restricted access NOTES
In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

NOTES NOTES TO INTRODUCTION ( Michael A. Pemberton and Joyce Kinkead) 1. This essay draws on a previously published article in The Writing Center Journal, “The National Writing Centers Association as Mooring: A Personal History of the First Decade,” 16.2 (spring 1996):131–141. 2. In fact, Harris has sometimes described herself as “the writing center yenta.” NOTES TO CHAPTER 1 (Michael A. Pemberton) 1. The next issue (May 1977, 1.2:1) included an announcement that “a list of established writing labs” would be compiled by Helen Naugle, but this data was maintained and distributed separately from the list of WLN subscribers that appeared in subsequent issues. Naugle reported in October 1977 (2.2) that she had compiled a list of 283 lab addresses. 2. Of necessity, the Newsletter had to defer this function to a separate Writing Lab Directory, first compiled from the results of a survey printed in the February 1984 (8.6) issue. An announcement for the Directory’s publication appeared in the September 1984 (9.1) issue, and by April 1985 it was already in its third printing. 3. In Gary Olson’s report on the first Southeastern WCA conference (June 1981, 5.10), he also makes a public call for the creation of a national writing center association and says he has contacted representatives of the East Central WCA to pursue this goal (6). 4. Meaning, the last seven years covered by the Index, volume 18.1 (September 1993) through volume 24.9 (May 2000). This statistic may be slightly misleading, since the Newsletter has had more pages (16) since May 1988 (12.9) than it did previously, but the articles published in recent times have been lengthier, overall, than earlier ones, so I suspect matters balance out. 5. The May 1988 (12.9) and June 1988 (12.10) issues were the first to reach 16 pages in length, though these issues were stapled in the corner like Center will hold final 8/26/03 9:23 AM Page 190 the ones that preceded them. The move to a 16-page booklet format (which has been maintained to the present time) was prompted, in part, by the need to fill a standard printing “signature.” NOTES TO CHAPTER 3 (Neal Lerner) 1. McCracken (1979) tells us that it is the tutor who is making that initial “diagnosis” of student error, for one of the benefits of her system is that “lab staff members who are trained in careful diagnosis of writing problems become superior tutors” (2). 2. While published studies are few, the number conducted is likely quite large. When I gave a talk on this subject at the 2000 International Writing Centers Association conference in Baltimore and asked my audience how many had conducted such studies, nearly all the hands in the room went up. The fact that so few of these studies see the light of publication is perhaps an indication of our uneasiness with statistical methodologies. 3. FYC average represents a student’s mean grade from the two-semester composition sequence. Students’ grades were fairly consistent from one semester to the next, and the difference between these two grades was not statistically significant for the four years I calculated. 4. For two additional published statistical studies, each with its own set of flaws, see Roberts (1988); Waldo (1987). For a more thorough critique of my own study, see Lerner (2001). 5. Number of faculty surveys returned was 28 or roughly 28% of the total full-time faculty during the 2000–01 academic year. 6. The claim of “writing center as safe house” is a long-standing one as demonstrated by the following comment from a 1951 CCCC workshop on “Organization and Use of a Writing Laboratory”: “The writing laboratory should be what the classroom often is not—natural, realistic, and friendly” (18). 7. For an example of one attempt to describe the writing center environment , see Connolly, DeJarlais, Gillam, and Micciche (1998). 8. I am grateful for the help of my colleagues Lila Foye and Xiangqian Chang in performing these statistical analyses. 9. My test of statistical significance indicates that there was a five percent or less probability that the differences between these mean scores were due to chance alone. That is the usual accepted level of “error” in studies such as these (Johanek 2000, 107). Notes to Chapter 3 191 Center will hold final 8/26/03 9:23 AM Page 191 10. To account for students who...


pdf