RESULTS OF LAB USAGE PATTERN STUDY

During both the Fall 2001 and Spring 2002 semesters, a 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 for a full academic year. The results have implications for future funding, training, and marketing initiatives.

Methodology

At the beginning of the Spring 2002 term, a notebook filled with blank log sheets was placed on the table at the English tutoring station in the walk-in lab. The log was accompanied by 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

● ESL status

As the semester progressed, data from the log sheets were compiled in 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 the conference form to their instructor along with the final draft of an essay; duplicates from the lab were later distributed to instructors. While the student input on these forms enriches our understanding of what transpired in the lab, the data in this report are based solely on the logbook entries. Accutrack software was also used to measure walk-in lab use during the Spring 2002 term. This application is valuable for instructors who wish to monitor lab use by particular students; however, at present, Accutrack does not provide a means to track English conferences to the degree of specificity of the handwritten log.

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

● Usage trends, by ESL status

The results from the present study will also be useful for purposes of comparative analysis with regard to the fall and spring terms as well as subsequent semesters.

Overall number of conferences

A total of 750 individual conferences were entered into the logbook for the Spring 2002 term. This figure treats multiple conferences by the same student as unique entries. The number of conferences increased during the spring term by 41 compared with the fall total of 709.

Usage trends, by week

The first two weeks of lab operation (during the second and third weeks of the Spring 2002 semester) yielded the fewest number of conferences (n = 35 and 32, respectively). However, compared with the first two weeks of lab operation during the Fall 2001 semester, these figures constitute an increase of 19 and 4, respectively. Usage peaked at 77 conferences during the 13^th week (the last week of lab operation). Spring 2002 weekly lab usage data are shown in below in Figure 1.

Usage trends, by day of the week

Mondays yielded 192 conferences, the highest number of conferences by day of the week during the Spring 2002 term. The number of conferences declined sequentially throughout the course of the week, culminating in 10 conferences on Saturdays. This pattern replicates the trend documented for the Fall 2001 term.

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 3:00 p.m. on Fridays, and 10:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Saturdays. The reduction of hours on Friday and Saturday, however, cannot account for the significant total decrease in traffic.

With just ten conferences in 39 person-hours staffed, usage on Saturdays is too low to justify the expense of staffing the lab with an English tutor even for limited hours; Saturday hours should be discontinued in subsequent semesters. 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 Spring 2002 term were 11:00 am (n = 123), 12:00 p.m. (n = 95), and 10:00 a.m. (n = 81).

The sum of the three highest hourly slots during the Spring 2002 term (n = 299) constitutes a reduction of 30 conferences compared with the three highest hourly slots during the Fall 2001 term (n = 329).

The three hours that yielded the lowest number of conferences during the Spring 2002 term were 8:00 p.m. (n = 14), 7:00 p.m. (n = 36), and 5:00 p.m. (n = 42). The sum of the three lowest hourly slots during the Spring 2002 term (n = 92) constitutes an increase of 38 conferences compared with the three lowest hourly slots during the Fall 2001 term (n = 54).

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 = 1054) exceed the total number of individual conferences (n = 750) for the Spring 2002 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 Spring 2002 term were ENGL 101 (n = 228), ENGL 097 (n = 155), ENGL 102 (n = 135), and ENGL 087 (105). 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 = 155), students from other developmental courses participated in English conferences in the lab as well: ENGL 096 (n = 14), ENGL 094 (n = 5) and ENGL 093 (n = 1).

Collectively, developmental students comprised 23.3 % (n = 175) of all users of the walk-in lab English tutoring service during the Spring 2002 term. This figure represents a decrease of 47 by developmental users (n = 222) among the total number of conferences during the Fall 2001 semester. This decrease is primarily the result of an overall reduction in developmental students in the spring term.

Note on lab use by students enrolled in ESL courses:

Among students enrolled in courses specifically designed for individuals with ESL backgrounds, usage of the walk-in lab English tutoring service during the Spring 2002 term was as follows: ENGL 087 (n = 105), ENGL 086 (n = 7), ENGL 085 (n =3), ENGL 084 (n = 1) and ENGL 083 (n = 3),

Collectively, students enrolled in ESL courses comprised 15.9 % (n=119) of all users of the walk-in lab English tutoring service during the Spring 2002 semester. This represents an increase of 28 conferences compared with the Fall 2001 term. The overall number of students with ESL backgrounds who used the service while enrolled in all English courses is discussed later in this section of the report.

Usage trends, by tutor

The six tutors who held conferences with the greatest number of students during the Spring 2002 term were as follows: W. Lowe (n = 71), A. Lloyd (63), J. Chase (n = 61), A. August (n = 57), J. Treibman (n = 56), and J. Hansen (n = 52).

It is important to note that English tutors in the walk-in lab worked an average of between one and 8.5 hours per week. Thus, it is not surprising that the six tutors with highest number of hours per week—J. Hansen (n = 8.5), A. August (n = 5), J. Chase (n = 4), J. Treibman (n = 4), A. Lloyd (n = 3.5), and W. Lowe (n = 3)—were among the top six tutors in terms of total number of conferences. With 71 conferences for the term in three weekly hours, W. Lowe 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 Spring 2002 term were as follows: P. Becker (n = 77), W. Lowe (n = 63), P. Walton (n = 53), CB Lovell (n = 50), R. Guida (n = 46), and A. Shanklin (n = 37).

All six of these instructors are full-time faculty; during the Fall 2001 term, only three of the top six instructors were full-time faculty. In fact, the top nine instructors during the Spring 2002 term were full-time faculty. This shift suggests favorable results in the coordinator’s attempt to promote the lab among full-time faculty.

Usage trends, by ESL status

The Fall 2001 log did not distinguish between students with ESL backgrounds and other students. To enrich our understanding of lab usage patterns, a new log category was added in Spring 2002 to identify the ESL status of students throughout the sequence of English courses.

Students with ESL backgrounds comprised 55.9 % (n = 419) of all walk-in lab English tutoring service users during the Spring 2002 term. Native speakers of English comprised 43.5 % (n = 326) of all walk-in lab English tutoring service users during the Spring 2002 term. The remaining .6 % (n = 5) consisted of students whose ESL status was not clarified in the log. Figure 6 shows lab use, by ESL status.

Note: It would be worth considering precisely what we mean by ESL status. The log reveals the subjectivity of the designation. Certain walk-in lab English tutoring service users were identified in conflicting terms by different tutors. Once a student gains native fluency in English even if English is a second language, is it meaningful to continue to designate such a student as having an ESL background?

Analysis

The walk-in lab English tutoring service was staffed for a schedule of 55 hours and 63 person-hours per week during the Spring 2002 semester. The lab was staffed with two English tutors at the peak hours of 11:00 a.m. through 1:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. All other slots were staffed with one English tutor. Adjusting for holiday reductions, tutors were available for conferences in the lab for 819 person hours and provided a total of 750 individual conferences. This figure falls short of the goal of our goal of a minimum of one conference per person hour staffed; however, the ratio of conferences/person hours improved from 87/100 in the Fall 2001 term to 92/100 during the Spring 2002 term.

At the beginning of the semester, my goal had been to attain a minimum of one conference per person hour staffed. The service attained this goal in six of thirteen weeks during the Spring 2002 term, up from five of fourteen weeks during the Fall 2001 term. This ratio can be improved in Fall 2002 by the following means:

1) Eliminate Saturday hours from the schedule: Tutors held only ten conferences during the 39 hours the walk-in lab offered English tutoring during the Spring 2002 term.

2) Consider adding a second tutor at 10:00 a.m. and/or 1:00 p.m. Monday through Thursday. This schedule addition should be approached with caution. Of two slots staffed with two tutors during the Spring 2002 term, only the 11:00 am – 12:00 p.m. slot exceeded the one conference per person hour ration. Thus, such shifts may ultimately reduce the overall conference per person hour ratio.

3) Continue effort to promote the walk-in lab to full-time and adjunct English faculty. As discussed in the student survey section of this report, students primarily learn about the lab through their classroom instructor. Consequently, the best way to increase lab usage is to increase direct promotion of the service to students by instructors.

SUMMARY OF VISITS TO TWO LOCAL WRITING CENTERS

During the month of April 2002, I visited the writing centers at the Community College of Baltimore County (CCBC), Catonsville campus, and Frederick Community College (FCC). 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 CCBC, Catonsville

I visited the writing center at CCBC, Catonsville, on Tuesday, November 6, meeting for approximately 90 minutes with Student Success Center (SSC) manager Nicole Baird. Below is a brief summary of procedures and characteristics of the writing center at CCBC, Catonsville.

Administration

Nicole Baird administers the lab through Perkins grant and Title 3 funding. Ms. Baird’s role in the lab is strictly administrative; student peer tutors, volunteers, and professional tutors conduct all tutoring sessions.

Staffing

Approximately 50% of SSC tutors are professional writing tutors. Professional writing tutors must have a bachelor’s degree and a paid from between $7.78 - $13 per hour. Approximately 40% of tutors are student peer tutors. Peer tutors must maintain a 3.0 GPA and must be recommended for tutoring by an instructor. The remaining 10% of tutors are volunteers from the community. Currently, no faculty members volunteer to work in the lab.

Hours and Terms of Operation

The SSC is open for writing tutoring Monday through Thursday from 10:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Friday. Two tutors are on duty from

10:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. each day, with one tutor on duty for the remaining hours Conferences last an average of 45 minutes. The center operates exclusively on a walk-in basis.

Location and Physical Description

The CCBC, Catonsville Student Success Center is located in academic building F, room 220C. Like the LAC at HCC, writing tutors share space with tutors in all subjects. The SSC has six computers available for student use and five tutoring stations.

Training Protocols

Faculty volunteer tutors are not required to attend training sessions. (There are currently no faculty volunteer tutors.) Community volunteer tutors and professional tutors must attend a three-day training program prior to the start of the fall semester. In Fall 2001, the Catonsville campus hosted tutors from other CCBC campuses as part of an initiative to standardize tutor training at CCBC.

Usage Patterns

No full-semester data were available at the time of my visit. However, Ms. Baird did supply the following figures regarding lab traffic in February 2002: 326 tutoring sessions for all subjects, with 75 sessions for English. Ms. Baird indicated that these numbers were slightly below average.

Tracking

CCBC, Catonsville, uses Accutrack to track lab usage. Ms. Baird indicated that the networked Accutrack system in place has had numerous technical problems, several of which resulted in the permanent loss of lab data.

Tutoring Procedures and Philosophy

CCBC, Catonsville, adheres to the learning-first, Vanguard college approach, which emphasizes methodological flexibility and facilitating the growth and development of independent learners.

Services Offered

The Student Success Center at CCBC, Catonsville, offers tutoring in all subjects. The center will soon expand to offer supplemental instruction to students in developmental courses.

Funding

The CCBC, Catonsville, SSC receives Perkins grant and Title 3 funding. The center has no funding connection with the English department or any other academic department or division.

Center Promotion

Ms. Baird promotes the SSC through campus-wide memos to all instructors via e-mail and interoffice mail. The SSC is also promoted through posters and electronic banners. Direct promotional initiatives include an annual Valentine’s Day raffle; approximately 500 students participated in the 2002 Valentine’s raffle.

Summary Statement

With its emphasis on tutoring in all subjects, the SSC at CCBC, Catonsville more closely resembles the HCC LAC than the Hickory Ridge walk-in lab. We should be mindful of the problems the SSC has had with networking Accutrack. In addition, SSC’s use of volunteer and student peer tutors may be worth exploring as a means of reducing the cost of staffing the lab.

Visit to Writing Center at FCC

I visited the writing center at AACC on Monday, April 29, meeting for approximately 2 hours writing center manager Felicia Monticelli. Below is a brief summary of procedures and characteristics of the writing center at FCC.

Administration

Felicia Montecelli is the director of the FCC Writing Center. Ms. Montecelli is a full-time administrator who oversees developmental writing and writing-across-the curriculum in addition to the writing center. The writing center shares lab space with a computer-integrated developmental writing classroom.

Staffing

English tutors at FCC are referred to as professional writing consultants. Professional writing tutors must have a master’s degree. Three of the four tutors for Spring 2002 were also adjunct instructors in the English department. The rate of pay is based on teaching credit hour rate of $500/credit hour. Two lab hours per week is equivalent to one credit hour.

Hours and Terms of Operation

The writing center at FCC offers writing tutoring with professional writing consultants for two hours per day Monday through Thursday. One tutor is on duty at a given hour. Consultations are offered exclusively on a walk-in basis, and there is no set time limit for individual sessions. The center also offers an open lab Monday through Thursday from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m.

Location and Physical Description

The FCC Writing Center is located in academic building L, room 106. Ms. Monticelli has expended much energy in creating a warm environment in the writing center. The walls are decorated with informative and engaging displays, and the lab offers numerous promotional materials and handouts.

Training Protocols

The FCC Writing Center provides professional writing consultants with a training manual. At present, no tutor training session is provided. The center is exploring the possibility of offering new writing consultants a $50 stipend to complete a video training program

Usage Patterns

In limited hours, the FCC Writing Center maintains a usage rate of approximately one conference per person hour staffed. No data were available on the trends of writing center users.

Tracking

Students complete a conference form for each tutorial session in the writing center. The writing center does not currently use computerized tracking

Tutoring Philosophy

The FCC Writing Center adheres to the dialogue model of writing conferences. The training manual emphasizes strategies for writing consultants to use in encouraging active student engagement

Services Offered

At present, the FCC Writing Center offers individual conferences with students, workshops for students and instructors, and a lab for students enrolled in developmental writing courses. Professional writing consultants facilitate the workshops, though classroom instructors are invited to collaborate with writing center staff in developing workshop content.

Funding

The FCC Writing Center is funded through its administrative unit, the System for Student Success. Students in writing-intensive courses from all departments are eligible to use the professional writing consultant service.

Writing Center Promotion

Ms. Monticelli promotes the lab through e-mail, flyers, bookmarks, poster display, and a web page.

Summary Statement

The FCC Writing Center is particularly strong in the areas of promotional materials and instructional handouts. Ms. Monticelli has a background in graphic arts, and the materials she has produced demonstrate this expertise. She has graciously granted HCC permission to use her work as models for our own promotional and instructional materials. The workshop model in which tutors and classroom instructors collaborate on content development is an approach that the HCC walk-in lab should consider emulating if we choose to offer workshops or supplemental instruction after the lab relocates to the new instructional building.

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 Spring 2002 term. This section of the report summarizes the results of the survey and offers recommendations for training and tutoring practices based on those findings. In addition, I offer comparative analysis of survey results from Fall 2001 and Spring 2002.

Methodology

On April 29, I distributed a cover letter and survey to all 30 individuals who worked as English tutors in the walk-in lab during the Spring 2002 term. The cover letter and survey are included as Appendix C. I requested that the survey be submitted by May 10, though I did continue to receive and accept submissions for approximately a week after the deadline. To improve the rate of response, the final two questions on the survey were queries for scheduling requests in the lab for the Summer and Fall 2002 terms.

Results and Analysis

Completed surveys were submitted by 23 of 30 tutors, for a response rate of 76.6 %. This response rate is an increase of 15.2 % over the rate of 60.8 % for the Fall 2001 tutor survey. 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 eight prompted responses on a Likert scale, while questions eight through thirteen required brief handwritten responses. Questions 14 and 15 concerned summer and fall scheduling requests and are excluded from this report. For ease of reference, results and analysis are provided under each question heading. Tables 1 through 10 show survey results; a brief paragraph of analysis follows each table.

Question One

“My conferences in the lab can best described as…”

Table 1

Response	Frequency
a. Dialogues about writing	8
b. Editorial sessions	6
c. Collaborations	9
d. Lectures	0

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. Our tutor training session emphasized a dialogue-based approach, and the results for question one suggest tutors are attempting to implement the policy. On the Fall 2001 survey, 50% of respondents described their conferences as editorial sessions. On the Spring 2002 survey, this figure was reduced to 26%.

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	9
b. Infrequently (typically on margin)	8
c. Quite often (both on margin and in text)	5
d. Consistently (typically in text of essay)	0

The results for question two suggest a positive impact of the pre-semester training session. On the Fall 2001 survey, 53% of respondents described themselves as writing on student papers “quite often” or “consistently.” The comparable figure on the Spring 2002 survey is 22.7%. The importance of minimal marking during conferences was a point of emphasis in the pre-semester training session, and it is reasonable to infer that the training session and periodic e-mail reminders during the term were significant factors in the reduction. 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.

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	11
c. Working with developmental students	3
d. Teaching grammar in context of tutoring session	10

* Note: Respondents were instructed to select more than one response, if applicable. Several respondents selected multiple options; for this reason, the number of responses exceeds the sample size.

As in the Fall 2001 term, the area of greatest perceived training need after the Spring 2002 term is improving strategies for tutoring students with ESL backgrounds. Without formal training in this area, many tutors feel ill equipped 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. Given that 55.6% of the users of the walk-in lab English tutoring service were students with ESL backgrounds, this training need should take highest priority.

The second most requested area of training concerned grammar instruction in the context of the writing conference. Difficulties in this area likely 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, will be addressed as 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	18
d. Never	0

During Spring 2002, the concept of active student engagement in lab conferences was reinforced through a walk-in lab handout. The handout, which is included as Appendix D, summarized the respective roles of student and tutor and was distributed to each student upon his or her first use of the English tutoring service for the term. The handout was also posted alongside a lab schedule in every composition and developmental writing classroom. The fact that tutors still perceive that students often do not understand the purpose of the lab is discouraging. During the Summer sessions, policy sheets were distributed to students through their classroom instructors. This approach, along with a brief overview of lab conferencing protocols by instructors at the start of the semester, could help improve student awareness during the Fall 2002 term.

Question Five

“The standard time limit of twenty minutes for walk-in lab conferences is …

Table 5

Response	Frequency
a. Appropriate	16
b. Too long	0
c. Slightly too brief	6
d. Much too brief	0

The results for question five are encouraging. Of the 22, respondents, 72.7% (n = 16) view the walk-in lab’s new 20-minute conference duration to be appropriate. During the Fall 2001 term, no standard limit was in place, which led to unacceptable delays for students waiting to use the service. Although some tutors commented in response to question twelve that they felt frustrated by time constraints in working with students, such frustrations may derive from unrealistic expectations regarding what can and should be accomplished in a single writing conference.

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	10
d. Not a factor	2

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 prior to the start of the Fall 2001 term; new tutors in Spring 2002 received the materials either at the pre-semester training session or in their mailroom boxes in the first weeks of the semester.

During the Fall 2002 term, the walk-in lab will use The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors by Leigh Ryan as our training manual. Subsequent surveys will enable us to analyze the effectiveness of 2001-2002 manual compared with the Bedford Guide.

Question Seven

“The tutor-training session prior to the start of the semester was ___________ in preparing me for working as a tutor in the lab this semester.”

Table 7

Response	Frequency
a. Not helpful	0
b. Somewhat helpful	5
c. Very helpful	7
d. Not a factor	10

Obviously, the most significant finding for question seven is that it is imperative that more tutors attend the pre-semester training session. Among those who attended, all found the session to be either very helpful (58.3%) or somewhat helpful (41.7%). However, nearly half of the sample did not attend the session. Such results make it quite difficult to instill a consistent conferencing approach among walk-in lab tutors.

Question Eight

“The conferencing form is ___________ in encouraging students to set the agenda for and actively participate in a tutoring session.”

Table 8

Response	Frequency
a. Not helpful	2
b. Somewhat helpful	14
c. Very helpful	6
d. Not a factor	0

The results for question eight suggest that tutors believe that the conferencing form is not generally having the desired effect. As noted below in the commentary on question thirteen, several tutors cited the need to revise the form as a possible means for improving the tutoring service. From anecdotal evidence, it appears that tutors view the form as a cumbersome formality rather than a means of engaging student participation. As noted in the discussion of the student survey results, walk-in lab users view the form in far more favorable terms.

Question Nine

“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 five items in the perceived order of frequency)”

Table 9*

Skill Category	Frequency Score
Thesis	64
Organization	62
Development	38
Introduction	21
Conclusion	19

* Note: For question nine, 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 ‘d’ responses, and one point for section ‘e’ responses. Several respondents provided more than one response for a given section; each response was tabulated separately.

The results for question nine confirm data from the walk-in lab log; the five highest scores for question nine were also the top five skills categories entered by tutors in the log. This is encouraging, as it suggests that tutor survey input in consistent with documented experiences in the 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 nine include transitions, clarity, unity, and diction. Four respondents included grammar under content and structural heading, which suggests that some tutors may not fully comprehend the distinction between global and local revision.

Question Ten

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

Table 10*

Grammatical Issue	Frequency Score
Subject-Verb Agreement	60
Fragments	32
Tense Shifts	31
Run-on Sentences	29