"The eEducator Module: A New Approach to the Training of Online Tutors"

Well, I didn't see anybody's comments on the last article. I hope I have better luck
this time.

The present article talks about training for online tutoring. I think that's an area where we've been weak. A number of us have discussed the difficulty of avoiding editing during a half-hour online session.

The article also addresses the importance of being empathic online. I smiled at one
tutor's response: "I opened my e-mail and there were 303 emails. And how do I
think of emphathy and God knows what when I'm doing it. I just can't. I just
have to go straight to the point and tell them this or that." However, that same
tutor later wrote, "You don't have to increase the number of words you say to be
more emphathic, it's a question of the words you choose." Clearly, the lesson
had sunk in for her.

What a challenging job we have, from so many different fronts! Ideally, we want to see our student writers, whether face-to-face or online, transition "from being dependent on their tutor to working in more self-directed ways." Perhaps we need more formal, structured
training for online tutoring.What challenges do you find in online tutoring? What do you need to become a better online tutor?

"Toward Authentic Dialogue: Origins of the Fishbowl Method and Implications for Writing Center Work"

This article, by Kristen Garrison and Nicole Kraemer Munday, is focused mostly on the relationship between the Writing Center and the larger university. Although that doesn't directly concern tutors, I saw some germane points about talking, listening, and creating an open, egalitarian environment.

Obviously, almost all the work we do at the Writing Center is collaborative. I like to think we're mostly a friendly, informal group. On the other hand, we'd be kidding ourselves if we claimed that we don't have a hierarchical structure here. We do. Between the tutor and student, the tutor has more power; among the tutors and me, I have more power; between Ann Russell and me, Ann has more power. Hopefully, none of us is acting like a petty tyrant, but the reality is that the balance of power affects how open and authentic dialogue can be.

I enjoyed learning about the history of the Fishbowl Method. With no direction and leadership--as fishbowl groups in the late 1960s showed--the dialogue foundered. Even in an egalitarian situation, we apparently need a plan.

So how does this inform our work and our communication here? How do we create a "dynamic, energizing" dialogue that helps us reach the metacognition that Lewin observed in the participants of his study? How do we build our own "collaboratory" that will enable us to "focus on problem solving to achieve positive change"? I'm not asking you to develop definitive answers to these questions, but I'm interested in hearing your thoughts.

"Preparing for Emotional Sessions"

At least a few of us have dealt with criers--or students who are anxious, frustrated, or angry--and those tutoring sessions are never easy. This article, by Gayla Mills, gives us some pragmatic advice for dealing with very emotional students.

I agree with the author that giving students a few minutes to talk about what's bothering them may be the best option for getting them back on track. On the other hand, we need to acknowledge that we aren't therapists. When students have seemed deeply troubled, I have referred them to Madonna's counseling services (Amy Halstead, ext. 5766). I once had a student who seemed potentially suicidal, and I contacted MUBIT (Madonna University Behavioral Intervention Team) about him. -- I also like the author's suggestion that we offer the student the option of rescheduling.

When each tutoring session and student tutor is unique, how do we find the best balance? We're here to focus on writing, not emotional issues. Still, it would be inhumane to respond to a distraught student with a purely let's-get-down-to-business attitude. Yes, we want to address writing, but we're also called upon to offer some measure of comfort to another person's pain.

How have you dealt with emotional student writers?

"Watch and Learn: Peer Evaluation and Tutoring Pedagogy"

Author Jane Van Slembrouck addresses a critical question: Do we learn more from our peers than from authority figures? We keep trying to ensure we're offering consistently high quality tutoring to our student writers, but we haven't yet tried peer observation yet. (Don't panic. If I do try this, it won't be until fall semester.)

I was struck by Slembrouck's comment, "Suspecting that at least some of this productive exchange disappears when the director comes calling, I wondered how I might reduce my role in the evaluation process and find a means of assessment that would take advantage of this nonhierarchical flow of ideas." The author seems to feel that--peer to peer--the flow of ideas is more of a rushing river than a trickling stream (not to torture the metaphor).

So, we're not talking about Writing Center Specialist-to-student tutor or Writing Center coordinator-to-student tutor. Do you believe it would be easier--perhaps less threatening--to learn from each other in this way? Would you feel less self-conscious?