Friday, September 6, 2013

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. 

3 comments:

  1. Melissa: I feel dumb that I posted this 45 minutes late. I drafted it on my computer, and apparently my mind check marked it as done. Sorry!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Fun post here, Emily (and no worries on the lateness-ish)! I'm so glad you picked up on the language we use to describe the students we work with--"writer" is absolutely intentional, and for all the reasons you describe here. That label reminds us all about who is the authority on the topic at hand in any given consultation, and that's the writer. We discussed a long time ago the benefits and drawbacks of "client," and as a group we decided "writer" was just more appropriate. We've even discussed the term "veteran" to describe the folks who've worked here for awhile. What do you think of that term?

    You've also nailed the reasons why the class is structured the way that it is. I think starting with the details of the day-to-day would over shadow the broader purpose of the work, the purpose that is clearly outlined by the readings we've already completed. Next week we'll begin our discussion about the writing process, and once again we'll go broad with it. The majority of us have been raised in a time in which writing has always been acknowledged as a process, and because of that I think we take it for granted. But not that long ago the notion that writing was a process was revolutionary--and we're going to dig around in that idea for awhile, so we can fully appreciate what we mean with that language that has lost its power (and meaning) over the last few decades. You are gonna love it!

    See you on Tuesday!

    mk

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I should have known it was intentional--all you thinkers are smart about the terms you use! In thinking about veteran, it has some interesting connotations--they've been in the "trenches/war" of the Center, they're seasoned... but the term is also interestingly without a power connotation, like "consultant." Although "veteran" is a term of honor and acknowledges their knowledge and skill, I never get the idea that 303ers are second-class citizens in the consultant world or somehow under veterans. I like it, and would love to hear more about the reasoning behind the term.

      Delete