In Chapter 3 of the Oxford Guide for Writing Tutors by Fitzgerald and Ianetta, we learnt that revision is not simply a matter of correcting surface-level errors. Writing is framed as a deeper engagement with a writer’s ideas, the structure of said ideas in annotative form, and the intent which fuels them. This reading frames writing revision is an ongoing, collaborative process and as such, the importance shifts away from grammatical issues and into the realm of self-reflection.
“Generally speaking, the bulk of the strategies that tutors use and scholars have described over the years, fall into two basic categories: conversation and reading”. Writing can be a deeply personal thing for some, and with enough empathy/self-reflection it becomes possible to anticipate how our writing affects others, how the writings of our peers affect us and how to effectively manage conflict in these interpersonal situations. In other words, Tutoring is a conversation, but “…it isn’t just any conversation.”
Conversations are the unit of measurement of relationships, and according to the reading : “…gestures, body posture, and other physical movements” play vital roles in tutoring sessions because they “show how people are engaged with each other and their environment, how they feel about each other, and how willingly they invite relationships.””
The Tutoring relationship is Asymmetrical, meaning the tutor, through the competition and selection process, is of a high enough status so as to ensure that the tutoring process remains Task oriented, and time bound.
“The most complicated difference between ordinary conversation and tutoring sessions is the educational nature of the latter.” Both the students and mentor are endeavoring in the process of becoming better writers. Some writers are more concerned with promotional writing, for some, the focus is creative writing, for others it’s journalism or technical writing. These objectives influence the style of writing that a student would want to assume, and subsequently, how the writing mentor is able to help them improve. Understanding these objectives enable us to promote an individual’s learning through a process referred to as scaffolding. There are two kinds of Scaffolding mentioned in the reading, Motivational and Cognitive Scaffolding.
Motivational scaffolding is focused on the affective dimensions of tutoring, how writers and tutors feel, and on “building rapport, solidarity, and trust” (Talk 5),
Cognitive scaffolding strategies support the intellectual work of the session by creating opportunities for writers to find their own solutions. The reading outlines seceral cognitive scaffolding techniques:
- Pumping
- Reading Aloud
- Responding as a Reader or a Listener
- Referring to a previous topic
- Forcing a choice
While utilizing Motivational and Cognitive scaffolding Techniques its important to remember that “Learning involves reconstructing “previously mastered knowledge and skills” and connecting it with “new knowledge and skills,” and it “occurs as students are challenged just beyond their current level of understanding”
In other words. The more you read, the better you get at structuring sentences. The more you write, the better you get at using sentences to craft a narrative. Writing mentorship therefore becomes a collaborative process in which both writers “Go Beyond Plus Ultra”. Understanding this state of affairs made me realize that: “Before going into a Synchronous Writing mentor session, I’m going to need some sort of plan written down. Having a plan, for me, makes my actions more deliberate and confident. No one needs to read the plan, except for maybe the instructor who supervises me or maybe the senior writing mentors who have been doing this a long time.”
The reading also advises that “tutors stay as close to the upper level of students’ current knowledge and performance ability as possible. If tutors pose questions or assign tasks that appear to be beyond what students are currently able to comprehend, they should circle back. If they pose questions or assign tasks that students can either easily answer or complete, they should ask more difficult questions and assign more difficult tasks on the next round” through and understanding of the students zone of proximal development (ZPD).
References:
Fitzgerald, L., & Ianetta, M. (n.d.). Revision (Chap. 3). In Oxford guide for writing tutors. Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License. https://wac.colostate.edu/books/oxford/chapter3.pdf
John Trimbur points out in his Essay, “ Peer Tutoring: A Contradiction in Terms?” That the assumption of writing center tutoring, as an exchange between equals, is not a forgone conclusion. The reading point out that “the structure of higher education inevitably positions tutors within a hierarchy—whether we acknowledge it or not.”
One item on the beginner writing mentorship agenda would be to hash out some sort of icebreaker, Tutoring is a conversation after all, and as Naomi pointed out in Perusall, it would help to actually listen to the students talk about their life and passions in order to achieve the best results. One possible substitute for doing this (in my mind) would be to engage with the discussions and become more acquainted with students in advance, then we could actually have something to talk about if the time comes for a synchronous workshop, which might make things a bit more fluid, efficacious and less awkward. My writing Mentor buddy checked in on me and disclosed that he was attempting to get into the discussions. After journalling a bit, I see the value in doing so, but without a plan, I don’t know that I want to. Creating interest, motivating students & promoting participation don’t seem like objectives I felt equipped to handle at that moment.
Another item on my beginner writing mentorship agenda would be to examine what my classmates have said about grades not being too important. While I disagree with the notion that grades aren’t important, I do agree that if I succeed in changing someone’s relationship with writing”, to being more positive, social and enjoyable then that definitely means more than any given letter grade for sure, but in a perfect world, said change also should result in a better grade. So if the relationship one has with writing is a more major determinant of whether one “gets an A” or not, and we agree that the goal is to focus on a tutees relationship with writing, then how are the grades not pertinent? The goal is still going to be “a letter grade improvement for the tutee” but the method for achieving this goal is achieved indirectly, through influencing said Tutee’s relationship with writing.
References:
Trimbur, John (1987) “Peer Tutoring: A Contradiction in Terms?,” Writing Center Journal: Vol. 7 : Iss. 2, Article 4. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7771/2832-9414.1118
There was a ‘rawer’ version here before, based on the feedback I got from John, I re-wrote portions of this Journal Entry until it was in its current form.
Leave a Reply