What are the differences?Tutor interactions with first- and second-language writers

Abstract

This paper reports on a decade of research into the nature of interactions between writing center tutors and native speaker (NS) and non-native speaker (NNS) tutees. It explores and describes the structure of this interaction and the behaviors of NNS tutees, and of tutors when interacting with both NS and NNS tutees. It characterizes writing center tutorials with NNSs as a balancing act among potentially conflicting forces. Finally, it suggests applications of these insights to tutor preparation and practice. #

Tutoring Multilingual Students: Shattering the Myths

“…found that tutors' direct questions and answers corresponded with multilingual writers' satisfaction with tutoring sessions (Thonus, 2004). In a study of multilingual writers' revisions after tutoring, Williams (2004) found that tutors' explicit scaffolding resulted in improved L2 texts.…”

Could you check my grammar? The forbidden request in the university writing center

“…It is an issue about how to teach writing. Although the process-oriented instructional approach has been settled for the past several decades, issues and debates about the effectiveness of grammar instruction for L2 writers is still ongoing (Bell & Elledge, 2008;William & Severino, 2004;Thonus, 2004;Myers, 2003;William, 2002;Bookman, 2002;Cogie, Strain, & Lorinskas, 1999;Ronesi, 1995;Severino, 1993;Harris & Silva, 1993). The no proofreading policy is a procedural requirement for the process-oriented instruction that the contemporary writing center pursues and the debate of the effectiveness is the debate about explicit vs. implicit, directive vs. non-directive, product-oriented vs. process-oriented instructional styles (Kim, 2014).…”

Acquaintanceship, familiarity, and coordinated laughter in writing tutorials

“…In other words, it is not necessarily the case that a student's repeated contact with the same tutor will result in more positive personal interaction. If laughter signals affiliation based on factors constitutive of familiarity, perhaps it is these factors, not only acquaintanceship or the frequency of contact with the same tutor, which occasion more positive personal interaction (Thonus, 2002(Thonus, , 2004. Houts-Smith (2007) claimed that laughter, first a response to the incongruity of expectations with perceived reality, could also become a response to points of similarity.…”