Скачать 67.74 Kb.
The English Subject Centre
Royal Holloway, University of London
Egham, Surrey TW20 0EX
Tel 01784 443221 Fax 01784 470684
English Subject Centre Mini Projects
‘Exploring the Potential of Peer-Tutoring
in Developing Student Writing’
Interim Report on Phase I
Authors: Jonathan Worley
St. Mary’s University College, Belfast
English Subject Centre Departmental Projects
This report and the work it presents were funded by the English Subject Centre under a scheme which funds projects run by departments in Higher Education institutions (HEIs) in the UK. Some projects are run in collaboration between departments in different HEIs. Projects run under the scheme are concerned with developments in the teaching and learning of English Language, Literature and Creative Writing. They may involve the production of teaching materials, the piloting and evaluation of new methods or materials or the production of research into teaching and learning. Project outcomes are expected to be of benefit to the subject community as well as having a positive influence on teaching and learning in the host department(s). For this reason, project results are disseminated widely in print, electronic form and via events, or a combination of these.
Details of ongoing projects can be found on the English Subject Centre website at www.english.heacademy.ac.uk/deptprojects/index.htm . If you would like to enquire about support for a project, please contact the English Subject Centre:
The English Subject Centre
Royal Holloway, University of London
Egham, Surrey TW20 OEX
T. 01784 443221
The Peer Tutoring Project was designed to determine how effective peer tutoring (that is, students tutoring students) in writing skills could be at the university level. Subsidiary to this central inquiry were questions about how such a programme (which paid students for training and tutoring) might motivate students (both tutors and tutees) to learn. To that end, we proposed a quick training session and quick deployment of peer tutors in the spring of
2002. This preliminary session has now been completed, contained successful elements and provided good feedback on how to proceed with the project. The project is scheduled to run for two more full academic years: 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. The 2002-2003 segment of the project is now up and running. This report will summarise the work completed in the first
semester of the programme’s operation, describe the difficulties that were encountered and propose the changes to be implemented.
Overview of Phase I (Completed)
In Phase I of the Peer Tutoring Project, we developed the curriculum for the initial training for student tutors and completed training for 15 students. We processed five requests for peer tutoring before the end of the term. The lessons that we learned from this experience are listed in this section. Additionally, we received a visit from Jane Gawthrope on 15 March (ESC) who was able to see the facilities for conducting peer tutoring and to get an initial sense of St. Mary’s University College. Jonathan Worley was also able to present plans for the project one week later at the English Subject Centre's conference entitled 'Literacy and Literature' (English Subject Centre, 22 March 2002).
The Peer Tutoring Project was advertised through announcements in all English and Writing Skills classes, a series of posters placed throughout the college, and e-mails directed at all Writing Skills students. We received 18 applications from students of differing abilities and decided to accept all applicants. Since we had planned to employ 12 students, the decision
to accept all 18 was a pragmatic one. We were anticipating that not all students would stay with the programme after training. Hence, we were left to guess at how far to overshoot in recruiting in order to end up with an appropriate number of active tutors. We were also interested to see how well students of different abilities would perform under the training.
Details of students accepted for peer tutor training are as follows:
q 18 students accepted in total
q 2 failed to show up for training
q 1 completed only half the training
q 16 students were female
q 2 students were male
The gender ratio is generally in keeping with that of the college as a whole. The majority of our students are training to become primary school teachers. This project's ratio of men to women (1:8) is slightly under that of the college as a whole (roughly 1.6:8) but 2 slightly higher than that of the English department (1:12). To date there has been no discernible variation in completion rates, tutoring activity rates, etc. that would be out of keeping with these general college gender ratios. Fifteen of 18 students completed the
training in its entirety, and we disbursed £248 to pay the students for their training. (All costs for time and materials were absorbed by St. Mary’s under the terms of the project.) The academic abilities of our student tutors ranged very widely. Academic records reveal that the two strongest students were averaging in the high 2.1 range across all areas of their academic performance. The two weakest candidates were actually failing in all areas of their academic work and later withdrew from the college. Next weakest were two students averaging in the low 2.2 range. All other tutors were between mid-2.2 to mid-2.1. Not counting the two withdrawals, the average academic performance for all tutors was in the very low 2.1 range (61.1%). Since tutors were asked to consult with either Matthew Martin or Jonathan Worley after having reviewed a piece of student work but before they encountered the student tutee, we were in some cases able to discern the abilities of our tutors. A pattern began to emerge whereby the stronger tutors prepared exhaustively for their sessions while the weaker students did not prepare as extensively. However, it was also true that some of the weaker students did prepare extensively as a way of making up for what they perceived as their
shortcomings. The best tutors were able to move beyond relatively simple commentary on an essay’s structure and probe the meaning that was being developed. Tutors were able to spot kinds of grammar errors but were not able to discuss these problems articulately.
Four hours of initial training were done by Jonathan Worley, Matthew Martin being away on paternity leave. Finding an open time for all tutors is complicated by the fact that both Bas and BEds have different, and complicated, class schedules. Friday afternoon remains the
best viable time, and the fact that the students were being paid for the training appeared to compensate for what they considered to be an awkward time:
Wednesday 10 April 2-4 pm
Friday 12 April, 3-5 pm
We had good attendance at both sessions, though we had to drop three students for a failure to attend.
The Training Programme
First Training Session
Students were given a handout explaining the basic procedures and principles of peer tutoring, and this information was explained by the instructor [see appendix 1, 'Conducting a Peer Tutoring Session']. Though difficult to summarise in their entirety, key principles include the following:
q to reach more students with one-to-one, individualised tutoring;
q to democratise the process of teaching writing and eliminate unnecessary authority;
q to put students—both tutors and tutees—in actual writing situations to make the experience of writing more ‘real’;
q to offer student tutors a reasonable wage and work experience within an academic institution;
q to encourage student tutors to work with other students through a process of
q to encourage student tutors to understand what students are trying to accomplish in
an essay, rather than simply imposing rigid expectations;
q to encourage tutors to work with students in a way which reflects an awareness of a 'process model' of composition (see appendix 2 for Don Murray's process model and appendix 3 for that of Peter Elbow);
q to encourage student tutors to assist students in thinking through the complexities of their argument rather than follow a merely superficial logical structure;
q to encourage student tutors to share with students their knowledge of grammar, idiomatic expression, bibliographic style and proofreading techniques. (Tutors are not to behave merely as paid editors for students; their role is more complex.)
Students speculated about what qualities made for good writing. Discussion followed this line of inquiry for some time, as students brainstormed a range of qualities and attempted to prioritise them. These points were then placed into the context of a process model for writing. (See appendix 2 for a summary of Don Murray's 5-step process model and appendix 3 for Peter Elbow's two-model). Students were generally able to comment upon issues of an
essay’s structure and upon creating clear expression. They were also aware of the need of an essay to respond in a relevant way to a task. They were aware that proofreading was important although they could not easily identify kinds of grammatical errors.
Students then looked at a sample student essay and continued their discussion in terms of the concrete example before them. Students had been asked to bring a sample of their prose writing with them to the tutorial. They were asked to exchange this sample with another student. Students were then to go home and prepare for a tutorial session with their partner.
Second Training Session
The session began with a diagnostic grammar quiz. The answers to the quiz were then discussed as a method of raising issues of grammar. Students were then given a ‘grammar exercise’, which they had to complete in order for payment for training to be released. They marked a student essay with a wide range of grammar errors. These essays will be used as a basis for training next academic year. We pursued a discussion regarding different opening strategies for the conversation students tutors might take with writers. Open-ended questions were suggested, as alternative strategies to leaping directly into critical comments:
'How did you feel this essay went for you?'
'What were you trying to accomplish in this essay?'
'Were you happy with it? Why or why not?'
Student tutors were reminded of the importance of explicitly commenting on an essay's strengths while talking to the writer. We reminded them of the student who, when praised for the transition sentences between paragraphs in an otherwise abominable essay, responded with great pride that he had stayed up quite late working on the transitions. Sessions withpeer tutors must leave the student feeling motivated to carry out the work necessary to
improve the essay, not dispirited and downhearted! Students were then asked to disperse to different locations to conduct practice peer 4 tutoring sessions. Each partner in the pair would have the opportunity to be both tutor and
tutee. Students came back to discuss the results of their tutoring as a group.
Students felt the practice session increased their confidence. Before this session, some students had a difficult time imagining themselves in the role of 'tutor' with one of their peers. Anxieties about the power relationship ('how can I tutor a peer?') were answered to a certain extent in these sessions when students discovered the degree to which things rapidly became a conversation. Tutors were not expected to produce 'answers' on the spot for
students. Most students commented on the positive nature of the social interaction in their tutoring sessions – they did not find it at all 'heavy going.'
It became apparent to the lecturers that some student tutors had found it very easy to become overly focused on grammar and spelling errors. This provided a useful opportunity to, once again, refocus students on the need to think about the essay's central purpose. What was the writer trying to accomplish? What broad revisions or changes of strategy might enable the student to accomplish that more effectively? Grammar, though important,
is not to be the centrepiece of these conversations.
By the end of the training sessions, we had begun to conceptualise our students into groups. About 50% were actively engaged in responding to use, and these responses gave us confidence that the tutors were internalising important debates that would become a part of their tutoring practice. Some students still tended to look at the essay from the ‘outside’; that is, they concentrated on ‘structure’ and ‘grammar’ more than content. A few of the
trained tutors were quite silent, and we waited to review their preparation for tutorial and to look at the results. With one or two exceptions, student preparation for tutorials was over and above what we could have expected, and we were reassured that useful advice was being transmitted to the tutee (even if it might not have been our advice).
A folder containing training materials was distributed to each student and contained the following materials (where noted these are sent to you as attachments):
q A handout describing the philosophy of peer tutoring and steps in the peer tutoring process. (Appendix 1)
q A laminated A4 card: On the front a colour diagram of Don Murray’s process model (Appendix 2) was placed on the left-hand side of the sheet with a commentary on the right hand side. On the opposite side of the laminated card was a list with brief explanation, of six of the most common ‘grammatical errors’. (Appendix 4)
q Four sample student essays taken from students at St. Mary’s.
q A copy of the ‘Peer Tutoring Request Form’. (Appendix 5)
q A sample e-mail to a prospective tutee. (Appendix 6)
Evaluation of Initial Training
We asked students to evaluate the project during their first training session of 2002-2003. Student responses to the initial training were very positive: the students enjoyed the time spent in the training sessions and felt that the information provided was useful. Almost universally students commented that the session benefited them both as potential tutors but also as writers themselves. (This was a theme which echoed frequently throughout our work
with students). They found, particularly, that the experience of tutoring another student based upon the guidance that had been given was a very positive confidence-building measure. Students commented favourably on the informal and friendly atmosphere of the training. Soft drinks were provided during the training and we took a break after an hour. The atmosphere was more like an informal gathering of work colleagues rather than a lecture.
Our sense was that this aided both the learning and the general enthusiasm.
The vast majority of the students were highly motivated, highly verbal and conducted themselves professionally. Students all expressed a verbal interest in continued training and tutoring. One student wrote an enthusiastic e-mail to all her fellow BA students recommending the peer tutoring project to them.
Training was completed with three weeks remaining in the term, plus additional exam preparation time. In that time, we had five requests for tutoring. Of these requests, two were successfully completed, one student could not be contacted, and two students were judged to have difficulties too extensive for the Peer Tutoring Programme to tutor and their tutoring was handled separately by Dr. Martin and myself. (One student has been diagnosed as dyslexic and the other student had been identified as a student at risk of failing). Additionally, we had ten requests to tutor BEd students. We could not initially accommodate these without securing permission from the St. Mary’s administration.
Problems Identified and Proposed Solutions.
The number of requests for peer tutoring was disappointing:
Advertising: Although posters designed by our graphics department were placed around the building, we felt that the design did not have enough ‘attention getting’ power, and we have had the poster redesigned. We additionally secured notice board space outside the Writing Skills classroom. Jonathan Worley has now been appointed full-time and the written communications classroom is now officially the Writing Centre. Information on securing peer tutoring is posted prominently on the bulletin board. We did write to all lecturers, sending them ‘recommendation forms’. This proved to be well received, and we can expect more recommendations now that our project is gaining greater visibility and is available to all students. We will make similar announcements at the very start of next year throughout our registration week. Finally, we are having web pages put up on our intranet system that will advertise the programme and allow students to request peer tutoring online. [See Appendix 7 for screen shots of these materials]
Numbers of Students Available to be Tutored. St. Mary’s has 1,000 students, but, initially, we had approval from administration to tutor only BA students (300 out of the 1000). We now have approval to tutor both BA students and BEd students. Especially upon the completion of student teaching practice, there is a large demand from BEd lecturers for writing skills for education students. We should be able to fufill this need. A Late Start. Due to bereavements and leaves of absence in the English department, we
became organised for training relatively late in the term. Training will begin earlier in the year in future. Quality of Student Tutors. We were generally pleased with the high quality of the students that we trained. However, we did notice that as a rule the BEd tutors were more strongly motivated, more mature and better qualified, while those chosen from the pool of BA
students were less successful. This situation is to be expected as the BA actively recruits weaker students as part of its outreach mission. It was worthwhile giving all students a chance, but we plan to be more selective in the future, especially because it is likely that the students to be tutored will be more ‘needy’ than we had initially anticipated. This past year, Jonathan Worley collected data on all BA1 and BA2 students w ho took the mandatory
written communications module and will use that data to invite the more accomplished students to participate in the programme. Strategies for Dealing with Weaker Tutors. In contrast to the more able student tutors (who often came to 'check in' with us before and after their tutoring sessions), weaker tutors had to be asked to make a point of coming by for a preparatory chat before they met with a student. A pre-session meeting and a post-session debriefing were very useful for weaker
tutors, allowing them to prepare their approach to a student's essay and then to assess afterward how the session went. It may seem labour-intensive from the lecturer's point of view, but, with returning tutors, we're hoping to see increased independence in subsequent years. On the whole, we think the extra time spent with these students will pay off in terms of the work they go on to do for us.
Quality of Tutees. Many of the requests that came to us (including requests that we could not follow up from BEd students) were from students with ‘basic’ writing problems. By this we mean students who were battling problems with clarity of expression, accuracy of syntax, idiom, grammar and spelling, and, most significantly, problems with severely muddled and incoherent arguments. Such students, though rare throughout the general student body,
tend to be the first to be referred (or self-referred) to writing centres such as ours. One of the tasks facing us is to revise the general notion people have of writing centre as being strictly 'remedial' in their emphasis. Improving the work of competent writers is just as much our task as dealing with very weak students. We became concerned that our student tutors would not be up to the task of working with such difficult students. Accordingly, we are planning to concentrate upon problems in ‘basic writing’ for two hours of our scheduled advanced training this autumn. (All returning tutors will be given an additional six hours of training. New tutors will receive ten hours of training in total.) We will gear the training for ‘competent writers’ to discuss the differences
between these two kinds of writing. Distinctions between these two levels are rarely hazy in practice. The weakest writers make themselves known throughout the college virtually from the submission of their first essay. (One mystery yet to be solved is determining how these people succeeded at ALevel.) Working with these writers tends to focus on helping them to clarify the basic lines of argumentation they are trying to tackle, to refine their sense of what tone, diction and subject matter is appropriate for an academic audience, and to increase their sensitivity to the meanings of words and the complexity of ideas generally. These were not the central focus of our tutor training, and yet, weak students tended to be the first to arrive for help.
We will have to do two things in response to this complex phenomenon: 1) Increase awareness in the college that the Writing Centre is not strictly a 'remedial' centre, and 2) Increase the focus in our training sessions on 'basic' writing problems.
Plans for 2002-2003.
We have developed the curriculum for training new and returning tutors, which will feature workshops on:
q Introduction to Peer Tutoring and Tutoring Using the Writing Process
q Common Grammatical Errors and Practice Tutoring
q Working With 'Basic' Writing Students
q Working With 'Competent' Student Writers
q Theoretical Considerations in Peer Tutoring
We have secured Professor Kurt Spellmeyer of Rutgers University, New Jersey, USA as our funded speaker. Kurt is a professor of English at Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey. He is also director of their writing programme and a provocative theorist in the field of student composition studies (see his book, Common Ground: Dialogue, Understanding and the Teaching of Composition). He has recently published a book entitled Arts of Living: Reinventing the Humanities for the Twenty-first Century in which many of his ideas about composition can be seen to be integrally linked to his critical view of Western academia's notions about the humanities generally.
Kurt will come over during the second term (probably in January) and will be quite happy to give one lecture to staff, students and interested members of the public (including academics from other institutions, students from other institutions and school teachers). Kurt is also willing to run several workshops, so we will schedule him to work with our peer tutors,
who should make a receptive group. (Our final peer tutor training session will be devoted to raising ideas likely to be raised by Kurt.) We have secured a very good student web designer who will be developing a Peer Tutoring Project Web site as part of his senior dissertation. The website’s goal will be to disseminate information about the Peer Tutoring Project to a large audience and to assist in the administration of the project onsite. To that end, requests, tracking and evaluation are planned to be put onto the website. We also plan to list a current bibliography and make resource documents available via the web. We have sent invitations to students to be tutors whom we feel are the best qualified. We will raise the pool of trained tutors up to eighteen and keep twelve active tutors plus a pool of potential trainees.
Although we were disappointed by the number of initial requests for tutoring, we feel this can be turned around primarily through the creation of a larger pool of tutees (BEd students). The training went well, and we will want continued training to be of high quality because we feel that the students who request tutoring are likely to have challenging writing problems.
This document was distributed to our Student Tutors when they first arrived
for their initial training session. It was used as a guide for discussion during training
and is intended also to serve as an aide-memoire during their practice as tutors.
Conducting a Peer Tutor Session
Ideas Behind Peer Tutoring
• To reach more students with one-to-one, individualised tutoring.
• To democratise the process of teaching writing and eliminate unnecessary
• To put students—both tutors and tutees—in actual writing situations to make
the experience of writing more ‘real’.
• To evaluate the legitimacy of offering students a reasonable wage and work
experience within an academic institution.
• Extended length, training and speaker.
Key Concepts to Keep in Mind During a Peer Tutoring Session
• It is vital that you begin by asking students to state what they think they need
to do to improve their writing. You then need to respond to them in terms of your own assessment of their writing.
• It is important to address both issues of ‘content’ and ‘grammar’.
• It is important that you end every session with concrete and practical advice
about what next steps they should take.
Conducting a Tutorial Session.
Arranging a Meeting
• You need to supply me with (1) preferred e-mail address, (2) telephone
number, (3) term address, (4) summer address, (5) times you will be available during a typical week for the next five weeks.
• You may always contact me for any reason via e-mail (j.Worley@stmarysbelfast.
ac.uk, firstname.lastname@example.org) or by mobile (07867 857275)
• I will contact you via e-mail to inform you that you have a student who needs
tutoring. (I will have already checked to see if you have mutually available times. I will provide you with the student’s e-mail address and list of available hours.) You will then email the student suggesting a time or series of mutually convenient times. Once you have a confirmed appointment, you will need to e-mail me to arrange to pick up the student’s essay and request form and to inform me when the tutoring session will take place. Meetings will occur in the Written Communications classroom on Mondays and Wednesdays all day, on
Tuesdays and Fridays from 9:30 to 1:30. As a backup, if the classroom is closed, you might try the school canteen.
Preparing for the Session.
• Allow about an 1/2 hour to read over the student essay in advance of your
meeting. In some rare cases, you will not only have an essay to evaluate, but also an essay question that the student is preparing.
• Try to read the essay over once without making any comments and try to
develop an initial sense of what the writer is trying to say and what needs to be improved in the essay.
• Go through the 'flow chart' on the writing process, making notes to yourself as you go. In particular, you will want to write a one sentence statement about each paragraph
in the essay.
• Finally, read over the essay with a critical eye towards the six common
grammatical errors listed on the back of the 'flow chart' sheet. Mark the errors in pencil on the essay, and be prepared to explain to the student how he or she might correct them. It is often useful to put bracketed numbers indicating the error by the error.
• Write a comment to the student that he or she might read if you were not able to meet with them. Begin by stating what you like about their essay. Then suggest what might be improved. Offer a comment on the grammar, and then make a summary statement. This comment may be handed to the student at the end of the session as you wish.
• Before your first tutorial, come and discuss the essay with me prior to your
tutoring session. I would be more than happy to meet with you about subsequent essays.
The Tutorial Session.
• The tutorial session itself may run anywhere from 10-30 minutes depending upon the kind of writing difficulty, the degree of motivation of the student and the rapport that you are able to establish. An average session should run 20 minutes.
• Begin by introducing yourself, inform the students that you have read his or
her essay and ask the students to tell you what they think needs improving in their writing.
• Compare your observations with those of the student. Some possible
• ‘When I read your essay I found a similar difficulty. This is how I think you could solve that problem.
• ‘I agree with you that this is one problem. Let’s deal with that first. Then there are some other aspects of your writing that I would like to look at with you.’
• ‘I didn’t really find that to be a problem. Here is a place where you are doing that well. I did think you might work on this issue.’
• When explaining particular writing difficulties to the student, don’t hesitate to
point to items on the laminated sheet, either on the flow chart or on the grammar list. Also, point out particular places in the student essay where improvements could be made. It is always vital to illustrate the point that you are making with an example from the student text, if possible.
• After you make a point keep the conversation going by asking the student if
what you have said makes sense to them.
• Conclude with summary of the suggestions you have for the student, and ask the student if they have any additional questions or thoughts. Invite the student to sign up again for another tutorial if they would like to. Return the essay to the student.
After the Tutorial Session
• On the bottom of the request sheet, fill out the date and time of your session.
• On the back of the request sheet, write up a brief comment about the results of your session. You should include both a summary of the practical advice that you gave to the student and how you felt about the session. If you wish, you may word-process this final comment and attach it, or e-mail your final comment to me.
• Return the request form to me. The returned request form will become the
basis for payment. Usual payment for a session will be £8 or 1 hour’s work.
• As supporting evidence, if you wish, you may attach a copy of your
suggestions to the student to the request form.
‘Abstraction of Don Murray’s Writing Process’ ƒrom Donald Morrison Murray, Write to Learn (New York: Heinle, 2001)
Peter Elbow’s Writing Process ƒrom Peter Elbow, Writing With Power:
Techniques for Mastering the Writing Process. Oxford: Oxford Up, 1998, pp. 8-9
‘A Two-step Writing Process’
When you begin to realize how writing calls on the two opposite skills of creativity and critical thinking you get a better understanding of its difficulties. If you are trying to be inventive and come up with lots of interesting new ideas, it’s usually the worst thing in the world if someone comes along and starts being critical. Thus, the power of brainstorming: no one is allowed to criticize any idea or suggestion that is offered—no matter how stupid, impractical or useless it seems. . . . Similarly, if you are trying to be tough-mindedly critical and find the weaknesses in your own thinking, you will be impeded if someone comes along and makes you dream up lots of fresh ideas. To be critical you have to be doubting, detached, uninvested in the idea to be criticized; to come up with fresh new ideas you have invest yourself and be believing. . . . If you separate the writing process into two stages, you
can exploit these opposing muscles one at a time: first be loose and accepting as you do fast early writing: then be critically toughminded as you revise what you have produced. What you’ll discover is that these two skills used alternately don’t undermine each other at all, they enhance each other.
Appendix 6: Sample e-mail to tutee
[Insert sample email to tutee]
My name is (Student Tutor), and I have been assigned to be your tutor in written communications. I have received your request form and a sample of
your writing. I see from the form that you are available on Tuesday, 15 November from 3-5pm. Would a 4pm meeting in the canteen suit? Please confirm whether this meeting is convenient for you by return e-mail. If not convenient, could you suggest another time?
Appendix 7: Sample screen shot from home page of web site. Our website is
currently offline due to technical difficulties.
Bibliography of Relevant Theoretical and Practical Texts
Bartholomae, David. 'Inventing the University.' When a Writer Can't Write: Studies in
Writer's Block and Other Composing Process Problems. Ed. Mike Rose. New York:
Elbow, Peter. Writing without Teachers. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998.
Falchikov, Nancy (ed.). Learning Together: Peer Tutoring in Higher Education. London:
Gillespie, Paula and Neal Lerner. The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Peer Tutoring. London:
Allyn and Bacon, 2000.
McCrimmon, James. 'Writing as a Way of Knowing.' Rhetoric and Composition. Ed.
Richard L. Graves. Upper Monclair, NJ: Boynton Cook, 1984, 3-11.
Miller, Richard and Kurt Spellmeyer (eds.). The New Humanities Reader. New York:
Houghton Mifflin, 2002.
Murray, Donald. Write to Learn. Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, 2002.
Rafort, Ben (ed.). A Tutor's Guide: Helping Writers: One to One. Portsmouth, NH:
Scholes, Robert E. Textual Power: Literary Theory and the Teaching of English. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.
Spellmeyer, Kurt. Common Ground: Dialogue, Understanding and the Teaching of
Composition. New York: Prentice Hall, 1993.
---. Arts of Living: Reinventing the Humanities for the Twenty-First Century. Albany, NY:
State University of New York Press, 2003.
Topping, Keith and Stewart Ehly (eds.). Peer Assisted Learning. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence
|Key Words: Peer tutoring, wiki, sample code database, knowledge production, e-learning||Interim Housing Supplementary Planning Guidance consultation report|
|This essay is part of a book project exploring the positive, political, and progressive potential of nontraditional family care practices and their||Comment for the: Interim Report of the Interagency Ocean Policy Task Force. September 10, 2009. The White House Council on Environmental Quality|
|Understand the type of technical report you are writing||Ad-hoc and wireless mesh networks for a mobile peer-to-peer collaboration|
|Developing a Methodological Framework for Developing Local and Regional Plans for Social Inclusion||The conformational statistics and phase transition into rotator phase of ribbon-like polymer chains|
|─ Biomedical engineering, bioelectricity, excitable cell, electrostatic theory, intracellular potential, extracellular potential||Keywords Workflow Management Systems, xml store, Petri net, dpnml, Reactive xml, peer-2-peer and distributed system. Acknowledgement|