Collaborator or Thief: Negotiating intellectual property in writing center sessions

Since taking the graduate seminar course on Writing Center Theory, I haven’t made an appointment with the WC as a client since my undergraduate days. Now, let me tell yawl! I’ve had my share of good/bad session even before coming to work at the writing center, but I believe I had forgotten how valuable and useful the sessions could be. I left this particular session-I will describe-ready to write and eager to move forward with my writing. I was working on a teaching reflection on the irony of teaching standardized English in the land of diversity and overwhelming cross-cultural abundance...

I set up an appointment with a graduate student that I knew, but had never had the opportunity to work with. This consultant was an African American-and yes, I choice him because he was an African American. I also chose this graduate student because I really wanted to share my writing with someone to who had a teaching background and to whom I believed I could be honest with regarding my frustrations in writing this reflection. Does this mean that I choice him because I knew I would have been comfortable discussing the contents of my draft, perhaps?

In the session I talked through my paper (I had one 2 pages and was really hoping to talk things through) I wanted the session to be a conversation, and I made that clear at the beginning of the session, and It was indeed a conversation. We talked about the issues that were surrounding my paper and the consultant gave great input and asked questions that forced me to see my writing objectives clearer. We also came up with some great ideals, I don’t want to go into the paper content in details, however one thing I noticed and I thought-man I wonder if my own consultants feel this way-I noticed that at times I felt like the consultants was talking too much, maybe even veering away from my paper contents-I wondered if this was apart of his own background or understanding of theory and practice, or perhaps the questions I was raising lead him to re-consider the work he was doing…I don’t know I just remember thinking-Man! This is great information, but I’m not sure I’m trying to go that route with my paper and my own research.

Additionally, At one point the consultant outlined an ideal on a the side of my paper, as he wrote it he said: “This is my ideal”, I though his chart was a great way of looking at my paper, but I was so afraid to even listen or look at the chart because I though that he might think that I was going to steal his ideal. At the end of the session he gently pushed the paper with the hand drawn chart and arrows on it near me, I politely looked at him; graduate student-to-graduate student and said, hey no, that’s your ideal-maybe you could use it, it’s a great one! I though to myself-this is an interesting interaction, as a graduate student-I for one have millions of great ideals-just like my peers I’m certain of it…but when do you share those ideals and when do you house them? I didn’t want to take his chart because I felt like it wasn’t mine on, I for damn sure wasn’t’ tryin’ to be an intellectual thief…Interesting I thought.

The Pot Calls the Kettle Black...

As I finished the readings for this week, I couldn't help but notice the repetition of some of the same concerns in comp/rhet that occur in WC work. Of course, I know this is no coincidence, as WCs are the child/adopted child/bastard child/stray cat of composition--and obviously we both deal with student writing, so there are going to be connections. What differs, though, is what I'm trying to cling to--because they are really not the same, again, for obvious reasons. Our main text this week (for those reading who are not in our class) was Nancy Grimm's Good Intentions: Writing Center Work for Postmodern Times. I truly enjoyed this book and found it illuminating, frustrating, helpful, and unhelpful all at once. Page five gives a list of excellent questions that I think every WC should grapple with, questions I intend to bring up in my tutor training sessions. While I think Grimm answers many of these questions, she also created new ones for me.

My biggest question was about her anecdote about "Mary" starting on page 25. For one, I really felt the need to know what the assignment was. How can we understand the inappropriateness of Mary's response if we don't know what she was trying to accomplish? But my questions--or rather, my irritations--about the Mary anecdote didn't end, because Grimm referred back to this situation frequently. And this is what bugged me: whenever Grimm referred to Mary's situation, she made assumptions about her that I felt were biased and prejudiced--the exact opposite of the kind of WC she advocates throughout the entire book. Let me explain:

On page 32, Grimm says that Mary "appears to uncritically accept the wisdom of elders and ... holds some texts holy, appears to be wrong, naive, or at best unenlightened." Why? Because Mary was a devout Christian. Is Grimm saying that people of faith are uneducated? Are the Chinese, who revere the wisdom of their elders and their ancestors, "unenlightened"? Does holding a text as holy make half the population of the world (there are many holy texts) wrong? Doesn't the postmodern notion Grimm advocates reject the dichotomous ideas of right and wrong and encourage embracing difference? There was no evidence in Grimm's tale of Mary that indicated she was naive, wrong, or unenlightened at all. Grimm makes this assumption because (now I'm assuming) she has a bit of a problem with people of faith. Well, I tried to overlook this, because I know that many liberals have problems with fundamental Christianity and think they are all just brainwashed. But on page 49, Grimm says, "We need to learn to live with the paradox that Mary and many other students don't want to be like us..." Who is "us" in this scenario? All WC people? All in academia? All women? And all this because Mary wrote a paper about living under God with her soon-to-be husband? I couldn't get over this and it bothered me through the whole book.

The only reason I think it bothered me so much is that I highly doubt Grimm is aware of her own jaded language in this text, which makes it all the more important. And it illustrates just how difficult it is to adopt the kind of WC that she proposes. Because while Grimm's language concerning Mary was probably not so wisely chosen, the way she proposes working with students we see as being so different is admirable and makes excellent sense. If someone who has thought this through and researched it so much that she writes this excellent book about it can't even overcome her own prejudices, how can our undergrad tutors? I'd love to think that I can get my tutors to adopt this attitude of wonder, but prejudices run very deep.

One other thing I wanted to point out: there were two times that I had questions, explicit questions, that Grimm anticipated and answered. Although I'm still wrestling with her answers, i thought it said a lot about her text that she anticipated these questions. One was on page 97, where she said, "Skeptical readers may ask if writing centers, given that they are often staffed by undergraduates, are up to the transformative tasks I have outlined here." Yep. This (skeptical?) reader was asking just that. I know how difficult this can be for me--and I'm old, a teacher, a mother, have been working class, and (almost!) have a PhD. So my 20-year-old middle-class white tutor is going to be able to do this? Sounds nice. And I know we have to strive for the ideal, even if we don't reach it.

Back to my initial point: what is different between WC issues and comp/rhet? What I noticed most of all today is that WC administrators have to relinquish control, whereas what I learn and struggle with in comp/rhet I can take directly to my classroom and work through myself. In WC work, I have to train others to do this--a much more daunting task. I'm anxious to get working on my tutor training materials!

Mr. & Mrs. Can’t Get Right: A space of becoming white…

I just received my own copy of the “Everyday Writing Center” in the mail and as I placed the book on my bookshelf I considered the ways in which I might revise or utilize my book summary/reader echo. I have begun to think about trust a word that has been present throughout our class considering Trixie’s work with LBGT students. I’ve even asked myself if I trust the writing center? Was it/or is it a safe space for me-and my black body? In “The Everyday Writing Center” the desire to re-negotiate writing center norms and traditions got me to thinking about collaboration, it’s chaos and Lunsford’s notion of it’s “damnable difficultly”. With this I am also considering Mary Pratt’s Arts of the Contact Zone-where she analyzes the presence of the dominant groups influence in an autoethnographic texts-contending that in many ways present in many autoethonographic texts is the theme of marginalized group’s entry into the dominant culture.
Now I will talk about race: So it seems in my experiences as a African American women that I have had to introduce race or apologize for my understanding of races influences in writing-especially when I am the only African American student in the class-with respect to my own research conclusions-when presented in class-as in the past-There seems to be that one white person who empties out the same rebuttal: “but that isn’t about race”…which has altered and complicated my own understanding of academic writing, social conditioning and contact zones.
I’ve come to consider the writing center in such a way, as a space where acculturation or assimilation through writing might occur. I wonder how many African Americans negotiate the “becoming” of their writing identities particularly those who consistently utilize the writing center.
For me, an insider and outsider to the writing center culture. I find the ideals outlined in Melissa Nicolas text to be quite interesting, especially the dialog and research concerning collaboration and negotiating authority. What I wonder or at times seem to see an absence of is voices of African American and Latinos with respect to writing center research. What if we looked at how authority is negotiated in collaboration with consideration of race of cultural differences? What about the lack of representative voices of “others” of whom speak out and speak up in writing center rhetoric?
I ask these questions because I can recall someone who was African American who ranted about how they hated working with ESL students for multiple reasons-I felt were ridiculously stupid…I was token off by the comment as I thought…how can the marginalized marginalize. I refuse to acknowledge a “dominant” voice/writing style because I believe that to say that there is one, admits its rule over me (African American Me)…Ok so although this might be fragmented writing..I do believe I am on to something…

Writing Center Research

We've spent the week reading about and talking about researching in Writing Centers. Funny how this never occurred to me, that people were theorizing about researching WCs too! Why not? They are as rich a place for research as any, and from what we've read, much can be learned by researching WCs. And not just about WCs. While we can research our and others' Writing Centers and find out how well they are working, I think we can also discover many other things as well. Writing Centers are places where the writing process is working out loud, where tutor and student talk through what is going on on the page. So this could be an excellent place to learn more about writing processes. It's also a very social space, and much can be learned about epistemological theories and writing as a communicative practice rather than a solo endeavor. While we didn't really read about using the writing center for research other than for writing center purposes, this was something that came to me as I was reading.

Considering the readings more directly, I thought about (of course) my own little WC and what kinds of research I'd like to conduct. The article by Olsen and Moyer, "Student Centered Research Assessment in the Writing Center," particularly caught my attention for two reasons: one, I have my English 200 students do field research and this would be a great project for them and two, because many of the problems the students found in their research resonated with me. For example, we don't have a mission statement that I'm aware of. Also, I know that we are not well-advertised and need to work on our "presence" more: most people don't even know where the writing center is, even though it's not hard to find. And, of course, what we say we do and what we actually do may not be the same; I'd have to actually do some research to find out. However, like the WC in this research, I know that my little WC does much good and is appreciated by those who do use it. So while it isn't all negative, some assessment of my WC would be a very good idea.

One of my concerns about researching writing centers, though, is that I am not a tenured professor. I don't think I have the freedom (yet) to spend my time researching writing centers when I know that this work isn't considered as scholarly as other research I am interested in. Even researching in composition and rhetoric is marginally acceptable at best; I hate to spend my time on something few will consider scholarly. At the same time, while I am writing this it really irks me that what I know to be valuable and scholarly is overlooked by the academy. Is it our job (I'm not sure who "we" are here...) to do this work to show its scholarly nature? Do we fight for this work to be considered scholarly by doing it and showing its value both to writing centers and to academia at large? I don't know the answer, but I do know that writing centers hold the potential for understanding and discovery.

The Writing Center as a Collaborative Endeavor

We read three articles (North, Lunsford, and Bruffee) on Writing Centers and their theoretical approach to the tutoring that goes on in these centers. While each of these writers had different approaches to this, their purpose seemed to be the same: writing is a social act and therefore writing centers need to treat the tutoring session as a social act. They argue against the paradigms that treat writers and writing as the broken that need fixing or as the stubborn who just need to get knowledge coaxed out of them. Rather, they argue for the social epistemic shift that parallels what is happening in composition. The problems sound so similar to what compositionists have been struggling with--which is not surprising--that I understand it all too well. The truth is--and what North has the hardest time with--that people just don't understand what we do in Writing Centers.

I guess it made me feel a little better knowing that what's going on in my little WC is the same as elsewhere. For example, I held interviews for next year's tutors about a month ago, just before the end of the semester. One of the questions I asked in the interviews was, "Why do you think you'd like to work in the WC?" Without exception, every student said, "Because I love to correct people's papers and find their errors and stuff. I'm really good at it." So I responded to all of them, "And how would you feel about the job if you found out that you will never get to correct a single paper? Because that isn't what we do here." The ones who responded with enthusiasm went into the "possible" pile. Those who looked completely lost or dismayed went into the "not too likely" pile.

Considering labels of these approaches, I see problems with many of the labels, especially the "collaborative" label. In addition to the problems that Lunsford specifies, I see others that could arise as well. One that comes to mind is that those that come in to be tutored, I believe, feel a need to have ownership of their papers. If they thought of their tutor as someone who was not just helping them or coaching them (choose your term), but rather someone who was writing with them, they may resent this. The idea of collaborative writing is pretty foreign to most students and they may resist the idea that their writing is, after a tutoring session, no longer just their own. However, if we have tutors alone adapt this ideal it might work. I'm thinking of it being the way we teach tutors to approach the sessions but not really advertise it this way so that tutees don't get the wrong idea. I think I like the idea of students realizing that they are coming in to have someone write with them, while the writing still is their own. I'll have to think through this "collaborative" writing terminology a little more.

The idea of these sessions being part of a conversation is a good one, too. As all writing is part of a conversation, seeing these tutoring sessions as merely an active part of that conversation makes sense. It's a bit more difficult of a metaphor, however, to use when explaining to tutors or students what their role is. I'm thinking about the workshops I do with my students at the beginning of each year and how I would shape them according to the social epistemic model. Although I have pretty much followed this because of what I know about composition, it seems a bit different coming from the teaching-others-how-to-tutor perspective. When I do my project, (which I'm thinking will be creating these workshops), then I'll have to keep this as a theoretical framework for what we do.

ESL Students at the Writing Center
I find ‘Affirming diversity’ by Muriel Harris extremely informative and I have a lot to learn from this article. I will pick several sections and show how ESL writers are depicted in Harris’s article; Harris shows support that ESL writers do not need to be tied to their native lands.
He begins the article by discussing how tutors at the center think about the center and imply its pedagogy. “Tutors, then, are trained to move writers into the active role of making decisions, asking questions, spotting problem areas in their writer and finding solutions,” says Harris.
He then introduces his questionnaires and the number of ESL writers who participated in it. Around 85 students, who represented the diversity on Purdue’s campus well, took the questionnaires. These students had lived in America from a few months to many years and had “no formal instruction in English” (Harris). Despite a huge linguistic and cultural barrier, these students’ answers were comparable to native English writers’. Harris’s questionnaires revealed that the ESL students think of their teachers as individuals who “work with large groups, lecturing on general concepts and course content” (Harris). ESL students also stated that teachers are more knowledgeable and have an expertise in their field. ESL students felt that "tutors gave advice," (Harris) and this showed that an ESL student, like native English speakers, enjoy having a one-on-one conversation while they get their specific needs addressed. However, ESL students added that they wanted the opportunity to ask more questions per session.
I plan to incorporate this into a session next time and notice if students want to be lead in a conversation, or want to lead the conversation. Having seen both sides of the spectrum, I will not be surprised if I see a student who likes a mix of both.
Harris’s students stress that they come to the writing center to have their questions answered. They feel that students in America are “more involved in the learning process,” and another ESL student stated that students are “not so active” (Harris). Hence, it’s only obvious to take time to advise consultants to talk politely. Harris suggests not to question students directly by saying “Why” or “How,” but ask them to “please explain” again.
Moving on, Harris talks about the ESL students who responded to his second questionnaire. Most of the students preferred to have a friendly conversation with the consultant before the session began and these students like to work in face-to-face friendly environment. “I like friendly atmosphere while learning as I always have a better result,” (Harris) stated an ESL student. Even thought ESL agreed, with the academic, with views on collaborative learning, many students wanted help to explain to the tutor that ESL students will make mistakes that native writers will never make. “Please do not laugh at what you see,” (Harris) said a student expressing that the ESL group was similar to any other group of writers on campus.

Pervasive And Unconscious Xenophobia: The Downsides

Pervasive And Unconscious Xenophobia:
The Downsides

Working With ESL Students And Writing Across Borders was a film about ESL students struggling to meet expectations in the United States says a lot about what it is like to be in a foreign land. More importantly, it talked about how the processes and products of writing in other cultures is a lot different than that of the United States.

The film used examples to talk about how some countries had less linear structure. It also talked about how the main-point (the thesis) doesn’t always come at the beginning, but rather at the end or in the middle. I find that Korean students as a lot of questions about putting main ideas up front, and they seem to know enough that American academia expects them to put their main points up in the thesis, but sometimes they aren’t quite sure how to organized their paragraphs and sentences. This reveals to me how non-linear other languages can be. It’s clear to me that these clients that I work with sincerely believe that they should build up to their main ideas rather than putting them out front, but as someone who learned to write while working on their high-school newspaper and learned AP style formatting, that is almost counter intuitive. But, I understand that this is a mere cultural difference, and that they are no less and no more falsely indoctrinated into a baseless construct any more than I am.

The challenge though, is helping them preserve their cultural identity in their writing while also helping them to meet the expectations and demands of writing at an American university. When in doubt, I try to help them meet expectations. Even non-ESL students have to adhere to certain standards of grammar, structure, content and length in their academic writing, and it wouldn’t be fair to ask less of the ESL student. Even when a writer is limited by certain parameters, they are allowed to shape themselves between them and each writer has a unique opportunity to express themselves in a way that is original and authentic. The job of the consultant in my view is to help the ESL student do just that.

This film did a lot to help me articulate an acknowledgement of this phenomenon, and it certainly has helped me to be more aware of these cultural differences as I work with students from many lands.

I think it is worth mentioning that doing these posts later in the semester has allowed me to reflect more about how I have applied what I have learned in the classroom to my work as a consultant. Does procrastination pay off? It offers a lot of consequences, obstacles and frustration, but so does vigorous preparation and forethought. Both procrastination and forethought offer different consequences and different rewards, and by procrastinating I am a merely in-tune with things. My cultural identity as a caucasian BoHo slacker is reflected in my writing process, and I think we should embrace that.