"Power and Authority in Peer Tutoring"

I am again enlightened by this essay! Carino's ideas of the way to conduct a "nonhierarchical, friendly" Writing Center blend perfectly with our Writing Center environment. From what I have witnessed in the Tutoring Center at the Nampa Campus, students are quick to become overwhelmed or embarrassed by their own confusion. But, we tutors do a really great job of keeping them encouraged and on the right track. I think we are able to get these kinds of results because we completely eliminate all elements of superiority. Unlike a classroom, where the professor comes and stands in front of the giant lecture hall in a suit and tie, we tutors sit closely to the students, dressed casually, and speak in our normal voices. The only sign of us actually being anything more than a peer are out name-tags. We never announce our "credentials" (we really don't have any "credentials" to begin with.) We really are just friendly faces who help them with their papers. 

Carino cites a quote that I think is very applicable: A Writing Center is "a reciprocal relationship between equals sharing in the work of the systems between two friends who trust one another." Unlike any of the essays we have read previously, Carino purposefully emphasizes the importance of trust in the student-tutee relationship. In everything we do as a tutor, we must embody the fact that we are trustworthy, knowledgeable, and encouraging. If we can not embody these things, we can not gain the trust and respect of the students we are tutoring. 

I really like the idea of "peership." Students can come to us with their questions, expecting to hear an answer from their kind, slightly more knowledgeable, friend. The people we are tutoring, even if they are older or younger than us, really are just like us and we should treat them and think of them in that way. We are not superior and we do not hold "power" or "authority" over them in any way.

I've got the POWER!

To begin with, I would like to apologize to the group for not posting on our last reading (Corbett). I am really overwhelmed right now. Three jobs plus grad school will do that to a gal!

Enough sniveling!

Carino’s central argument is that Writing Center tutors shouldn't be too trepidatious about taking a bit of an authoritative role in a tutoring situation. I agree. Why?

First of all, I don’t agree with him that “power” and “authority” are not nice words. It depends on the context. If I have the “power” to help a student build his confidence in his writing abilities, that’s a good thing. If I have some “authority” on what makes a workable thesis statement, that’s also a good thing.

But let’s also address the lens I’m looking through. As I keep reminding everyone (ad nauseum, perhaps), technically speaking I’m not a peer to the students who come into the Writing Center. I am not currently enrolled at CWI (although I was in 2012) and I earned my bachelor’s degree 18 years ago. I am currently a graduate student and I have taught English for 12 years. So, does that make me a peer or someone who can be thought of as having a bit more authority? I don’t know the answer to that, but I will say that I am completely comfortable with asserting my knowledge of what needs to go into a paper, and if it’s something that the student needs to hear, something that would help the student understand the task at hand, I’m probably going to say it. Why else are we there? Besides, if a student doesn't want to get it right, he wouldn't be in the Writing Center in the first place, would he?

Moving on, Carino puts the Writing Center in the role of being the political underdog,

“While the classroom holds the high ground, the hegemonic position afforded by institutional recognition, writing centers have functioned more like a minority party, recognized as a voice but lacking institutional power, operating pedagogically somewhat clandestinely…” (p. 116).

I find this particularly interesting. Honestly, I never would have thought of a college/university Writing Center as a breeding ground for subversive ideals. From what I observed last week, our Writing Lab is there to help students be more successful in their classes, not rally students to become agitators. I've been in plenty of college classrooms, on the other hand, where the professor preached to us to think for ourselves and fight against the hegemony Carino mentions. His experience with writing centers, vastly superior to my own, makes me want to visit others. I want to see those that he cited from Grimm (1999) and Davis (1995) that “take a subversive stance, seeing as their duty exposing students to what they perceive as the oppressive power structures of the university and society itself”. POWER TO THE TUTORS!!! THE MAN IS KEEPING US DOWN!!! (Tongue firmly planted in cheek!!).

"Power and Authority in Peer Tutoring" Response

Over the course of these past two weeks these reading assignments have taken me on a journey towards one conclusion. There is no specific format that is best when consulting with a client about their writing. This article was the perfect addition to this realization.

This article goes further then the previous one which discusses the pros and cons of directive and nondirective tutoring. It speaks of the importance of retaining our tutoring power while remaining a peer to our clients when they come in to consult with us. As with direct and non direct consulting, a balance must be struck between authority and humility as we deal with each unique writing situation and writer. We need to become an expert at quickly assessing both our knowledge and the writer's knowledge on their subject and assignment, as well as the client's ability as a writer. The stage of their process needs toncome in as a factor to determine your tutorial balance as well.

After feeling so strongly about the powers that nondirective tutoring can offer I was relieved to see this article. Some students simply need more guidance then others. I was able to witness this firsthand this week in my first two days as a writing center consultant.

My first day I had the opportunity to witness an experienced tutor as she guided a student through helpful practices in writing a compare and contrast paper. This tutor says that she has a very direct approach with clients such as these who simply need some one on one time with someone who knows what they are doing and can give them the tools that they will need in order to write sucessful future papers.

My second day was different because I was given the unexpected opportunity to lead my first session. Thankfully the previous consultant the student had seen had given him virtually everything he needed to know. In this case I had the chance to use a nondirect approach by simply acting as a sounding board and guiding him towards his reconciliation between his topic, his teacher's suggestions, his teacher's requirements, and the previous consultant's suggestions. It was amazing to watch as he put all the prices together and created an outline that he felt confident in.

Why give these examples? Each situation, each session, each student is different. Treat them as such. The takeaway from all of this reading should be let the student do the work as much as possible, 'gift' them knowledge as they need it, and treat each session as a blank slate. The student will tell you what they need, our job is to listen.


Sorry if this post sounds like I am pounding the pulpit. I am simply sharing my takeaways and what I have learned so far. I know that I still have a lot to learn when it comes to being a helpful writing consultant. I just feel these are the most important tools we can have as we dive in next week. Good luck everyone!

Examining "Tutoring Style, Tutoring Ethics."

I thoroughly enjoyed the Corbett perspective to tutoring! I feel that his ideas in "Tutoring Style, Tutoring Ethics" are different from the past two essays, primarily in the fact that he is more realistic about what actually goes on in the world. In the end, I see this radiating message that we ought to "reconsider our best intentions," and tailor our tutoring to the needs and abilities of the students we are helping.

From the first two essays, I see this "Writing Center Utopia" presented, where the tutors are enlightened and innovative and the students anxiously await the chance to make their papers a "blossoming flower." They engage in scholarly discussions about the complexity of the writing and exchange top tier ideas on the subject. This is a totally possible scenario, but requires the two parties to be at upper levels of intelligence. When we look at the state of our Writing Center and college, we can easily note that many students will not have the capacity to engage in this kind of discussion. They will have literal questions that we should feel obligated to answer. 

This "Utopian" scenario is known as the "hands-off" approach. Corbett argues that though this is a wonderful way to tutor, it is not always possible. We have to be able to accommodate for the student's needs, not make them accommodate for our tutoring styles. Corbett is in no where arguing that the "hands off" approach to tutoring is bad or wrong, but he does recognize that it can not work if both parties are not actually invested in the discussion. He argues that if the student does not want to participate in an active discussion about the writing, the session can not really continue, but also says that if tutors are not "authentically listening," the session is forced and not actually helpful to the student. We can not force the student or ourselves to abide by this style if it does not work for the circumstances.

I believe that Corbett would argue that a hands off approach is ideal, but depending on the students level, we sometimes have to start with a hands-on approach and work our way up to a hands-off method. Corbett says it is necessary to ask the tutee what where they are with their papers and determine whether a hands-on or hands-off method would be most effective for the student. 

I think as Corbett urges us to "reconsider our best intentions," we should take into consideration the state of our College. Realistically speaking, we have many students with learning disabilities, English as a second language, or who have not been in school for many years. They will likely need some polishing of their skills that their teachers will not have the time or patience to attend to. If a teacher sends a student to the writing center to learn some really basic skills, it is still our job to help them, even though they are not to the level we would like them to be. I think the hands-off method should  be our end goal, but we have to be realistic in the way we get there. We must remember where we are and be sympathetic to the needs of the present student.

"The Continuing Relevance of the Directive/Nondirective Instructional Debate" Response

After having the pleasure of reading two fabulous articles about writing centers and writing consultations I must confess I was feeling much more confident about beginning work this week. At this point, after reading Corbett's article, I am grateful we have more readings and training before we dive into the fray.

Corbett's article rose many questions in my mind. After feeling so strongly that the student needed to be the one doing the work, as Brooks said, it was quite a shift to see more dominant approaches discussed and even recommended here.

I can see how these ideas of directing or pushing the student towards the desired goal is necessary. Given that some students do feel at a loss when it comes to knowing even where to begin when writing, it would be comforting for us as the consultant to give them a direction. Indicating how to begin reading and understanding what their assignment is asking for should be one of the tools that we use to make us better consultants. Then walking with them as they discover what it is that they think of as they digest the assignment and determine for themselves what it is that they would like to write about from there. This would definitely not be the moment to say "I don't know it's not my grade".

This is why I feel the first few moments of a consultation is essential. Establishing that you are here to listen, that you are here to help them express themselves, that you are here to guide them towards improvement overall and not just on this paper, these are the things that the client needs to know up front. The rest can be determined upon a case by case scenario. Both direct and non-direct tools need to be used to make the consultation work.

Overall my takeaway was this. Because people are all unique, students and teachers are all unique. Because students and teachers are all unique, each writing consultation will be unique. The assignments that the teachers give, the processes that the students use or don't use and the stage that the paper is at all dictate whether a more direct or non-direct approach would work the best. We must focus on the first five or ten minutes and tune ourselves to what the student wants and needs and then go from there. In my opinion, neither approach should be used exclusively.

Minimalist Tutoring

I think the title really says it all this time: "Making Sure the Student Does All the Work" 

I was blessed with the opportunity to visit the Writing Center at Boise State several times while I attended there. It was a wonderful place. Though I never got a lot of help there (the tutors would always say something along the lines of "This paper is awesome, why are you here?") I overheard a multitude of consultations that went a little something like this:

Tutor: So, how do you feel about your paper right now?
Student: I feel like it sucks.
Tutor: Well, what do you want your paper to be like in the end?
Student: Can't you just tell me what I need to fix?

Every time, I would walk away from the scene laughing a little bit to myself. It seemed almost comical to me that a college student would think that someone would baby them through a paper like that. 

This essay, by Jeff Brooks, sums up what every tutor should live by and what every student should know about tutoring: "When you 'improve' a student's paper, you haven't been a tutor at all; you've been an editor. You may have been an exceedingly good editor, but you've been of little service to your student." Now, this may be conjecture, but I presume that when proposing the Writing Center to a college, this vision of a place where scholarly writing is discussed and formed was presented to the college board, or whoever is in charge of making the decisions. The college decides to put some money into the Center because it feels it will contribute to the Institution of learning in a positive way; by instituting learning. If we were to sit with a paper, pull out a red pen, and tell the student exactly what to do, not a single ounce of learning has happened, and I imagine the college would stop funding the Center. Colleges are places for advanced learning and sharing ideas. Rarely do you see a professor tell a student the exact answer to every exam. The point of an Institution of learning is to teach students how to think and come up with the correct answer themselves. 

From this essay, the main advice is to get students interested in their papers and their writing! Again, students can not succeed in writing if they are not invested in it. We have to get them in an active conversation about their papers. We must let them come up with ideas to run with! The first battle is getting them to participate in their writing, not just battle with the pen and paper to compose something using robot-like mannerisms. There needs to be a human element behind every piece of writing that not only gets the writer interested in WRITING, but the reader interested in READING! 

An interested writer usually results in an interested reader! 

Brooks' Minimalist Tutoring is a straightforward and practical look at the Do's and Don'ts of being a successful writing center tutor. After reading North last week, most of Brooks' comments feet familiar. However, he does make several salient points.

The first is that if we edit a student's paper, we are not a tutor, but indeed, an editor. We need to make the student the primary "agent" (defined by Merriam-Webster online as "one that acts or exerts power") of his own writing. Putting the student in the role of agent is fundamentally important because if the student sits on the sidelines watching us edit his paper, he won't be getting the maximum benefit from the session.

Another important point Brooks makes is that we, as writing center tutors, have the “luxury of time” (p. 129) to communicate with our clients whereas the classroom teacher does not, and it is in this exchange of ideas that students will reap the most benefit. This is where the true learning will occur that, hopefully, will stick with the student in the future. In addition to the practicalities of how to write more effectively, Brooks adds that this is where we can give the students “support and encouragement” (p. 129). This is absolutely fundamental to helping students feel competent in their writing. If they feel overwhelmed and/or incompetent, they will seldom improve. We have to build up their self-esteem as writers if they are to become better writers.

In fact, according to Brooks (and I think he’s right on here) we should help the student feel as though his paper has value as a piece of writing and that his ideas are worth reading and thinking about (p, 130). We need to provide lots of positive feedback. Some helpful phrases include, “interesting idea,” “This section is very strong,” and “Nice use of imagery here”. Brooks offers other similar suggestions in the “Advanced Minimalist Tutoring” section. This section also includes suggestions for getting the student to talk, which I imagine will often be a challenge. My guess is that a lot of students will answer with, “I don’t know,” or “It just sounded good”. (I would love to hear what you all think about this!! How will you combat these dead-end answers??).

I like the idea of giving the student a “discrete writing task” and then walking away. This says without a doubt that it is the student’s job to do the writing, not the tutor’s. Unfortunately, we may come back to a still blank page which is either an indication of inability or unwillingness. If a student is really unable to complete the task on her own, we can scaffold it for her, perhaps by writing a sentence frame. This is a technique where we write the beginning of the sentence but let the student complete it. As an ELL teacher, I found it very useful.

On the other hand, we may have a situation of “won’t do” rather than “can’t do”. In that case, Brooks offers the “Defensive Minimalist Tutoring”. I love the suggestion to reflect students’ body language! I can’t wait to try it!