86

Introduction
hree professors engaged in writing centers, educa-
tional technology, and service learning at Texas
A&M UniversityCorpus Christi collaborated with
two technical writing teachers in a rural high school
to establish a multimedia writing center and study its
impact. Training high school students to be peer writ-
ing tutors and to create public service announcements
(PSAs), we also taught writing center pedagogies
within two high school technical writing courses. This
partnership illustrates the necessity for communica-
tion and how such projects can benefit students.
Our Purpose
Secondary-level writing centers have been shown to
improve the learning and writing of the students who
use them as well as those who are trained as peer
tutors (Farrell 1987; Upton 1990). We focused the
project on writing center pedagogy (Harris 1986;
North 1984) and the theory of writing as process to
encompass active learning, student-centered learning,
collaboration, and critical thinking (Bruffee 1984;
Lunsford 1991; Flynn 1993; Trimbur 1985). By inte-
grating technology to help students explore higher
level thinking skills and technological literacies, we
support[ed] powerful new forms of learning as
Cramer and Smith advocate (2002, 4). We hoped that
achieving these learning outcomes would encourage
high school teachers to try new strategies and students
to view writing in more situated, audience-driven,
purposeful ways.
Methods
We trained peer tutors in writing center pedagogies
using role playing, which was reinforced during the
making of a PSA about the Robstown High School
Writing Center. We used a digital video camera,
MovieMaker software available on Windows XP, and an
electronic newsletter, which functioned both as a pro-
ject model and as a tool. The peer tutors used writing
center practices with four writing groups from the tech-
nical writing courses taught by our high school part-
ners. Participants included three professors, two high
school teachers, and six high school students.
Data Collection
We collected pre- and postsurveys of the students,
tutor and student reflections, the PSAs, and interviews
with the teachers. The survey asked about writing
processes, knowledge of technology, and involvement
with civic organizations. Students wrote journal entries
to record their tutoring, writing, and collaborative deci-
sions and processes on a weekly basis. The PSAs
focused on school beautification, financial aid applica-
tions, prom night safety, and the local blood drive.
Challenges
The biggest challenge of the project was lack of com-
munication. To counter the problem, we developed the
goals for the study, including a drop-in writing center,
and relayed them to the teachers. Teachers and students
on site adapted to the necessities of their context. Stu-
dents could not attend after-school sessions because of
Enacting Multimedia
Writing Center Pedagogy
in a Rural High School
SUSAN ELWOOD, SUSAN WOLFF MURPHY, and DIANA CRDENAS
Susan Elwood teaches educational technology courses at TAMUCC. Susan Wolff
Murphy is coordinator of the First Year Writing Program at TAMUCC. Diana
Crdenas serves as coordinator of the technical and professional writing program
and teaches writing courses at Texas A&M UniversityCorpus Christi. Copyright
2007 Heldref Publications
T
Vol. 80, No. 2 Rural Writing Centers 87
work, busing schedules, and sports. Instead, writing
center pedagogies were incorporated into classes,
where they could work.
Discoveries
Collaboration/Writing Center Practice
In teams, students learned to make decisions and col-
lectively resolve conflict. Venessa of the prom night safe-
ty group articulates the process made possible by the
training we provided: We originally planned to each
write our own lines. However, we ended up all helping
each other in writing the script because of the difference
in opinions (All quotes appear as they were written by
students). Venessa added, After figuring out who was
gonna say what and when we would film, we figured a
little constructive criticism would not hurt. Team mem-
bers internalized the processes of collaborative writing
and were committed to their shared purpose.
Additionally, the team members learned how to nego-
tiate dissensus to address the needs of the audience.
Originally, the group had chosen to deal with the cos-
metic preparations for the prom. Venessa noted the
changed perception: After much discussion, we came to
the conclusion that explaining the dangers would be
more beneficial to the audience. Graciela wrote, There
was disagreeing and a lot of different ideas but we came
to the conclusion that we can present what safety pre-
cautions there are and how we or the community are
affected by them. Both Venessa and Gracielas com-
ments demonstrate how writing center pedagogy pro-
moted assessment of ideas and awareness of audience.
Civic Engagement
The group that created the PSA for safety during
prom night called attention to the social significance of
their endeavor. A group member, Robert, specified the
problem associated with prom night: We are the first
state that has students dieing [sic] after prom because
of the after parties that people have. The group mem-
bers merged a personal interest with broader activism.
Samantha described this connection:
While researching I learned that prom and graduation
are when the most car accidents happen due to drinking
and driving. I looked at another website which talked
about MADD. . . . Mothers are concerned with what
their teens are doing and they want to see them safe so
they came up with this group which tries to prevent
teens from drinking and driving.
The group members linked their welfare to that of
the community. Graciela saw the impact of their work
as going beyond the students: We can present what
safety precautions there are and how we or the com-
munity are affected by them.
The blood bank group lessened the anxiety of talking
to authority figures and became more aware of com-
munity structures by interacting with the director of the
county blood center. Having the PSAs shown on the
schools closed-circuit television channel highlighted
the public nature of the students work. Service-learn-
ing projects like this one have also been successful in
other rural areas. Jeff Luxterman (2002), an eighth-
grade language arts teacher and member of the Bread
Loaf writing community in New Mexico, observed that
his Native American students were enthusiastic in their
writing, based on trying to make a difference.
Students Personal Growth
Students responded to the statement, Tell what you
have learned working/volunteering outside the class-
room. In the pre-project surveys, students cited help-
ing others in need, and giving back to the communi-
ty. In the postsurvey, students also pointed to affective
elements, such as helping feels good. However, they
also cited other experiences that represent the seeds of
civic literacies:
Learning to communicate with others
Getting along with different people
Speaking in front of groups
Learning to earn leadership
Multimedia Literacies
Some students planned visually (Hayes and Groves
2002), while others were more script-driven. Venessa
summarized her teams planning in visual terms:
[S]tarting out deciding which camera angles we would
be using and each scene (excluding dialogue) was
carefully thought out. In contrast, Graciela noted,
First, we had to get together and come up with what
we wanted to present and how we were going to pre-
sent it later we came up with a story board. Saman-
tha wrote, We had to first pick the topic . . . write
down the info we would need to receive [. . . then]
came to the lab and started typing out our story
board. These students divergent planning strategies
highlight the writing centers need to accommodate
individual learning styles (Dunn and Dunn 1993).
Conclusion
Administrators and teachers who wish to partner
across institutional boundaries should recognize that
extensive communication is necessary to collaboratively
develop goals and methods and to address challenges.
Grants, such as Title V, can support the planning process.
The benefits to these collaborations are worth the effort;
teachers and professors get a better idea of each others
classrooms, pedagogies, and learning goals, and stu-
dents gain learning experiences that they would not oth-
erwise have had, especially in a rural, low-income
school.
88 The Clearing House November/December 2006
REFERENCES
Bruffee, K. A. 1984. Collaborative learning and the conversation of
mankind. College English 46: 63552.
Cramer, S., and A. Smith. 2002. Technologys impact on student writ-
ing at the middle school level. Journal of Instructional Psychology 29
(1): 314.
Dunn, R. S., and K. J. Dunn. 1993. Teaching secondary students through
their individual learning styles: Practical approaches for grades 712.
Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
Farrell, P. B. 1987. Writer, peer tutor, and the computer: A unique
relationship. Writing Center Journal 8 (1): 2933.
Flynn, T. 1993. Promoting higher-order thinking skills in writing con-
ferences. Dynamics of the writing conference: Social and cognitive inter-
action. Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.
Harris, M. 1986. Teaching one-to-one: The writing conference. Urbana, IL:
National Council of Teachers of English.
Hayes, M., and P. Groves. 2002. The medium is the experience: Uses of
media in multicultural education. Multicultural Education 10 (2): 1417.
Lunsford, A. 1991. Collaboration, control, and the idea of the writ-
ing center. Writing Center Journal 12 (1): 310.
Luxterman, J. 2002. Service learning and curriculum content: The
merging of old ideals. Bread Loaf: Teacher Network Magazine, Net-
work Teaching and Learning 10 (1): 3234.
North, S. M. 1984. The idea of the writing center. College English46: 43346.
Trimbur, J. 1985. Collaborative learning and teaching writing. In Per-
spectives on recent research and scholarship in composition, ed. Ben W.
McClelland and Timothy R. Donovan, 87109. New York: Modern
Language Association.
Upton, J. 1990. The high school writing center: The once and future
services. Writing Center Journal 11 (1): 6771.