The session I observed today was with an ESL student. The first thing the consultant asked was, "What are we looking at?" The student said she wanted help mostly with grammar, and the consultant then laid out the "map" they were going to follow in the session: they would read through the paper and catch mistakes as they went, then look at the paper overall, and then touch on anything leftover at the end. The consultant gave a good amount of control to the student too--he said that he could read the paper aloud if she preferred (which she did), and that if she wanted, he could make a copy of her paper so they could both work with one.
As they went through, it seemed to me that the consultant would make the changes he saw (in pencil) and then ask if it was okay. In areas like grammar I highly doubt the student was going to tell him not to make the changes, but in a way I saw this as taking too much control since he didn't step back and explain to her why her word choice or sentence structure was awkward.
Also, as I tried to follow their progress in the paper (I was looking at it upside-down), I noticed an MLA citation mistake the student made consistently but that the consultant hadn't mentioned to her, even though he corrected another similar formatting mistake. For a while I wasn't sure what to do. It felt like I would be overstepping my bounds if I suddenly jumped in and pointed out something the other tutor had missed, and at the same time I didn't want the student to feel like the two of us were "ganging up" on her and pointing out weaknesses in her paper. I eventually did say something since I know how picky teachers can be about formatting, and the consultant and client didn't seem to mind at all.
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
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.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Writing Center Strategies
From our discussions in class I feel like there are two views when it comes to the Writing Center. The minimalist view and a direct teaching approach. In the sessions that I have sat in on as well as co-lead we have used both. Having used both I am torn to which was more effective.
First the minimalist view. I feel by leading questions that some knowledge was gained. But I also feel that many times the clients just shot off so many answers that eventually they got the one that we were looking for. In some cases I doubt that they learned the skill that we were trying to communicate, though they said several times that they did.
In the second more direct approach, when all else failed we gave an answer that we thought appropriate. This seemed to please both us and the client as we thought we taught them something valuable and they thinking they have done better for it. And that could very well be the case, but still part of me wonders if we did the right thing.
So far throughout all most of my sessions there is this nagging feeling that learning isn't always happening and that people come for the quick fix, though maybe through time I will come to realize different.
I guess the moral of my story is that when it comes to approaches of helping at the Writing Center there is always a little part of me that thinks that something isn't go as well as it could. Hopefully overtime I well get a better feel for the Center and be more comfortable in my tutoring.
What I'm Thinking
For me, reading Shamoon and Burns was almost relieving. Brooks' article, in addition to the others we've read so far, all strongly advocate what Brooks calls "minimalist" tutoring, and though I had already seen some writing consultants deviating somewhat from the proposed methods we had been reading, it seemed like what they were doing might be incorrect somehow, even if it seemed appropriate for the session and the client. Though none of the sessions I observed, directly or indirectly, went nearly as far as the "authoritative" methods described in Shamoon and Burns, there was more direct involvement in the writing by the tutor than I had expected from merely doing the readings. I was glad to read and realize that completely hands-off methods are not always the only or best way to do things. As I understand it, taking a backseat is still the common way to handle things (and perhaps the better way for many students), but direct involvement with the material at hand can sometimes be the most beneficial. As we discussed in class, it seems that more often than not this would be the case with ESL students, who may not be helped at all by open-ended questions. As with Shamoon and Burns' example of the woman writing her Master's thesis, some people may also just need to be shown how best to achieve a certain style or tone in their writing in order to really learn something about their writing, in which case a more authoritative approach is appropriate. Although I was connecting this kind of tutoring with more advanced writers who are perhaps working with an unfamiliar genre, I witnessed this with a beginning writer during one of my shadowing sessions. The client had little idea of how to format an expositional piece and showed no recognition when the consultant mentioned "thesis" and "topic sentences." The consultant wrote a few examples (vague of course, since she was not familiar with the story the client was writing about). By the time the session was over, the client left with a short list of notes and examples from the consultant and seemed to now understand what his teacher was expecting of him and how to write it. The tutoring style in this case would not have fit into the "minimalist" category but seemed better suited to the confused freshman writer.
Bruffee's and Lunsford's articles also provided a lot of food for thought. True collaborative learning doesn't seem to be much utilized in classrooms of today, though when we first began discussing it in class I immediately thought of Monday, when we worked in groups to establish some sort of continuum for types of tutoring. The discussion that my three group members and myself had was a pooling of opinions that broadened each of our ideas about types of tutoring and how and when each may or may not be effective. To me, this seems like an instance of collaborative learning that actually occurs fairly often, at least in 395. I think that group work often devolves into one large, segmented final product (especially in high school), meant by the teacher to get people to work together. However, after a division of labor, there is often little collaboration, let alone collaborative learning, between the groups members. This kind of group work occurs in college as well, but I think there are more genuine oppotunities for students to learn from each other. I am not particularly sure how to apply this idea of collaborative learning to writing center practice though. To a degree, I think collaborative learning in the writing center exists, but I am not sure if there is a more active way to pursue it as a goal in this setting.
Bruffee's and Lunsford's articles also provided a lot of food for thought. True collaborative learning doesn't seem to be much utilized in classrooms of today, though when we first began discussing it in class I immediately thought of Monday, when we worked in groups to establish some sort of continuum for types of tutoring. The discussion that my three group members and myself had was a pooling of opinions that broadened each of our ideas about types of tutoring and how and when each may or may not be effective. To me, this seems like an instance of collaborative learning that actually occurs fairly often, at least in 395. I think that group work often devolves into one large, segmented final product (especially in high school), meant by the teacher to get people to work together. However, after a division of labor, there is often little collaboration, let alone collaborative learning, between the groups members. This kind of group work occurs in college as well, but I think there are more genuine oppotunities for students to learn from each other. I am not particularly sure how to apply this idea of collaborative learning to writing center practice though. To a degree, I think collaborative learning in the writing center exists, but I am not sure if there is a more active way to pursue it as a goal in this setting.
First WC Observation (9.9.08)
My first observation was with a graduate student session, with both the student and the tutor in grad school. The student, who I will call Christina, had a business-like manner about her. She asked the tutor direct questions about her paper about grammatical issues. In other words, she had come prepared. She had basic concerns: sentence structure, organization, typos, and APA citations. Christina asked the tutor if he was an expert on APA citations. He replied, “Not personally, but we do have handbooks here to help you out.” It was great; he implied that he had used it before, but was by no means the expert in the situation. Together, they were students in search of the answers.
They went through the standard requirements of the average session: she’d been there before, read her paper, and corrected many grammatical mistakes on her own. Every now and then she would peer intently at her page, and ask the tutor if what she had written down sounded correct. After she fixed the basic errors (by herself), she came to the conclusion that one of her sentences sounded weird. The tutor simply asked “What about the sentence sounds weird?” They figured out the cause together. I really liked the tutor I observed because he gave his opinion when asked, and analyzed sentences to find the grammar problems she knew existed, but couldn’t identify.
Another crucial bit of dialogue I found helpful was when she asked if a sentence made sense. He replied, “Let me read it for you, so you can hear it…” This helped tremendously, because it’s one thing to read your own paper out loud, but a completely different concept to hear someone else read it to you.
The tutor pulled the APA citation book out at the end of the session, and thumbed through the index. The student laughed to herself, and told him that she owned the book he was searching through!
They went through the standard requirements of the average session: she’d been there before, read her paper, and corrected many grammatical mistakes on her own. Every now and then she would peer intently at her page, and ask the tutor if what she had written down sounded correct. After she fixed the basic errors (by herself), she came to the conclusion that one of her sentences sounded weird. The tutor simply asked “What about the sentence sounds weird?” They figured out the cause together. I really liked the tutor I observed because he gave his opinion when asked, and analyzed sentences to find the grammar problems she knew existed, but couldn’t identify.
Another crucial bit of dialogue I found helpful was when she asked if a sentence made sense. He replied, “Let me read it for you, so you can hear it…” This helped tremendously, because it’s one thing to read your own paper out loud, but a completely different concept to hear someone else read it to you.
The tutor pulled the APA citation book out at the end of the session, and thumbed through the index. The student laughed to herself, and told him that she owned the book he was searching through!
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)