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.

Plan for Today at the Boys and Girls Club

     I do not have a rigid or very specific plan for today, and I think that's the way things should be. I plan to primarily serve as a resource for the student I am help. Hopefully, he or she will have some questions. If not, I will probably be able to determine which aspects of the project the student is concerned or stressed out about. Talking about stress in a productive way can be very helpful with a more laid back and relaxed person (me on most days). So my plan is to essentially be a friendly guy. Secondly, I will attempt to encourage the student by asking about his or her ideas about the oral history he or she would like to investigate...or what he or she has investigated in the case of some students. This is the most important part in my estimation. Making the intellectual portion of the process of making this project significant will allow students to gain the most in the long run, even if there electronic project is not the most high-tech. This will hopefully flow into a conversation about how the project will actually work. The creative process, that is. And of course, the technological aspects of the project can then be handled. To assist the student, showing him or her:
1. www.creativecommons.org
2. www.picnik.com
3. and how to filter pictures on http://www.google.com/ to only include licensed photos might allow for the student begin thinking about the pictures he or she might use.
Next, discussion of the script will be realized. This will include structure, creativity, etc. The program audacity will be mentioned and if appropriate at this time, will be explored hands-on.
Lastly, the program photostage will be explored with the student.

Some examples to show the student:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yyHYU2Nwyw "Vocabulary Digital Story" - lots of info presented, straightforward

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=soxiM-QD63E "Jack and Jill Digital Story Plot Map" - informative, presentation of information

How to Approach Conferences

     Last week, I had my essay draft reviewed by three students. It was interesting to be on the side of the person being reviewed. While I knew this essay was not my "best" work and I certainly left room for improvement, I felt myself surprisingly sensitive to the remarks of other students. I don't think this is because I had especial pride in the work (while the essay was important, it's not like I poured my heart and soul into this two-page essay). Instead, I think we are naturally prone to sensitivity when it comes to being reviewed, especially in a setting where there is so clearly one person being reviewed and one person reviewing. This idea of "power," by itself, helps shape conferences and also molds attitudes for the person being consulted. This is problematic because it has nothing to do with the person's writing, ideas, or writing process.
     To help alleviate some of the constrains imposed by the "power struggle" naturally presented by a writing conference, I think we should be sure to do all the things we talked about in class. Greet the student and make small talk, make a connection with him or her, and make recommendations in a facilitative way in which the writer is left with significant power over his or her work. In a word, be nice.

The Consultant's Role

     A few hours ago I had a shadowing session, which I found to be my most fulfilling thus far. The student brought in a work of creative nonfiction for her English 103 class. The ideas presented in the paper were fairly solid, in my opinion. She needed help with grammar and needed to be more specific in numerous ways. She seemed to take our advice well. However, at the end of the session, she was fairly honest with us and expressed that she was probably more stressed about the paper after leaving. I don't think she was motivated to write, but saw our comments and ideas for improvement as demands for additional work and time spent on a paper she probably doesn't care that much about. I imagine, for her, this paper and all the other assignments in the class need to be completed as well as possibly, but in the scheme of things, they are not that important for a person taking four science and math classes, and one English class. And if this is what she's thinking, I think she's correct. Writing is obviously important, but the style of writing that is demanded of her will probably not be needed to great extent in her life. Thus, as writing consultants, I think we should not only accept but embrace the students trying to "get through" the work. As an English major, when I approach a math or science class that is difficult for me, I don't need academic resentment from people who think these are the most important classes. I'm sure they are - for other students and professors. Embracing the array of academic interests and not promoting an agenda are necessary, in my estimation. We are helping students grapple with academic arguments, not pursuing to make the students we consult with love our subject.

Digital Stories

    Last week, we watched everyone's digital stories in class. I thought they were great. Everyone in the class produced a working product, in my estimation, that reflected a professor's writing process in an interesting way. Thus, my opinion of the assignment was admittedly heightened after seeing the final products. I especially enjoyed to see how people made an interview into a story. Most of the projects were fairly straightforward considering how they dealt with the narrative aspects of making the digital story, while others used a bit of creativity to convey the writing process in such a way. It was especially interesting to see which stories used special animation and / or music to enhance a particular aspect or concept they were attempting to convey. Based on class discussion, it seemed that the majority of the class wanted or expected to hear music or placed emphasis on using special effects or some other sort of technology. In my opinion, the stories that did not use these features were generally prepared equally well - they were simply different stories, which is a good thing; this variety further enhances understanding of both the logistical aspects of the assignment and encourages a deeper understanding of the writing process.
     In terms of tutoring students, I am a bit nervous in terms of teaching others how to use (or how to struggle with) technology, but I am fairly confident I can encourage students to develop ideas about their topic and translate these ideas into what might be realized in digital form.

Shadowing Tonight...

     So I just got done shadowing... AND writing a blog post, but it got deleted when I was spell checking. So this is blog post #2 for tonight's shadowing experience. Anyways, after waiting approx. 11 minutes for our student to arrive, we found a plethora of grammatical errors and instead of focusing on global issues, we had to point out individual grammatical errors. Yes, this runs the risk of creating a lazy writer who thinks he or she can book appointments at the writing center and have us "proofread," but at a certain point, we must consider what is in the best interest of the writer.
     This student was writing for an FYS, something to do with science. The writing reflected this, and I found this to be refreshing in a number of ways. It seemed like we didn't have to focus on the facts - we trusted that the writer of the paper was correct. With an English paper, it seems like the analysis is more prone to subjectivity and therefore us consultants must keep a watchful eye for weaker assertions. Then, we must let the writer down in the gentlest of ways...saying things like... "consider...." and "why don't you possibly think about maybe possibly slightly changing..." It's nice to be able to take a piece of writing at face value for once. To me, this demonstrated the bare bones of what it's like to be a consultant in terms of considering how writing functions and the messages being conveyed. But again, for this paper, we had to focus on grammatical issues, mostly.

Digital Story: Complete

     So I finally finished the digital story. It was... well, how should I say.... more of a pain than it needed to be? It was, in the end, not that bad. Some of the technology was frustrating when using it for the first time, and the project did involve a bit of work. However, in the end I found that it really only took a few hours of intense labor. Now honestly, my project is not that amazing...I really only focused on the narrative and finding photos that I thought enhanced the story. My issue is with how the project was presented to us in class. We heard about this for the first time in an email we got over the summer, before class even began. Later, the project would be mentioned once in a while, and really just sounded like a pile of work that lied ahead. Essentially, we as a class made too big of a deal on this assignment. It was not worthy of the stress I think a lot of us went through, mostly because there was probably more discussion about the project than time spent doing the project (and I'm not including learning about how to use the technology, etc. I mean time we spent talking about deadlines, points, etc.). To me, this just became excessive. We could have done this as effectively in two weeks.
     Anyways, I feel the experience of making a digital story, was, in all honesty, similar to making a powerpoint. It was indeed educational, but I wonder if we could have gotten more out of the assignment by writing a paper. I know we did the project in part to teach the technology to younger kids. But again, I wonder if they would gain more out of the experience of writing. Asserting that the advent of modern technology is important is a good thing - to say it can replace writing (as we are essentially saying, I think) runs a risky line. I think whatever one's technological capabilities are, the fundamentals remain most important - writing, that is. It's great if students from the city of Richmond can make digital stories. But i hope their writing is emphasized to a greater extent.
    On a final note, I have a quick question about the digital story, if any of you guys have the answer. Is the project worth 40 points (like it says on the main page of blackboard), or is it out of 100 (like the rubric indicates)?
 

Consulting with a Grad Student

     Yesterday, I had my first legitimate shadowing session (as last week there was some scheduling confusion). We worked in a study room in B2 in the library - which I thought was an appropriately intimate setting. I was a bit surprised when the student walked in - she was a graduate student, probably old enough to be my mother. I was a bit intimidated. I was even more intimidated when she told us the paper she brought in is one she plans to submit for publishing, if things go well, she says. Within moments, though, I was relaxed by her conversational attitude and relatable complaints and ideas about university curriculum. As we went through he paper, we mostly focused on grammatical errors and basic structural issues. Her professor had already gone over the paper and highlighted areas that needed to be considered for some formal aspect. Her research was clearly done with much attention, but likely because she may have been out of school for some time, her grammar was not completely correct. She was very receptive to all the recommendations we made. While Chris, the consultant I am shadowing,did most of the talking, I was told to "chime in" whenever I had something to add. The student was also very engaging to us both. After she left, Chris told me that graduate students must be treated a bit differently. They are here completely of their own volition, and therefore, what they want is essentially what Chris recommends we give them. Overall, it was a very rewarding experience.

Grammar, Language and Good Writing

     After reviewing Douglas Cazort's Under the Grammar Hammer and considering our discussion in class, I found that although I do not tend to make many grammatical errors, there are a few "common mistakes" I can more or less identify with making. Usually, my biggest problem with writing involves overly complex sentences and structures. One of my first professors here told me that as one of his professors once told him, I write like I "have three PhD's." And this, of course, is not a compliment. One important skill is the application of simplicity when your topic is simple, and complexity only when the topic or your thesis demands such a form of discourse. But anyways, back to grammar.... I chose #15: "vague pronoun reference" as my most frequent blunder. The example they give in the book is straightforward - using "which" or "that" instead of a more specific word such as "practice" or "function" or whatever. This weakens writing because it forces the reader to continually go back or at least to consider the surface level of what we are writing far more than what we might actually be trying to say. Nevertheless, we must be careful when replacing these words...if we replace them because we think we have to, we will likely choose a word that sounds good. In that case, I think "which" or "that" probably served a better purpose. We must know what we are writing about and use language to harness our ideas onto the paper; language, itself, cannot create ideas.

How IS this Class Going? FREEWRITE

     Currently, I feel this class is going fairly well. After commenting on a blog a moment ago, I have 50 points. Because I need (want) 80 points on the citizenship grade from blogging, I need 30 more. I think this is an attainable goal. I will have to be sure to blog and comment more frequently than I have during some weeks, but I don't think this will be too difficult all in all. Because I feel that I talk a good amount during class, I expect the 20 points for participation to be a fairly good grade.
    Overall, I feel this class is going well enough. We are following the syllabus as planned, with a few amendments as necessary. I am happy with the student feedback that has been allowed in this class, and the students seem to be willing and eager to share thoughts and ideas about how the logistics of the assignments for the course should work out. I am a bit nervous about the digital story. I have interviewed a professor with another student in the class, which went quite well and was very informative. Nevertheless, I am not the most computer-savvy person and I expect a large amount of stress to inundate me 72 hours or so before the due date.

The Waiting Center, I Mean the Writing Center

     I am currently sitting in the Writing Center, waiting. There are no students here for us to talk to or shadow, but even worse, there are no writing consultants. At first, we thought perhaps we were in the wrong place. We rechecked the signs and looked online to find that we are, in fact, waiting in the correct spot. I phoned a friend who knows the young man I am supposed to be shadowing. After receiving his number, I promptly made a phone call (unanswered) and sent a text (still unanswered). This is when our frustration grew.
     Emma, who is also waiting at the writing center with me, and I began talking about why might this be happening. Perhaps, she said, maybe no one came, and our consultants left with them. This is a bit strange, because I was just in the library and there are hoards of people feverishly preparing documents for classes this week (likely due by tomorrow at 9 AM). Is our school really that lazy? I for one do not think it is purely the product of laziness. At dinner today, I asked a table of my closest Richmond friends where the Writing Center is. I was pretty sure it was the third or fourth floor of Weinstein. . . but why look it up to verify when I have such knowledgeable friends? I shouldn't have bothered asking. Not one person at the table even knew WHERE to go to get help. This is an institutional problem. As Emma and I discussed, publicizing and advertising need to be amended. The best option we thought of was having a classroom-based consultant for as many freshman seminars as possible. In the meantime, I'll sit here in the writing center thinking of ways to maximize my limited Sunday night time until a student walks in.

Technology-Based Assignments: Alternative Work or More Work?

     Considering the work we've been doing this week, I've been thinking about the need for the implementation of technology in the classroom and in academic work. While it is obvious that technology can benefit students in a variety of ways, I admittedly enjoy the comfort associated with writing a paper or even taking a test. When using new technology to complete a project, I have found that these situation often create more all-nighters, cramming, stress, and frustration than do conventional assessments. I think this is primarily because the challenge of learning new technology demands time from busy students and teachers - time that very well could be taken away from producing a product requiring less introductory tutorials and appointments in a technology center. Furthermore, the idea of assigning a technology-based assignment assesses not only a student's conventional "intellect" but computer capabilities and creativity.
     While I hold these somewhat negative concerns when thinking about the technology-based assignment, I see the potential benefit as well. As we are a generation that thrives from up-to-the-minute detail and expect instantaneous and always-available information, it is important that we can use new technology as assigned in order to create a product that meets both the procedural requirements and embodies the formal conventionality (our ideas, concepts, and the presentation of such ideas) necessary in a paper or on a test. Essentially, I do not mind doing this kind of project because I remind myself I should be able to complete such a task. But nevertheless, I think that these types of assignments should be used with caution in classes outside of the field of pedagogy. Can a digital story really live up to an analytical paper? Can a podcast replace a test? Though I cannot give a definitive answer, I imagine the answer is no. These tasks require something different. They respond to the needs of modernity and require different skills, which we need, but not in place of the conventional abilities we as students are expected to master by the end of a liberal arts university education.

The Role of the Writing Consultant

     Considering our class discussion last week, I have thought quite a bit about the specific role of the writing consultant in the context of working in the university environment. Without doubt, the role is complicated by the fact that the consultant is working with the paper, the writer, and the professor of the assigned work. These three (four counting the consultant) "co-workers" can seem to function as team members or have varying interests, which puts additional pressure on the consultant.
     As voiced during class, I feel the use of professorial write-ups to detail the session between consultant and student are a bit limiting for the dialogue between the student being assisted and the assisting party. From the standpoint that we are "peer reviewers," it seems that the threat of telling the professor what the student might say about a class or an assignment that may be unflattering (most students have some such criticisms), censors him or her a great extent. Nevertheless, because we must avoid plagiarism or any semblance of cheating, and because we must recognize the higher authority, limitations must be recognized. I believe that while these limitations might be tedious or seem to curtail our interests, they are certainly not devastating to what our goals must be. Primarily, we must keep in mind that we are consulting with the writer, not the paper. When this level of personality and dialogue are allowed, it seems to me, improvement is most facilitated.
     Considering the complex goals of writing consultants, then, I think we must each consider our individual goals after internalizing the common goal to improve student's writing in a conceptual way. As there is no one perfect writer, there is no one perfect writing consultant. Most importantly, we must respect the goals of the student. If he or she wants an "A," we should be able to help him or her get there. But hopefully, along the way, we can demonstrate and improve a skill more important than what can be evaluated on a grading rubric.

My First "Real" Consultation

     Today was our first person-to-person consultation, which fortunately went pretty well. Before meeting the student I was to work with, I was admittedly a bit nervous that I would run out of things to talk about with him or her. Or maybe his or her ideas would be so off track I would have to tell the student to rethink their topic, causing a possible blow to his or her confidence. Or even worse, maybe the student's ideas and writing would be so good I would have little to advise them on, causing a similar blow to my confidence. Anyhow, I had a student who was quite receptive to the topic of college in general, as I know most college-bound high school seniors are quite interested in their suspected upcoming burst of freedom. She or he was also fairly excited about writing the college essay, unless she or he was doing quite a good job faking. This tells me he'll or she'll either do well in college or be able to "bullshit" her or his way through with ease. She or he was, however, noticeably a bit nervous. She or he asked my advice on a few procedural issues of the application process, but her or his questions centered on how she or he should present herself or himself in the written form. I thought this was a very interesting question, and told her or him the college essay is about showcasing oneself in a positive way; however, we do not want to sound as if we're bragging to the extent of pompousness or arrogance.
     I began my session with the student by asking her or him some basic information, just to make the conversation seem more informal and friendly. I also was sure to use one of my token phrases: "no pressure," throughout our conversation. I felt that my job as a consultant could really only take shape when a dialogue is realized. Thus, I wanted to make sure she or he was at least as equally comfortable as me to partake in the discussion and share only what she or he felt comfortable with. She or he turned out to be very comfortable sharing one of his or her personal stories. She or he was most interested in "the Richmond question," which essentially asks one to describe a time they left their comfort zone. She or he had a great story about a time she or he went to Mexico alone, meeting family she or he had little to no former contact with. She or he encountered familial and cultural differences which ultimately taught him or her the need to express himself or herself more fully and explicitly. I thought there was great potential here to answer the question well. I told her or him to make sure she or he effectively conveys what she or he gained through her or his experiences in Mexico and upon returning to Richmond. To prepare her or him for this writing, I had her or him perform two three-minute free-writes. One, for how she or he might begin the essay (which she or he had a bit more trouble with) and one for how she or he might conclude. I thought these two sections were so important for her or him, especially in the context of the college essay, because these are the sections the admissions officers will most likely remember her or him by.
     I left my contact information with the student and promised to answer any questions he or she might have during the process of writing the essay. I told her or him I hoped the session we had together helped, and she or he seemed to react positively. I think the dialogue, more than anything else, helped her or him feel more comfortable about starting a college essay. One of her or his major concerns was that she or he did not really "reflect" on life the way she or he was asked to this morning or the way she or he is being asked to by the applications he or she is filling out. The process of writing the college essay, which hopefully include her or his meeting with me today, will help her or him transition to a more reflective style of writing which he or she may find useful in college.

Excitement About Writing

     One of the things I've been thinking about since last class, considering both our guest speakers and the reading we did for Monday is the need for interest in one's writing. When one of our speakers was talking about writing in general, explaining the process of issuing writing assignments, she mentioned the professorial goal of "finding a way to care about the topic through a writing assignment." I thought this unveiled a truth (or at the very least what should be true in an ideal situation) about writing assignments that we as a class have not yet talked about explicitly. When I think about interest and writing, I often think about things that actually interest me, which usually means it is not a part of a class writing assignment. I have taken classes at U of R that I thought might be a little boring (but the time slot was perfect, or I needed to get the prerequisite out of the way, whatever). I have found that in these classes (Western literature, for example), I became interested in the topic only after I was forced to generate a new idea about the material. This is, of course, through the process of writing. Thus, it is important to be excited about what we write (because what we have to say is original, interesting, proves something new, etc.), but also, writing itself can facilitate excitement and interest in a topic we may have previously considered "boring."
      I plan to keep this in mind this Saturday when we as a class tutor Richmond high school students for their college essays. It is of prime importance that the students care about what they are saying. And if they do not, they can begin by writing (an early draft) and see what interest might come.

Composition Theory or Genre Theory?

     Based on last week's discussions, I now find that composition theory and genre theory are intrinsically and permanently linked. Essentially, ideas about our writing (or the writing of others) and ideas about classifying and subdividing our writing coexists. We cannot really think about one without thinking about the other.
     Our discussion of the "Bullshit" article demonstrates this well. The importance of the audience (also highlighted with the "rhetorical triangle" emphasized in class) is crucial. The relationship between the writing and the audience is basically as important as the information being presented, whether argumentative or explicative. When considering "what is good writing?" we must also consider "what genre is this?" and "who is this written for?" among other important questions. One particular class moment spurred this idea. We talked about the essay form, and Professor Dolson asked something to the effect of "What is an essay?" The expected responses ensued: ideas about a thesis and supporting evidence were pointed out by students. I began thinking about essays, and I found this to be true, until I thought of a creative writing class I took last semester. We read and wrote creative nonfiction essays, which do not have a thesis per say or supporting evidence, in the quotable form. Personal experience and reflection replace the accepted conventions of academic essays. Nevertheless, the academic community considers these works essays (as do I), because they demonstrate a sort of insight that has been gathered through study and experience. This points out both the difficulty of assessing "What is good writing?" and suggests the importance of implementing genre-specific criteria when gauging the success of a work of writing, making our job all the more difficult.

The "Bullshit" Article

     Apart from reacting to the fairly revolutionary article title: "A Kind Word for Bullshit: The Problem of Academic Writing," I thought Eubanks and Schaeffer made several interesting points regarding the process of writing. Foremost, I found it interesting how much time was spent meditating on the idea of "what bullshit is - or, better yet, a more precise understanding of how what bullshit is varies." I found this to be as satisfying as most students might - it may be refreshing to hear a professional seem to make a condescending realization, even better when in layman's terms. However, the style of text limited the capacity for argument, in my opinion. The need for a degree of possible dishonesty or ill virtue for the promotion of individual education and development, what this article essentially arguing, is somewhat lost in what seems to be an exerted attempt to make this article relevant, by style more than content.
     In spite of my aforementioned critique, I found some of the ideas presented to be refreshing and unique. "Bullshit may be both unavoidable and beneficial." This is perhaps true, especially in terms of learning to write. At least with my personal experience, we are trained to form a strong argument and pull all the evidence we can to support this central idea. When we walk away from the essay, our idea - what we have written - may be unsupportive of our own views regardless of how well the piece was written. This idea surfaced in the article as well. A couple of pages into the article, the authors declare: "If academic writing is bullshit, then bullshit is what we teach." To me, this rings to be needfully true. Before we can teach students (and ourselves) to express what is truly felt by means of writing, we must first teach (and learn) how to express (how to write). Thus, we need practice. We must choose a side and defend it using all possible resources. This will teach us how to argue, how to write, and hopefully, how to think.