1. Making Time and Space for Writing: Student Writing Mentors and the Writing Centre Katherine Harrington Peter O’Neill Savita Bakhshi

2. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 2 Scope of presentation Selected findings from multi-phase research study investigating effectiveness of peer writing tutorials in context of UK Higher Education Report on first 18 months of Writing Mentor Scheme based on feedback from around 1300 tutorials focusing in particular on: 1.Peer tutors’ views on degree to which they were able to work collaboratively and non-directively 2.Students’ views on degree to which Scheme supported their writing development Reflect on key factors shaping student experiences of peer-led writing tutorials

3. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 3 London Met Writing Centre Open in October 2006 Student Writing Mentor Scheme (peer tutoring programme) -Avoid institutional duplication (existing Learning Development Unit) -Offer something innovative in context of UK writing support, where peer tutoring is very rare and where degrees have a disciplinary focus from the outset -Develop an effective, small-scale, evidence-based peer tutoring programme for London Met with emphasis on training and development -Evaluate a model of student-led writing support that might be implemented in other Higher Education institutions

4. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 4

5. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 5 Rationale and ethos of Writing Mentor Scheme Fundamental connection between writing and thinking Reflective thought is public or social conversation internalised (Vygotsky, 1986). Cf. Bruffee (1984: 641): If thought is internalised public and social talk, then writing of all kinds is internalised social talk made public and social again. If thought is internalised conversation, then writing is internalised conversation re-externalised. It follows that engaging students in constructive conversation is likely to lead to better thinking and therefore to better writing

6. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 6 Such conversation complements a social constructivist view of learning Move toward dialogue and collaboration reflects epistemological shift away from seeing reality and knowledge as exterior, immediately accessible and unproblematically knowable (Lunsford, 1991) Instead, we have come to view knowledge and reality as mediated by or constructed through language in social use, as socially constructed, contextualised, as, in short the product of collaboration … (Lunsford, 1991:4). Making meaning through dialogue and collaboration

7. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 7 Peer collaboration For collaboration to be real, there must be an attempt to reduce as far as possible the hierarchies inherent in the university (cf. Lunsford 1991). As such trained undergraduate peer tutors likely to be ideal facilitators of collaborative learning in fellow students Collaborative peer tutorials in writing as an excellent means of getting students engaged in their writing – of cutting through doubts and getting them to actually do something “Tutoring in writing is … intervention in the composing process. Writers come to the writing centre sometime during the writing of something looking for help. Often, they don’t know what kind of help is available, practicable, or sensible…. They seem to think that tutoring in writing means either coming to know something new or getting something done to or for them. In fact, though, they need help doing something…” (North, 1982: 434)

8. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 8 Peer writing collaborators and Academic Literacies “Doing away with study skills” Real understanding of the complexities of disciplinary writing “can only be achieved within the subject and through explanations, modelling and feedback by subject tutors” (Wingate, 2006: 463) OUR HYPOTHESIS: Students who are themselves engaged with coming to terms with the complexities of their disciplinary discourse also have a role to play in helping other students Moreover, they are close enough to their peers to recognise the confusions that they are going through, confusions which may not be so apparent to a lecturer who has thoroughly internalised the epistemology of her or his discipline Collaborating – working together – might be even more effective for real understanding than “explanations, modelling and feedback”

9. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 9 1. Mentors’ experiences of Scheme To what degree did mentors feel they were able to work collaboratively and non- directively with fellow students? Research: Phase 1 –Qualitative study, Oct 06 – Dec 07 –Thematic analysis of open-ended comments following 1300 hour-long tutorials –Informed by Interpretative Phenomenological Analysis (IPA) (Smith & Osborn, 2003) Prompt: “Please reflect on your session. (E.g. How do you feel you were able to help the student? What could have gone better?)”

10. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 10 Findings: year 1 Theme 1: Interpersonal relationship between student and mentor –Building a rapport –Encouragement/emotional support –Setting expectations –Non-directive enabling Theme 2: Student’s relationship to own writing –Confidence/anxiety –Finding own voice Theme 3: Student and mentor working together –Collaborating/writing together –Informal talk Theme 4: Mentor self-reflections –Challenges –Satisfaction

11. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 11 Findings: year 2 Findings from year 1 informed training programme for year 2 Same themes emerged from data in year 2 However, awareness of the importance of working collaboratively (e.g., working as enabler/facilitator, rather than teacher/assessor) was –more pronounced in tutors‘ reflections on and evaluations of tutorials –evident across all mentors, rather than concentrated in comments from a few

12. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 12 Mentors’ comments I think it went very well because she had a lot of ideas and how to write coming to her practically without my help. It was just a matter of getting her to think about what she is good at. She wanted me to do more for her, but I put my foot down and explained that we could work on things together. A tiring, but productive session. I got Sally to ask herself questions when reading the paper and she started evaluating [her own work] more throughout the session. She felt quite embarrassed at first at asking so many questions, but after that, it became more informal and she realised that I was there to help her and not to assess her.

13. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 13 2. Students’ views of Scheme To what degree did students feel that the mentors provided an environment supportive of their own writing development? –Motivations for using Scheme –Students’ specific writing concerns –Students’ attitudes to own writing before and after tutorials Research : Phase 2 –Qualitative and quantitative study, Oct 06 – Dec 07 –Feedback following over 1300 tutorials –6 focus groups (n=34) –Cross-sectional survey via online questionnaire (n=99) Descriptive statistics and inferential tests Thematic analysis of open-ended responses

14. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 14 Questionnaire participants N = 99 Gender distribution: females (81%), males (19%) Native languages other than English (71%) Studying a variety of different subjects, including Psychology (26%), IR and Politics (14%), Art and Design (14%) Including undergraduate (75%), postgraduate (21%)

15. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 15

16. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 16 Thematic analysis of open-ended comments (n=66) 1. Mentor’s approach/process of sessions25.8% (17) –“laughed about things like bibliographies, and learnt about it together, as she was not sure how it worked either” 2.Received “help” or “feedback”25.8% (17) 3. Non-judgemental atmosphere/tone of sessions 18.2% (12) 4. Learnt an aspect of academic writing10.6% (7) –“building argument and critical analysis”, “how to structure” 5.Attitude to self/writing as a result of session7.6% (5) –“got more confident about my writing” 6. One-to-one nature of sessions6.0% (4) 7.N/A 3.0% (2) 8. “don’t know”/”one-off”/other3.0% (2) Students asked: What did you like most about your tutorials?

17. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 17 Motivations for using the Scheme

18. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 18 Specific writing concerns

19. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 19 Specific concerns met?

20. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 20 Students’ attitudes to own writing before and after tutorials

21. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 21 Students’ comments On improved confidence in own writing It was fantastic when I found my personal abilities for writing during the tutorial. The session has really helped me, my mentor … helped me understand how to structure an essay properly … and identify strengths of mine, as I’d only been able to identify weaknesses. The session has given me the confidence to believe that I can get a good mark on this module assignment. On benefits of peer discussion around writing The session was very helpful. I really enjoyed discussing my paper and finding ways to improve it. The discussion between my mentor and me is motivating me to get better in my writing style. With her help, I locate my problem and find the solution. I really enjoy this tutorial.

22. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 22 Conclusion Key factors shaping student experience of Scheme Mentor training programme that makes working collaboratively the heart of the scheme and which encourages continuous reflection on its practical application in tutorials Students‘ flexibility and willingness to adopt collaborative way of working, even when initial expectations of tutorials may differ (e.g., wanting to have something done to or for them)

23. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 23 An emerging model of writing support in UK HE Academic Literacies thinking suggests that, ultimately, responsibility for students’ writing development needs to be taken on by subject- based lecturers, with support from writing specialists/learning development lecturers Embedded, Writing-in-the-Disciplines approaches are arguably the only way to reach all students, and are therefore likely to offer the most effective model of writing development in the UK context However, peer tutoring in writing can provide an important complement to this work by reducing the hierarchies inherent in tutor-student relationships and promoting genuine collaboration, leading to students’ –increased confidence about their own writing –increased motivation to improve as an academic writer –reduced sense of being alone with writing struggles (reassurance) –better understanding of disciplinary writing conventions and expectations (cf. role of Writing Fellows in Mullin et al., 2008)

24. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 24 Where do we go from here? Research: Phase 3 (in preparation) Relationship between tutorials and quality of student writing and achievement –Intervention study –Observation and recording of tutorials –Content analysis of student writing, using discipline-specific assessment criteria –Correlation with essay and examination grades

25. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 25 References Bruffee, K.A. (1984). Collaborative Learning and the ‘Conversation of Mankind’, College English, 46, 635-52. Lunsford, A. (1991). Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center. The Writing Center Journal, 12.1, 3-10. Mullin, J., Schorn, S., Turner, T., Hertz, R., Davidson, D., & Baca, A. (2008, March 29). Challenging our practices, supporting our theories: Writing mentors as change agents across discourse communities [Special issue on Writing Fellows]. Across the Disciplines, 5. Retrieved June 17, 2008, from http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/fellows/mullin.cfm http://wac.colostate.edu/atd/fellows/mullin.cfm North, S.M. (1982). Training Students to Talk about Writing. College Composition and Communication, 33, 434-441. Smith, J.A. & Osborn, M. (2003). Interpretative phenomenological analysis, in J.A. Smith (Ed.), Qualitative Psychology: A Practical Guide to Methods, London: Sage. Vygotsky, L. (1986). Thought and Language, revised and edited by A. Kozulin, Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press. Wingate, U. (2006). Doing away with ‘study skills.’ Teaching in Higher Education, 11, 457-69.

26. www.writenow.ac.ukWriting Development in Higher Education, 2008, Strathclyde University 26 www.writenow.ac.uk Centre for Excellence in Teaching & Learning k.harrington@londonmet.ac.uk peter.oneill@londonmet.ac.uk s.bakhshi@londonmet.ac.uk