1. Introduction

[1] From its inception as a consulting model in the late 1990s, online consulting, particularly asynchronous consulting, has been met with resistance. Despite the relative popularity of online consultations (as well as for-fee online consultation programs, such as SmartThinking), a few scholars are still resistant to providing online consultations in a writing center. In an article for The Writing Center Journal on conceptual models in online environments, Kastman Breuch (2005), for instance, views online consultations as antithetical to the spirit and mission of writing centers. Writing centers, as described by Lunsford and Ede (1990) in an article for Rhetoric Review on gendered rhetoric in writing centers, are centered on human interaction facilitated through conversation. There seems to be a pervasive fear that something will be lost in the transition from in-person to online writing support. Yet, as technology improves and more students enrollin online courses,[1] writing center practitioners are actively investigating methods to regulate, improve, and standardize online consultation practices (Hewett and DePew, 2015; Kavaldo, 2013; Peguesse, 2013; Neaderhiser and Wolfe, 2009; Shapiro, 2014).

[2] The Ohio State University (OSU) Writing Center's asynchronous online support system has evolved in response to internal observations and client feedback, as well as research and scholarship from other writing centers, to accommodate both clients and consultants. Over the past five years, the Writing Center at OSU has developed and implemented three distinct models, on three different primary online platforms, to provide asynchronous online support: two-step asynchronous “Async” consultations (2014–2016), “Drop-Off” consultations (2016–present), and the Online Accountability Writing Group (2017–present). In examining the five-year process of implementing different versions of asynchronous support, we ultimately found that the asynchronous consultation model was most effective for clients when it resembled a less-structured, in-person consultation model as opposed to a more complicated and structured, course-based model. Similarly, survey findings and engagement analytics, collected longitudinally through an IRB-approved study, found that a less structured environment also helped encourage participants’ goal setting and progress sharing, which, in turn, led to higher levels of engagement through participation and retention. Ironically, in order to establish a more collaborative online environment, we needed to remove barriers to engagement, such as required assignments, which resulted in a less structured environment.

[3] By sharing findings from The Ohio State University's asynchronous online writing center support models, we hope to fill a gap in research and share findings with other writing centers who are developing asynchronous consultation models. We also respond to scholars who criticize online consulting because it does not prioritize a collaborative process or clients' needs (Baker, 1994; Breuch, 2005; Harris, 2000; Lunsford and Ede, 1990; Spooner, 1994) by demonstrating that asynchronous writing support, particularly through online writing groups, is actually able to provide similar levels of support as face-to-face support models. Because of our study's findings, as well as the growing proportion of credit-bearing enrollments that online and distance education comprises, online writing support should play an increasingly important role in current educational models. Additionally, asynchronous support models offer flexibility and greater access to returning and adult learners, thereby increasing access to higher education for these populations.

2. Literature Review

[4] In the literature, scholars debate the effectiveness of asynchronous writing consultations in comparison to face-to-face (f2f) online consultations. As we found at OSU, the transition from f2f online consultations to asynchronous online consultations can be challenging because what works in real time might fail to capture the attention or engagement of clients online. Some scholars support f2f online consultations but remain resistant to asynchronous online consultations (Baker, 1994; Spooner, 1994; Harris, 2000). Other scholars have compared the benefits that arise from having less stressful learning environments in asynchronous meetings to the ease of communication made possible by direct interactions in f2f meetings (Ho and Savignon, 2007; Hrastinski, 2008; McBrien et al., 2009; Kozar and Lum, 2015). These scholars additionally raise ethical questions about drop-off consultation models, including that consultants may offer feedback that is too pointed through this medium.

[5] Additionally, only a few studies focus on the development and implementation of the particular type of asynchronous online consultation support offered in online writing groups. At Macquarie University in Sydney, Australia, Olga Kozar andJuliet Lum (2015) conducted one of the very few studies that focuses specifically on asynchronous online writing groups. Their findings were published in Quality in Higher Education. However, in concluding that students were happiest when asynchronous groups also incorporated synchronous support, Kozar andLum do not provide many resources to help other writing centers develop fully asynchronous writing groups. Furthermore, we found that the incorporation of synchronous support in asynchronous writing groups was consistently under-utilized by participants at OSU.

3. Background and Context

[6] In January 2015, the OSU Writing Center launched the first iteration of asynchronous online writing consultations since the center's inception in the 1970s. The timeline documenting this transition is visible in Figure 1. Initially unpopular, asynchronous consultations underwent several transitions in areas such as marketing and scheduling. Over two years, asynchronous online sessions evolved from a seven-day two-step process (Appendix A); to a five-day two-step process (Appendix B); to a streamlined and simplified one-day one-step process (Appendix C).

[7] The first two Async models included two-step feedback processes that required clients to revise their writing in between the first and second rounds of feedback provided by the tutor. The first Async model took seven days to complete. Clients would submit their writing on Monday and receive the final round of feedback on Sunday. The second Async model condensed this process to five days, starting on Monday and ending on Friday. This two-step Async model was never as popular as face-to-face (f2f) consultations. Although attempting to recreate the collaborative aspects of a f2f session, the two-step process proved to be bulky, time-consuming, and ultimately less engaging for clients. Typically, clients would not complete the second step of the Async process, thereby “no-showing” under the then-current tracking and engagement policies. F2f consultations, on the other hand, did not require a follow-up session within a prescribed seven-day or five-day period. Thus, in trying to establish an environment similar to f2f consulting, the two-step Async consulting model failed to capture the sustained engagement of clients, which led to under-utilization and client attrition. The third Async model, “Drop-Off Consultations,” closely followed the in-person model, in that tutors offered one round of feedback to clients in 45-minute “sessions.”

[8] We ultimately found the one-step Drop-Off model to be most effective insofar as clients utilized it frequently and persistently. After a year, two-step Async consultations were replaced entirely by one-step Drop-Off Consultations. The one-step Drop-Off consultation model is effective for OSU because it retains many of the aspects of f2f consultations. Drop-Off consultations, like f2f consultations, are 45 minute, one-step consultations that do not require multiple submissions or multiple rounds of feedback. Additionally, in both f2f and Drop-Off consultations, tutors offer a variety of marginal comments as well as revision plans with encouragement to re-submit revised materials under another appointment. Both types of consultations also follow the same formal guidelines for providing feedback, such as setting an agenda, offering encouragement and specific modeled feedback, providing advice (rather than directions) for revision possibilities, and encouraging continued engagement with WC services. Finally, in Drop-Off sessions, tutors are trained to accommodate clients' specific feedback requests, much like in synchronous sessions. This model ultimately enables clients to move with ease between in-person and Online Drop-Off consultations, as both types of sessions now share similar models. This streamlining also makes hiring consultants for these sites more seamless, though they still do require some additional training.

[9] Flexibility rather than control ultimately proved to be critical in fostering engagement in the consulting process. Where the Async model failed to take hold was in the transition from the first round of submission and feedback to the second round of submission and feedback. Clients either did not understand the process, could not engage in the process, or did not want to engage in the process. Whatever the case may be, eliminating the second step and establishing similar practices to f2f sessions helped create continuity across different support services, which encouraged cross-service usage, between drop-off sessions and synchronous ones.

4. Online Accountability Writing Group

[10] In Ohio State's Writing Center, there is a common trend of moving from structured online learning environments to less structured ones. After assessing and developing our Drop-Off consultation model, we added an Online Accountability Writing Group (hereafter termed “Async Writing Group”) to our group writing support services. In the remainder of the article, we discuss our observations and assessments of the participation, engagement, and writing habits of graduate and postdoctoral writers across four semesters of the Async Writing Group at OSU. In transitioning the OSU Writing Center's incredibly popular face-to-face writing group model to an asynchronous online platform, we found that in a less structured environment, community is formed through low-stakes interactions that allow individuals to engage in hands-on learning and, potentially, self-discovery. Furthermore, we found that the incorporation of synchronous support in asynchronous writing groups was consistently under-utilized by participants at OSU.

[11] Many studies have been conducted that gauge the effectiveness of f2f writing groups. Scholars seem to agree that f2f doctoral writing groups benefit graduate students, both academically and socially (Ruggles et al.,1985; Heinrich et al., 1997; Lunsford and Ede, 1990; Carr, 2000; Golde, 2005; Aitchison and Lee, 2006; Maher et al., 2008; Aitchison, 2009; Ferguson, 2009; Aitchison, 2010; Pearson et al., 2011; Phillips, 2012; Jones, 2013; UBC, 2014; Kozar and Lum, 2015; McMurray, 2017). Many of the studies note the particular social benefits writing groups can provide for graduate students. For instance, in the article they published in Quality in Higher Education about their study on asynchronous online writing groups, Kozar and Lum (2015) suggest that social isolation could be countered if “institutions create conditions for off-campus students to feel a part of an academic community of practice” (p. 39). In their study published in the American Journal of Distance Education comparing the competencies of doctoral students on and off campus, Lindner, Dooley, and Murphy (2001) additionally note that many off-campus students could benefit from academic writing support offered through writing groups.

[12] While the general efficacy of writing groups has been researched, in her article for Praxis on graduate writing groups, McMurray (2017) identifies the lack of research into the reasons that writing groups fail or succeed. In her article for Journal of Geography in Higher Education on a thesis writing group for doctoral students, Ferguson (2009) identifies the precarious nature of graduate writing groups but does not examine the factors that contribute to the success of some groups. Ferguson suggests that writing groups “can easily collapse and disband because they often 'hinge on regular attendance' and on their members' intrinsic motivation to participate” (2009, p. 293). We believe motivation—both extrinsic and intrinsic—directly influences the success of writing groups.

[13] There is an additional significant gap in the research on asynchronous writing groups. As Kozar and Lum (2015) note in their article on asynchronous online writing groups, there are few empirical studies that assess the factors that make any type of online writing group successful or not. Kozar and Lum (2015) conducted one of the very few studies that focuses specifically on online writing groups. Basing their findings on data obtained from three online doctoral writing groups involving ten total Ph.D. candidates who participated in the groups remotely, Kozar and Lum found that 1) the online writing groups were effective with or without the involvement of a skilled facilitator, and 2) the students were happiest when the writing group incorporated synchronous communication.

[14] Due to the relatively small amount of research into the reasons for the successes and failures of writing groups—particularly online writing groups—writing centers that want to develop asynchronous writing groups won't find many resources to guide them. Nor will they find studies that gauge the efficacy of different modes of online communication in writing groups, or studies that assess the reasons some groups succeed while others fail. The current study aims to help fill this gap in the literature by presenting a successful, if still developing, approach to asynchronous online writing support in the form of the Async Writing Group.

[15] As noted by Kozar and Lum (2015) in the aforementioned study, the Online Writing Group model is an increasingly popular way to provide writing support and relief from social isolation to off-campus graduate students. The Async Writing Group was designed to provide participants with the resources and support to become more confident, more effective, and more independent writers. This new model allowed the OSU Writing Center to expand writing group enrollment while providing self-directed activities; therefore, it is a largely asynchronous model (i.e. facilitators are not present continuously) in which group members participate in the activities at different times throughout the week. Initially, the Async Writing Group was designed as a work space in which participants voluntarily opt-in to work independently and in parallel with other group members; we had hoped the f2f writing groups would function in this way, but they never did. The facilitator shared writing resources and offered time management suggestions, but otherwise took a less active role in the group dynamic. Since the group had no designated meeting space or time, and all participants were there voluntarily, individual participants were responsible for engaging with the resources and strategies. The group facilitator encouraged participants to set and meet weekly goals with minimal intervention (unless requested!) on their part.

[16] There are many reasons for developing this kind of writing group, including that it requires far fewer resources and allows for higher enrollment caps than in-person groups. Similarly, because of the platform and content, the Async Writing Group encourages self-motivation and interaction, as well as self-calibrated engagement. In other words, participants may be either passive or active in discussion posts and can choose whether to use the resources or strategies provided. In short, participants can determine how much engagement they will ultimately have with the group. This provides less strain on resource-strapped writing centers than in-person groups. Additionally, attrition is not so disastrous to group morale because enrollment is higher, and the group is self-directed rather than group-focused. Of course, as we found out, the model that we used for the Async Writing Group took a number of semesters to develop and, ultimately, required more facilitation than initially anticipated. Additionally, the non-compulsory nature of writing groups—they are informal learning spaces that often do not have course credit of grades attached to them—affected participation and retention rates.

[17] Our research questions were the following:

1. How do Asynchronous Writing Groups differ from in-person writing groups?
2. How can we assess Asynchronous Writing Groups?

5. Method

[18] The majority of Async Writing Group participants were graduate students from across the humanities, social sciences, and STEM disciplines, with a few postdoctoral researchers enrolled, each semester. About half of the participants were International students. Sixy-threepeople enrolled in an Async Writing Group across foursemesters. Because writing groups are voluntary, attrition rates can be quite high with ranges from 0% – 45%, semester by semester. The Async Writing Groups, however, had far lower attrition rates (11%), on average, than the in-person groups (23% attrition, on average) that were run in the same period. Most participants sought support with accountability and goal setting. The Async Writing Group was hosted on OSU's learning management system (LMS), Canvas. The Writing Group had multiple components to facilitate accountability, motivation, goal setting, writing support, and community. The group was conducted across several platforms, including the LMS, Mediasite, Excel, and WCOnline. During the foursemesters, the same graduate consultant facilitated these groups. Additionally, the graduate student coordinated writing groups and online writing consulting sites, including training and assessment. This study was IRB approved. Data was collected from WCOnline system usage statistics, pre-and-post Qualtrics writing group surveys, and statistics from each group's LMS site.

[19] Participation was tracked in the Summer '17, Autumn '17, and Spring '18 groups by weekly assignment submissions, posts to the discussion thread, and usage analytics from the LMS. Because assignments were not part of the Summer '18 group curriculum, participation for that group was based on engagement with the progress tracker Excel sheet, posts to the discussion thread, and usage analytics from the LMS. The Summer '18 group's engagement with tracking writing progress was broken down by the total number of participants who tracked their writing progress at least once that week (unique people) and the total number of entries that were made during the week (unique entries). Participants had the option to track their writing progress daily. In all groups, participants who did not regularly participate, over a period of three – four weeks, were removed, losing access to the LMS site and all the video lessons and resources on it.

[20] Total participation for each group was calculated by adding together the participation from each week to arrive at the total sum of participation over the whole semester. Similarly, total writing progress was calculated by adding together the number of unique entries made each week and the number of unique participants who made posts each week. Average participation was calculated by dividing the total participation by the total enrollment each semester, to arrive at the average rate of participation per participant for each group.

[21] Partly in response to these participation numbers, the Async Writing Group was modified and updated over four consecutive semesters: Summer 2017, Autumn 2017, Spring 2018, and Summer 2018. In addition to participant feedback, changes to the group were made based on pre-and-post surveys that were administered to all writing group participants. The surveys were a mixture of Likert-scale questions and open-ended questions. Assessment of participants’ engagement with each version of the Async Writing Group informed further changes and improvements to the group's structure and outcomes. In what follows, we share the structure of each semester's writing group, outcomes from each writing group, and changes that occurred in the writing groups, over time.

6. Results: An Overview of Needs and Engagement Styles of Online Writing Group Participants

[22] Each semester, participants' reactions to the Async Writing Group were measured by their responses to the pre-and-post writing group surveys. Of 22 participants who filled out a pre-writing-group survey over the four semesters, only three joined the group for support with technical aspects of writing (improving the writing process, learning strategies for revision, improving English language writing fluency, learning more about a specific type or genre of writing, or receiving feedback from someone outside of their department). The other 19 responders joined to receive support with setting regular writing goals, setting aside dedicated time and space for writing, and being provided with writing accountability.

[23] Over the four semesters, only 12 participants responded to a post-writing group survey. A quarter of these respondents (four) believed that participating in the writing group helped them achieve their writing goals. The remaining eight respondents indicated that they were dissatisfied with the group (for reasons unrelated to the group facilitator). Of the eight dissatisfied responders, only two specified the reasons for their dissatisfaction. Both responses attributed their dissatisfaction to a lack of incentive to participate in the group. One respondent noted, “It turns out that I need an in-person group to actually be held accountable.” The other respondent noted that “there was no accountability in the accountability writing group.”

6.1. Changes in Group Format Across Four Semesters

​[24] The Async Writing Group is an informal educational space (i.e. non-credit bearing elective and extracurricular), where rules such as regular attendance, which are endemic to formal educational settings, might not be successful. Therefore, changes were made over four semesters to the Online Writing Group to reflect the unique circumstances of the educational space, as well as in response to participant feedback and attendance numbers.

[25] Because of the novel nature of the online writing group model, we established course syllabi for each iteration of the group. From the first iteration of the group (Appendix D), in Summer 2017, to the current syllabus (Appendix E), many changes were made. The syllabi reflect changes made to the online group, including replacing the weekly exercise with a collaborative sheet to track writing progress.

[26] In the Summer 2017 group, the facilitator would upload a short video to the LMS each week, along with a low-stakes writing assignment, such as creating a concept map, completing a style exercise, or signing up for a bibliography program and creating a brief bibliography. Resources related to the week's theme were also uploaded. Each week, the facilitator would also have appointment-based online office hours via the LMS’ conference feature. Participants were expected to complete each week's assignment and compose a written response that was uploaded to the LMS. Responses were not graded, but the facilitator offered feedback on the tasks by request.

[27] In the Autumn 2017 Async Writing Group, assignments were made optional, rather than being one of the determiners of participation and engagement. Group participants reported looking for extra support and motivation in their own writing and noted that a required assignment wasn't helping them achieve these goals. A weekly discussion thread was also added, so that participants could track and share their weekly writing progress and goals for the upcoming week. This addition helped create community, which was, perhaps, missing from the Summer 2017 group. As Olson-Horswill (2002, p. 189) attests, discussion boards in a remote writing group can offer a space that encourages participants to think critically and communicate with each other.

[28] Between Autumn 2017 and Spring 2018, most other formal aspects of the group remained the same. The discussion thread for progress and goals, however, was expanded to include weekly questions regarding progress and goals. This was done to encourage participation and further community-building among participants in the cohort.

[29] Significant changes were made to the Summer 2018 group based on attendance and participation numbers, as well as participant feedback (Appendix E). As participants engaged with the video lesson and assignment minimally, the formal lesson plan was replaced with new components aimed to help participants keep track of their daily writing progress and weekly writing goals. The assignment component was removed altogether. Without an accompanying assignment, the video lessons were less central to group engagement. Participants collectively tracked their daily writing progress in a shared Excel spreadsheet, as well as compared their progress to other participants' progress. Additionally, the weekly progress and goals discussion thread became a more central component of the group, as weekly questions were posted in order to encourage reflection and self-assessment. Ultimately, the new interactive elements worked in tandem to encourage productivity and success among group participants in setting and meeting measurable and manageable writing goals.

6.2. Overall Participation

[30] 6.2.1. Enrollment and Total Participation. 

Enrollment and participation were tracked each semester. There were relatively similar numbers of enrollment in Summer 2017, Autumn 2017, and Spring 2018, with enrollment more than doubling for the Summer 2018 Group (Figure 2). 13 people enrolled for the Summer '17 group, 10 people enrolled for both the Autumn '17 and Spring '18 groups, and 30 people enrolled in Summer '18. Total enrollment for Summer '18 was higher than in previous semesters, due in part to increased promotion of all Writing Groups to OSU departments and advertisement in official University communications. Additionally, there were two returning participants from Spring '18.

[31] Total participation in the group each semester is reflected in Figure 2. The only trend from total participation numbers is that summer groups tend to yield lower participation per enrollee (4.5 – 4.6 engagements) than autumn (11.9 engagements) and spring terms (8.7 engagements). The total participation number, for each semester and each group, is the sum total of participation from each week.

[32] 6.2.2. Weekly Participation. 

Total participation varied week-by-week, as shown in Figure 3. Participation was initially high in the Summer '17 group but subsequently dropped and then remained consistent for the duration of the semester. Participation remained fairly consistent in the Autumn '17 group throughout most of the semester, dropping off slightly at the end. Similar to the Autumn '17 group, weekly participation in the Spring '18 group started off high, with 10 participants participating weekly for the first three weeks. By week six, participation dropped by about half, but remained steady (5–6 weekly participants) for the remaining weeks. More participants participated each week during Summer '18 than in previous groups, at an average rate of 15 people per week, though adjusting for high enrollment, the rates of participation were similar to other groups.

[33] Based on this data, we can see that participation trends differed between Summer semesters and Autumn and Spring semesters, with a more consistent participation during Autumn 2017 and Spring 2018 and a marked drop-off in participation within the last two weeks of Summer '17 and '18. In other words, writing group participation was less steady during Summer groups than groups run during the Autumn and Spring semesters.

​[34] 6.2.3. Participation Rates per Participant

​. Participation rate per participant also varied. As Figure 4 illustrates, participants engaged an average of approximately four times each over the Summer '17 and '18 semesters. We suggest that low but consistent participation is due to the group's focus on the lesson plan and mandatory assignments. The individual participation rate was much higher in the Autumn '17 group, with participants engaging an average of almost 12 times each. Participation rates were slightly lower in the Spring '18 group, with participants engaging an average of approximately 9 times. Despite the higher numbers of weekly participants during Summer '18, individual participants actually engaged almost half as frequently as in Spring '18.

6.3. Engagement in Groups by Individual Participation Metric

​[35] All four versions of the Async Writing Group required participation for continued enrollment in the LMS site and group. Figure 5 tracks the total number of engagements by each participation metric for each semester. Metrics included: discussion board posts, assignments submitted, LMS visits, and progress tracking via Excel. In the final group, the assignment metric was replaced by the progress tracking metric; however, no participant accessed the LMS site without also participating in either progress tracking or the discussion board. As shown in Figure 5, after the first group in Summer '17, there was a large decline in engagement with assignments. Conversely, discussion board posts increased.

[36] 6.3.1. Discussion Boards. 

Aside from the lesson devoted to goal setting and accountability, the Summer '17 Online Accountability Group did not offer much ongoing support for accountability and goal setting. Participants were encouraged to create new discussion threads, but after the first thread for introductions (in which every participant posted), no further discussion threads were created. Unsurprisingly, then, there were only 15 discussion posts in the semester (Figure 5), which accounted for 26% of total participation, with an average of one discussion post per participant.

[37] In the Autumn '17 Group, participation in the discussion boards quickly dwindled. With only 20 discussion posts all semester (Figure 5) over one discussion thread, discussion posts accounted for 17% of total participation.

[38] In Spring '18, however, participation increased from roughly one to three posts per participant each week (Figure 5). During this group, the discussion board was amended to focus on progress and goals. In the Spring '18 group, 48 total discussion board posts were made, which accounted for over half (55%) of entire participation in the group.

[39] Without an assignment feature for the group in Summer 2018, the discussion board was even more popular. With 76 unique posts, and 10 replies to other participants’ posts, discussion boards made up over half (56%) of the participation, with approximately 2.5 total posts per participant. The board questions were more direct and tailored to prompt reflection and response (e.g. What were the best and worst things that happened with your writing/research last week? What are your writing, research, and planning goals for the coming week? What citation styles and programs do you use, and was the video lessons on citations helpful at all?)

[40] 6.3.2. Assignments. 

In the Summer '17 group, at least two participants either submitted assignments or logged onto the LMS site weekly and accessed resources (Figure 5). With 39 assignments submitted, assignments accounted for most (65%) of the groups' participation. And even though assignments were no longer a required element of the Autumn '17 course, at least one participant submitted an assignment almost every week. 17 assignments were submitted by six different participants, amounting to 14% of total participation. As the group's focus shifted away from the assignment and toward more collaborative activities, participants stopped submitting assignments. In Spring '18, assignments were only submitted on 2 out of 12 weeks, and no assignments were submitted after week 3. Only 7 assignments were submitted during the semester, making up 8% of participation. Summer ‘18 did not include any assignments.

[41] 6.3.3. LMS Page Access Only. 

Participation was also counted for participants who accessed the LMS site, even if they did not engage with the group’s other activities (Figure 5). By accessing the page, participants could watch the video lessons and browse the references. In Summer '17, when the group was structured around the video lessons and assignments, participants accessed the LMS page 6 times (10% of participation). This number skyrocketed in Autumn 2017 to 69% of the total participation, and remained high in Spring '18 (37% of participation). In Summer '18, however, everybody who accessed the LMS page also actively participated by either posting to the discussion board or charting writing progress. Over time, then, the various features of the group became more integrated for users.

​[42] 6.3.4. Writing Progress, Summer '18. 

An additional metric, which was only tracked during the Summer '18 group, was participants’ reported daily and weekly writing progress in a shared and public embedded Excel file on the LMS “course” shell for the group, as shown in Figure 6. Reported writing progress accounted for just under half (44%) of total participation in the group (Figure 5).

[43] During the first week of the semester, the largest number of participants engaged with this activity. 17 unique people posted 73 unique entries (Figure 6). Engagement decreased by approximately half in week 2, (8 unique participants made 40 unique entries), and remained fairly consistent for the subsequent weeks, with an average of 5 unique participants posting an average of 29 unique entries a week during weeks 2-9. With most participants writing more than 1 entry a week, a sum of 306 unique entries were made by 60 unique people over the 9-week semester.

7. Discussion

[44] Over four semesters, what initially began as a course-like writing group model with weekly video lessons and required assignments developed into a less formal and blended model that had more opportunities for impromptu reflection and cohort building. In adding specific accountability activities, such as sharing writing progress and posting about writing goals, participants were encouraged to use the aspects of the group they found most beneficial. At the same time, they were not required to engage with all group activities, but were able to “pick and choose” among activities as suited their needs. Changing the rules of engagement with a writing group has its hazards; it is nearly impossible to satisfy every participant who enrolls and, as some of the feedback we received suggests, while in the moment participants may refuse to engage with writing assignments, they also crave extrinsic motivators to help them write. With no formal requirements and deadlines, participants have to rely on their intrinsic motivation to meet their writing goals. Such changes to a writing group can cause profound frustration in participants who struggle with writing accountability. A benefit, however, of less structured groups is that they allow participants to avoid spending time on activities that are ultimately unhelpful to them, which can be equally frustrating and cause attrition. Therefore, we can now accommodate more kinds of writers—the very motivated, the moderately motivated, and, perhaps, the less motivated. The OSU online writing group model allows participants to “choose their own adventure” based on their writing needs and behaviors. Some use the group to plan, reflect on, and share their weekly writing goals via discussion posts, while others choose to watch the video lessons and complete the exercises and supplement their research practices, while still others focus on tracking their weekly writing progress. For OSU, with its gargantuan enrollment and diffuse support of advanced writers, such as graduate students and postdocs, meeting the needs of more and diverse participants is paramount. The less-structured group is thus an effective method to engage and retain a larger number of participants.

[45] Less structure also yielded higher participation in asynchronous writing consultations. Similar to the first version of the Async Writing Group, the initial two-step asynchronous model also had a more formal structure that involved a mandatory second submission of revisions based on consultants’ comments. This format ultimately yielded lower participation and higher attrition between stages. Clients tended to be unwilling to submit their writing a second time. Collaboration, it seems, could not be forced through restrictions and rules. The current, and widely popular, drop-off model closely follow the model we use in f2f consultations: consultants spend 45 minutes on a piece of writing, focus on addressing clients’ concerns, and return comments to clients with no expectation of a follow-up appointment, or obligation to submit revisions. We currently are booking at above 99% and 2 weeks out, which is the schedule’s set appointment limit, for our scheduling system. The decision, then, for clients to continue participating is left up to them rather than embedded in writing center usage policies.

[46] Different models for our online writing group yielded different amounts of participation. For instance, we found that many participants took more active roles in the group when there was slightly more structure, i.e., required assignments (Summer '17), and direct and detailed discussion board questions (Summer '18). The largest number of participants submitted assignments in the Summer ‘17 group. However, participation in the discussion thread during Summer ‘17 was very low. Though assignments were removed from the group in Summer '18, engagement with discussion posts remained very high. The discussion board prompts for the Summer ‘18 group posed direct questions and suggested writing activities, which, consequently, yielded the highest engagement with that metric of all four groups. It appears, then, that active elements of the group require detail and structure in order to capture high engagement.

[47] While the activities that required active participation were most successful when they were detailed and structured, a loosening of requirements and structure facilitated passive engagement. For example, the Summer ‘18 group had the least amount of structure of all four groups; assignments were removed altogether from group activities, and the video lessons were no longer central to the group’s content. In place of these, the shared progress tracking Excel file was added to the site and LMS site analytics were tracked more holistically. In assessing engagement in the Summer ‘18 group, it became apparent that participants accessed the site in a less piecemeal manner than in previous groups; participants accessed both the site and its resources at the same time as accessing either the progress tracker or the discussion board. Many participants also took on more passive roles in the Autumn '17 and Spring '18 groups, when there was also less structure, i.e., optional assignments and open-ended discussion threads. Use of discussion boards was very low in Autumn ‘17, as they were open-ended and not tailored to match either the needs of the group, or that week's lesson plan. But the individual participation rate was higher in the less-structured Autumn ’17 and Spring ‘18 groups, with participants passively participating by accessing the LMS site an average of almost 12 and 9 times, respectively. Therefore, including a blend of passive and active activities—as well as passive and active assessment metrics—created a support site that was more user-friendly and included more intentional pairings of activities. Following the changes made to the group after its first iteration, participation remained quite high, especially for engagements per participant for the Autumn ‘17 and Spring ‘18 cohorts.

[48] There may be factors affecting participation that are external to group content and structure, however. Summer 2017 and Summer 2018 had a high enrollment but low retention rate compared to the groups held during the Academic year (Autumn 2017 and Spring 2018). Perhaps this is because, in the summer, participants are ambitious in doing their writing but also less consistent, as the summer term is largely unstructured at OSU because course offerings (and therefore teaching opportunities) are limited. Alternatively, perhaps Summer '18 had much higher enrollment and retention (if not unique participation) rate because of the changes that were made to the structure of the group to incorporate a greater emphasis on progress tracking and goal maintenance. For instance, the new addition of tracking writing progress on the Excel sheet offered an easy and additional way for participants to engage, which might have acted as a further incentive to do so.

[49] It is notoriously difficult to maintain participation and engagement levels in writing groups—both in-person and online. But perhaps the metrics by which writing groups are typically assessed—such as physical presence or completion of assignments—are not the best markers of participant engagement. Identifying passive and active engagement metrics is critical to capturing the nuances of how different participants engage with writing groups (or other writing support services). Tracking site analytics is one way to measure passive use. Progress tracking, to an extent, is also passive in that it requires relatively low engagement on the part of participants. Assignment completion and posting to a discussion thread can be characterized as active group engagement.

[50] As findings from our assessment suggest, there are those group participants who are more passive and those who are more active. However, having a blend of passive and active engagement opportunities not only allows for more nuanced assessment; it also helps us to learn about the diverse needs of writers who utilize our services. For instance in weeks 2 - 9 of the Summer ‘18 group, 5 (out of 30) unique participants each tracked their writing progress on the shared Excel file roughly 5 unique times a week—or 20 times total—while sixteen unique participants each posted to the discussion thread approximately 4 times total. In other words, 5 participants (16% of group members) passively engaged in the group by tracking writing progress, while 16 participants (50% of the group) actively engaged in the group by posting to the discussion thread. The 5 passive participants tracked their writing progress 5 times more often than the active participants who posted to the discussion thread. Therefore, participation numbers were driven, in part, by the high levels of engagement of a small sub-set of the group, which is not an uncommon occurrence in writing group dynamics. The Summer ‘18 group was ultimately able to accommodate both types of participants—active and passive engagers—with different and varied resources that held them accountable to their writing goals.

[51] In the end, of course, a writing group's success depends on its participants. In many ways, writers who enroll in any type of online consulting need to be intrinsically motivated to do their writing. We, therefore, anticipate that if facilitators of the Async Writing Groups include a blend of active and passive engagement activities, they will see improvements in group retention and participation. For instance, after assessing engagement and participation over four semesters of online writing groups, we found that the writers who self-selected into accountability groups were motivated enough, when prompted by the facilitator, to chart their writing progress and set and maintain goals for themselves, as suggested by the high, if varied, levels of participation in the Summer 2018 group.

8. Conclusion

​[52] When starting a group, it is important for facilitators to consider their goal: do they want to support a small group of very dedicated participants, or support a much larger enrollment with more diffuse participation and engagement? Of course, there is no right or wrong answer. The latter method works best for OSU's Writing Center because it helps us accommodate a larger number of participants, who can take as much or as little as they want from the group. The fact that the Writing Group is not a class that offers credit is also a factor. The larger less structured group enables us to reach many different kinds of writers, such as distance learners, adult learners, and faculty, who might be drawn to online forms of support for personal reasons and who many not otherwise utilize the writing center’s f2f services. In turn, these participants may be tempted to utilize other support services after a low-stakes engagement with an online writing group. Initial engagement with the writing center, then, need not be the only engagement with it.

[53]As evinced by the growing participation in and demand for asynchronous support, we ultimately advocate that asynchronous writing support play a larger role in today's writing centers, particularly if we wish to accommodate non-traditional students, on-the-go writers and mobile writing culture. Next steps for research include exploring whether or not participants who are moderately engaged with the writing group benefit as much from an Async Writing Group, and are as successful in meeting goals, as those members who demonstrate high engagement with the group. Looking forward, OSU will continue to develop and implement additional asynchronous online support models, such as an online response system for quick questions. Additionally, we will offer a template and guide for writers who want to set up these groups, outside of the writing center. These new programs will increase and improve asynchronous user-support for writers, and will serve as models for other writing centers looking to innovate their own online support offerings. Some study limitations include the fairly advanced levels of the majority of writing group participants; online writing groups comprised of undergraduate students and early career graduate students may yield different findings. Therefore, we hope to conduct cross-institutional assessment on asynchronous writing groups and other writing center online services from a variety of college writing centers, and with different client demographics.

9. References

Aitchison, Claire, & Lee, Alison. (2006). Research writing: problems and pedagogies. Teaching in Higher Education,11(3), 265–78.

Aitchison, Claire. (2010). Learning together to publish: writing group pedagogies for doctoral publishing. In Claire Aitchison, Barbara Kamler, & Alison Lee (Eds.) Publishing Pedagogies for the Doctorate and Beyond. London: Routledge, 83–100.

Aitchison, Claire. (2009). Writing groups for doctoral education. Studies in Higher Education, 34(8), 905–916. DOI 10.1080/03075070902785580.

Babson Survey Research Group in partnership with the Online Learning Consortium (OLC), Pearson, WCET, StudyPortals, and Tyton Partners. (2015). Online report card: Tracking online education in the United States. Retrieved from https://onlinelearningconsortium.org/read/online-report-card-tracking-online-education-united-states-2015/

Baker, Jeffrey. (1994). An ethical question about online tutoring in the writing lab. Writing Lab Newsletter, 18(5), 6–7.

Breuch, Lee-Ann Kastman. (2005). The idea(s) of an online writing center: In search of a conceptual model. Writing Center Journal, 25(2), 21–37.

Breuch, Lee-Ann Kastman, & Racine, Sam. (2000). Developing sound tutor training for online writing centers: Creating productive peer reviewers. Computers and Composition, 17(3), 245–263.

Carr, Sarah. (2000). As distance education comes of age, the challenge is keeping the students. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(23), A39–A41.

Ferguson, Therese. (2009). The ‘write’ skills and more: Athesis writing group for doctoral students. Journal of Geography in Higher Education, 33(2), 285–297.

Golde, Chris M. (2005). The role of the department and discipline in doctoral student attrition: Lessons from four departments. Journal of Higher Education, 76(6), 669–700.

Harris, Muriel. (2000). Making up tomorrow’s agenda and shopping lists today: Preparing for future technologies in writing centers. In James A. Inman & Donna N. Sewell (Eds.). Taking Flight with OWLs. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, 193–202.

Heinrich, K.T.; Rogers, A.; Haley, R., & Taylor, A. (1997). Mid–life women doctoral students rediscover “voice” in a community of scholarly caring. Journal of Professional Nursing, 13(6), 352–64.

Hewett, Beth, & DePew, Eric. (2015). Foundational practices of online writing instruction. Fort Collins, Colorado: The WAC Clearinghouse.

Ho, Mei-Ching, & Savignon, Sandra. (2007). Face-to-face and computer–mediated peer review in EFL writing. CALICO Journal, 24(2), 269–90.

Hrastinski, Stefan. (2008). Asynchronous and synchronous e–learning. Education Quarterly, 31(4), 51–5.

Jones, Michael. (2013). Issues in doctoral studies—forty years of journal discussion: Where have we been and where are we going? International Journal of Doctoral Studies, 8, 83–104.

Kavaldo, Jesse. (2013). The message is the medium: Electronically helping writing tutors help electronically. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 10(2). Retrieved from http://www.praxisuwc.com/kavadlo-102/

Kozar, Olga, & Lum, Juliet F. (2015). Online doctoral writing groups: Do facilitators or communication modes make a difference? Quality in Higher Education, 21(1), 38-51.

Kumar, Vijay, & Aitchison, Claire. (2018). Peer-facilitated writing groups: A programmatic approach to doctoral student writing. Teaching in Higher Education, 23(3), 360-373.

Lindner, James R; Dooley, Kim E., & Murphy, Tim H. (2001). Differences in competencies between doctoral students on-campus and at a distance. American Journal of Distance Education, 15(2), 25–40.

Lunsford, Andrea, & Ede, Lisa. (1990). Rhetoric in a New Key: Women and Collaboration. Rhetoric Review, 8(2), 234-241.

Maher, Damian; Seaton, Leonie; McMullen, Cathi; Fitzgerald, Terry; Otsuji, Emi, & Lee, Alison. (2008). “Becoming and being writers”: The experiences of doctoral students in writing groups. Studies in Continuing Education, 30(3), 263–75.

McBrien, J. Lynn; Cheng, Rui, & Jones, Phyllis. (2009). Virtual spaces: Employing a synchronous online classroom to facilitate student engagement in online learning. International Review of Research in Open and Distance Learning, 10(3), 1–17.

McMurray, Clair. (2017). Systematic approach to graduate writing groups: Facilitator, first meeting, and feedback structure. Praxis, 14(2). Retrieved from https://www.praxisuwc.com/mcmurray-142/

Neaderhiser, Stephen, & Wolfe, Joanna. (2009). Between technological endorsement and resistance: The state of online writing centers. The Writing Center Journal, 29(1), 49–77.

Ohio State University Writing Center. (2019). Systems Statistics Report: Global Statistics. Retrieved from https://osu.mywconline.com/demographic.php

2018. WCOnline Master Appointment Report. Retrieved from https://osu.mywconline.com/report_mlr.php

2018. WCOnline Schedule Management. Retrieved from https://osu.mywconline.com/schedule.php?focus=&scheduleid=sc15abbd66b01222&date=07-19-2018

2018. WCOnline System Statistics Report. Retrieved from https://osu.mywconline.com/demographic.php

2018. Writing Groups Summer 2018 Schedule. Retrieved from https://osu.mywconline.com/schedule.php?focus=&scheduleid=sc15abbd66b01222&date=07-19-2018

Olson-Horswill, Laurie. (2002). Online writing groups. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 30(2), 188–97.

Pearson, Margot; Cumming, Jim; Evans, Terry; Macauley, Peter, & Ryland, Kevin. (2011) How shall we know them? Capturing the diversity of difference in Australian doctoral candidates and their experiences. Studies in Higher Education, 36(5), 527–42.

Peguesse, Chere L. (2013). Assessing the effectiveness of tutor comments in email sessions. Journal of College Reading and Learning, 44(1), 95–104.

Phillips, Talinn. (2012). Graduate writing groups: Shaping writing and writers from student to scholar. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 10(1), 1–7.

Ruggles, Gere; Abbott, Anne, & Abbott, Robert. (1985). Talking about writing: The language of writing groups. Research in the Teaching of English, 9(4), 362–385.

Shapiro, Mike. (2014, April 21). How to talk with a student who isn’t there: Ineffective and effective practices for commenting on student writing. Another Word. Retrieved from https://writing.wisc.edu/blog/how-to-talk-to-a-student-who-isnt-there/

Spooner, Michael. (1994). A dialogue on OWLing in the writinglab: Some thoughts about online writing labs. Writing Lab Newsletter, 18(6), 1–5.

The Ohio State University Center for the Study and Teaching of Writing. (2016). Drop-off sessions. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20161216072408/https://cstw.osu.edu/writing-center/services/asynchronous-sessions

---. (2019). Drop-off. Retrieved from https://cstw.osu.edu/writing-center/individual-writing-support/online-consultations/drop-off

---. (2019). Guidelines for drop-off sessions. Retrieved from https://cstw.osu.edu/writing-center/services/asynchronous-sessions/guidelines

---. (2019). Policies. Retrieved from https://cstw.osu.edu/writing-center/policies#No-shows

---. (2016). Process for drop-off sessions. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20160123111820/http://cstw.osu.edu:80/writing-center/services/asynchronous-sessions/process

---. (2019). Schedule Appointment. Retrieved from https://osu.mywconline.com/admin.php?tool=schedules

University of British Columbia (UBC). (2014). Demographics—Age. Retrieved from https:// www.grad.ubc.ca/about–us/graduate–education–analysis–research/demographics– age