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.
