Here is a question that came up on the Writing Center listserv today:
One of our consultants is wondering about research on the practice of reading the paper aloud at the beginning of the tutoring session. While it's a practice we advocate, different consultants chose different techniques and sometimes adapt them to the writer. Has anyone looked into this in a formal way?
Let's assume you wanted to research this. What's the question? And how would you go about it?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
18 comments:
Question: Does reading a paper aloud benefit the student’s drafting process and if so how can it be measured?
Method: I would start by looking up the history of reading papers aloud and see if I can find evidentiary support. Then I might conduct a study with the tutors in the writing center for a semester. Have half of them have their students read their papers aloud and the other half not. What grades do each set up students receive? Is there a significant difference? What was the difference? Did the student papers change more when read aloud (during the drafting process)? I would code the answers and see what these results tell me about reading papers aloud.
Nice beginning . . .
Good idea to look up the history of the practice since the question might already be answered! In other words, there might be research on this so that no new project is needed.
If we think that reading aloud is helpful, we don't want to stop reading aloud, do we? Is there another way to take up the question?
Grades aren't a reliable index to quality: my A might be your C. But we could rate papers to see their quality-use a scale and have two raters.
I like the last idea best: did the student papers change more when read aloud? And: were the changes good? In other words, you could have changes that weakened the paper.
Perhaps the listserv participant is wondering if the different techniques produce different outcomes. In that case, I think the question would be something like this: What read-aloud techniques are most efficacious, and do different techniques work better for different students?
I think it would be difficult for me to research this question because I don't really know anything about different read-aloud techniques (of course, I understand the basic idea of having a student read his/her draft aloud, but what kind of differences in technique could there be?). My first step, therefore, would obviously have to be to find out what different techniques are being used. Then I guess I could do some case studies of different students working with different tutors (and their techniques). I could observe tutoring sessions in progress and analyze the pre and post-session drafts to try to determine what kinds of problems the students evidence in their writing and which of those problems seem to be remediated by the read-aloud sessions or just what understandings they gain from the process that allows them to grow as writers. It might be good to have more than one researcher observe the same sessions in order to reduce the level of researcher-bias. Another option would be to videotape or audiotape the sessions so that additional researchers could examine the interactions at any time. After observing multiple sessions in which each kind of technique is used, I could then try to establish what patterns emerge from the data. I don't really have any idea what kinds of patterns these might turn out to be, but it could be interesting to try to find out.
Ok. This looks like a pretty good way to begin. A suggestion and a question.
The suggestion: how about simply observing a couple of tutoring sessions? If you did that as a kind of field study, it might help you see ahead of time what's possible. So one kind of research that I noted above in response to Kara's observation was library research, and here I'm mentioning another kind of preliminary research, field research.
Question: let's assume that indeed in the field research you saw that the reading aloud *seemed* to enable students to hear rhetorically--for evidence that was missing; for a conclusion that didn't conclude; for a rhetorical stance at odds with the genre. So you do think you have a researchable field of inquiry. In designing this study, would you lloo at all students in a writing center, or a certain group of students? And if a certain group, which ones and why those?
ky
I am going to attempt to build on Ruth's ideas. What if the question was: During a tutoring session, who should read the student writing aloud? The wording is not very clear, but what I am getting at is should the tutor read the writing or should the student read the writing? I would video tutoring sessions. During some sessions, the tutor would read the writing and during some sessions the student would read the writing. All students would be in the same class, with the same instructor (although I'm not sure how important this is, because you can't control for all of the instruction they get in other courses from other instructors and there is no way really to determine their prior knowledge) A coding scheme could be developed to use while reviewing the videos. Possible codes would include the types of changes/edits/deletions/additions that are made during the oral reading of the writing and who made the changes. Then all of this information could be used to track or identify patterns. I would speculate that you might be able to draw conclusions about which is most effective for the student, the tutor reading or the student reading.
I think follow-up interviews would be useful, too. Carefully constructed interview questions would need to be developed.
Like Kara and Ruth, I would have to do preliminary research, because I don't know much about this practice other than what I did in my own classroom as a middle school teacher.
Well, ok--another possiblity.
Let's surface another assumption: that reading aloud is a good tutoring strategy. Is it? How do we know? What do we expect from it? I think we'd need to answer these questions before we used videotaping. Videotaping is a mechanism for recording data, but before we decide to use it (especially since it's the most invasive of the mechanisms and has the most potential to distort what we're looking at), what method are we using? A case study? An ethnography?
Lots to think about here ;)
ky
First, I am not sure about the practicality of a study about students reading out loud during a tutoring session unless it is done as a case study. The reason for my concern has to do with the individual nature of teaching students during a tutoring session. I do use the read out loud technique, but not every time because what works for one student does not necessarily work for another (they each have different issues they need/want to work on). Rather, I would propose, like the suggestions of Ruth, that a researcher examine different tutoring sessions and when and how the reading technique is used. The sessions could be filmed and both tutor and student can fill out questionnaires to answer questions such as Did you feel this session was productive? Do you feel you learned new ways to revise and edit your paper? Did you feel as if you contributing to your own session through your reading of your text out loud? Maybe that last question is leading. Also for the tutor, Did you and your student read the paper out loud? Why? How did you go about doing it? I ask the last question because sometimes I teach my students to read their paper out loud starting with the last sentence rather than the first, because the student needs more work with sentence construction than with overall organization.
I think I will take this study in a little different direction.
Question: Do writing center tutors ask their tutees to read their papers aloud during writing center consultations, and if so, what are tutors’ rationales for such practice?
Method: I would start be reviewing any literature—theories or studies—that advocate for reading papers aloud during writing center consultations. I assume there is a scant amount of actual experiments or studies, but I bet there is writing center theory that covers this issue—it is, after all, a popular concept (one I used when I worked in a writing center). Next, I would probably conduct an experiment—well, more of an observation or ethnography—of different writing centers. For financial reasons, I would probably limit my study to a particular region. Then, I would randomly select about ten universities with writing centers within that region. I would start by looking at (1) whether the tutors encourage students to read their papers aloud, and (2) their logic or reasoning behind implementing (or not implementing) this method. I would also interview students who used the writing center, asking them about their consultation and (if they did read their paper aloud) what they thought of the experience—was it effective, helpful, unnecessary, intimidating, etc.? In interpreting the data, I would look for any trends; for instance, how many tutors asked students to read their papers aloud? Furthermore, was there any trend in the rationale, either for or against reading the papers aloud?
There are good questions here. If only we could all weigh in on each others' studies and help pick out the problems or nagging questions.
When I see this type of question I immediately wonder about the focus of the study. What about reading aloud do you want to know about? Do you want to know if it is an effective technique? And how would you define “effective”? Do you want to know how many tutors use it? Do you want to know how they use the technique? Perhaps you want to question how the students perceive such an approach. This latter question intrigues me, mostly because often when I asked students to read papers aloud in the WC they became nervous or uncomfortable. So I would like to ask whether students find such an approach helpful/effective; I would like to know their thoughts/attitudes about the technique.
This seems like a case study to me. I would need to find a number of tutors at the Writing Center who use such a technique and randomly select 5-6. (A further question is whether all of these tutors need to use similar techniques of reading aloud or not.) Looking at the students these tutors work with, I would select 3 per tutors, so about 15-20 students in all. I would like to conduct brief introductory interviews with students to gather demographic information and ascertain their level of experience with the Writing Center and with the technique of readings their paper aloud. I would then observe at least 2 sessions with each student throughout the semester and take notes, focusing on the students’ reactions. I would also give students a survey (at the end of the session) which questioned them about the approach. Finally, I would like to conduct a final reflective interview at the end of the semester which asked students to evaluate their attitudes about the technique as a whole.
This type of case study would help inform the type of approaches tutors take towards introducing the technique of readings aloud in their sessions.
Julie said . . .
First, I am not sure about the practicality of a study about students reading out loud during a tutoring session unless it is done as a case study.
*well, theoretically, one could do an ethnography, and one could certainly set up a quasi experimental study. Whether one would want to do that is another matter ;)
The reason for my concern has to do with the individual nature of teaching students during a tutoring session.
*individual, but don't we believe that there are patterns?
I do use the read out loud technique, but not every time because what works for one student does not necessarily work for another (they each have different issues they need/want to work on).
*and plenty of students don't bring drafts in at all. But supposing that they do bring in a draft, what then? How would we know when to ask students to read aloud? In other words, what are the indicators that this might be a good thing to do? That could be one research study.
Rather, I would propose, like the suggestions of Ruth, that a researcher examine different tutoring sessions and when and how the reading technique is used.
*ok. So a descriptive study, say "Reading Drafts Aloud in FSU's Reading Writing Center: A Descriptive Study of 10 Students." Something like that? Of course what you find will depend a lot on the students. It could be something interesting, or not.
The sessions could be filmed
*why film? What do you gain and what do you lose?
and both tutor and student can fill out questionnaires to answer questions such as Did you feel this session was productive? Do you feel you learned new ways to revise and edit your paper? Did you feel as if you contributing to your own session through your reading of your text out loud?
*shouldn't all the questions focus on the reading aloud or emerge from that context? Of course if you're asking tutors, then the study would have a wider focus: the perceptions of tutors and tutees . . . .
Maybe that last question is leading.
*not really? Isn't this what you want to know?
Also for the tutor, Did you and your student read the paper out loud? Why? How did you go about doing it? I ask the last question because sometimes I teach my students to read their paper out loud starting with the last sentence rather than the first, because the student needs more work with sentence construction than with overall organization.
*so you're very directive?
Some good ideas here, but they need further refinement. And we haven't even gotten to the students we'd select! Or tutors.
ky
From Rory
Question: Do writing center tutors ask their tutees to read their papers aloud during writing center consultations, and if so, what are tutors’ rationales for such practice?
*ok, a clearly focused question, though you'd better hope the answer to Q1 is yes, or it will be a very short study ;)
Method: I would start be reviewing any literature—theories or studies—that advocate for reading papers aloud during writing center consultations.
*ok
I assume there is a scant amount of actual experiments or studies, but I bet there is writing center theory that covers this issue—it is, after all, a popular concept (one I used when I worked in a writing center).
*right, theory or guidance. So you'd look to see that it's conventional wisdom, accepted practice, or tutoring theory.
Next, I would probably conduct an experiment—well, more of an observation or ethnography—of different writing centers. For financial reasons, I would probably limit my study to a particular region.
*so go back and refine your question so that it applies to that region only?
Then, I would randomly select about ten universities with writing centers within that region.
*so universities, so 4-year schools, so re-title again?
I would start by looking at (1) whether the tutors encourage students to read their papers aloud, and (2) their logic or reasoning behind implementing (or not implementing) this method.
*ok. How will you obtain this information? Visits for how long? Interviews? Surveys? Do you want to know where they got the idea? How often they use it, and why? How they perceive its utility? You're onto something here, but it needs to be fleshed out.
I would also interview students who used the writing center, asking them about their consultation and (if they did read their paper aloud) what they thought of the experience—was it effective, helpful, unnecessary, intimidating, etc.?
*I don't think I would. You haven't indicated that you were looking at students. Now you're widening the study. Why do that? Why not focus on the tutors?
Speaking of which, why not interview people online and not travel to the sites? What do you get from the f2f?
In interpreting the data, I would look for any trends; for instance, how many tutors asked students to read their papers aloud?
*yes, patterns. What's your total N? How many tutors per school? Why 10 schools, btw?
Furthermore, was there any trend in the rationale, either for or against reading the papers aloud?
*ok. Like the other studies, this one has potential, too. Keep at it!
Natalie says . . .
There are good questions here.
*there are. And look at how many different studies you could do. Interesting, isn't it? It's all in the question you ask and the study you design.
If only we could all weigh in on each others' studies and help pick out the problems or nagging questions.
*we can. You'll be doing that. And we'll do at least one more of these so you get more practice.
When I see this type of question I immediately wonder about the focus of the study. What about reading aloud do you want to know about?
*exactly.
Do you want to know if it is an effective technique? And how would you define “effective”?
*as helping students? But helping them what? Julia mentioned one strategy clearly focused on syntactic and usage error. You could do a study of reading aloud focus on this purpose to see its efficacy. That would be one study.
Do you want to know how many tutors use it?
*interesting. You could survey 1000 tutors!
Do you want to know how they use the technique?
*all purpose or differentiated?
Perhaps you want to question how the students perceive such an approach. This latter question intrigues me, mostly because often when I asked students to read papers aloud in the WC they became nervous or uncomfortable. So I would like to ask whether students find such an approach helpful/effective;
*all students? Fyc students? Students who have tried it only once, twice, or more?
I would like to know their thoughts/attitudes about the technique.
*ok. So not on whether it's helpful but their attitudes toward it?
This seems like a case study to me.
*why? Why not a survey? or focus interview?
I would need to find a number of tutors at the Writing Center who use such a technique and randomly select 5-6. (A further question is whether all of these tutors need to use similar techniques of reading aloud or not.)
*I would think so; otherwise, the attitude might vary because of the purposes, but without asking about purposes or even the way the tutors use it, you wouldn't understand the data you'd be collecting.
Looking at the students these tutors work with, I would select 3 per tutors, so about 15-20 students in all.
*why?
I would like to conduct brief introductory interviews with students to gather demographic information and ascertain their level of experience with the Writing Center and with the technique of readings their paper aloud.
*ok. And you want demographic data because? And again, the students--fyc, sophomores, ESL?
I would then observe at least 2 sessions with each student throughout the semester and take notes, focusing on the students’ reactions.
*determined how?
I would also give students a survey (at the end of the session)
*which one?
which questioned them about the approach. Finally, I would like to conduct a final reflective interview at the end of the semester which asked students to evaluate their attitudes about the technique as a whole.
*I don't know. This seems like more work than you'd need to do to answer the question?
This type of case study would help inform the type of approaches tutors take towards introducing the technique of readings aloud in their sessions.
*well, it might. But before that, you'd begin to understand something about students' attitudes towards a fairly common practice, and if those attitudes diverged, how and why.
Interesing study, and more interesting as it got more specific.
ky
This may be naïve, but it seems like an important element of this study would be to identify whether or not this practice worked for different types of learners. I would begin by having the participants in my study identify themselves as aural or visual learners. I would begin with this step because I might assume aural learners would find this technique more effective. Since this study is taking place in a writing center, researchers should seek to isolate a commonality that would allow peer tutors to use this method with confidence. If, perhaps, self-identified aural learners have a stronger connection and achieve better results from having their papers read aloud, then I would feel comfortable with this type of writing center activity.
Ok, so beginning with "having the participants in my study identify themselves as aural or visual learners." That seems smart. But how will they know whether they are visual or aural? Will you provide definitions? What if they are kinesthetic?
And perhaps re-phrase the question so that it's not evaluative but descriptive. So: How does reading a paper aloud at the beginning of a tutorial shape the way visual and aural learners perceive the tutoring session? Or are you more interested in how it influences their view of their own drafts
***Warning! Warning!
System overload due to overuse of words. Mandatory lock down. Proceed with caution. Repeat proceed with caution. Message will repeat for every overuse.
***Warning! Warning!
System overload due to overuse of words. Mandatory lock down. Proceed with caution. Repeat proceed with caution. Message will repeat for every overuse.
***Warning! Warning!
System overload due to overuse of words. Mandatory lock down. Proceed with caution. Repeat proceed with caution. Message will repeat for every overuse.
***Warning! Warning!
System overload due to overuse of words. Mandatory lock down. Proceed with caution. Repeat proceed with caution. Message will repeat for every overuse.
Well. After that scary warning, I'll be brief.
I would start by looking at WC research and research on tutoring to help frame my question and establish what theory has been developed. But for now, my working question(s) might be: Does read-aloud technique used in one-to-one tutoring help students identify strengths and weaknesses in their writing? If so, is there a difference between when tutor reads to student and student reads to tutor? What are the various read-aloud methods being used and do they work? Does the student learn to just improve the paper of the moment, or does the student learn to improve writing overall?
I'd look at the existing literature to establish theory, and to narrow my questions. I'd want to determine best practices, so I'd survey - starting via the WC listserv - WC directors to see who has this kind of informal data/theory (this might be unverified data, but could help develop a survey). I'd do case study research to help determine what kind of questions I might develop for a large survey. Then I'd develop a formal survey of tutors - at 4-year, 2-year, small and large WC programs across the country and outside the U.S. where feasible - to determine patterns of read-aloud technique and efficacy. Then I'd test the survey findings of best practice methods in an ethnographic study, in maybe 50 WC locations, to determine what is actually effective in helping students improve not only a paper but their writing in general. This ethnography might also be designed to look at transfer of learning from read-aloud tutoring to other writing contexts, and/or serve as a jumping off point for future research on transfer.
Ok. And wow! You have a lifetime project here ;)
I think checking with the WCENTER listserv is a great idea. I don't quite see doing 50 ethnographic studies--not as a single researcher. However, what you *might* do is invite other researchers to work on a project with you. I think ethnography might be more than they would want to tackle, but you could begin by collecting the practices and seeing how they compare with extant theory and practice. Then you might design a study to determine the efficacy of ONE kind of read-aloud.
Make sense?
Here is a thought that occurred to me as I was re-reading all of the posts...If studying the use of the read aloud tutoring strategy, would it matter if the student had poor reading skills? How would this impact your study if a student was asked to read her writing out loud and the reading was so painful that by the time she was finished reading, neither the tutor nor the student had any clue as to what had been read. Hm? Could this be handled during participant selection? Should it even be considered?
Post a Comment