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!