RESULTS OF LAB USAGE PATTERN STUDY

Prior to the Fall 2001 semester, no complete record of walk-in lab usage was maintained for the English tutoring service. Record keeping began during the Spring 2001 semester but was not commenced until five weeks into the term. Thus, the section that follows comprises the first complete attempt to analyze usage patterns for the English tutoring in the Hickory Ridge walk-in lab. The results have implications for future funding, training, and marketing initiatives.

Methodology

At the beginning of the semester, I placed a notebook filled with blank log sheets on the table at the English tutoring station in the walk-in lab. In addition, I included a note to the English tutoring staff explaining the purpose of the log and the importance of entering data consistently and accurately. The log sheets, a sample of which is included as Appendix A, consisted of the following headings:

● Student name

● Date/time

● Course

● Instructor name

● Skills tutored

● Tutor name

As the semester progressed, I entered the data from the log sheets into a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. To simplify the process of data analysis, I coalesced the skills-tutored entries into several general categories: prewriting, thesis, topic sentence, organization, development, and grammar. For all entries that did not fall under these major category headings, I used the skills descriptions supplied by the tutors. Time data were entered into the spreadsheet based on the hour in which the conference began. Otherwise, all data were entered verbatim from the log.

In addition to the logbook entries, students using the English tutoring service were asked to fill out a conference form developed for Fall 2001 by Andrea Shanklin, coordinator of developmental writing. The form requires students to identify their purpose for seeking help in the lab and to conclude the session by writing a brief summary of lessons learned. Separate forms were used for grammar and essay revision, based on the primary purpose of the student’s visit to the lab. Students using the revision form were asked to submit a copy of the conference form to their instructor along with the final draft of an essay. While the student input on these forms enriches our understanding of what transpired in the lab during Fall 2001, the data in this report are based solely on the logbook entries.

Results

The logbook data reveal patterns of lab use throughout the semester. Results are presented in terms of the following categories:

● Overall number of conferences

● Usage trends, by week

● Usage trends, by day of the week

● Usage trends, by hour

● Usage trends, by skills tutored

● Usage trends, by course

● Usage trends, by tutor

● Usage trends, by instructor

The results from the present study will also be useful for purposes of comparative analysis in subsequent semesters.

Overall number of conferences

A total of 709 individual conferences were entered into the logbook for the Fall 2001 term. This figure treats multiple conferences by the same student as unique entries.

At least one tutor did not begin to make logbook entries until several weeks into the semester. Once instructed to do so, the tutor consistently complied for the remainder of the term. Another tutor only entered three conferences for the semester despite working a moderately busy hour each week. It also likely that other tutors periodically neglected to enter a conference in the logbook. Thus, the walk-in lab staff actually completed an unknown number conferences beyond the figure stated above.

Usage trends, by week

As might be expected, the first week of lab operation (during the second week of the Fall 2001 semester) yielded the fewest number of conferences (n = 16). Usage peaked at 81 conferences during the 13^th week (the second to the last week of lab operation). Fall 2001 weekly lab usage data are shown in below in Figure 1.

Usage trends, by day of the week

Mondays yielded 171 conferences, the highest number of conferences by day of the week during the Fall 2001 term. The number of conferences declined sequentially throughout the course of the week, culminating in 24 conferences on Saturdays during the Fall 2001 semester.

It is worth noting that the walk-in lab English tutoring service operated from 9:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. on Monday through Thursday, 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. on Fridays, and 9:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. Saturdays. The reduction of hours on Friday and Saturday, however, cannot account for the significant total decrease in traffic. Complete usage trends, by day of the week, are shown in Figure 2.

Usage trends, by hour

The three hours that yielded the highest number of conferences during the Fall 2001 term were 11:00 am (n = 134), 12:00 p.m. (n = 105), and 10:00 a.m. (n = 90). The three hours that yielded the lowest number of conferences during the Fall 2001 terms were 8:00 p.m. (n = 8), 7:00 p.m. (n = 16), and 6:00 p.m. (n = 30). Complete usage trends, by hour, are shown in Figure 3.

Usage trends, by skills tutored

As mentioned previously, skills-tutored data were coalesced into major categories, where applicable. The 10 major categories, listed in order of frequency, were grammar, organization, development, thesis, prewriting, editing, conclusion, topic sentence, diction, and content. Up to three skills were entered per individual conference, and each entry was tabulated separately in the data analysis. Thus, the skills tutored data entries (n = 886) exceed the total number of individual conferences (n = 709) for the Fall 2001 term. Usage trends, by skills tutored, are shown in Figure 4.

Usage trends, by course

The four courses that yielded the highest number of conferences during the Fall 2001 terms were ENGL 097 (n = 193), ENGL 101 (n = 174), ENGL 102 (n = 126), and ENGL 087 (59). Predominant usage trends, by course, are shown in Figure 5.

Note on lab use by developmental students:

In addition to the significant number of conferences by ENGL 097 students (n = 193), students from other developmental courses participated in English conferences in the lab as well: ENGL 096 (n = 22), ENGL 096/097 (n = 5), and ENGL 094 (n = 2).

Collectively, developmental students comprised 31.3 % (n = 222) of all users of the walk-in lab English tutoring service during the Fall 2001 semester.

Note on lab use by students with ESL backgrounds:

Among students enrolled in courses specifically designed for individuals with ESL backgrounds, usage of the walk-in lab English tutoring service during the Fall 2001 term was as follows: ENGL 087 (n = 59), ENGL 086 (n = 11), ENGL 084 (n = 10). ENGL 083 (n = 9), ENGL 085 (n =2).

Collectively, students enrolled in ESL courses comprised 12.8 % (n=91) of all users of the walk-in lab English tutoring service during the Fall 2001 semester. However, the overall number of students with ESL backgrounds who used the service was significantly higher. The Fall 2001 log did not distinguish between students with ESL backgrounds and other students. Based on anecdotal evidence and a cursory review of the log, a conservative estimate is that students with ESL backgrounds comprised 40% of all users of the walk-in lab tutoring service during the Fall 2001 term.

Usage trends, by tutor

The six tutors who held conferences with the greatest number of students during the Fall 2001 term were as follows: W. Lowe (n = 173), J. Chase (n = 97), A. Conn (n = 54), R. Schmitt (n = 38), J. Hansen (n = 31), and M. Tydlacka (n = 31).

It is important to note that English tutors in the walk-in lab worked between one and eight hours per week. Thus, it is not surprising that the four tutors with highest number of hours per week—W. Lowe (n = 8), J. Chase (n = 8), J Hansen (n = 7), and M. Tydlacka (n = 7)—were among the top six tutors in terms of total number of conferences. With 54 conferences for the term in two weekly hours, A. Conn achieved the highest number of conferences per hour.

Usage trends, by instructor

The six instructors whose students participated in the greatest number of walk-in lab conferences during the Fall 2001 term were as follows: W. Lowe (n = 105), E. Vifansi (n = 48), S. Mallare (n = 33), J. Kohl-Collier (n = 29), CB Lovell (n = 28), and C. Sharpe (n = 27).

The results for W. Lowe should be qualified by the fact that he was also the tutor for 73 of the 105 students who visited the lab from his sections.

Analysis

The walk-in lab English tutoring service was staffed for a schedule of 62 person-hours per week during the Fall 2001 semester. Adjusting for holiday reductions, tutors were available for conferences in the lab for 810 person hours and provided a total of 709 individual conferences.

At the beginning of the semester, my goal had been to attain a minimum of one conference per person hour staffed. The English tutoring service achieved this goal only during five of fourteen weeks during the Fall 2001 term. There are several likely explanations for these results.

First, during the first two weeks of lab operation, traffic was necessarily slow due to the fact that many English students had yet to receive their first formal writing assignment. Significantly, 67% of the conference/person hour deficit for the semester occurred during the first two weeks of lab operation. One possible remedy would be to delay the commencement of the tutoring service until the third week of the semester.

Second, there were several slots on the Fall 2001 schedule that yielded few conferences. The 3:00 – 5:00 slot on Friday afternoons yielded only five conferences over 26 person hours for the term. In addition, the 9:00 – 10:00 a.m. and 2:00 – 3:00 p.m. slots on Saturdays yielded a combined total of only six conferences over 24 person hours for the term. Based on these results, I have eliminated the slots discussed above from the Spring 2002 schedule. The intended result of this schedule alteration will be to improve the overall conference/person hour ratio.

Third, the data suggest that more needs to be done to promote the walk-in lab tutoring service among the English faculty. More than 38% of all conferences during the Fall 2001 term were with students from sections taught by the four instructors with the highest level of representation (n = 270). In contrast, several full-time instructors were scarcely represented among students using the tutoring service. This can be explained in part by the fact that students in lower-level courses—097, 101, 102, in particular—were more likely to use the lab. Thus, instructors who teach higher-level courses such as 210 tended to be less represented among lab users. However, it can also be inferred that some instructors may fear that students receive excessive levels of help in the lab and consequently are reluctant to promote the lab tutoring service to their students. Improved tutor training and outreach to English faculty can potentially alleviate this problem.

SUMMARY OF VISITS TO TWO LOCAL WRITING CENTERS

During the month of November, I visited the writing centers at University of Maryland, Baltimore County (UMBC), and Anne Arundel Community College (AACC). The purpose of these visits was to establish a rapport with other area writing center administrators and to gain insight into potential directions for future growth in the walk-in lab at Howard Community College (HCC).

Prior to the site visits, I prepared a set of questions, which is attached as Appendix B. During my conversations with the two administrators, many of the questions were addressed indirectly. The remaining questions were answered by direct inquiry.

Visit to Writing Center at UMBC

I visited the writing center at UMBC on Tuesday, November 6, meeting for approximately 90 minutes with director, Mary Hinkernel. Below is a brief summary of procedures and characteristics of the writing center at UMBC.

Administration

Mary Hinkernel administers the lab through joint funding by the Learning Resources Center and the English Department. Her role in the lab is strictly administrative; student tutors conduct all tutoring sessions.

Staffing

The tutoring staff at the UMBC Writing Center is comprised of upper-level undergraduates. All tutors must maintain a 3.0 GPA, be nominated by an English instructor, and complete a semester-long tutor-training course, English 395. Upon completion of this course, students are eligible for part-time employment as writing center tutors. New tutors begin employment at Level I but can rise to Level II and Level III based on experience and performance. Levels II and III entail increased responsibility and compensation.

Hours and Terms of Operation

The writing center at UMBC is open Monday through Wednesday from 9:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m., 9:00 am to 6:00 p.m. on Thursday, and 9:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Friday. Four to five tutors are on duty at given hour. Individual conferences last an average of 45 minutes. The center operates exclusively on a walk-in basis.

Location and Physical Description

The UMBC Writing Center is located in the lower level of Kuhn Library and is adjacent to a mathematics lab and computer lab. The writing center occupies a spacious environment with a reception area, six circular tutoring tables, bookshelves stocked with textbooks and reference materials, a filing cabinet with supplementary materials on grammar and rhetoric, and two computers available for student use. The circular tables enable the tutor to sit beside rather than across from the student.

Training Protocols

As mentioned above, tutors at UMBC must complete a semester-long course, English 395, prior to initiating employment in the writing center. The course includes readings on tutoring methodology, an internship in the writing center, and formal essays on tutoring theory and practice. Upon successful completion of the course, new Level I tutors continue training through a mentoring relationship with Level II and Level III tutors that includes mutual observation.

Usage Patterns

As at HCC, Mondays have the highest level of student traffic, with usage levels decreasing sequentially throughout the week. In contrast to HCC, evening hours are among the busiest slots. Approximately 33 % of students seeking conferences in the lab are individuals with ESL backgrounds.

Tracking

Students complete a conference form for each tutorial session in the writing center. One copy of the form stays in the center, and one copy is sent to the student’s instructor; the student keeps the original. Tutors write a brief summary of the conference on the form. No formal process of usage pattern analysis is currently in place.

Tutoring Procedures and Philosophy

Tutoring sessions at the UMBC Writing Center last an average of 45 minutes. The longer average conference duration stems in part from the policy of having the student read the paper aloud at the beginning of the session. Both in training and practice, the UMBC lab emphasizes minimal marking on student drafts, thus preserving the integrity of authorship.

Services Offered

The UMBC Writing Center exclusively offers individual conferences with students. The majority of students who use the service are enrolled in English courses, but students from all courses are eligible. The center does not currently offer supplementary services, such as workshops on grammar and rhetoric.

Funding

The UMBC Writing Center is funded through the Learning Resources Center. Ms. Hinkernel has no direct involvement in funding decisions. UMBC students from all courses that entail writing are eligible to use the center.

Writing Center Promotion

Ms. Hinkernel promotes the writing center through five primary means: a presentation on the service at the freshman orientation seminar, presentations in writing courses at the beginning of each term, fliers, memos promoting the lab and clarifying procedures to faculty distributed at three points during a given semester, and advertisements in the student newspaper. The writing center also has a promotional page on the UMBC Internet site.

Summary Statement

There is much to admire about the UMBC Writing Center, though many of it effective features would be difficult to replicate at a two-year college. The training course, English 395, ensures that tutors share a common philosophy of tutoring. The training and mentoring procedures also appear to create a sense of community among tutors. In addition, the tutors whom I observed working with students in the lab had a comfortable rapport with the tutees. This likely derives from the perception of the tutor as peer and helper rather than authority figure and instructor. The physical arrangement of the lab (open space, circular tables) helps facilitate the prevailing positive atmosphere of the center.

Visit to Writing Center at AACC

I visited the writing center at AACC on Thursday, November 8, meeting for approximately 90 minutes with director, Dr. Alan Brownlie. Below is a brief summary of procedures and characteristics of the writing center at AACC.

Administration

Dr. Alan Brownlie is the director of the AACC Writing Center. Dr. Brownlie is a full-time instructor in the English Department. Dr. Brownlie’s administrative duties include hiring and training tutors, scheduling, and promotion. Dr. Brownlie describes his lab management philosophy as follows: “Hire quality people, involve them in the decision-making process, and avoid micro-managing.”

Staffing

The tutoring staff at the AACC Writing Center is comprised primarily adjunct faculty members. Full-time instructors also tutor in the center. Adjuncts are paid by the half-credit hour, which Dr. Brownlie estimates to be comparable to the $11.50 hourly rate tutors receive at HCC. Full-time faculty members receive a faculty development incentive for working in the lab.

Hours and Terms of Operation

The writing center at AACC is open from 9:00 a.m. to 8:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on Friday. One or two tutors are on duty at a given hour, with double coverage placed at slots with high traffic. Tutoring sessions are limited to 20 minutes per student. The center operates exclusively on a walk-in basis.

Location and Physical Description

The AACC writing center is located in the Humanities Building, adjacent to the division office. The center is the sole occupant of a mid-sized room. Dr. Brownlie noted that a wall was recently installed to separate the math lab from the writing center, thus dramatically reducing the noise level in the lab. The writing center includes a large circular table, a small rectangular table, a bookshelf stocked with textbooks and reference materials, and a rack of handouts to assist students with grammar problems. The center also contains four computers exclusively for lab use by students.

Training Protocols

AACC appears to have few formal training protocols. In interviewing applicants for tutor positions, Dr. Brownlie includes a mock tutorial component. He uses this activity as a means for communicating the areas of emphasis in the AACC Writing Center: tutorial as dialogue, active student engagement, and the importance of positive feedback.

Usage Patterns

No specific numbers were provided, though Dr. Brownlie estimated that usage patterns were fairly consistent from semester to semester. Usage is heavy enough for the English Department to fund two tutors for about half of the hourly slots on the schedule. Approximately 30 % of students who use the tutoring service are enrolled in developmental courses, and approximately 20 % of tutees are students with ESL backgrounds.

Tracking

Tutoring Procedures and Philosophy

The AACC Writing Center adheres to the dialogue model of writing conferences. Students must bring an assignment sheet, a draft, and specific questions to the lab and be actively engaged in the session. Tutors emphasize positive aspects as well as areas in need of revision.

Services Offered

At present, the AACC Writing Center exclusively offers individual conferences with students. The majority of students who use the service are enrolled in English courses, but students from all courses are eligible. There is English faculty interest in expanding the center’s services to include workshops on grammar and rhetoric, but the center currently lacks the space and instructional design funding to initiate such an extension of services.

Funding

The AACC Writing Center is funded by the English Department, though students in writing-intensive courses from other departments are eligible to use the service.

Writing Center Promotion

Dr. Brownlie promotes the lab through displays on television screens on campus, posters, presentations to faculty during pre-semester workshops, an Internet page, and signs in every classroom. The classroom signs clarify the purposes of the center and include the headings “Functions of the Writing Center,” “What Writing Center Tutors Will Not Do,” and “Student Responsibility.”

Summary Statement

As a community college writing center, the AACC lab has many parallels to the service at HCC. Both labs are staffed primarily with adjunct faculty who work limited hours. This presents administrative challenges, for it is difficult for the director to have significant direct contact with all tutors. Dr. Brownlie prefers to make careful hiring decisions and trusts in the tutors to adhere to the tutoring philosophy of the lab. Occasionally, students submit complaints to Dr. Brownlie concerning a given tutor, but such occurrences are rare; Dr. Brownlie directly addresses such concerns with the tutor in question.

RESULTS OF ENGLISH TUTORING SURVEY

To gain a better understanding of the practices and training needs of English tutors in the walk-in lab, I prepared and distributed a brief survey at the end of the Fall 2001 term. This section of the report summarizes the results of the survey and offers recommendations for training and tutoring practices based on those findings.

Methodology

On December 3, I distributed a cover letter and survey to all 23 individuals who worked as English tutors in the walk-in lab during the Fall 2001 term (excluding myself). The cover letter and survey are included as Appendix C. I requested that the survey be submitted by December 10, though I did continue to receive and accept submissions for several days after the deadline. To improve the rate of response, the final question on the survey was a query for scheduling requests in the lab for the Spring 2002 term.

Results and Analysis

As of December 19, completed surveys were submitted by 14 of 23 tutors, for a response rate of 60.8 %. With such a small sample size, one must be cautious is generalizing based on the results of the survey. However, the results, at minimum, document tutor experiences of working in the lab over the course of a semester and their perceptions concerning lab policy and training procedures.

Survey questions one through six prompted responses on a Likert scale, while questions seven and eight required brief handwritten responses in an itemized format. Question nine concerned spring scheduling requests and thus is excluded from this report. For ease of reference, results and analysis are provided under each question heading. Tables 1 through 8 show survey results; a brief paragraph of analysis follows each table.

Question One

“My conferences in the can best described as…”

Table 1

Response	Frequency
a. Dialogues about writing	3
b. Editorial sessions	7
c. Collaborations	4
d. Lectures	0

The fact that no tutor described his or her conferences as lectures is a positive sign. Based on current writing center literature, dialogues about writing would be the preferred approach. However, as Leigh Ryan notes in The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors, items ‘a’ through ‘c’ all describe roles that tutors assume in working with student writing. There is an important distinction, nevertheless, between performing professional editing and tutoring students, and the predominance of the “editorial sessions” response is thus a potential cause for concern. Professional editors have the primary function of improving the text; tutors, in contrast, have the primary function of helping the writer to improve while maintaining authorship of the text. All of our tutors may already have a full understanding of this distinction. To be certain, we should emphasize the point in future training sessions.

Question Two

“In working with a student on a paper in the lab, I write on the student’s draft …”

Table 2*

Response	Frequency
a. Rarely	4
b. Infrequently (typically on margin)	3
c. Quite often (both on margin and in text)	7
d. Consistently (typically in text of essay)	1

* Note: One respondent selected items ‘b’ (for most students) and ‘c’ (for students with ESL backgrounds

The high frequency of item ‘c’ is a cause for concern, for reasons similar to those mentioned with regard to conceiving of the conference as an editorial session. By writing excessively on student drafts, tutors may unwittingly compromise the authorship of the essay. When this occurs, the student is deprived of the full benefit of the learning experience, and faculty may justifiably become hesitant to promote the lab to their students. We must be cautious, however, in extrapolating from these results. The assessments are subjective and give no indication of the quality or quantity of written tutor input on student drafts. Regardless, future training sessions should emphasize the importance of and rationale for minimal marking on student drafts by tutors.

Question Three

“The aspects of tutoring for which I would most benefit from additional training are …”

Table 3*

Response	Frequency
a. General tutoring strategies	4
b. Working with students with ESL backgrounds	7
c. Working with developmental students	2
d. Teaching grammar in context of tutoring session	6

* Note: Respondents were instructed to select more than one response, if applicable. One respondent did not select any of the options. Several respondents selected multiple options; for this reason, the number of responses exceeds the sample size.

The survey results confirm the impression that I gained through talking with tutors during the Fall 2001 term; the area of greatest perceived training need is improving strategies for tutoring students with ESL backgrounds. Without formal training in this area, many tutors feel uncertain concerning how to address sentence-level concerns of students with ESL backgrounds. ESL training should be a part of the professional development tutoring session prior to each semester; the section in The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors also offers helpful guidance. In addition, a compilation of materials on helping students with ESL backgrounds is available as a reference in the lab.

The second most requested area of training concerned grammar instruction in the context of the writing conference. Although the survey allowed no space for elaboration, I infer from personal experience and anecdotal evidence that difficulties in this area derive from two primary sources: 1) difficulties with prioritizing in working with students with numerous sentence-level problems and 2) strategies for balancing grammatical concerns and issues with content and structure. These issues, along with general tutoring strategies, should form part of training offered during the pre-semester professional development tutoring session.

Question Four

“HCC students who use the walk-in lab have a sound understanding of the respective roles of the writer and the tutor in a conference …”

Table 4*

Response	Frequency
a. All of the time	0
b. Most of the time	3
c. Some of the time	10
d. Never	0

* Note: One responded added a handwritten response, “rarely,” which falls on the existing scale between options ‘c’ and ‘d’.

The results for question four suggest that more needs to be done to promote the concept of active student engagement in conferences. During the Fall 2001 term, the walk-in lab English tutoring service used Andrea Shanklin’s PowerPoint presentation on conferencing techniques to introduce students to procedures and expectations. According to the policy, students were asked to review the on-line presentation or the hard-copy version at the tutoring station prior to commencing their first conference. The extent to which tutors adhered to this policy is unknown. Logistically, this policy had definite shortcomings. The presentation takes approximately fifteen minutes to view; this duration is adversely lengthy for the context.

For Spring 2002, I suggest a policy revision. Instructors who teach courses with high levels of lab tutoring traffic—ENGL 097, ENGL 101, and ENGL 102—should be asked to review the presentation in class with each section. The concept of active student engagement would be reinforced through a concise walk-in lab handout. The handout, which would summarize the respective roles of student and tutor, would be distributed to each student upon his or her first use of the English tutoring service for the term.

Question Five

“If a standard time limit were set for walk-in lab conferences on student essays, the most appropriate time limit would be …”

Table 5*

Response	Frequency
a. Fifteen minutes	10
b. Twenty minutes	6
c. Thirty minutes	2
d. Forty-five minutes	1

* Note: Question five included the following qualifying note: “the item above applies primarily to situations in which another student is waiting for a conference.” Two respondents selected both ‘a’ and ‘b’. One respondent selected all four options, qualifying the selections based on type of paper and student.

This question was prompted by the fact that walk-in lab English tutoring service currently has no policy regarding conference duration. Thus, each tutor exercised discretion in determining conference duration when other students were waiting. Administratively, such a lack of formal policy invites problems, and both students and tutors would benefit from the establishment of standard guidelines.

Respondents favored a 15-minute limit; I feel this may be too brief and recommend the 20-minute limit. However, some flexibility is necessary, as the noted by the respondent who gave four qualified responses. Because they tend to have higher incidence of sentence-level concerns, students with ESL backgrounds may require additional contact time. In addition, when students bring in research papers toward the end of the semester, they will obviously require more contact time than students with two- or three-page essays. The policy for spring should be that the standard conference duration is 20 minutes, with extensions to 30 minutes for students with research papers and/or ESL issues, at the discretion of the tutor.

Question Six

“The walk-in lab manual and set of readings that I received at the beginning of the term were __________ in preparing me for working as a tutor in the lab this semester.”

Table 6*

Response	Frequency
a. Not helpful	0
b. Somewhat helpful	10
c. Very helpful	2
d. Not a factor	2

* Note: For option ‘d’, respondents were instructed to clarify whether they did not review or did not receive the materials. One respondent did not receive the materials; the other respondent did not make a distinction.

During Summer 2001, Mark Grimes developed a manual for walk-in lab English tutors and compiled a set of readings on tutoring and teaching. These materials were distributed to tutors at the walk-in lab faculty development session prior to the start of the Fall 2001 term; tutors who were unable to attend the session received the materials in their mailroom boxes in the first weeks of the semester.

The survey results suggest there may be room for improvement in training materials. Ten of fourteen respondents deemed the materials to be moderately helpful, while only two of fourteen respondents considered the materials to be “very helpful.” During the Spring 2002 term, my intention is to supplement the manual and readings with The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors by Leigh Ryan. On the Spring 2002 survey, the impact of the Fall 2001 resources and the Bedford Guide will be assessed in separate questions.

Question Seven

“In walk-in lab conferences this semester, the most common issues I discussed with students with regard to improving the content and structure of their essays were … (Please list at least five items in the perceived order of frequency)”

Table 7*

Skill Category	Frequency Score
Development	41
Organization	31
Conclusion	18
Introduction	16
Thesis	16

* Note: For question seven, the survey contained five blank sections, labeled ‘a’ through ‘e’. Frequency scores were tabulated by assigning five points for section ‘a’ responses, four points for section ‘b’ responses, three points for section ‘c’ responses, two points for section ‘b’ responses, and one point for section ‘c’ responses. Several respondents provided more than one response for a given section; each response was tabulated separately.

The results for question seven confirm data from the walk-in lab log; organization and development were the primary areas of difficulty encountered by tutors working with the content and structure of student writing in the walk-in lab. It should be noted that input from respondents was synthesized into standard categories. For example, “support,” “details,” and “examples” were coalesced under the heading “development.”

Responses of interest that did not score in the top five for question seven include faulty logic, misunderstanding of assignment, transitions, clarity, unity, and diction. One respondent did not provide any formal input but instead offered the following aside: “didn’t really come up.”

To assist both students and tutors in addressing problematic aspects of content and structure, I plan to make a series of handouts available in the walk-in lab during the Spring 2002 term. The handouts will be compiled from the best currently available on-line resources. The efficacy of these resources will be assessed by both students and tutors via surveys distributed and collected in the final weeks of the Spring 2002 semester.

Question Eight

“In walk-in lab conferences this semester, the most common grammatical issues that I discussed with students were … (Please list at least five items in the perceived order of frequency)”

Table 8*

Grammatical Issue	Frequency Score
Subject-Verb Agreement	35
Fragments	22
Tense Shifts	21
Run-on Sentences	20
Pronoun-Antecedent Agreement	19

* Note: For question eight, the survey contained five blank sections, labeled ‘a’ through ‘e’. Frequency scores were tabulated by assigning five points for section ‘a’ responses, four points for section ‘b’ responses, three points for section ‘c’ responses, two points for section ‘b’ responses, and one point for section ‘c’ responses. Several respondents provided more than one response for a given section; each response was compiled separately.

As noted in section one, walk-in lab tutors identified grammar as the most frequent focus of tutorial sessions during the Fall 2001 term. Respondents identified subject-verb agreement problems as the most common grammatical issue addressed in student writing during tutorial sessions. Responses of interest that did not score in the top five for question eight include ESL issues, punctuation, diction, tone, spelling, and parallelism.

As with the primary concerns regarding content and structure, handouts addressing prominent grammatical issues will be available in the walk-in lab beginning Spring 2002. The handouts will be compiled from the best currently available on-line resources. The intention of the grammar handouts is to give tutors a means of addressing problems with grammar within the time constraints of the writing conference and to provide students with supplementary resources to reinforce the tutorial discussion. The efficacy of these resources will be assessed by both students and tutors via surveys distributed and collected in the final weeks of the semester.