After discussing our readings from the past week the two that spoke to me the most are the ones by Brook and Shamoon and Burns. Both of these articles talk about the different approaches a writing consultant may take and the positives and negatives of each approach. I also felt more of a connection to these articles after participating at the center as a client and was able to determine what it feels like to be consulted with and how it seems different approaches can affect the writer.
I like the idea of there being a spectrum of writing consultant approaches. On one side of the spectrum the consultant is completely hands-off, the session is student motivated, and the consultant does not even hold a pen. On the far opposite side the consultant is completely hands-on, the student has no input and may not even be present, and the consultant uses a red pen, if not a typewriter.
On the hands-off side the consultant allows the writer to guide the session by choosing what to focus on, where the conversation should go, and what areas they feel they need help in. The consultant only provides his or her opinion and does not write anything on the paper.
On the hands-on side the consultant competely controls the session. If the writier is present their opinions do not matter, or are not voiced. The consultant re-writes, re-structures, and re-does as much of the paper as they see fit. Esentially the writer gives the paper over to the consultant so that the consultant may reform the paper so that it is fit in their own eyes. This approach takes a lot of individualism away from the writers paper and seems like it would allianate the writer from their own work.
It seems as though the hands-off approach is most helpful to less experienced writers, even though it may seem like the opposite. A young writer needs to grow into their own voice and gain confidence. Having an honest discussion with a consultant and forming their own ideas while discussing the material will allow the writer to learn and improove their process. Allowing the writer to learn through this approach will allow them to have a more organic experience and they will be able to use the information that they gain in the session as they write again in the future.
The hands-on appoach seems to work best with writers who already have an established voice and sense of confidense. This approach works well when students are writing in a specific form, such as PHD thesis writing, that they generally have not and will not continue to write in. When it seems like it is a one time type of situation the student does not have value in or the time to re-learn their writing style.
It seems to me that the best and most effective approach for our writing center is somewhere between one third and one half of the way between hands-off and hands-on. Most of our clients are undergraduate students who are still striving to develop their own sense of voice and confidence, and this is something that needs to be encouraged, not stiffled. The session should be generally run by the writer with the consultant providing their own opinions, where appropriate. The consultant should feel comfortable to point out areas of surface concerns (grammer, spelling...), and offer options to a solution but the consultant should not actually solve the issue. The consultant should not correct anything on a students paper, but markings that reveal specific areas of concern seem like they would be helpful. Finding the correct mix between a hands-on and a hands-off approach will be the job of each consultant, but finding and correctly applying the proper mix is what will make a session helpful or not to the writing clients.
Friday, September 12, 2008
WC Observation #1: Client
I attended the writing center once, as a freshman. The center was recomended to me by my English professor and I brought a paper in that I was working on for his class. So I have experienced being a client to the center before this visit. That being said I thought I knew what to expect. This visit turned out to be quite a bit different from the fist time I went. For starters I was very nervous this time. Not only am I an upper level English major (so I should know how to write well) but I am also in training to be a consultant at the center (so I should really know how to write well). I do not mean this to sound like I don't believe my writing can improve, of course it can, but I was nervous that people would have expectations for me that I would not meet. Also, the only writing that I have been working on this semester is a "Dear Parents" letter for an education course, where I layed out my reasons for being a teacher and the goals and expectations I have my theoretical classroom. Needless to say I felt very self-conscious, and felt that the writing I had brought in was extremely personal and it made me feel very vulnerable.
After reading through my paper with my consultant she pointed out a few aspects of my piece that she paticularly liked. I believe she was telling the truth, but I also know that complimenting at least one aspect of every paper that you read is a goal of a WC consultant. Never the less, recieving this compliment really did boost my self esteem and allowed me to relaxe and loosen up a little. The session did not last too long becuase I had brought in a short piece, and I admit that I did my best to have it pretty well polished before bringing it in. However, I was still very observant of the approach and process that my consultant took. I was suprised at how authoritative her approach seemed. By that I mean that I was suprised at how many surface and grammatical points that she brought up. There were no large structure mistakes or glaring comma mis-use, but there were a few areas that she suggested I restructure or reword because of repetitive sentence structures and complicated wordiness. Although she pointed these areas out, she did not tell me how to fix them or what I should say instead, but simply located areas of possible revisment for me. I found this very helpfull.
Her approach was certainly not too authoritarian. I also felt like I was in controll of the session the entire time, as far as what we focused on and how long we stayed on one specific area. After walking away from the session I felt that she had found the appropriate mix of hands-on and hands-off consulting. She located areas of concern, but did not correct them. She provided guidense in my writing, but allowed me to guide the sessiong. And, she provided the perfect and appropriate amount of hands-on consulting.
After reading through my paper with my consultant she pointed out a few aspects of my piece that she paticularly liked. I believe she was telling the truth, but I also know that complimenting at least one aspect of every paper that you read is a goal of a WC consultant. Never the less, recieving this compliment really did boost my self esteem and allowed me to relaxe and loosen up a little. The session did not last too long becuase I had brought in a short piece, and I admit that I did my best to have it pretty well polished before bringing it in. However, I was still very observant of the approach and process that my consultant took. I was suprised at how authoritative her approach seemed. By that I mean that I was suprised at how many surface and grammatical points that she brought up. There were no large structure mistakes or glaring comma mis-use, but there were a few areas that she suggested I restructure or reword because of repetitive sentence structures and complicated wordiness. Although she pointed these areas out, she did not tell me how to fix them or what I should say instead, but simply located areas of possible revisment for me. I found this very helpfull.
Her approach was certainly not too authoritarian. I also felt like I was in controll of the session the entire time, as far as what we focused on and how long we stayed on one specific area. After walking away from the session I felt that she had found the appropriate mix of hands-on and hands-off consulting. She located areas of concern, but did not correct them. She provided guidense in my writing, but allowed me to guide the sessiong. And, she provided the perfect and appropriate amount of hands-on consulting.
Thursday, September 11, 2008
observation sessions
I observed two sessions in the past two days and both consultants used some very different methods and also a few that coincided. But on a different note, both sessions involved tutoring international students which to me is a really big responsibility. For me it seems like a really tough task to tutor someone who comes from a completely different background and I may not always fully understand what the tutor is saying. It turns out that in each session the tutors were able to connect well with the students and help them effectively. I hope that once I become a tutor I will be confident enough to cross that slight barrier and have a successful session with the student.
Now on with the bigger picture. In the first session the tutor asked the student to read her paper aloud paragraph by paragraph, pausing after each one to discuss ideas and problems. This seemed to be very helpful, they were able to discuss the content of each paragraph and how it connects to the focus of her assignment. The tutor always started with a compliment and then mentioned any confusion or mechanical errors in the paragraph. I thought that the support before the criticism was a very nice way of getting things started. The tutor used guiding question to try and help the student see why a sentence didn't make sense or did not connect to the rest of the paragraph. When it came to grammar mistakes, he would point out one and tell her to check the paper for other such mistakes. There was slight trouble with letting the student know what he wanted sometimes, because she didn't understand what he was suggesting. This would often lead to the tutor having to spell out what he thought the student should do, but he would always offer multiple ways to solve the problem so that she could make up her own mind about what she wanted to put in the paper. When the session was over he pointed out all of the good things about her paper and reminded her about any of the major things they had discussed.
In the second session I observed the tutor read the paper aloud because the student said she did not feel comfortable reading it aloud herself. I felt that this was a major loss because when the student reads her own paper she can catch her own grammatical errors or change the wording of sentences while she reads without the tutor having to mention it. Also the tutor read the whole paper at one time. This was beneficial because you could tell if the paper as a whole answered the assignments question. At the same time, I found that I preferred going section by section because that way you don't forget anything you want to tell the student about that certain section. During the session there were certain parts of the students paper that were not cohesive or just plain did not fit. This would not have been a problem except that the student was unable to explain what she was trying to say so that the tutor could figure out why she was confused. This led to the tutor not being able to fully help the student figure out what was wrong and how to fix it.
The similarities between the two sessions were that both tutors started with compliments and then moved into critiquing. They both asked the student if he was comfortable reading his paper aloud or if he would prefer for the tutor to read it aloud. They both concluded their sessions by reiterating the main discoveries during the session and told the student the better parts of her essay.
I found having these two very different sessions to be very helpful in letting me know what kind of tutoring techniques I want to develop and what kind of problems I might encounter when trying to help international students.
Now on with the bigger picture. In the first session the tutor asked the student to read her paper aloud paragraph by paragraph, pausing after each one to discuss ideas and problems. This seemed to be very helpful, they were able to discuss the content of each paragraph and how it connects to the focus of her assignment. The tutor always started with a compliment and then mentioned any confusion or mechanical errors in the paragraph. I thought that the support before the criticism was a very nice way of getting things started. The tutor used guiding question to try and help the student see why a sentence didn't make sense or did not connect to the rest of the paragraph. When it came to grammar mistakes, he would point out one and tell her to check the paper for other such mistakes. There was slight trouble with letting the student know what he wanted sometimes, because she didn't understand what he was suggesting. This would often lead to the tutor having to spell out what he thought the student should do, but he would always offer multiple ways to solve the problem so that she could make up her own mind about what she wanted to put in the paper. When the session was over he pointed out all of the good things about her paper and reminded her about any of the major things they had discussed.
In the second session I observed the tutor read the paper aloud because the student said she did not feel comfortable reading it aloud herself. I felt that this was a major loss because when the student reads her own paper she can catch her own grammatical errors or change the wording of sentences while she reads without the tutor having to mention it. Also the tutor read the whole paper at one time. This was beneficial because you could tell if the paper as a whole answered the assignments question. At the same time, I found that I preferred going section by section because that way you don't forget anything you want to tell the student about that certain section. During the session there were certain parts of the students paper that were not cohesive or just plain did not fit. This would not have been a problem except that the student was unable to explain what she was trying to say so that the tutor could figure out why she was confused. This led to the tutor not being able to fully help the student figure out what was wrong and how to fix it.
The similarities between the two sessions were that both tutors started with compliments and then moved into critiquing. They both asked the student if he was comfortable reading his paper aloud or if he would prefer for the tutor to read it aloud. They both concluded their sessions by reiterating the main discoveries during the session and told the student the better parts of her essay.
I found having these two very different sessions to be very helpful in letting me know what kind of tutoring techniques I want to develop and what kind of problems I might encounter when trying to help international students.
Shadowing at the Center, Round 2
My second shadowing session served to do two things to my psyche - it got me very excited about what the center does and what I will eventually be able to do, and it terrified me; how will I ever be as good at this as this consultant was?! But now I'll go to the beginning...
While the consultant was making copies, I asked the student how she came to be at the writing center. She said she was a freshman and that her professor had told her class about the Center, telling them to seek its services if they needed them. I soon found that the student was quite an avid writer, and so I was pleasantly surprised that she'd utilized her resources so soon in her college career. When the consultant returned, she explained some basic procedure to the student since it was her first time there, and made sure she was comfortable before proceeding. After having the student read aloud, she was quick to ask what the student wanted out of the session, how she felt about what she had completed, and how she felt about the edits she'd already made on her own. She was always sure to do what the student wanted and didn't force any ideas or paper-developing tactics on her.
One thing that really stood out was that this consultant was constantly saying what she liked about the piece and giving really genuine compliments. Instead of focusing on how to fix things that were wrong, she focused on expanding and elaborating on the ideas that were already good. The student's main concern was expanding her piece, she just didn't know how to go about doing that. The consultant had no trouble finding great beginnings of ideas to expand and really made the student feel good about her writing. She asked a lot of guiding questions like, "how do you want the reader to feel?" "how do you want to wrap this up?" and "how can we incorporate YOU into this to make it stand out?" She was always checking to make sure the student was comfortable with everything, and even introduced some "writing jargon" like scene and exposition to help the student think about her work academically. When the session wrapped, I just asked the consultant how she got so good at what she did, and she was very kind in reassuring me that after some practice, I'll be just as confident and helpful. She even shared her own "crash and burn" story, which put me at ease as well - not that she crashed and burned, but that no one is perfect and no one is expecting perfection.
While the consultant was making copies, I asked the student how she came to be at the writing center. She said she was a freshman and that her professor had told her class about the Center, telling them to seek its services if they needed them. I soon found that the student was quite an avid writer, and so I was pleasantly surprised that she'd utilized her resources so soon in her college career. When the consultant returned, she explained some basic procedure to the student since it was her first time there, and made sure she was comfortable before proceeding. After having the student read aloud, she was quick to ask what the student wanted out of the session, how she felt about what she had completed, and how she felt about the edits she'd already made on her own. She was always sure to do what the student wanted and didn't force any ideas or paper-developing tactics on her.
One thing that really stood out was that this consultant was constantly saying what she liked about the piece and giving really genuine compliments. Instead of focusing on how to fix things that were wrong, she focused on expanding and elaborating on the ideas that were already good. The student's main concern was expanding her piece, she just didn't know how to go about doing that. The consultant had no trouble finding great beginnings of ideas to expand and really made the student feel good about her writing. She asked a lot of guiding questions like, "how do you want the reader to feel?" "how do you want to wrap this up?" and "how can we incorporate YOU into this to make it stand out?" She was always checking to make sure the student was comfortable with everything, and even introduced some "writing jargon" like scene and exposition to help the student think about her work academically. When the session wrapped, I just asked the consultant how she got so good at what she did, and she was very kind in reassuring me that after some practice, I'll be just as confident and helpful. She even shared her own "crash and burn" story, which put me at ease as well - not that she crashed and burned, but that no one is perfect and no one is expecting perfection.
Shadowing at the Center, Round 1
I was pretty apprehensive to shadow my first session, but the consultant quickly made me feel at home. Luckily, the client was nice enough to let two of us watch his session, something I'd have been apprehensive to do! As is procedure, the consultant began by having the client read what he had - I gathered that this was the second session he'd had on this project; the first was brainstorming and now he had the first small part done and was ready for some more input on how to make the paper come together. The consultant was very much a facilitator of ideas - he talked about the subject matter with the student, helping the student to clarify and determine his own view that he could then put on paper. There was no editing or directive "fixing" involved.
The consultant said things like, "Why did you choose this word," "have you thought about approaching it from this way?" "you raise this issue, are you prepared to address it?" and other helpful guiding questions. He helped the student navigate the professor's assignment sheet and sample essay, explaining how to conform to what the professor wanted while still making the piece his own. The consultant also helped with the structure, something the student was struggling with. He drew out sample structures and helped the student see how to relate different parts of the paper. At the close of the session, he asked the student what his next steps were going to be, what he was going to do when he went home, which I thought was a really great way to conclude and help draw everything together. Overall, the consultant/student relationship was very relaxed, which I think really helped facilitate the creation of ideas and learning. The experience definitely helped put me more at ease.
The consultant said things like, "Why did you choose this word," "have you thought about approaching it from this way?" "you raise this issue, are you prepared to address it?" and other helpful guiding questions. He helped the student navigate the professor's assignment sheet and sample essay, explaining how to conform to what the professor wanted while still making the piece his own. The consultant also helped with the structure, something the student was struggling with. He drew out sample structures and helped the student see how to relate different parts of the paper. At the close of the session, he asked the student what his next steps were going to be, what he was going to do when he went home, which I thought was a really great way to conclude and help draw everything together. Overall, the consultant/student relationship was very relaxed, which I think really helped facilitate the creation of ideas and learning. The experience definitely helped put me more at ease.
Reflecting on readings
So, I'm going to be honest, I lost track of Bruffee and Lunsford a little bit. I am pretty confident that I still walked away with a grasp of their main points, but I had trouble focusing in on exactly how their points were relevant to me and the Writing Center. Unless I'm totally in another world, their main points were about collaborative learning and how essential it is in today's collegiate world. I totally agree... I can think of few better ways to learn than bouncing ideas off peers and hearing their interpretations on a topic. Often, if there's a concept in a class that I just can't seem to grasp, the problem is often solved by discussing it with my peers, and hearing a fresh take on it other than the professor's. Also, I know the articles were a bit outdated, and I think that today, my overall educational experience is evidence that collaborative learning is increasingly playing quite a role in education. I can think of more classes that HAVE attempted to utilize collaborative learning than classes that haven't. But this could also be a result of the types of courses that I'm taking.
So I guess this is one of the points that got a bit fuzzy for me... I think of collaborative learning as working with peers, or really working with anybody, to combine your ideas in a way that enables everyone involved to learn and benefit from the group work. Is collaborative learning something more, or different, according to Bruffee and/or Lunsford? I'm not sure... The other point that got fuzzy, that I thought Lunsford would clear up but didn't entirely, is how does this relate directly to the Writing Center? Obviously collaborative learning is what the Center is all about, but I didn't really get what Lunsford was saying, specifically... she introduced the idea of a power dynamic, but I didn't feel like that issue was ever resolved. Is there a power dynamic in the ideal center, or is it essential that everyone is on equal footing, and is that even possible? I'll wrap up here... sorry about the rambling, and I hope I haven't made myself sound oblivious by missing some really obvious point.
So I guess this is one of the points that got a bit fuzzy for me... I think of collaborative learning as working with peers, or really working with anybody, to combine your ideas in a way that enables everyone involved to learn and benefit from the group work. Is collaborative learning something more, or different, according to Bruffee and/or Lunsford? I'm not sure... The other point that got fuzzy, that I thought Lunsford would clear up but didn't entirely, is how does this relate directly to the Writing Center? Obviously collaborative learning is what the Center is all about, but I didn't really get what Lunsford was saying, specifically... she introduced the idea of a power dynamic, but I didn't feel like that issue was ever resolved. Is there a power dynamic in the ideal center, or is it essential that everyone is on equal footing, and is that even possible? I'll wrap up here... sorry about the rambling, and I hope I haven't made myself sound oblivious by missing some really obvious point.
Field Observations #1
When I first walked into the Writing Center to do my first job shadowing I was a little nervous and all I had to do was watch.
The first thing we did was introduce ourselves and try and make the client feel comfortable. We then made copies of the work and had the client read the paper aloud find areas that could be more clear.
My consultant used leading questions to have the client search out the answers and when needed talk a little bit of a direct approach when needed.
We also had to a little bit of brainstorming on the thesis to make it correlate with the paper, so that the overall flow was smoother.
My overall experience was that the Writing Center is a place where students can come and get constructive help. The student left happy and I felt better because I now knew better how a session at the Writing Center was conducted.
The first thing we did was introduce ourselves and try and make the client feel comfortable. We then made copies of the work and had the client read the paper aloud find areas that could be more clear.
My consultant used leading questions to have the client search out the answers and when needed talk a little bit of a direct approach when needed.
We also had to a little bit of brainstorming on the thesis to make it correlate with the paper, so that the overall flow was smoother.
My overall experience was that the Writing Center is a place where students can come and get constructive help. The student left happy and I felt better because I now knew better how a session at the Writing Center was conducted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)