| While the multi-step process is a great tool for learning how to better develop ideas and ultimately a better paper, the author visiting the writing center often is not receptive to any process being implemented that looks at the paper as a long-term project and not as a finished product that only needs some polishing. To try and correct such thinking the writing consultant often finds himself assuming a more adversarial role where he must identify his purpose as a tutor--often chanting the axiom "we work to build better writers not better texts"--which usually quells resistance, but it certainly does not change students' minds about what it means to write or about when a finished product is produced. Professor Gleason is right in saying the idea of a process is revolutionary for many students, but like Judith Summerfield says in Writing Centers a Long View, making the process "institutionalized" is also a bad idea which will disconnects the steps from each other and disconnects the writer from the fluidness of revision. |
Monday, December 20, 2010
Course Discussions: Group #5 Humaira, Natasha, Garri (3)
Course Discussions: Group #5 Humaira, Natasha, Garri (2)
Well there is a solution to being stuck, but it's not one that anyone wants to take because it requires work and time, and who wants to spend a week on a paper? This is especially problematic for those who feel they are good writers; they think--and I'm not an exception to this--that because past showings have produced wanted results, there is no need to change the approach to writing the paper. I wish teachers graded harder. That would force us to rethink our strategy and hopefully push us to return to the drawing board. For a strong writer this method might work, especially since many such writers already can sense that a quality paper is a longer engagement, or maybe its just I who feels that way. But I don't think that I am the only writer who gets back a paper and sees that given more time spent writing it the quality would have been far better.
I mean I look at this post and I see that given more time it could have been better...
I mean I look at this post and I see that given more time it could have been better...
Course Discussions: Group #5 Humaira, Natasha, Garri
| I hope that students realize that there really is no final product. That the product is in fact a work that one can revisit at any given time in the future and rework given new information and insight. Obviously many will never look at what they have written for a class they will never take again, or one that they wish they never took in the first place. But it would be nice to instill in their minds the sense of ownership. That the work is theirs and that forever will they have have the opportunity to alter it. Maybe they would cherish their product more if they knew it is theirs and maybe they would put it in more effort if they knew it is a reflection of themselves. |
Composition is suspect?
would think research into composition would be one of the most well-funded areas of study, especially with the high school diploma less capable of providing its recipient a living-wage,and society making the four-year college experience seem like a key component of social mobility. Recent trends show an increase in overall enrollment in non-vocational higher education and with that there has been an increase of students into the college classroom who lack an understanding of grammar and mechanics, and whose rhetorical understanding is underdeveloped, hampered (among other things) by well-meaning, but misguided instruction of five paragraph writing . One would think that given such a state of things, a legitimate, concerted effort supported by the academic community would be given to the process of composing and the method of teaching that process to students; yet North in his defense of writing centers, notes that "composition," and I'm not sure if he means the process or the study of here, is suspect in the eyes of the academic community (76). I'm not sure how to interpret this comment. The article was published in 1984, and so maybe the 20 something years of scholarship since the increased focus on composition was yet to be accepted as authoritative; yet even if I say the scholarship is suspect (and at the time of this writing it was still in its infancy), to say composition, which has been practiced for hundreds of years, is suspect does not make sense. Or maybe it does and I'm missing something. Any thoughts?
Literacy and Technology
What does Clark mean by the dynamic relationship between literacy and technology? Yes reading and writing can take place now without the involvement of either pen or paper, but that does not explain a dynamic relationship. So then how is literacy shaped by technology, and how is technology shaped by literacy? I am not going to write a dissertation here but I am interested to at least begin to give an answer with the hope of later revisiting this subject, maybe in a paper and further elaborating on the topic. For now I will focus on the reading component of literacy and its interchange with technology.
As active readers we can make notes and refer to sections of a text just as easily using technology as we can using a physical copy. But unlike a book, access to the internet gives us the opportunity to go in a myriad of directions when posing a question in response to a text, when meeting new facts and vocabulary, or when forming our own ideas about a text. We are not limited to merely jotting down a question or comment, which often is revisited after the fact, when our mindset is no longer the same and our opinions no longer directly aligned with the train of thought that we were on. With internet at our finger tips, we turn our reading experience on its head. No longer is the work our only text, but with a click, information flows from various channels, and the linear path of reading begins to branch out and connect with the incoming information, which is contextualized by the primary text and becomes more than a data with no connective tissue, but rather data connected to a larger system; data transformed into knowledge (565).
At the same time, the lack of understanding of information ownership, or rather the current understanding of such ownership can impact interpretation and critical analysis in a way that was less likely before. (to be continued...)
Reflection on the Class
Dear Professor Gleason,
I thought I knew about writing centers. I had worked at one for six semesters. However, I did not know much about theory and my understanding of practice came purely from the experience I had of working as a writing consultant. In Writing Center Theory and Practice, I was introduced to history that I was not aware of and schools of thought that I had come across while studying literary theory, but which were re-contextualized in discussion of basic writing and writing centers.
My experience at the writing center and in the classroom interconnected well. Experience helped me understand theory even when it had no direct application; and discussion of method in class proved valuable, because I was able to take what I learned and apply it to my job, where I began to prioritize more effectively, making my sessions more student driven and more student focused.
Probably the most interesting aspect to the class extended beyond the immediate applicability of the information in my tutorials. The presentations and accompanying research informed my understanding of current theories and methods, and also provided a better sense of how a university’s mission and distribution of resources plays into the operation of the writing center. This bigger picture stuff has given me fresh insight and appreciation for the writing center that’s at City, while also giving me ideas of where there can be realistic improvements.
I’m glad I took the class!
Thank you,
Garri Rivkin
Information Literacy Workshop in Cohen Library
Professor Gibbons presentation on information literacy showed that there are many different information sources available online. However he did not touch on the conversion of information into knowledge, even though he had mentioned the process at the beginning of his presentation. As I had mentioned when commenting on Irene Clarke’s essay, we have a great opportunity to engage in the information-to-knowledge process and we do that by turning our reading experience on its head. No longer is the text our only text, but with a click, information flows from various channels, and the linear path of reading begins to branch out and connect with the incoming information, which is contextualized by the primary text and becomes more than a data with no connective tissue, but rather data connected to a larger system; data transformed into knowledge (565).
The Task: A Guide for Tutors in the Rutgers WC
The coordinator states that the Rutger's WC is working under the assumption that the students who come for tutoring will be there for more than one session, but are the students actually doing that? if they are, then is the student working with the same tutor during all the visits? and if they are not is there a file that is kept on all students so that different tutors know where any particular student is in the writing centers personalized seemingly step-by-step process to bettering the student as a writer?
I wonder if the coordinator's assumption is actually true. I know that at City as a tutor I often see students once a semester and if I see them more than that, it is usually right before they have to hand in an essay. I do not have the opportunity to really make them better writers by giving them writing prompts and having them go through the writing process. We sit down and I work with them on the paper they have, but with the intention to use that paper as a means to explore persistent errors in grammar, mechanics and composition. I avoid line editing (mostly because organization is usually the issue and I see it as a waste to work with details that will most likely be cut). But there is an expectation on the part of the student and there is the desire on the part of the tutor to help the student do better now and in the future. What I see is a more systematized process at the Rutgers WC with the theory and process laid out in a handbook. City's WC gives the tutor more control in guiding the session. There is no guidebook; sure minimalism is the philosophy emphasized in all informational material, but the method for any individual session is left up to the tutor: the heuristic method is what we really practice.
I guess the approach at City is reacting to the students. If Rutgers is keeping to its assumptions, they are approaching all students regardless of whether they will be repeats or not with the same mindset. That works for the repeats, and I guess it prevents a perception of the WC as a fix it shop...
Stephen North's "The Idea of a Writing Center"
We have to stop making the revision process into a separate step. Often revision is happening as we write. It is a fluid activity, revision and drafting blending as we stop, erase, and restart the writing process. No wonder why students do not want to participate in the institutionalized revision process advocated by colleges: it is more work. And like Cris Tovani says, "students know how to play the game" of school and if they see that something the teacher suggests will be more work, they will not want to participate. They will reject the notion even though they are in fact revising always when they are writing.
Video: Tutoring Writing--The Right Way
This session is a little better.
The divison between tutor and student still remains but at least the tutor asks for the assignment this time. The tutor does a good job of clarifying as to what is being said in the thesis and making aware the student of the fact that the thesis is not clear. Also, the tutor effectively plays the role of reader, asking for clarification from the writer when an area is unclear.
At least in this one the student understands that the paper needs revision and that there is a process to this. Unlike the other session when the student ends up leaving with the idea that their paper is “all set.” What does that mean? Are all the problems eliminated. In that session the student left under the impression that they are going to receive a particular grade; at least, that was not the case this time.
The divison between tutor and student still remains but at least the tutor asks for the assignment this time. The tutor does a good job of clarifying as to what is being said in the thesis and making aware the student of the fact that the thesis is not clear. Also, the tutor effectively plays the role of reader, asking for clarification from the writer when an area is unclear.
At least in this one the student understands that the paper needs revision and that there is a process to this. Unlike the other session when the student ends up leaving with the idea that their paper is “all set.” What does that mean? Are all the problems eliminated. In that session the student left under the impression that they are going to receive a particular grade; at least, that was not the case this time.
Writing Tutoring--The Wrong Way
I give the acting an F. But anyway...
Let me break down this bad session.
Sitting across from the student creates a separation between student and tutor. It no longer feels like a collaborative experience is happening but rather that the right answer is found across from the student. The student must pass the paper to the tutor who then looks it over and passes it back to the student;this is a dynamic that you would find between teacher and student, and when the teacher tells you something is wrong you fix it. No questions. But why do you have to do it? The tutor sure is not explaining why. She just says you shouldn't, which puts the onus on the student to ask for further elaboration.
On another note.
The student does not seem sure about the assignment and yet the tutor does not ask to look at the assignment. The student could very well have completely misinterpreted what they are being asked to do.
Also, when the student tells the tutor the thesis, her response makes it seem that the student has a good thesis when in fact it is not. She should right here start explaining what is required of a thesis, maybe give some handouts about thesis writing, and then have him read the rest of the paper and maybe from there they can deduce a thesis.
Instead she moves on to sentence level revision when she has not even looked at the paper. Maybe the content needs rearranging and that comma wont matter since the sentence will be gone.
What she does is text book appropriation of the author's paper by putting in her own idiosyncracies into it, specifically in the replacement of “utilize," the revision of the authors words and inserting of her own idea of what the paper means.
This is a pretty bad session. I actually have never seen this at the Writing Center. But I've seen some other things that are comparably bad.
Wynne Ferdinand's Class Visit on 10/27 & Her Writing Center Research Report
Wynne's essay has been a helpful guide in structuring my research. I do wish that the St. John's WC had training sessions that I could sit in on. That would have certainly given me insight that I bet was very useful for Wynne in getting a better understanding of how the LGCC's tutoring philosophy and its implementation. It is one thing to be told what they do but it is very different to see it with your own eyes and make observations from first hand experience.
Responses to "The House That Mina Built"
The Mina who I have read about really is a Mother Theresa figure. I am not sure how much of the description about her is actually reflective of whom she was, and how much of it is merely myth. I have not seen such commitment by a teacher. Maybe such figures come only once in a generation. Maybe she was at the right place and at the right time. She was needed and she had the passion to dive into the job. I hope that I find a job that I can bring that same intensity to. She knew where she wanted to be. She wasnt looking at this as a stepping stone to another job. And the opportunities that she did desire all seemed to be involved in better helping the individuals that she was already helping. I want to read more about her!
Peer Group Discussion #2
Professor Gleason-another method of evaluation could be to film the session and then to watch it afterwards to see whether one is appropriately approaching each step of the tutorial process. This would of course require the express permission of the student but getting an opportunity to see yourself in action would be a good method of seeing whether the suggestions that are provided in the handbook are being employed. And if they are not is it because the situation requires something different or is the tutor being lax in their adherence to effective practices.
The tutor could do what baseball players do after they struck out. They could go and review the footage of their performance. Analyze their actions. See what needs adjusting and then try and implement what they've learned in the next session.
Writing Centers at Brookdale Community College & Rutgers University Community College
I think the most interesting information that I gained from their presentation was the fact that Rutgers composition classes have a very different method of grading their students than does CCNY. There are two sets of grades given. The instructor grades the students and then the administration (or whoever is in charge of this process) verifies that the grades given are in line with the standards set. I wonder how many schools have this in place and what are the drawbacks to the process.
Teachers' Views on Technology in the Classroom
In a growing globalized world, I find it interesting that we do not have more of the kind of activity that happens at the American School of Bombay. Certainly not everyone has access to laptops. But even one laptop with a skype feature would allow students to communicate with a class across the world, or, for that matter, individuals in another city in the US.
It is interesting that we as a nation talk so much about globalization but we do not make use of global knowledge in the classroom. And when students do use it, they are often penalized (ex. the dislike of wiki use). Allow students to feel that they are part of a much larger community and start building a connection with those in other places. This way we not only make use of technology but also raise awareness of our place as global citizens and give us an opportunity to build friendships and intellectual resources in a way we could never before.
It is interesting that we as a nation talk so much about globalization but we do not make use of global knowledge in the classroom. And when students do use it, they are often penalized (ex. the dislike of wiki use). Allow students to feel that they are part of a much larger community and start building a connection with those in other places. This way we not only make use of technology but also raise awareness of our place as global citizens and give us an opportunity to build friendships and intellectual resources in a way we could never before.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)