Reading aloud in the writing center

133 Pages·2017·0.79 MB·English

UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff LLoouuiissvviillllee
TThhiinnkkIIRR:: TThhee UUnniivveerrssiittyy ooff LLoouuiissvviillllee''ss IInnssttiittuuttiioonnaall RReeppoossiittoorryy
Electronic Theses and Dissertations
5-2010
RReeaaddiinngg aalloouudd iinn tthhee wwrriittiinngg cceenntteerr :: aa ccoommppaarraattiivvee aannaallyyssiiss ooff
tthhrreeee ttuuttoorriinngg mmeetthhooddss..
Rebecca Ryan Block 1979-
University of Louisville
Follow this and additional works at: https://ir.library.louisville.edu/etd
RReeccoommmmeennddeedd CCiittaattiioonn
Block, Rebecca Ryan 1979-, "Reading aloud in the writing center : a comparative analysis of three tutoring
methods." (2010). Electronic Theses and Dissertations. Paper 117.
https://doi.org/10.18297/etd/117
This Doctoral Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's
Institutional Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Electronic Theses and Dissertations by an authorized
administrator of ThinkIR: The University of Louisville's Institutional Repository. This title appears here courtesy of the
author, who has retained all other copyrights. For more information, please contact [email protected].
READING ALOUD IN THE WRITING CENTER: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
THREE TUTORING METHODS

By

Rebecca R. Block
B.A., New College of Florida, 2001
M.A., University of Louisville, 2006

A Dissertation
Submitted to the Faculty of the
College of Arts and Sciences of the University of Louisville
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
For the Degree of

Doctor of Philosophy

Department of English
University of Louisville
Louisville, KY

May 2010
READING ALOUD IN THE WRITING CENTER: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
THREE TUTORING METHODS

By

Rebecca R. Block
B.A., New College of Florida, 2001
M.A., University of Louisville, 2006

A dissertation Approved on

March 29, 2010

by the following Dissertation Committee:

___________________________________
Dissertation Director: Joanna Wolfe

___________________________________
J. Carol Mattingly

___________________________________
Brian Leung

___________________________________
Dennis Hall

___________________________________
Ann Larson
ii
DEDICATION

This dissertation is dedicated to my parents

Rebecca J. C. Block

and

Curtis J. Block

who would have been so proud to see me finish my doctorate

and to my husband

Mark J. Fasano

who, I believe, is as proud as he is relieved.

iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Joanna Wolfe, for her indefatigable patience,
assistance, and advice. I would also like to thank the other committee members, especially Dr. J.
Carol Mattingly, who catalyzed my initial interest in writing center work, and all my family and
friends who provided moral support and other assistance during this project: John Nowell,
Elizabeth Daly, Jessica Koehler, Kelly Blewett, Cathy Love, Beth Mohon, and Melissa Wiser.

iv
ABSTRACT
READING ALOUD IN THE WRITING CENTER: A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF
THREE TUTORING METHODS

Rebecca R. Block
May 10, 2010
Reading aloud in writing center sessions is a common practice, one that is both under-
studied and under-theorized. In an attempt to begin to address this gap, this dissertation conducts
an empirical analysis of three different methods of reading aloud in the writing center: client-
read, tutor-read, and point-predict. Client-read and tutor-read are traditional approaches to reading
in writing centers; point-predict was adapted into a tutoring method from a peer-review method
by Barbara Sitko. In order to examine these methods, a study of 24 writing center sessions—eight
of each method—was conducted. Sessions were recorded, transcribed, and coded for initiator and
writing issues discussed. Clients and tutors were given post-session surveys that asked for their
assessment of the session and what they believed it focused upon. The four tutor participants were
also interviewed about their thoughts on the study after they had the chance to work as
Composition instructors.
This dissertation is divided into four chapters. Chapter One provides a literature review,
Chapter Two addresses the transcript and survey analysis , Chapter Three uses tutors interviews
to question common assumptions within writing center lore, and Chapter Four offers ideas for
future research and implications for practice. The most striking finding of this study is the strong
suggestion that reading methods have a significant impact on the outcome of tutoring sessions—
especially on the amount of attention given to global and local issues—and that current beliefs
that having clients read aloud is the best way to ensure a global focus, client control, and client
engagement may be incorrect. Specifically, this study found that traditional tutor-read sessions
v
focused three-fourths of their conversation on local issues, whereas point-predict sessions focused
only a fourth of their discussion on these issues and gave far more attention to organization,
signposting, and content. Clients were also about twice as likely to initiate globally-focused
discussions in point-predict sessions as in other session types. Consequently, this dissertation
concludes that writing center practitioners need to more closely analyze the current reading
methods they employ and seek out new reading methods that might be better suited at catalyzing
global, engaged, client-focused sessions.

vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS……………………………………………….……............……..iv
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………............……...…v
LIST OF TABLES.....................................................................................................................ix
LIST OF FIGURES....................................................................................................................xi

INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW……………………............………….….1

TRANSCRIPTS AND SURVEYS……………………….……………...........………………21

Introduction……………………………………….…………............………………..21

Methods……………………………………………………............…………………23

Results: Transcripts…...……….……………………............……………....………..33

Results: Surveys……………………………………...........…………………………48

Discussion…………………………………………...........………………………….53

TUTOR INTERVIEWS…………………………………............……………………………59

Introduction…………………………………………………………………..………59

Methods………………………………………………………………………………60

Results………………………………………………………………………..………62

Discussion……………………………………………………………………………88

IMPLICATIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH AND TUTOR TRAINING..…………….…91

Summary of study results............................................................................................91

Drawbacks of study design.........................................................................................94

Implications for future research..................................................................................97
Implications for writing center practice.....................................................................100
Implications for tutor training manuals......................................................................103
vii
Conclusion..................................................................................................................105
REFERENCES........................................................................................................................106

APPENDICES.........................................................................................................................110

CURRICULUM VITAE.........................................................................................................121

viii
LIST OF TABLES

TABLE PAGE

Table 2.1: The ten possible writing issues within topical chains................................................27
Table 2.2: Number of topical chains and turns across the three different types of sessions.......34
Table 2.3: The average number of turns and topical chains with writing issues across the three
session types by tutor..................................................................................................................34
Table 2.4: Type of writing issue (as a percentage of topical chains containing writing issues)
discussed in the three types of session........................................................................................36
Table 2.5: Percentage of topical chains containing writing issues initiated by clients or tutors
across the three different types of sessions.................................................................................45
Table 2.6: Percentage of client-initiated topical chains containing writing issues that addressed
sentence-level or formatting issues, content or evidence issues, and organization or signposting
issues across all three session types............................................................................................45
Table 2.7: Average client response across session type to the survey question "This consultation
addressed ways I could revise for:" out of a 1 - 5 Likert scale, where 1 represented "Focused on a
little" and 5 represented "Focused on a lot.".............................................................................49
Table 2.8: Average tutor response across session type to the survey question "This consultation
addressed ways the client could revise for" out of a 1 - 5 Likert scale, where 1 represented
"Focused on a little" and 5 represented "Focused on a lot."......................................................49
Table 2.9: Client responses to the question of what was most helpful to them about the session
...................................................................................................................................................51
ix