Mediating Rhetorical Differences When Working with ESOL Students

     A substantial portion of visits to the Writing Center —particularly those most repeated and extensive—are made by international students for whom English is a second—or, in many cases, third—language. For this reason, as Severino promotes, it is paramount that writing consultants be cognizant and considerate of the differing but equally valid ways in which foreign students have learned to express their thoughts and ideas (45). Our job at the Writing Center is to aid the students in understanding and adapting to the more traditional Western way of expressing ideas not because the Western way is by any measure superior, but because it is the most efficacious means of communication in the environment in which these international students find themselves. 

     The nature of the path of an argument leading to a conclusion is often distinctly different between Western and other--particularly Eastern--cultures.  Although English speakers traditionally have been said to develop their arguments in a linear progression, and Eastern Writers in a “non-linear, spiral fashion” (Kaplan), such overarching distinctions are often too simplistic, blurring over the important intricacies that distinguish the different means of expression (Severino 45). In many ways, the Western and Eastern essay are very similar, both developing from an introduction, to a body that contains examples and evidence, and culminating in a conclusion. 

     One of the most important parts of the expression of the argument, however—the delivery of the thesis—is the part with which ESOL speakers often struggle most when attempting to express themselves in English. Although the fundamental structure of an Eastern and Western essay may be closely comparable, the placement of the thesis and the development of the main idea often occurs in different places in writings of these cultures (53). While in Western culture it is expected that the reader make his or her thesis and main points clear in the introduction, in Eastern writings, the writer often allows the evidence and examples to gradually lead to the thesis, which is not elucidated until the conclusion of the essay. 

     It is also important to consider cultural differences with regard to the theme or style of an essay prompt; for those of Eastern cultures, which are strongly collectivist, personal writing is very uncommon and often viewed as a waste of time due to Eastern cultural values (56). For this reason, a writing consultant may need to give a student from such a cultural background additional explanation or encouragement to express their more individualistic thoughts to which their previous environment was averse.

     As Severino expresses, taking the time and energy to ruminate and learn from the international students’ means of expression is an ideal way in which to enable oneself as a writing consultant to help the students express themselves more potently to a Western audience. It is important to avoid overgeneralizing the habits or needs of the students, or stereotyping the students of diverse Asian cultures as fitting under one descriptive umbrella as “Eastern” (57). With thoughtful and careful consideration of the environment in which the student grew up and the challenges in Western expression that the student faces, the Writing Consultant can play a pivotal role in aiding an ESOL student in finding his or her voice for Western-style expression while simultaneously retaining his or her unique cultural standpoint and ideas. 

Isabella Fasulo

Understanding Different Processes of Learning and Thinking

Although we have discussed the potential differences in tutoring an ELL student and the respective barriers that they encounter, I never truly understood how much their cultural dissimilarity accounts for their differences in writing and learning until I read Redden’s “Chinese Students in the Classroom”.  Redden explicitly details how different aspects of a Chinese student’s educational experience are affected by their cultural disposition.  I found her article insightful as she explains exactly how this cultural difference manifests itself in writing, thinking, and in all of a Chinese student’s educational experience.

It is important to acknowledge that a lot of what we would consider as “errors” stem from what Chinese students have been taught for years.  The particular frequent “errors” that Redden cites are implicit points and indirect conclusions.  This poses an interesting problem for writing consultants, as a consultant may find himself in a position requiring a drastic “re-teaching” of certain elements of writing.  Redden explicitly states “Writing was hard to almost half of the participants not only because they had to write in a non-native language, but because they had to grapple with writing expectations different from China's” (6).  That is, a consultant may find himself having to teach a Chinese, or ESL student, something against what the tutee has already learned.  This spurs the question: what is the best way of doing this?  Consultations with Chinese students are different because they may not have the prior knowledge that non-Chinese students have to draw from.  This makes these consultations unique, so my question is what is the most effective way to run a consultation in which a consultant has to teach a drastically new method/style of writing to a Chinese student?

Beyond this, I think it is important to focus on the other, non-writing, parts of Redden’s essay.  Redden describes that all parts of a Chinese or ELL student’s education is affected by their native culture.  Specifically, their thinking, speaking, and social lives are all drastically different.  Redden notes that Chinese students often struggle to find a balance in their education, as they have to allocate significantly more time to reading and studying, as it is not in their native language, and are often afraid of making mistakes in front of others.  One may ask why this is relevant for writing consultants to know, but I think the answer is simple.  Consultants have to have a basic understanding of the differences and the reasons for those differences of Chinese and ELL students.  That way, consultants can better understand certain patterns of error in writing or in thinking.  Moreover, if consultants are more aware of the nature of these “errors” they can better cater their consultations to their students.

In all, Redden’s essay was insightful, as it gave me a better look into how each part of education, from writing to speaking to thinking, is affected by a student’s cultural disposition.  Consultants must realize where an ELL student’s potential differences come from so a consultant can better cater to their needs.

Undergraduate Consultants Are Capable, Too!

As I was reading “Non-traditional students in the writing center: Bridging the gap from a process-oriented world to a product-oriented one” by Angie Smith, something didn’t quite feel right. As she wrote about her help from DeDe, and then her experiences helping non-traditional students, it hit me: there was no mention of undergraduate consultants. Smith only talked about non-traditional student tutors helping their non-traditional student peers, and I couldn’t help but wonder what she would think of our writing center, which hires exclusively undergraduate students. After reading the rest of her argument, I think she offers some good advice for working with non-traditional students, but underestimates undergraduate consultants.

Cynthia Haynes-Burton’s point that Smith highlights about transitioning non-traditional student writers from “product oriented” to “process oriented” was interesting. These writers are “so accustomed to producing a product that [they] wanted to skip over the process needed to come up with a polished final draft” (13). Many times this involves reminding writers about how to formulate an argument, write a strong thesis, and back it up with evidence. I liked that Smith included three examples from her own experience as a tutor, both successes and failures. In a strange sense, to me, it gave her credibility when she admitted her inability to help Joan, in that she wasn’t trying to paint a perfect picture of her experiences and advice. Smith also highlighted the difference between traditional and non-traditional students: generally, non-traditional students are more organized and eager to learn, and will bring in drafts quite early, yet lack confidence. This difference would be good to know going into a consultation with a non-traditional student. However, there are many other points Smith brings up as a non-traditional tutor that I feel an undergraduate tutor would be plenty capable of handling.

Smith claims that all non-traditional students have the memory of former teachers marking up their papers in red pen. This is nothing writing consultants haven’t seen before though, and are trained to do the opposite so this shouldn’t be a problem. Another reason that Smith points out for why non-traditional writers would feel more comfortable with non-traditional consultants is that they think undergraduates would think they’re “dumb.” This, again, is something we are trained not to do; we strive to never make our students feel inadequate or unintelligent. It’s possible that Smith has never seen an undergraduate writing center that’s as good as UR’s so, I’ll adjust my original claim. Rather than say that Smith has underestimated undergraduate consultants, I’ll just say that she’s underestimated what they’re capable of. 

Anxiety over Non-traditional Students in the Writing Center

As an undergraduate starting my career in the writing center next semester, Gardner addressed my anxiety over tutoring the “non-traditional” student. It is only natural for consultants to feel intimidated when someone who could be there mother or father, as Gardner puts it, asks for assistance on a paper. Though Gardner warns against stereotyping, a large age difference is impossible to ignore. Rather than trying to apply one approach to the non-traditional older student, tutors should cater to the needs of each individual person who enters the doors of the writing center.

Gardner’s approach to the difficult question regarding the dynamics of non-traditional writing consultations is incredibly effective. She creates a conversation between two different perspectives on the issue using Lyman, a “non-traditional” student, and McLean, a younger writing consultant. Lyman writes about her experience back at a school, saying, “academic jargon was like a foreign language to me” (Gardner, 8). She is opposite of the stereotypical older student often labeled as intimidating or pretentious. Lyman requires an approach similar to a more traditional student, emphasizing the point that writing consultants cannot make assumptions about the needs of a student until they talk with them.   

The dynamics of a session would naturally change when dealing with a person like Bea, a mother of two children in her forties attending college. Many of the techniques we have reviewed in class, like the templates in Graff and Birkenstein’s They Say I Say, may not be appropriate for older students. It seems elementary to do exercises reviewing transition words and introducing quotations with older students like Bea who are pressed for time. Other methods, like asking leading questions, seem appropriate and effective for all types of students. McLean mentions that time is more “precious” for older students, but time is precious for all students and tutors in the writing center. The job of the consultant is to assess the intentions of each student upon entering, and make a realistic goal for the session.

The consultant must adapt sessions to what the student wants. If a person like Bea walks in, it only makes sense to cater to what she is looking for. I suggest that every writing consultant begin the session asking the student what he or she wishes to accomplish. Rather than jumping into the consultation based on assumptions and stereotypes, tutors should simply ask them how they can help. Deciding how directive to approach a session should be based on the needs that the student identifies in the beginning of the session (or ideally emails before a consultation). The anxiety tutors like McLean express over finding a balance of power with an older student would disappear if the tutor just asked them what brought them to the writing center in the first place.

Guiding vs. Controlling a Writer

As Ari Cuperfain addresses in "Can I help You With That?," a piece on the delicate subject of directivity and academic integrity in the writing center, there is a fine line between moderately guiding a writer and controlling a writer during a consultation. A primary question that Cuperfain raises is if “a directive approach [is] ever warranted with regards to the content of the essay” (14). The implications of this question are ones I have felt in both consulting others as well as in being tutored myself.

Oftentimes my high school teachers have taken an overly directive approach when I ask them to assist me on essays. They stated what the correct interpretation for the essay was and told me the specific route that my essay needed to take. Although at the time this approach may have resulted in receiving a higher grade than I would have, reflecting on it through the eyes of a writing consultant, I see that this approach did not help foster my critical thinking skills. Analysis, synthesis, and critical thinking are essential parts of the writing process. They create the foundation of an essay which the rest of the paper lays upon. Although this overly directive approach helped me in the short term, in the long term, I didn’t receive any substantial help in how to think on my own.

However, when I consulted with a 216 student, I noticed that she was proficient in her ability to write clearly and concisely; it was the organization of her ideas and her thesis that needed to be addressed. In this case, I felt that I should aid her in the content of her paper. In addressing the dilemma of “the tension between guiding a writer and instructing a writer” (Cuperfain 14), I support Yothers’ technique of having the text that an essay is about at hand during a consultation. By doing so, a consultant is able to gently guide a writer in reevaluating her thesis by suggesting she look to the text to find support. Doing so may foster an environment where the writer is pushed to form her own ideas about the texts, rather than being forced to adopt a certain interpretation. This is certainly directive approach, yet it focuses on developing the writer’s ideas rather than assuming those of the consultant.

I also agree with Cuperfain in his idea that a way to assure that the approach a consultant takes has academic integrity is to check that “any revision to the essay could not have transpired without the writer’s active involvement” (15). If a consultant uses this principle when reflecting upon her consultations, it provides a concrete way to address an often-murky issue. It is always best to be cautious and thoughtful regarding the issue of plagiarism and directivity as a writing consultant. Additionally, like many delicate situations in the writing center, I believe that this case-by-case issue that Cuperfain touches upon becomes easier to judge as a writing consultant becomes more experienced.

The Confidentiality Complication

           As a first-year student in FYS, when I met with a writing consultant I was completely unaware of the fact that the consultants do, in fact, send out written reports to professors. When I learned of this procedure just weeks ago, I instantly felt embarrassed because I knew the drafts I brought in to the writing center were not my best work—they were just drafts, after all. However, after reading Jane Cogie’s “In Defense of Conference Summaries: Widening the Reach of Writing Center Work,” I can more easily understand the benefits to both teachers and students of writing summary reports.
            I liked how Cogie began her article by introducing the flaws with writing summaries and demonstrating the issues that may arise from a tutor writing an inadequate summary. She mentioned the difficulty seclusionists have with the whole concept of sending a writing center report to their teachers simply because it violates a certain aspect of student confidentiality within the meeting. Cogie realizes that some students, myself included, want the ability to freely “speak in their writing center sessions without having to worry that their words will be reported to faculty” (48). A possible solution she discussed to ease seclusionists’ concern that summaries violate student’s confidentiality was for students to give their written consent to send out a summary report and for full disclosure of the content of the written report. The problem I have with this solution, however, is that it is typically the students who lack confidence and most likely need the extra help that will be hesitant to give written consent to the writing tutor. In this case, there is a great disconnect between the professor and the student that may be struggling, which would not be beneficial to both the student’s learning and the professor’s desire to help. A better solution, in my opinion, is for professors and tutors to assure students that the content of the summaries will only benefit them and that they will only disclose information that does not harm the teacher or the student, as demonstrated by the summary examples.
            The sample summaries that Cogie included in her article were very helpful for me because I can better understand what she meant when she talked about “potential harm to the student and disagreement with the teacher” (50-51). She mentions that conference summaries can and should indicate a problem “without demeaning the student or the teacher” (52). The sample summaries offer great methods for writing consultants to employ when writing a summary because they discuss student development without being hurtful to the student or belittling the teacher’s assignment.

            Cogie stresses the importance of writing tutors being able to successfully write a summary as it is ultimately the medium that links professors with student progress. Unfortunately, the written product has the potential to be inadequate and give teachers a false or misleading “guide to the thinking process that produced [the paper],” (49). If written reports are to be of any assistance in facilitating student/teacher relationships, it is most important that tutors learn how to write these summaries properly above all else.

In Defense of Conference Summaries: Widening the Reach of Writing Center Work

Initially, I had never believed that the summary reports that writing consultants send to professors after a consultation were considered controversial. Without giving it much thought, I saw them merely as a useful tool to further help bridge the gap between professor and student. I viewed the writing consultant  as a helpful intermediary that could assist in not only specifying to the professor what the writer is having trouble with, but also to possibly guide the student to what the professor is looking for in a strong paper.

That being said, Cogie's article brought up interesting counterarguments to this belief, mainly this question of confidentiality. She brings up an interesting flaw in the system when she states, "Indeed, why should writing center tutors have to report to classroom teachers? Shouldn't their dialogue with the students be valued, as secessionists argue, no as an adjunct to the composition classroom but as a central part of the developing engagement of students with writing? ("Confidentiality"). And shouldn't students be free to speak in their writing center without having to worry that their words will be reported to faculty?" (Cogie 48).

While this is an interesting viewpoint to consider, I believe that the benefits of summary reports being sent to professors negate the need for confidentiality. There certainly is no need for a record of the exact dialogue that was had between the tutor and the student, but I feel as though the specifics of where the student is struggling and how the consultant worked to aid in these issues can be highly useful to the professor. With these summary reports, professors can gain greater insight into where the specific problem areas lie within a students writing and what techniques can be employed in order to resolve these issues. Furthermore, these reports are remarkable useful for the tutor. By forcing tutors to step back after a session and evaluate its productivity and effectiveness, tutors can gain insight into what specific techniques were successful and how to become a better tutor.

Writing summary reports are just one of the examples of this type of symbiotic relationship between student and writing consultant. Though this question and possible demand for confidentiality can be seen as a negative aspect of writing summary reports, I believe that the communication between tutor and student actually allows for a more collaborative atmosphere and provides the writer with a greater ability to improve his / her writing.