In any writing center newsletters I have read, I keep hearing about North’s notion that the writing center strives to produce better writer not better paper. It is not that I don’t like that idea; in fact, I would love to see my clients coming out of the session learning something about writing rather than just having their paper improved. The thing is, as Matthew Ortoleva pointed out in “Centering the Writer or Centering the Text A Meditation on a Shifting Practice in the Writing Center Consultation”, student writers usually come to the center with an aim to improve their paper. Thus it is our job, the consultant, to inform them that we are here to help them become better writer and that their papers are not necessarily to be perfected. I also think our writing center should do something more to inform students about the idea of the writing center.

Matthew Ortoleva raised two good questions on practice in writing center’s tutorial: “Where should the consultant’s focus be during a consultation—on the writer or on the text? When is it time to move to a more directive approach to writing consultation?” Many consultants including me probably find ourselves ask that same questions. Upon completing any tutorial, I kept asking myself if I had been writer-centered with that client or not. Sometimes, I found myself focus more on the text than on the writer. However, I think whether a tutorial is text center or writer center, it depends on individual needs. There are some writers who are already good writers themselves; they just need someone to assure them that their papers are okay. I have worked with that type of clients and I thought I used the text-centered approach with that client and it seemed to work well, as least to some extent.

I think Ortoleva is right in the sense that “working with a student from an unfamiliar discipline necessitated a writer-centered approach”. It is probably because we are not familiar with the convention and discourse of that discipline. I found the example about his session with Samantha very useful. He asked questions like “What does the assignment call for? Why this arrangement? Is this the only way to organize this essay, or is there another?” I think we can also use this strategy with client from the same or similar discipline as ours so as to avoid being directive in our session. But what if the student is not sure about the assignment him/herself? What if s/he does not even know how to organize that essay? Would we end up suggesting student writer ways to organize their essay or what to do on the assignment? And is it a bad idea if we do so? In fact, I have worked with some students who were not sure how to organize their thoughts and ideas. What I did was suggesting some ways to do it, but by doing so did it mean that I was preventing them from creative thinking?

Now that we are nearly to the end of the semester, we have read and discussed lots about various tutoring approaches practiced in the writing center such as directive and non-directive, the minimalist tutoring, editing line-by-line, assimilationist, accommodationist,…etc. Whether a tutorial session is successful or not depends on tutor’s flexibility in choosing what to do to suit the need of that particular client.

Actually, I am really impressed by how people with disabilities in developed countries are given so much opportunity. For example, here at USI, one can always find facilities designed especially for people with mobile disabilities, such as parking lots, restrooms, Braille on every door,… etc. It is not the same in my country, Cambodia, probably because we are still on our way to development so people with disabilities of any form are given little concern. It is the same with student who is experiencing learning disabilities. In fact, I have never met any LD students before, and probably I can’t even tell if a student has learning disability and he/she might opt not to tell me about his/her problem. Thus, I cannot imagine myself working with them. I don’t mean to discriminate, but the idea just scares me off. I understand that just as ESL writers, LDs need tutor to have an emphatic understanding for them. Writing consultant needs to understand that they need to provide specific assistant to dyslexic, spatially or visually impaired students.

I like Julie Neff’s idea in “Learning Disabilities and the Writing Center” that, to accommodate students with learning disabilities, the writing center may need to change the normal rules and policies and a different kind of training for staff is also necessary. Because every student has right to use all the services and it is also the responsibility of the center to help them succeed (248). Unfortunately, many of the tutoring techniques that we commonly use are not applicable with students with learning disabilities (244). For instance, freewriting, considered as “a way to create knowledge” by others, makes LD students even more frustrated. So tutor is suggested to take the lead in directing the conversation and jotting down what the tutee has to say. I like the accompanying scene between writing consultant and David who has learning disabilities because it gives me an idea on how to approach LD myself. But what I do not seem to understand is what type of learning disability David is having, because, from the dialogue, he sounds just normal to me. And the way tutor is using to work with him is just the type I usually does with my clients. So I don’t see the difference. Or am I taking the wrong road with other students all along?

If the writing center is to help any student, then non-traditional student is sure to be included also. They may be experiencing “a feeling of displacement” or having difficulties adapting the transition of going back to school at such age. In fact, I have a non-traditional student as a client few weeks ago. She was not “thirty-something” but “forty-something” student. I enjoyed the session with her because she was probably one of the most collaborative students I have met. We were just working on the editing stage, but there were lots of funny debates about grammar and punctuation throughout the session. She was aware all the editing and revising techniques like reading out loud, etc. She understood lots of grammar rules and usually demanded explanations when I suggested that she needed a comma or semi colon, for example. I was glad and lucky to have worked with her. After all, I was not aware of any “unique need” this non-traditional want because she was a wonderful student. Age difference did not seem to bother any of us.

In my college, many of the professors are either educated in Australia or America or other English speaking countries. Thus, there is no doubt that I am somewhat influenced by “western” way of composition. Of course, I like to make my main ideas right across the audience, but at the same time, my writing style is also influenced by Cambodian culture of being poetic. We like to go around a topic a little bit before hitting the topic. If chance given, I prefer not to rush into thing, talking about thing in general but relevant to the topic also. Just like the Columbian student in the video Writing Across border, we like to establish a relationship with my reader through my introductory paragraph. I was surprised when Toby Fulwiler, in Provocative Revision, said “generalization is death to good writing. Limiting is the cure to generality” (157). Because that is what I usually do by starting to talk about thing in general before hitting the main idea.

Since we are writing to suit in American discourse, when noticing cultural preferences in my client’s writing, I would just tell them the expectation American people have on the written assignment. However, I have to admit that I am not really sure about western way of writing either. I have helped a girl from Mexico before. Her writing preference is just like other non-American way of composition—talking around the topic without any clear statement of purpose. She did not hit right at the topic, not until the end. So what I did was telling her about American style of academic writing, that here professors just like to see their students quickly tell what they think. She said she also realized that, but she was not just comfortable adapting going so direct. So we decided to make a compromise between “western” and her way of composition. I decided to help making her ideas as clear as possible without crossing out that introductory part but trying to connect it to her next ideas instead. Just today, she showed me the grade she got for that paper. It was not bad since it was just 5 points to full score, and she was happy with the result. I read the evaluation rubric; she still had problem stating the statement of purpose. I wonder if she would get better score if we crossed that introductory part out and just hit right at the topic at the beginning.

Apart from linguistic and, to some extent, cultural barriers, what are other differences between NES and ESL students using the Writing Center? What is it about the Writing Center that NES knows while ESL does not know? I have asked my American roommate what she knows about the writing center, and her answer is no different from my other non-American friend that Writing Center is where they get their grammar checked. They have the same “fix-it workshop” misconception about the Writing Center, but why the way authors in our class reading create an impression that ESL writers are somehow weaker or not-so-confident than their NES counterparts? Is it only ESL students who feel “intimidated”, fear of “being judged”, worry about “taking risk”, or are “unfamiliar with the assignment” when getting started? (Bruce 33). As an ESL writer, I somehow feel that many native speakers look upon us, ESL students, as inferior, at least in writing. This is particularly the case when I work with American students at the Writing Center.

Anyway, I found these week reading particularly interesting especially the part about reading ESL text. Shanti Bruce said that getting a tutorial start is one of the hardest jobs and I have to agree with her. I usually find it awkward at first talking to client at the Writing Center. Sometimes, I do not understand what the client really wants until after few minutes talking to him/her. But once, the tutorial get started, thing is fine as time goes on. Bruce stresses that making plan at the beginning of the tutorial is important because not does it reduce student’s anxiety but also foster a share of responsibility between tutor and writer (34). Planning thus helps to use our time effectively. Though I know about and agree with this so-called “Western” way of working, I don’t usually follow this step when working with client. Oftentimes, clients would just tell me what their concerns are and I jump right to working on it. It is probably why my sessions sometimes start with lots confusions between me and clients. I think I will have to focus on planning, though awkward as it may, because I do not want my clients to spend their time going nowhere.

The next article, co-written by Matsuda and Cox, relates three major stances on how to approach ESL writer’s text. The assimilationist try to make ESL’s text sound as native as possible by focusing on language usage, wordings, etc. Seeing the differences as “deficiencies”, an assimilationist corrects every error or word he/she finds unfamiliar or weird (45). The accommodationist aims to make the writers aware of the differences but not necessarily to change those differences. It depends on the extent to which an ESL writer wants his/her paper to sound “native” (45). The last one—separatist—emphasizes more on the cultural aspect of the text rather than the language itself. It is funny when it comes to which stance I should adapt because I am not a native speaker myself, so there is no way that I can create a native-like version of student’s paper like the assimilationist. That leaves the accommodationist and separatist. The former is a pretty good option because it’s up to the writer to decide. But it reminded me of the time when I joined a workshop on speaking and pronunciation at my home university. When asked how many students wanted to speak like the native speaker of English, almost all of us raised our hand. Then our speaker who was a Norwegian native in English said if she could, she would love to keep her English accent as a Norwegian. Thus I wonder if by being able to write like a native writer, using the same idiomatic expressions as the native writer usually does, an ESL writer loses his/her ethnical identity or not.

The last thing I want to comment on is the part about tutor showing too much interest on ESL culture. Matsuda and Cox said “…readers of ESL texts can get distracted by their own curiosity about certain details…they can also lead the tutor away from the writer’s goals and more toward their own goals, which could include asking the writer about their cultures or experiences, leading the reader to become more a tourist than a tutor” (49). Just today, a Chinese student who I helped with his personal statement applying for a program told me that he also brought his paper earlier that morning. But the tutor showed too much interest in his culture that he did not get much from that session. That's why he decided to visit the center again at noon. I was very happy working with this student because I was able to apply those theories we learnt in class in the session. I shared my experience on writing personal statement for my exchange program application. Together, we brainstormed the ideas and planned what to write. After the session, he asked for my schedule and said he would bring his draft back for me to comment. I am excited about this though I am kind of afraid that I might jeopardize his chance of getting admitted to the program.

References:

Bruce, Shanti. “Breaking Ice and Setting Goals.” ESL Writers: A Guide for Writing Center Tutors. 2nd ed. Eds. Shanti Bruce and Ben Rafoth. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 2009. 33-41.

Matsuda, Paul Kei and Michelle Cox. "Reading an ESL Writer's Text." ESL Writers: A Guide for Writing Center Tutors. 2nd ed. Eds. Shanti Bruce and Ben Rafoth. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 2009. 42-50.

This week reading is all about ESL writers: their characteristics, difficulties in language learning, and stuffs like that. There are some points that I find particularly interesting.

Ilona Leki said, in Before the Conversation: A Sketch of Some Possible Backgrounds, Experiences, and Attitudes Among ESL Students Visiting a Writing Center, writing tutors at the center might feel “less confident of their own ability to respond to the writing of L2 students than they feel in their dealings with domestic students, whose strongest language is English and with whom they likely share more of their cultural, education, linguistic, and literacy background” (1). Well, I feel the opposite given to the fact that English is not my native language. At the writing center, I feel reluctant to help when an American brings in his/her paper. I know it is not good to appear unconfident or not-so-confident in front of your client, but I can’t help. For me, I can understand ESL text better than NES one. Generally, NES text has lots of idiomatic expressions. From what I have read so far, I think ESL writers follow some types of grammar rules, though they may have used them incorrectly. In contrast, I feel that American students, at least some freshman, construct sentences based on their intuition or how they would say it orally. They use many informal words, some of which are sometimes considered non-academic in my country. After all, my assumption is based on several examinations of ESL and NES texts only.

So far, I have only worked with 4 students, 3 of which were American. My first client was an American freshman. Her paper was an argumentative essay. I had to read it twice before I could finally grasp what she was writing about. It was rather confusing at first as I was not sure on how to start. But thing finally went okay as we worked through the paper. I suggested some points to make her argument stronger. My second client was a part-time middle-aged student. Her paper was very organized so I found it pretty easy to comprehend what she was trying to convey in her paper. I helped her with the punctuation. My approach was all against the minimalist tutoring. I just pointed out where I thought there was an error; however, the good thing was that the client would not just agree with me. There were some points that we disagreed with each other. I would try to reason my idea and so did she. Sometimes, we didn’t reach an agreement so she just left marks with that items for further discussion with her professor. I enjoyed talking with her but I did not know if she felt the same way.

Interestingly, I got chance to work with a student from Mexico today. In fact, she was my closed friend, thus the atmosphere was less professional. With this student, I got lots of chance to experiment those theories we discussed in class. When working on mechanical problems, I think the non-directive approach probably wouldn’t work with ESL students because it is difficult for them to find their own mistakes. As Theresa Jinling Tseng said international students do not possess “native English speakers intuition about what sounds right”. “They need corrections that are pointed out explicitly for the problems that they cannot fall back on their own intuitions to fix” (23). On the other hand, I used lots of non-directive strategies when it came to the development of ideas and organization of her paper. I made her explain what message she was trying to convey. Then we would read her written work together. Upon spotting something not clear enough, I would make her explain me more about her ideas. Then I just let her work on elaborating those parts herself, with some occasional interventions from me. After the session, she said that she liked working with me better because with the tutor she previously got help from just helped her “fix the mechanical problems” while I helped more with the development and organization of her ideas. Hopefully, I am on the right path.

Work Cited:
Leki, Ilona. "Before the Conversation: A Sketch of Some Possible Backgrounds, Experiences, and Attitudes Among ESL Students Visiting a Writing Center." ESL Writers: A Guide for Writing Center Tutors. 2nd ed. Eds. Shanti Bruce and Ben Rafoth. Boynton/Cook: Portsmouth, NH, 2009. 1-17.

Tseng, Theresa Jiinling. “Theoretical Perspecitves on Learning a Second Language”. ESL Writers: A Guide for Writing Center Tutors. 2nd ed. Eds. Shanti Bruce and Ben Rafoth. Boynton/Cook: Portsmouth, NH, 2009. 18-32

Captain Ironic

Super-tutor. The word “super” just gives me a feeling that such tutor will never exist. I don’t think there is any tutor who has super power, able to overcome all the challenges like those superhero in Hollywood movies. But if you count the power of flexibility, ability to be supportive yet patient, multiculturalism, strong writing skills and lots of writing strategies super powers, then Captain Ironic sure is a super tutor, though I would say those 5 powers he possesses are ordinary and any tutor can achieve that, with effort and willingness.

Captain Ironic is supportive yet patience. This is one of the most fundamental traits a tutor should have; otherwise, students would be scared away for sure. Captain Ironic would encourage his client to keep on no matter what, and he would listen to what client has to say, without being judgmental. He is also flexible. He knows that every student is unique, so is every tutorial. He models his tutoring strategies according to the level of education, personality, academic and social background of his client. Moreover, Captain Ironic possess strong writing skills and knows lots of writing strategies. Not only does he use these writing skills to improve student’s paper, but also as a role model for students to apply to their paper in the future. Last but not least, Captain Ironic is a multi-culturist. He has a great command of understanding of other cultures. He can identify barriers student from other countries confront when writing their paper. He understands that when an international student brings in his/her paper, s/he also brings in his/her culture.

Unlike other superpower, the 5 aforementioned powers Captain Ironic possesses are not naturally born; they are collected, developed and utilized. With constant practice, anyone can have those powers.

Toward the end of the first part of The St’s Martin Sourcebook for Writing Tutors, Murphy and Sherwood wrote, in “On Becoming an Effective Tutor” that “we believe that assisting others is best achieved in an informed practice that blends experience, theory and reflection” (24). At this point, I kept asking myself “Am I ready to be a tutor?”; I flipped through the course syllable, wondering how far I have made it through this course, how much time left before I have to go into the real battle, to be on my own as a tutor at the writing center. That was scary, I admitted.

I reflected on my own qualifications: experience? Well, many people say I’ll be okay because I used to be an ESL learner myself, so I probably might be able to help other ESL learners since I have been struggling to learn English composition, just like them. Still, the thought of me as a writing consultant is scary because sometimes I find it hard to find the right words to communicate with others, especially native speakers of English. Also, having been spent some time observing tutorials at the Writing Center, I come to the conclusion that there is no fixed rule/theory about tutoring. Writing consultant needs to be flexible because all writers are unique in their own way so does all tutors. How about theory? Well, I browsed through the book again, trying to recall what I have learnt from those essay and in-class discussions. In North’s The Idea of a Writing Center, he argued that writing center is not a fix-it workshop. That is the center does more than just deal with English usage and punctuation. Lunsford called for collaborative environment in the writing center while Murphy compared tutors to psychotherapies and clients to those who come “hurt” and need to be addressed with “unconditional positive regard”. The latter ideology aroused quite a great deal of criticism from my classmates. The philosophy of Minimalist Tutoring, advocated by Brooks, is to avoid being proofreader/editor as much as possible. Nonetheless, what I found interesting the most is the one written by Anne Dipardo. In her essay—“Whispers of Coming and Going”: Lessons from Fannie, Dipardo analyzed tutorial sessions between a tutor, Morgan, and Fannie, a Native American student. I like this essay because it prompts me to be culturally sensitive because not many people share similar way of life with me, so I need to be cautious when tutoring.

This week readings are about censorship and student’s paper revision. The former one about censorship particularly intrigues me. The author, Steve Sherwood, discussed whether tutors should censor writer’s ideas that are perceived as “sexist or racist” statements or that endorse “particular political causes” or ideas that offend others. It is undecided which option tutors can do because censoring students would mean limiting their development and expression of ideas. Worse, by censoring, tutors are exercising “oppressive authority” over students. Nevertheless, without censorship on harmful ideas, tutors lose the chance of reforming ideas that are considers “hate speech”. According to Rodney A. Smolla, it is our obligation to act against “hate speech” which he described as “an abomination, a rape of human dignity” (qtq. in Sherwood, 134).

But what is that that we perceive as “a rape of human dignity”? Sherwood’s experience with the student who was probably using “sexist” ideas against women reminds me of some beliefs in my country. Actually, lots of men (and women) in my country share similar belief. However, culturally, it is not viewed as a discrimination against women; rather it is an honor for them. Perhaps, something we consider bad in our country does not mean the same in others (e.g female circumcision). Again, I’m not a supporter of any “sexist or racist” type of thing. What I want to say here is that, by trying to reform things we consider immoral or heretical, are we not trying to reform their cultural belief as well? According to Freed, “if we are intervening in student’s ideas and opinions because they offend our sensibilities or run afoul of our political agendas, then such intervention is probably not ethical and many amount to censorhip” (qtq. in Sherwood 133). I think the least we can do is to convince those writers to express their argument in a respectful manner. As Sherwood suggested, “in deciding whether to urge self-censorship, we must balance the harm students’ words might do, to themselves and their audiences, against our respect for their right to hold and express even the most aberrant of opinion” (136).

Reflection 3: Proofreader and Tutor

In “Minimalist Tutoring: Making the Student Do All the Work”, Jeff Brooks argues that writing center’s consultants should involve as little as possible in editing student’s paper. Instead, they should adapt the role as a “non-editing tutor”. Tutors who merely edit student’s paper are not tutor, but editor. To avoid such situation, Brooks suggests three approaches of “Minimalist Tutoring”: the basic, advanced and defensive (170-173).

I somehow agree with the student-centered “philosophy of minimalist tutoring” advocated by Brooks, because the goal of the writing center is to help students with their writing skills not with their paper. I think that it is academically unethical for tutors to assert their words, sentence structures in student’s paper because it is the student who has to earn the grade not the tutor. Tutors cannot just be satisfied because their clients earn an A for the paper that tutors themselves in some way have some influence on. Still, I occasionally see such thing happen at USI writing center.

Indeed, there is some situations in which tutor cannot avoid falling in the trap of being an editor. For instance, yesterday as I was observing in the writing center, such situation happened. A freshman rushed in to get his paper edited, but the paper was due in less than an hour and he also needed some time to print his paper. How on earth can a tutor work on a paper without adapting the “directive approach” of tutoring? Or should we leave him deal with it on his own? What should we do? Some students, even if they have plenty of time, wouldn’t just cooperate. They would just be eager to finish their paper as fast as possible, no matter what tutors do with it. Some of them are told to come to the center by their professor to fix their “mechanical problems.” If this is the case, what should we do? Can we just tell them that we are not a proofreader as defensive minimalist tutoring suggest?

I have also talked to a tutor about that at the writing center. He said there are two approaches of tutoring: the directive and non-directive. In the directive approach, we just merely point out where the mistake is, and how to correct them. If time permits, which usually does not, we can explain why that particular part is not correct and why the alternative is better. Non-directive approach, in contrast, is more suitable when both tutor and writer have enough time. Tutors do not just tell where the mistakes are; instead, students are encouraged to think and evaluate their writing by themselves. Upon spotting a mistake or something wrong, tutors might ask questions that lead students to find their own mistakes and help them to reflectively revise their own writing. “What do you mean by this?” is one example of those leading questions.

Maybe, tutors cannot use the strategies of minimalist tutoring all the time; there might be some other occasions in which we are forced to be an editor or proofreader. If we do not want to, we might just say, as Brooks suggested, “I don’t know—it’s your paper.” Or “I can’t tell you that—it’s your grade, not mine.” (172). After all, the less our involvement in student’s paper, the better.

References:

Brooks, Jeff. “Minimalist Tutoring: Making the Student Do All the Work.” The St. Martin’s

Sourcebook for Tutors, 3rd ed. Ed. Christina Murphy and Steve Sherwood. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008. 168-173.

My during-class thought

Guess what? I was surprised by my ENG 490 classmates’ and Dr. Hawkins’s reaction to Murphy’s reference to tutor as psychotherapist and writer as client who is “hurt”. I mean I did not agree with Murphy that all students coming to the center are all “hurt” or having suffered from some kind of “writer’s block or a high degree of inhibiting anxiety associated with the process of producing writing that will be evaluated by others.” They might simply just want someone to talk about or proofread their essay (like I do). Nonetheless, I have no strong reaction in this assertion either. I think she is right in the way that in order for students to be willing to collaborate with us, we tutors somehow need to adapt that soft strategy of the psychotherapist (being curious, emphatic, eager to help, etc). But does Murphy really mean to consider a writing center’s consultant as a therapy?

During the whole session last Wednesday, I kept asking myself: If I were a tutor (FYI, I have not done any tutoring session with anyone yet), who would I regard my client as? Then the word friend immediately popped in. I don’t know if other consultants feel the same way or if my brain works differently from others but I do like imagining myself with my client chatting about the paper together as a friend. My client/friend would be telling me about his/her assignment and I was having a deep interest in what my friend/client was saying. Or I was just digging out (not prying) their past experiences or opinion. Do you feel the same way? Or am I fantasizing thing about being a tutor?

But then another question came to my mind: What if my client did not want to be friend with me? Then I thought “so why the hell they come here (the writing center)?” “Well, it’s not a good of me to be out of temper like that. Maybe they haven’t seen the benefits of having someone to talk about their papers. So as a tutor I need to show them that, no matter what. At least, it would be an opportunity to learn to bring someone who is not interested to talk to get into talking, though it might be frustrating or unsuccessful sometimes.” I settled.

After all, I am not sure if this is the right way to deal with such situation. Given to the fact that I am from a totally different culture, oftentimes I don’t really understand American way of thinking.

Second Reflection

I think that the idea that the Writing Center is some kind of “fix-it” shop can probably still be found in USI student’s perspectives. I have asked some of my friends about what they think about the writing and their responses are either that they do not really know what the center does or that it is where they would bring their writing assignments for error checks. Also, during my 2 sessions of observation, almost all the students who came to the center asked for help with their grammar. I was even more shocked when what the tutor did was pointing out where the mistakes were and corrected them into what. It is a contrast to what North regarded the center as a “student-oriented” place to produce better writer not better writing (38). Moreover, when a friend of mine who is not a native user of English got her writing assignment checked for grammatical and punctuation mistakes the same way, I asked what she thought about it. Though she did not know what wrong with her sentence structure or word use, she admitted that correcting this way was fast and good. That friend of mine visited the center twice with the same purpose: to check her grammatical structure and punctuation. Because she had not been told why any particular word use was wrong, she went on to repeat the same mistake. Having seen this, I wonder how many students experience the same problem as my friend, how the writing center is to produce better writers, and whether there is any other better approach to deal with such situation.

Interpersonal relationship, as Murphy has stated, also plays part in determining the success of tutors in helping the writing students. She has mentioned many sources that compared tutoring process to that of counseling and psychotherapy, in which students are those who experience “writer’s block” or “anxiety associated with the process of producing writing that will be evaluated by others” (97). We tutor need to show them that we are, like a therapist or counselor, interested to help them, that we are, with “emphatic understanding”, are more than willing to get them overcome those writing sickness (97).

I think interpersonal relationship between tutors and students involves a lot of things and evolves throughout their interaction with one another. First, it is formed once students decide to step in the writing center and they should be awarded with warm greeting from the center itself. However, there is some time when the writing center at USI does not have someone to make students feel warm at first meeting. This might not be a big deal but I personally think that, though minor the problem is, it should not be overlooked because some students probably feel reluctant and choose not to approach the center having seen the unfriendly atmosphere inside. After that, interpersonal relationship is enriched while tutor and student sit and discuss together. It is said that “The person (whether a counselor, therapist, or teacher) who is better able to communicate warmth, genuineness, and accurate empathy is more effective in interpersonal relationships no matter what the goal of the interaction” (Truax and Carkhuff, qtd in Murphy 97).

Additionally, I totally agree with Shaughnessy’s idea that writing tutors are the “students of their students” (qtd. In Dipardo 101). That is any form of tutorial should be “unilateral”. Some tutors might not be aware about that but they really are collecting valuable information from various students with different academic and social background. By acknowledging oneself that they know no more than the writers themselves, tutors would be able to see beyond the surface level of the problems. Moreover, writers would not feel inferior when seeking help. Such feeling can provoke them to open up more about their problems or opinions.

Finally, students should leave the center with the satisfaction that they have been helped. It might be hard especially when student does not collaborate with the writer at the first place. This might be the case when they feel that their tutor is dominant or superior, and that they are not given enough chance to voice out their point of view. If repeatedly happens, students might lose confidence in the writing center’s ability to help.

References:

North, Stephen. “The Idea of a Writing Center.” In Murphy and Sherwood, 32-46

Murphy, Christina. “Freud in the Writing Center: The Psychoanalytics of Tutoring Well.” In Murphy and Sherwood, 95-100

Dipardo, Anne. ‘ “Whispers of Coming and Going”: Lessons from Fannie’. In Murphy and Sherwood, 100-116

First Reflection

Writing center is relatively a new concept to me since we do not have such center in our home university or probably not even in the whole country. However, there are some points in this week assigned reading that have caught my attention.

First I was fascinated about how scholars in the writing academia do not share the same view on what writing center is all about. North’s frustration for those who view writing center as a “fix-it shop” is clearly demonstrated in his essay “The Idea of the Writing Center”. According to North, the writing center is not all about fixing mechanical problems such as grammatical error or punctuation; instead writing tutor has a fundamental role in helping writer during the writing process. It prompted me to wonder whether similar misunderstanding would also be presented should there be a writing center in Cambodia and what roles the writing center has in Cambodian’s education institutions.

Furthermore, I found North’s idea about giving more focus on the writer rather the writing itself surprising. He claimed that changing the text is not necessary but changing the writer is, and that the writing center’s job is “to produce better writers, not better writing” (38). I was struck at this because though I have never been a formal writing tutor before, there are lots of times when my friends ask me to help with their writing assignments. Nonetheless, what I usually focus on is on the text only. I have never given a single notice on how my friends engaged themselves in the writing process. Having read North’s essay, I promise myself that when I am helping other writers, I would try giving more attention to writer and their writing process rather than just locating and correcting errors found in the paper.

What also interests me is how the writing center plays part in producing better citizens for the society. I have never thought that writing tutorials also seek to keep students aware of social issues as said in the text The Tutoring Process “…the goal of writing should not be the simple improvement of student writing. Instead, the goal is to give student writers a heightened awareness of the social injustice perpetrated by the dominant culture’s racist and classist agenda and to empower these writers to resist this agenda” (Murphy and Sherwood 4). I mean I know that most of the topic in my school writing assignment is about various issues recently discussed in the society. I do not know that by writing about such thing can produce a better citizen out of me nor am I aware that by tutoring others I am also learning to be a better citizen.

Last but not least, what is also intriguing is Bawashi and Pelkowski’s concern about the writing center taking away student’s originality so that his/her text could be fit in the university standard. They suggested that “under-prepared students, especially those marginalized by race, class, and ethnicity, are encouraged to adopt critical consciousnessas a means of functioning within the university and its discourses” (qtd. in Murphy and Sherwood 5). As a non-native user of English, I started to think if I have ever been unconsciously forced to give up my own perspectives so that my ideas could fit into “frameworks acceptable to the university”.

This week reading has shed me some light on what is expected from me for being a tutor in the writing center. As both an ESL learner and tutor, I am eager to explore more about the writing center and to learn from other tutors so that I can relate what I have learnt and observed when I am to get engaged in the tutoring practicum in the next few weeks.

Reference:

Murphy, Christina and Steve Sherwood. The St. Martin’s Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. 3^rd ed. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin’s, 2008. 1-24.

North, Stephen. “The Idea of a Writing Center.” In Murphy and Sherwood, 32-46