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
Monday, March 21, 2011
What failure do you most fear as a consultant? What can you do to prepare?
I most fear that I will encounter a student that is smarter than me or who has a paper about something I know nothing about. I dread the day that a student brings me a paper that is over my head to the point that I may not even understand it. Certainly there are subject areas in which I am no expert and I worry that I will not be able to help a student who brings me a paper on a topic I am particularly unfamiliar with.
I realize that I will not be knowledgeable about every subject that I read about in a student paper but this is not exactly what I am afraid of. I know that I can work with a paper on an unfamiliar issue when it is intended for an uninformed audience and likely if it was written for an introductory course. In these instances I imagine I would be able to follow along with little trouble. The problem is what happens if a student brings me a higher level paper. For example, I am mostly involved in classes that are humanities related, what if a student brings me a paper written for an upper level science course? Perhaps they know the information well but they want help because they have trouble writing clearly about it. It would be much harder for me to help a student write an effective paper when I have no idea what they are talking about and therefore I worry about how to help such a student.
From Steve Sherwood's article "Apprenticed to Failure" I have taken away that I must accept that sometimes I might fail to help a student, however I will always try to learn from such failure when I encounter it. For my particular fear of failing a student who writes a paper on something I know nothing about one solution might be to ask the student to email me with a brief summary of what their paper is about so that I can do a little bit of research before the consultation. That way I would not be so clueless about the subject matter and vocabulary and could potentially be more helpful to the student. Still, I am sure that I will have some particularly tough tutoring sessions at some point and there will be students who I cannot help either because of this particular fear or because of one I have not even thought of yet.
I realize that I will not be knowledgeable about every subject that I read about in a student paper but this is not exactly what I am afraid of. I know that I can work with a paper on an unfamiliar issue when it is intended for an uninformed audience and likely if it was written for an introductory course. In these instances I imagine I would be able to follow along with little trouble. The problem is what happens if a student brings me a higher level paper. For example, I am mostly involved in classes that are humanities related, what if a student brings me a paper written for an upper level science course? Perhaps they know the information well but they want help because they have trouble writing clearly about it. It would be much harder for me to help a student write an effective paper when I have no idea what they are talking about and therefore I worry about how to help such a student.
From Steve Sherwood's article "Apprenticed to Failure" I have taken away that I must accept that sometimes I might fail to help a student, however I will always try to learn from such failure when I encounter it. For my particular fear of failing a student who writes a paper on something I know nothing about one solution might be to ask the student to email me with a brief summary of what their paper is about so that I can do a little bit of research before the consultation. That way I would not be so clueless about the subject matter and vocabulary and could potentially be more helpful to the student. Still, I am sure that I will have some particularly tough tutoring sessions at some point and there will be students who I cannot help either because of this particular fear or because of one I have not even thought of yet.
Sunday, March 20, 2011
First Real Tutoring Session
This week I held my first real tutoring session on my own. Our class has paired up with Dr. Blake’s class to help look at the papers they are writing for a research project, which also helps us gain tutoring experience.
I had already read my writer’s paper the night before because I had picked it up from the Writing Center so I was lucky enough to already know what kind of paper I was working with. I was happy to find that the student seemed to be a competent writer but that her paper was only a draft so although it was pretty well done already there were things I could talk about with her. It was nice that my first tutorial would be with a student that would be able to talk about her paper and take suggestions but who I would not have to do sentence-level or grammatical work with. My only fear was that the student would be reluctant to take criticism or just be uninterested in working with me because I knew she was required to come in for her class.
However, I found that the student was quite easy to work with. She listened to the suggestions I gave her and discussed her own opinions with me. We talked about things like possibly reorganizing some of her paragraphs and adding a little bit to her conclusion. Throughout the session I felt that we did a good job of working on the paper as two peers and I think we did some worthwhile work as a result.
I found that the reading most applicable to this tutoring session was chapter eight of Ryan and Zimmerelli’s The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors, which was about different types of writers and how to cope with various tutoring situations. The section on “The Unresponsive Writer” was useful because it is what I feared would happen (p. 100). It discussed how sometimes students who are required by their teachers to visit the Writing Center can be reluctant to accept help. Although it turned out that my writer was willing to work with me, I still found one piece of advice helpful. The section states that it can be good to “remind the writer that you are there to help and that the suggestions you offer are just that—suggestions that he or she may choose to accept or reject” (p. 100). I believe that this is relevant not only in a situation with an unresponsive writer but also with any relatively strong writer. The student writer I saw obviously knew how to write so I wanted to be careful not to give the impression that I thought I was better than her or could teach her but rather that I was a peer who was willing to edit her paper and offer my recommendations as an outsider to the paper, and she could choose to take my suggestions or not.
I also found the section on “The Writer with the ‘Perfect’ Paper” helpful (p. 105). While I do not think that either the writer or I thought the paper was perfect it was certainly strong. The most useful comment I took from this section was that even in a good paper “you can still encourage the writer to look for areas that might be improved” (p. 105). I liked this comment because it shows that even when a paper is already good it can always be improved and thus it reminded me that I would still have work to do with the writer.
I had already read my writer’s paper the night before because I had picked it up from the Writing Center so I was lucky enough to already know what kind of paper I was working with. I was happy to find that the student seemed to be a competent writer but that her paper was only a draft so although it was pretty well done already there were things I could talk about with her. It was nice that my first tutorial would be with a student that would be able to talk about her paper and take suggestions but who I would not have to do sentence-level or grammatical work with. My only fear was that the student would be reluctant to take criticism or just be uninterested in working with me because I knew she was required to come in for her class.
However, I found that the student was quite easy to work with. She listened to the suggestions I gave her and discussed her own opinions with me. We talked about things like possibly reorganizing some of her paragraphs and adding a little bit to her conclusion. Throughout the session I felt that we did a good job of working on the paper as two peers and I think we did some worthwhile work as a result.
I found that the reading most applicable to this tutoring session was chapter eight of Ryan and Zimmerelli’s The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors, which was about different types of writers and how to cope with various tutoring situations. The section on “The Unresponsive Writer” was useful because it is what I feared would happen (p. 100). It discussed how sometimes students who are required by their teachers to visit the Writing Center can be reluctant to accept help. Although it turned out that my writer was willing to work with me, I still found one piece of advice helpful. The section states that it can be good to “remind the writer that you are there to help and that the suggestions you offer are just that—suggestions that he or she may choose to accept or reject” (p. 100). I believe that this is relevant not only in a situation with an unresponsive writer but also with any relatively strong writer. The student writer I saw obviously knew how to write so I wanted to be careful not to give the impression that I thought I was better than her or could teach her but rather that I was a peer who was willing to edit her paper and offer my recommendations as an outsider to the paper, and she could choose to take my suggestions or not.
I also found the section on “The Writer with the ‘Perfect’ Paper” helpful (p. 105). While I do not think that either the writer or I thought the paper was perfect it was certainly strong. The most useful comment I took from this section was that even in a good paper “you can still encourage the writer to look for areas that might be improved” (p. 105). I liked this comment because it shows that even when a paper is already good it can always be improved and thus it reminded me that I would still have work to do with the writer.
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Midterm Consultation
Holding a consultation with Taylor was the first time I had to edit and comment upon a writer’s work on my own and in a formal setting. I had observed Writing Consultants’ appointments with students previously and had participated in these to some extent but I had never taken on one of these appointments independently. Still, I felt confident in my ability to conduct a consultation. Even when students came to the Writing Center during my observations with papers that needed a significant amount of work I did not think that I would have trouble holding such consultations. I simply thought that I would need to be more patient. Thus, I was not particularly concerned about meeting with Taylor because I am comfortable around her and know that she is a more than competent writer. I was surprised when we sat down and I realized that I did not really know how to proceed. I had wrongly assumed that the consultation would be effortless and soon saw that I needed to call upon the information we have read and discussed in class. Despite the fact that Taylor is a friend and I did not expect her paper to require extensive revision, it was still important for me to approach the situation as a serious consultation in which I should employ the techniques and approaches suggested by authors with more experience than I have.
My first appeal was to the basics. I took the advice to “read a draft all the way through before you begin to comment on it” (Writer’s Web). This gave me a more certain starting point and an overview of what I would be working with as a whole. After I had read Taylor’s essay I began a discussion with her orally so that I could convey my general reactions to her paper and so that I could hear what she had to say about it. This created an open setting in which we could talk about the paper in a constructive way even when I gave her criticism. It also allowed me to gather more information about what Taylor was trying to do in her paper so that I could more effectively assist her. In taking this approach I was using the strategy “describe your reactions as a reader, and ask questions that invite her [the writer] to further examine, explore, and clarify her ideas and approaches” (Ryan and Zimmerelli 25).
Once I had an understanding of Taylor’s paper and some ideas about where I could offer suggestions I asked her if she had any concerns about the paper. I wanted to be sure that I addressed all of her concerns before I added any concerns of my own (Ryan and Zimmerelli 21). The only aspect of her paper that she said she was worried about was the amount of summarizing. She thought there might be too much summary and not enough analysis but also said she had done some editing for this already. I considered this issue but thought that Taylor actually had a good balance between summary and her own ideas and analysis (Writer’s Web). I told her this and because we had both read the novel she was writing about and did not feel overwhelmed with summary we decided that it was probably a reasonable amount.
I had been a little concerned about editing Taylor’s paper on Madame Bovary because I had written my own paper on the novel the semester before. I was afraid it would be too hard to objectively edit the paper when I had so many ideas and opinions about the novel myself (Yothers 5). However, having read the novel helped me. It made it easier for me to address Taylor’s concern about writing too much of a summary. It also made it possible for me to follow Taylor’s argument closely and gave me inside knowledge about the accuracy of the content. I felt more capable of determining how convincing the argument was because I understood it both in terms of what Taylor was writing and what was written in the novel. As Yothers concludes, “it is a mistake for us to refrain from seeking to address issues related to the reading and interpretation of texts out of a fear of being too directive” (6-7). In light of this advice I decided to freely discuss ideas and examples with Taylor. This openness allowed us to talk about where she effectively proved her point and where she might be able to add more textual evidence.
At this point, having established mutual understanding and having addressed Taylor’s concerns, we were able to get into more substantial issues. I was able to take on two roles as suggested by a question used in Elbow and Belanoff’s peer-editing exercises. I acted as though I completely believed Taylor’s argument and this allowed me to suggest things she might add as further support. I then acted as though I did not believe all that she wrote so that I could critically point out parts of her argument that were weaker (Holt 385). This technique allowed Taylor and I to realize that the second part of her argument may not have been as strong as the first part. We then discussed ways that might help her improve this second section so that it was as effective as the first part (Writer’s Web). This is also when we discussed the possibility that she had fallen into the two-essay trap a little bit and we thought about how she might make the two parts more cohesive. As Taylor’s essay was already strong, we wanted “to go beyond the simple response level toward making suggestions for improvement” (Holt 388). In order to do this I looked over the essay again to see where I could ask questions or make suggestions, not commands, about how Taylor could potentially improve her work (Writer’s Web).
Through my consultation with Taylor I learned a lot more than I expected to. I had previously thought that it would be like reading over a paper for a friend and that it would be casual and not that difficult. However, I discovered that no matter what kind of paper I am looking at or who I am looking at it for it is still necessary to take the consultation seriously and remember the techniques we have learned. I found that the readings we have done were actually helpful to me when I was holding the appointment and I was glad to have that additional information because otherwise I would have had trouble with the consultation.
My first appeal was to the basics. I took the advice to “read a draft all the way through before you begin to comment on it” (Writer’s Web). This gave me a more certain starting point and an overview of what I would be working with as a whole. After I had read Taylor’s essay I began a discussion with her orally so that I could convey my general reactions to her paper and so that I could hear what she had to say about it. This created an open setting in which we could talk about the paper in a constructive way even when I gave her criticism. It also allowed me to gather more information about what Taylor was trying to do in her paper so that I could more effectively assist her. In taking this approach I was using the strategy “describe your reactions as a reader, and ask questions that invite her [the writer] to further examine, explore, and clarify her ideas and approaches” (Ryan and Zimmerelli 25).
Once I had an understanding of Taylor’s paper and some ideas about where I could offer suggestions I asked her if she had any concerns about the paper. I wanted to be sure that I addressed all of her concerns before I added any concerns of my own (Ryan and Zimmerelli 21). The only aspect of her paper that she said she was worried about was the amount of summarizing. She thought there might be too much summary and not enough analysis but also said she had done some editing for this already. I considered this issue but thought that Taylor actually had a good balance between summary and her own ideas and analysis (Writer’s Web). I told her this and because we had both read the novel she was writing about and did not feel overwhelmed with summary we decided that it was probably a reasonable amount.
I had been a little concerned about editing Taylor’s paper on Madame Bovary because I had written my own paper on the novel the semester before. I was afraid it would be too hard to objectively edit the paper when I had so many ideas and opinions about the novel myself (Yothers 5). However, having read the novel helped me. It made it easier for me to address Taylor’s concern about writing too much of a summary. It also made it possible for me to follow Taylor’s argument closely and gave me inside knowledge about the accuracy of the content. I felt more capable of determining how convincing the argument was because I understood it both in terms of what Taylor was writing and what was written in the novel. As Yothers concludes, “it is a mistake for us to refrain from seeking to address issues related to the reading and interpretation of texts out of a fear of being too directive” (6-7). In light of this advice I decided to freely discuss ideas and examples with Taylor. This openness allowed us to talk about where she effectively proved her point and where she might be able to add more textual evidence.
At this point, having established mutual understanding and having addressed Taylor’s concerns, we were able to get into more substantial issues. I was able to take on two roles as suggested by a question used in Elbow and Belanoff’s peer-editing exercises. I acted as though I completely believed Taylor’s argument and this allowed me to suggest things she might add as further support. I then acted as though I did not believe all that she wrote so that I could critically point out parts of her argument that were weaker (Holt 385). This technique allowed Taylor and I to realize that the second part of her argument may not have been as strong as the first part. We then discussed ways that might help her improve this second section so that it was as effective as the first part (Writer’s Web). This is also when we discussed the possibility that she had fallen into the two-essay trap a little bit and we thought about how she might make the two parts more cohesive. As Taylor’s essay was already strong, we wanted “to go beyond the simple response level toward making suggestions for improvement” (Holt 388). In order to do this I looked over the essay again to see where I could ask questions or make suggestions, not commands, about how Taylor could potentially improve her work (Writer’s Web).
Through my consultation with Taylor I learned a lot more than I expected to. I had previously thought that it would be like reading over a paper for a friend and that it would be casual and not that difficult. However, I discovered that no matter what kind of paper I am looking at or who I am looking at it for it is still necessary to take the consultation seriously and remember the techniques we have learned. I found that the readings we have done were actually helpful to me when I was holding the appointment and I was glad to have that additional information because otherwise I would have had trouble with the consultation.
Sunday, February 27, 2011
Written Commentary
After reading McGlaun’s article “Reflections on Teacher Comments: Lessons from the Tutorial” I cannot help but think about teacher comments on essays and my own experiences with them. At this point I can think about essay comments from a couple of points of view; comments from teachers in high school and now a number of professors in college, trying to write my own comments for this class, and observing appointments at the Writing Center. To some extent, I am questioning how valuable these comments even are.
The comments I remember most from high school came from only two teachers. One taught me how to use a semi-colon, which for some reason teachers had neglected to explain up until my sophomore year. He saved me from a bad run-on sentence habit but he did so by leaving a bright yellow folder about punctuation, the semi-colon edition, on my desk in class. I imagine he followed up by commenting on my use in future writing but that is less memorable. My other teacher had a somewhat unconventional practice of keeping a tally on his rubric of how many times passive voice, and other pet peeves of his, appeared in the graded paper. I do think that this helped me become a better writer, especially because it made me conscious of particular aspects of writing, but again it was not exactly teacher comments in the traditional sense.
Thus far in college none of my professors have made much of an impression on me through their comments. I tend to remember them as easy or tough graders but I am unable to recall many specific comments that made me change my writing or drew much of a reaction from me at all.
Now that I am taking this class and observing at the Writing Center I am markedly more aware of written comments. I have discovered from trying to write comments on papers that it can be rather difficult to strike the right balance but what I have also discovered is that being at the Writing Center and being able to talk to the writer in person seems to be a much more productive and valuable activity.
I suppose it is my own fault for not putting my teacher’s comments to better use, maybe I just need to stop being lazy, but I tend not to be significantly impacted by what they write on my papers. I read comments over when I get a paper back, consider what they say, check the grade, and if I am satisfied with it I pretty much forget about it. I find that I do not have the time to pain over what a teacher writes on my paper and apparently I do not have too much space left in my head to store their comments. Unless a comment is specific and clear and I feel that it is a worthwhile suggestion or correction, I tend not to worry about it. I cross the paper off my to-do list and at best I might glance at it again when I have another paper to write for that professor.
This all makes me wonder if it is just me or if there is something slightly useless about written paper commentary. The verbal activity that takes place at the Writing Center seems to be many times more productive than a few sentences written at the end of a paper. Also, McGlaun’s comments about students not being able to read tone and her attempt to tape record her paper grading process make me think that there might be a better way, and that the way might be through a simple face-to-face interaction.
Sunday, February 13, 2011
Another visit to the Writing Center
When I visited the Writing Center this week to observe my consultant both she and the other consultant had appointments. This was interesting to me because the week before they had been talking about how few appointments they were having and I had been wondering about it but I imagine the semester is picking up and students are starting to have more work. I was somewhat reassured of the Writing Center’s usefulness after seeing that there were actually two students who had come in.
So, I observed my consultant’s appointment and that was an interesting experience for me too. My consultant said that it was a very good paper and so she did not have that much to correct in it. She didn’t make too many comments during the appointment but I observed that her technique is to give small comments to the student as she goes along and I think she did a better job reading the paper because she was interacting with the writer while she did it.
At the end of the appointment I asked my consultant a few questions about what her other appointments had been like lately because so far I have seen two students come in with good papers that did not need that many corrections. I was surprised that she said she actually has had a couple of difficult appointments recently. One student came in with a paper that just was not very good and was poorly organized and another student came to the appointment thinking that the consultant was going to fix her paper for her. While we have talked about these types of students coming to appointments in class, the existence of such students became more real when I heard of actual situations involving them and now I realize more that I will probably encounter those students myself.
Sunday, February 6, 2011
First Visit to the Writing Center
On Tuesday I went to observe at the Writing Center for the first time. I had never actually been before and I was somewhat surprised. I had expected it to be bigger and more of an office type of setting but I liked that it felt more comfortable and personal than that. The fact that it was a small room with just students sitting together at a table made it feel more like letting a friend read over a paper than going to an official appointment. I think that students are probably pleased and perhaps relieved when they see that the Writing Center is somewhere that they can feel comfortable going to. Maybe if more students realized what appointments are actually like they would be more inclined to go.
The consultant that I was supposed to be observing did not actually have an appointment while I was there but the other consultant did so I just sat in and observed his appointment instead. Another student was also observing so we ended up having five people involved in the appointment. I thought that it would be more official than it was; in some ways I felt like I was simply chatting with other students, mostly about academic things, but at the same time the student who came in ended up with a corrected paper. Although I do not think the student was too self-conscious about having her paper edited I think she still probably felt more comfortable in the relaxed atmosphere in which her paper was reviewed than she would have in the setting I had imagined. I think the consultant did a good job of making the student feel good about her appointment because he acted like a peer and talked to her first instead of immediately sitting down and reading her paper. I think that she left feeling that her appointment had been helpful rather than that she had gone somewhere and been criticized. Overall I left with a positive impression of what the Writing Center is like.
Monday, January 31, 2011
Plagiarism
In class last week we worked on an exercise to identify plagiarism. I expected this to be easier than it was. Previously, it seemed to me that the issue would be pretty clear-cut; either the writing was plagiarism or it was not. However, we worked with a scale of plagiarism that ranged from outright fraud, to simply inputting an entire quote, to legitimately good writing.
At times it was obvious that in an example the student had simply stolen the words of an author and tried to pass them off as their own. There were also times that the student did a good job of citing a source, integrating it into their own writing, and including their own ideas. The difficult examples were the ones in between these two extremes. Sometimes it was difficult to decide if the writing was acceptable or not because it seemed like the student might be paraphrasing but on the other hand maybe they were not. Sometimes students appeared to have tried to cite a source and not done a very good job of it, but at least their intentions seemed to be to give credit where it was due. Other instances made me question what needed to be cited and what could be considered general knowledge. In these cases hopefully a writing consultant could talk with the writer and determine if information needed to be cited and, if in fact it did, do so properly.
Further complicating the issue of citation was the fact that even within our class we could not agree on where in the scale certain examples belonged. There was an element of interpretation involved that made me sympathize with students; how are they supposed to handle the issue when professors have the potential to be so subjective?
Monday, January 24, 2011
"What if drugs were legal?" Response
For my Writing Pedagogy class this semester I have to keep a blog about my experiences with writing, tutoring, and my course work. One of our first assignments was to read a student paper that was written in response to an article about legalizing drugs and edit and comment on it. I found that this was a more difficult exercise than I expected.
While the paper needed a lot of editing, the assignment was not to tear apart the paper and edit every detail to make it better. Instead we were expected to act as if this was a paper that we were actually confronted with in the Writing Center. Thus, we had to consider not only the paper, but also the person who wrote it. This means that I was concerned with helping the student and improving the paper as well as trying not to insult them or make them feel bad about their writing.
I found it difficult to maintain a balance between correcting aspects of the paper and not criticizing the student too much. It was hard to restrain myself from correcting every grammatical error, like the spelling of immigrant as “imagrant,” but I knew that helping the student effectively make his or her point was more important than worrying about spelling errors, which spell check could handle. I tried to focus more on making sure the student wrote quality topic sentences and developed ideas fully. The basic idea of what the student was trying to do was clear and I understood the argument, the problem was that it needed to be presented more effectively and with more supporting evidence. I attempted to compliment the student on bringing up good ideas, while encouraging him or her to add more detail and go further with those thoughts.
My main goal was not just to correct the errors in the paper but to encourage the student to work a little more on developing what he or she had started to do. I tried to remember that this was not my paper to write and that I therefore needed to point the student in the right direction but not write the paper myself. In the process I aimed to include both positive and negative, but constructive, comments.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)