Week 11

Authority isn't something I like to think about a lot in the Writing Center because it makes me uncomfortable. I don't like to think of myself as having authority over writers and I don't like to think of writers having authority over me. After reading Peter Carino's "Power and Authority in Peer Tutoring," I've been thinking about authority in the Writing Center more this week. I've come to realize that it's not about me having authority over anyone or them having authority over me; authority in the Writing Center is about having authority over different bodies of information. Oftentimes, the writer brings the authority over the content of the paper and I have more authority over the writing methods to express that content. This is a great way to have authority naturally split up because it forces both consultant and writer to be engaged in the session. One person cannot control the paper on their own, they need the other's input.

Speaking of control, this also brings up the directive/non-directive conundrum again. I'm glad that we looked at this issue again because there is no simple answer to the question of whether directive or non-directive methods are more effective and true to what we want to achieve in the Center. I think the best answer is, like with everything else, it depends. It depends on the student's level of expertise with writing, their knowledge of the content, personality factors, which issues are present in the paper... Sometimes directive methods are necessary to teach a writer how to cite a source or explain what goes in an introduction. Sometimes non-directive methods are more appropriate because the writer is brainstorming topics or revising for content. It seems like directive methods are most useful when the question is about the technicalities of writing and there is a genuine lack of knowledge on the writer's part. Otherwise, non-directive methods should be used so the student remains in control and in ownership of their paper.

The most important thing to remember is that consultants need to be flexible and willing to adapt based on the writer's needs. Remaining non-directive when a more directive approach is called for will not only result in an unhelpful session, it will also frustrate everyone involved. It was great to hear "trust your instincts" with the appropriate level of directiveness. I sometimes worry about being too directive with writers, but I feel better knowing that scholars, directors, and other consultants agree that there are many situations when a more directive approach is necessary. As long as the student remains in control of the text and is learning something, I can feel confident that I haven't crossed any lines.

Week 10 (can it be week 10 already?)

This week I had my first sessions that left me feeling like I hadn't really helped the writer. Monday was  rough day in the Writing Center. My first session went well and I was able to help the writer understand  MLA formatting and point her to the Purdue OWL. I also helped her further develop her thesis and identify places in the paper where she had inadvertently argued for the other side. As I mentioned before, the success of this first appointment was not indicative of the rest of my shift.

I had to deliver some really bad news to the next writer. She had spent the weekend drafting a six-page literature analysis. Unfortunately, she had misunderstood her professor's prompt and the analysis didn't respond to what the professor had asked. I didn't really have to point it out to her, she noticed by herself and was really discouraged. I tried to help by suggesting she talk with her professor to get a better idea of what he's looking for. I also pointed out places in her paper where she was responding to the question. She and I both felt pretty bad still. Fortunately, she had started early and the paper wasn't due for three weeks. I encouraged her to expand the places she had responded to the prompt and continue drafting and I invited her back to the Writing Center after she had a chance to work on her analysis more.

My final appointment for the day left me feeling pretty defeated. I was working with a writer from English 121 and we had a hard time communicating. We also had different ideas about what happens in the Writing Center which led to us working against each other. Her essay had already been marked up by her professor and she wanted my help fixing it. I wanted to help her understand her professor's comments so she could make the changes herself with some guidance from me. In a few places, her professor had written "incomplete thought" or "incomplete idea" next to fragments. I tried to explain what that meant in a few different ways, but was not successful. I had no idea what to do. She asked me to fix it. I asked her what more she could say about it. We went back and forth like this on sentence-level concerns for the rest of the session. We got through 3/4 of a page and although we had made some important revisions, I didn't feel like the writer fully grasped why she had made all of those changes.

It's interesting that I had these experiences the same week we were talking about writers that might need different kinds of help or additional help. The ideas of patience and respect were really emphasized in the readings for Thursday. I've been reflecting on my Monday in the Center, thinking about how I could have been more respectful or more patient and how that would have improved the situation. I certainly see where I could have been more patient. I moved ahead in the session when I should have stayed with one topic until the writer understood it. I felt the pressure to give the writer an experience they felt was helpful and worthwhile and wasn't as patient as I should have been. 

Here's to reflecting and growing!

Week 9

I had my first official ride along for an email consultation on Monday. I had sat in on a portion of one of Heath's email consultations during my first week in the center, but that was pretty early on and I was learning so many things at the time that I didn't absorb everything. Having the official ride along experience was really helpful and calmed some of the fears I had about responding to writers online. I worked with Melissa Hughes; she was great at explaining her process for email consultations and allowing me to jump in and do some of the work.

Going into the email consultation, it seemed to me like the email consultations are something entirely different from the face-to-face consultations. It almost seemed strange that the two services would be provided by a single writing center. One works with writers, the other works with texts. Many of my concerns were similar to the ones in the Lisa Bell article we read this week, "Preserving the Rhetorical Nature of Tutoring When Going Online." The steps and strategies that are important in face-to-face consulting are impossible in an email consultation. You can't interact with the writer, get to know something about them, welcome them into the space, get feedback, have them explain what they mean... My question was, how do we practice and uphold the things we value in the Writing Center when we're working with writers online? 

The truth is, I still don't know the answer to that question. Even after my ride along, sample email consultation, and all the readings for the week, I still don't see email consultations matching up ideologically with the rest of writing center work. That's not to say that I don't think it's a valuable service for students. On the contrary, I can already see the many benefits of email consultations. Maybe I just need to come to grips with the fact that the service we provide to writers online is different, by necessity, than the service we provide in person. They can't be the same because the writer is removed in time and space from the consultation. 

All the work I did in 303 and in the center this week taught me some important tips for making email consultations reflect (as much as possible) what we're doing in the Center. First, it's important to still greet the writer and make them feel as comfortable as possible. It's also important to still give the writer options instead of answers and to point to specific places in the text when discussing strengths and weaknesses. All of these things just take a little more effort in email consultations. These are just some preliminary thoughts; I expect my ideas about email consultations to continue to evolve as I work with them more throughout the semester. 

In closing, I have an idea of the topic I would like to work with in my WCJ article. As an English Teaching major, I think it would be really interesting to explore the relationship between the composition classroom and the writing center or look at ways composition courses could adapt their pedagogy to reflect what the writing center does (and if that would even be effective). Some articles I'm considering analyzing are: "Training Teachers for the Writing Lab: a Multidimensional Perspective," "Understanding 'Spirit' in the Writing Center," and "Inter-activism: Strengthening the Writing Center Conference." I'd appreciate any direction on this or even suggestions for other articles on the subject. Thanks!

Week 8

I've noticed that people are always trying to put the writing conference process in a step-by-step fomat. There's so much involved in tutoring a writer that putting it in a consistent format makes it seem more manageable. Some of the articles we've read for class suggest that they have one or a few of the steps to that process. However, most of them point out that their strategy won't always work or will work differently with various writers. What works for a native speaker may not work for a multilingual writer. What works for someone who has been to the Center before may not work for a first-timer. What works for someone who came of their own volition may not work for someone who was required to come. Tutoring writing can be messy and unpredictable and the strategies that are appropriate depend completely on the writer you're working with. Tutoring writing seems to completely defy the step-by-step format. I've come to the conclusion that it's not about following a procedure, but having a toolbelt full of strategies so you can effectively adjust to each individual writer.

I have seen this in the Center over the semester, but especially in my first full week on the schedule. I worked with four different writers on the same assignment this week. They were all doing an analysis of the BSU Theatre Department's production of Becoming: An Evening of Short Plays. Although I thought that it would be pretty boring conferencing about the same thing over and over again, it wasn't. Each consultation was incredibly different even though the papers had some similar content. I worked with freshmen, and juniors, and ELL writers, and native English speakers, and shy writers, and unengaged writers... The point is, I had to use different strategies and methods with each writer. Figuring out what would work for each writer just came kind of naturally. I just chatted with them and figured where they were at and what kind of help they needed and moved on from there, and adjusted as necessary.

That's not to say my first week on the schedule was flawless. I noticed my tendency to skip or rush over the pretextual dimension after I've already worked with a couple of writers in a shift. I feel the time crunch of a half hour appointment and jump right into the textual dimension. One thing that has already helped me remember the pretextual dimension is Max's comment in class on Thursday. He said, "I can usually rate the quality of a session by how long it takes to look at the actual paper (Or something very similar with the same meaning)." I employed this idea in my consultations on Wednesday and noticed a huge improvement. The longer I talked with the writer about how their class is going and how they felt about the assignment, the more helpful I was able to be. The conversation brought out problem areas we should focus on, gave me an idea of what to expect, and even made it clear that the writer had skipped over the prewriting stage and needed to spend some time there.

Week 7

     First, I have to say how much I enjoyed Saturday's Marty. I had no idea work meetings could be so much fun. It seems almost unfair to everyone who works anywhere else. The food was great, the environment was nice, and the company is really unmatched. It is so great to be in a room of people who are enthusiastic conversationalists and share a passion for writing. We really do have an outstanding group of individuals. I had the opportunity to meet some writing center folks I had only seen before and talk to a lot of the people I don't get to work or be in class with.

     On a more serious note, I gleaned some important insights about working with multilingual writers this week. The subcategories of ESL writers in the first chapter of ESL Writers will be really helpful in knowing where to start with a writer. It's not that we should use the categories as a formula for how to work with various groups of students, but as a basic jumping off point from which we can get to know the individual writer and how we can best help them.  There is just as much variety within the group titled "ESL writers" as there is within the group titled "native English speakers." Every writer has their own background and set of experiences that makes them unique, so the way that we interact with them must also be unique. That's not to say that having a general understanding of a group isn't valueable. Because of the limited amount of time we have in a session to get to know an individual, having a general idea of some experiences, opinions, and struggles they may have will help the session get off on the right foot. Still, we should be wary about making assumptions and clumping people into categories.

     "Cultural Conflicts in the Writing Center: Expectations and Assumptions of ESL Students" pointed out some of the ways that multilingual writers and consultants may be working against each other, or at least in different directions. Being aware of these differences and proactive about addressing each party's assumptions and expectations can ensure that the session is productive and the writer is as comfortable as possible. Many international students come to the writing center expecting to have their questions answered and their problems solved--they expect to have a passive role. Tutors assume the opposite. They expect to pose the questions and problems, helping the writer work toward their own solutions. It's obvious how this could frustrate both the writer and consultant. I'm wondering what the tried-and-true strategies are for negotiating assumptions and expectations with ESL writers. What specific things can I do at the beginning of a session to make sure we're on the same page?

Week 6

An idea that really stood out to me this week is the importance of setting an agenda for the tutoring session. Newkirk’s article “The First Five Minutes: Setting the Agenda in a Writing Conference” demonstrated what can happen when the consultant and the writer aren’t starting with the same expectations and focus. The session just bounces along from topic to topic without discussing anything to an extent that is helpful. Setting an agenda helps both writer and consultant determine what they can reasonably expect to get done in the time they have and gives both individuals the opportunity to determine what they want to focus on. In the end, the writer will be more satisfied because their expectations were shaped in the beginning and there is a better chance of them coming back. Setting an agenda doesn’t take more than five minutes and is the best way to ensure a constructive session. Agendas can’t guarantee a magical better-writer-producing session, but it is a great way to help writers feel like they’re not wasting their time.

I’ve also been thinking a lot about the importance of being able to read people in the writing center. It is important to be able to tell whether a writer lacks confidence, doesn’t want to be there, is very attached to their writing, etc, so I can respond appropriately. If I don’t recognize early enough that the writer isn’t confident in their writing, I may start discussing issues in the writing and further damage their confidence. The appropriate response would be to ignore those issues for awhile and focus on what they did well. As Newkirk writes, “in the near future [the writer will] gain enough confidence to deal with these technical matters” (306). One effective idea I’ve heard for gauging the writer’s attitude is by asking how the class and assignment are going. This will likely bring out their feelings about the writing and help me determine how I should interact with them. I’m usually pretty good at reading people, I just hope I don’t miss anything important and cause someone to have a bad experience.

Finally, I was really glad to have an opportunity to review some basic grammar rules and uses. Although I am pretty intuitive about grammar and punctuation, I can’t always explain the rule when asked. I know that writers need to understand the “why” of grammar and punctuation so they learn to do it correctly on their own. I don’t want writers to depend on me to edit their papers, so I need to be able to express the “why.” Going through Rhetorical Grammar is helping me develop the vocabulary to explain the rules and choices that writers have, but I still have a long way to go.

I had my first real walk-in appointment this week and it went really well! It was a pretty directive session since it was an ELL student who came in for grammar help on a set of chapter review questions. I’m feeling much more confident going into my first week on the schedule. A question did come up for me though. If we finish early in a session and the writer wants to sit around and chat, is that okay?

Week 5

          I have loved all the readings this week about how to practically apply some of the writing center theory we have been discussing. I found McAndrew and Reigstad’s “What Tutoring Is: Models and Strategies” to be especially helpful. It is a great compilation of strategies for all sorts of situations. I can’t see myself using all of them, but a few did stand out. My favorite is the “promise” strategy for helping writers recognize that their thesis is a kind of agreement they make with readers. I observed a session where the writer’s introduction was only tangentially related to the body of the paper. To help the writer recognize the issue, Shaun described the introduction of the paper as a promise of what’s to come. The writer was able to recognize that her personal anecdote “promised” an essay about her relationship with her dad, not about the book she was supposed to be responding to.

            I’ve also seen some of the development strategies at work in the center. Last week Heath used oral composing to help a writer expand his thesis and ultimately his essay. The writer didn’t have a draft, but he did have a very narrow thesis that he wanted to run by someone. Heath asked the writer what he thought he might write in his paper. As the writer poured out a list of great ideas, Heath encouraged him to write them down. From there, the student was able to expand his thesis and come up with a rough outline of the rest of his paper.

I believe that one of the best ways to help a writer develop a piece of writing is simply acting as a reader. I can point out areas where I’m confused, or areas where I would like to hear more about the topic. Asking writers questions about their topic indicates to them when and where development is lacking.

I thought the style categories in the section on voice and tone were great ways to describe it to writers who don’t have experience with various rhetorical situations. Most writers will be able to grasp what “tough, sweet, and stuffy” language is and be able to recognize it in their own writing once they’re aware of it. Asking if their voice matches their audience and purpose will quickly reveal any issues. In my experience, the biggest issue with tone and voice is that writers aren’t always conscious of it until it is brought to their attention.

The reading from Sourcebook really emphasized the pretextual and postextual dimensions of consultations because they are vital and yet so often forgotten. I got to do a “walk-in-ish” appointment in the center today and really focused on these two dimensions. The student couldn’t come in at any of the available times and his paper was due tomorrow. He needed help understanding the assignment, so I figured taking a look at it couldn’t hurt anything. This also meant we only talked for about five minutes and there wasn’t much of a textual dimension. I was sure to introduce myself and ask how his class was going. This seemed to help him relax. At the end of our conversation, I made sure he understood what his next steps were and encouraged him to come again (and make appointments ahead of time). It wasn’t a real consultation, but it seemed to be a helpful experience for both me and the writer.