Daniel T. Lochman. "Play and Game: Implications For the Writing Center."
-Concept- Fun = not "intellectually rigorous"/serious and work worthy
-Writing Center as a place for "spontaneity and playfulness within the university"
-Theodore Roszak: play is infantile and uninhibited/ game is for adult favoring order
-Play's liberating influence can help students reach their potential
-Scholars to review: Johan Huizinga, Piaget, Richard Lanham, Ken Macrorie, Peter Elbow, Donald Murray, Thomas Nash
-Books/Events/Ideas providing context: Diane Ravitch's "The Death and Life of the Great American School System..." Denise Clark Pope's "Doing School..." No Child Left Behind (2000), Western's Duality/Individuality vs Interdependence
Steve Sherwood. "Humor and the Serious Tutor."
-"We must not disregard the role humor can play in facilitating interactive learning."
-Humor can "build a bridge between tutor and student, can distance students from their fears, soften any necessary criticism ... plant the seeds of flexibility and creativity ... [thus] free students to do their best work."
-Humor is bad for its derisive nature ( age old perception )
-"Many academics 'project a one-dimensional attitude which tells students that education, and life in general, is serious business...'"
-Scholars to review: John Moreall, Plato, Lex Runciman
-Ideas providing context: psychiatric term "Social Fears," Einstein's "Combinatory Play"
Daniel T. Lochman. "'A Dialogue of One': Orality and Literacy in the Writing Center"
-"Students are often unwilling to invest their own ideas, their own reactions and self-questioning in the act of writing because decisions regarding topics and form are customarily made by others- teachers, administrators, school boards."
Friday, March 11, 2011
Thursday, March 10, 2011
Writing Center Scholarship: faculty outreach
Hey Readers,
Cooperation from faculty is crucial in sustaining the Writing Center ( WC ). According to Wendy Bishop, faculty referrals make more impact compared to a friend's recommendation or scheduled class visits. However, some faculty may not recommend the WC because they feel that their authority is threatened. Lea Masiello and Malcolm Hayward recommend continuous dialog with faculty through discussions of "shared pedagogical beliefs" and WC's mission and services.
Faculty's referrals are good concrete incentives that could motivate students to go to the WC. Motivation, such as better grades and extra credits, is important or else students will make tons of excuses, such as having no time or conflicting learning styles. Margaret O. Tipper cautions that the "feminine" and indirect nature of WC pedagogy may go against most males direct and competitive learning style.
Winning extra credits might appeal to students, especially male students. This may be superficial, but at least it'll get the students in the WC. With exposure to the WC as a resource, students can make up their minds in the future and decide from experience whether to return or not.
In our WC, most of the students we've helped so far came because their professors recommended them to us. Only a few came because we visited their freshman seminar class. We haven't encountered any faculty, who felt threatened by our pedagogical approach. We're upfront with our mission and style. We also understand that it's not good to confuse students with jargon. A student's sense of "grammar" may encompass structure, organization, clarity et al. We've helped more female students compared to male students, and most students came for extra credit.
Cooperation from faculty is crucial in sustaining the Writing Center ( WC ). According to Wendy Bishop, faculty referrals make more impact compared to a friend's recommendation or scheduled class visits. However, some faculty may not recommend the WC because they feel that their authority is threatened. Lea Masiello and Malcolm Hayward recommend continuous dialog with faculty through discussions of "shared pedagogical beliefs" and WC's mission and services.
Faculty's referrals are good concrete incentives that could motivate students to go to the WC. Motivation, such as better grades and extra credits, is important or else students will make tons of excuses, such as having no time or conflicting learning styles. Margaret O. Tipper cautions that the "feminine" and indirect nature of WC pedagogy may go against most males direct and competitive learning style.
Winning extra credits might appeal to students, especially male students. This may be superficial, but at least it'll get the students in the WC. With exposure to the WC as a resource, students can make up their minds in the future and decide from experience whether to return or not.
In our WC, most of the students we've helped so far came because their professors recommended them to us. Only a few came because we visited their freshman seminar class. We haven't encountered any faculty, who felt threatened by our pedagogical approach. We're upfront with our mission and style. We also understand that it's not good to confuse students with jargon. A student's sense of "grammar" may encompass structure, organization, clarity et al. We've helped more female students compared to male students, and most students came for extra credit.
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Writing Center Scholarship: context
Hi Readers,
In my research, I looked at the origins of Writing Centers to learn what worked in the past and what is still used today to establish and sustain a Writing Center ( WC ). As usual, I got more than I bargained for and was introduced to 3 constructions, as outlined by Peter Carino, of WC history: dialectic, evolutionary, and cultural.
The dialectic model is exclusive, like an us-versus-them viewpoint. It presents a WC's history that is full of struggle: identity conflict ( WC as remedial or supplimentary? ), David-and-Goliath complex ( WC as the underdog seeking autonomy from administrative bureaucracy ), middle child syndrome ( WC is ignored and misunderstood ), and others.
The evolutionary model is biased towards the present ( as in the present is much more improved and efficient than the past ). WC history is perceived as linear: starting as a laboratory, accomodating the open admissions policy and the influx of non-traditional students ( veterans, liberated women, immigrants et al ), and reacting to the 1966 Dartmouth Conference ( a shift in pedagogy to student-centered ).
Like Carino, I also noticed the dialectic model used in Judith Summerfield and Muriel Harris's articles. I agree with Carino's cultural model of WC's history that combines "the advantages and avoids the disadvantages of the evolutionary and dialectic models" (43).
WC's flexibility allows it to address many concerns, such as remedial and supplimentary. Its philosophy of collaboration doesn't only extend to working with students; it also applies to teaming up with administrators, faculty, staff et al. Articulating WC mission and goals to its community, and being critical of itself and others help Writing Centers to create bridges of understanding.
In my research, I looked at the origins of Writing Centers to learn what worked in the past and what is still used today to establish and sustain a Writing Center ( WC ). As usual, I got more than I bargained for and was introduced to 3 constructions, as outlined by Peter Carino, of WC history: dialectic, evolutionary, and cultural.
The dialectic model is exclusive, like an us-versus-them viewpoint. It presents a WC's history that is full of struggle: identity conflict ( WC as remedial or supplimentary? ), David-and-Goliath complex ( WC as the underdog seeking autonomy from administrative bureaucracy ), middle child syndrome ( WC is ignored and misunderstood ), and others.
The evolutionary model is biased towards the present ( as in the present is much more improved and efficient than the past ). WC history is perceived as linear: starting as a laboratory, accomodating the open admissions policy and the influx of non-traditional students ( veterans, liberated women, immigrants et al ), and reacting to the 1966 Dartmouth Conference ( a shift in pedagogy to student-centered ).
Like Carino, I also noticed the dialectic model used in Judith Summerfield and Muriel Harris's articles. I agree with Carino's cultural model of WC's history that combines "the advantages and avoids the disadvantages of the evolutionary and dialectic models" (43).
WC's flexibility allows it to address many concerns, such as remedial and supplimentary. Its philosophy of collaboration doesn't only extend to working with students; it also applies to teaming up with administrators, faculty, staff et al. Articulating WC mission and goals to its community, and being critical of itself and others help Writing Centers to create bridges of understanding.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Writing Center: exhausted mind yet mentally exhilarated
Bonjour Readers,
I'm realizing that it's mentally tiring to tutor back-to-back ( in a row ). Albeit going through a similar process for every session - of introducing writing as a process, reading the writer's draft out loud, making minimal marks, and addressing the writer's concern et al within a minimum of 30 minutes - the mental energy it takes to focus can still be enervating.
One Wednesday afternoon, I experienced the craziness. The 1st student needed help writing a critique for her health class. She was confused , but great thing she brought her assignment description. I gave tips on summarizing, and I gave her prompts to help her answer the questions. I showed her how to locate the MLA section in her textbook. In the end I briefly discussed the credibility of articles in the library's online databases.
The 2nd student needed help with her Ethics paper. After she explained the requirements, I asked her for more background. She summarized the movie she had to analyze plus the philosophy of Mill and Kant. In the process, she realized that she needed to review both philosopher's stance. By the end of our 60 minutes session, we figured out her personal stance, and we drafted an introductory paragraph.
I had 15 minutes break before the next student arrived. The last 3 students' subject matter was easier compared to the first 2. Their papers were of a subjective manner: developed personal opinions with structure. However the last student was a 2nd language learner. Brainstorming wasn't as difficult as putting her thoughts in standardized English. I gave her a mini lesson on subject and verb, but I wasn't sure how much info she absorbed and comprehended.
At the end of each session, we come up with a revision plan, and I have students recap for me the session ( what we did ). I encourage them to return, to procrastinate less, and lastly to practice a writing process. Even if we couldn't address all concerns in one session, there's always the next session and the next time when we could help them.
I'm realizing that it's mentally tiring to tutor back-to-back ( in a row ). Albeit going through a similar process for every session - of introducing writing as a process, reading the writer's draft out loud, making minimal marks, and addressing the writer's concern et al within a minimum of 30 minutes - the mental energy it takes to focus can still be enervating.
One Wednesday afternoon, I experienced the craziness. The 1st student needed help writing a critique for her health class. She was confused , but great thing she brought her assignment description. I gave tips on summarizing, and I gave her prompts to help her answer the questions. I showed her how to locate the MLA section in her textbook. In the end I briefly discussed the credibility of articles in the library's online databases.
The 2nd student needed help with her Ethics paper. After she explained the requirements, I asked her for more background. She summarized the movie she had to analyze plus the philosophy of Mill and Kant. In the process, she realized that she needed to review both philosopher's stance. By the end of our 60 minutes session, we figured out her personal stance, and we drafted an introductory paragraph.
I had 15 minutes break before the next student arrived. The last 3 students' subject matter was easier compared to the first 2. Their papers were of a subjective manner: developed personal opinions with structure. However the last student was a 2nd language learner. Brainstorming wasn't as difficult as putting her thoughts in standardized English. I gave her a mini lesson on subject and verb, but I wasn't sure how much info she absorbed and comprehended.
At the end of each session, we come up with a revision plan, and I have students recap for me the session ( what we did ). I encourage them to return, to procrastinate less, and lastly to practice a writing process. Even if we couldn't address all concerns in one session, there's always the next session and the next time when we could help them.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Writing Center Scholarship: a budget's influence
Hello Readers!
One of the great benefits about my current part time job is having time to do research for professional development. Prior to accepting this position, I assumed that Writing Centers are a regular part of the University environment. The semi-private liberal university I attended for undergraduate studies and the state-funded university I attended for graduate studies - although different in many ways - both have Writing Centers.
I was surprised to learn that my current institution didn't have a Writing Center for a year, and prior to this absence, the Writing Center established had a weak infrastructure ( which eventually led to its collapse ). So this semester I'm exploring the most obvious question I can think of: How can we establish and sustain a Writing Center?
I started researching and found this awesome online database rife with Writing Center Scholarship from the 1980s to 2000s: The Writing Centers Research Project. Reading bits of the history of Writing Centers, it was amazing to recognize how I have engendered the philosophy informally through practice instead of formal training. I was reminded about the debates on service, the articulation of mission and goals, flexibility ( with students, faculty, administrators, et al ), and more.
So far the 3 articles I read highlighted the budget's influence in establishing and sustaining a Writing Center. Muriel Harris is right that the Writing Center is an "ideal" place that is "non-threatening, non-evaluative ... [where] we work with students more receptive to learning" (6). But because most Writing Centers don't have many evaluative evidence, such as test scores, the higher ups can easily get rid of it, especially in times of budget cuts and "accountability."
Pamella B. Farrell summarizes how expensive Writing Centers can get; professional tutors and computers can be costly. Nonetheless Robert W. Barnett suggests how collaboration can help establish "ourselves as a necessary and important component of a university education" while reducing costs.
In our situation, my colleagues and I are professional tutors hired on a part time basis ( the University doesn't have to give extra money to give us benefits ). We can still pass for college-looking students, but we have our degrees ( we don't look like those threatening teachers, who abuse their power, BUT instead, we're like older siblings being at least 7 years older than the general students we work with ). A grant is funding this endeavor so we have to show how we are constantly helping students ( to improve student retention because if students stay in college and graduate then money will roll in: during the students' stay, as alumnae, and through reputation ).
In spite of this seeming emphasis on money, we continue upholding the Writing Center's mission of helping students by collaborating with them and eventually with faculty from all disciplines: one step and group at a time.
One of the great benefits about my current part time job is having time to do research for professional development. Prior to accepting this position, I assumed that Writing Centers are a regular part of the University environment. The semi-private liberal university I attended for undergraduate studies and the state-funded university I attended for graduate studies - although different in many ways - both have Writing Centers.
I was surprised to learn that my current institution didn't have a Writing Center for a year, and prior to this absence, the Writing Center established had a weak infrastructure ( which eventually led to its collapse ). So this semester I'm exploring the most obvious question I can think of: How can we establish and sustain a Writing Center?
I started researching and found this awesome online database rife with Writing Center Scholarship from the 1980s to 2000s: The Writing Centers Research Project. Reading bits of the history of Writing Centers, it was amazing to recognize how I have engendered the philosophy informally through practice instead of formal training. I was reminded about the debates on service, the articulation of mission and goals, flexibility ( with students, faculty, administrators, et al ), and more.
So far the 3 articles I read highlighted the budget's influence in establishing and sustaining a Writing Center. Muriel Harris is right that the Writing Center is an "ideal" place that is "non-threatening, non-evaluative ... [where] we work with students more receptive to learning" (6). But because most Writing Centers don't have many evaluative evidence, such as test scores, the higher ups can easily get rid of it, especially in times of budget cuts and "accountability."
Pamella B. Farrell summarizes how expensive Writing Centers can get; professional tutors and computers can be costly. Nonetheless Robert W. Barnett suggests how collaboration can help establish "ourselves as a necessary and important component of a university education" while reducing costs.
In our situation, my colleagues and I are professional tutors hired on a part time basis ( the University doesn't have to give extra money to give us benefits ). We can still pass for college-looking students, but we have our degrees ( we don't look like those threatening teachers, who abuse their power, BUT instead, we're like older siblings being at least 7 years older than the general students we work with ). A grant is funding this endeavor so we have to show how we are constantly helping students ( to improve student retention because if students stay in college and graduate then money will roll in: during the students' stay, as alumnae, and through reputation ).
In spite of this seeming emphasis on money, we continue upholding the Writing Center's mission of helping students by collaborating with them and eventually with faculty from all disciplines: one step and group at a time.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)