Writing labs provide tutoring to those who need help with their writing skills. These labs (rooms with people in them) have existed for years at many universities and colleges. Often staffed up to twelve hours each day, they give students the face-to-face critical assistance necessary to improve proficiency and creativity in writing. Recently, the surge in the use of personal computers has seen significant changes in the way writers put their ideas to words. Spelling and grammar checks, dictionary and thesaurus references, and easy formatting are just a few of the tasks PCs help writers perform. These features have made the mechanical aspect of composing a good paper much easier than just a decade ago. Writing labs require tutors who can help writers use these helpful features successfully in addition to making suggestions on effective rhetoric.
Walk-in labs have begun to take this process one step farther, however. With the help of the internet they are beginning to offer their services online to anyone who is within reach of a computer keyboard and has access to cyberspace. Online Writing Labs (OWLs) are being created primarily as extensions of existing walk-in labs at a phenomenal rate and are hoping to revolutionize (or at least improve) the concept of composition tutoring. To some the emergence of OWLs may appear that technology is again attempting to outpace the areas of academia it supports. Regardless of what it may appear to be the race is on!
But where is this race headed? The purpose of this website is to provide our visitors some possible answers and to ask some questions as well. We chose ten different OWLs with various features to give you (and us) an idea of what this phenomenon has to offer and what its limitations might be. It seems that each novel development in the world of computers and electronic transmission of information has somebody poking their nose (or mouse) in it and we are no different. It is the blending of the ancient art of writing and the modern technical wonders of computers and the internet that intrigued us most.
Aside from the benefits and limitations that each OWL has to offer (click through the rest of this site), there are other questions that come to mind. Can they replace walk-in labs and the tutors that run them? Do they just perform mindless proofreading? Are they as effective at helping a struggling student improve his or her writing as face-to-face criticism? OWLs are just part of the change that computer technology is shaping regarding the way we all communicate electronically. With any "revolution" there are bound to be drawbacks, pitfalls, and failures before the metaphorical Ivory Tower is scaled. However, with some careful forethought casualties can be kept to a minimum.
A casualty in this case would be a writer who assumed that OWLs were an automatic replacement for the musty room in the basement of the admin building where they had previously sought help with their compositions. Now, at midnight, with your slippers on you can send part of your paper to Bayou State Jr. College and in a day or two get a complete rewrite that will guarantee you an "A." Wrong answer technophile. Writing labs that provide online services (at least the ones we checked out) appear to be extensions of those musty basement rooms. However, a good question to ask here would be: Are OWLs really extensions of or improvements on the traditional walk-in lab? The sites we visited all seemed to be generated and staffed by the same tutors and administrators who manage the walk-in labs. Therefore, the word "complement" might be better suited to describe OWLs in their relation to walk-in labs than "extension." If this is the case, it is safe to assume that OWLs were not created to put the face-to-face lab out of business.
The only OWL we visited that came close to making a claim like that was the University of Southern Colorado. "We'll do as good of job tutoring you in cyberspace as we'd do in person," they say. Aside from this statement's lack of grammatical integrity it is a mouth full, isn't it? Certainly the University of Texas won't stretch it that far since they offer no E-tutoring and only provide handouts and face-to-face assistance to students enrolled there. Not too helpful if you happen to be a freshman comp student anywhere else. At least they make no pretentious claim to fame and might possibly be a little wiser for not promising too much. And it does not appear that writing labs will replace living, breathing tutors because it is still the "live" tutors in musty rooms who are doing the critical work on papers that are returned to students.
Another tradition of the walk-in lab that OWLs maintain is the credo: NO PROOFREADING DONE HERE. Adopting the policy of most walk-in labs, all the online labs we visited made it clear that they left this laborious but necessary task up to the student. Dr. Phil Smith, professor of English and writing instructor at the University of Nebraska at Omaha, said that OWLs were "on the right track" regarding this policy. Where to put your semicolons and how to spell dusty old words is something that a style sheet and a little hard work can answer. Actually, some of the sites offer handouts on style and Oklahoma State University even has a grammar hotline (no, not toll-free) for those who need to know now. Keep in mind that OWLs are not there to write the paper for you; that is your job. Mechanically, they offer the writer additional resources for assistance and can make a difficult job a little easier but do not have Owellian powers that make the mind obsolete.
Neither do they make face-to-face tutoring obsolete. Stuart Blythe's article, "Why OWLs? Value, Risk, and Evolution," asks a very important question concerning this issue. He asked his readers whether online tutoring masks important non-verbal cues such as facial expressions or tone of voice. It seems clear to me that they can not help but do so because a machine is not a person and vice versa. I do not think replacing the living, breathing instructor is the intention of OWLs, but in this age of technomania, belief in the machine has reached a level that alarms many. Marist College's website states that "face-to-face service may be recommended" due to the "limitations of what (they) can accomplish in the absence of direct dialogue." This statement reflects a consideration everyone should make when using OWLs or other forms of electronic communication.
In addition, it may be an acknowledgment of something that has been understood by rhetors since the ancient Greeks and Romans. Aristotle argued that ethos, the authority or credibility of the writer, must be made evident in the text or verbal performance itself. If so, then the limitations, benefits, and added responsibilities of using hypertext become clear. Since tutors at OWLs are limited to a hypertextual response, to ensure their credibility they need to rely mainly on their written comments and criticisms. On the other hand, the visual appeal of many OWLs may, in fact, help them insure that students perceive them as credible and authoritative. It then becomes the responsibility of the student-writer to consider these factors when reviewing a paper that has been returned after electronic submission to an online writing lab. The ancient Greeks and Romans may not have been able to conceptualize the radical changes in communication we have seen in just a lifetime. However, if we use some of their timeless insights into the art of writing, we will not overlook the importance of the "human" element.
To prove this to myself I took a page of a paper I was working on to Dr. Smith here at UNO. Within five minutes he had read the piece and in as much time he had given me some suggestions on how my audience may react and where I should divide a paragraph. This came complete with subtle facial and body gestures that no computer outside the Starship Enterprise could produce. He crossed his legs and took his glasses off when he wanted me to consider a suggestion he had made. He put them back on and pulled out a pen as he intimated the paragraph division. His ethos, aside from the reputation I was already aware of, became very clear. Admittedly, modern computers are doing more and more these days, but these types of subtleties remains so far the domain of the human being. In addition to non-verbal superiority, the face-to-face human tutor appears to be faster than his online counterpart. Once you are engaged with your live writing critic feedback seems to be almost immediate which is something that none of the OWLs we visited could boast.
However, like any other tool available to the student-writer, OWLs should not be disregarded. They offer their services at no cost and from long distances. They can save you a trip to the on-campus lab by allowing you to submit your paper from home. In addition, OWLs can be fun. For students who are not crazy about writing labs but enjoy hopping from site to site on the net, the online version can be an enjoyable alternative. This could even generate a desire in some to become writers. Good writers, or those wishing to become one, will always do themselves more good than harm if they keep a critical eye on the latest advances in computer-aided writing assistance. Writing is, after all, something that comes from the heart as well as the mind. It might be interesting to speculate whether Great Expectations would have turned out any greater had Dickens submitted his manuscript electronically to Bemidji State? The size of the work would have been prohibitive, but he may have been open to suggestions and probably very curious. Great writers should be curious and always open to suggestions. So, visit an OWL and check out the latest in online writing assistance. However, don't forget the living, breathing tutors in dark, musty basement rooms.