Embedded vs. Drop-in Tutors in Developmental Writing Contexts

Which is more effective: Drop-in or Writing Fellows tutoring?

It’s a provocative question. And like most questions pitting one answer against another in a possible false dichotomy, the direct answer may not be as useful as the reasons why one type of tutoring might tend to be more effective than the other.

Kurzer and Nguyen (authors of the study briefly summarized below) give their answer: Writing Fellows (which they call “embedded tutoring”) may be more effective.

But why?

Before I list the authors’ reasons, I’d like to define the terms, state my positionality, and then offer three key phrases I developed for tutors to use in drop-in appointments so they can leverage some of the advantages of embedded tutoring.

Terms

Drop-in tutoring: Writers choose their tutor and make appointments individually whenever they want.

Embedded tutoring: Tutors are connected to “particular classrooms where they are briefed on the class… and learn about the major assignments and writing expectations of the course by meeting with the course instructor” (26).

My positionality

I have worked as a tutor for both drop-in sessions and a “Writing Fellows program—as embedded writing tutors are frequently named,” (28) since August 2023. Currently, I also work as a Student Manager for a Writing Fellows program. Rather than bias my view toward one method over the other, I believe my experience offers insights into how the advantages of Writing Fellows can be used to improve drop-in sessions.

Improving drop-in sessions with three key phrases

Embedded tutoring may be more effective overall, but some of its advantages can be used in drop-in appointments. These three phrases might help to be used at the end of the appointment: 

1. “If you have the time, you might want to make an appointment with another tutor for a broader perspective.”
2. “Also, once you’ve revised this draft, you could make another appointment with me or another tutor who’s seen this draft, because we’ll have the background knowledge to hopefully help you with the next, revised draft.”
3. “Finally, how do you feel about our revision plan? Do you feel like you know what to do for the next steps?”

These phrases are my own wording and can be reworked, but they aim to leverage a few of the strengths of embedded tutoring:

• Broader perspective (usually inherent in the feedback process)
• Repeated appointments for background knowledge (about the assignment and the writer)
• Revision plan (clear direction to go forward)

What’s missing from these phrases are other strengths of embedded tutoring that are difficult to recreate in drop-in appointments:

• Conversations with the instructors make tutors “better prepared for tutoring sessions and to provide feedback more in line with that of the instructor” (26).
• Buy-in from the students because the session are associated with a class, and often class grade (their “buy-in” is my own assumption, not yet researched)
• Ensured repeated appointments (at least two)
• Instructors’ improvements, inspired by Writing Fellows, for how to work with their students because, as suggested by Kurzer and Nguyen’s findings, “instructors may restructure their lesson plans for embedded models and work more personally with students based on the notes from embedded tutors” (33).

Additionally, “When instructors embed tutors into their classes, they need to rethink assignment sequences and may end up with stronger scaffolding than they would otherwise develop. Also, if instructors help students process the feedback they receive from tutors, that could help create a more cohesive, productive learning environment beyond just receiving additional feedback from a tutor” (34).

Overview of the study

“Embedded vs. Drop-in Tutors in Developmental Writing Contexts: Course/Tutoring Perceptions and Impact on Student Writing Efficacy” (2023) details a study conducted by Kurzer and Nguyen at the University of California, Davis.

• Duration: 5 academic quarters 
• # course sections with embedded tutors: “16 different sections of entry-level writing [ELW] umbrella courses, two of which were lower-level sheltered sections only for multilingual students. The other 14 were the main ELW-fulfilling course” (13).
• # students: 280 students working with embedded tutors
• # embedded tutoring sessions: 540 
• Control: 400 ELW students participated in approximately 500 tutoring sessions via the mainstream drop-in tutoring program.

Overview of study methods

The study “relied primarily on quantitative survey data, contrasting the responses of treatment and control students on a number of writing efficacy and class attitudinal items” (32).

Overview of results

In addition to the results summarized in the bullet points above, there were two main takeaways from the study.

Students working with embedded tutors rated the course and tutor feedback highly and benefited from next-step plans.

They “reported statistically higher ratings regarding general course instruction, teacher feedback, overall helpfulness of the course, and tutor feedback” (34).

By the end of the course, most multilingual students perceived embedded tutoring as beneficial because they had a third space to form a strong rapport with their tutors and to develop an individualized plan for improving their writing conventions (29).

Students reported the impact of embedded tutors higher than drop-in, but drop-in tutoring was still well-regarded.

Student “gave statistically higher scores regarding how the peer educators impacted their experiences in a number of manners (with moderate to large effect sizes), although average scores from both groups were satisfactorily high, indicating that both the embedded and main-stream drop-in programs were well received” (36).

Conclusion

Kurzer and Nguyen’s conclusion is worth quoting at length: 

The strengths of embedded tutoring—stronger relationships between tutors and tutees and tutors and instructors, more deliberate and helpful feedback, and so on—do indeed seem to be present based on our research, and students responded more positively to their embedded tutors than those students who engaged with tutors in the drop-in context. While we need more resources and research to better understand the possible impacts and benefits of embedded tutoring, our current study provided valuable insights and data supporting the role embedded tutoring programs may play when supporting vulnerable students in developmental writing contexts (39).

My view is that even if further research confirms this study’s tentative conclusion, drop-in tutors can still leverage some of the effective aspects of Writing Fellows by encouraging repeat appointments with writers to develop useful historical knowledge about writers, as well as ending sessions with next-step plans. 

Sources Cited

Kurzer, K., Hayden, A., & Nguyen, J. (2023). Embedded vs. Drop-in Tutors in Developmental Writing Contexts: Course/Tutoring Perceptions and Impact on Student Writing Efficacy. The Writing Center Journal, 41(2), 26–41. https://www.jstor.org/stable/27262714