Ghandi on the First Take

Writers and Writing

Learning about the purposes of writing centers and the activities of writing center tutor has helped me better understand what it means to develop the writer, not necessarily the writing although improved writing should be manifested when the writer learns more about him/herself as a writer and about the writing process. I’ve pick up some phrases that seem to be resounding in the articles we have been reading and in the chapters we read for today: tutors understand the choices writers make and help them understand the ramifications of their choices; tutors reflect on their choices; tutors identify points of need, adapt to individual students, and employ flexibility; tutors talk about learning, about writing. I’m beginning to see how important initiating talking about all this is. One practice I want to establish in my composition classroom is to initiate meaningful talk about learning, writing, and writers.

First I was Saddam, so I tried again!

What Famous Leader Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

EDWC writing their talk

It strikes me that one of the reasons we as a class seem to have fewer quibbles with the EDWC (other than the fact that, at the end of the semester we are all "quibbled out") is that the writers walk their talk. They keep their process open for us to examine as we read their reflections. They do not limit themselves to WC or composition scholarship but pull in fascinating insights from other disciplines. The overall read is as if we've been invited to sit at the kitchen table with them and talk about the most recent book they shared and the ideas and activities from their WC, rather than just listening to someone explain how wonderful their WCs or ideas are. I've found myself checking the EDWC works cited list many times to note books that sound like ones I want to read. Their process inspires my process, and that's high praise.

Secret public WC journal

I really like the WC journal idea on 85-86 and the insight it provides to consultants as they work through their processes and see others do the same. I wonder if student writers who use the WC can read it too. What might they learn about the WC, about writing, about the consultants, and about their own process?

Everyone Makes Mistakes

It was nice to hear the authors mention that tutors are going to make mistakes in their sessions-- just as everyone does, everyday, in life. Many of our readings place a great deal of responsibility on tutors, and it has always struck me as unfair. It may just be my naive view of tutoring, but the word doesn't "sound" hard, while WC tutors, at some points, seem to be assumed to have a deep understanding of theory that I myself am having trouble grasping, and I'm taking a course.

Obviously, I understand tutoring is more complex and more difficult that it "sounds", but again, it is nice that the authors mention room for error and -gasp- that no one (at all) is perfect.

WC films

I looked for the Plymouth State film talked about on page 83, but didn’t find it. There are, however, several others that are fun and/or interesting (and plenty of sad – as in bad—ones too). Except for the beginning, this film for the WC at the University of Alaska Anchorage is funny…and telling. It’s called “Get Thee to the Writing Center”

“Ink Paper Conversation” from Evergreen State College WC is clips from action in the WC, plus comments from tutors. They’re playing Scrabble! This is a really smart video and my favorite.

“Adventures in Writing” is from the U. of Michigan-Flint WC and uses humor similar to the “Croc Hunter” TV show.

“MADE I want to be a better writer” from Virginia Tech is a take-off on the makeover shows on TV.

Then there’s the WC Choir, a cute example of “fresh activities” EDWC talks about. (Warning, it doesn’t get any better after the first minute, so don’t make yourself watch to the end.)

Race over everything?

"Racism is the place to start, because until we are willing and equipped to address it, we will be unable to resist other forms of oppression that intersect with and are informed by it" (92).

"Laments about a lack of time are never simply about a lack of time. They are statements about priorities. They are expressions of fear. The mask concerns about exposing inadequacies" (91).

I have read these two statements that are in close proximity to each other several times this afternoon and I have been thinking about them ever since. I agree with both statements, at least to a degree. It makes sense to start working to eradicate racism because it is the biggest and most pervasive form of oppression. Why start small? I also agree that by giving our time and attention to a cause we are marking it as something we value, something we think is worth exposing our fears and inadequacies over.

Why then am I struggling with these two things put together? I think it stems from what I value myself. Does it make me a bad person to think that possibly addressing issues of gender are just as pressing as issues of race? Does this negate my interesting in seeing racial equality? Can I work toward both at the same time? Should I put aside my personal interests in other areas for work toward a more "politically hot" issue?

I think I am struggling so much with the writers' valuing of race because they may be right: race may be the most important issue to address in order to see the end of all oppression, but also because they may be wrong. Working on the "smaller" problems of gender and race discrimination may be a more effective model.

Did anyone else struggle here?

Billions and Billions Served?

I appreciate the emphasis in the “Straighten Up and Fly Right” chapter on not effacing the identities of the students who work in the writing center. It would be easy to see their individuality as posing an interesting training problem rather than as something to be valued. This chapter reminded me of an article I read a while ago about the suburbanization of America. It pointed out that moving from one community to another is less unsettling than it once was because every town has a Best Buy, a Costco, and an Applebee’s. I can move to the other side of the country and shop at the same retailers I shop at in Cincinnati—and probably know where the cereal aisle will be in the local Kroger when I shop there the first time. The effacement of local identity is good for retail, but universities and their writing centers need to facilitate the proliferation of individuality.

More than Race

We can't pretend that race is just about skin color any more than we can pretend that all white people are alike. Culture and class is where people clash. My nephew is a freshman at Ohio State, and one of the biggest adjustment he's had to make is to get used to the diversity...of the white people. It turns out all white people aren't like what he's used to. Race is, however, so visible we can't ignore it. Being inclusive means more than admitting minority students to an institution; it means the majority need to learn to be inclusive; in fact, to go out of their way to be socially inclusive and to know that their discomfort means they are headed in the right direction.
I think it's particularly important to visit orientations for student of color as the authors suggest (102). This is where they get their first impressions and it's not always good. One of my African American students told me--through an essay, and then a conversation--that at the orientation she attended, students were told that they needed to work extra hard because professors expect them to fail. She internalized this as "professors want African American students to fail." Either way, it wasn't a very positive message. This upset me because I want my students to succeed, yet I was being prejudged based on my race. I was glad she revealed this because it helped me to understand her initial resistant attitude toward me was based on this perception. Why would such a negative message be presented to students at a time when they are already feeling vulnerable? Shouldn't there be an orientation program that encourages all students to get to know one another?

Racism

In the last half of the book, the authors outline the difficulty in providing tutors, writers, faculty, and directors, with a safe environment that allows for stories that can shed some light on racism. I found their example of the fifth most homogenous university (94) to be interesting because the university’s response to decreasing diversity was to hire more diverse faculty instead of actually contemplating why minorities were not enrolling. So, how do writing centers create environments that address diversity when the environment is so homogeneous? How do they bring the awareness of racism to the forefront? The authors answer that it begins by naming and framing assumptions, behaviors, policies, and institutional practices as racist. However, this can be difficulty, and I can see why. I can see the difficulty in naming particularly when tutors, writers, faculty, and directors don’t already have the language to do so.

epochal time

I am really intrigued by the authors' idea that we could conduct tutoring on epochal time rather than regular clock time. The idea of having a tutoring session last as long as it need to in order to accomplish specific goals is very interesting. I know as tutor it would relieve some of the time pressure that comes to us. We were scolded regularly at one place for not filling 50 minutes for our tutorials. To be fair, the shortness was sometimes a result of tutors not taking enough time, but often we just finished before the time limit.

On the other hand, what would the goals be? Would they be the same for every session? If so, how would we deal with issues that students brought up outside those goals? If not, how would we decide what those goals are for each session?

I also need to remind myself that some students would take all day if they could have it. Some students want to discuss every minute detail even when there are no serious issues to address and tutors need that time limit to head these students off. Knowing that you only have to endure 50 minutes of a bad session instead of an indeterminate time is sometimes a very good thing.

My point, I guess, is that this is an interesting idea, but I need more time to think about how it would work before deciding if it is a good idea for the writing center.

Origami

I admire what other people can do with just a piece of paper. They envision and create. They see posibilities where some of us are blinded by tradition. I don't consider myself a creative person, yet at times I can be. It is those times when I am reflected, when I search for answers to the non-responsiveness of my students, when I see that something isn't working. How can I take what I am learning from Geller et. al. and create a culture of learning in my writing classroom? What would it look like? How do I help my students to become a community of learners instead of individuals writing papers to complete a course, get a grade, and move on? I'm a little slow: I've experienced 3 classes in successive semesters where a community is being built by reading and discussing ideas and am just now realizing that that is what Geller et. al. is describing. I'm putting too much emphasis on the product and not enough on intellectual stimulation of students and must emphasize becoming knowledgeable instead of the performance of being. Will this work in a first year composition class or am I out in left field?

Finally, a positive metaphor!!

The idea of the "trickster" is by far my favorite metaphor that has been used in the writing center conversation. It encourages something that seems to run throughout the writings-- looking at a situation or problem from a different perspective-- and is clearly explained to give the idea of Coyote a fresh image as a friend, rather than a foe. The scrabble example was the perfect example to use first. If I were a tutor, I doubt I would have thought to play a game (even a word game), and as a director, it certainly would have troubled me at first glance. But, scrabble has been used (from what I understand) for a long time as vocabulary practice for ESL speakers. What better way to involve and engage than do something fun that doesn't seem like work. It is a drill without being a worksheet, and seems to be a gift that can only be given by the Trickster. It was so nice to read a metaphor that didn't leave me feeling uneasy.

Time In Time Out

I'm way too scheduled and need to take time to "smell the roses". That is what I get to do every time I'm in class. I have the opportunity to mull over ideas with my peers, to discuss what I've read, to challenge and be challenged, to consider the ideas of others. So when I'm not reading and not writing, I'm still learning. As an adjunct professor, I have missed out on meaningful discussions with my colleagues at IWU and TU. Because I have an office at IWU, I do have more opportunities to connect. That is what I think Geller et. al. is talking about when tutors aren't tutoring during scheduled times.

Trickster

I seem to be a better trickster outside the classroom than inside the classroom. There seems to be a natural way of teaching outside the classroom that is fun: the children don't know they are learning because the learning situations are orchestrated, planned to create interest and to meet that curiosity "need". I know it works in the classroom too, at least it did when I was teaching elementary. I had spent 6 weeks traditionally teaching a unit on mammals. I gave the test. No one passed. Back then Jeopardy was just a new television show but I decided that for 6 weeks I would keep a list of questions we had covered in class for the different subject categories. Every Friday we played Jeopardy. Students were in teams so that they could help each other with the answers but everyone was required to take a turn in answering. At the end of 6 weeks I retested the unit on mammals. Everyone passed and some excelled. Okay, it works in elementary. But something happens when I'm in the writing classroom: maybe its the pressures of having to write so many essays. Anyway I feel pressured, and many students don't look at writing as a fun activity or even a desirable one. How might I make writing a fun activity so that I might trick my students into learning? I guess this is the question I'm really asking as I write my seminar paper for this class.

I am pleased to have read the “Beat (Not) the (Poor) Clock” chapter in The Everyday Writing Center. My practice, when I have been in a position to choose, has been to make time for the things I value by limiting the accumulation of responsibilities that would take time away from the things I value. This, it probably goes without saying, is not one of the times of my life where I have much room to choose. The worst part about having too many responsibilities, I think, is things that I would under different circumstances count as enjoyable are transformed as if by alchemy into things that I have to do: I have to teach, I have to go to school, and I have to meet the needs of my family. There are parts of directing a writing center that interest me, but this is another part of the job that concerns me. I think that I might like to direct a writing center, and I know that I like to teach. I am afraid that trying to do both would turn both into things I have to do.

Identities in motion

The EDWC make an excellent point about individual and collective identities being in constant motion in time; however, it is also very easy to get stuck in time by telling the same stories about our experiences over and over. We remember a childhood hurt with a five-year-old's perspective unless we are willing to rewrite the story with an adult mind and accumulated experience. We "write the stories of our life" (aka memories) and act like those stories cannot be revised, when the truth is that others who lived the same experiences will come away with different stories. And then we project our stories onto others by assuming they have similar perspectives and experiences. It seems to me that awareness of this social construction of identity and the possibility of "rewriting" it is one of the main goals of comp/rhet.

Learning audit next steps

I really like the ideas of the Learning Audit on pages 51 & 52 and would have loved to have discussions with some of my former bosses that explore "the values, assumptions, beliefs, and expectations underlying proposals and problems" as well as those same categories individually. In many ways, I think that's part of what I tried to guess at a staff member watching upper management. Which brings to mind the saying, "While we measure ourselves by our intentions, others can only measure by our actions." That being said, I'd like to explore the next step after conducting an audit such as the EDWC describes. Perhaps decide at the next WC meeting which are the categories to address and in what order? Try to come up with an idea for each "gap"? They also seem like ideas to address in a strategic plan.

Jackie's article

If you'd like to read Jackie's article mentioned in EDWC, here's a link to the PDF of the newsletter. It takes a little while to load.

Time Squeeze

I really like this statement in Chapter 3 on page 42: "With our concern for speed, efficiency, and squeezing every second 'til it squeals, we shortchange ourselves most, perhaps, in the missed opportunities for real reflection." You can keep up a frantic pace for only so long before something gives; too tight of a schedule not only leaves no time for reflection, but also leaves no time for flexibility when things don't go as planned.

A Carnival Figure

I started reading the second chapter on Friday evening when my eyes were tired and I had a headache, so maybe that's why the Trickster reference started to annoy me after awhile. Okay, I get it! Today I revisited the Trickster, and it reminds me of Bakhtin's Carnival (of course, everything does these days because I'm writing a paper about it). The Trickster is a participatory character. Learning takes place for both tutor (or instructor) and student when the process is one of participation. In tutoring (or teaching) as spectacle, the person on stage is blinded by the footlights and can't even see the audience (student).

Community of Practice

The authors of The Everyday Writing Center share some of the same concerns that Grimm does eight years earlier in that they still sense a move toward knowledge as containment (8). This sense is a result of their struggle to justify and demonstrate what they do and why they do what they do to both tutors and institutions. They ask, how can writing centers explain that “technical rationality can neither predict nor explain the ‘intelligence that begins by being tacit and spontaneous’” (20)? The answer to such a question is not an easy one; it is often misunderstood, often overlooked, and even not cared about. But, the authors say that it must be cared about. For in the answer lies the story of the shameless Trickster, the one who will say aloud which is forbidden (19), the story of the tutor who sees with Coyote eyes, the story of the writing center that develops teaching as learning, as becoming, the story of writing center director who does not rely on a tutoring manual to train tutors but on stories, shared experiences, discussion from all who work in the writing center. These are the stories that demonstrate a writing center as a community of practice.

Project Help

I need some help with my project and was hoping you people could help me out. For my project I am making the argument that the types of languages (written, verbal, body) I learned as a tutor can be learned by students in the composition classroom and that students who learn these languages can be more successful revising and editing thier essays. To help students learn these languages an instructor must 1) Talk about revision and editing in the writing classroom, 2) Talk about the purpose and procedures of one-to-one conferences, 3) Conduct one-to-one conferences with students where instructor models languages, 4) Talk about the purpose and procedures of peer review, and 5) Conduct peer review sessions in the writing classroom. Prior to conferencing with students for the first time, an instructor should help students develop a hyperawareness of the verbal, written, and body languages that work together in a one-to-one conference. To do so, I have developed a list of questions students can ask themselves. I have posted the lists to a website. Please read the lists and add to them by commenting on the blog. Thanks!

Mediation

Grimm is very against her idea of mediation. She claims that "a mediating approach accepts a fixed notion of literacy, a singular standard, and this closes down possibilities for an increased understanding of differences" (95). I cannot disagree with this more. Mediation seems like a perfect way to bring awareness to many communities about the very issues that Grimm is bringing to light. Mediation is a way of looking at more than one perspective, addressing what is alike and what is different, and discussing ways of creating a meeting place for those perspectives. That meeting place is the new perspective that Grimm finds so important. I feel like she creates a false distinction between mediation and articulation.

Grimm acknowledges that a reader might reasonably wonder whether “we can expect eighteen- or nineteen-year-old college students to generate these discussions” (76) and “just how fair it is to expect so much from a writing center” (78). I think that an implied answer that should be addressed more overtly is that it is not fair to expect so much from a writing center and that eighteen- or nineteen-year-old college students are not the best candidates for initiating these discussions. Later, however, she asserts that writing centers “can be situational catalysts in the effort to rethink literacy education in ways that no longer reproduce social divisions and that redefine what counts as literacy in postmodern times” (98). That is, a writing center must begin to do something that should become the shared mission of the university. There is risk associated with adopting a position of leadership, but I think that risk is better than complicity.

I Loved the Dorms, Too!

I was startled to read the section about oppression, which could be manifested as tutors asking students if they were having trouble adjusting to the dorms: "If the student is from a large or troubled family, the assumption that dorm living is supposed to be difficult can make a student wonder why it feels so luxurious to share a room with only one person or to feel guilty about falling asleep at night untroubled by ongoing family crises" (105). That was me! As the eldest of ten kids who shared a room with three sisters, I thought I'd died and gone to heaven when I moved into the dorms. And I felt guilty about not being home to help with the kids; it was the first time in my life I hadn't been responsible for almost constant child-care responsibilities.

Maintaining the Bridge

Grimm's work reminds me that I have to keep the bridge intact between my working-class upbringing and the mainstream middle-class life I have today. One thing I do know from painful experience is that this issue never really gets fully resolved; I often feel myself to be on the sidelines in both worlds. Yes, I've learned to "code-switch," but it's not the same as being a full-fledged member, which is something I'm always thinking about when I teach. In fact, I may be more anxious than middle-class instructors about creating assignments and conferencing with students because I'm so hyper-aware of the consequences they face as they try to assimilate themselves into their disciplines and into the mainstream middle-class world.

Reinforcing a social construction?

I'm uneasy with Grimm's use of the social construction of femininity in explaining how writing centers are juxtaposed with the paternity of the academic institution (beginning on 82). It's not so much that I don't think it fits as it is that she doesn't question the social construction of what is means to be feminine in her use of it. Doesn't this fly in the face of what she is purporting? Later in the same chapter she unpacks and questions the use of community as a metaphor for the WC. A note at the end of the chapter that highlights others who've examined the feminization of the WC just isn't enough consideration.

The question of how

As I started to read the last half of the book, I was hoping that Grimm would answer the question of how. How do writing centers, for instance, train tutors? In the back of my mind I was waiting for her to say "I'm not going to tell you how in this book" and then on page 110 she does just that, only in the next paragraph she lets us in on the fact that she has students in her writing center read a handbook which is a collection of stories written by members of the staff. Instead of telling tutors what to think, she lets students be thinkers on thier own. I think that I like this idea and can see real value in sharing stories that "denaturalize expectations about what working in the writing center involves, stories about the complexities..." I think that reading stories such as these can enable tutors to reflect on their own lifes and to recognize how they differ.

class vs. tact

I think there is a subtle (yet important) difference in class affecting your mannerisms and views of life, and then a lack of understanding about how to approach a certain situation. The example of Rebecca from the second half of the book was interesting. While, towards the end, I do understand how she offered a "fresh approach" (114) to tutoring, the way she approached her math professor was just rude (64). And that could come from a lot of things, age and inexperience seeming to be a greater cause than class. To suggest that a poor person cannot catch the attention of a middle class person with dignity is insulting on every level, every angle possible. If you approach someone in a hostile or highly confrontational manner, you are not going to get a good response even if both parties are from the same social background.

In chapter 2, Grimm claims "I believe writing centers can do a better job of supporting students if we stop locating literacy problems in individuals and instead locate them in cultural constructions" (29).

As I was reading this, I was thinking "absolutely" and "right on." It makes perfect sense to stop blaming individuals for the way they were brought up. None of us can help that we are working class, southern, female, dyslexic, etc. Accepting the "loss of innocence" in the work of the writing center also seems really appropriate. We should be aware of the cultural implication of the work that we do and how we are sometimes supporting those implications.

I just worry about the burden that these models place on the tutors. I am not sure that I could help Mary unpack the assignment that is constructing her in particular ways and then help her decide how to deal with those constructions on the spot. Is it fair to expect tutors to think that quickly and deeply? Will it help students more or less than more typical approaches in the short term and the long term?

Confessions of A Former Mondernist

When I entered BSU Ph.D. Rhetoric and Composition program, I came from an elementary, remedial reading background. For the most part I have encountered professors who have helped me enter the conversation, the rhetoric and composition community. However, I have had one professor who professed to be a post-modernist, but in actuality, was a modernist. When I didn't know how to write a rationale, a proposal, a literature review, a research paper, the professor asked, "How in the world did you get into our program?" I was horrified, emotionally upset, and diminished. he professor refused to help me join the conversation. But that was not the worst revelation. Upon reflection I realized that while I had never said those words to any of my students, I had thought them. My attitude had been the same even if I had not vocalized my thoughts; however, thinking influences attitude; attitude influences behavior. I laid the blame in the students. Having experienced the effects of such an attitude caused me to change my thinking and made me more sympathetic toward students who were trying to join the academic community. My intentions were good, but I see that that is not enough. Somehow I must be able to help my students transverse the multiple literacies and recognize what is called for in different contexts. How to do this I am not sure. But at least now I have reflected and see the need for change, yet I still have to figure out how to put traverse from the know to the how.

Common marginalization

Modernity's assumption of a "transparently clear, culturally neutral, coherent language" (38) marginalizes everyone somewhat in that there are infinite perspectives with all of the cultural, social and individual constructions possible in the human experience. Modernity's grounding in white Western capitalism marginalizes many more than others, but affects us all. My experience has been one of pull/push, similar to how I read Rebecca's, in that it seems I have always been on the edges of communities with which I wanted to interact and struggled to hear my own voice amidst their inevitable social constructions. It sometimes surprises me, therefore, when I realize that others are "pushed" out to even further edges. I see Grimm as calling for us to use this common marginalization as a way to inquire about, understand, and encourage the voices of those whose experiences are different than ours, but the same in our location outside the myth of neutrality.

Defensive Responses

Grimm gives us three examples of defensive responses to postmodern change: distancing, blaming, and helping the other become more like us. I suspect that these defensive responses still occur in many writing centers today, nine years later, but I am wondering if writing centers are even aware of them, if they have actively become conscious of these responses and who is doing them. And if they are aware of them, what do they do in order to address these defensive responses, what do they offer as a response to these responses?

The University as Exclusive Country Club: The Writing Center as the Place We Train the Caddies?

In class a few days ago we explored the implications of using a corporate/business metaphor to describe the university. The “Helping the Other Become More Like Us” section of chapter one in today’s reading reminded me of that conversation. In particular it reminded me of our exploration of the business tradition of prioritizing existing partnerships. I think we touched on a few of the reasons a business leader might choose to return to a trusted relationship rather than seek out a new relationship, and I think efficiency and predictability were prominent among them. There are, of course, a number of reasons to seek out new relationships in business. The risk might be rewarded by greater efficiency or productivity, for instance. Grimm points out an ethical concern, however, when she asserts that “[t]hose of us who are mainstream prefer communication with those who share our mental models” (12). This observation uncovers the way particularization can obscure significant patterns. That is, the trusted relationships that are preserved in a business culture can be justified on an individual basis, but taken as a group it might become apparent that these relationships are motivated by a preference for maleness and whiteness as much as they are based upon prior relationships with individuals. The inevitable consequence, of course, is that women and minorities are underrepresented, undercompensated, or excluded altogether. The academy has abetted this system, and Grimm is right to invite the writing center community to consider the role it has played and continues to play.

Memories

There were so many things about Grimm's anecdotes that reminded me of my own experience as a working-class student, not the least of which was not realizing I was working class until I arrived on campus. Well, maybe I had a hint of it since I worked for a year prior to that in a brokerage firm and had my share of culture shock about how the other half lives. If I hadn't seen that, I doubt it would have seriously occurred to me to try to go away to college (and that alone was a huge feat that only my determination in the face of ignorance made possible). I loved to read and write, though, so Standard English was not too much of issue; I had a good grasp of the written language. Unfortunately, there were those words I didn't know how to pronounce, and my accent was different in ways I never noticed until I wasn't living in my home neighborhood anymore. People were always kind enough to point it out (well, not everyone was kind about it). I definitely felt I had to learn how to "pass" in this world that was so unfamiliar to me, although I was surprised it was so different. It caused strained relationships with family and friends back home, too, but at the time I didn't fully understand why or that other students might be going through the same thing. When Grimm talks about being uncomfortable in certain social situations, she has me pegged at that age.

Cultural Construction

Good Intentions was published almost 10 years ago, and while I agree with Grimm's argument that writing centers should "stop locating literacy problems in individuals and instead locate them in cultural constructions" (29), I wonder how well that fits in with current visions and mission statements of universities today: the push for higher achieving students and more rigorous admission standards so as to develop a better image that attracts more funding. Those goals seem to locate success in individuals; that is, those whose cultural constructions are mainstream and those who can mimic mainstream cultural constructions.

Metaphors

On the subject of the reading, I'm beginning to have less sympathy for the negative assumptions of WC's, given the metaphors that scholars use. To name a few (not only from this reading): clinical/medical deficiency, mental health probelms, manure, 1984/ "Big Brother"... none of those conjure positive images in my mind. And while the explanations of the metaphors (usually) make sense, one would think that something a little more cheery could be constructed by people who study rhetoric for a living.

Project

I think my project is coming along well; I have research gathered and outlines for "how to work together" instruction for both RAs and WC staff. I also have three programs ideas fleshed out, which was admittedly the easy part. My programs include one where students are led in two free-writing exercises, one where students can bring in a draft of an assignment, and one that simply suggests promoting a coffee house (the WC would not need to attend) just to encourage writing as a fun or leisure activity, rather than only for school work. Does anyone else have any other ideas to incorporate? Maybe things that worked well in class that could easily translate? Thanks :)

The Good, the Better, and the Nice

I am the only one who thought that Devet really doesn't look at the good, the bad, and the ugly but rather only the good, the better and the nice? I appreciate that her agenda is to promote CRLA, but I think her view is obviously biased. I wanted a more in-depth consideration.

I vaguely remember a conversation about certification from the beginning of the semester. From what I recall, one of the issues mentioned was that certification is difficult in the writing center, given the hyper-individualized nature of the various centers. The list of topics from the CRLA seemed universal enough, but I imagine each point would manifest itself differently in each writing center. But, for the rest of certification, I wonder if the time and paperwork is "worth it," especially for centers that have some sort of special circumstance (for example, MIT, with its higher need for professional tutors).

Duh!

I don't know why it was so revolutionary for me when Harris talked about training tutors using tutoring principles, but it really was. Thinking back on my training days, the best training sessions were the one where the tutors has more input into what we talked about and how much time we gave it.

On the other hand, I wonder how to balance letting tutors dictate the agenda at meetings with what it is really important to cover from the WCD's perspective and what outside administrators require be covered. I know that Harris talks about this briefly, but I think it needs more consideration: there are agendas out there that need to be addressed.

Training Tutors a big responsibility

Harris purports that tutors need adjustments in "attitude and preconceived notions," "how to draw on skills in a tutoring situation," how to introduce theoretical concepts," and how to be flexible, collaborative, and patient so that "students will actively seek out their own solutions and answers that result in real learning" (305). How can undergraduate peer tutors learn and put into practice all of this in such a short time? I know some of you stated in class that you really had no training that would have addressed the above expected skills before starting tutoring. How confident did you feel when you started tutoring? Or did this just come naturally?

Professional Tutors

Strange, while providing the many advantages and disadvantages of hiring professional tutors, made an interesting statement about professional tutors: they "can speak only with the authority of someone more knowledgeable about the process of writing" (297). I wonder if tutees see professional tutors in the same way. I would think that the dynamics of the tutoring session would change because tutees might have more of a problem with wanting more directive tutoring. Their perceptions of the "professional" might predispose them to think that the "professional" could help them fix their papers. Would the professional tutors have to work harder on tutee attitude?

Gillespie and Kail on tutoring programs

This is a nice enough overview on what to consider when you are considering peer tutoring for your WC, although not detailed enough to be the only source a director would use. One question I have is about the statement “on the job training…put peer-tutors at unnecessary risk…in positions of authority that they are untrained to exercise properly” (326). What do the authors mean by this, especially in light of Harris’s article on using the tutorial process as a model for training tutors? The statement seems dismissive in order to get to the descriptions of their own tutoring courses. In addition, I would have liked them to tie assessment back to expectations. How will the tutor's performance be measured is a question to ask and discuss with the tutor before the assessment takes place.

Haviland and Trianosky’s “Tutors Speak” is for me a nice compliment to yesterday’s readings. Though still focused on administrative responsibilities this essay was about giving rather than seeking. I understand that both are a part of the job of a writing center director, but I am probably not alone in thinking that it might be better if they were not. I guess that is why there are assistant writing center directors at schools that can afford such extravagance.

Bad Analogy

Devet says that deciding to certify a Writing Center is a big commitment, like deciding to paint a brick house (334). Never, never paint a brick house!! Unless, of course, the brick is so screwed up through neglect, damage, or abuse that you have to hide its imperfections by whitewashing it. Is this a Freudian slip?

Certification Sounds Good on Paper

I briefly visited the CRLA site and Devet seems to have accurately relayed its stated purpose and the requirements for Writing Center certification. There is also bibliography of suggested readings posted and I checked to see if any names were familiar: A quick scan found Bruffee, Harris, and Lerner (and I'm certain I missed a few). So far, so good. I do believe that certification can help build the administration's confidence in a Writing Center, but only if it can be demonstrated that the certification actually means something significant or is an organization the administration would be proud to be affiliated with. While the site claims over 1,000 members, I can't find them listed anywhere, so I don't know which colleges value this certification. In addition, the committee chairs seem to come mostly from community colleges, which makes me wonder if most members are community colleges, which might reinforce the remedial reputation of a Writing Center in a four-year university.

Real Advantages?

Strang's article did not sit well with me after I read it, particularly because while he tries to deflect the notion that professionals would not be the seen as authorities due to their hands off approaches when tutoring, the whole point of having professionals is, to Strang, to prove to others that the writing center is an authority on writing (#2 Older clients feel much more confident when working with professional tutors and #3 Student clients are often much more willing to heed advice given by a professional than that given by a fellow student). We spent some time today in groups talking about how we assess goals and outcomes. I'm curious to know how Strang arrived at his list of advantages. How for instance does he know this is true for #2 and #3? Did he conduct a survey? And who's to say that an undergrad tutor would not come to a tutoring session with a broken ankle during a blackout or fire alarm?

What's more, what does having professionals in a writing center say to students who are not allowed to tutor? Does it reiterate the acedemic hierarchy by saying that the type of writing you do is not good enough? Does it say that professional tutors have something that you don't and are therefore valued more? To me, the type of writing center at MIT, can send mixed messages to students.

The Strang article had something very early on that caught my eye, in the rationale for professional tutors. He mentioned that faculty are more comfortable with this type of tutor. Does that mean that faculty feels more comfortable referring the WC, or do faculty members at MIT also use the WC? Is that common, and I've just missed the notion that faculty can use services as well all session?

Advancement

It seemed to me that in Speck's article he is offering advice on how to move up from writing center director to administration. He quotes Smith's observation: "'Writing center administration, a highly complex task as is, has an added complication in that so many new directors plunge in with an almost total lack of preparation'" (216). Then Speck asks, "Still want to direct the writing center?" (216). Then he proceeds to offer advice on how to "'manage up'" (217). Since he has done this, he feels that he's qualified to address this issue. Speck does delineate the differences in thinking between being a writing center director and an administrator, but he seemed to suggest that the better position is in administration.

Managing Up

I see an underlying assumption in these chapters that the ultimate goal of the WCDs is to move into upper administration positions. Is this an accurate portrayal? What does this say about the work done in the WC? If it is only a stepping stone, how does that talk about the value of the work done? Is this a real concern or my own lack of administrative goals speaking?

Assessment

In an online seminar "Assessment as a Learning Experience" Dr. Peter Saunders highlights the importance of assessment by quoting Angelo and Cross: "There is no such thing as effective teaching in the absence of learning" and by explianing that assessment can no longer be viewed as testing but as "self-reflection" which "improves future learning" and determines if learning outcomes have been achieved. Professionally, teachers must be concerned with assessment on several levels: 1) Instructional assessment - determining "what must be learned", 2) Methodological assessment - determining how to deliver it, 3) Learner assessment - "determining the effectiveness of instruction". Dr. Saunders relates that assessment is a positive learning experience for students "when it involves social interaction;" "enhanced self-efficacy;" "reflection;" "meaningful [focus] on mastery of course essentials & individual growth [toward] success;" and improved learning or gaining understanding in which learning and understanding are more valued than getting the right answer or in the case of writing centers, writing better. Writing center assessment seems very similar. For my research project, I am answering two questions: What are the benefits of vising the writing center? How might I reinforce that learning in the classroom? The purpose of this inquiry is to help me to work with, not against, collaborative learning by changing my teaching methods.

The ultimate WC parent: the Godfather

Jeane Simpson's use of the parent/child metaphor when discussing the relationship between admin and WCs is almost insulting, especially because she hammers the "whining" aspect of the WC kids. Adding playground words like "tattle-tale" and "snitch" only further alienates the audience that she is trying to influence. And I was with her regarding the "culture of favors" right up until the Godfather metaphor. What's next, a horse's head in the provost's office when funding is threatened?

Hawthorne's Assessment as a Research Proposal

It struck me how much the suggestions Joan Hawthorne makes sound like elements of a good research proposal. Figure out the important questions and look for multiple ways to gather evidence to answer those questions. This also seems an apt metaphor when writing to an academic audience.

Acting rather than reacting

The overall message I take away from the readings so far is that WCs can not wait to react to what they may perceive as administrative whims, and there are many steps a director can take to be proactive in managing the center. Perhaps that's why I like Mullin et al's takeaway of the "intrapreneur." It seems like a conclusion based on observable patterns from different types of WC locations, and includes results that both support and endanger the WC, its personnel or services. This is also one of the better explanations I've read of chaos theory in that it's brief but clear.

How to Set Goals?

Although Simpson tells us that Writing Center mission statements should come from the university's larger mission (210), I'm left wondering how to set specific annual goals based on what are usually purposefully vague statements of purpose. She talks about using data to demonstrate how objectives are being met (211), but not about using data to determine what objectives should be pursued. It seems to me that you could come up with a pretty plan backed up by solid data, and still fall short if you can't defend the objectives themselves to suit the administration.

Reinventing the Wheel

Hawthorne makes a great case for assessments that goes beyond the Writing Center's need to meet demands of administration: "Without records that allow us to review the data and analyses that led to changes, we are bound to keep reinventing the wheel" (244). In an environment of constant turnover--at least in terms of tutors--it would seem to be useful to have documentation to refer to be able to understand how things came to be the way they are and why the Writing Center does things the way it does. If a new great idea turns out to be an old failed idea, for example, the records might shed light on why the idea's implementation failed, which could prevent wasting resources on it or help implement it successfully the second time around. Hawthorne says these records could also be used toward publication goals, and I think they would be useful for training purposes and general information purposes; i.e. they could be used to develop a local Writing Center history for tutors and new administration personnel.

assessment embarrassment

My school scheduled a site visit with the North Central Association just after I began teaching. In a group meeting with one of their representatives I unwisely made reference to grades in answer to a question about what sort of assessment methods we use. I wish I had read Hawthorne’s essay before that meeting. Several years later—even after serving on various committees charged with assessment related tasks—I would not have been able to confidently explain either what assessment is or how one goes about assessment. I almost look forward to the next North Central Association visit as a chance to redeem myself.

When it comes to building relationships for what some of us seemed to consider less-than-pure motivation, I really do think it helps to realize that just because you are using a connection you've made (or, making one on purpose), it doesn't mean you are shamelessly using that other person. Chances are, if the relationship can benefit you, at some point, it may benefit them as well. As long as you are willing to be reciprocal in the relationship, and as long as you aren't acting unethically in other ways to trick them, or fool them into helping you, it is perfectly natural to draw on others' strengths and input.

Corporate

To follow up on some points made in class on whether or not writing centers can escape the corporate metaphor. It seems quite difficult to do so when writing centers are a part of universities, and universities are businesses. And what drives businesses is money. Businesses need to make money, and, as Simpson points out, "all decisions are budget decisions...budgets drive all power, all decision making, and all priorities". I have a hard time with absolutes (all power? all decision making? and all priorities? seems so impersonal) I have tried to think of instances where this would not be true in the writing center, but I'm not sure that I can, given my limited expereince and the fact that I have not yet gained the administrative perspective that Speck calls for. But, I still wonder: do decisions made have to be tied to the budget always in order to prove a certain value to the administration?

More on Diversity

I know I keep bringing up bell hooks in this class, but, at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I have to talk about her again. She suggests that white teachers need to understand their own whiteness in order to discuss race in the classroom. That can mean many different things, but ultimately it means recognizing our privilege honestly and being honest in not knowing and speaking for others. I appreciate Weaver asking WCDs to do just this, although I would have liked to see hooks actually mentioned in the article! Oh well!

Racial Diversity

I've noticed that no one but Karen even mentioned racial diversity. I have been hesitant to bring it up because I fear that I might be misunderstood. Any way here is what I have to say: Have you ever been on a diet? I have. Once I have made up my mind to lose that weight, all I can think of was food. I just couldn’t get it off my mind. Weaver states this about racial diversity: “We do have a responsibility as White writing center practitioners to manage diversity, but we need to be honest about how and why we do it” (89). How can we stop thinking about diversity when the government, administration, teachers, peers seem to accentuate it? In a textbook I have used called In the Presence of Others an author who is black argues against affirmative action because it diminishes his people; it makes them look as though they are incapable of competing for jobs based on ability; therefore, they must be given preferential treatment. When we are hiring tutors to work in the writing center, ethnicity shouldn’t be a consideration. People either qualify or they don't. I wonder how much racial diversity plays into the hiring practices of writing center tutors.

Collaboration Required

I can’t do it all, neither am I qualified to do it all; however, I know someone who can help me with this. After reading the selections for today, I realize that the WCD must build relationships and collaborate with others in order to successfully plan, design, and implement a writing center. Maybe I should reread the book “How to Win Friends and Influence People.” WCD can’t be lone rangers. The first two articles by Childers and Lowe left me with confusion because even if I listed the steps, I’m not sure I could put together all the information needed to start a WC. And the last two by Peters and Fitzgerald/Stephenson provided the way to accomplish all this – relationships with others.

Balancing Relationships

Next we'll hear that Writing Center Directors need a PhD in psychology on top of the MBA and PhD in Rhet Comp. Fitzgerald and Stephenson do make some good points in "Directors at the Center: Relationships Across Campus" about how crucial it is to maintain good relationships with all the stakeholders of the writing center. That's true of any enterprise, though. It's the most important and yet the most difficult to manage because you have to depend on the goodwill of others; you cannot force people to be pleasant and collaborative. As a psychologist would say, you can't control others, only yourself, so it behooves you to associate with those with who are positive and avoid those who are negative. Of course, you can't always avoid the negative types: Sometimes you can find ways to accommodate them and sometimes no matter what you do, they keep clubbing you over the head. Fitzgerald and Stephenson concede, "This may mean making collaborative alliances elsewhere, or it may mean quitting. Either way, recognizing the situation allows us to be proactive rather than reactive" (121).

An MBA or a PhD? Or Both?

In "If You Fail to Plan, You Plan to Fail: Strategic Planning and Management for Writing Center Directors," Kelly Lowe quotes Jeanne Simpson from "What Lies Ahead for Writing Centers" who "cited the work of the National Writing Centers Association's Professional Concerns Committee" (71)--still with me?--which argued "a good center director should have some knowledge of or training in accounting, basic business administration, personnel management, records management, and decision making" (60). And be thoroughly grounded in rhetoric & composition theory and writing center theory, etc. I'm reminded of those want ads in the paper that ask for a candidate to have the skills and knowledge sets of three or four different professionals, plus be able to answer the phone and order office supplies--but they're only willing to pay for the clerical portion of the job.

Trying to Bring Coogan's Vision to Life

I stumbled upon the following paragraph at ourmap.org. The site does not appear to be wildly popular, but it looks like an attempt to realize the vision Coogan introduced in The Electronic Writing Center.

Here's where students and faculty can post their essays. High school and college students are welcome to submit essays to the Gallery that fit the general themes of the Gallery archives. We use the term "essay" very loosely. We're primarily interested in writing where students have had significant say in determining the motive, form, content, or style of their writing, and not so much in essays that are clearly dsigned by (and for) the teacher (in other words we're not much interested in prescriptive essays that serve the purpose of tests or quizzes and end up all looking more or less alike). Creative, well-researched, engaged, provocative, meditative, experimental, cross-disciplinary: there's room for all of this in the archive. Essays can end up looking like editorials, "formal research papers" (whatever that means), creative nonfiction, even manifestos, and more. We're especially interested in essays that make use of original photographs.

Mission Statements

This post sort of ties into what Karen said in her post, but I thought perhaps it could be on its own. Lowe places much emphasis on establishing a mission statement for the Writing Center. I know that the Writing Center at Ball State does not have a mission statement on their website, and I have not seen one elsewhere on their advertisements. I'm wondering why. I know Jackie had mentioned in class one day that she did not like mission statements, so I wondering whether or not mission statements are a necessity. I assume that it depends on each writing center. Perhaps, Ball State's Writing Center has one, but it is just not made public, which brings me to my next question: What's the advantage of making a mission statement public?

Next From Michael Mattison: Chicken Soup for the Writing Center Director's Soul

I found Michael Mattison’s “Managing the Center: The Director as Coach” to be insufferable. To be honest, though, I find the whole genre he is borrowing from to be an unbearable accumulation of cliché and pretension. What I find especially bothersome, however, is the suggestion common to this genre that the reader can simply choose to be successful. I am, evidently, just not the audience Mattison has in mind. He assumes either that his reader knows more about coaching than about directing a Writing Center or that the collected wisdom of John Wooden is for the reader a spoonful of sugar to help the medicine go down—and neither of these is true in my case.

Giving Childers and Lowe the business

As a business and marketing person, I appreciate Childers and Lowe’s attempts to incorporate strategic planning into the administration of writing centers. However, both authors ignore a couple of basic steps in effective strategic planning: begin by considering those you wish to serve, and include strategies for affecting the institution(s) and discipline(s) of which you are part. Failing to address these steps reveals their traditional hierarchical view of business management that a strategic plan is only a management tool for the WC. In reality, it can be much more, especially if we consider it not something that’s done once a year, but an ongoing strategic examination of the WC. This leaves room for considerations like racial diversity raised by Weaver and attends to the collaborative business of relationships as Peters, Fitzgerald and Stephenson suggest.

Unclean! Unclean!

Coogan’s electronic writing center would, it might surprise him to discover, fit nicely into the strategy of containment that he is trying to undermine. He seems to think that decades of misunderstanding can be wiped away through sheer force of suggestion, but if that does not work he is simply left with a writing center that is contained in a virtual space rather than a physical space. For the university that wants to employ a metaphor of illness and containment this is a real improvement: no one has to come into physical contact with these unclean students and the embarrassment of a center devoted to remediation has been erased from the campus map.

As an aside, the practice of not wanting to come into contact with the student’s essay can take on a similar meaning in the context of this metaphor of illness. What may be intended to engender agency may also appear to be fear of contagion.

Online Tutor Training

An ongoing conversation about online tutoring of tutors is happening on Open Forum for Learning Assistance Professionals [LRNASST-L@LISTS.UFL.EDU] and I thought that you might be interested in it.
Nichole Bennett-Bealer, PhDAssistant Director/Writing SpecialistClaude J. Clark Learning Center SUNY College at Plattsburgh518-564-2265 At SUNY Plattsburgh we have trouble meeting our "modest" goal of all of our tutors (we had 234 student employees this past semester with an estimated 144 students returning in the fall) achieving CRLA Level I certification. I am working on a spreadsheet to track the courses our current tutors did well in so we can meet requests for courses from within our ranks and limit the number of new tutors we hire in the fall.We do realize that a large part of our problem with CRLA certification is the number of students we employ. We also acknowledge that many of our tutors simply cannot attend the Tutor Training course to become a content tutor. All Writing Tutors must complete ENG390 before beginning to tutor; a policy we cannot equally enforce with our content tutors as we often receive requests for tutors in new courses after the Tutor Training course has begun or run (it is only 5 weeks long and starts the second week of each semester). Those content tutors who cannot complete the Tutor Training course are required to meet with the Grad Assistant for a two-hour overview, mostly policies and procedures with some discussion of tutoring strategies.To address the problem with training, we are considered online training modules. We are aware that CRLA limits the number of online training hours that will count towards certification and we will stay within those limits, but we want to make sure that our online training provides the best possible alternative experience for our tutors. Especially as many would be able to achieve CRLA Level I certification by attending the two hour overview, attending the required six hours of staff meetings (which we calculate to equal two hours of CRLA training as we do mini-training exercises during the meetings, i.e. Learning Style Inventories and discussions, sticky situations, etc.), and completing the maximum number of three online training hours CRLA allows each semester (or so I have been informed).So after that long-winded explanation, comes my request. Do any of you use online training modules? And if so, would you be willing to share your advice/experiences with such training? Sample modules if available would also be much appreciated. Thank you! Nichole

Christopher S. GloverTutorial Program CoordinatorLearning and Academic ResourcesLong Beach City College Office: E-08-LEPhone: 562.938.4669Email: c2glover@lbcc.edu
I would like to piggyback off (on?) Nichole's question: in achieving the proper, CRLA-mandated balance between F2F and online training, how does one know how much time online training takes? I know how much time 6 hours' worth of meetings takes--6 hours. But I don't know how long 10 online modules take. Maybe they take as long as I say they take? (In other words, if CRLA wants no more than 3 online training hours, then maybe that's how long my online modules take to complete!)That said, though, someone said here not too long ago (and my apologies to whomever it was who said it; I've forgotten who it was) that these CRLA restrictions on online training ignore or dismiss the power of online communities and peer groups to result in real learning/teaching opportunities. Tutors-in-training aren't simply pressing buttons and interacting with a computer or even just the web; rather, they are engaging in fruitful discussions with their peers and mentors, discussions that would be much harder to have in a more strict environment bound by time, schedule conflicts, etc. They are also learning via a medium with which they are comfortable and may evenprefer. How might this situation be addressed? Christopher

Karin E. Winnard, Tutorial ProgramLearning Assistance Resource CenterSan Jose State University San Jose, CA 95192 (408)924-3346
This is an interesting conversation that I believe has been brought up a few times since I have been on this listserv. So I will do my best to make my response brief.
*Since our tutors work with students face to face, I feel that training in the classroom, face to face, is imperative in developing the interpersonal and communication skills of our tutors. Role-playing, a key-part of tutor training, provides very different results when it is part of the face to face training session/class than when it is used as part of on-line training.
*Being exposed to nonverbal and verbal nuances in tutor training that tutees will use in their sessions, are best used in face to face training.
*As a trainer, I look at the non-verbal cues of my tutors to adjust my training to meet specific needs that may be missed as part of online training.
*I think team-building is a huge part of tutor training which also helps to minimize the isolation that some tutors feel when they work with their students.Having said all of this and clearly being in favor of face to face tutor training (and hiring tutors only at the beginning and end of the semesters and not mid-semester... but that is another conversation) I understand why some trainers are in favor of on-line training. My only hope is that, as we look as tutoring as supplementing instruction rather than replacing it, that we look at on-line training as supplementing face to face training rather than replacing it. Have a good one! Karin

Penny Turrentine, Ph.D.Director, West Campus Learning CenterITPC Interim CoordinatorCertified Learning Center Professional-Level 4Pima Community College2202 West Anklam Road Tucson, AZ 85709-0001Phone: (520) 206-6796 or 206-3196Fax: (520) 206-3119 I just got the opportunity to read all of the postings about tutor training and CRLA requirements. Please know that CRLA is closely examining this issue and you will be seeing some changes made in the very near future. I am very excited about the number of possibilities in terms of eliminating some of the problems that the 60% face-to-face training requirement poses. All I can say is, please stay tuned. Penny

Empirical Research II

This post goes with what Michelle talked about in a previous post about empirical research. As I was reading the last part of Coogan's book, I coudln't help but think about the fact that he uses this as dissertation and because so, makes choices that might not have been made otherwise. I'm wondering how this research would have been different if he would have observed another tutor/tutee correspondence and not heavily relied upon his own. Since he is very invested in helping his students, not just because he is a tutor, but because he is doing research, he seems to only highlight those instances where the tutor session works with his research. I think he could have done a better job explaining his role as a researcher and how that might have changed his tutoring.

Professional Development for Adjuncts

Now training and pay incentives are being provided for some adjuncts. Read Professional Development for Adjuncts. http://insidehighered.com/layout/set/print/news/2008/05/28/nisod

Need some context for Coogan's WC

I wonder about the context of the writing center in which Coogan worked while doing the research, or of other university writing centers at the time. While he brings in numerous theorists to back up his criticism of the academy and the state of composition in the university, there is no other evidence to support his assertions except what he reads between the lines of his interactions with students as an online tutor and, frankly, some of his conclusions are a big inductive jumps. This odd combination of a little empirical research with lots of theory makes me wonder why Coogan is so frequently cited in composition and writing center journals, unless it is because he addressed such a new topic at the time.

Dialogic Dreaming

Leading into his assertion that "there is a life for student writing beyond the course and the semester" (91), Coogan betrays his idealistic dream that networked computers will somehow bring a new era of dialogic learning. Today electronic classrooms are still often configured in rows, and now they're even bolted to the floor. Add in the projector screen and it seems we have not exactly shifted "away from the 'proscenium' classroom, where students sit in theatre-style rows facing the stage" (91), Thanks to the unlimited digital distractions available on those networked computers, we have a dialogic classroom all right--it's just that students are having dialogic interactions outside of the classroom community. I always thought they were socializing on facebook, but maybe they were sharing their writing projects with students at other universities. ;-) Anyway, back in the old days, we could still rearrange the room into small groups, and we even had primitive writing technologies. What was weird though, was that the only way to interact as a group was f2f. Of course, we didn't know any better. I guess we could have passed a notebook around the room and created a discussion board that way, but I don't recall anyone thinking of doing that. So computers did help people create some new ways of doing things that are useful. But I don't think any technology or theory in and of itself will make all our dreams come true.

What is the Value of "educational fantasy"?

What I really like about Coogan is that he takes the time to lay out and explore what he thinks the "electronic writing center" could and should be. His outline gives a concrete image of what he wants to see happen. Whether or not it is plausible can be debated, but I liked seeing his vision for the future so clearly laid out.

This is also what bothers me about the piece ultimately. He is not ultimately advocating his EWC be created in a certain place or time. He is merely drawing a nice picture. Yes, he explore what happened when he tutored electronically, but he never implemented any of the things he suggests as being vital to the EWC he imagines. He could have piloted the database at his own institution with published writing to see how it could have worked. He could be proposing how to implement such a center at a particular type of university, but he doesn't. Coogan paints the picture then leaves it for someone else to work out the logistics.

Is this a common convention of "idealized" writing centers? Am I asking too much of this work?

Writing Tics

We've spent so much of our time in 693 (the "other class" Tess, Carolyn, Karen and I are in) talking about recognizing and correcting out "tics" in speaking and writing that I am now hyper-aware of those things in others' writings. So I have to vent: If Coogan used "in other words" one more time when discussing other people's theories, I might have lost it! I know it is nit-picky, but it seemed to be showing up in every single paragraph of lit review!

I think it is amazing how little things like that can get through the editorial process.

Thank you all for listening to my mini-rant. I feel like I can move on now!

empirical data

I know that it is hard to collect empirical data on something as subjective as writing, but I still think it would be valuable to the research we've read. In Coogan, I would have liked to see figures (or a graph or something) about how many students specifically emailed in, how many "disappeared" when the conversation went not as planned, and how many were deemed "successful" tutoring sessions. Defining all those terms would be tricky, yes, but it seems like all our authors have been selective about what studies they detail, and this weakens their arguments. Rather than accepting the study fully and discussing its strengths, as a class, we seem to criticize first, and the criticisms come from "holes" that we notice. I think this could be fixed with a few simple, clear graphs and charts that represent the numbers.

Coogan and Goffman

I really appreciate Coogan's interpretation of Goffman's "face-work" as it complicates the student/tutor relationship. Both are working to create a certain images and then need to maintain those images, for themselves or the other person. This is just as true in the classroom too. This complication of the "simple" relationship is a perspective I think we haven't seen much of yet.

I also appreciate the way that he discusses how these "faces" change in the email tutorial, but that they are just as present. I haven't yet fully processed this part of the face issue, but I am glad to have it to think about.

Intervention is necessary

A while back Emily asked if there wasn't a time when a teacher was permitted to intervene in a student's writing life. I'm beginning to think that intervention is necessary if student writing is to become meaningful. I'm not talking about directing here but about questioning that broadens the student's horizons about what could be, deepeing the student's concept so that s/he doesn't see things as black and white but as gray and negotiable. I'm wondering though why Coogan thinks that e-mail is better suited to this kind of questioning. Couldn't the writing center extend this conversation at the point of need as well?

Neubauer research proposal

Research Proposal on Language of Email Tutoring

Introduction/Questions

In January 2008, I began working with Dr. Lynne M. Stallings, assistant professor, Department of English, Ball State University, and Dr. Dawn M. Formo, associate professor and chair, Literature and Writing Studies, California State University San Marcos (CSUSM), on their research into the language student writers use to request feedback. My assignment has been to conduct library research to inform an analysis of transcripts from online asynchronous tutoring between tutors from the CSUSM online writing lab (OWL) and area high school students between 2001 and 2006. We hypothesize that paying attention to the language students use to ask questions about their writing may allow teachers and tutors to use students’ language as a bridge, rather than a barrier, to academic writing. Specifically, I have been looking for history, theory and research methodology that will help address the following questions:

1. How does existing pedagogical research in composition studies prepare teachers, tutors, and students to bridge the cultural linguistics gap between students’ non-academic language experiences – especially those shaped by technologies such as email, instant messaging, and texting -- and the requirements of the academy?

2. How does the special genre of OWL asynchronous tutoring differ from other collaborative practices in theory and practice?

3. What can be learned from a close examination of the language between students and OWL tutors that might be helpful in fostering more effective collaboration? For example, are there linguistic cues that illustrate the level of knowledge, understanding and engagement students have in the academic writing process? To what extent do students’ questions about their writing reflect a deep understanding of academic language (and writing conventions) or a rudimentary understanding of the vocabulary used to discuss academic writing? Can linguistic cues be used by tutors in the “contact zone” of the asynchronous online tutoring session to guide their responses and to help students ask questions that result in the help they need?

4. If the students in this study are representative of incoming university students, what patterns do we see that would help make wise pedagogical use of the rhetorical agency they will bring into our classrooms in the fall?

Format

For the purposes of our research, I will prepare a qualitative research proposal as outlined in John W. Creswell’s Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches. 2^nd ed. including the following sections:

· Introduction/Definitions – including an outline of the research project and questions, purpose of the and significance of the study, definitions of key terms, scope and limitations, and situating our study in existing research, trends, and academic conversations.

· Literature review of the discussion of student language in requesting feedback, including a summary of those from composition research, texts and handbooks (which is minimal), but mostly from the writing center discipline, where the bulk of recent research on student language has occurred.

· Discussion of methodologies, including the population, variables, use of the SAT rubric, Peter Elbow’s “Three Ways of Revising” and “Eleven Ways of Responding” to writing, and Marzano and Kendall’s New Taxonomy.

· Works Cited

At the Point of Need

I know that this sounds like the last book we read; however, I see an application to one of Coogan's statements: "What really failed . . . in Hairston's view was not so much current-traditional rhetoric but practitioners of current-traditional rhetoric: 'untrained teachers' in English departments . . . . (xiii). Later on the next page Coogan identifies these practitioners as "part timers" and "adjuncts". When I began teaching for Taylor and Indiana Wesleyan Universities, I had only taught 3 classes of adult professional composition classes. The reason given for dropping me was that I didn't have enough English classes and they were starting the accreditation process. Of course, not having enough English classes wasn't an issue before because APS was experiencing need. Even more surprising was that I was immediately picked up by TU and IWU - still without any education in teaching English classes or writing. I saw my need immediately and continued my education. But the point I want to make is that as an adjunct I was available at their point of need.

ISA is "The Man holding us back"

I had to look back at the publication date of Coogan's book several times because it reminds me of the rhetoric of resistance I grew up with in the late 60s and 70s, especially when he talks about ISA, or the ideological state apparatus (beginning at 5). He brushes by the source of that term, Louis Althusser, who was a Marxist writing in the 70s and pushing back against capitalism in particular. My interpretation of its use by Coogan is that email tutoring should be viewed not just as another service or tool of the WC -- a benign supplement to the sacrosanct f2f conference -- but as an opportunity to be a "technoprovocateur" (28) and participate in "'revolutionary' technology" (57) that resists the social constructions of the WC, literacy, student writing, and the academie.

The Great Divide

David Coogan brings up some good points about technology's lack of neutrality, warning that we can't ignore the social aspect of it as if it "somehow came before someone's intentions to enable some minds to do some things" (qtd. 61). There was a time when computer technology was only usable by the technologically proficient, and even when programming knowledge wasn't necessary, the DOS commands were enough to scare people off. It seems the more the technology interface has been "dumbed down," the more sophisticated and useful the technology has become in terms of allowing people to access it and make rhetorical choices in their use of it. I'm not sure if I'm making any sense, but it seems to relate to his point that there is "a 'Great Divide' between university experts and lay persons" (62) in terms of access and exclusion. However technology is used, someone in some place of power is deciding who gets to join the conversation and what is allowed to be said.

Isolationism

When Coogan talks about the liabiliaty of rigidly defending Intervention, he mentions that "by insisting that their ideal teaching situation (one-to-one with the student) is actually created through this isolation from the academic community, writing centers often perpetuate their own vulnerability as mere support systems" (23). I' m wondering if there is still an entrenched and defensive isolationism today, almost ten years later.

forced indifference?

In the early portions of Electronic Writing Centers, David Coogan references Maxine Hairston's point that a possible reason for the struggle with composition teaching is the "untrained" or "indifferent" instructors. While I may be alone in my lack of teaching experience, from what I understand, many of the writing/comp instructors are poorly compensated for their time and effort, let alone any outside research into the world of rhetoric. It doesn't seem like teaching English 101 is a substantial enough income to be a primary income, so I assume these teachers are either working on an advanced degree (and are new to composition studies) or, are working another job as well. I understand why research is an important component of creating a good teacher, but if it becomes an expectation, it should somehow be worked into the compensation that these instructors receive. I think it was even mentioned in class today, that this is a problem that is a result of how these faculty are treated.

Coogan asserts that early writing centers were motivated by an “urge to contain . . . functional literacy” (xiv), and that contemporary writing centers have not been able to change this identity because it is given to them—by universities, English departments, corporations, politicians, and the public—rather than chosen by them. If this is true and if this condition prevails, he continues, the disconnect between the outsider perception of what should happen in writing centers and the insider perception of what should happens in writing centers cannot be overcome by more carefully crafted public relations campaign (xvi). That is, however, what his book seems to be. It is an effort to demonstrate that a writing center that is aligned with prevailing composition theory will not look like a remedial center for the functionally illiterate. Such a writing center would also, incidentally, not look like the expressivist writing centers that emerged in the 1960’s—but given that writing center theory seems to have moved away from that model this seems to be beside the point. I wonder, however, whether naming the forces that contribute to misunderstanding—and offering an alternative model—satisfactorily addresses those forces.

Knowing Technology

I have always accepted that I need to know, at least minimally, the programs students would be using to create multimodal texts. Even as a tutor, I felt limited when I could not help with the technology part of student construction. Sheridan has given me the first really sound, logical reason why knowing the technology is important.

On 342 when Sheridan is discussing how a student wants to use a photograph for a project, things finally clicked for me. "A multiliteracy consultant who knows photo-editing application can talk with her client about what kinds of revisions are possible, can guide her client through the process of making those revisions, and can talk about the rhetorical effectiveness of those revisions once made."

I had never thought this clearly about the rhetoric of lightening or darkening an image, and knowing how to do that to see that rhetorical significance is important. This just makes so much sense to me. Now I feel like I have a solid line of reasoning to support my intuition that knowing this technology is important.

Tech support

While working on my multimodal project for my technology class last semester, I didn't even consider the writing center as a source of help. I made friends with the tech staff at Taylor University. Tenerally, I was quite satisfied with the tutoring sessions; however, that changed to dissatisfaction when the "tutor" took over my computer. I wonder how the tech staff is trained to work with its "clients". In addition, I wonder if the writing center staff at BSU would have been able to help me with my projects.

Online tutoring and WC ethos

The question that Healy raises about the loss of "collegiality and work-place ethos" is one I've also considered, in both business and academic environments, but I wonder if it's a generational thing. When I worked from home or was traveling a great deal, even though I was in constant contact with my office via Internet, cell phone and conference calls, I definitely felt the loss of a collaborative effort with my team members. It's not that they were no longer cooperative but I noticed the loss of "informal contact with peers and supervisors" through which "appropriate courses of action generally are determined" (547). I just missed out on information and impromptu collaboration that happens almost without us recognizing it when we are physically working together. I've heard similar complaints about online courses. Does being physically cut-off from the bricks-and-mortar WC affect an online tutor's ability to work collaboratively with students and peers?

I am persuaded that writing centers should provide the kind of multimodal consultation Sheridan recommends for his multiliteracy center. It seems to me, though, that English departments must come alongside writing centers by prioritizing multimodality in composition curriculum. It is not enough to allow or require multimodal projects—they must help them to attain at least a function level of multiliteracy.

From Analyzing to Composing

Sheridan tells us that the 20th century asked us to be "consumers of multimodal compositions," while the 21st century is asking us to be "composers of multimodal texts" (342). This new mode (ha, pun intended) of thinking is difficult to adjust to at times, at least for me. I was just getting used to the idea that composition class meant analyzing more than text: it meant analyzing web sites, film, music, speech, photography, graphics, typefaces, and even cultural artifacts. Fortunately I haven't been in the field long enough to have developed any stubborn mindsets; however, my ranking of comfort level with multimodal texts is 1. analyze, 2. compose, 3. teach. Multimodal texts do seem to take teaching and tutoring to a more complicated plane, and I wonder if more collaborative efforts are called for here.

Tutor and Tutee relationship

Healy raises some valid questions about online tutoring using the scenario of Arie and Talia. Specifically, he asks "At what point are tutors off the clock?" "How can directors document tutors' work outside the writing center?" From this scenario, I thought of several more questions that arise from a situation such as this: "How do tutors and tutees develop a long term relationship?" and "should they?" "If tutors are not allowed to respond to their tutees' writing after their office hours and if other tutors take over, what message does this send to the tutee?" "If tutors are allowed to respond after hours, how much is too much, and how do they say no to the tutee and still maintain a good relationship?"

really? a 1984 reference?

After finishing Healy's essay, I noticed I felt much more discouraged than I usually do, even after reading criticisms of WC's that were more harsh in nature. I think it is simply because he used a 1984 reference-- a book that does NOT portray Big Brother in a positive light. I understand that without causal ability to oversee, it must be more deliberate, and this is a more threatening feeling, and the metaphor works. But actually quoting the novel brings discomfort, especially if you've read the book and remember the seriousness with which the Thought Police were described. It took me a minute to realize that WC's will (hopefully) never experience that degree of Big Brother-ness, but I can't help but dislike the reference anyway.

Topic Knowledge

If I'm reading her correctly Irene Clark thinks that it's important for students to have some knowledge of their writing topic prior to accessing information sources because "information without context and coherence does not result in knowledge; it remains an overload of undigested facts" (565). I tend to agree. Learning how to access, analyze, and evaluate sources of knowledge is hard enough without throwing an unfamiliar topic into the mix. After all, there is always more for students to learn about a subject they're already familiar with. Having some prior knowledge might help them to learn how to recognize good sources and steer clear of the questionable.

Quick Fixes and Genres Centers

Dave Healy addresses the concern that online conferencing environments might not only change the dynamics of the individual conference session, but also disperse the writing center into mini-centers. This is not a new concern for him since there have already been proponents of geographically dispersing the activities of the writing center; for example Geoffrey Chase argues that this function should be moved into dormitories and academic departments so it can be “connected to the central experience of students” (qtd. 542). Chase does seem to have a point at first glance, but then it becomes obvious his idea would eventually put students into social and disciplinary ghettos. I imagine dorm centers becoming last-minute fix-it shops and curriculum-specific writing centers turning into genre centers focused on perfecting templates of a particular field.

How Much is Too Much?

How much can a peer tutor learn? Leave information literacy with the librarians. Clark’s reason is true: “those who can access and work with information will have a significant advantage over those who cannot” (563). However, then she ties it to being a “primary determiner of life quality and economic independence,” to impacting “our democratic way of life and on our nation’s ability to compete internationally” and further to guaranteeing “the survival of democratic institutions” (564). While all of this seems logical about those who know how to access information, it doesn’t mean that the writing center should do it.

Old Questions Still Discussed

Even back in 1985 Geoffrey Chase argued for moving the writing center to dormitories and academic departments. The other day in class someone suggested the same idea. Surely someone in between 1985 and 2008 tried moving the writing center to dormitories. If it were tried, what was the outcome? Putting tutors in classrooms didn’t work for BSU according to the discussion we had in class the other day.

OWLS

Carino’s last statement says it all: “If OWLS are going to carry us into flight rather than eat us like rodents, if MOOs are going to produce more milk than dung, if we are going to cruise the informational highway without becoming roadkill, we will need to remain vigilant against the intoxication of our enthusiasm” (517). The enthusiasm to include technology in writing center practice must be accompanied by careful thought about its effects on tutoring, tutors, tutees, and administration. It seems to me that the Purdue OWL isn’t just a place to find tutorials on grammar, punctuation, etc. Does it also provide synchronous tutoring for papers? That isn’t offered to outsiders, is it?

f2f

The excerpt on page 487 about the student and tutor in an asynchronous conversation about a paper when they were only a room apart – one in the tutoring lab and one in an adjacent writing lab – reveals much about what the student thought was valuable: fixing parts of the paper s/he thought needed fixing instead of also conversing about audience and development. The student failed to realize the importance of those 2 aspects in writing a good paper. It also reminded me of Nelson’s policy to let the student decide what to work on in a piece of writing. Here the student knew what s/he wanted to work on but didn’t see the relevance of the peripheral learning that would have occurred in the f2f conversation with the tutor.

Online and OWLS

The dichotomy seems quite evident between the writing center and OWLs but not between writing center tutoring and online writing center tutoring, but Hobson seemed to put them in the same category – online – without making a good distinction between the divergence of theory and pedagogy.