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.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Weekly post: Wednesday's discussion on CL
I don't hear the term collaborative learning often, and I've never read theories on its practice, successes, and failures. Our in-class discussion on Wednesday, complete with sticky notes and comparative analysis, was one of my favorite academic activities in the professional writing program and, come to think of it, all of college. If I hadn't been prepared with the readings, I obviously wouldn't have gotten as much out of it, but it felt spectacular writing down five distinct ideas relating to the readings, choosing a favorite from the board, and having a thorough, intellectual discourse over the merits or lack thereof of each author's text.
I'd like to raise a particular idea more or less shared by each author: fact and idea as a social artifact. I'm sure all of my ideas and beliefs were generated by the thoughts and beliefs of someone else, and I distinctly remember individuals who were catalysts to some of my most prominent ideals. I had a discussion once in 2004 with Ryan, a jazz drummer, who sculpted the edges and contours of my in-and-out agnosticism, my abstract commitment to the tenets of postmodernism, and my deep conceptualization of realism fitting within the denominations of Christianity. I would not feel how I do today, nor would I be the same person, without Ryan's challenging me to think and rethink, explore and re-examine, what I considered to be reality and thought. Through social interaction, conversation, and internal conversation, I deconstructed my convictions and gave way to new principles of fact and belief.
I'm convinced this happens to everyone, whether they acknowledge it or not.
I'd like to raise a particular idea more or less shared by each author: fact and idea as a social artifact. I'm sure all of my ideas and beliefs were generated by the thoughts and beliefs of someone else, and I distinctly remember individuals who were catalysts to some of my most prominent ideals. I had a discussion once in 2004 with Ryan, a jazz drummer, who sculpted the edges and contours of my in-and-out agnosticism, my abstract commitment to the tenets of postmodernism, and my deep conceptualization of realism fitting within the denominations of Christianity. I would not feel how I do today, nor would I be the same person, without Ryan's challenging me to think and rethink, explore and re-examine, what I considered to be reality and thought. Through social interaction, conversation, and internal conversation, I deconstructed my convictions and gave way to new principles of fact and belief.
I'm convinced this happens to everyone, whether they acknowledge it or not.
Thoughts on Brufee
One of my favorite quotes from the Brufee article: “We look at knowledge as something to wield against each other, not something we maintain in dependency with one another.” I wrote it on my Post-It note and we didn’t talk about it in the class discussion, so I wanted to bring it up in the blog.
Okay so the best thing about this quote is that I totally agree with it. I may have interpreted it differently than other people, but this is post is what came of my ponderings. There are just so many ways to think about it! On one hand, Brufee may mean that group work is a turn-off to some people because the brilliant ideas the group comes up with cannot be considered a product of one (your) brilliant mind, but a product of many others. You are not the focus, merely a contributor. And in our society, being the lone genius gets you more recognition. On the other hand, maybe Brufee is referring to the change from the past to the present, like Aristotle and Socrates. They lived in a time where people could just sit all day in some public square to discuss philosophy and knowledge. They thought collaborative thoughts, did they not? But in today’s society, we have this constant race going on. How many projects can YOU take on at the same time? What can you add to your resume to make YOU sound better? What sets YOU apart from other people? I guess I feel like knowledge is an accomplishment, and people using it against each other would take the form of competition in the job market, for example.
But then again, I should probably dissect this quote a bit further. Knowledge is “facts, information and skills” you’ve gained from “experience or education”. To “wield knowledge against each other” means to use it as a weapon against other people to one’s advantage. And although knowledge is generally considered an individual thing to possess, like an accomplishment to put on your resume, what one truly knows comes from other people who’ve expounded on their predecessors’ work, and so forth. Or maybe it comes from working collaboratively to find solutions, regardless of past or present. Brufee’s exact words again, were to “maintain [knowledge] in dependency with one another.” We are dependent upon one another, whether we like it or not. In the class discussion, we are dependent on volunteers and their opinion. In group projects, we are dependant on each other’s skills and input. But Brufee’s main point was knowledge. And in knowledge, we are dependent upon one another in order to advance, to add onto our predecessor’s knowledge, to add our opinions to the ongoing discussion that has existed since the beginning.
Okay so the best thing about this quote is that I totally agree with it. I may have interpreted it differently than other people, but this is post is what came of my ponderings. There are just so many ways to think about it! On one hand, Brufee may mean that group work is a turn-off to some people because the brilliant ideas the group comes up with cannot be considered a product of one (your) brilliant mind, but a product of many others. You are not the focus, merely a contributor. And in our society, being the lone genius gets you more recognition. On the other hand, maybe Brufee is referring to the change from the past to the present, like Aristotle and Socrates. They lived in a time where people could just sit all day in some public square to discuss philosophy and knowledge. They thought collaborative thoughts, did they not? But in today’s society, we have this constant race going on. How many projects can YOU take on at the same time? What can you add to your resume to make YOU sound better? What sets YOU apart from other people? I guess I feel like knowledge is an accomplishment, and people using it against each other would take the form of competition in the job market, for example.
But then again, I should probably dissect this quote a bit further. Knowledge is “facts, information and skills” you’ve gained from “experience or education”. To “wield knowledge against each other” means to use it as a weapon against other people to one’s advantage. And although knowledge is generally considered an individual thing to possess, like an accomplishment to put on your resume, what one truly knows comes from other people who’ve expounded on their predecessors’ work, and so forth. Or maybe it comes from working collaboratively to find solutions, regardless of past or present. Brufee’s exact words again, were to “maintain [knowledge] in dependency with one another.” We are dependent upon one another, whether we like it or not. In the class discussion, we are dependent on volunteers and their opinion. In group projects, we are dependant on each other’s skills and input. But Brufee’s main point was knowledge. And in knowledge, we are dependent upon one another in order to advance, to add onto our predecessor’s knowledge, to add our opinions to the ongoing discussion that has existed since the beginning.
Minimalism vs. Authoritarianism
This week we were introduced to a number of new concepts and theories. It was interesting to go to work the following Thursday and observe sessions with these things in mind. I have a few issues with one of these. That is, the idea of a spectrum with minimalist consulting on one end and authoritarian consulting on the other. There is a lot of discussion about the idea of a "happy medium" between the two. After observing a few sessions I've come to believe that this is not the best way to think about it.
I think the selection of minimalist or authoritarian is determined by the writer themselves. I witnessed a young freshman that brought in a well written paper as far as grammar is concerned, but lacked a clear thesis that was supported in his paper. This student, as a freshman, was not accustomed to writing papers. Here it was better to guide him towards figuring out his thesis by himself because that was what he truly needed help with. How to structure a paper and write a thesis are two things that this student needed to learn.
I've also noticed that the writing center seems to receive a lot of ESL students. One such student brought in a paper that was structured logically and made sense. The problem with him was that English was his second language and he needed help with minor grammar points. The only real way to learn anything about foreign languages, I think, is to be told the rule and shown how its done. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, to guide this student into learning this himself. It was much more effective to simply show him.
I'm not convinced that a spectrum is the best way to look at it. It seems to me that you can either select one or the other based on what is needed.
I think the selection of minimalist or authoritarian is determined by the writer themselves. I witnessed a young freshman that brought in a well written paper as far as grammar is concerned, but lacked a clear thesis that was supported in his paper. This student, as a freshman, was not accustomed to writing papers. Here it was better to guide him towards figuring out his thesis by himself because that was what he truly needed help with. How to structure a paper and write a thesis are two things that this student needed to learn.
I've also noticed that the writing center seems to receive a lot of ESL students. One such student brought in a paper that was structured logically and made sense. The problem with him was that English was his second language and he needed help with minor grammar points. The only real way to learn anything about foreign languages, I think, is to be told the rule and shown how its done. It would have been difficult, if not impossible, to guide this student into learning this himself. It was much more effective to simply show him.
I'm not convinced that a spectrum is the best way to look at it. It seems to me that you can either select one or the other based on what is needed.
Friday, September 12, 2008
Readings and observations
My experiences on Tuesday in the Writing Center tied in closely with the reading from Shamoon and Burns. Contrary to the consistent orthodoxy presented in most of our earlier readings, “A Critique of Pure Tutoring” offered a more flexible approach. The two sessions I observed- both with the same consultant- strongly supported the theory that different consulting strategies are necessary for different situations.
The first session was a distinct departure from the methodology espoused in our earlier readings, as well as most of my prior observations. The student in question was a non-native English speaker, and for him, the minimalist style advocated by Brooks would not have been as effective as it might be for another student. A Socratic approach, with the consultant asking abstract questions about generalized concepts, would have stalled here. Though the student had strong English skills, the effects of the language barrier could still be felt. Often, when the consultant asked a question about what point the student was trying to make, the student struggled to come up with an answer, before lapsing into embarrassed silence.
Understanding the student’s frustration, the consultant modified his approach. If the student couldn’t think of a way to rephrase an unclear passage, the consultant proposed several alternatives. I know firsthand how difficult it can be to write in a foreign language, given a limited vocabulary. If you’ve only learned one way to say a word, you won’t be able to come up with an alternative just by thinking harder. Brooks’ strategy of leaving the student alone with their paper for a few minutes won’t help them. The consultant took this into account, and offered a number of suggestions for the student to consider, which helped to broaden the student’s vocabulary. Though the session was a great deal more “hands on” than most of the other sessions I had observed previously, I felt like the student got a lot out of it.
Jeff Brooks might not have been thrilled with the first session, but the second was an excellent example of how effective the minimalist method can be (given the right circumstances). English was also a second language for this student, but she had evidently had much more time to practice her skills, and communication wasn’t an issue. Her fluency meant that higher order concerns could be focused on, since indeed there were almost no lower order concerns at all. The student and the consultant had the opportunity to discuss the organization and presentation of her ideas from a conceptual standpoint. This student took away more from the encounter than just an improved paper.
Though the sessions were handled very differently, both students had their skills improved upon. The first session supported Shamoon and Burns’ belief that a more directive style of tutoring can be effective in improving the writer, as much as the writing itself. It also gave credence to the idea that there are multiple, equally valid tutoring styles. Taking into account the circumstances of any particular session and the needs of a given student are essential for a successful appointment. It’s fortunate that I had such a timely demonstration of the theory behind our reading.
The first session was a distinct departure from the methodology espoused in our earlier readings, as well as most of my prior observations. The student in question was a non-native English speaker, and for him, the minimalist style advocated by Brooks would not have been as effective as it might be for another student. A Socratic approach, with the consultant asking abstract questions about generalized concepts, would have stalled here. Though the student had strong English skills, the effects of the language barrier could still be felt. Often, when the consultant asked a question about what point the student was trying to make, the student struggled to come up with an answer, before lapsing into embarrassed silence.
Understanding the student’s frustration, the consultant modified his approach. If the student couldn’t think of a way to rephrase an unclear passage, the consultant proposed several alternatives. I know firsthand how difficult it can be to write in a foreign language, given a limited vocabulary. If you’ve only learned one way to say a word, you won’t be able to come up with an alternative just by thinking harder. Brooks’ strategy of leaving the student alone with their paper for a few minutes won’t help them. The consultant took this into account, and offered a number of suggestions for the student to consider, which helped to broaden the student’s vocabulary. Though the session was a great deal more “hands on” than most of the other sessions I had observed previously, I felt like the student got a lot out of it.
Jeff Brooks might not have been thrilled with the first session, but the second was an excellent example of how effective the minimalist method can be (given the right circumstances). English was also a second language for this student, but she had evidently had much more time to practice her skills, and communication wasn’t an issue. Her fluency meant that higher order concerns could be focused on, since indeed there were almost no lower order concerns at all. The student and the consultant had the opportunity to discuss the organization and presentation of her ideas from a conceptual standpoint. This student took away more from the encounter than just an improved paper.
Though the sessions were handled very differently, both students had their skills improved upon. The first session supported Shamoon and Burns’ belief that a more directive style of tutoring can be effective in improving the writer, as much as the writing itself. It also gave credence to the idea that there are multiple, equally valid tutoring styles. Taking into account the circumstances of any particular session and the needs of a given student are essential for a successful appointment. It’s fortunate that I had such a timely demonstration of the theory behind our reading.
Reading Reaction #2
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.
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)