Discourse of writing center interaction: The

Abstract

In response to the call for more inquiry-based research in the field of Writing Center Studies, this research employs a discourse-analytic methodology to examine consultation talk and uncover more about interaction between writers and consultants on the discourse level. During the initial transcription of the four consultation videos, I found an "oral revision space" not previously identified in discourse or writing center literature. This discourse space is not reading aloud, speaking-while-writing, or interactional discourse. This discourse space, what I have labeled as the "OR," appeared in the transcripts 244 times and exemplified a different kind of "writing" space.

Subsequent research then focused on the OR and used both conversation analysis and interactional sociolinguistics to discover more about this emergent discourse structure. The findings indicate there are 6 types of ORs that participants use for differing purposes. Discourse "chunks" come before and follow the OR, what I have labeled lead-ins and lead-outs, of which there are 12 categories. Consequently, there is an OR chain: lead-in --> OR --> lead-out, and these chains highlight scaffolding interaction on the discourse level. The OR and the OR chains, then, act as an analytical framework for examining writing center discourse and allow researchers to examine one of the ways that scaffolding transpires in writing center sessions.

When I divided consultations in smaller pieces of interaction, what I call episodes, I discovered that ORs appeared in nearly half of all episodes within the dataset. This percentage not only validates a discourse-based methodology, but also indicates the high frequency of the OR, showing the importance of examining the OR as a prevalent discourse structure in writing center talk.

Through the interactional sociolinguistic concept of footing (Goffman, 1981), I also analyzed how participants position themselves via discourse in relation to the context and the other participants. I found that consultants align themselves in three ways; and writers align themselves in four ways. Consultants most often position themselves as "fellow/writer peer" while writers most often position themselves as "apprentice," a position where writers "try out" ideas by speaking them, words that eventually become writing. These findings have implications for how writing centers train consultants to position themselves in terms of "peer-to-peer" interaction.

Lastly, I discuss the ways in which the OR and OR chain framework aligns with other scaffolding frameworks, mainly Holton and Clarke's (2006) scaffolding agency. I map how the OR discourse structures allow the interaction to be traced through Holton and Clarke's three stages of scaffolding: expert, reciprocal, and self. Implications of this study include the benefits of a conversation analysis methodology with a focus on emergent findings; a shift in understanding of what writing center discourse is, calling for a shift in expectations of how interaction should occur; a reidentification of writing center work, mainly that true scaffolding allows for more "directive" approaches when necessary; and lastly, a call for more informed approaches to data-driven research in Writing Center Studies.