Revision 2: Description of Site

For this project I am analyzing the tutor and student interaction on the interactive online tutoring website Tutor.com. Alaska’s Statewide Library Electronic Doorway (SLED) provides several resources to Alaskans, and free online tutoring is one of those sources. Tutor.com offers tutoring for students at all levels, including elementary and secondary education and college courses in science, social students, math, and English.

This blog will focus on tutoring in writing at the college level. While many schools provide on site writing centers and labs to aid student writing, sometimes the availability of such resources are limited and/or do not fit a student’s particular schedule. Tutor.com fills that need, providing live tutoring sessions from 1 pm to 12 am seven days a week. The University of Alaska Anchorage’s own Reading and Writing Center refers students who are unable to come to the RWC to Tutor.com through the SLED website. Students only need to set up a free account to begin tutoring sessions, and the site provides many benefits to users, including a digital locker to store assignments, past transcripts and documents from tutoring sessions, and the ability to mark certain tutors as “favorites.”

When entering a tutoring session for English, students are prompted with the following screen:

Subject options include vocabulary, grammar, writing center, and literature. Under the question “How much help do you need?” students can choose one of three options: I have no clue where to start, I started but I’m stuck on this one part, or I’m finished, can you make sure it’s right? The second question under section 2 has various options, from checking MLA/APA citations to proofreading to brainstorming. Finally, in the third sections, students have the opportunity to explain further what their assignment is and what exactly it is they need help with. Students can then upload a file for a review.

Upon entering a tutoring session, the student is presented with a window consisting of a split screen. On the left side is a column for instant messaging interaction between the tutor and the student. On the remaining ¾ of the window is reserved for viewing the paper, where the tutor “shares” their screen with the student so they can follow along as tutors insert comments using the “insert comment” function in Microsoft Word.

The tutor also has the ability to share websites and other resources with the student throughout the session to help students locate information they may need to write their papers. What makes Tutor.com interesting is the simultaneous interaction through instant messaging (IM) while tutors make comments on papers. This differs from previous research that used email exchange to facilitate online tutoring (Rillings). The synchronous nature of Tutor.com allows tutors to more readily engage students in the revision process; the sessions reflect face-to-face tutoring sessions much more closely. During this study, I will analyze how tutors utilize the duality of instant messaging and the commenting function in Microsoft Word, as well as the ability to share other resources with students.

Because of my experience tutoring at UAA’s RWC, I’m interested to see how this interaction plays out in a digital space. In recent composition studies, researchers have recognized the process nature of writing and the RWC has become a valuable resource for students and teachers alike. Tutor.com and other sites reach out to the vast number of students taking online courses away from the physical site of the university. In using these sites, however, we must constantly be analyzing how they best serve the students and what types of new literacies are required not only of students but also of the tutors involved in the teaching process.

Revision 1: Synthesis

As we move through the 21^st century, we cannot deny the effects technology has had on our everyday lives. We rely on it in nearly all aspects of our lives, to completing work tasks, finishing homework assignments, communicating, and finding information. Computer-mediated communication (CMC) has increased as well, and has even become the norm for communicating in workplaces and social circles. Text messaging, email, and social networks have replaced traditional forms of communication, and CMC will only become more visible in our daily lives and in our classrooms (Rilling; Jin & Zhu).

Using these tools, however, will call for an “understanding of student needs, motives, and learning behaviors” (Jin & Zhu 299). Bringing technology into classrooms will require educators the adjust their teaching for new literacies, making efforts to understand how the Internet and other information and communications technology (ICT) have created new social communication skills and expectations (Sweeny 122; Sternberg 418). Examples of such expectations are those seen in instant messaging (IM). While the media has made IM out to be the degradation of our kids’ language skills, IM language actually demonstrates the proficiency students have with language linguistically (Tagliamonte & Derek, cited in Sternberg 417). In digital spaces that have been used for academic purposes, studies have found that students will still use academic language that include personal traits characteristic of IM language (Sweeny 128). Even though many view IM communications as non-academic, our everyday communication systems have seen an increase in such language through digital spaces and might be worth including in classrooms and learning (Sternberg 417).

As with any skill, though, students will have varying levels of proficiency using different ICTs; instructors using technology must be aware of their students’ digital literacies. Integrating a wide range of these tools into the classroom will help students develop their digital literacies in order to communicate in an increasingly technology-driven world.

Not only do ICT and CMC have a place in classrooms, but they can also have impacts in various academic arenas. Writing labs have become a cornerstone to developing student writing at various levels, from English as a second language learners to freshman composition classes. Extending these services into a digital space can provide even more benefits for students. Writing centers serve a variety of purposes to students: brainstorming, organizing, grammar help, development, citations, etc. The physical writing center often has tables for students to work with tutors, computers for composing, bookshelves filled with reference materials, and couches and comfortable chairs for talking through ideas or brainstorming sessions. These various functions can be reproduced in an online environment. Websites can provide links to reference materials and sites like the PurdueOWL, and tutors and students can engage in a dialogue through instant messaging or they can work asynchronously by exchanging emails (Rilling 359). Just like the physical writing lab, the goal of the OWL is to improve student writing strategies and processes, and not simply serve as an editing service. Students who fail to understand this may be surprised when using an OWL when tutors engage them in a conversation about their writing. The digital space also creates more room for misunderstanding; a student can fail to provide the assignment specifications or a student might not understand what a tutor is saying (Rilling 362). Because of this, communication is key to successful tutoring online, regardless of the CMC being used.

OWL’s need to take precaution when selecting a CMC for use with their students. Various forms have benefits and disadvantages, and several factors that need to be taken into consideration. An OWL that primarily uses email exchange has the benefit of convenience: students are able to send a paper to a tutor for review and then receive feedback after the tutor has read their paper. Email allows students to write a brief memo explaining the assignment and any concerns they may have and attach their document. Tutors can then read their paper and insert comments using the comment function in Microsoft Word or by writing their notes in a different font (Rillings 360). Instant messaging (IM) allows for a synchronous interaction, where a reviewer and writer can engage in an open dialogue as a paper is reviewed, allowing for a conversation about the writing and instant feedback and questioning for the student (Jin & Zhu 296). Because IM allows for conversation and continual interaction, it allows a session to resemble face-to-face tutoring more closely; other CMC tools (like email) are more prone to become a one-time editing session that fails to engage the student in a writing process. Regardless of the CMC being used, however, online tutoring brings a unique focus to the writing aspect of paper review (Rilling).

Tutor training is vital in a successful OWL. Tutors must develop new strategies for negotiating a digital space when working with student writing, strategies that compensate for the lack of face-to-face interaction. Similar to face-to-face tutoring, a blance must exist between the needs of the writer seeking error correction (common in ESL students) and a dialogue focused on commenting and questioning that revolves around global issues (Rilling 362). Both online tutors and face-to-face tutors are supporters of writing that engage in social interaction with students to develop writing and create more autonomous writers (Rilling 368). In the OWL, various IM features can help tutors engage their students in a dialogue about their writing, keeping them involved in the revision process and preventing the session from turning into an error-correction session.

No matter which CMC is used in the OWL, all users must be aware of participants’ various computer related skills. This is another factor thrown in to an already complex task of peer review (Jin & Zhu 297). Online spaces also create a unique set of challenges that must be overcome to have a successful tutoring session: students can engage in other online activities during a review session, a student’s lack of IM literacy can complicate communication with the tutor, and students have the ability to choose how involved to be in the dialogue during their review session (Jin & Zhu).  A student who chooses not to be active during a review session leaves tutors guessing if they are being helpful; without the use of face-to-face interaction where tutors could easily read body language and facial expressions, lack of interaction in the OWL alienates both tutor and student, and tutors could easily fall into the role of editors and overcorrect a paper, overwhelming the student (Rilling 363).

The writing lab will continue to be a valuable tool for students and writers, and the creation of an OWL can better serve a growing number of students who choose to take classes online. Developing OWLs must continually focus on how to better serve students, and research in digital literacies and CMC tools is vital to their success. I believe the synchronous nature of IM allows tutors to engage students in the revision process better than other CMC tools, and the use of IM language should strike a balance between academic language and creating a welcoming, comfortable environment for students. Using Haas’ et al. 15-item taxonomy to discuss various IM features, researchers can get a better understanding of what makes a successful tutoring interaction in an OWL.

Conclusions and Implications

As technology continues to make its away into every part of our lives, we need to prepare our students to engage with it in meaningful, productive ways. We can integrate technology into our classrooms in several ways and use technology to extend the learning of our students beyond the confinements of the classroom walls. This study looked at a very specific digital space that used instant messaging interaction in order to tutor student writing. 


Writing labs have had a growing importance in the success of college students at various levels, including ESL students and first year composition students. Writing centers engage students in a writing process, providing instruction and feedback outside of the classroom when instructors may not be available for additional help. Online writing centers are no different, and it is important that research continue in this field to understand how to best help students utilize the OWL. 


This study has shown that tutors who simultaneously engage students in a conversation while reviewing their papers communicate ideas and suggestions more efficiently; keeping the students involved not only prevents them from engaging in other activities (both on- and off-line) during the tutoring session, but also gives them more opportunities to solicit help from their tutor and become autonomous writers. Communication is key to successful tutoring sessions in the OWL, and the use of IM features can better facilitate that communication and connection between student and tutor.


The information gathered here can be beneficial for tutor training and OWL development, especially OWLs that choose to use IM as their mode of CMC. While each tutoring session is unique, tutors who have a better understanding of IM features and recognize when students use them will be able to engage in a conversation that creates a connection between tutor and student.


This study might also be beneficial to teachers who are looking to continually engage their students in the writing process while also integrating technology into the classroom (Sweeny 125). Revision processes and review sessions are often too time consuming to take place in class regularly; instructors can send their students to an online tutoring site such as Tutor.com to encourage more revision while simultaneously increasing their digital literacies.


Perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of online tutoring is that students engage in writing as their assignments are reviewed; online tutoring is a form of self-sponsored writing that is connected to academics but takes place outside of the classroom. As Haas, et al., say, there is a certain "excitement" of seeing this self-sponsored writing "integrated into and made important in peoples' lives" (379).

Analysis Option: Revision of Evidence Analysis Memo 1

Below is the beginning of a transcript from my first session at Tutor.com, the online tutoring service provided by the State of Alaska.

Joshua S (Tutor)

[00:00:13] Welcome to Tutor.com ! How can I help you today?

Stacie (Customer)

[00:00:40] I just finished a paper and would like it proofread, checking for any typos/errors, and to make sure it's clear and focused

Joshua S

[00:00:55] ok, and what is the assignment exactly?

Stacie

[00:01:16] its a response paper to an article we had to read in class

[00:01:32] "Finding Your Own Voice" by Donald Murray

Joshua S

[00:01:49] ok, in order to help you better, I am going to ask if there is anything in this assignment that you want me to look for in particular besides thatwhich you already mentioned.

Stacie

[00:02:49] um, I think the organization could be better but I'm not exactly sure how

Joshua S

[00:03:01] ok, have you removed all personal info?

Stacie

[00:04:14] I think so, I start by addressing the article directly, kind of summarizing it and what he is arguing, then I try to take a more critical stance towardthe middle and end

System Message

[00:04:34] *** Downloading file from Joshua S ... ***

Joshua S

[00:05:01] I'm sorry, but I can't accept this personal information from you, for everyone's safety. Please be sure not to provide any additional personalinformation.

Stacie

[00:05:18] ooooh okay I understand what youre saying now, sorry!

The beginning of the conversation set an awkward tone for the rest of the session. Confusion between the tutor and myself was a result of ineffective communication. Joshua’s use of formal language and failure to clarify that he was not yet talking about the essay resulted in the confusion. When Joshua asked me if I had removed all personal information, I thought he was talking about the content of my essay, not if my name and class were anywhere on the document. In face-to-face tutoring sessions, it is vital that students (especially those first coming to an RWC) feel comfortable and welcomed by their tutor, creating a better atmosphere for review and various revisions. In this digital space, lack of eye dialect and other metadiscursive markers made it difficult to relate to Joshua as a tutor, and I never felt he was engaged with me as a writer in the revision process.

In fact, the only IM features Joshua uses are punctuation (an ellipses to indicate he was working on something and dropping end punctuation). His language remains formal throughout the session. He also does not make valuable use of the instant messaging function within the tutoring space. After the introduction, he asks for a few minutes while he reviews my paper, makes a few comments on the document, and once he is finished refers me to his comments on the page:

Joshua S (Tutor)
[00:08:03] ok, please give me a few minutes to look over

your paper


[Paper and tutor comments available here]

Joshua S (Tutor) [00:20:54] ok, I am ready to discuss your paper when you are

Stacie (Customer)
[00:21:00] ok

Joshua S 
[00:22:04] ok, do you see the first comment?

Stacie 
[00:23:34] yeah...I guess the significance is that that type of environment in a composition classroom was very different at that time

Joshua S 
[00:23:45] ok, make sure to mention that

Stacie 
[00:23:56] k

Joshua S 
[00:25:11] ok, comment 2 and 3 are related

Stacie 
[00:25:54] right those are good catches, thanks
[00:26:50]is there anything that seems out of place or doesn't really make sense?

Joshua S 
[00:27:53] not particularly. there are a couple other grammatical errors I beleive

Stacie 
[00:28:08] yeah I saw those

Joshua S 
[00:28:18] and then comment 5
[00:29:22] ok, I hope this session was helpful for you

Joshua’s failure to engage the student using the instant messaging function made this review session nothing more than an editing session. Although Joshua's approach is very task oriented, his approach to tutoring does nothing to engage a student in the writing process and does not help lead a student to become a more autonomous writer. Tutoring is more than just proofreading, and tutors are nearly always trained to help students make both global and local revisions. Since Joshua instructs me to wait while he reviews my paper, I found myself diverting my attention to other digital spaces, checking social networking sites and working on another assignment. Even after prompting more feedback by asking about organization (26:50), Joshua only makes another comment on grammar. While Joshua caught a few proofreading matters, this session did little to engage the student in the revision process and I would categorize a session like this as unsuccessful.

Free Choice: Revision "Methodologies"

Site: My research is based on tutoring interaction at the website Tutor.com, a service free to Alaska residents provided by the Statewide Library Electronic Doorway website (or SLED). I chose this site because it is publicly funded and available for free, whereas other online tutoring sites have costs attached and I was unsure of their credibility. I knew about Tutor.com from UAA’s Reading and Writing Center; the RWC recommends this resource to distance students, students who seek tutoring outside of the RWC’s normal hours, and students who are unable to be helped at the RWC on busier days like those before finals week.

Participants: The participants for my research are various tutors at Tutor.com (who do not know they are being studied) and myself. I will submit papers for tutoring sessions and interact with tutors during the review session.

Self: I will be acting as a participant in the role of a student, or as Tutor.com labels users, as a “customer.” This provides an interesting dynamic, because I bring my own beliefs in writing instruction to the table from my experience as a tutor in UAA’s RWC and from various classes in teaching composition. I am also a user of digital spaces that use instant messaging, and my own level of participation and experience in IM interactions may play a part in the interactions between tutors and myself.

Data: The data will consist of instant messaging transcripts from my sessions with tutors at the site and the papers submitted to tutors with tutor comments following each session.

Analysis: Using Haas’ 15-item taxonomy of instant messaging, I will analyze the conversations during each tutoring session; attention will be focused on the tutor’s use of any of the items in the taxonomy and the frequency at which they are used. A chart is provided below for a detailed list of these 15 items with various examples. 

(Haas 385)

Traditions: Drawing from multiple fields of research, I aim to draw a connection between the IM interaction and the success of the tutoring session. Research on imitating writing centers online (Rilling), using email exchanges for tutoring (Rilling), using IM for peer review (Jin and Zhu), and various articles drawing connections between academic and digital literacies (Rilling; Jin and Zhu; Johnson; Sternberg; Sweeny; and Haas) have all contributed to knowledge in digital literacies and provide a background on which to base this connection. The affordances available in a digital space are much different than those in face-to-face tutoring, and the study of instant messaging in this setting will provide valuable information to helping students in a digital sphere. I hope this study will help develop a bridge between academic writing and the use of instant messaging in an academic setting. Tutoring, both on- and off-line, benefits students dramatically when classroom time does not allow for the complexities of writing development and revision, and it is important that research continually develop ways to benefit students using various technologies for school.

Evidence Analysis Memo 2

In another tutoring session at Tutor.com, I experienced a more meaningful interaction with my tutor through both the commenting function in Microsoft Word and through instant messaging interaction. My tutor JoLyn provided comments and basic proofreading using the commenting function in Microsoft Word. Simultaneously, she engaged in instant messaging and we began a conversation surrounding my paper, where she clarified what I was looking for, what was acceptable for this paper, and what some of the expectations were for the paper. This differed from previous interactions in which the tutor simply read the paper, made comments, and then asked me to review the comments to see if I had any questions. Instead, JoLyn engaged me during her review, during which we had a discussion about citing quotations in MLA. She had initially made a comment on the paper saying the period should go inside the quotation. Through instant messaging, the following conversation took place:

Stacie (Customer)
[00:15:48] I thought the period always went after the citation?

JoLyn R (Tutor)
[00:16:20] hmmm maybe I am telling you a lie. Now that you mention it.

Stacie 
[00:16:29] lol i hate when that happens

JoLyn R 
[00:16:58] Me too. You are right. After the citation in a normal quote, after the quote in a block quote.

Stacie 
[00:17:10] right, the block quote is the one i alwasy forget about

JoLyn R 
[00:18:07] I always have to look up block quotes. They aren't that hard, but they are enough different that I have to double check

Stacie 
[00:18:20] yeah and i feel like thats a rule that's always changing

JoLyn R 
[00:19:12] Some teachers do change that rule for their classes which is doubley confusing

Because JoLyn was interacting with me during the session through instant messaging, I felt comfortable asking the question about punctuation as she made the comment on the paper. Without the instant messaging interacting during review, students might have a tendency to drift to other sites on their computer or work on other homework, resulting in missed opportunities for conversation and learning that are vital in face-to-face tutoring sessions.

Shortly after this conversation, there was a block quote in the paper that was punctuated incorrectly:

Stacie 
[00:20:18] speaking of block quotes...

JoLyn R 
[00:20:55] I'll have to double check, but I don't think you need the quote marks.

Stacie 
[00:21:08] i think you're right

After the session ended, we briefly commented on the trickiness of citing quotes, and JoLyn said, “So you were right about the periods for short quotations, and I was right about quote marks for long.” She also sent me a link to the PurdueOWL in case I had any further questions regarding citations in MLA.

What I particularly noticed about our instant messaging conversation was how it became increasingly informal as we continued our conversation. Punctuation, capitalization, and in some instances correcting errors were abandoned in order to accommodate the speed of the interaction and the conversation. JoLyn began the conversation using complete punctuation and capitalization, and later teetered between formal and informal writing that lacked standard punctuation and capitalization and resembled instant messaging language. When I questioned her comment about punctuating cited quotes, she used the onomatopoeia "hmmm." Even so, JoLyn remained mostly formal, avoiding use of contractions and instant messaging language, including emoticons and internet language like "lol". I find this to be common among the majority of tutoring sessions and believe it may have something to do with their training and/or their attempt to keep a formal, academic relationship with the students being tutored.

Again, the simultaneous nature of her comments on the page and our conversation are what made this tutoring session successful. I left the virtual classroom feeling she had taken an interest in my paper and she was truly invested in making my writing better.

Below is a sample of comments provided on the paper, many of which revolved around grammar and usage. 

A sample of the comments provided on the paper, ranging from verb tense issues to word choice to pronoun confusion.

The most interesting comment in this section was the following: "Some teachers hate talks as a verb about an essay since the essay/author isn't talking to you." This comment draws attention to the challenges of tutoring. Oftentimes, tutors must approach topics like these with caution; it is impossible to universalize what teachers find acceptable when it comes to such specific word choice. But JoLyn's comment is a good one; she draws attention to an area that may present a problem, and articulates the issue some teachers might have with the usage. This wording allows a student to make the change or leave it, depending on their own personal experience with writing or with their teacher. This type of language is especially important in a digital sphere where we lack the availability of face-to-face interaction. JoLyn's wording would not make a student defensive, but instead invites a conversation should the student have more questions regarding the usage.

Methodologies

Methodologies for this kind of research typically address the following questions:

1) Site--Where did you conduct your research? Why?

2) Participants--Who did you study in your project? Why?

3) Self--What role did you play in your site?

4) Data--What kinds of data did you collect? How did you collect it?

5) Analysis--How did you analyze your data?

6) Tradition(s)--What major research tradition(s) did you draw upon to conduct your study?

Site: My research is based around tutoring interaction at the website Tutor.com, a service free to Alaska residents provided by the Statewide Library Electronic Doorway website (or SLED). I chose this site because it is publicly funded and available for free, whereas other online tutoring sites have costs attached and I was unsure of their credibility. I knew about Tutor.com from UAA’s reading and writing center; as a past tutor, I know that the RWC recommends this resource to distance students, students who seek tutoring outside of the RWC’s normal hours, and students who are unable to be helped at the RWC on busier days like those around finals week.

Participants: The participants for my research are myself and the tutors that I interact with on the website in reviewing my own papers.

Self: I will be acting as a participant in the role of a student, or as Tutor.com labels users, as a “customer.”

Data: The majority of my data will be instant messaging exchanges between myself and my tutor(s). I will also refer to the papers themselves, as tutors can make comments and suggestions on the documents submitted for review.

Analysis: I will be analyzing my data using Haas’s 15 item taxonomy of instant messaging features. I will also take notes on any confusion I may have felt and how the general tutoring environment was established at the beginning of each session.

Traditions: I will drawing heavily from Sarah Rilling’s article “The development of an ESL OWL, or learning how to tutor writing online” to establish the ways in which an online writing lab (OWL) can emulate that of a physical writing lab, and also the ways in which the OWL is limited. These aspects of the lab are important to understand the strengths and weaknesses of each lab and to understand how to best utilize the online space for composition tutoring. I will also draw on other theories surrounding digital learning and literacies in order to establish the validity of online tutoring and how it can be extremely beneficial to all types of students.