Writing Center Class Fall 2018

Q: How important do you think it is for writing center staff to pursue writing center research? Why? What sorts of research could we propose for IWCC? I feel it's important for writing center staff to pursue research because research can be beneficial for tutors (and sometimes students). It has the potential to help tutors understand new pedagogical approaches and strategies, and develop ways to improve a writing center, to name a few. One of the challenges in conducting this research, particularly for those who are fairly new to writing centers, is to come to understand what areas of research are relevant. On the one hand, this can be accomplished by comparing the scholarship on writing centers with one's own tutoring experiences. On the other hand, tutors may want to come to their own understanding first of how a writing center functions (or doesn't function), and then search for those issues in the scholarship to see if they've been addressed. In either scenario, I...

As others have already said, the wide variety of students served by the writing center makes research vital. The students I've worked with so far have come from different disciplines, backgrounds, and respond to different types of feedback. I see myself assuming too often that a student will learn the same way I do, or need the same sort of support. Coming to our meetings with an understanding of the variety of different learning styles and needs will not only make tutors more effective, but also more efficient, limiting dead-end attempts at teaching students in ways that aren'e accessible for them.   The area of variability that I've put the most energy into identifying and addressing is in scope of information learned. It would be easy to provide all the right information to help a student improve a paper without actually leaving an impact on the student. Perhaps the instruction was t...

As many others have echoed in their blog posts, I think the most important reason that Writing Centers conduct and share their research relates to the sheer breadth of disciplines we see as tutors. Over the past two weeks I have seen a Masters student in Urban Planning, PhD students in Chemistry and Quantitative Sociology, a first-year in Rhetoric, and a senior doing her Thesis (three of these students are English-language learners). The research that we have ready over the course of the semester, particularly the case studies and "Transfer-Based Issues" worksheet, have allowed me to fill the gaps in my own knowledge as a tutor, and meet my individual students as a helpful, resourceful mentor. At the beginning of the semester, I did not have the language to describe grammatical or syntactic transfer, or the knowledge of dialects that might make it possible for me to have more authentic, productive conversations with students who don't speak or write Standard American Engl...

For me, research in the writing center setting feels crucial in that it can serve to address questions that come up across so many disciplines. Because writing centers often see students from a wide cross-section of the University community, research has the ability to address how we serve students in a variety of fields and demographics. I'm especially interested in my WC enrollment student who may have dyslexia and the gaps that we saw during last week's class between the University's resources for learning disabilities, our students' instructors, and the Writing Center.  Research can help to bridge those gaps by identifying specific writing center populations and their needs and then taking this identification a step further by asking questions about how these students write, how their instructors teach, how we can best serve them, how they respond to feedback, what type of feedback "works" for which students from which backgrounds and in which contexts, ...

While reading Chapter 8 of The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors , I was pleasantly surprised to learn that tutors are the ones doing the research on tutoring. It seems like so many fields have research that is conducted by people outside the actual field, or people in the field who aren’t the ones actually applying the information. Especially in terms of tutoring where all of the work is personal, up close, and specifically tailored to a case by case basis, it seems vital for a researcher to be in tune with the practice of tutoring. I was intrigued by the essay referenced in this chapter that aimed to raise awareness about the “ethical considerations and pedagogical implications of using plagiarism detection software.” I recently had a student come in and ask if it was alright if he had a 90% original score from Turnitin. I’m honestly not very familiar with the system. I felt that 90% seemed like a good score, but I was not sure if that was enough to avoid being accused of plagia...

I think it's important for WC staff to perform research because, as Bedford points out, WC tutors have to compel their students to improve their writing even when we don't always know how best to compel them. Further research will hopefully continue to clarify how best to tailor a session to every student's individual needs, but for now I feel swaths of information are still missing. I feel this particularly acutely with my PhD statistics student. I've talked about the difficulties of working with a student who is producing a type of writing that feels fundamentally different to the writing I normally work with (so, writing that revolves around mathematical formulas instead of language analysis), and I'd be interested to see research conducted on how to best serve the writing of mathematicians. Although I'm trying my best with this student, in my heart of hearts, I cannot believe that I am truly helping her "grow" as a writer - each week I think I'...

I enjoyed reading Lorraine's Story and having the opportunity to situate myself in another tutor's experience in our writing center, and tutoring mostly academically while also being enrolled in a creative program. I pursued the social sciences as an undergrad, so I really enjoyed this piece because I could see major aspects of my mindset and approach in both Lorraine and Brian. I was interested in the 'debate' between the two and appreciated the democratic approach to disagreement that I feel can only really occur in a Writing Center (in opposition to a classroom with the hierarchal dynamic). I didn't love the sort of hard-line approach to academic writing as bad that the writer took -- I felt like there are so many incredible bridge authors in the interdisciplinary academy of the 21st century -- I'm thinking of people like bell hooks or Maggie Nelson who weave theory, personal writing, and creativity into their writing in really delightful ways. Even the aut...

Like Ian, I was most struck by the dual narratives taking place in Lorraine's Story: Goedde is tutoring Lorraine, and Goedde is also telling us about tutoring Lorraine. Personally I think it's irresponsible of Goedde to draw so many conclusions about Lorraine's experience without naming his own positionality. In other words, the piece lacked the self-awareness that I think is necessary to engage with the greater ideas that Lorraine was trying to explore in her personal essay (code-switching, racism, the failed promises of assimilation). As the reader, I'm never made aware of Goedde's race, and as a result I found myself missing an important analysis: that white people (and other people in majority groups) are more free to move between academic and creative language without having their intelligence questioned. A white man may be able to use simpler language in his discipline, but students of difference often have to conform to impenetrable academic jargon in order...

What most struck me about Brian Goedde's essay was an instance in which Goedde himself falls prey to the very stereotyping he encourages Lorraine to explore and critique in her essay scene. Specifically, Goedde writes, "'the most profound' offense comes when [Lorraine's] small-town boyfriend says he doesn't want his family to meet her because she's Mexican." To be clear, I'm not defending the comment made by Lorraine's boyfriend. The boyfriend's comment is, obviously, disgusting and racist. He sounds like the WORST. But I do want to point out how Goedde's strategy to critique the boyfriend seems hypocritical, as he criticizes the boyfriend for his small-minded assumption by himself making a small-minded assumption about the boyfriend (I'm talking about Goedde's casual association of the boyfriend's racism with his "small-town" upbringing). Even if I recognize that regions of the country are in fact more steeped i...

Brian Goedde’s case study of his writing center student Lorraine held a lot of significance for me as a Mexican American. When I was in middle school and high school, I also tried to separate myself from the image of a culture stigmatized in the United States. The difference for me was that I tried to deny that part of my identity entirely, causing me years of grief. So this was a difficult reading for me. But I felt pulled to a discussion of academic language as a tool for assimilation into a white world. I agreed with Goedde’s description of academic writing as “wordy and tedious.” Academic writing gets on my nerves, upsets my brain, and often takes too long and too much to say not very much at all. But my complaints with academic language go beyond that. The devices inherent in academic writing—removal of “I” statements, formal/“standard” language, no room for sensory description—effectively attempt to remove all subjectivity. To be unbiased, universal (essentially, to be affluent...

Similar to Yasmin, I have also done remote editing work for online magazines (which is a bit similar to asynchronous tutoring), and in some ways the distance and time preferable to face-to-face tutoring. I do agree that it is helpful to have a student in front of me, so that I can infer from their body language and ask clarifying questions in the moment, but because of the time crunch it can sometimes be difficult to both digest the content and provide substantive feedback. When I was editing remotely, I had the advantage of time (as Warren said in his blog post, I am able to sit down with the piece I am editing at a time I know I will be refreshed and focused). I also think that the template in the Bedford guide would be helpful in Writing Centers, but perhaps less so in editor-writer relationships. That way, less-confident students can rely on the structure of the template from week to week, and adjust their expectations accordingly.

I haven't formally done any online tutoring without face-to-face contact, but I have done lots of editing from afar, which in some ways feels similar to the asynchronous form of online tutoring we'll do in the Writing Center. I do have a lot of concerns even after reviewing the Bedford Guide -- about pacing, making sure to actually address the students concerns (rather than the errors/issues I identify), and not getting too in depth in the way it can be easy to do when you're just looking at a text. One technique I've implemented in my rhetoric class that I imagine would be helpful with online tutoring is to ask the student for specific questions that they would like my feedback to address. I think it would also be great to utilize the stock responses referenced -- there are so many times when I'm giving feedback that I know I've just made the exact same comment on another student paper, but fail to actually save these tips and pieces of information. I guess...

I've never done online tutoring, and until I read the chapter from Bedford on it, I wasn't too thrilled about the concept. Face-to-face contact is very important to me, both because I like to process my student's body language to check for understanding and because I think it can occasionally come off as cold in online commentary (I'll have to work on that). To some extent, I still worry about these problems. I particularly like to gauge from the student's voice at the end of the session if they're confident in their plan of revision, and I'll miss that element. However, one thing I (naively) didn't consider about asynchronous tutoring was the benefit of the time difference. I sometimes feel crushed by time constraints, particularly during my 30-minute appointments - I can sometimes spend anywhere from 15-17 minutes reading and processing the work, which gives me little time to relay feedback and, very importantly, to ensure my student understood the fee...

When tutoring a student one on one in person, I feel that I have access to their reactions in a way that I don’t have with online tutoring. For instance, if I recommend to a student that they could change a sentence to communicate an idea better, I can see from their body language, the way they scrunch their face or twist up their mouth, whether they feel that they are being listened to and understood or not. Sometimes a suggestion I give does not fit with the idea they actually want to communicate, but even if they don’t feel comfortable telling me, I can pick up on their nonverbal response and either ask them if it’s helpful or redirect. Ted Remington sold me on some benefits on online tutoring though, in “Reading, Writing, and the Role if the Online Tutor.” That we can better play the role of anonymous audience in an asynchronous online session is notable. I will definitely incorporate “As a reader, I...” into my online feedback from now on. 

Advantages of online tutoring over face-to-face: You can (sometimes) choose what kind of writing you want to give feedback on. I especially enjoy working with students on statements of purpose for applications, so when i see an SOP pop up in the online tutoring center I make sure to claim it.  You’re able to take time to consider the work as a whole and construct your global feedback more carefully, as well as quickly identify smaller changes with syntax and grammar through comments in the margins. It often feels more efficient - less “thinking on the spot” and more of an opportunity to pause and consider what broader feedback or suggestions will most benefit the writer for their next draft. This separation also makes it easier to avoid the feeling of “over-critiquing” or of not having struck the right tone with a writer, because you’ve had space to formulate your feedback.  There’s a limit to what you can do with the information you have, which means that the writer tak...

For the past two or so years, asynchronous tutoring has taken up 95% of my tutoring, so I've had a lot of time to think about its pros and cons. One pro of asynchronous tutoring is the flexibility of time. At the Writing Resource, as long as I complete my work within 24-48 hours of the student's submission, it is fine. This means I can wait to do the work until I'm ready and my head is clear; this isn't possible for synchronous tutoring - you just have to do it! Progressing through the work is also an advantage, as I can work at my own pace, uninterrupted. I ask a lot of questions in the margins, but because the student isn't there to answer them, I can move along quickly. But this is also a drawback.There are times I want questions answered because the same question comes up again and again (e.g. What does this mean? I notice you use this word a lot...) and all I can do is address it. Similarly, with synchronous tutoring, because I can ask for clarification, I ca...

I really enjoyed reading the Bean chapter, not only for the methods of helping students work through difficult text, but also for the way it made me think about the difficult texts the students often seem bent on producing. So often in helping a student through a paper, I feel my job it to remind them that their ideas expressed clearly are what will make an successful paper. I assumed it was lack of confidence in those ideas that made them feel like they had to pad every sentence with erudite language. But, it makes sense that because they've spent so much time wading through texts that they may have never really digested, they would try to mirror that impermeability. I'll definitely think about this chapter next time I'm helping a student through a difficult reading, but I'll also think about it when asking a student to read through their own writing. Creating a distance by asking them to engage in conversation with themselves could help them both improve their writi...

I really enjoyed reading "Helping Students Read Difficult Texts," especially as it relates to the work I'm doing with my Rhetoric class, but I have to admit that I don't think I've worked with any students in the Writing Center yet who are engaging with particularly challenging texts. Or perhaps for the most part, they've come in with a kind of confidence about their ability to understand the texts they've been asked to engage with, and we mostly focus in on the writing. But I can completely understand how the strategies presented in this article would be helpful for a student working within the context of an upper level course. I most appreciated the ability to zoom out of the disciplinary mindset into techniques that would work well for students in all areas. Like many Writing Center folks, I know a lot about how to read for the humanities and social sciences and much less about other areas, so these more generalized approaches to entering the conversa...

Reading the Bean chapter transported me back to my first semester as an undergraduate, when I took a class called "The Social Construction of Reality." It was a critical theory/philosophy class, and the first time I was reading writers like Foucault, Debois, and Marx (writers that I now consider foundational to my understanding of the world, power, and politics). However, as a new college student I had absolutely no idea how to read these writers; I didn't know their rhetorical contexts or cultural codes,. I was endlessly frustrated by the texts we were assigned, and no matter how much time I spent with the books I couldn't seem to crack their codes. (I also have a fundamental axe to grind with writers who write to obscure as opposed to illuminate, but that's a story for another time.) I believe there is a difference between challenging students without providing them with the tools to help themselves, and really teaching students. Reading this chapter made me re...

I think what's been trickiest for me to express to students is, as Bean describes it, the "believing and doubting game." Many of the students I've worked with at the WC seem to take published work as law - what that author says goes. There is only believing, no doubting. And while I do believe publication means something (assuming the publication is reputable), I've tried to emphasize to my students that just because something is in print doesn't mean you can't disagree with some, or even most, or even ALL of it. I think, in part, students' willingness to automatically accept the information contained in handouts is itself a symptom of the time crunch kids are under. Particularly if they've already had to do work just to ascertain a content level of understanding from the reading, why spend MORE time deciding if you agree or disagree with that ascertained content? I also wonder if the reputation of canonization sometimes hinders students' confi...

Before picking up this week's reading, I'd been thinking a lot about how to help my WC enrollment students tackle the kind of dense, scholarly reading that their professors often assign. All four of my enrollment students are freshmen and some of their reading has been so difficult and packed with academic jargon that they've confessed that they don't always complete it before class - especially when (as Bean points out) the professor will be explaining it in more accessible terms during the day's lecture. As an undergraduate, I absolutely relied on this same strategy - I'd skim a reading and then show up to the lecture expecting a full summary during class. Part of me still rails against the idea that standard academic writing has to be complicated enough that we need to slowly read (and then re-read) to be able to parse through the author's argument. Why can't everything be straightforward! No wonder students have difficulty "seeing themselves in ...

In reading Bean's "Helping Students Read Difficult Texts," I thought of something as I reached the section titled "Writing 'Translations'." In short, Bean recommends that students translate, via writing, challenging passages into their own words. I like this idea, and I think it can be complemented with another - after reading a difficult passage, article, etc., students can also try to verbalize  that text into their own words. If it's a struggle, or impossible, students should quickly recognize that they need to revisit the passage. I also feel this is a great method to help students practice summarizing or paraphrasing skills; if they can "translate" a text into their own words (verbally), this verbalization may be good enough (with a few tweaks) to transfer it back to paper/their own writing.