Re: e-mail tutoring

[becky.rickly@umich.edu (Becky Rickly)]

I'm *way* behind, but the notes from Bobbie and Frankie really made me
think--and FEEL--despite my stuffy head (both my 4 month old and I have
colds--what fun!).  I, too, have pondered the differences of cyber-being
and f2f in a variety of situations, and while I worry that cyberjunkies
would have us lose ourselves in the etherealness of virtuality, I think
there's something to be said for a *sense* of anonynimity, especially where
writing is concerned.

Let me share some data, then a personal experience.  In my dissertation
study, I looked at participation levels among basic writers in oral and
InterChange discussions (Interchange is a synchronous conferencing program,
sort of like IRC or a MOO on the Internet).  I analyzed the amount of text
generated, the amount of discussion, and who the discussion was aimed
towards, and I used both biological sex (M/F) and Sex-Role Affiliation as
determined by a psychological measure (the Bem Sex-Role Inventory).  In a
nutshell, this measure looks at how much an individual buys into the
socially constructed sex roles of the dominant culture (so a man could have
a female sex-role affiliation, for instance).  What was really fascinating
about all of this data was that in the oral classes, at least 40%, and
sometimes over 80% of the discussion was generated by the instructor, and
in the InterChange classes, the instructor generated only 5-20% of the
discussion.  Similarly, in the oral classes, the direction of discourse was
almost always teacher-student, student-teacher; there was NO oral
student-student discussion.  Yet in InterChange, students directed their
discussion to other students well over half the time!  In addition, while I
found no *significant* difference in the amount of text generated by M/F in
either context, when I looked at sex-role affiliation, I found significant
differences among those who tested as female in their online and oral
participation:  those students who tested female participated minimally or
not at all orally, yet produced up to 20% of the discussion in InterChange.


It would seem, then, that the perceived lack of body and gender DID affect
how much and how these students participated in a basic writing class.  My
guess is that this kind of thing carries over to the Internet, too--and
with that assumption, here's the personal story:  About four or five years
ago, when I JUST found out about MOOs, I was hanging around at MediaMOO
logged on as my character, Beckster.  My character description at the time
suggested I was a female graduate student (and a midwest farmer's daughter)
working on a dissertation.  I joined some men who identified themselves as
being from Brown engaged in a fascinating discussion of theory, but
whenever I suggested something or said anything, I was dismissed or simply
not recognized.  I logged off, then logged back on as a guest and joined
the young men.  I once again put forth my ideas, and they asked me who I
was.  When I identified myself as "Paul" and "an associate professor of
rhetoric" at "Indiana University", they suddenly included me in the
conversation, listening to and responding to the *very same things* I'd
been saying earlier.

I realize that all of the above took place in situations different from the
ones we describe in our cybertutoring, yet I can't help but to think that
these spaces, these virtual places, have some things in common that will
lend itself to how we tutor online.  Of course these identifiers--race,
gender, age, and sor forth--exist in cyberspace.  We construct them.  But
we also get to be more fluid in our definitions, in our constructions of
ourselves (and of others), and I think that's important to keep in mind.
Bottom line:  e-mail tutoring supplements f2f, and I think it can do so in
important ways.

Wonderful discussion!  This list is amazing; not only do folks NOT shy away
from anecdotes/personal discussion, but we use them as springboards to
theorizing.

--Becky