Developing the program challenged us to acknowledge student expectations and adapt our services in response. We discovered that clear, explicit communication with students during appointment setting, advertising and promotion, and online communication made our service most effective.
Like many other writing centers, our writing center is struggling with space needs. At the same time, we feel we are not reaching certain populations, like those registered for distance education courses, physically challenged students, and those who could benefit from our collaboration, but for one reason or another do not take advantage of our services.
Starting from a description of the content model, we also describe three key components of the multilingual online writing center: (a) the Feedback Editor, (b) the collaborative writing environment, Escribamos, and (c) the e-portfolio tool. We conclude the paper with a discussion on technical and content-related problems we encountered during Calliope’s development process.
This paper reports on a study which investigates the implementation of a synchronous e-learning system (“Interwise”) for online tutorials on an information technology related course offered by the Open University of Hong Kong (OUHK). It examines a set of interview data related to students’ and tutors’ views on the use of the system.
The purpose of the study was to examine the writing problems of collegiate students, the challenges they encountered when using an online writing lab (OWL) to address these writing problems and the learning strategies employed to address both challenges in the context of an OWL. Lastly, the study examined the attributes a high quality OWL from the perspective of students who use OWLs.
This paper reports an exploratory study of 22 English as a Second Language (ESL) students’ experiences of online peer feedback in a sheltered credit course at a western-Canadian university. Based on analyses of the electronic feedback (e-feedback) participants received, comparisons of their initial and revised drafts, and follow-up interviews, the study shows that e-feedback, while eliminating the logistical problems of carrying papers around, retains some of the best features of traditional written feedback, including a text-only environment that pushes students to write balanced comments with an awareness of the audience’s needs and with an anonymity that allows peers to make critical comments on each others’ writings.
Although KnightOWL is in its infancy, we have successfully expanded our online services to all of UCF’s 47,000 students, including those on regional and specialty campuses. Like KnightOWL itself, this study is in its infancy; however, we plan to use the figures presented here to provide direction as we help writing consultants embrace synchronous online consultations.
There were thirty-seven broken links on the OWL and several e-mailed papers waiting in the in-box when I arrived as the new writing center coordinator. With only two weeks before the start of fall semester and no staff hired, the OWL was the least of my worries.
In 1995, the same year that Computers and Composition published a special issue on writing centers, Boise State University’s Writing Center went online. The Center established a web presence, called simply Writing Center Online, which was highlighted by an e-mail consultation service: writers were encouraged to send in drafts by e-mail, and consultants would respond in kind.