WATCHing Writers

As this blog has emphasizes for the past couple of weeks, cultural factors play a huge role in writing consultations, especially when those cultural influences are as deep as those of international and ESL students. It's clear that writing consultants and centers need to adapt their pedagogy a bit to maximize the positive impact we have on these writers, and some general cautions have been discussed, but how do these broad concerns play out in an actual consultation?

In "Creating a Common ground with ESL writers", authors David Mosher, Davin Granroth, and Troy Hicks, propose a WATCH protocol for consultations with ESL writers, highlighting nine examples of common scenarios with ESL writers to exhibit how the WATCH protocol can serve as a reliable rule of thumb for these situations. WATCH stands for: Talk about the Writer, talk about the Audience/Assignment, talk about the Text, being aware of Communication Caveats, and to be sure that you're being Helpful. The WATCH protocol echos the arguments in my previous posts about establishing a healthy relationship and deepened level of empathy/patience with ESL students.

I think, however, that the real strength of this article lies in the insights extracted from the nine specific areas of "cultural variance" that consultants need to be aware of. Even though the WATCH protocol is all well and good, it isn't very specific, and for all the talk of offering directive tutoring when appropriate, I think this is one of those times when the consultant is the one in need of directive tutoring. The nine areas of cultural variance in writing that are discussed are topic development, transition signaling, directness, metaphoric usage, digressions, argumentation and support, voice/stance, product vs. process oriented thinking, and views on intellectual property.

The advice provided in each of these areas is massively helpful, however, I noticed that a pattern emerged. When trying to bridge gaps between American norms and the norms of other cultures, the authors always suggest that the consultant ask the writer what they meant to say. The very act of rewording usually clarifies the intent of the writer for the consultant, but also shows the writer how by rewording their ideas they used language more familiar to Americans.

This got me thinking. Why do we only go out of our way to engage in this type of consultation for ESL students? Wouldn't these same technique be just as effective with American students, who though they may not face enormous cultural barriers, still have difficulty communicating their ideas? I think so. I think it would also allow consultants to ethically be more directive with American students. We can specifically point to errors or areas of concern and why they could be better, but then force the task of addressing those issues back onto the writer.

What I mean to say is, I think the style of tutoring we adopt for ESL students is the superior style of tutoring for all students. Students are looking for direct help, and we can provide that direct help ethically as long as we don't become the "fixers". As consultants, our job should be to highlight weak spots in writing, explain why they are weak spots, and then the writer has to use that information to initiate a dialogue with the consultant about how to strengthen those areas. That style of tutoring would both engage the student more, give them more control of their writing, and increase their satisfaction with the session since they feel like they "fixed" specific points in their paper.

We should be WATCHing all writers, not just ESL writers.