In his article, "Peer Tutoring: A Contradiction in Terms?" John Trimbur chronicles the goals of his peer tutors. He states that these undergraduates often have high expectations when they begin tutoring, even to the point of "evangelical" proportions. One student is quoted as saying his goal as a tutor was "to save the English language from apparently inevitable decline." Obviously, this student's aspirations are much higher than writing centers intended. All writing centers have some form of mission statement that directs their programs. They are not proofreading houses, they don't guarantee better grades, and they prefer to work with a student over a period of time. As Trimbur explains, peer tutoring is "more interested in the long-term development of a tutee's writing ability than in the short-term results of any given writing assignment." If this is the case, then what is the goal of the email tutored Online Writing Labs? Aren't they offering assistance on a per-paper basis?
OWLs have the unique challenge of pioneering a new area in peer-tutoring. However, the conflict with OWLs is in the difference between reaching a goal and fully realizing an ambition. A sample of email tutoring center goals reveals that OWLs have been designed for a distinct purpose. "The OWL is not a proofreading service, and we will not revise your paper for you. We will provide comments and suggestions based on what you tell us you need help with," states one website. Another site reads, "The writing lab provides individualized instruction in writing to undergraduate and graduate students from classes across the curriculum." But is this really possible? Does cybertutoring offer a format for "individualized instruction?"
Online Writing Centers (OWLs) have become increasingly popular as the Internet is integrated into the college curriculum. However, the assistance offered by OWLs is limited. When submitting a paper to an OWL, you are first encountered with a blank form. Depending on the OWL, these forms can be rather difficult to complete as you have to cut and paste your document into email. Once you have submitted your paper, the waiting process begins. As our OWL study has shown, response times vary greatly. The amount of feedback that an OWL tutor provides also differs by college. These characteristics (format, wait time, and feedback) are the primary imperfections of the OWLs.
When a student goes in to a walk-in writing center for help, he or she is met by a tutor. Names are exchanged, eye contact is made, and a rapport begins to develop. In a traditional writing center, anonymity is not an option. In the OWL environment, anonymity is the rule, and you are represented by a screen name or an email address. Instead of stopping at a help desk to ask for your tutor, you are submitting your paper to an unknown person by the point and click method. With an OWL, you have no guarantee that you'll get the same tutor that has reviewed your previous work. If by chance you do, then what are the odds that the tutor will recall your past work? Are files kept to refer to? In the OWL format, it isn't feasible to re-submit all of your previous course work along with your current paper as a reminder of your progress. The cybertutor, therefore, is facing the work of a stranger each time he or she opens a new file. In the realm of the Internet, anonymity is often preferable. However, the lack of personalization in cybertutoring creates a boundary which is contradictory to the OWLs' goal of individualized instruction.
Another aspect of OWL tutoring to be considered is the factor of wait time. In the OWL format, feedback is sent by email. Many OWL sites advertise a promised turnaround time. However, this goal would be more accurately categorized as an ambition. As traffic volumes fluctuate, servers encounter downtime, and tutors are deluged with emailed requests, responses are often delayed. In a walk-in lab, you make an appointment, you meet with a tutor, and you get immediate feedback. To the credit of the OWLs, several centers are providing OWL chat rooms and cyber-appointments. These devices, however, are simply taking advantage of technology by replacing walk-in labs. The concepts are not new.
Trimbur's article details the efforts that he goes through in choosing new peer tutors. "As a rule, tutors are highly skilled academic achievers: they are independent learners, they get good grades, they know how to 'psych out' a course, they are accustomed to pleasing their instructors." Assuming that OWL labs use the same criteria in selecting their tutors, there is no question that the tutors are qualified. What the OWL does, however, is limit the amount of feedback that these earnest individuals can offer. As an education major, I am often called upon to read papers and offer feedback. I find it very difficult not to mark spelling, grammar, or syntax errors that are glaring at me from the page. In a walk-in center, I believe that these areas would be addressed out of consideration for the overall effectiveness of the paper. The OWLs, however, clearly state that they are not designed for correcting these types of errors. In my experience, cybertutors tend to follow through on this promise, as the feedback that the OWLs offer is mostly of a general nature. Rather than pointing out specific sentences where problems occur, the OWL tutor would instead state that the problem exists. This is a drawback to the overall effectiveness of the OWL. For students that are looking for a review of a final draft, this feedback may offer some good suggestions and an unbiased reading of the student's paper. However, the OWL would be of little assistance for a student who is struggling with a paper.
There is no doubt that the concept of OWLs is a fascinating venture. Universities are based on research and scholarship, and the OWLs are certainly forging ahead with advances in technology. However, a university also exists for the benefit of the students. The traditional writing center has long served this purpose by offering tutoring assistance to students in need. For an OWL program to be truly effective, a system must be devised to match up tutors and students. If an OWL can be personalized, the concept would be greatly improved and OWLs could truly reach their goals. As one OWL site promises, "email us your paper, and we'll do as good of job tutoring you in cyberspace as we'd do in person." Until an OWL is able to offer a one-on-one exchange where a rapport can be established over time, the OWL can only be supplementary to the traditional writing center.