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.