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.
No comments:
Post a Comment