While the readings for today may seem at odds, I think we all recognize the value in each and the fact that (in the world of mortals) we operate, as tutors, more on a continuum between nondirective and directive approaches than exclusively through on approach or the other. Accurate? I wholeheartedly agree with much of Brooks' argument. At times he waxes a bit "one-size-fits-all" in point, but the underlying theme resonates: keep the onus on the student. But keeping the onus on the student does not preclude directive approaches. I've never bought into the line of argument that equates directive approaches with usurping ownership. That's just too damned naive. Is ownership so fragile that at the slightest intrusion by the tutor's pen it will slip away from the student and the student, suddenly, will lose all interest in owning their work and become a rhetorical moocher trolling for handouts and free ideas? Absolutely not.
When I distill Brooks, the strongest liquor I take away is the advocacy of questioning. By couching our comments and suggestions as questions, we do keep the onus on the writer to ferret out how our comments and suggestions and alternatives will affect the meaning of their discourse. Likewise, when I distill Shamoon and Burns, I take away the importance of modeling. I particularly appreciate their use of master musicians as exemplary of their notion of directive tutoring. As a musician, I did not learn to play and improve my technique by nondirective tutelage; I learned, largely, by imitation, by watching a more skilled musician and copying his technique. Fortunately, I'm good friends with many skilled musicians. And this is an important note. If you want to be good at something, surround yourself with people who are good at that thing and do what they do. Isn't this what a writing center is: a place where more accomplished writers hang out and offer lessons? Shouldn't we model the processes we use?
Each tutorial is unique, and perhaps each student writer pushes us to a different place on the continuum depending on their needs and on their involvement with their writing.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I funneled from these two articles into a conclusion that a balance between non-directive and directive is everything. While reading the Brooks’s article, first I had to label myself as one of the worst tutors and then moved on enjoying his suggestions for defensive minimalist tutoring. It is from Shamoon & Burns that I could find the rationale for my worst tutoring behaviors.
ReplyDeleteIn retrospect, I felt terrible whenever I had too much directness in tutoring partially because my tutoring behavior is against what I have been trained as a tutor, and mostly because I seemed to take over my student’s writing. That often happened when I had a conference with an ESL writer. Strange enough, I notice that my tutoring was much indirect with an American student writer. Consciously or unconsciously, I probably employed a different approach to each single student.
Both of the articles are worth having in mind. Whenever I go too far toward one direction, the articles help me regain my balance between the extremes.
These two articles remind me of another personal, and of course traumatic, experience. When I was in middle school, I had problems spelling "of course," "at least," and "a lot." I didn't understand that the one word I was trying to spell was actually two. I was working on a paper or story once, and I asked my dad how to spell one of those pesky little two-word combos and he wouldn't tell me. He insisted I figure it out myself. I became so frustrated that once I finally discovered the correct spelling I was completely distracted from the purpose of my paper and my creativity was broken. I felt so stupid, especially since the answer was so "easy." I just couldn't recover from those few minutes of agony.
ReplyDeleteI think Daddy was trying to employ a non-directive method of teaching. He knew I was smart enough to figure it out, and he didn't want to hand me the answer on the proverbial silver platter. However, from my perspective, Daddy's plan backfired. A directive approach would have served me better. A quick answer would have revealed to me information I had not previously known and allowed me to continue with the larger purpose of completing my writing assignment. While I know we hashed out this topic this morning, I think my little annecdote is appropriate to tell in order to present this one question: Is your tutoring method really helping the student or is it making the student "hate" writing even more? And I think this is a valid question for any method in any tutoring or teaching situation.
About Crae's post: I think this is a really great point, and one that we didn't overtly cover today in our directive/non-directive discussion: Another aspect of the tutoring session that could potentially determine which approach we take is how much of a role the question/issue will play in the session overall. Suppose I am discussing paragraph organization with a student in order to help her create a more cohesive, clear passage. I see that the student has misused a word, and I feel that it needs to be brought to her attention. I would probably ask the student to clarify the sentence, hopefully getting a better word or phrase. In this situation, the bigger issue is overall organization. So, would it really be productive to drag out the dictionary and thesaurus and spend time searching for a better word? Or would this just distract from the bigger discussion? Because of the time restraints of the session, it may be more beneficial to offer some suggestions, advise the student to look up the word(s) in question, then move on and concentrate on the original issue. Not only would this make more time for the higher order concern, but it would also keep both of us focused on the immediate issue and prevent us becoming, as Crae said, "completely distracted" by something that could be addressed quickly. We probably all know what it's like to get on a roll...and how fragile that focused, creative energy can be, so perhaps in that kind of situation, a more directive approach would not only be beneficial, but also appreciated!
ReplyDeleteIf time does allow it, though, modeling how and when to look up something a tutee may not know is a good practice. So long as it doesn't distract from larger issues. I find this more helpful sometimes than giving a handout or just telling the students the rule. Part of being an independent writer is knowing where to find the answers to those issues that distract you from your larger purpose.
ReplyDeleteI think this discussion is linked to Clark and Healy's article when they explain that the writing center is "well positioned to question the status quo" (253). Essentially, isn't that what we're doing here? I realize Clark and Healy are referring to the larger "status quo" of writing, learning, and knowledge, but I feel as though I am questioning the "status quo" of writing centers as well. Actually, this line of questioning brought me back to good old weeble-wobbly North and his tiresome application of Mr. Keating. In fact, it is the Mr. Keatings that Clark and Healy seem to be championing here - the writing center itself as a Mr. Keating - and I must say that I want to stand up on a desk, right now. But with all that impetus, what on earth am I going to say? What questions am I really going to pose to the status quo? Or am I going to stand on my desk and hem and haw and posture and hedge?
ReplyDeleteIn the midst of those questions, I feel I am circling back once again, and I am thinking about the marginalization of the writing center that so many authors are trying to combat and a scant few are trying to maintain. Could the writing center maintain vision, enthusiasm, and unique identity by questioning the status quo or would that push us further into the darkness? Or would it create a long needed revolution of western concepts?
Alas, I have no answers, only questions. How very non-directive of me. Har.
I want to jump to DiPardo's article that we're reading for Monday. DiPardo's final advice for Morgan hit home with me - "listen more" (365). I feel as though I am a good listener. I often offer myself as a listener to friends and family. Yet, I find myself asking, "Am I a good listener for my tutees and students?" I am afraid the answer is no. To me, a good listener is one who focuses completely on what a person is saying, and a poor listener is one who focuses on what she is going to say next while the other person is speaking. While we as tutors must juggle several responsibilities during a session, I've realized that when I ask a student a question, I am only half listening to the response. The other half is forming my next question, considering which issue to address next, looking at the clock to gauge the time left in the session, marvelling at other trivialities around the room, on the paper, about the student. But, this isn't MY session; this is the student's session, and I should be listening to what the student says and wants more than thinking about where I think I need to steer the student next.
ReplyDeleteThis might have been some of the practical advice I was seeking when I was described as being "too teachery," because this is how I often have to operate in the classroom. With a large or particularly challenging group of students, I have to keep two steps ahead of them which means my mind is only half present at any given point. My student(s) and I might be better served if I try to live more in the current moment, instead of in the next minute.
If anyone is intersted in my tutoring session response, you can go to www.kevinandcrae.com. Click on the Ink Blots tab and then continue through Visions and (Re)Visions.
ReplyDeleteI am always ambivalent whenever I read a Carino article. On one hand, I appreciate Carino's attention to detail. He combines extensive amounts of information into a negotiable summary. However, on the other hand, I find his articles exhausting. I can't always keep everyone straight. But anyway...
ReplyDeleteOverall, I think current-traditional grammar exercises, f2f collaboration pros and cons, plagiarism , etc. are still issues we must consider while using today's technology, but I find Carino's article very outdated. The technological advances in the past 11 years have been astounding, and many of those advances I count as positive. Yes, technological advances have changed the typical literacy profile, and yes, text-speak in academic writing drives me up the wall, but really and truly, I think computers have expanded and eased the process of writing and communication. For instance, we would not be having this conversation if it weren't for "new" technology. However, to be just, Carino and the other scholars were not doubting the benefits of technology, just questioning its use in tutoring sessions. Yet, I think the possibilities a computer affords can still be beneficial in a tutoring session. Although the UWC hasn't had consistent results from Meebo or D2L sessions, I still think the possibilities associated with these two alternatives is beneficial. It allows us to reach populations that we might not otherwise be able to help. And if writing centers are ultimately to help the writer, writing centers should embrace any option that can make that possible. (Maybe I'm just a child of the 21st century and computers are akin to breathing...)
Please visit www.kevinandcrae.com if you are intersted in my second tutoring session reflection.
ReplyDeleteGood night and good luck.
Please pardon yet another comment. However, I do know how to spell - it is i-n-t-e-r-e-s-t-e-d, not intersted. That's twice! In the same type of post!! Ay, me.
ReplyDelete