The blog posts assigned for reading today have gotten me thinking about technology and about the ways different generations view it. There is clearly a gap between my generation and my parents' and professors' generations.
I must admit that before I had even read the posts about technology, and thus before I really started thinking about it, I sat down in the library, opened my laptop, plugged in my headphones to listen to music, and placed my cell phone next to me. I did this without even thinking about it because it has become a matter of habit.
I do not think this is necessarily a bad thing, it is just something I do. It does not mean that I cannot go a minute without texting, but maybe it means that I tend to leave myself the option of texting at any moment. I also do not think I use my laptop excessively, but it is often convenient to have it with me. Listening to music might be a bit more of an addiction but it is just because I enjoy it and think it puts me in a good mood. Almost every chance I get I turn music on and I have been doing this since elementary school when I had a giant boom box and ipods did not exist. I do not really even think of this as multi-tasking, if I am doing homework I am probably also listening to music and that is all there is to it.
I think it is this constant presence of technology in my life and the corresponding relative lack of technology throughout the lives of people one generation ahead of me that has created a gap between us. For the most part modern technology has existed as long as I can remember. I have seen the transition away from CDs and from VHS to DVD and the invention of the ipod but none of this seemed like a drastic change in technology it was more like a natural progression.
As I grew up I gradually incorporated technology into my life and had little trouble learning to use it. Admittedly my cell phone can probably do things that I do not even know about but I use it without ever having read a directions manual. I do not claim to be a master of technology, there are many things it can do that I might struggle with, but I think I have a somewhat natural ability for at least basic technological feats. Furthermore, although there are technology related things that I do not know how to work, I have never made a movie or digital story for example, but I think if someone gave me a couple of directions I could learn pretty quickly and painlessly.
On the other hand, technology does not seem to come quite as easily to the generation preceding me. I will say they seem to have done a good job learning to adopt technology and learning to work it but I do not think this comes as naturally. For example, I cannot even describe how long it took my parents to comprehend the fact that all they had to do in order to update the music on their ipods was plug them into the computer. It really is as simple as plugging a cord into the computer and connecting the ipod to the cord but for some reason this was a serious issue. In fact, when my Dad first got his ipod for Father's Day part of the gift was that my sister and I would deal with the computer and itunes so that he did not have to.
I think the difference is that I, and most of my generation, can pretty much figure technological things out for myself, they are somewhat intuitive. But one generation ago technology was not so ubiquitous and so the members of that generation can learn to use technology when they have been taught but for the most part they do not have the ability to just figure it out. I think for the rest of my life I will occasionally be called in to the office to make email attachments open or fix whatever problem Word is having that day. I do not mind doing this, but I find it kind of interesting that I still need to.
Wednesday, April 20, 2011
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
Mosher's "Creating a Common Ground with ESL Writers"
As I mentioned in my previous post, Mosher's article includes some suggestions that may be useful to me for my final project. Although it is about non-native speakers trying to write in English it also sometimes applies to English speakers who are trying to write in Spanish.
Mosher states that there is a difference in rhetorical patterns in different languages. He also says that because of this it is appropriate "to use a more directed approach" (p. 1). When he writes this he is referring to the type of approach that should be used in a tutoring session but for my purposes I am reading it as a suggestion about what kind of advice I should include in my project. If non-native speakers need a more directed approach in a tutoring session then it follows that I should give more explicit, directive advice on my Writing-in-the-Disciplines page.
Later, Mosher also suggests "that a cultural dialogue about writing and rhetoric may prove to be a useful collaborative strategy" (p. 3). By starting a page about writing in Spanish I hope to begin this cultural dialogue and provide writers with helpful guidelines for writing in Spanish that will help them write better papers by understanding cultural differences.
Another difference Mosher points out is, "The writing expectations of Americans often do not match the linguistic and cultural norms found in other cultures. This difference occurs in both what should be said in writing as well as in how to say it" (p. 4). This means that the expectations about how an American student should write a Spanish essay may be somewhat different from how that same should student should write an English essay. I hope to get some suggestions from professors about what kind of differences might exist in regard to this.
The last comment that I immediately thought might be useful was Mosher's suggestion about mapping. He says to "set the paper aside and concentrate on mapping out ideas" (p. 7). I thought this could be a helpful technique for writers who are struggling to begin or are overwhelmed by the task of beginning a paper in a foreign language.
Mosher states that there is a difference in rhetorical patterns in different languages. He also says that because of this it is appropriate "to use a more directed approach" (p. 1). When he writes this he is referring to the type of approach that should be used in a tutoring session but for my purposes I am reading it as a suggestion about what kind of advice I should include in my project. If non-native speakers need a more directed approach in a tutoring session then it follows that I should give more explicit, directive advice on my Writing-in-the-Disciplines page.
Later, Mosher also suggests "that a cultural dialogue about writing and rhetoric may prove to be a useful collaborative strategy" (p. 3). By starting a page about writing in Spanish I hope to begin this cultural dialogue and provide writers with helpful guidelines for writing in Spanish that will help them write better papers by understanding cultural differences.
Another difference Mosher points out is, "The writing expectations of Americans often do not match the linguistic and cultural norms found in other cultures. This difference occurs in both what should be said in writing as well as in how to say it" (p. 4). This means that the expectations about how an American student should write a Spanish essay may be somewhat different from how that same should student should write an English essay. I hope to get some suggestions from professors about what kind of differences might exist in regard to this.
The last comment that I immediately thought might be useful was Mosher's suggestion about mapping. He says to "set the paper aside and concentrate on mapping out ideas" (p. 7). I thought this could be a helpful technique for writers who are struggling to begin or are overwhelmed by the task of beginning a paper in a foreign language.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Final Project Prospectus
For my final project I plan to start a Writing-in-the-Disciplines page for Latin American and Iberian Studies (LAIS). Although this includes other languages as well, I will specifically focus on Spanish to begin. I hope to work collaboratively with some of the professors in the department, most likely those I know or have had class with, because I think their advice will be the most useful. In the past I have had professors discuss the mistakes that non-native speakers commonly make when trying to write in Spanish so I will include a list of some of these. This list will contain a significant amount of grammatical advice, like making sure subjects and verbs agree and adjectives and nouns agree, as these are the mistakes students make over and over and simply need to memorize. I will also cover stylistic issues that vary by culture such as sentence length, and other basic differences like capitalization.
In addition to asking professors about how to avoid common mistakes I will ask them if they have any suggestions about how students can start the writing process. One of the hardest parts about writing in a foreign language can be getting started because students get caught up in how difficult they think it will be to convey their ideas in another language. Therefore, I will include any professor recommendations as well as some general suggestions about how to begin writing in any language, like how to work with an outline.
I also plan to include some help with vocabulary. I may try to provide a list of words that tend to be helpful, words that students sometimes confuse, and some phrases and transition words. If time allows I may put in reminders about different verb tenses and their uses and conjugations. Most likely I will post information about the tenses most commonly used in writing, such as present, past, and future and maybe basic information about the subjunctive.
I expect to rely on a lot of information from my Spanish textbook, used in 221 courses, for helpful ideas and particularly grammar. I also expect to find our readings about ESL students and their writing, such as Mosher’s “Creating a Common Ground with ESL Writers,” to be helpful. I may also reference various sections of The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors such as its recommendations about prewriting.
I realize that in this post it may sound as if I am taking on a lot. As I begin to work I think I will discover what seems to be the most important and pertinent information and I may edit what I have suggested here to include only the parts that seem most helpful.
In addition to asking professors about how to avoid common mistakes I will ask them if they have any suggestions about how students can start the writing process. One of the hardest parts about writing in a foreign language can be getting started because students get caught up in how difficult they think it will be to convey their ideas in another language. Therefore, I will include any professor recommendations as well as some general suggestions about how to begin writing in any language, like how to work with an outline.
I also plan to include some help with vocabulary. I may try to provide a list of words that tend to be helpful, words that students sometimes confuse, and some phrases and transition words. If time allows I may put in reminders about different verb tenses and their uses and conjugations. Most likely I will post information about the tenses most commonly used in writing, such as present, past, and future and maybe basic information about the subjunctive.
I expect to rely on a lot of information from my Spanish textbook, used in 221 courses, for helpful ideas and particularly grammar. I also expect to find our readings about ESL students and their writing, such as Mosher’s “Creating a Common Ground with ESL Writers,” to be helpful. I may also reference various sections of The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors such as its recommendations about prewriting.
I realize that in this post it may sound as if I am taking on a lot. As I begin to work I think I will discover what seems to be the most important and pertinent information and I may edit what I have suggested here to include only the parts that seem most helpful.
Wednesday, April 6, 2011
On "The ‘Doodles’ in Context: Qualifying Claims About Contrastive Rhetoric"
In her article “The ‘Doodles’ in Context: Qualifying Claims About Contrastive Rhetoric” Carol Severino is somewhat self-contradictory. She is extremely hard on Kaplan and then does not provide enough information of her own to justify this criticism.
She begins by saying that Kaplan’s article is not “wholly erroneous” (44) but states that it is important that “writing center communities realize that the case [in the doodles article] needs to be, and in fact has already been, to some extent qualified” (45). She further notes that, “Kaplan himself admitted that he had overstated the case although he asserted that he did not regret having made the case” (45). These brief recognitions that Kaplan’s article was not all bad and that even he acknowledged that it could use some revision do not give Kaplan enough credit. Of course there are going to be numerous issues with Kaplan’s article; it was one of the first to address the issue of contrastive rhetoric at all and it was written in 1966 when little other information existed. It follows that there would be some problems with Kaplan’s study, and it should probably not be used as anything more than a starting point, but Severino is too critical of Kaplan’s mistakes and does not appreciate his contributions enough.
While it may be true that since he wrote the article Kaplan’s work has been shown to contain numerous flaws, it is unfair to critique a 50-year-old study based on modern standards. Severino veers too far into criticism when she should stick to making “qualifying” statements as she suggests she will do in the beginning. Kaplan’s work may not contain entirely valid information about different types of rhetoric but his work is valuable because of the discussion it launched. Severino mentions another more recent study and says that its “design, methods, and stance improve upon Kaplan’s in many ways; native language discourse is examined (not just ESL writing or translations of native language writing); genre, age, and class background are controlled for; and a complex discourse analysis is performed, taking into account content features which are as revealing of cultural differences as organizational features. No discourse analysis was mentioned in Kaplan’s 1966 study” (48). She points out important factors that are missing from Kaplan’s work but rather than harshly criticizing him for not including these things she should recognize that he could not possibly get everything right in one of the first examinations of cultural differences in rhetoric. She should see that Kaplan’s work was an important first step that allowed future studies to observe what one first attempt looked like and then improve upon its flaws in order to do better work themselves.
When there is an attempt to research something specific in a field, like contrastive rhetoric, there will likely be a long research process before the most accurate and useful information is uncovered. Kaplan took one of the first steps in examining contrastive rhetoric so it makes sense that his study would be one of the most flawed. This does not mean that his study is not worthwhile; rather it is the study that allowed future studies to produce better results.
Thus, Severino is much too disparaging of Kaplan’s work. She spends a lot of time noting what is wrong with his study and does not leave herself much room to suggest improvements. In fact she spends a great deal of time talking about Chinese rhetoric and in the end her conclusion is that “The situation is too complex for…generalizations” (54). In a way this is no conclusion at all, and at least Kaplan come up with some conclusion even if it was not infallible. Severino should have put more effort into trying to contribute valuable information to the field and building on previous work rather than critiquing it.
Works Cited: “The ‘Doodles’ in Context: Qualifying Claims About Contrastive Rhetoric" by Carol Severino
She begins by saying that Kaplan’s article is not “wholly erroneous” (44) but states that it is important that “writing center communities realize that the case [in the doodles article] needs to be, and in fact has already been, to some extent qualified” (45). She further notes that, “Kaplan himself admitted that he had overstated the case although he asserted that he did not regret having made the case” (45). These brief recognitions that Kaplan’s article was not all bad and that even he acknowledged that it could use some revision do not give Kaplan enough credit. Of course there are going to be numerous issues with Kaplan’s article; it was one of the first to address the issue of contrastive rhetoric at all and it was written in 1966 when little other information existed. It follows that there would be some problems with Kaplan’s study, and it should probably not be used as anything more than a starting point, but Severino is too critical of Kaplan’s mistakes and does not appreciate his contributions enough.
While it may be true that since he wrote the article Kaplan’s work has been shown to contain numerous flaws, it is unfair to critique a 50-year-old study based on modern standards. Severino veers too far into criticism when she should stick to making “qualifying” statements as she suggests she will do in the beginning. Kaplan’s work may not contain entirely valid information about different types of rhetoric but his work is valuable because of the discussion it launched. Severino mentions another more recent study and says that its “design, methods, and stance improve upon Kaplan’s in many ways; native language discourse is examined (not just ESL writing or translations of native language writing); genre, age, and class background are controlled for; and a complex discourse analysis is performed, taking into account content features which are as revealing of cultural differences as organizational features. No discourse analysis was mentioned in Kaplan’s 1966 study” (48). She points out important factors that are missing from Kaplan’s work but rather than harshly criticizing him for not including these things she should recognize that he could not possibly get everything right in one of the first examinations of cultural differences in rhetoric. She should see that Kaplan’s work was an important first step that allowed future studies to observe what one first attempt looked like and then improve upon its flaws in order to do better work themselves.
When there is an attempt to research something specific in a field, like contrastive rhetoric, there will likely be a long research process before the most accurate and useful information is uncovered. Kaplan took one of the first steps in examining contrastive rhetoric so it makes sense that his study would be one of the most flawed. This does not mean that his study is not worthwhile; rather it is the study that allowed future studies to produce better results.
Thus, Severino is much too disparaging of Kaplan’s work. She spends a lot of time noting what is wrong with his study and does not leave herself much room to suggest improvements. In fact she spends a great deal of time talking about Chinese rhetoric and in the end her conclusion is that “The situation is too complex for…generalizations” (54). In a way this is no conclusion at all, and at least Kaplan come up with some conclusion even if it was not infallible. Severino should have put more effort into trying to contribute valuable information to the field and building on previous work rather than critiquing it.
Works Cited: “The ‘Doodles’ in Context: Qualifying Claims About Contrastive Rhetoric" by Carol Severino
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
On a Tutoring Session with an SCS Student and the Bedford Guide's Suggestions
Today at my Writing Center observation my consultant and I worked with a Continuing Studies student. She arrived several minutes late and seemed somewhat flustered however happy to be at the appointment. From the beginning I noticed that my consultant employed a few of the "strategies for working with adult learners" in The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors (72).
One of the points the guide makes is "Be sensitive to the writer's anxiety and supportive of his or her efforts to return to school despite the obstacles. Maintain an encouraging and empathetic tone" (72). My consultant used this strategy even more than I expected. From the moment the student came in my consultant was assuring her that it was okay that she was late and urging her to relax. The student had not actually written any of her paper yet although she had thought about it and done some research. She seemed like she felt disorganized and did not know where to start. Despite this I think the consultant really helped the student calm down and begin to tackle the significant amount of work the student needed to do.
The Bedford Guide also states that "Adult learners are often very goal oriented, so setting the agenda and successfully wrapping up and summarizing the session are particularly important. Make sure the writer has concrete revision plans in place at the end of the session" (72). One of the writer's main concerns was trying to organize her thoughts and get some kind of structure in place so that she could begin working. I thought the consultant did a good job of addressing the student's more specific concerns and also outlining the basic form that the paper might take. We spent a considerable amount of time working on the basic argument (in this case a hypothesis and problem statement for a scientific paper) but also talked about the paper as a whole. At the end of the appointment we had not accomplished that much but the student seemed more relaxed and organized and had a plan for what steps to take next.
Another strategy the Bedford Guide recommends is "Do not allow the adult learner to become too dependent on your help...At the close of the session the writer may resist leaving and might ask for another session with another tutor immediately" (72). Throughout the session the consultant did a good job of facilitating the writer's ideas and not doing much of the work herself. She prompted the student to share her thoughts about the paper and helped her along without becoming too involved. The student also admitted that she had tried to book two appointments in a row but that the consultant had another student coming in so she could not. However, she had booked an appointment at a later time. I think this is the best outcome because it will give the writer some time to do some more work on her own but she will also get more help in other stages of her writing process.
One of the points the guide makes is "Be sensitive to the writer's anxiety and supportive of his or her efforts to return to school despite the obstacles. Maintain an encouraging and empathetic tone" (72). My consultant used this strategy even more than I expected. From the moment the student came in my consultant was assuring her that it was okay that she was late and urging her to relax. The student had not actually written any of her paper yet although she had thought about it and done some research. She seemed like she felt disorganized and did not know where to start. Despite this I think the consultant really helped the student calm down and begin to tackle the significant amount of work the student needed to do.
The Bedford Guide also states that "Adult learners are often very goal oriented, so setting the agenda and successfully wrapping up and summarizing the session are particularly important. Make sure the writer has concrete revision plans in place at the end of the session" (72). One of the writer's main concerns was trying to organize her thoughts and get some kind of structure in place so that she could begin working. I thought the consultant did a good job of addressing the student's more specific concerns and also outlining the basic form that the paper might take. We spent a considerable amount of time working on the basic argument (in this case a hypothesis and problem statement for a scientific paper) but also talked about the paper as a whole. At the end of the appointment we had not accomplished that much but the student seemed more relaxed and organized and had a plan for what steps to take next.
Another strategy the Bedford Guide recommends is "Do not allow the adult learner to become too dependent on your help...At the close of the session the writer may resist leaving and might ask for another session with another tutor immediately" (72). Throughout the session the consultant did a good job of facilitating the writer's ideas and not doing much of the work herself. She prompted the student to share her thoughts about the paper and helped her along without becoming too involved. The student also admitted that she had tried to book two appointments in a row but that the consultant had another student coming in so she could not. However, she had booked an appointment at a later time. I think this is the best outcome because it will give the writer some time to do some more work on her own but she will also get more help in other stages of her writing process.
Monday, March 28, 2011
In Regard to "Non-traditional" Students and the (Lack of) Value of Such a Label
While reading the article “Writing Center Ethics & Non-traditional Students” I find myself disagreeing with Gardner and the other contributors and even feeling almost annoyed that such an article exists. McLean and Lyman occasionally make worthwhile comments but Gardner is objectionable and poses irritating questions. At the start of the article Gardner asks “Is it fair to make assumptions based on a student’s age?” (7). I wonder instead if there is any point to making assumptions based on a student’s age or any other criteria for that matter.
Every student that comes into the Writing Center is at a different stage in their writing and has different needs. A student may arrive with a paper that needs significant amounts of work or they may show up with a strong paper. They may show up with 25 minutes to work and a paper due the next day or they may have plenty of time and a paper that is not due for another week. They may be a student highly motivated to improve their work or they may be an apathetic student that is only there because they are required to be. These are the kinds of factors that are important in a tutoring session, not how old the student is or how long it has been since they last wrote an analytical essay.
It seems to me it would be much more effective to pay attention to each student’s specific needs than to try to guess at what the session will be like based on some kind of stereotype or category the tutor thinks the student can be placed in. There is no reason to assume that an older student is especially busy and will try to rush the session when the tutor could simply ask the student how much time they have to work and make a list of priorities based on the student’s answer. It is entirely possible to encounter a “traditional” student with only half an hour to dedicate to the session or a “non-traditional” student who can stay for a whole hour. In fact I have encountered both of these types of students, so what is the point of the labels?
Gardner seems particularly caught up with what kind of ethics and strategies should be used on these so-called non-traditional students. I would argue that these students are no different than their so-called traditional counterparts except in the sense that all students are different. It would be better if Gardner stopped worrying so much about the labels and what goes along with them and instead approached each session as a separate case rather than a category. The better tutor is the one with good people skills in all situations, not the tutor that can classify students as part of some group.
Lyman, and especially McLean, do come closer to this idea near the end of the article. McLean states, “I think that tutors, as well as anyone else, should struggle to avoid stereotyping students…However, I do believe that students need individual strategies adapted to their needs” (10). Here, McLean gets at the real point, each student needs to be worked with individually, not as a member of a certain group of students.
Works cited: “Writing Center Ethics & Non-traditional Students” by Gardner, E. et. al.
Every student that comes into the Writing Center is at a different stage in their writing and has different needs. A student may arrive with a paper that needs significant amounts of work or they may show up with a strong paper. They may show up with 25 minutes to work and a paper due the next day or they may have plenty of time and a paper that is not due for another week. They may be a student highly motivated to improve their work or they may be an apathetic student that is only there because they are required to be. These are the kinds of factors that are important in a tutoring session, not how old the student is or how long it has been since they last wrote an analytical essay.
It seems to me it would be much more effective to pay attention to each student’s specific needs than to try to guess at what the session will be like based on some kind of stereotype or category the tutor thinks the student can be placed in. There is no reason to assume that an older student is especially busy and will try to rush the session when the tutor could simply ask the student how much time they have to work and make a list of priorities based on the student’s answer. It is entirely possible to encounter a “traditional” student with only half an hour to dedicate to the session or a “non-traditional” student who can stay for a whole hour. In fact I have encountered both of these types of students, so what is the point of the labels?
Gardner seems particularly caught up with what kind of ethics and strategies should be used on these so-called non-traditional students. I would argue that these students are no different than their so-called traditional counterparts except in the sense that all students are different. It would be better if Gardner stopped worrying so much about the labels and what goes along with them and instead approached each session as a separate case rather than a category. The better tutor is the one with good people skills in all situations, not the tutor that can classify students as part of some group.
Lyman, and especially McLean, do come closer to this idea near the end of the article. McLean states, “I think that tutors, as well as anyone else, should struggle to avoid stereotyping students…However, I do believe that students need individual strategies adapted to their needs” (10). Here, McLean gets at the real point, each student needs to be worked with individually, not as a member of a certain group of students.
Works cited: “Writing Center Ethics & Non-traditional Students” by Gardner, E. et. al.
The Importance of Writing Center Reports as a Means of Transparency
I completely agree with Jane Cogie that Writing Center Reports (or Conference Summaries) are a valuable part of the process that takes place in a tutoring session and an equally valuable component of the student-tutor-professor relationship. An open and transparent writing process, which includes sessions at the Writing Center, benefits all parties involved. It allows the professor to understand the student's writing beyond just what they see in the finished paper, which can indicate to them where a student is making progress and where they might need additional help. This will allow the professor to address a student's needs more specifically. The student will also benefit because they will receive more personalized help from their professor. Furthermore, the report can show the professor that although a student may not have turned in A work they are trying to improve rather than that they tried to write the paper at the last minute or simply do not care. In these ways Writing Center Reports may foster a more productive and open relationship between the student and their professor.
The tutor will not experience such direct advantages but it is still important to be able to communicate clearly with the professor so that they know how the tutor assisted the student. This can benefit the Writing Center by showing the professor how it works and perhaps a tutor will receive feedback that can help him or her develop more effective strategies for working with other students in the future.
In her article Cogie also addresses some of the possible drawbacks of Writing Center Reports. One issue she raises is that sending a report may reinforce the idea that tutors are subservient to professors, but this is not the case. The report is simply a method of open communication that can help both the tutor and the professor understand how to more effectively assist the student. Also, the tutor does not actually answer to the professor he or she answers to the Writing Center Director. Thus, the professor and tutor are more like peers with the same goal and if there is an issue the Director can mediate.
Cogie also raises the issue of confidentiality for the student. The advantages a student gains from the report are far greater than any concerns for confidentiality. However, if this became a serious issue perhaps the Writing Center should adopt a policy that allows students to opt out of sending the report.
Another potential complaint is that tutors put time into writing the reports but professors do not fully put them to use. Cogie responds to this problem and sufficiently refutes it and I agree with her. While there may be some professors who do not use the reports effectively or extensively, it seems that the majority of professors value the additional reflection. The reports can help a professor further consider their own assignments, see more clearly where students are struggling, and provide them with additional information that they can use for grading and commenting upon student work.
Writing Center Reports add to the collaborative process of writing and promote open communication for the involved parties which makes it easier to help the student.
works cited: "In Defense of Conference Summaries: Widening the Reach of Writing Center Work" by Jane Cogie
The tutor will not experience such direct advantages but it is still important to be able to communicate clearly with the professor so that they know how the tutor assisted the student. This can benefit the Writing Center by showing the professor how it works and perhaps a tutor will receive feedback that can help him or her develop more effective strategies for working with other students in the future.
In her article Cogie also addresses some of the possible drawbacks of Writing Center Reports. One issue she raises is that sending a report may reinforce the idea that tutors are subservient to professors, but this is not the case. The report is simply a method of open communication that can help both the tutor and the professor understand how to more effectively assist the student. Also, the tutor does not actually answer to the professor he or she answers to the Writing Center Director. Thus, the professor and tutor are more like peers with the same goal and if there is an issue the Director can mediate.
Cogie also raises the issue of confidentiality for the student. The advantages a student gains from the report are far greater than any concerns for confidentiality. However, if this became a serious issue perhaps the Writing Center should adopt a policy that allows students to opt out of sending the report.
Another potential complaint is that tutors put time into writing the reports but professors do not fully put them to use. Cogie responds to this problem and sufficiently refutes it and I agree with her. While there may be some professors who do not use the reports effectively or extensively, it seems that the majority of professors value the additional reflection. The reports can help a professor further consider their own assignments, see more clearly where students are struggling, and provide them with additional information that they can use for grading and commenting upon student work.
Writing Center Reports add to the collaborative process of writing and promote open communication for the involved parties which makes it easier to help the student.
works cited: "In Defense of Conference Summaries: Widening the Reach of Writing Center Work" by Jane Cogie
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)