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?

Shadowing 3/25/10

In my shadowing session tonight I observed my first consultation with an international student. Beginning the session, Brittany asked the student why she came in to the writing center. The student replied exclaiming that her Professor told her that there were some “disconnections” within her paper. Although this was a vague answer, Brittany nodded while paging through the paper’s content, and then asked her what she thought her thesis was in the paper. As the student uncomfortably began to attempt an explanation Brittany encouraged her by helping her finish her sentences and thoughts while writing down the main points of their conversation. After interpreting and clarifying the student’s jumbled response, Brittany mentioned that the formatting of the paper was off because and pointed out sentences extended out into the outer margins of the paper. She then began to read through the student’s paper correcting word clarity and flow and also grammatical errors such as capitalization, punctuation, missing words, and incorrect word usage. There were also many instances were Brittany pointed out that her paragraphs were too long and needed to be shortened in order to better focus and categorize her ideas. In addition the student also made her quotations too long and needed to use more analysis and explanation of these quotes.

Because so much of this session was dedicated to sentence clarity, word choice and grammar, it was more difficult for Brittany and the student to work on the bigger and broader problems within the paper. Being that English was not her first language, it was obvious that the student was not only having trouble communicating her ideas in her paper but also communicating them to Brittany. For instance, when Brittany would begin to explain a correction to the student she would often times have to stop and explain words she would, such as the word “instigate.” Since the student had a lot of trouble using advanced words, that were often times necessary in order for her to clearly express a complex thought, I feel that a thesaurus would have been a useful tool for her when writing. Although I think that the student felt frustrated at many points throughout the session, I think that Brittany’s patience and persistence really helped facilitate a positive, learning atmosphere. I think that the student may have been more at ease if they had had a sidebar conversation away from the paper at some point during the session. However, I think that the cultural and language barrier existing between Brittany and the student created a distance between them, making it hard for the two to casually converse.

Overall, my impression of this shadowing experience was different from any of my other sessions, in that there were many more obstacles for the consultant to face. Given that it is very difficult for a regular student to clearly express their thoughts into a focused paper, it is twice as hard for a student whose first language isn’t even English to do the same assignment. Moreover, considering that many of the problems related to this student’s paper were structural and grammatical errors that most students learn in high school, much of the focus had to be dedicated to more elementary errors.

Questions for 3/24/10

Bedford:
How can consultants show encouragement and withhold faith in the success of a student’s paper if the student has no desire to change their negative view on the topic and assignment they are writing about?

Apprenticed to Failure:
Being both dyslexic and ADHD, I have found that many of my strengths in life have developed as a result of my weaknesses. How can we teach student’s to use their learning disabilities to their advantage?

Shadowing 3/18/10

Today I had my first no show at the writing center. We waited around for about twenty minutes but unfortunately nobody showed up.

Homework for 3/15/10

A Critique of Pure Tutoring:

In this chapter the idea of a writing center “bible” is discussed. If you had to guess, what would be the most important guideline discussed in this bible and how would it better shape our tutors?

Minimalist Tutoring:

On page 171, Brooks mentions the importance of asking questions to help students realize their mistakes, instead of outright telling them their mistakes. Although this is the best approach for helping a student become a better writer, is it ever acceptable for a tutor to tell a student their mistake if the student cannot identify the problem themselves?

Final Shadow Visit

Since I completely forgot to go to my last shadowing appointment tonight before break, I decided to read over and respond to Emily's blog, since we both shadow the same consultant. What I gathered from her visit was that not everyone that attends the writing center has major problems within their paper, and sometimes the only errors that need to be fixed are grammar and word choice. I found Emily’s experience similar to the “Strong paper” video we watched off of the writing center site. In this video however, the writing consultant reads over the paper and tells the student that her paper does not need any revision because it is "A" material. However, when the student does not receive the “A” grade, she is very upset that the consultant told her that her paper was better than it actually was.

I think that this example proves that we can never be too comfortable with our writing and that there is always something that can be improved or added. As long as we keep challenging ourselves when we write, we will be able to think of more creative and concise ways to express meaning and thought. I would have been interested in this visit tonight because previously all of my visits to the writing center have been with student’s who need a lot of help on their papers. However, I think it is also important that a consultant knows how to work with a student who has a strong paper and who maybe only needs a few grammatical and word choice changes. Knowing how to work with students who have strong papers will be an important skill that our class will need to master before our next mentoring session.

As we heard from Silvia this Wednesday, the students will have revised and thoroughly worked on their paper since the last time we saw them. We must be prepared for this improvement and must also not be intimidated by it, because as we have learned, there are always ways in which we can improve our writing! We would be doing the students a disservice if we told them that their paper did not need any more revision.

http://emily383.blogspot.com/2010/03/writing-center-week-four.html#comments

Questions for 3/1/10

Sourcebook:

One section that struck me in Freed’s essay was when she talked about how tutor’s, just like teachers, are viewed as authority figures by students, and therefore need to follow certain ethical codes.

Do you think that the tutors who work here at the University of Richmond are viewed as “authority figures” considering that they do not have any higher level of education than the students they are working with (unless they are older and have more college experience)? Will this cause students not to take their writing fellow visits seriously?

Bedford:

Do you think that most college level students go through every stage of the writing process described in this chapter? If not, do you think this is because they were not taught this structure in high school?

Shadowing Experience #3

Last night I arrived early to my shadowing appointment, coming right from a not-so-fun root canal appointment that left me loopy, drowsy and numb in the mouth. Fortunately, all I had to do was listen and observe, and talking was not necessary on my part. Several students showed up early right after me, and took a seat outside the Writing Center in the lounge area. I was surprised to see three students (which is the most I had seen yet at one time) coming in for help on a Thursday night.

When Brittany arrived, I began my observations of the tutoring session. The student was writing a paper about Aristotle, which implied to me that she was a freshman, because Aristotle is a subject studied in Core. The student had sent Brittany her paper before the session and had a hard copy printed out, which made the tutorial session easier to conduct because Brittany already had suggestions for the student prepared.

Brittany began by telling the student that she didn’t know what her thesis was in her paper. Since this was a problem for her, Brittany and the student read over the prompt, which asked the student, “How does Aristotle distinguish between a virtuous agent (a person who enjoys helping people) and a continent agent (person who just goes through the actions of life). After hearing what the students prompt was, and knowing her subject, I had a feeling that the underlying problem of the student’s paper was going to be the actual understanding of what she was writing about. My assumption was confirmed shortly after the pair read the prompt and Brittany asked the student to tell her what the thesis was for this paper. The student shyly replied that she is “Not very good at making a thesis…I just kind of write.” The fact that the student didn’t know her thesis was a clear sign to me that she needed help, because in order to write a good paper you must know the overall point that your paper is trying to prove.

Brittany then asked the student to tell her about any specific examples from the text that may answer the prompt’s question. The student replied by saying that she didn’t really remember what she read. Since the student could not answer Brittany’s prompting questions, Brittany took a different approach to helping the student formulate her ideas. She began to read aloud paragraphs from her paper in order to help the student rethink her slightly jumbled ideas, so that they could make her ideas more clear, and thus develop a concrete thesis.

After about fifteen minutes of going through the essay, it was clear that the student’s paper was more of a long summary of what Aristotle said in his book, rather than an analytical, persuasive essay, which would show the student’s actual understanding of the text. In order to help the student understand what she was writing about, Brittany asked thought provoking questions about the statements the student made in her paper, which forced her to think deeper about the meanings behind the concepts in this essay. Although the whole session was mainly dedicated to helping the student understand what she had written, Brittany also made note to help the student with structure and grammar corrections.

In many instances, Brittany found run-on sentences throughout the paper. She also noted that the student’s paper had almost no paragraph breaks. Brittany exclaimed that by shortening her sentences and paragraphs, her ideas would be better understood and more concise. What struck me about the student’s structural mistakes was how closely related they were to her confusion about the content of her essay. I found that these two problems went hand in hand, because the more confused a student is about their paper’s subject, the less likely they are going to be able to exhibit structurally, clear writing. When ideas are only stated instead of understood, it makes it harder for the writer to break down their ideas and give them direction. Because the topics discussed in Core are so confusing, I do not think that these classes are beneficial for incoming freshman. Instead, these classes only confuse and frustrate new students, which is why I think it is appropriate that the school is discarding Core after this year. However, I will be interested to see what course will take the place of Core, and if the writing center will still have to aid many students in this new subject.

Questions for 2/22/10

Ansel Adams:

One of Joe Essid’s comments on this essay was to take out the “is what” from the line “is what drew me.”

Often times the added words in our writing are a reflection of the added words used when we are verbally speaking. How can we teach writers to detach the way they write from the way we speak?

Reflections on Teacher Comments:

What are the advantages or disadvantages of getting advice from a writing fellow about a paper as opposed to your teacher’s advice? Will teachers be more critical about the paper since they are experts on the topic and have higher standards? And is this intimidating enough for students to want to seek out “nicer” criticism from the writing center?

Redneck Argument:

As a tutor, how can we be trustworthy and honest assistants, if we refuse to let student’s know if what they are writing is offensive, racist or biased? Must we always find ways around telling a tutee what we really feel in order to remain “professional” and to not hurt their feelings? Or is there a time and place for a tutor to teach a moral lesson in instances like the one discussed in this essay?

Lanham:

Although we can instill guidelines for clear and concise writing, is the only way to truly learn how to write clearly and concisely by trial and error and years of writing experience?

Hjortshoj

Is it possible for someone who does not speak a language very well to be able to write in that language well? Or do speaking and writing go hand in hand?

Mentoring

This weekend was our class’s first mentoring experience. I was both excited and nervous about working with a student, because I did not know what to expect. However, once I started working with my student, Alex, I became much more comfortable and relaxed. As I started to read Alex’s paper, I realized that it was much better than I had expected. Her introductory and conclusion were the best parts of here paper, because her ideas were clear and her opinion on the subject was shown. Where Alex had the most difficulty was the body of her essay, which at times, was scrambled and disorganized. Although I could see that she had great ideas, she had difficulty conveying them so that the reader could understand the point she was trying to make.

One way I tried to help Alex, was by telling her to write as if she were writing to someone who had no idea what she was talking about. This would help her focus on specifically explaining the topics she was writing about, instead of assuming that her reader was knowledgeable on the subject. Often times, when writing, it is hard to detach yourself from the subject that you know so well, in order to explain it to someone who knows nothing about it.

Another way I tried to help Alex, was by asking her to write down, in one sentence, what her major idea or point was in this letter. By finding this one broad idea, Alex would have an easier time relating her points to the major theme or thesis of her essay. This is important because when writing, you do not want to randomly thrown in thoughts or go off on tangents that have no purpose to the central theme of your paper.

Lastly, in order to make her essay more concrete and credible, quotes would be needed. Although Alex’s first draft did not have any quotes, the article she was writing about had many paragraphs annotated and highlighted. I told her that this was a great start, because she had already made note of what was important in this article. All she had to do was extract these important points, explain why she chose them, and then relate them to the theme of her letter.

Although I would have liked to have spent more time with Alex on this assignment, I think that in the time we were given, I did help her develop ideas and think about aspects of her paper that she had not considered before. Even though we didn’t get to revise anything yet, I think that having Alex talk about her paper helped her find the meaning behind the ideas and statements used in this letter. In conclusion, I think this conversationalist approach to revision is a great technique for all writers, because often times it is easier to convey your ideas through speech rather than on paper.

Shadowing Experience #2

When shadowing this week, I thought that I was not going to have anything to observe since my writing fellow Brittany did not have an appointment. However, one of the other male writing fellows did not show up for his appointment, so Brittany ended up taking his tutorial. Although I was agitated that the student was stood up by the writing fellow (which usually is supposed to be the other way around- if it happens at all), I was happy that I now had something to observe and I was eager to see another tutorial session. Although Brittany was not prepared for this appointment, she handled the situation very gracefully, and was friendly and welcoming to the male student, who seemed slightly confused about the mix up.

Before delving into his paper, Brittany asked the student the standard introductory questions, such as the student’s name, his professor’s name and his professor’s department. The student then explained to Brittany his assignment, which required him to compare, identify and discuss two books that he had read in his core class. He then told Brittany that his main purpose for coming into the writing center was to have someone check his intro to see if it was aligned with the paper’s prompt, and to also go over “basic editing.” Since the student didn’t have a hard copy of his paper, Brittany had to read through the paper on his computer just like my last shadowing session. However, differing from my last shadowing experience, the prompt for his essay was not as confusing and complex as the other student I watched last week. Because there was no confusing prompt, Brittany was able to look for more grammatical errors and content-related issues.

Even though the student had asked for help with “basic editing” and aligning his paper with the prompt, Brittany helped him more with the clarity, specificity and sentence structure within his paper. In many instances, I found Brittany requesting that he rethink many of the statements in his paper by asking himself the question “how?” So for example, the student typed, “Women were a domineering figure in both books.” But Brittany wanted him to go further with this statement. How were women a domineering figure? By asking him to be more specific, she also recommended that the student use more textual support and examples, in order to explain points rather than just stating them. It was clear that specificity was what this writer needed to focus on the most when revising his paper. He also had a few grammatical mistakes that most likely could have been fixed if he had gone over his paper and read it out loud to himself before coming to the writing center.

Although I found this shadowing experience engaging and different from my last experience, I felt as though the student could have used this tutorial more productively if he had read over his paper first. This was Brittany could worry less about the little (sometimes grammatical) mistakes in his paper, and in stead, focus on bigger concepts and ideas. There were also multiple interruptions during his tutorial, which also took away from the focus and time spent on the student’s paper. Although this tutorial could have been more efficient without these interruptions and setbacks, I felt that it was more productive than my last shadowing experience because more focus could be put on the content of the paper instead of the prompt. In my opinions this should always be the case for all writers in college. A prompt should not be something foreign or confusing, instead it should be a guide for your paper that helps you gain direction and focus.

Overall, I found this tutorial to be more efficient than the last session I attended, because this student had a first draft typed out (not just an outline), and he also had a clear understanding of his prompt. I think that the specificity problems present in his paper are difficult for many students because it requires a deep understanding of the text and your thesis. Although it takes more effort and brainpower to really get deep analysis in a paper, the more a student practices being this specific, the easier it will come to them in the future.

Transition to College Writing

One thing that really caught my attention in our chapter one reading in Hjortshoj the other day was the passage about the two students, Eduardo and Marie. As I read this passage, I found myself seeing similarities with the student Marie, whose strategy for success in school was centered towards working harder and longer in order to succeed. Eduardo, on the other hand took a different approach, which was more centered toward working “differently, or even less.” Although I think my study habits now may be similar to both Eduardo and Marie, I found myself, in high school, feeling frustrated at the amount of memorization and work ethic I felt that I needed to put forth in order to succeed academically. However looking back now, I attribute my way of thinking mainly to the way I was taught how to learn. I do not feel as though my teachers in high school really made me think about the main concepts of the classes I attended. Instead, I found myself being taught specific details that I needed to memorize in order to do well on tests. I think that this way of thinking slightly hampered my ability to think outside the box, and therefore limited my ability to grasp the interconnectedness that exists between all subjects of education. It was not until I came to college that I learned how to think about broader concepts, which then allowed me to more easily remember specific details.

Although I eventually learned how to adjust to the different learning patterns and ways of thinking my freshman year at Richmond, I agree with Hjortshoj, in that I was not prepared for the change that I experienced. However, I disagree with him that high school teachers cannot prepare high schoolers for the kind of thinking and learning that exists in colleges. Although he lists many reasons as to why high school and college are so different, I think that a bridge could be made between the two, if high school teachers were willing to put forth the effort to get their students to think differently. I think it is the job of the high school teacher to prepare students better for the kind of thinking that is required in college, considering most high school teachers attended college and probably have experiences with their transition. I think that motivation and participation would be higher amongst high school students if we got them thinking more like college students, who learn and think in the broader sense. This way of learning would increase self-motivation and interest in the subjects. I hope that this weekend when mentoring, we will be able to inspire these kids to think differently by applying the bigger picture to their writing, so that they can further develop their ideas. If we can get these students to see their writing as a prideful reflection of themselves instead of just “another assignment they have to complete,” I think that we will have done our job.

Shadowing Experience

This Thursday was my first shadowing experience. When I entered the small, yet comfortable room of writing fellows and students, I met my writing fellow Brittany Mangold and the student she was working with. The pair had already begun discussing the student’s paper, so I quietly went to the couch next to the desk they were working at, and began listening and jotting down notes. Both Brittany and the student were first going over the prompt that the student had gotten from her teacher. The prompt seemed to be confusing and lengthy, which made it difficult for them to pick out the focus for this paper. The student was concerned about the idea of a thesis in her paper, because she was writing about multiple works of artwork, (since the class was an art history class) and she needed to write something about all of the pieces.

In the beginning of the session the student, thinking out loud, exclaimed that maybe a thesis was not needed in this paper. However, once Brittany and her looked over the prompt together, they both realized that a thesis was required. This came as a shock to me that the student came into the session not even knowing if she needed a thesis. This indicated two things to me; either the student did not pay attention to the prompt or her teacher’s instructions about the paper, or the teacher had typed up such a confusing and multi-layered prompt that direction and emphasis were not put on important aspects of the paper, such as a thesis. Since the prompt was so confusing, Brittany and the student spent a significant period of time dissecting and pulling out the important aspects of the prompt. What Brittany concluded from the assignment, was that the student needed to focus on her own personal observations of the assigned artistic images, instead of the artistic era, known as “The Bronze Age,” that was present when this artwork existed. Since the student’s rough draft was not printed out and on a computer, Brittany was not able to make corrections onto her paper, so instead she took out a piece of paper and wrote down the main points of what both the student and her had discussed in their meeting. By writing down the main points out so both of them could see, it was easier for the student to mold her thesis from these ideas.

Brittany was good at asking leading questions throughout the tutorial session, such as “what kind of thesis do you want” instead of telling her what kind of thesis Brittany thought she should have. Although there was terminology Brittany did not know in this paper, she was still able to help the student formulate ways of thinking about the art terms in order to convey her thoughts and opinions. Brittany told the student to first start with her observations about the artwork, then go to her comparisons and then her analysis of all the pieces. Most importantly it would be crucial for her to make a thesis that concludes with one encompassing point or idea that connects all of the pieces together. Although this new structure presented by Brittany seemed slightly overwhelming and different from what the student currently had, Brittany reminded her that what she needs to do is add on to what she already has, not take away anything. According to Brittany, the student’s broad ideas were still necessary and well presented in her paper, however her lack of specific observations would hurt her paper unless they were included along with these broad ideas. When in doubt, Brittany told the student to ask herself the question, “am I stating facts or observations?” in order to help her refocus if she were to lose direction when writing.

Overall, I thought that the session was informative and helpful to the student, who clearly seemed stressed out about the multiple subjects that she needed to cover within her paper. However, I think that the writing fellow had a more difficult time tutoring with this student, because she did not have a hard copy of the paper. Personally, I always find it easier to correct a paper if I have a hard copy, because you have the freedom to write down and adjust anything on the paper with your own handwriting and creativity. Despite this obstacle, Brittany did have a hard copy of the prompt and was able to write down ideas on an extra sheet of blank paper to help them collaborate and visualize the student’s purpose and direction.

Observation

Today I observed the computer lab room in the Robins Center where many of the University of Richmond student athletes study. As I sit at a table slightly away from the computers, a variety of people fluctuate in and out of the computer lab. Two basketball girls, Sam and Rachel come in and smile and say hello to me, then they go to a computer and sign in. They seem in a rush since they came into the computer lab room winded, and after a few minutes, I realize that they had only come in to check their e-mails and then they are out the doors again, with their uniforms on and off to practice. A few minutes later a very tall basket ball player (wearing long shorts, Jordan shoes and a jersey) comes into the computer lab room and approaches the proctor of the lab, who sits at a table at the head of the room, overseeing everyone who enters. The two sit there, and the proctor prods and questions the basketball player for roughly twenty minutes about his grades, classes and teachers. The proctor, maintaining eye contact throughout his entire lecture, has to prompt the basketball player to speak up and clearly answer him when he asks questions such as, “have you gone into your teacher to talk about that last paper you got?” When the basketball player looks up and says “no, not yet-“ the proctor cuts him off and tells him that he better get in there or he will not pass his classes. Clearly we see that not only is this man the proctor of the lab, he also monitors and checks the grades of the men’s and women’s basketball teams, making sure that they keep up with their work, as well as their sport. Finally, when the proctor is satisfied enough with the player’s responses, he allows him to go so that he is not late for practice.

As other athletes come in and out, most all of them say hello to the proctor, hold a quick conversation concerning small talk, and then hurriedly sign onto a computer before the proctor sucks them in for questioning. Most of the athletes who come in with their sport’s uniform on are there for a quick visit, usually just checking their e-mails. However, the athletes who are not dressed in uniform tend to stay longer and many of them have iPods in their ears when they study. For most of the time in the computer lab it was very quiet, and the only talking that was exchanged was between the athletes and the proctor when first entering, and the occasional whisper to a neighbor, and of course the tapping of keyboards and printing of paper. However, I have been in this computer lab before when the proctor is not around, and it can be very loud and sociable. Clearly this computer lab can be a great place to study or to just quickly check your e-mail, since it is conveniently located next to all of the athlete’s locker rooms. However, the lab may not always be a reliable source for studying if a proctor is not present. My observation served as a representation of the average students’ behavior and work ethic when they are being monitored by an adult who has authority and power over the study environment.

Since we are training to be writing fellows, how can we gain this authority when working with students? And more importantly, how can we intrigue and gain the interest of the students we will be working with later in the semester, who may be more discouraged with their writing than the average student at the University of Richmond? Since we are going to these students in an environment foreign to us, how will adjust to our new surroundings and create a working atmosphere that allows the student to focus and be serious while also having fun and enjoying the writing process?

Response to Plagiarism Discussion

Today in class we discussed the topic of "plagiarism" and how we can help assist students in avoiding plagiarism in their writing. The sheet that we graded for homework consisted of a variety of paragraphs that confronted the problem of plagiarism. Our job was to detect what was wrong with each paragraph and then rate the severity of plagiarism on a -4 to +4 scale. I found that grading these paragraphs was difficult because the paragraphs were not shown in a full paper. Instead, we had to interpret the grade we gave each paragraph based on a small snippet of what the paper as a whole may have been about . The fact that there was no completely wrong or right answer is what made this exercise hard, because at times it seemed as though their could be multiple gradings for each text. Despite its subjectivity, I found this exercise helpful in differentiating between how to use quotations and references correctly and how to use them incorrectly. Sometimes when we have already mastered how to executive a skill, we forget how to explain how we mastered this skill. Although we can think that we know how to use quotations and sources correctly, we don't really understand how to use them until we can explain to someone who does not know how to use sources, how to do so. By seeing and correcting examples of incorrect writing, I learned how to truly understand what plagiarism is and all the different forms it can take. Previously, I had thought that plagiarism would be something to easily identify and that once I saw it, I would know immediately that what was being said was plagiarized. However, this exercise taught me that sometimes fallible citing is difficult to detect and judge. So I leave this post asking the question, how can we prepare students for all of these different forms of plagiarism that at times seem subjective and controversial? And what should the consequences be for "accidental" plagiarism?

Response to “What If Drugs Were Legal”

In response to Gabrielle’s post, I agree with her in that we should take a more sensitive approach to critiquing other people’s work. However, I think that the reason why our class was so critical and blunt about this paper was because the writer of the paper was not present. If the writer had been in the classroom, I feel strongly that our class would have taken a lighter approach in discussing this paper. Our class’s reaction is an example however, of how we can let out emotions and initial reactions get in the way of getting down to what really matters in analyzing an essay. Instead of focusing on the degree of “goodness” or “badness” in a paper, we should focus more so on why a paper is good or bad. In doing this, we will be better able to help the reader understand why they need to adjust their paper. If they can understand their mistakes in a broader sense, the writer will be able to apply what the critic taught them to their future writing.

The writer in “What if Drugs Were Legal” clearly needed some assistance in the structure and content in his/her paper, however like Gabrielle noted, I don’t think that the writer was too far off from creating an acceptable piece of writing. One of the reasons why I feel this way was because when I was reading the piece I was almost convinced that this was a notable piece of work, since we were not told previously that this paper was flawed and unscholarly. If it had been completely awful, I would have immediately thought that this was an example of “bad writing” and most likely would have gone through correctly it, grammatically and structurally. Since the piece did bring up valid points (however lacking support), I only responded to the piece with my opinions on the subject of legalizing drugs. If it were not for the obvious grammatical errors, I would have not been as skeptical of this piece. Maybe I am alone in my assumptions when first reading this piece, but I think that my initial submission to believing that this fallible work contained legitimacy, is an example of how easily people can be manipulated by what they are told is “correct.” Or in this situation, by what we weren’t told was “correct” or “incorrect.”

WAC article response

From our previous readings, I found the WAC article particularly interesting, because it touched on the many contradictions and frustrations that are felt by college students. Throughout this article, the author reiterates how professors are constantly asking their students to think of and write about “fresh” and “new” ideas. However, coming up with these fresh ideas often compels students to use their own voice and thoughts in their papers, which is not an acceptable writing technique to every teacher. The ambiguity about whether or not a student is permitted to use first person in their writing, is an example of the vast opinions on what constitutes “good writing.” Because of the teacher diversity at every school, many students struggle about how to please each one individually. For this reason, like Sarah said, if you are a “serious” student you will attend the writing center in order to help you figure out the best possible way to decode the goals of your professors. However, in my opinion it is not the writing center that will be able to get that student the “A” grade that Sarah also mentioned. Only the professor will know exactly what he/she wants, which is why I think that students must first go to their professors for help and then go to the writing center. This is the only way the student will be able to understand what their professor wants, which is something that a writing fellow cannot teach. Although Wingate expresses that the writing center has helped raise the grades of students above those who do not attend, I think that in many more cases, it is the student who better understands what his/her professor wants that will earn the better grade. Unless we can get every teacher at each school to be on the same page, we will not be successful in teaching just one standard of writing. Is it possible for us to have one standard? Or is the variety of writing techniques a valuable asset to a students’ college career?