Observation One
On September 11 at 1 p.m., I examined a Writing Center consultation session with an ESL economics major. He brought in a chapter of his dissertation, which was lofty with pages and facts.
The consultant had him tell us about his paper and what he wanted to get out of the session. She had him read it aloud and stopped at each paragraph to regroup, ask clarifying questions about content or confusing portions. She conceded that certain terms may fall strictly within his discourse community, so it's possible that as a lay reader, one may not understand it. Along the way, she highlighted grammatical concerns that he was very open to learn from and change. She consistently provided positive reinforcement and feedback, always focusing on the good before pointing out potential flaws.
I thought this was especially critical in a session -- constant positive reinforcement. No matter how much a paper has room to improve, it's necessary to let the author know they have done a lot of good with it to make them realize they are good writers -- making something better is just part of the writing process.
At a few points, she asked me what I thought about certain parts, and I gave opinions according to the topic. She regularly had him explain certain things or why he wrote sentences a certain way, and also asked him how he would change something when she didn't feel it fit perfectly. Her comments and assistance were appropriately directive and logically submissive when he needed to take the wheel.
I enjoyed the balance between direction and submission. Pointing clients in the right direction but having them decide whether they go in that direction or how they get there is pertinent to becoming a better writer and developing one's craft. This session was a wonderful blend.
What I liked most is that the two of them took as much time as they wanted on certain portions of the text. Despite the one-hour time limit and the considerably long dissertation chapter, they arrived at maybe the fourth or fifth page before going over the limit by a few minutes. I noticed she bypassed a few considerable grammatical elements but managed to tackle prominent ones, particularly plurality issues and verb disagreements. She clearly prioritized high-order concerns and constantly made the client feel comfortable and confident.
Observation Two
On September 11 at 2 p.m., I observed a session with another ESL student who had composed an essay on second-language acquisition relevant to an in-class text. The consultant had the client tell her what kind of help she needed, and they got started. This consultant didn't print off copies like my first observation session, so I didn't have a paper to follow along closely.
I wrote this question during the session, but I have it answered: Do you always have the client or the consultant read the paper aloud? Another consultant told me yes, the client should always read it out loud, unless he or she is uncomfortable, in which case, the consultant reads.
So far, it seems that lower-level concerns such as grammar is only a priority when it inhibits understanding or when the client is an ESL student who needs it explained/corrected. This consultant had a more authoritarian approach compared with the consultant in my first observation: She did all of the writing on the paper, she rarely asked how the client thought something should be written or constructed, and she took charge by drawing roadmaps on the paper and delineating reasons for restructure. She focused on positive elements, asking clarifying questions, and asked how the client would construct her conclusion. The first session definitely had more macro-editing, while this consultant was always re-examining the bigger picture.
The copier code is 300.
I could tell the client was learning during the session, but I found that the consultant doing all of the writing slightly distanced the client from what was being revised. She was clearly following along, but it seemed she would have benefited more from a asking and answering type of deal.
Consultation One
My first consultation session came out of nowhere. I was waiting after my first two observation sessions for a third when a flustered student came in begging for someone to look over her paper. Each consultant had an appointment or was leaving in a matter of minutes, but this student couldn't wait. "It's due at 5:20 and I just threw it together!" (it was about 3 p.m. at this point). Consultants exchange glances, training consultants look bewildered, but I'm thinking all the time in my head "What if..." I wave my hand a tad at the reception desk and say "I've never done one before, but...I can do it." Time freezes briefly.
"You've never done one?"
"No."
"Have you had a consultant oversee you in a session?"
"No."
Student interjects more or less saying "I'm desperate."
Desperate situations call for desperate measures. Or however the adage goes.
We take a seat in the center, I introduce myself, and optimize my recently acquired skills and observations (and by recently, I mean in the past two hours). I ask her to tell me a bit about the paper, what she would like to focus on, and how she wants to proceed. She refuses to read out loud, so we proceed.
I made the mistake of not reading the title page, which would have cleared up many, many things...it was an article summary. But no, I didn't know this. The client didn't mention this. So I go about the essay -- or what I thought was an essay -- helping her revise her thesis and reconnect what she's arguing in the paper back to the main idea. She exceeded the page minimum by a few paragraphs, so I had her nix a few that were unnecessary to the thesis.
She continually apologized for her grammar and how bad it was and how thankful she was that I was doing this for her. I kept telling her to not be hard on herself, that she had excellent ideas and connected her thoughts very well. Her primary desire of the paper was to target grammar, so we went line by line at a few points going through syntax, occasional diction, and punctuation. I explained as many rules as possible and jotted down examples in the margins. She said she felt smarter already. I told her she already was smart -- she should never be afraid to ask for help, especially in the Writing Center. It's hit or miss sometimes, but we learn from each other. Her professor had instructed them to use three new vocabulary words in the paper, so there were a few words that didn't seem to fit, but we found different places for them.
We rewrote her thesis and a key topic sentence together on scrap paper, and I released her by 4 p.m. to give her time to revise it on her own. Then I read the title page. I said "$(*#(@#" to myself, then realized it was a good thing -- she had reformulated the author's argument into her own words with proper citations, clearly the point of the piece. I congratulated her on making it her own.
We're pretty much friends for life now. And this 55-minute period was one of the most fulfilling times of my life.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Weekly post: Wednesday's discussion on CL
I don't hear the term collaborative learning often, and I've never read theories on its practice, successes, and failures. Our in-class discussion on Wednesday, complete with sticky notes and comparative analysis, was one of my favorite academic activities in the professional writing program and, come to think of it, all of college. If I hadn't been prepared with the readings, I obviously wouldn't have gotten as much out of it, but it felt spectacular writing down five distinct ideas relating to the readings, choosing a favorite from the board, and having a thorough, intellectual discourse over the merits or lack thereof of each author's text.
I'd like to raise a particular idea more or less shared by each author: fact and idea as a social artifact. I'm sure all of my ideas and beliefs were generated by the thoughts and beliefs of someone else, and I distinctly remember individuals who were catalysts to some of my most prominent ideals. I had a discussion once in 2004 with Ryan, a jazz drummer, who sculpted the edges and contours of my in-and-out agnosticism, my abstract commitment to the tenets of postmodernism, and my deep conceptualization of realism fitting within the denominations of Christianity. I would not feel how I do today, nor would I be the same person, without Ryan's challenging me to think and rethink, explore and re-examine, what I considered to be reality and thought. Through social interaction, conversation, and internal conversation, I deconstructed my convictions and gave way to new principles of fact and belief.
I'm convinced this happens to everyone, whether they acknowledge it or not.
I'd like to raise a particular idea more or less shared by each author: fact and idea as a social artifact. I'm sure all of my ideas and beliefs were generated by the thoughts and beliefs of someone else, and I distinctly remember individuals who were catalysts to some of my most prominent ideals. I had a discussion once in 2004 with Ryan, a jazz drummer, who sculpted the edges and contours of my in-and-out agnosticism, my abstract commitment to the tenets of postmodernism, and my deep conceptualization of realism fitting within the denominations of Christianity. I would not feel how I do today, nor would I be the same person, without Ryan's challenging me to think and rethink, explore and re-examine, what I considered to be reality and thought. Through social interaction, conversation, and internal conversation, I deconstructed my convictions and gave way to new principles of fact and belief.
I'm convinced this happens to everyone, whether they acknowledge it or not.
Thoughts on Brufee
One of my favorite quotes from the Brufee article: “We look at knowledge as something to wield against each other, not something we maintain in dependency with one another.” I wrote it on my Post-It note and we didn’t talk about it in the class discussion, so I wanted to bring it up in the blog.
Okay so the best thing about this quote is that I totally agree with it. I may have interpreted it differently than other people, but this is post is what came of my ponderings. There are just so many ways to think about it! On one hand, Brufee may mean that group work is a turn-off to some people because the brilliant ideas the group comes up with cannot be considered a product of one (your) brilliant mind, but a product of many others. You are not the focus, merely a contributor. And in our society, being the lone genius gets you more recognition. On the other hand, maybe Brufee is referring to the change from the past to the present, like Aristotle and Socrates. They lived in a time where people could just sit all day in some public square to discuss philosophy and knowledge. They thought collaborative thoughts, did they not? But in today’s society, we have this constant race going on. How many projects can YOU take on at the same time? What can you add to your resume to make YOU sound better? What sets YOU apart from other people? I guess I feel like knowledge is an accomplishment, and people using it against each other would take the form of competition in the job market, for example.
But then again, I should probably dissect this quote a bit further. Knowledge is “facts, information and skills” you’ve gained from “experience or education”. To “wield knowledge against each other” means to use it as a weapon against other people to one’s advantage. And although knowledge is generally considered an individual thing to possess, like an accomplishment to put on your resume, what one truly knows comes from other people who’ve expounded on their predecessors’ work, and so forth. Or maybe it comes from working collaboratively to find solutions, regardless of past or present. Brufee’s exact words again, were to “maintain [knowledge] in dependency with one another.” We are dependent upon one another, whether we like it or not. In the class discussion, we are dependent on volunteers and their opinion. In group projects, we are dependant on each other’s skills and input. But Brufee’s main point was knowledge. And in knowledge, we are dependent upon one another in order to advance, to add onto our predecessor’s knowledge, to add our opinions to the ongoing discussion that has existed since the beginning.
Okay so the best thing about this quote is that I totally agree with it. I may have interpreted it differently than other people, but this is post is what came of my ponderings. There are just so many ways to think about it! On one hand, Brufee may mean that group work is a turn-off to some people because the brilliant ideas the group comes up with cannot be considered a product of one (your) brilliant mind, but a product of many others. You are not the focus, merely a contributor. And in our society, being the lone genius gets you more recognition. On the other hand, maybe Brufee is referring to the change from the past to the present, like Aristotle and Socrates. They lived in a time where people could just sit all day in some public square to discuss philosophy and knowledge. They thought collaborative thoughts, did they not? But in today’s society, we have this constant race going on. How many projects can YOU take on at the same time? What can you add to your resume to make YOU sound better? What sets YOU apart from other people? I guess I feel like knowledge is an accomplishment, and people using it against each other would take the form of competition in the job market, for example.
But then again, I should probably dissect this quote a bit further. Knowledge is “facts, information and skills” you’ve gained from “experience or education”. To “wield knowledge against each other” means to use it as a weapon against other people to one’s advantage. And although knowledge is generally considered an individual thing to possess, like an accomplishment to put on your resume, what one truly knows comes from other people who’ve expounded on their predecessors’ work, and so forth. Or maybe it comes from working collaboratively to find solutions, regardless of past or present. Brufee’s exact words again, were to “maintain [knowledge] in dependency with one another.” We are dependent upon one another, whether we like it or not. In the class discussion, we are dependent on volunteers and their opinion. In group projects, we are dependant on each other’s skills and input. But Brufee’s main point was knowledge. And in knowledge, we are dependent upon one another in order to advance, to add onto our predecessor’s knowledge, to add our opinions to the ongoing discussion that has existed since the beginning.
Minimalism vs. Authoritarianism
This week we were introduced to a number of new concepts and theories. It was interesting to go to work the following Thursday and observe sessions with these things in mind. I have a few issues with one of these. That is, the idea of a spectrum with minimalist consulting on one end and authoritarian consulting on the other. There is a lot of discussion about the idea of a "happy medium" between the two. After observing a few sessions I've come to believe that this is not the best way to think about it.
I think the selection of minimalist or authoritarian is determined by the writer themselves. I witnessed a young freshman that brought in a well written paper as far as grammar is concerned, but lacked a clear thesis that was supported in his paper. This student, as a freshman, was not accustomed to writing papers. Here it was better to guide him towards figuring out his thesis by himself because that was what he truly needed help with. How to structure a paper and write a thesis are two things that this student needed to learn.
I've also noticed that the writing center seems to receive a lot of ESL students. One such student brought in a paper that was structured logically and made sense. The problem with him was that English was his second language and he needed help with minor grammar points. The only real way to learn anything about foreign languages, I think, is to be told the rule and shown how its done. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, to guide this student into learning this himself. It was much more effective to simply show him.
I'm not convinced that a spectrum is the best way to look at it. It seems to me that you can either select one or the other based on what is needed.
I think the selection of minimalist or authoritarian is determined by the writer themselves. I witnessed a young freshman that brought in a well written paper as far as grammar is concerned, but lacked a clear thesis that was supported in his paper. This student, as a freshman, was not accustomed to writing papers. Here it was better to guide him towards figuring out his thesis by himself because that was what he truly needed help with. How to structure a paper and write a thesis are two things that this student needed to learn.
I've also noticed that the writing center seems to receive a lot of ESL students. One such student brought in a paper that was structured logically and made sense. The problem with him was that English was his second language and he needed help with minor grammar points. The only real way to learn anything about foreign languages, I think, is to be told the rule and shown how its done. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, to guide this student into learning this himself. It was much more effective to simply show him.
I'm not convinced that a spectrum is the best way to look at it. It seems to me that you can either select one or the other based on what is needed.
Friday, September 12, 2008
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.
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.
Reading Reaction #2
After discussing our readings from the past week the two that spoke to me the most are the ones by Brook and Shamoon and Burns. Both of these articles talk about the different approaches a writing consultant may take and the positives and negatives of each approach. I also felt more of a connection to these articles after participating at the center as a client and was able to determine what it feels like to be consulted with and how it seems different approaches can affect the writer.
I like the idea of there being a spectrum of writing consultant approaches. On one side of the spectrum the consultant is completely hands-off, the session is student motivated, and the consultant does not even hold a pen. On the far opposite side the consultant is completely hands-on, the student has no input and may not even be present, and the consultant uses a red pen, if not a typewriter.
On the hands-off side the consultant allows the writer to guide the session by choosing what to focus on, where the conversation should go, and what areas they feel they need help in. The consultant only provides his or her opinion and does not write anything on the paper.
On the hands-on side the consultant competely controls the session. If the writier is present their opinions do not matter, or are not voiced. The consultant re-writes, re-structures, and re-does as much of the paper as they see fit. Esentially the writer gives the paper over to the consultant so that the consultant may reform the paper so that it is fit in their own eyes. This approach takes a lot of individualism away from the writers paper and seems like it would allianate the writer from their own work.
It seems as though the hands-off approach is most helpful to less experienced writers, even though it may seem like the opposite. A young writer needs to grow into their own voice and gain confidence. Having an honest discussion with a consultant and forming their own ideas while discussing the material will allow the writer to learn and improove their process. Allowing the writer to learn through this approach will allow them to have a more organic experience and they will be able to use the information that they gain in the session as they write again in the future.
The hands-on appoach seems to work best with writers who already have an established voice and sense of confidense. This approach works well when students are writing in a specific form, such as PHD thesis writing, that they generally have not and will not continue to write in. When it seems like it is a one time type of situation the student does not have value in or the time to re-learn their writing style.
It seems to me that the best and most effective approach for our writing center is somewhere between one third and one half of the way between hands-off and hands-on. Most of our clients are undergraduate students who are still striving to develop their own sense of voice and confidence, and this is something that needs to be encouraged, not stiffled. The session should be generally run by the writer with the consultant providing their own opinions, where appropriate. The consultant should feel comfortable to point out areas of surface concerns (grammer, spelling...), and offer options to a solution but the consultant should not actually solve the issue. The consultant should not correct anything on a students paper, but markings that reveal specific areas of concern seem like they would be helpful. Finding the correct mix between a hands-on and a hands-off approach will be the job of each consultant, but finding and correctly applying the proper mix is what will make a session helpful or not to the writing clients.
I like the idea of there being a spectrum of writing consultant approaches. On one side of the spectrum the consultant is completely hands-off, the session is student motivated, and the consultant does not even hold a pen. On the far opposite side the consultant is completely hands-on, the student has no input and may not even be present, and the consultant uses a red pen, if not a typewriter.
On the hands-off side the consultant allows the writer to guide the session by choosing what to focus on, where the conversation should go, and what areas they feel they need help in. The consultant only provides his or her opinion and does not write anything on the paper.
On the hands-on side the consultant competely controls the session. If the writier is present their opinions do not matter, or are not voiced. The consultant re-writes, re-structures, and re-does as much of the paper as they see fit. Esentially the writer gives the paper over to the consultant so that the consultant may reform the paper so that it is fit in their own eyes. This approach takes a lot of individualism away from the writers paper and seems like it would allianate the writer from their own work.
It seems as though the hands-off approach is most helpful to less experienced writers, even though it may seem like the opposite. A young writer needs to grow into their own voice and gain confidence. Having an honest discussion with a consultant and forming their own ideas while discussing the material will allow the writer to learn and improove their process. Allowing the writer to learn through this approach will allow them to have a more organic experience and they will be able to use the information that they gain in the session as they write again in the future.
The hands-on appoach seems to work best with writers who already have an established voice and sense of confidense. This approach works well when students are writing in a specific form, such as PHD thesis writing, that they generally have not and will not continue to write in. When it seems like it is a one time type of situation the student does not have value in or the time to re-learn their writing style.
It seems to me that the best and most effective approach for our writing center is somewhere between one third and one half of the way between hands-off and hands-on. Most of our clients are undergraduate students who are still striving to develop their own sense of voice and confidence, and this is something that needs to be encouraged, not stiffled. The session should be generally run by the writer with the consultant providing their own opinions, where appropriate. The consultant should feel comfortable to point out areas of surface concerns (grammer, spelling...), and offer options to a solution but the consultant should not actually solve the issue. The consultant should not correct anything on a students paper, but markings that reveal specific areas of concern seem like they would be helpful. Finding the correct mix between a hands-on and a hands-off approach will be the job of each consultant, but finding and correctly applying the proper mix is what will make a session helpful or not to the writing clients.
WC Observation #1: Client
I attended the writing center once, as a freshman. The center was recomended to me by my English professor and I brought a paper in that I was working on for his class. So I have experienced being a client to the center before this visit. That being said I thought I knew what to expect. This visit turned out to be quite a bit different from the fist time I went. For starters I was very nervous this time. Not only am I an upper level English major (so I should know how to write well) but I am also in training to be a consultant at the center (so I should really know how to write well). I do not mean this to sound like I don't believe my writing can improve, of course it can, but I was nervous that people would have expectations for me that I would not meet. Also, the only writing that I have been working on this semester is a "Dear Parents" letter for an education course, where I layed out my reasons for being a teacher and the goals and expectations I have my theoretical classroom. Needless to say I felt very self-conscious, and felt that the writing I had brought in was extremely personal and it made me feel very vulnerable.
After reading through my paper with my consultant she pointed out a few aspects of my piece that she paticularly liked. I believe she was telling the truth, but I also know that complimenting at least one aspect of every paper that you read is a goal of a WC consultant. Never the less, recieving this compliment really did boost my self esteem and allowed me to relaxe and loosen up a little. The session did not last too long becuase I had brought in a short piece, and I admit that I did my best to have it pretty well polished before bringing it in. However, I was still very observant of the approach and process that my consultant took. I was suprised at how authoritative her approach seemed. By that I mean that I was suprised at how many surface and grammatical points that she brought up. There were no large structure mistakes or glaring comma mis-use, but there were a few areas that she suggested I restructure or reword because of repetitive sentence structures and complicated wordiness. Although she pointed these areas out, she did not tell me how to fix them or what I should say instead, but simply located areas of possible revisment for me. I found this very helpfull.
Her approach was certainly not too authoritarian. I also felt like I was in controll of the session the entire time, as far as what we focused on and how long we stayed on one specific area. After walking away from the session I felt that she had found the appropriate mix of hands-on and hands-off consulting. She located areas of concern, but did not correct them. She provided guidense in my writing, but allowed me to guide the sessiong. And, she provided the perfect and appropriate amount of hands-on consulting.
After reading through my paper with my consultant she pointed out a few aspects of my piece that she paticularly liked. I believe she was telling the truth, but I also know that complimenting at least one aspect of every paper that you read is a goal of a WC consultant. Never the less, recieving this compliment really did boost my self esteem and allowed me to relaxe and loosen up a little. The session did not last too long becuase I had brought in a short piece, and I admit that I did my best to have it pretty well polished before bringing it in. However, I was still very observant of the approach and process that my consultant took. I was suprised at how authoritative her approach seemed. By that I mean that I was suprised at how many surface and grammatical points that she brought up. There were no large structure mistakes or glaring comma mis-use, but there were a few areas that she suggested I restructure or reword because of repetitive sentence structures and complicated wordiness. Although she pointed these areas out, she did not tell me how to fix them or what I should say instead, but simply located areas of possible revisment for me. I found this very helpfull.
Her approach was certainly not too authoritarian. I also felt like I was in controll of the session the entire time, as far as what we focused on and how long we stayed on one specific area. After walking away from the session I felt that she had found the appropriate mix of hands-on and hands-off consulting. She located areas of concern, but did not correct them. She provided guidense in my writing, but allowed me to guide the sessiong. And, she provided the perfect and appropriate amount of hands-on consulting.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
observation sessions
I observed two sessions in the past two days and both consultants used some very different methods and also a few that coincided. But on a different note, both sessions involved tutoring international students which to me is a really big responsibility. For me it seems like a really tough task to tutor someone who comes from a completely different background and I may not always fully understand what the tutor is saying. It turns out that in each session the tutors were able to connect well with the students and help them effectively. I hope that once I become a tutor I will be confident enough to cross that slight barrier and have a successful session with the student.
Now on with the bigger picture. In the first session the tutor asked the student to read her paper aloud paragraph by paragraph, pausing after each one to discuss ideas and problems. This seemed to be very helpful, they were able to discuss the content of each paragraph and how it connects to the focus of her assignment. The tutor always started with a compliment and then mentioned any confusion or mechanical errors in the paragraph. I thought that the support before the criticism was a very nice way of getting things started. The tutor used guiding question to try and help the student see why a sentence didn't make sense or did not connect to the rest of the paragraph. When it came to grammar mistakes, he would point out one and tell her to check the paper for other such mistakes. There was slight trouble with letting the student know what he wanted sometimes, because she didn't understand what he was suggesting. This would often lead to the tutor having to spell out what he thought the student should do, but he would always offer multiple ways to solve the problem so that she could make up her own mind about what she wanted to put in the paper. When the session was over he pointed out all of the good things about her paper and reminded her about any of the major things they had discussed.
In the second session I observed the tutor read the paper aloud because the student said she did not feel comfortable reading it aloud herself. I felt that this was a major loss because when the student reads her own paper she can catch her own grammatical errors or change the wording of sentences while she reads without the tutor having to mention it. Also the tutor read the whole paper at one time. This was beneficial because you could tell if the paper as a whole answered the assignments question. At the same time, I found that I preferred going section by section because that way you don't forget anything you want to tell the student about that certain section. During the session there were certain parts of the students paper that were not cohesive or just plain did not fit. This would not have been a problem except that the student was unable to explain what she was trying to say so that the tutor could figure out why she was confused. This led to the tutor not being able to fully help the student figure out what was wrong and how to fix it.
The similarities between the two sessions were that both tutors started with compliments and then moved into critiquing. They both asked the student if he was comfortable reading his paper aloud or if he would prefer for the tutor to read it aloud. They both concluded their sessions by reiterating the main discoveries during the session and told the student the better parts of her essay.
I found having these two very different sessions to be very helpful in letting me know what kind of tutoring techniques I want to develop and what kind of problems I might encounter when trying to help international students.
Now on with the bigger picture. In the first session the tutor asked the student to read her paper aloud paragraph by paragraph, pausing after each one to discuss ideas and problems. This seemed to be very helpful, they were able to discuss the content of each paragraph and how it connects to the focus of her assignment. The tutor always started with a compliment and then mentioned any confusion or mechanical errors in the paragraph. I thought that the support before the criticism was a very nice way of getting things started. The tutor used guiding question to try and help the student see why a sentence didn't make sense or did not connect to the rest of the paragraph. When it came to grammar mistakes, he would point out one and tell her to check the paper for other such mistakes. There was slight trouble with letting the student know what he wanted sometimes, because she didn't understand what he was suggesting. This would often lead to the tutor having to spell out what he thought the student should do, but he would always offer multiple ways to solve the problem so that she could make up her own mind about what she wanted to put in the paper. When the session was over he pointed out all of the good things about her paper and reminded her about any of the major things they had discussed.
In the second session I observed the tutor read the paper aloud because the student said she did not feel comfortable reading it aloud herself. I felt that this was a major loss because when the student reads her own paper she can catch her own grammatical errors or change the wording of sentences while she reads without the tutor having to mention it. Also the tutor read the whole paper at one time. This was beneficial because you could tell if the paper as a whole answered the assignments question. At the same time, I found that I preferred going section by section because that way you don't forget anything you want to tell the student about that certain section. During the session there were certain parts of the students paper that were not cohesive or just plain did not fit. This would not have been a problem except that the student was unable to explain what she was trying to say so that the tutor could figure out why she was confused. This led to the tutor not being able to fully help the student figure out what was wrong and how to fix it.
The similarities between the two sessions were that both tutors started with compliments and then moved into critiquing. They both asked the student if he was comfortable reading his paper aloud or if he would prefer for the tutor to read it aloud. They both concluded their sessions by reiterating the main discoveries during the session and told the student the better parts of her essay.
I found having these two very different sessions to be very helpful in letting me know what kind of tutoring techniques I want to develop and what kind of problems I might encounter when trying to help international students.
Shadowing at the Center, Round 2
My second shadowing session served to do two things to my psyche - it got me very excited about what the center does and what I will eventually be able to do, and it terrified me; how will I ever be as good at this as this consultant was?! But now I'll go to the beginning...
While the consultant was making copies, I asked the student how she came to be at the writing center. She said she was a freshman and that her professor had told her class about the Center, telling them to seek its services if they needed them. I soon found that the student was quite an avid writer, and so I was pleasantly surprised that she'd utilized her resources so soon in her college career. When the consultant returned, she explained some basic procedure to the student since it was her first time there, and made sure she was comfortable before proceeding. After having the student read aloud, she was quick to ask what the student wanted out of the session, how she felt about what she had completed, and how she felt about the edits she'd already made on her own. She was always sure to do what the student wanted and didn't force any ideas or paper-developing tactics on her.
One thing that really stood out was that this consultant was constantly saying what she liked about the piece and giving really genuine compliments. Instead of focusing on how to fix things that were wrong, she focused on expanding and elaborating on the ideas that were already good. The student's main concern was expanding her piece, she just didn't know how to go about doing that. The consultant had no trouble finding great beginnings of ideas to expand and really made the student feel good about her writing. She asked a lot of guiding questions like, "how do you want the reader to feel?" "how do you want to wrap this up?" and "how can we incorporate YOU into this to make it stand out?" She was always checking to make sure the student was comfortable with everything, and even introduced some "writing jargon" like scene and exposition to help the student think about her work academically. When the session wrapped, I just asked the consultant how she got so good at what she did, and she was very kind in reassuring me that after some practice, I'll be just as confident and helpful. She even shared her own "crash and burn" story, which put me at ease as well - not that she crashed and burned, but that no one is perfect and no one is expecting perfection.
While the consultant was making copies, I asked the student how she came to be at the writing center. She said she was a freshman and that her professor had told her class about the Center, telling them to seek its services if they needed them. I soon found that the student was quite an avid writer, and so I was pleasantly surprised that she'd utilized her resources so soon in her college career. When the consultant returned, she explained some basic procedure to the student since it was her first time there, and made sure she was comfortable before proceeding. After having the student read aloud, she was quick to ask what the student wanted out of the session, how she felt about what she had completed, and how she felt about the edits she'd already made on her own. She was always sure to do what the student wanted and didn't force any ideas or paper-developing tactics on her.
One thing that really stood out was that this consultant was constantly saying what she liked about the piece and giving really genuine compliments. Instead of focusing on how to fix things that were wrong, she focused on expanding and elaborating on the ideas that were already good. The student's main concern was expanding her piece, she just didn't know how to go about doing that. The consultant had no trouble finding great beginnings of ideas to expand and really made the student feel good about her writing. She asked a lot of guiding questions like, "how do you want the reader to feel?" "how do you want to wrap this up?" and "how can we incorporate YOU into this to make it stand out?" She was always checking to make sure the student was comfortable with everything, and even introduced some "writing jargon" like scene and exposition to help the student think about her work academically. When the session wrapped, I just asked the consultant how she got so good at what she did, and she was very kind in reassuring me that after some practice, I'll be just as confident and helpful. She even shared her own "crash and burn" story, which put me at ease as well - not that she crashed and burned, but that no one is perfect and no one is expecting perfection.
Shadowing at the Center, Round 1
I was pretty apprehensive to shadow my first session, but the consultant quickly made me feel at home. Luckily, the client was nice enough to let two of us watch his session, something I'd have been apprehensive to do! As is procedure, the consultant began by having the client read what he had - I gathered that this was the second session he'd had on this project; the first was brainstorming and now he had the first small part done and was ready for some more input on how to make the paper come together. The consultant was very much a facilitator of ideas - he talked about the subject matter with the student, helping the student to clarify and determine his own view that he could then put on paper. There was no editing or directive "fixing" involved.
The consultant said things like, "Why did you choose this word," "have you thought about approaching it from this way?" "you raise this issue, are you prepared to address it?" and other helpful guiding questions. He helped the student navigate the professor's assignment sheet and sample essay, explaining how to conform to what the professor wanted while still making the piece his own. The consultant also helped with the structure, something the student was struggling with. He drew out sample structures and helped the student see how to relate different parts of the paper. At the close of the session, he asked the student what his next steps were going to be, what he was going to do when he went home, which I thought was a really great way to conclude and help draw everything together. Overall, the consultant/student relationship was very relaxed, which I think really helped facilitate the creation of ideas and learning. The experience definitely helped put me more at ease.
The consultant said things like, "Why did you choose this word," "have you thought about approaching it from this way?" "you raise this issue, are you prepared to address it?" and other helpful guiding questions. He helped the student navigate the professor's assignment sheet and sample essay, explaining how to conform to what the professor wanted while still making the piece his own. The consultant also helped with the structure, something the student was struggling with. He drew out sample structures and helped the student see how to relate different parts of the paper. At the close of the session, he asked the student what his next steps were going to be, what he was going to do when he went home, which I thought was a really great way to conclude and help draw everything together. Overall, the consultant/student relationship was very relaxed, which I think really helped facilitate the creation of ideas and learning. The experience definitely helped put me more at ease.
Reflecting on readings
So, I'm going to be honest, I lost track of Bruffee and Lunsford a little bit. I am pretty confident that I still walked away with a grasp of their main points, but I had trouble focusing in on exactly how their points were relevant to me and the Writing Center. Unless I'm totally in another world, their main points were about collaborative learning and how essential it is in today's collegiate world. I totally agree... I can think of few better ways to learn than bouncing ideas off peers and hearing their interpretations on a topic. Often, if there's a concept in a class that I just can't seem to grasp, the problem is often solved by discussing it with my peers, and hearing a fresh take on it other than the professor's. Also, I know the articles were a bit outdated, and I think that today, my overall educational experience is evidence that collaborative learning is increasingly playing quite a role in education. I can think of more classes that HAVE attempted to utilize collaborative learning than classes that haven't. But this could also be a result of the types of courses that I'm taking.
So I guess this is one of the points that got a bit fuzzy for me... I think of collaborative learning as working with peers, or really working with anybody, to combine your ideas in a way that enables everyone involved to learn and benefit from the group work. Is collaborative learning something more, or different, according to Bruffee and/or Lunsford? I'm not sure... The other point that got fuzzy, that I thought Lunsford would clear up but didn't entirely, is how does this relate directly to the Writing Center? Obviously collaborative learning is what the Center is all about, but I didn't really get what Lunsford was saying, specifically... she introduced the idea of a power dynamic, but I didn't feel like that issue was ever resolved. Is there a power dynamic in the ideal center, or is it essential that everyone is on equal footing, and is that even possible? I'll wrap up here... sorry about the rambling, and I hope I haven't made myself sound oblivious by missing some really obvious point.
So I guess this is one of the points that got a bit fuzzy for me... I think of collaborative learning as working with peers, or really working with anybody, to combine your ideas in a way that enables everyone involved to learn and benefit from the group work. Is collaborative learning something more, or different, according to Bruffee and/or Lunsford? I'm not sure... The other point that got fuzzy, that I thought Lunsford would clear up but didn't entirely, is how does this relate directly to the Writing Center? Obviously collaborative learning is what the Center is all about, but I didn't really get what Lunsford was saying, specifically... she introduced the idea of a power dynamic, but I didn't feel like that issue was ever resolved. Is there a power dynamic in the ideal center, or is it essential that everyone is on equal footing, and is that even possible? I'll wrap up here... sorry about the rambling, and I hope I haven't made myself sound oblivious by missing some really obvious point.
Field Observations #1
When I first walked into the Writing Center to do my first job shadowing I was a little nervous and all I had to do was watch.
The first thing we did was introduce ourselves and try and make the client feel comfortable. We then made copies of the work and had the client read the paper aloud find areas that could be more clear.
My consultant used leading questions to have the client search out the answers and when needed talk a little bit of a direct approach when needed.
We also had to a little bit of brainstorming on the thesis to make it correlate with the paper, so that the overall flow was smoother.
My overall experience was that the Writing Center is a place where students can come and get constructive help. The student left happy and I felt better because I now knew better how a session at the Writing Center was conducted.
The first thing we did was introduce ourselves and try and make the client feel comfortable. We then made copies of the work and had the client read the paper aloud find areas that could be more clear.
My consultant used leading questions to have the client search out the answers and when needed talk a little bit of a direct approach when needed.
We also had to a little bit of brainstorming on the thesis to make it correlate with the paper, so that the overall flow was smoother.
My overall experience was that the Writing Center is a place where students can come and get constructive help. The student left happy and I felt better because I now knew better how a session at the Writing Center was conducted.
Writing Center Observations
After shadowing a writing consulting today, I was very impressed seeing the tutoring methods we have discussed in class put into action and the success of this process. The student who came to the writing center was struggling with her essay. The consultant asked many direct questions throughout the session to help the student learn about her writing. The consultant also took a direct tutoring approach (when necessary) by defining certain aspects such as focus, arrangement, and thesis to the student (who is an international student from Turkey).
To start off the session the consultant asked her if the student understood the assignment, what the students main points were, and if the student had any questions. The student was struggling most with her arrangement. To help the student re-arrange her paper, the consultant continuously asked her questions: What is your main focus of this paragraph? Do you think there is anything else you could add to support this idea? The consultant also drew out a small diagram of how the paper was being arranged based on the student's contributions.
The consultant was very friendly and always commented on her ideas positively. I think this is very important. She gave a very friendly impression to the student and always told her "I like that idea" and "Do you feel good with this?". She constantly encouraged the student which I thought was very important. The student also seemed very pleased with her paper when she left.
To start off the session the consultant asked her if the student understood the assignment, what the students main points were, and if the student had any questions. The student was struggling most with her arrangement. To help the student re-arrange her paper, the consultant continuously asked her questions: What is your main focus of this paragraph? Do you think there is anything else you could add to support this idea? The consultant also drew out a small diagram of how the paper was being arranged based on the student's contributions.
The consultant was very friendly and always commented on her ideas positively. I think this is very important. She gave a very friendly impression to the student and always told her "I like that idea" and "Do you feel good with this?". She constantly encouraged the student which I thought was very important. The student also seemed very pleased with her paper when she left.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Collaboritive Learning in the WC
One of things that I disagreed with Lunsford was that collaborative learning challenges the idea that knowledge is individually derived. The American culture is based on an individualistic society, opposed to Asian cultures who place more importance on a collective society. I think it is important to identify this as a root for our individual learning style. Throughout my public education I was given more individual assignment and tasks to complete then group work or more collaborative projects.
But if knowledge is socially constructed, wouldn't a student still be able to learn collaboratively? I think you may still discovery things on your own and learn from others as you share and collaborate with them. There may be less pressure and more comfort learning from your peers. As you discuss and work on things together knew points of view may arise from what you share with one another. To me a collaborative learning style would benefit all involved and include individual learning.
At Michigan State I have had very good experiences with group work that may be considered collaborative. In my WRA 202 class, I worked with two other classmates preparing a series of assigned reports- one including a usability report. We each did our own work but when we came to share our findings we learned from each other, revised, adapted our views, and collaboratively prepared an excellent report in the end. I know there were many things I would not have been aware of without the help and insight of my partners. As I was working with them, I believe I individual learned things on my own. This was the first time I had ever had to write a usability report and researched some background information myself. What I learned working collaboratively did not necessarily discourage my own individual curiosity and knowledge. From experiences as a student, I find this has been overall a successful way to learn. I am unsure on how our educational system can adapt more collaborative styles, but it could definitely be worth the effort.
But if knowledge is socially constructed, wouldn't a student still be able to learn collaboratively? I think you may still discovery things on your own and learn from others as you share and collaborate with them. There may be less pressure and more comfort learning from your peers. As you discuss and work on things together knew points of view may arise from what you share with one another. To me a collaborative learning style would benefit all involved and include individual learning.
At Michigan State I have had very good experiences with group work that may be considered collaborative. In my WRA 202 class, I worked with two other classmates preparing a series of assigned reports- one including a usability report. We each did our own work but when we came to share our findings we learned from each other, revised, adapted our views, and collaboratively prepared an excellent report in the end. I know there were many things I would not have been aware of without the help and insight of my partners. As I was working with them, I believe I individual learned things on my own. This was the first time I had ever had to write a usability report and researched some background information myself. What I learned working collaboratively did not necessarily discourage my own individual curiosity and knowledge. From experiences as a student, I find this has been overall a successful way to learn. I am unsure on how our educational system can adapt more collaborative styles, but it could definitely be worth the effort.
Commentary on Bruffee- "Collaborative Learning"
I thought this article was enticing and felt that personally, I was exposed to a completely new interpretation of "collaborative learning." Especially since I consider myself a writer, it was relatively mind-blowing to think that one could view writing as two steps away from conversation, as opposed to one step away from one's own thought, as one's own thoughts, at least the structure of these thoughts, is simply a convention one learns from conversing with others. I specifically like the idea of a teacher straddling the line between upholding current accepted ideas within a field, and leaving room for new ideas to sprout and challenge the current socially accepted "knowledge" within the field. As a whole, a strong argument was made in favor of collaborative learning and highlighted the importance of peers talking amongst each other, not with the purpose of defending his/her idea, but with the goal of collectively and informatively coming to new conclusions as to what should be considered the current "knowledge" within a field. I found the article to be informative, making me question ideas that I have formerly taken for granted, but at times the article was a bit overwhelming and daunting.
Tuesday, September 9, 2008
happy medium?
I kept on thinking of how we could actually find that dynamic “happy medium” moving around between minimalist and authoritative approach. It seems many factors need to be considered when we are making the judgment. Clients’ professional background, stages in their writing assignment, specific needs or concerns etc. Some are easy to identify, while some are not as obvious. It’s always tricky to ask someone what he or she needs. A difficulty in deciding on what the clients need comes from the false or partial understanding of their own specific needs. As mentioned in David Sheridan’s article on multiliteracy, students might separate technical and rhetorical help and think they know exactly what they want say, and just need to make the tool (computer) work. Before finding clients’ real needs, consultants have to help the clients come to a more sophisticated understanding of the inter-relationship of technical and rhetorical concerns. Is that something really doable? or maybe the right question is how we can actually achieve that, because this sounds so similar to the case with ESL writers. “Don’t worry about the content. I know what I want to say. I just want to make sure the language expresses my real intelligence. Does it make sense to you?” …@#% ... How do we respond to the clients’ specific yet partial or even false needs, and how we actually can help them come to a more sophisticated understanding of what they think they already know…very well? If a first-time ESL client comes to WC with a wrong expectation of writing consultation, how do we make sure he/she finds this consulting session helpful, and comes back again with a right expectation?
I hope I am going to find some answers (probably more questions) in the book, ESL Writers.
I hope I am going to find some answers (probably more questions) in the book, ESL Writers.
Attending the Writing Center as a Client
I've never formally gone to anyone to seek help with my writing before, so this was a very new experience for me. I think I'm one of the people who thinks to themselves, "I don't NEED a writing center, those are for people who can't write theses." However, I think what the consultant I met with today helped me with are things I would normally spend an hour staring at, knowing it didn't sound right, but not quite sure how to fix it.
The first thing my consultant did was have me read my paper (a 2.5-page English paper) aloud, which I was expecting. I noticed one or two missing words, and another area where I made a reference to an event I hadn't yet explained. Otherwise my essay read well, and then the consultant asked where I thought I needed help or improvement. I pointed out a certain paragraph, and my consultant said she wasn't sure of the significance of an event I'd mentioned. This event was actually the climax of the book, but I hadn't mentioned that in my paper. I'm sure that was what that paragraph was missing--some hint of the relevance of the evidence I was trying to use.
My consultant then did something I hadn't expected after all our minimalist approach readings, and drew my attention to my introduction and a quote I had tacked on to my thesis statement. She asked me what the purpose was, and really it had no relevance to the thesis, and it wasn't really referenced in any of my explanatory paragraphs, so I cut it. I then asked about another paragraph that I felt wasn't "flowing" well, and my consultant suggested a "map," or a sentence that gives an overview of the paragraph, and I'm very confident that that will be a good solution.
I'd like to make one final point--that writing these notes down in the first place (first in my notebook and now online) has really solidified the whole experience more. I think that writing about the improvement process will make the suggestions and advice my consultant gave stick in my head more, and I think I will be more conscious of them in my future assignments.
The first thing my consultant did was have me read my paper (a 2.5-page English paper) aloud, which I was expecting. I noticed one or two missing words, and another area where I made a reference to an event I hadn't yet explained. Otherwise my essay read well, and then the consultant asked where I thought I needed help or improvement. I pointed out a certain paragraph, and my consultant said she wasn't sure of the significance of an event I'd mentioned. This event was actually the climax of the book, but I hadn't mentioned that in my paper. I'm sure that was what that paragraph was missing--some hint of the relevance of the evidence I was trying to use.
My consultant then did something I hadn't expected after all our minimalist approach readings, and drew my attention to my introduction and a quote I had tacked on to my thesis statement. She asked me what the purpose was, and really it had no relevance to the thesis, and it wasn't really referenced in any of my explanatory paragraphs, so I cut it. I then asked about another paragraph that I felt wasn't "flowing" well, and my consultant suggested a "map," or a sentence that gives an overview of the paragraph, and I'm very confident that that will be a good solution.
I'd like to make one final point--that writing these notes down in the first place (first in my notebook and now online) has really solidified the whole experience more. I think that writing about the improvement process will make the suggestions and advice my consultant gave stick in my head more, and I think I will be more conscious of them in my future assignments.
Sunday, September 7, 2008
My Experience At the Writing Center
Like some of the other posts that I read, I had no idea what to expect on my first shadowing session. And I will admit that I was nervous. I was nervous that I wouldn't know how to answer a question, that I wouldn't be able spot a problem area in paper, or that I just wouldn't be cut out for consulting.
I now have shadowed two sessions and the truth is I still have some of those nerves in me, but I have a much better idea of how to tackle questions that a client might have, how to give advice about a paper, or just how to talk to a client. I think getting a grip in the Writing Center will be a two pronged approach. One is getting a basis on the core ideas of a writing center by completing the reading and talking in class. The second, and what I think the more important of the two, taking those ideas and putting them into practice by shadowing and later conducting our own sessions.
My advice, ( after two whole sessions) would be to get the first session out of the way as quickly as possible. Once the jitters are gone it is a lot easier to focus at the task at hand and learn what it is to work at a writing center. The people that I worked with were super helpful and made the experience both a valuable one and a lot of fun.
I am curious to hear everyone else's first experiences at the Writing Center.
All the Best,
John Lauckner
Intellectual pursuits and practicality
Stock's article addressed a particular grievance in higher education that few link to benefiting society. She mentions the fusion of intellectual pursuit -- studying something for the sake of learning it -- and applying the knowledge practically in society for the greater good. Land grant colleges, particularly MSU, seek to strike a balance between the two to nurture curiosity and obtain fulfillment while benefiting society with an acquired skill set.
I have no true, concrete point on this subject, only that I find it impossible to ever execute this balance to any precise degree. At any college, you have the more "abstract" majors, such as philosophy and history, in which you won't have exact skills, per se, to exercise, but rather theories and concepts to, uh, ponder over. And it's impossible to define practicality in any social sense because people see what's useful and what's not entirely differently, particularly government officials, educators, and scientists. The professional writing program has allowed me to develop a greater number of tangible skills than anything, save for maybe The State News, but both have benefited the other. Operating under the assumption that one may suitably define intellectual pursuit and practical skill, I believe college should be for developing skills -- whether that's critical thinking, problem solving, Photoshopping, molecular splitting, etc. -- and intellectual pursuits should be limited to one's own time. But, like I said, who makes those definitions and, is this person(s) qualified to make them?
Kto znaet.
I have no true, concrete point on this subject, only that I find it impossible to ever execute this balance to any precise degree. At any college, you have the more "abstract" majors, such as philosophy and history, in which you won't have exact skills, per se, to exercise, but rather theories and concepts to, uh, ponder over. And it's impossible to define practicality in any social sense because people see what's useful and what's not entirely differently, particularly government officials, educators, and scientists. The professional writing program has allowed me to develop a greater number of tangible skills than anything, save for maybe The State News, but both have benefited the other. Operating under the assumption that one may suitably define intellectual pursuit and practical skill, I believe college should be for developing skills -- whether that's critical thinking, problem solving, Photoshopping, molecular splitting, etc. -- and intellectual pursuits should be limited to one's own time. But, like I said, who makes those definitions and, is this person(s) qualified to make them?
Kto znaet.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)