Kristin+Pinder

__Saturday, February 20, 2010__ The beginning of this week indicated my first time ever setting foot in the Writing Center. I felt a familiar combination of excitement and nervousness; I was both eager to work at the writing center and apprehensive that I would ultimately fail as a consultant.

I took a seat next to Michelle, a current writing center consultant. She was reading a really fat book with small, undersized words. I remember feeling relieved that I wouldn’t have to read that. We spent a quiet twenty minutes doing homework until a student hesitantly made his way into the writing center.

Michelle was very friendly. “Hey,” she said, “how can we help you?” After discussing the basics of the writing center, she gave him the sheet to fill out. I sat next to her as she looked over the assignment prompt.

“Why are you here?” He asked me, his accent thick and obvious. I couldn’t help but wonder where he was originally from.

“I’m just shadowing,” I replied. “Oh,” he said, “You want to do what //she// does?” He gestured towards Michelle. “Yeah,” I said, half-laughing.

I can’t – for the life of me – remember his name. But his paper stood out to me. He had trouble with thesis statements and showing connections between his ideas. His paragraphs should have been rearranged, his quotes better explained. His paper had consistent grammatical errors, namely misplaced commas and nonexistent quotation marks. He was not originally from the United States, and he spoke English as his second language.

Michelle immediately rose to the occasion. After completing the Ryan readings due next class, I realized that the way she handled the situation came directly from the tips and theories discussed in the book. She gave plain directions to the student and watched his expressions. If she saw that student didn’t understand, Michelle rephrased the statements instead of repeating the same words. This put the student at ease. Instead of being discouraged by the negative aspects of his paper, he was encouraged by his positive ideas that Michelle was sure to address. Instead of focusing on the mechanical errors, Michelle mentioned them only once and showed him how to correct them.

From that session, I can clearly see the benefits and disadvantages of the practices the book recommends. The student walked away with some basic idea of how to fix his mistake, but the session was not nearly long enough to address all of his problems in the manner the book suggests.

I asked Michelle what she thought of the session. “Well,” she said, “I hope he takes my advice.”

Seeing the concepts in the book displayed in real life situations was a positive experience for me – I am now much more comfortable in the writing center.

Questions 1. Have you experienced problems with focusing on mechanical ideas rather than the argument of a paper? Have you overcome your problems? 2. How do you personally chose to end your writing center sessions?

//COMMENTS:// I wanted to comment on your second question regarding how I personally end my sessions in the Writing Center. I have asked many returning consultants this same question. I think it's interesting to see how many ways there are to bring a session to a close. For me personally, I let the client know when there are about 5 minutes left in the session and ask them if there was anything that they wanted help with that we hadn't already covered in our session. Usually, they have asked all of their questions at this point and we continue working, or the client takes this opportunity to close the session themselves.

Surprisingly -- and I'm not sure if this has happened to you or other 319 students-- I often have students who manage to get all of their questions answered in under 30 minutes. They come in with a clear idea of what they want to talk about and what they need advice on, and we quickly move through them in about 20 minutes. I always feel weird about ending early, but I think sometimes that's okay as long as the client is satisfied with the help they received. Sometimes it's alright to have the client end the session themselves in this way. - Emily Mooney

__Monday, March 1, 2010__ I have chosen to focus this entry around my first official session at the Writing Center, and how I – as a consultant – have incorporated some of the strategies presented in Rafoth’s textbook. I found Rafoth’s theories to be helpful ultimately because they shifted my concentration from my own writing strategies to those of the student writer.

I’ve always been a decent writer. I find it easier to articulate how I feel on paper rather than verbally. Student writer Meredith came to the Writing Center with her college writing paper. I was thrilled. I loved my college writing class, and I was happy that Meredith came to the center with an assignment that from a subject that I personally enjoy.

Despite my excitement, I was nervous as I worked with Meredith. I wondered what she thought of me, if she could plainly see my writing limitations. I questioned whether she thought I could help her at all and debated how I could help her improve her writing skills in general rather than just her one paper; the worst-case scenario would be me taking over her paper and changing everything, leaving her with a triumph of a piece but no knowledge on how she could improve her writing process. After we discussed her prompt, I remembered the Rafoth readings and implemented one of the strategies that stuck out to me: I trusted the student writer’s ideas rather than my own.

Meredith was writing a personal paper on her own spirituality. I helped her with the organization of her paragraphs, but I was careful not to encourage her to change the overall structure of her assignment, or the overall tone. She was more familiar to the content of her paper than I was. Because I could not find anything fundamentally wrong with her organization, I said nothing. I realized that Meredith’s personal paper should be written in her own voice. I would have worded the sentences a different way; but then again, I am not Meredith, and her paper was not my paper.

I trusted the client’s ear over my own about how the paper should sound, what kind of feeling the reader should get from reading the paper. Towards the end of the session, Meredith expressed her sincere thanks. I was elated.

Questions 1. What are some ways that you encourage the writer to be his own self, write in his own words? 2. How should a writing center consultant act if a student comes in with a piece of work and does not respond to open-ended questions?

__Saturday, March 6, 2010__ Freed’s “Subjectivity in the Classroom: How Far Can We Go?” ties in nicely with Boquet’s “Intellectual Tug-of-War: Snapshots of Life in the Center.” The essays, both written by writing center consultants, offer interesting insights into collaboration without offense. The authors support the same basic principles but they ultimately present their arguments in dissimilar ways. Freed indicates the theories behind objectivity in the writing center, whereas Boquet provides a personal example of “tutoring without offense.”

Freed references many prominent writing theorists that all give us the same advice: in a tutorial session, we as consultants should always be focused on the written work: “in a tutorial session, no matter how personal it becomes, we must always go back to the task at hand, the writing.” She writes that the theorists give us good advice and understands that we as consultants should center our sessions around the written word, but we should be “prepared to question students no their beliefs and check them on the validity of their arguments.” Writing center consultants must be willing to play devil’s advocate, willing to act as both a “springboard “ and a “foil.”

Boquet reaches the same conclusion as Freed, but she does this through examining several of her own writing sessions. She writes that her “most memorable encounter” occurred with student writer Joe. Joe claimed that court systems are “female based.” As a woman, Boquet began to attack him. She then realized that she should no longer critique students’ papers with the intention of getting them to change their arguments, but she should “encourage students to begin to question their assumptions.”

Questions: 1. What are some specific ways that consultants could balance being a “springboard” and a “foil”? 2. Do you – as a consultant – have any examples of collaborating with a student of a different opinion?

__Sunday, March 7, 2010__ All of my previous journals have focused on the assigned Writing Center Workshop readings. This reflection will be different; I have decided to discuss the sense of community present in the Elon Writing Center.

Often enough, when a student hears the phrase “Writing Center,” the image of a strict tutor berating a remedial student automatically pops into his head. He envisions frustrated instructors and incompetent undergraduates. More importantly, he is unaware of the basic reasoning behind the concept of a writing center: collaboration.

When I think about collaboration, I automatically remember my English class and how we emphasized syllogisms. In order to attain a better understanding of collaboration, the student must realize that:

//All cooperativeness is mutual All collaboration is cooperativeness Therefore, all collaboration is mutual.//

Collaboration will ultimately be ineffective without unity. The student’s perception of the Writing Center as a place that only slower students utilize and an “editing service” where tutors correct those students’ mistakes is flawed. In fact, the tutors he imagines not tutors; they are consultants. The process in which a consultant reviews a student’s project is shared. Two-way. Joint. Communal.

From my first shadowing experience, I have always felt welcome. The consultants are personable and friendly – I instantly bonded with those who I work with. Whenever I have any questions or concerns, another consultant is always willing to talk with me. The candy and artwork create an inviting environment and give the student a calming feeling. Without the sense of community, the chances of successful collaboration are slim.

Questions: 1. What is your personal experience with the writing center? 2. Do you agree with this reflection? Why, or why not?

//COMMENTS:// I really like this reflection because I do see this sense of community in the center. When I come into the center some of the other consultants tell me if there has been a bombardment of the same type of assignment and point me to resources they have used to tackle them. Also, I have been present at times when a consultant doesn't know the answer to a question that a client has and asks other consultants in the center for help. We should remember that we are not isolated (unless we are in the center by ourselves) when with a client. Remembering this can take a lot of pressure off of our shoulders during a session. - Jillian Weiss

Wednesday, March 10, 2010 Responses: Jillian's Reflection (February 23, 2010) Emily's Reflection (February 22, 2010)

__Wednesday, March 17, 2010__ Today our class participated in Writing Center sessions in a College Writing classroom. This entry will reflect on both the two sessions that I conducted during the class activity.

My first session was with a student named Jacob. From the Client Needs Survey, I understand that Jacob intended to work on remaining on focus and sentence clarity of the paper. As the session progressed, I realized that Jacob’s assignment was strong grammatically and conceptually. His thesis statement was clear and unique. However, he provided little evidence to back his claims. I couldn’t believe my luck – we had just discussed several readings in class that focused on paraphrasing and the integration of quotes. He had trouble summarizing the main ideas of his sources. I encouraged him to reread his sources, highlight the main points and then state the main idea as briefly and as clearly as he can. He wrote down these steps and told me he intended to use them as he goes through the process of revising his paper.

My second session began when student Michael approached me and asked me to help him with the grammatical aspects of his assignment. In his paper, he provided strong arguments concerning each individual source of his topic, but his over-heading thesis statement was weak. As he read his paper aloud, he realized that he needed to eliminate lexical repetition as well as structure his sentences in a clearer manner. As we got deeper into the session, I realized that Michael’s supportive quotations were misplaced. We discussed how he could successfully incorporate quotes. I used Lisa Ede’s //Work In Progress// reading as support. I told Michael that you should only use quotes if you have a specific purpose for the quote. We practiced appropriately integrating quotes. As the session ended, he chose to paraphrase a few of his quotes in order to make a more successful argument.

I believe our classroom activity was successful and that the students gained insight on their argumentative papers. However, we should not go to a college writing classroom again. Instead, we should encourage students to come to us.

Questions: 1. What do you think of the classroom activity? Do you think that it should be done again? 2. I also noticed that a lot of students are having trouble with the MLA format. How can we help them how to cite sources without spending too much time on that process?

//COMMENTS:// Hi Kristin, In response to your first question, I also thought our classroom activity was successful and that it helped ENG 110 students to have a fresh set of more experienced eyes look at their argumentative pieces. I also didn't mind going into an English 110 classroom. I think that the Writing Center is already thoroughly encouraged to ENG 100 students, and they are fully aware of our location and the services we offer. I thought that by having the 319 new consultants attend a ENG 110 class, both sets of students were benefiting. The classroom activity gave us the opportunity to practice sessions a little more, and it presented the students with an opportunity to have an consultant give suggestions and help with higher order issues that their classmates might not be as experienced to recognize. I, myself, have not had the opportunity in the Writing Center to work with that many freshmen, so I also enjoyed that aspect of the activity. Thus, I think that the classroom activity should be done again, whether in just one-on-one sessions, or designed to be more of a group discussion with three or four students per consultant. - Emily Mooney

I want to respond to your first question. I loved my English 110 class. My teacher was great and he made the class very interesting. He really never told us about the Writing Center though. He told us to visit the Writing Center if we were having problems and that the Writing Center was a great resource. He did not really explain how the Writing Center worked or what the Writing Center did. So for a long time, I had no idea that the Writing Center focused on high order needs. I saw the Writing Center as a place to get a paper edited. My English 110 teacher never called it an editing place, but he never emphasized to my class that the Writing Center is for higher order concerns. I would not be surprised to learn that other English 110 teachers are not fully educating their students on the Writing Center.

I think our classroom activity went great. The students I worked with seemed to get a lot out of it and it definitely gave me more experience. I think if this type of activity had occurred during my English 110 class, I would have used the Writing Center my freshman year. This activity really teaches students about the Writing Center. I think the 319 class should continue to do this activity. If the Writing Center continues this activity, freshmen can become educated about the Writing Center. I think the Center has to go to the freshmen. A lot of freshmen will not come to the Writing Center, especially if they have a teacher like mine. If the Writing Center does not go to the freshmen, a lot of freshmen will stay in the dark about the Writing Center and not use it. - Michael McFarland

__Sunday, March 28, 2010__ I really enjoyed Devet’s “Reporters, Actors, Renters, and Presidents: Grammatical Stories about Real World Writing.” I found the anecdotes discussing writing in the real world to be both funny and informative. However, several of Devet’s stories are not relatable. When used in conjunction with the NCTE Guideline on Grammar, Devet’s article will provide helpful insights to student writers.

For example, let us take a look at Devet’s anecdote entitled “Renting an Apartment and Good Editing.” She discusses how a Los Angeles apartment owner “focused on good writing and grammar” and did not allow anyone to rent the apartment who could not properly write an essay about themselves. This story was humorous, but it is just one scenario. To give the situation meaning, we should use the NCTE Guideline on Grammar and focus on the importance of the essay in general. Why is the essay so important? Because, according to the NCTE Guideline, “knowing about grammar also helps us…make sentences and paragraphs clear and interesting and precise.” When we look at the situation from this perspective, we understand that grammar is important for clarity and that grammar can change perceptions of people.

The implications for writing center consultation are obvious: we, as writing center consultants, must focus on grammar only when it takes away from the clarity of the argument. I struggle with this in my sessions. I constantly have to remind myself that although grammar is of importance, it is a lower order concern and should not be the basis of a session, unless a student project has significant grammatical errors. As we are told time and time again, the Writing Center is not an editing service.

Questions: 1. Did you have any situations in the writing center where grammar became the focus when it shouldn’t have been? 2. What do you think is the best way to approach grammar in a writing center session?

__Monday, March 29, 2010__ In my reading, I discovered connections between Ritter’s “Recent Developments in Assisting ESL Writers” and Neff’s “Learning Disabilities in the Writing Center.” As you can see from the titles, the readings focused on different topics. However, after carefully considering the content I found several similarities.

Ritter, in her article found in //A Tutors Guide: Helping Writers One to One//, stresses the importance of negotiated interaction between the ESL student and the consultant. She suggests that consultants should first begin the session with the intention of addressing higher order concerns. She states that consultants must ask the student writer what he or she feels comfortable with before beginning a session. Verbal prompts such as “I would like to know if you would like to read your paper to me or if you want me to read your paper to you” or “Would you like to stop reading after the whole paper or should we go through the assignment paragraph by paragraph?” make all the difference.

“Learning Disabilities in the Writing Center” has a different focus but ultimately reinforces the same strategies presented in “Recent Developments in Assisting ESL Writers” – writing center consultants should ask the student what he or she feels comfortable with, and higher order concerns should still be emphasized.

The links that connect the two readings have important implications for Writing Center consultations – they suggest that any type of strategy can be used to conduct a session as long as that strategy //personally fits the student’s writing needs.// Consultants should remain open-minded and change their strategies to meet student needs.

Questions: 1. As the course progresses, I notice more and more links and connections between writing center strategies. What are several connections that you have noticed? 2. Do you agree with my assertion that the two readings are similar although they, at first glance, appear to focus on different topics?

//COMMENTS:// I definately agree that those two readings are similar. I think the point you made about consultants changing their strategy to fit the students needs is one we should all remember. I often find myself falling into the pattern of greeting to client, asking about the assignment, having them read it allowed, etc. I can be so ingrained in this structure that when something different comes along I am taken off guard and shaken up a little bit. I need to remember that everyone has a different way to approaching writing and everyone has different feelings towards it (take your next wiki entry as an example (crying girl)). We need to have a variety of ways to handle different types of writers instead of having one mold that everyone should fit into, and if they don't, then too bad. - Jillian Weiss

__Monday, April 5, 2010__ I had my first frustrating writing center session. I’ve read about tense consultations before, but I have never experienced any rough sessions until last Wednesday.

Katie, the student, was writing her paper on how her dad has personally influenced her. She had already received feedback from her professor, and she was very unhappy. Her appearance and demeanor suggested that she is a perfectionist, and her tentative grade was a C-. Unless Katie could improve her paper, her professor hinted that a C- will be part of her final average. The student was horrified; she had barely started reading her paper aloud before her voice started to crack and her eyes began to water. I felt just as helpless.

I remembered our class discussion concerning consulting in emotionally charged situations, but nothing I did helped Katie.

“Here,” I told Katie, “Why don’t we stop for a minute? Would you like a tissue?” “No,” she told me.

We took a small break as Katie began to calm down. When she attempted to compose herself and read her paper, we quickly discovered she couldn’t. I adjusted my strategy and read pieces of her paper aloud. I made sure that for every negative aspect of her paper I talked about, I had a positive comment to balance it. I blamed my misunderstanding of the paper on myself: “I’m unsure of this paragraph,” I said, “can you explain it to me?” Despite my careful use of language, Katie was still very upset. I moved way from pointing out negative parts of her paper and instead provided her with examples of proper sentence structure.

At the end of our session, Katie was sure to thank me but I could tell she was minutes away from crying again. I am unsure of how I could have made the session better, more successful. I know that Katie’s experiences with writing will encourage her to hate composition, and I wish I could have helped more.

Questions: 1. What would you have done differently? 2. Have you had a similar experience?

I actually just wrote one of my responses on how this exact situation is one of my biggest fears for the Writing Center. I think you handled it perfectly! I wouldn't have done it any different. I can only imagine how difficult a situation it would be, but I think you did an awesome job of settling the client and doing the best you could. I'm sure her frustration stemmed more from her paper and her teacher than from you, so that's always good to remember. It sounds like you really had it under control. Well done! -Michelle Longo **
 * //COMMENTS://

//Wednesday, April 7, 2010 Responses// Megan's Reflection (March 12, 2010) Jillian's Reflection (March 25, 2010)

__Monday, April 12, 2010__ I have encountered many problems in my search for a topic. Using the brainstorming worksheet that Professor Rosinski handed out in class, I did several freewriting and looping exercises. Although these were useful, I felt like I was not getting off to a proper start. I wanted to focus on the aspect of community in the writing center, but none of my questions or Internet searches were able to provide me with fifteen solid sources that could be the basis for my final product. I started to panic.

I believe this panic was evident when I met with Professor Rosinski. She suggested that I change my topic, and told me that I had probably wound up discussing the writing center by default. I am interested in the inner workings of the writing center, but I had put too much store in the two brainstorming exercises that I had tried at the start of my writing process. Instead of brainstorming every time I faced an obstacle that kept me from writing, I only brainstormed at the beginning of the project. I spent so much time worrying about finding sources for that topic that I was not able to adjust, or revise my question – this took away from my writing process.

After my conference with the professor, I chose a topic that interested me the most. For my final project, I will focus on why parents shouldn’t take their children to zoos. Now, I realize the importance of brainstorming throughout the entire writing process. I also realize that I shouldn’t panic so much when I write, as panicking is unproductive and yields no positive results.

Questions: 1. Did you face any problems when you were thinking of your topic? 2. Did you change your topic? What changes did you make, and why did you make them?

__Wednesday, April 14, 2010__ After reading “Strategies for Planning” and “Strategies for Drafting,” I was eager to start work on my annotated bibliography. Despite my enthusiasm for my newly chosen topic, I faced another bout of writer’s block when I sat down to annotate the fifteen sources I found.

I turned to the readings and the handouts that I designed. I started to do the tips that they suggest. The drafting reading told me to state the purpose of my assignment; as a Professional Writing and Rhetoric major, this tip appealed to me the most. I decided to state the purpose of each subsection of the annotated bibliography. I wrote the following sentences down on a scrap piece of paper: “The ‘summary’ section summarizes the topic. - Main thesis - Supplementary points The ‘assess’ section comments on the credibility of the source. - Author’s credibility - Content’s credibility - Look at work cited, discuss references - Biased bits - Limitations The ‘reflection’ section is a commentary on how you will use the source - How the source will be used - How it compares to other sources - How they fit together.”

When I distinguished the subsections of my paper, I was able to start writing. I kept the scap piece of paper near to me as I wrote. When I wrote a sentence that fit a subsection, I moved the sentence into the appropriate subsection. This strategy worked well, as I was able to start writing my ideas down and I was therefore able to create helpful annotations. If the “Drafting Strategies” paper was alive, I would give it a hug of gratitude.

Question: 1. Have you used any of the drafting strategies to help you with your own final project? 2. If you have used the tips presented in the reading, were they helpful or not? Why?

__Wednesday, April 21, 2010__ Today, we had allocated part of the class to peer-review. I have focused this reflection on peer-review and its benefits to both the writing process in general and my own writing.

Peer-review serves a dual purpose, as both the writer and the reader benefit from the process. All of us consultants see peer-review in action as we spend time in the writing center, helping students generate ideas and revise papers. I have dedicated part of my life to revision, and this revision has molded me into a better writer. I have learned revision strategies that help me improve my writing process. But I often forget the other benefits of peer-revision because I spent massive amounts of time as the reader and little time allowing others to look at my own writing. When I am consulting, I am unable to instantly realize the benefits that the consultation sessions have towards my writing.

It was good for us to center our class around the idea of peer-revision to allow us to have the opportunity for us all to become the student writer. Because I spent time as the student writer, I was able to gain tangible evidence to support the theory of a writing center. Getting feedback on my assignment has engaged me with the text; I am able to learn discourse through the people who reviewed my paper. For example, when I had to justify several of my answers to Jillian (the reader in this situation), I realized that I was not writing in a clear way that was understandable to everyone.

The peer-review session was most helpful. I am glad that I was able to step into the shoes of the writer and see how sessions impact my writing in different ways.

Questions: 1. In what ways was the peer-review session helpful? 2. In what ways was the peer-review session limiting?

I agree with you about forgetting how helpful peer review sessions are. I had forgotten that too. I really found the peer review sessions to be just helpful. I did not find them to be limiting. I think in another class, peer review sessions may have been limiting since sometimes students do not want to peer review. They will do a lazy peer review, which is not helpful. In a class like ours, full of dedicated people who know about the writing process, peer review is excellent. The peer review sessions helped me realize that my summary sections were too short. I had gotten the idea from the Purdue OWL that summary sections can be short. If it had not been for my peer reviewers, I would have never realized I was not including enough information in my summaries.
 * Comments:**

The peer review sessions also helped me see my annotated bibliographies from a different perspective. My peer reviewers showed me new and better ways to format my annotated bibliography. They explained to me what my strengths were and what my weaknesses were. Those critiques are really helpful for me as a writer. I can use them in the future to help my writing grow.
 * -Michael McFarland**

__Tuesday, April 27, 2010__ Today is SURF day. After attending my friend’s presentation, I have dedicated some time to start working on my final project (mainly because all classes are cancelled today). I was having a hard time sitting still and focusing on my assignment, so I turned to the “Drafting Strategies” paper again, this time to help me focus on the assignment.

The sheet stated that I should begin by writing the most interesting part. I started to write wherever my thoughts came to mind, so, naturally, I started to write in the middle of the paper. The ideas started to turn into a summary, so I turned the middle bit of my paper into an introduction. I have decided that it will be beneficial for me to segment my editorial into smaller parts, and to do those parts in segments. I’ve also made a conscious decision to slow down my writing process, to take time and think about the things I’ve wrote and their rhetorical connotations before I move on. This will help me relate everything back to my over-arching thesis statement.

The opening paragraph for my article is complete; of course, I haven’t revised it yet, but my introductory ideas are on paper. I feel a lot more comfortable with the project. Despite the mass amounts of works I have to complete, I do not feel stressed. I am in a calm mood, namely because of the Drafting Strategies sheet.

Question: 1. What part did you start to write first: the beginning, middle, or the end? 2. What are some strategies that you use to remain on focus?

COMMENTS: I was working on a peice of writing today (not our final project) and after I got comfortably into the writing flow I realized that I had used some of the strategies on the Drafting Strategies sheet. First of all, I was having trouble with the opening so I just ignored it and jumped straight into the body of my paper, as the sheet advised us to do when we had trouble starting. Secondly, when I was stuck, I took a break and worked on something else for a while, and then I came back to it and was able to pick up and start writing again. That sheet definately knows what it is talking about. -Jillian

I love the strategy of starting to write at whichever part of the paper you want to. I don't do it with academic papers so much anymore, although freshman and sophomore year I used to do it all the time. Introductions used to be the death of me, so I skipped them completely, would write my entire paper and then go back and write the introduction as a revision basically. I don't do that anymore in academics, but in journalism it is one of my favorite techniques. The lede of the article (the first sentence) is the most important and takes the longest to write so I sometimes used to skip it for the sake of my rushed deadline. Then half way though I would feel inspired and I could then write it. It's an awesome technique. - Michelle Longo

//Wednesday, April 28, 2010 Responses// Jillian's Reflection (April 24, 2010) Kelly's Reflection (April 19, 2010)