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.