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.

Helping Students Write Literary Analyses

I found the piece Helping Students Write Literary Analyses very insightful. I was required in high school to write one literary analysis a month my senior year and the practice really helped me understand the skill. In fact, I vaguely remember being stumped a few times on how to approach an analysis, but towards the end of the year I believe that I had perfected the skill.

However, I think that I am not like most students in this regard. Dr. Essid has mentioned that in his 216 class, students struggle with close readings and understanding motifs and themes in close readings, the heart of an analysis. In my experience, practice and continuing to grow and understanding what one is doing wrong when writing an analysis is how one perfects the art of a proper literary analysis.

But where does that leave a writing consultant? Especially one that has a first time literary analysis writer? Well, I believe that Yothers means well, but his ideas of how consultations should be handled are flawed. Yothers outlines exactly how these consultations should happen and what each consultant should do for each individual case, but I think the most important part of a writing consultant is treating each case individually. Grouping students by how they seem or what their needs are by a formula of ideas really limits what the consultant can accomplish as a mentor for students in writing. However, the ideas that Yothers has for these students in these specific cases, while not universally applicable, can help a writing consultant with a few tough students and give the consultant a idea of where they can start.

The one other issue that I felt with Yothers was that he put too much emphasis on the importance of having graduate students be the writing consultants. I understand how he feels about having someone that is older and has more ethos to say that this is how things should be done and students would be more receptive to their advice. But I believe that students would actually be more open to meeting with a fellow undergraduate because they have more automatically in common. Graduate students are more intimidating to undergraduates and graduate students may not be as attentive to undergraduates. I believe that even the idea that you could run into your consultant at a football game or the dining hall immediately adds a greater connection than someone who is four years older who may have had a completely different college experience and a completely different set of expectations. Yes, graduate students do have more experience in academic writing, so I believe that graduate students should be available to undergraduates (especially for seniors working on theses) but first year students should have an older upperclassman undergraduate who still has experience in writing, but also can mentor the student through the rest of their undergraduate experience.

Learning to Argue Fruitfully

            The idea that peer writing criticism can involve students “learning to argue fruitfully” (390) appeals to me immensely. Holt’s emphasis on teaching discourse skills in conjunction with the content of classes is refreshing, as I can recall numerous courses in which these lessons were overlooked, even when the approach was touted as “discussion-based.” It has become a large part of the way I justify studying literature—the better we are at telling stories eloquently and arguing persuasively, the more impactful we can be. It excites me to realize that helping to foster fruitful arguments will be part of our role as writing consultants. In fact, Holt’s model strikes me as cumbersome for the classroom, with intended results perhaps better achieved in a writing consultation.

            The process Holt suggests makes sense in theory. Students engage in written dialogue, with each step of the process documented for reflection and for the instructor’s observation. In practice, though, I’m skeptical about its efficacy. In my experience, students tend to run for cover when they hear the phrase “small groups” during class. Particularly in an introductory class, when a professor instructs students to engage in a written dialogue, I would expect few of them to take the conversation seriously. The dilemma here echoes that of Perry’s “My Teacher Hates Me!”—students engaging in a forced, insincere dialogue because their professor will assign them a grade for it. I do not mean to suggest that some students will not be genuinely engaged, but it seems naïve to expect that simply assigning and grading a conversation will be enough to facilitate a genuine one. Holt’s approach seems particularly convoluted, her six-step method coming off more as numbing busy work than an effective classroom strategy.

            One professor who I think handles this extremely well is Dr. Outka, in the English Department. In a 300-level class last semester, she had a draft due for every paper and encouraged us to revise thoroughly before turning in the final version. For each paper, she assigned us to peer critique groups. We wrote commentaries similar to those we provide as writing consultants, then we met outside of class to discuss our reactions. This meeting was crucial to the assignment’s success. Rather than forcing us into an awkward written dialogue, Dr. Outka allowed us to hold a genuine discussion, on our own time and on our own terms. As Holt suggests, such an approach would not succeed in an introductory classroom. For a more advanced setting, though, Dr. Outka’s approach seems ideal. She read and graded our written commentaries, but left it to our revisions to reflect the feedback’s effectiveness and the depth of our discussion. If we had gone through Holt’s entire process, I think most of us would have felt stifled, underestimated, and thus less motivated to exchange our genuine thoughts.

            With an approach like Dr. Outka’s working well in upper-level courses, the introductory classroom would need a method of its own. Holt’s approach would likely yield an even more inauthentic, playing-the-professor’s-game kind of dialogue here than in an advanced setting. Many students are still discovering what an engaging intellectual dialogue entails, and it does not seem that being graded on their unsatisfactory attempts is the best way to help them progress. Rather, I suggest that meetings with writing consultants might be a better setting for students to learn how to argue fruitfully than any that a professor can construct in the classroom. Writing consultants walk a thin line, of course, between presenting opposing views constructively and introducing real tension into the conversation. They can serve, though, to both model and encourage the kind of fruitful arguing Holt suggests, for students who might flounder to achieve it in a group on their own. With the conversation occurring outside of class, without a grade, students will feel more at ease, and the kind of discourse they practice will feel more fully integrated into their own real lives. Holt’s peer group model might still be valuable, but I think writing consultations are the best way for students to get their feet into the parlor door.

Cognizance and Strategies in Tutoring

            Ryan and Zimmerlli delineate many issues that writing consults must be cognizant of in this chapter.  Every student struggles with various difficulties concerning school.  Some may struggle with math, others with science, and many, many students struggle with writing.  As writing consultants, we have to make sure that we have an ample amount of tolerance for the papers that we will be working with.  As Ryan and Zimmerlli write, students struggle with problems day in and day out.  Whether it is because of family concerns, economic concerns, or other school concerns, writing a paper is not always the top priority for many students (59).

            Every student deserves our respect as writing consultants.  We have no idea what the majority of students go through.  We must be seen as allies, not as some type of pedagogue looking to attack them for each mistake.  Ryan and Zimmerlli stress the importance of starting with the good parts and ideas of papers; approval will always give students confidence (58).  This is especially important for those students with writing anxiety.  We, as tutors, have the chance to be the encouragement that these writers need.  Encouragement and sensitivity are two huge aspects of being a writing consult (59).  Ryan and Zimmerlli do a great job of stressing this to the reader.

            Many helpful strategies exist for tutoring another with his writing.  The authors write about visual, auditory, and kinesthetic strategies that can have tremendous impacts on writers (60-61).  From color-coding text to reading notes aloud, there are a bevy of strategies that we should take full advantage of.  As I read through the thirteen ideas, I found the kinesthetic strategies to be the most fascinating.  They are strategies that I simply would have never thought of.  At the same time, however, I can see how these would be effective.  The first is to have the students read through their papers and do the highlighting/underlining themselves.  This strategy reminds me of my SAT Reading tutoring.  I was told to become really involved in each passage by highlighting important facts and ideas.  As soon as I put that strategy into practice my reading scores soared.  I can see how doing something similar when reading through your own paper could have a comparable effect.  Two of the other concepts deal with the use of self-stick removable notes.  One advises tutors to have students use the notes to rearrange the paper to better organize it.  The other suggests that students should use them to identify certain parts of the paper, such as the thesis and evidence (61).  These strategies would help me immensely as a writer; I wish that I had learned them earlier in life.  They may even be enjoyable for writers.  Reorganizing self-stick notes on your paper could seem like more a game than a daunting task.  Doing this would certainly be more gratifying than copying and pasting paragraphs on Microsoft Word.

            My question reverts back to my first point about being cognizant of the fact that many students deal with issues that we will not know about.  It, however, looks at the other side of the coin in a certain way.  What if the student is just being lazy?  Do we have the right to ask students if there are hardships in their lives that are keeping them from writing a decent paper?  It may be a tad off-track, but this is the question that the reading sprung in my mind.  Is this something that we should do?