Bartholomae Reaction

"Inventing the University" reminded me of the exercise we did in class today where we were suppose to write with authority about something we know nothing about. I am certainly not a lumberjack and no one in our class is an Olympic water polo champion or a master chef. Yet, we all knew how to sound like we knew what we were talking about. We spoke with confidence, added some jargon, recounted personal experiences that would qualify us as knowledgeable.
When students are given a writing assignment, they try to write with authority; they try and sound like a teacher because their audience is their teacher.
If normal discourse is established knowledge (according to Bruffee) then academic discourse is an entirely separate and specialized discourse. Students are trying to assume knowledge of this specialized discourse, but the problem is that they are not authorities. However, they try to act as such towards their audience (their teachers) by trying to mimic the voice of a teacher. Bartholomae says that it is the university's faults for not including enough projects where students have the opportunity to act as colleges. However, their are some students, according to Bartholomae, who know how to manipulate their audience. These students can write from a privileged perspective because they fully understand their audience. Students alter their writing style in order to match what they perceive academia is expected from them. Students write the way they do because they are trying to assume authority on a style they they do not own. So, they "invent the university" by writing to fit what they think the university expects from them.

Reaction to Audio Critique

I found the audio comment helpful, if you sit down and listen to it with the paper in front of you. I liked that I could pause it and then make notes on my own paper because the way I mark up my paper makes sense to me. I can mark it in a way where I can also write down more ideas. The comments I got on the physical paper where very similar, but you need both because the hard copy comments included grammar and spelling errors that needed to be brought to my attention.

Im a Lumberjack, and I'm OK

Being a lumberjack is a lot of hard work. Many people think we all look like the Brawny paper towel man and wear flannel all day, when nothing can be farther from the truth, except flannel is pretty comfortable. Lumberjacks must be very knowledgeable of different types of trees, for each one has a specific structure, composition, and age. These factors determine which wood is best for a certain purpose. Modern technology has certainly helped lower the amount of manual labor and increase efficiency. Power saws and large vehicles help cut trees down faster and make transporting lumber easier. It especially helps when the wood is wet from heavy rain.

Reaction to Myers

Learning a second language takes a lot of time, especially if you are older. English in particular is a very difficult language to learn. ESL students are very capable of forming intelligent thoughts, they just have trouble verbalizing them or writing them down in English. It is difficult for someone who is foreign to English to learn our colloquialisms, all of our rules of grammar, our culture, and especially learn to write in an academic style. With ESL students, you can’t just focus on the writing and ignore the grammar; the two go hand in hand. Myers is saying that the grammatical mistakes that ESL students make are common and that tutors should be both writing instructors and second language teachers in order to help the writer and the writing. We need to take a step back from “minimalist tutoring” because ESL students need a little more. Meyer’s is saying that ESL students are aware of errors, but they just don’t know how to fix them. You can’t just tell someone they have a problem with verb tenses; they already know that. Most of the problems are with vocabulary. In order to understand what an ESL student is trying to say, the tutor should use conversation and bring in new words to add to the student’s lexicon and try to understand what the student is saying. Tutors should suggest new ways of wording a sentence. Improving the writing in this case, is improving the writer because you are helping them express their thoughts.

Boquet Reading

It's nice reading something besides people's theories or their notions of ideal writing centers. I liked that this article took us through the history of writing centers/labs. With that said, a lot was discussed in this article (including the works of our familiar friends, Cooper, Bruffee, and North) so I'll just mention a couple of points I found interesting.
Boquet frequently notes that there is an "at-odds-ness" in writing centers because of what they are in practice and what they should be ideally. This is also because historically, there has been shifts in the practices of education. Is education learning the rules or is it student's eagerness and empowerment? There seems to be a lot of disagreement between education, writing, and writing centers. Should education/ writing centers work towards standardization or individualism? Writing centers are at odds with themselves because they know what they should be doing, but they also have other aspects to consider (the writing standards).
As a psychology major I took a shine to Boquet's passage on Rogerian nondirective counseling and how writing relates to psychology. This is also why I enjoyed Murphy's article comparing tutors as psychoanalysts. The role of a tutor is to ask the student the kinds of questions that will allow him to find the answers himself. Boquet described it as tutors drawing out knowledge that students already posses. In relation to a therapy session, the therapist never tells his patient what to do, he simply listens and provokes the patient with questions that will challenge that patient to think. I feel like the other authors we have discussed in class brought up this issue,just phrased differently.

Tutoring According to the Student Manifesto

The student manifesto proposes an ideal situation where teachers have all the time in the world to focus all of their attention on one paper. In reality, professors could have nearly a hundred papers to grade and don't have time to help students with basic writing techniques. That's what the writing center is for. When I read the paper, "The Cause of Crime," I have to admit, there were places where I just circled sentences and wrote "what" or "huh," which is exactly what the students in the video said not to do. So I went back and put more effort into describing my "what" and "huh." I found that this student did a really good job of setting up quotes and theories and then continuing to explain what the quotes meant, instead of just giving the quote and moving on. This student also provided examples to further explain quotes and theories. She relates one theory to peer pressure and she also mentions Bernard Madoff when discussing how the wealthy still commit criminal acts. I could tell that she had a distinct style of writing within her paragraphs. She would have a general statement, describe what she was going to talk about, give quotes and theories, and then further expand. It was like her paragraphs were a triangle, going from general to specific. However, this student has some areas that need improvement. Her abstract and the beginning of her paragraphs are too general and too obvious, like she is just doesn't know how to start her thoughts. There are ways of presenting what you are going to talk about in an informative manner without being so general. I think this student needs to dive into more content about what her paper will be about instead of just obviously stating that the human mind is complex. In her first paragraph she mentions three reasons why criminals commit crime, so the reader does know what to expect. However, none of that is in her abstract; the reader begins her paper with no knowledge of what is to come. The first paragraph also does not have a clear thesis. It is simply comprised of vague sentences and three factors attributing to why people commit crime. This student also needs to work on word choice and word efficiency. I noticed on the first page, most of her sentences have little beginners that were really unnecessary and only added to her vagueness. "First of all," "For most," "To be more specific," "In the most concise manner," are a few examples. Run-on sentences were also a problem. To name one specifically, on the first paragraph of the third page there is literally a sentence that is four and a half lines. Instead of just fixing it, in my comments I said, "This sentence is multiple complete sentences incorrectly joined. " I then demonstrated where the student could add a comma or period or move certain phrases around to break the sentence up. This kind of editing takes a lot of time, but it does treat the student as an individual and recognizes their strengths and weaknesses in a beneficial manner. However, in the real world, students need to be able to improve their writing without teachers spending all their time on one paper.

Fulwiler Reaction

I can understand where Fulwiler is coming from. He teaches students to revise their papers by limiting, adding, switching, and transforming. I can see how this would benefit students in how to express their ideas and improve their writing. Limiting the paper to certain specific points gives the paper more focus compared to a general statement. Adding more certainly provides extra information that would help better explain a point or argument. Switiching and transforming papers from one point of view to the other forces the student to really understand the argument, see their argument from a different perspective, and practice changing tenses. This is all well and good if you are focusing on creative writing. I think Fulwiler makes the writing process to fluffy and cheesey. He is making students better story tellers. Don't get me wrong, I think his suggestions do produce interesting writing. The reader feels connected when the author gives a specific story. Maybe I am just playing devils advocate, but there is nothing wrong with an academic, fact based paper. Those papers can be interesting, too. At the end of his article, Fulwiler mentions how his students would frame their papers with a fictional narrative. I just think these narratives are fluff pieces, only added because the student needed filler. Fulwiler's main point was that the more you revise a paper and use his techniques, the more interesting the paper will become. I agree with him, but I think facts can be just as interesting depending on how you present them.

Reaction to tutoring session/ Woolbright

The tutor asked the student a lot of questions about whether she felt that she had a place where she elaborated about a certain point. Even so, the tutor basically gave her what he thought her thesis should be and then asked her what her three main points should be. The tutor kept referring to the thesis as his and would make comments such as "That's what I want you to be able to see." The tutor took too much control over what the student's paper should be and he was trying to make the student agree with him, even though the she did not seem that enthusiastic about it. The tutor referring to the students paper in such a possessive way, allowing the student shut down and not think.
Woolbright finds this peer tutoring exchange very problematic because it does not follow a feminist pedagogy. There is no shared authority between the tutor and the student; the tutor is telling the student what to do. I think tutors do have some authority over students simply because tutors (hopefully) have been trained. However, there are ways for tutors to be direct without taking complete control and authority. This paper needs to happen and the student doesn't know what to do. The student needs to develop her argument on her own, so she will be confident in providing support for it. It's the tutors job to ask direct and open ended questions and guide the student so that she may find the answers herself.

Open ended questions:
-If you thought it was about manhood, why?
-What's the most important theme or issue that you found in this reading/ What major moments in the story jump out at you?
- Why did you pick the doctor?
- What do you think about the characters?
- How do the interactions of the characters differ from each scenario? What do these interactions reveal?

This has nothing to do with writing, but it can relate to knowledge as a social construction, and it's really funny

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6731102750245618218&ei=26VES_zINoaIlAe8wamqDw&q=assume+the+position+Wuhl&hl=en&client=safari#

Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center - Lunsford

Lunsford has a cautious attitude towards writing centers because she feels there are many inherent problems with collaboration. These problems are that collaboration breaks away from tradition hierarchies (teachers and students) and individualized thinking; “the rigid hierarchy of teacher- centered classrooms is replicated in the tutor-centered writing center in which the tutor is still the seat of all authority but simply pretending it isn’t so” (50). This view is very different from Bruffee’s in which he says that everyone brings something to the table. The students bring their knowledge of the assignment and the tutors bring sensitivity and knowledge of writing. However, both Lunsford and Bruffee focus on knowledge as socially based. Lunsford defines her ideal writing center as one in which knowledge is formed socially and students think critically beyond the confines of the paper. I feel as though if Lunsford does believe this type of collaboration can exist, that would make her earlier statement hypocritical. I think that people do think individually, but they can also think collaboratively in a democratic and productive way. Isn't that essential what a class is?

Collaborative Learning and the "Conversation of Mankind" - Bruffee

Brufee is saying that conversation (external) leads to thought (internal), which leads to writing. Writing is a product of both conversation and thought; “writing is internalized conversation re-externalized" (641). This dynamic relates to peer tutoring. Peers belong to the same community and when they work together, they use conversation to determine if their internal thoughts make sense. Peers establish and maintain normal discourse by working together.

Bruffee says "writing may seem displaced in time and space from the rest of the writer's community of readers and writers, but in every instance writing is an act, however much displaced, of conversational exchange" (642). Bruffee is saying that writing may be a separate entity from the writer, but it is still a product of the writer’s conversation. In relation to Brooks and North’s argument, Bruffee is saying that by fixing a paper, you are improving the writer. When a tutor is reading a paper, he or she pays attention to the content of the paper and makes sure that the paper makes sense and conforms to the component of normal discourse. Bruffee is saying that peer tutoring is effective because it is people in the same community using conversation to create writing that goes along with the norms/ normal discourse of their community and because of this dynamic, peer tutoring is not just a “fix it” shop.

Peers Seeking Help/ Being a Tutor

Being on both ends of the spectrum back to back was very interesting. When I was a peer seeking help, I felt more relaxed because there was less pressure on me; I just had to read. I had used a paper that I already got an "A" on so I wasn't sure what my tutor would do, but my tutor was really helpful. She noticed aspects of my paper that could have been improved that I would have never noticed, and I could tell that these suggestions was not her just trying to find something. My tutor focused on the content of the paper and how certain sections of my paper could benefit from expansion. She had also noticed that I could have expanded more on a point I had brought up in my thesis and she let me make additions in front of her. This really applies to North in how even an "A" paper can still be improved, because after these additions, the paper was a lot stronger.
When I was a tutor I felt nervous because I there was a lot of pressure to make sure I gave constructive feedback, however, once I got started the pressure was off. Brooks and North both talk about how as tutors fixing grammar and mechanical errors are not beneficial to the writer, only the paper. But, as a tutor, when I gave some suggestions pertaining to grammar (such as repetitive use of words) I felt like that helped the paper and the writer. I think Norths should not be frustrated about how Writing Centers may turn into fix it shops because I noticed that most of the people in here today when they were tutors did not just focus on spelling or grammar. When I was a tutor the main points I covered were paragraph flow and ways to elaborate and expand on certain points, along with simple things like repetitiveness with certain words. I even made up a word in order to try and get my suggestion across (breaking up a concluding paragraph and then making a "final final paragraph." Brooks had made many good suggestions such as sitting on the same side as the peer seeking help. However, I think Brooks and North need to relax. Editing is not terrible and working on a paper does benefit the writer because they learn from the suggestions that are made. Although the papers that everyone shared were already "A" papers, and in these instances sometimes grammar is the only thing to comment on. In the situation of a disaster paper, you need to find a balance with content still taking priority.

Viewing tutorials

I noticed that there was a lot of conversation between the tutor and the student. The tutor was actively listening and asking a lot of questions to the student about what they wanted to do or how they felt about his or her paper. It seemed to be a very positive experience. No one was forcing the students to do anything or telling them that the students paper was bad. As Brent said, it's really helpful to have the student verbalize what they want to say because that verbal explanation may be better than the written one. All the students seemed to have found it helpful.

"Minimalist Tutoring" and the Emphasis on the Student

I found that North and Brooks shared a very similar view on what is the most important aspect of being a peer tutor; the writer. Brooks says, “Our primary object in the writing center session is not the paper, but the student (4). This is very similar to North’s quote/ our class’s mantra for the day; “Our job is to produce better writers, not better writing” (438). Both give their views on what a peer tutor is expected to do, such as listening and ask question in order to probe the students to discover for themselves how to revise their own paper. However, focusing back on Brooks, his ideas of minimalist tutoring certainly puts the tutor in a passive role, forcing the students to be actively engaged in their writing. Relating to one of our main points in class today, Brooks made it seem almost detrimental to the peer tutoring processes to help students with mechanical errors. It is not our job to just be an editor in the sense that we mark up a paper and leave it with no explanation. However, I do believe there is a constructive way to point of grammatical errors that get in the way of the papers while still giving content priority. Once the major issue of getting the students to critically think about their paper and understand how certain adjustments can be beneficial, there wouldn’t be any harm in mentioning a few grammatical errors.

North's Article Relating to Today's Class

North’s piece on writing centers paired well with the activities of today’s class. As we had discussed in class, grammar and syntax are very important, especially when grammatical errors take away from the message of a paper. However, as the entire class collectively peer reviewed the example paper, syntax and grammar took a back seat to the actual content, which required much more attention. I feel like when I start peer tutoring, I may share some of North’s frustrations, but I feel like students who come into a peer tutoring session, whether they are required to or not, will not have the mentality that the context of their paper is perfect and they only need help with grammar. In most cases, if a student came in with questions it would be about formulating ideas, not how to use a comma.
Collaborative peer tutoring really helped me take note of some suggestions that I might not have thought of. When writers come to a peer tutoring session, they go to bounce off ideas, but peer tutoring with someone else was just as beneficial. North had said that a peer tutors job was to interrupt the writer’s routine. Whether or not this is truly beneficial, when a peer tutor collaborates with another tutor, that tutor has to change up his or her reviewing routine because another person is involved in giving feedback. Writing is a process that never really ends because there is always room for improvement and collaboration allows peer tutors to continue to improve just like writers.