SURVEYING THE FIELD: HOW DO (AND SHOULD) WRITING CENTERS
MARKET AND DESIGN
Thesis
Submitted to
The College of Arts and Sciences of the
UNIVERSITY OF DAYTON
In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for
The Degree of
Master of Arts in English
By
Autumn Marie Lala-Sonora, B.A.
Dayton, Ohio
May 2020
SURVEYING THE FIELD: HOW DO (AND SHOULD) WRITING CENTERS
MARKET AND DESIGN
Name: Lala-Sonora, Autumn Marie
APPROVED BY:
______Margaret Strain, Ph.D. Faculty Advisor Professor of English Director of Writing Programs
______Stephen Wilhoit, Ph.D. Committee Member Professor of English Associate Director of the Learning & Teaching Center
______Christina Klimo, M.A. Committee Member Write Place Coordinator
ii
© Copyright by
Autumn Marie Lala-Sonora
All rights reserved
2020
iii ABSTRACT
SURVEYING THE FIELD: HOW DO (AND SHOULD) WRITING CENTERS
MARKET AND DESIGN
Name: Lala-Sonora, Autumn Marie University of Dayton
Advisor: Dr. Margaret Strain
This thesis seeks to fill gaps in literature within writing center scholarship where marketing and design are concerned. I discovered these gaps in literature upon attempting to design marketing materials for the University of Dayton’s writing center, the Write
Place. In response, I conducted two surveys: (1) a three-part, anonymous marketing and design survey toward writing center professionals to ascertain their current marketing and design practices, as well as (2) an anonymous, session-based survey toward Write Place consultants to ascertain the topics they discussed with patrons for future materials. The writing center marketing and design survey collected 118 responses, which revealed a number of trends and tensions within the field’s marketing and design practices.
Furthermore, the institutional research of Write Place consultants brought into question how much impact writing center sessions themselves have on writing center perception.
Overall, the data indicates a lack of marketing and design expertise and guidance within the writing center field. Therefore, this thesis includes a marketing step-by-step procedure and branding checklist, aiming to consider the trends and tensions present within the writing center field at-large while attending to the unique circumstances of individual writing centers. I applied the procedure and checklist when designing
iv marketing materials for the Write Place, though the effectiveness of those materials is beyond the scope of this project. Ultimately, more research is needed to uncover the marketing and design practices of the writing center field at-large so individual writing centers will be better equipped to market and design within their unique, local contexts.
v DEDICATION
Dedicated to my ever-supportive husband, Jordan Sonora.
vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank Christina Klimo, Coordinator of the Write Place. Without her support, this thesis would not exist. Next, I would like to pay special regards to Dr.
Margaret Strain, my advisor. Between her ten o’clock email responses and continual encouragement in moments of doubt, this thesis would not have evolved into what it is. I would also like to show my gratitude towards Dr. Stephen Wilhoit, whose expertise in
English and writing center studies challenged me to strengthen the connections I hesitated to make. All three of you have been instrumental in the development of this thesis.
I owe my deepest gratitude to Drs. Jennifer Haan and Tereza Szeghi for allowing me the opportunity to explore all of my passions in one project. I grew up inside my family’s print shop, Innovative Creations, and learned graphic design by sitting on my father’s lap as he worked. I fell in love with language all throughout grade school and undergrad, discovering a common theme amongst all of my professional, academic, and personal interests: audience. The opportunity to showcase my skills in this thesis has been one of my greatest challenges to date, and I have gained so much from this experience.
I must also recognize my graduate student cohort, professors past and present, along with my friends outside academia. It’s hard to feel lost in life with people like you by my side. I must also recognize my parents, who have always supported me in my academic pursuits. You both have always believed in me, so I thank you for that.
Finally, my husband, Jordan Sonora. This thesis is dedicated to you, for without your love, support, and sacrifice, none of this would have been possible.
vii TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT ...... iv DEDICATION ...... vi ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ...... vii LIST OF FIGURES ...... x LIST OF TABLES ...... xi CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ...... 6 CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ...... 16 Data Collection ...... 18 Peer Consultant Survey ...... 18 Writing Center Marketing and Design Survey ...... 19 CHAPTER 4 DATA COLLECTION RESULTS ...... 23 Peer Consultant Survey...... 23 Writing Center Marketing and Design Survey ...... 26 “General Information” Results ...... 26 “Marketing/Outreach Inquiry” Results ...... 30 “Design Inquiry” Results ...... 41 Optional Upload Results ...... 47 Educational material uploads ...... 47 Logo uploads ...... 48 Image or multimedia incorporated uploads ...... 50 Final file upload ...... 51 Key Takeaways ...... 53 CHAPTER 5 DATA COLLECTION ANALYSIS...... 55 Peer Consultant Survey...... 55 Writing Center Marketing and Design Survey ...... 57 “General Information” Analysis ...... 57 “Marketing/Outreach Inquiry” Analysis ...... 61
viii “Design Inquiry” Analysis ...... 65 Optional Upload Analysis ...... 70 Key Takeaways ...... 71 CHAPTER 6 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ...... 74 Marketing ...... 74 Design ...... 79 CHAPTER 7 DESIGN DELIVERABLES AND RATIONALE ...... 84 Design Deliverables...... 85 Multiple Stakeholders ...... 85 Student Stakeholders ...... 87 Faculty Stakeholders ...... 87 Design Rationale ...... 89 Consistency ...... 89 Voice ...... 92 CHAPTER 8 CONCLUSION...... 93 WORKS CITED...... 96 APPENDIX A Anonymous Peer Consultant Survey Questions ...... 100 APPENDIX B Anonymous Writing Center Marketing and Design Survey ...... 102 APPENDIX C Peer Consultant Survey Questions...... 107 APPENDIX D Peer Consultant Interview Questions...... 108 APPENDIX E Instructor Survey Questions ...... 109 APPENDIX F Instructor Interview Questions ...... 111 APPENDIX G Student Survey Questions ...... 112 APPENDIX H Student Interview Questions ...... 114 APPENDIX I List of Potential Blog Topics ...... 115
ix LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Front and back scan of the Write Place’s outdated bookmark...... 3 Figure 2: Front and back scan of the Write Place’s outdated bookmark...... 90 Figure 3: Front and back scan of the Write Place’s updated bookmark...... 90 Figure 4: The text "The Write Place" in the Lobster typeface...... 91
x LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Write Place Consultants Reporting Frequency in Which the Hierarchy of Needs Is Addressed within Consultations ...... 24 Table 2: Employee and Patron Terminology Descriptors ...... 29 Table 3: Social Media Platforms Used in Social Media Marketing...... 34 Table 4: Participants’ Target Audience(s) ...... 39 Table 5: Participants’ Adjective Descriptions Regarding the Design of Marketing Materials ...... 45 Table 6: Common Themes Found in Student-Focused, Image and Multimedia Material Uploads ...... 50
xi CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
University writing centers are invaluable on-campus resources for students and faculty alike. The University of Dayton’s writing center, the Write Place, is no exception.
As a Graduate Teaching Assistant within the university’s English department, I worked alongside undergraduate peer consultants in the Write Place during the fall semester 2018 and managed the center as supervisor during the summer semester 2019. The Write Place is located within the university’s library. After becoming acquainted with the center’s coordinator, Christina Klimo, I joined her small, student-centered marketing team and learned of her promotional aspirations for the center.
In this capacity, I discovered the challenges Klimo faced. Her only true marketing material was an outdated bookmark, created during the last library renovation more than a decade ago. On numerous occasions—such as for conference invitations and appearances—Klimo quickly designed materials she ultimately was not satisfied with.
She expressed a desire for materials that better represent both the Write Place and the
University of Dayton. Additionally, Klimo wanted educational materials for students, which the center currently does not have. These educational materials would also serve as another promotional tool.
As I worked under Klimo, a fellow Graduate Teaching Assistant named Emily
Stainbrook was in the midst of conducting a usage study on the Write Place during the
2018-2019 academic year. Klimo had noticed a trend within TutorTrac (a program which records and categorizes all sessions hosted by the writing center) that indicates
1 upperclassmen do not utilize the Write Place as often as underclassmen. Upon learning about this phenomenon, Stainbrook utilized her master’s project to investigate this trend.
Stainbrook discovered that the Write Place held a remedial stigma due to both inconsistent stakeholder perceptions and the absence of a marketing strategy; both root causes, if left uncorrected, will continue to perpetuate the misapprehension of a valuable campus resource. Over the course of her project, Stainbrook conducted student and faculty surveys as well as voluntary, follow-up interviews to collect further data. Her coded results align with the TutorTrac trends and raised pressing concerns about how the
Write Place is perceived on campus. Stainbrook summarizes her findings thus:
This study has shown that the primary reason for [upperclassmen no
longer visiting the writing center] is the stakeholders’ perception of the
Write Place’s audience. Students, instructors and peer consultants [the
stakeholders] say that the Write Place is a tool for all students but treat the
Write Place as a source of remedial and introductory instruction. In other
words, the Write Place is there to help people who cannot write because
they have not yet learned how or to re-educate. For juniors and seniors
getting ready to graduate, the Write Place carries the remedial stigma. (47;
italics original)
In addition to these concerns, the only material the Write Place has is an outdated bookmark (see Figure 1). This bookmark contains minimal information about what services the Write Place offers, and its color palette (maroon, mustard yellow, slate grey, and white) matches the pre-renovation color scheme. At this paper’s conception, the
2 University of Dayton’s library—the
Roesch Library—underwent a “Roesch
Refresh” in which the first two floors of the library were renovated. The construction was completed in August
2019, rendering the Write Place’s bookmark further outdated as it neither accurately portrayed the new library space nor the direction the university itself had taken; earlier that same year, the University of Dayton established a contemporary branding scheme Figure 1: Front and back scan of the Write containing a blue, red, and purple ombré. Place’s outdated bookmark.
This color scheme now clashes with the bookmark palette. Furthermore, the “Roesch
Refresh” renovation does not utilize the same colors the university has now adopted.
Rather, the new library’s interior focuses on multiple shades of gray, green, and blue.
Remastering the current materials to simply match the renovated color scheme and/or the university’s recent rebranding would resolve this issue if Stainbrook’s usage study did not additionally reveal that the current materials are ineffective. Moreover, as coordinator, Klimo aspires to increase the number and variety of student sessions the
Write Place hosts each semester, a goal which aligns with the university’s campus-wide
Student Success Network. The Student Success Network is an established campus resource grounded in the belief that “student success will be enhanced by the
3 collaborative efforts of faculty, advisors, and support offices” (“Student Success
Network”). Since the Write Place constitutes a support office, Klimo already sought to improve current marketing practices, as exhibited through her creation of a small, student-centered marketing team.
In my own discussions with Klimo, her dissatisfaction with her current materials was evident; their general lack of uniformity and rushed composition left her feeling that more streamlined, creative materials would create a lasting impact as well as better represent the Write Place and the University of Dayton. Due to my previous experience in graphic design, general and social media marketing, as well as professional and technical writing, working alongside Klimo and Stainbrook compelled me to utilize my own master’s project to assist the Write Place in correcting their stakeholders’ misconceptions while reaching underserved student populations.
Due to the lack of research on marketing and design in writing center literature, as covered in “Chapter 2: Literature Review,” I first needed further information about modern marketing and design practices within the writing center field itself before attempting to design effective materials for my university’s writing center. My methodology, described in the third chapter of this thesis, surveyed two sets of stakeholders: writing center directors about their current marketing and design practices as well as employees of the Write Place to better understand the needs of Write Place employees and patrons. “Chapter 4: Data Collection Results” outlines both of my survey findings, and “Chapter 5: Data Collection Analysis” examines the data for trends.
Keeping in mind my own goals for the Write Place, “Chapter 6: Discussion and
Recommendations” considers the implications of my research on a local and global
4 scale—my own university and writing center studies as a whole—before making preliminary marketing and design recommendations for the field. I apply my own marketing and design recommendations to the University of Dayton’s Write Place and explain that process in “Chapter 7: Design Discussion and Rationale.” The final chapter of this thesis reviews my findings, reflects on the limitations of my research, as well as addresses the implications of my research data on the Write Place and the writing center field as a whole.
5 CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE
Little writing center literature attends to the promotional aspect of current writing center management. In fact, most past and recent writing center scholarship revolves around assessment, tutor training, alternative pedagogical models as opposed to the standard one-on-one tutorial sessions, RAD (replicable, aggregable, and data supported) research, advances in new media, developing multimodal or multiliteracy centers, as well as the efficacy of online synchronous or asynchronous sessions. Digital archival research through the writing center industry’s primary journals—the Writing Lab Newsletter,
Praxis: A Writing Center Journal, and The Writing Center Journal—reflects these trends.
In fact, out of the eighty-seven questions on OWL Purdue’s Writing Centers Research
Project Survey, last conducted for the 2016-2017 academic year, only two inquired about outreach and promotion while none touched upon design (Denny). Furthermore, the two questions regarding marketing did not survey the efficacy of such promotional efforts, instead only taking stock of what those efforts looked like. Consequently, little research wholly or even tangentially relates to this project.
The lack of present research in this area is further compounded by the fact that while some writing center scholarship acknowledges the impact of marketing on writing center perception, most of this scholarship fails to address the pragmatics of writing center marketing and design. One example is Jim Bell’s 1996 article, “Promotional Ideas for Writing Centers.” While Bell advises readers to create “a solid marketing plan” and provides readers with a substantial amount of promotional ideas, the article neither
6 addresses how to execute the design of the suggested materials nor how to implement a marketing stratagem of any kind. The text lacks the how-to as well as the why: the aims or ends of marketing are left unattended.
However, some within the writing center field have commented on the language surrounding writing center work. While lacking promotional ideas, the power of using positive language in writing center marketing was first introduced by Muriel Harris, founder and editor of the Writing Lab Newsletter, in her article, “Making Our
Institutional Discourse Sticky: Suggestions for Effective Rhetoric.” Harris acknowledges the remedial stigma of writing centers on college campuses and questions the manner in which writing centers “define” themselves, encouraging that positive language be used in all communications and discouraging the urge to proclaim what the center does not do.
Harris sympathizes with directors’ sincere efforts to clear up any perceived misunderstandings of what a writing center is and does so while underscoring the negative effect of negative language. Similarly, Ellen Mohr in “Marketing the Best Image of the Community Writing Center” discusses the importance of marketing writing centers, focusing on their image and public perception: “They should be marketed so that they project a comprehensive and positive image” (1). Mohr also acknowledges the remedial stigma of writing centers as well as how positive language can positively influence a target audience’s perception.
In addition to suggesting a shift in language use, Mohr advocates for the re- education of faculty about writing center services and even outlines potential marketing strategies directors could implement. In “Bringing Writers to the Center: Some Survey
Results, Surmises, and Suggestions,” Wendy Bishop similarly recommends involving
7 faculty. While Bishop urges for the same re-education that Mohr prioritizes, Bishop additionally proposes that collaboration between the writing center and individual faculty should be increased so that faculty become familiar with the actual space and consultants who would interact with their students. In fact, Bishop’s suggestions primarily revolve around faculty engagement, even recommending some of the promotional strategies Bell lists in his article, such as inviting classes to tour the center with their instructor, publishing student work in some format, and hosting events to celebrate student achievements (Bishop 39; Bell 14). Neither Bishop nor Bell, however, explain how to accomplish any of their suggestions.
Because this project seeks to repackage a specific resource within higher education, I looked into how other campus resources promoted their services. Contrary to writing center literature, there is a predominant focus on outreach and design within librarian literature. In fact, an entire website—Librarian Design Share
(www.librariandesignshare.org)—has been dedicated to sharing the various pieces librarians have used for promotional purposes. Librarians are encouraged to submit their promotional pieces to the public Google Drive and website itself, inviting other librarians not only to explore examples of marketing materials, but to also download and adapt them to suit their own institution’s needs. The website additionally allows the librarians who submitted to write about their design, quite similar to a multimodal blog post, providing further insight to viewers regarding the context and design decisions behind the finished piece. However, while college and university libraries are campus resources, and
45.31% of writing centers surveyed in the 2016-2017 Writing Centers Research Project
Survey reported their centers were located within their campus libraries, their functions
8 and services are dissimilar (Denny). Their purposes, and their struggles, are different enough to necessitate research into marketing and design theory within higher education to gain a full perspective for this project.
In Dale M. Lewison and Jon M. Hawes’ article, “Student Target Marketing
Strategies for Universities,” the authors focus on the admission or recruitment of prospective students. Although prospective students are not the target audience of writing center work, the article does define a number of helpful key terms and concepts within marketing: market selection approaches, mass marketing (and its subsets), as well as target marketing (and its subsets once more). Furthermore, both Lewison and Hawes consider the student keenly, outlining the types of “learners” they might be in order to determine what motivates them. They emphasize that understanding the “motivational forces” will help administrators to “influence the behavior of educational consumers”
(17-18). Gong Ruey-Wei and Tsai Fu-Sheng similarly target student recruitment in
“University Institutional Research and Student Recruitment Performance: Utilizing
Marketing Communication for Knowledge Heterogeneity.” Ruey-Wei and Fu-Sheng identify customers (students) as stakeholders but purport institutional research— understanding, examining, and evaluating one’s own institution—as vital when forming lasting connections. The authors suggest that administrators should focus on three areas of marketing and communications: signaling, word-of-mouth, and customer relationship management (470). While each concept is briefly explained, none of the explanations are followed by how to begin to carry out each tactic at one’s own institution; whereas,
Lewison and Hawes’ text included multiple figures visualizing how to construct a target
9 audience for specific marketing approaches. Consequently, Lewison and Hawes are more heavily focused on what it means to market, similar to Remziye Terkan.
In “Importance of Creative Advertising and Marketing According to University
Students’ Perspectives,” Terkan discusses the importance of advertising and even differentiates between advertising and marketing: “Advertising…focus[es] on disseminating information about ideas, goods and services. It involves making repeat and potential customers aware of a product or services... Marketing management is concerned with issues such as research, product reception, design, pricing, promotion, sales and distribution” (242). Terkan notes that because of the large scope of marketing management, advertising is often considered one aspect of it. The author then considers the persuasive powers of marketing, specifically how creativity and innovation factor into the effectiveness of marketing materials. The latter half of the article summarizes a student-focused survey on creative advertising, which indicates creativity to be relevant or vital in a number of areas, including an advertisement’s ability to catch a student’s attention as well as an advertisement’s ability to influence decision-making. In fact,
Terkan states that the key to the success of a creative advertisement is its ability to understand its audience, which is purported in both previous articles mentioned for marketing literature. Audience is a primary concern within marketing theory, especially where successful sales or attrition are concerned. Incidentally, the concept of audience also plays a predominant role within both English and design literature.
Audience is a central factor when successfully communicating meaning or attempting to encourage action. Classical rhetoric has long recognized the importance of audience, along with five canons, as strategic traits for effective communication:
10 invention, arrangement or disposition, style, memory, and delivery or action. Rhetorician
Richard Buchanan argues that each of these canons position designers as rhetoricians:
Rhetoric served as the design art of literature; it provided the organization
of thought in narrative and argument as well as the composition and
arrangement of words in style. Yet rhetoric was not conceived by Aristotle
as an art of words. It was an art of thought and argument whose product
found embodiment in words as a vehicle of presentation…This would be
rhetoric as a broad intellectual discipline, expanded from an art productive
of words and verbal arguments to an art of conceiving and planning all of
the types of products that human beings are capable of making. (31-38;
original emphasis)
For graphic designers, the concept of audience is especially important since they create materials specific to their client’s target audience(s), and so all sources concerned with graphic design theory or main principles highlight it. In essence, graphic designers are tasked by their clients to deliver a message to a specific audience. In Professional
Practices in Graphic Design, contributing author Richard Grefé emphasizes a graphic designer’s responsibility to various parties, including their clients, other designers, the public, as well as to society and the environment at-large. This sentiment is reflected in other graphic design, visual communication, and information design literature (Bierut;
Hebdon; Pettersson; Watson et. al). Grefé’s insistence regarding the public, society, and the environment echoes values undertaken by institutions like the University of Dayton: to do no harm, to disseminate only the truth, to “respect the dignity of all audiences,” and so forth (5). Grefé is not alone in this sentiment. In Seventy-nine Short Essays on Design,
11 graphic designer Michael Bierut details a number of lessons he has learned and situations he has faced throughout his career. When describing the impact a design can have on an audience, he uses a NASA rocket metaphor and writes,
Graphic designers work with messages, and the messages mean
something. We may think we’re responsible only for launching those
messages, and certainly there’s some comfort (and profit) in thinking that.
But if you care about your work, you have to care not only about how it
goes up, but where you come down. (“Graphic Designers, Flush Left?”
83)
Here, Bierut emphasizes that a designer is not only responsible for the creation of a text, but to some degree, a designer is also responsible for the audience’s reception to it based on how one works with those intended messages. Audience, once more, is at the forefront. However, Bierut discusses other topics such as the origins of graphic design, how essential logos are to identity (corporate or otherwise), as well as just how effective branding can be in building long-lasting relationships with consumers.
Betsy Newberry’s book, Designer’s Guide to Marketing: Painless Principles for
Creating Design that Sells, provides a more detailed approach for how designers can cultivate those relationships for their various clients. Within the first half of her book,
Newberry focuses on the marketing principles graphic designers must know in order to succeed, many of which align with research presented earlier in this chapter. Newberry discusses elements such as target marketing and segmentation (similar to Lewison and
Hawes’ focus), key components of marketing (which elevates clients and/or audience similar to rhetoricians), and expands upon how essential market research is prior to
12 designing (mirroring Ruey-Wei and Fu-Sheng’s encouragement of institutional research).
Newberry grounds these marketing elements, and others, by compiling case studies of various design projects. The case studies reflect the various design elements mentioned in the beginning while highlighting other major considerations within the graphic design industry: corporate identity, branding, direct mail advertising, public relations and consumer education, as well as retail and environmental design. Each of these latter aspects involves understanding audience. A message means nothing if it cannot be delivered, which is why Newberry dedicates an entire chapter to testing generated materials and additionally showcases its importance within her case studies. Other texts about graphic design theory or practice also purport testing the efficacy of drafted materials (Bierut; Costa; Grefé). Testing is also a key component within information design, a discipline often synonymous with graphic design or visual communications.
Information design’s primary goal is to accomplish the “clarity of communication” when designing, producing, and distributing a message in any form
(Pettersson 168). Rune Pettersson, a former professor of information design, defined the discipline’s model:
The process begins by trying to understand the needs of the user, student,
or employee with whom you are trying to connect. Designers then focus
on defining a clear problem or need. Next, this model invites you to
brainstorm ideas and possible solutions before developing a possible
strategy. Finally, you’ll test the solution with your intended audience.
While this process can be linear, this model of design thinking can also be
13 cyclical, with designers returning to prior points in the model depending
on the outcomes of their tests. (8)
The author further breaks down each aspect of the above process, providing guidelines to facilitate attention, a specific perception, and ease in understanding by directly consulting the audience in question. How else can marketing or branding be effective? Who else can one educate, inform, persuade?
While writing center scholarship recognizes the widespread presence of a remedial stigma across collegiate writing centers, little research addresses this problem of perception through marketing efforts. Within this limited research, faculty are noted as writing center stakeholders and positive language is encouraged when creating materials of any kind. Additionally, if suggestions are made for what types of marketing strategies or materials a center should use to engage their stakeholders, those recommendations fail to guide writing center directors in how to effectively create and implement those strategies or materials. Furthermore, no research to date considers the design of marketing materials used by writing centers, whether that is the design’s impact on writing center stakeholders or the design process itself for writing center directors. This lack of research in writing center marketing and design reveals a gap that requires further study so that writing center administrators looking to correct prevailing perceptions of their writing centers will have the resources to do so. With these gaps in mind, tangential research into other disciplines reveals that, no matter the terminology utilized, understanding one’s target audience(s) is a priority if writing center directors hope to meaningfully engage with their campus communities. The question, however, still
14 remains of how writing center directors are currently marketing to their target audience(s).
Who is (or are) their writing center’s target audience(s)? How are writing centers engaging with their audience(s)? What marketing materials or strategies do writing center directors currently use? How do these directors approach the design process? What struggles are they facing, if any? These questions, and more, compelled me to distribute a survey to writing center directors. In the spirit of Ruey-Wei and Fu-Sheng’s institutional research recommendation, I conducted research on my own campus to better understand the needs of Write Place employees and patrons. The next chapter fully outlines my methodology.
15 CHAPTER 3
METHODOLOGY
Writing centers have carried a remedial stigma for decades (Bender; Harris;
Jones; Lerner; Masiello & Hayward; Mohr; Powers). In writing center literature about assessment and perception, centers are often denoted as “fix it shops” meant to correct students’ grammar or writing at-large (Harris; Powers; Schulz). The University of
Dayton’s Write Place is not alone in its struggle to both clarify and demystify their function on campus. Therefore, the following thesis is designed to contribute to present gaps within writing center literature, as concerns both marketing and design, while the planned materials are intended to be operational for the University of Dayton’s writing center. The scope of this project involves several stakeholders. In seeking to fulfill these gaps in the literature and consider all relevant parties, I set out to answer the following research questions:
1. What educational and promotional materials do other writing centers use
for students?
2. What educational and promotional materials do other writing centers use
for faculty?
3. What are the best practices for designing promotional materials for writing
centers?
4. What are the best practices for designing educational materials for
university students and faculty?
16 Because no scholarship has been published in this area of writing center studies, I hope to ascertain the knowledge and experience of writing center directors to learn both effective and ineffective writing center marketing and design practices. Any uploaded marketing samples would provide insight into any patterns or trends where the final product or design is concerned. Furthermore, writing center director responses and submissions, combined with further research into graphic design theory, would inform my future design decisions for the Write Place’s marketing materials.
First, in my capacity as graphic designer, my client is technically Klimo.
However, her role as coordinator of a campus resource—meant to assist both students and faculty—brings new meaning to the term audience, or in graphic design and marketing theory, relationship management or customer relationship management
(CRM). CRM, a concept implemented within both graphic design ethics and marketing theory, emphasizes the maintenance necessary to sustain or improve the relationship a company has with its consumer(s) (Ruey-Wei & Fu-Sheng; Lewison & Hawes; Grefé).
So, while my role is designer for the Write Place’s marketing materials, Klimo is responsible for her own CRM toward the University of Dayton campus community; she must uphold principles similar to those Grefé describes in Professional Practices.
Consequently, if I am assisting Klimo in her service to the University of Dayton campus community, I am also in service to that community. They—that audience, that customer or consumer, that public which Grefé notes—are also my responsibility.
The campus community can be categorized into two main sets: students and faculty. Each of these sets can be further divided into a variety of subsets; however, students and faculty are the primary stakeholders given this project’s local goal of
17 creating marketing materials tailored toward these groups. As such, the design process will attend to the student and faculty perspective based on Stainbrook’s data as well as this project’s data collection endeavors. However, this project must also attend to the global concerns of a different community altogether: those working within the writing center field. Because this project seeks to fill present gaps regarding marketing and design within writing center literature, the perspective and experiences of other writing center directors are also of value. To this end, writing centers and writing center directors have become secondary stakeholders.
Data for this project was obtained through two surveys, issued to Write Place peer consultants and writing center directors across the United States. These surveys were approved by the University of Dayton’s Institutional Review Board under Exempt Status and Non-Exempt Status, respectively.
Data Collection
This research utilized one method of data collection: online surveys. Surveys were anonymous to promote open and honest feedback from participants. Furthermore, by employing online surveys, I removed any limitations of scheduling and travel while increasing the distribution potential.
Peer Consultant Survey
The consultant survey—“Anonymous Write Place Consultant Survey”—was distributed to the Write Place’s peer consultants twice (see Appendix A for the survey questions). Because Klimo mentioned a desire for educational materials, this 6-question survey was designed to ascertain the specific subjects, topics, or themes Write Place peer consultants discuss most with student writers in their one-on-one sessions. Heeding
18 Ruey-Wei and Fu-Sheng, this survey sought to conduct small-scale, institutional research in order to cultivate audience-driven materials. As such, the results from this survey directly influence the type of educational “Tip Sheets” that have been created. These “Tip
Sheets” are intended to be resources for consultants within sessions and for students outside of sessions, available both in print within the writing center itself or digitally on the Write Place’s official University of Dayton webpage.
Peer consultants first received the survey via e-mail from Klimo on 21 May 2019 and had two weeks to complete it (until 4 June 2019). As the survey was distributed after the spring semester had ended and the Write Place had opened for its summer semester, I only received 3 responses out of the 36 consultants who had been on staff during spring semester 2019. I suspected that the timing of the survey negatively impacted the response rate. Therefore, I asked Klimo to redistribute the same survey on 1 November 2019 via e- mail to 35 peer consultants on staff. Peer consultants were able to participate in the survey through 30 November 2019. Halfway through the survey period (15 November
2019), peer consultants received a reminder e-mail from Klimo. I selected November to reissue the survey because the month falls within the middle of the fall semester, which allowed both new and veteran peer consultants a chance to host a multitude of one-on- one sessions prior to participating in the survey. Of the 35 peer consultants on staff, another 3 responded to the re-issued survey.
Writing Center Marketing and Design Survey
The writing center survey—“Anonymous Writing Center Marketing and Design
Survey”—was distributed starting 1 July 2019 (see Appendix B for the survey questions). On this date, I posted to the international writing center listserv, WCENTER,
19 and began directly e-mailing writing centers/writing center directors across the entire
United States. A total of 877 writing centers/writing center directors were contacted directly via e-mail. Because of Google’s e-mail account restrictions, recruiting participants via e-mail took place over the course of several days to avoid flagging a spam detector. Participants were invited to respond to the survey until 31 July 2019.
Halfway through the month of July, I published a reminder post to WCENTER and issued reminder emails to the previously contacted writing centers/writing center directors.
This survey solicited information from writing center directors/coordinators concerning their writing centers’ current marketing and design practices as well as collected their centers’ current marketing materials. To make the survey more accessible, it was divided into three sections: “General Information,” “Marketing/Outreach Inquiry,” and “Design Inquiry.”
The “General Information” section gathered information about a respondent’s position, institution type, and their country of residence (as the survey was posted to an international listserv). It additionally inquired about their writing center services, the type of staff they employ, the typical number of students they assist during a semester
(whether in person or online), the type of language they use to address employees and patrons, as well as their writing center’s academic or department affiliations, if the center had any at all. These inquiries allowed me brief insight into each respondent’s position and local context.
Next, the “Marketing/Outreach Inquiry” section asked about the level of control directors have over their center’s marketing as well as any difficulties or limitations they
20 face regarding marketing or outreach at-large. Then, participants were asked about the types of marketing techniques they engage in (or do not engage in), whether they use social media (as well as why or why not), and what types of marketing materials they employ. Lastly, this section requested information about the participant’s target audience(s) and how their intended audience is reflected in their marketing efforts. This section sought to gain a general understanding of modern marketing practices within the writing center field. Who are directors focusing on? How are they reaching out to their audience(s)? Are these targeted efforts making an impact?
Lastly, the “Design Inquiry” section asked about the level of control directors have over the design of their center’s marketing materials before inquiring about specific visual elements, such as whether their center utilizes a logo and whether images or multimedia of any kind appear within the materials. Participants were also asked to describe their color scheme and branding. The end of this section refocused on audience, inquiring how the design of their materials accounts for their target audience(s). Overall, questions within this section were designed on a “fail-safe” basis, in that, if participants chose not to submit samples of their marketing materials when prompted, then I would still have descriptive data from which to draw observations. Participants were invited to submit samples in both the “Marketing Inquiry” and “Design Inquiry” sections. These prompts requested any and all promotional or educational materials, the writing center’s logo (if the center used one), and so forth. Participants were not required to submit samples to participate in the survey.
To ensure confidentiality, participants were assured (within the IRB-approved
Invitation to Participate consent form) that should the need for a screenshot of a
21 marketing material arise to capture a unique characteristic or design element, instead of simply editing/blacking out identifying information on the item (such as the institution’s logo or any contact information), I would instead create a black-and-white visual representation (or sketch) that would omit all identifying information. Any potential readers would be unaware of any institutional names or colors and therefore be unable to identify its source of origin. Remastering samples in this manner prevents potential readers from identifying the institution, thus preserving the confidentiality of any writing center directors/coordinators as many colleges and universities only employ one.
Survey responses and submitted sample materials were analyzed and coded for patterns in theme due to the wide variety of responses received. Results are provided in the following chapter, “Chapter 4: Data Collection Results,” and analyzed within
“Chapter 5: Data Collection Analysis.” “Chapter 6: Discussion and Recommendations” seeks to respond to the concerns evidenced within the survey results, providing actionable marketing and design suggestions to the writing center field at-large. Then, as these surveys sought to inform my future design decisions, “Chapter 7: Design
Deliverables and Rationale” focuses on the process of creating materials for the Write
Place.
22 CHAPTER 4
DATA COLLECTION RESULTS
Peer Consultant Survey
The first consultant survey, distributed in May 2019 to 36 peer consultants, yielded 3 responses. Similarly, the redistributed survey in November 2019 to 35 peer consultants yielded another 3 responses. Both sets of answers have been combined in this section. Of the 6 participants, 3 (50%) have worked at the Write Place for 2-3 semesters and 3 (50%) have worked 4-5 semesters. The second question asked how often the consultant focused on each part of the Write Place’s Hierarchy of Needs in student sessions. The Write Place’s Hierarchy of Needs requires consultants to first focus on content, then organization, and finally mechanics when reviewing student work; every consultant learns this process in training and is expected to follow it during their consultations. The survey respondents were prompted to select “Least Often,” “Only
Sometimes,” or “Most Often” for each level of the hierarchy. Results with these question parameters are represented in Table 1. For content, the responses were even across the board with 2 (33.3%) participants selecting “Least Often,” 2 (33.3%) participants choosing “Only Sometimes,” and 2 (33.3%) participants stating “Most Often.” For organization, the responses varied, with 4 (66.6%) participants selecting “Most Often” and 2 (33.3%) participants choosing “Only Sometimes.” For the mechanics level, the answers were evenly split again, with 3 (50%) of the participants selecting “Most Often” and 3 (50%) choosing “Only Sometimes.” Organization appears to be the focus of
23 sessions more often than content, though mechanics still receives the least amount of attention.
Table 1: Write Place Consultants Reporting Frequency in Which the Hierarchy of Needs Is Addressed within Consultations
Number of Number of Number of Participants Participants Participants Selecting “Least Selecting “Only Selecting “Most Often” Sometimes” Often”
Addressing 2 (33.3%) 2 (33.3%) 2 (33.3%) Content
Addressing - 2 (33.3%) 4 (66.6%) Organization
Addressing - 3 (50%) 3 (50%) Mechanics
At the end of every session at the Write Place, consultants are required to fill out client report forms, which prompt them for their name, the length of the student session, topics covered with the student, as well as any additional comments or concerns about how the session transpired. In the consultant survey, each participant is asked to recall their past client report forms to consider their overall experience working with students, specifically what type of advice or assistance they have provided when focused on content, organization, or mechanics, respectively.
When focusing on content in student sessions, responses indicate time is most spent on the thesis statement. Specifically, 3 (50%) participants answered that they advise students to revise their thesis to make it more focused, 2 (33.3%) participants reported that they advise more support or evidence to be used, 2 (33.3%) participants highlighted the importance of making one’s writing relevant towards the thesis statement, 1 (16.6%)
24 participant advised the student to revise their current supporting evidence, and 1 (16.6%) participant noted they assist the student in navigating the library’s database. While concerns regarding a writer’s thesis statement could involve suggestions to the thesis statement itself, consultants also link content revisions of the thesis statement to the evidence meant to support it.
Similarly, organization-specific suggestions of an assignment focus on sentence- level changes rather than larger organizational changes to the paper as a whole. Two
(33.3%) participants noted concerns for topic sentences, 2 (33.3%) participants suggested reordering the paragraphs, 2 (33.3%) participants advised rewriting paragraphs, 1
(16.6%) participant assisted with sentence structure, 1 (16.6%) participant assisted with source incorporation, and 1 (16.6%) participant helped with transitions. A focus on the more minute details of organization suggests students require more assistance with lower- order concerns where the writing process is concerned, or, that students perceive the center as a “fix-it” shop where their work is “polished” before submitting to their professors.
Along the same vein, the primary focus regarding mechanics appears to be on diction and tense rather than punctuation. Three (50%) participants noted verb tense as an issue, 2 (33.3%) participants suggested reading work aloud to uncover mechanic issues, 1
(16.6%) participant noted concerning word choice, and 1 (16.6%) participant emphasized correcting punctuation. Mechanics-specific suggestions seem to be centered around singular word choice rather than syntactic concerns.
At the end of the survey, consultants were asked what resources would be helpful to have nearby in any given consultation. Four (66.6%) participants requested citation
25 reference guides or sheets, 1 (16.6%) participant valued a professor’s notes on the areas their student should focus on, 1 (16.6%) participant found assignment sheets helpful, 1
(16.6%) participant liked having “scratch paper” to write on, and 1 (16.6%) participant chose not to respond to the question. Overall, participants feel that understanding the direction or expectations of an assignment would assist them almost as much as having referential materials on-hand.
Writing Center Marketing and Design Survey
The “Anonymous Writing Center Marketing and Design Survey” was posted to the international writing center listserv, WCENTER, and e-mailed to 877 writing centers/writing center directors across the entire United States. The percentage of respondents cannot be properly calculated since the number of users subscribed to
WCENTER is unknown. A total of 118 writing center professionals participated in the survey.
“General Information” Results
While the majority of participants were directors/coordinators, more than two thirds (70.3%) had only held their positions for 4 years or fewer. Additionally, the vast majority of participants work at a public or private university rather than a community college. Of the 118 participants, 85 (72%) were directors/coordinators, 16 (13.6%) were assistant directors/coordinators, 7 (5.9%) were writing tutors/consultants, 4 (3.4%) were graduate assistants, 4 (3.4%) were administrative assistants, 2 (1.7%) were supervisors.
Fifty-five (46.6%) participants had been in their position for 2-4 years, 28 (23.7%) for less than a year, 15 (12.7%) for 5-9 years, 11 (9.3%) for 15+ years, and 9 (7.6%) for 10-
15 years. Of these participants, 57 (48.3%) worked at a public university, 46 (39%)
26 worked at a private university, and 15 (12.7%) worked at a community college. Because the survey was distributed on an international listserv, it should additionally be noted that while 116 (98.4%) participants resided within the United States, 1 (0.8%) lived in
Ukraine and 1 (0.8%) in Indonesia.
When it comes to the services writing centers offer, the short-answer responses indicate a mostly hands-on approach when providing assistance to writing center patrons.
These results have been coded based on type of service; as most of the participants identified more than one service available, responses have been coded multiple times.
One hundred and sixteen participants responded to this query, with 97 (83.6%) participants stating they provided one-on-one, face-to-face writing tutoring/consultations;
45 (38.8%) stating they hosted in-house workshops; 36 (31%) stating they conducted classroom presentations and workshops, including embedded tutoring; 25 (21.6%) stating they offered asynchronous tutoring, such as via e-mail; 24 (20.7%) stating they offered group tutoring; 23 (19.8%) stating they offered online synchronous tutoring via video chat, regular chat, or phone; 21 (18.1%) stating they offered online assistance but do not identify it as synchronous or asynchronous in nature; 20 (17.2%) stating they either hosted or sponsored events, including student or faculty write-ins/retreats; and 20
(17.2%) stating they offered assistance to faculty members on writing assignments or professional development. However, 19 (16.4%) neglected to describe how they delivered assistance, instead explaining they “help at any stage of the writing process” or explaining the services they did not provide, such as editing or proofreading. Overall, writing assistance is most consistently offered in-person within the center or classrooms across campus.
27 The lower-percentage codes should be considered as well, as they indicate the type of services provided less often. Five (4.3%) participants offered online resources; 5
(4.3%) provided access to computers; 4 (3.4%) provided study spaces; 4 (3.4%) provided reading support; 4 (3.4%) provided assistance with visual projects; 2 (1.7%) assisted with oral assignments; and 2 (1.7%) provided handouts in addition to online resources. These responses suggest that writing center resources are typically not provided online and written texts alone seem to stay the focus of writing center practice. Furthermore, few writing centers offer assistance with nontraditional writing assignments (such as visual or oral projects). While few writing centers provide students with a space to work in or equipment to work with, directors may be limited by their approved budget or have little control over the space their center occupies.
The majority of surveyed centers staff undergraduate or graduate students, and professional staff are more prevalent than university faculty or staff. Of all 118 respondents, 98 (83.1%) hired undergraduate students, 73 (61.9%) hired graduate students, 47 (39.8%) hired professional staff, 35 (29.7%) hired university faculty or staff,
2 (1.6%) staffed volunteers, 1 (0.8%) hired high school students, 1 (0.8%) hired undergraduate students from area institutions, and 1 (0.8%) stated their staff is classified.
The staffing choices a director makes can influence the perception of their center’s offered services, as patrons could attribute more value to working with graduate students, professional staff, or university personnel rather than undergraduate students.
The terminology used when addressing writing center employees and writing center patrons can influence the perception of a writing center on campus. One hundred and fifteen participants provided the terminology they used; responses describing the tone
28 of the language (“English,” “casual,” etc.) rather than the terminology used to describe the relationship of the employee/patron have been removed from the coding process, leaving 98 participants. It should also be noted that 19 participants listed multiple terms for their employees, and 17 listed multiple terms for their patrons. Responses have been divided into two categories, employees and patrons, as displayed in Table 2. Of the 98 responses defining “employees” in their local context, 52 (53.1%) referred to them as tutor or writing tutor, 50 (51%) referred to them as consultant or writing consultant, 4
(4.1%) referred to them as peer writing tutor, 4 (4.1%) referred to them as staff writer, and 4 (4.1%) referred to them as a coach. Of the 98 responses defining “patrons” in their local context, 35 (35.7%) referred to them as client, 28 (28.6%) referred to them as student, 26 (26.5%) referred to them as writer, 19 (19.4%) referred to them as tutee, and
15 (15.3%) referred to them as student writers, which has been coded separately for future analytic purposes.
Table 2: Employee and Patron Terminology Descriptors
Employee Terminology Patron Terminology
Response Total Response Total
Tutor/Writing Tutor 52 (53.1%) Client 35 (35.7%)
Consultant/Writing 50 (51%) Student 28 (28.6%) Consultant
Peer Writing Tutor 4 (4.1%) Writer 26 (26.5%)
Staff Writer 4 (4.1%) Tutee 19 (19.4%)
Coach 4 (4.1%) Student Writer 15 (15.3%)
29 When deciding upon the terminology for writing center employees/patrons, it is an act of rhetorical definition that subliminally states the relationship a patron should have with the writing center employee; the tension present between “tutor” and “consultant” language divide is analyzed in further detail in the following chapter.
Writing center services may often be free to students, but they require funds to run, so whether or not a writing center associates with or receives funding (large or small) from another academic unit or department certainly impacts the work they are capable of accomplishing. This sentiment is especially true where marketing and design are concerned if decisions are no longer solely made by the director. Of the 117 participants,
50 (42.7%) participants reported associations with an academic unit (such as a library or tutoring service), 30 (25.6%) participants stated they are an independent unit, 26 (22.2%) participants noted affiliations with an academic department (such as an English or communication department), and 11 (9.4%) participants listed more than one association with an English department in conjunction with academic units or with several academic units on campus. Overall, the majority of writing centers surveyed operate under or collaborate with other academic entities. Furthermore, while these responses do not explicitly show that a large portion of writing centers receive financial support from others, a writing center’s association with an academic department or unit influences their marketing and design decisions, as there are more stakeholders involved in the process and end product.
“Marketing/Outreach Inquiry” Results
The level of control a writing center director has over marketing directly influences its effectiveness, as a writing center director knows their clientele and goals
30 best. When asked about their level of marketing control, participants were given the options of “I have full control. (Meaning: I have a budget for marketing how I choose),”
“I work with different departments on joint marketing efforts,” or “I do not have control over the center’s marketing strategy,” followed by a short-answer option in the event that their circumstances are more unique. Short-answer responses have been coded based on marketing permissions and constraints. Of all 118 participants, 59 (50%) stated they had full control over how they marketed their center based on their own budget for marketing,
36 (30.5%) stated they collaborated with other departments for marketing efforts, 12
(10.2%) stated they had no control over the marketing of their center, 5 (4.2%) stated they had full control over the marketing but had to request the budget for their chosen materials, 5 (4.2%) stated they had full control over the marketing but no dedicated budget set aside for those efforts, and 1 (0.8%) did not indicate their level of control over their occasional marketing efforts. Overall, more than half of the participants have full control regarding marketing, though budgeting seems to be a prevalent hurdle.
Afterwards, respondents were asked to describe any struggles, obstacles, or challenges they have faced when attempting to market. This question provides me insight into what these directors have overcome when attempting to market their services to their unique campus communities, better informing my own future decisions. One hundred and six participants responded, and they have been coded for similar themes. Of the 106 participants, 51 (48.1%) reported a lack of marketing knowledge or expertise, especially where reaching students were concerned; 29 (27.4%) reported a lack of budget or financial support; 20 (18.9%) reported a lack of time; 17 (16%) described difficulties meeting university expectations or working with their marketing departments; 15 (14.2%)
31 indicated issues gaining faculty buy-in; 15 (14.2%) reported a lack of permanent support staff or a lack of staff in general; and 8 (7.5%) directly identified the presence of a remedial stigma. Overall, the three primary issues seem to be a lack of expertise, budget, and time to develop materials. Lack of time seems to be compounded by a lack of staff and issues collaborating with other departments/academic units.
Still, writing center directors have engaged in a number of marketing strategies or techniques despite the aforementioned struggles, obstacles, and challenges. Of 116 participants, 99 (85.3%) stated that they had or were implementing a marketing strategy or technique at the time of the survey; whereas 17 (14.7%) indicated they did not. Those who responded in the affirmative were then prompted to describe the strategies or techniques they use, and what impact they believe it has had, in short-answer form.
Ninety-eight of the previously 99 respondents chose to answer, and those answers have been coded based on type of marketing. As most respondents listed several forms of outreach, their answers necessitate multiple codes. Of the 98 respondents, 61 (62.2%) used print materials such as bookmarks, posters, flyers, and brochures; 46 (47%) conducted in-class presentations; 36 (37%) participated in student orientations, campus events, and various student fairs; 28 (28.6%) reached out to faculty to market the center;
16 (16.3%) provided writing center swag such as pens, pencils, mugs, and shirts to both students and faculty; 15 (15.3%) regularly promoted their website page and online resources; 14 (14.3%) utilized digital signage on televisions throughout campus; 12
(12.2%) relied on word-of-mouth; 11 (11.2%) hosted topic-specific or genre-specific workshops; 11 (11.2%) distributed syllabus statements to faculty; 9 (9.2%) hosted regular events with activities and food; 5 (5.1%) relied on a social media team formed from their
32 writing consultants; 5 (5.1%) created videos, webinars, or tutorials on a variety of subjects; 5 (5.1%) posted to the university’s event pages; 3 (3.1%) made use of the university’s monthly newsletter; 3 (3.1%) hosted writing contests; and 2 (2%) had a button located on their university’s Course Management System (CMS) that allowed faculty to identify students that required the center’s services. Printed materials (from informational materials to writing center swag) as well as face-to-face interactions (in- class and at events) are the most common forms of marketing participants’ use, suggesting that writing center professionals value facetime with their target audience(s) over digital interactions. This preference for face-to-face interaction may be due to a lack of expertise in digital outreach after so long marketing in physical formats.
Participants who indicated that they did not engage in any marketing strategies or techniques noted a number of barriers. Fourteen of the previous 17 respondents opted to answer, and those answers have been coded based upon themes of causation. Of the 14 respondents, 5 (36%) reported that they had not tried any marketing strategies due to lack of expertise, 5 (36%) stated that they were unsure what to consider a “formal” marketing strategy due to lack of expertise, 1 (7.1%) reported that they were too busy, 1 (7.1%) explained that it was not in their budget, and 1 (7.1%) stated they did not market their writing center. Overall, a lack in marketing efforts correlates most with a lack of marketing expertise, followed by limited time and budget constraints. Moreover, the surveyed directors seem aware of these constraints.
Another popular form of marketing is social media marketing. Of all 118 participants, 85 (72%) participants indicated they did use it while 33 (28%) participants stated they did not. Those who responded in the affirmative were asked a series of
33 questions about their social media usage, to which they could respond in paragraph form.
It should be noted that not all participants answered all of the questions within this social media inquiry. Eighty-three of the previous 85 respondents answered, and those answers have been first categorized by platform, poster, posting schedule, and impact. Then, these categories have been coded based upon frequency.
As displayed in Table 3, the primary platforms used by participants were
Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. Of the 83 participants, 76 (91.5%) stated Facebook, 57
(68.6%) stated Twitter, 52 (62.6%) stated Instagram, 6 (7.2%) stated YouTube, 4 (4.8%) stated Snapchat, 3 (3.6%) stated Wordpress, 2 (2.4%) stated Pinterest, 1 (1.2%) stated
LinkedIn, 1 (1.2%) stated Spotify, and 1 (1.2%) stated WhatsApp. As Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram have long since been three of the most popular platforms used by social media users, it comes as no surprise that they were the preferred platforms of participants.
Table 3: Social Media Platforms Used in Social Media Marketing
Social Media Platform Total
Facebook 76 (91.5%)
Twitter 57 (68.6%)
Instagram 52 (62.6%)
YouTube 6 (7.2%)
Snapchat 4 (4.8%
Wordpress 3 (3.6%)
Pinterest 2 (2.4%)
LinkedIn 1 (1.2%)
Spotify 1 (1.2%)
WhatsApp 1 (1.2%)
34 Ultimately, students bear the responsibility of posting on the above platforms more often than directors/coordinators do. When asked who posts on the center’s platforms, 28 (33.7%) participants cited the director or coordinator, 20 (24.1%) participants said undergraduate employees, 18 (21.7%) said graduate employees, 11
(13.3%) referenced a consultant social media team or committee, 10 (12%) designated one advanced or lead consultant, 6 (7.2%) cited administrative assistants, 5 (6%) cited professional staff members, 4 (4.8%) cited an assistant or associate director of the center,
3 (3.6%) outsourced to their university’s marketing or public relations department, and 2
(2.4%) cited faculty members. This outsourcing of social media marketing responsibility may be due to the struggles, obstacles, and challenges previously noted by participants, more specifically, a director’s lack of time, budget, and expertise.
Overall, 1-3 posts a week appears to be the “sweet spot” where outreach is concerned. When asked how often content is posted on those chosen social media platforms, 16 (19.2%) stated once weekly, 12 (14.4%) stated 2-3 times per week, 6
(7.2%) stated daily, 6 (7.2%) stated once a month, 3 (3.6%) stated 2-3 times per month, 3
(3.6%) stated once every few months, and 1 (1.2%) stated twice daily during the week with occasional posts during the weekends. Participant responses indicate a general understanding about the importance of having an active, consistent presence on social media, no matter which platform used.
Respondents were additionally asked about their social media marketing’s overall impact, and the results are mixed. Of the 83 respondents, 13 (15.7%) noted minimal impact on Facebook, 10 (12%) stated good impact on Instagram, 9 (10.8%) stated good impact on Facebook, 9 (10.8%) stated minimal impact on Twitter, 8 (9.6%) stated
35 minimal impact on Instagram, 7 (8.4%) stated good impact on Twitter, 1 (1.2%) stated minimal impact on Snapchat, 1 (1.2%) stated good impact on Wordpress, and 1 (1.2%) stated good impact on Snapchat. These mixed results are perhaps due to how each platform was mobilized by the center. There are far too many variables at play in social media marketing to determine whether one platform is superior to another, such as the type of content posted and the audience(s) targeted. Even these two factors heavily influence the success of a social media marketing post or campaign.
Once more, the barriers to engaging in social media marketing appear to be a combination of lacking expertise, time, and budget. Those who stated they did not engage in any social media marketing were asked why they did not. Thirty of the previous 33 participants answered, and those answers have been coded based upon causation. 13
(43.3%) participants reported a lack of staff who could dedicate time to that type of marketing, 6 (20%) participants reported a lack of time on their part, 5 (16.6%) stated their institution only allowed social media marketing through their official channels, 4
(13.3%) stated they planned to begin using it, 3 (10%) cited a lack of budget, 2 (6.6%) admitted that they had not thought to use it, 2 (6.6%) stated their college and center did not have a strong social media presence to begin with, 1 (3.3%) stated a lack of strategy know-how prevents them from beginning to try, and 1 (3.3%) explained that, due to having multiple campuses and multiple writing centers, posting on one set of accounts would confuse their intended audience(s). Even with the variety of writing centers surveyed, writing center directors seem to struggle with the same three challenges.
Because educational materials are another indirect method of marketing writing center services, the latter half of this section inquired about educational materials. Of the
36 117 responses, 96 (82.1%) participants indicated they did use educational materials while
21 (17.9%) indicated they did not. The most common materials noted were topic-specific, print handouts; reference guides; and online resources. Those who responded affirmatively were prompted to answer a short-answer question about what types of educational materials they used and the impact they thought those materials had. Ninety- four of the previous 96 participants answered, and those answers have been coded based upon material type; because of the question’s short-answer nature, all participants listed multiple materials, necessitating multiple codes per response.
Printed educational materials were the preferred method of delivery for respondents. Of the 94 participants, 49 (52.1%) utilized print, topic-specific handouts; 30
(31.9%) reported using composition or writing/citation guides; 29 (30.9%) cited using online resources, such as digital handouts or brochures; 9 (9.6%) utilized workshop presentations or materials; 9 (9.6%) provided videos or tutorials; 6 (6.4%) used printed brochures or pamphlets; 4 (4.3%) disbursed handouts to faculty; 2 (2.1%) were currently developing a writing guide written by their own staff of consultants; 1 (1.1%) used memes for mini-writing lessons; 1 (1.1%) wrote blog posts; and 1 (1.1%) created podcasts. While printed materials were the most popular among respondents, digital materials and resources still had a notable presence. Respondents were also asked to upload samples of their materials; however, results for all uploaded texts will be described in its own section.
For those that do not use educational materials, their overall perceptions of their materials’ purposes creates mixed results. Fourteen of the previous 21 participants answered, and those answers were coded based on themes within their reasoning. Of the
37 14 participants, 6 (42.9%) did not consider their materials to be educational in nature; 2
(14.3%) stated they used these types of materials in tutor training and during student sessions, though not for marketing purposes; 2 (14.3%) utilized educational materials provided online by other writing centers or academic institutions; 2 (14.3%) stated there was not enough student interest or impact; 1 (7.1%) cited a lack of staff resources; and 1
(7.1%) cited a lack of time. Almost half of the respondents felt their materials did not have an educational value or purpose, though they did not explain why they did not use educational materials to begin with. These participants may not be aware that their marketing materials could engage their intended audience(s) in another manner while still being an effective method of outreach.
Since audience is a key element of both marketing and rhetoric, participants were asked to identify their target audience, and if they had more than one, to include it. The majority of participants, however, were vague in their responses; the two most cited target audiences were undergraduate and graduate students, which are too general since entire student bodies on college campuses are, naturally, diverse as students (in academic interests and priorities) and people (background, age, race, ethnicity, and so forth). Some participants are aware that the student populations can be broken apart further, even by their year or the types of classes they take. Because some participants described more than one audience, responses were coded more than once based upon the identified group(s), as shown in Table 4. Of the 113 responses, 58 (51.3%) targeted undergraduate students; 30 (26.5%) focused on graduate students; 29 (25.7%) stated their primary audience was students and their secondary audience was faculty; 23 (20.4%) stated their primary audience was freshman students and their secondary audience was the rest of the
38 undergraduate population; 13 (11.5%) mentioned international students; 11 (9.7%) targeted at-risk students; 7 (6.2%) mentioned faculty and staff; 5 (4.4%) mentioned community members beyond their university; 4 (3.5%) stated they purposely did not have a target audience in the hopes of not alienating any one population; 2 (1.8%) mentioned other writing centers as a third or tertiary audience; 2 (1.8%) mentioned the online student population; and 1 (0.8%) mentioned high school students.
Table 4: Participants’ Target Audience(s)
Target Audience(s) Total
Undergraduate students 58 (51.3%)
Graduate students 30 (26.5%)
Students first, then faculty 29 (25.7%)
Freshman first, then other undergraduates 23 (20.4%)
International students 13 (11.5%)
At-risk students 11 (9.7%)
Faculty and staff 7 (6.2%)
Community outside of university 5 (4.4%)
No target audience 4 (3.5%)
Writing center field 2 (1.8%)
Online students 2 (1.8%)
High school students 1 (0.8%)
Here, the primary audience for writing centers is students, both undergraduate and graduate, though with a particular focus on first-year and at-risk populations. Due to the first-year events that writing centers engage in, this comes as no surprise. Faculty receive a modest focus, more so than international students. Only 2 (1.8%) participants mention
39 others in their own field as another audience, suggesting that directors have not considered that their own marketing efforts could have a possibly larger influence on how other writing centers engage with their own campus communities.
In the event that respondents note more than one target audience, a follow-up question appears to all respondents inquiring about how they market to multiple audiences. Most centers utilize what is known as targeted marketing by knowingly curating their content or mode of outreach to reach multiple audiences. Seventy-five participants responded, and the answers have been coded based on differing outreach.
While 3 respondents wrote “N/A” and have been removed from the count, some of the other participants’ answers have been double- or triple-coded based on the number of differing actions provided. Of the 72 respondents, 27 (37.5%) practiced target emailing or newsletter/listserv posts; 21 (29.1%) created different print materials, or adjusted the content only, for different audiences based on their needs; 14 (19.4%) created targeted social media posts by utilizing more than one platform, differing content, or including specific hashtags; 11 (15.3%) attended orientations, meetings, or events geared toward different campus populations; 10 (13.9%) visited specific classrooms to target different groups, such as first-year writing courses or senior capstones/seminars; 8 (11.1%) noted that they used the same marketing materials for all audiences; 7 (9.7%) offered to work with faculty one-on-one or in groups; 6 (8.3%) hosted topic-specific workshops geared toward different audiences; 5 (6.9%) mentioned more than one audience but did not describe how their marketing strategy differs; 3 (4.2%) provided specific sections on their website for different audiences; 3 (4.2%) partnered with organizations who might have had the attention of a specific audience; 3 (4.2%) emphasized inclusivity or diversity
40 through text or images to target international students; 2 (2.7%) used the same materials for students and instructors but adjusted the content for international students; 2 (2.7%) brought separate print materials for students and faculty during classroom visits; and 1
(1.4%) used data from prior institutional research to persuade their audiences of the efficacy of writing center work. Much of the work done to market to specific audiences involves a hands-on approach, in that, most participants directly engage with their target audiences separately. When more than one target audience is in attendance, however, the participants provide different materials to those different groups.
“Design Inquiry” Results
The majority of participants have notable control over the design process of materials. Of the 118 participants, 64 (54.2%) participants reported that they had complete creative control of marketing materials, 47 (39.8%) reported that they did not have full creative control but did influence the final design, and 7 (5.9%) reported they had no creative control over the design process. As marketing and design go hand-in- hand, a director’s understanding of their target audience(s) and their center’s goals are extremely important in successfully connecting with their campus community.
Participants with some design control noted that their creativity is limited due to the constraints of either their marketing department or any academic unit affiliations. Of the 47 participants with some control, 44 elaborated on their design circumstances. Those responses have been coded based upon themes in design constraints. Of the 44 participants, 16 (36.4%) directors collaborated with their communication/marketing departments, who followed branding guidelines when designing the writing center materials, but the director had creative input and the final say; 10 (22.7%) directors were
41 permitted to create some internal materials, but most internally- and externally-used materials were created by the marketing department so university branding remained consistent; 8 (18.2%) directors allowed their writing center employees to design materials, but then the writing center or tutoring director/coordinator approved them; 5
(11.4%) directors were able to design all materials, but they had to be approved by the marketing department; 2 (4.4%) directors collaborated with library personnel, who designed the materials that were then printed or published; 1 (2.3%) director had full creative control over the center’s social media but no control over other marketing materials; 1 (2.3%) director had full creative control over all materials except for those posted to the university’s website; and 1 (2.3%) director had full creative control but had to seek funding to create their designed materials. The situations described above are inherently unique to each director at their institution, though several directors are unable to produce their materials without jumping through academic hoops. When releasing marketing materials, time is of the essence, so having to go back and forth regarding design elements with another department can block directors from putting out content to their campus communities.
One such element of creative contention is a logo. Of all 118 respondents, 67
(56.8%) stated they did use a logo while 51 (43.2%) stated they did not. The 67 participants who reported logo use were prompted to upload their logo, while the 51 participants who indicated they did not use a logo were asked to elaborate. Of the 51 participants, 48 responded, occasionally with more than one reason. As such, answers have been coded based on themes of constraint. Seventeen (35.4%) stated their institution’s marketing did not permit individual entities, such as their center, to have a
42 logo unique to the center for branding purposes; 10 (20.8%) cited a lack of time to design one; 8 (16.6%) stated they could not have one since they were affiliated with another academic unit with its own logo; 6 (12.5%) did not provide a reason; 5 (10.4%) reported that while they did not have an official logo, they utilized one graphic or color scheme consistently; 3 (6.2%) cited a lack of budget to outsource it; 2 (4.1%) stated they were not satisfied with previous design attempts; 2 (4.1%) stated they had not thought of having a logo until the survey; and 2 (4.1%) stated that having a logo did not seem needed or important. The majority of respondents are barred from having a logo unique to their center due to their institution’s marketing guidelines or because of an affiliation with an academic unit; however, some directors simply cannot find the time or budget to pursue creating one.
As for the usage of images or multimedia in print and digital materials, the majority of participants do incorporate them; however, the reasons others do not use them are unclear. Of the 117 participants, 107 (91.5%) indicated yes and 10 (8.5%) indicated no. Those who reported image or multimedia usage were encouraged to upload examples.
Additionally, those who reported no image or multimedia usage were asked why they did not incorporate them. Of the 10 previous respondents, 7 answered, 3 (42.9%) stating they were unsure why their current materials did not make use of them, 2 (28.5%) participants stating they had never seen a need for images or multimedia in advertisements, 1 (14.3%) citing a lack of time, and 1 (14.3%) stating that their widely-distributed emails could not be sent with images or graphics. Almost half of the respondents indicate that they did not know why their materials did not currently incorporate them. While 1 (14.3%) participant
43 cited a lack of time, the remaining participants either choose not to include them or were unable to.
More than half of the participants exclusively mobilize their institution’s branding when designing materials. Of the 114 participants that responded, 58 (50.9%) participants reported using their institution’s color scheme whether by choice or by necessity, 37
(32.4%) participants stated the colors were of their own choosing, 10 (8.8%) participants used the colors necessitated by their affiliated academic department or unit, 6 (5.2%) participants implemented their university’s coloring or coloring of their own choosing interchangeably, 1 (0.9%) participant used the colors picked by their predecessor, 1
(0.9%) participant stated they did not consistently use the same colors, and 1 (0.9%) participant printed only in black and white and therefore never used color of any kind.
Similar to the policing of logo usage, the number of participants using their university’s branding suggests other forces outside the center heavily influence the tone of their materials.
Asking participants to describe the design of their materials in two or three words revealed a clear conflict in how participants would like their centers to be perceived by their campus populations. This question was also designed in the event that participants would be uncomfortable sharing their materials. One hundred and eight participants responded; however, 2 responses were removed, one being “None” and the other being
“Datex person writing.” Table 5 below displays the answers, which have been coded according to frequency.
44 Table 5: Participants’ Adjective Descriptions Regarding the Design of Marketing Materials
Adjective Frequency Adjective Cont. Frequency Cont. Professional 39 Collaboratively developed 1 Bright 25 Comforting 1 Fun 24 Concise 1 Modern 23 Cozy 1 Clean 10 Creative 1 Sleek 9 Cute 1 Simple 8 Entertaining 1 Colorful 7 Humorous 1 Informative 7 Homey 1 “University-aligned” 7 Light-hearted 1 Visual 6 Not overwhelming 1 Approachable 4 Old-fashioned 1 Engaging 4 Personable 1 Easy to read/readable 3 People-focused 1 Eye-catching 3 Plain 1 Minimalist 3 Short 1 Relevant 3 Slick 1 Academic 2 Social-media friendly 1 Accessible 2 Snazzy 1 Clear 2 Sparse 1 Contemporary 2 Specific 1 Direct 2 Succinct 1 Friendly 2 Student-friendly 1 Inviting 2 Sweet 1 Not childish 2 Uncluttered 1 Out-of-date 2 Unique 1 Playful 2 Utilitarian 1 Warm 2 Text-heavy 1 Welcoming 2 Traditional 1
45 Black and white 1 Youthful 1 Boring 1
The most frequently used descriptors varied, with 39 (36.8%) saying professional, 25
(23.6%) saying bright, 24 (22.6%) saying fun, 23 (21.7%) saying modern, and 10 (9.4%) saying clean. The words professional, modern, and clean are typically associated with minimal, streamlined designs, which are not often fun or bright. These mixed results indicate a need for considering a center’s particular goals in their local context. How a center wishes to be perceived by its stakeholders ultimately influences the design of their marketing materials, and how a center wishes to be perceived varies from center to center.
When considering how they want their center to be perceived, most participants stated that they tailored the content and design of their materials when targeting specific audiences. Eighty-eight participants described how they did so, and the answers have been coded based on similar design elements or strategies. It should be noted that some participants list more than one strategy, necessitating multiple codes. Of the 88 participants, 21 (23.9%) emphasized the need for keeping the information simple and targeted toward each given audience; 14 (15.9%) incorporated color to be bright or eye- catching toward students; 13 (14.8%) tried to create brand recognition through repeating specific design features, such as their logo or a certain font; 11 (12.5%) incorporated images; 11 (12.5%) emphasized the need for materials to be easy to read; 10 (11.4%) utilized humor, pop culture references, or memes toward student populations; 10 (11.4%) did not mention how the design was different based upon differing audiences; 10 (11.4%) tried to use brief and direct text for undergraduate students; 8 (9%) used a professional
46 tone or design for all audiences; 7 (7.9%) used a playful tone toward undergraduate students but a professional tone toward graduate students and faculty; 5 (5.7%) emphasized the importance of accessibility; 4 (4.5%) tried to encourage students to use website resources; 4 (4.5%) tried to showcase inclusiveness or diversity; 4 (4.5%) matched their university branding or marketing guidelines; 3 (3.4%) noted that they did not design differently for their multiple audiences; and 2 (2.3%) stated that no thought regarding audience went into their design.
Optional Upload Results
As noted in the previous two sections, participants were prompted to upload examples of their materials. The lack of writing center research on the design of marketing materials means that no standard currently exists; writing center marketing materials are currently a genre under-investigated and undefined. Collected examples allow me insight into current design practices within the field, and this insight enables me to make recommendations as a designer and apply those recommendations to the
University of Dayton’s own writing center’s marketing materials. This section has been categorized based on the type of material requested.
Educational material uploads
After being encouraged to upload educational materials, 7 participants submitted a total of 22 samples, with 1 sample uploaded twice. A third of all educational materials focused on information about the writing center itself rather than the writing center educating viewers about a writing-related topic. Of the 21 samples, 7 (33.3%) provided information about writing center operations or services; 4 (19.1%) provided information about specific types of writing, such as summaries or introductions and conclusions; 3
47 (14.3%) focused exclusively on citation styles and formatting; 3 (14.3%) provided information or guided readers through the writing process; 2 (9.5%) focused on specific genres of writing, such as resumes or CVs; and 2 (9.5%) were tutor training documents.
Consequently, 17 (81%) documents targeted students, 2 (9.5%) targeted faculty, and 2
(9.5%) targeted tutors. Given the focus on providing information, it comes as no surprise that most educational materials focus on those who primarily utilize writing center services: students.
When examining the design of educational materials, color, images or graphics, and size are considered. Overall, these materials display a slight preference for incorporating both color and images or graphics. Of the 21 materials, 11 (52.4%) used color whereas 10 (47.6%) were greyscale. Similarly, 12 (57.1%) incorporated images or graphics while 9 (42.9%) did not. Regarding size, 14 (66.6%) samples were full 8.5” by
11” sheets of paper, 3 (14.2%) were half sheet sized, 2 (9.5%) were full sheets folded to create small booklets, 1 (4.7%) was a PowerPoint presentation, and 1 (4.7%) was a quarter-sized page (as if a full page were divided into four squares). While most of the texts appear full-size, unique alternative sizes created from regular 8.5x11” paper, such as the aforementioned booklets or quarter-sheets, are occasionally used.
Logo uploads
If the eyes are the window to the soul, logos are the window to a brand or company’s identity; or rather, logos tell stories and shape public perception of a product or service. Writing centers, ultimately, provide a valuable service to their campus communities. How writing centers capture their own identity through a logo is necessary to understand this genre of design. When prompted, 24 participants uploaded a total of 25
48 logos. These logo submissions are coded for overall shape, whether their university colors are incorporated, whether their university name is included, and whether an academic or departmental affiliation is used.
While more than a third of the logos present as rectangular in shape, unique shapes (from the other and speech bubble codes) make up nearly another third. Nine
(36%) were rectangular, such as with a graphic or university logo on the left with descriptive text on the right; 6 (24%) were round; 4 (16%) were square; 4 (16%) were coded within as “Other” given their unique forms, being a triangle, badge, cat head, and lightbulb; and 2 (8%) were the shape of speech bubbles or boxes. Additionally, an emergent theme arose when coding. Of the 25 logos, 6 (24%) used their university logo in conjunction with descriptive text; 5 (20%) incorporated animals, whether their university mascot or otherwise; and 5 (20%) incorporated a writing utensil, such as a pen or pencil. Even the shape of the logo itself can be used to tell a writing center’s target audience(s) about their services or goals.
Generally speaking, the samples indicate a divergence from university branding.
In terms of color, 11 (44%) utilized their university’s colors whereas 14 (56%) used colors outside their institution’s traditional branding. Similarly, only 9 (36%) logos incorporated their university’s name while 16 (64%) did not. Furthermore, 18 (72%) only used the name of their center whereas 7 (28%) included an academic or departmental association, such as a College of Arts & Sciences or Student Success Division. This divergence suggests that writing centers desire an identity separate from that of their institution.
49 Image or multimedia incorporated uploads
More than half of the submitted materials target the entire student population, whereas only a third target specific student groups. A total of 15 participants submitted a total of 52 examples. As 1 of the uploads was a client report form, utilized by tutors at the end of sessions and including no image or graphic whatsoever, it was removed from the coding process. Of the 51 examples, 41 (80.3%) were student flyers, 4 (7.8%) were screenshots of website buttons, 2 (3.9%) were topic-specific handouts for students, 1
(2%) was a bookmark, 1 (2%) was a faculty flyer, 1 (2%) was a brochure, and 1 (2%) was a profile about a tutor. Because the majority of uploaded materials target students, those texts have also been coded for patterns in theme, as displayed in Table 6 below. Of the 39 student flyers, 21 (53.8%) were general advertisements with basic information for students; 9 (23.1%) were event specific, such as for workshops, fairs, finals week, or write-ins; 7 (18%) were project specific, such as for a thesis, dissertation, capstone, poster, or speech; and 2 (5.1%) were about test prep. These results suggest that more could be done in the way of reaching out to specific campus communities rather than students as a whole.
Table 6: Common Themes Found in Student-Focused, Image and Multimedia Material Uploads
Focus of Material Total
Basic writing center information 21 (53.8%)
Event-specific (Workshops, career fairs, etc.) 9 (23.1%)
Project-specific (Thesis, capstone, etc.) 7 (18%)
Test preparation 2 (5.1%)
50 Regarding the design of these materials, there was an overwhelming preference for color. Of the 52 uploads, 49 (96.1%) incorporated color whereas 2 (3.9%) were greyscale. As for the incorporation of graphics, the majority of visual elements were used for the background image. Among these images, people and animals are prevalent, with clipart or decorative pieces also making a notable appearance. When encoding the specific graphic element used in the submissions, some texts are double- or triple-coded due to the utilization of more than one image or graphic. Of the 51 texts submitted, 17
(33.3%) used graphics for a background image only; 16 (31.4%) incorporated logos; 10
(19.6%) included clipart or cartoon images; 10 (19.6%) included images of real people, opposed to clipart or cartoon versions; 9 (17.6%) used graphic elements, such as geometric shapes or circles, in a decorative manner; 7 (13.7%) incorporated animals; 7
(13.7%) included a writing tool, such as a pencil or laptop; 6 (11.8%) used memes or topics from pop culture, such as text and images from the show Stranger Things; and 2
(3.9%) utilized images of people from writing sessions or consultations. The variety of graphics incorporated underscores the importance of understanding one’s target audience(s), as image selection (paired with the accompanying written text) will undoubtedly impact how a writing center is perceived by the campus populations they are hoping to reach.
Final file upload
At the end of the survey, participants were given the option to upload any materials they wished in the event specific ones came to mind but did not fit previous upload prompts. Fifteen participants submitted a total of 49 texts. The majority of final file uploads revolve around general advertising toward student populations. Of these 49
51 uploads, 22 (44.8%) advertised writing center operations; 17 (34.6%) advertised specific events, such as workshops, contests, or conversations; 5 (10.2%) celebrated holidays; 2
(4.1%) used writing topics to advertise the writing center; 1 (2.1%) advertised writing center employment opportunities; 1 (2.1%) was a university newspaper blurb; and 1
(2.1%) was a newsletter. Forty-one (83.7%) of these documents targeted students while 8
(16.3%) targeted both students and faculty, yet again displaying that students are the primary campus population targeted by writing centers while faculty, a stakeholder in their services, are often forgotten.
Regarding the design of the submissions, the use of color is again preferred, though not all make use of graphic elements. Of the 49 submitted materials, 40 (81.6%) utilized color whereas 9 (18.4%) were in greyscale. When considering the graphic elements of these submissions, some are double- or triple-coded depending on how many design elements they incorporate. Of these submissions, 14 (28.9%) included images of writing utensils or generic background photographs; 14 (28.9%) incorporated clipart or cartoon graphics; 11 (22.4%) included their logo; 7 (14.3%) included images of students working; 5 (10.2%) incorporated animals, whether real or drawn; 5 (10.2%) included silhouettes of people; and 3 (6.1%) made use of decorative shapes. The type of graphic varies, though more than a fourth of all submissions incorporate generic writing photographs or clipart/cartoon images. In terms of shape or size, 25 (51%) were a full sheet of 8.5” by 11” paper, 12 (24.4%) were half sheets/postcard-sized, 6 (12.2%) were square, 3 (6.1%) were long and thin bookmarks, 1 (2.1%) was a PowerPoint presentation,
1 (2.1%) was a full sheet of paper folded into a brochure, and 1 (2.1%) was a full sheet of paper folded into a booklet. While more than half of the preferred size is a standard sheet
52 of paper, over one third of the submissions use the standard size to create either postcards, bookmarks, brochures, or booklets. Alternative material shapes and the incorporation of unique graphics were two ways in which these writing centers attempted to stand out to their target audience(s).
Key Takeaways
After conducting this survey, the number of variables which influence a writing center’s perception feels endless. While the results for the Write Place consultant survey indicate that my writing center’s consultants focus on lower-order concerns rather than higher-order concerns with students, the impact of this focus will be considered in more depth in the following chapter. The results of the writing center survey are not so easily summarized.
When providing assistance, the majority of surveyed writing centers opt for a hands-on, in-person approach, though that assistance rarely includes oral or visual assignments. Furthermore, the staffing of the majority of participants indicates that less experienced individuals (undergraduate and graduate students) are employed over professional staff or university instructors. How much is the type of assistance offered, and therefore advertised, contributing to a center’s remedial perception? What of the terms designated for writing center employees and patrons?
Regarding the marketing of these centers, it is apparent that directors face three primary obstacles: lack of time, budget, and expertise. A combination of these obstacles is present in all areas of surveyed marketing strategies, including in-person advertising at events, print marketing through promotional or educational materials, and social media marketing online. A lack in budget, time, and experience where social media marketing is
53 concerned results in most directors delegating online outreach to students. And while it became clear that Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram are the three most popular platforms used when marketing, the actual impact of this cannot be fully realized in this thesis alone; more focused, in-depth research is needed, such as a longitudinal study of writing center social media marketing. Still, the results of this section indicate that the majority of centers market to broader audiences. This broad approach is additionally reflected in the submitted samples from participants. With these broad target audiences, it comes as no surprise that the information provided in these same materials is more generalized than focused on specific types of assignments or concentrations. But while the majority of participants have control over the design of these materials, they still face obstacles regarding institutional branding guidelines. Because of this, the results regarding the design of materials varies and will be examined in light of these limitations in the following chapter.
54 CHAPTER 5
DATA COLLECTION ANALYSIS
Peer Consultant Survey
In the results portion of this thesis, Write Place consultants were surveyed about what they focused on within student sessions, specifically regarding content, organization, and mechanics. Write Place consultants are trained to address content, organization, then mechanics in that order, suggesting a focus on larger changes rather than smaller revisions. However, survey responses indicate the primary focus of sessions to be organization, then mechanics, and lastly content. Furthermore, when examining the responses to each area respectively, the suggestions made to students in each area appear to be mostly smaller revisions. Ultimately, the consultant survey answers contradict the
Write Place training procedures.
When considering the short-answer responses expanding upon organizational concerns during those sessions, consultant answers indicate small-scale organizational changes (for sentences and within paragraphs) rather than large-scale organizational adjustments (such as reordering paragraphs). Even with a larger focus on organization, the changes are more minute. Furthermore, given the second primary focus of mechanics, consultations appear to focus on lower-order concerns opposed to higher-order concerns.
Lower-order concerns focus on “style, mechanics, and format” whereas higher-order concerns focus on “content questions of argument, audience, evidence, and arrangement”
(Mick 146). With respect to the writing process, lower-order concerns are often known as editing or proofreading while higher-order concerns are known as revising. Could the
55 writing center sessions themselves be contributing to the remedial, “fix-it shop” stigma so common within the writing center field?
Being that content is focused on the least within Write Place sessions, could the present perpetuation of the remedial stigma be in part due to a lack of specialist tutors within the Write Place itself? In Emily Stainbrook’s usage study of the Write Place, her interviews with students reveal that their “expectations of the Write Place are not met when generalist tutors cannot supply specialist knowledge” because the Write Place staff are generalist rather than specialist tutors (40). Some of Stainbrook’s interviewed consultants are additionally aware of this gap (38). Regarding this survey, consultants are asked what materials or resources would be helpful during student sessions; consultant responses to this question mirror the previous usage study results. Write Place consultants crave direction or support, whether from the writer’s instructor (by way of comments, suggested areas to focus on, or assignment sheets) or experts (by way of citation or writing reference guides).
Overall, Write Place consultants focus on lower-order concerns, such as small- scale organization and mechanics. When faced with higher-order concerns, such as large- scale organization and content revisions, consultants desire direction from the writer’s instructor or experts through various support materials. Still, this survey has its limitations; it was designed to ascertain potential topics for educational materials for the
Write Place with the idea that educational materials made based on actual student sessions would act as another method of marketing writing center services. Additionally, the lack of focus on higher-order concerns, such as overall content and organization, could simply be the case of students not requiring that assistance in abundance. Despite
56 these limitations, examining student sessions in-depth could provide further insight into how the substance of sessions influence the perception of writing centers themselves.
Writing Center Marketing and Design Survey
With 118 participants, this survey amassed a wealth of data where writing center marketing and design are concerned. As the goal of this three-part survey was to better understand the local practices of writing centers to ascertain current trends in marketing and design across the field, the data will be analyzed broadly for patterns and gaps. These patterns and gaps will then be examined in the context of their influence on a remedial stigma where applicable, as there are limitations in my own surveys. This analysis is intended to illuminate effective (and ineffective) marketing and design practices within the field so that I may make informed recommendations in the following chapter. Like the survey itself, this analysis has been divided into three parts.
“General Information” Analysis
This section of the survey sought to better understand the local operations of writing centers, since the manner in which a center is run impacts the experience stakeholders have, which influences that center’s perception. Here, information about surveyed writing centers’ operations—namely, the services centers offer and the terms they use to name employees/patrons—will be analyzed in consideration of a remedial stigma.
Most of the surveyed writing centers provide one-on-one assistance to their patrons; however, only a third host in-house workshops or visit classrooms. When considering the points of contact these writing centers have with their potential patrons via their described services, the majority of these centers only connect with their patrons
57 within the center itself. Therefore, the center, being the area most impactful in terms of shaping the prevalent remedial rhetoric of writing center narratives, has a relatively small chance of influencing larger student or faculty populations, as these centers are not meeting these stakeholders where they are. This sentiment is further compounded by the access of writing center resources, or rather, the lack there-of; most of the surveyed writing centers do not offer services or disseminate information online, which further decreases the center’s potential points of contact. Therefore, the range of influence is ever smaller, less intangible.
When considering this range of influence, it should be noted that very few of the surveyed centers could be considered multi-literacy spaces; only 5 (4.3%) participants offer online resources, 5 (4.3%) provide access to computers, 4 (3.4%) assist with visual projects, and 2 (1.7%) help with oral assignments. Writing as an act seems to only be considered in the most traditional of formats; however, given the rapid advancement of technology—especially where education is concerned—it is surprising to see only a slight shift in writing center practice. In the age of social media and specialized educational tools, students and faculty write more than ever before, in both amount and mode. The act of writing has evolved, yet writing center services seem stagnant. This stagnancy lends itself well to a remedial stigma on college campuses; visual and oral assignments are understood to be more advanced, not typically required in first- or second-year classrooms. However, this lack of assistance could be attributed to the majority of surveyed writing centers staffing undergraduates and graduate students, who may have a little experience creating multimodal assignments but none critiquing them; a more diversely experienced staff or further tutor training may be necessary to truly assist
58 upperclassmen students with a wider range of assignments. Nevertheless, writing center assistance being limited in type or specialization decreases the scope of service they can provide to their campus communities, which could be perceived as those writing centers only offering help for simpler (or remedial) cases.
In considering these writing center spaces and services, the terms centers use for their employees and patrons must also be considered, as these terms are a rhetorical act of definition. In rhetoric, definitions “wield the power to say what someone or something is or can be” (Lunsford and Ruszkiewicz 186). The results regarding participants’ employee and patron name definitions vary. The clear divide between writing tutor/tutor (53.1%) and writing consultant/consultant (51%) highlights a tension rarely discussed in writing center literature. When considering the rhetorical act of defining, the denotation and connotations of words can vary greatly. Utilizing the term tutor for a writing center employee places them in a position of higher knowledge, and therefore, implicitly places them in a position of educational authority where patrons are concerned. The term consultant, though, belies a more professional relationship, as the term is unique to business and corporate settings. These designations, and others listed previously, instruct patrons how to regard writing center employees, which influences how they perceive writing center work at-large. While the names of employees and patrons alone cannot be the sole cause of the remedial stigma inherent in writing center practice, the subtle rhetorical nature of defining writing center interactions is pertinent when considering writing center perception. What is more concerning, however, is the name fluctuation surrounding writing center patrons.
59 If there is a question of how patrons should view writing center employees, we should also question how patrons are told to view themselves. In naming patrons, writing centers define the relationship employees will have with those they serve. As writing centers are often referred to as remedial “fix it shops” for underachieving students, the name chosen to designate patrons—to define, or perhaps, redefine the writing center narrative as most are wont to do—is of the utmost importance. The top five terms submitted by participants were client (35.7%), student (28.6%), writer (26.8%), tutee
(19.4%), and student writer (15.3%). “Client” is the most professional of terms utilized, as it is often used outside of academia in more corporate settings. “Student,” while accurate, still places the patron in an inferior position where they are meant to acquire information from someone who already has that knowledge; tutee can be described similarly, but to a much higher degree given its connection to the term tutor, which also has a negative connotation and emphasizes the notion of authority. Utilizing the terms writer or student writer—including writer in particular—aim to instill a sense of capability in patrons. They are already writers, this term says, and is that confidence not part of what we hope to achieve?
However, given the fluctuation of the terminology, and the amount participants designate employees (16.5%) and patrons (17.3%) with multiple names, it seems this rhetorical act of defining is not considered by the majority of participants. In fact, only 5
(5.1%) of responding participants have an opinion about how they name their employees and patrons. Participant 47 states that they “try to use consultant and client, as it suggests a professional relationship between the two people involved, while tutor/tutee suggests
‘remedial writing,’ which might keep students who need our services from coming”
60 whereas Participant 109 uses multiple terms for both employees and patrons with the exception of the term “tutor,” which they never use, though they did not explain why.
Ultimately, this section of the survey indicates that writing centers have a small range of influence over their stakeholders, which is counter-productive when considering how far the remedial stigma of this work reaches across university campuses. Even within this small range of influence, the types of service offered by selected employees and the rhetorical act of definition when naming writing center employees and patrons stands to perpetuate the same stigma writing center professionals hope to avoid or correct. In creating materials, the language writing centers use to invite patrons is ever- important; the chosen language (and its rhetoric) influences their perception of the writing center before they ever have a session.
“Marketing/Outreach Inquiry” Analysis
This section of the survey was designed to gather information about writing center marketing practices, collecting data about a center’s marketing strategies and target audience(s). Writing center directors face three primary obstacles when attempting to market their centers, and their marketing decisions in the wake of those limitations are questionable, some even perpetuating the remedial stigma they are trying to remedy.
Ultimately, a writing center’s perception is influenced by their marketing efforts, and these centers’ current practices have been considered in light of a remedial stigma.
In fact, of the 12 questions within this section, 4 (33.3%) received responses that indicate three overarching obstacles; participants feel that their primary struggles are a lack of budget, time, and expertise in more than one area of marketing:
61 1. Limited or nonexistent budget is an obstacle for those with full or limited
control over their marketing efforts;
2. When pursuing marketing endeavors, participants note a lack of budget,
time, and expertise that arise when they work independently or in
conjunction with other departments/academic units;
3. A lack of marketing efforts correlates most with a lack of marketing
expertise, followed by limited time and budget constraints; and
4. Participants state that a lack of expertise, time, and then budget are the
main barriers when pursuing social media marketing.
As Participant 5 remarks, “As with any marketing, it's hard for us to find a method that reaches a lot of students in a way that they will notice,” but these themes of lacking budget, time, and expertise create a trifecta of obstacles that complicates marketing or outreach at every turn.
A limited or nonexistent budget further compounds the problem of limited control over a center’s marketing; Participant 40 states, “I have limited funds that I can utilize for marketing. I also must receive approval from my college’s marketing office for any materials that are created, and their goals do not always align with the goals I have for our Center.” Participant 40 is not alone in this struggle, as other participants must seek approval to create materials from their marketing or PR departments. Aligning values— having a consistent branding—is of importance to many academic institutions, though this policing by marketing departments results in frustration for many writing center professionals. Ultimately, participants desire to control their messaging because they are aware of their remedial stigma and wish to combat it:
62 Particularly in the early years of the writing center we had trouble
attracting students because they saw writing center as part of
remediation/student support services and, as students at a competitive
university, did not see or want to see themselves as in any way *needing*
help. We had to work hard to create an identity for the writing center to be
a place for writers, to hang out and share work, rather than a place for
struggling writers to be schooled and fixed. (Participant 7; asterisk
emphasis original)
Similarly, Participant 6 states, “in advertising the writing center we emphasize (in different ways) that seeking feedback is part of professional development. We do that to disassociate the writing center from the stigma of a remedial service.” Additionally, a number of participants state that sometimes students feel too intimidated to visit the center. So no matter whether they are casting their center as a place for writers or future professionals, participants wish to change their centers’ campus narratives in order to better reach potential patrons. Some participants have even taken to social media to tackle negative audience perceptions:
Currently, our consultants manage our social media platforms with my
oversight...our focus is on increasing engagement and awareness of the
Writing Center using social media. So far, I believe it has a strong impact.
We’ve had [an] increase interaction on FB and IG since we began using
our social media calendar and changing the focus. Right now our goal is to
“humanize” the center (i.e., to let everyone know that we are people with
63 unique personalities) to dispel the mystique that it’s so scary place where
we just criticize writers. (Participant 90)
Given the surveyed directors’ lack of expertise, time, and budget where social media marketing is concerned, undergraduate student employees are typically designated as the primary champions of social media marketing campaigns for writing centers. In these roles, undergraduate students primarily act alone, though a number of participants mention creating a social media team from multiple student employees. Participants, given their lack of time and expertise, delegate this element of marketing to their undergraduate or graduate employees with the assumption that, as their employees are the
(or one) target audience, they will have an inherent or instinctive understanding of how to reach those within their age group or year.
However, when asked about their target audience(s), participant responses reflect the same remedial stigma either due to an intentionally broad approach or due to the audiences they intentionally target. These participants reason that they intentionally do not market to any one part of the university population in order to reach “all students” rather than alienate any specific student population. Rather, marketing toward “all students” goes directly against both marketing and graphic design theory and practice as reviewed in the literature review. In this case, failing to target audience does not actively dispel the remedial perception of a center because no real action toward dispelling it is taken. Despite writing center administrators’ efforts to project writing centers as spaces serving a broad audience, this general marketing approach can project or continue to perpetuate a remedial stigma. Furthermore, the majority of participants who do engage in target marketing primarily target first-year, at-risk, and international students. With the
64 majority of surveyed writing centers marketing toward these three student populations— students who are repeatedly deemed as novice writers within writing center literature—a correlation emerges: the populations writing centers specifically target through marketing efforts influences their perception. In other words, the remedial stigmas surrounding writing centers are perpetuated in-part because of both audience(s) targeted or audience(s) not targeted.
“Design Inquiry” Analysis
This section of the survey sought to gather information about writing center design practices to identify effective (and ineffective) methods. The results indicate inconsistencies within the field’s design practices, unsurprising given the lack of research or advice on the subject. These inconsistencies will be first highlighted, then examined through a remedial context to answer whether the design of marketing materials truly has an impact on the perception of a writing center.
Regarding the level of design control, participants fall into three primary categories: they have complete creative control, they have some creative control, or they have no creative control. Those with complete creative control either create the materials themselves or request them to be made, usually by their marketing department; those with some creative control either are able to create some materials but not all of them, or the materials are made by their marketing department and they have creative input; and those with no creative control cannot create the materials and have no say in their design.
Those with limited or no control are restricted either due to university branding or other academic/department associations. This restriction creates a uniform design that aligns the center with the university’s values and goals, which some participants do not agree
65 with. Because this uniform design places the center on the same plane as its university, the way students and faculty view their institution’s values and goals could influence their perception of the writing center. Unhappy with this influence, some participants attempt to “meet in the middle” when asked to align with university branding, such as
Participant 3:
We work hard to create marketing materials that are easy to read, stand out
to the eye, yet also demonstrate that our Center has a unique personality.
We also recognize that we need to stay within branding guidelines and
what students might best respond to--hence us using our school mascot,
[name redacted], for one year's worth of advertisements.
Injecting some “personality” or creating a unique “identity” via the design of their marketing materials is an attempt to “humanize” their center. By humanizing their center, even with just a few design tweaks to separate themselves from university branding, participants are trying to make their centers more approachable to combat the remedial rhetoric present on their campuses.
However, this “meet in the middle” approach appears not to work for the majority of participants, as it limits them from fully connecting with their target audiences on a more personable or memorable level. In particular, several participants purposely do not use university branding because “it’s a way to stand out in a crowd where everyone is visually branding themselves the same way” (Participant 20). Compounded by the fact that a center’s stakeholder’s opinion of their university could transfer how they view the center because of similar branding, participants desire an identity separate from their institution.
66 Elements such as personal logos and select multimedia additionally serve as a way for writing centers to be “counter cultural” regarding their university’s branding status quo. When asked if they use a logo, participant responses are nearly split down the middle. For those that do use a logo, most of the logos used are not necessarily unique to the writing center itself. Given the prevalence of participants’ centers being affiliated with another academic unit/department or mandated to follow university branding, this is unsurprising. Affiliation-restricted or university-mandated logos typically have the same structure, as described by Participant 17: “Our university branding is very strict and regulated. Everyone has the same [university] logo with the name of their service or department underneath it. We do not have our own separate logo.” For a center to have a logo that blends with every other academic unit or department, the writing center fades into the background of campus activity. More than that, requiring this uniform logo restricts writing centers from cultivating their own identity; the logo of a service or company is typically a person’s first impression of that service or company, so if a writing center is faced with a remedial stigma yet cannot even change their own logo to influence their stakeholders’ impressions, then what does that uniform logo actually say about the center? Not much, which is a missed opportunity if correcting the center's remedial perception through marketing and design is the ultimate goal.
Those without logo restrictions either align with their university branding by choice or take creative liberties. Most of the alternative logos incorporate writerly elements, such as a writing utensil or coffee stain. By incorporating these writerly elements into the logo, the writing center is personalizing their first impression; the center is visually telling its own narrative and answering the questions, “Who are we? What can
67 we do for you?” If writerly elements are not included, centers use an animal. In fact, animals are a conscious choice in both logos and other materials, as evidenced by
Participant 60’s remark: “If I can put a cat on it, I'll put a cat on it. The Internet loves cats.” Participants’ use of writerly elements or animals is yet another method by which they hope to personalize their approach toward their targeted audience(s). It additionally sets them further apart from their academic counterparts on campus.
As for the incorporation of images or multimedia in print or digital materials, half of the participants who did not use them are unsure why. The other half noted restrictions or barriers, such as with their modes of communication not supporting graphics of any kind. However, participants that did incorporate graphics did so with the intention of connecting with them on a more personal level, either through reflection or humor. For instance, Participant 25 rhetorically uses representation in their materials: “If we use images of people, we try to use either images of the tutors themselves or selected royalty- free images to reflect the diversity of the staff, which also reflects the diversity of the student body.” When it comes to selling a product or service, creating a sense of relatability is important. If a stakeholder sees some part of their own identity in a writing center’s marketing material, it is easier for them to picture themselves engaging in the same activity. People are pictured in almost every advertisement for this very reason.
Still, another way to relate to one’s target audience(s) is through humor. This method was equally as popular among survey participants, who mobilized humor through fun graphics, pop culture references, or memes. As a tactic, humor is one of the more impactful design choices since it creates a more memorable experience on behalf of the target audience(s). However, it should be noted that humor is only ever incorporated
68 when centers attempt to reach an undergraduate student audience, displaying a keen understanding of what it means to truly target various audiences. Recommendations in the next chapter will consider this concept heavily.
As far as the rest of the participants’ design choices are concerned, this consideration of audience is not limited to only the types of graphics included in materials. As Participant 95 aptly states, they use “different materials for different audiences” when explaining how they design for more than one target audience. The level of differentiation, if a center differentiates at all, varies among participants.
Participant 28 only adjusts the written text’s tone depending on whether the materials will be distributed to students or faculty, though the physical elements (colors and logos) stay the same; Participant 93 utilizes the university-mandated logo for materials targeting staff and faculty, but makes pop culture references when curating materials for students; and
Participant 50 further differentiates the design of materials where student populations are concerned:
With help and input from undergraduate staff, I design materials in
accordance with aesthetic preferences of college-age people (largely
influenced by social media like Instagram and Snapchat). For graduate
students we are opting for a more straightforward, professional appearance
and tone with more explicit information (that our services are free, for
example), as we have found that graduate students are not as connected
with the campus as the undergraduate population.
In this case, the professional tone and design typically reserved for staff and faculty is extended to graduate students. Overall, these responses indicate that participants are
69 concerned with how their materials are interpreted by more than one campus community.
Furthermore, the data shows that participants have an idea in mind—or rather, how they hope to be perceived—and wish their materials to reflect that ideal.
When asked to describe their materials with two or three adjectives, the results belie a tension amongst the writing center community regarding how centers should present themselves to their campus stakeholders. Given that these materials are made for each centers’ local contexts, the fluctuation is unsurprising; however, the most-referenced adjectives by participants present two primary themes regarding how participants desire their centers to be perceived by their target audience(s): fun or professional. Each of these two approaches seeks to solve the widespread remedial stigma, indicating a tension of how writing center professionals believe the stigma should be corrected. On one hand, half of the participant responses indicate that a casual marketing approach is the right way to invite their stakeholders to visit their center; on the other hand, the other half of the participants believe a more formal tone and appearance would best mitigate the presence of a remedial stigma.
Optional Upload Analysis
This section analyzes all four types of optional uploads participants shared with me: educational materials, logos used, materials containing images or multimedia, as well as the final upload prompt at the end of the survey. Examining the common design elements in writing center marketing materials is the first step in understanding this undefined genre.
When considering the audience of the uploaded materials, the materials overwhelmingly focused on student populations, as the majority (81%) of educational
70 materials target students, nearly all (88.2%) of the materials with graphics target students or specific populations of students, and all of the final file uploads either target students alone (83.7%) or both students and faculty (16.3%). Broadly speaking, the uploaded materials’ intended audience(s) reflect the results of the marketing-specific inquiry about target audience(s). All materials, including logos, show a preference for both color and graphics. Regarding color, Participant 118 notices this preference when conducting usability testing with her student employees: “Students have told us that they want more color. Our student staff is a great resource for this.” Graphics, however, are implemented in more diverse ways.
Graphics used for background images are the most prevalent, as a number of participants feel the focus of marketing materials should be the information itself;
Participant 13 remarks that they “always integrate some type of image or background, but focus primarily on disseminating information as clearly as possible for as many students as possible.” In this way, function triumphs over form, which is additionally represented through the content of the uploads, as the majority of these materials contain general information about the writing center’s operations; however, the incorporation of people, animals, or clipart in these materials appear frequently enough that they are still of note.
Key Takeaways
Now that the data has been presented and analyzed, the first two research questions asked at the onset of this project can be addressed. First, what educational and promotional materials do other writing centers use for students? Survey responses indicate that most writing center directors promote their services to students by passing out printed materials (such as bookmarks, posters, flyers, and brochures) followed by
71 writing center swag (such as pens, pencils, mugs, and shirts). Educational materials provided to students include print handouts, reference guides, and online resources.
While the same genres of promotional and educational materials could be provided to faculty, the focus of this project’s second research question, survey responses instead indicate that writing center directors promote to faculty via email, provide them with syllabus statements, and also give them writing center swag. Educationally speaking, few respondents provide faculty with handouts of their own. Altogether, faculty prove to be a lesser focus of writing center directors when marketing.
While the collected data addresses this project’s first two research questions, responses reveal more than I anticipated about the marketing and design practices of writing center directors. Given the lack of marketing and design research within the writing center field, it comes as no surprise that several patterns in the data highlight further areas for research, indicate inconsistent marketing practices, and illuminate divisions within these current practices. Because while Ellen Mohr and Muriel Harris agree that writing centers should “project a comprehensive and positive image,” the pathway to such a projection has not yet been paved (Mohr 1). Furthermore, the limited writing center scholarship on marketing—namely, Jim Bell and Wendy Bishop— encourage increased faculty engagement; however, writing centers seem to have tunnel vision where their target audience(s) are concerned, in that, the majority of surveyed centers focus their efforts on broad student audiences alone. To this end, the majority of writing centers are not meaningfully connecting with another major stakeholder of their services—faculty—and their present marketing to broad student audiences is ultimately
72 ineffective if centers are not actively reaching out to the students already holding, and passing on, this remedial misconception.
The following chapter, “Chapter 6: Discussion and Recommendations,” further discusses the issues raised within this chapter and tentatively makes recommendations for how the writing center field can better remedy their own remedial stigmas through marketing and design. These recommendations have been practiced at my own institution, the University of Dayton, and the process has been detailed in “Chapter 7:
Design Discussion and Rationale.”
73 CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
As little writing center scholarship presently attends to marketing and design practices within the field, I surveyed writing center professionals to gain a better understanding of those practices. The survey’s findings call attention to writing center directors’ widespread lack of budget, time, and expertise where marketing and design are concerned, making the challenge of correcting their campuses’ remedial stigmas more difficult. Furthermore, the survey findings uncovered tensions within how directors believe they should market their centers to mitigate their remedial stigma. Ultimately, the survey responses directly address the first two research questions of this project, and the implications of that data will be reviewed first in this chapter. Bearing in mind this survey data, I will then address the final two research questions: what are the best practices for designing promotional materials for writing centers, and what are the best practices for designing educational materials for students and faculty? In doing so, I tentatively provide a step-by-step marketing procedure and branding checklist.
Marketing
Few pieces within writing center literature attend to the influence marketing has over a center’s perception. The surveyed writing centers acknowledge the existence of a remedial stigma within their local contexts; however, as we have seen, three primary barriers slow their progress in addressing or overcoming that stigma: lack of time, budget, and expertise specific to marketing and marketing management. These barriers prolong the remedial stigma’s influence, which makes it a far more challenging endeavor
74 for directors to expand outreach to larger portions of their campus populations, whether students or faculty, in the hopes of changing the perception of their work. In light of this writing center survey, four problem areas can be identified:
1. The relatively small range of influence;
2. The hierarchy present in employee and patron terminology;
3. The inefficiency of relying on word-of-mouth marketing of stakeholders;
and
4. The widespread lack of true target marketing.
As we work to reconstruct the dominant narrative of our writing centers, we must first review and expand our current range of influence to take back control of the narrative. A range of influence is determined by the points of contact a center initiates with its intended audience(s). Some examples of points of contact include direct interactions with faculty; classroom visitations or new student orientations; being greeted or during a session between an employee or patron in the center itself; and through the distribution of materials, whether in person or online. These points of contact are further influenced by a number of factors, such as prior learned associations (i.e., the remedial stigma), and the terminology centers use to rhetorically define the relationship between patrons and employees, both of which can be manifest within the marketing materials.
While the majority of marketing materials generally focus on all students—the first and foremost patrons of writing center work—this broad approach fails to address a remedial stigma that has been created and perpetuated by more than one type of stakeholder. For instance, the University of Dayton’s remedial stigma, discovered through Stainbrook’s usage study of the Write Place in 2019, results in fewer and fewer
75 visits from undergraduate junior and senior students. If we were to try to increase the number of sessions with those students, we would not cease target marketing toward other important student populations (such as first-year or at-risk students) to adopt a “one size fits all” strategy. As noted by Lewison and Hawes, there are various types of student learners based on what motivates them, and therefore, different types of student stakeholders. With this concept in mind, by targeting everyone, we would actually be targeting no one.
This is all to say that the first point of contact with writing center patrons typically occurs beyond the writing center itself, such as within classrooms or at student orientation events. And since there is a lack of continuous target marketing, the remedial stigma reigns strong. This problem is further compounded when writing centers rely heavily on word-of-mouth marketing. Word-of-mouth marketing from past writing center patrons or current university faculty can be detrimental if what circulates falls in line with that center’s unique remedial stigma, as is the case at the University of Dayton for the
Write Place. In this way, the narrative of the center is outside of its own reach.
To correct a remedial stigma perceived by multiple stakeholders, as writing centers inherently have multiple stakeholders, we have to market to more than one target audience. Above all, customization considers context. Therefore, the following step-by- step marketing procedure attempts to consider context, intending to be actionable for writing center directors in the writing center community at-large:
1. Determine your goals. What do you hope to achieve through marketing
efforts? You can list more than one!
76 2. Determine your stakeholders. Stakeholders are any person, groups, or
populations that have an interest in or are impacted by your center’s work.
Be as specific as possible rather than use blanket groupings, such as
“undergraduate students,” “faculty,” or “administrators.” Target marketing
is an act of intentional connection or outreach, and attempting to reach a
broader audience by targeting no specific audience actually alienates more
within that population than it includes.
3. Brainstorm all possible points of contact that you can have with each
stakeholder. Write freely, without restriction. Print materials like posters
or little information books... Stickers or buttons for events or classroom
visits... A quirky social media post about your upcoming finals week that
is published through your university’s social media channels... Let your
ideas flow!
4. Conduct institutional research. This research can be easily facilitated
through the distribution of surveys targeted to specific stakeholders. Emily
Stainbrook—who conducted a usage study of the University of Dayton’s
Write Place—granted me permission to include her survey questions,
which are located in Appendices C-H; however, if this scale of research is
not practical at this time, some valuable insights can be gleaned from your
center’s client/consultation report forms.
5. Re-evaluate your goals based on institutional research conducted.
Your goals are likely to change. In this way, our work is as recursive as
the writing process!
77 6. Determine your tentative content type(s) and schedule. Consult your
academic calendar and consider the number of patron visits over the
course of each given semester. Your writing center participates in this
recurrent nature, so how can you maximize your outreach? How can you
connect with each of your stakeholders on a routine basis? Consider those
points of contact from before, whether that be campus events, social
media, or other points of continual contact. Try to be as specific as
possible about the types of events or social media platforms as well.
7. Organize your team. Here, “team” is meant to be broad. Perhaps you
staff a number of students interested in event planning/promotion or social
media management. Perhaps your staff is eager to post, but you need to
outsource your content creation to your marketing/communications
department or through creating an internship opportunity for a promising
design student at your campus. Perhaps you can create the content
yourself, but you need help with print and digital distribution from another
department or through creating an internship opportunity for a promising
marketing student at your campus. This phase will take time as you
consider what is best for you.
8. Create your marketing plan with your team. Draft a schedule together,
setting expectations about how often to accomplish what tasks. Break
down your tasks and assign them. Make sure this schedule is easily
accessible to all, or set up reminders for anyone with assigned roles to
begin working on those tasks.
78 9. Set up a regular meeting with your team to review your progress. You
will learn what works through trial, error, and reflection. It’s important to
take the time to consider what was (or was not) accomplished.
Furthermore, it’s important to think about how effective any one action
was (or was not). In the future, one particular mode of outreach could be
more focused, or you could try something else altogether!
Connecting with and continually meeting the needs of your stakeholders—true customer relations management in marketing—is recursive, too. At the end of the day, the wants and needs of those we serve in academia changes, so our approach must change as well.
Design
Currently, no research exists on how writing center professionals should design marketing materials for their centers. No standards or genre conventions exist. A repository of examples, akin to the Librarian Design Share website, has yet to be curated.
As such, this survey sought to gain an understanding of current design practices.
Participant materials—having mostly targeted a broad student audience rather than specific populations of students—provide general operation information rather than focused content and curated designs. The effectiveness of these materials decreases further due to its broad nature.
Few patterns are gleaned from the aforementioned design queries and samples.
Whereas the coded data indicates a general preference for the incorporation of color and graphics, whether or not logos should be incorporated is left unanswered due to a near
50/50 split in participant responses. Furthermore, while a number of participants consider the “identity” or “personality” of a center when designing materials, obstacles such as
79 university branding or lack of design expertise halt them in expressing such. As a result, the effectiveness of a center’s marketing materials suffers because target marketing necessitates target designing.
When contemplating the design of marketing materials for any business or entity, the concept of branding inherently comes to mind; however, only 1 of the 118 participants mentioned this concept throughout the entirety of the writing center survey.
“Brand guidelines (brand books as they are often called) are rules devised to govern the correct and consistent usage of typefaces, colours, logos, photography, and graphic elements. They exist to ensure that companies and organizations maintain a consistent
‘look and tone of voice’ across all their communication materials” (Shaughnessy 45).
Establishing both a consistent and convincing identity—rather, for our purposes, successfully persuading an entire campus population of a “new” identity—requires branding.
The level of control writing centers have over the design of their marketing materials is dependent upon their local context. Within this survey alone, which represents only a portion of the writing center community, more than half have full design control over their materials; a little over a third of participants state they have some creative control over their marketing materials, in that they are permitted to design certain items and banned from altering others; and the remaining participants have no creative control over the design process whatsoever. As such, branding recommendations cannot be procedural as with the previous section on marketing. Rather, the following branding checklist attempts to provide branding guidance while also accommodating
80 those contextual variances, intending to be as actionable as possible for the writing center community at-large.
○ Determine specific target audiences. As previously stated, attempting to
reach a broader audience by targeting no specific audience actually
alienates more within that population than it includes. For instance,
“students” is not as specific as “first-year students” or “seniors,” whom
have different writing needs. Targeting upperclassmen, or specific
disciplines, can be done through topic-specific or project-specific
outreach. For instance, seniors would be concerned with their capstones.
This is the first and most important item on this checklist and should come
before the next two subtopics.
□ Determine your consistency guidelines. Consistency guidelines
are exactly what they sound like: what guidelines you (or the
designated designer) will follow to maintain continuity across
numerous materials as they pertain to the specified target audience.
▱ Logo: It is important to note the use of a logo if you are
required to use a specific one, if you have one unique to
your center, or if you have differing logos for different
target audiences.
▱ Graphics: If you are allowed to use graphics and so choose
to, consider the type of graphic and the message it sends to
that particular audience.
81 ▱ Color Scheme: If you are not required to follow university
branding, your color schemes may change based upon your
target audience (such as first-year students and faculty).
Researching color psychology may be of use as well if you
additionally consider what associations you intend your
audience to make.
▱ Fonts: If you are in control of the fonts used in materials,
two fonts are standard within graphic design, one for the
title/header text and another for the body text. Typically,
the title/header text is sans-serif (e.g., bold fonts like Arial
and Helvetica) while the body text is serif (e.g., decorative
fonts like Times New Roman or Georgia). This rule is
recommended and generally followed, but it is flexible; a
font should serve you, not the other way around. If font is
used in place of a logo, the font you pick is especially
important, as it is your audience’s “first impression” of the
center. Visit www.dafont.com to browse fonts.
□ Determine voice. This aspect is especially important if you are
attempting to convey a specific message about your writing center,
such as whether the experience will be casual or professional in
nature.
82 ▱ Diction: Your word choice matters, especially where
connotation is concerned. Consider the impact of your
words and how each one contributes to your overall voice.
▱ Tone: This element contributes to voice, as tone belies the
attitude the writing center would take toward its targeted
audience. Tone could be formal, informal, light-hearted,
and so forth.
Additionally, if your institution allows you to actually design your own marketing materials (whether or not they require approval), there are a few options in consideration of time, budget, and expertise. For a lack of budget or expertise, the online graphic design tool Canva is known for its affordability and simplicity. The platform also has templates users can then customize to suit their needs. However, if you are interested in giving a design student at your institution a chance to apply the skills they have learned, there is always the option of setting up either a paid or unpaid internship.
83 CHAPTER 7
DESIGN DELIVERABLES AND RATIONALE
Design is often shaped by the end-user’s prior experience and learned associations. In conjunction with this project’s research findings, I collaborated with
Klimo to ascertain her goals for reconstructing the rhetoric of the Write Place. Prior to my project, Stainbrook’s research provided insight into users’ perceptions about the center. Both students and faculty held misconceptions of the Write Place’s services as a remedial “fix-it shop” for English coursework only. Stakeholder re-education was an absolute must to take back control of our narrative. We considered these elements heavily when discussing print and digital materials. Additionally, these design deliverables, and this rationale, were heavily influenced by the project’s research questions, as these questions led to the prior chapter’s recommended step-by-step marketing procedure and branding checklist.
When meeting with Klimo, our discussions first centered around audience, who our stakeholders were and why. We pinpointed two primary campus populations, faculty and students, each with their own sub-populations. For faculty, we hoped to strengthen our connection within the Humanities and begin forming collaborative relationships with other career pathways, STEM specifically. For students, we hoped to increase upperclassmen visits with targeted advertisements as well as generally increase the amount of student sessions prior to peak session times during each semester. The outdated bookmark, pictured in the introduction, failed to inform any of these groups sufficiently. Additionally, the bookmark did not visually represent the new branding
84 neither the University of Dayton nor the Roesch Library had begun implementing in
2019.
Another question we needed to address was, how could we visually (and rhetorically) align our work at the writing center with the university’s and library's mission(s)? Furthermore, since the Write Place is funded through the Learning and
Teaching Center (LTC)—whose mission is separate from the library but far more focused than the university’s—how would we additionally represent them? Would the LTC, the university marketing department, or the library have different design requirements? What were their expectations? Klimo and I juggled these questions back and forth for some time as we awaited clarification from all parties.
In addition to considering our target audiences and juggling multiple institutional units, Klimo and I considered what a typical calendar year looked like for the Write
Place. What events did our center participate in or support? What breaks or deadlines on the academic calendar impacted our amount of student sessions? How could we use the ebb and flow of the academic calendar to our advantage?
Design Deliverables
By the summer of 2019, Klimo and I cultivated a tentative list of design deliverables. Below, they have been categorized by campus population. As some marketing materials would reach both our students and faculty stakeholders, they were grouped together in all cases but one.
Multiple Stakeholders
1. Bookmark
2. Postcard-sized Promotional Flyer
85 3. Full-sized Promotional Flyer
4. General and Event Buttons
5. Themed Social Media Posts
In addition to creating a new bookmark, Klimo wanted promotional flyers. Within every building on campus, students and faculty pass by several bulletin boards daily.
These spaces were not being maximized for constant exposure.
Beyond creating daily sight lines, we considered the various events hosted throughout the academic year, such as Humanities Fest, UDayton Writes, and LitFest.
For the 2019 UDayton Writes event, we tested out several button designs. Passing out buttons at this event was not only a cost-effective endeavor since the library allowed us to use their button maker, but the buttons also acted as a conversation starter or memento as students approached our table. Often times, students need proof that they visited an organization or department’s booth in order to gain Path Points, which they eventually use to acquire preferential housing. While this phenomenon is unique to the University of
Dayton campus, it emphasizes the importance of knowing one’s audience. So, what is unique about our institution? Our students?
In addition to individual events, Klimo and I contemplated the academic calendar and TutorTrac data; TutorTrac is a program which records and categorizes all sessions hosted by a given writing center, so we were able to look at our own data from previous semesters. Our services are high in demand before Fall and Thanksgiving break as well as during midterm and finals week. How could we gently urge students to come sooner, or to visit at all? With the cooperation of the library staff, who agreed to post on our
86 behalf on the library’s Instagram and Twitter feeds, Klimo and I generated a list of breaks, holidays, and semester milestones to create social media posts for.
Student Stakeholders
1. Educational Tip Sheets
2. Employment Flyer
3. Employment Social Media Post
The consultant survey highlighted a number of writing issues for which students sought the Write Place’s assistance: thesis statements, paragraph construction, paper organization, citation styles, and more. The creation of Educational Tip Sheets—double- sided, 4.5” by 11” pieces of paper—aimed to provide direct assistance to students both during and beyond sessions at our writing center. Institutional research through our consultants provided Klimo and I with a list of possible topics, listed within Appendix I.
Later in our conversations, Klimo expressed an urge to advertise employment opportunities. The Write Place’s hiring season takes place in the spring semester, and those hired undergo training before the fall semester begins. New hires and seasoned consultants work the full academic year, in both fall and spring, with the chance to work over the summer term as well. By beginning to advertise employment opportunities,
Klimo hopes to attain a more diverse set of consultants so the Write Place is better able to serve our similarly diverse student population. Additionally, this diverse staff could more readily focus on the higher order concerns (regarding content) that upperclassmen students often struggle with.
Faculty Stakeholders
1. Informational Flyer
87 2. Class PowerPoint Presentation
To begin correcting faculty misconceptions, Klimo and I discussed the possibility of sending faculty an informational flyer throughout the academic year. In distributing informational flyers to faculty, we hope to accomplish three objectives:
1. Because most University of Dayton faculty do not know what the Write
Place offers and continue to perpetuate misinformation, we hope to clear
up any confusion through providing them with a straightforward,
informational document;
2. By repeating specific, positive language about the Write Place and its
services, we hope to encourage faculty to also discuss the center with
students utilizing that same rhetoric;
3. As the emailed informational flyers are a point of contact, faculty would
have a clear understanding of who to contact if they had questions or
concerns, which is pertinent given that Stainbrook’s prior research
revealed faculty do not know who to reach out to in these cases (42-43).
While an informational flyer could accomplish all of the above, Klimo and I discussed sending consultants to classrooms for 10-15 minute PowerPoint presentations at the beginning of the semester. The Write Place has offered this service in the past, but in recent years, classroom visits have dramatically decreased; writing center literature, as well as my own survey results, emphasize the importance of these visits. In creating a short but visually appealing presentation, we hope to set up a simple system to increase class visits, as the information would benefit both the faculty member and student.
88 Though this item stands to benefit multiple stakeholders, it has been placed within the faculty category because it first and foremost requires their permission and cooperation. After all, faculty connections are crucial points of contact for both current and future students.
Design Rationale
In accordance with the previous branding checklist, the following section will be organized based upon those parameters, as applicable to the University of Dayton’s context. Additionally, as the target audiences have already been addressed above, the following sections will attend to any differences in target audience.
Consistency
One of the first challenges Klimo and I faced was determining not what logo would appear on the future marketing materials, but how many logos; the Write Place is a
University of Dayton resource housed within the Roesch Library but funded through the
LTC. The LTC is a part of the Office of Learning Resources (OLR), and both have different logos. Klimo spoke with these administrative stakeholders and determined that we were not required to include the Roesch Library, LTC, or OLR logos. Together, we decided to include two logos: the Write Place’s unofficial logo, as it would be one current patrons would recognize, along with one of the University of Dayton’s new logos (as there are several to suit a variety of materials). Klimo and I faced a similar struggle when determining the color scheme of our materials.
As mentioned, the University of Dayton and the Roesch Library, where the Write
Place physically operates, both rebranded during the conception of this thesis. The
University of Dayton’s new color scheme utilizes a deep blue, red, and purple ombré;
89 however, the Roesch Library’s new color scheme features multiple shades of grey, green, and blue. We settled with a “meet in the middle” approach, similar to select survey participants, in order to align with the new direction of both the university and the library.
This middle ground manifested in an ombré background using the University of Dayton’s deep blue with the Roesch library’s bright green. Additionally, superimposed over the ombré, we inserted the same dot applique the library used to further emphasize our physical association. For reference, the original bookmark and new bookmark are included in Figure 2 and Figure 3 below for comparison.
Figure 2: Front and back scan of the Figure 3: Front and back scan of the Write Place’s outdated bookmark. Write Place’s updated bookmark.
Another addition to the bookmark—and other marketing materials—are new photos of the Write Place within the Roesch Library, as a professional photographer took
90 promotional shots shortly after the library’s renovation was completed. All new Write
Place images contain consultants pretending to be mid-consultation as no physical space has been sectioned off for the center’s operations. At present, these are the only representational images of the center, so Klimo and I felt it was imperative to include them since the previous bookmark did not incorporate images or graphics of any kind.
Images of real people are inherently easy to relate to, or rather, it is easier for the viewer to picture themselves within the photograph.
Lastly, the font choices counter the recommendation given in the prior chapter, as
Klimo wanted to keep the Write Place’s unofficial logo. The logo itself is “The Write
Place” in the serif font Lobster, shown in Figure 4. Typically, serif fonts are used as the body text font, but brand recognition was important to Klimo given all of the other changes to the physical space and marketing materials. For Figure 4: The text "The Write Place" in the the body text, we settled on one of Lobster typeface. the University of Dayton’s suggested fonts, Alright Sans, to again “meet in the middle” where university branding was concerned.
Overall, Klimo and I attempted to include elements from the new University of
Dayton and Roesch Library branding. In doing so, we sought to create harmony amongst our pieces, especially since we were limited in terms of the graphics we were able to include. The only pieces that use alternative graphics are our current social media posts; these posts highlight various holidays or events within each semester through a piece of clipart and a pun. They will be posted through the Roesch Library’s Instagram and
91 Twitter channels since they have a higher rate of engagement than the Write Place’s social media accounts.
Voice
Like many of the survey participants, Klimo and I considered what information our various target audiences required. To create a more inclusive, reader-oriented voice, we used second-person point of view and framed various sections of information with questions, as questions immediately immerse users by inherently ensuring they consider the prompt at hand. This approach allowed us to further chunk information, making it more digestible to our student populations. As the aforementioned social media posts are geared towards students, they still make use of the “you” language with a more playful, witty tone in an attempt to create memorable, engaging content.
Klimo and I additionally took care to differentiate the voice for students overall compared to faculty. While the materials for faculty still make use of “you” language and headings formatted with questions, our diction is more formal in nature while our tone is more professional to match their station.
92 CHAPTER 8
CONCLUSION
My initial exploration into the marketing and design practices within writing center research started with the desire to assist my institution’s writing center, the Write
Place, in correcting its remedial stigma through rhetoric. Given that few articles within writing center literature attend to marketing or marketing management and that none consider the rhetorical impact of design in reconstructing the dominant, remedial narrative acknowledged often within this field, this thesis sought to accomplish four main objectives:
1. To examine current graphic design practices within the writing center field
to inform future design recommendations;
2. To ascertain the marketing knowledge and experiences of major
stakeholders to learn both effective and ineffective writing center
marketing practices;
3. To collect current marketing materials utilized within the writing center
field to inform future marketing and design recommendations; and
4. To create marketing materials for the Write Place based upon research-
informed marketing and design recommendations.
As writing centers are bound by their context, my own institutional research sought to ascertain the University of Dayton’s writing center employee and patron needs; however, this research revealed a unique contradiction regarding the focus of Write Place student sessions: most focus on lower-order concerns, akin to editing and proofreading,
93 opposed to higher-order concerns akin to revising. Write Place consultants are trained to conduct sessions in the exact opposite order, and yet this focus reflects the very traits present in remedial stigma dialogues. Still, this institutional research was limited in scope, as the survey had been designed to gather topics for future educational materials.
Therefore, the focus on lower-order concerns could simply be due to students not requiring that assistance at that time. In light of these limitations, it is apparent that future examination is needed regarding how influential the substance of writing center sessions is on the perception of writing centers themselves.
Further, when seeking an understanding of current marketing practices via specific marketing inquiries, similar contradictions emerged: from the terminology used to rhetorically define the relationship between writing center employees and patrons to the discrepancies in identifying and marketing to one or more target audiences.
Additionally, data collected regarding centers’ services reveal that individual writing centers have a relatively small range of influence on their campuses. Meaning, a writing center’s range of influence is concentrated within the center itself, ultimately accomplishing little in the way of correcting stakeholders’ writing center misconceptions.
Barriers to expanding this range include lack of time, budget, and expertise where both marketing and design are concerned, which I hope for my recommendations to alleviate.
Furthermore, no research or repository of examples exists to demystify the act of designing effective marketing materials for writing center outreach. Combined, these local and global observations indicate the need for further research.
This thesis attempts to develop a step-by-step marketing procedure and branding checklist, considerate of local contextual constraints inherent in writing center practice.
94 As the Write Place hopes to increase the number of upperclassmen visits and amount of faculty engagement, these two approaches have directly informed the Write Place’s future marketing and design endeavors. It should be noted that further research is needed to measure the effectiveness of such applications. However, as writing center professionals begin to explore their local marketing and design practices, and eventually begin to look outward, perhaps new light will be shed on how to change the narrative about our ever present, and ever contextual, remedial stigmas so that we begin to include marketing and design as essential writing center work.
95 WORKS CITED
Bell, Jim. “Promotional Ideas for Writing Centers.” Writing Lab Newsletter, Vol. 21, No.
1, 1996, pp. 13-14.
Bender, Jacob. “Not Remedial, But a Walk-Through.” Writing Lab Newsletter, Vol. 35,
No. 9-10, 2011, pp. 14-15.
Bierut, Michael. Seventy-nine Short Essays on Design. Princeton Architectural Press,
2007.
Bishop, Wendy. “Bringing Writers to the Center: Some Survey Results, Surmises, and
Suggestions.” The Writing Center Journal, Vol. 10, No. 2, Spring/Summer 1990,
pp. 31-44.
Buchanan, Richard. “Rhetoric, Humanism, and Design.” Discovering Design:
Explorations in Design Studies, University of Chicago Press, Vol. 23, 1995, pp.
23-66.
Costa, Karen. “Seven Strategies to Apply Design Thinking in Higher Education.”
Enrollment Management Report, John & Wiley Sons Inc., Vol. 21, No. 4, pp. 8-9.
Denny, Harry. “WCRP Survey 2016-17 Raw Survey Data.” Purdue Writing Lab/Purdue
OWL Datasets and Research Projects, 2017, web.
Ghattas, Christine B. "Writing Center Outreach: What It Is and Why It Matters.”
Dissertations, Theses and Capstone Projects, Kennesaw State University, 2010.
Grefé, Richard. “Standards of Professional Practices.” Professional Practices in Graphic
Design. 2nd ed., edited by Tad Crawford, Allworth Press and American Institute
of Graphic Arts, 2008.
96 Harris, Muriel. “Making Our Institutional Discourse Sticky: Suggestions for Effective
Rhetoric.” The Writing Center Journal, Vol. 30, No. 2, 2010, pp. 47-71.
Hebdon, Heather M. “Universal Design: Making Education Accessible to All Students.”
Exceptional Parent Magazine, EP Global Communications, May 2007, pp. 70.
Jones, Casey. “The Relationship Between Writing Centers and Improvement in Writing
Ability: An Assessment of the Literature.” Education, Project Innovation Inc.,
Vol. 122, No. 1, 2001, pp. 3-20.
Leahy, Richard. “What the College Writing Center Is—and Isn’t.” College Teaching,
Taylor & Francis Ltd., Vol. 38, No. 2, 1990, pp. 43-48.
Lerner, Neal. “Writing Laboratories Circa 1953.” Writing Lab Newsletter, The RiCH
Company LLC., Vol. 27, No. 6, Feb. 2003, pp. 1-5.
Lewison, Dale M., and Jon M. Hawes. “Student Marketing Strategies for Universities.”
Journal for College Admission, National Association of College Admissions
Counselors, 2007, pp. 14-19.
Lunsford, Andrea A., and John J. Ruszkiewicz. Everything’s an Argument. Bedford/St.
Martin’s, 2016.
Masiello, Lea, and Malcom Hayward. “The Faculty Survey: Identifying Bridges Between
the Classroom and the Writing Center.” The Writing Center Journal, Writing
Center Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1991, pp. 73-79.
Mick, Connie Snyder. Good Writing: An Argument Rhetoric. Oxford University Press,
2019.
97 Mohr, Ellen. “Marketing the Best Image of the Community College Writing Center.”
Writing Lab Newsletter, The RiCH Company LLC., Vol. 31, No. 10, June 2007,
pp. 1-5.
Newberry, Betsy. Designer’s Guide to Marketing: Painless Principles for Creating
Design that Sells. North Light Books, 1997.
Powers, Suzanne. “What Composition Teachers Need to Know about Writing Centers.”
Freshman English News, University of Cincinnati on behalf of Composition
Studies, Vol. 19, No. 2, 1991, pp. 15-21.
Pettersson, Rune. “Information Design-Principles and Guidelines.” Journal of Visual
Literacy, International Visual Literacy Association, Vol. 29, No. 2, pp. 167-182.
Ruey-Wei, Gong, and Tsai Fu-Sheng. “University Institutional Research and Student
Recruitment Performance: Utilizing Marketing Communication for Knowledge
Heterogeneity.” Journal of Economic and Social Thought, KSP Library, Vol. 3,
No. 4, December 2016, pp. 469-475.
Schulz, Matthew. “Recalibrating an Established Writing Center: From Supplementary
Service to Active Discipline.” Writing Lab Newsletter, The RiCH Company
LLC., Vol. 37, No. 9-10, May/June 2013, pp. 1-5.
Shaughnessy, Adrian. Graphic Design; A User’s Manual. London, Laurence King
Publishing Ltd., 2009.
Stainbrook, Emily. “A Usage of the Write Place at the University of Dayton.” MA
Thesis, University of Dayton English Department, 2019.
98 “Student Success Network.” University of Dayton,
www.udayton.edu/ltc/learningresources/facultyandstaff/ssn.php. Accessed 28 July
2019.
Terkan, Remziye. “Importance of Creative Advertising and Marketing According to
University Students’ Perspective.” International Review of Marketing and
Management, Vol. 4, No. 3, 2014, pp. 239-246.
Watson, Stevie, Cassandra D. Wells, and Elania J. Hudson. “The Effects of Idealized
Advertising Imagery on Social Comparisons, Psychological and Emotional
Outcomes, and Consumer Vulnerability: A Conceptual Model.” Journal of
Promotion Management, Vol. 17, 2011, pp. 407-417.
99 APPENDIX A
Anonymous Peer Consultant Survey Questions
1. How many semesters have you worked as a Write Place consultant? (Multiple
Choice Question)
o 1 semester
o 2-3 semesters
o 3-4 semesters
o 5+ semesters
2. When considering the Hierarchy of Needs learned in Write Place training, what
level of the hierarchy do most your sessions focus on? (Checkbox Grid Question,
example screenshot below)
3. When filling out your Client Report Forms after a session focused on Content,
what type of advice or assistance do you seem to be giving the most? (Long
Answer Response)
100 4. When filling out your Client Report Forms after a session focused on
Organization, what type of advice or assistance do you seem to be giving the
most? (Long Answer Response)
5. When filling out your Client Report Forms after a session focused on Mechanics,
what type of advice or assistance do you seem to be giving the most? (Long
Answer Response)
6. What resources would be helpful to have nearby while in a session with a student?
(Long Answer Response)
101 APPENDIX B
Anonymous Writing Center Marketing and Design Survey
General Information (Section 1) 1. What is your current position? (Multiple choice) ○ Director or Coordinator ○ Assistant Director or Coordinator ○ Other: Fill in blank 2. How many years have you held your current position? (Multiple choice) ○ 0-1 years ○ 2-4 years ○ 5-9 years ○ 10-14 years ○ 15+ years 3. How would you identify your institutional affiliation? ○ Community college ○ Public university ○ Private university 4. What is your current country of residence? (Short answer) 5. What services does your writing center offer? (Long answer) 6. On average, how many undergraduate and graduate students does your writing center assist per semester? If your writing center provides additional assistance, such as writing groups or online feedback, please include and specify that in your response. (Short answer) 7. How do you staff your writing center? (Allow for multiple accepted answers) ○ Undergraduate students ○ Graduate students ○ University staff or faculty ○ Professional staff
102 ○ Other: Fill in blank 8. What type of language does your writing center utilize when addressing employees and writing center patrons? (Examples: staff writer and student writer, tutor and tutee, consultant and client,...) (Short answer) 9. Is your writing center associated with a larger body? (Example: a tutoring service or academic department) (Short answer) ○ It operates as part of an academic department (e.g., English department). ○ It is an independent academic unit. ○ It is affiliated with another academic unit (e.g., tutoring service or library service). ○ Other: Fill in blank
Marketing/Outreach Inquiry (Section 2) 10. In your position, how much control do you have over your writing center’s marketing? (Multiple choice) ○ I have full control. (Meaning: I have a budget that I can use for marketing how I choose) ○ I work with a different office/department on joint marketing efforts. ○ I do not have control over the writing center’s marketing strategy. ○ Other: Fill in blank 11. When it comes to marketing or outreach, please describe any struggles, limitations, or challenges you have faced. (Long answer) 12. Do you currently use or implement any marketing strategies or techniques? (Multiple choice with follow-ups) ○ If YES: Please describe any marketing strategies or techniques you use. What impact do you think using them has had? ○ If NO: Are there any reasons why your writing center does not currently implement any marketing strategies or techniques? 13. Do you currently use social media marketing? (Multiple choice with follow-ups) ○ If YES: Please describe how you utilize social media to market your writing center. Please consider the following questions in your response:
103 What platforms do you use? How often do you post? Who is in charge of posting? What impact do you think it has had? ○ If NO: Are there any reasons why your writing center does not currently utilize social media marketing? 14. Do you use any educational materials? (Multiple choice with follow-ups, upload option) ○ If YES: What kind of educational materials do you use? What impact do you think using them has had? If you feel comfortable sharing them with the researcher, please upload them now. ○ If NO: Are there any reasons why your writing center does not currently utilize educational materials? 15. Do you use any promotional materials? (Multiple choice, upload option) ○ If YES: What kind of promotional materials do you use? What impact do you think using them has had? If you feel comfortable sharing them with the researcher, please upload them now. ○ If NO: Are there any reasons why your writing center does not currently utilize promotional materials? 16. Please describe your writing center’s target audience. (If there is more than one target population, and if one group is targeted more than another, please include and specify that in your response.) (Long answer) 17. If you market to multiple audiences, how do you do so? (Long answer)
Design Inquiry (Section 3) (9-10 with Follow-Ups) 18. In your position, how much control do you have over how marketing materials for your writing center are designed? (Multiple choice) ○ I have full creative control over the design of my center’s marketing materials. (This includes creative control over the content, the placement of text/images on the materials, and so forth.) ○ I do not have full creative control, but I do influence the final design. i. Option 2 Follow Up question: If you indicated that you have some creative control in the previous question, please elaborate below.
104 ○ I do not have any creative control over the design process. 19. Does your writing center have its own logo? (Multiple choice, upload option) ○ If YES: If you feel comfortable sharing the logo with the researcher, please upload it now. ○ If NO: Are there any reasons why your writing center does not use a logo? 20. Do your marketing materials (whether used for social media, educational, or promotional purposes) use images or multimedia of any kind? (Multiple choice, upload option) ○ If YES: If you feel comfortable sharing examples with the researcher, please upload them now. ○ If NO: Are there any reasons why your marketing materials do not incorporate images or multimedia? 21. Please indicate which scenario best describes the color scheme or branding of your marketing materials. (Multiple choice) ○ The color scheme or branding must match my institution’s colors/branding. ○ The color scheme or branding must match the academic body or department my writing center is associated with. ○ The color scheme or branding of my materials are of my own choosing. 22. In two or three words, please describe the design of your marketing materials. (For example: sleek, professional, and modern or bright and fun) (Short answer) 23. Please describe how the design of your marketing materials account for or consider your target audience(s). (Long answer) 24. Final File Upload: Thank you for taking the time to fill out my survey. After deciding to create marketing materials for my own university, the University of Dayton (UD), I quickly realized during my research that there is little written about writing center promotional practices and nothing written about how writing center marketing materials are designed. Therefore, there is nothing for me to reference or consider in our field when creating new pieces for UD’s writing center.
105 If you are willing and able, I would love to look at what other materials your writing center uses. With all of the collected materials, I hope to gain an understanding of current design practices, which will inform my future design decisions. Anonymous references to these collected materials will be incorporated into an academic article to explain my findings and support my design rationale. I hope the article will contribute valuable knowledge to our field. Thank you again for your time and assistance.
106 APPENDIX C
Peer Consultant Survey Questions
1. What is your class standing?
First-year Sophomore Junior Senior
2. What is your major? (Short Answer)
3. How often do you consult with a student from outside of your discipline in a
typical week?
0-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times 10+ times
4. When consulting with a student about a paper outside of your discipline, how
comfortable do you feel?
Not at All 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely
5. How often do you consult with a student from your discipline in a typical week?
0-3 times 4-6 times 7-10 times 10+ times
6. When consulting with a student about a paper within your discipline, how
comfortable do you feel?
Not at All 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely
7. Would you be willing to meet with the researcher for an in-person interview or
focus group? If so, please leave your email address: ______
107 APPENDIX D
Peer Consultant Interview Questions
1. When you consult with clients from outside your discipline, how does the session
usually go? Are there memorable moments that stick out to you?
2. When you consult with clients from within your discipline, how does the session
usually go? Are there memorable moments that stick out to you?
3. Do you feel that lack of knowledge was prohibiting?
4. Do you or the client ever feel lost or like you don’t understand the assignment?
5. Do you ever ask other consultants for help in a difficult session?
6. Does the client ever turn to you as an “expert” in the academic genre into which
the assignment falls?
7. Do you or the client ever feel frustrated by a mutual lack of understanding
regarding the assignment?
8. Now that I’ve asked you these questions, what are some general differences
between sessions from within or outside your discipline?
108 APPENDIX E
Instructor Survey Questions
1. In what discipline do you teach?
2. Do you allow students to revise writing assignments?
Yes No Sometimes, for what
assignment/reason?
3. If a stranger, who knew nothing of writing centers, asked you to describe the
Write Place, what might you tell them/ how would you describe it?
4. Have you ever encouraged/suggested that students go to the Write Place?
Yes, for what reason(s)? No, for what reason(s)?
5. Do you include the Write Place clause in your syllabus as it is listed here: The
Write Place and Roesch Library's reference services have united in the
Knowledge Hub on the first floor of Roesch Library. In the Knowledge Hub, all
UD students can receive free research and writing assistance on any assignment,
at any stage of the writing process. No appointments are necessary (though you're
welcome to make one; call 937-229-4270). Drop-in hours are 10 a.m. to 8 p.m.
Monday through Thursday; 10 a.m. to 2 p.m. Friday; and 4 to 8 p.m. Sundays.
Yes No, why?
6. Do you refer to the Write Place as a resource while you teach?
Yes, how often? No
109 7. Have you ever asked the Write Place to send a representative to your class to
inform your students about the Write Place?
Yes No
8. Would you be willing to meet with the researcher for an in-person interview or
focus group? If so, please leave your email address: ______
110 APPENDIX F
Instructor Interview Questions
1. How long have you been teaching?
2. (referring to their answer on second question of the survey) Why don’t you allow
revision?
3. Whether or not you’re a proponent of the Write Place, what suggestions do you
have to make the presence of the Write Place more visible to faculty and students?
4. Do you encourage juniors and seniors in your discipline to make use of the Write
Place?
5. Does your department offer writing help as an alternative to the Write Place?
6. Whether or not you’re a proponent of the Write Place, what suggestions do you
have to make the Write Place more available to faculty and students?
111 APPENDIX G
Student Survey Questions
1. What is your class standing?
First-year Sophomore Junior Senior
2. What is your major?
3. Have you ever been to the Write Place for help with a paper?
Yes No, why not?
4. When did you last visit the Write Place?
5. When you last visited the Write Place, what course was the assignment for?
6. Do you feel that your last visit to the Write Place was effective?
Not at All 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely
7. Do you use skills you learned at the Write Place when writing papers?
Yes No, why not?
8. Did you feel welcome when you last visited the Write Place?
Not at All 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely
9. Was your peer consultant knowledgeable about the assignment you brought to the
Write Place?
Not at All 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely
10. Was your peer consultant knowledgeable about the topic of the assignment you
brought to the Write Place?
Not at All 1 2 3 4 5 Extremely
112 11. Have you ever suggested the Write Place as a resource to a peer?
Yes No
12. How often have you suggested the Write Place as a resource to a peer?
Once a week Once a month Once a semester Never
13. Do the instructors in your discipline suggest using the Write Place as a resource
during class?
1-3 have 4-6 have 7-10 have 10+ have No
14. Are you familiar with the Write Place’s social media accounts?
Yes No
15. Do you follow any of the Write Place’s social media accounts?
Yes, which? No
16. Would you be willing to meet with the researcher for an in-person interview or
focus group? If so, please leave your email address: ______
113 APPENDIX H
Student Interview Questions
1. Whether or not you’re a proponent of the Write Place, how can we make the
Write Place more visible and/or available to the student body?
2. Do/Would you feel comfortable taking a discipline-specific paper to the Write
Place for assistance?
3. Have you ever had a very positive/negative experience at the Write Place? What
made that experience so memorable?
114 APPENDIX I
List of Potential Blog Topics
Informational
1. # Tips for Editing (Insert Assignment)
2. How to Write a Cover Letter
3. How to Write a Resume
4. # Tips for Resume Writing
5. How to Write a Personal Statement
6. # Tips for Writing Personal Statements
7. # Ways to Polish Your Writing
8. # Ways to Impress Your English Professor
9. How to Write a Great Paragraph
10. How to Impress Instructors with your Introduction
11. Thesis Formats
12. Comma Rules
13. How to Use a Semicolon
14. How to Write a Great Conclusion
15. How to Create a Great Presentation
16. # Drafting Tips
17. # Outlining Techniques
18. # Revising Tips
115 19. How to Use OWL Purdue
20. Creative Writing Posts
21. Event Announcements
22. Study Tips
23. Reading Strategies
24. Note-taking Strategies
Storytelling
1. The Worst Essay I Ever Wrote
2. The Best Writing Advice I Was Ever Given
3. Writing Quotes/Inspirational Writing Quotes
4. Professor Spotlight?
5. Student Spotlight?
6. How Writing Changed ______(My life, my opinion on…)
7. My Writing Journey
8. I Hated Writing Until…
9. Book Review/Recommendations?
116