Multiple approaches to online WC resources

All this year as I’ve been building up and revising our center’s website resources, I have been looking across the web at other centers’ sites for models.  

Here are some observations.

Online resources for writers seem to fall into two broad categories.  Either they are integrally connected to specific curricula in their host institutions, or they primarily offer generalist advice about writing processes applicable to many situations, academic and professional. Of course, sites often strive to do both, but let’s look at examples of the poles:

UVA’s site is a strong example of WC resources based on curriculum. The WC is closely tied to UVA’s writing program which I understand has its intellectual roots in the University of Chicago’s Little Red Schoolhouse. Here, argumentation takes center stage, the writing program and the writing center promote use of a common text, The Craft of Research, and students, tutors, and faculty have precise scaffolding to help them through the process of developing academic arguments with methods that parallel the course offerings.

At the other end of the continuum, the gold standard of generalist online resources seems to be Purdue’s OWL.  Google any writing process or term and OWL is likely to come at the top of your search list.  Because this Online Writing Lab’s audience consistently includes people outside their institution, the folks at Purdue have filtered and annotated a generous number of their resources just for us: Non-Purdue College Level Instructors and Students

As a website designer, I now ask:   Is the writing curriculum at our school so distinctive that we ought to create resources tailored to it?   Or will generalist writing resources fit the bill?

As I write, adapt, and compile resources for my institution’s site, I also struggle with a question of instituting consistency versus linking outside of our center to good resources.   Most of the fifty to a hundred writing center sites I have browsed seem to opt for visual branding, using the equivalence of letterhead on their handouts.  Even when the advice is fairly boilerplate, or frankly adapted from other resources, the writing resources emanating from a visually consistent site (such as Purdue, UVA, or the cornucopia of handouts from UNC) advertise one center and perhaps build an ethos of credibility through the comprehensiveness of offerings attributable to that center.

But the web folks I have been learning from lately tell me that students care little about branding and instead seek information they can use.  So even though I keep telling myself that Phase III of my own site design process will entail making all of our handouts look like they came from the same place, the fact remains that my process of seeking information leads me to articles and resources that I want to link to rather than paraphrase.    It’s expedient, sure.  But maybe there’s some further value to this approach.

Brown University’s site maintains visual coherence while also recommending outside resources with their annotated links to other sites.  Here’s their ESL/ESOL page, for instance.  Many other WC sites choose this method for at least some resources.  See Westfield State, Trinity, and UVM for variations on that theme. 

The ethos of a site that links out abundantly to outside writing resources is fundamentally different from a site that opts primarily for institutional consistency.  My question as a web designer, then, is: Which ethos serves our situation better?  Do we need to build up credibility as a writing center within our institution?  If so, then offering up expert advice as if we were the brandable source of that expertise might be a wise move.   But with a well established, well respected center, perhaps there’s room to take on a less institutional-seeming ethos, learning from our Facebook-savvy student audience how to sample, collage, and link to the rest of the writing world purposefully. 

The fundamental issues in WC web design remain rhetorical concerns:  What is our context. Who are our audiences.  What are our purposes.   Luckily there are abundant examples of excellent, diverse approaches to presenting online WC resources to use as models — and perhaps even as links. 

Advertisements

2 Responses to “Multiple approaches to online WC resources”

  1. Thank you for sharing your observations. I plan to revise the resource pages we have listed on our Learning Center’s website this summer and you have given me a lot of food for thought.

    As I revise our webpage, I am working within three rhetorical stances. All webpages are viewable by anyone who visits our website, but I do consider the intended audience of each page as I write and revise our web material.

    The general information about our sources are more open and welcoming as they are most often reviewed by our perspective students and their parents. The specific information regarding our tutoring (and the resource pages I will build this summer) are written to appeal to our current student body who will use our services.

    I also plan on creating an online version of The Source, our bound reference source for faculty members. It will be much easier (and greener) for us to update our information online since it does change frequently.

    I am not sure if I have answered your theoretical challenges, but I find that tutoring theory is often enriched by tutoring practice. I think that web design is similarly intricately tied to our applications of and purposes for sharing our messages online.

  2. Nichole, I like the idea of a green and quickly-revisable reference source for faculty.

    I’m noticing that when I try to distinguish the primary audience for new material as either “For Students,” “For Faculty,” or “For Tutors,” there’s often a great deal of overlap. Anything that I’d mark as a writing resource could easily be useful for all three groups. But gearing some sections specifically for faculty still makes sense because a pedagogical perspective is different from a student writer’s perspective.

    Augmenting our face to face writing center work with a web presence is certainly turning out to be an intricate process!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: