Writing Center Journal

Volume 41 Issue 3 Article 5

1-10-2024

Asynchronous and Rhetorical: Appointment Forms and Their

Effect on Writer-Consultant Exchanges
Lizzie Hutton
huttoneb@[Link]

Kate Francis
francik@[Link]

Danielle Hart
hartdm2@[Link]

Anita Long
houseam2@[Link]

Brenda Tyrrell
btyrrell@[Link]

Follow this and additional works at: [Link]

Part of the Language and Literacy Education Commons

Recommended Citation
Hutton, Lizzie; Francis, Kate; Hart, Danielle; Long, Anita; and Tyrrell, Brenda (2024) "Asynchronous and
Rhetorical: Appointment Forms and Their Effect on Writer-Consultant Exchanges," Writing Center Journal:
Vol. 41 : Iss. 3, Article 5.
DOI: [Link]

This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries.
Please contact epubs@[Link] for additional information.
 Asynchronous and Rhetorical:
Appointment Forms and Their
Effect on Writer-­Consultant
Exchanges
Lizzie Hutton
Kate Francis
Danielle Hart
Anita Long
Brenda Tyrrell

Abstract Especially in the wake of the recent pan-

demic, asynchronous consulting has become increas-
ingly central to writing center work. Yet writing center
scholarship has little attended to the significant impact
writer input can have on asynchronous writer-­consultant
exchanges. Drawing on asynchronous consultation data
collected before and after our 2019 redesign of our writing
center’s asynchronous system, this comparative study examines
the specific effect of the writer appointment form on the nature
of both writers’ requests for feedback (RFFs) and consultants’ result-
ing comments. Our findings suggest that differently designed appointments
forms can scaffold significantly different kinds of asynchronous writer-­consultant
exchanges, especially visible in the different emphases writers and consultants put on issues
of correctness, clarity, organization, and the writer’s rhetorical situation. We argue that,
particularly in the case of asynchronous consulting—­which can easily devolve to a “fix-­it”
model of consulting—it is important for writing center administrators to design asynchro-
nous platforms that encourage both ­writers and consultants to more explicitly consider how
the specific rhetorical features of a writing task can shape revising goals.

Keywords asynchronous writing centers, appointment forms, correctness, commenting

style
Writing Center Journal

F
Vol. 41 | No. 3
2023 rom the beginning, writing center schol- of asynchronous screencasting (Bell, 2019)
arship on asynchronous consulting has and has compared the different ways in-­text
focused largely on the efficacy of con- and end-­ text commenting strategies shape
sultants’ varied response strategies. This lit- consultant feedback at the level of both “con-
erature includes recommendations about how tent and style” (Martini, 2019). Scholars have
consultants should structure asynchronous also begun to outline the unique benefits that
feedback (Earles, 2019; Gallagher & Maxfield, asynchronous consulting affords writers—this
2019; Kavadlo, 2013) and ensure that this feed- in contrast to earlier OWI and OWL research,
back is motivational, direct, and clearly action- in which written online consulting was often
able (Cooper et al., 2005; Hewett, 2010). More framed as a weak approximation of both in-­
recent research has explored the affordances person and synchronous online conversations
| 55 |
Writing Center Journal
Vol. 41 | No. 3 (Bell, 2006; Spooner, 1994). As the last years is established not through real-­time discus-
2023 of pandemic learning have crystallized, asyn- sions, but through writers’ and consultants’
chronous consulting is now understood to exchange of requests and responses. In this
provide crucial lifelines to writers not only of study, we analyze these exchanged writer and
varied learning styles and preferences (Den- consultant texts to identify and compare the
ton, 2017; Kavadlo, 2013), but also to those different kinds of “common ground” that two
working remotely or under complex time con- different platforms and appointment form de-
straints1 (Bell, 2020; Denton, 2017; Hewett, signs can enable. Moreover, because our writ-
2010; Kavadlo, 2013; Wetzl & Lieske, 2020). ing center’s principles and consultant training
Collectively, however, much of this schol- strongly emphasize the social, rhetorical, and
arship has also positioned the writer as the thus context-­specific nature of writing, this
mere recipient and beneficiary of properly de- study seeks to compare, across two asyn-
ployed asynchronous consulting strategies. chronous consulting platforms, the level of
This has left the interactive nature of asyn- complexity and detail with which these asyn-
chronous consulting largely untheorized and chronous exchanges show engagement with
the integral role played by the writer in shap- those rhetorical and context-­specific aspects
ing asynchronous consultant feedback largely of writing and revising. We do this through ex-
overlooked. In this study, we seek to widen amining the extent to which differently me-
the frame through which asynchronous feed- diated writer-­ consultant written exchanges
back is studied by considering the effects of explicitly attend to the specific task, audience,
Hutton the larger information ecosystems that asyn- writing concerns, and revising goals that writ-
— chronous consulting sessions construct. How, ers bring to their writing center sessions.
we ask, is consultants’ feedback affected by
Francis
different consulting platforms, and even more
—
specifically, by the different kinds of writer A Kairotic Moment in the
Hart input that we may design these platforms to History of our Writing Center’s
— elicit? Asynchronous Consulting
Long Our study investigates the specific func- Systems
— tion of what our writing center calls an “ap-
Tyrrell pointment form,” including the “requests for Our established and well-­resourced writing
feedback” (or RFFs, per Carol Severino, Jeffrey center began offering online asynchronous and
Swenson, and Jia Zhu, 2009) that differently synchronous consulting in 2015 to supplement
designed appointment forms can encourage our healthy in-­person consulting schedule and
from writers, and the ways that consultant to support students enrolled in our mid-­size,
feedback can be affected by these requests. midwestern research university’s online and
As Beth Hewett (2010) has acknowledged, study abroad programs. Both remote and on-­
such input forms are a critical component campus students made good use of online
of written online writing center exchanges, consulting; by 2018, asynchronous consulting
since “without explicit statements” from stu- constituted 10% of offered writing center ap-
dents about their writing task and concerns, pointments. Yet, by this time, we also began to
“the online instructor has only his or her per- sense that our asynchronous consulting sys-
ceptions, which . . . may not be what the stu- tem might deserve a reboot.
dent most needs to consider” (p. 61). Indeed, A 2019 redesign of this system presented a
the importance of writers and consultants es- kairotic moment: the opportunity to conduct a
tablishing “common ground” in regard to the relatively controlled comparative study of how
writer’s task and concerns is foundational to asynchronous writer-­consultant exchanges
a responsive writing center practice, as Isa- might be shaped by different platforms and
belle Thompson and Jo Mackiewicz’s (2014) appointment form designs. Motivating our
study of consultants’ in-­ person questioning redesign was a desire to improve the kind of
strategies has shown2 (p. 46). In asynchronous RFFs that our original system appeared to
consulting, of course, this “common ground” elicit from students, and the kind of feedback
| 56 |
Writing Center Journal
Vol. 41 | No. 3 that consultants composed in response, so in threshold concepts about writing (Adler-­
2023 that both aligned better with our fundamen- Kassner & Wardle, 2015), these emphasize the
tal principles about the social and rhetorical context-­and person-­specific nature of differ-
nature of writing and consulting. We designed ent writing and revising tasks and goals. Be-
our IRB-­approved study to examine the effi- cause our center supports writers from a wide
cacy of this redesign. range of disciplines and at all levels, including
Anecdotally, we had learned from con- masters and doctoral students, we train our
sultants that, in our original system, ­writers’ consultants as generalist “expert outsiders”
RFFs—as elicited by what we then called (Nowacek & Hughes, 2015). This means that,
“writers’ notes,” which were sent via email— unlike writing centers that support more nar-
were often sparse and provided little descrip- row populations, our consultants know little
tion of writers’ concerns or their writing tasks. about writers’ different assignments, or the
A random sampling of 68 writers’ notes from specific concerns writers bring to a consul-
a winter 2019 pilot study (IRB 03323e) con- tation, if that information is not provided by
firmed the general brevity of these RFFs. Data writers themselves. Indeed, and as Lee-­Ann
collected from three different weeks across Kastman Breuch (2005) has argued in her ex-
the semester showed that 27% of writers using ploration of “the online writing center,” Andrea
asynchronous consulting submitted no writ- Lunsford’s (1991) collaborative model is crucial
ers’ notes at all. This suggested that, for about to peer consulting precisely “because of the
a quarter of all asynchronous sessions, con- balance it strikes between tutor and student
Hutton sultants composed their feedback to ­writers’ responsibilities in the writing center—the idea
— drafts without any explicit information about of working together, constructing knowledge
a writer’s reasons for writing or their goals for and ‘valuing dissensus and diversity’ (41)”
Francis
their writing center appointment. The writers’ (p. 27, quoting Lunsford). Yet we suspected
—
notes that were submitted, moreover, showed that our original asynchronous platform, which
Hart little consistency in their level of detail, with required writers to provide little contextual in-
— 20% of those comprising only one sentence formation about their work or revising con-
Long or sentence fragment, and few much longer cerns, might be curtailing our consultations
— than that. from achieving the “balance” that Breuch here
Tyrrell Through less systematic study, we also describes. When writers habitually abstain
had growing concerns that the asynchro- from taking the “responsibility” to participate
nous feedback our consultants were providing in a detailed asynchronous dialogue about
tended toward the painstakingly intricate, of- their writing, consultant feedback will argu-
fering an abundance of marginal commentary ably become less collaborative and respon-
that often veered into the kind of sentence-­ sive in turn. To be sure, and as Breuch further
level editing that our consultant training ex- points out, written online consulting cannot
plicitly discouraged. We wondered first about “fulfill the Burkean Parlor model in the same
how our prompt for writers might be shap- way face-­to-­face writing centers do”; instead,
ing the thin nature of their RFFs, and second “online writing centers require their own ap-
about how the thin nature of these RFFs might proach” (2005, p. 32). Remaining committed
in turn be shaping the exhaustively line-­by-­ to achieving a collaborative balance between
line nature of consultant feedback. We con- writer input and consultant feedback, we re-
sidered whether a different kind of writers’ designed our asynchronous system, and more
prompt would result in more robust writer specifically our appointment form, with the
RFFs, which—combined with a different plat- hope of better fashioning this “new approach.”
form and updated training, of course—might Before we describe the changes we made
also enable more holistic forms of consultant to our prompt for writers—what we came to
feedback and more context-­ specific writer-­ call our “appointment form”—we should out-
consultant exchanges. line the two other changes made to our asyn-
As already noted, we were also motivated chronous system, which also shape our study
by our writing center principles. Grounded findings: a change of platform and a change
| 57 |
Writing Center Journal
Vol. 41 | No. 3 to the commenting styles enabled by such a • Give us a summary of the content in
2023 platform. In our original system, writers and your current draft: what is the goal of
consultants toggled between a number of your project and what are you doing to
platforms: Writers made their appointments achieve it?
through the WCOnline scheduling system • Where do you feel confident in your
we used for all other writing center appoint- project? Where are you not confident,
ments, but they were then prompted to use and what would you like to work on in
email to send in their RFFs and a draft of their this appointment?
writing (most typically through a link to a
Google doc). Consultants thus used WCOnline In our redesign, we sought to scaffold
only to access basic account or appointment writers into providing more precise expla-
information about the writer (if at all); they nations of their rhetorical situation and their
accessed writers’ notes and drafts through revising aims by using a mix of required check-
our writing center’s Gmail account and in- lists and open text boxes. This new form first
serted feedback directly (and only) into the asks writers to describe their task in their
margins of the writer’s doc. Because we spec- own words, since assignment prompts or ru-
ulated that this dispersal across platforms brics, while sometimes acting as useful maps
prevented both writers and consultants from for consultations, are often written more for
understanding their exchanges in robustly field-­insiders (students themselves) than for
dialogic terms, we decided to consolidate the expert-­outsider consultants who support
Hutton writer-­consultant exchanges to fewer plat- them. Second, writers are required to use a
— forms, mainly WCOnline. checkbox list of possible writing/revising con-
Our redesign expanded our WCOnline ap- cerns to describe what they hope the consul-
Francis
pointment form to take the place of the pre- tants’ feedback will focus on. Third, writers are
—
viously emailed writers’ note. In this new asked to elaborate on these main areas of con-
Hart system, writers attach their writing (mainly cerns, and, fourth, to indicate from a checklist
— as Word Docs) directly to this form. Consul- where they are in their writing process. (See
Long tants, for their part, use WCOnline to read Appendix A for this appointment form and Ap-
— writers’ RFFs, access writers’ drafts, and com- pendix B for our redesigned CRF.)
Tyrrell pose holistic feedback using the Client Report When we implemented these changes in
Form (CRF) feature, using Word only to insert fall 2019, we began to build a new archive of
supplementary in-­text feedback into the mar- writer-­consultant exchanges, which we could
gins of writers’ drafts. We designed the CRF to compare to our existing archive of previous
closely mirror the updated appointment form, writer-­consultant exchanges, allowing us to
to underscore the collaborative parallels we design a comparative analysis that would test
wanted writers and consultants to recognize the varied hypotheses that governed this re-
between RFFs and consultant feedback. design. Here, we detail our goals and methods
Yet most central to our redesign—and for the study itself.
most germane to this study—are the changes
we made to the appointment form itself,
where we solicit writers’ RFFs, and which we Research Goals and Methods
hypothesized might substantially affect the
quality of writer-­consultant exchanges. Our Our study compares both writers’ RFFs and
original writers’ note prompted (but did not consultant feedback across our previous and
require) writers to email a response to the fol- our newly redesigned asynchronous consult-
lowing questions: ing systems. We hypothesized that we might
be able to trace differences in the nature of
• Tell us about your project and the ex- these exchanges to the changes we made to
pectations for the final draft. Attach any our appointment form and to the platforms on
prompts or guidelines. which these exchanges took place.

| 58 |
Writing Center Journal
Vol. 41 | No. 3 In designing this study, we drew from re- used the redesigned asynchronous
2023 search that has explored writing center consul- system.
tant feedback through identifying, mapping,
and/or assessing various consulting strate- Since our focus was on the nature of the
gies (Brooks, 1991; Clark & Healy, 1996; Sev- writer-­consultant “exchange,” we did not an-
erino et al., 2009; White-­Farnham et al., 2012) alyze the actual draft that the writer submit-
or writer-­consultant “conversations” (Blau et ted; we focused only on pre-­and post-­writers’
al., 1998). We also drew from studies on on- RFFs and pre-­and post-­consultants’ feedback.
line consulting (Bell, 2019; Kavadlo, 2013; From each participant’s available data, we
Martini, 2019; Severino et al., 2009; Weirick randomly selected four artifacts to analyze—
et al., 2017; Wetzl & Lieske, 2020), especially two artifacts from the previous system (pre-­)
for their focus on discerning patterns in and and two artifacts from the redesigned sys-
among consultants’ asynchronous comment- tem (post-­)—providing us with a total of eight
ing styles and the potential relationship be- arti­facts per artifact category. Pre-­writer data
tween these commenting styles and writers’ (what we generally call an “RFF”) was com-
stated status, identity, and/or concerns. prised of the “writer’s note” that was emailed
To maintain a somewhat controlled com- to our writing center; post-­writer data was
parison, we collected data only from consent- comprised of a writer’s completed WC­Online
ing writers and consultants who had worked “appointment form”; pre-­ consultant data
with both our previous and our current, rede- (what we generally call “feedback”) was com-
Hutton signed systems sometime between Septem- prised of the feedback provided in the writer’s
— ber 2018 and December 2019, at least twice shared Google Doc; and post-­consultant was
prior to our redesign, and at least twice follow- data comprised of the consultant’s completed
Francis
ing it.3 Our final data set consisted of artifacts WCOnline CRF and the marginal feedback pro-
—
from four participating consultants and four vided in the writer’s shared Word doc. We an-
Hart participating writers; both groups included onymized the data before coding it, but we
— both undergraduate and graduate students named these excerpts both to indicate which
Long from a variety of disciplinary backgrounds. participant produced them (e.g., Writer A, or
— In the following description and analy- Consultant 1) and to indicate which platform
Tyrrell sis, we use the prefix “pre-­” as a descriptor for was being used—pre-­for before the redesign
consultations and writer-­consultant positions or post-­for after the redesign. Overall, we col-
held before the redesign (using our former sys- lected 32 writing artifacts to analyze and code
tem), and “post-­” as a descriptor for consul- for differences and correlations.
tations and writer-­consultant positions held As to our analysis of the data itself: using
after the redesign (using the new system). In open coding and grounded theory, we devel-
the following analysis, we therefore refer to oped codes to categorize both what writers
our four participating writers and four partic- or consultants explicitly discussed in their
ipating consultants as members of the follow- RFFs and feedback, respectively, and how
ing four corresponding categories: these requests or instances of feedback were
made. “What” codes encompassed both writ-
1. Pre-­writer is how we refer to the writers ing concerns—for example, “argument/ideas”
from our data set when they used our or “process”—and information about rhetori-
previous asynchronous system cal context—for example, “audience” or “disci-
2. Pre-­consultant is how we refer to the pline/field.” “How” codes described the modes
consultants from our data set when they through which information was exchanged:
used our previous asynchronous system for example, “questions,” “explanations,” or
3. Post-­writer is how we refer to the writers “supplemental materials.” The codes were ap-
from our data set when they used the plied to topical chains of text (Geisler, 2004),
redesigned asynchronous system and the nature of these codes meant that we
4. Post-­consultant is how we refer to the often applied multiple codes—including both
consultants in our data set when they “what” and “how” codes—to a single segment
| 59 |
Writing Center Journal
Vol. 41 | No. 3 of text. Each artifact underwent four rounds of Pre-­and Post-­Writers’ RFFs
2023 coding by separate team members, with any
discrepancies between our coding discussed Correctness
and resolved during research meetings. As Table 1 shows, both pre-­and post-­writers’
RFFs put strong emphasis on correctness, in-
cluding requested advice on grammar, usage,
Findings mechanics, and the formatting of citations.
This table also shows, however, that post-­
Our preliminary read on our data revealed that writers asked for this kind of feedback less
both pre-­and post-­RFFs and pre-­and post-­ frequently (4 out of 8 sessions) than pre-­
feedback most frequently centered on three writers did (7 out of 8), with post-­writers
core concerns: correctness (often grammar more often requesting help with issues of
or citations), organization, and clarity.4 Given organization (6 out of 8) and clarity (also 6
these commonalities, however, pre-­and post-­ out of 8). Qualitative comparison of these
participants differed as to the level of detail correction-­focused references further re-
with which these issues were explicated (indi- veals that, while both pre-­writers and post-­
cated by the explanation code). Parallel to this, writers both made requests for blanket help
we found distinctive differences between pre-­ with “grammar” and error correction, post-­
and post-­references to the writer’s task and writers were more apt to be detailed in their
audience, and the frequency with which these sentence-­level feedback requests. One pre-­
Hutton rhetorical issues were explained through at- writer’s RFF, for example, asked for nothing
— tached assignments or rubrics (indicated by more than “feedback on grammar, spelling,
the code supplementary materials) or the partic- and APA citations” (W1), and pre-­W4 made
Francis
ipants’ own words. These patterns suggested a bid for even more generalized help, ask-
—
two distinctive types of RFFs and feedback: ing in one note: “I want to make sure there
Hart those whose vision of feedback was individ- are no major errors in my answers.” Post-­
— uated and rhetorically grounded, referencing writer RFFs, too, requested help with “gram-
Long writers’ specific concerns, readers, and task at mar” (W2) or “grammatical considerations
— hand, and those whose vision of feedback re- throughout” (W1). However, in two other in-
Tyrrell lied more on universalized writing rules. stances, post-­writers’ request for corrective
The following analysis builds on the feedback showed more specificity: post-­W3
specific codes and tendencies revealed by pointed to precise moments in the text to ask
these preliminary findings, through a de- about usage, in one note asking: “is this the
tailed comparative analysis of, first, pre-­and right word?” and in another, “not sure how to
post-­writer RFF data, and, second, pre-­and phrase this best.” Post-­W4 similarly detailed
post-­consultant feedback data. These com- their concern with “grammatical flow” by re-
parative findings draw both on the number questing more specific help “with reducing
of coded instances (both altogether per data passive voice” as well as “the use of words/
set and among sessions per data set), and our word tone and transitions.” (By contrast, the
closer qualitative analyses of these excerpts, terms “word,” “word choice,” or “transitions”
which reveal even more nuanced differences appeared nowhere in our pre-­writers’ RFFs.)
between the data sets. While our sample size By and large, then, the appointment form’s
was small and hardly generalizable to all asyn- directions to specify RFFs—combined, per-
chronous consulting (see footnote 3), we hold haps, with the distinctions that the checkbox
that this analysis still suggests some signifi- prompts writers to draw between concerns
cant ways that these different platforms and with transitions, grammar, mechanics, and
prompts may shape the nature of the concerns word choice—appear to have steered at least
articulated in pre-­and post-­writer RFFs and some post-­ writers away from more more
ways that different types of RFFs may in turn general bids for help with “grammar” or “cor-
shape the varied tendencies we noticed in pre-­ rections” and toward more detailed requests
and post-­consultant feedback. concerning technical or usage help.
| 60 |
Writing Center Journal
Vol. 41 | No. 3 Table 1. Pre-­Writers’ and Post-­Writers’ RFFs’ Most Frequent Concerns and Aspects
2023 of Rhetorical Situation (out of 16 sessions total: 8 pre and 8 post)
Supplementary
Correctness Materials
(grammar, Task Supplementary re: Task w/o
usage, (in own Materials Additional
citations) Organization Clarity words) re: Task Explanation Audience

Pre W total 9 7 4 8 4 2 1
mentions
Pre W: # of 7 5 3 4 4 2 1
sessions that
mention (of 8)
Post W total 5 11 16 12 3 1 3
mention
Post W: # of 4 6 6 7 3 1 3
sessions that
mention (of 8)

Hutton Organization and clarity of “edits . . . make sense” (W4)—they also pro-
— As Table 1 illustrates, post-­writers were more vided more direct guidance about where in
likely than pre-­writers to emphasize organiza- their draft these concerns arose. Arguably in-
Francis
tional coherence and clarity over technical and spired by the appointment forms’ suggestion
—
corrective matters. This new emphasis, we pre- that they add comments to their document to
Hart sume, was enabled by our appointment forms’ direct consultants to specific areas of concern,
— offering writers an array of options as to how some post-­writers’ organization and clarity-­
Long they might describe their concerns, prompting related RFFs constitute in-­text requests. One
— writers to reconsider a default request for help post-­writer inserted a comment stating, “I
Tyrrell with error correction or “grammar.” Moreover, need help with a transition here” (W3); an-
while both pre-­and post-­RFFs showed a con- other asked repeatedly for advice about where
sistent focus on “flow” (5 out of 8 pre-­RFFs, their various tables should be placed, and how
and 5 out of 8 post RFFs use the term) and co- this placement might shape the paper’s argu-
gency, post-­RFFs were more likely to specify ment (e.g., “Should I move the SciOut2 tables
the specific moments in the text where clarity underneath the SciOut1 tables to offer an addi-
and organization were of concern. tional comparison between programs?” (W1)).
For example, pre-­W4 wrote, “I want to Post-­writers’ RFFs about clarity followed a
make sure it flows”; and two other pre-­writer similar pattern, with post-­W1 adding numer-
RFFs asked for attention to “general flow”5 ous in-­text comments about whether and how
(W1; W4). Three out of eight pre-­writer RFFs to make different facets of their argument
similarly asked for consultants to attend to more cogent, asking: “Is there a better way to
whether a document “makes sense”—for ex- display this data?” or “Should I include a sum-
ample, “I want to make sure it makes complete mary of the table above?”
sense” (W4). Yet no pre-­writer RFFs elabo-
rated on the specific ways that they suspect Rhetorical context
their drafts might not be well structured or The most significant difference we noted be-
coherent. By comparison, while post-­writers tween pre-­and post-­ writers’ RFFs is illus-
made use of this same language—describing trated by the number and nature of references
their hope that the consultation would “im- to a specific rhetorical situation, illustrated
prove the flow” (W3) or “general story flow” in Table 1 by the “task” and “audience” codes.
(W1); or asking whether their previous round Even more striking than the difference
| 61 |
Writing Center Journal
Vol. 41 | No. 3 between the number of pre-­and post-­writers’ mentions of their task (12 in all), with seven
2023 references to task and audience are the qual- out of eight RFFs containing a reference to ei-
itative differences involving the level of detail ther the genre they were writing or specific
with which these issues are described. features of that genre (e.g., “results section”
Only half of pre-­writer RFFs described, in or “discussion”). Some of these descriptions
the writers’ own words, either a task or even remained general: one post-­writer described
a feature of their task (e.g., “appendix sec- their task merely as a “proposal” (W4); another
tion”). These descriptions were also notably as a “final write-­up portfolio” (W2). By and
vague. Pre-­W3 wrote simply, “I am working large, however, these task descriptions were
on an article for publication in a journal,” and far more precise and elaborate than those of
did not specify which one or in what field. Pre-­ pre-­writers. Post-­W3’s two separate post-­
W1 referenced a “literature review,” but did RFFs described their tasks both at the level of
not describe the topic or the disciplinary field. genre and content, explaining one as “a port-
Pre-­W2 offered specifics about the intended folio of my work throughout the program . . .
venue for their writing—“Trying to rework this a reflection around a single theme of my own
to publish in Wired magazine”—but did not choosing,” and in another as “an inquiry study
delineate which genre of writing “this” was. of my own design. I investigate aquarium vis-
Only one pre-­RFF, in fact, provided a some- itor reviews to see which category of animals
what detailed description of the writer’s task were mentioned most.” Both of post-­W1’s
(“I am working on final touches for my article RFFs showed a similarly new level of detail:
Hutton about data analysis I did regarding Watercraft the first explained, “We were tasked with syn-
— striking manatees”) and, moreover, connected thesizing, analyzing, sharing, discussing, and
this task to their specific concerns for the ses- making final reflections about the artifacts we
Francis
sion (“I think that the biggest problem that I created in the program. It should tell a cohe-
—
am having is that my data analysis isn’t align- sive story through an engaging story­ telling
Hart ing with my discussion” (W3)). In lieu of spe- tone while incorporating my voice,” and the
— cifically describing a writing task, moreover, second described their task as “using inquiry
Long half of the pre-­RFFs instead included linked to investigate a relevant issue and creating a
— or copied faculty-­written assignments or ru- plan for carrying out an action component. My
Tyrrell brics; two included these supplementary ma- purpose is to uncover the student and facilita-
terials without any additional commentary tor impacts from an immersive science camp
of their own. Finally, only one pre-­writer RFF by analyzing survey results.” Finally, and as
referenced an audience, and even this refer- the above quote also illustrates, post-­writers’
ence neglected to frame reader expectations RFFs (we hypothesize as prompted by the new
as shaped by the rhetorical situation; instead, appointment form) included more specific ref-
audience expectations were described as the erences to audience than pre-­writers’ RFFs, as
specific preferences of a single faculty mem- when post-­W3 explained in one session that
ber, explaining only that “my instructor has “my readers will understand my terminology,”
asked me to use active voice here” (W3). and post-­W1 wrote, “This report will be shared
Post-­writers, by contrast, more explic- with my collaborators at ExplorerHome Mad-
itly acknowledged and specified the rhetorical agascar Science Center and may be submit-
situation for which they were writing. While ted for publication demonstrating a model for
some post-­writers (3 out of 8) continued to STEAM engagement.”
paste in assignments, two of these three also
elaborated on these supplementary m ­ aterials Pre-­and post-­writer RFFs overall
by describing how they had specifically taken The lack of rhetorical detail provided by pre-­
up this assignment (as when post-­W2 adds writers was surely impacted by the fact that
to a pasted-­in prompt, “My project is a com- these writers’ notes were strikingly sparse,
parative look at the services and disservices and, as our previous pilot study showed, in
of urban forests”). Compared to pre-­writers, a few cases as short as one sentence. Pre-­
post-­ writers also made more discrete writers often ran through their concerns in an
| 62 |
Writing Center Journal
Vol. 41 | No. 3 undifferentiated rush, showing little reflective the rhetorical situation for which they were
2023 attention to the separate nuances of their task writing, highlights the extent to which ap-
and concerns. One pre-­writer’s RFF, for ex- pointment forms help writers distinguish and
ample, read in its entirety: “I am working on delineate the varied components that impact
this for publication in Wired and wonder if it their writing and revising.
makes sense, feels cohesive, has a[n] intelli-
gent but conversational tone as well as flow, Pre-­and Post-­Consultant Feedback
grammar etc” (W2). Another pre-­writer, after
thanking the consultant and linking to their Our comparative analysis of pre-­and post-­
doc, stated simply: “I am near the final draft consultant data further suggests that the dif-
and would love feedback on grammar, spell- ferent kinds of RFFs prompted by our previous
ing, and APA citations” (W1). and our redesigned appointment forms also
The appointment form that post-­writers affected the nature of consultant feedback.
filled out appeared, by comparison, to have More specifically, the rhetorical specificity (or
scaffolded post-­ writers into providing more lack thereof) of writers’ RFFs appears to have
robust and rhetorically detailed guidance for directly impacted the complexity of consul-
consultants, both by precisely delineating their tant feedback. Compared to pre-­consultant
concerns and by grounding these concerns in feedback, post-­consultant feedback showed
detailed descriptions of their rhetorical situa- a notable decrease in the number of correc-
tion and especially their task. As noted above, tions and an increase in the number of ex-
Hutton some writers continued to default to the gen- planations attached to the corrections they
— eralized language of “making sense” and to did make. Even more significantly, post-­
corrective concerns regarding “help with consultant feedback showed an increase in
Francis
grammar,” or the proper fulfillment of assign- comments related to organization and clarity,
—
ment guidelines (“I want to make sure that my especially in comments referencing the writ-
Hart ideas are coming across correctly” (W4)). Oth- er’s task and audience. Overall, then, we found
— ers, however, avoided these generalized de- that post-­ consultant feedback focused less
Long scriptors and provided notably more detailed on conventional “fixes” and more on helping
— explanations of what they wanted their con- writers restructure and clarify their intended
Tyrrell sultant to attend to (“Do I make connections arguments, and this through comments that
between each assignment and back to my re- more often referenced specific tasks and au-
search themes? Do you get a sense of my per- dience expectations. Of course, the nature of
sonal journey and thought process?” (W1)) and this feedback was also shaped by the different
the genre expectations (e.g., “reflective writ- commenting strategies these different plat-
ing” (W2)) that shaped these concerns. forms enabled (and which our training empha-
We suggest, therefore, that the specific sized), with pre-­consultants offering a greater
forms of scaffolding that appointment forms number of smaller, separable comments than
tacitly provide for writers can significantly post-­consultants (251 to 191); or—put a dif-
shape the nature of the RFFs that writers ar- ferent way—with post-­ consultants offering
ticulate for their consultants. Our previous fewer comments but in longer, more fully ex-
“writer’s note” prompt asked (but did not re- planatory streams of feedback.
quire) writers only to “tell” about their draft
and its “final expectations” and to reflect on Correctness
their “confidence” in the project. Our rede- Both pre-­and post-­consultants offered more
signed appointment form, by comparison, corrective feedback than any other kind
more pointedly prompts writers to describe of feedback we coded for. That said, post-­
their task and audience and provides a check- consultants offered significantly less cor-
list of options to help them detail their spe- rective feedback than pre-­consultants, both
cific revising concerns. That writers responded in terms of the number of comments given
to this guidance with more specific and direc- (59 post-­consultant comments to 117 pre-­
tive RFFs, especially as to the specificity of consultant comments) and in comparison to
| 63 |
Writing Center Journal
Vol. 41 | No. 3 Table 1. Pre-­Writers’ and Post-­Writers’ RFFs’ Most Frequent Concerns and Aspects
2023 of Rhetorical Situation (out of 16 sessions total: 8 pre and 8 post)
Supplementary
Correctness Materials
(grammar, Task Supplementary re: Task w/o
usage, (in own Materials Additional
citations) Organization Clarity words) re: Task Explanation Audience

Pre W total 9 7 4 8 4 2 1
mentions
Pre W: # of 7 5 3 4 4 2 1
sessions that
mention (of 8)
Post W total 5 11 16 12 3 1 3
mention
Post W: # of 4 6 6 7 3 1 3
sessions that
mention (of 8)

Hutton the total number of overall comments (31% These patterns suggest a direct relation-
— of all post-­consultant feedback to 47% of all ship between feedback and pre-­and post-­
pre-­consultant feedback) (see Table 2). Even writers’ RFFs. As discussed above, pre-­writers
Francis
more notable differences emerge when these asked for corrective feedback both more fre-
—
excerpts are examined qualitatively. Overall, quently and with far less specificity than post-­
Hart pre-­consultants’ comments tended to consti- writers. Pre-­writers’ requests, therefore, for
— tute single word or phrase fixes in the margin undifferentiated advice on “grammatical flow”
Long of the paper, either in the form of a brief edito- or whether “there are no major errors in my an-
— rial directive (e.g., “comma not needed” (C1)) or swers” arguably encouraged pre-­consultants’
Tyrrell to replace the highlighted text in the draft (e.g., feedback to default to equally catch-­all gram-
by way of correcting an improperly formatted matical corrections. By comparison, post-­
citation, “Ciechanowski et al. (2000)” (C2)). writers’ more focused requests for help with
Only 9% of these pre-­consultant corrections, grammar, combined with more detailed de-
moreover, were accompanied by any kind of scriptions of task, appear to have encouraged
explanation (e.g., “This would be ‘provider’s’ post-­consultants to respond less frequently
since it’s possessive” (C2)), and even fewer co-­ with sentence-­level feedback. When they did
occurred with other concerns: only one co-­ attend to these proofreading issues, the feed-
occurred with audience, and none with task. back tended to be somewhat more explana-
Post-­
consultants, by contrast, not only tory and rhetorically minded.
made these corrective comments with notably
less frequency, but were more likely to accom- Organization and clarity, and
pany their corrective suggestions with expla- mentions of rhetorical situation
nations. Moreover, post-­consultants showed a Table 2 also shows a marked difference be-
small uptick in grounding their corrective com- tween pre-­and post-­consultant feedback re-
mentary in the writer’s rhetorical situation, lated to organization or “flow.” Despite the
whether through references to audience (1) or fact that they made fewer separable com-
aspects of task (5) (e.g., “‘Tally marks’ seems a ments overall, post-­ consultants discussed
little informal for a methods section. Perhaps organizational concerns more frequently
there’s an alternative wording? Maybe just than pre-­consultants. Moreover, the differ-
“counted?” (C3)). ential between post-­consultants’ references

| 64 |
Writing Center Journal
Vol. 41 | No. 3 Table 2. Pre-­and Post-­Consultant Feedback: Most Frequent Concerns and Aspects
2023 of Rhetorical Situation (out of 16 sessions total: 8 pre and 8 post)

Correctness Explanation
(grammar, Accompanying
usage, Corrective
citations) Comments Organization Clarity Task Audience

Pre-­C: Total mentions 117 (47%) 11 (9% of 30 (12%) 39 (16%) 12 14

(out of 251 coded corrections)
comments)
Pre-­C: # of sessions 8 5 5 8 4 7
that mention
Post-­C: Total mentions 59 (31%) 16 (27% of 42 (22%) 57 (30%) 31 23
(out of 191 total corrections)
comments)
Post-­C # of sessions 6 6 8 8 8 7
that mention

to organizational issues and their corrective illustrated by a telling increase in the number
Hutton feedback (42:59 mentions) was far smaller of co-­occurrences with references to the writ-
— than among pre-­consultants, who referenced er’s task, audience, and concerns about clarity
organization far less frequently than correct- (see Table 3). As might be expected, some
Francis
ness (a ratio of 30:117). post-­consultants’ feedback regarding “flow”
—
Equally significant are the qualitative dis- continued to offer generalized advice, whether
Hart tinctions between pre-­and post-­consultant regarding choppy sentences or the stripping
— organization-­ related feedback. Pre-­out of needless repetition. Yet a number of
Long consultants’ feedback on issues of “flow” and post-­consultants also grounded their organi-
— structure relied almost entirely on general or- zational advice in the goals of specific genres
Tyrrell ganizational rules of academic argumentation, and their organizational conventions (e.g.,
independent of specific genres, pointing most “since this is a synthesis paper”(C4)). One post-­
often to presumptively universal principles of consultant, for example, nested structural ad-
paragraphing, signposting, and transitions. vice (about both paragraphing and sequencing)
Pre-­consultants advised writers, for example, inside a strikingly sophisticated explanation of
to attend to “topic sentences” or to “synthe- how papers of this sort usually function:
siz[e] different parts of your paper together,”
and explained that such revisions would make Since this is a synthesis paper, you typically
the writing less “clunky” (C1), would keep want to explain perspectives and findings
a writer’s “insightful findings/goals” from from several papers while also giving your
“get[ting] lost” (C3), or would help a draft “flow own opinion and your own suggestions. . . .
a bit better” (C2). As with their corrective feed- After explaining information from your
back, pre-­consultants here appeared to be re- sources, you could suggest ways for that
sponding to writers’ requests for generalized information to be implemented by commu-
feedback about “flow” with equally general- nities, individuals, or organizations. . . . It
ized rules about “flow.” Indeed, only one pre-­ could be especially helpful to have a para-
consultant’s comment about organization graph dedicated to summarizing your main
co-­occurred with a mention of task, and none suggestions and supporting them with your
co-­occurred with a mention of audience.6 main sources of evidence. (C4)
By contrast, post-­ consultants’ feedback
regarding organization overall showed greater Another post-­consultant’s organizational
attention to the writers’ rhetorical situation, as advice followed a lengthy description of how
| 65 |
Writing Center Journal
Vol. 41 | No. 3 this consultant understood the two differ- genre. One pre-­consultant wrote, for example,
2023 ent genres that the writer’s paper was com- “I might suggest being specific about who had
bining (an interview and a literary analysis). which viewpoint. . . . It might help the reader
Only after explaining their confusion about know which types of people have what views
how the writer intended these two genres (or about deer” (C3), and another, “I’d add some
“approaches”) to function does the consultant text here, like ‘My methodology for research
offer any structural advice: can be seen in Figure 1. . . . Introduce the fig-
ure and tell the reader why it matters” (C2). To
It’s still unclear if your interviews with be sure, many post-­consultant clarity-­related
counselors is your second approach or not. comments also referenced this general reader;
It’s implied earlier that it is separate from but a number (6 out of 14) instead prompted
your literary analysis, but it’s not men- the writer to consider their specific intended
tioned here as a second approach. Make audience. C3 wrote, for example, “I’m not sure
sure it’s clear what each approach is. Each if your intended audience will know what all
one should have its own paragraph. (C1) these types are without explanation. If they
wouldn’t I would suggest briefly describing
Arguably, the rhetorical specificity of post-­ what they are”; and C4 wrote, “You do an ex-
consultants’ structural feedback was enabled cellent job explaining scientific concepts to an
by post-­writers’ more detailed descriptions of uninformed audience. I haven’t studied very
their task and audience—what writers were much of this field, but I can understand you
Hutton specifically working toward and the specific easily—awesome work.” As our findings fur-
— audience expectations that should guide writ- ther show, the rise in clarity and task-­related
ers’ revisions, and thus consultant feedback. co-­occurrences follows a similar pattern, argu-
Francis
A similar phenomenon can be observed by ably for similar reasons: that some of these
—
comparing post-­consultant and pre-­consultant consultants had more task-­and audience-­
Hart feedback regarding issues of clarity.7 Post-­ specific information to shape their feedback.
— consultants commented on clarity with al-
Long most the same frequency as they made purely
— corrective comments. By comparison, pre-­ Comparing Pre-­and Post-­
Tyrrell consultants’ comments about clarity—though Writer-­Consultant Exchanges
more frequent than their comments about or-
ganization—were made less than a third as Worth remembering is that both pre-­and
often as corrective feedback. In addition, pre-­ post-­data sets were produced by the same
consultant clarity feedback co-­occurred with set of consultant-­participants; what changed
other concerns less frequently than post-­ was not the consultants or writers, but the
consultant feedback (see Table 4). While in platforms and information with which these
both cases the majority of clarity comments consultants and writers were working. Given
showed no co-­ occurrences with mentions this, our data suggests that when writers were
of task, audience, or organization, the rise in prompted to provide more detailed informa-
co-­occurrences among post-­consultants still tion about their concerns and rhetorical situ-
seems significant, especially given the atten- ation, consultants’ written feedback became
dant rise among post-­writers’ newly detailed more responsively varied and rhetorically
descriptions of audience and task. minded in turn. The pre-­consultant feedback
Pre-­and post-­ consultant clarity data we examined—which, as our pre-­writer data
is especially telling in relation to the issue suggests, was most probably constructed with
of audience. While our data shows five pre-­ little information about rhetorical context—
consultant co-­ occurrences between clarity was highly corrective and reliant on general-
and audience, all of these referenced only ized rules about “readability” and academic
a general reader, not the specific reader for argumentation. Our data’s post-­ consultant
whom the piece of writing was intended, and feedback, by contrast, was more often tem-
who would bring specific expectations to this pered with detailed information about a
| 66 |
Writing Center Journal
Vol. 41 | No. 3 Table 3. Co-­Occurrences with Organization (percentages rounded to nearest full digit)
2023 Total References
to Organization Task Audience Clarity

Pre Consultants 30 1 (3%) 0 (0%) 1 (3%)

Post Consultants 42 17 (40%) 3 (7%) 7 (17%)

Table 4. Co-­Occurrences with Clarity (percentages rounded to nearest full digit)

Total References
to Clarity Task Audience Organization

Pre Consultants 39 2 (5%) 5 (13%) 1 (3%)

Post Consultants 57 10 (18%) 14 (25%) 7 (12%)

writer’s aims and constraints, and thus relied and that revision consists mainly of properly
less often on presumptively universal rules applying universal rules about grammar or ar-
about effective organization or assumptions gumentation. Comparing pre-­to post-­writer
about what might constitute a general read- data, however, offers a different explanation
Hutton er’s response. While our data shows that, for of this tendency—whereby the frequency of
— both pre-­and post-­consultants, the amount writers’ correction-­focused RFFs can be un-
of corrective feedback given still outweighed derstood to have resulted instead from most
Francis
attention to other concerns—and this, signifi- writers having little language of their own to
—
cantly, despite post-­writers asking for correc- describe their main writing and revising con-
Hart tive feedback less frequently-­-­our data also cerns. Indeed, as shown by our post-­writer
— shows post-­ consultants’ feedback becom- data, a carefully scaffolded appointment
Long ing far more dimensional and rhetorical once form that both prompts the writer to de-
— the consulting ecosystem in which they were scribe their task and audience, and offers an
Tyrrell working was expanded to include more de- array of potential writing concerns to con-
tailed information from writers about their un- sider for revision, can elicit from writers more
derstanding of their task and audience. precise and rhetorically minded RFFs. Our
pre-­consultant data, moreover, shows that,
lacking clear guidance or context from writ-
Conclusion ers, asynchronous consultants tended to fall
back on corrective feedback and explana-
Our findings emphasize the significant role tions that relied mainly on generalized “rules”
appointment forms can play in shaping the about writing. Yet when provided with more
dialogic, rhetorical nature of asynchronous specific information about a writer’s task and
consultations. This study also contributes to concerns—­­as our appointment form appears
the scholarship’s desire to define such writ- to enable—post-­ consultants’ asynchronous
ing center operations in “academic terms” feedback became both more holistic and rhe-
(Denton, 2017)—especially important as on- torically minded. Overall, our findings suggest
line consulting grows more prevalent. At one that—especially when combined with atten-
level, our pre-­writer data seems consistent tion to the impact of different commenting
with studies showing that the writers who strategies—a few careful changes to an ap-
come to writing centers often appear overly pointment form prompt can shape asynchro-
focused on grammar, editing, and error cor- nous consulting sessions in far-­reaching ways,
rection (Elder, 2017; Enders, 2009; Young, elevating the interaction between writer and
2005), highlighting their purported miscon- consultant from a mostly corrective exercise
ception that writing centers are “fix-­it” shops to a more rhetorically sophisticated exchange.
| 67 |
Writing Center Journal
Vol. 41 | No. 3 To be sure, and as many writing center Notes
2023 studies have shown, there will still exist a
1. In some cases, many of these researchers have
number of writers whose fundamental con- argued, asynchronous consulting may be preferable
cerns involve corrective and sentence-­ level to live or in-­person, allowing both consultants and
feedback (Elder, 2017; Enders, 2009; Raymond writers to process information at their own pace.
& Quinn, 2012). Moreover, many situations 2. As Thompson and Mackiewicz’s study illus-
exist in which line-­by-­line editing and correc- trates, experienced consultants and writers spend
tions are appropriate (Harris & Pemberton, significant time during in-­ person sessions co-­
1995; Linville, 2009; Powers, 1993), or when constructing “common ground” (2014, p. 46) about
sentence-­level and global issues are inextri- what a writer “needs, wants, knows, and under-
cable (Shattuck, 1994). Even so, a review of stands about an assignment” and “wants to do in
training manuals supports most writing cen- the conference” (p. 42).
3. Since writers’ RFFs and consultant feedback
ters’ preferences—like ours—that consultants
are often detailed and potentially traceable to spe-
should offer corrections only after more rhe-
cific students, we considered these to be writing
torical concerns have been addressed (Gilles-
samples that required participants’ consent, and
pie & Lerner, 2008; McAndrew & Reigstad, requiring consent certainly shaped the smaller size
2001; Ryan & Zimmerelli, 2016). In line with of our data set, at least compared to other studies
these values, our findings reveal a new way of that have examined input forms and RFFs (Bond,
scaffolding asynchronous writer-­consultant 2019; Nowacek & Hughes, 2015; Severino et al.,
exchanges and encouraging more rhetorically 2009). Yet while our sample size is small and hardly
Hutton robust RFFs and consultant feedback. generalizable to all of our writing centers’ writer
Appointment forms are thus one means of RFFs or consultant feedback, the findings are still
—
narrowing the gap between the kinds of feed- suggestive about the far-­reaching impact of ap-
Francis pointment form design.
back writers often request by default and the
— 4. Beth Hewett’s recommendations in The Online
valued forms of feedback that consultants are
Hart Writing Conference divide writing-­revising concerns
trained to provide. To ensure that consultant
— into the similar categories of “correctness,” “form,”
feedback is more rhetorically effective and dia-
and “fluency” (2010, p. 92). The alternate terms we
Long logic, even when tied to grammar, writing cen-
use in our analysis (“organization” and “clarity”) par-
— ters can structure appointment forms to help allel the terms we use in our appointment form and
Tyrrell writers to more explicitly and precisely “explain CRF, and whose meaning we believe college stu-
the assignment and concerns in an email or on- dents would more readily glean than “form” and
line form” (Hewett, 2010). Further research “fluency.”
is certainly needed on other writing centers’ 5. Though it is beyond the scope of this study, it is
scaffolding of these exchanges and the ex- worth mentioning that while the use of the word
tent to which this scaffolding appropriately “flow” is common to writing center consultations,
aligns with a variety of writing center princi- more research is needed to better understand how
ples and writer-­specific goals. It would also be writers—and by extension, consultants and writing
beneficial to know whether and how different centers more largely—define this term.
6. Pre consultants’ explanations for these sug-
appointment forms might “prime” writers to
gestions—perhaps because they lacked specific in-
accept and use different kinds of consultant
formation about a writer’s audience and task—also
feedback when writers return to their drafts to
tended to rely on affective, personal, and even un-
revise. We hope that this study into the medi- certain language about the “feel” of a sentence or
ated nature of asynchronous writer-­consultant paragraph: “This is an interesting point but hasn’t
exchanges will inspire more attention to the been brought up before. I feel like this idea could be
varied ways that different platforms and differ- an interesting paragraph on its own” (C1); “This feels
ent kinds of writer input can significantly shape like it could be a good place to start a new para-
the nature of consultant feedback. Especially graph, at least in my view. :)” (C2); or “At the begin-
as our understanding of the specific benefits of ning, it takes a while to understand that what you
asynchronous consulting continues to develop, are really interested in is how to manage the deer
such knowledge will be increasingly valuable. problem. I might mention that a little sooner” (C3).

| 68 |
Writing Center Journal
Vol. 41 | No. 3 7. Clarity codes are not mere corrections but Elder, C. L. (2017). Dear WOL mail: Centering
2023 feedback about clarifying intended meaning, e.g., writers’ concerns in online tutor preparation.
“Do you mean more nondiscrimination policies?” Writing Center Journal, 36(2), 147–173.
(Pre C4) or “I like this title much more—it’s Enders, D. (2009). What we talk about: A longitudi-
more concise yet descriptive of what you specifi- nal study of writing tasks students and writing
cally plan to focus on” (Post C1). centers discuss. WLN: A Journal of Writing Center
Scholarship, 33(9), 6–10.
Gallagher, D., & Maxfield, A. (2019). Learning online
References
to tutor online. In K. G. Johnson & T. Roggen-
Adler-­Kassner, L., & Wardle, E. (2015). Naming what buck (Eds.), How we teach writing tutors: A WLN
we know: Threshold concepts of writing studies. digital edited collection. Retrieved May 18, 2021,
University Press of Colorado. from [Link]
Bell, L. E. (2006). Preserving the rhetorical nature /GallagherMaxfield​.html
of tutoring when going online. In C. Murphy & Geisler, C. (2004). Analyzing streams of language:
B. Stay (Eds.), The writing center director’s Twelve steps to the systematic coding of text, talk,
resource book (pp. 351–358). Routledge. and other verbal data. Pearson.
Bell, L. (2019). Examining tutoring strategies in Gillespie, P., & Lerner, N. (2008). The Longman guide
asynchronous screencast tutorials. ROLE to peer tutoring (2nd ed.). Pearson.
(Research in Online Literacy Education), 2(2). Harris, M., & Pemberton, M. (1995). Online writing
Bell, L. (2020). Rethinking what to preserve as labs (OWLs): A taxonomy of options and issues.
writing centers move online. Connecting Computers & Composition, 12(2), 145–159.
Writing Centers Across Borders: A Blog of WLN: Retrieved July 5, 2021, from [Link]
Hutton A Journal of Writing Center Scholarship. Retrieved .1016​/8755​-­­4615​(95​)90003​-­­9
— June 23, 2021, from [Link] Hewett, B. (2010). The online writing conference:
Francis /2020​/07​/20​/rethinking​-­­what​-­­to​-­­preserve​-­­as​ A guide for teachers and tutors. Heinemann.
-­­writing​-­­centers​-­­move​-­­online/ Kavadlo, J. (2013). The message is the medium:
—
Blau, S. R., Hall, J., & Strauss T. (1998). Exploring Electronically helping writing tutors help
Hart
the tutor/client conversation: A linguistic electronically. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal,
— analysis. Writing Center Journal, 9(1), 19–48. 10(2). Retrieved April 2, 2020 from [Link]
Long Bond, C. (2019). “I need help on many things .praxisuwc​.com​/kavadlo​-­­102
— please”: A case study analysis of first-­generation Linville, C. (2009). Editing line by line. In S. Bruce &
college students’ use of the writing center. B. Rafoth (Eds.), ESL writers: A guide for writing
Tyrrell
Writing Center Journal, 37(2), 161–194. Retrieved center tutors (2nd ed., pp. 116–131). Heinemann.
June 23, 2021, from [Link] Lunsford, A. (1991). Collaboration, control, and the
/stable​/26922021 idea of a writing center. Writing Center Journal,
Breuch, L. K. (2005). The idea(s) of an online writing 12(1), 3–10.
center: In search of a conceptual model. Writing Martini, R. H. (2019). It’s not what you say, it’s how
Center Journal, 25(2), 21–38. Retrieved June 17, you shape it: Investigating commenting styles
2020, from www​.jstor​.org​/stable​/43442221 in asynchronous online writing center consul­
Brooks, J. (1991). Minimalist tutoring: Making the tations. ROLE (Research in Online Literacy
student do all the work. Writing Lab Newsletter, Education), 2(2).
15(6), 1–4. McAndrew, D. A., & Reigstad, T. J. (2001). Tutoring
Clark, I., & Healy, D. (1996). Are writing centers writing: A practical guide for conferences.
ethical? WPA: Writing Program Administration, Boynton/Cook.
20(1/2), 32–38. Nowacek, R. S., & Hughes, B. (2015). Threshold
Cooper, G., Bui, K., & Riker, L. (2005). Protocols and concepts in the writing center: Scaffolding the
process in online tutoring. In B. Rafoth (Ed.), development of tutor expertise. In L. Adler-­
A tutor’s guide: Helping writers one to one Kassner & E. Wardle (Eds.), Naming what we
(2nd ed., pp. 129–139). Heinemann. know: Threshold concepts of writing studies
Denton, K. (2017). Beyond the lore: A case for (pp. 171–185). University Press of Colorado.
asynchronous online tutoring research. Writing Powers, J. (1993). Bending the “rules”: Diversifying
Center Journal, 36(2), 175–203. the model conference for the ESL writer. WLN: A
Earles, T. (2019). How I learned to stop worrying Journal of Writing Center Scholarship, 17(6), 1–3.
and love asynchronous online tutoring. ROLE Raymond, L., & Quinn, Z. (2012.) What a writer
(Research in Online Literacy Education, 2(2). wants: Assessing fulfillment of student goals in
| 69 |
Writing Center Journal
Vol. 41 | No. 3 writing center tutoring sessions. Writing Center Weirick, J., Davis, T., & Lawson, D. (2017). Writer
2023 Journal, 32(1). L1/L2 status and asynchronous online writing
Ryan, L., & Zimmerelli, L. (2016.) The Bedford guide center feedback: Consultant response patterns.
for writing tutors (6th ed.). Macmillan. Learning Assistance Review (TLAR), 22(2), 9–38.
Severino, C., Swenson, J., & Zhu, J. (2009). A Wetzl, A., & Lieske, P. (2020). The benefits and
comparison of online feedback requests by limitations of online peer feedback: Instructors’
non-­native English-­speaking and native perception of a regional campus online writing
English-­speaking writers. Writing Center Journal, lab. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 18(1).
29(1), 106–129. Retrieved May 18, 2021, from Retrieved July 5, 2021, from [Link]
[Link] uwc​.com​/181​-­­wetzl​-­­lieske
Shattuck, R. S. (1994). The reciprocity of high and White-­Farnham, J., Dyehouse, J., & Finer, B. S.
lower order concerns. Writing Lab Newsletter, (2012). Mapping tutorial interactions: A report
18(6), 13–14. on results and implications. Praxis: A Writing
Spooner, M. (1994). Some thoughts about online Center Journal, 9(2). Retrieved May 21, 2021,
writing labs. WLN: A Journal of Writing Center from [Link]
Scholarship, 18(6), 6–8. -­­farnham​-­­et​-­­al​-­­92
Thompson, I., & Mackiewicz, J. (2014). Questioning Young, B. R. (2005). Can you proofread this? In
in writing center conferences. Writing Center B. Rafoth (Ed.), A tutor’s guide: Helping writers
Journal, 33(2), 37–70. Retrieved May 21, 2021, one to one (2nd ed., pp. 140–147). Heinemann.
from [Link]

Hutton
— Appendix A: Redesigned Asynchronous Consulting
Francis Appointment Form (abridged)
— These are the questions we ask aside from demographic data, course and professor name, and inquiries
Hart about accessibility needs.
—
Long IN YOUR OWN WORDS, describe your writing task or assignment in detail. (Do not paste an
assignment someone else wrote.) Explain the purpose of this piece of writing and identify
—
your main readers. *(required question—open text box)
Tyrrell

Indicate what type of draft you are submitting: *(required question—checklist)

• complete first draft

• portion of a first draft
• complete revised draft
• portion of a revised draft

Your consultant can work with NO MORE than 2–3 areas of concern. Check the 2–3 from
this list that you would like to work on in this session. (check all that apply) *(required
question—checklist)

• understanding the assignment/staying on task

• using evidence and secondary sources
• developing ideas
• organization and structure
• meeting genre conventions/audience expectations
• transitions and flow
• clarifying arguments
• word choice
• sentence-­level questions
• tone & style
| 70 |
Writing Center Journal
Vol. 41 | No. 3 • grammar (e.g. parts of speech)
2023 • mechanics (e.g. punctuation)
• formatting citations (specify which style—MLA/APA/CMS)

In the space below, explain in detail the specific areas that you are asking for feedback on.
*(required—open text box)

To help your consultant provide detailed feedback, consider highlighting or commenting on

areas of concern in the draft you upload. Indicate here where you have inserted highlights
or comments. (non-­required—open text box)

Appendix B: Redesigned Asynchronous Client Report Form

Main Topics Discussed in Today’s Session *(required—open text box)
In particular, the session focused on (check all that apply) *(required—checklist)
• understanding the assignment/staying on task
• using evidence and secondary sources
• developing ideas
• organization and structure
Hutton
• meeting genre conventions/audience expectations
— • transitions and flow
Francis • clarifying arguments
— • word choice
Hart • sentence-­level questions
— • tone & style
• grammar (e.g. parts of speech)
Long
• mechanics (e.g. punctuation)
—
• formatting citations (specify which style—MLA/APA/CMS)
Tyrrell

Specific Plans and Suggestions for Revision and Future Writing

*(required—open text box)

| 71 |