The Korean Association for the Study of English Language and Linguistics

Current Issue

Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 20

[ Article ]
Korea Journal of English Language and Linguistics - Vol. 20, No. 1, pp.829-850
Abbreviation: KASELL
ISSN: 1598-1398 (Print)
Print publication date 31 Mar 2020
Received 28 Oct 2020 Revised 06 Dec 2020 Accepted 15 Dec 2020
DOI: https://doi.org/10.15738/kjell.20..202012.829

A Comparison of a Novice Writing Tutor with an Experienced Tutor: Focusing on Changes in Their Interactions with Tutees
Sookyung Cho ; Dahee Kim** ; Cheol Baek
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies
Hankuk University of Foreign Studies

** 1st author: Sookyung Cho; Corresponding author: Dahee Kim


Copyright 2020 KASELL
This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Funding Information ▼

Abstract

This study examines how a novice writing tutor changes following his interactions with his tutee, in particular, by comparing with a more experienced tutor. To date, first language (L1) writing scholars have emphasized the roles of writing tutors as collaborators or facilitators and thereby suggested that they gain personal or professional growth as writing experts. However, while focusing on L2 tutees’ different needs from their L1 counterparts, second language (L2) writing scholars have argued for tutors’ more directive roles and thus have not paid full attention as to what they may learn from their interactions with L2 tutees. Drawn upon Lave and Wenger’s situated learning—learning is co-constructed by all the participants, whether they are masters or apprentices—this study tries to examine how a novice tutor’s interactional patterns change throughout a semester by comparing his interactions with a more experienced tutor’s. For this purpose, we audio-recorded 9 writing tutorials of two Korean writing tutors across one semester. Analysis of the recorded data reveals that in his first tutorial, the novice tutor was more direct, leaving little room for his tutee’s involvement in the discussion, compared to his more experienced counterpart. Yet as the tutorials progressed, he became more collaborative in his second and third tutorials. These findings shed light on tutor training by implicating that tutors become more collaborative even with L2 tutees as their experiences cumulate.


Keywords: tutor-tutee interaction, tutor feedback, second language writing, situated learning

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by Hankuk University of Foreign Studies Research Fund of 2020.


References
1. Agar, M. 1985. Institutional discourse. Text 5(3), 147-168.
2. Bailey, S. K. 2012. Tutor handbooks: Heuristic texts for negotiating difference in a globalized world. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal 9(2), 1-8.
3. Beasley, C. J. 1997. Students as teachers: The benefits of peer tutoring. In L. Pospisil and L. Willcoxson, eds., Learning through Teaching, 21-30. Perth, Australia: Murdoch University.
4. Blau, S. R. and J. Hall. 2002. Guilt-free tutoring: Rethinking how we tutor non-native-English-speaking students. The Writing Center Journal 23(1), 23-44.
5. Cohen, J. 1986. Theoretical considerations of peer tutoring. Psychology in the Schools 23(2), 175-186.
6. Defoe, D. J. and F. Caparas. 2014. Tutoring as transformative work: A phenomenological case study of tutors’ experiences. Journal of College Reading and Learning 44(2), 141-163.
7. Gillespie, P. and N. Lerner. 2000. The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Peer Tutoring. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
8. Goody, E. 1989. Learning and the division of labor. In M. Coy, ed., Anthropological Perspectives on Apprenticeship. New York: SUNY Press.
9. Hanks, W. F. 1991. Foreword by William F. Hanks. In J. Lave and E. Wenger, eds., Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation, 13-24. New York: Cambridge University Press.
10. Harris, M. 1986. Teaching one-to-one: The Writing Conference. Urbana, IL: NCTE.
11. Lave, J. and E. Wenger. 1991. Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. New York: Cambridge University Press.
12. Moussu, L. 2013. Let’s talk! ESL students’ needs and writing center philosophy. TESL Canada Journal 30(2), 55-68.
13. North, S. 1994. Revisiting “The Idea of a Writing Center”. The Writing Center Journal 15(1), 7-19.
14. Powers, J. 1993. Rethinking writing center conferencing strategies for the ESL writer. The Writing Center Journal 13(2), 39-47.
15. Plummer, L. and T. Thonus. April, 1999. Methodology as Mythology: Tutor’s Directive Instruction. Paper presented at the 21st Annual Conference of the National Writing Centers Association. Bloomington, IN.
16. Rafoth, B. 2000. Helping writers to write analytically. In B. Rafoth, ed., A Tutor’s Guide: Helping Writers One to One, 76-84. Portsmouth, ND: Boynton/Cook.
17. Roscoe, R. D. and M. T. H. Chi. 2007. Understanding tutor learning: Knowledge building and knowledge-telling in peer tutors’ explanations and questions. Review of Educational Research 77(4), 534-574.
18. Roscoe, R. D. and M. T. H. Chi. 2008. Tutor learning: The role of explaining and responding to questions. Instructional Science 36(4), 321-350.
19. 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.
20. Thonus, T. 1999a. Dominance in academic writing tutorials: Gender, language proficiency, and the offering of suggestions. Discourse and Society 10(2), 225-248.
21. Thonus, T. 1999b. How to communicate politely and be a tutor, too: NS-NNS interaction and writing center practice. Text 19(2), 253-279.
22. 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.
23. Thonus, T. 2004. What are the differences? Tutor interactions with first- and second-language writers. Journal of Second Language Writing 13(3), 227-242.
24. Thonus, T. 2014. Tutoring multilingual students: Shattering the myths. Journal of College Reading and Learning 44(2), 200-213.
25. Williams, J. 2004. Tutoring and revision: Second language writers in the writing center. Journal of Second Language Writing 13(3), 173-201.
26. Williams, J. 2005. 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, 37-65. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
27. Wingate, M. 2001. Writing centers as sites of academic culture. The Writing Center Journal 21(2), 7-20.
28. Young, R. F. and E. R. Miller. 2004. Learning as changing participation: Discourse roles in ESL writing conferences. Modern Language Journal 88(4), 519-535.
29. Yu, L. 2020. Investigating L2 writing through tutor-tutee interactions and revisions: A case study of a multilingual writer in EAP tutorials. Journal of Second Language Writing 48, 1-14.

Cho, SookyungProfessor, Department of English Linguistics and Language TechnologyHankuk University of Foreign Studies107 Imun-ro, Dongdaemun-guSeoul, KoreaTel: 02) 2173-3194Email: sookyungcho@hufs.ac.kr

Kim, DaheePh. D. student, Department of English LinguisticsHankuk University of Foreign Studies107 Imun-ro, Dongdaemun-guSeoul, KoreaTel: 02) 2173-3194Email: tynuknow@nate.com

Baek, CheolPh.D. student, Department of English LinguisticsHankuk University of Foreign Studies107 Imun-ro, Dongdaemun-guSeoul, KoreaTel: 02) 2173-3194Email: qorcjfqorcjf@daum.net