Directive and Facilitative Approaches: A Deeper Look

            I find the discussion of facilitative and directive modes of communication when consulting with students to be among the most interesting topics we have covered in the course. It seems that we have heard different things in the course, from different perspectives. Professor Dolson openly shared her stance during one class discussion during which she urged us to provide facilitate feedback whenever possible, for good reason. Facilitative feedback seems to make the writer think more; it also seems to give him or her more power and freedom with the writing. Professor Dolson once explained that although there may only be a fine distinction between the directive and facilitative feedback, it makes a significant impact. After this discussion, I was sold: facilitative all the time, every time.

            The concept became a bit more complicated, however, when Dr. Grove visited our class to discuss ESL students. Essentially, she said that when consulting with international students, it is best to explain about three topics – perhaps in grammar, in structure, etc. Beyond this, however, it is best to tell the student what is expected by American standards. Some students’ blog posts responded to this in a negative way, seeing as these international students are not given the creative freedom they very well may be prepared for. However, I tend to side with Dr. Grove in that these students should not be expected to make decisions between the conventional and the creative when they have not yet mastered the conventional. This caused me to think: Does this same principal apply to English native speakers? As students are of different writing capabilities, it seems that some are certainly more capable of creative experimenting than others.

            I now feel that it is best to approach a consultation with the intention of being as facilitative as possible. Simultaneously, I think we need to improve students’ writing in the most efficient way, which means that we cannot assist a student by only asking him or her questions. Directive commentary can be useful. I did further research on this subject, and found that some critics on the facilitative versus directive approach also adopt this sort of hybrid approach.

            Richard Leahy wrote an essay entitled “When a Writing Center Undertakes a Writing Fellows Program” which can be found here:

http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=5WMkQASlCh0C&oi=fnd&pg=PA71&dq=directive+and+facilitative+writing+center&ots=Ty7dccH8DO&sig=so4kQpzb0u6LbJPFonVn9D9IFGo#v=onepage&q=directive%20and%20facilitative%20writing%20center&f=false

In this article, he argues “directive techniques are not necessarily incompatible with tutoring” (Leahy 84). He cites a study by scholars Straub and Lunsford who reconsidered both “facilitative” and “directive,” breaking them down further “into twelve different modes” (85). He further argues that tutor or consultants “must learn to make judgments, or educated guesses, as to which modes are most likely to contribute to effective revision and student learning” (85).

            While we must be sure we are not “giving” the student too much, I think the adaptability Leahy suggests for a writing consultant is probably the most important quality to possess.       

             

College Essay, Round 2

     Yesterday, I had my second session consulting a high school senior's college essay. Fortunately, she came in with a well-written essay she was fairly confident about. At the beginning of the session, she told me she was most concerned with making the essay seem like it is at the college level. She mentioned vocabulary and organization. She also said her teacher gave her an "A" grade on the essay, but she still had some concerns about how it would be received by colleges. I thought this was quite interesting, as many students (especially high schoolers) place extreme emphasis on getting a good grade, and once that grade is received, they are satisfied.
     Overall, the session went extremely well. I did not know what to expect, because during the first session, my student had several doubts about what kind of work she would be able to produce. We went paragraph by paragraph, focusing mainly on ironing out her ideas. During one crucial part of her paper, she called herself an m&m in a bag of skittles and I asked her to explain. When she did (her essay was about sports and her personal growth as she began to play even though she was not the greatest player), she talked about cultural stereotypes and how she rebelled against them. Essentially, she was better at talking about what she actually wanted to say instead of writing about it. This showed me how important talking about one's writing really is. By the end of the session, I had written several comments on the student's paper - I pointed to a few errors, I asked questions, and I drew arrows (showing the student how the reader might follow her paper, versus how she expects him or her to). She seemed to feel motivated to make corrections and changes to her paper, especially as she feels the pressure from approaching due dates. By the end of the consultation, she was asking all the questions and even brought out another essay for me to quickly read before the hour was over.

The Boy's and Girl's Club: Round 2

     Today we made our second visit to the Boy's and Girl's Club. Rachel and I (yes, I am writing another blog post that includes her) had a new student to consult with. This time around, I found that Rachel and I were more natural around the student. I was brimming with happiness when Rachel told me I was not awkward. While perhaps we were better versed with introducing the idea of the digital story, talking about interviews, etc., etc., I found that our student was far more interested in the project and engaged with us. For example, she expressed interest in watching the digital stories we made for class. I was surprised in a good way when our student countered my "please we don't need to watch my video" speech (or maybe I was just being modest....) by saying "it's different" (compared with Rachel's). She saw, even after the limited experience of watching two digital stories, that the subject matter and approach to a digital story can vary greatly and one can use different angles to approach their desired topic. I was impressed.  
     Rachel and I also had our student formultate some questions of her own. She told us she was still waiting to receive the list of questions from the BGC. We used this as an advantage, telling our student it might be useful to have an idea of what she might like to focus on in mind. At first, she was frustrated and said she prefered to wait until she received the questions, rather than play along with our improvised exercise. "Uh-oh," I thought... awkward 15 minutes ahead. Fortunately, she became more confortable with the idea and threw out some great ideas of what her grandmother might share with her, what she could ask and focus on, etc. She told us that her grandmother likely finds that young people today are lucky compared with the difficulties she endured. I found this idea to be surprisingly perceptive for such a young student...I'm excited to see how the interview goes and what she is able to make out of her questions as well as the questions she is given.
     Overall, I found this consultation to be both thorough and effective. She seemed more comfortable with approaching the project (especially the interview portion) after she met and talked with us.

Critical Thoughts on Rachel Templeton's Consultation (Just Kidding)

     Today I met with Rachel, who consulted a paper I wrote for my Native American literatures class. It was an interesting experience, especially at this point in the class, when most of us have hopefully started to develop are own style to approach consultations for when we work in the writing center next semester. Rachel was great, and made several points and raised several questions that made me step back and consider my paper from a new angle. It really was useful. Simultaneously, I found this assignment useful because I was able to see a different approach (a least a potentially different approach to what I think my approach might be next semester) and how it worked. Rachel was fairly direct and asked lots of questions. She was sure to move the chairs closer together, made the consultation dialogue-based, and considered what I had to say very important. This is not at all a critique on her work. Nevertheless, I noticed how I would have done things a bit differently. I would have probably stated more clearly what I thought should be done. This takes us back to the facilitative vs. directive conversation, and yes, facilitative is far better. But sometimes, asking questions when answers are clearly desired are unnecessary in my view. Questions should be used to truly generate ideas, not to point out error when error can simply be pointed out by saying: ERROR! Maybe I'm being a bit dramatic here.
     In addition, I noticed how strongly personality makes a difference when approaching a consultation. Some of us might have to force ourselves to ask the student personal questions and to make small talk. I will likely have to stop myself from asking to many personal questions or gossiping about what happened last weekend at the lodges, etc. But seriously, personality plays an important role that can be used to our advantage. We can zone in on our area of expertise (or interest) which we are partial to based on our likes and dislikes while simultaneously being sure to hit all of the hot spots...asks some questions, do the consultation appropriately, be facilitative, etc. But the bottom line is that students come back to consultants because they like what they find....not every consultant is the same and for good reason. Beneficial diversity exists to support a diverse student body (yes, even here at Richmond).

ESL Rules, Different?

Dr. Nancy Grove's talk on Wednesday was very interesting, in my opinion. I thought it was so unusual when she introduced herself in Turkish (of course I had no idea what language this was until she told us), and I did in fact feel a bit confused, perhaps frustrated. Importantly, we were put on the side of the students who experience the language barrier they experience when coming to America from a foreign, non-English speaking country. Also, I thought that Dr. Grove's advice was interesting concerning the consultation itself. She seemed to recommend a process that is both facilitative and directive. While it is, of course, necessary to ask questions and be as facilitative as possible, it is simultaneously important to be sure not to overwhelm the student or have overly high expectations. And this made me think... Isn't this true for all students? We must maintain expectations that are reasonable and that are in line with a student's capabilities. Expecting that a foreign student will have the ability to select between options presented to him or her is unreasonable, because he or she does not have the experience necessary to explore new or non-conventional modes of writing. A starting point is necessary. But isn't the same true for everyone? I feel like the facilitative mode of consultancy is excellent, but it really is only useful on some important points. Sometimes, in my opinion, it is wise to tell a student: NO, that is not the best way to do things. Try it this way, and work it out like this. Of course, then the consultant will facilitate in other ways, offering the student options, asking questions, etc. Sometimes, it is simply obvious that a student has not mastered a writing skill. Thus, I do not think it is wise to allow or even encourage a student to veer off on a path when an experimental and probably more difficult writing tract will be used. The facilitative aspect of out jobs is most important, but I also think we must be sure students are working within an appropriate framework.

Form and Constriction

     Last night I shadowed an ESL graduate student who brought in two papers, one smaller critical analysis and a larger, more in-depth 5 - 6 page paper. While her papers presented fewer formalistic issues than did most of the other papers presented in consultations I have shadowed in the past, I noticed a few important things I thought I might blog about. For one, she told us the class for which she brought in papers to be consulted is her second English class at the university level. Unsurprisingly, she struggles with some of the basics such as grammar. She actually asked us several questions about common grammatical issues. We gave her some general thoughts and pointed her to writers' web, which ensures she will get the best help possible when she has a questions.
     The most surprising part of the consultation was when she told us she thought her essay had to be in 5 paragraph form. Apparently, her former instructor told her that was the way to go about writing. She then thought all essays had to be this way. I am sure her former professor had some motive to use this elementary form - perhaps to gauge his students' writing skills from the beginning or to allow students to begin writing in a highly-structured form. Nevertheless, I was intrigued by how one's definition of "what writing is" can shape one's arguments. Is the same true for thinking? Do we train ourselves to think in a specific way when thinking analytically or artistically or in whatever other way? If so, we may be constricting ourselves. The format of our arguments - whether they are written, spoken, presented digitally, etc - should not hinder us from thinking about the topic in a complete way due to our "product-based" mentality when considering academic work. With that said, I think we as writing consultants should be sure to encourage students to think about their topics in whatever way they feel suits them best, then later put their thoughts into the more constrictive containers assigned by their professors.

Digital Stories at the Boy's and Girl's Club

     At the BGC on Monday, Rachel and I met with a student and talked with her about the digital story project she has been assigned. In order to do so, we first made small talk and gauged her interest about the project. Later, we talked about the different components of the project....the interview and how she might conduct herself (and choosing a person for the interview), then writing a script, then recording her voice, then choosing pictures to go alone with her voice, then putting the two together, etc, etc. The list of what she had to do confused me, which is not surprising at all because I was confused the majority of the time I was either working on or thinking about the digital story I completed for the class. Essentially, I thought there were simply too many things to do for the students at the BGC, as I mentioned in class today. I think the purpose for the assignment is great. It seems to me that the people behind this work are attempting to emphasize the importance of local history and generational wisdom to help students gain a special or renewed perspective on their communities. However, I have to question if the structure of the project is fitting. I think the idea of an interview and even turning this interview into written or scripted form is also appropriate. During my consultation, I wondered if the students would have benefited from vaguer directions. For example, what if students were told to interview someone in their family, then present the information they found in a creative way? I think this might allow for students to gain the understanding that founds the purpose of this assignment better than a highly structured complicated project. Nevertheless, I think our role at the BGC remains effective, as we can offer mentoring on at least parts of the assignments, while students can benefit from our advice and direction.