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.
There certainly is a fine ethical line beween "tutoring" someone and "writing" the paper for him. When do we cross the line? What's the difference between a tutor giving the student suggestions about changing a word versus the student going to the thesaurus? Can we be another reference source for a student or would that invoke plagiarism on their part? Whose idea was it to begin with, anyway?
ReplyDeleteI don't think any of these questions have an answer, like many ideas that deal with ethics.
I'm glad the tutor in the writing center was able to help you with this issue. What he said is exactly right: we have to deal with each client as a unique situation. I think tutoring relies a great deal on instinct, on following that niggling little voice inside that tells us when we're doing too much for the client.
ReplyDeleteI also like Patti's question, "Whose idea was it to begin with, anyway?" The collaborationists would tell us "ideas" don't belong to anyone; knowledge is always socially constructed. But this is an interesting issue concerning plagiarism in the writing center that we'll come back to later in the term.
I think this is one of the greatest dilemmas of tutoring. I find it hard to believe that any student in the writing center would object to the consultant offering ideas for a paper. Because of this, the extent of "help" is really left only to the discretion of the tutor.
ReplyDeleteThis is why collaboration is so important. As the consultant begins to understand the needs of the client, he or she will be able to better determine his or her needs. Some students may need a simple push in the right direction whereas others may wish for much more.
I observed a tutoring session today where the consultant really allowed the client to writer his own work. She made suggestions about how to explain himself better, but she did not put any words into his mouth. The sentences he wrote were probably not what she would have written, but she made sure that his creativity and his thoughts got into the paper. We are reminded that the whole tutoring experience is not just about the grade, it is about making a better writer. I only note this because I really haven't seen this happen too much in the writing room.
ReplyDeleteI have certainly seen much of the same thing you commented on, as we are in the writing center often at the same time. It only adds to frustration on the part of not only the client, but the tutor when students are unprepared to properly work with you in any fashion, as no one benefits. If and when a similar situation happens to me, I think I will help the student as best I can, but definitely suggest that the next time they be more prepared time wise, which benefits all parties involved.
ReplyDelete