I want to focus on the Shamoon and Burns article that explores more hands-on tutoring methods. They cite a variety of examples where a student felt their writing was drastically improved after they submitted it to a professor, who then tore it apart and essentially rewrote it. I believe a professor's "rewriting" a paper is effective because the professor is considered an authority on the subject, so the student assumes they know what they're doing & what they're talking about. But, in a way, students often view their instructors as unapproachable. To tie into our collaborative learning readings, they are not really engaged in a "conversation" with the professor since many times the student wouldn't be contributing anything after initially submitting the paper, they will just go and make the changes. I think this "unapproachability" causes a fear of showing dependence or inability, which is why students feel that they can't run to their instructors to have their papers rewritten every time.
So while this process may be a way for students to receive (possibly) constructive feedback on their writing once or twice, it doesn't really help in a writing center setting. If a student were given this kind of "help" at a writing center, they may think that a tutor can rewrite their paper every time, no matter what class, so they won't learn as much from feedback when they assume they can just keep coming back for the same experience. A writing center is where you're "supposed" to go for help with your writing, so the fears of dependence or inability are no longer relevant. This enables the writing center to become a tool or crutch that allows students to get comfortable and used to using such a radical hands-on approach.
I think an alternative strategy for a writing center is to have a student write a general model of one of their problem areas, (a thesis, a well-referenced quote, etc.) and then receive direct intervention and feedback from a tutor. When this practice is applied to the specific assignment that the student has brought, it simply becomes a quick solution to the student's problem, and I think it will be difficult for the student to see any benefit to using the methods involved on their own. But making the student think about their problems in a different context helps them to learn more broad strategies that they can see applied to two pieces at once--the model, and their assignment.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Friday, September 5, 2008
First Hand
I have a difficult schedule this semester. I did not think that being required to observe consulting sessions in the Writing Center would offer me much besides inconvenience. I was surprised, though, to find that it was actually quite an interesting experience.
I do not deny that reading the articles is important. After all, this course is called "Writing Center Theory." Still, I think, there is no substitute for first hand experience. The articles force the reader to consider the nature of writing centers. Having a conceptual understanding of what a Writing Center is and does is important. It seems to me, though, that the only way to be a good consultant is first to observe how it is done and then do it yourself. I thumbed through the required text recently, the one devoted to writing tutors. This book offers a great deal of information that will be useful. It presents profiles of different types of tutors and different types of writers. Again, all of this is important and worth reading. I do not think, though, that it will provide much else but a foundation. The book cannot teach you how to deal with other writers in the same way that physically doing it can.
I felt slightly nervous just shadowing a session. If I felt that way simply observing I can only guess that it will be much worse the first time I help someone myself.
I do not deny that reading the articles is important. After all, this course is called "Writing Center Theory." Still, I think, there is no substitute for first hand experience. The articles force the reader to consider the nature of writing centers. Having a conceptual understanding of what a Writing Center is and does is important. It seems to me, though, that the only way to be a good consultant is first to observe how it is done and then do it yourself. I thumbed through the required text recently, the one devoted to writing tutors. This book offers a great deal of information that will be useful. It presents profiles of different types of tutors and different types of writers. Again, all of this is important and worth reading. I do not think, though, that it will provide much else but a foundation. The book cannot teach you how to deal with other writers in the same way that physically doing it can.
I felt slightly nervous just shadowing a session. If I felt that way simply observing I can only guess that it will be much worse the first time I help someone myself.
Multiliteracies and related thoughts
It seems to me that I am constantly being surprised and informed every time this class talks about something. I had never thought much about the WC here (though I'm sure I heard about it at one time or another), but my vague impression was that it was a place for people whose writing needed improvement, as in it was not up to college-level standards. I have been discovering that this is not the case. Secondly, the notion of multiliteracies in a writing center is a completely new idea to me, but one that I will admit I find not only exciting but plausible.
Sheridan's article discussed MSU's DWC's and their work. Obviously, to an extent, the MSU WC is already a multiliteracy center. Perhaps to be more effective, more DWC's and advertisement of their services would be needed. In my mind, the WC can carry out the work of being a multiliteracy center as it is. Should there be more space? Maybe. But things seem to be working ok as they are now (though I admit that I am hardly familiar with the Center and therefore am not a great judge of this). I imagine that even if more people realized that DWC service was available here, the large majority of clients would still come for more traditional writing-related help. However, I would certainly have come to a DWC for help last year when I was taking 210. There were many times when I was working on a project and knew what I wanted, but I didn't really know how to get it there. Sometimes I almost had what I wanted but wanted to tweak something to make it a little better and in the end couldn't do it because I wasn't in class and couldn't ask for help. And even if I emailed my professor, he couldn't see my screen and could therefore only offer tentative suggestions as to what might need to be done. I also would have been and would be delighted if the section of foreign language tutors were expanded. I have always had a very hard time writing well in French and would have spent much time with a consultant already had I had that option. I could spend quite a while arguing for the usefulness and relevance of DWC's and other multiliteracy consultants, but I had intended to talk about other things.
I spent two hours shadowing consultants on Wednesday, which I found interesting and informative. I am not nervous about helping people with their work, though I understand why some people would be. I am comfortable with writing in in almost every aspect: creative, grammatical, structural, flow, inspiration, and so on. The only things I don't particularly like are creating titles and poetry. However, I look forward to the time when I can (hopefully) help other students with understanding and appreciation for their own work. The first consultant I shadowed was working with an international grad student who had been told by her professors to come to the writing center. She brought one the papers she had written last year (I didn't see how long it was exactly, but it was long) and wanted help mostly with her transitions, which she had been told were often choppy. She read three or so pages aloud at a time, and the consultant made notes in the margin or interspersed with the sentences as she read. When she finished, the consultant went through his notes and made suggestions, which mostly concerned sentence order in order to improve the flow and ease the transitions. I found it difficult to judge whether or not she was learning anything or simply seeing how her paper would have looked with a few more revisions. However, the consultant did explain his ideas and he thought they might help, so as long as she was taking his advice to heart, then I do believe that she left with the seeds of improvement her writing. The second consultant was also helping an international student, this one an undergraduate who wanted help mostly to fix mechanical errors since English is her second language. This consultant underlined words or phrases as the session progressed. I also believe that this student left with improved writing abilities. While the help being given may have appeared to be merely mechanical, I can say as a student who has studied a foreign language that purely grammatical learning often becomes stlylistic learning as you discover new and innovative ways to express the same ideas.
Some Concerns
Most of what I'd like to touch on in my blog post has already been addressed by others in one form or another, so while this may seem a bit repetitive, I at least feel better that others are having similar feelings and I hope my post has the same effect on them. My first worry revolves around confidence. What I know is that I like writing, I'm generally pretty good at writing, and I like helping others with their writing. What I don't know is whether I can actually cut it as a solid, helpful, writing tutor. I tend to lack confidence as a general rule, especially in academia. It just always seems like there are SO MANY students who could kick my butt in any test of knowledge, intelligence, skill, etc. which leads me to wonder how I could possibly possess the expertise neccessary to improve the writing of others. I'm really excited to start work at the WC, but it took a pretty big leap for me to take this class, and to believe that I could, hopefully, potentially, be a successful writing tutor.
My second concern revolves more around class discussion and our readings from this past week. Like many have expressed so far, the idea of a "multiliteracies center" sounds fantastic, but I just don't see how it's possible. When I imagine the ideal scenario for a center that can address basically any concern from paper writing to website building, I imagine a huge gymnasium-sized room, sectioned off into several different categories with cubicles and computers and any piece of technology you could imagine. You'd walk in, tell a receptionist what kind of assitance you need, and be directed to the area that specializes in that skill. I guess I feel that right now, paper writing is still such a huge part of university academics, that we can't afford to give up any of our Writing Center time, space, and resources to anything else. It would be fabulous to have a center or centers to devote to all these different forms of writing, rhetoric, design, etc. but we'd need so much more than what we currently have to work with. But I'll readily admit, I am new to the Writing Center entirely, and so I have very little knowledge on what goes on and what resources we DO have, and so I could be way off here. But at any rate, I hope that the multiliteracy center will eventually be a reality, whether we need to adapt our current center to fit or whether more resources will need to be funded in order to make that a reality.
My second concern revolves more around class discussion and our readings from this past week. Like many have expressed so far, the idea of a "multiliteracies center" sounds fantastic, but I just don't see how it's possible. When I imagine the ideal scenario for a center that can address basically any concern from paper writing to website building, I imagine a huge gymnasium-sized room, sectioned off into several different categories with cubicles and computers and any piece of technology you could imagine. You'd walk in, tell a receptionist what kind of assitance you need, and be directed to the area that specializes in that skill. I guess I feel that right now, paper writing is still such a huge part of university academics, that we can't afford to give up any of our Writing Center time, space, and resources to anything else. It would be fabulous to have a center or centers to devote to all these different forms of writing, rhetoric, design, etc. but we'd need so much more than what we currently have to work with. But I'll readily admit, I am new to the Writing Center entirely, and so I have very little knowledge on what goes on and what resources we DO have, and so I could be way off here. But at any rate, I hope that the multiliteracy center will eventually be a reality, whether we need to adapt our current center to fit or whether more resources will need to be funded in order to make that a reality.
Skepticism
I will admit that the conceptions I had for this, and any other, writing center as I enrolled in this class and as a client to the center in years past were that this center only helped students with their writing. I assumed that the writing center services were only open to students, and not other faculty and staff. I also believed that the center was only willing to assist clients in aspects of "formal" writing.
After reading the articles by North, Sheridan, and Trimbur I was a little skeptical about the idea of assisting clients in every stage of the writing process (from brainstorming and thesis creation to final polishing and titleing). I found the possibility of consulting with a professor a little bit intimidating, as well as the notion that I may be expected to consult with clients on technological aspects such as web design and power point lay out. I'm going to be an English teacher...all that I signed up to do was be a writing tutor.
However, after discussing these articles in class and thinking more about the issues I realized that I no longer feel skepticism, but excitment that I may be refered to as a conlsultant of litteracies, instead of just a writing tutor. The notion of a campus writing center only providing services to students seems absurd to me, because of course professors should be welcome to have their writing consulted by students. Limiting the center to only consult on final drafts of formal papers would seriously limit the number of clients that choose to visit the center, and would deter many clients who may feel that there paper is not "good" enough to bring in. After thinking more on the idea of multi-litteracies I realized that formal writing is by no means the only form, and I would even go as far as to say it is not the main form, of writing that occurs in academia. Allowing the center to focus on other forms of writing, wether those are casual emails, blog posts, fliers, web design, or power point content, the center will be a much more helpful resource for students and faculty alike. What is, after all, the purpose of the writing center if it is not to be helpful?
Although I am not completely there yet, I look forward to being comfortable at consulting on all forms of writing. I know the purpose of the center is to be helpful for clients, but I know that developing my own skills and talents as writer, so that I may be an affective consultant, will only be helpful for me as a writer.
After reading the articles by North, Sheridan, and Trimbur I was a little skeptical about the idea of assisting clients in every stage of the writing process (from brainstorming and thesis creation to final polishing and titleing). I found the possibility of consulting with a professor a little bit intimidating, as well as the notion that I may be expected to consult with clients on technological aspects such as web design and power point lay out. I'm going to be an English teacher...all that I signed up to do was be a writing tutor.
However, after discussing these articles in class and thinking more about the issues I realized that I no longer feel skepticism, but excitment that I may be refered to as a conlsultant of litteracies, instead of just a writing tutor. The notion of a campus writing center only providing services to students seems absurd to me, because of course professors should be welcome to have their writing consulted by students. Limiting the center to only consult on final drafts of formal papers would seriously limit the number of clients that choose to visit the center, and would deter many clients who may feel that there paper is not "good" enough to bring in. After thinking more on the idea of multi-litteracies I realized that formal writing is by no means the only form, and I would even go as far as to say it is not the main form, of writing that occurs in academia. Allowing the center to focus on other forms of writing, wether those are casual emails, blog posts, fliers, web design, or power point content, the center will be a much more helpful resource for students and faculty alike. What is, after all, the purpose of the writing center if it is not to be helpful?
Although I am not completely there yet, I look forward to being comfortable at consulting on all forms of writing. I know the purpose of the center is to be helpful for clients, but I know that developing my own skills and talents as writer, so that I may be an affective consultant, will only be helpful for me as a writer.
Thursday, September 4, 2008
Multiliteracy Centers
After discussing in class the vast amount of literacy expanding in our society, I find the idea of a mutliliteracy center appropriate for MSU. When I took an introductory web authoring class here at MSU, I struggled learning the CSS and HTML formats. I was able to catch on after a little help from the professor, but having somewhere else on campus to turn to for consulting would have helped me a great deal. There are many students interesting in graphic design and digital rhetoric who could also use consulting. MSU offers the Professional Writing program that covers many of these other literacies. If the University offers this kind of program then there is a good amount of students who may need help in areas outside of the basic sense of writing, such as papers and essays.
In order to have a center that helped with web authoring and other professional writing and digital concerns there needs to be more support from the University. If students were aware they could join the staff to consult in these areas, I'm sure some would be very interested. I guess I look at the situation as one where helping students shouldn't be limited when possible. Expanding the Writing Center to help these areas would only be beneficial. But expanding our Writing Center can only be done with the help of experienced student and faculty. I think it is a great task the Writing Center should consider over the next few years. Michigan State University could be one of the next leading multiliteracy centers.
In order to have a center that helped with web authoring and other professional writing and digital concerns there needs to be more support from the University. If students were aware they could join the staff to consult in these areas, I'm sure some would be very interested. I guess I look at the situation as one where helping students shouldn't be limited when possible. Expanding the Writing Center to help these areas would only be beneficial. But expanding our Writing Center can only be done with the help of experienced student and faculty. I think it is a great task the Writing Center should consider over the next few years. Michigan State University could be one of the next leading multiliteracy centers.
North Vs. Trimbur
Trimbur's article on writing centers was much shorter than either of North's, was more 'to the point', and slightly less opinionated. Yet, both authors dealt with what services a writing center should offer and what the name represents. Both authors made me question what services I think our writing center should offer.
North and Trimbur spoke of expanding the writing center so that it is no long just considered a place to go for a quick grammar fix or a quick paper re-write, they spoke of the idea of a multiliteracies facility. I believe that our writing center is capable of much more than just written assignments, especially because of our in class discussion on Wednesday. There were so many forms of communication we talked about and how they applied to the writing center. A lot of them were also mentioned in Trimbur's paper. Then there is the literal name of the writing center, we threw around a couple of idea's in class and had a hard time coming up with something plausible. Trimbur and North both continually mentioned that the name labels and limits what people assume the writing center is therefore and what it can help you with. Which brings me back to the idea of multiliteracies. Although I believe that our writing center should try to include rather than exclude services such as technological writings, multi language writing, etc., I think it is important to not overextend ourselves. This idea of spread one's writing center too thin was a topic of discussion in North's article on Revisiting "The Idea of a Writing Center". North admitted that even though he had great hopes and dreams for his own writing center, it was not plausible with such a small staff to accomplish them. It is this conundrum of the numerous services that it is possible for the writing center to offer and how many people there are to provide these services that prevent writing centers from expanding exponentially. I think that it is more important for a writing center to offer as many services as possible with the utmost proficiency than to offer numerous services with little perfection. North agrees that it is important to keep a balance between services and workers and I strongly believe that this is the most important aspect of writing center.
North and Trimbur spoke of expanding the writing center so that it is no long just considered a place to go for a quick grammar fix or a quick paper re-write, they spoke of the idea of a multiliteracies facility. I believe that our writing center is capable of much more than just written assignments, especially because of our in class discussion on Wednesday. There were so many forms of communication we talked about and how they applied to the writing center. A lot of them were also mentioned in Trimbur's paper. Then there is the literal name of the writing center, we threw around a couple of idea's in class and had a hard time coming up with something plausible. Trimbur and North both continually mentioned that the name labels and limits what people assume the writing center is therefore and what it can help you with. Which brings me back to the idea of multiliteracies. Although I believe that our writing center should try to include rather than exclude services such as technological writings, multi language writing, etc., I think it is important to not overextend ourselves. This idea of spread one's writing center too thin was a topic of discussion in North's article on Revisiting "The Idea of a Writing Center". North admitted that even though he had great hopes and dreams for his own writing center, it was not plausible with such a small staff to accomplish them. It is this conundrum of the numerous services that it is possible for the writing center to offer and how many people there are to provide these services that prevent writing centers from expanding exponentially. I think that it is more important for a writing center to offer as many services as possible with the utmost proficiency than to offer numerous services with little perfection. North agrees that it is important to keep a balance between services and workers and I strongly believe that this is the most important aspect of writing center.
My W.C. Experience (and other ramblings)
I am beginning to think about what writing consultants actually do in the sessions. We’ve talked about the general ideas, and it all sounds great in theory. But in person, it’s probably going to be a little harder leading students to enlightenment with your carefully thought out questions. You are trying to improve the writer more than the editable paper in front of you! Being a writing consultant seems like such a huge responsibility. Is anyone else a little nervous about knowing what to say? Or trying to direct a discouraged writer into the realm of confidence? Or avoiding the standard “Don’t worry, it’s a great paper!”?
It may or may not help that I've been in the customer service industry since I began working. I’m hoping it will serve as positive reinforcement as consultant training progresses. All of my previous jobs involved making people happy, selling them the product, and becoming their best friend within 30 seconds of greeting them. And it was difficult to be continually upbeat and outgoing about something I could not have cared less about. What can I say? It's easier for me to get excited about the writing process than overpriced Burberry outfits for toddlers.
I haven't observed any sessions yet, but I have been to the Center twice as a client. I want to remember how it felt before I do my first observation, and that is mainly what I’ll be using this blog post for. My Writing Center experience took place last year. I was a bit apprehensive, but the consultant made me feel comfortable. I just knew he had been through what I was going through, and I liked the equal footing. He was not a professional, but I could tell that between the two of us, my paper could be fixed. As we sat down, I told him I was very nervous because a) I was only a freshman and b) My first paper in college was going to be thirteen pages long. This did not deter my consultant at all. He made a quick copy of my paper, and then asked me to read it out loud. I laughed, and all too quickly realized that he was serious. What was this, kindergarten or something? I accidentally expressed this sentiment out loud, adding that it always sounds so weird when you read your own paper out loud. But read aloud I did. I ended up fixing most of my errors as I went. Convoluted sentence structure and misspelled words just jumped off the page as I read in the softest voice possible, so other tables would not be able to hear the words I had attempted to make into a genuine college paper.
We went over the guidelines of the paper to make sure I had followed them, and I distinctly remember my consultant saying he was impressed. He told me I had a distinct style of writing, which was apparently rare to see in college freshmen like myself. Sometimes all a gal needs is a little encouragement, you know?
So that was my first experience, and it hooked me on the Writing Center because no one was just telling me what to do. I had learned a new way of revising my papers. For me, the Writing Center was the best kind of peer review. If the distribution of my paragraphs or my MLA citation format were questionable, the information could be had. Sitting directly across the table from me was a person who did not mind discussing my writing for a half hour or more. Unlike traditional peer editing, I did not even have to reciprocate the favor! Forgive my cheesiness, but it was love at first consultation.
I apologize for the rambling, and I pinky swear that my next blog entry will be more relevant to the readings and/or class discussion from the week.
It may or may not help that I've been in the customer service industry since I began working. I’m hoping it will serve as positive reinforcement as consultant training progresses. All of my previous jobs involved making people happy, selling them the product, and becoming their best friend within 30 seconds of greeting them. And it was difficult to be continually upbeat and outgoing about something I could not have cared less about. What can I say? It's easier for me to get excited about the writing process than overpriced Burberry outfits for toddlers.
I haven't observed any sessions yet, but I have been to the Center twice as a client. I want to remember how it felt before I do my first observation, and that is mainly what I’ll be using this blog post for. My Writing Center experience took place last year. I was a bit apprehensive, but the consultant made me feel comfortable. I just knew he had been through what I was going through, and I liked the equal footing. He was not a professional, but I could tell that between the two of us, my paper could be fixed. As we sat down, I told him I was very nervous because a) I was only a freshman and b) My first paper in college was going to be thirteen pages long. This did not deter my consultant at all. He made a quick copy of my paper, and then asked me to read it out loud. I laughed, and all too quickly realized that he was serious. What was this, kindergarten or something? I accidentally expressed this sentiment out loud, adding that it always sounds so weird when you read your own paper out loud. But read aloud I did. I ended up fixing most of my errors as I went. Convoluted sentence structure and misspelled words just jumped off the page as I read in the softest voice possible, so other tables would not be able to hear the words I had attempted to make into a genuine college paper.
We went over the guidelines of the paper to make sure I had followed them, and I distinctly remember my consultant saying he was impressed. He told me I had a distinct style of writing, which was apparently rare to see in college freshmen like myself. Sometimes all a gal needs is a little encouragement, you know?
So that was my first experience, and it hooked me on the Writing Center because no one was just telling me what to do. I had learned a new way of revising my papers. For me, the Writing Center was the best kind of peer review. If the distribution of my paragraphs or my MLA citation format were questionable, the information could be had. Sitting directly across the table from me was a person who did not mind discussing my writing for a half hour or more. Unlike traditional peer editing, I did not even have to reciprocate the favor! Forgive my cheesiness, but it was love at first consultation.
I apologize for the rambling, and I pinky swear that my next blog entry will be more relevant to the readings and/or class discussion from the week.
Wednesday, September 3, 2008
Internet Literacy and Consulting
Reading the articles about the different forms of literacy left me with a conflicted opinion. I do agree that it is important for students to develop different forms of literacy as technology continues to change and the Internet becomes more and more prominent in our society. However, it sometimes seems to me that teaching these things should not be the responsibility of the Writing Center. It just seems extremely unfair to me that an instructor would assign a student to make a web page, for example, in a class that really has nothing to do with web authoring. If the instructor expects something specific in this area, then they should be prepared to teach it to students, and not judge on aesthetics that Sheridan suggests writing centers should help students with. Aesthetics and arrangement should only be important in a web authoring-centered class, where the students would obviously be studying it already.
However, I myself am not extremely Internet-savvy, and even after taking two introductory courses on web design/authoring, I still lack confidence in my abilities and struggle to remember different procedures in CSS, as well as in design software like Photoshop or Dreamweaver. Had I realized MSU had a more technological help center, I'm sure I would have gone. But another issue that Sheridan points out is that if there were two separate centers, one for writing and one for more multimedia consulting, students would probably skip a trip to the writing center and only go to get help with the multimedia aspects of assignments. I agree with this assumption, if only because when I was in my web authoring courses I didn't think I "needed" help with my writing, and I'm sure I only would have sought aid with the technical aspects of these courses. Despite this, if demand for technical consulting consulting continues to grow, I think some responsibility needs to be shifted to teachers. They should give the students in-depth explanations of techniques they expect in assignments, and provide more availability to help students outside of class. This is where writing center could enter, by setting up sessions with web design instructors and instructors who wish to incorporate web pages into their classes, just like the meetings between writing consultants and writing isntructors described in Stock's article on the origins of the MSU Writing Center. When the digital consultants understand the teachers' desires for their students, they can set up workshops and help the teachers learn more effective teaching techniques so students can gain competency in a complicated and expanding field.
However, I myself am not extremely Internet-savvy, and even after taking two introductory courses on web design/authoring, I still lack confidence in my abilities and struggle to remember different procedures in CSS, as well as in design software like Photoshop or Dreamweaver. Had I realized MSU had a more technological help center, I'm sure I would have gone. But another issue that Sheridan points out is that if there were two separate centers, one for writing and one for more multimedia consulting, students would probably skip a trip to the writing center and only go to get help with the multimedia aspects of assignments. I agree with this assumption, if only because when I was in my web authoring courses I didn't think I "needed" help with my writing, and I'm sure I only would have sought aid with the technical aspects of these courses. Despite this, if demand for technical consulting consulting continues to grow, I think some responsibility needs to be shifted to teachers. They should give the students in-depth explanations of techniques they expect in assignments, and provide more availability to help students outside of class. This is where writing center could enter, by setting up sessions with web design instructors and instructors who wish to incorporate web pages into their classes, just like the meetings between writing consultants and writing isntructors described in Stock's article on the origins of the MSU Writing Center. When the digital consultants understand the teachers' desires for their students, they can set up workshops and help the teachers learn more effective teaching techniques so students can gain competency in a complicated and expanding field.
W.C. Reactions
Yesterday I observed a session in the Writing Center, and afterward I had the opportunity to discuss the session with the conducting consultant. I should preface my commentary with a confession: I had never been to the Writing Center before. I hadn’t even known where it was located, prior to taking this course. I was under the misconception that the Writing Center was only there to help students who were “struggling” with “special problems,” as it were. Our readings and discussions thus far have thoroughly disabused me of this notion.
Even though my work wasn’t going to be evaluated, nor was I expected to advise the student seeking assistance, I was still strangely nervous. Without any previous experience in this area, I had no idea what to expect, and that’s always an unsettling feeling. Fortunately, the open, relaxed environment in the Writing Center did a lot to dispel those feelings of uneasiness.
Any remaining anxiety I felt was erased by the courteous, easy-going attitude of the consultant. He started out by asking the student to explain the assignment. This seemed like a good idea for two reasons. First, it gave the consultant an idea as to what the professor’s expectations might be. Second, it forced the student to think critically about what the requirements were, and to what degree her work satisfied those requirements.
From there, the two of them went over the assignment section by section. The consultant asked the student to read her writing aloud. This not only kept her an active participant in the reviewing process, but also helped her identify problematic sections of the text on her own. When a passage sounded awkward, he asked what sounded “off” about it, and what she might do to improve it. Most of his corrections were framed in the form of questions, helping her think about why something wasn’t working.
I also noticed that he usually began by pointing out something that was working, before pointing out what wasn’t. This method of combining praise with criticism seems like the most effective way to help someone genuinely improve. If they feel like they aren’t being punished or put down, they might be more open to the critique being offered. It’s important that it’s clear that the writing is what being critiqued, not the writer. If the writer feels uncomfortable or unhappy with their experience, they aren’t likely to come back.
Our goal at the Writing Center should be to provide a supportive environment that encourages return visits, to help writers continue to improve. The student whose session I observed seemed to have a positive experience, and didn’t give any indication that she wouldn’t want to return for a future visit. After this experience, I feel better about working at the Writing Center, and going there for help.
Even though my work wasn’t going to be evaluated, nor was I expected to advise the student seeking assistance, I was still strangely nervous. Without any previous experience in this area, I had no idea what to expect, and that’s always an unsettling feeling. Fortunately, the open, relaxed environment in the Writing Center did a lot to dispel those feelings of uneasiness.
Any remaining anxiety I felt was erased by the courteous, easy-going attitude of the consultant. He started out by asking the student to explain the assignment. This seemed like a good idea for two reasons. First, it gave the consultant an idea as to what the professor’s expectations might be. Second, it forced the student to think critically about what the requirements were, and to what degree her work satisfied those requirements.
From there, the two of them went over the assignment section by section. The consultant asked the student to read her writing aloud. This not only kept her an active participant in the reviewing process, but also helped her identify problematic sections of the text on her own. When a passage sounded awkward, he asked what sounded “off” about it, and what she might do to improve it. Most of his corrections were framed in the form of questions, helping her think about why something wasn’t working.
I also noticed that he usually began by pointing out something that was working, before pointing out what wasn’t. This method of combining praise with criticism seems like the most effective way to help someone genuinely improve. If they feel like they aren’t being punished or put down, they might be more open to the critique being offered. It’s important that it’s clear that the writing is what being critiqued, not the writer. If the writer feels uncomfortable or unhappy with their experience, they aren’t likely to come back.
Our goal at the Writing Center should be to provide a supportive environment that encourages return visits, to help writers continue to improve. The student whose session I observed seemed to have a positive experience, and didn’t give any indication that she wouldn’t want to return for a future visit. After this experience, I feel better about working at the Writing Center, and going there for help.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)