of translation and included poetry translations
from Romanian, Arabic, Persian, Russian, and Bulgarian. National Translation
Month fostered communication with scholars beyond the college’s community, and
opened the conversation about writing to writers across genres. Traditionally, writing
in rhetoric and composition asks its audience to enter into a conversation.
Such conversation promotes
a community of practice in the sense that it allows social interaction between
writer and reader, playing on the traditionally social nature of the writing
process.
The social nature of the
writing process allows for a community of practice to prosper via blogging. Kathleen
Kitao and Namie Saeki talk about the social nature of the writing process in
their article the “Process and Social Aspects of Writing: Theory and Classroom
Application.” Both Kitao and Saeki suggest that writing emphasizes an “initiation-response-evaluation pattern
of discourse between teachers and students” (86). The process
approach to writing includes various stages of revision in an effort to create
meaning for an intended audience: the reader. The reader and writer are in a
dialogue where the writer expounds meaning and the reader translates and
internalizes meaning. Hence, writing is a social process (Kitao and Saeki 86).
Both parties are engaged in all three aspects of a community of practice: (1)
shared interest in process, (2) a community of writers involved in the process,
and (3) clear practice of the writing process.
Blogs allow for that
same type of conversation only to a larger audience of practitioners within the
writing community thereby transforming ideas of traditional theory and
supporting the social nature of writing. Before the idea of blogs even existed,
Eric Crump observed that MUDs might transform “our thinking about
relationships, our connections with and affinity to others, and the influence
and persuasive power of online communities on how we think” or view traditional
theory (Crump 177). For example, in a recent guest blog post, Diane O’Connell,
a veteran New York publishing professional who had a successful career at
Random House, wrote about crafting compelling characters when writing novels.
While this post might seem outside the realm of writing center related content,
it may generate student and community interest in writing as a craft and
creative endeavor as opposed to a simple academic requirement.
Blogs also decentralize the writing center as
Melinda Baer suggested in her article “Using Weblogs in Your Writing Center.” I
agree with Baer that blogs transform the idea of physical space, allowing
students, faculty and tutors to participate in “writing centers’ discussions on
their own terms” (2). Blogs permit writing centers to make information
available and accessible at any time and in one concentrated space even after
office hour’s end. Baer adds that such availability and accessibility of
content eliminates “excuses for not participating” in writing center
discussions (2).
Blogs promote the exchange of ideas, which is
reflected in its content and accessibility. The more writing centers
communicate to the larger community, the more meaningful the conversation
(about writing) becomes with writers across spectrums contributing to the conversation.
By varying blog content and creating a common space for discussion, writing
centers might show they are open to an exchange of knowledge not limited to
tutoring writing, but to the methodology and pedagogy of teaching writing, the
writer’s craft (creative and critical), and professional writing thus becoming
a part of an expanded community of practice.
Final Thoughts
Social
networking is riddled with writing centers looking to delve outside the
boundaries of the center and the classroom. Writing centers can take advantage
of social networking to build a writing community of practice, thereby
promoting their value, claiming their space in a global community, and
reinforcing writing as a social process. Muriel Harris wrote in her article
“Preparing to Sit at the Head Table: Maintaining Writing Center Viability in
the Twenty-First Century” that in order to maintain our viability “we have to
look beyond our campuses to see where the rest of the world is headed” (13).
While she wasn’t referring to social media, she does suggest that writing
centers look outside their boundaries to determine opportunities for
intellectual and physical expansion. Social media allows writing centers to contribute
to center scholarship and discussion beyond physical space as well as connect
to a wider periphery, conceptualizing Wenger’s communities of practice and the
social and interactive nature of writing. Writing is the basis of communication
and social media is its obvious extension, permitting centers to expand writing
as a discipline outside just academic concerns.
References
Baer, Melinda. “Using Weblogs in Your Writing Center.” The Writing Lab Newsletter. 31.2 (2006):1-4. Writing Lab Newsletter Archive. Web. 19 March 2009.
Crump, Eric. “At Home In the MUD: Writing Centers Learn to Wallow.” High Wired: On the Design,
Use, and Theory of Educational MOOS. Eds. Cynthia Ann Haynes and Jan Rune Holmevik. 177-190. University
of Michigan: University of Michigan Press, 2001. Print.
Harris, Muriel. “Preparing to Sit at the Head of the Table: Maintaining
Writing Center Viability if the Twenty-First Century.” The
Writing Center Journal 20.2.
(Spring/Summer 2000):13-21. Web. 15 Mar. 2013.
Kitao, S.
Kathleen, and Namie Saeki. "Process And Social Aspects Of Writing: Theory
And
Classroom Application." Annual
Reports Of Studies 33.1 (1992):
86-102. ERIC. Web. 11 Mar. 2013.
Wenger, Etienne. “Communities of
Practice: A Brief Introduction.” Communities of Practice. N.p. June 2006. Web. 11
Mar. 2013.
