The Age Factor

Age bestows authority. Or at least, that's how a lot of children are taught to think. I can speak from personal experience when I say that telling significantly older people what to do is incredibly awkward. Imagine running a charity to get poor children Christmas presents and trying to hint to a 60 year old coarse-sounding woman that she is being lazy and needs to stop chatting and work, otherwise dozens of children won't have a gift on Christmas morning.

As I've tried to highlight in past blog posts, there is a lot more going on in a consultation than the writing itself. A successful consultation is much more dependent on communication between the writer and consultant than what's on the page. One complicating factor in the writer-tutor interpersonal dynamic is age.

As Gardner points out in "Writing center ethics and 'non-traditional' students" some of the standard ethical positions adopted by writing consultants are thrown into question. "Should I handle (their) request differently because of (their) profile and because, quite honestly, I take her 'I don't have time' a lot more seriously than I ever took it from those 'traditional' students" (7). Due to the other "real-world" demands placed on continuing studies and adult students, should we adjust how we consult?

This question needs to be addressed in two ways. First, the ethics. Do I give more directive consulting to help them use their time most efficiently? Do I go over more grammatical errors than I would with a traditional student? Do I "give" them more answers than would be appropriate with a traditional student? Second, the social dynamic. How do I tell them about their errors? How do I justify my role as consultant over someone more than twice my age? How can I be helpful?

To the first point: I think we as consultants need to shift our focus, not our ethics, when consulting non-traditional students. We don't have to enter the ethical gray zone, we just need to adjust our approach. There's nothing wrong about giving more directive assistance if the tutee is under time pressures, so long as you don't write their papers for them, give away answers, or undermine the opportunity to make them better writers. Given the time period that most of these students were educated as children, directive consulting may even be more effective in improving their overall writing competency. These students often prefer more direct answers, but they also can appreciate and implement the underlying ideas in them.

To the second point: I think the best thing you can do is remember that non-traditional students are still students, and still people. I feel that trying to come across as overly professional and intelligent will be counter-productive since the student will either be turned off by your behavior or if you were to make a mistake the student would seriously doubt your credibility. Of course, be sure that you act as professionally as you would with any other student, but I would think that they would like to be treated kindly too. Throw in some harmless humor or engage in a brief conversation before the consultation, make sure your points are directive and help the writer achieve their goal, and these students will get just as much out of a consultation as any other student... and probably more.

My Own Two Feet

My first consultation was an interesting experience. I wasn’t shadowing a veteran consultant, I wasn’t consulting a fake paper, and the paper wasn’t written by a student who graduated a decade ago. For the first time, I was entirely on my own and had to immediately adjust to the fluid dynamic of the consultation. While frightening, the consultation proved to be a valuable lesson that forced me to extract knowledge from myself and apply it as best as possible.

I was surprised when I realized that one of the first decisions I had to make was where to take the student. I would normally not have thought about it too hard, except I wanted to ensure that whatever location we went to would foster the type of positive consultation I sought. It is important to be seated in a way that allows for your body language to convey yourself as an ally and not an authoritative figure (Ryan and Zimmerelli 18).

Once we settled into a computer lab with both of us sitting next to each other, I asked for the assignment sheet again. I placed it in front of us, and went through the assignment’s key words to ensure that we had a mutual understanding about the direction her paper needed to take. By clarifying the scope of the paper through an examination of the prompt, we focused the paper in a way that will make the professor happier and the student’s job easier (Kendall 1). This particular prompt required knowledge of two short stories that the writer had attached for me to read. Thankfully I took the time to read both of them, because otherwise I know that my commentary would not have been very helpful. A lot of my suggestions were in response to particular points in the story, and so I felt rewarded for putting in the extra time. I realized that in the future I really ought to continue that habit both for the student’s benefit and to boost my own confidence in the subject material so that I’m more comfortable during the session.

After we finished with the assignment sheet, I took out the student’s paper. I wrote my commentary restrictively but purposefully, and I figured that if the consultation would be most effective if I stuck to my points of commentary, and her thesis, and then ask if there was anything else she wanted to talk about. Luckily, it was a good paper, which made restrictive commentary much easier for red-pen happy hand. At first I felt awkward moving through the areas of concern, I felt like I was preaching and she was just listening and I couldn’t be sure if she agreed, disagreed, or was even processing what I was saying. By the third point, I made sure that after I went over an area of concern I specifically asked her for her thoughts. Once I started doing that, the student openly discussed where she agreed with me, where she didn’t, and in either case what her reasoning was for doing whatever she did. This made the session so much more productive and she was able to understand more clearly what I was saying while I could put myself into her perspective more.

At this time, the issue became how much do I assert my initial perspective onto her? Once she began explaining her points of view on her writing, I wanted to let her maintain control of her paper, but I genuinely believe that she would benefit from taking my advice more seriously. As Shamoon and Burns note in “A Critique of Pure Tutoring”, many students in writing across-the-curriculum programs actually find directive tutoring sessions to be more helpful and increase their potential as writers (174). In this case, however, I trusted the student’s abilities as a writer enough where I felt comfortable having her process my feedback and maintain more control over what revisions she’ll make. I didn’t have to mull over how minimalistic to be, because the limited number of concerns made it so that I didn’t have to choose which ones took priority.

The last shift in my consultation approach took place as I realized that the pattern of dialogue was not as fruitful as it could be. I would explain my perspective, the writer would explain hers, and we would share a kind of mutual nod, and then move on to the next point. Clearly, this wasn’t giving the student as much control of the consultation as I wanted to. For my last few areas of concern, I would just point to the page, have her review what I wrote, and then wait for her response to it without me framing the question first. Her responses became much more clear and she would even go so far as to ask me questions instead of vice versa, which was refreshing for a nervous tutor. It showed that she was really vested into the session, appreciated my points, and was willing to engage them.

I actually got the idea from when I was consulted by a different tutor. I noticed that I started doing a lot of the talking when my tutor just pointed and looked up, and so incorporated that technique into my consultation strategy. When I was consulted, I also noticed how responsive I was to the tutor’s tone, word choice, and body language. This made me much more careful in how I presented myself to my tutee (to a borderline paranoid level) but I definitely noticed that I was able to evoke more involved responses from her that required higher level thinking and reflection.

Afterwards I asked if she had any other questions that I had not addressed. She replied that she didn’t, that I had gone over everything she was thinking over and then some. As we were walking out of the room, as friends, I nervously whispered, “Was that helpful? Do you think that went okay?” She smiled and responded, “Absolutely. You’re a natural.” I feel much better having gotten positive feedback from my first consultation on my own, but hope that I can learn from this experience to improve myself when dealing with students submitting papers that are less fluid than this one.

The Writing Audience

You've proofread. You've recited in front of a mirror. You've practiced your pace. You've incorporated hand gestures and body language. You know the speech. You know your material. You have done everything possible to present a compelling speech. You approach the podium, look out at the audience, and begin. But this is not going how you expected. You're making mistakes, you're awkward, you're fumbling, you're frozen.

Most of us can think of a time when something very similar to this story happened to us. If formal presentations, whether they be a speech or a paper, are supposed to based on how well prepared you are and how well you can discuss the subject, why do we freeze at the podium? Why do we freeze at the keyboard?

Writing Centers and Writing Consultants spend a lot of time exploring how to make better writers, but it seems that there are more avenues to that goal than examining the words themselves. A student may be a perfectly capable writer when writing a private message to a friend, but not when they have to turn in a paper. Another student may write a brilliant letter for a scholarship application, but write poorly when they have to email their parents.

In casual conversation, people rarely "freeze". There is a fluid dynamic that allows communication to continue rather effortlessly (aside from intensely awkward situations). As Mr. Carleton noted in class today, once these words are written on paper or recorded on a tape, a layer of permanence is attached to them. Your words can be presented without you being there. Your words can be received by audiences you don't know, audiences you're comfortable with, audiences you're uncomfortable with.

Writing Consultants need to be aware of the context that a writing sample is done under. Maybe the student is nervous writing for a strict academic professor and so attempts to use language or styles that they do not like or cannot adequately employ. Maybe the student is on friendly terms with their professor and are tempted to use overly casual language in an analytic paper. In whichever direction the issue presents itself, the relationship between the writer and anticipated audience can have far reaching consequences on the writing.

To help a student become a better writer, we must keep in mind the other factors that contribute to sophisticated writing, and psychological or social pressures imposed by the presence of an audience are one of those key factors.

The Hazards of Hats

People simplify too much. People are prone to underestimate the complexity of seemingly straightforward endeavors, tasks, or occupations. On college campuses this manifests itself through professors assigning too much work for students to enjoy the material, students overcommitting themselves to extracurriculars, or over-programming and regimenting student schedules.

Like most professions, writing consulting is not as one-dimensional as it may seem. Sure, the title "Writing Consultant" itself gives you a clear idea of what that person's job is, but titles can be misleading. For instance, even though a math teacher's job is to teach math, he also has a responsibility to act as a mentor, encourage positive behaviors, and engage his students outside of class through activities or clubs. Comparably, a good writing consultant adopts a whole host of roles associated with their actual "job".

In the third chapter of The Bedford Guide to Writing Tutors by Leigh Ryan and Lisa Zimmerelli the other types of roles that writing consultants fulfill are discussed. They include the ally, the coach, the commentator, the collaborator, the writing "expert", the learner and the counselor. While all of these different "hats" that consultants can put on sound like positive amplifications of the impact a good writing consultant can have on writers, I would like to throw out some cautionary measures before we get too involved in this hat dance.

Ally - A good writing consultant wants to win over their tutee, but the process to achieving a trusting relationship can be hazardous. Consultants need to be careful to avoid badmouthing professors or criticizing grading policies. The problem with making allies is you can make enemies.

Coach - Sometimes you want your player to win so bad, you cheat. Consultants who want their tutees to do well may be tempted to write portions of the paper for them or suggest too much. The writing has to remain the writers.

The Commentator - When trying to get a writer to see the broader context of the writing process, consultants need to make sure they don't impose their process on others. If it works for the consultant, great, but tutees need to have enough space and constructive support to forge their own process, even if it differs from their tutor's.

The Collaborator - Consultants need to know when it is appropriate to make suggestions and when it isn't. Suggestions should be provocative, not declarative. If a writer is using the same phrase too many times, ask if they can come up with synonyms. If not, suggest one, and leave it at that.

The Writing "Expert"- Consultants want to be professional. They want to know what they're talking about. But no one's perfect, and consultants need to be able to swallow their pride and look up grammatical technicalities and use the writer's web tool so that they don't end up making their tutee's papers worse rather than better.

The Learner - Just as tutee's can plagiarize from their consultants, consultants may "learn" a thing or two from their tutees. Consultants need to be able to distinguish between building others with others versus thoughtlessly adopting them.

The Counselor - Writing consultants who know their tutees well may be tempted to take too large of a role themselves. Consultants need to recognize when they are not in their area of expertise, and contact the appropriate person to deal with troublesome situations.