Hello all,
I haven't really set aside time to think about my consulting this semester, and after reading all of your interesting posts about observations, I think it is probably a good time to do that. I've worked two full shifts in the center now (Fridays from 9-2) and feel quite comfortable. However, now that I've been teaching (I left the Writing Center in 2004 and have been teaching for the last 3 years), one thing that seems to always be on my mind is responsibility. Am I putting enough responsibility on the writer during our sessions? One of the biggest obstacles I faced as a new teacher was acknowledging/negotiating my authority in the classroom, so I became very conscious of the ways I interacted with my students. For example, I struggled to understand when to be directive with my students--like writing on his/her paper, writing comments in the margin, etc. Although I thought that my writing center consulting experience helped me prepare to be a teacher, I sometimes felt like I couldn't do the "hands on" stuff because I was so used to being "hands off." I had to do a lot of thinking about the kind of teacher I wanted to be, what I believed writing to be, how I thought it was best taught, and how my classroom reflected my ever-changing pedagogy.
And now I'm back to consulting. So, after working so hard to become comfortable in my new role as a teacher, how do I again become comfortable as a consultant? I don't know if I have all the answers yet as I've only been back for 2 weeks, but I think that weekly reflections will be really important for me. Stay tuned...
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
first session as wc client
today i had my first session as a client at the writing center. i worked with natalie b. on a long poem that i have been working on for my advanced poetry class, eng 429.
when i brought it in, the poem was fairly successful, but i felt that it needed some unification of imagery and symbolism, and some minor editing/word changes.
natalie really helped me out. we read the poem, talked about how the different elements were working, and tried to iron things out. we used different highlighters to isolate the different symbols so that i could see how they were interacting, and then we talked about how i could tie them together more, and the different connotations they give off.
i was very satisfied at the end of the session that i had a good direction to go in when i take the poem home to work on it. i've also been very impressed at natalie's skills as a consultant, and i look forward to keep working with her.
when i brought it in, the poem was fairly successful, but i felt that it needed some unification of imagery and symbolism, and some minor editing/word changes.
natalie really helped me out. we read the poem, talked about how the different elements were working, and tried to iron things out. we used different highlighters to isolate the different symbols so that i could see how they were interacting, and then we talked about how i could tie them together more, and the different connotations they give off.
i was very satisfied at the end of the session that i had a good direction to go in when i take the poem home to work on it. i've also been very impressed at natalie's skills as a consultant, and i look forward to keep working with her.
Record of Observations (2G Stuff)
Hey everyone,
Just a quick update on my tutoring experience. I formally completed (no eavesdropping) two of the assigned observations today (just in time), bringing my total up to 2 third-party observations and 1 as a client. I may be responding to 2G a little late, but that's only because I didn't have any worthwhile experiences until today, ha ha.
The first was my third-party in the second hour of day (my head is spinning), with Kassidy as the client (our mutual friend and acquaintance) and Jenny as the consultant. One of the first things I noticed was how quickly Jenny got to work, getting Kassidy to read his papers (two of 'em) out loud. She took notes silently while he read as to not interrupt the flow. She had her own copy, as well, for her personal notes. What struck me about this session was her speed and efficiency in coming up with ways to counter some, what I would assume, common problems that clients bring in. We even had time to go over a second paper that Kass brought in for kicks. One concern: we could have used a thesaurus. A good portion of our involuntary pauses were spent thinking of synonyms.
Later on, I brought in a paper of my own to get a fellow consultant's reaction. Abby was my consultant, who had me go through the basic steps (reading aloud to get a feel for the paper). First impression: I found more awkward wordings in my prose than I would have liked to find. This paper was a summary/reflection on a biography of Martin Heidegger, a early 20th century German philosopher. Not exciting. At all. Abby made it clear that having audience in mind is, of course important (my professor and only my professor, who is an expert on Heidegger), but working under an assumed knowledge of your audience's familiarity with the subject does not avail your paper if you don't explain information that a neophyte would need to know. Basically, I took it for granted (at points) that my audience might not have known what I meant about "biological exclusivism" concerning neo-Kantian Lebensphilosophie. Hell, I don't even know. In my defense, it was written Friday afternoon, long after I gave a care about what went into school that week and mere hours before Precious Weekend Time. In short, that was the most important thing I learned.
Abby's approach to tutoring is quite hands-on; so much so that I wasn't sure (at first) how I'd feel about getting critiqued. Tutoring, it seems, no matter how "peer" oriented it strives to be, still might end up putting the client in a defensive position, especially if the client is as demanding on himself/herself as I am. Thankfully, I didn't care much about this paper, but if I did, I know that Abby would be the one to handle it. One technique of hers that I will soon appropriate concerns the use of extraneous punctuation (like parentheses) and what use -- if any -- these marks lend to the overall flow and composition of the paper.
Her best advice, though, was a kind of informal formula: three aspects of a good sentence, a triad of which I will call "voice", "force" and "point". She felt that the best sentences in the paper kept an appropriate balance of the writer's personal style, biting and directive (and short) language, and a strong sense of what said sentence is trying to accomplish. The weakest focus too much on joking around (somebody? anybody?), or vastly try to overcomplicate the veracity of the phrase's intuitive magnitude by ostentatiously exacerbating the verisimilitude explicitly present. They try too hard. That one part took me 4 minutes to write.
Would I get tutored again? Of course. It's required. But more than that, I learned quite a bit about how our colleagues approach different challenges when it comes to tutoring, and only experience can tell me more about what we as UWC's can do to make things... sound... gooder.
Just a quick update on my tutoring experience. I formally completed (no eavesdropping) two of the assigned observations today (just in time), bringing my total up to 2 third-party observations and 1 as a client. I may be responding to 2G a little late, but that's only because I didn't have any worthwhile experiences until today, ha ha.
The first was my third-party in the second hour of day (my head is spinning), with Kassidy as the client (our mutual friend and acquaintance) and Jenny as the consultant. One of the first things I noticed was how quickly Jenny got to work, getting Kassidy to read his papers (two of 'em) out loud. She took notes silently while he read as to not interrupt the flow. She had her own copy, as well, for her personal notes. What struck me about this session was her speed and efficiency in coming up with ways to counter some, what I would assume, common problems that clients bring in. We even had time to go over a second paper that Kass brought in for kicks. One concern: we could have used a thesaurus. A good portion of our involuntary pauses were spent thinking of synonyms.
Later on, I brought in a paper of my own to get a fellow consultant's reaction. Abby was my consultant, who had me go through the basic steps (reading aloud to get a feel for the paper). First impression: I found more awkward wordings in my prose than I would have liked to find. This paper was a summary/reflection on a biography of Martin Heidegger, a early 20th century German philosopher. Not exciting. At all. Abby made it clear that having audience in mind is, of course important (my professor and only my professor, who is an expert on Heidegger), but working under an assumed knowledge of your audience's familiarity with the subject does not avail your paper if you don't explain information that a neophyte would need to know. Basically, I took it for granted (at points) that my audience might not have known what I meant about "biological exclusivism" concerning neo-Kantian Lebensphilosophie. Hell, I don't even know. In my defense, it was written Friday afternoon, long after I gave a care about what went into school that week and mere hours before Precious Weekend Time. In short, that was the most important thing I learned.
Abby's approach to tutoring is quite hands-on; so much so that I wasn't sure (at first) how I'd feel about getting critiqued. Tutoring, it seems, no matter how "peer" oriented it strives to be, still might end up putting the client in a defensive position, especially if the client is as demanding on himself/herself as I am. Thankfully, I didn't care much about this paper, but if I did, I know that Abby would be the one to handle it. One technique of hers that I will soon appropriate concerns the use of extraneous punctuation (like parentheses) and what use -- if any -- these marks lend to the overall flow and composition of the paper.
Her best advice, though, was a kind of informal formula: three aspects of a good sentence, a triad of which I will call "voice", "force" and "point". She felt that the best sentences in the paper kept an appropriate balance of the writer's personal style, biting and directive (and short) language, and a strong sense of what said sentence is trying to accomplish. The weakest focus too much on joking around (somebody? anybody?), or vastly try to overcomplicate the veracity of the phrase's intuitive magnitude by ostentatiously exacerbating the verisimilitude explicitly present. They try too hard. That one part took me 4 minutes to write.
Would I get tutored again? Of course. It's required. But more than that, I learned quite a bit about how our colleagues approach different challenges when it comes to tutoring, and only experience can tell me more about what we as UWC's can do to make things... sound... gooder.
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Writing Center Miscellany
Hey all,
I just thought I'd share some thoughts of mine on WC stuff that we haven't really touched on yet (mostly because I don't want to repeating anything we said in class... seems to be a running theme for me today, ha ha).
Yesterday (Monday) was an interesting day for me. I work from 9 'til noon on Monday mornings, and I fully expected to get in a few observations in. Murphy's Law, however, was in full effect (look it up). I was informed early on that my duties included my first receptionist shift at 11. Now for anyone that hasn't worked as a receptionist yet, let me spoil it for you now: it ain't that difficult. You just need to get used to it. Granted, I'm still not sure how to work the phone yet (I get the feeling I'd disconnect anyone on line 2 or up), but it can't be that bad in the long run.
Of course, my plans were also complicated by my first experience with writing center presentations. This one (Peer Editing/Response) was run by Daniel, a GWC, for anyone who hasn't met him yet. Basically, it looks like if you've worked in the center for any amount of time, you'll be expected/coerced/shanghaied into giving these presentations involving all kinds of writing- and writing center-related goodness. Needless to say, it looks like it could get a little boring after a while if it's a common presentation (like I'm sure peer response probably is). Not to disparage their usefulness in defining our mission or anything, but... the students that the professor brought in (for IAH 205, I believe) didn't seem too interested in hearing about a topic they've probably had shoved down their throats since middle school. This one went an hour long, which I assume is common, but if all the aspects of this particular topic would have been explored, as Daniel told me later, it could have easily ran another hour. So I suppose expedience is desirable when it comes to these things.
So, needless to say (saying it anyway), I didn't get any observations in on Monday. Guess that means Wednesday will be pretty busy, ha ha. I know that this stuff is probably old hat for ya'll by now. Does anyone else have any comments on what they've seen in presentations or in general operations of the Bessey Writing Center? I'd also like to know about the library satellite, or any of the others that any of you may have worked at.
Righto, guess that's all.
I just thought I'd share some thoughts of mine on WC stuff that we haven't really touched on yet (mostly because I don't want to repeating anything we said in class... seems to be a running theme for me today, ha ha).
Yesterday (Monday) was an interesting day for me. I work from 9 'til noon on Monday mornings, and I fully expected to get in a few observations in. Murphy's Law, however, was in full effect (look it up). I was informed early on that my duties included my first receptionist shift at 11. Now for anyone that hasn't worked as a receptionist yet, let me spoil it for you now: it ain't that difficult. You just need to get used to it. Granted, I'm still not sure how to work the phone yet (I get the feeling I'd disconnect anyone on line 2 or up), but it can't be that bad in the long run.
Of course, my plans were also complicated by my first experience with writing center presentations. This one (Peer Editing/Response) was run by Daniel, a GWC, for anyone who hasn't met him yet. Basically, it looks like if you've worked in the center for any amount of time, you'll be expected/coerced/shanghaied into giving these presentations involving all kinds of writing- and writing center-related goodness. Needless to say, it looks like it could get a little boring after a while if it's a common presentation (like I'm sure peer response probably is). Not to disparage their usefulness in defining our mission or anything, but... the students that the professor brought in (for IAH 205, I believe) didn't seem too interested in hearing about a topic they've probably had shoved down their throats since middle school. This one went an hour long, which I assume is common, but if all the aspects of this particular topic would have been explored, as Daniel told me later, it could have easily ran another hour. So I suppose expedience is desirable when it comes to these things.
So, needless to say (saying it anyway), I didn't get any observations in on Monday. Guess that means Wednesday will be pretty busy, ha ha. I know that this stuff is probably old hat for ya'll by now. Does anyone else have any comments on what they've seen in presentations or in general operations of the Bessey Writing Center? I'd also like to know about the library satellite, or any of the others that any of you may have worked at.
Righto, guess that's all.
Sunday, January 27, 2008
observation for 1/23
i did my first observations for the wc on wednesday the 23rd, with natalie bainter. overall it was a very positive experience, and i was glad that she let me contribute to her discussions with her clients.
natalie's first client was a freshman living in south complex that was working on her wra memoir. she had a rough draft prepared, and came in wanting help with the creative process of writing a memoir, as the draft she brought in was more of a paper than a work of creative nonfiction. natalie did a good job helping her find areas where she could "show instead of tell" how she felt about things, and left most of the grammatical/spelling issues to the client to sort out, as she was obviously capable. natalie also asked my opinion on a few sections, which i gladly gave.
the second client was an international student from korea who was working on a very short paper for his wra class introducing himself. here natalie focused a lot more on his grammar and sentence construction/word usage, as he had trouble correctly expressing many of his sentences. he was a bit shy, and i think natalie did a very good job encouraging him to express himself and gently showing him how to correct his mistakes.
all in all, it was a good experience. both clients walked away very pleased with natalie, and i got to see her help two very different clients, and was able to get a little of my own input in.
natalie's first client was a freshman living in south complex that was working on her wra memoir. she had a rough draft prepared, and came in wanting help with the creative process of writing a memoir, as the draft she brought in was more of a paper than a work of creative nonfiction. natalie did a good job helping her find areas where she could "show instead of tell" how she felt about things, and left most of the grammatical/spelling issues to the client to sort out, as she was obviously capable. natalie also asked my opinion on a few sections, which i gladly gave.
the second client was an international student from korea who was working on a very short paper for his wra class introducing himself. here natalie focused a lot more on his grammar and sentence construction/word usage, as he had trouble correctly expressing many of his sentences. he was a bit shy, and i think natalie did a very good job encouraging him to express himself and gently showing him how to correct his mistakes.
all in all, it was a good experience. both clients walked away very pleased with natalie, and i got to see her help two very different clients, and was able to get a little of my own input in.
Thursday, January 24, 2008
Observation 1/24
I had the opportunity to observe a consultation for a PhD dissertation grant. I now share a similar experience with David, as the client was one the which he had previously mentioned in class.
I initially thought that it would be an overwhelming meeting, as I am only a sophomore undergrad and one of my first experiences in a consultation. However, I have come to the conclusion that writing is writing no matter what age you are or qualifications you have. This particular client was so considerate and caring that she even asked me how I was doing during the consultation. What a huge reversal in how the relationship would be normally be oriented! I should have been asking her that question! This consultation has definitely helped calm any fears of future appointments, especially those with students that have earned higher credentials than I.
I initially thought that it would be an overwhelming meeting, as I am only a sophomore undergrad and one of my first experiences in a consultation. However, I have come to the conclusion that writing is writing no matter what age you are or qualifications you have. This particular client was so considerate and caring that she even asked me how I was doing during the consultation. What a huge reversal in how the relationship would be normally be oriented! I should have been asking her that question! This consultation has definitely helped calm any fears of future appointments, especially those with students that have earned higher credentials than I.
Class 01/24/08
Minimalist tutoring: Making the Student Do All the Work.
I liked our debate in today's class.
I forgot to point this out in class.
“While student writings are texts, they are unlike other texts in one important way: the process is far more important than the product. Most "real world” writing has a goal beyond than the page; anything that can be done to that writing to make it more effective ought to be done. Student writing, on the other hand, has no real goal beyond getting it on the page. In the real world when you need to have something important written “perfectly.” You hire a professional writer; when a student hires a professional writer, it is a high crime called plagiarism."
I liked our debate in today's class.
I forgot to point this out in class.
“While student writings are texts, they are unlike other texts in one important way: the process is far more important than the product. Most "real world” writing has a goal beyond than the page; anything that can be done to that writing to make it more effective ought to be done. Student writing, on the other hand, has no real goal beyond getting it on the page. In the real world when you need to have something important written “perfectly.” You hire a professional writer; when a student hires a professional writer, it is a high crime called plagiarism."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)