The observations made in the Kiedaisch and Dinitz article are, by their own admission, insufficient for drawing conclusions. I am not sure, though, that it is reasonable to assert that the only thing that keeps them from drawing conclusions is their small sample size. And that qualification seems beside the point since they immediately get down to drawing conclusions anyway. They conclude, I am simplifying a bit, that disciplinary knowledge seems to be important but that generalist tutors are good enough. In defense of the generalist tutor they offer three arguments—the first two of which strike me as worth examination. Their first argument in favor of the generalist tutor is that it 70 percent of their sessions are over composition essays written to a general audience. If this is true, it seems to me that 70 percent of their sessions should probably address audience—which might well lead them back to the question of whether a discipline specific tutor is required. Their second defense of the generalist tutor is that students leave their writing center pleased with their experience—and that if they leave satisfied and motivate, they have benefited. This also seems like a highly dubious assertion.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
I'm tempted to agree with your concern about the second assertion, but I think that's based on just the first sentence of the paragraph describing student satisfaction (270). When I go on to read the details about the three questions, it sounds less like a broad statement that if the student is happy the WC is happy. I'd be very interested in any research that addresses this specific question about how to get and interpret effective feedback; it seems to me that it requires not only immediate evaluation but follow-up with students to see how their writing process has been affected after the "bloom" of the tutorial session wears off.
Post a Comment