Jane Cogie’s article “In Defense of
Conference Summaries: Widening the Reach of Writing Center Work” discusses the
potential of writing conference summaries, well written ones that is, to
broaden the communication and understanding between the professor, student and
tutor.
Cogie first discusses the two
common perspectives towards writing center summaries. Cogie refers to these
positions as “sharers” and “seclusionists”, two terms coined by Michael
Pemberton in his 1995 Writing Lab Newspaper. Pemberton defines “sharers” as
people who “perceive these reports as promoting “a unified educational
experience for students” and “productive relationships with faculty”’
(Pemberton 13). “Seclusionists, on the other hand “see summaries as just
another instance of limiting tutors to the role of “service workers” for instructors”
(Pemberton 13). Cogie briefly entertains the problems with poorly written or
brief summaries which do nothing to highlight the improvements made by the
writer nor tactfully point out to the teacher possible issues with the
assignment. These summaries merely serve as a technical formality which
indicates to the professor that the tutor has done the job.
However for the remainder of her
article Cogie takes a firm “sharer” stance towards writing summaries and goes
on to address how successful writing conference reports can be composed. It is
asserted that summaries must be longer than three sentences and that the
writing center and director must be supportive of lengthier and thorough
responses, training their consultants on how to write these detail-specific reports
which provide useful information for future meetings between the professor and
student.
Cogie goes on to discuss the benefits of detailed writing reports. The survey results provided in the article
indicate that teachers have confirmed that strong summaries provide them with
better insight into their students’ struggles and confusion with an assignment,
stating “10% of the teacher responses citing use of the reports to focus
teaching and design exercises for students” (Cogie 56). It is also pointed out
that tutors are able to gain a better idea of the writer’s progress and the
overall productivity of the session through summarizing their work.
Perhaps the most intriguing was the student survey portion
where all students interviewed agreed that writing summaries were helpful. However
large percentages indicated that they desired to be more involved in the
conference summary process, with 67% being in favor of optional student
commenting and 72% being in favor an exclusive student section. High
percentages of students also indicated a desire to receive a student copy of
the summary.
This leads me to question whether in the traditional
writing center process if students feel a certain disconnect after the
consultation ends. Yes, they gain valuable insight towards their paper and how
to strengthen the claim, style, flow etc. However they are left wondering what
the consultant has said to their professor in the post-report write-up. The
consultant could underestimate the level at which the writer has understood the
assignment which they have been given, or the consultant could overestimate the
understanding and confidence with which the writer left the conference. Either
way, the professor would be misinformed in the summary. I wonder if, professor
permitting, an optional student commentary section in the professor write up
could be a beneficial addition to reports at Richmond
Nellie Searle
