In 1984, Stephen North said of writing center research: "There is not a single published study of what happens in writing center tutorials" (433). In the eighteen years since then, writing center practitioners and scholars have produced impressive research and development work, but few empirical studies have added to the sub-field of computer-mediated writing conferencing, though there are more than 300 online writing labs, OWLs, listed on the National Writing Centers Association website. This study started with the understanding that there are significant behavior, communication, and tutoring technique differences between online tutoring and face-to-face tutoring that can affect tutor training, which the research from the fields of computers and composition, computer-mediated communication, and writing centers shows. The purpose of this research was to describe the nature of the online writing lab tutorial. Qualitative analysis was used to prepare a full picture of the online tutoring sessions of three tutors over a six-week period in the Radford University Writing Center. The researcher took the role of participant/observer/interviewer for the sessions. Interviews and talk during conferences with the tutors, were transcribed, coded and contextualized, adding to the understanding of the tutor?s online work. Using a functional analysis model created by Gere and Abbott (1985) and applied by Hewett (1999), transcripts of the tutorial conferences were divided by linguistic idea units and coded according to function, intent, and consciousness. Additionally, a coding scheme was created out of the interview transcripts and from the tutorial responses of this study that focused on the technical and social aspects of the online conferencing, which helped objectify the nature of computer-mediated conference. / Ph. D.

There has been an increasing growth in the use of technology resources in traditional classroom styled higher education courses. This growth has received with both optimism and criticism. One of the issues critics have posed is that the use of technology resources does little, if anything, to improve student learning. As a result, this research examined if the use of technology contributes to student learning outcomes and student engagement activities, above and beyond student demographic variables. Specifically, this study investigated if the use of computer mediated conferencing (CMC) tools (i.e., email and electronic discussion boards) and computer aided instructional (CAI) resources (i.e., use of the computer and the Internet) contribute to student learning. Included in the sample were 2000 college students, which were randomly drawn from the 2003 College Student Experience Questionnaire database. The survey included 53 Likert scale items with reliability ranges from .78 to .88 on each of the composite scales. For the data analysis, eight multiple regressions were conducted on student learning outcomes and student learning engagement. Student learning outcomes included four composite scales, measuring students' personal and social development, general education gains, intellectual development, science and technology gains, and vocational preparation. The student engagement scale was comprised of three composite scales, which included faculty interactions, social, political and scientific discussions, and diversity and social interactions. The findings revealed that the use of technology resources does contribute to student learning, above and beyond student's background variables. The model inclusive of technology variables explained 4% to 7% of the gains in student learning, while student background variables contributed .03% to 2% of the gains. The findings suggest incorporating the use of technology can aid students in the learning process, though the effect size was fairly modest in most cases. The use of computer mediated conferencing and computer assisted learning tools should be used in combination with traditional classroom instructions to have the best effects. / Ph. D.