INTRODUCTION:
This research paper seeks to identify the roles tutors play when agendas are negotiated during tutoring sessions and aims to correlate agenda negotiation to the overall success of a writing session. For tutoring to be successful, tutees must feel as if their needs have been heard and taken seriously, while tutors must feel as if they have been made useful contributions. This research seeks to highlight both the ways in which tutees communicate their needs and the ways in which tutors respond. It aims to show that when tutors assume different roles in response to tutees’ needs, successful tutoring can occur.
LITERATURE REVIEW:
Several authors have examined the notion that tutors fulfill multiple, complex, and often conflicting roles during writing conferences. In “Linguistic Politeness and Peer Tutoring”, Diana Calhoun Bell et al explore this concept. They view tutors as performing both the role of expert and collaborator. They write, “Consultants are expected to have the capability to talk confidently and professionally about writing and the writing process, but conversely, they need to be egalitarian and engage in collaboration with students in order to help them through the writing process” (37).
Like Calhoun et al, Sara Cushing Weigle and Gayle L. Nelson center their discussion of tutor roles on issues of power. They cite Therese Thonus’ examination of how tutors’ allegiance to both writing center theory and their institutional employers complicates their work (204). This concept is supported by John Timbur in his work “The Process of Tutoring: Connecting Theory and Practice”. “In practice, new tutors often experience cognitive dissonance as a conflict of loyalties. They feel pulled, on one hand, by their loyalty to their fellow students and, on the other hand, by loyalty to an academic system that has rewarded them and whose values they have internalized” (290).
Like Thonus, as cited by Weigle and Nelson, Calhoun Bell et al acknowledge the difficulty tutors may feel when attempting to reconcile conflicting roles. They write, “Caught between these complicated expectations, writing center tutors must situate themselves and somehow find a way to work productively with writers to improve their writing, yet manage to do so with minimal imposition upon the students with whom they collaborate” (38).
Isabelle Thompson also maintains the idea that tutors must negotiate complex expectations. For her, the tutor’s function is to recognize tutees’ accomplishments while pushing tutees to improve. Christina Murphy in “Freud in the Writing Center: The Psychoanalytics of Tutoring Well” echoes Thompson’s view that tutors fulfill both affective and instructional roles, but unlike Thompson, Murphy prioritizes the tutor’s functions, suggesting that “…the tutor’s role often is primarily supportive and affective, secondarily instructional…” (296).
This concept of multiple roles is expanded by Hansun Zhang Waring in his work “Peer Tutoring in a Graduate Writing Centre: Identity, Expertise, and Advice Resisting.” Waring not only explores the tutor’s various functions, but also includes an examination of the fluid nature of the tutor/tutee relationship. He writes, “Unlike other dyads in educational advising where the expert–novice relationship is relatively clear-cut (e.g. professor–student, counsellor– student), the tutor and tutee carry competing areas of expertise” (141).
According to Waring, the tutor is not the only “expert” present during writing sessions. Though the tutor may know more about writing than his/her tutee, the tutee probably will have greater knowledge of the subject matter, the professor’s expectations, and the requirements of the assignment. Because both tutor and tutee possess expertise, according to Waring, the “…tutor–tutee interaction exhibits great potential for negotiation…” (142).
As the authors cited have presented, tutors play multiple roles- peer, collaborator, supporter, employee, and expert. For the purposes of this research, each role will be defined as follows:
Peer- the tutor acknowledges common experience with the tutee and attempts to form allegiance based on these shared experiences
Collaborator- the tutor and tutee work together on agreed-upon task
Supporter- the tutor uses encouraging words, gestures, or cognitive scaffolding to affirm tutee’s ideas or to promote tutee’s comfort, confidence, and risk-taking
Employee- the tutor acknowledges her responsibilities as an employee of the institution and/or speaks to the ways in which that status affects/limits her actions in the writing session
Expert- the tutor acknowledges that she knows a great deal about the issue at hand and seeks to find ways to share this expertise with the tutee
It is negotiation that is the focal point of this paper- the internal negotiation of the tutor and the external negotiation between tutor and tutee. This research seeks not only to examine when and how tutors play various roles, but also aims to make connections between these roles and student and tutor perceptions of success. This study will examine negotiation during the agenda setting portion (ASP) of writing sessions. In “The First Five Minutes”, Thomas Newkirk maintains that agendas are important, for they give sessions direction. In this paper, I maintain that the ASPs also serve as loci for revealing the ways in which both tutors and tutees negotiate power and expertise. It is my contention that the role tutors choose is largely dependent on their reading of the student’s needs during the ASP. Both students’ and tutors’ satisfaction is dependent upon the student’s ability to communicate their needs, as well as the tutor’s capacity to use the different roles to respond to those perceived needs.
METHODS
Context:
This study focuses on 3 case studies.
Tutees in the study were Kean University undergraduate and graduate students of various majors. Tutors were Kean University undergraduate and graduate students enrolled in a tutor training course. Tutors and tutees met during hour long, one-on-one sessions at the Kean University writing center.
The researcher has observed and has participated (as a tutor) in these one-on-one tutoring sessions over a five-week period. When observing a session, I have written detailed observations of the ASP. When participating, I have asked I have been observing the interactions between coaches and students during both the initial phases of the writing session and the "wrap-up" phase of the session.
I have used the following categories to help me analyze the data collected:
• Initiator of agendas
• Acceptance of agendas
Closing of agendas
• Tutor responses
• Tutor Role
Markers of a successful session for the tutee are as follows:
Verbal cues: expressing a willingness to return to the tutor, affirming that the session met their needs, thanking the tutor for her help
Non verbal cues: smiling, shaking hands,
DATA ANALYSIS
Tony (tutor) and Marge (tutee)
Marge is an ESL student who had worked with Tony two days prior on a paper examining a book about World War II. She had returned with a newly completed draft of the paper, which would be due in two days.
Marge seemed comfortable and confident as the session began. She sat near Tony, presented him with the paper, and made eye contact as Tony began.
After a brief discussion of the previous conference, Marge proceeded to express her goals for the session. She told Tony that her paper was complete and explained the process by which she divided the paper into sections. She told Tony that her purpose for coming to the writing session was to make sure that her writing was grammatically correct and understandable.
At this point in the session, the agenda had been set. It is clear that Marge views Tony as a collaborator/expert, one who will accept her objective, will detect unclear writing, and will help her correct it.
Seeming to accept the agenda as set by Marge and his role, Tony held and began to read Marge’s outline of the book-the first “section” of her paper. He pointed to several grammatical mistakes and gave the paper and pen to Marge for her to make the corrections on her paper. Next, he engaged in conversation to encourage Marge to add information, which he deemed as necessary. Marge was silent, indicating an unwillingness to accept Tony’s advice. Tony waited for a few seconds, then asked whether or not the “missing” information was covered in the book. Marge replied that it was not.
At this point, Tony acts as a writing expert, but not as a content expert. From a reader’s perspective, he recognizes that more information would be helpful. However, as Tony has not read the book, he has no expertise regarding content and must take the tutee’s word that the information is not covered in the book. In regards to content, Tony acts as a peer. By admitting that Marge has had an academic experience he has not, he is acknowledging his position as a student and attempting to level their positions.
Tony moves on. He states, “You’ve set up a good outline. I haven’t read the book, but I can understand it based on your outline. You’ve done a good job providing the information with main points. It gives me all the information I need.” He places the outline down on the desk.
With this Tony responds as a supporter. He admits that Marge is the expert regarding content and gives her praise for effectively presenting her ideas through her outline. His praise indicates that he is done with reading the outline and is bringing this part of the session to a close.
As the session proceeded, Marge changed the agenda several times. While working on the agenda, Marge asked if there was enough transition between thoughts. Tony offered Marge a sample transitional phrase and wrote it on Marge’s paper at her prompting. Tony moved among collaborator, peer and supporter as he and Marge worked through the remainder of the paper. They worked three agendas set by the student: transitional phrases, improving the conclusion, and creating a bibliography with footnotes.
Sonya (tutor) and Janice (tutee)
Janice is a graduate student. She had been a special education teacher for many years and had recently returned to school. Janice indicated that she had not written a literary paper in years. She came to the session equipped with a first draft of her essay, a copy of which she had already turned in to the professor.
Sonya asked Janice to describe the assignment. Janice leaned back in her chair, slid the paper towards Sonya and stated that in the essay she had attempted to describe the internal and external conflicts of three female protagonists and the ways in which the characters self-sacrifice to resolve the conflicts. Janice added that she wanted Sonya to see if her paper explained the thesis.
Janice’s body language indicates some level of discomfort. She smiled as she described her topic, indicating that she was proud of the thesis that she had generated. However, her gesture of pushing the paper toward the tutor may have been a hint of her lack confidence in her paper’s development of that thesis.
Sonya then leaned in and began to read the paper.
As Sonya begins to read the paper, it is clear that she has accepted the agenda as set by Janice-checking for adequate development of the thesis. Janice views Sonya as an expert, handing over her paper for Sonya to “check”.
After reading, Sonya told Janice that she understood how the paper describes both the internal and external conflicts of each protagonist, but that the paper seemed to lack a discussion of the sacrifices of each character.
After stating this, Sonya turned to the section of the paper that dealt with the theme of self-sacrifice. She told Janice that in her paper, she mentions that Nora has sacrificed but does not explain how. Sonya admits that she is unfamiliar with the play that Janice references and that she cannot tell her whether or not the explanation is grounded in the play. She prompts Janice to verbally explain what the character sacrifices. Janice verbally explains, after which Sonya suggests she write down her explanation.
By admitting she is not familiar with the play, Sonya is attempting to deflect the role of expert. She wants Janice to know that she can offer no expertise in regards to subject matter. She assumes the role of a collaborator, offering writing expertise, while Janice offers content knowledge.
Sonya uses the same process to get Janice to explain how the two other characters sacrifice. Sonya tells Janice that she is somewhat knowledgeable about the other two plays she references and they talk verbally for about ten minutes about each character’s sacrifice, with Sonya prompting Janice to explain and “echoing” Janice’s explanation with phrases, such as,“ So what you’re saying is…”
After the verbal exchange, Sonya said, “What you’re saying makes sense” and a prompted Janice to write her explanations onto her essay.
By using supportive language, Sonya attempts to encourage Janice, validating her thoughts. Sonya assumes the role of supporter.
An agenda switch occurred immediately after, however, with Sonya speaking up about something she noticed in Janice’s essay. “I see you’ve written that you didn’t think A Doll’s House was a tragedy. Was that part of the assignment?”
Sonya is beginning to assume the role of an expert here. She has noticed an underdeveloped idea in the essay and hopes to prompt Janice to think about if the idea if necessary, and if so, the need to develop it more fully.
Janice replied that it was indeed part of the assignment. Then Sonya said that if it was a part of the assignment, then Janice should discuss whether or not she thought each play was a tragedy. Janice then checked her notes from class for a definition of tragedy. She read the definition aloud and she and Sonya discussed whether or not she thought each play was a tragedy.
Sonya prompted Janice to write down her thoughts.
At the close of the session, Janice asked Sonya her name again and for her writing center hours, indicating that she was satisfied with the progress of the session.
Camille (tutor) and Joseph (tutee)
Joseph is a second year ESL student (math major)
Camille and Joseph introduced themselves and Camille asked Joseph to sign the IRB sheet. Joseph sat quietly for a few seconds.
It seems as if Camilla reads Joseph’s silence as an indication that she was to take the lead.
She asked, “What is on the agenda? What was your assignment?” Joseph made no eye contact and looked down. He explained the assignment, saying he had to discuss the Bill of Rights and give his opinion. Camille asked Joseph for clarification. “Give your opinion about what exactly?” she asked. Joseph replied,” Why we have a Bill of Rights?”
Camille then asked to see the assignment sheet. She read the 1 and ½ pages as Joseph looked through his papers for the assignment sheet. She and Joseph looked at the assignment sheet, which was resting between them on the desk.
(The assignment sheet lists the criteria but does not give a specific topic.)
Camille suggested that they work on creating a thesis statement.
At this point, it seems as if Camille has set the agenda. She is playing the role of expert-identifying a lack in the essay and directing the student to work on it.
Camille then asked Joseph what he wanted to cover in the paper. She writes down his responses, which are who created the Bill of Right, why and when. Camille directed Joseph to write down his answers to the questions in one or two sentences. She told him this will be his working thesis statement.
Joseph wrote down his answers. He stated that he may want to include more in his thesis later. Camille said that was fine. Camille read Joseph’s introduction and directed him to make grammatical corrections. She told Joseph to add his thesis statement to the end of the introduction.
Joseph set a new agenda as Camille read the second paragraph aloud. He brought up questions about citation. He wanted to know when and how to cite. Camille showed Joseph proper in-text citation by demonstrating in her notebook.
Joseph views Camille as an expert. He wishes for her to impart information that he feels he lacks. Camille accepts the role and uses direct instruction in the form of providing an example.
After seeing Camille’s example, Joseph used his book to find relevant page numbers. Then he copied Camille’s citation onto his paper, replacing her page numbers for his.
Camille continued to serve as an expert as she answered several more questions about citation.
Camille asked Joseph what he wanted to focus on for the rest of his essay.
It seems as if Camille wants Joseph to set the agenda for the next phase of the session. She is trying to relinquish the role of expert.
Joseph then showed Camille an outline he had worked on with another tutor. The outline was written in Spanish. Camille read over the outline and for minutes she and Joseph reviewed ways to expand it.
Conclusion:
Camille said to Joseph, “Hopefully this helped a little.” As a reply, Joseph scrunched his face and frowned.
Camille asked the due date of the paper. After Joseph replied that the paper would not be due for six days, Camille invited Joseph back to the writing center, telling him that she would be back on Thursday.
Joseph hesitated and then stated that he can make it on Thursday.
Camille and Joseph then held brief small talk about the challenges of college. They laughed and Joseph left.
Camille attempts to end by assuming the peer role.
DISCUSSION:
This study focuses on tutor roles as highlighted during agenda negotiation within writing sessions and attempts to correlate the negotiation of these roles to tutor and tutee perceptions of success. After reviewing the sessions, I have noted different phenomena. Agenda shifts occurred in each writing session, suggesting ?????. Different factors that contribute to a tutor’s choice of roles. These factors are the student’s ability to articulate his/her needs, the tutor’s perception of the tutee’s needs, and the tutor’s content knowledge. No matter who set the agenda, the tutor’s ability to switch among roles seemed to lend itself to perceptions of success.
In the first two dyads (Tony/Marge and Sonya/Janice) the tutees were able to clearly articulate their objectives for the session. Marge asked Tony to read for clarity and Janice asked Sonya to check for adequate development. Marge and Janice’s ability to express their needs indicates that they possess a level of writing expertise that enables them to assess their own writing. (Both were working on first drafts and had not received feedback from professors.) To Marge and Janice’s proficiency, Tony and Sonya (respectively) responded by positioning themselves as collaborators. They accepted the agendas as set by the tutees and proceeded to engage in conversation with their tutees, asking questions to help their tutees meet their objectives.
In contrast, Joseph did not set the initial agenda. He sat quietly at the start of the session. Viewing his silence as an indication that he needed help creating an agenda, Camille responded by assuming the role of the expert. Unlike Tony and Sonya, Camille both verbalized the initial objectives for the session (creating a working thesis) and guided Joseph through an exercise to help him meet the agenda, which she had set.
Each writing session involved multiple agendas. Yet, the initiator of the first agenda did not necessarily continue to set all of the subsequent agendas. In the case of Tony and Marge, Marge set the agendas throughout the entire session. However, with Sonya/Janice and Camille/Joseph, the person who had not set the initial agenda did initiate at least one agenda switch. Having both tutor and tutee participate in creating the agendas, however, did not seem necessarily to correlate to tutor and tutee perceptions of success.
As Tony read each new section of Marge’s essay, Marge introduced new sub-areas she wanted to review- using transitions, writing conclusions, and working on a bibliography. With each new agenda, Tony responded by accepting it (reading the essay to “check” for the issue Marge brought up) and by using conversation and direct instruction to facilitate the meeting of the agenda. Tony used the supporter role when he felt that each agenda had been reached. He would make comments, such as “This is good. Everything is clear”, to indicate that he felt an agenda had been worked on successfully and to make time for the next agenda.
Whereas the tutee (Marge ) introduced each agenda change in the first dyad, the tutor instigated a switch in the second dyad. After Sonya and Janice collaborated to work on Janice’s first agenda of thesis development, which Janice had introduced, Sonya initiated an agenda switch. She noticed an idea in the essay that Janice had neither verbally expressed would be in the essay nor that had been included in the thesis statement. Here Sonya assumed the role of an expert. She had detected a “problem” in the essay and attempted to make Janice aware of it. Previously, Sonya had been acting as a collaborator, as she and Janice worked together on the initial agenda, so to smoothly switch to the new role of expert, Sonya used two strategies. First, as did Tony, Sonya used the supporter role to bring the first agenda to a close. She stated, “What you’re saying makes sense”, a sentence which she used to confirm Janice’s work on the first agenda and to help make Janice more receptive to going into a new direction. Second, Sonya used a leading question, (“I see you’ve written that you didn’t think A Doll’s House was a tragedy. Was that part of the assignment?”) to ease Janice into thinking about the new agenda. After Janice admitted that this was a part of the essay, Sonya assumed the role of an expert, telling Janice that she needed to more fully develop the idea and to include its discussion in a revised thesis statement. Sonya then worked as a collaborator, with both tutor and tutee discussing their definitions of tragedy and with Sonya verbally prompting Janice to share the ways in which the plays fit the definition.
Camille and Joseph experienced agenda switches during their writing session as well. However, in this case, the tutee, though not the initiator of the first agenda, introduced the new agenda. After he, at Camille’s prompting, created a thesis statement, Joseph led the session into a discussion concerning citation. He asked direct questions about the proper way to cite and Camille responded by remaining in the expert role. She used direct instruction, writing her own example of citation and prompting Joseph to copy the format.
In the first two dyads (Tony/Marge and Sonya/ Janice) both the tutor and the tutee expressed satisfaction at the conclusion of the session. Tony asked Marge directly if she felt the session had been helpful. She smiled and responded “of course”. In a post session interview, Tony expressed that he thought that he and Marge had made progress concerning the agendas. At the end of the session between Sonya and Janice, Janice smiled, thanked Sonya, and asked her for her tutoring hours, indicating that she would visit again. Sonya also expressed that she felt progressed had been made during the session. However, in the case of Camille and Joseph, both tutor and tutee Joseph expressed minimal satisfaction. Janice’s closing question (“Hopefully this helped a little”) indicates that she doubted that the session had been a success. Joseph’s frown and hesitancy when answering signify s that he too felt the session unsuccessful.
A correlation may be drawn between the tutor’s role and the tutor and tutee’s feelings of satisfaction. In the cases of Tony/Marge and Sonya/Janice, the tutors played various roles. They collaborated at the start of the session, used the supporter role to close agendas, acted as experts when they possess content knowledge, and even worked as peers when they talked about their own background as students. This ability to switch among roles may be linked to both the tutors’ and tutees’ feelings of success at the close of the sessions. Perhaps, the tutors felt as if they were responding to the tutees’ needs and perhaps the tutees felt as if their voices had been heard. In this case of Camille and Joseph, however, Camille assumed the expert role almost exclusively. Even after Joseph introduced an agenda, Camille used direct instruction to “teach” Joseph the proper way to cite. She remained in the role when toward the end of the session, she introduced a new agenda of writing a more detailed outline. Perhaps, Joseph felt as if he was being “talked down to” and maybe felt as if she exercised too much control.
CONCLUSION
This study has sought to show the various roles tutors assume during the agenda setting portions of tutoring sessions. It shows that tutors choose various roles to communicate with tutees. To show that they have accepted the tutees’ agenda, the tutors in the study used the collaborator role. To bring an agenda to a close, tutees used the supporter role. To communicate a lack of expertise, tutors used the peer role, and to share content/writing knowledge, tutors used the expert role.
When shifting among roles is used purposefully, tutors seem to have greater success.
MORE
