Peer tutors: Coaches, benevolent dictators, models, and a barrage of pedagogy

As new tutors, we are inundated with advice. Most of it is friendly; some of it is even helpful. Since so many of the articles seem compelling and persuasive, we are faced with a bit of a dilemma. Which of the articles is correct? If we ask aloud, the response is always frustratingly the same: there is no “right” or “wrong” answer. Therefore, we as tutors must decide for ourselves how to weed out the good advice from the bad. We must learn to make use of the many available resources and decide what works best for us. Eventually, we will have to move past the black-and-white view of tutoring which marks our first experiences and adopt a more relativistic point-ofview.

Moving into this “there is no right or wrong answer” philosophy can be a little scary because with it comes the responsibility for whatever decision we make. Once we have made the transi

• Suellen Meyer 14

tion, however, we should not be so quick to forget our initial hesitation and frustration. We are constantly reminded to remain firm in our resolve to relinquish responsibility for the session and for student papers, and we are consistently warned about how difficult this will be for us. What is too often overlooked is how difficult the same realization—that there is no right and wrong answer and yet we remain responsible for our own success—can be for our tutees. We need to bear this in mind because as tutors, our primary

The Writing Lab Newsletter, published in ten monthly issues from September to June by the Department of English, Purdue University, is a publication of the National Writing Centers Association, an NCTE Assembly, and is a member of the NCTE Information Exchange Agreement. ISSN 1040-3779. All Rights and Title reserved unless permission is granted by Purdue University. Material will not be reproduced in any form without express written permission.

Editor: Muriel Harris; Asst. to the Editor: Mary Jo Turley, English Dept., Purdue University, 1356 Heavilon, West Lafayette, IN 47907-1356 (765)494-7268. e-mail: [email protected]

[email protected]

Subscriptions: The newsletter has no billing procedures. Yearly payments of $15 (U.S. $20 in Canada) are requested, and checks must be received four weeks prior to the month of expiration to ensure that subscribers do not miss an issue. Please make checks payable to Purdue University and send to the editor. Prepayment is requested from business offices.

Manuscripts: Recommended length for articles is ten to fifteen double-spaced typed pages, three to five pages for reviews, and four pages for the Tutors’ Column, though longer and shorter manuscripts are invited. If possible, please send a 3 and 1/4 in. disk with the file, along with the hard copy. Please enclose a self-addressed envelope with return postage not pasted to the envelope. The deadline for announcements is 45 days prior to the month of issue (e.g. August 15 for October issue).

Please send articles, reviews, announcements, comments, queries, and yearly subscription payments to the editor.

goal is to help students with the transition from right-or-wrong, dualistic thinking to a more relativistic stance so that they can learn how to operate in this mode with some degree of confidence. We must help them see that although there is no right-or-wrong approach, there are some practical methods for assessing which approaches might be “more right” than others. Only then can they confidently seek help for the practical problems which will enable them to follow-up with those choices. It is one thing, after all, to purport to maintain the integrity of individual writing styles by not interfering with those styles; it is quite another to refuse tutees the benefit of your knowledge and practical experience in the name of “non-interference.” So, since we cannot make their choices for them, we should show them how to come up with alternatives, evaluate them, and then choose between them on their own. To this end, we must stop presenting ourselves as either traditional Coaches or Benevolent Dictators and instead learn to model the process of evaluating choices for the tutee.

The traditional Coach analogy is problematic for several reasons, beginning with the implied definition of what a Coach actually does: he is in charge of the game plan, makes strategic decisions and tactical choices, and orders players around based on his assessment of their strengths and weaknesses. For us, the problem arises with the realization that this idea of Coach is diametrically opposed to our tutoring philosophy of relinquishing responsibility. The inevitable result is that we first go through a lot of trouble to present ourselves as helpful and friendly Coaches and then, for no apparent reason to the tutee, withhold any straightforward assistance and throw the responsibility for the outcome of the game back onto the shoulders of the “player.” What has happened, of course, is that we have realized that this is really supposed to be the tutee’s game and not ours. Unfortunately, the student, who has not had the benefit of the same realization, comes to an entirely different conclusion. The student who has asked about the best strategy for paragraphing, for example, can hardly then be faulted for regarding the Coach who has inexplicably withheld the answer from him as either mean or inept.

We are also taught that the traditional Coach persona is the ideal because it goes beyond the adversarial “student/authority” relationship. But how far does it really go? There always remains the implicit assumption that the Coach is some sort of authority. Even Cheryl Geisler, herself an avid Coach advocate, admits that “while she is not the sole authority, [the Coach] does have a contingent claim on knowledge, to insider information, to ‘tips’ and ‘procedures’ that the already-expert may be unable or unwilling to share” (111). In the eyes of both tutor and tutee, the Coach remains the expert who knows best, who knows what the teacher wants, and who knows how students can give it to him. It would be an exceptional tutee indeed who, given this frame of mind, could then keep from relying on his Coach for direction with his assignments. Certainly if writing were a clear-cut endeavor, if all essay requirements standard, stylistic preferences codified, and writing processes as formulaic as algebra theory, this would not be a problem. We could then just pull out the correct solution and apply it to the student’s assignment. Writing is varied and complex, however, and preferences and objectives differ even between teachers in the same department. It thus becomes not only arrogant but irresponsible for us to hold ourselves out as the experts to tutees who are so clearly scrambling for an authority to tell them what to do. Since, with few exceptions, we cannot know what the teacher will consider “right” or “wrong,” we must become relativists if only by default. We must rid ourselves of the Coach mentality, or at least shift its focus somewhat. We must move from being The Coach Who Will Help You Write Your Papers the Right Way to The Coach Who Will Help You Evaluate Your Options So That You Can Write The Paper Which Will Work Best For You.

Because this latter approach can be trying and time-consuming, however, it is tempting for us to take an easier way out: the Benevolent Dictator approach. For example, there may be at least ten ways to write an introduction, and any one of them may be technically correct. Yet only one or two may be truly effective or even appropriate for the student’s essay. It is impossible in thirty minutes to introduce each format and then guide the student through an analysis of each one given his assignment, his own ability, his paper topic, etc. It is a lot easier to just suggest the appropriate (or easiest) alternative for the student. Sometimes, it also seems kinder. We have the best of intentions. We sense that it is wrong to glibly announce that “there are no absolutes” and then provide them with no way to cope. We all want to be helpful, and immediate, Band-Aid help is better than no help at all. Often, we assure ourselves that we are giving students confidence by suggesting they do something “easy”; other times we make choices for them and then merely explain the rationale for our advice to students so they can see why we suggested what we did. Yet giving them something “easy” to do, while certainly appropriate in some specific instances, does not generally build the kind of confidence that comes from learning how to handle something more challenging. Usually we don’t even bother to explain what students can do well, so they often have no idea why we felt confident even suggesting what we did. These ex post facto explanations do nothing to show students how to make those kinds of choices in the first place. If we do not explain that there are many alternatives to choose from and take them carefully through at least two of those choices, how can they learn to evaluate those choices independently for their next assignments? How will they even know what choices are available to them? As Beverly Clark observes, “perhaps the hardest thing for a tutor . . . to learn is that . . . he is not a dictator. The tutor. . . must learn restraint [and] help the tutee to correct and improve herself” (110). Not surprisingly, the tutee often has the same trouble in giving up the idea of Dictator, especially such a benevolent one.

Clearly both the traditional Coach and the Benevolent Dictator analogies are inadequate because they do not help the student in his transition to relativistic thinking. We will often go to extremes to break tutees of the dualistic, black and white thinking which marks their first visits to the Writing Center. Yet too often we are not taught how to provide tutees with any real practical way in which to learn to deal with the unfamiliar, multiplistic way of thinking. The sensible idea of relinquishing responsibility thus becomes nonsensical and even cruel when it is not followed up with explanation or justification. If we are so preoccupied with the first part of our job that we neglect the latter, the results can be disastrous.

Often the tutorial begins to feel wrong or silly to both tutor and tutee. For the tutee, the session can start to resemble anything from a nightmarish “who’s on first” routine (Why do I need a conclusion? What do you think? I don’t know, why do I? Well, what do you think? What do you think? and so on) to the more frightening scenario of the sadistic lifeguard grinning wildly as he waves the life-preserver back and forth over the head of the drowning swimmer. Sometimes a student just freezes up, paralyzed with the realization that there is no one right answer, and becomes unwilling to participate in the tutorial at all. Other students wrongly conclude—until they get their first essay back—that since nothing is inherently right or wrong, anything goes. Others will simply agree with everything you suggest, no matter how ridiculous, because they are unable to see the value of or necessity for their own ideas. Still others figure it is just another hoop to jump through in order to pass a class and will wait amiably and patiently for twenty-five minutes for you to give them the payoff at the close of the session. As Chris Anson explains, “students [who are] just making the transition into the multiplicity of relativism often believe that the teacher knows the ‘correct’ way to write an essay but is craftily withholding this wisdom for the sake of pedagogy” (335). Others, “fearing that they won’t find the answer in this game of rhetorical hide-and-seek, may cling desperately to what is tangible . . . the teacher’s procedural guidelines” (335). It is significant that Anson’s comments regarding procedural guidelines also apply to such things as voice, tone, and even subject matter, depending on the level of uncertainty felt by the student. Particularly sad and unnecessary is when, as Anson describes, students “try to guess what the teacher ‘expects’ them to do, without knowledge of any underlying reason for doing it” (336).

Thus, to prevent the student’s feeling that college has somehow turned into some cruel cosmic joke, we must guide his transition to multiplistic thinking and help him to function comfortably within it. The first step in this process is to pay close attention to the tutee as an individual. We have the privilege and the luxury of spending some very personal time with our tutees, and we should take advantage of it to understand the tutee’s current frame of reference. In order for him to make progress, the tutee as well as the tutor must understand where the tutee currently is “at.” First of all, we should be aware that there are many reasons why a tutee is reluctant to accept a more relativistic way of thinking. It is uncomfortable and frightening to realize there are no absolute answers. Even in this age of pluralism and political correctness, there are serious practical consequences (including not passing a course) to making some unwise choices. For this reason, even some of the most intelligent and hard-working students can be persistent and admirably creative about pressing us for those snappy insider tips. Furthermore, some hesitation is obviously a function of age and/or life experience. Many cultures, too, do not embrace our American ideal of so-called independent thinking and irreverence; students with a cultural background which values obedience and conformity may feel overwhelmed with newfound freedom in general and the initiative which it requires, let alone jump at the idea of removing the guarantees to success in college. For Americans, college is the traditional transition time from dualism to relativism, yet even among freshmen there is no way of predicting what stage a student is in.

As Anson illustrates in his very informative article, “Response Styles and Ways of Knowing,” the student in transition from dualistic to relativistic thinking often travels through several predictable stages. While it is certainly interesting to become familiar with the theory behind these stages, it is more important to just pay attention to the tutee, and to realize that he might be coming from an entirely different place or philosophy than we are (or ever were). Asking open-ended questions, using silence, or narrating our own experience encourages the student to describe his own ideas about writing. Personal judgments and points-of-view should be set aside as much as possible, and yet we are all products of our experiences and perceptions: an admission of this to your tutee can go a long way toward diffusing the impact of prejudices. Comments such as “This is how I think, but you or your teacher might think differently. Let’s look at the assignment and try to think through what might be workable for you” and “From what you’ve told me this type of argument paper might feel uncomfortable at first, but let’s try and come up with some ways to make it easier for you” are not only perfectly acceptable, but desirable. They demonstrate respect for the tutee’s position, admit to differences in teacher expectation, and relate confidence that his uneasiness can be overcome.

A forthright admission up front that both tutor and tutee will be working to learn how to come up with a variety of ways to fulfill any given assignment and ways to assess which of those would be better gives the tutee some direction and sense of purpose. By reviewing his assignment sheet, teacher examples, and previous notations, we can see how the tutee and his teacher felt about his previous work and help him to determine the direction he needs to take now. This type of approach works for developmental and grad students alike: whatever stage the tutee is in, we can help him go a little bit further. These types of assurances can be made quite explicitly. They will help the tutee feel more confident that not only are tutors trying to be of help, but we are bothering to find out how we can best be of help to him. If we treat our tutees with respect, they will be more willing to trust us with their concerns. The key to success is in learning and being sensitive to concerns and attitudes of our tutees and then taking them through their decision making process from there.

Admittedly, assessing what stage our tutees are in can sometimes be difficult. A student, for example, can be generally relativistic, yet fall into a more black-and-white thought pattern with a subject or essay form with which she is unfamiliar. In the chapter “Getting Started” in her book Talking About Writing, Clark reminds us of the necessity of being sensitive to and learning about the unique point of view of our tutees. She cautions new tutors that “first, you need to get to know the student. Even with one-shot drop-in tutoring, it’s important to spend time this way” (111). While Clark here is referring to just making the student feel comfortable, this strategy is also imperative if we are to make any progress at all in our modeling of relativistic thinking. I would go so far as to include not making any assumptions about the tutee at all, including that she knows what she has done well on her paper. Some poor students are not even given the luxury of perceiving the problem before a teacher or tutor has jumped in and solved it for them, but others are bewildered by praise over something they don’t really understand or have stumbled on by accident or instinct. This type of “praise” can be intimidating as well as unexpected: how can students repeat or improve on what they have done well if they have not really understood it in the first place? How likely is it that they will volunteer the information when they are not even sure what they have done right? By not making assumptions, we are forced to learn from students why they have made the choices in the writing of a rough draft, and we will be able to discuss this with students with regard to future drafts and other assignments.

Once we begin to pay close attention to our tutees and to encourage the expression of their concerns and opinions, we are then ready to show them how to function in a more relativistic mode. As tutors, we—not the teacher nor the text—are in a unique position to model multiplistic thinking in a practical way because we have so much one-on-one time with students whom we do not have to grade. So, after we have confirmed that there is no guaranteed way to get an “A,” we should show our students some commonsense ways to better their chances. First, we must teach our tutees to ask questions. It is their responsibility to make sure they understand assignments and terms such as “tone,” “voice,” and “audience,” and they cannot do well if they do not understand what they are supposed to be doing. We must not just tell them—we must make a point of asking them these questions directly so that they can gain experience talking about these subjects. (They can begin to “own” them.) Point a student to a writing center, his texts or his teacher for clarification. Then, by asking open-ended questions, we must find out how the student plans to approach the assignment. We can encourage her to articulate out loud the reasons for her approach. Has she always done it this way? Did her teacher recommend it? Model the process of evaluating the approach: if she includes a summary in her conclusion, how will this strengthen or weaken the paper? If a student uses a conversational tone, what effect will this have on readers? We must help students come up with alternative ideas. In what other ways could they conclude their papers? How might these new approaches change the finished work? Will the student still be fulfilling the assignment? By modeling in this way, we show our students that having more than one way to write a paper is not necessarily a bad thing: with it comes flexibility and creativity.

More importantly, modeling can help our students to feel more in control. Evaluating alternatives turns out to depend largely on common sense, something which is not so foreign to most tutees. Once they learn how to come up with different ideas and manipulate them for various assignments, they will not feel so overwhelmed nor be so dependent on others. By positing some hypothetical scenarios during a session, we can help students learn to solicit feedback on what the consequences of their decisions might be without risk of a bad grade. By incorporating this type of modeling into every tutorial, we also help keep ourselves out of students’ work. By asking questions—What do you want to work on today? Is there anything in particular I should be listening for as I listen to your paper? How did you feel about your paper when it was done?—we are consistently reinforcing that the control of the session is in their hands. Some students will respond comfortably to questions; others will not. We cannot be discouraged. The main point of the questions is to remind tutees that they are supposed to be in charge, that our time is at their disposal, and that we respect them and will wait for them to articulate their points-of-view. We must do them the courtesy of explaining why we are asking so many questions or remaining silent so much of the time. As we model alternatives for our tutees, we should explain what we are doing so that they can learn to do it for themselves.

Ideally, students should be learning

to evaluate the suggestions that they have learned how to solicit. Since realistically even soliciting suggestions is not always easily—or even eagerly— accomplished by tutees, it is even more important that we learn how to give this confidence and reassurance through modeling. We can encourage them to be creative or even silly with their initial ideas to help initially free them up from a dualistic thought pattern and expose them to new writing methods which might be more comfortable for them. Later, alternatives can be narrowed down and chosen from. The tutee can learn to listen to his or her own “ear.” Because we have the time to explain and explore in a highly flexible and personalized manner, we can give students the benefit of the Coach’s expertise and experience without making decisions for them. We then need not play Benevolent Dictator and offer them an easy way out because it will give them “confidence.”

Thomas Newkirk may be correct when he observes that “the teacher must balance two opposing mandates: on the one hand to respond to the student, to evaluate, to suggest possible revisions and writing strategies; and on the other to encourage the student to take the initiative, to make decisions, to take control of the paper” and that “there is no neat way to reconcile these mandates” (318). For the teacher, perhaps this is true. But it does not hold true for the tutor. We can reconcile these mandates by guiding the tutee through at least some of those intimidating possibilities. We can show them what they are doing well so that they can consider their own abilities in for

mulating their next strategy.

Discussions of audience can

help the student consider that

others might not have the

same view and that even

teachers can be dualistic

thinkers themselves. As

Anson observes, “what a

teacher says to [and how he grades!] a student is saturated with the teacher’s values, beliefs, and models of learning” (354). All of this information is necessary for the student who must decide how to write a paper which is to be evaluated by someone else and who must learn to differentiate between one authority’s point-of-view and gospel truth. Through modeling how to make choices and discussing how those choices might be received, we are not just leaving students to assume responsibility for their own work: we are helping them gain real confidence in handling this responsibility.

Finally, we must remember that one of the most powerful—and too often actively avoided—ways to model relativism and help students assume their responsibility is to reveal our own weak spots as tutors. Explanations

Calendar for Writing

which aren’t clear, analogies which are Centers Associations

(cont. from page 7)

Assessment need not always be formal and scientific. Insightful feedback can be obtained from tutors at any time through simple exercises inserted as mind fresheners during a more structured tutor training activity.

The English Department’s Writing Center at Los Angeles Valley College (Van Nuys, CA) was initiated in June, 1993 by generous grant from a private foundation, the Alliance for the Advancement of Education. The foundation pledged itself to contribute approximately $210,000 per year for a five year period. At the midway point, it seemed appropriate to invite the tutors to discuss our strengths and weaknesses.

We were in the midst of our two-day training session conducted at the beginning of each semester when everyone’s mental energy seemed to tap out simultaneously. Time for a breather. “Okay,” I said. “Let’s take a moment to help out a neighbor.” I named a nearby community college, and hypothesized they were about to create a writing center of their own. “They called me this week and asked me for recommendations. Based on our experiences of the past two and a half years, what should they absolutely do, and what areas of our program might they improve?”

From the perspective of our tutors, an ideal writing center should include the following:

• Adequate space is a must. We are housed in approximately sixteen hundred square feet, eight hundred apiece for the tutoring center and the computer center.

• Reference materials for consultation by the tutors and students are critical (including dictionaries, thesauri, ESL dictionaries, com

puter tutorial software, and so on).

• Friendly, service-oriented tutors and computer lab monitors should be recruited, hired, and trained.

• Handouts should be prepared and duplicated in quantity on grammar topics, the writing process, ESL issues, computer software programs, and so on.

• Sufficient hours of accessibility should be maintained to meet the needs of the students, including evenings and weekends.

• Enough staff should be hired to be flexible in providing coverage for one another when emergencies arise.

• An open door policy should be maintained that encourages communication up and down the organizational ladder. When problems or conflicts occur in a writing center, everyone should be well acquainted with the procedure to resolve them quickly before they fester or escalate.

• Provide an ambiance that encourages students to come in and feel comfortable (lighting, carpeting, furniture, drapes).

• Maintain a non-threatening environment (including room arrangement, signage and staff attitudes) for the students.

• One of the most important elements is creative leadership on the part of the department chair, the faculty oversight committee, the writing center manager and the day-to-day supervisors.

• Strive for participative decision-making that invites opinions from English Department faculty, writing center managers, tutors and computer lab monitors, student users, as well as the faculty and staff of the college as a whole.

Areas in which another writing center should be encouraged to improve upon what we are doing included the following:

• Communications between the tutors and the teachers should be increased. Tutors would like to know the specific requirements of the individual teachers over and above the generic demands of each course. On the other hand the teachers should have a clearer picture of what the writing center can and cannot do.

• Teachers should place copies of their syllabus, course outlines, and individual writing assignments in the Writing Center for access by the tutors.

• Teachers and tutors need to develop shared expectations for what can be accomplished when students come to the writing center. The tutors are not proofreaders, and not every single problem can be corrected in a paper within a single twenty- to thirty-minute conference.

• More publicity and outreach should be developed to contact students in classes outside the English Department. The word has still not gotten around campus that students writing papers for other departments are welcome to use our services.

• A wall map of the world should be posted in the Writing Center, and we could place a pin in each location or country of origin to reflect the international flavor of our clientele.

• Parking, better parking, closer and safer parking should be provided for the tutors, particularly at night and on weekends.

• Student support services should be centralized. At present, students shuttle from building to building as they visit the Writing Center, the Computer Center, Learning

The focus of the Thirteenth Annual Conference of the New England Writing Centers Association is “Politics, Ethics, and Survival.” In a world of deconstruction, social construction and reconstruction of curricula, it would be difficult to argue that a writing center can be a-political or somehow objective, removed from the workings of the institution in which it operates. Yet many of our arguments have centered (pun intended) on how we operate on the margins, how we are somehow immune from the political concerns of other academic units, how we work with real students while others describe and talk to their versions of students— to a constructed student. In the last several years, we have seen all of these assumed writing center polarities come under question. Two recent situations exemplify the timeliness of NEWCA’s conference theme: this column’s February WLN call for a discussion of writing center accreditation, and a recent discussion on WCenter with the subject title: “What’s in a Name?”

The recent discussion over whether writing centers should create their own accrediting team seems to some like a sell-out to institutional practices from which we wish to remove ourselves. One claim that has been forwarded to me argues that by giving in to such institutional assessments, we are giving them power, acknowledging methods of evaluation which our philosophy and practice do not support. Another respondent pointed out that if we don’t create our own criteria, others’ measurements will be forced upon us; it is better to create an evaluation tool that we control than to have one created for us by those who don’t know what it is we actually do. Finally, a colleague e-mailed that to some, assessment is just frightening, no matter who is at the other end doing the evaluation. This director of a successful writing center

T

“He that respects not, is not respected.” —G. Herbert

Dr. Gustav Brodel, distinguished researcher and heavy metal rock guitarist, presents to the scientific world his theory that within every light wave exists a small population of undetectable and useless light creatures—that are born, reproduce, and die within a nanosecond—called Shinetians. Because his research cannot be falsified (the Shinetians are completely undetectable), it is immediately accepted by the scientific world. Pittsburgh Steeler linebacker, Bob Gruel, picks up a fumble, pulls out his 9 mm Beretta from his waistband, and fires into the chests of several players trying to prevent his fifty-yard scamper to the end zone for a Steeler touchdown.

What seems wrong with the aforementioned events? What is missing? The ground rules. Dr. Brodel neglected to follow the fundamental assumptions of science that all theories must follow from inductive reasoning and be capable of falsification. Linebacker Bob Gruel violated a basic rule in the National Football League that use of weapons is unnecessary roughness.

Common to any well-functioning system, game, or discipline is a set of basic beliefs or ground rules that hold it together, rules that are so fundamental to the given enterprise that everything would collapse into chaos in their absence. These ground rules have such a significant role in defining the enterprise and guaranteeing its desired results that they must always be followed. Respect—for the student, for the tutor, and for writing—functions as the most basic and fundamental ground

’

the writing conference

rule of the writing conference. Without respect, meaningful discussion and instruction in the writing conference become as difficult to attain as a touchdown in a football game with automatic weapons.

The first necessary condition for an atmosphere of respect to exist in the writing conference is that the tutors must respect the writers. Tutors must have respect for student writers as intelligent and capable individuals. Many tutors believe in respect. In fact, they may demand it of their students. A tutor who creates an atmosphere of respect for the student also allows for feelings of trust and acceptance to enter the tutor/student relationship. This opens up the discussion, allowing more meaningful dialogue and a higher quality of instruction. An atmosphere of respect will also remind the tutor to preserve students’ authorship of their papers. If we respect the intelligence and creative ability of writers, we should always seek to maintain their ownership of the paper. Moreover, if we respect writers’ uniqueness and individuality, we should encourage them to use their talents in unique and individual ways, not in our ways.

Another component of tutor respect for the student is that the tutor should believe that he/she can truly benefit from the writing conference experience with the student. I know a tutor who will not complete a writing conference until he feels that he has gained an insight or helpful hint from the discussion. He says that oftentimes it is a new way of describing an object or event that he has described a thousand times before. For example, he once came across a metaphorical description of a summer sunset over the ocean as a fading Chinese smile. When he asked for a more detailed explanation of the relationship, the writer, who had lived in Asia, filled the next five minutes with experiences and perceptions that brought her to such a comparison. If tutors feel that they can improve their own writing skills through meeting with the student, then the conference is transformed into a worthwhile enterprise in which both the tutor and the writer have goals they want to attain.

The second necessary condition for an atmosphere of respect in the writing conference is that students must have respect for tutors. Without it, the writing conference breaks down. While optimally, the writing conference should be considered a meeting of equals, the student must not forget that the tutor’s suggestions probably result from a great deal of training and experience, and should not be rejected out of hand. The following excerpt shows the difficulties of a conference in which the student, Emmitt, does not respect the tutor, Amy:

Amy: While I like what you’re telling me about the relationship between Sid and Nancy, I would much rather have you show me.

Emmitt: I just thought it’s kind of stupid to go through all of that stuff just to let the reader know that in spite of his violent behavior, Sid really loved Nancy. I mean all that does, really, is bog down the paper.

Amy: That’s true. Too much might interrupt the flow of the story, but, as a reader, I really want to get a feel for what their relationship was like.

Emmitt: Well, you’re not the only reader! Aren’t you going to check my grammar or spelling or something?

The student must possess a certain sense of empathy for the tutor’s difficult job of aiding writers in revising, editing, and correcting their work. There must be a willingness on the part of the student to dispense with ego long enough to dispassionately and objectively listen to the advice and response given by the tutor. An unteachable writer is usually a poor one. The student must realize that the tutor (no matter how bad) should have something to give, and that it is in his/her best interest to listen.

Unfortunately, there is no quick and easy way for the tutor to guarantee a student’s respect. Oftentimes a tutor’s efforts to encourage mutual respect turns into a situation much like the first conversation mentioned above, where the tutor tries to intimidate or bully the student to create respect. Tutors must simply try to lead by example. A respectful tutor usually has respectful students.

The final condition for an atmosphere of respect in the writing conference is that the tutor and the student writer must respect writing. If there is a deep respect for the art of writing, then there is usually a desire on the part of both the tutor and the student writer to improve.

A desire to improve their own writing is an important characteristic of successful writing tutors. If tutors remain static and satisfied with their own writing abilities, the students suffer. Tutors who cannot push themselves to higher levels of written expression will most certainly experience difficulty motivating their students to do so. A dynamic and unsatisfied tutor is the tutor who benefits students most. In the following dialogue between Latrell (tutor) and Gini we see the possible effects on a student from a writing conference with a static and satisfied tutor:

Latrell: Your paper is fine. Just clear up the grammatical mistakes and hand it in.

Gini: Really? I don’t feel like it’s ready yet.

Latrell: Sure it’s ready! It gets the job done. You fulfilled the assignment. Why worry?

Gini: I just thought that this part at the end seemed kinda awkward. Maybe I should. . .

Latrell: What? You wanna be a Hemingway or something? Listen. You’re a pretty good writer. The great writers were born with the gift. You reach a point where you realize that you’ve gone as far as you can go without starting to waste time improving things that nobody cares about anyway.

The student must also consider good writing a significant intellectual value. Without it, the conference is a failure. A student can receive the best instruction and suggestions possible, but without the desire to improve his/her own writing the writing conference is of no help. Writers who share this respect for writing are usually more teachable, more open with their goals as writers, and more enjoyable to work with. The following excerpt demonstrates the dynamic and meaningful discussions that can take place between a tutor (Amanda) and student (Jen) who have this respect for writing:

Jen: You know, I have a bunch of questions I want to ask you before we get started. Do you mind?

Amanda: No.

Jen: Ever since I started college I’ve wanted to improve my character dialogue. You know, make it more real and believable. When I started writing this short story, my dialogue seemed weird and awkward. Any suggestions?

10

Amanda: I’ve got the same problem. What I’ve been trying to do is imitate the dialogue of a writer whose characters always seem so believable and natural.

Jen: Who’s that?

Amanda: Bobbi Ann Mason. What I do is I re-read her books, paying more attention to the way she does the dialogue than with the story itself. Then, I just spend some time each morning trying to imitate her style.

Jen: That’s a good idea. I’ve always liked Mark Twain. Maybe I’ll. . .

Tutors must find creative ways to cultivate and nurture students’ respect for writing. One thing that has worked for me is that I try to demonstrate my love and respect for writing by sharing passages from my favorite books, or lines from my favorite poems—encouraging them to do likewise. It surprised me how this simple method oftentimes sets a tone of respect for writing throughout the conference. Another possible method that I am dying to try is to show students the power and satisfaction of writing by sharing significant writing experiences. Let your creativity and love for writing transform the writing conference. A deep respect for good writing cannot help but be infectious.

As tutors, we need to respect student writers as intelligent and capable individuals by valuing their experiences and writing. We must try to benefit from the writing conference. While we cannot ensure students’ respect for tutors, we can still foster an atmosphere of mutual probity in the writing conference by cultivating in students an admiration for writing. A profound respect for writing is oftentimes powerful enough to break the barriers preventing mutual respect.

Just as science and football have basic rules that define them, so, too, do successful writing conferences all seem to have one common element that holds everything together—respect. With it, the writing conference

Administrative contexts and ethics, Part II

”The Grand Buffet‘‘: 1997 South

Carolina

Writing Center

Building blocks make strong centers

Idaho State UniversityDoubleday, 1990.Academic Skills Center Director of Reading Program

Applications will be reviewed beginning March 1,1997; position open until filled.

Date of Employment: Fall Semester, 1997 Minimum Qualifications: Master’s degree in reading or literacy, or closely related field. Experience teaching Salary: Commensurate with experience reading at post secondary level preferred; secondary

experience considered. Must demonstrate excellent Position Description: DIRECTOR READING PROGRAM, instructional, communication, administrative, and nine-month position in Academic Skills Center, Division of supervisory skills. Experience with computer assisted Student Affairs. This is a new position. The Director will instruction and instruction for adults with learning develop, provide, and evaluate a reading program for disabilities desired. college students with a full range of reading services: 1) develop and teach credit and non-credit courses and Send letter of application, resume, one-page position workshops; 2) establish a Reading Lab for computer paper on the role of a university reading program, all assisted diagnosis and instruction; 3) provide individual transcripts, and names of three references to Ken Prolo, diagnosis and instruction when appropriate; 4)recruit, train, Director of Human Resources, Box 8107, Idaho State supervise reading tutors and/or adjunct instructors. University, Pocatello, ID 83209. EOE/AA Employer.

Call for Papers

The Writing Program Administrator as Researcher: Inquiry in Action and Reflec

We invite abstracts for a proposed search, group inquiry, historical work; collection focusing on aspects and 4) ways in which WPA research in-prospects of research in Writing Pro-forms other academic contexts and gram Administration: what it is, who professional communities.does it, how it is done, what are its purposes, how is it similar to or differ-Please send 500-word abstracts and ent from other research in rhetoric and brief descriptions of the author’s work composition studies. Possible areas of in writing program administration, in-focus include, but are not limited to: cluding institutional contexts, by July 1) ethical, political, and methodologi-1, 1997. Drafts of selected papers will cal issues for research situated in writ-be due November 1, 1997. Send abing programs; 2) distinctive character-stracts to Shirley K. Rose and Irwin istics of research in specific kinds of Weiser, Department of English, Purdue writing programs, e.g., writing centers, University, West Lafayette, IN 47907WAC programs, professional writing 1356. Address inquiries or questions to programs, first-year composition pro-either Shirley Rose (telephone: 765grams; 3) definitions or descriptions of 494-3742; e-mail: [email protected]) a specific type of research in writing or Irwin Weiser (telephone: 765-496

THEW RITING L

AB

NEWSLETTER