Download PDFContents
Contextualization
Locating the Writing Fellows Program and Rose Writing Studio in Writing Across the Curriculum and Curriculum-Based Peer Tutoring Practices
Entering the twenty-first century, Writing Across the Curriculum (WAC) was increasingly influenced by the work of writing centers, which engage with WAC concepts such as using writing as a tool to learn and recognizing that all students can benefit from draft review. As a result of the interaction between WAC and the writing center, peer tutoring is now the linchpin of many WAC programs (Soven 200). Such peer tutoring often assumes the form of curriculum-based peer tutoring (CBPT), in which tutors from all disciplines become emissaries for WAC programs by providing oral and written feedback for students in “tutor-linked courses” (Soven 200). At UW-Madison, the Undergraduate Writing Fellows Program is closely connected to the principles underlying CBPT; tutors undergo an intensive one-semester seminar on tutoring writing across the curriculum, English 403, before being assigned to read and comment on two pieces of writing by between ten and fifteen students in a single class each semester. Fellows also engage in two conferences with their students throughout the semester to discuss their comments, thus reinforcing the program’s underlying philosophy that student collaboration is “an especially effective mode of learning” (“Writing Fellows”). Despite this collaborative nature and the fact that Fellows are undergraduates, the discussion of writing between Fellows and students tends to assume a tutor-to-peer review structure, as Fellows guide conferences based on writing center pedagogy and practice learned in English 403.
In contrast, the Rose Writing Studio adheres to some tenets of CBPT while lacking time to meaningfully engage others. The Rose Writing Studio is a one-credit workshop in which students, traditionally freshmen, from a variety of classes and majors residing in the Chadbourne Residential Learning Community present drafts and receive constructive feedback from their peers (Detry and Rentscher). Two experienced members of the Writing Fellows Program serve as the Studio’s co-facilitators. During the first three weeks of the semester, students read articles detailing the various elements of the writing process, personal revision strategies, and recommendations for giving written and oral feedback (Konrad). These readings reiterate WAC and CBPT approaches. In each of the following weeks, students workshop two or three of their peers’ drafts, providing constructive feedback guided by the previous readings (Konrad). In that manner, the Rose Writing Studio and Writing Fellows Program affirm many of the principles of CBPT that highlight the importance of collaboration. However, the structure of the programs differ. While the Writing Fellow Program emphasizes tutor-to-peer review, the Rose Writing Studio encourages students to take advice from their peers, thus assuming a collaborative peer-to-peer review format.
My Positionality
I am prompted to compare the comments made on students’ drafts by members of the Rose Writing Studio and experienced Fellows based on my experience with both programs. As a member of the Rose Writing Studio during Spring 2022, I was introduced to the rich scholarship informing writing center pedagogy. The field’s emphasis on drafting as an opportunity to discuss ideas rather than fix errors was completely new to me; my high school papers had been marred with red marks indicating where to add a comma or fix “awkward” wording, most of which failed to engage with concerns such as the thesis’s logic and the organizational flow. In the Rose Writing Studio, as I discussed higher-order concerns with my peers each week, I watched my writing improve, both on the weeks when my papers were being workshopped, as well as the weeks in which I instead offered others comments.
Recognizing the power of collaboration and my passion for talking about writing, I applied for the Writing Fellows Program. As I engaged with writing center pedagogy in English 403: Seminar on Tutoring Writing Across the Curriculum and continue to work as a Fellow, my revision skills have become much more nuanced and further informed by writing center pedagogy. In turn, I believe my effectiveness as a reader and commenter has increased. Hence, based on the improvement of my skills from my time in the Rose Writing Studio to my work as a Writing Fellow, I hypothesize that comments written by Writing Fellows are more effective than those written by members of the Rose Writing Studio due to their varying degrees of knowledge of writing center practice and different levels of experience.