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.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree that it is a mistake to think that "mere" peer tutors would not be just as dedicated to their jobs as the professionals described here. I worked with the worst case of strep throat I'd ever had (doctor cleared me from being contagious) and with migraines, etc. I was not at all exceptional in this. Yes, students may lack some maturity that older "professional" tutors may not have, but they can be just as dedicated.
I also would like to know more about how Strang arrived at his analysis, otherwise it sounds like we are just supposed to take his word for it. For example, a little more about why peer tutors did not work, so that we can take away some evaluative criteria. Without a discussion of emperical evidence, there are times where the essay sounds pompous or self-serving (Jeeves, we just can't accept anything less than professionals here at MIT!) or when I just wanted to say, "How nice for you." However, I appreciate Strang's points about listening and responding to the needs of the target audience the WC serves. It also seems reasonable to pay the pros a rate approximating adjuncts, given their level of involvement with tutees. I wonder, however, how the adjuncts feel about that, considering they are still balancing a huge workload.
Post a Comment