4/21/10 Homework

The Doodle’s In Context

“Since I came to the U.S., I have felt so many differences and I

found new ways of thinking. But these happened only in my

mind. I had never written what I thought of differences before I

took this lab. I really feel that there are totally difference between

writing and thinking. In thinking, what I think disappears rapidly.”

I found this quote by an ESL student very interesting because I think it begs the question, how can we teach ESL students the “American way” of writing without losing original thought? How can we use the ESL student’s background to benefit their writing instead of inhibiting it?

Influence of Cultural and Linguistic Backgrounds

Should all writing consultants be briefed of the normal “writing tendencies” of each ESL student they are tutoring before going into the session? Can we really generalize every culture like this article did for Japanese and Arabic students?

Creating a Common Ground

Instead of focusing so much on how ESL student are different from native speaking students, should we try to focus more so on our similarities?

4/12/10 homework

Hypertexts:

If we allow hypertext writing to become another dimension of the writing center, will this take away form the writing centers core focus of print writing?

Online Tutoring:

Could video chat become an additional feature for online tutoring, in that it would help replicate the face-to-face interaction that online tutoring fails to provide?

Rule of Thirds:

After reading this essay, do you think that a photography course would be mandatory for a consultant working with hypertexts?

CARP:

Which, if any, of these categories, contrast, alignment, repetition or proximity, most relate to the current skills and knowledge that our writing consultants possess?

Consultation with my Brother

In making up my mentoring experience, I corrected a paper that my older brother wrote. Since my brother took off five years of college to try and play professional tennis, his writing ability was rusty when going back to school this year at a community college near our home in Baltimore, Maryland. After reading over my brother’s paper, I found it difficult for me to not take control of the paper and instead offer suggestions instead of corrections. However, although I realized that at times I was slightly forward in my corrections, I made sure that I never deleted or took anything out that my brother wrote in this paper (which was hard considering that I was correcting the paper on a word document!). Instead I would highlight the part that he should change and then afterwards type out why I thought this was an error and suggest how he could change this part.

I think the reason why it was hard for me to maintain a reserved, professional stance during this tutorial, is because me and my brother have always had an open and upfront relationship. We are also both extremely competitive and at times stubborn, which made it even more difficult for us to have a civilized discussion without any arguments. Another reason why I think I had trouble being “non directive,” was because I could not meet with my brother face to face, which forced us to have our discussion over video chat. Because I felt physically detached from my brother and his paper, I think that I tried to compensate for this distance by being more stern and directive. Another obstacle that I faced was that my brother was older than me, which made it harder for him to easily take advice from his younger sister. Since I that our age gap may pose a problem of pride for him, I made sure that I did not patronize him or act like a “know-it-all” when working with him. I knew that if I behaved this way that I would completely turn him away from my suggestions and make him not want to revise.

I also think that the fact that my brother is going back to school, and should have already graduated before me, added yet another obstacle to our tutorial session. The last obstacle I had when working with him was that my mother and other brother, Brennan, had already given my brother advice on how to rework his paper, which often times clashed with the advice that I was giving him. I think that having all of these different perspectives and suggestions may have confused him as to what was the “correct” way to go about revising his paper.

Even though I faced many obstacles when working with my brother, I think that what made this session more successful than most writing consultations, was the fact that I care more about my brother and my family more than anything else in the world, and therefore was extremely invested in his paper. However I think that my investment in this paper worked to my advantage both positively and negatively in our session. Negatively, I think that I may have cared too much about his paper, which caused me to become too emotionally involved and slightly controlling of his paper. However, since nobody else, but my family, knows how difficult it is to work with my brother, I feel that being slightly critical and direct with him is sometimes the only way to get through to him your point.

Overall, I think that our session was a success, because although I could not correct everything in his paper, I made sure to place emphasis on the major corrections he needed to make and reiterated them several times, so that my brother could narrow his focus when revising. The question that I wanted to ask as a result form my session, is that do you ever think it is okay to break your “professional” stance as a writing consultant if you know that in doing so it will benefit the writing of the person you know? Must we always abide by the rules of writing with no leniency whatsoever, or is it ever okay to slightly bend them if it is to benefit the relationship and learning process between the writer and consultant?

Shadowing 4/8/10

Last night was a no show at the writing center!

St. Martins 4/5/10

(1) Is it possible to have the tutor be held to the same standard as a teacher? and is this distinction between tutor and teacher beneficial or detrimental to the tutor?

(2) How are the tutors viewed in our writing center here at Richmond?

Shadowing 4/1/10

My shadow session tonight was with the same student that I observed last week. I was excited for this session, because I saw this second visit as an opportunity for me to observe the aftermath of revision, and if what Brittany told the student to work on really sank in to produce a better paper. However, as the session began to progress, I noticed that Brittany was telling this student to correct the same mistakes as before. Grammar was still an issue that Brittany had to make note of while going through the student’s paper. Small errors, such as the absence of commas, or incorrect punctuation and capitalization, were all addressed in this session, however these problems were not as frequent as they were in the initial session last week.

Stemming from these grammatical errors, were formatting errors that concerned the student’s inability to produce a correct heading on her paper and also the misuse of citations and quotations. Although these issues were prevalent last session, they seemed to be issues that Brittany more so had to “remind” the student to fix, rather than a “re-explanation” of why these areas needed adjustment. Despite the fact that these issues could be seen as “smaller” errors, in comparison to the bigger and broader ideas of the paper, I found that these issues were not actually so small, because they concerned the clarity of her paper and thus hindered the clarity of the ideas in the paper. Even though the student could tell Brittany what she was trying to say, it was very difficult for her to express her ideas clearly in the paper because the grammar and structure was not correct and clear.

Another problem that Brittany faced with this student again was the student’s lack of confidence in her ability to discuss the problems she was having in her paper. For example, the student would ask Brittany “What title should I have?” or “do I have transition here?” instead of first explaining to Brittany what she initially was trying to do before asking her how to correct an issue. Because the student struggled to express her thought process and actions taken towards revising this paper, effective communication could not be obtained in this session.

Although my observation may seem pessimistic because the same mistakes came up again, and also because of the communication barrier between the student and consultant, I ultimately think that this session showed improvement and progression in the student’s writing. Even though the same mistakes were made, they were not as frequent and as obvious as they were in the last session, which allowed for Brittany and the student to talk more about the ideas in this paper.

Questions for March 29th

Non-traditional Students:
How can tutors get non-traditional students to use their life experiences and acquired knowledge to their advantage when relearning the academia writing process?

In Defense of Conference Summaries:
Do you think teachers will be more willing to give their students a better grade if they see that they have worked with a tutor at the writing center? If a better grade is the outcome of these summary reports, do you think students will begin going to the writing center for the wrong reasons?

St. Martins: “Thirty Something” Students:
How can a young tutor approach a tutorial session with a non-traditional, older tutee who thinks that they know more than the tutor because of their age and life experience, and therefore does not value the “process” involved in academia writing?