Observations 1 and 2 and First session as client

(Sorry this has taken so long Trixie, I've had the notes forever, but God help me, I'm the laziest person in the world)

Observation 1

This was my first ever observation and it was, not surprisingly, dealing with an ESL student. This was the first time I witnessed the conflict between the mantra that "we make better writers, not better papers" and the reality of dealing with ESL students that often request a more authoritarian tutoring.

The session was relatively simple, though the assignment was quite strange. The young woman was required to write about herself but do so by hand and on a single sheet of paper. Regardless, she requested help with her grammar. The tutor, despite what I had learned up to that time, took control of the writing and dealt directly with the grammar. While this isn't exactly what we are taught to do, I do not think this was necessarily the worst thing that could have been done. At each point the tutor described exactly why the grammar was incorrect, and made certain that the client understood why the changes were being made. While that may not have been the best approach, I think it could have been much worse.

Observation 2

The second session I observed was a bit more complicated, and much more interesting. Although he was an ESL student, he came in desiring help with higher order concerns. It was a strange session for me because the previous session I had observed dealt entirely with grammar and the meaning was difficult to ascertain. Here though, it was strange, because I understood completely what the writer was saying. His paper was set up perfectly as far as logical flow is concerned. Despite some grammar issues, I knew what he was writing about and what his argument was.

Again, what he truly needed help with was his grammar. Unfortunately the only way to teach him was by walking him through his paper and helping him come up with different ways of saying things. Ultimately, when this is required, it isn't a satisfying session. It is more enjoyable, I think, to help clients with their higher order concerns and it feels great when you are able to tell them, as the tutor was with this client, that their paper is logical and flows well.

Client Session

My session as a client offered a difficulty that I've faced a few times in my own sessions. That is, understanding what the writer is talking about. By that I mean the actual subject of the paper. My paper was about the French Revolution and was only a few pages long. The difficulty was that intended audience. The majority of papers by undergraduates in college are written for a generic audience who doesn't know a great deal about the subject. My Professor instructed me to write this paper to him, rather than an uninformed audience. We were to assume that the reader was already knowledgeable of the French Revolution.

I think this made it difficult for my tutor to deal with my paper at first. However, I think this was ultimately a good thing for the session. Because of this we were able to focus directly on the writing of the paper. Although this is difficult at first because I think we are inclined as tutors to try to get an understanding of the subject before we help consult.

Fox- Listening to the World

Reading the Chapters from Fox has opened my eyes to quite a few things. I was unaware how different writing styles are taught and used across different cultures, especially when comparing an individualistic culture and a collectivist culture. One aspect that really fascinated me was the idea that students from other cultures appear to overgeneralize. They do not seem to understand why they must specifically explain and support their content with details.

To these students, they are simply communicating more subltly and respectively. They do not clearly support their arguments because they may not want to undermind a teachers intelligent. I found this really interesting. It seems the student is assuming a level of intelligence of their audience and feel a need to respect such a position.

I have taken a second language before and found writing simple 1-2 page papers difficult. I struggle with tenses and grammar. I can not fathom how one person could change their entire way of thinking and composing just to please a different audience. One story in Fox's book was about a girl who claimed it didn't feel right to change her words. She felt the more individualized form of writing Americans practice was forced upon her. Think, writing, and composing come so natural to me that I could not understand how to possibly alter it as drastically as it seems these students are asked to do. I am glad to have been given such insight from these students. Being raised from birth in an indvidualistic culture has not taught me to consider these ways of writing.

Tutoring

Turing 4:
In my fourth tutoring session I got a client who came in and said to me "I've been here already and done all that other stuff so now I'm here just for grammar." I tried to kindly explain to him that we don't just do grammar but that I could point out reoccurring problems as we went through the paper while also looking at "the other stuff". He reiterated that he didn't want help with that, he just wanted me to look at his grammar and fix it. That's where I sighed and just started to go through the paper with him. He had this weird thing with putting (his own voice) in a style like that. I pointed out that you could use either a semi-colon or a colon depending on the circumstance. He asked what the difference was between them so on the side of his page I drew a diagram of the different types of punctuation. I only saw about two or three grammar mistakes, it sort of bewildered me that he had come in with this demand for grammar help when he obviously didn't need that much help with it. All he had to do was go through the paper on his own and he probably would have caught those mistakes. It was sort of a tense session and I was relieved when it was over.


Tutoring 5:
In my fifth tutoring session I had a student come in with a research paper. He told me he had spoken with his professor and she had told him that he need to limit the amount of cited facts he was putting into each paragraph. He asked me for advice on what to cut and how to cut out the information without leaving the paragraphs choppy.His paper was on comparing the political careers of our current presidential candidates. When we got to the first paragraph I was fairly alarmed. I started by suggesting that he take out certain unimportant information and also deleting the in depth details that he didn't need and were just adding length to the paragraph not support. Then I started to approach the fact that he didn't really have an argument in the paragraph that he was trying to support. He just had a lot of information about McCain's military career. I asked him what the paragraph was supposed to be arguing and he said he was really just trying to talk about McCain's military experience. I pointed out to him that by doing so he was just retelling fact after fact from whatever website he had gone to and that there was no "him" in the paragraph, he was never pointing out his own interesting view in the paper. We spent twenty minutes trying to figure out a better way to write the first paragraph. After that I tried to just focus on broad ideas that he could use in each of his paragraphs because it was obvious to me that this paper was not at all ready to be turned in. It was all cited facts and no new and interesting view points which are usually what teachers are looking for in a research paper, and according to his assignment sheet this was no exception.

Observation #4

Going through my notes, I found my observations on a session from a month ago. The assignment the student brought in to work on was a “précis,” which the consultant and I were both unfamiliar with. My first reaction to the situation was to be intimidated, but the consultant took it in stride. Fortunately, the student also brought in the assignment sheet, which the consultant used to understand the format. For me, this emphasized the importance of having the actual instructions when trying to interpret the professor’s intent. The consultant then asked the student to explain what he thought the assignment was about. This had several uses. First, the student was forced to think critically about the assignment objectives, clarifying them in his own mind. Second, the consultant gained further insight about the nature of the assignment. Third, the consultant could compare his own interpretation of the instructions with the student’s understanding, and see how closely the two matched up. After this brief discussion, the consultant concluded that a “précis” was essentially a summary, which was a genre he was familiar with. I was impressed with how smoothly he handled himself, rather than panicking, which would have been my initial response. Like any good consultant, he adapted quickly to the situation, doing his best to meet the client’s needs.

Part of the consultant’s strategy involved sticking to broad, conceptual comments, rather than using concrete, specific examples. He advised the student about how best to conform to the genre, based on his own related experiences. Throughout the session, the two of them sat leaning over their copies of the paper, making notes as necessary. I was surprised by the amount of give-and-take in this session, compared to ones I had previously observed. The student didn’t passively accept the consultant’s advice just because he was the “expert.” He actively questioned the consultant’s suggestions, not because he was being contrary, but because he wanted to understand the consultant’s reasoning. The student was invested in making his writing as effective as possible and that came through in his behavior. By the end of the session, the student seemed pleased with the progress that had been made. The consultant explained that sometimes you get sessions like that, where you aren’t familiar with the format. That best you can do is to make use of the resources available in the Writing Center and try to use your own experiences as a guide.

Weekly Reflections

Between our readings this week, the film from class, and the speakers who came to Friday’s staff meeting, the subject of working with ESL students has been on my mind a lot lately. Often when ESL students come to the Writing Center, they want a second set of eyes to look over their writing to spot mechanical errors they have trouble identifying for themselves. When this happens, I have to explain that the Writing Center isn’t simply an editing service. I sometimes feel frustrated by what I perceive as a conflict between the Writing Center’s policy on editing and the very real needs and desires of the students we’re here to help. I know how difficult it can be to examine your own writing in an acquired language to look for grammar problems. I’m glad to know that the ESL Lab exists to provide this kind of assistance for students who need it.

Regarding Lauren’s take on Tony Silva’s statements, I don’t think judging students by what is “good enough” necessarily favors NES students. The definition of what constitutes “enough” would probably be much higher for an NES student that for an ESL student. This system of grading would probably be more lenient for ESL students, but I question whether it would actually help them improve. I think that professors should be understanding of the challenges ESL students face in composing in a foreign language. This might include allowing more time to write on exams, or making time to talk with them about writing assignments. It can even include being less strict about grammatical errors. However, that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t point them out, so that students can learn from their mistakes. I realize that it can be disheartening to see a paper come back dripping with red ink, but if the errors are explained, students can apply those corrections to future assignments. It’s tough, but sometimes that kind of impetus is required to get students to improve. From my own experience in foreign language composition, sometimes it’s impossible to see these issues in your own writing. As long as the professor can see past those surface errors to the message beneath, I don’t think it’s inappropriate for them to comment on issues of grammar, as long as they are doing it to be helpful, not punitive.

Given the rising numbers of international students enrolling each year, I realize that professors don’t have the time to make line-by-line corrections to the papers of every ESL student, and I’m not expecting them to. I believe that instead of simply telling students that their papers have too many grammatical errors, and sending them to us, they should be clearer with students about what these errors are. Particularly in the WRA classes, where writing is the focus of the course, the professors should take the time to provide some guidance in this area.

Writing Across Borders

The film we watched in Wednesday's class was very interesting, but in my sessions with ESL students I can't recall seeing the different structures that many of the international students described. This is probably because the students have already made a shift in their minds to write in the traditional style of an American academic essay. Obviously there are organizational and content issues just like any other writing center client's paper, but I can seem to remember any student whose paper closely resembled a completely different format. Rather, I think their content or style problems almost always came from the obvious fact that they are writing in their second language.

The other think I really liked about the video was the way that its advice was also geared towards professors rather than just writing center consultants. I especially liked Ms. Healey's belief that ESL students should be held to the same standards of meaning as NES students, but not necessarily to the same standards of grammar and mechanics.

Tony Silva's view seemed slightly different when he suggested that professors should ask themselves, "What is good enough?" and to use that benchmark for all students, and I don't know how much I agree with him there. When his idea is used in the ESL vs. NES student writing context, it seems like it would be much easier for NES students to go beyond what is simply "enough," therefore they are more likely to receive higher grades on their assignments.

However, both of these main speakers pointed out that empathy and the ability to think from different perspectives is absolutely necessary to successfully teach ESL students, and I agree that this mindset is crucial for instructors even with NES students, who may come from areas where the school systems did not prepare them well enough for college writing, or those students who grew up speaking a very strong dialect of English. If students feel less pressured to create "perfect" papers that may be beyond their grasp because of grammar and mechanics, then they will come in to the writing center with more HOCs than LOCs, and writing consultants will be able to move beyond the often repetitive and frustrating practice of proofreading.

Blog #6

The readings for Wednesday's class, both the article and the chapter from Ryan's book, focused on how to and how not to handle specific situations as a tutor. The article was specifically focusing on how to handle a situation with an ESL or ELL writer. The article stressed what to mention and what not to mention. It also talked about what aspects of the writing you should focus on and what aspects you should not focus on. The article stressed that in order for an ELL writer to be successful they do not have to write like a ENS would. The article said that minor mistakes are okay and asked the question does it have to grammatically fit into the mold that we have for a proper paper. I find this stance on the issue a little bit frusterating because I feel that an ELL will want there paper to be grammatically perfect and natural sounding because that is what they beleive their instructor will want. I feel that it is far overstepping the boundaries of the tutor to choose not to focus on grammar and other surface issues while working with an ELL writer, unless we are explicetly told not too, because it is the tutor that these ELL writers are turning to for help with the technicalities of the English language. For me it goes back to what we decided earlier this year, which is that the tutor should do his or her best to make the paper as good as it can be in the eyes of the writer. It is situational. If the writer wants to focus on grammar than that is what the tutor should focus on.
The section from Ryan's book was about how to act and how not to act in response to writers anxiety, stress, and other complications. Once again in this situation the tutor must read the writer and be able to responde accordingly. It is situational. Every session will be different and the tutor must responde as they see fit, not according to the perscribed response that they read in a textbook.