Steve Sherwood's article regarding censorship (129) offers a humorous
look at how we, at tutors, should approach some of the questionable
material we may see in a client's paper. In the essay, he explains how he
was able to warn a student that his beliefs and opinions (as described in
the paper) may have a direct impact on his grade. However, the client
ignored the warnings of the consultant. It is here that I would have went
down a different path than the tutor in the story. While the consultant
tried once again to advise the client that his ideas may result in a poor
grade, I would have most likely shrugged it off. From there, I would have
proceeded to help the student in whatever ways he wanted. Even though his
arrogance would have most likely cost him, I realize that you cannot
necessarily change someone's mind.
I am reminded of George Orwell's 1984 when Sherwood quotes Jeane Simpson,
stating: "if we believe some speech is more equal than other, then all our
trumpeting about "academic freedom is hypocritical rot" (130). This, to
me, is important to keep in mind. Sure, students may present ideas that
may result in poor grades - but if they are ideas that the student truly
believes in, I think you must attempt to make him or her reconsider for
the sake of the writing. In the event that this attempt is unsuccessful,
I think it is the consultant's job to sit back, ignore the fallacy, and
encourage the client to keep writing.
I have not yet seen an instance in which the consultant felt the need to warn the client about the content of the paper. It seems to me that the majority of students who visit the writing center treat the word of the consultant like the gospel.
On a completely different note, I feel that revision is certainly important in regards to Toby Fulwiler's essay (156). For seem reason, it seems that there are certain negative connotations we attach to the terms "revision" and "rewriting." I'm not sure why these assumptions exist, but they really aren't so negative. I'm sure that sometimes, consultants would feel relieved to be dealing with a strong writer who is just looking for some revision strategies.
While I do agree with much of Fulwiler's essay, I still feel as if there are areas in which he digresses. Although the ability to examine your work in search of improvements is necessary, I do not entirely feel that "teaching writing is teaching rewriting." In certain situations, tutoring is largely concerned with revision. When a client is struggling to meet the length requirements for an assignment, consultants will tend to look for ways in which he or she can "add new information and more explanation" (161).
I would think that attempts at revision could be one of the most enjoyable experiences in the writing center, especially if you are having repeated sessions with the same client. It seems that you could gage how far the client has come and determine what is left to accomplish.
References: Murphy, Christina and Steve Sherwood. The St. Martin's Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. Sherwood, Steve. "Censoring Students, Censoring Ourselves: Constraining Conversations in the Writing Center." In Murphy and Sherwood, 129-136. Fulwiler, Toby. "Provocative Revision." In Murphy and Sherwood, 156-167.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Dialogue, Collaboration, and Stuff
It is becoming clear to me that one of the most important aspects of the tutoring process is dialogue. It is necessary to pay special attention to what is being said - from both sides. Obviously, it is important for the consultant to actively listen to the needs of the client. It is also wise for the consultant to be mindful of what he or she is saying and how the advice may be taken.
Even if we feel sure about what the client needs, we must still remain intent on focusing our attention on them. To the point, Murphy asks if we are "truly interested in what the student has to say, or are we too quick to announce our opinions?" (10).
In the case of Paul and Leonard (14), this advice is put to good use. Here, the tutor is fairly certain of how to direct the client, but is patient as he guides him. When writing a personal narrative, the client is surprised to realize that he can write about his past work experience. As a reader (and tutor in training), I laughed while thinking "duh!" to myself. Though it would seem obvious to most that a personal essay could include, well, anything about you, I suppose it isn't necessarily such a no-brainer for everyone. Positive examples from this scenario included the tutor's ability to get a feel for the client as a person. This allowed him to let the client arrive at his destination, rather that the consultant telling him what to write about. Another positive note was that Paul, the tutor, allowed his client to realize the relevance of writing abut past experiences.
This is something I hope to employ during my time as a tutor. Unfortunately, during my time in the writing center, I have not witnessed any consultants who were afforded enough time with the client in order to explain the relevance of writing. Perhaps, this is something that comes with repeat visits.
Lunsford's essay (47) is simple; collaboration is key. It aids in virtually every aspect of the writing center, which is why clients seek help in the first place. They are aware that another set of eyes, and a different perspective, may help find mistakes or spark ideas that they had not considered. Collaboration is without question, crucial in the writing center.
While Lunsford's essay represents writing centers at their best, Brooks's (168) depicts a scenario with zero collaboration. The line between tutoring and editing is not as fine as some may think. It seems to me that editing is virtually cheating. Because it does not improve the client as a writer, it is an ineffective means of attempting to tutor. With this in mind, it must be reiterated that the focus is on the student and not the paper at hand.
While I have not yet been lucky enough to observe many tutoring sessions, I have had the awkwardness of dealing with a client by myself. I warned him that I was not a tutor and explained the situation, though I would offer as much help as he desired. He obliged. Once he informed me that his paper was due in less than an hour, I figured it was best to cut the formalities. Although most of the focus seemed to be on the paper, I still tried to advise him that if he allows himself more time in the future, we may be able to develop more ideas. That day, or maybe the next, I ran into him at the gym on campus. He thanked me for what little help I offered and I reminded him that that's what we are there for. I have a feeling I may be seeing him again.
References:Murphy, Christina and Steve Sherwood. The St. Martin's Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. 8-23. Lunsford, Andrea. "Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center." In Murphy and Sherwood, 47-53. Brooks, Jeff. "Minimalist Tutoring: Making the Student Do All the Work." In Murphy and Sherwood, 168-173.
Even if we feel sure about what the client needs, we must still remain intent on focusing our attention on them. To the point, Murphy asks if we are "truly interested in what the student has to say, or are we too quick to announce our opinions?" (10).
In the case of Paul and Leonard (14), this advice is put to good use. Here, the tutor is fairly certain of how to direct the client, but is patient as he guides him. When writing a personal narrative, the client is surprised to realize that he can write about his past work experience. As a reader (and tutor in training), I laughed while thinking "duh!" to myself. Though it would seem obvious to most that a personal essay could include, well, anything about you, I suppose it isn't necessarily such a no-brainer for everyone. Positive examples from this scenario included the tutor's ability to get a feel for the client as a person. This allowed him to let the client arrive at his destination, rather that the consultant telling him what to write about. Another positive note was that Paul, the tutor, allowed his client to realize the relevance of writing abut past experiences.
This is something I hope to employ during my time as a tutor. Unfortunately, during my time in the writing center, I have not witnessed any consultants who were afforded enough time with the client in order to explain the relevance of writing. Perhaps, this is something that comes with repeat visits.
Lunsford's essay (47) is simple; collaboration is key. It aids in virtually every aspect of the writing center, which is why clients seek help in the first place. They are aware that another set of eyes, and a different perspective, may help find mistakes or spark ideas that they had not considered. Collaboration is without question, crucial in the writing center.
While Lunsford's essay represents writing centers at their best, Brooks's (168) depicts a scenario with zero collaboration. The line between tutoring and editing is not as fine as some may think. It seems to me that editing is virtually cheating. Because it does not improve the client as a writer, it is an ineffective means of attempting to tutor. With this in mind, it must be reiterated that the focus is on the student and not the paper at hand.
While I have not yet been lucky enough to observe many tutoring sessions, I have had the awkwardness of dealing with a client by myself. I warned him that I was not a tutor and explained the situation, though I would offer as much help as he desired. He obliged. Once he informed me that his paper was due in less than an hour, I figured it was best to cut the formalities. Although most of the focus seemed to be on the paper, I still tried to advise him that if he allows himself more time in the future, we may be able to develop more ideas. That day, or maybe the next, I ran into him at the gym on campus. He thanked me for what little help I offered and I reminded him that that's what we are there for. I have a feeling I may be seeing him again.
References:Murphy, Christina and Steve Sherwood. The St. Martin's Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. 8-23. Lunsford, Andrea. "Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center." In Murphy and Sherwood, 47-53. Brooks, Jeff. "Minimalist Tutoring: Making the Student Do All the Work." In Murphy and Sherwood, 168-173.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Developing a Reflective Practice
Tutoring, like many aspects of teaching, is largely trial-and-error. The necessity of reflection after each individual session suggests that it plays a vital role. Tutors, or consultants, must learn what works for them as they develop a style suited to their personality as an advisor of clients. It is the job of the consultant to reflect and even suggest that the clients becomes more aware oh how to "reconceptual[ize] their own writing" (7).
It is because of the personal connection between a consultant and client that allows the two to work in sync. This relationship is something unattainable by the teachers of these students. In the classroom, they are only able to worry about the class as a whole - taking the time to focus, with specific interest, on one student prevents the teacher from reaching the remainder of the class. The tutor maintains a different role. Though true, Anne DiPardo suggest consultants are subject to dual roles: learners and teachers (101).
It is reassuring to think that "students come to the writing center for one reason - they want help with their writing" (95). Though a few misguided students may be present, against their wills, the majority of them arrive with a purpose. Unfortunately, the purpose is not always clear. Needs differ.
Just two days ago I witnessed an ESL student who arrived with an apparent full-draft, on hand. The consultant was pleased to see her client arrived with much of the assignment complete - however, this seemed to leave her wondering what he needed. Over the course of fifteen minutes it became clear that the client simply wanted to ensure that all of his ideas were being understood. The tutor, though polite and understanding, seemed slow to pick up on his needs. It was unfortunate to see his hesitance as he appeared helpless; unable to translate the words, the phrases into English. As Christina Murphy writes, students "display insecurities about their abilities as writers or even as academic learners" (96). Confused, and at a literal loss for words, the client seemed to doubt his own ability. Here, I think it might have been wise of the consultant to take the time to remind that he is obviously a bright, motivated student - otherwise, he would not have felt the need to visit the writing center.
Murphy goes on to offer interesting findings regarding her study of psychoanalysis. The ability to empathize and understand is crucial towards achieving the desired results. In turn, the client becomes "more open... less defensive... [and] has an increased degree of self-regard" (98). This is certainly a rational approach that seems unlikely to fall short of establishing a good report. This building of trust is absolutely necessary in the consultant's session with the client. Without it, it seems unlikely that the client will be able to fully appreciate what the tutor is offering. To reiterate, it is important to realize that some attempts at being personable may fail, thus lessening the validity of a session or two. However, by maintaining a reflective practice it will be easier to analyze what works and what does not.
References:Murphy, Christina and Steve Sherwood. The St. Martin's Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. 7-8. Murphy, Christina. "Frued in the Writing Center: The Psychoanalytics of Tutoring Well." In Murphy and Sherwood, 95-99. DiPardo, Anne. "'Whispers of Coming and Going': Lessons from Fannie." In Murphy and Sherwood, 100-116.
It is because of the personal connection between a consultant and client that allows the two to work in sync. This relationship is something unattainable by the teachers of these students. In the classroom, they are only able to worry about the class as a whole - taking the time to focus, with specific interest, on one student prevents the teacher from reaching the remainder of the class. The tutor maintains a different role. Though true, Anne DiPardo suggest consultants are subject to dual roles: learners and teachers (101).
It is reassuring to think that "students come to the writing center for one reason - they want help with their writing" (95). Though a few misguided students may be present, against their wills, the majority of them arrive with a purpose. Unfortunately, the purpose is not always clear. Needs differ.
Just two days ago I witnessed an ESL student who arrived with an apparent full-draft, on hand. The consultant was pleased to see her client arrived with much of the assignment complete - however, this seemed to leave her wondering what he needed. Over the course of fifteen minutes it became clear that the client simply wanted to ensure that all of his ideas were being understood. The tutor, though polite and understanding, seemed slow to pick up on his needs. It was unfortunate to see his hesitance as he appeared helpless; unable to translate the words, the phrases into English. As Christina Murphy writes, students "display insecurities about their abilities as writers or even as academic learners" (96). Confused, and at a literal loss for words, the client seemed to doubt his own ability. Here, I think it might have been wise of the consultant to take the time to remind that he is obviously a bright, motivated student - otherwise, he would not have felt the need to visit the writing center.
Murphy goes on to offer interesting findings regarding her study of psychoanalysis. The ability to empathize and understand is crucial towards achieving the desired results. In turn, the client becomes "more open... less defensive... [and] has an increased degree of self-regard" (98). This is certainly a rational approach that seems unlikely to fall short of establishing a good report. This building of trust is absolutely necessary in the consultant's session with the client. Without it, it seems unlikely that the client will be able to fully appreciate what the tutor is offering. To reiterate, it is important to realize that some attempts at being personable may fail, thus lessening the validity of a session or two. However, by maintaining a reflective practice it will be easier to analyze what works and what does not.
References:Murphy, Christina and Steve Sherwood. The St. Martin's Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. 3rd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's, 2008. 7-8. Murphy, Christina. "Frued in the Writing Center: The Psychoanalytics of Tutoring Well." In Murphy and Sherwood, 95-99. DiPardo, Anne. "'Whispers of Coming and Going': Lessons from Fannie." In Murphy and Sherwood, 100-116.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
