Research in Online Literacy in Education "What Makes Tutors Tick?: Exploring Motives and Experiences in the JALT Writers' Peer Support Group (PSG)"
http://www.roleolor.org/what-makes-tutors-tick-exploring-motives-and-experiences-in-the-jalt-writers-peer-support-group-psg.html
This affirmation indicates a real need for such guidelines.
Copyright © 2019 ROLE-OLOR: Research in Online Literacy Education
Research in Online Literacy Education
Research in Online Literacy Education (ROLE) is a peer-reviewed digital journal published by the Global Society of Online Literacy Educators. ROLE publishes original research and scholarship in literacy-based online education. What Makes Tutors Tick?: Exploring Motives and Experiences in the JALT Writers' Peer Support Group (PSG) |
Paul Beaufait // The Prefectural University of Kumamoto, Kumamoto, JP
Suwako Uehara // The University of Electro-Communications, Tokyo, JP
Dawn Lucovich // The University of Nagano, Nagano, JP
Anthony Brian Gallagher // Meijo University, Nagoya, JP
Suwako Uehara // The University of Electro-Communications, Tokyo, JP
Dawn Lucovich // The University of Nagano, Nagano, JP
Anthony Brian Gallagher // Meijo University, Nagoya, JP
Abstract
This article presents results from a survey of volunteer tutors who provided feedback to clients on in-process papers that clients shared with the PSG. The PSG is a group of Japan-based educators who provide writing support to novice and experienced academic writers through an online writing lab. The survey revealed tutors' views of the PSG, its advantages and challenges. Findings illuminated tutors' motivations, foci of feedback for writers, and challenges of peer-readership through online collaboration.
This article presents results from a survey of volunteer tutors who provided feedback to clients on in-process papers that clients shared with the PSG. The PSG is a group of Japan-based educators who provide writing support to novice and experienced academic writers through an online writing lab. The survey revealed tutors' views of the PSG, its advantages and challenges. Findings illuminated tutors' motivations, foci of feedback for writers, and challenges of peer-readership through online collaboration.
Keywords: Academic Writing, Asynchronous Collaboration, Online Collaboration, OWCs, OWLs, Peer Support, Reflective Practices, Tutor Motivations, Tutor Experiences, Writing Support
Introduction
This paper presents findings from a survey of volunteer writing tutors (N = 15; f = 7, m = 8), who provided feedback to clients at a peer-to-peer level, on in-process papers shared with the Writers' Peer Support Group (PSG). This study complemented previous research that focused on clients' experiences receiving feedback from members of the PSG.
The PSG is an informal group of professional educators from various institutions that operates voluntarily in conjunction with, yet peripheral to, the Publications wing of the Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT). The PSG serves as an asynchronous online writing laboratory (OWL) for novice and experienced academic writers. The use of the term OWL rather than online writing center (OWC) reflects decentralized activities of the PSG and its online existence.
JALT currently has approximately 3000 members in Japan and abroad (JALT, n.d.). All participants in the study were professional educators working in Japan, some of whom were also pursuing advanced degrees as mature students. The research question that focused the survey of tutors and an initial presentation of findings was: "What are tutors' views of the PSG, its advantages and challenges?" (Lucovich, Beaufait, Uehara, & Gallagher, 2016).
The study built upon previous research that focused on clients' experiences receiving feedback from tutors on papers that these writers had submitted to the PSG (Lucovich, Beaufait, & Uehara, 2016). The survey of tutors investigated three main areas:
The findings were that the majority of tutors (62.5%) intended to continue to work as peer readers, and also would recommend joining the PSG to colleagues or peers in their institutions, locales, or special interest groups. In addition, they were largely motivated for professional reasons, namely to fulfill academic community service needs, to improve their own writing–both processes and products, and to familiarize themselves with academic publication protocols.
Tutors concurred on providing feedback to clients that prioritized higher-order concerns over lower-order concerns. They also agreed on the advantages that they gained as peer readers, namely, professional development and content knowledge acquisition. However, they differed in their opinions regarding advantages and disadvantages of the online format. Tutors mentioned lack of content area knowledge and technological skills, lack of time, and issues with English-as-an-additional language (EAL) writing as major challenges they had faced.
The implications of these findings are that, although tutors are satisfied with PSG participation, there are things the PSG can do to improve. It should offer consistent tutor development comprising tutoring techniques, additional accommodation of non-native writers of English, and technology utilization. Such offerings will help tutors become socialized into an active online community of practice and enhance both tutors' and clients' experiences. The PSG also should promote itself actively, and recruit and train additional tutors, in order to address current challenges that tutors perceive.
Immediate future directions of this research include an investigation of the impact of technological and tutor training on the PSG's tutors and clients. Secondly, there is a need to update, extend, and expand upon the literature that describes practical considerations for peer-powered OWCs and OWLs (see: Rosalia, 2013). Finally, the research could also be turned inward towards more qualitative methods, such as case studies of tutor and writer interactions.
Although Kyoko Morikoshi (2008) described tutors as "facilitators," with roles similar to those of tutors in North American organizations, where tutors and students are supposed to work together to help students to become better writers, in the context of the current study, clients are near-peers who aim to publish their academic work. Generally speaking, the role of tutors in writing centers in Japan is for tutors to work with writers to facilitate good writing skills, to help them develop as independent writers (Ota & Sadoshima, 2013), and to respect writers' intents, so the relationship between tutors and writers becomes one of cooperation or collaboration (Ota, Kano, & Hisamoto, 2014).
Nevertheless, in various higher education settings across Japan, the authors of this paper recognize tensions among EAL writers' wishes, e.g. for immediate surface-level corrections or proofreading, and tutors' missions or philosophies. Since its inception (Background, below), members of the PSG have striven to reorient attitudes and expectations not only of EAL writers but also of uninitiated colleagues, OWC planners, and administrators.
With this shared ethos, the PSG believes that tutors should help their clients find ways to improve their writing, while not directly telling them how or what to revise in too much detail. This is consonant with a "conception of tutors' roles as collaborators and coaches rather than as teachers, and [with] the encouragement of risk-taking and practice rather than evaluation" (Godbee, 2014, pp. 157–158).
The PSG is an informal group of professional educators from various institutions that operates voluntarily in conjunction with, yet peripheral to, the Publications wing of the Japan Association for Language Teaching (JALT). The PSG serves as an asynchronous online writing laboratory (OWL) for novice and experienced academic writers. The use of the term OWL rather than online writing center (OWC) reflects decentralized activities of the PSG and its online existence.
JALT currently has approximately 3000 members in Japan and abroad (JALT, n.d.). All participants in the study were professional educators working in Japan, some of whom were also pursuing advanced degrees as mature students. The research question that focused the survey of tutors and an initial presentation of findings was: "What are tutors' views of the PSG, its advantages and challenges?" (Lucovich, Beaufait, Uehara, & Gallagher, 2016).
The study built upon previous research that focused on clients' experiences receiving feedback from tutors on papers that these writers had submitted to the PSG (Lucovich, Beaufait, & Uehara, 2016). The survey of tutors investigated three main areas:
- Tutors’ motivations for and recommendations of volunteer readership to colleagues or peers who might be interested in joining the PSG;
- The visions, standards, and types of feedback tutors deemed helpful to clients; and
- Tutors’ views on advantages and challenges of serving as tutors, and of working entirely online.
The findings were that the majority of tutors (62.5%) intended to continue to work as peer readers, and also would recommend joining the PSG to colleagues or peers in their institutions, locales, or special interest groups. In addition, they were largely motivated for professional reasons, namely to fulfill academic community service needs, to improve their own writing–both processes and products, and to familiarize themselves with academic publication protocols.
Tutors concurred on providing feedback to clients that prioritized higher-order concerns over lower-order concerns. They also agreed on the advantages that they gained as peer readers, namely, professional development and content knowledge acquisition. However, they differed in their opinions regarding advantages and disadvantages of the online format. Tutors mentioned lack of content area knowledge and technological skills, lack of time, and issues with English-as-an-additional language (EAL) writing as major challenges they had faced.
The implications of these findings are that, although tutors are satisfied with PSG participation, there are things the PSG can do to improve. It should offer consistent tutor development comprising tutoring techniques, additional accommodation of non-native writers of English, and technology utilization. Such offerings will help tutors become socialized into an active online community of practice and enhance both tutors' and clients' experiences. The PSG also should promote itself actively, and recruit and train additional tutors, in order to address current challenges that tutors perceive.
Immediate future directions of this research include an investigation of the impact of technological and tutor training on the PSG's tutors and clients. Secondly, there is a need to update, extend, and expand upon the literature that describes practical considerations for peer-powered OWCs and OWLs (see: Rosalia, 2013). Finally, the research could also be turned inward towards more qualitative methods, such as case studies of tutor and writer interactions.
Although Kyoko Morikoshi (2008) described tutors as "facilitators," with roles similar to those of tutors in North American organizations, where tutors and students are supposed to work together to help students to become better writers, in the context of the current study, clients are near-peers who aim to publish their academic work. Generally speaking, the role of tutors in writing centers in Japan is for tutors to work with writers to facilitate good writing skills, to help them develop as independent writers (Ota & Sadoshima, 2013), and to respect writers' intents, so the relationship between tutors and writers becomes one of cooperation or collaboration (Ota, Kano, & Hisamoto, 2014).
Nevertheless, in various higher education settings across Japan, the authors of this paper recognize tensions among EAL writers' wishes, e.g. for immediate surface-level corrections or proofreading, and tutors' missions or philosophies. Since its inception (Background, below), members of the PSG have striven to reorient attitudes and expectations not only of EAL writers but also of uninitiated colleagues, OWC planners, and administrators.
With this shared ethos, the PSG believes that tutors should help their clients find ways to improve their writing, while not directly telling them how or what to revise in too much detail. This is consonant with a "conception of tutors' roles as collaborators and coaches rather than as teachers, and [with] the encouragement of risk-taking and practice rather than evaluation" (Godbee, 2014, pp. 157–158).
For full article please go to ROLE/OLOR Research in Online Literacy Education
FULL ARTICLE AVAILABLE at the link shown above.
Discussion
First of all, this section will highlight emergent yet noteworthy patterns in the data. Then it will focus on tutors' motivations and desires, in particular, on potential needs for feedback from PSG coordinators on tutor-to-writer feedback, for peer-reader related socialization and training, and on additional technology-related concerns.
One noteworthy feature of the demographic data is the distribution of expertise across the group including academic writing, blended learning, technology in the classroom, motivation, teaching methods, autonomy, CALL, materials development, media literacy, m-learning, elementary school English education, multimodal literacy, pragmatics, self-assessment, copy-editing, teacher and learner development, vocabulary, assessment, discourse communities, writing centers, and corpus linguistics (Appendix A, 2016 Survey, Interests). Another is the nearly equal numbers of women (7) and men (8) who responded.
Initial analyses showed that tutors' survey responses to free response items fell into three general categories: very short responses 46% (7 to 28 words in length), medium length responses 30% (52 to 92 words in length), and in-depth responses 15% (175 to 184 words in length). The significance of varying lengths of responses may become evident upon close, future examination of individual tutors' feedback on clients' papers.
Tutors were motivated by both internal and external factors. For tutors, joining the PSG served as a contribution to the academic community, as well as a means for professional development in terms of improving their own writing skills and gaining familiarity with academic genres. While a few reviewers (4) reportedly serve to convey their expertise to others (4), the majority (9) undertake reviews in order to learn for themselves and to improve their own reviewing and editing skills.
That is, they undertook reviewing as learning, as well as reviewing for learning (content knowledge acquisition). Similar to assessment, reviewing can be used as a way to learn the writing process and the language used in the process. The majority of our contributors are therefore using this service as a learning process for themselves, as de facto reviewing for learning. One could also extend this to reviewing as learning, in that by undertaking reviews for near-peers, they do so for their own professional development.
Reviewing as learning is the use of ongoing self-reflection by reviewers and writers, that is, tutors—not necessarily clients themselves—in order to monitor and improve their own writing and professional development. Introspection and near-peer discussion characterize this process of reflection on their own learning and making adjustments in order to achieve deeper understandings of their fields as well as of writing (e.g.: foci, genres, and styles) in and about them.
In reviewing for learning, tutors can use reviewing as an investigative medium through which to discover as much as possible about what their peers know and can do and what confusion, preconceptions, or knowledge gaps there might be. Reviewing as learning helps tutors to take responsibility for their own development, while setting their own goals and monitoring their own progress, by providing exemplars and models of good practice and quality work that reflect desirable professional outcomes. Reflective reviewing as learning enables tutors to work with peers and develop clear criteria for good practices.
Nevertheless, among challenges tutors mentioned working with little or no direct feedback (from clients, co-readers, or the PSG coordinator) on their feedback for clients (1) and working in an online-only venue (1). Other emergent clusters of challenges comprised the following:
Both these tutor-related challenges and the major collaborative technology-related challenges at the end of the Results section are matters for consideration as next steps for the PSG.
Implications
The implications of these results are that future tutor recruitment may need to address demographic under-representation, particularly in the area of L1s. There is a particular need to recruit more peer tutors with Japanese as their L1 because the PSG is based in Japan. Prospective clients and even PSG members may wish to submit to Japanese-language publications.
Other major findings to emerge related to tutor motivations, feedback processes, peer readership, and online collaboration—numerous challenges in particular. These span two separate categories, namely writer-related and tutor-related issues.
One noteworthy feature of the demographic data is the distribution of expertise across the group including academic writing, blended learning, technology in the classroom, motivation, teaching methods, autonomy, CALL, materials development, media literacy, m-learning, elementary school English education, multimodal literacy, pragmatics, self-assessment, copy-editing, teacher and learner development, vocabulary, assessment, discourse communities, writing centers, and corpus linguistics (Appendix A, 2016 Survey, Interests). Another is the nearly equal numbers of women (7) and men (8) who responded.
Initial analyses showed that tutors' survey responses to free response items fell into three general categories: very short responses 46% (7 to 28 words in length), medium length responses 30% (52 to 92 words in length), and in-depth responses 15% (175 to 184 words in length). The significance of varying lengths of responses may become evident upon close, future examination of individual tutors' feedback on clients' papers.
Tutors were motivated by both internal and external factors. For tutors, joining the PSG served as a contribution to the academic community, as well as a means for professional development in terms of improving their own writing skills and gaining familiarity with academic genres. While a few reviewers (4) reportedly serve to convey their expertise to others (4), the majority (9) undertake reviews in order to learn for themselves and to improve their own reviewing and editing skills.
That is, they undertook reviewing as learning, as well as reviewing for learning (content knowledge acquisition). Similar to assessment, reviewing can be used as a way to learn the writing process and the language used in the process. The majority of our contributors are therefore using this service as a learning process for themselves, as de facto reviewing for learning. One could also extend this to reviewing as learning, in that by undertaking reviews for near-peers, they do so for their own professional development.
Reviewing as learning is the use of ongoing self-reflection by reviewers and writers, that is, tutors—not necessarily clients themselves—in order to monitor and improve their own writing and professional development. Introspection and near-peer discussion characterize this process of reflection on their own learning and making adjustments in order to achieve deeper understandings of their fields as well as of writing (e.g.: foci, genres, and styles) in and about them.
In reviewing for learning, tutors can use reviewing as an investigative medium through which to discover as much as possible about what their peers know and can do and what confusion, preconceptions, or knowledge gaps there might be. Reviewing as learning helps tutors to take responsibility for their own development, while setting their own goals and monitoring their own progress, by providing exemplars and models of good practice and quality work that reflect desirable professional outcomes. Reflective reviewing as learning enables tutors to work with peers and develop clear criteria for good practices.
Nevertheless, among challenges tutors mentioned working with little or no direct feedback (from clients, co-readers, or the PSG coordinator) on their feedback for clients (1) and working in an online-only venue (1). Other emergent clusters of challenges comprised the following:
- Delivery of constructive criticism (n = 6) that would be encouraging (3), comprehensible (1), impartial (1), and accessible to EAL writers (1);
- Time management issues (n = 4), namely devoting time as volunteers (2), finding time (1), and being unsure how much time is necessary (1); and
- Insufficient content-area knowledge (2)—in spite of PSG members' association with 10 or more of JALT's 20+ special interest groups (Appendix C, Web resources, JALT Chapters and SIGs).
Both these tutor-related challenges and the major collaborative technology-related challenges at the end of the Results section are matters for consideration as next steps for the PSG.
Implications
The implications of these results are that future tutor recruitment may need to address demographic under-representation, particularly in the area of L1s. There is a particular need to recruit more peer tutors with Japanese as their L1 because the PSG is based in Japan. Prospective clients and even PSG members may wish to submit to Japanese-language publications.
Other major findings to emerge related to tutor motivations, feedback processes, peer readership, and online collaboration—numerous challenges in particular. These span two separate categories, namely writer-related and tutor-related issues.
EAL writers.
Two main issues have been brought to light by the current study, one regarding all writers and another specifically regarding EAL writers. First, although extant PSG documentation (e.g., Appendix C, Getting published) explains the initial steps for prospective writers to take to submit a paper, a detailed PSG workflow (as in Figure 1) is not currently available for writers. Similarly, instructions that mandate the use of Gmail addresses may discourage prospective clients without Google accounts; thus, the coordinator often needs to serve as an intermediary for uploading and converting papers for collaboration in Google Docs.
For EAL writers, at present, PSG documents are unavailable in Japanese (Appendix C: Web resources) or any other languages than English. This may be resolved by consulting SIGs that represent other languages in the larger JALT organization. Secondly, an important issue raised by one PSG tutor was related to difficulties in providing advice on papers from EAL writers. The tutor asserted (and the authors agree), "Another very big challenge is that sometimes we have to check non-native speaker's articles, and those can sometimes be quite difficult" (M5).
Maiko Nakatake (2013) noted that problematic issues included expectations regarding lower-order editing such as proofreading. Nakatake also found Japanese writers to be "passive" and accepting of tutors' advice without question. The PSG's mission, however, is to take a constructionist approach which calls for autonomous decisions and action on the part of clients. As one PSG tutor put it, "The writer (tutee) is the owner of the writing" (F2), and as such, PSG tutors' roles should be to encourage and motivate writers towards autonomy.
For EAL writers, at present, PSG documents are unavailable in Japanese (Appendix C: Web resources) or any other languages than English. This may be resolved by consulting SIGs that represent other languages in the larger JALT organization. Secondly, an important issue raised by one PSG tutor was related to difficulties in providing advice on papers from EAL writers. The tutor asserted (and the authors agree), "Another very big challenge is that sometimes we have to check non-native speaker's articles, and those can sometimes be quite difficult" (M5).
Maiko Nakatake (2013) noted that problematic issues included expectations regarding lower-order editing such as proofreading. Nakatake also found Japanese writers to be "passive" and accepting of tutors' advice without question. The PSG's mission, however, is to take a constructionist approach which calls for autonomous decisions and action on the part of clients. As one PSG tutor put it, "The writer (tutee) is the owner of the writing" (F2), and as such, PSG tutors' roles should be to encourage and motivate writers towards autonomy.
Feedback for tutors.
First, as with writers, although there is documentation (Figure 1) which shows the general workflow, the PSG presently does not provide a more detailed or a more advanced workflow schematic that would be advantageous for tutors who have undertaken initial orientation or peer shadowing. A second challenge tutors mentioned was the lack of direct feedback on their feedback to clients.
Without such feedback on tutors' efforts, it may be difficult for them to assess and improve their peer reading and feedback skills. Addressing such challenges is a matter for consideration as next steps for the PSG (see Future directions, below). Possible solutions to consider are opening feedback channels and establishing routines for tutors such as:
Previous research on face-to-face tutoring (Cogie, 2006; Thonus, 2004) identified negotiations, partially or unresolved issues, and linguistic scaffolding for a non-native writer of English as areas to focus on. Ben Rafoth (2015) argued that reflection utilizing transcripts, in particular, can enhance tutor development.
Although the PSG does not engage in face-to-face tutoring, and thus cannot make recordings and utilize transcripts, the same principle can be applied, namely the use of reflection on feedback to and interactions with clients in order to improve peer reading and develop tutoring skills. In Google Docs, the comment and suggestion functions and revision histories capture rich detail that can serve as transcripts to use for reflection, training, and orientation sessions.
Without such feedback on tutors' efforts, it may be difficult for them to assess and improve their peer reading and feedback skills. Addressing such challenges is a matter for consideration as next steps for the PSG (see Future directions, below). Possible solutions to consider are opening feedback channels and establishing routines for tutors such as:
- Online discussion with PSG coordinators and peers soon after returning papers;
- Face-to-face consultations with coordinators and peers at annual conferences, and
- Training sessions based on actual writing samples (Mackiewcz & Thompson, 2013).
Previous research on face-to-face tutoring (Cogie, 2006; Thonus, 2004) identified negotiations, partially or unresolved issues, and linguistic scaffolding for a non-native writer of English as areas to focus on. Ben Rafoth (2015) argued that reflection utilizing transcripts, in particular, can enhance tutor development.
Although the PSG does not engage in face-to-face tutoring, and thus cannot make recordings and utilize transcripts, the same principle can be applied, namely the use of reflection on feedback to and interactions with clients in order to improve peer reading and develop tutoring skills. In Google Docs, the comment and suggestion functions and revision histories capture rich detail that can serve as transcripts to use for reflection, training, and orientation sessions.
Tutor formation.
One method to help support less than proactive clients would be to provide tutor guidelines and training (whether through self-study materials, face-to-face guidance, or a mixture of both) on how to guide writers to become more autonomous and constructivist, and to provide clearer indications of what is expected in client and tutor relationships.
For tutors, it is important to know what quality of service others may expect—clients and PSG co-readers in particular. One way of priming expectations is to have a peer-reader charter which "attempts to lay down guidelines" regarding what tutors "can and should expect to examine and do" (Bach, Haynes, & Smith, 2007, p. 76). Such a charter or cannon may set forth clear examples of quality work with detailed explanations of the pedagogy behind the decisions made and the terminology used in the reporting. Examples should be positive in nature and nurturing of the writing (e.g., Podis, 1980).
Aaron Kraut, Lalena Yarris, & Joan Sargeant (2015) affirmed:
For tutors, it is important to know what quality of service others may expect—clients and PSG co-readers in particular. One way of priming expectations is to have a peer-reader charter which "attempts to lay down guidelines" regarding what tutors "can and should expect to examine and do" (Bach, Haynes, & Smith, 2007, p. 76). Such a charter or cannon may set forth clear examples of quality work with detailed explanations of the pedagogy behind the decisions made and the terminology used in the reporting. Examples should be positive in nature and nurturing of the writing (e.g., Podis, 1980).
Aaron Kraut, Lalena Yarris, & Joan Sargeant (2015) affirmed:
Cognitive theory illuminates how feedback is processed by learners and, ultimately, how it affects personal growth. On a fundamental level, feedback can be viewed as an opportunity to bring attention to a gap between the recipient's knowledge or skill and the level of knowledge or skill he or she needs to attain. Ideally, the recipient's awareness of that gap can then serve as a catalyst for further learning. (p. 262)
This affirmation indicates a real need for such guidelines.
Tactical training.
The PSG, like physical writing centers, should offer formal as well as informal tutor training. Due to its status as an OWL, online collaboration tools and techniques serve as foundations for PSG activities. Thus the PSG also should offer or point out opportunities for formal training in the technology it uses—Google Drive and Google Docs at present. Thirdly, materials and processes need development and implementation in order to facilitate, streamline, and amplify the peer-reading process (see Future Directions), and to substantiate the quality of PSG work done.
Volunteers who initially have no experience using Google Docs must learn how in order to complete their first PSG reviews. This may be while or even after shadowing peer tutors. However, due to the extended intervals that can occur between peer reviews, tutors may need to re-learn the process, either due to forgetting or due to updates or changes in the technology. Continuing orientation and (re-)training may be necessary to ensure that all tutors can:
Volunteers who initially have no experience using Google Docs must learn how in order to complete their first PSG reviews. This may be while or even after shadowing peer tutors. However, due to the extended intervals that can occur between peer reviews, tutors may need to re-learn the process, either due to forgetting or due to updates or changes in the technology. Continuing orientation and (re-)training may be necessary to ensure that all tutors can:
- Make valuable, timely, and easy-to-follow contributions to intra-group planning and reflection via the PSG discussion list;
- Share content and suggestions for public resources in PSG web spaces, e.g., the Meet the PSGers and Various venues for publication documents, and its WWW bookmarking group venue (Appendix C);
- Contribute directly to logs of their own progress and accomplishments as peer readers, tasks which currently require hands-on work with Google Sheets.
Tutor socialization.
In this study, tutors in the PSG reported feeling removed from both their writers and each other due to the asynchronous online aspect of the interaction. Greater emphasis should be placed on socialization of tutors into a working community of practice in order to strengthen relationships and improve tutor satisfaction with the online collaborative format. William Tierney and Robert Rhoads (1994) defined socialization as "the process through which individuals acquire the values, attitudes, norms, knowledge and skills needed to exist in a given society" (p. 6). In this study, tutor socialization comprises two main areas of concern tutor-to-writer and tutor-to-tutor relationships.
Tutor-to-writer socialization follows Kenneth Bruffee's (1984) model of collaborative learning. By using peer tutoring as a format, the authority and onus of the traditional teacher-student classroom relationship is removed, and instead distributed between the tutor and writer. This method of production more accurately reflects the relationship that writers have with their eventual audience (Bruffee, 1984). Despite conceivable variation in the impact or uptake of asynchronous written feedback to clients from remote and relatively unknown tutors as more or less authoritative than that in face-to-face or real-time tutorials, the PSG strives to achieve a mutually respectful, supportive balance in relationships with remote clients it serves.
Tutor-to-tutor socialization should also be increased in order to develop and strengthen identities and practices as peer tutors. Tutors could benefit from increased anticipatory socialization; that is, by explicit orientation into the practices and values of the PSG community of practice (Tierney & Rhoads, 1994; Beaufait, Edwards, & Muller, 2014). This can be accomplished by deliberate shadowing practices, through technical training, as mentioned above, or by holding online and offline meetings for hands-on practice sessions.
The lack of face-to-face meetings with other tutors is a barrier to organizational socialization, which is how members enter communities (Tierney & Rhoads, 1994). This can be remedied by meetings at conferences or events for information dissemination, question-and-answer sessions, and more informal networking opportunities. Finally, more promotion of the PSG and the professional development opportunities it provides is desirable in order to attract a wider range of tutors, who in turn will be able to serve a wider range of writers.
Limitations
The limitations of this study include the small sample size (N = 15) and the less than 100% response rate of tutors. If all tutors had responded to the survey, the results could be very different from the self-selected sample. However, as the survey was designed and distributed according to best practices and administered by near-peer colleagues to a population with both Internet access and vested interests in the survey subject, the response rate was high for an online survey (Saleh & Bista, 2017).
Tutor-to-writer socialization follows Kenneth Bruffee's (1984) model of collaborative learning. By using peer tutoring as a format, the authority and onus of the traditional teacher-student classroom relationship is removed, and instead distributed between the tutor and writer. This method of production more accurately reflects the relationship that writers have with their eventual audience (Bruffee, 1984). Despite conceivable variation in the impact or uptake of asynchronous written feedback to clients from remote and relatively unknown tutors as more or less authoritative than that in face-to-face or real-time tutorials, the PSG strives to achieve a mutually respectful, supportive balance in relationships with remote clients it serves.
Tutor-to-tutor socialization should also be increased in order to develop and strengthen identities and practices as peer tutors. Tutors could benefit from increased anticipatory socialization; that is, by explicit orientation into the practices and values of the PSG community of practice (Tierney & Rhoads, 1994; Beaufait, Edwards, & Muller, 2014). This can be accomplished by deliberate shadowing practices, through technical training, as mentioned above, or by holding online and offline meetings for hands-on practice sessions.
The lack of face-to-face meetings with other tutors is a barrier to organizational socialization, which is how members enter communities (Tierney & Rhoads, 1994). This can be remedied by meetings at conferences or events for information dissemination, question-and-answer sessions, and more informal networking opportunities. Finally, more promotion of the PSG and the professional development opportunities it provides is desirable in order to attract a wider range of tutors, who in turn will be able to serve a wider range of writers.
Limitations
The limitations of this study include the small sample size (N = 15) and the less than 100% response rate of tutors. If all tutors had responded to the survey, the results could be very different from the self-selected sample. However, as the survey was designed and distributed according to best practices and administered by near-peer colleagues to a population with both Internet access and vested interests in the survey subject, the response rate was high for an online survey (Saleh & Bista, 2017).
Future Directions
Immediate future directions of this research include investigation of the impact of technological and tutor training on the PSG tutors and writers. While issues exist with the current system with regards to online access, Google Docs training, and working within the Google suite (including spreadsheets and other integral components), the system in place functions passably well to meet the basic needs of relatively experienced coordinators and tutors. Yet there is room for improvements, such as making additional use of Google Forms, in order to facilitate tasks such as:
Secondly, there is a need for meta-literature—namely, to update, extend, and expand upon the literature that describes practical considerations and best practices for peer-operated online writing centers (see Rosalia, 2013). Finally, the research should also be turned inward and towards more qualitative methods, such as case studies of tutors and writers, and how exactly the process is enacted and transacted between tutors and writers in asynchronous online settings.
PSG research could focus more closely individual tutor-writer discourse, motivations, and working relationships, as well as on writing issues such as clients' uptake of feedback from tutors, academic writing and genre socialization, and second or additional language writing issues. It certainly would be helpful to discover reasons that a majority of the PSG tutors have never availed themselves of in-group peer readership, as well as to explore practical ways to clarify the submission and feedback processes for both clients and tutors.
An important issue that emerged from this study was that content or subject matter in papers is sometimes outside tutors' areas of expertise, and that this lack of knowledge can impede or restrict the tutoring process. Working within areas of expertise is a strength that transfers to and from formal roles reviewing for professional publications such as those Rachel Ankeny mentioned recently (Ankeny et al., 2018). As the PSG serves a very specialized population, that is, working professionals involved in language- or education-related fields in Japan and aiming to publish in English, the PSG also provides research design and content support often provided by professors or supervisors in institutional settings. This sharing of specialized, field-specific knowledge among tutors and clients may enhance tutor-client discourse and augment the rigor of the research as well as the quality of the writing. Since many writers are new to academic research and to publishing in English in Japan, tutors serve as near-peer role models and mentors within the same community of practice.
Also calling for attention in the lack of diversity in tutors' L1s. This may be due to the general membership and perception of JALT (i.e., as primarily L1 English users), and may speak to the language socialization required by a collaborative learning format (Duff, 2007, 2010; Ochs, 1988; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). Thus, there is a need to promote the PSG at conferences and by other means, in order to attract and develop a wider pool of tutors.
As with most writing centers, outreach is essential. At present, a PSG member edits a collaborative Writers' Workshop column in The Language Teacher, a JALT publication that is often a target of PSG clients. This column can and should be used to raise awareness of and recruit for the PSG. It also would be productive for the PSG to convene and present at national conferences, SIG and chapter events, and other events that may attract both potential recruits and future clients. More attention should go into convening recruitment, orientation, training, and feedback sessions among and for tutors, as well as into exploring possibilities of face-to-face meetings with and hands-on workshops for writers at such events.
Finally, as an extension of the current and previous studies, PSG research should focus outwards to investigate target users' knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of the PSG, as well as to identify reasons underlying disinclination to make use of PSG services. Additional research should continue to focus on the PSG’s unique existence and operations as an entirely volunteer peer-powered OWL in Japan.
- Recording and aggregating dates of intake, readership, and completion of papers;
- Collecting tutors' (in-house) reflections on processes and outcomes; and
- Aggregating feedback from writers of the PSG service regarding feedback they receive from tutors.
Secondly, there is a need for meta-literature—namely, to update, extend, and expand upon the literature that describes practical considerations and best practices for peer-operated online writing centers (see Rosalia, 2013). Finally, the research should also be turned inward and towards more qualitative methods, such as case studies of tutors and writers, and how exactly the process is enacted and transacted between tutors and writers in asynchronous online settings.
PSG research could focus more closely individual tutor-writer discourse, motivations, and working relationships, as well as on writing issues such as clients' uptake of feedback from tutors, academic writing and genre socialization, and second or additional language writing issues. It certainly would be helpful to discover reasons that a majority of the PSG tutors have never availed themselves of in-group peer readership, as well as to explore practical ways to clarify the submission and feedback processes for both clients and tutors.
An important issue that emerged from this study was that content or subject matter in papers is sometimes outside tutors' areas of expertise, and that this lack of knowledge can impede or restrict the tutoring process. Working within areas of expertise is a strength that transfers to and from formal roles reviewing for professional publications such as those Rachel Ankeny mentioned recently (Ankeny et al., 2018). As the PSG serves a very specialized population, that is, working professionals involved in language- or education-related fields in Japan and aiming to publish in English, the PSG also provides research design and content support often provided by professors or supervisors in institutional settings. This sharing of specialized, field-specific knowledge among tutors and clients may enhance tutor-client discourse and augment the rigor of the research as well as the quality of the writing. Since many writers are new to academic research and to publishing in English in Japan, tutors serve as near-peer role models and mentors within the same community of practice.
Also calling for attention in the lack of diversity in tutors' L1s. This may be due to the general membership and perception of JALT (i.e., as primarily L1 English users), and may speak to the language socialization required by a collaborative learning format (Duff, 2007, 2010; Ochs, 1988; Schieffelin & Ochs, 1986). Thus, there is a need to promote the PSG at conferences and by other means, in order to attract and develop a wider pool of tutors.
As with most writing centers, outreach is essential. At present, a PSG member edits a collaborative Writers' Workshop column in The Language Teacher, a JALT publication that is often a target of PSG clients. This column can and should be used to raise awareness of and recruit for the PSG. It also would be productive for the PSG to convene and present at national conferences, SIG and chapter events, and other events that may attract both potential recruits and future clients. More attention should go into convening recruitment, orientation, training, and feedback sessions among and for tutors, as well as into exploring possibilities of face-to-face meetings with and hands-on workshops for writers at such events.
Finally, as an extension of the current and previous studies, PSG research should focus outwards to investigate target users' knowledge (or lack of knowledge) of the PSG, as well as to identify reasons underlying disinclination to make use of PSG services. Additional research should continue to focus on the PSG’s unique existence and operations as an entirely volunteer peer-powered OWL in Japan.
Acknowledgments
The authors are deeply indebted to the current PSG Coordinator, Loran Edwards, whose tireless work, outreach, and support has sustained the PSG for many years, and has made this and other projects within the PSG possible. The authors also would like to acknowledge the invaluable focus and guidance provided by the ROLE journal team.
Comments
Post a Comment