Readings and observations

My experiences on Tuesday in the Writing Center tied in closely with the reading from Shamoon and Burns. Contrary to the consistent orthodoxy presented in most of our earlier readings, “A Critique of Pure Tutoring” offered a more flexible approach. The two sessions I observed- both with the same consultant- strongly supported the theory that different consulting strategies are necessary for different situations.

The first session was a distinct departure from the methodology espoused in our earlier readings, as well as most of my prior observations. The student in question was a non-native English speaker, and for him, the minimalist style advocated by Brooks would not have been as effective as it might be for another student. A Socratic approach, with the consultant asking abstract questions about generalized concepts, would have stalled here. Though the student had strong English skills, the effects of the language barrier could still be felt. Often, when the consultant asked a question about what point the student was trying to make, the student struggled to come up with an answer, before lapsing into embarrassed silence.

Understanding the student’s frustration, the consultant modified his approach. If the student couldn’t think of a way to rephrase an unclear passage, the consultant proposed several alternatives. I know firsthand how difficult it can be to write in a foreign language, given a limited vocabulary. If you’ve only learned one way to say a word, you won’t be able to come up with an alternative just by thinking harder. Brooks’ strategy of leaving the student alone with their paper for a few minutes won’t help them. The consultant took this into account, and offered a number of suggestions for the student to consider, which helped to broaden the student’s vocabulary. Though the session was a great deal more “hands on” than most of the other sessions I had observed previously, I felt like the student got a lot out of it.

Jeff Brooks might not have been thrilled with the first session, but the second was an excellent example of how effective the minimalist method can be (given the right circumstances). English was also a second language for this student, but she had evidently had much more time to practice her skills, and communication wasn’t an issue. Her fluency meant that higher order concerns could be focused on, since indeed there were almost no lower order concerns at all. The student and the consultant had the opportunity to discuss the organization and presentation of her ideas from a conceptual standpoint. This student took away more from the encounter than just an improved paper.

Though the sessions were handled very differently, both students had their skills improved upon. The first session supported Shamoon and Burns’ belief that a more directive style of tutoring can be effective in improving the writer, as much as the writing itself. It also gave credence to the idea that there are multiple, equally valid tutoring styles. Taking into account the circumstances of any particular session and the needs of a given student are essential for a successful appointment. It’s fortunate that I had such a timely demonstration of the theory behind our reading.