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.