I completed my second satellite observation at the BCC. I definitely preferred the environment to Bessey, but then again, Bessey has its positives.
The client had brought in his/her cover letter for a TA position, I believe, though it wasn't perfectly clear. The consultant asked him to explain exactly what he wanted his employer to know, and why he was the best person for the job. What the consultant was explaining to the tutor definitely didn't match up on paper. As we've been told numerous times in class, it's always necessary to have a conversation about the paper/piece of writing before even looking at it, and the client's eyes were already growing wide with realization as they discussed it.
The consultant had a pretty solid knowledge base for cover letter formats. The client had his stuff a little thrown around and not in super-logical order, such as the addresses and the "Enclosed/Attached" part, so the consultant asked where the client thought the employer would look first.
I liked that this session was non-directive. With things such as resumes and cover letters, one can get really carried away rattling off the strict formatting and page limit standards, but the consultant was continuously asking the client what he thought the employer might want or what specific information and details he wanted to convey most. The consultant did spend a bit of time going over cover letter rhetoric — such that it's sometimes the only thing employers will look at, so you have to make it eye-catching — but the consultant wasn't long-winded about it.
I really appreciated the different atmosphere. The session wasn't radically different from what I've done/seen at Bessey/the library, but the people here seemed different, with (obviously) different writing goals in mind. And, naturally, different people comprise a writing center specified for a certain group of students.
Good times!
Showing posts with label observations. Show all posts
Showing posts with label observations. Show all posts
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Monday, October 13, 2008
Satellite Observation(s)
I observed a few sessions at the library a week and a half ago, and I also led three sessions in the same day (this post will focus on the former).
The library is a different world from Bessey Hall. Not just the needs and writing process stages of the clients but also the atmosphere—there's anxiety, there's tension, and there's a looming deadline slowly crushing souls and Word docs.
These fears are made evident in the high-strung behaviors of clients, who need to outline at least an idea or a place to start with their paper or project. The enormity of the library and the workload it implies seems to almost suffocate some students, who can't even locate a starting point in an assignment. The consultants I observed helped with strategy, optimism, and a calming exterior. Although these characteristics are important in any writing center environment, the satellite of the library is even more important of a place to exude these traits. Prompting questions — a less directive approach — guided the session toward a favorable endpoint, and it seemed success was measured in whether or not a solid direction was established and partially developed. I believed this to be a significant strength in the library consultants; even if the client had finished a paper and just needed polishing, there was always some kind of urgency or deadline. Tackling HOCs was, as the acronym implies, the number-one priority.
I soaked in these skills as much as possible and hopefully demonstrated them in my own sessions. I reveled in the practically palpable energy of this writing center satellite — I liked the people coming and going, I liked the fluidity of a paper and how it or its direction could change in an instant. Everything was malleable, everything was subject to discussion and revision, and desperation almost always seemed to transform to hope. I probably sound like a fiction writer right now, but that's how I interpret the scenarios retrospectively. I would break down each consultant's specific techniques, but 30 minutes only allows for so much of the consultant's ways to shine through. The tendencies I described were shared among them, and it seemed logical to discuss them as a whole.
I like the library.
The library is a different world from Bessey Hall. Not just the needs and writing process stages of the clients but also the atmosphere—there's anxiety, there's tension, and there's a looming deadline slowly crushing souls and Word docs.
These fears are made evident in the high-strung behaviors of clients, who need to outline at least an idea or a place to start with their paper or project. The enormity of the library and the workload it implies seems to almost suffocate some students, who can't even locate a starting point in an assignment. The consultants I observed helped with strategy, optimism, and a calming exterior. Although these characteristics are important in any writing center environment, the satellite of the library is even more important of a place to exude these traits. Prompting questions — a less directive approach — guided the session toward a favorable endpoint, and it seemed success was measured in whether or not a solid direction was established and partially developed. I believed this to be a significant strength in the library consultants; even if the client had finished a paper and just needed polishing, there was always some kind of urgency or deadline. Tackling HOCs was, as the acronym implies, the number-one priority.
I soaked in these skills as much as possible and hopefully demonstrated them in my own sessions. I reveled in the practically palpable energy of this writing center satellite — I liked the people coming and going, I liked the fluidity of a paper and how it or its direction could change in an instant. Everything was malleable, everything was subject to discussion and revision, and desperation almost always seemed to transform to hope. I probably sound like a fiction writer right now, but that's how I interpret the scenarios retrospectively. I would break down each consultant's specific techniques, but 30 minutes only allows for so much of the consultant's ways to shine through. The tendencies I described were shared among them, and it seemed logical to discuss them as a whole.
I like the library.
Thursday, October 9, 2008
Client and Satellite Observations
I had my second session as a client today, once again at the Library. I’m definitely coming to appreciate the later hours that branch has open, given my hectic schedule. For this meeting, I brought in a copy of my resume to go over. We’ve been working on them in class, and I wanted to make some improvements before I handed it in. Since I switched into Professional Writing relatively recently, I’m somewhat self-conscious about what I perceive as a dearth of relevant PW experience. One of the first things the consultant encouraged me to think about was how my various experiences could be spun to seem more significant. As we discussed the points I had included, she inspired me to think about what I had left out, or what I could explain in greater detail. More than just helping with documenting my experiences, she genuinely made me feel better about my accomplishments. I’ve gained some valuable insight into how I can present myself and my experiences to potential employers.
Given how closely form and function are intertwined in a resume, I appreciate the attention to detail the consultant paid. In each area, she urged me to think about my word choices, and to see if I could use more active words, or more concise language. We also talked about the layout and appearance of my document. Though it was already much improved from my earlier version, she provided valuable insight as to how I could make further design changes. It is fortunate that she had suggestions for increasing the amount of content that I could include. Before we began, I felt like my resume was practically empty, but after our discussion, I don’t know if I’ll be able to include everything!
I also had the opportunity to observe a session while at the Library. I immediately noticed that the consultant was consistent in her use of “I” statement when she responded to the student’s paper. She described her reactions in phrases like “I’m confused about this…” or “What’s I’m hearing you say is…” These are phrases that the Bedford Guide urges tutors to use, and I myself try to remember. I was also impressed by the way the consultant addressed issues of grammar and mechanics. Without overly fixating on them, she nevertheless managed to correct grammatical issues by clearly explaining the underlying principles. She also did an admirable job of explaining how the connotations of certain words changed the meaning of the student’s statements. In all, she actively engaged the student in a continuous dialogue to get her to think about her reasoning and objectives. Rather than simply identifying a problem, she talked the student through possible solutions.
This was my second time visiting the Library Satellite, but the last time I was there I wasn’t focused on the environment itself. This time I noticed how open the work area felt. I kept noticing people as they passed by. Surprisingly, despite all the foot traffic, the atmosphere seemed quieter than at the Bessey Center. Perhaps that’s because there weren’t a dozen people sitting in one small area, all holding separate conversations at the same time. It’s not that the main center is loud, but trying to filter out all those other conversations can be difficult. I can definitely sympathize with students who have ADHD who come to us for help. Something else I noticed was the difference made by not having a dedicated receptionist. When a new client came, rather than addressing one of the unoccupied consultants, he simply came to the closest one, even though she was working with another student. If all the tutors had been working with students, I could understand this. However, given that there were several available consultants, this seemed unnecessarily disruptive. I can see how this could be frustrating for a consultant. Perhaps there could be a sign posted, indicating how students can check the schedule to see who their appointment is with.
Given how closely form and function are intertwined in a resume, I appreciate the attention to detail the consultant paid. In each area, she urged me to think about my word choices, and to see if I could use more active words, or more concise language. We also talked about the layout and appearance of my document. Though it was already much improved from my earlier version, she provided valuable insight as to how I could make further design changes. It is fortunate that she had suggestions for increasing the amount of content that I could include. Before we began, I felt like my resume was practically empty, but after our discussion, I don’t know if I’ll be able to include everything!
I also had the opportunity to observe a session while at the Library. I immediately noticed that the consultant was consistent in her use of “I” statement when she responded to the student’s paper. She described her reactions in phrases like “I’m confused about this…” or “What’s I’m hearing you say is…” These are phrases that the Bedford Guide urges tutors to use, and I myself try to remember. I was also impressed by the way the consultant addressed issues of grammar and mechanics. Without overly fixating on them, she nevertheless managed to correct grammatical issues by clearly explaining the underlying principles. She also did an admirable job of explaining how the connotations of certain words changed the meaning of the student’s statements. In all, she actively engaged the student in a continuous dialogue to get her to think about her reasoning and objectives. Rather than simply identifying a problem, she talked the student through possible solutions.
This was my second time visiting the Library Satellite, but the last time I was there I wasn’t focused on the environment itself. This time I noticed how open the work area felt. I kept noticing people as they passed by. Surprisingly, despite all the foot traffic, the atmosphere seemed quieter than at the Bessey Center. Perhaps that’s because there weren’t a dozen people sitting in one small area, all holding separate conversations at the same time. It’s not that the main center is loud, but trying to filter out all those other conversations can be difficult. I can definitely sympathize with students who have ADHD who come to us for help. Something else I noticed was the difference made by not having a dedicated receptionist. When a new client came, rather than addressing one of the unoccupied consultants, he simply came to the closest one, even though she was working with another student. If all the tutors had been working with students, I could understand this. However, given that there were several available consultants, this seemed unnecessarily disruptive. I can see how this could be frustrating for a consultant. Perhaps there could be a sign posted, indicating how students can check the schedule to see who their appointment is with.
Monday, September 15, 2008
Third and fourth observations
Observation Three
On Sept. 15 at 12 p.m., I observed my first non-ESL student consultation that was very different from my first two observations. The consultant immediately established a rapport and colloquial discourse with the client, who was a freshman writing a paper for the first time. The dialogue was aggressive, in-depth, and filled with prompting questions that I feel were very appropriate to the situation. Had it been an ESL student, particular terminology and modern pop culture references would have not had an impact on the way the writer was conceptualizing the paper. I have found this incredibly important to understand who your client is, where he or she is coming from, in which stage of the writing process he or she is, and what the professor expects of them.
The client had an assignment sheet, which I also found incredibly helpful. I was told these are required but the client doesn't always bring them -- they seem essential to clearly defining what the professor is expecting and what risks the student writer can take while staying inside the context of the classroom's discourse.
The consultant had her read it out loud, something continually proving itself key in giving the writer confidence and appropriate vulnerability to constructive criticism, as he or she is more inclined to critique his or herself. The consultant explained the benefits of reading out loud, which helped the reader understand the Writing Center process better. I liked the phrases the consultant used: He didn't always reinforce the positive, as my previous observations demonstrated, but he never used negative language.
"What are you trying to say here?"
"Are there places you want to build on?"
"Show me. Tell me why."
The consultant was constantly engaged with the client -- their relationship seemed critical in the development of her papers. The client was unsure of herself and her writing, as many freshman are with first-time papers, and the consultant reminded her of this: We've all been there. We've all written our first paper, and we've all made the same mistakes. This is an excellent place to start, and you took initiative in getting help and making this better.
This consultation session was considerably more aggressive than the first two, but I attribute a lot of that to the situation and nature of the client, factors a consultant must always take into account to connect in the best way possible to him or her.
Observation Four
My fourth observation on Sept. 15 at 1 p.m. was the shortest so far with a unique paper genre -- a memo. It was very short, but the consultant focused on the content to a point where the client was expounding on each sentence very specifically, and in such rare cases, one must do so.
What I liked about this session is that the consultant first asked if the client had ever been to the center, to which he replied no -- she then went through standard WC procedures, how they would approach his piece, which steps they would take to make it better together. These seem like very important details to provide to first-time clients.
The client didn't talk much, especially after the consultant asked open-ended questions, so there were chunks of silence throughout that seem inevitable with such a short assignment.
What else did I take from that session? No paper or piece of writing is too short to develop and improve.
On Sept. 15 at 12 p.m., I observed my first non-ESL student consultation that was very different from my first two observations. The consultant immediately established a rapport and colloquial discourse with the client, who was a freshman writing a paper for the first time. The dialogue was aggressive, in-depth, and filled with prompting questions that I feel were very appropriate to the situation. Had it been an ESL student, particular terminology and modern pop culture references would have not had an impact on the way the writer was conceptualizing the paper. I have found this incredibly important to understand who your client is, where he or she is coming from, in which stage of the writing process he or she is, and what the professor expects of them.
The client had an assignment sheet, which I also found incredibly helpful. I was told these are required but the client doesn't always bring them -- they seem essential to clearly defining what the professor is expecting and what risks the student writer can take while staying inside the context of the classroom's discourse.
The consultant had her read it out loud, something continually proving itself key in giving the writer confidence and appropriate vulnerability to constructive criticism, as he or she is more inclined to critique his or herself. The consultant explained the benefits of reading out loud, which helped the reader understand the Writing Center process better. I liked the phrases the consultant used: He didn't always reinforce the positive, as my previous observations demonstrated, but he never used negative language.
"What are you trying to say here?"
"Are there places you want to build on?"
"Show me. Tell me why."
The consultant was constantly engaged with the client -- their relationship seemed critical in the development of her papers. The client was unsure of herself and her writing, as many freshman are with first-time papers, and the consultant reminded her of this: We've all been there. We've all written our first paper, and we've all made the same mistakes. This is an excellent place to start, and you took initiative in getting help and making this better.
This consultation session was considerably more aggressive than the first two, but I attribute a lot of that to the situation and nature of the client, factors a consultant must always take into account to connect in the best way possible to him or her.
Observation Four
My fourth observation on Sept. 15 at 1 p.m. was the shortest so far with a unique paper genre -- a memo. It was very short, but the consultant focused on the content to a point where the client was expounding on each sentence very specifically, and in such rare cases, one must do so.
What I liked about this session is that the consultant first asked if the client had ever been to the center, to which he replied no -- she then went through standard WC procedures, how they would approach his piece, which steps they would take to make it better together. These seem like very important details to provide to first-time clients.
The client didn't talk much, especially after the consultant asked open-ended questions, so there were chunks of silence throughout that seem inevitable with such a short assignment.
What else did I take from that session? No paper or piece of writing is too short to develop and improve.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Two observation sessions; one spur-of-the-moment client consultation
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.
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.
Wednesday, February 6, 2008
Observations! OMG!
Observations! OMG!
By David James Tibergien
I greeted the client and went through the rhetorical and aesthetic script. I introduced myself, I offered her refreshments, I asked her where she wanted to sit, and I sat next to her.
Instead of having her read through her paper, which was visibly incomprehensible, I asked her about her goals and her instructor’s demands through the paper. We analyzed and discussed the rubric. I felt as though that the instructor might be well advised to consider having a writing center consultant look over his rubric, but I didn’t mention this to my client in the interest of professionalism.
After we each read the rubric several times, the demands of the clients’ instructor became more clear. After we had agreed on some goals and benchmarks for success (unlike a certain administration that invaded a certain country) we proceeded to read through her paper.
Her paper, printed in periwinkle and in a font that I would expect to see in a seventh grade girls’ scrapbook had a lot of difficult sentences despite the fact the reader could get a good idea of what she was trying to say. I helped her work with her syntax and word choices to help her give in an effort to improve her clarity. I think after I showed her this that she understood why her previous analysis had been more weak than she would have liked.
The other place where the client needed some help was connecting her analysis to the course material. Based on the rubric, it appeared that the instructor wanted the client to demonstrate that she could identify key terms and concepts in poetry. Since she already had a pretty good analysis and interpretation of the poem, I showed her how she could use these key terms and ideas to support her argument. I gave her a basic argument formula that she seemed to connect with:
“Here is how I think it is, and here is why I am right.” (Opinion and supporting evidence.)
Finally, I suggested that she use a more standard font and color on her assignments in the future.
She was pretty enthusiastic and energized after our meeting. I think she felt pretty lost and hopeless before our consultation, and that after she was on course toward produceing an excellent paper. I told her that she should feel free to come to the writing center whenever she felt like she could benefit from it.
Despite the snark that I display in my posts and in class, I cultivate a more cordial aspect with my clients. I really think that presenting myself as an accessible facilitator helped the client to trust my suggestions for improvement in such a way that she felt good about adopting them. Based on personal experience, criticism that is more acerbic can create a needlessly adversarial dynamic that could make the client less inclined to adopt consultant recommendations, despite their value and validity.
All in all, I feel as though the observations that I have been making (and that I will continue to discuss on this forum more often) have been putting me toward a place where I will be able to handle more clients on my own, and where I will be able to take on more complex and challenging assignments so that I can make a more valuable contribution to the writing center.
David
Maybe Not A Good Style To Go With In Academic Writing
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Observations As Training: An Academonized Memoir
OBSERVATIONS AS TRAINING
An Academonized Memoir by David James Tibergien
My first experience at the writing center embodied a lot of what I expected. The client was a Freshman, a Caucasian male from the Detroit suburbs who visited the writing center as encouraged by the instructor in his WRAC course. The client was examining a magazine ad from IZOD, and he was writing a summary about the appeal of the ad, in essence he was making a rhetorical analysis.
The paper he came in with was a pretty solid framework, especially given the demands of the instructor. He fulfilled most of the criteria that the instructor sought. He has minor issues with a few sentences, coma placement, and parameterization.
I felt as though myself and the Established Writing Center Consultant were helpful in showing the client what he had done right, and how his writing stronger within the context of building better writing skills.
While the above does report my experience, it does not report what I had learned from my first observation, which encompassed what I did not expect and thus what I learned. What I had observed from my consultation is that the Established Writing Consultant sat next to the client, whereas my instinct would have been to sit across from them. I think that this was an important correction in my sensibilities, as sitting next to a person denotes a more peer-to-peer experience between consultant and client. This stands in contrast to me as the consultant sitting across from the client, which might make them (or me) feel like they are seeking legal council or financial planning advice. I feel now like sitting across from a client could result in less equalizing and thus less effective dynamic, that is if the peer to peer methods are as optimal as we would believe.
Also, the first thing the More Established Peer Consultant had done was to ask the client about the goals of their assignment. I think he could have done a better job helping the client frame his expectations more clearly, but I also consider the possibility that keeping the clients expectations pliable can be more valuable for a more a more fluid consultation.
The next thing the More Established Writing Consultant had done is asked the client to read his paper out-loud as we followed along whilst reading. In my view, reading a paper out-loud is the most helpful thing that people don't do in their writing process. In my own sessions with my own clients, I would like to seek opportunities to call attention to the helpfulness of this particular exercise. I think a lot of folks have reservations about reading out loud because they aren't comfortable expressing themselves verbally, they might lack confidence in the writing, or they might just feel silly reading out-loud to themselves. In this sense I think showing clients how to read their writing out loud is a practice that the Writing Center is in a particularly good place to promote that.
Finally, I learned why Writing Center Consultants find their work rewarding. In this particular session, the client appeared to feel as though I offered him more valuable suggestions, and he expressed authentic satisfaction and gratitude for the help he received. The writing center is user focused, the user was pleased, thus I felt the institutional goals were met and as I result I felt useful. That might be a bleak and cold way to describe my experience, but that’s about as far as my rhetorical excellence goes for today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)