Writing Center Work as a Social and Collaborative Act of Reflection CWWTC Conference Paper

Writing Center Work as a Social and Collaborative Act of Reflection

When I began my work in the writing center at the University of Denver, my largest concern was, and to some extent still is, navigating the inherent difficulty in helping a student to produce a better paper without simply editing the paper for the student. In a reflection I wrote for one of my first consultations, I described the discomfort in what I perceived as taking on an authoritative role and critiquing or correcting a paper. I enjoyed working with fellow students, but I had anxiety concerning my own presence in the consultation. I was fearful of ‘taking over’ and inserting my own voice into someone else’s work, but I really wanted to help the student feel confident about their paper and in their ability as a writer. So, I began each consultation asking the student what their goals for the session were, but that was the only set moment. Therefore, each consultation was an exercise in improvisation as I sought to make each and every consultation unique; it was exhausting and so I quickly decided I needed more tools in my metaphorical toolbox. In my conversations with professors, other peer tutors, and in my research I fortuitously stumbled upon and resonated with the concept of reflection as a part of the writing process. In this presentation, I will explore reflection and how it has the potential to transform writing center consultations into a social and collaborative act of reflection.

Reflection is widely recognized in the field of composition studies as a tool for the transfer of knowledge and metacognition. However, defining reflection can be quite difficult as it can mean revision, it can be a form of self-assessment, it can be an analysis of learning, it can be done individually or it can be done collaboratively, it can mean all of this or it can be something else entirely. For the purpose of this presentation, Kathleen Blake Yancey’s explanation of reflection will serve as the parameters in which I discuss reflection. Yancey writes, “Reflection, then, is the dialectical process by which we develop and achieve, first, specific goals for learning; second, strategies for reaching those goals; and third, means of determining whether or not we have met those goals or other goals.” (78). Despite the accepted understanding of reflection as an inherent element of the writing process, many students find reflection difficult because they do not perceive it as “an integral part of their processes and practices” (Taczak 79). Reflection aids in resilience for writers as it encourages a continuing process of self-assessment. By considering the intentionality and function of rhetorical choices, a writer is better equipped to transfer knowledge to different rhetorical situations. Furthermore, in the writing center it is commonly understood that we are creating better writers, not better papers. Accordingly, shouldn’t writing center consultations aid students in not only understanding the invaluable nature of reflection, but also how to best incorporate reflection into their writing process?

The social act of conversing with a peer on the subject of a student’s writing in order to produce better writers, is not a new concept to writing center pedagogy. What is different is the context in which these conversations are understood. A collaborative conversation in which both parties are actively and equally engaged by explaining and questioning is a social act. These collaborative conversations are in opposition to the concept of illegitimate collaboration which occurs between a peer tutor and a student when the peer tutor gives the answers rather than asking questions. Illegitimate collaboration places the peer tutor in an authoritative role since it is assumed that the peer tutor knows the answers and is giving the answers to the student. So, a student who brings a piece of their writing to the writing center is not necessarily expecting to work with a professor or another authority; they are looking to work with a peer with whom they can converse.

Kate Kostelnik writes about the value of these conversations, saying: “A conversation where a writer puts forth and explains her thinking is nearly the same thing as the composing process. Conversation is not just a means to an end; it’s a means to writing itself” (132). Conversations in this context are therefore a social and collaborative part of the writing process between a peer tutor and the student in the writing center. These conversations have a prominent place in writing center pedagogy, and perhaps by using these conversations as invitations for reflection the student can leave the writing center not only with a better paper, but with a better sense of who she is as a writer.

I believe that the conversations in the writing center already have an implicit element of reflection. A student who arrives at the writing center has already begun the process of reflecting by identifying a piece of writing that she needs help with. Furthermore, by asking a student to set goals for the consultation, the peer tutor is beginning the conversation with a question that requires the student to think critically and reflectively about the paper as well as her own writerly identity. Kathleen Blake Yancey writes: “If we want students to be reflective, we will have to invite them to be so, may need to reflect with them. Reflection, like language itself, is social as well as individual” (53). This concept of reflection being social is intriguing to me as it pertains to the social and collaborative conversations in the writing center. As I have discussed how reflection is an implicit element of a consultation, the next step in this conversation is how to make reflection not only an explicit part of these consultations, but how to invite the student to reflect with us.

In searching for methods to incorporate reflection explicitly into writing center conversations, I return to Kostelnik’s article where she writes: “Reflection is tied to questioning - another central tenet of writing center pedagogy that helps writers think critically about their texts as well as supporting them with inquiries that keep them writing” (138). By teaching peer tutors how to question students about their writing in order to instigate reflection, peer tutors gain another tool for their toolbox that benefits the writer and aids in preventing illegitimate collaboration.

In exploring methods of reflective questioning, I once again draw on Kathleen Yancey and her conception of reflective writing. Yancey outlines the three processes of reflective writing as: “1) Goal-setting, revisiting, refining; 2) Text-revising in the light of retrospection; 3) The articulating of what learning has taken place” (6). In understanding the purpose of each process, which in the interest of time I will not be going into, it is possible to use open-ended questions to instigate collaborative and reflective conversations about the student’s writing. Therefore, I have used these processes to frame a consultation that explicitly brings Yancey’s description of the reflective process into the social and collaborative conversations in the writing center.

The first step is an approach already commonly used by peer tutors in the writing center: asking the student what their goals for the consultation are. This question asks the student to reflect on the current state of his text and to critically assess what he thinks needs to be addressed in the consultation. It also asks the student to evaluate himself as a writer by identifying areas that need improvement. In using this strategy myself, I find it is easy to allow this first step to take an insignificant role in the consultation even when I believe it may be the most important. For example, when asked what a student’s goals for the session are, a student may respond “grammar” or “proof-reading.” In the past, I have tried to dissuade a student from this approach by reverting to the writing center policy that we do not proof read papers. However, I have found that asking more specific questions which require active engagement from the student allows the student to reflect on and assess his own writing. For example, one of the most common goals that I encounter is simply stated as “grammar.” I will immediately ask the student to specify areas of concern within that goal with questions such as: Are you concerned with commas or sentence structure? Can you identify a specific example in the paper? What makes you concerned about this example? Can you explain your understanding of this concept outside of this example?

The second step in this approach would be to take the rhetorical strategies discussed in the previous conversation and to apply them elsewhere in the student’s writing. In following with the previous example of the student concerned with grammar, a discussion on the use commas may feel productive, but the next step is to ask the student to apply the new knowledge independently to other areas in their writing. I have found that leaving the student to revise a few paragraphs on their own during a consultation is an effective tactic as it encourages the student to immediately apply his new knowledge as a form of reflective revision. As a peer tutor, this tactic also encourages me to take a step back in order to ensure the student’s ownership of the paper. An essential goal for this step is the student’s sense of agency in their writing. In avoiding illegitimate collaboration, it is critical that the student understands the revisions and does not feel disenfranchised from his own work.

The third and final step in this process is to continue the conversation in a recursive manner. Discussing the changes made and their effect on the paper allows the student to, as Yancey so perfectly puts it, “explain to others, as we explain to ourselves” (24). By asking the student to explain the changes made to their paper and how the student understands these changes, the peer tutor is now the recipient of the lesson in the conversation. Questions such as: “What works well in this paper and what does not work well?” “What are your strengths as a writer?” and “What is the next step for this project and for you as a writer?” instigate reflection for the student as well as the peer tutor. The student is assessing himself as a writer by identifying personal strengths and weaknesses as well as planning for future development, while the peer tutor is given immediate feedback on the consultation.

This three step approach has helped me to develop as a peer tutor and as a reflective writer. While it is not always necessary to strictly adhere to this structure, having it ready in my toolbox is reassuring and I no longer experience the anxiety of improvisation in every consultation. I am also more confident that the students I work with are benefitting from the consultations and are able to incorporate reflective elements into their writing process. For example, I recently worked with a student who brought in a paper for her literature review assignment. This was her first experience with the genre and was uncertain about the state of her paper. Her goals for the session were stated as: adherence to the genre and the value of the information presented in the review. Upon reading her paper and the rubric given by the professor, we realized that her paper did not fit the description of a literature review. We came to this realization by questioning her methods of quote integration, in which she used citations to give credit. By recognizing this rhetorical strategy, she realized that she was analyzing the information rather than allowing the publications to speak for themselves. From this brief conversation, we identified the gap in her understanding of the assignment which we were able to fill. The next step in this consultation was to allow the student to practice different methods of synthesizing the information without analyzing it. At the end of the consultation, we discussed what her understanding of a literature review was and how that differed from her understanding prior to her revisions. This conversation gave both of us confidence that she was now able to leave the writing center and not only revise her paper to fit the genre, but that she is now capable of writing a literature review in the future.

 Reflection is an invaluable tool for any writer, and I believe that by understanding its importance and having the tools necessary to incorporate it explicitly into consultations, a peer tutor is better equipped to conduct collaborative conversations with students. In the future, I hope to continue exploring different methods of bringing reflection into these social and collaborative conversations since I believe that by giving reflection a more prominent voice in these conversations we can have a better understanding of what it means to create better writers, not better papers.

Writing Center Work as a Social and Collaborative Act of Reflection Research Paper

Writing Center Work as a Social and Collaborative Act of Reflection

In the writing center students come to talk about their writing. These students may name their intentions as “proofreading” or “editing” and yet when the consultation is taking place, it takes the form of a conversation. According to Stephen North in his article “The Idea of a Writing Center,” “Nearly everyone who writes likes - and needs - to talk about his or her writing, preferably to someone who will really listen, who knows how to listen, and knows how to talk about writing too” (440). The type of conversation that North mentions takes place between the peer tutor and the student, and it has become a part of the writing process that has transformed the act of writing into a social and collaborative act of reflection.

In her book, Reflection in the Writing Classroom, Kathleen Yancey explains the difficulty in defining reflection: it can mean revision; it can be a form of self-assessment; it can be an analysis of learning; it can mean all of this or it can be something else entirely (6). For the purpose of this paper, Kara Taczak’s explanation of reflection in her essay, “Reflection is Critical for Writer’s Development,” will serve as the parameters in which I discuss reflection. Taczak writes, “Reflection is a mode of inquiry: a deliberate way of systematically recalling writing experience to reframe the current writing situation. It allows writers to recognize what they are doing in that particular moment… as well as to consider why they made the rhetorical choices they did” (78). Thus, reflection becomes a consistent part of the writing process that allows the student to reflect on her own writing and to consider the certain rhetorical choices she made and to begin assessing herself as a writer. Despite the accepted understanding of reflection as an inherent element of the writing process, many students find reflection difficult because they do not perceive it as “an integral part of their processes and practices” (Taczak 79). However, in the writing center it is commonly understood that we are creating better writers, not better writing (North 438). Accordingly, shouldn’t writing center consultations attempt to aid students in understanding the invaluable nature of reflection and how to incorporate it into their writing process?

Conversation in the writing center can be used to allow a student to create room in their writing process for reflection. In the article “Peer Tutoring and the ‘Conversation of Mankind,” Bruffee views writing as “a technologically displaced form of conversation” (91). From this perspective, if writing is a form of conversation, then conversation in the writing center is incredibly valuable to a student’s own writing process. Bruffee mentions that the conversations in the writing center should be as “similar in as many ways as possible to the way we would like them [students] to eventually write” (91). These conversations have the potential to serve as the framework for an essay and for a safe place for the student to experiment with different rhetorical strategies. In conjunction to this concept, Kate Kostelnik, in “Writing Center Theory and Pedagogy in the Undergraduate Creative Writing Classroom,” writes, “A conversation where a writer puts forth and explains her thinking is nearly the same thing as the composing process. Conversation is not just a means to an end; it’s a means to writing itself” (132). Kostelnik is describing the conversation between the writer and another individual as a natural part of the writing process and not simply as displaced conversation. So in assuming that conversation is an invaluable part of the writing process, how can we incorporate reflection into our conversations?

Kostelnik mentions that questioning is an essential part of writing center pedagogy, as it helps writers to think critically about their texts, and is an intrinsic element of reflection (138). In a similar line of thought, Bruffee states that reflection is something we learn to do with and from other people (90). In a writing center, where conversation and collaboration are central to its pedagogy, reflection seems to be the logical next step in the discussion. To argue that writing is a form of displaced conversation, and I would further add that writing is an inherently reflective process, then the conversations in the writing center already have an implicit element of reflection that we should attempt to make explicit.

Writing centers add a social element that can be an invaluable part of the writing process. In explaining the orthodoxy of current practices in writing centers, Shamoon and Burns, in “A Critique of Pure Tutoring,” explain the concept of illegitimate collaboration between the writing center peer tutor and the student as occurring when the peer tutor gives the student the answers rather than asking questions (226). For example, a student comes into the writing center with a paper full of the passive voice. The student does not understand why the professor recommended the writing center; as such he is confused and slightly frustrated with his low score. It may be infinitely easier for both the peer tutor, and the student, for the peer tutor to simply go through the paper and restructure the passive sentences with the active voice. However, little is gained from this interaction. The student may not understand why the sentence needed to be restructured or how to avoid using the passive voice in the future. The peer tutor is likewise bored from the interaction and is likely frustrated that he has been placed in the role of an editor.

This example illustrates a hierarchical dynamic between the peer tutor and the student. The student arrived at the writing center with a paper packed with the passive voice and left with a paper void of the passive, though he did little work on the paper himself since a peer tutor took on the role of an editor and did the work of revising for him. This approach is hierarchical as it places the peer tutor in an authoritative role since it is assumed that they know the answers and are attempting to guide the student to them. Bruffee's emphasis on collaborative peer tutoring contrasts with a hierarchical approach in that conversations about writing create awareness of writing as a social artifact and as a conversational exchange (91).

The social act of conversing with a peer on the subject of a student’s writing in order to produce better writers is not a new concept to the traditional writing center pedagogy. In his foundational article, “The Idea of a Writing Center”, North stated, “Our job is to produce better writers, not better writing” (438). What is different is the context by which these conversations are understood. A student who brings a piece of their writing to the writing center is not necessarily expecting to work with a professor or an expert in their field; they are looking to work with a peer. In his 1992 article, Lunsford states that collaboration “leads not only to sharper, more critical thinking (students must explain, defend, adapt), but to deeper understanding of others” (3). This collaborative process is described by Kathleen Yancey in her book, Reflection in the Writing Classroom, as reflection-in-action. Yancey writes, “Reflection asks that we explain to others… so that in explaining to others, we explain to ourselves… Reflection-in-action is thus recursive and generative. It's not either a process / or a product, but both processes and products” (24). This concept of reflection-in-action is a social and collaborative process that has the potential to take on the form of a conversation between the peer tutor and the student in the writing center.

The conversations that take place in the writing center have a prominent place in writing center pedagogy, yet it is the concept of collaboration that seems to make many scholars uncomfortable due to the potential for a hierarchical dynamic to emerge. Kostelnik offers the notion that students must be taught how to listen and learn from one another and that the format of a one on one consultation is ideal (131). By teaching peer tutors, and therefore the students, how to talk about writing could help to prevent this hierarchical dynamic and the possibility of illegitimate collaboration that Shamoon and Burns mention.

Thus far this paper has sought to explain why reflection is a valuable part of the writing process and how it implicitly fits into the social and collaborative conversations that take place in the writing center. The next step in this conversation is to discuss how reflection might be brought into the writing center in a more explicit manner. As mentioned previously, Kostelnik introduces the notion that students need to be taught how to talk about writing, so perhaps this is a lesson that can be transferred to the peer tutors in the writing center. Kostelnik writes, “reflection is tied to questioning - another central tenet of writing center pedagogy that helps writers think critically about their texts as well as supporting the with inquiries that keep them writing” (138). In teaching peer tutors to talk about writing, teaching them how to question students in order to prompt the reflective process is a viable possibility. This approach in questioning would aid in avoiding the hierarchical dynamic, specifically that which Shamoon and Burns mention as illegitimate collaboration, as it attempts to draw out the writer’s own thoughts and asks the student to think critically about their own writing.

Kathleen Yancey describes her book, Reflection in the Writing Classroom, as being “about learning to ask questions, about the power that asking good questions confers, about the value of doing this collaboratively so that we learn with and from each other. Reflection is, as I've learned, both individual and social” (17). Yancey’s description of her book can be transferred to a description of a writing center consultation. The conversations in a writing center consultation are between a peer tutor and a student who are engaging in a collaborative and social act of reflection. By learning to ask questions, a peer tutor is better able to engage the student in these reflective conversations and to aid the student in their own reflective process.

Furthermore, Yancey outlines the reflective process as having the “three processes of projection, retrospection… and revision” (6). Yancey continues to compare these three processes to the three processes of writing: “1) Goal-setting, revisiting, refining; 2) Text-revising in the light of retrospection; 3) The articulating of what learning has taken place, as embodied in various text as well as in the processes used by the writer” (6). These three processes can be used to outline a writing consultation in order to explicitly bring Yancey’s description of reflection-in-action into the writing center. The first step is an approach already commonly used by peer tutors in the writing center: ask the student what their goals for the consultation are. This question allows the student to reflect on the current state of their text and to critically assess what needs to be addressed in the consultation. In using this strategy myself, I find it is easy to allow this first step to take an insignificant role in the consultation even when I believe it may be the most important. For example, when asked what a student’s goals for the session are, a student may respond “grammar” or “proof-reading.” In the past, I have tried to dissuade a student from this approach by reverting to the writing center policy that we do not proof read papers. However, I believe asking more pointed questions would allow the student to reflect on and assess their own writing while improving their writing and rhetorical skills. In this example, asking the student concerned with grammar to identify specific areas of concern and asking why those areas concern the student can lead to a more reflective and productive conversation.

The second step in this approach would be to take the rhetorical strategies discussed in the previous conversation and to apply them elsewhere in the student’s writing. In following with the previous example of the student concerned with grammar, a discussion on the use commas may feel productive, but the next step is to ask the student to apply the new knowledge independently to other areas in their writing. This may take the form of the peer tutor leaving the student to revise a few paragraphs on their own. As the student is attempting to apply newly acquired lessons or skills to a specific piece of text, they are renegotiating their writing process. The peer tutor has successfully encouraged the student to not just make surface level corrections, but to understand why and how these corrections effect their writing and how they might adjust their writing process to make room for this new knowledge.

The third and final step in this process is to continue the conversation in a recursive manner. Discussing the changes made and their effect on the paper allows the student to “explain to others, as we explain to ourselves” (Yancey 24). By asking the student to explain the changes made to their paper and how the student understands these changes, the peer tutor is now the recipient of the lesson in the conversation. The student is taking ownership of the revised paper; as such the student shows the integration of these new concepts and rhetorical devices into their writing process. The social and collaborative effort towards reflection in this writing center consultation has given the student agency in their writing, which can be applied to future writing endeavors.

In writing center consultations, the peer tutor faces what can often be perceived as the dichotomy between helping the student improve a paper or helping the student to become a better writer. Many consultants navigate this dichotomy on a case by case basis, attempting to treat each consultation as unique. While I agree that each consultation is unique and each student deserves to be treated as an individual, finding the most appropriate manner in which to conduct the consultation can be draining. Perhaps by introducing reflection in a more explicit manner peer tutors can lead reflective conversations that are capable of navigating this dichotomy. In this manner, reflection becomes an invaluable tool in the peer tutor’s tool box. To conclude, writing center consultations have an implicit element of reflection, but by giving reflection a more prominent voice in these conversations we can have a better understanding of what it means to create better writers, not better writing.

Works Cited

Bruffee, Kenneth A. “Peer Tutoring and the ‘Conversation of Mankind.’” College English, vol. 46, no. 7, Nov. 1984, pp. 635-652. JSTOR, doi: 10.2307/376924.

Kostelnik, Kate. “Writing Center Theory and Pedagogy in the Undergraduate Creative Writing Classroom.” 2015, pdf.

Lunsford, Andrea A. “Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center.” The Writing Lab Newsletter, vol. 16, no 4-5, 1992, 1-6.

North, Stephen M. “The Idea of a Writing Center.” College English, vol. 46, no. 25, Sep. 1984, pp. 433-446. JSTOR, url: http://www.jstor.org/stable/377047

Shamoon, Linda K. and Deborah H. Burns. “A Critique of Pure Tutoring.” The Longman Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice. 225-239. pdf.

Taczak, Kara. “Reflection is Critical for Writers’ Development.” Naming What We Know: Threshold Concepts of Writing Studies, edited by Linda Adler-Kassner and Elizabeth Wardle, Utah State University Press, 2015, pp. 78-79.

Yancey, Kathleen Blake. Reflection in the Writing Classroom. Utah State University Press, 1998.