.....from the editor....If this issue of the newsletter

reaches you before you close up shop andgo off to celebrate holidays and vacationtime, you are probably in the midst ofcoping with the surge of students whowere referred in September and arefinally straggling In for the first time justbefore the semester ends. If so, you'llespecially appreciate David Klooster'sadvice on training students to use thewrit-ing lab appropriately.

And if you're in need of somelighter reading, try another of DavidChapman's spoofs, this one a Dragnettake-over in the writing lab, and MandyTaylor's writing lab adaptation of "'wasthe Night before Christmas?

Included also in this issue areother interesting, useful articles, anotherguest editor's column, a book review,announcements and calls for papers, andreaders' comments and requests forinformation. Included also are myheartiest wishes to everyone for joyous,happy holidays; for magnificentlypeaceful, relaxing vacation time; and fora good, healthy year ahead for us all.

Muriel Harris, editor

Tutee training, or ittakes two tocollaborate

All of us who work in writ-ingcenters have witnessed the situation: Awriter walks in the door, sits quietly with atutor, and waits passively for the tutor toact. The tutor, well trained in collaborativetechniques, works persistently to engagethe writer in a conversation about thepaper, probing for information about theassignment, about the writer's involvementwith the paper, about possible directionsthe paper might move. The writer givesone-word answers, and every attempt tobegin a conversation falls flat. Finally thewriter gets annoyed and says, "Look, justtell me what to do to fix my paper. Thatwill save us both time?

We frequently read in these pagesabout tutor training, but a writing centeralso has to be concerned with a muchlarger training project. The kind oflearning-through-talking model that mostwriting centers aim to follow depends ontwo people prepared and willing to partici-pate in a conversation about the text athand. Writing centers need

to find ways to educate the writers on campus-bothstudents and faculty-in how to talk effectively aboutwriting. We need to train the people on our campusesto use our writing centers and labs and workshops inproductive ways. The writers we serve need to walk inour door ready to collaborate.

Well-prepared tutors are of course essential tothe success of a program offering one-to-one instruction.But even beginning tutors, with their interest in workingin a center and with their above-average writing skills,are likely already to hold healthy attitudes about thekind of give and take that occurs in a tutorial. Ofcourse we need to work to define the tutoring task forour tutors and to enlarge their repertoire of approachesand techniques, to increase their sensitivities to thespeaking and listening dynamics of the tutorial. Tutortraining continues to be a high priority. But the mostsuccessful writing centers will also seek to train thewriters they talk with.

The training that tutees need differs markedlyfrom that our tutors need. Most important, I believe, isthat writers learn to see writing as an interactiveprocess. a constant effort to match personal intentionwith public perception. In large part, thisunderstanding manifests itself as a frame of mind, awillingness to listen to a member of the writer'sintended audience respond, and the flexibility to seethat a writing center tutor can represent a member ofthat audience. As writers gain maturity, they becomeincreasingly concerned to shape their prose toaccomplish specific purposes for specific audiences.Writing teachers have learned to help writers towardthe goal of internalizing methods of audience analysisby dramatizing audience response through peerinteraction and other direct confrontation betweenwriter and reader. The writing center can be apowerful focus for this stage in writing growth, for themotivated writer has an unusual opportunity here totalk about writing with an interested and unusuallyresponsive reader.

In my view, then, the writing center needs tomake an effort to educate campus writers to come tothe center expecting to talk, to try out ideas, to askquestions, to explore possibilities, and to listen to areader's response. The writers who use our services donot need elaborate train-ing in specialized techniques.Writers need simply to understand that what happens inthe writing center depends deeply on theirwillingness to participate in a process of examinationand explo-

ration. They need to learn that writing centers areplaces for talk about writing, places that en-couragediscovery through conversation, places forcollaboration.

Tutee training will of necessity be a multi-faceted and hit-or-miss effort. Writing centerdirectors are familiar with the endless publicrelations tasks we face, and I would suggest that wemake this work a deliberate effort to retrain ourcampus communities about what to expect when awriter walks in the writing center door. Let medescribe how I work to inform the writers on mycampus about collaboration and to encourage themto work with us when they walk in our door. I workat a relatively small liberal arts college (2300students and 150 faculty members). but I suspectthat most writing centers, no matter where they are,could join In some of these efforts.

Class visits are one of my most importantforums. I ask to be invited during the first weeks ofthe semester to freshman writing classes and to ourwriting-intensive classes in the Writing-Across-the-Curriculum program, and I receive an invitation toabout two-thirds of them, which gives me access to alarge portion of the freshman class. In five or tenminutes at the beginning or end of the class, I give thestudents two messages: first, their writing class is oneof the most important classes they will take, because

world, and a path to self-knowledge. Second, I encouragethem to find one to talk with about their writing- aclassmate, a friend in the dormitory, or a writing centerconsultant. I talk for a few minutes about the importance oflearning how to give and take advice in learning to write,and I suggest that a great deal of writing in the workingworld involves collaborative work with office-mates.Collaboration is an acquired skill, I stress, and I encouragethem to learn how to participate in it. My goal in these classvisits is not simply to tell students where the writing center isand when it is open, but more importantly to begin fosteringa view of the center as a place to receive significantresponses to their words on paper.

Workshops

The many workshops our Center sponsors offeranother forum for teaching writers on our campus aboutcollaboration. Nearly a third of the students on our campuscome to a Writing Center workshop each year, many of themfor our popular Resume and Cover Letter WritingWorkshops. They come for information about a kind ofwriting they are unfamiliar with, and of course I give themthat. But I also try to make the workshop itself a model ofcollaboration, a give and take of ideas as we think about theaudience and purpose of a resume, the availableorganizational patterns of a cover letter, and the ways ofcontrolling tone in these difficult kinds of personal writing.These writers, often seniors eager to get on in the world ofwork, come expecting a quick shot of information, andthey leave having participated in a conversation aboutwriting. More than half of them take me up on my offer toreturn to the Writing Center with a draft of their resume sothat we can talk about it, and many of these return with apaper or even a senior thesis to discuss.

Writers-at-Work Series

Our Writers-at-Work series is another chance toencourage healthy talk about writing. The tutors in theCenter invite a campus writer-often a favorite publishingprofessor, but some-times an accomplished student, anadministrator, or a writer from the community- to talk tothe campus community about his or her work-in-progress. The presentation may include a reading of a draft,but it will almost always lead to a discussion of writingmethods and an exchange of ideas about the manuscript athand. At best,

these sessions turn into lively large-group brain-stormingefforts, offering the writer new ideas and the audience achance to participate in the discovery process of writing.

Follow-up Notes

As the day-to-day work of the Writing Centerprogresses, we make an effort to use the follow-up notes wesend to professors after a tutorial to demonstrate to the facultyour commitment to join them in the work of helping writersunderstand their material and their expression of it. Thesehand-written memos describe the conversations we havewith students from the faculty member's class, Indicating notonly the kinds of mechanical matters we tried to teach butalso our exchange of ideas with the writer about the con-tentof the paper, We have found these follow-up notes to be animportant part of our effort to get the message out that theWriting Center is a place for serious discussions aboutwriting. And the frequent responses we get from facultymembers, either thanking us for helping a student or point-ingout other matters of concern in the essay, suggest that theprofessors are getting our message and will be more likelyto pass it on to their students.

Through all of these efforts our Writing Centerspreads the word that we offer help not only in gram:mar andmechanics but also in the hard work of shaping ideas,developing convincing methods of support, and honing themessage for the audience. And always we are trying to con-vince writers that they benefit most from the Center whenthey come to work with us. Our efforts are somewhatindirect, approaching the individual writers on our campusthrough the groups to which they belong. Of course, the mostimportant element of our work to encourage writers to viewthe Writing Center as a place for collaboration is the tutorialitself. I'm not comfort-able describing the work of theconsultation as tutee training, though, because that suggeststhat there's something manipulative or performance-orientedabout what I mean. While most of the methods I havedescribed above are self-conscious efforts to change people'sattitudes about the Writing Center, the meeting of tutor andwriter is intended to change something more important-thewriter's command of the paper. As the tutor talks and readsand responds, the writer witnesses first hand the benefits oftalking about writing. Ideas become clearer, new ideas emerge,intentions are strengthened, the audience reacts,

and the writer gains greater power over the rhe-torical situation. As writers participate in this kind ofcollaborative exchange in the Writing Center, or inthe dormitory, the coffee shop, or the professor'soffice, they learn to become discriminating in theiruse of response and advice, accept-ing that whichmakes the paper more fully their own and rejectingsuggestions that draw the paper away from what theywant it to be. In other words, they learn how to write bylearning to become part of the community of thinkersin the university.

David J. Wooster DePauw University Greencastle. Indiana

The electronic writing tutor

Jeff works the night shift at the local cheeseplant to cover tuition costs, housing, and family livingexpenses. When he gets off work at 7:30, he's off to aseries of classes and then a few hours of sleep. Hishomework is wedged into a two-hour block from tenuntil midnight, and he's having trouble organizing hisfreshman comp essay on "Making Cheese." Who canhe turn to at 11:05 p.m. for advice?

Flipping the switch on his computer, he dialsinto the campus mainframe and writes his query onelectronic mail to the Writing Center's "ElectronicTutor." When he returns to his essay tomorrow night,he'll have an answer.

Jessie is what the state calls a "displacedhomemaker." Translation: her husband divorced her,leaving her with little support as head of household.Because she neither attended college nor held a job for15 years, she is "unemployable." Through a grantprogram, she has enrolled in a "Going Back is GoingForward" college program to get a degree. She is alsotied to her home most of the time. When she has aquestion on parenthetical documentation, she, too,dials into the campus computer and calls on theElectronic Tutor.

Although this scenario may sound like "Super Tutor to the Rescue," the examples are real.No longer do time and distance restrict learning to aclassroom or to a writing center. As the number ofnon-traditional students on campuses increases, somust non-traditional methods of learning andteaching. Computer conferences are already apopular feature of many writing programs, whereteachers and students keep in touch via e-mail. Often

computer user fees which gives them access tocampus computers offering such sophisticatedcomputer links as e-mail and the international system,BITNET. Communication possibilities fly fast andfuriously. Some campus libraries offer on-line readyreference, such as Cornell's "Uncle Ezra" advicecolumn.

Although writing centers offer a naturalenvironment for an "advice column on writingproblems," they have been slow to offer such services.Perhaps it is because writing center directors arehumanists who prefer one-to-one conferences face-to-face rather than screen-toscreen. Others may claimthat "we can't be all things to all people." An integralpart of writing center philosophy, however, is thateducation should be accessible to all who can benefitfrom it. Unless a writing center is staffed 24 hoursdaily, then some students needing help are turnedaway. The "time" problem is solved by a tutorialreference system- provided the writer doesn't needthe advice quickly (electronic tutors normally log ona few times daily).

With modems, "distance" is no longer aproblem either. If a student needing writing help livesin a campus dormitory or in a town 50 miles away, shecan request help via phone line/modem and then pore overthe response during rewriting stages. Tom broke his legon the ski slope and is laid up for two weeks, but hewon't get behind on his writing assignments because hegets the help he needs.

Another target population that benefitsfrom electronic tutoring is the ESL student. Be-causetutorial conferences rely on conversation, they areoften confusing for non-native speakers-especially ifthe tutor talks quickly or Idiomatically. Writtencomments from a tutor via e-mail prove moreunderstandable for non-native speakers as they canread the text over and over.

Students corresponding with the electronictutor like the idea of convenient, friendly feedback;however, such a service could be seen as a panacea bybudget-conscious administrators. Writing centers are ahigh-cost item on university budgets because of tutorsalaries- admittedly, we know that writing centersscrape by and make do more often than not. But froman administrator's standpoint, a center that offers onlyelectronic tutor services would be cost effective as thetutor logs on daily, responds to questions, and logs offwith no wasted time. In contrast, tutors working withinthe confines of the writing center must wait

for business to come to them. Our response to thoseadministrators should be that while electronic tutoringprovides supplementary tutoring and combats the problems oftime and distance for students needing tutorial help, suchtutoring does not equal the value of dialogue in a face-to-faceconference. In short, there is no replacement for theimmediate questioning and discussion characteristic oftutorials.

Establishing a *wired* writing center tutor mayseem like a lot of work, but it taps an audience that might notordinarily use the writing center because of time conflicts,distance problems, second languge problems, or simplyshyness. Although the electronic tutor cannot duplicate thecomprehensiveness of the writing center tutorial or the valueof face-to-face dialogue, the service offers an additional wayfor helping writers write,

Joyce KinkeadUtah State University

Book Review

Donald L. Rubin and William M. Dodd. Talking intoWriting: Exercises for Basic Writers. Urbana, IL: NCTE,1987. $5.75, $4.50 NCTE members, 63 pages.

Donald L. Rubin and William M. Dodd (hereaftertackily referred to as R&D) do many things well in theircontribution to the ERIC/ NCTE Theory and Research intoPractice series, Talking into W : Exercises for BasicWriters. They remind us that the category "basic writers" isbuilt upon no set of features shared by all of the studentswho, for good or ill, are relegated to it, They remind us thatbasic writing programs in many secondary and post-secondary schools across the country are still pit-bullpersistently adhering to a belief that only intensive grammarand usage drills (and nothing more discursively demandingthan the occasional topic-sentence heavy paragraph) shall setbasic writers free. They remind us that the ability to survive (or at least persist) as a writer in an academic setting isheavily dependent upon attaining to privileged levels ofintellectual development (Perry's "committed relativism")and degrees of sophistication in social perspective-taking/synthesizing skills. And they remind us, finally, thatthere are good Knot conclusive) reasons for suspecting thattensions, interdependencies, and interferences

between orality and literacy hardly serve to enhance anonstandard-dialect speaker's chances of success inside theliterate, hyper-standard halls of academe.

They remind us of all of these things, and they setus to nodding fast and furious at the mere dropping of readilyrecognizable names: Shaughnessy, Wiener, Perry, Ong,Zoellner, Flower, Lunsford, Kroll, Rose, Hartwell, Bizell, etc.,etc. And this is precisely where the problem ("shortcoming"may be the better term) with R&D's monograph lies. In orderto validate their claim that "several oral communicationmethods provide the scaffolding that some students need tomake the difficult transition from jointly constructed dialogueto individually managed monologue (i.e., writing]" (6), R&Dpresent a persuasive summation of theory and research that isdirected to an audience of readers who by and large alreadyagree with them- or at least sympathize strongly with them.Certainly some might quibble that tossing too manycognitivists, process theorists, and literacy specialists into thesame argumentative stew may result in a nausea of theoreticalpresuppositions and methodological starting points.Nonetheless, no one who is even casually acquainted withcurrent issues in basic writing pedagogy is going to beeffectively taken aback by any of R&D's claims. And that iswhat I call a problem.

Let me get clear on this. Writing to convert the converted(although a widely popular discourse option for many in ourdiscipline) is a misdirected sort of mission. So I call it a problemhere if only because there are people who do need to be blindedby the light of a clearly articulated, well supported defense ofthe value of collaborative learning and process-centeredpedagogical strategies in the basic writing classroom. Andthese are precisely the people to whom R&D allude in theiropening remarks, people closeted in remediation programs whodo "adhere to instructional techniques of proven impotence"because they do in fact believe "that unless students firstdemonstrate competence in the atomistic, isolated, rote aspectsof cultivated proofreading, they cannot handle molecular,purposeful, original composition" (I), Unfortunately, both thatmaneuver and the diction used to carry it through are designed tocaricature those people, for us who know better, as the chuckle-headed opposition. Instead of adopting those people as salientmembers of their audience and attempting to either address theirconcerns or encourage them to consider an alter-native (actually,the current mainstream) posi-

tion, R&D relegate them to Stonehenge and lead us tothe Cathedral of Tomorrow. And they have no troubledoing that because, for us true believers, tomorrow'salready here. Or at least it's pretty to think so.

Let me get still clearer on this. I'm promptedto stay with this point about shortcomings in R&D'sown social cognition primarily be-cause of a sentencesandwiched inside the order-ing information providedat the end of NCTE's Public Information Office newsrelease for Talking into Writing. The sentence ismisleading because of its level of generality. Thesentence is "Audience: administrators and faculty incollege and secondary school writing programs.education policymakers." And my point about thissentence Is that it sadly misrepresents the facts in theease because the adjective "like-minded" was care-lessly omitted from it. No administrator, facultymember, or policymaker from a school where drill-intensive instruction is the official will and way isgoing to get very far beyond the wrist-slapping toneof page one without getting a hankerin' for a littleimpromptu book burning. For that audience, theopening "Theory and Research" chapter thatjustifies/contextualizes the oral communicationexercises outlined as "Practice" is blithelyunderargued, and most of what presents itself assupporting material for R&D's claims rarely venturesfar beyond simple parenthetical in-text citations ofreferences. All of which makes for a seemingly all-toofacile synthesis of so many taken perspectives.

And that's a deuced shame because several ofthe oral communication exercises that R&D offer couldindeed be very useful for basic for developmental)writers as invention tools for es-says with any aim andas spurs for social cognitive development. Again,though, none of these exercises is going to come asmuch of a surprise to people (especially the greatmajority of writing center tutors) who are alreadycommitted to collaborative/facilitative instruction.Each of the exercises is grounded in the two writingcenter staples of dialogue and questioning; their onlyconceivable distinction from most tutorial sessions isthat the exercises provide specific scenarios and moreor less tightly scripted prompts to keep conversants ontrack. From a tutor's point of view, the most interestingactivity is probably the Peer Tutoring Cards- essentiallya set of typical planning questions sliced up as a deckof cards that can be shuffled and reshuffled for the sakeof variety and for the sake of discouraging the sort of rote,lock-step planning that rarely leads either to

insight or to useful concrete details and developmentstrategies.

The only word of caution to be given about theexercises is once again a matter of audience. I suspectthat all of the exercises would play well with highschool students, and if used sparingly, most traditionalfreshman college writers, would probably take to themas well. I would, however, be reluctant to use themindiscriminately with adult writers (who could easilyread condescension into them) and, as R&D wiselycaution, with any people who rank high on thecommunication apprehension scale.

However, in spite of these modest cautions, Ifeel obligated to reaffirm my initial claim: R&D doindeed do many things well in Talking into Writing.They provide instructors who may be interested inadopting facilitative teaching techniques into theirclassrooms with good practical advice and comfortingtheoretical justifications. Despite the occasional hardsell for oral communication activities indevelopmental curricula, they are eminently wise topoint out that these activities "will not substitute forregular and frequent writing practice" (7), and theyprovide thoughtful rationales and advice for takingtheir activities outside the composition classroom andinto writing across the curriculum programs.

R&D do numerous things well. Had they onlyselected a slightly less sympathetic audience, theymight have increased their store of good works aseven hundredfold- or at least by a baker's dozen.

Mark ZamierowskiPurdue UniversityWest Lafayette, IN

Two readers ask....We are gathering information about in-

struction of graduate students in writing centers. If youteach a substantial number of graduate students orhave special programs for graduate students in yourwriting center, we'd appreciate a post card so that wecan contact you. We would also like to hear from you ifyour institution has a thesis or dissertation center that off

ers grads help with writing. Please specify (1) contactname, (2) name of writing center, (3) address, (4)phone, (5) best time for us to call. Joyce Sexton orMary Berthold, 6165 Helen C. White Hall, Universityof Wisconsin, Madison, WI 53706.

Those of us who staff writing labs have our ownparticular kinds of problems (and often creativesolutions). While most of us are aware of thedifficulties we all encounter in this noble profession,oftentimes we are not aware of how particularinstitutions like our own deal with them. With limitedbudgets and staff time constraints, net-working forideas and feedback can be limited. The Writing LabNewsletter, sensitive to this need for information, hascreated this forum for dialogue with centers acrossthe nation in order to provide readers with somepractical answers to common problems. LABTROUBLE SHOOTER will not create budgets orsecure facilities for your struggling lab, but it willprovide support and answers for working around andwith the constraints and problems that face us.

LAB TROUBLESHOOTER welcomes yourinput. Subjects in subsequent columns will includeworking with learning disabled students: serving thewriting needs of faculty and staff; working with blindand deaf students; maximizing space; motivating theunmotivated student; bringing the writing lab into theclassroom; dealing with emotionally disturbed studentsand other counseling issues; and dealing withaccountability factors, student retention, anddocumentation of services. If you have specificcomments on any of these issues, please send them toPaula Gills at the Norwich University Learning SkillsCenter, Hannon Hall, Northfield, Vermont 05663. Thisis your column!

This month's lab troubleshooter travels to thesouthwest region of the country to find answers tothe question, "How do you secure/develop tutorialmaterials on a limited budget?"

Our first stop is Sherman, Texas, located north ofDallas; the Austin College Learning Lab is

the facility, serving 1200 students on a budget of$2400. Director Tina Egge is the 3/4-time Director (uptwo notches from a 1/4-time start) , and she uses thisbudget to purchase equipment, limited amounts oftutorial materials and handouts. She has managed toprocure one computer for the lab itself and has takenadvantage of the lab's proximity to the computercenter; students check out software from the lab andgo next door to the center to use its hardware. Thisarrangement has enabled her to concentrate morefunding in the area of tutorial staff in order to expandthe one-to-one tutorial services, The college also has acollege-wide grant fund for specific requests. Ms,Egge has used that resource to procure software forstudent use.

St. Mary's University in San Antonio is our nextstop in Texas. We find that grants have played asignificant part in their Writing Center's fundingstructure, as well. The center began ten years ago witha Title III grant; Director Barbara Bastoli explains thatthey now have a separate budget which they useprimarily to fund twenty peer tutor positions. Materialsare needed, how-ever, for a special minority studentprep program for pre-med. This HPOP program requiresspecialized instructional software in such areas as chem-istry. Grant money has been helpful here, but they alsoneed to support programs for develop-mental summerschool and ESL students. For these latter groups theyuse a combination of student tuition and grant money inorder to continue to build their in-house library of textsand computer-software, but they are still in need ofsoftware tutorial programs for their four Applecomputers.

Taking a turn northward we end up inOklahoma City at Oklahoma Christian College. Dr. JoeMcCormick is the Director of the Writing

Center which is housed in the English Department.He has a particular challenge- no separate budget atall. Students do have access to three computers andsome software is available; they also have access tothe university computer center that holds sixtycomputers and a variety of soft-ware for student use.But let's go back to that no separate budget for amoment- how does Dr. McCormick create moneywhere none exists? A creative solution to the problemis found in housing tutorial materials in the collegebookstore; a certain item is recommended for thestudent to purchase for tutorial sessions, and thosethat want it purchase it.

Again we find grant money assisting in thepurchase of lab instructional materials, this time atCameron University in Lawton, Oklahoma. TheWriting Lab is part of the English Department andoperates on a limited budget under the direction of Dr.Holmes. However, a substantial grant from Title IVfunding enabled them to purchase ten Apple Ilecomputers, and a separate grant for the Writing Labprovided software from Educulture. Some of thissoftware is replacing composition and spelling textspurchased with a funding budget in the 1970's. Back-up materials are provided by the staff-the commentwas made that they utilize a good bit of "homemade"-als.

The final stop on our southwestern journeyfinds us in Stillwater at Oklahoma State University.Here, too, the Writing Center is housed in the EnglishDepartment and is sponsored by their budget; this istheir first year of having a full-time director. Materialsand texts are obtained from faculty and the EnglishDepartment. They presently have three computerword processors available with fourteen more to be in-stalled soon. They feel the need for increased fundingmight lead to students being asked to pay a lab fee inorder to use the center facilities.

Limited budgets seems to be an ongoing issuein writing lab management and development.Directors and staffs, as indicated in many of theresponses we received, seem to be spending asignificant amount of time pursuing grant money.And, oftentimes, grants are restricted for the purchaseof particular items that might not be in the greatest areaof need. We also see labs reaching out into theuniversity community to make better use of resources,such as computer centers and book stores. And we seecenters developing their own in-house materials whichcan, sometimes, be the best answer for dealing

with the tutorial needs of a particular studentpopulation. Whatever the strategy or technique theyutilize, it's clear that writing labs are trying to do whatthey can wherever they can, despite the limits andconstraints that are placed upon them.

Don't forget to send your response to the LABTROUBLESHOOTER so we can share yoursolution to the problems facing us as we provide ouressential services to writers everywhere!

A reader asks... .

Harvard, the University of Western Ontario,and other business schools have successfullyemployed the case study method for educatingstudents in the complexities of the business world.Can we successfully adopt the case study method foreducating tutors? Do you know of any case studies,that is, any detailed accounts of tutee problems,tutor decisions, and the consequences? Do youknow of any writing centers using the case studymethod? Would you be interested in a collection ofcase studies to use in tutor education? If so, whatissues should the cases address? Contact Jim Bell,113 Renova Private, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada K1G4C7.

A reader comments ...

I found the new format professional, but stillinformal and accessible; attractively laid-out and,most important, easily Xerox-able. Are you going tostick with the cream-colored paper throughout theyea'? I hope so. The rainbows in the past were gay,but as the survey results pointed out, not alwayscompatible with the old Xerox machine. (Although Iloved saying to col-leagues things like, Have youread the article in the pink issue yet?"

David TaylorMoravian CollegeBethlehem, PA

(Ed. note: Unless there's a hue and cry from those of uswho like the variety of brightly colored paper, thenewsletter will stick with this boring- but easilycopied- ivory-colored paper.)

A college try

To be a tutor in the writing lab is to witness progressfirst hand. It's great. I finally know how my father, whotaught engineering for 30 years, felt during semesters filledwith students who continually and successfully gave hisclasses the ole' college try. And I know how he must have feltwhen he would see students giving in to burnout, frustrationand apathy. Students' failure and successes are feltpersonally by all who invest their time with them. But Ilearned, as my father learned, that the successes far outweighthe failures, for they burn far brighter and much longer thanthe failures sting. That's the greatest part of the writing lab.

Failure stings like lemon in a cut. With eachoccurrence the full sensations return- the intensity of thesting, the depth the acid seeps. And each time we can't seem torecall it ever feeling quite this intense before. Failure at itsworst is destitution. No alternatives. This doesn't exist in thewriting lab. If I've learned anything in the lab, as a student oras a tutor, it is how to assimilate

and learn from mistakes- how to find alternatives. Weprofit from our mistakes and gain knowledge. Therefore,our students in the Washtenaw Community CollegeWriting Lab do not fail.

The atmosphere gently hums, "It's okay," and theshaking and frightened student is some-how rocked intopeace and taught to play again. The child is drawn out bygentle constructive direction and is taught alternatives tofear. I choose to call this soul-soothing-tender-loving care-the kind needed to nurture creativity and emotion andwriting in our students.

As tutors, we can and do say, "our students," justlike the instructors, because we get students who come justfor us, theywait in line for us, and they rely on us. We alsolearn from our students. They help us when we don'tunderstand things. They talk things over with us, debate withus, and challenge us. This is the exchange that signals thesuccess of the lab. We see the increas-

ing ability for the students to speak out and question usif they need to. And we encourage it. I wonder if manyother college writing labs do this.

Our students don't fail. Together we findalternatives to problems, to potential failure, thusachieving success. The students either leave withsolutions or leave with determination to come backand try again. How can this, even in the face of poorletter grades, be seen as failure? Surely, this is success.And it's traded back and forth. When they succeed, Isucceed. We are partners in achievement. And itworks. When scared and crabby "Tina" comes into thelab on Mondays and seeks me out to correct herassignments that frequently have the same errors as herlast assignments, I know by her smile when she leavesthat she is determined to once again give her assign-ment the "ole' college try." I know she is thinking likeI am thinking, that maybe when she comes to see meon Wednesday, this time she will have it right. And ifit's not, we will both work harder. The point is, we bothknow we both want to try and we both care. And wehave faith that eventually we will lick her problem. Itmay take some time, but in the meantime, we sootheeach other's soul with subtle, tender, loving care,

When we collectively use our imaginations tofind solutions and alternatives. we all learn, we all win.Great things are conceived, and if I'm lucky as a tutor,I am there when my students' great achievements areborn. That is the payment I seek. But if I happen tomiss a particular birth of achievement from mystudents, I will apply "the ole' college try"- I will returnagain and again to the lab until I do witnessachievement. I am confident that if I stick out teachingin some form for even half as long as my father did, Iwill see it many times over.

Erin SmithPeer TutorWashtenaw Community CollegeAnn Arbor, Michigan

SLATE offers a starter sheeton writing labs

SLATE, a subgroup of the National Council ofTeachers of English (NCT'E), regularly offers StarterSheets on topics of interest to teachers of writing. InSeptember 1988, SLATE published a Starter Sheet onwriting Centers, written by Muriel Harris, PurdueUniversity. Copies may be obtained from NCTE, 1111Kenyon Road, Urbana, Illinois 61801.

Out of the dragnet and into the writing center

There are over 20,000 students on this campus. A lotof them know how to write. Some of them don't. That's whereI come in. My name is Friday. I work in a Writing Center.

Dum-de-dum-dum. Dum-de-dum-dum.

At 10:00 on Wednesday morning a guy came intothe Center. His paper was covered with Chapter 2, Section Cviolations of the Harbrace Grammatical Code: SubordinateClause Impersonating a Sentence. The man claimed he hadbeen framed,

"It's not fair. I hate English teachers. They have allthese dumb rules, and if you don't know all of them, theythrow the book at you."

"Just the facts," I said.

"OK, look at this, See all these "frags'' in the margin.My teacher never told me anything about frags before I gotthis paper back."

"What's the point?"

"How can they expect you to know some-thing theynever taught you?"

Good question, I thought. I told him I would checkinto it and get back with him.

3:45 p.m. I make a call on Mrs. Beulah Stevens.

"You Michael Langenfritzer's teacher?" "I am."

"I got a few questions for you."

"Have."

"What?"

"Have. You have a few questions for me."

"That's right, ma'am, I do. You put the frags onMichael's paper'?"

"I did."

"You ever talk about frags in class."

"Oh, gracious, not He should have studied that longbefore he came to college."

"Thanks. We'll get back to you if we need more."

"More?" "What?"

"More what? More answers?"

"That's right, ma'am."

9:48 a.m. Thursday. I'm in the principal's office atJefferson High School. The secretary ushers in Fred Foss,English teacher and badminton coach.

"Fred,"-- I show him my badge- "I've got a fewquestions for you."

"Go ahead, shoot, " Fred laughs, "I mean notliterally. Heel Heel"

"You Mike Lagenfritzer's sophomore Englishteacher?"

"Yeah, Langenfritzer, who could forget a namelike that?"

"You cover fragments in your class?"

"Fragments, sure. We work with all kinds ofsentences: simple, compound, complex, cornpound-complex, Oedipal-complex. Hall! Hah! I love that one!"

"About the fragments..."

"Oh yeah, we do fragments. I've got this whole gig Ido where I dress up like Boy George. I call it "The Frag inDrag." The kids love it."

"What else?"

"Exercises. We have this whole book of exerciseswhere the kids underline parts of sentences, correctsentences, write their own sen-

A secondary school success storyfor writing enthusiasts

Overheard at Deerfield High School in Deerfield,Illinois is the statement, "The WERCS is the busiest place in `town.' " WERCS (Writing English Resource Center Services)is the writing center in our high school. A year ago the WERCSdid not exist except as a dream and a belief that writing centersprovide optimum conditions to improve student writing.

Having secured a funding allocation from our localboard of education, we scoured the lists of publicationssearching for information on how to set up a center in thesecondary school. We made several on-site visits to schools thathad existing centers, and we participated in a planningworkshop. September arrived and in we plunged.

Our amazing results convinced us that writing centershave a positive influence on students' attitudes about writing aswell as the writ-ing itself. The success of our infant writingcenter has engendered an excitement and a commitment thathas made us writing center advocates whose philosophy is toteach writing as a process using one-on-one conferencing andemploying the services of staff, adult volunteers, and peertutors.

We were blessed with cooperation from on high;however, we are convinced that the task can be undertaken withless than optimal conditions. Obviously the consumers of ourservices are out there waiting to be served. To provide thisservice the basic components are a place (even a store-roomwill do) and a minimum of two committed staff people forstarters. Mixing the two sets of ingredients becomes the nextissue. The developers need to devise creative ways to bringstudents into the center. A few satisfied customers will spreadthe word, and quickly a writing center will be functioning,

Before long the developers will need and want moreof everything. Success will engender enthusiasm. Theparticipating teachers' own excitement, the student response to acomfortable place to write a n d talk about writing, and theobvious improvement in their product will generate writingcenter fever. This evidence in turn can be used to recruit otherfaculty members for the program. In this case, too many cooksdo not spoil the broth. It would be ideal to have a facultymember present each period of the day. If how-ever, as inmany cases, there is a shortage of

(See page 16)

tences.... I tell them by the end of the semester they'll all besentenced to death. Hah! Hah! Hee! Heel"

Fred was still howling when I left. 2:11 p.m. Iconfront Langenfritzer.

"The name Fred Foos mean anything to you."

"Freddie Foosbrain? Sure, I had him for sophomoreEnglish."

"Foos says he taught you all there was to know aboutfrags."

"So what of it?"

I could see him begin to squirm. I had him right whereI wanted him.

Then it dawned on me. I'm not a cop. I work in aWriting Center. Maybe Mike had studied frags, and maybe hehadn't. Maybe he was sick or distracted or bored when theystudied frags. Maybe he had never transferred the understand-ing he had gained in doing exercises to his own writing. In anycase, it didn't really matter. The point was, he hadn't learned it,and placing blame wasn't going to do anyone any good.

"Let's take a look at those frogs and see what we cando."

Mike smiled, and we began to talk.

David W. Chapman TexasTech University Lubbock,Texas

Know any Pullet Surprises?An out-of-print book by Amsel Greene, entitled Pullet

Surprises, is a collection of unintentional word misuses whichtakes its title from a writer who noted that "In 1957, Eugene O'Neill won a Pullet Surprise." Other Pullet Surprises found inthis book include "the banker whose money was well infested,""the woman who came home worn to a fragile," "the localweather procrastinator," and information such as the fact that "inthe Sarah Desert they travel by Camelot, "an antithesis issomething given before surgery," and "a popular gift forweddings is an ostracizer." Have any Pullet Surprises you'dcare to share?

Tutor-instructor collaboration in the writing centerand the classroom

With their non-hierarchical processes and non-traditional pedagogy, writing centers challengeinstitutional frameworks and may under-mine thatwhich the staff seeks to promote: creative workingrelationships among those involved in teaching andlearning. By integrating collaborative processes fromthe writing center with hierarchical processes from theclassroom, every-one- students, teachers, tutors, anddirectors-benefits. Such a bringing together of student-centered and teacher-centered processes leads towardschanging education in general and in particular, writers'views of what it means to write, Here, we will look atthree kinds of collaboration and explore the effects onstudents', teachers', and tutors' perceptions of thewriting process. In each case, it was not easy for thetutors to pursue collaborating with an instructor:Initially, they needed encouragement and enthusiasmfrom me, their writing center director, and, as theypursued the collaboration, ongoing, non judgmental re-sponses from me.

Although I recognize that establishing newworking relationships with other faculty requires tutors totake risks and is a scary experience for them, I believepersisting in a collaborative pro-gram has tremendousbenefits for all involved, especially the tutors whogrow by leaps and bounds personally, intellectually,and profession-ally. I have been especially pleased bythe way in which collaboration with instructors setsthe tutors free from me and causes them to learn some-thing from other interested instructors. They also learninvaluable lessons about communication in education,the role of expectations and assumptions in the learningprocess, and how to comfort themselves professionallybeyond the writing center. The three situationsdescribed below show clearly that these features arecommon to successful collaboration: the willingness tobe flexible and cooperative on the parts of both theinstructor and tutor, and an agreement about thepedagogy of tutoring, including such elements asencouraging the tutee to take responsibility for herown work and discouraging the tutor from evaluating thestudent's work.

As part of the initial tutor-preparation programsthat all new tutors are required to participate in at RIP,tutors choose a professor to interview about his or herattitudes toward the

writing center. One tutor, Melanie, chose to interview aprofessor who encourages his basic-writing students touse the writing center, volunteers as a tutor himself inthe writing center, and is in general, supportive of thewriting center pedagogy. Melanie was also taking atechnical writing course with this instructor at the time ofthe interview. She was dismayed to find that he felttutors' expertise is too limited to work with advancedstudents, and Melanie consequently determined that thewriting center's image is dependent upon teachers'perceptions of tutors' experience and knowledge. Butwhen 27 computers arrived at our center, all tutors hadto become "technical assistants" as well as writingtutors. Suddenly, more professors teaching upper levelcourses were interested in bringing their classes to thewriting center for Instruction in word processing

and accompanying tutorials. Thus, the newknowledge and expertise associated with the computersenhances the writing center's image and the faculty'sbelief in the tutors' expertise. By continuing tocollaborate with instructors when they are interested inhaving their students learn word-processing, we haveturned the presence of technology to our advantage.

While working through her reaction to herinstructor's view of the writing center, Melanie drewupon her own experience to help her deter-mine herposition and her approach. Melanie knew from her ownexperience as a tutor and as a tutee that the writingcenter can provide important assistance to students inadvanced courses. While enrolled in technical writing,she learned the usefulness of simply getting anotherpoint of view on her subject. Most useful to her was theaccess to word processing that enabled her to create avery successful main project for the technical writingcourse- a manual for a veterinarian's office. By using agraphics pro-gram, she designed a professional-lookingpet care book for pet owners. With the success of thisproject, she approached her technical writing professorand received his support in designing a brochure fortechnical writing students about the writing center. It isnow routine for technical writing instructors to bringtheir classes to the writing center for an introduction to thecomputers and the various programs we have available.Melanie's persistent collaboration, therefore, was ground-breaking in changing the image of the

writing center. Her efforts, and the students' clamorfor access to technology that makes their work efficient,changed a piece of our educational structure.

Another tutor, Patty, conferenced twiceweekly in a basic writing classroom and found that herrole as a neutral sounding board accelerated students'development of their own heuristics in the earlydrafting stage as well as the revision stage. The key tothis successful collaboration between students, tutor,and instructor was that the tutor and the instructorshared one role, that of raving respondent, with bothteacher and tutor circulating among the students andreading their work. Although Patty was initiallyconfused about how to react to the instructor'sauthoritarian posture during part of her class, shecame to recognize that this stance enabled theinstructor to provide the necessary direction for settingforth assignments. Patty realized that the instructor'srole freed her to just talk with and elicit questions fromstudents in a more neutral role. Thus, the differencesin their roles helped balance "conferencing talk":students established direction with the instructor, andthen discussed specific rhetorical concerns with thetutor.

Because the instructor used a text. Writing inAction: A Collaborative Rhetoric, (Masiello,Macmillan, 1986) that had also been used during Patty'spreparation workshop, Patty was familiar enough withthe text that the instructor could limit her pre-classdiscussions with Patty who could then utilize strategiesfrom previous experiences with the text. Thus theinstructor had to do very little "instructing" of the tutorand could use quick before-class conversation time fordiscussion of students' work. Their shared familiaritywith the text enhanced their collegiality andprofessional relationship-they came to admire, respectand like each other very much.

Patty recognized and appreciated how thestudents played a crucial role in the successfulcollaboration. As active writer-reader-respondents, arole they had learned from their Instructor, theydeveloped a willingness to explore ideas with Patty anddid not expect her to evaluate their writing. As they talkedwith her, they learned that the writing process meansasking questions. Their informal conversations withPatty led them to explore contact and purposecomfortably, leaving mechanical and formal concernstemporarily aside. Patty often found that because shepresented herself as an interested listener, she wasnever viewed as an intruder into the writing process.

Rewards for Patty grew as students began toexploit her role as a "sounding board"; they expandedtheir questions about writing to include specificrhetorical elements, such as "loo you think I needmore detail in this paragraph?" or "Is this what anarrative paper should sound like?" Not fearing theirinstructor's reaction to what might have felt like "stupid questions," students didn't need to risk their self-images with the tutor. Instead, they could concentrateon the writing process and learn to ask more detailed,probing questions about their work. Students, tutor,and instructor found this collaborative experienceextremely rewarding because they all took pride andpleasure from the students' growth as writers. It's clearthat the tutor's integration into the conferencingprocess modified the hierarchical environment of theclassroom and helped create a fertile climate forwriting.

After taking an English majors course from oneprofessor, Terri was eager to work informally in theclassroom with him because his pedagogy wascongruent with the writing center's. But in spite of thiscongruence, a conflict arose between students' andtutors' perceptions of the purpose of tutoring. Territhen learned the importance of establishing fluidcommunication lines between instructors and thewriting center. Now, Terri is a strong proponent ofencouraging tutors to establish clear sets ofexpectations for the outcomes of tutorial sessions forboth the students and the instructors. The neededcommunication is not merely a matter ofemphasizing writing center pedagogy, but makingsure that everyone understands what that means inactual practice.

As a tutor, Terri was surprised to discover thatsome students' feelings that the tutor is responsiblefor their grades was unknowingly reinforced by theinstructor's attitude that he, as a superior reader, wouldhave offered the student more precise and correctiveadvice. Terri decided that it is the tutor's task toclarify students', tutors', and instructors' roles.expectations, and responsibilities repetitively until thedistinctions are understood and accepted. Although itseems like a heavy burden for a tutor to carry, onlythe tutor can explain the process of a student's tutorialsession to an instructor. A writing center director can"put out fires" when misunderstandings between tutorand instructor occur, but only the tutor can effectivelyreport, "When we worked on that essay, this is whathappened..."

Terra's growth in understanding the dy-

namics of tutoring between tutor, instructor, and student wassimilar to her own growth as a writer who learned the valueof getting early, non-evaluative responses to her work,Although she once thought that she, as an English major,could not need the writing center, she now believes that peerconferencing is beneficial for all writers. She became eager,therefore, to share her enthusiasm with the instructor'sstudents during an early visit to their classroom. Theinstructor's positive attitude toward the writing center, partof his philosophy that "Students need to talk to know whatthey're doing-to keep the writing process transpiring," andher confidence that his students understood the tutor's roleand their responsibilities to explain assignments and tacklerevising seriously, led her to expect that students wouldhave productive tutorial sessions with her. She found,however, that some students believed the tutor's role was "toproofread-to help students become better writers," andothers perceived that "tutors give direction: they don'tproofread. They'll give opinions, but they won't rewrite."These views resulted in the first kind of student feelingfrustrated with the lack of directive tutor-ing, and thesecond, somewhat more satisfied yet still occasionallydisappointed because of her view of the tutor as a mediatorbetween herself and the instructor, creating a role for the tutoras someone who helps the student prepare her image for theprofessor. After reviewing tutorial sessions with twostudents whose views represented these two positions, Terridiscovered the benefit of ongoing discussion of the tutor'srole. Because she has a trusting relationship with theinstructor, she was able to enlist his help in dispelling themyth of the "tutor-critic," a mini-teacher who identifiesevery rhetorical weakness and surface error and thentediously explains necessary corrections. Terri's experiencecollaborating with an instructor helped her develop arealistic vision of the communication network surroundingschool learning in general, and as a future high schoolEnglish teacher, she will find this vision useful.

Although it was often hard for me to watch tutorsstruggling with conflicts that are part of collaboration, Ibelieve that the process of tutors learning to work withstudents and faculty beyond the secure confines of thewriting center is an important one. The collaborativesituations de-scribed here show that so much more learningabout writing process can take place when tutors becomemobile throughout writing programs. I have seen that eachtime collaboration occurs successfully, friendships aremade among students, teachers, and tutors, philosophiesare

adjusted, and chairs and desks are moved around to eliminaterather than create barriers. When writing centers help breakdown barriers to communication and understanding, theycontribute to the progressive development of higher educa-tion,

Lea MasielloIndiana University of Pennsylvania Indiana, Pennsylvania

Announcing a writing tabhandbook

In 1987 The University of Pennsylvania funded apilot research program to design computer-intensivecomposition courses for under-graduates. Four graduatestudents collaborated, preparing classes to be taught in awriting lab equipped with fifteen personal computers. Duringthe 1987-1988 school year, seven sections of computer-intensive composition were taught.

To help orient future teachers of such courses, thegroup has prepared a handbook. Although the Penn lab usesIBM PC's, the approach of the handbook is adaptable to anytype of personal computer. It represents a studied effort atcourse and classroom exercise design by people withexperience in writing pedagogy but new to computer-intensive composition. It is hoped that teachers in similarpositions will find leads or avoid pitfalls by reading it.

Twenty-one practical exercises, which can bedirectly copied or adapted to different contexts. are precededby a brief presentation of the theoretical position thatevolved with the experience of teaching computer-intensivecomposition. The sixty-seven page handbook stresses thebenefits of working with a network, both in the classroom andalso in constructing theory and in designing research. Inaddition, the authors provide pragmatic tips for teachingcomposition in a lab, along with a short annotatedbibliography and a glossary. Interested teachers can receivea copy by mailing $3 to:

The Writing Lab HandbookDepartment of English

University of Pennsylvania34th and Walnut StreetsPhiladelphia, PA 19104

attn. Thomas Kinsella

Checks should be made payable to "Trustees of theUniversity of Pennsylvania."

dollars, this should not be the end of the project; there are otherresources to tap. Many school districts employ aides who can betrained to assist in the center. Another wonderful resource is thecommunity. Adult volunteers with an Interest or expertise inwriting can enrich the program and do marvelous things forpublic relations. And finally, probably the most effectiveelement is peer tutors. Realistically, bringing in lay peoplerequires more work as careful planning and attention needs to begiven to their training.

Another key factor in considering the establishmentof a writing center is the tone and atmosphere in the room. Thewriting center has to be a place of safety, a place of exploration,discovery, a place of risk-taking without fear of judgement. AsHarvey Daniels and Steven Zemelman use the phrase, a writingcenter should be a "community of writers." The WERCS'slogan is "All writers need advice." Fostering this attitude iscrucial to coaching successful writers. The frills and furbelowsare nice, but the atmosphere in the room is the differencebetween success and failure as far as we are concerned.

We spoke of our amazing results. They fol-

low here: improvement in freshman post-test scores inlanguage arts assessment, positive in-put from classroomteachers, improvement on essay exams, and numbers- astartling average of 1,100 students per month in attendanceonce we got rolling, the large majority of which were writingconferences. In addition, the stimulus increased interest andactivity in writing in the whole English department andprompted the rejuvenation of spirit in veteran teachers who wereinvolved in the project. The two of us have become suchevangelists that we are writing a book on writing centers at themiddle and secondary school level. In writing an article of thisnature we must, of necessity, be very general. We would behappy to answer specific questions.

Kay Severns539 Margate Terrace Deerfield,

Illinois 60015 (312-945-9468)

Work cited

Zemelman, Steven and Harvey Daniels. ACommunity of Writers. Heinemann, 1988.