Michael+McFarland

=__Set 1__=

2/17/10
I do not know about everyone else, but a certain issue has come up since I started working in the Writing Center: my friends. Ever since they heard I would be working in the Writing Center, they have been talking about coming to see me for help on their papers. I’m really happy and flattered that they want me to help them with their papers. I just wonder if my sessions with them will be quality sessions. It’s an issue that has not really come up in the readings, but I think it would be interesting to address more.

My first time shadowing in the Writing Center this issue came up. One of my close friends from last year stopped by to have his paper looked at. He did not know I was working at the Writing Center. At first he was happy to see me. The mood in the Center lightened because we laughed when we saw each other. When the session began and he heard he had to read his paper aloud, he grew nervous. He was nervous about me being there. My friend of course knows I would never go around making fun of his paper behind his back, but he still felt the need to say, “McFarland, don’t tell anyone about this.” I did not want my friend to have a bad session because he was embarrassed for me to look at his paper. I think people sometimes get more embarrassed to make mistakes in front of people they care about over strangers. If I had not been there, he probably would have been less nervous and embarrassed. My presence hurt the atmosphere of the Writing Center. To battle this, I just reassured my friend that his session would remain confidential. The consultant I was shadowing also helped by reassuring him there was nothing to be embarrassed about and that the Writing Center is not for remedial students. I liked the other consultant’s approach a lot. I think that could work with any student who is hesitant about being at the Writing Center.

The other problem I foresee with having friends come to the Writing Center is that the atmosphere may become too relaxed. What I experienced in the session with my friend is that it is hard to see your friends as clients. During times throughout my friend’s session, I had trouble seeing him as a client. I would think of a funny joke or experience involving him without even trying. I did not say these thoughts aloud, but they did distract me from the session a little bit. I’m sure my friend had the same type of thoughts during the session. I would not be surprised to hear he had trouble seeing me as a consultant. I’m afraid when some of my friends come to the Center, they will not treat their session with me as seriously as they should. I could see my friends telling some inside jokes throughout the session. This might not effect the session, but it could hurt the quality of our session. I want my friends to take the Writing Center as a good, but serious place, to come for help.

I have several questions for this issue. My first question is how would you deal with a friend who does not take their session seriously? Should consultants recommend that friends have sessions with other consultants?

2/24/10:
My first session ever was with an ESL student, which was kind of funny since that was the day there was a class discussion about how to handle ESL students. I’m very thankful that we discussed that issue in class because I would have been in trouble if we had not discussed the issue. A few of the tips from Leigh Ryan’s article really helped me out.

The client came in with a global paper about German culture. I started out the session normally by asking him what his paper was about and what his goals were for the paper. He was a very smart student and knew exactly what he wanted to say. The first challenge we faced was his accent. It was a little hard to understand him at times. I did not find the Ryan tip of “watching an ESL student’s facial expression” to help me understand what he was saying. His facial expression really did not change too much so I had to find a new strategy. When I could not understand him, I asked him politely to repeat what he had said. He was not offended and that method worked a lot better for me than Ryan’s. I think it is ok for consultants to say, “I’m sorry, could you please repeat that one more time?” That of course goes back to that idea we talked about earlier in the semester that consultants are not perfect. Consultants should not be expected to learn how to read people’s faces. Ryan’s strategy sounded great to me in class, but the more I think about it, Ryan’s tip asks too much of the consultant. Consultants should not be expected to listen to clients, pay attention to papers, and watch facial expressions. I think it is more important for a consultant to be paying attention to the client’s paper than the client’s facial expression.

The session went along pretty normally. The only real difference was that my ESL client’s paper had a lot more grammar issues than normal. This caused a dilemma for me. In class, we stress that the higher order concerns are more important than the lower order. At the same time, the client expressed early in the session that he really needed help with grammar and usage. I also did not want my client to walk into class with a large amount of grammar mistakes, making his paper hard to understand. I remembered two of Ryan’s tips. One was that ESL students might not know English phrases and it was fine to help them with that. The other was that consultants should not focus completely on grammar, but they should help with grammar if it is impeding understanding. For my client’s paper, he had English phrases he did not understand and his grammar did impede on the understanding of the paper at times. I made up a strategy based on Ryan’s tips. When my client finished reading a paragraph, I first talked to him about higher order concerns. During these paragraph discussions, I made sure to save enough time so that we could talk about grammar and English phrases before moving onto the next paragraph. I tried to limit my focus to grammar that hurt the understanding of the paper. My client had a pretty good understanding of the higher order concerns, which allowed me to focus on lower order concerns. I think if he had not had a good grasp on them, I would have focused less on grammar. If he messed up an English phrase, I just told him the answer like Ryan said I should do. I agree with Ryan that an ESL student is just not going to understand certain phrases. For grammar mistakes, I tried to get him to point out his mistakes. At times he just did not see them. What I did then was I pointed out the mistake and I tried to explain why he was wrong. This sometimes led to a discussion about his mistake and how he could avoid making it in the future. I really liked this because it made our session more collaborative and I think it helped make my client a better writer. Hopefully after our discussions, he understood some of the grammar rules better and will avoid making those mistakes in the future. I think if consultants have the time and chance to discuss grammar rules with ESL students it can be really helpful. If I had not had those Ryan tips, I probably would have been afraid to focus on grammar so much. I’m really glad I had those in my mind to back up my decision to focus a little more on grammar.

I do have some questions about this experience. What other strategies have consultants used to help ESL students? What does everyone think about Ryan’s strategies as a whole? They seem a little too simple to me. I found myself using them, but mending them to fit my situation. That’s not a bad thing; obviously Ryan can’t be expected to make strategies for unique events. I just think Ryan could go a lot further, like Murphy.

=Comments:= I know how you feel about working with an ESL student. My ex, and now one of my closests friends, is from Chile and I have been editing his papers for the last 3 years. He's lived here long enough to speak English fluently, but his papers still suffer from grammatical errors. Fortunately he isn't one of my clients so I usually just mark up his papers with a red pen and give them back. I think its interesting that you got an ESL student in the center and I'm glad you didn't treat him like a remedial client. Oftentimes I think people automatically assume that when a person can't speak English they are somehow less intelligent, and this drives me crazy. I think you did a great job handling this student. -Wendy Warren

3/4/10
In Rafoth’s “Organizing Ideas: Focus Is the Key” Rafoth puts forth the very useful strategy of finding the “nutshell” of a writer’s ideas. This strategy has a consultant begin a session by asking a writer what the major ideas and goals are for the writer’s paper. Throughout the session, the consultant and writer should relate back to these “nutshell” ideas and make sure the writer is proving them.

I think this has been the most helpful strategy I have learned in class so far. I’ve found myself using this strategy in all of my sessions. I always begin a session by asking what are the main purposes or goals of the paper. I like doing that for three reasons. The first reason is that it makes the writer think about his or her goals and helps the writer think about the real purpose of his or her paper. Rafoth touches on this point in his article. The second reason I like doing this is it helps me, the consultant, understand what I’m looking for in the paper. The third reason I like doing this is it automatically puts an emphasis on higher order concerns over lower order. I think it establishes the tone of the session, which is that the session is not just a grammar editing session.

I like to bring up the goals and purpose that the writer laid out at the beginning throughout the session. I remind the writer of what his or her goals are and try to use that as a starting point to discuss if an idea or paragraph is really effective. This has led my clients and I to some good discoveries. I also like to ask what the “nutshell” of a paragraph is. I’ve found in my sessions that by defining the main ideas of a paragraph, a writer can better see how he or she should organize a paper. This “nutshell” strategy from Rafoth is the main tool I use to help clients figure out organization.

I have several questions about this strategy. What other strategies do consultants use to approach organization? The “nutshell” strategy is very simple. Does anyone think it needs more developing? How would you develop it further?

3/9/10
I’d like to respond to the Murphy article, “Subjectivity in the Tutorial Session: How Far Can We Go?” The issue of extreme opinions in papers has appeared in another article we read from Murphy. The article “Intellectual Tug-of War: Snapshots of Life in the Center” also dealt with the topic. The author of “Subjectivity in the Tutorial Session” is Stacey Freed. Freed seems to think for the most part that consultants should focus on the writing of the paper. It’s not the consultant’s job to judge a writer’s opinion and a consultant might be overstepping sensitive cultural backgrounds by judging a writer’s opinion. She argues that a good strategy for dealing with controversial papers is to give the writer other viewpoints respectfully. She writes, “we must make students aware of other points of view that may be disturbing to them and may distress them.” By doing this, a consultant can argue against a controversial viewpoint respectfully and make the client a better writer.

I agree with Freed on avoiding passing judgment on a writer’s opinion. I also agree with Freed’s strategy for dealing with controversial papers. Her strategy should be taken further. I think her strategy should be used for more than controversial situations. Her strategy can be used in any situation. It does not matter if the paper is controversial or not. A good consultant should be giving other viewpoints and arguments to any writer of any paper. Looking at other arguments and viewpoints is a key strategy for making a better paper and a better writer, which is the overall goal of the Writing Center.

I think Murphy gets too hung up on this issue. The duties of a consultant restrict what a consultant can do in this situation. Consultants have to remember that they are not the writers. If a writer chooses a controversial stance on a subject, it is still the consultant’s duty to help the writer. A consultant cannot tell a writer to change his or her opinion. Faced with this duty, a consultant facing a paper that he or she disagrees with does not have many options. I think Freed’s strategy is the best way to deal with this issue.

What does everyone else think about Freed’s strategy? What are some other strategies for dealing with this issue?

Peer Response
My responses on March 10th, 2010: Kelly Robinson's 2/25/10 post Emily Mooney's 3/1/10 post

=__Set 2__=

3/10/10
I had my toughest session in the Writing Center today. My client was a student in a Physics class. He came in with no assignment sheet and he was not able to explain his assignment very well. He said his paper was part of a presentation he would be doing. The paper was supposed to show the information from his presentation. The client also did not know how the teacher wanted the paper cited or what style the paper was supposed to be in. This lack of assignment sheet might seem like the main reason for this being a tough session, but it was not. The fact it was a science paper was what made the session hard.

I had my client start reading his paper. There was no opening. He immediately jumped into the facts. I couldn’t follow his paper and I got lost in the facts. He did have a conclusion, but it needed expanding. I never thought looking at a curriculum I was not used to would be such a challenge. We discussed how his facts could be a little confusing, but at the same time we agreed the facts probably would not be confusing for his audience: the teacher. Therefore, I did not see his huge amount of facts as a problem. If a regular person like me was the audience then he would have had a problem. My main advice was to create an opening paragraph and develop his conclusion more. We ended up talking about how he could form an opening and how he could elaborate more on his conclusion.

I was happy we could find something to work on and develop him as a writer. At the same time, I felt like I had failed him a little. I really could not follow his paper. I could not really discuss his paper, which is not a bad thing in this situation. He did a good job of writing to a particular audience. I was just far away from his particular audience. I wish I could have been a more flexible consultant and put myself into the mind frame of his audience. This experience really showed me the value of the WAC presentations. A WAC presentation on science could have really helped me understand and discuss his paper better.

Does anyone think the class would benefit if WAC presentations were done early in the semester? How are other consultants handling subjects we do not normally see in the Writing Center?

3/10/10
I think the Murphy article, “Cultural Conflicts in the Writing Center: Expectations and Assumptions of ESL Students” gives a lot of good insight into ESL students. The past articles we have read about ESL students just give tips about how to deal with ESL students. They have not shown foreign students’ perspectives on tutoring. I think it is important for consultants to understand how ESL students view the Writing Center in order for consultants to effectively help them. Foreign students view education differently from Americans and they often learn differently. Therefore, consultants need to be aware of how ESL students learn so that consultants can meet the needs of foreign students. This article showed me how ESL students view writing centers, which was really helpful.

One of the most interesting parts of the article that applies to the Writing Center is how foreign students view their teacher. The article said that the American student-teacher relationship is very casual compared to foreign student-teacher relationships. In many foreign countries, the teacher is an authoritarian figure. The teacher will tell the students what the answer is or call on them to speak. Students in foreign countries have to treat their teacher will complete respect. In America, teachers are often more collaborative. They will let the students figure out the answer or let them speak freely. Many American teachers encourage having a dialogue with their students over a lecture. American teachers are often not very authoritarian.

The article showed me that these cultural differences actually have big implications for how consultants should handle ESL students. For example, consultants need to be aware that ESL students are not use to having a dialogue with their teachers. They are more familiar with lectures. An ESL student might not answer a question or talk a lot during a session because he or she is waiting for the consultant to give an answer or explain an answer. If consultants do not understand this cultural difference, there could be huge communication breakdowns during a session. Another important implication from the article was how consultants can put ESL students at ease. Writing Center consultants are always trying to make students feel comfortable. It is a very effective strategy for creating a productive session. The article explained that ESL students could get very uncomfortable with the American student-teacher relationship. They are not use to being casual with their teachers and that style of casual interaction can make them uncomfortable. Foreign students might see it as rude to treat a teacher or a consultant like a peer. This does not mean that consultants need to be authoritative with ESL students. I think an effective way to deal with this cultural difference is to explain the Writing Center’s philosophy. If a consultant explains how the Center believes in collaboration between students and consultants, the concept will not seem so strange and uncomfortable to an ESL student.

My first question for this journal is, do you think it would help the Writing Center to research and interview ESL students at Elon? My second is, what other strategies have consultants tried to make ESL students feel comfortable?

I think the first question you raised is an excellent one. I don't know about Writing Center protocol when it comes to talking to students about the center but it seems like it could be really beneficial knowledge. I often wonder what students think of the center, not just ESL students, but the entire school community. I wonder what they think we do well, and what we could improve on. I would definitely love to get some stats about this, if there are some already taken (which I think there probably are), and research them for future purposes. Great idea! -Michelle Longo
 * COMMENTS:**

Response: I think that you bring up an interesting idea in your first question. I did not know about the collaborative methods used in the Writing Center until I took ENG 319. I just thought it was a tutoring center to help edit papers. Lots of other Elon students probably think this too, and ESL students may not understand the concept at first because it is so foreign. It could be helpful to try to explain this to the Elon community in general especially the ESL students. On the other hand Elon focuses its education style on being interactive. We have small classes and teachers make an effort to get students involved. Therefore, any student who has been taking classes at Elon will probably be familiar with collaborative learning even if they are unaware of it. By explaining the usefulness of collaborative learning to students, they may gain a better understanding and appreciation of not just the Writing Center but their overall education here at Elon too. ~Kelly

3/10/10
I want to respond to the Rafoth article, “Tutoring in Emotionally Charged Sessions.” I have not seen any papers that are emotionally charged in the Writing Center, but this seems like a good thing for consultants to be prepared for. It would be really bad if a consultant responded in the wrong way to an emotional paper.

I agree with Rafoth for the most part. As a creative writing major, I have faced many emotionally charged papers in my creative writing classes. I deal with them basically like Rafoth says to. I focus on the writing and the goal of the writing. I don’t let the emotion of the paper stop me from making critiques on the paper. It does not help a writer if a reader just gives positive feedback in order to avoid hurting the writer’s feelings. It is tough to critique writing about very personal things, but I think it is important to remember that the writer has volunteered to share this personal information. That means the writer probably has come to terms with those emotions. I also like Rafoth’s advice of telling a writer to take more time on an emotional paper if all else fails in a session. I find this sometimes in my creative writing classes. Writers try writing about a sensitive subject too soon and fail to really grasp what that subject or event means to them. In those cases, it is better for a writer to wait and gain more perspective on the event or subject.

I disagree with Rafoth on one of his strategies. He has this idea that a consultant should acknowledge the difficulty of writing about a personal experience. I would not use this strategy. I think if a consultant does this, he or she is emphasizing the awkwardness of writing about something personal. There is no need to call attention to the fact that a writer is sharing something personal. This strategy will probably make a writer more self-conscious. A writer with an emotional paper, who comes into the Writing Center voluntarily, is comfortable enough with their personal information to share it with a stranger. That is a good sign that the writer has come to terms with his or her personal experience and does not need someone acknowledging how brave he or she is.

What do other consultants think of Rafoth’s strategy of acknowledging the difficulty of writing about a personal experience? What other strategies have consultants used to deal with emotionally charged papers?

4/1/10
I had a full session with a girl that was focused completely on one citation. She came into the Writing Center with a completed draft of a paper. The paper was about a book, which her teacher had given to her class electronically. She came in really stressed about citing the electronic book. I thought I could answer her questions on citations and then focus on her paper. What happened next, I could not have predicted.

The teacher wanted citations in Chicago style. I showed her sites where she could learn about Chicago style and I gave her our documentation sheet. I found for Chicago style that a combination of Perdue Owl and the Berkeley site was best. The Perdue Owl gives better step-by-step instructions. The problem with the Perdue Owl is that it has no examples. My client found this really annoying. When we looked at the Berkeley site, the site gave clear examples. My client found having an actual example to be very helpful.

We then started to try to plug in the information. That is when I realized why she was having so many problems citing this source. The electronic book did not have all the information she needed. Most books have a page in the beginning with all the information a person needs for citations: publishing info, editor, date published, etc. The electronic book did not have this page. We had to go searching through the files her teacher gave her and the web pages linked to those files. The electronic book did not clearly say who the editor was; we had to take a guess on who was the editor. The book had three different publication dates in the different places. The publishing information was very confusing and we could not be sure if she was citing the correct information. We spent a full session trying to figure out how to cite this electronic book. We ended up creating a basic citation, but we were not sure if it was correct. She emailed her teacher to explain her confusion. She left the Center to continue trying to find the information she needed. I made it clear in my report to the teacher, in a polite way, that the girl should not be faulted if the citation is wrong. I tried to get across in my report that she and I were trying our hardest and could not figure it out. I hope my report helped her.

This experience really proved to me the first point made in “The Logic of Citation” article. The first point is “The Principle of Access.” This point highlights how electronic sources can be confusing and can lose data from being moved electronically. I think my client’s electronic book definitely proved how confusing electronic sources can be. I would not be surprised if her teacher lost some of the book’s information when he changed it into new files or did some procedure like that. I like the article’s advice for what to do in that situation: put as much information as possible. It makes more sense than putting too little information. A reader trying to find a writer’s source can find the source if there is a lot of information. The reader will just have to search through the useless information for the information he or she needs. A reader cannot find a source if there is not enough information. I think my client and I followed this rule. In the citation we came up with, we included the people we thought applied to each part of the citation. We didn’t go overboard, but we made sure anyone who could possibly apply to the citation was in it.

What do other consultants think of this idea of using as much information as possible for electronic citations? Are there any other ways I could have handled this session?

Peer Response
My responses on April 7th, 2010: Kristin Pinder's 3/17/10 post Kelly Robinson's 4/6/10 post

=__Set 3__=

4/14/10
“Strategies for Drafting” had many tips for how to start a paper. Some of the tips I liked, or already use. For example, I like to combine the //reward yourself// strategy and the //small task// strategy. Whenever I am writing a paper I try to break the process up. I will make a goal for myself to write maybe a couple of paragraphs or a page. When I accomplish one of my small goals, I usually try to reward myself with watching a TV show, listening to a song, or playing a game. Combining those two strategies really keeps me happy when I am writing. I think having a good mood is a key part of successful writing. There are downsides to combining these strategies though. Setting small goals and rewards ends up making the writing process much longer because I am only do a small amount of work and then taking a slightly long break. Therefore, I can only combine these strategies if I have set aside enough time for my writing process. If my paper is due soon and I have a lot of work left to do, I cannot combine the tips of small tasks and rewarding myself.

There was one strategy I really did not like. I did not like the //start with scrap paper// advice. I understood the writer’s reasoning; sometimes a blank screen can be my biggest enemy, but I do not think writing on scrap paper would help me overcome a blank screen. Scrap paper is just as blank as a screen. Therefore, I think I would run into the same problem staring at a blank piece of scrap paper as I would staring at a blank screen. When I run into the problem of the blank screen, I usually try coming back to the screen in five minutes or brainstorming.

Does anyone think the //start with scrap paper// strategy works? What other strategies do consultants have for starting a paper?

4/19/10
I really loved the strategy of //Drawing on Experience//. I have found this strategy to be especially useful in creative writing. Since no one else has experiences what the writer has, personal experiences make an event or moment in writing unique. Personal experiences give a piece of writing a lot of specifics, which makes the writing much richer and more developed. This can save a writer’s work from being cliché. One of the great difficulties with writing is that most subjects have been written about, from almost every perspective imaginable. One of the only new and unique ways to write about anything is from a personal point of view that draws on experiences.

I can see this strategy working really well in creative writing and argumentative writing. Arguments often draw on personal experiences because those experiences can effectively persuade the audience. I’d say it is quite essential for argumentative writing to use experiences (from the writer and other people) to prove an argument. An audience is not going to usually be swayed by just facts. An argumentative writer has to use pathos (emotional appeal) to win over an audience. The most effective way to execute pathos is by drawing on an experience that can make the argument real and important to the audience.

There is one slight problem I can see with this strategy. I’m not sure how well it would work in other genres of writing. Many genres of academic writing (history, science, etc.) do not allow for personal pronouns or personal experiences. Those standards limit writers in those genres to only using experiences of others. While I recognize that using experiences of others can be highly effective, I do think this strategy is hurt when it is limited. I think the most effective way to use this strategy is to draw on personal experiences and the experiences of others. Those two types of experiences combined create quite an impact. It is too bad that certain genres of academic writing do not let the writer get personal.

Does anyone think //Drawing on Experience// is not an effective strategy for developing? What other strategies do people prefer to use for developing?

4/25/10
I want to use this wiki entry to write about my writing process involving the annotated bibliographies. These annotated bibliographies have been a great example for me of the importance of including a peer editing stage in my writing process. I got a lot of vital feedback on my annotated bibliography. I did not realize my summary sections were too short until all three of the people who edited my annotated bibliography pointed it out. I had gotten the idea from the Purdue OWL that the summary sections did not need to be so long, so it was really good to have my peer editors emphasize that.

My peer editors also helped me realize other formats for doing annotated bibliographies. I did not know I could have headings until they pointed it out to me. I think headings can be really helpful in annotated bibliographies. They keep annotated bibliographies clear and easy to read for the reader. The peer editing stage was definitely vital for helping me see my writing in new perspectives. If I had not had the advice from the peer editors, I would have revised my annotated bibliography entries to be like I had originally written them. That would not have improved my annotated bibliography.

I think the part of the writing process, which has been the most difficult, has been starting the annotated bibliography entries. All my sources have an abundant amount of information. I have a hard time trying to figure out what information to include and what information not to include in my summaries. I also have a hard time ordering the structure of my information in my summaries. It takes me a while to figure out what information I want in the beginning, middle, and end of a summary.

What is the hardest part of the writing process for everyone else? Does anyone have any tips for how to structure the information in summaries?

4/26/10
I want to respond to two of the concerns listed on the “Strategies for Revising”: I do my best work without revising and what can get in the way of good revision strategies. It might seem silly to think that people actually think they do their best work without revising, but I have seen people do this. I have a friend who really believes he does his best work without revising. He never revises his work. He will revise during his writing process, he will not move onto the next paragraph until the paragraph he is working on is ready. When he is finished, he never goes back to look at his work. I think he does this partially out of fear, like UNC’s handout mentions. He told me once that he really does not like to read his work, which is understandable. A lot of people hate to read their own writing. This fear that people have of their own writing makes what we do at the Writing Center very important to the revision process. By having our clients read aloud, we can help anyone who is afraid of reading their own writing. I think reading aloud makes a client more comfortable with his or her writing. When a client is comfortable with his or her writing, the client can comfortably revise his or hers work.

I think UNC’s writing center makes a good point in their section, “What can get in the way of good revision strategies.” UNC points out that sometimes writers can fall in love with their writing, which will make them hesitant towards revision. When this happens, the full potential of a written work cannot be reached. This has actually happened to me several times. I remember I had a paper once that had a few sentences that I just loved. The problem with the sentences was that they did not have any real purpose. They did not help my reader understand what I was trying to say. It was hard, but I eventually forced myself to get rid of the sentences. Doing that made my paper more clear, concise and understandable. The paper was better without the sentences. I just had to get over my love for the sentences to recognize that. I have not run into this kind of situation at the Writing Center. If I do run into a situation where a client has fallen in love with his or hers words, I can now explain better how writers have to get over their love for their writing to revise a paper well.

What other revision roadblocks get in your way when revising? What other tips do consultants have for getting a client to be comfortable with his or hers writing?

Peer Response
My responses on April 28th, 2010: Kristin Pinder's 4/21/10 post Emily Mooney's 4/26/10 post