Conversation Reflection (No. 2)

This week I had the opportunity to speak with a tutee. The tutee provided some interesting feedback on the session:

• The tutee was a freshman student who had never participated in writing tutoring before. Before she came to the session, she told me that she more or less expected the writing tutor to “write the paper for her.” I was actually a little surprised by this admission and repeatedly asked her throughout the interview if she was serious about that comment, and each time I asked, she indicated that she was. When asked though what the most helpful aspect of the tutoring session was, the tutee indicated that it was the organizational and structural ideas that were most helpful. In particular, the tutee indicated that she felt like she could apply those ideas to later writing, which was an encouraging comment because it seemed like the session was successful then. It’s interesting when we think about my previous interview. The tutor had indicated that for her one of the biggest struggles was organization and not providing ideas directly. Even though the tutee in the session expected that, the tutor was able to steer correctly the session in a way that focused on the bigger picture of writing. Note: the tutor who was in the session was the same person I interviewed last week.
• I think a powerful comment from the tutee was that she “had no idea what RWTs do.” This actually seems to be a perennial problem for not only Hume specifically, but also other tutoring organizations. I think students struggle with the concept of what a tutoring session looks like. When I asked what the tutee thinks she could expect from future tutoring sessions, she indicated that working on the broader structure and organization of the ideas was very valuable to her.
• Interestingly, the tutee felt that the tutor talked roughly 65% of the time. I think this was an accurate assessment. This though was perhaps a good ratio for this session because the students knew each other and were comfortable working with one another. The tutee also asked lots of question of the tutor, so the session was very helpful to the tutee. Thinking about the ratio of tutor/tutee talk for future sessions, it is clearly important to be cognizant of the balance for each session individually and adjust the ratio when necessary to best serve the needs of the student.
• Finally, it was heartwarming to hear that the tutee appreciated the encouragement that was given during the session. That reminded me that sometimes tutors need to take on the role of “cheerleader” for the student’s writing. Sometimes, students are just looking for a little encouragement, so we as tutors need to focus on commenting on what is done well in the paper. Having a good balance between critiques and positive feedback is healthy for the tutoring relationship.

Overall, I think the tutee expressed a misconception about tutoring that many students have. Before I got into running my tutoring company, I also thought that tutoring was just kind of a process of telling the student the right thing to do. Obviously (now that I know something about tutoring), the process is much more involved. We as tutors need to do a better job informing our communities about what writing tutoring really means. That isn’t enough however: I think we would actually turn many students off with a mere explanation. We need also to explain why our way of tutoring (i.e. not just giving out the “right” way) is better.

Conversation Reflection

I chatted with my RWT in FroSoCo about her tutoring experiences. Our conversation actually began by her telling me that her tutoring session I had observed was the most difficult one she ever had. As we discussed, the tutor highlighted some great points from her experiences:

• One of the greatest challenges she has is discussing organization. People often struggle with organization because in their own head, the flow makes some sense, and it is difficult to pinpoint the exact problem. I agree that even in my own writing this is a huge challenge. Oftentimes, I’ve worked with three different Word documents open for one paper as I shift paragraphs and ideas around. I think this strategy facilitates thinking about where a certain section or sentence might best fit.
• Over the course of the year, the tutor indicated she had really worked on developing the skill of getting a tutee to talk about the assignments. Initially, she (the tutor) would just dive in to a paper and then try to have a discussion with the tutee. This definitely seems like a key skill that requires refinement. It’s easy to default towards the simple read and mark up option, but that doesn’t produce the best results. Having that conversation is key. My time with Alyssa has shown me the power that a conversation, without even looking at the writing (the last piece we discussed I actually hadn’t even begun writing it when we had our conversation), can have. I’ve mentioned this before, but writing is simply a way of communicating thoughts. Thus, it logically follows that clarifying those thoughts (which happens in conversation) will lead to better writing.
• Related to the previous point, the tutor also indicated the restraint she has had to exercise during some sessions. When reading a paper that discusses content the tutor is familiar with, it can be difficult not to offer content specific ideas. Thinking about this in the context of specialist tutoring, the idea of not offering specific content becomes even more important. That is perhaps one of the risks of being extremely knowledgeable in a particular field and tutoring someone else in the field who may not know as much. This point reminds me that a tutoring session should focus on the process of writing as I focus on drawing out the ideas of the student. My specific content ideas are irrelevant because the paper is not mine. The student should always own her own writing.

I’m hoping next to get a perspective from a student. I think it will be interesting to get their reactions to some of the broad ideas outlined above. I anticipate some of the responses will jive well with the conversation I had with the tutor, while other responses might seemingly create friction for a tutoring session if the tutor and tutee have differing goals (in that case then, hopefully, the tutor would be able to orient the session towards the intended goals).

Week 5 PWR 195 Reading Reflections

The generalist/specialist debate in tutoring has been one that has even challenged leaders in my education non-profit. For years, we've tinkered and adjusted our model of how we improve students as whole students while focusing on specific subjects. If there’s anything I've realized through those experiences, it’s that offering a flexible approach seems best. In some cases, such as when one writes for a broader context (i.e. the Thinking Matters/IHUM/PWR sequences), a generalist tutor may be more appropriate. The focus is truly on developing the writing skills necessary to succeed in more specialized, advanced writing. When that more advanced writing begins to happen, I definitely think a specialist approach probably becomes more appropriate. Because the writer is now focusing on entering a discourse community, the value of the generalist tutor at that point in a writer’s progression changes (note, I did not say diminishes). I think specialist tutors probably work best when there has been a solid writing foundation already laid. In many cases, this progression doesn't happen. Individuals striving for specialized writing still perhaps need a more generalist approach. A tutor who can embrace both of these positions can truly be an effective tutor. This doesn't necessarily mean that we need to combine fully into one tutor the characteristics of generalist and specialist tutors. However, I am suggesting that being cognizant of the student’s needs in relation to the generalist/specialist discussion is important.

Savini’s comment that “writing consultants, regardless of their disciplinary focus, can best serve their students by showing them how to gain access to new disciplines” underscores the idea that perhaps the generalist/specialist dynamic is fluid. Sometimes, when working with other students, I’ll be able to offer effective specialized tutoring. In other cases—I’m anticipating that biology paper—I’ll only be able to offer ways that students can improve their writing in general and then offer further suggestions on how to become more acquainted with the kind of writing that Biology requires. Writing tutors, depending on their own specialties, can clearly move between both roles.

The final comment I’d like to make relates to the specialist tutoring that has been arranged for my major and a few others. That setup, I believe, is incredibly helpful and it saddens me that more undergraduates aren't taking advantage of the opportunity. While the tutoring is certainly more specialized, I know that a more generalist approach can be adopted as well when needed. Additionally, I think personal dynamics play a big part in this too. During the quarter, I’ve gotten to know that particular tutor very well. She knows my personality, and my own voice. We haven’t worked on many pieces of writing together, but when we have, the conversations were incredibly productive. Having a well-formed relationship between the tutor and the tutee allows the tutor to be even more flexible in the approach that she takes: in some cases, it may even be appropriate to transition between specialist and generalist tutoring within a session.

Although I may try, I’m certainly not going to be able to resolve fully the tensions between generalist and specialist tutoring. As I think about myself as a tutor, I hope to embrace the fluidity and flexibility I have described above.

Discourse Community Paper Proposal

I would like to study the Public Policy discourse community partly because I am a Public Policy major. I think studying Public Policy will help me in my own writing for the major as I analyze from a more “external” perspective the writing of my field. I have multiple individuals that I will be able to consult throughout this process. As I mentioned in my tutoring reflections, Public Policy has a specific PWR instructor that helps with specifically Public Policy writing. She will be a great asset to develop some ideas about what “writing in Public Policy” means. Finally, I would like to briefly explore the importance of this discourse community to my own future. As I alluded to in my tutoring observation, Public Policy has a specific type of writing that dominates the fields of government service, education, and beyond. I do not claim to be an expert in any way on this type of writing, and while I am certainly familiar with the major characteristics of Public Policy, I think this paper will help to further develop my own understanding of how to write effectively about policy ideas.

PWR 195 Tutoring Reflections (No. 3)

Third Tutoring Session Observation

Date: Thursday, April 25, 2013

Participants: Graduate student working on a script for a speech and PWR instructor specially designated to Public Policy

Location: SIEPR

For this week’s tutoring observation, I decided to go with something that was aligned with the idea about discourse communities. A few weeks ago, it was announced that Public Policy (my major) would be hosting weekly a special tutoring session in our building for students working on presentations and writing. The tutoring was meant to be tailored for the kind of writing that Public Policy requires. I have been very excited about that idea and I hope that the service will continue. Unfortunately, no undergraduates have utilized the service. After talking with the PWR instructor who leads those sessions, she told me that only graduate students have come to consult with her. Earlier today, I observed a session where the tutor was helping a graduate student with a script for a speech that the student was going to give next week.

Initially, everything seemed normal with this session. There was some familiarity between the tutor and tutee. The mood in the room was light and friendly. Through the middle of the session, though, I realized that a few things made this session in particular stand out. These observations relate strongly to the idea of a discourse community. While perhaps applicable to other discourse communities as well, Public Policy particular emphasizes a concise and clear approach to writing and speaking. Compelling arguments should be presented not only eloquently, but also in as few words as possible. Furthermore, a memo writing style seems to pervade all writing in the major as most assignments that I have encountered and the project I observed in my session were carried out with the goal of communicating a short argument to an audience that might include decision makers. Public Policy has a unique informative aspect that motivates this memo type of writing.

While not necessarily obvious, many of these characteristics defined this particular tutoring session. Unlike the other sessions I have observed, the tutor paid particularly close attention to honing in on the argument and chiseling the phrasing down to be as concise as possible. Much of public policy has shifted towards data-driven arguments. There is a heavy emphasis on making statistical and numerical based arguments. Without even addressing this particular concept, the tutor and tutee discussed how best to strengthen the evidence presented in the short script, incorporating both the creative elements of an effective speech and the drier elements of hard data.

Overall, I felt good about the tutoring session. This comfort may have to do with my involvement with political science and public policy. While I cannot say definitively that I am a part of the discourse community for the Public Policy/Political Science world, I can say that my experience with that community has given me a level of confidence with that particular writing, more so than other types of writing.

Week 3 PWR195 Reading Response

I want to begin my reflection to this week's reading by telling a story. On Sunday, I was chatting with a friend of mine (a student one year younger than me who often seeks advice from me) about his rhetorical analysis for PWR1. I encouraged him to go to the writing center and talk with one of the owe instructors even if he did not feel like he had anything to say about the paper. I told him that sometimes just talking about the paper might be helpful in generating ideas or organizational structure. The following day, we were chatting again and he told me about his experience at Hume. I was happy to hear that he felt like he could relate to the tutor--telling me that the tutor reminded him fondly of his high school writing teacher. Near the end if the conversation though, he blurts out that he wished he could just drop off his paper at the writing center for "fixing." In response, I explained to him why that would be a bad set up, referencing ideas relating to a broader developmental purpose. By the end of our chat, I do not think I convinced him that taking the hard way was the better way. The easy path is so alluring.

The above story—in my opinion—demonstrates a significant flaw in how many students in this country (at least) are thought to think about education. Tasks assigned at school are merely that: tasks on a checklist that need to be completed. The process of actually learning something and developing one's ability to think critically about that idea is drowning in a culture that motivates students to approach education, particularly writing, as pit stop in the long race of life.

While this view of education may be overly cynical and perhaps even wrong in some contexts, I do think that writing centers are in a unique position to combat this intellectual laziness (my own phrase, as far as I know). As Harris points out in "Why Writers Need Writing Tutors," tutorials are the perfect place for students to learn about the "how" of writing (33). This idea clearly underscored what has been the emphasis throughout much of the literature for this week and last week: thinking about writing as a process. Related to this idea of process, I think Brooks makes am important, albeit nuanced, point about tutors not being editors. Because of the unique dynamics between tutor and student (less confrontational than a student-teacher relationship, more collaborative if the session is physically structured correctly, etc.), tutorials present an opportunity where the message that we need not merely "complete the task" can be planted. I really like the idea that tutorial sessions are meant to make better writers (in the long run), not better writing (in the immediate short run).

My final point relates to something I mentioned in the last class, and it is a philosophical point that I have been attempting to nurture ever since I started designing my own tutoring programs. In this week’s reading, we read arguments in favor of minimalist tutoring (Brooks) and arguments in favor of less minimalist tutoring (Corbett). At the end of the day, I believe the correct answer to this fundamental tutoring question has to do with one’s own leadership philosophy. For me personally, I subscribe to the idea of side-by-side leadership. Visually, it would look something like this. Imagine two people walking along a rocky cliff. Leading from the front might look like the leader always walking in front of the follower, always providing guidance by example on the best place to walk. Leading from behind might look like the leader walking behind the person always pushing them to take risks and explore the unknown territory before them. I prefer the style of leadership where you are equal with the other person, taking steps at the same time, learning from one another. While this reflection is not meant to be a leadership dissertation, there are certainly pros and cons that need to be explored with all three approaches. Nevertheless, in terms of tutoring, the side-by-side approach works best. It allows adjustments to be made so that a tutor does not lock herself into one rigid form of tutoring. It allows the authority barrier to be broken down. And most importantly, side-by-side leadership (or tutoring in this case) places the focus on process because both the leader and the follower (the tutor and the tutee) are developing together. Certainly, my leadership philosophy cannot translate directly to all tutoring scenarios, but in general, side-by-side leadership promotes the hallmarks of a successful tutoring session: the exchange of information, the development of ideas, and the growth of all individuals.

As has been mentioned in class, writing centers occupy a unique pedagogical purpose in schools. If established with a philosophy that promotes side-by-side mentoring, learning over outcomes, and writer over writing, stand to benefit enormously. And in the long run, those students will hopefully develop a more fundamental reason for why they write, moving beyond the sophomoric idea that we write to complete a task assigned to us with a particular due date.

    

Copyright © 2012

RomanLarson.com is solely responsible for the content of this post. Reproduction without permission is prohibited.

PWR 195 Tutoring Reflections (No. 2)

Second Tutoring Session Observation

Date: Monday, April 15, 2013

Participants: Student writing an RA for PWR1 and RWT

Location: Adams House

The second tutoring session I observed was between two students. The writer was working on a Rhetorical Analysis for PWR1. Unlike my first session, this one seemed more traditional in the sense that the student and tutor had previously not worked together, and the writer was seeking help on a less developed piece than the honors thesis that was the subject of my first observed tutoring session.

The tutoring session heavily focused on developing the content (specifically the argument) of the paper. Throughout the session, I noticed the probing questions that the tutor would ask like “What is the point you’re trying to make here?” or “Did I correctly interpret that?” Like the first session, this session also focused heavily on developing a good foundational understanding of the points the writer was trying to make, and then only after that understanding was established did the tutor try to give advice.

Throughout the session, the tutor seems to be really struggling with the content of the pieces she was to incorporate into her own writing. At one point, the writer asked the tutor of a particular piece of writing, “What do you think [the author’s] main argument is?” Without ever seeming insulting or belittling, the tutor kindly replied that she needed to think through that for herself. Because they worked to fit the various ideas together, using the well-written thesis as a “roadmap,” the session was a success. The student left saying she understood her purpose with the writing and she left knowing with a sense of how to proceed. This seems to be a critical aspect of tutoring: the writer needs to leave with a sense of the next steps she will take.

This tutoring session was particularly interesting because the writer was seeking help on specific content questions. The tutor could not necessarily answer those specifically, so through a process of much talking on the part of the writer, the tutor offered suggestions for how to think about putting the ideas together. Importantly, the tutor never told the writer what to do, and framed everything as a suggestion or as a decision that the writer would have to make.

    

Copyright © 2012

RomanLarson.com is solely responsible for the content of this post. Reproduction without permission is prohibited.