I can't remember whether or not we agreed to post our reading responses on the blog, but I figured I'd do mine anyway. So here it is in its entirety. Enjoy. Or not. I won't blame you if you don't:
******************************************
Of the readings the class has indulged in so far, North's first article, “The Idea of a Writing Center”, seems the most relevant to our ongoing discussion. We have summarily dispensed with the idea that a writing center should serve only as a subsidiary for composition classes or simple skill development, but rather serve as an ingredient in a harmonious blend between client, teacher and the consultant that serves as the medium between said parts. The center, North adamantly defends, is not a dumping ground for professors to send “trouble” students for remedial review, but should reinforce an ongoing dialog with the tutor as “a holist devoted to a participant-observer methodology” (77). In this sense, the client is not simply talking to a wall or a machine with pre-programmed answers.
Of course, each center has a different philosophy. While some cling to more traditional methods, it would be unwise to disparage these older ways of doing things as simple ignorance or unwillingness to change; these more conservative centers may have good reason for their choices. After all, there are no safe answers to what a writing center's primary focus should concern: either promoting a standard discourse usable both within the student's field of study and a wider academic body at large, or maintaining individual voice and style within the work and promote a more expansive vision for what constitutes “good writing”. Clearly, both have the interest of the student in mind, but it would be inadvisable to call one superior over the other based solely on personal ideologies. North makes his position quite clear, however: “We are here to talk to writers”, not to overrule their decisions with mandated Standard Written English or outfox them with our personal arguments (79). His is the position that the client takes the lead during a session, as the choice of language and diction will ultimately be his/hers when the final draft is typed up and handed in on the due date. If this is the case, then why try to fight the client's personal choices? Of course, the tools are there, if needed. Consultants are schooled in MLA citation, rules of grammar, techniques for reading passages critically, and these are all available to the client if needed, but then and only then. Being ignorant of these rules would only serve to hurt the consulting practice in the long run; one must learn the rules before breaking them. In an ideal world, administrators would realize that writing centers are meant to serve the students who use them first, not the interests of a global academic body that seeks homogeneity throughout the academic sphere. It is our duty as consultants to remember and practice that.
******************************************
That works, I guess. See you all in class tomorrow!
2 comments:
“Knowledge is the product of human beings in a state of continual negotiation or conversation…Collaborative learning is an arena in which students can negotiate their way into that conversation.” (Villanueva, 406)
In his article discussing the “Conversation of Mankind,” Bruffee promotes the use of collaborative learning by emphasizing that in life, there is no such thing as an absolute truth and that education is the process of learning how you can further or expand the existing knowledge in your field. To accomplish this, students need social interaction, particularly from their peers. The Writing Center is the place most suited for small-group and one-on-one educational conversations at the university level. The Center allows students to talk about their ideas and receive feedback from peers, which helps them learn the normal discourse of a particular field as they transition into that field, but also to take the steps needed to expand existing knowledge into something new, something bigger.
Generation of knowledge is the most important piece of our job as tutors in my eyes. “If…knowledge is a social artifact…then the generation of knowledge, what we call “creativity” must also be a social process.” (Villanueva, 407) He calls the social process involved in generation of knowledge “abnormal discourse.” A teacher’s job is to teach normal discourse, but in a way that students feel comfortable setting aside what they’ve learned in order to challenge the existing knowledge to make room for innovation. As a tutor and as a peer, I want to help students master the normal discourse of writing- rhetoric, processes, styles, etc- but I look forward to being there as a guide and more importantly, as a conversationalist when students are inspired to detach from what they’ve learned and explore something new. I look at writing as an exploration of possibilities, and a great way to develop abnormal discourse. Is there another way than how we’ve learned to interpret a specific text? Another way to argue a point? Another aspect of research currently untouched?
Collaborative learning, as suggested by Bruffee, is perhaps the most important tool in fostering new ideas and challenging outdated knowledge. It is a concept that should be well understood by writing center consultants because we exist to help make students into better writers in the long run. The idea that there is no absolute truth where knowledge is concerned is fundamental to growing as a writer. As consultants, we need to embrace that so we can satisfy our role in this continual conversation and keep an open mind so we can learn from our peers as much as they learn from us.
Krish Mehta
Trixie Smith
ENG 391
January 22, 2008
The Regulatory Role of the Writing Center: Coming to Terms with a Loss of Innocence
Author:
From what I understood, Grimm, the author of this article wanted to show his understanding about the writing center. As he clearly states in the beginning of the article, Grimm feels that the writing center does not “always accomplish...in the long run... more harm than good.” After I finished the article, it seemed to me that Grimm challenges the writing center to stand up for their rights. I also feel that in the end, Grimm is a person who believed in the conservative approach for the writing center. In this paper, I user various examples and explain them to support my views.
In the beginning, Grimm starts by answering the question “what’s wrong in this picture?” Here, he discusses how writing centers work and analyzes what is wrong with the practices followed. He believes that writing centers, “more often than not [help] students conform to the regulatory power that resides in assignments, testing such as ACT, SAT and the MEAPs, and their grading practices.” He supports his argument by saying that without any engagement of cultural beliefs in writing centers’ policies, the center simply follow many of the normalized institutional practices set by departments superior in the hierarchical ladder.
Adding on, Grimm states that writing centers have shifted their philosophies and practices of composition; he means to say that the center has just given up on any individuality and given in to the institutionalized practices.
My View:
I read the two illustrative stories; the first about the young white lady who alters her views and aligns them to her teacher’s views and the second of the African American student who has to alter his language so it would stand up to the standard social English norms. After summarizing the real life experiences Grimm and his colleague experienced in their writing center, Grimm says that a center should take an individualized approach towards teaching. He uses the word individualized as the center follows the American belief that anyone can be a millionaire and its practices of “individuals achieve the American dream” are right, even if these individualistic practices create cultural hegemony.
Then, Grimm states that a center should take charge and negotiate with the departments on writing ideologies such as the “wisdom of the mainstream.” The author feels that the center should stop locating problems in the students who come there and fight the teachers. Overall, I feel that Grimm is putting the English departments role on the writing center.
If his previous approach to literacy policy issues fails, Grimm plans to take the writing center back to the 70’s where students who were not capable enough to survive in college courses came to the center to be fixed. Adding on, Grimm wants the center to take more responsibility and revolutionize the policies and the ideology of the English department.
In hindsight, I do not feel that Grimm has any bad intentions. I feel that the goals on his mind are for the betterment of the literacy department and its students. However, I feel Grimm is proposing his idea to the wrong crowd as Grimm is the head of the writing center, a position usually taken up by individuals who have been teachers for a long time and are knowledgeable about the centers’ policies, history, culture and politics. I feel that his views are perfect if his current job was in the English department and he, perhaps, wanted to set up a new sub committee that only deals with the ideology and practices involved within literacy departments.
The point I made above also leads me to conclude that Grimm purposely begins the article by denigrating the writing center... aggravating all the readers, many of whom work in wiring centers themselves. Then, Grimm shows the center a righteous path to fix their image, gain a critical and respectful view in the system. Ironically, Grimm got caught in his own argument that “we in English departments usually believe that what we are doing is right...At the same time, many of us have rarely examined why we think we are right.” He wants to give power to writing centers to find new ways to fix students’ problems. In doing so, Grimm feels that his view is the only right view and to prove his point the author cities many other sources.
In conclusion, I do not agree with Grimm’s views. Specifically, his view that employees in the center do not want to fix problems as they are too busy with meetings, classroom presentations, etc. I state that the center knows what its goals are and adheres to the guidelines set in its mission statements. As tutors, we can only advise little but help the student by asking him/her questions to help them better understand their stance on the topic at hand. Moreover, I feel that this issue of the practices and ideology followed by the English Department will not be solved until the whole system is in chaos.
Extrapolating from the current trend, more and more students will not meet their English teachers’ standards in future and will be sent to the center to be fixed or a new institution will be created, which will try to carry out our high school teachers’ job. This will happen as teachers are tied by the institutionalized practices such as SAT, ACT and the MEAP tests that restrict the teachers’ way of carrying their classrooms.
Post a Comment