We’ve all had them—the good writers. The ones who really know what they’re doing, who know what they’re talking about, who know the basic rules of grammar. The ones that make us draw a blank, a complete white wall of nothingness because—really—it is so tempting to stay at the surface level grammars and word choices and citations that we resist putting on our scuba gear and really diving in.
But perhaps “diving in” is the wrong metaphor. “Diving in” might imply that we, as consultants, are initiating that first jump in the water, pulling the client in behind us…and I don’t think this is the answer to “how to help a good writer.” In fact, I think we should do the exact opposite: hand that scuba gear right over to the writer.
From my experience in being both a consultant and a client in these situations, I think that stepping back and letting the client take control is extremely important; if a writer shows a high level of comprehension about her topic, and if the reader isn’t distracted by blatant issues related to organization, grammar, or sentence structure, I would bet that the writer already has ideas about what needs revision—and this writer is gonna be frustrated if it’s never brought up.
Besides being a good way for the writer to get her concerns out right off the bat, this is a huge weight off our chests. Now that the client “has the floor,” we have a few moments to catch our breath and readjust to the new situation.
Okay, so now what. How exactly should we “adjust” for this kind of writer? Sometimes we get off the hook—the writer tells us that she hates her last three paragraphs and thinks that they are repetitive. Great, so we spend the rest of the session talking about writing concisely. But sometimes the writer isn’t so sure about what exactly is wrong. In a session I’ve had before, the client mentioned that she had read everything so many times, it all seemed to blur together. So what can we do in that situation? How can we make that good paper even better? Consider this:
1) Is the writer doing “final polishing”? Even a strong paper can benefit from sentence-level revision, and although the writer knows how to stylistically manipulate grammar, sometimes multiple revisions gives birth to strange punctuation.
2) Or we can compare apples to apples. Which parts of the paper were the strongest? Why? How can these techniques be applied to other paragraphs?
3) Or what about Audience Awareness: sometimes a paper is very strong but has not taken into account that the audience is inter-disciplinary, or doesn’t require great formality, or is wanting to know about the author personally, or already knows everything about the topic and is wanting to discover something new, etc, etc.
4) Conciseness should also make this list. I have yet to meet a writer—even really good ones—who can convey their ideas most concisely every. single. time.
These are just a few ways to start a session with a “good writer.” Like every semester project that we procrastinate two months on, starting is the hardest part of these sessions and, once started, the conversation seems to propel itself. So instead of blank white walls of nothingness, give the client the scuba gear, take a minute to readjust, then get that conversation going.
Popular posts from this blog
I have posted a poll in the IWCA forums: IWCA Forum: Peer Tutor => What do we call ourselves: the poll! It is a part of an earlier discussion that kind of petered out about the titles used for writing center workers. Please take a moment and vote! If you don't have an account on the forum, you can register for one by clicking on the "Register" link (next to the rocket icon in the top-right of the page.) Don't forget to state your institutional affiliation when you request and account. (That's how the IWCA Forum keeps out spam accounts.)
Dear me… As a junior in college, you were just trying your best and going through the motions (like everyone else) . You wanted to fit in and emulate what you thought a typical college student should look like. Then, along came the opportunity to become a w riting c onsultant. That’s immediately when the fear started, I began questioning myself and my own personal writing. I was unsure how I, a typical college student, would have enough skills to help others. How would I manage being insecure with myself when I was supposed to be someone my peers looked to find their own confidence? When it came to your first day of work, you were sitting in the writing lab waiting for your learner to show up with anxiety pouring out of your body. It was probably the most anxious you ever got in your life - aside from applying to college in the first place. You were so excited to meet your colleagues, yet so nervous that you were going to disappoint them. Thoughts streamed through your head
Testing Online Tutoring Online tutoring may be a constant of the tutoring landscape, but the question of effectiveness remains. Which organizations are best prepared to meet the needs of students: writing centers affiliated with universities or “professional” tutoring agencies, such as Pearson-Smarthinking? It is this question I intend to address in conducting a proposed experiment. Important Background Information The concept most central to this proposed experiment is that of knowledge claims. In his book Reformers, Teachers, Writers: Curricular and Pedagogical Inquiries , Neal Lerner identifies the three primary types of knowledge claims that appear in a writing center: “writerly knowledge,” “emotional knowledge,” and “role knowledge” (Lerner 115). “Role knowledge” is arguably the most important knowledge claim (Lerner 115). While analyzing transcripts of student sessions, Lerner noticed there was a correlation between the presence of “role knowledge” claims and the “success”