My final project/presentation is today at 6 p.m. Here are some of my concerns:
1. I have outside sources, but I don't feel they're relevant to include in the final project (the one I am actually turning in). I've read many sources that discuss grammar biases and how others perceive language misuses, but my final, which is based around a usage survey of a cross-section of undergraduates/graduates and writing consultants, doesn't rely on the perceptions beyond the sample. I could be wrong.
2. I ramble. And I'm long-winded. I won't pretend. So that makes me nervous.
3. I guess that's it.
I'm excited to do my presentation in a way, too. I like interacting with writing consultants and classmates when it comes to grammar and language usage issues. I feel I always learn something new, so I hope that's what today brings. I've really enjoyed my time with people in this class, and I hope we band together and lead a revolution in MSU's Writing Center. I'm not sure what that revolution may be, but we'll do it.
Peace.
Showing posts with label writing center goodness. Show all posts
Showing posts with label writing center goodness. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 3, 2008
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
ESL discussion input
My commentary on ESL writers in the writing center is a bit belated because most of us have already discussed pitfalls and strategies in tutoring. I wanted to throw in my two cents in the spirit of blogging (and forgetting I had never written out my input but instead had voiced my opinion in class).
I'm still unsure how I would handle situations in which I was tutoring a writer whom I can literally not understand. We've discussed imagery and drawing shapes to communicate, but I can't see how that would be time-effective in a one- or in even a two-hour session. I've already had this experience, as many of you know, and I eventually gave up because the writer ended up constantly arguing with any suggestion I made — assuming either of us understood the other — so do you find another consultant to take the writer? Do you just sit there and let the writer finish reading the paper? Because that's what I did. And I felt useless and frustrated and completely unprepared for accepting another client.
It's draining. Despite the ways that have been outlined to handle ESL and international students, sometimes there aren't correct solutions and the only thing you can do is sit there. It's sad but...alas. I'm feeling deflated about the issue, and dear diary-ish.
I guess that's all.
I'm still unsure how I would handle situations in which I was tutoring a writer whom I can literally not understand. We've discussed imagery and drawing shapes to communicate, but I can't see how that would be time-effective in a one- or in even a two-hour session. I've already had this experience, as many of you know, and I eventually gave up because the writer ended up constantly arguing with any suggestion I made — assuming either of us understood the other — so do you find another consultant to take the writer? Do you just sit there and let the writer finish reading the paper? Because that's what I did. And I felt useless and frustrated and completely unprepared for accepting another client.
It's draining. Despite the ways that have been outlined to handle ESL and international students, sometimes there aren't correct solutions and the only thing you can do is sit there. It's sad but...alas. I'm feeling deflated about the issue, and dear diary-ish.
I guess that's all.
Monday, December 1, 2008
Primary Consultant #5
Okay, last one. Here we go.
I had probably my least favorite primary consultant session a month ago. It was with a journalism student who felt very confident in her writing and just couldn't stop complaining about how ridiculous the professor grades because EVERYONE seems to be doing well except her. So, I said, let's do this thing.
She was writing a paper about causes and American involvement in the Vietnam War, and this client talked a mile a minute. Half the time I wasn't sure if she even wanted my help and instead just preferred to discuss how great her writing was and how inept everyone else seemed to be. The other half, she was arguing with me about my suggestions because someone ELSE told her this and that and how if she did this, that made more sense, and blah blah...so, that was frustrating. I feel that if you're coming to a writing center, you should at least entertain new ideas and perspectives, even if you wholeheartedly disagree with them. At least have the tact to politely ignore every single opinion the consultant gives you.
Nope. Not happening with this client. But I think, with my newly adopted non-directive approach, I was able to show her a few errors in her thought process without pointing them out. I asked her, "So, how do you know this?" and she replies, "Everyone knows this." And I said, "Is it even true?" And she said "How could it not be true?"
I wanted to die a few times, but I managed to ask her enough questions to show her that, no, that wasn't necessarily true, and no, it wasn't even something everyone else believed to be true. But she had a horrid fear of finding more sources for citing, so she decided to take out entire portions that either required citation or ended up not being relevant. She definitely seemed to want to put work into the paper, but she didn't seem to want to put in any work she deemed irrelevant or unacceptable.
It's difficult to deal with this type of client. I feel that no one is ever right or wrong in a session, but when you can't reach any kind of consensus on anything in a paper, it feels as though both of you are completely wasting your time, and in those situations, I feel I need to speak up and clearly express the responsibilities of the writing center, what we do here exactly, and how having a more open mind might help in the future.
Okay, I might not say the last part, but I feel as a center we need to come up with a blanket tactful statement for these situations. It's also possible I overlooked a few strategies to deal with it, but I think my frustration overcame my sense of clarity and direction. Hopefully I can manage to have a more level head in the future.
I had probably my least favorite primary consultant session a month ago. It was with a journalism student who felt very confident in her writing and just couldn't stop complaining about how ridiculous the professor grades because EVERYONE seems to be doing well except her. So, I said, let's do this thing.
She was writing a paper about causes and American involvement in the Vietnam War, and this client talked a mile a minute. Half the time I wasn't sure if she even wanted my help and instead just preferred to discuss how great her writing was and how inept everyone else seemed to be. The other half, she was arguing with me about my suggestions because someone ELSE told her this and that and how if she did this, that made more sense, and blah blah...so, that was frustrating. I feel that if you're coming to a writing center, you should at least entertain new ideas and perspectives, even if you wholeheartedly disagree with them. At least have the tact to politely ignore every single opinion the consultant gives you.
Nope. Not happening with this client. But I think, with my newly adopted non-directive approach, I was able to show her a few errors in her thought process without pointing them out. I asked her, "So, how do you know this?" and she replies, "Everyone knows this." And I said, "Is it even true?" And she said "How could it not be true?"
I wanted to die a few times, but I managed to ask her enough questions to show her that, no, that wasn't necessarily true, and no, it wasn't even something everyone else believed to be true. But she had a horrid fear of finding more sources for citing, so she decided to take out entire portions that either required citation or ended up not being relevant. She definitely seemed to want to put work into the paper, but she didn't seem to want to put in any work she deemed irrelevant or unacceptable.
It's difficult to deal with this type of client. I feel that no one is ever right or wrong in a session, but when you can't reach any kind of consensus on anything in a paper, it feels as though both of you are completely wasting your time, and in those situations, I feel I need to speak up and clearly express the responsibilities of the writing center, what we do here exactly, and how having a more open mind might help in the future.
Okay, I might not say the last part, but I feel as a center we need to come up with a blanket tactful statement for these situations. It's also possible I overlooked a few strategies to deal with it, but I think my frustration overcame my sense of clarity and direction. Hopefully I can manage to have a more level head in the future.
Final Reflection on Literacy Narrative
The literacy narrative literally made no sense to me when it was first introduced in class. Granted, I hadn't read the syllabus very thoroughly, but did I realize there were three parts to it? No. Did I recognize any literacy beyond reading and writing? No. Was I being responsible in any way? No.
But the heavens parted, and I saw the light. I chose to expand on my musical literacies, and although I felt very confident about my first narrative installment, the multimedia remix made me nervous. According to my classmate feedback, I had left out a lot from my presentation, and that saddened me. I felt I went very in depth with my musical literacies, specifically regarding being a drum major, and others, who had chosen to focus solely on growing up and learning to read and write, seemed perfectly well off. As they should! I enjoyed the nature of their presentations and I provided corresponding feedback praising them for kicking butt and taking names. I loved the different approaches everyone had to their own literacies, but I lost a lot of confidence after my presentation. All of the feedback I received was constructive, and yes, I'm sure the fact that I presented in PowerPoint feedback was a bit of a turn-off and a deterrent for praise, bu I still felt that I had taken something at face value and had parsed it into almost every important element that relates to overall "life" literacies.
I'm a bad creator. And that's not a good excuse for not pursuing mediums beyond what I'm used to (i.e., PowerPoint), but iMovie was impossible. I attempted to create a movie three separate times, and all either magically deleted (on my own computer, not a WC) or made up their own transitions. It didn't make any sense. The class we had one day explaining tips and tricks with iMovie was very helpful, and I had a really good start to my project (it was a fake one at that time because I didn't have my pictures or content, so I deleted it). But then the three consecutive failures occurred. Did I want to resort to PowerPoint? Not really. I mean, yawn? How many PowerPoints have all of us seen in the past two, three, four + years in secondary and post-secondary education? Too many, my friends. Too many. So, I tried to use PowerPoint as a way to showcase my pictures. Didn't work out terrifically well. I thought about creating a composition on my flute or tenor sax to play in class to showcase my literacy, but that sort of took away from the "multimedia" thing...and would have made me look friendless, which would have been fine, I don't mind what people think of me particularly, but honestly no one would have gotten it. I don't even know what I would have played, beyond the different genres I know.
So, the point is, I don't like trying to be creative. I like structure, I like clear rules, I like rigidity and outlines and yes, I'm Type A. So no, the literacy narrative triad didn't particularly please me, and yes, it is my fault that I didn't love it, and no, I won't continue to have a clear set of rules in front of me throughout life, so this project has helped me get used to the fact that I'm not going to have a clear roadmap in life. This has become an existential diary entry, so I digress.
The creative piece was fun. But I'm not sure what it did for me besides providing entertainment. I would have preferred some kind of minimum instruction, like page limits or something. I don't know. It all comes back to the rules I lack in my life, and needing them for limits.
And honestly, I think there needs to be a set of rules or more structured feedback with our pieces. I think that would help more than just me, but who knows.
But the heavens parted, and I saw the light. I chose to expand on my musical literacies, and although I felt very confident about my first narrative installment, the multimedia remix made me nervous. According to my classmate feedback, I had left out a lot from my presentation, and that saddened me. I felt I went very in depth with my musical literacies, specifically regarding being a drum major, and others, who had chosen to focus solely on growing up and learning to read and write, seemed perfectly well off. As they should! I enjoyed the nature of their presentations and I provided corresponding feedback praising them for kicking butt and taking names. I loved the different approaches everyone had to their own literacies, but I lost a lot of confidence after my presentation. All of the feedback I received was constructive, and yes, I'm sure the fact that I presented in PowerPoint feedback was a bit of a turn-off and a deterrent for praise, bu I still felt that I had taken something at face value and had parsed it into almost every important element that relates to overall "life" literacies.
I'm a bad creator. And that's not a good excuse for not pursuing mediums beyond what I'm used to (i.e., PowerPoint), but iMovie was impossible. I attempted to create a movie three separate times, and all either magically deleted (on my own computer, not a WC) or made up their own transitions. It didn't make any sense. The class we had one day explaining tips and tricks with iMovie was very helpful, and I had a really good start to my project (it was a fake one at that time because I didn't have my pictures or content, so I deleted it). But then the three consecutive failures occurred. Did I want to resort to PowerPoint? Not really. I mean, yawn? How many PowerPoints have all of us seen in the past two, three, four + years in secondary and post-secondary education? Too many, my friends. Too many. So, I tried to use PowerPoint as a way to showcase my pictures. Didn't work out terrifically well. I thought about creating a composition on my flute or tenor sax to play in class to showcase my literacy, but that sort of took away from the "multimedia" thing...and would have made me look friendless, which would have been fine, I don't mind what people think of me particularly, but honestly no one would have gotten it. I don't even know what I would have played, beyond the different genres I know.
So, the point is, I don't like trying to be creative. I like structure, I like clear rules, I like rigidity and outlines and yes, I'm Type A. So no, the literacy narrative triad didn't particularly please me, and yes, it is my fault that I didn't love it, and no, I won't continue to have a clear set of rules in front of me throughout life, so this project has helped me get used to the fact that I'm not going to have a clear roadmap in life. This has become an existential diary entry, so I digress.
The creative piece was fun. But I'm not sure what it did for me besides providing entertainment. I would have preferred some kind of minimum instruction, like page limits or something. I don't know. It all comes back to the rules I lack in my life, and needing them for limits.
And honestly, I think there needs to be a set of rules or more structured feedback with our pieces. I think that would help more than just me, but who knows.
Primary Consultant #4
In addition to realizing that I didn't have enough weekly blog posts, I also realized that despite having several sessions a week for about three months straight, I have neglected posting primary consultant descriptions. So here's a #4 from about two weeks ago.
I met with a Lyman Briggs student for a gender and society paper. That was a first for me. I believe he was an international student, but he had a solid grasp on the general grammatical concepts of English, so nothing of that nature was a concern for me. I liked that he was very engaged with the session from the get-go and very clear about his goals. He wanted help with organization and would like a different perspective on whether or not everything seemed relevant and useful to his topic/thesis.
His thesis was buried a page and a half into the paper. I asked him what his professor's position on thesis placement was, and he said that she preferred the thesis to appear at least in the first three-quarters of the page, so he accordingly asked for help to cut it down. But that's three-quarters of a page. So I tried to look at the validity of his introduction and how it related, exactly, to his thesis. The first page didn't! I asked him how it correlated, and he saw for the first time that it didn't, so he cut an entire page, which left him room to expand on his conclusion.
I think by the end, he was pretty much done with it. We went paragraph by paragraph and made sure each somehow related and the point was clear and well-developed. I don't think he was very used to the topic nor the writing style, being a scientific writer in Lyman Briggs, so by the end he was surely mentally exhausted. But I feel he was satisfied with the work we put into it, and we set a few goals together for him to accomplish. So that was exciting.
I like that I've been able to assert authority in sessions but have taken plenty of steps back for the client to brainstorm solutions to potential problems. I've had a lot of trouble maintaining that balance, and his enthusiasm particularly made me realize that interaction, although dependent on both parties, can be facilitated by a non-directive but nonetheless leader-ish consultant.
I met with a Lyman Briggs student for a gender and society paper. That was a first for me. I believe he was an international student, but he had a solid grasp on the general grammatical concepts of English, so nothing of that nature was a concern for me. I liked that he was very engaged with the session from the get-go and very clear about his goals. He wanted help with organization and would like a different perspective on whether or not everything seemed relevant and useful to his topic/thesis.
His thesis was buried a page and a half into the paper. I asked him what his professor's position on thesis placement was, and he said that she preferred the thesis to appear at least in the first three-quarters of the page, so he accordingly asked for help to cut it down. But that's three-quarters of a page. So I tried to look at the validity of his introduction and how it related, exactly, to his thesis. The first page didn't! I asked him how it correlated, and he saw for the first time that it didn't, so he cut an entire page, which left him room to expand on his conclusion.
I think by the end, he was pretty much done with it. We went paragraph by paragraph and made sure each somehow related and the point was clear and well-developed. I don't think he was very used to the topic nor the writing style, being a scientific writer in Lyman Briggs, so by the end he was surely mentally exhausted. But I feel he was satisfied with the work we put into it, and we set a few goals together for him to accomplish. So that was exciting.
I like that I've been able to assert authority in sessions but have taken plenty of steps back for the client to brainstorm solutions to potential problems. I've had a lot of trouble maintaining that balance, and his enthusiasm particularly made me realize that interaction, although dependent on both parties, can be facilitated by a non-directive but nonetheless leader-ish consultant.
Creative Remix Commentary
So apparently I've been imagining keeping up with weekly blog posts and describing sessions and projects. Go me.
Last Monday, the class utilized a few techniques to help critique creative writing pieces. One involved assigning colors to one of the five senses and going through the other's paper going crazy with rainbows; the other involved cutting up your poem or story or what have you and putting it back together to either elicit a different effect or to change up the dialogue and chronology.
Neither particularly helped me revise the story or look at it from a different perspective. Maybe it's just because I'm not that creative or I can't access my "creative gene," but either way, I didn't find either useful...and honestly, I haven't been able to make any kind of substantial change to my creative piece, which is a nonfiction narrative. And that's frustrating. The lack of significant feedback I've had on my pieces, other than the notecards, have inhibited my progress for revision. But I'm trucking. Whatever that means.
Last Monday, the class utilized a few techniques to help critique creative writing pieces. One involved assigning colors to one of the five senses and going through the other's paper going crazy with rainbows; the other involved cutting up your poem or story or what have you and putting it back together to either elicit a different effect or to change up the dialogue and chronology.
Neither particularly helped me revise the story or look at it from a different perspective. Maybe it's just because I'm not that creative or I can't access my "creative gene," but either way, I didn't find either useful...and honestly, I haven't been able to make any kind of substantial change to my creative piece, which is a nonfiction narrative. And that's frustrating. The lack of significant feedback I've had on my pieces, other than the notecards, have inhibited my progress for revision. But I'm trucking. Whatever that means.
Wednesday, November 19, 2008
Satellite Observation #2
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!
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!
Sunday, November 9, 2008
Weekly blog — two together (also, consultation #2)
I haven't posted in a while — not because I haven't had the time but because I haven't had a clear set of ideas about which to blog.
I still don't. But after our multimedia literacy presentations, my thought processes are flowing a little better regarding the foci of this course, as well as our final creative piece to our literacy narrative.
When we were first assigned the literacy narrative, I immediately began thinking about what made my "literacy journey" unique. Scott and I brainstormed a few of our ideas, and I realized that playing soccer for six years and being involved in music for ten somehow specialize the kind of person I am, and what specific talents I possess in the realm of literacy. Everyone learns how to read and write, at least those who have been accepted into MSU and are in this class, so I didn't even consider writing about and focusing on such a seemingly simple aspect of my literacy development.
The presentations last week made me see the error in my thinking. Yes, everyone learns how to read and write, albeit with slightly varied levels of expertise; however, everyone's journey is drastically different. You may be thinking, duh, right? I'm thinking duh right now, sort of. Clearly that's what Trixie wanted us to explicate; obviously she wanted us to think critically about how far we've come and what steps we took to get here. But I just wasn't thinking in that mindset, and I'm afraid that whenever I hear the word "literacy" after this class, I'll never think of it in terms of strictly reading and writing ever again.
Thanks, Writing Center. (What are people thinking about writing about for their creative literacy narrative installment?)
I'm happy for this development. The Writing Center has opened my mind in so many ways, not just in terms of writing but what writing can mean. It's amazing to see so in-depth the many degrees people are earning and the abilities they've acquired along the way. While they are using writing to expound on these abilities from time to time, I'm enlightened to how complex and unique the respective ability is.
I was planning on mainly focusing on the literacy narrative, but now I'm heading for a spiel about WC fabulousness. Get ready.
Developmental Editing
I want to be an editor. I've wanted to be an editor since I realized I didn't want to be a reporter, and I would like to think my ambition hasn't steered too far from my course of study, considering four of my current jobs revolve around the skill. What I never had before the WC was an aptitude for developmental editing. I never believed I would fully access this skill, either.
I think I proved myself wrong last Thursday.
I was tutoring a client who had composed a two-page cover letter. She first asked me to go "quickly" through the grammar mistakes so we could return to the beginning and start going over her content. For the first time in a session, I felt comfortable and confident enough to set her straight. "I'd be happy to go over a few grammatical elements with you, but correcting mistakes isn't what we do here. I'd like to instead go over your cover letter piece by piece and look at how each paragraph makes your entire cover letter work." She looked at me, nodded complacently, and we forged onward.
Now, this client didn't have many grammatical mistakes as it was. But that wouldn't have changed how I approached her cover letter — we read one to two paragraphs at a time, and I explained to her what's probably going on in her audience's mind (in this case, her potential employer's), and I asked her if this was the kind of information she wanted him or her to know most. She couldn't always give me a yes or no answer, so we tackled the tone of each paragraph and removed anything that would most simply be answered by a resume.
After the session was finished, she had a huge smile on her face and said to me, "You're a real tutor. You didn't just do grammar with me, even though I asked you. I needed a different perspective, and you gave that to me."
My heart melted a little. It's not even Christmas time (officially), and my heart was melting.
Writing Center, 4,530; me, 1
Consultation #2
So, for my second consultation session in which I was the client, I once again scheduled nothing officially. It was a spur of the moment, something I set up on the spot, because hey, we don't always have a million things to do in the WC.
I had my latest resume version. I still need to bring in my personal statement/SOP for grad school, but anyway. My audience was application readers at NYU, and I needed to make my resume shine.
I get frustrated when someone can't find stuff wrong with my pieces of writing. I realize I've been working on my resume since senior year of high school, and I've been refining and touching up duties practically on a monthly basis. But still, I was hoping for feedback that would help cut out what I didn't really need and possibly merge together a few relevant skills or jobs that communicated with the reader more concisely.
I did receive a few pointers on a few cluttered skill sentences. But the session didn't end up being what I wanted it to be.
The consultant really did try his/her hardest. I know he/she did. But resumes are trickier than traditional papers; similar to different professors, you're always going to have different employers and, in this case, an educational institution. It's a constant consideration, and the more you know, the more value there is in your content. Do I know NYU admission standards? No, not really, other than their graduate admission rate (50-60%). Does the consultant know? If I don't — and I'm the one applying — then he/she certainly doesn't.
So. We work with what we have, where we can, when we can do it.
I still don't. But after our multimedia literacy presentations, my thought processes are flowing a little better regarding the foci of this course, as well as our final creative piece to our literacy narrative.
When we were first assigned the literacy narrative, I immediately began thinking about what made my "literacy journey" unique. Scott and I brainstormed a few of our ideas, and I realized that playing soccer for six years and being involved in music for ten somehow specialize the kind of person I am, and what specific talents I possess in the realm of literacy. Everyone learns how to read and write, at least those who have been accepted into MSU and are in this class, so I didn't even consider writing about and focusing on such a seemingly simple aspect of my literacy development.
The presentations last week made me see the error in my thinking. Yes, everyone learns how to read and write, albeit with slightly varied levels of expertise; however, everyone's journey is drastically different. You may be thinking, duh, right? I'm thinking duh right now, sort of. Clearly that's what Trixie wanted us to explicate; obviously she wanted us to think critically about how far we've come and what steps we took to get here. But I just wasn't thinking in that mindset, and I'm afraid that whenever I hear the word "literacy" after this class, I'll never think of it in terms of strictly reading and writing ever again.
Thanks, Writing Center. (What are people thinking about writing about for their creative literacy narrative installment?)
I'm happy for this development. The Writing Center has opened my mind in so many ways, not just in terms of writing but what writing can mean. It's amazing to see so in-depth the many degrees people are earning and the abilities they've acquired along the way. While they are using writing to expound on these abilities from time to time, I'm enlightened to how complex and unique the respective ability is.
I was planning on mainly focusing on the literacy narrative, but now I'm heading for a spiel about WC fabulousness. Get ready.
Developmental Editing
I want to be an editor. I've wanted to be an editor since I realized I didn't want to be a reporter, and I would like to think my ambition hasn't steered too far from my course of study, considering four of my current jobs revolve around the skill. What I never had before the WC was an aptitude for developmental editing. I never believed I would fully access this skill, either.
I think I proved myself wrong last Thursday.
I was tutoring a client who had composed a two-page cover letter. She first asked me to go "quickly" through the grammar mistakes so we could return to the beginning and start going over her content. For the first time in a session, I felt comfortable and confident enough to set her straight. "I'd be happy to go over a few grammatical elements with you, but correcting mistakes isn't what we do here. I'd like to instead go over your cover letter piece by piece and look at how each paragraph makes your entire cover letter work." She looked at me, nodded complacently, and we forged onward.
Now, this client didn't have many grammatical mistakes as it was. But that wouldn't have changed how I approached her cover letter — we read one to two paragraphs at a time, and I explained to her what's probably going on in her audience's mind (in this case, her potential employer's), and I asked her if this was the kind of information she wanted him or her to know most. She couldn't always give me a yes or no answer, so we tackled the tone of each paragraph and removed anything that would most simply be answered by a resume.
After the session was finished, she had a huge smile on her face and said to me, "You're a real tutor. You didn't just do grammar with me, even though I asked you. I needed a different perspective, and you gave that to me."
My heart melted a little. It's not even Christmas time (officially), and my heart was melting.
Writing Center, 4,530; me, 1
Consultation #2
So, for my second consultation session in which I was the client, I once again scheduled nothing officially. It was a spur of the moment, something I set up on the spot, because hey, we don't always have a million things to do in the WC.
I had my latest resume version. I still need to bring in my personal statement/SOP for grad school, but anyway. My audience was application readers at NYU, and I needed to make my resume shine.
I get frustrated when someone can't find stuff wrong with my pieces of writing. I realize I've been working on my resume since senior year of high school, and I've been refining and touching up duties practically on a monthly basis. But still, I was hoping for feedback that would help cut out what I didn't really need and possibly merge together a few relevant skills or jobs that communicated with the reader more concisely.
I did receive a few pointers on a few cluttered skill sentences. But the session didn't end up being what I wanted it to be.
The consultant really did try his/her hardest. I know he/she did. But resumes are trickier than traditional papers; similar to different professors, you're always going to have different employers and, in this case, an educational institution. It's a constant consideration, and the more you know, the more value there is in your content. Do I know NYU admission standards? No, not really, other than their graduate admission rate (50-60%). Does the consultant know? If I don't — and I'm the one applying — then he/she certainly doesn't.
So. We work with what we have, where we can, when we can do it.
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.
Weekly post
Adams' "Satellite Writing Centers" opens with an acknowledgment of a general studies-intensive university involving writing in every discipline. Writing instruction followed a fairly traditional protocol, and naturally these universities knew of and believed in the importance of good writing in any field.
I detest general studies requirements. Here's why.
You attend high school and you are required to take certain classes each year. It's not up for debate that you take math, science, reading/writing/literature, and some sort of history or government course. In college, you have applied to, been accepted at, and are paying tuition for an educational institution carefully constructed to prepare you for a professional life. If you are interested in a general studies degree, such as the one U-Mich offers, then that's fine. But universities should not require students to invest in subjects inapplicable to their field of study. If you are studying a certain subject, however, and an interdisciplinary understanding of an unrelated branch of study is pertinent to doing your job correctly, that's a different story. But I don't need to learn about kingdom/class/phylum/whatever for the TENTH TIME in my student career because it's a freakin' general requirement for every college student. It's a waste of my time, the professor's time, and my money.
With that said, I agree with the professors' beliefs in this article: Writing is important across every discipline. It's the one thing that unites us when everything else has failed. Writing Centers, therefore, warrant a place in any kind of university environment, not just land-grant colleges or general studies-intensive institutions. Writing opens up your rhetorical understand of the subject and of your environment, and those tools are invaluable.
I realize that rant didn't have much to do with satellite writing centers...more soon to come!
I detest general studies requirements. Here's why.
You attend high school and you are required to take certain classes each year. It's not up for debate that you take math, science, reading/writing/literature, and some sort of history or government course. In college, you have applied to, been accepted at, and are paying tuition for an educational institution carefully constructed to prepare you for a professional life. If you are interested in a general studies degree, such as the one U-Mich offers, then that's fine. But universities should not require students to invest in subjects inapplicable to their field of study. If you are studying a certain subject, however, and an interdisciplinary understanding of an unrelated branch of study is pertinent to doing your job correctly, that's a different story. But I don't need to learn about kingdom/class/phylum/whatever for the TENTH TIME in my student career because it's a freakin' general requirement for every college student. It's a waste of my time, the professor's time, and my money.
With that said, I agree with the professors' beliefs in this article: Writing is important across every discipline. It's the one thing that unites us when everything else has failed. Writing Centers, therefore, warrant a place in any kind of university environment, not just land-grant colleges or general studies-intensive institutions. Writing opens up your rhetorical understand of the subject and of your environment, and those tools are invaluable.
I realize that rant didn't have much to do with satellite writing centers...more soon to come!
Monday, September 22, 2008
Client Session One
On Thursday, Sept. 18, I had my first session as a client. I brought in a few ideas I had for a column I was writing, as well as the intro paragraph.
First, the consultant asked me what I wanted readers to get out of my piece. With every response I had, the consultant had another question about my answer, how it related to the piece, and what new territory that answer opened up.
I didn't feel odd or awkward at all in being tutored. Maybe it's because I've already led two sessions and have observed the interaction several times; maybe it's because I know we're learning from each other. Either way, it didn't feel like a teacher-student relationship; I felt as an equal, someone who had ideas and thoughts to exchange and share, as well as strategies to implement in my writing. It felt pretty fantastic, actually.
The consultant often digressed in her suggestions, making me feel like she was giving me as much feedback as possible while acknowledging that she may not know precisely how the piece should be written or structured. I found the constant stream of questions to be most helpful, because I myself don't always ask enough questions about what I'm writing. What's the point of this paragraph? Don't people already know this? Isn't this common knowledge? Once you have an idea in place and think it's a great one, you don't continually second-guess yourself; this session made it that much clearer that a second set of eyes, regardless of how much experience lay behind them, is critical to the writing.
To tackle the last bullet point in the Bedford guide, the tutor made me feel comfortable the entire time. The session was productive, relaxed, and appropriately engaging. I look forward to my next one.
First, the consultant asked me what I wanted readers to get out of my piece. With every response I had, the consultant had another question about my answer, how it related to the piece, and what new territory that answer opened up.
I didn't feel odd or awkward at all in being tutored. Maybe it's because I've already led two sessions and have observed the interaction several times; maybe it's because I know we're learning from each other. Either way, it didn't feel like a teacher-student relationship; I felt as an equal, someone who had ideas and thoughts to exchange and share, as well as strategies to implement in my writing. It felt pretty fantastic, actually.
The consultant often digressed in her suggestions, making me feel like she was giving me as much feedback as possible while acknowledging that she may not know precisely how the piece should be written or structured. I found the constant stream of questions to be most helpful, because I myself don't always ask enough questions about what I'm writing. What's the point of this paragraph? Don't people already know this? Isn't this common knowledge? Once you have an idea in place and think it's a great one, you don't continually second-guess yourself; this session made it that much clearer that a second set of eyes, regardless of how much experience lay behind them, is critical to the writing.
To tackle the last bullet point in the Bedford guide, the tutor made me feel comfortable the entire time. The session was productive, relaxed, and appropriately engaging. I look forward to my next one.
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.
Thursday, March 27, 2008
The Murray DIDN'T Abide
The Murray Didn't Abide
This week Ryan and I gave presentations about Donald Murray's A Writer Teaches Writing . My part of the presentation focused on how Murray's novel pedagogy is and has been applicable to writing center services. Ryan devoted his classroom presentation to baseless attacks on Murray in an effort to discredit him for sport.
I applied Murray's ideas of peer consultation, student centered consultation and how writing should be viewed as a processess rather than a final product. Ryan disagreed. One other point I touched on is that Murray felt that writing was of fundamental importance because it is difficult. This helped me to come to understand that MSU Writing Center can offer services to above average writers by challenging them to take on more difficult tasks.
Furthermore, the University has a vested interest in making poor writers good, good writers great, and great writers exceptional.
R.I.P. Donald Murray
Tuesday, March 18, 2008
Lies, Damn Lies, And Statistics
Lies, Damn Lies, And Statistics
Today in class Deanna talked about the need to have a focus with an appropriate scope and emphasis when approaching writing. I was initially perturbed by this notion because, while I think it is important to make a point, the journey toward answers often produces a more enriching learning experience than the answers sought.
However, she went on to talk about how Discovery Drafts can help a student employ free association and stream of consciousness. And I think that what was described as a Discovery Draft is what I myself use and encourage others as they seek a thoughtful and original piece of writing. I think the Discovery Draft allows a writer to use the best of their own creativity and apply it to whatever structure or genre that they seek to adhere to.
Krish talked about the need for specific examples in academic writing. He appeared to be making the case that all things in academic writing (and perhaps journalism) has to be backed by empirical information. He suggested that subjectivity should be embraced while employing empirical data to support it, which is of course a way of describing how western civilization frames effective opinions.
Generally I agree with the above, but I think you have to beware of confusing empirical data and objectivity. The empirical never exists in a vacuum. It is always subject to human interpretation and misinterpretation. Also, perfectly valid scientific information can be taken out of context or misapplied for nefarious ends.
As Mark Twain said, “there are lies, damn lies, and statistics.”
Thursday, February 14, 2008
5B or Not 5B: That Is The Question
With People As With Words, Context Matters
by David James Tibergien
I can see where a student who was indoctrinated into an old and inefficient writing process, and who received good grates with poor quality papers in high school might meet a great deal of frustration when trying to write for college instructors that have a great deal more demands for the content and structure of their writing. The demands for these students changes and they might struggle to adapt much they same way I have struggled to adapt my writing.
I have not been successful at fluently picking up another language. I completed a few years of French but I can't speak or write it very well. During my first semester at MSU I took Spanish with a fellow who is perhaps the worst instructor I have had in any class ever. More than half of my Spanish 101 class had taken 2 or more years of Spanish in High School, and a sizable plurality of these folks had taken 4 years of Spanish, there were even a few students who took AP Spanish. The philosophy of the instructor who resembled an Argentinean Steven Colbert has a poor command of English and adopted the teaching philosophy that: because there are very advanced students alongside Spanish Novi, that he should teach somewhere to the middle. Frustrated, I dropped the class.
Because my degree requires that I take two years of a foreign language, I will be starting Portuguese in the fall of 2008. I hope that I won't have to stand out against too many students with a background in Portuguese.
Alas, I can empathie with an ESL student who is expected to learn English by immersion. They no doubt deal with frustrated native English speakers on a regular basis the same way I was met with frustration by advanced Spanish students and the Argentinean Steven Colbert.
I have never failed to start an assignment because of a fear of failure, but there are many times when I failed to start a project because I feared spending my time on something agonizing and unstimulating.
Like virtually every other restless and irreverent young white male boy, I was diagnosed with A.D.H.D. I will say that this is about all I want to discuss in regards to my mental health and cognitive capacity on a public blog.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)