While the relationship between tutors and tutees as well as the ownership of student papers are issues worth discussing, to be sure, I am troubled that student attempts to enter the academic conversation are not being read as student papers. I think that if we, as English faculty, use our skills of textual analysis, we could put this tutoring tale in context and, in the process, give credit to a legitimate student effort.
To begin, we need to consider the rhetorical situation. Here, we have writers and a student editor who are freshmen or sophomore college students. This is a product of a student practicum--a student publication, in other words. The authors are writing for the general public, or at least the school public, as they attempt to enter into the academic conversation. We can recognize that effort by the complex concepts that they have some difficulty negotiating. For example, "When prioritizing the challenge of student assertion over the challenge of student receptivity, it becomes clear that the answer to the latter, far less important, challenge has already been indicated--to pursue the student's reception of what the tutor thinks is 'right' automatically discourages the far more important development of an already present student assertion" (23). They are working with theory here, without yet fully understanding that the best theory is clean, clear, and direct. Still, they are making an effort, and they wisely move to a concrete example.
They apply the theory by presenting what they refer to as "a real-world scenario" about Lisa, a student who wants a quick review of specific lower order concerns but is reluctant to address higher order problems with a persuasive draft paper (23). Here is where we need to remember that we are reading a student effort to apply theory to practice. Notice, for example, that we don't know whether the Lisa story is real or fiction. The authors didn't write "actual" or "real," so it is unclear whether this was a recounting of a real event. Given the use of pseudonyms elsewhere in the journal and the absence of one here, we might assume that this is real-like rather than reality. This distinction is important, I think, because of what is and is not included in the dialogue between Lisa and the tutor, and the conclusions drawn from what isn't stated.
The authors want to emphasize the interaction between the tutor and Lisa, and Lisa's assertiveness about her own writing. We learn that the tutor recognizes higher order concerns--the usefulness of counter-arguments in a persuasive paper--and appropriately attempts to tutor at that level initially. We learn that Lisa is not receptive to those suggestions, though, but we do not find out why not. We do learn, however, that she does assert her interest in addressing passive voice and commas--issues that the instructor had flagged as problematic in previous writing.
For all we learn about Lisa and the tutor's interaction, it seems even important to note that there is a lot that we don't learn. Perhaps this because the student authors are focusing on points that will develop their thesis. Or, perhaps this is because these student tutors are so immersed in their tutoring world that they assume their audience shares knowledge of their world. At any rate, we don't know, for example, whether Lisa has been at the writing center before, or whether the tutor is familiar with the standards Lisa's teacher sets. Has the tutor seen the assignment for the persuasive paper Lisa is drafting? Does Lisa's teacher typically emphasize discourse level excellence, or is the emphasis on sentence-level correctness? After all, we know that Lisa has received prior feedback that leads her to want input on punctuation and voice. Does she know that is all that will be required or her, or is she on a deadline? (She glances at a clock (24).) We also aren't reminded that tutors fill out a form at the end of each tutoring session. In this case, the report would apprise her instructor of the tutoring process and the choices Lisa made: that Lisa had the opportunity address discourse-level problems with the draft but that she had insisted on sticking with the lower-level concerns.
Please note that I'm not criticizing what's not in the text--it needn't be there. I am concerned, however, by the reasoning of colleagues who ascribe to a writing center director conclusions that her tutors reached. We are reading their paper, not hers. We shouldn't deny these student writers their authorship. This is an article in which two student authors work through issues of ownership of text, free will, and their relationship with writers and their drafts. In the process, they are able to console themselves that what may initially appear to be a failed tutoring effort can, in fact, succeed by giving students opportunities to make the right choices and the freedom to choose to do so--or not. I suggest that their text deserves as much respect as they gave to Lisa.
Work Cited
Harmon, Evan, and Scott Young. "Dialogue Strategies." In the Pockets of Yesterday's Pants: Theory, Practice, Theory. Overland Park, KS: Johnson Country Community College Writing Center, 2008. 23-25.
No comments:
Post a Comment