Piloting Peer Tutoring in Academic Writing in the UK

1. Piloting Peer Tutoring in Academic Writing in the UK Atlantic Crossings

2. The Starting Point • ‘Student peers are not part of the emerging writing-development field in the UK’ (Devet, et. al, 2006, p. 205).

3. Our Beginnings • January 2002-September 2004: English Subject Centre Grant: ‘Exploring the Potential of Peer-Tutoring in Developing Student Writing in English’ • April 2005-April 2010 Designation as Centre of Excellence for Teaching and Learning (Northern Ireland): ‘Critical Thinking and Analytical Writing’

4. This Presentation will Discuss: • Elements of St. Mary’s Peer Tutoring Programme • Significance of Differences Between American and British Pedagogy and Practice • Evaluating the Success of Peer Tutoring in the UK

5. More than PT: • Courses in Written Communications, internal and external • Staff Training and Development • Developing PT at UK Universities • Development of Research Methods

6. 20 subject-specific peer tutors • 1 Writing Centre • 3 Rooms in the Writing Centre • 1 Writing Centre Director • 20 Hours of Training • £300 Annual Bursary to tutors • 250 tutorials per year • 20 Writing Centre Associates • 1000 Students • 40 drop-in hours per week

7. USA Collaboration • Merrimack College, Merrimack MA. (Dr. Kathy Cain) — process, WAC • University of Vermont (Dr. Susan Dinitz) —constructed knowledge • Christian Brothers University (Dr. Clayann Panetta) — classical rhetoric, multiple intelligences, contrastive rhetoric • Rutgers University (Dr. Kurt Spellmeyer) — critical theory, problem-posing, social relevance

8. UK Outreach • University of Leicester, Queen’s University Belfast -> Advising on Teaching Writing in Science involving peer learning • Liverpool Hope / London Metropolitan —> Assisting in Training of Peer Tutors

9. US—UK Comparisons

10. American Background • Writing centers have been prominent at most major universities for over 30 years, some going back to the 1950s and post WWII Area (Barnett & Blumner, 2001; O’Neill, Crow, Burton, 2002) • Peer tutoring in writing centers has been practiced so widely that there are now regional and national conferences in peer tutoring in which both lecturers and tutors participate.

11. Widening Participation American Style • ‘Towards the end of the sixties and largely in response to student protests of that decade, many four-year colleges [universities] began admitting students who were not by traditional standards ready for college’ (Shaughnessy, 1977, p.1). • ‘Though higher education is now a near-universal aspiration, researchers suggest that close to half the students who enter college need remedial courses’ (New York Times, 2 September 2006).

12. Widening Participation, the UK Way ‘The Government’s target for 50% of 18-30 year olds to participate in some form of higher education by 2010 . . . .’ —Universities: Engaging With Local Communities (Universities UK, January 2006)

13. Righting Social Injustice: Access & Outreach • ‘We have so much to offer for the common good from the strong religious identity of the Catholic school sector to supporting the laudable aim of working for a shared future, a future where there is equity, respect for diversity and recognition of our inter-dependence.’ (Bishop Walsh, Address to Graduating BEd Students, 23 June 2006) • DePaul continues its commitment to the education of first generation college students, especially those from the diverse cultural and ethnic groups in the metropolitan area. (DePaul Unversity Mission Statement). Its proportion of first generation, minority, ethnic and low-income students is high when compared to institutions otherwise similar in profile (Allen et al 2005)

14. US/UK Differences—What we learned ‘on the ground’ 12 years ago • The better universities felt that writing skills should have already been mastered • Institutional learning more authoritarian • ‘Banking concept’ of teaching more prevalent • Marking system not geared to providing extensive feedback • Marking system not geared toward ‘process’ work. • Student’s ‘independence’ from lecturers emphasised. • Fewer resources available for students on teaching of writing • Students were ‘quieter’ in the classroom • Fewer teaching contact hours • Fewer opportunities for intervention in writing process • RAE was shifting emphasis away from teaching

15. What has Changed in 12 Years? • Greater receptivity to and implementation of student support • ILT and HEA are now having a felt influence • Ideas about ‘active learning’ and ‘work-based learning’ developing both independently of and in cooperation with American models • Shift in attitudes towards marking, learning to allow for process and intervention

16. What do we learn for these comparisons? • We have a common need to continue to develop effective ways of teaching and motivating students. • American pedagogy and practice a very useful resource, but needs to be set in context of social, cultural, institutional differences.

17. Pedagogies Adopted/Adapted at S. Mary’s • Process Pedagogies (Murray, Elbow) • Problem-Posing Pedagogies (Bartholomae & Petrosky) • Writing-Across-the-Curriculum Pedagogies • Critical Theory Pedagogies (Spellmeyer,Slevin ) • Scholarship on the Teaching of ‘Grammar’ (Hartwell, Williams)

18. Practices We Have Adapted • The Writing Centre • Peer Review • Peer Tutoring (Across the Curriculum) • Writing Centre Associates

19. Existing Methods of Evaluation • Written Communications Course Evaluations • Tutor Request Forms • Tutor Feedback Forms • Lecturer Feedback • Peer Tutor Feedback Forms

20. New Methods for Evaluation • Tracking student error and improvement based upon how grammar has been taught • Reviewing student essays with a conceptual separation of meaning, form, grammar • Video evaluation of peer tutorials • Focus Groups • Monitoring of particular classes that take advantage of peer tutoring as an entire class

21. Whither Peer Tutoring? • To uphold the notion that good writing is about the creation of significant meaning and contributes to the building up of a just society • That writing, accordingly, is a social process in which students can work together in dialogue to discuss the creation of significant meaning. • To make a distinction between the creation of meaning in language from the goal of ‘correctness’ in presentation. • To discover authentic ways of evaluating the success of our practice.