1. Introduction

[1] A review of the literature on online writing center pedagogy reveals the reason there is a sense of anxiety among scholars and practitioners in the field when considering how “best practices” of traditional writing center pedagogy play out in online environments. The assumptions regarding best practices that have historically formed the basis of writing center pedagogy often do not apply to online writing centers.

[2] The online writing center I presently manage is a good example of how traditional conceptualizations of writing centers, the students they serve, and the approaches to tutoring they take do not apply to online institutions and online writing centers. I am the director of an online writing center at a newly formed, private online university. This writing center is a good example of how traditional conceptualizations of writing centers, the students they serve, and the approaches to tutoring they take do not apply to online institutions and online writing centers. We serve 460 online doctoral students enrolled in Doctor of Education in Organizational Leadership and Doctor of Nursing Practice programs. The center will be expanded to serve all online students in masters and bachelor programs.

[3] Traditional writing center pedagogy is based on assumptions that do not apply to my online writing center. Traditional, or face-to-face writing centers serve mostly undergraduate students, so they are staffed by “peer” tutors. However, my center serves only graduate students and is staffed by tutors who are writing mentors with terminal degrees, a background in teaching writing, and expertise in social science research. Traditional writing centers serve “traditional” students who are 18-24 years old through face-to-face tutoring sessions. At my Center, because all of the students are working adults with full-time jobs and family responsibilities, most tutoring is delivered asynchronously—students make appointments and submit their papers for review. They receive feedback through an email notification one or two days after their appointment. The feedback generally includes: (a) original textual comments written by the tutor, (b) canned, detailed comments related to paragraph development, source integration, APA format, grammar, and style with explanatory links to outside webpages and YouTube videos, and/or (c) video screencast with comments on task fulfillment, content, and organization. Because most students are busy professionals scattered across various time zones, most students prefer the flexibility of asynchronous feedback, even though students may request tutoring sessions delivered via phone or one-on-one web conferences.

[4] Traditional conceptualizations of writing center pedagogy are based on peer-tutors offering a “conversation” (Neaderhiser & Wolfe, 2009) about the paper through which the tutee can “discover” the key points of her paper. While this dialogue-based model is not precluded in most writing mentors’ approaches to tutoring at the writing center, using another approach to revision as “problem-solving” (Hayes, 1996)—using textual and video feedback—tutors help tutees solve problems related to content, organization, task fulfillment, APA format, and clarity. Perhaps because online writing centers’ student, institutional, and cultural profile is so different from face-to-face centers, a review of recent literature on online writing centers indicates that scholars (Kastman Breuch & Racine, 2000; Kavadlo, 2013; Neaderhiser & Wolfe, 2009; Wolfe & Griffin, 2012) question whether the quality of tutoring delivered online can be as effective as traditional, peer tutoring delivered through face-to-face sessions.

[5] In this paper, I argue that “quality” feedback is not based, as some have argued (Neaderhiser & Wolfe, 2009; Wolfe & Griffin, 2012), on how closely online tutoring mimics face-to-face interactions. Instead, I propose that quality in online tutoring depends on how well tutors use their knowledge of writing content, writing pedagogy, and technology to meet tutees’ individual learning needs as evident through their submitted drafts. In this paper, I show how the application of the Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) model to online writing centers can help tutors develop the skills they need to effectively use diverse technologies to achieve various pedagogical objectives while meeting individual student needs. Because in an online environment, “feedback is teaching” (Alverno College Faculty, 2015), and because all communication online occurs through various technologies, those technologies can be leveraged to improve communication, feedback, and online writing instruction. The unique institutional context of online writing centers, which are usually part of online institutions that serve busy, working adults enrolled in online degree programs, demands innovative approaches to tutoring as well as tutor training.

2. Applying the TPACK Framework to Online Writing Tutor Training ​

2.1. Tutoring as Teaching in Online Writing Centers

[6] While in face-to-face environments there is a distinction between feedback and writing instruction because “instruction” occurs through student-teacher or student-student interactions in the classroom and “feedback” occurs when the instructor provides feedback to a student. In an online environment, where most of the content is delivered through text and video embedded in the course, such a distinction becomes less valid. In fact, a number of scholars have argued that in an online environment, feedback is teaching (Alverno College Faculty, 2015; Jones, Hogan, & O’Guinn, n.d.; Wiggins, 2012). Since online tutoring is delivered through feedback on student papers, it can be considered a form of online writing instruction and thus, research on both writing instruction, online writing tutoring (OWT), and distance learning applies.

2.2. Tutor Training

[7] Tutor training in online writing centers requires training on best practices when it comes to approaches to feedback on writing. However, it also requires proper use of technologies based on student needs. Thus, we use the Technological, Pedagogical and Content Knowledge (TPACK) model for training as applied to online writing tutoring (OWT). This model can be applied specifically to the teaching of writing and implementation of steps that are inline with writing theory and practice. The application of the TPACK model to online writing centers requires teaching tutors to effectively use diverse technologies to achieve various pedagogical objectives related to writing during feedback.

[8] The TPACK framework was first introduced by Punya Mishra and Matthew J. Koehler (2006)as TPCK in the Teachers College Recording a publication entitled “Technological Pedagogical Content Knowledge: A Framework for Teacher Knowledge.” This framework expanded Lee Shulman’s (1986, 1987) construct of teachers’ pedagogical content knowledge (PCK) to include technology knowledge. Now, this framework is known as TPACK—technology, pedagogy, and content knowledge (see Figure 1). The framework illustrates how teachers’ disciplinary content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge of how to teach, and technological knowledge interact in an educational context.

[9] Tutor training at our online writing center is based on the application of the TPACK framework to the teaching of composition in an online environment (see Figure 2). Successful training of online tutors should result in tutors developing a high level of TPACK knowledge; tutors should know how to use a diverse set of digital and learning technologies to provide clear feedback that meets individual learner needs.

[10] Within the field of writing instruction, content knowledge is understanding of all components of writing and rhetoric; tutors are chosen based on their expertise in English or a related field as well as based on samples of their academic writing and publications.

[11] Pedagogical knowledge is the understanding of best approaches to teaching of writing, which includes best practices related to feedback. Tutors are chosen based on their experience in teaching writing and are further trained to follow best practices in providing feedback based on a review of literature on feedback.

[12] Technological content knowledge is a teacher’s understanding of the relationship between content and technology: “teachers need to know not just the subject matter they teach but also the manner in which the subject matter can be changed by the application of technology” (Mishra & Koehler, 2006, p. 1028). An example of this within the context of writing pedagogy is the incorporation of Zotero, an automatic citation tool, into the teaching of APA citation style. APA format is part of writing content knowledge. However, simply going over APA rules is not enough. It is important to also show students how a technical tool can help them enhance the quality of their writing by increasing APA accuracy. In my webinars, I show students how to use the APA Manual along with Zotero to achieve accurate APA citation in their papers.

[13] Pedagogical technological knowledge is “knowledge of various technologies as they are used in teaching and learning.” An example are Learning Management Systems (LMS) such as Canvas and Blackboard.

[14] As Mishra and Koehler (2006) have explained, technological, pedagogical and content knowledge “goes beyond” teachers’ distinctive understanding of content, pedagogy, and technology because it includes an understanding of “pedagogical techniques that use technologies in constructive ways to teach content [and] knowledge of what makes concepts difficult or easy to learn and how technology can help redress some of the problems that students face” (p. 1029). When applied to OWT, TPACK knowledge requires tutor competency in choosing diverse technologies to use when providing feedback. The technology is chosen based feedback focus, the tutee’s composing process, and the gaps in tutee’s writing competency.

3. TPACK in Online Writing Center Practice

[15] In our online writing center, writing instruction occurs through feedback. Writing center tutors are considered writing coaches or guides that mentor students and help them develop their writing competency through multiple iterations of feedback and revision (Kastman Breuch & Racine, 2000). General approach to feedback at our online writing center is based on best practices of feedback adapted to meet the needs and schedules of our online learners. For example, literature on feedback (Hewett, 2010; Krest, 1988; Moxley, 1992, 1992; Sommers, 1989) suggests it is best to help students resolve global issues such as content, organization, and task fulfillment before focusing on sentence-level issues such as style and grammar. However, the weekly course schedule at our institution is Tuesday through Monday and students have a paper due every Monday night, so they submit their papers to the writing center over the weekend in order to have time to revise and submit their final drafts for grading by Monday night. Consequently, even though literature on feedback suggests first focusing on higher order concerns before focusing on lower order concerns, based on student needs and schedules, tutors comment on both, higher and lower order concerns because students are unlikely to have time to submit the same paper to the writing center twice.

[16] A review of the literature on online writing centers reveals a concern regarding the limitations of what is assumed to be largely text-based communication in online tutoring when compared to face-to-face tutoring. During the initial transition from face-to-face to online writing centers, there was a concern that online tutoring would not be as beneficial as face-to-face tutoring because the shift to text-based communication might lead online tutors to make largely directive comments that focus on “editing” (Kavadlo, 2013) rather than guiding students’ revision processes. Most of the current literature (Breuch, 2005; Neaderhiser & Wolfe, 2009, p. 200; Olsen, 2015) on OWT is also based on the assumption that asynchronous tutoring is always in form of textual commentary that may include in-text comments, end-of-paper comments, or online chats. Based on the assumption that all or most of the communication between tutors and tutees in online writing centers is text-based, scholars and practitioners of online writing centers have expressed a concern regarding the lack of face-to-face communication in online environments, regarding the time tutors spend on each paper, and the possible loss of “dialogue” (Breuch, 2005; Harris, 1998; Kastman Breuch & Racine, 2000; Russell, 1999) between tutor and tutee that marks the cornerstone of best practices in traditional writing center tutoring. Also, because of a lack of tone and body language cues, they argue a human connection online is difficult to make (Breuch, 2005; Harris, 1998; Russell, 1999).

[17] In response to the aforementioned concerns, I argue that the use of video screencasts can help online tutors address the pedagogical concerns related to perceived limitations of online, text-based communication when compared to face-to-face communication. At our online writing center, tutors use video commentary to overcome the limitations of text-based communication. This does not mean each tutor provides video commentary for every paper submitted. In fact, part of the tutors’ TPACK training is understanding when to provide text-based commentary, when to provide video, and when to provide both, based on student needs. In addition to video screencasts, use of phones and web conferencing tools can also help overcome the limitations of strictly text-based communication.

[18] Use of screencasts can help tutors forge an interpersonal relationship with tutees while also engaging in sort of a “dialogue” that helps student revise the content and organization of their paper. In studies on video feedback, students have indicated they found audio feedback useful in that it is similar to an “oral dialogue” or conversation with the teacher (Ice, Curtis, Phillips, & Wells, 2007; Scrocco, 2012; Sommers, 2013). Jeffrey Sommers (2013) attributed this perception to the social and interpersonal component of oral communication. Since the medium of audio allows for a higher quantity of information, more elaboration of textual comments, and a more conversational style than text-based commentary communication (Anson, 1997; Sommers, 2013; Warnock, 2009), it has the potential to be highly dialogic. Since AV commentary also allows for the personality of the tutor to be more visible through voice and tone, the psychological distance between the tutor and student may be reduced. In fact, studies have shown students overwhelmingly prefer audio or a combination of audio and written feedback over purely written commentary not only because it provides greater clarity, but also because it enriches the nature of the interaction between student and instructor (Grigoryan, 2017a, 2017b, p. 0; Ice et al., 2007; Kirschner, 1991; Sipple & Sommers, 2005; Sommers, 2013; Still, 2006). In a survey-based study on audio feedback, Sipple (2007) also found students perceived audio feedback as more individualized than written commentary. Some students have reported feeling more motivated to revise by audio feedback (Cryer & Kaikumba, 1987; Mellen & Sommers, 2003; Sipple & Sommers, 2005) while others reported enjoying the interpersonal nature of voice communication.

[19] Use of screencasts can also reduce the overall time tutors spend on feedback because audio communication allows for more information to be communicated in less time. As Sommers (2013) has noted, the amount of feedback achieved through oral communication is greater than that possible through text because more information is conveyed in less time by speaking than typing. Even if a tutor were to give students a transcript of oral commentary, students might feel overwhelmed by the sheer length of the text (Hewett, 2010); one full page of double-spaced commentary (250 words) takes about two minutes when delivered orally (Sommers, 2013). Anson, in a study comparing screencast transcripts with written marginal and end comments across eight courses, also found that written responses contained an average of 109 words per paper while teachers’ spoken words in five-minute screencasts averaged 745 words per paper (Anson, Dannels, Laboy, & Carneiro, 2016). Thus, use of audio commentary, whether delivered through video screencasts, web conferencing tools, or recorded phone conversations can help tutors save time while increasing the overall clarity, quantity, and helpfulness of feedback.

[20] In applying the TPACK model to online writing centers, tutors need to not only choose the correct feedback focus, but they also need to choose the proper technologies to use to deliver the feedback. Technology can help enhance feedback by aligning it with pedagogical principles. At our center, for instance, situations where the student draft shows that the student has trouble understanding the assignment task and needs help with content and organization, the feedback includes a video created using Screencast-o-matic. There are several logistical and pedagogical reasons for incorporating screencasts into asynchronous feedback in online writing centers:

1. Oral communication allows for a more conversational style, an approach widely supported by the literature on feedback as “dialogue” between the tutor and student (Anson et al., 2016; Kastman Breuch & Racine, 2000; Kavadlo, 2013; Sommers, 2013; Straub, 2000; Warnock, 2008).
2. Screencasts meet diverse learner needs and can appeal to visual and auditory learners because the student sees aspects of the paper being discussed as the tutor’s voice provides commentary. In their post-appointment surveys, students overwhelmingly approve of screencasts and state videos help them understand the feedback more easily than textual feedback alone.
3. Research shows (Anson et al., 2016; Sommers, 2013) that compared to only written feedback, oral feedback allows for more information to be communicated in less time, which saves time for tutors while enhancing feedback quality and clarity for tutees.
4. Audio commentary can enrich the nature of the interaction between student and teacher by enhancing the interpersonal and emotional connection between tutor and tutee (Ice et al., 2007; Jones, Georghiades, & Gunson, 2012; Kates, 1998; Pearce & Ackley, 1995; Sipple & Sommers, 2005; Sommers, 2013). This is important in an online environment where relationship-building is a greater challenge than in face-to-face environments. An improved relationship, or positive affect, can increase student motivation to revise (Hayes, 1996).
5. Video feedback with captions increases accessibility. Screencast-o-matic does not require uploading or downloading of videos; after a video is created, a link to the video can be immediately generated and sent to the student through a writing center report delivered via email. Screencast-o-matic also has the function of adding captions to videos, so students with disabilities can have access to the feedback using the captions.
6. Videos are stored in a cloud and can be watched by students multiple times. There have been students who have watched the videos two-thirteen times. This allows greater student autonomy and management of learning based on personal needs, which is in line with best practices in online pedagogy.
7. Teachers can log in to their Screencast-o-matic account to check to see if the video was watched and follow up with the student if it was not watched or if the feedback was not used.
8. Also, research has shown that in regard to style of communication, novice writers may prefer linguistically direct commentary, which can help them understand the feedback. However, in writing, lack of tone may lead students to perceive linguistically direct comments as rudeness. Use of video can help tutors use direct form of communication without sounding harsh or curt by adding tone and nuance. By communicating their interpretation and understanding of the text, tutors can also enhance students’ audience awareness (Grigoryan, 2017a).

[21]Just because tutors are advised to use videos for feedback on task fulfillment, content, and organization, it does not mean that they use only video for higher order concerns, and only textual comments for lower order concerns. Textual comments can and arecurrently used by a majority of composition instructors and tutors to provide feedback on higher order concerns. However, supplemental use of video can add more clarity and depth to the textual commentary (Grigoryan, 2017a, 2017b). Since most of our students are doctoral students, they often need help on complex, research-related tasks such as narrowing down a topic, articulating a research problem, or formulating research questions. Textual comments on these complex, graduate-level research tasks, while possible, are not likely to be as efficiently and clearly articulated in writing as through audio/video. Also, use of video is not limited to commentary on higher order concerns. For example, if a student repeatedly has issues understanding a lower order concern such as the application of APA format to in-text citations, a tutor can quickly create a short video “mini-lesson” explaining the needed correction. Use of video not only adds to clarity of communication to tutees, but also saves tutors time because speaking is faster than typing.

[22] Another example of the application of the TPACK model to writing tutoring is the use of TurnItIn Feedback Studio (TIIFS) to provide feedback. While it is assumed that TIIFS is used only in writing courses, it can also be used as a tool for feedback in online writing centers. At our online writing center, we accept papers through Canvas, which allows us to embed the TIIFS tool into the paper submission process. Use of TIIFS can help ensure quality of feedback because tutors can use the same library of comments. The library of comments includes comments with thorough explanations related to common writing issues. The comments also include links to outside textual and video resources the student can consult for further understanding. Tutors using the same library of multimodal comments can ensure consistence in quality of feedback across diverse groups of tutors. Of course, tutors can create their own libraries of comments based on their area of focus. For instance, some tutors may work only with a group of students from a certain program, so they may create a library of comments applicable to a specific group of tutees’ field of study. Because change to TIIFS allows tutors to create a library of comments that include embedded hyperlinks to videos, websites, and document resources, it enhances feedback in several ways:

1. Having a choice to access content through text or videos appeals to multiple learner needs. For example, students can choose to either watch a video on source integration or read a handout. If needed, they can do both. This allows greater student autonomy when managing their learning, which corresponds to best principles of online pedagogy as well as andragogy (Moore, 2013).
2. It allows tutors to create detailed, multimodal commentary that explains to the student not only why something is incorrect, but how to resolve it. A metanalysis of research on feedback widely supports this comprehensive approach to commentary (Russell, 1999).
3. TIIFS saves tutors time by allowing them to give high quality feedback in short amounts of time; comments can be dragged and dropped into the student paper within seconds. Thus, there is no need to repeatedly type the same comments or to upload and download papers.
4. TIIFS works with Canvas and other LMS, so it can be used at various institutions.
5. Students can download a pdf of the feedback with commentary and refer to the file later.

[23] The aforementioned examples of the application of the TPACK framework to tutor training in online writing centers confirm, as Mishra and Koehler (2006) have explained:

there is no single technological solution that applies to every teacher, every course, or every view of teaching. Quality teaching requires developing a nuanced understanding of the complex relationships between technology, content, and pedagogy, and using this understanding to develop appropriate, context-specific strategies and representations. (p. 1029)

​In the TPACK model, the dotted line represents context (Figure 2). The context includes the student profile, the local culture of the university, students’ field of study, and students’ learning needs. The application of the TPACK framework to online writing tutoring within the context of online learning requires tutors’ understanding of how to use various technologies to present new content, to address student learning gaps, and to meet individual learner needs.

4. The Need for Technological Training for Students

[24] Since tutors are writing experts with TPCK knowledge specifically related to the composition process, it is only natural for tutors to also teach students about various technologies students can use to enhance their writing process. This is part of tutors’ use of their TPCK knowledge to teach writing. As content and writing pedagogy experts, tutors should know how various current digital technologies can be used to facilitate various stages of the writing process. For instance, tutors know how to use online library databases to find sources, how to use automatic citation tools for proper source integration, and how to use TurnItIn to avoid plagiarism. All of this technological content knowledge can be shared with students as part of writing pedagogy.

4.1. Student Technology Training to Enhance the Writing and Revision Process

[25] There are several theoretical orientations related to learning theories and theories of writing that justify incorporating technological training into scholarly writing pedagogy. In cognitive theories of writing, technological training is part of students’ procedural knowledge when learning a new skill. On the other hand, within Hayes’ (1996) cognitive framework of the writing process, technological training may enhance students’ composing as well as revision process.

[26] In cognitive theories of learning, knowledge is divided into declarative knowledge, or factual knowledge about subject matter, and procedural knowledge, “knowing how” (Bruning, Schraw, & Norby, 2011, p. 38). When applied to learning to write, declarative knowledge is students’ understanding of subject matter content as well as writing conventions, including proper grammatical expressions to achieve communication. On the other hand, procedural knowledge is understanding the steps writers must take to produce texts. This may include a range of skills including typing, using Word, or conducting library research to access scholarly sources.

[27] Hayes' (1996) revised the cognitive writing process framework, which forms the basis of the current process approach to writing pedagogy and illustrated the complex relationship between the writing task and the various forms of declarative and procedural knowledge students must have to successfully write and revise. The framework was based on research on the composition process that compared novice and expert writers’ composing processes. The model was based partly on studies that showed how expert writers could rely on past writing experiences stored in long-term memory to detect and solve problems in the text while novice writers were unable to do so without overloading their working or long-term memory (Becker, 2006).

[28] Technological training when teaching students to write relates to “the composition medium” as part of the task environment as well as to “task schema,” which is under “long-term memory." Task schema within the model is also part of the conceptualization of revision as problem solving.” Task schemas are “packages of information stored in long-term memory that specify how to carry out a particular task” (p. 24). In the new model, Hayes has defined control structurefor revision as a task schema that includes some or all of the following processes:

• a goal to improve the text;
• an expected set of activities to be performed such as evaluative reading, problem solving, and text production;
• attentional subgoals, which include what to pay attention to in the text being revised and which errors to avoid;
• templates and criteria for quality such as criteria for parallelism, diction, and so on;
• and strategies for fixing specific types of text problems (p. XX)

​[29] The definition of the subprocesses indicates an instructor can carry out diverse forms of intervention and can provide procedural support that incorporates technological training to enhance students’ revision practices. One example of such training for revision is teaching students how to use Zotero, an automatic citation tool, along with the APA Manual, to use proper APA citation when using sources as well as to check for APA errors. Explicit instruction on APA as part of the writing process includes the following: a video walking students through the steps of downloading and installing Zotero to their computer; real-time webinars that guide students through the steps of downloading, installing, and using Zotero; and series of online videos that explain:

1. how to use Zotero with the APA manual for accurate citation;
2. Zotero’s limitations (such as with electronic sources) and how to overcome them;
3. and how to quickly check papers for APA accuracy.

​[30] The videos I have created also explain how to use Zotero while writing. For example, I encourage students to cite sources as they write rather than after they are finished writing because it is easy to forget which pieces of information came from where and leaving citations out until the last step of the writing process can result in accidental plagiarism. Explicit instruction on when and how to incorporate Zotero into the writing process is an example of enhancing students “task schema” by teaching them to cite while drafting, which can solve the problem of possible plagiarism. I also incorporate use of Zotero into screencasts that teach paraphrasing, summarizing, and quoting. Showing students how to overcome certain inaccuracies in APA format that can result in use of Zotero is also part of task schema—teaching students how to solve problems.

[31] Use of Zotero is a good example of the need for technological training for students because many writing teachers or online writing tutors may assume teaching students to use Zotero and troubleshooting technical issues may fall outside of the scope of online writing center services. However, if the writing center tutors advise students to “use Zotero” or “use the APA Manual” or “use an automatic citation tool” without providing explicit instruction and support on how to do so, most students are unlikely to incorporate such tools into their writing process, and thus, their writing process as well as the quality of their writing may suffer. Successful online students should be active, independent learners who can explore and learn various technologies that can enhance their writing process; the reality is many novice writers are unable to do this on their own. Since there is an increasingly diverse set of digital technologies available, writing center tutors should provide guidance on the “best” or most useful digital technologies that can be applied to enhancement of students’ writing process. At our institution, the traditional tech support does not address student issues with Zotero because they limit themselves to helping students with LMS or institutional software. If the writing center does not provide support with Zotero, students would not be able to get support anywhere. The librarian also provides some support with Zotero, but it may not be directly related to the writing process.

[32] Another example of explicit student training needed for technology use relates to use of Grammarly. A number of students email me with questions or concerns in their use of Grammarly. Some students asked if Grammarly could substitute for tutor feedback while others complained that even though they were using Grammarly regularly, they were still getting low grades on their papers. Thus, I created a video that explained how to interpret feedback from Grammarly and how Grammarly could not replace students’ own understanding of basic grammar and punctuation.

[33] Since a diverse set of digital tools can be used to enhance particular stages of the writing process, it is not enough for tutors to instruct students to use a tool; a better approach is to show students how a specific tool can be used to solve a specific revision problem the student may have within the writing task environment. As Sharples (1996) has explained in his conceptualization of writing as design, “writing is primarily a cognitive activity but it cannot be performed without tools and resources” (p. 127). Just as becoming a painter involves not only the cognitive processes of imagination and creativity, but also the practical components of learning how to hold a paintbrush, developing a voice in scholarly writing requires not only complex cognitive skills of analysis and synthesis, but also understanding of how to use a diverse set of digital tools to brainstorm, outline, compose, and revise. In other words, it is not enough to tell students “use Google drive.” Instead, online tutors may need to explain why and how to use Google drive—to backup files, to get feedback during various stages of the writing process, to respond to professor or tutor comments, to take screenshots of texts based on key themes from literature and categorize the key points for the development an outline for a literature review chapter of their dissertation, and so on.

5. Student Access and Use of Feedback from Writing Center

[34] If effective OWT requires online writing coaches to use their TPACK to teach writing, then tutees, who must use the same technologies to access the feedback, also need technological training. In an online environment, all communication is mediated by technologies; if students are not oriented, they will not be able to access appropriate content and learn. Access issues in online tutoring arise when students are unable to properly use technologies to make appointments, submit papers for review, and later access and use the feedback for revision. Online writing centers can address inclusion by ensuring online students receive the technical training they need to take advantage of all the resources available to them, including online tutoring.

[35] Some students are better than others at using effective strategies for revision. Also, some students are better than others at taking maximum advantage of feedback. While some diligent students may watch the video several times and even follow up by email or phone call about the feedback, other students may not even watch the video or click on the link to textual comments because they “didn’t have time.”

[36] In this case, it is imperative to have consequences in place to avoid students wasting resources by not using the feedback. In my institution, we use Canvas/TII interface to check if a student has accessed the feedback. If I see a student has not accessed the feedback within a week, I lock the student account and send an email indicating the account is now locked, not as punishment, but as a way to ensure the student can access and use the feedback. I also remind the student that writing improves through revision, so if she does not use the feedback for revision and writing practice, she will not see improvement in writing competency.

6. Conclusion: What Does “Successful” Online Tutoring Look Like?

[37] In “Decisions...Decisions: Who Chooses to Use the Writing Center?”, which won the 2017 IWCA Best Article Award, Lori Salem encouraged writing center practitioners to “rethink writing center pedagogy” and stop following widely accepted “orthodoxies” that have dominated the field since the 1980s in order to more sufficiently meet diverse students’ needs. Among her list of orthodoxies to be discarded are common practices such as the use of “non-directive questioning” or focusing on higher order concerns before lower order concerns. When applying her ideas to writing center pedagogy, I would add two more orthodoxies that no longer hold true: (a) the assumption that face-to-face, real-time feedback is superior to asynchronous feedback, and (b) that all asynchronous or online feedback is textual. Overall, quality and efficacy of feedback depends not on the mode of feedback delivery, but on how well the feedback meets individual learner needs. For online writing centers, the challenge is to find ways to provide rich and effective asynchronous feedback to online learners who are working professionals with busy schedules and tight deadlines. Online writing centers that succeed are those that embrace innovation and consider ways the ever-evolving affordances of new and digital technologies can be leveraged to provide rich, multimodal feedback based on online learners’ individual needs and level of writing competency.

[38] Successful online writing support includes tutors with high level of TPACK knowledge who know which technologies to use in relation to diverse writing tasks, student draft submissions, individual learner needs, and stages of students’ writing process. When analyzing student drafts, or speaking with students during a tutoring session, tutors should be able to identify gaps in students’ writing skills, which could be related to procedural or declarative knowledge. Tutors should fill those gaps using a combination of their content, pedagogical, and technological knowledge. In sum, effective tutoring requires use of tutors’ TPACK knowledge to meet the student at the current stage of her writing competency development and use a diverse set of digital resources to help tutees achieve their next level of writing competency.

7. References

Alverno College Faculty. (2015). Feedback is teaching. Milwaukee, WI: Alverno College Institute.

Anson, Chris M. (1997). In our own voices: Using recorded commentary to respond to writing. New Directions for Teaching & Learning, (69), 105.

Anson, Chris M.; Dannels, Deanna P.; Laboy, Joanne I., & Carneiro, Larissa. (2016). Students’ perceptions of oral screencast responses to their writing exploring digitally mediated identities. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 30(3), 378–411. https://doi.org/10.1177/1050651916636424

Beach, Richard, & Friedrich, Tom. (2006). Response to writing. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Handbook of writing research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Becker, Anne. (2006). A review of writing model research based on cognitive processes. In A. S. Horning and A. Becker (Eds.), Revision: History, theory, and practice (pp. 25–46). West Lafayette, IN: Parlor Press.

Breuch, L.-A. K. (2005). The Idea(s) of an 0nline writing center: Searching for a conceptual model. Writing Center Journal. Retrieved from https://experts.umn.edu/en/publications/the-ideas-of-an-online-writing-center-searching-for-a-conceptual-

Bruning, Roger. H.; Schraw, Gregory. J., & Norby, Monica. M. (2011). Cognitive psychology and instruction (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon/Pearson.

Cryer, Patricia, & Kaikumba, Nemeta. (1987). Audio-cassette tape as a means of giving feedback on written work. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 12(2), 148–153.

Foss, Sonja K., & Waters, W. (2015). Destination dissertation: A traveler’s guide to a done dissertation (2nd ed.). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Grigoryan, Anna. (2017a). Audiovisual commentary as a way to reduce transactional distance and increase teaching presence in online writing instruction: Student perceptions and preferences. Journal of Response to Writing, 3(1), 83–128.

Grigoryan, Anna. (2017b). Feedback 2.0 in online writing instruction: Combining audio-visual and text-based commentary to enhance student revision and writing competency. Journal of Computing in Higher Education, 29(3), 451–476. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12528-017-9152-2

Harris, Muriel. (1998). Using computers to expand the role of writing centers. In D. Reiss, R. Selfe, and A. Young, (Eds.), Electronic communication across the curriculum (pp. 3–26). Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers.

Hayes, John R. (1996). A new framework for understanding cognition and affect in writing. In C. M. Levy and S. Ransdell, (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 1–27). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Hewett, Beth L. (2010). The online writing conference: A guide for teachers and tutors. Portsmouth, NH: Heinemann.

Ice, Philip; Curtis, Reagan; Phillips, Perry, & Wells, John. (2007). Using asynchronous audio feedback to enhance teaching presence and students’ sense of community. Journal of Asynchronous Learning Networks, 11(2), 3–25.

Jones, Gretchen; Hogan, Kathleen, & O’Guinn, P. J. (n.d.). Feedback is teaching. Presented at the UMUC Faculty Development.

Jones, Nigel; Georghiades, Panicos, & Gunson, John. (2012). Student feedback via screen capture digital video: Stimulating student’s modified action. Higher Education, (5), 593.

Kastman Breuch, Lee-Ann M., & Racine, Sam J. (2000). Developing sound tutor training for online writing centers: creating productive peer reviewers. Computers and Composition, 17(3), 245–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/S8755-4615(00)00034-7

Kates, Ronald. (1998). Tape recorders and the commuter student: Bypassing the red pen. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 25(1), 21–24.

Kavadlo, Jesse. (2013). The message is the medium: Electronically helping writing tutors help electronically. Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, 10(2), 38–44.

Kirschner, Paul. A. (1991). Audiotape feedback for essays in distance education. Innovative Higher Education, 15(2), 185–195.

Krest, Margie. (1988). Monitoring student writing: How not to avoid the draft. Journal of Teaching Writing, 7(1), 27–40.

Mellen, Cheryl, & Sommers, Jeff. (2003). Audiotaped response and the two-year-campus writing classroom: The two-sided desk, the “guy with the ax,” and the chirping birds. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 31(1), 25–39.

Mishra, Punya, & Koehler, Matthew. (2006). Technological pedagogical content knowledge: A framework for teacher knowledge. Teachers College Record, 108(6), 1017–1054. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2005.11.015

Moore, Michael G., & Anderson, W. G. (Eds.). (2003). Handbook of distance education (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Routledge.

Moxley, Joseph M. (1992). Teachers’ goals and methods of responding to student writing. Composition Studies/Freshman English News, 20(1), 17–33.

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

Olsen, Leslie. (2015). Chapter 5: Online Writing Labs. In Beth L. Hewett, Kevin E. DePew, & Diane Martinez (Eds.), Foundational Practices of Online Writing Instruction (pp. 183–210). Fort Collins, CO: Parlor Press.

Pearce, C. Glenn, & Ackley, Jon. (1995). Audiotaped feedback in business writing: An exploratory study. Business Communication Quarterly, 58(3), 31–34.

Russell, Scott. (1999). Clients who frequent madam Barnett’s emporium. The Writing Center Journal, 20(1), 61–72.

​Shulman, Lee. S. (1986). Those who understand: Knowledge growth in teaching. Educational Researcher, 15(2), 4–14.

Shulman, Lee S. (1987). Knowledge and teaching: Foundations of the new reform. Harvard Educational Review, 57(1), 1–22.

Scrocco, Diana. (2012). Do you care to add something? Articulating the student interlocutor’s voice in writing response dialogue. Teaching English in the Two-Year College, 39(3), 274–292.

Sharples, Mike. (1996). An account of writing as creative deisgn. In C. M. Levy & S. E. Ransdell (Eds.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 127–148). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sipple, Sue, & Sommers, Jeff. (2005). Research on student preferences. Retrieved April 24, 2013, from http://www.users.muohio.edu/sommerjd/research.htm

Sommers, Jeffrey. (1989). The effects of tape-recorded commentary on student revision: A case study. Journal of Teaching Writing, 8(2), 49–75.

Sommers, Jeffrey. (2013). Response 2.0: Commentary on student writing for the new millennium. Journal of College Literacy and Learning, 39, 21–37.

Still, Brian. (2006). Talking to students: Embedded voice commenting as a tool for critiquing student writing. Journal of Business and Technical Communication, 20(4), 460–475.

Straub, Richard. (2000). The practice of response: Strategies for commenting on student writing. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Warnock, Scott. (2008). Responding to student writing with audio-visual feedback. In T. Carter, M. A. Clayton, A. D. Smith, & T. G. Smith (Eds.), Writing and the iGeneration: Composition in the computer-mediated classroom (pp. 201–226). Southlake, TX: Fountainhead Press.

Warnock, Scott. (2009). Teaching writing online: How and why. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Wiggins, Grant. (2012). 7 Keys to effective feedback. Educational Leadership, 70(1), 10–16.

​Wolfe, Joanna, & Griffin, Jo A. (2012). Comparing technologies for online writing conferences: Effects of medium on conversation. The Writing Center Journal, 32(2), 60–92.