Your browser does not support the PubReader view.
Go to this page to see a list of supporting browsers.
The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics
[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 23, No. 0, pp.160-174
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print) 2586-7474 (Online)
Print publication date 30 Jan 2023
Received 12 Jan 2023 Revised 18 Feb 2023 Accepted 21 Feb 2023
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.23..202302.160

Online vs. Offline Interactions During Writing Tutorials: Focusing on Korean Learners of English

Sookyung Cho
Professor, Dept. of English Linguistics and Language Technology, Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Tel: 02) 2173-3194 sookyungcho@hufs.ac.kr


© 2023 KASELL All rights reserved
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons License, which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

This study aims to explore differences found both at the surface level and at the interactional level between online and offline writing tutorials at a university located in Seoul, Korea. To date, tutors’ online interactions with tutees have not been examined as much as the offline ones, despite the surge of online teaching since the global outbreak of COVID-19. In order to examine how online and offline conditions affect tutor-tutee interactions, this study audio-recorded a total of 16 online and offline writing tutorials conducted by four different Korean writing tutors. Each tutor met two tutees twice— meeting one online and the other offline at first, and then the other way around for the second. Additionally, the tutees’ writings, including their first and revised drafts, were collected to better understand the tutor-tutee interactions. The surface-level comparison reveals that backchannels and overlaps hinder the communication in online tutorials and that tutees have limited access to the shared text because of technical limitations inherent to online communication. The interactional-level comparison shows that more collaborations occur during the offline tutorials than during the online counterpart. Based on these findings, this study argues for further technical development in the area of online courses, and suggests that both tutors and tutees need training and experience in order to efficiently communicate online.

Keywords:

online, offline, writing tutorials, tutor-tutee interactions

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2022.

References

  • Agar, M. 1985. Institutional discourse. Text 5(3), 147-168. [https://doi.org/10.1515/text.1.1985.5.3.147]
  • Bailey, S. K. 2012. Tutor handbooks: Heuristic texts for negotiating difference in a globalized world. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal 9(2), 1-8.
  • Bavelas, J. B., L. Coates and T. Johnson. 2000. Listeners as co-narrators. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 79(6), 941-952. [https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.941]
  • Casal, J. E. and J. J. Lee. 2014. Distance tutoring: Online writing center for L2 university students. TESOL SLWIS Newsletter, 10(1). Retrieved from http://newsmanager.commpartners.com/tesolslwis/issues/2014-03-05/7.html
  • Casal, J. E. and J. J. Lee. 2018. Discourse practices of an online writing tutor: A reflective exploration. In G. Kessler, ed., TESOL Voices: Online and Hybrid Classroom Education, 41-48. Alexandria, VA: TESOL Press.
  • Cho, S. 2019. The strategic use of withdrawal by Korean tutors of English writing. The Journal of Asia TEFL 18(1), 1-22. [https://doi.org/10.18823/asiatefl.2021.18.1.6.95]
  • Cho, S. 2020. A comparison of a novice writing tutor with an experienced tutor: Focusing on changes in their interactions with tutees. Korean Journal of English Language and Linguistics 20, 829-850.
  • Cooper, G., K. Bui and L. Riker. 2005. Protocols and process in online tutoring. In B. Rafoth, ed., A Tutor’s Guide: Helping Writers One to One, 29-139. Porthsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.
  • Daud, N. M. and A. M. Zubairi. 2006. Online and offline writing course. In M. K. Kabilan, N. A. Razak and M. A. Embi, eds., Online Teaching and Learning in ELT, 7-20. Pulau Pinang: Penerbit Universiti Sains Malaysia.
  • Gillespie, P. and N. Lerner. 2000. The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Peer Tutoring. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
  • Harris, M. 1986. Teaching One-on-One: The Writing Conference. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
  • Hewett, B. 2010. The Online Writing Conference: A Guide for Teachers and Tutors. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton-Cook.
  • Jones, R. H., A. Garralda, C.S. David, D. C. S. Li and G. Lock. 2005. Interactional dynamics in on-line and face-to-face peer-tutoring sessions for second language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 15(1), 1-23. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2005.12.001]
  • Jongsma, M. V., D. J. Scholten and M. Meeter. 2022. Online versus offline peer feedback in higher education: A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Computing Research, Online First. [https://doi.org/10.1177/07356331221114181]
  • Julia Lozano, C. and A. Corando. 2022. Heritage Spanish Speakers' Writing Development: Online vs. In-Person Peer-Tutoring Interventions. Íkala: Revista de Lenguaje y Cultura 27(1), 49-65. [https://doi.org/10.17533/udea.ikala.v27n1a03]
  • Kourbani, V. 2020. Online tutoring: From writing center to virtual education hub. In J. Essid and B. McTague, eds., Writing Centers at the Center of Changes, 60-82. New York: Routledge [https://doi.org/10.4324/9780429425158-4]
  • North, S. 1994. Revisiting ‘the idea of a writing center. The Writing Center Journal 15(1), 7-19. [https://doi.org/10.7771/2832-9414.1313]
  • Plummer, L. and T. Thonus. 1999. Methodology as Mythology: Tutor’s Directive Instruction. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the National Writing Centers Association. Bloomington, IN.
  • Rafoth, B. 2009. Responding online. In S. Bruce and B. Rafoth, eds., ESL Writers: A Guide for Writing Center Tutors, 149-160. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton Cook.
  • Sabatino, L. A. 2014. Interactions on the Online Writing Center: Students’ Perspectives. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Indiana University of Pennsylvania.
  • Shamoon, L. K. and D. H. Burns. 1999. Plagiarism, rhetorical theory, and the writing center: New approaches, new locations. In L. Buranen and A. M. Roy, eds., Perspectives on Plagiarism and Intellectual Property in a Postmodern World, 183-192. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.
  • Thonus, T. 2001. Triangulation in the writing center: Tutor, tutee, and instructor perception of the tutor’s role. Writing Center Journal 22(1), 59-81. [https://doi.org/10.7771/2832-9414.1491]
  • Thonus, T. 2004. What are the differences: Tutor interactions with first- and second-language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 13(3), 227–242. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.012]
  • Williams, J. 2004. Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Second Language Writing 13(3), 173–201. [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jslw.2004.04.009]
  • Williams, J. 2016. Writing center interaction: Institutional discourse and the role of peer tutors. In K. Bardovi-Harlig and B. S. Hartford, eds., Interlanguage Pragmatics: Exploring Institutional Talk, 37-66. New York: Routledge.
  • Worm, A. 2020. Believing in the online writing center. The Writing Center Journal 38(1/2), 231-260. [https://doi.org/10.7771/2832-9414.1926]