A different kind of "reluctance"

Looking further into the consultation this week, I got lucky and observed a consultation that challenged some of the things we’ve read in the past. Specifically, the consultant needed to look at LOCs exclusively for an entire hour-long session with an international student. 

The consultant, Shaun, began the pretextual stage of the consultation with some specific choices: he asked the writer about her topic, about the class she was writing for, and about what she wanted to work on. The writer said all she wanted help with was the grammar. Shaun noted that they had an hour-long session, and that they could work on grammar at some point, but asked if he should read through the paper first. The writer pushed back on this pretty strongly, saying that she wanted Shaun to go through line-by-line and “fix” her grammar. Shaun reminded the student that an hour was actually not necessarily enough time to comb through an 8-page paper minutely, but that he would start reading aloud with her. 

Shaun started reading the piece out loud (on the computer), and I realized I recognized the entire beginning section from previous consultations I’d observed with her. I could tell already that she had received quite a bit of help with this paper. Because the beginning had already been worked on extensively, Shaun didn’t stop reading for quite a few pages, and glossed over the few minor grammar issues that presented themselves, instead stopping only to comment on the topic (“Wow, that’s interesting”) or organization (“So you’ll be talking about cultural differences in this piece?”) 

Right around page 3, the writer started pushing Shaun. She interrupted his reading and said something along the lines of, “When you see problems can you edit them?” Shaun asked her to clarify her question, and she repeated with an emphasis on Shaun editing her paper as he saw grammar issues. Shaun, carefully, with lowered voice and kind body language, said, “You know I won’t do that for you. We can read through it together and I can help you edit, but I won’t edit your paper for you.” The writer got exasperated with Shaun for saying this, and denied that’s what she was asking for. 

Shaun helped her rearrange sentences for the entirety of the rest of the hour. I watched him try to suggest grammar corrects as questions, like, “Does that sound right to you?” or “Is that the same sentence structure we used earlier?” but the writer wouldn’t respond to this, and would instead say, “What do I say?” I think the only tactic Shaun was able to use to help her language acquisition at this point was name each grammar concept as he helped her edit it into her paper, i.e. “When you say ‘United States,’ that’s a proper noun, which means it’s a name, so it needs to be capitalized and have an article, ‘the’ in front of it.” 

It was eye-opening for me to see that some consultations will go this way. Even though Shaun would demonstrate and model the grammatical patterns of error that the writer was making over and over again, the writer never took the initiative or changed something on her own, instead asking every time, “Like this?” or “What do I say?” I think in this instance, it was helpful for me to watch Shaun model good grammar for her, to work on her language acquisition, but I realized the other part of that puzzle was missing--the writer wasn’t taking any initiative to make this process helpful to her, hence the multiple visits with this piece of writing. 

This seems like a kind of “reluctant writer” like we read about this week to me. But it’s a different kind of reluctant writer, now one that I’ve observed twice--the writer reluctant or unable to do their own work on this particular project. I’m not sure how to engage and empower these writers yet, but it’s been helpful for me to see two very different tutoring styles applied to this difficult situation. 

Email Consultations and Word Choice

This week I observed my first email consultation. I feel that the emphasis on increased awareness of terminology and word choice was even more  apparent in email consultations than face-to-face consultations. Tone, word choice, and terminology were things that Sierra paid a lot of attention to in her email consultation.

First, I noticed that she wrote the entire response as a conversation. She said things she would have said in a face-to-face consultation, but she said them in very specific ways. She referee to herself as "the reader" throughout, saying things like, "As a reader  I wanted to see more detail in this paper." This terminology reinforced the equal power structure between the consultant and the writer, in a way that could have been reinforced in more subtle ways and through body language in a face-to-face consultation. She also talked about things in terms of "this confused me" or "I wondered about this..." Rather than saying, "You were unclear."

One of the most interesting terms Sierra was very specific about was talking about the paper when she was making negative comments, and talking about the writer when she was making positive comments. In other words, she would say something like, "This paper needs smoother transitions," and, "You did a great job introducing your topic." I think this fits the values of the Writing Center in empowering writers to be better writers in the future--focusing on their strengths, and realizing a draft does not define them as a writer. She went a step further with this, as well, but stating suggestions in positive rather than negative statements: rather than saying, "Don't include so much detail in your introduction," she said, "Trying putting the important details in your body paragraphs."

Sierra also formed most of her statements as questions, realizing that she couldn't necessarily have a dialogue with the student in an email consultation. This was her way of helping the writer think through what she wanted to say in her essay, something that is important in any consultation.

Finally, I was struck by how careful Sierra was with her word choice. She mentioned how great it is to be able to think through every word you say to writers because of the asynchronous communication, and how it's important to be as unambiguous as possible since body language isn't there to back up your message.

I got a lot out of Fulwiler's piece this week, too. It reinforced the fact that consulting really will help me become better writer. I read that entire piece with my own current draft in mind, and got excited about the fact that I'll be able to relate to writers when they're struggling through the revision process. It helped me think through what we read the first week in North's piece: that rewriting is at the heart of the writing center's work and philosophy. Rewriting is crucial in my own writing process, so seeing a more theoretical approach with some practical suggestions was helpful.

Observations

This was my first week getting a peek into the consultation process. I’m amazed already at the variety of students and assignments and circumstances that come through the WC door. 

The first consultation I observed was with an international student who came in specifically to talk to Sierra. Sierra mentioned to me beforehand that this particular student tended to monopolize her time, and that she would encourage the student to meet with other consultants as well as her. As the consultation started, it was clear that the student didn’t have an agenda for the consultation--she opened a binder full of assignments, and I could tell she would take as much time as Sierra gave her. By asking questions about what the student was working on, Sierra was able to coax out a more specific plan and narrow down to working on one assignment. 

Early on the consultation, I could tell that the student wanted Sierra to give her sentences and ways to write her assignment. For instance, the student said, “What should I say?” several times, and Sierra responded with, “How would you say it? Talk to me about it.” There were a few instances where Sierra had difficulty in walking this line, though. In our debrief, Sierra talked about how difficult it can be to help the student brainstorm and build ideas without putting words into their assignments. 

It was helpful for me to see how Sierra handled the grammar mistakes in this student’s paper, as well. She addressed pattern issues, saying, “Let’s review to make sure you stay in the same tense throughout.” 

The second consultation I observed presented completely different challenges. The student expressed from the beginning that she didn’t feel confident in writing an essay for her class, so she wanted a “structure” to build her essay on. Jenny started by asking about the assignment and reviewing the requirements with the student. The assignment asked the student to reflect on a chapter from a book, and discussing the implications of some of the attitudes outlined in the article. Jenny started asking questions about the article, clearly trying to help the student brainstorm about where she was going with her reflection, and what she wanted to say. This approach, surprisingly, wasn’t going very well from the get-go. The student would respond with shrugged shoulders, or a one-word response--not very brainstorm-y. After a few minutes, I noticed the student’s attitude and body language starting to change--in a negative way. Her facial expressions gave off annoyance, and she folded her arms. 

It became pretty clear that the student had not read the chapter she was supposed to reflect on, and because of this the draft she brought in was hopelessly off-topic and didn’t address the requirements of the assignment. As Jenny continued to ask the student questions, I think she became annoyed and frustrated, since Jenny was bringing to light the fact that she had completely missed the mark in the writing she had done--since she hadn’t done the assigned reading. She, like Sierra’s writer, asked questions like, “How would you say that?” Jenny responded, “I like how you just told it to me--write that.”

In my debrief with Jenny, we talked about what could have been done differently. Jenny mentioned that she felt she had given the student too many ideas about what to write about, since the student kept not responding to questions. Jenny also mentioned that, if she had realized sooner that the student didn’t have a good understanding of the topic, she might have suggested ways for the student to “revisit” (actually, read for the first time) her chapter and take notes, keeping the assignment requirements in mind. 

Overall, this session helped me realize that there will be some circumstances where students are looking for a formula to “get an A,” when they haven’t necessarily put in the work they need to yet. I think Jenny’s approach was good, and I think what we talked about in the debrief would have made the session better. 

The How and Why

This week’s readings and time in the Center have given me some further perspective on our work. I know that this model of writing center works--I've experienced it as a student. This week has helped me realize more about how and why it works. As a bonus, my time in the Center has me excited; between coffee cups, smart conversations, and some laughs, I always leave thinking, “This is a place I’d like to hang out more.” 

Of our readings, I think the ones that hit me the most were McCall’s piece, Bruffee’s piece, and our Kolln chapters. McCall’s piece added some context for me, and actually helped me build more on the ideas that last week’s readings generated for me. Using the terminology of consultant rather than tutor removes so much of the connotations and loaded language, just like calling our space a center rather than a lab removes connotations. I liked how McCall pointed out that tutors are for people perceived as failures, while consultants are for people seeking further success. 

In our class discussions, I’ve also noticed that Melissa, Clyde, and the WC veterans often refer to students not as “clients,” (the other end of the consultant language), but as “writers.” (I’m not sure yet whether this is on purpose or just a habit). I love that. It seems so empowering, especially since the term “writer” is something I’ve sometimes not even had the confidence to give myself. Telling people that they are writers is telling them they’ve already arrived, and we’re just there to help them work through their own unique ideas. 

Bruffee’s piece helped me contextualize my own writing a little bit. I’ve always loved E.M. Forster's quote, “How can I tell what I think until I see what I say?” I’ve found this true in my own life, especially since I tend to be an external processor. Turns out, from Bruffee’s piece, that I’m not alone in external and social processing of thoughts. This line hit me particularly as true: “If thought is internalized public and social talk, then writing is internalized talk made public and social again. If thought is internalized conversation, then writing is internalized conversation re-externalized” (210). I’ve experienced and therefore know that talking about writing works, and is immeasurably helpful in the writing process. Now, after reading Bruffee’s piece, I have some theoretical evidence to back that thought up, and some more concrete ideas of why and how it works. 

Kolln’s book has been excellent so far. In my Linguistics 305 class, I learned and appreciated that fact that linguists looked at grammar as descriptive rather than prescriptive. However, I had never seen that sentiment brought into the world of English or standardized grammar until reading Kolln’s introduction. The entire introduction to the book reinforces that idea that grammar works because it is shared, and therefore usage creates meaning. This is interestingly parallel to a lot of our readings--meaning is constructed socially, and our language with which we convey meaning is also constructed socially. I makes me geek out a little… I mean, that’s awesomely exciting. 

Finally, Melissa said to reflect a little on the class structure this week in our journals. At first, I had hoped we’d walk into class and get some step-by-step instructions of what a consultation looked like, a do and don’t list, or a detailed handbook. I was nervous about my first week in the Writing Center because of the fact that it didn’t look like that was coming up on the syllabus. When I realized that we were spending our first weeks observing and acclimating, though, I felt more confident. I still didn’t realize how helpful the readings would be for shaping that knowledge of what successful writing center work looks like. This week has driven that home for me--these readings are going to be a great ground work to lay the foundation of the practical, day-to-day knowledge that I’ll gain from observing and eventually consulting. I’m glad that we didn’t get bogged down with the minutia of running the Writing Center and paperwork and policies before delving into the philosophies, theories, and ideas behind writing center work.