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. “Specifically, Thonus argues that tutorials in the writing center can best be seen as institutional service encounters, in which the tutor, as a paid employee of the institution, automatically has more power and control than the tutee and thus cannot easily take on a more equal, collaborative role. This situation frequently leads to ‘‘a rift between writing center theory (tutors and tutees are of equal status) and writing center practice (tutors are dominant institutional representatives)’’ (Thonus, 1999a, p. 227), creating cognitive dissonance for tutors as they attempt to reconcile these conflicting tutor roles” (204). This concept is supported by John Timbur in his work “The Process of Tutoring: Connecting Theory and Practice”. He writes, “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. She writes, “… the more expert tutor is expected to support and challenge the less expert student to perform at levels higher than the student could have achieved without assistance” (419). (Emphasis mine) 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).
As the authors cited have presented, tutors play multiple roles- peer, collaborator, supporter, employee, and expert. Each author cites multiple ways in which tutors can and do negotiate the various roles they are expected to fulfill. Calhoun et al focus on the positive and negative politeness strategies, relating the frequency of use of each to the tutor’s particular stance. Weigle and Nelson explore the accommodations in practices that tutors make when tutoring ESL students over a semester. Isabella Thompson examines the times and ways a tutor uses cognitive and motivational scaffolding to bridge a student’s individual capability to the expectations of an assignment. And Christina Murphy advocates that tutors make themselves keenly aware of the trust, vulnerability, and transformative power inherent in a tutoring session. WHAT AM I GOING TO ADD? WHAT HAVE I OBSERVED AS TUTOR'S WAYS OF NEGOTIATION
This concept of multiple stances 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. However, whereas Thompson views the tutor/tutee relationship as asymmetrical, with the tutor having more expertise than the tutee, and Thonus sees the tutor/tutee relationship as unbalanced due to tutors’ power as institutional representatives, Waring views the relationship as more dynamic. 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).
This potential for negotiation is reflected in the work of Muriel Harris. She cites the one-on-one major contributor to the collaborative nature of tutoring. She writes that most students enter tutoring sessions with a positive outlook, perhaps saying, “
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 study will examine negotiation during a critical stage of the writing session- the agenda setting portion (ASP). In this paper, I maintain that the ASP is critically important as it works as a locus for revealing the ways in which both tutors and tutees negotiate power and expertise. It is my contention that the tutors’ role is largely dependent on their reading of the student’s needs during the ASP.
Writing center theory has explored the importance of tutor/ tutee negotiation when setting agendas for tutoring sessions. In “The First Five Minutes”, Thomas Newkirk, states that agendas function to “…act as a kind of lead” that gives the session direction (313). He maintains that negotiating an agenda for a tutoring session is critically important, and that without an agenda that has been agreed upon by both tutor and student, the writing session “…can run on aimlessly and leave both participants with the justifiable feeling that they have wasted time”(303).
To help guide tutors through the process of negotiating agendas, JoAnn D. Andre maintains that tutors should always be cognizant of their ultimate goal. In “Case Study Response: Oh What a Difference a Deadline Makes-or Does It?” Andre argues that the tutors’ larger agenda should always be to “…help students become better at researching, writing, and revising their papers; we are here to produce better writers, not (or not just) better writing (215).
METHODS
Context:
This study focuses on "5" case studies.
Tutees in the study were undergraduate and graduate Kean University students with varying majors. Tutors were undergraduate and graduate Kean University students enrolled in a tutor training course. Tutors and tutees met in one-on-one sessions and did not necessarily have contact before the writing session. Tutoring sessions were an hour long and took place in the Kean University tutoring center.
The researcher has observed and has participated (as a tutor) in these one-on-one tutoring sessions over a four-week period. When observing a session, I have written detailed observations, specifically noting:
Who initiated the agenda?
Who initiated shifts in the agenda?
How tutors and tutees responded to
Indications of tutor and student's comfort/confidence level, as marked by tone of voice, body posture, facial expressions, and gestures.
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:
· Student confidence
· Stage in writing process
· Feedback from professors (or other tutors)
· Negotiation of agenda
· Tutor responses
· Tutor Role
Data Analysis:
Tony and Marge
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.
Tony began the session by recapping the progress he and Marge had made the last session. He asked her if she had gone to her professor and if the professor approved of the outline she had written, even though the outline was not in the format that the professor had specified, an issue that Tony hinted that he had noted in the previous session.
Marge told Tony that he had been right, that the professor was expecting paragraph format instead of an outline, but that the professor had allowed her to keep her original because the content was accurate and thorough.
Marge’s willingness to discuss a potential “mistake” with her professor serves as an indication that Marge is invested in her own learning.
Marge then 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. Marge wanted someone to check her paper for clarity. It is clear that Marge views Tony as an expert who can detect unclear writing.
Seeming to accept the agenda as set by Marge and his role as expert, Tony held and began to read Marge’s outline of the book-the first “section” of her paper.
When Tony finished the outline, he stated, “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.
At this point, Tony is responding 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. As Tony read the introduction, 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.
Later, as Tony read the paper's conclusion, Marge expressed unease about the way in which it was written. She stated, " The only thing I worry about is the conclusion. I tried to make a concise statement..." She then leaned in and pointed to her paper. Tony read the paper and asked a leading question. "How does it explain the difficulties?" He then used direct instruction, saying, "I would state or list the 2 most important difficulties. Write everything down, even if it does not make sense. We'll be able to squish it all together in one phrase later." He then provided Marge with the start of a phrase and left it to her to complete it with her own thoughts. Marge began to write.
What seems significant here is that Marge's felt confident and aware of her strengths and weakenesses as a writer. This confidence led her to verbalize her needs so that her paper received the attention she felt was necessary. She seemed to become re-aware of the issues in her paper as she watched Tony read it.
Tony's response to these two shifts in agenda was to follow Marge's lead. He chose to use direct instruction- the stance of a teacher. He seemed comfortable enough to prompt Marge in a way that got her to respond.
The last change in agenda came when Tony and Marge were done with the actual paper. Marge asked Tony how to write a bibliography with footnotes. To this, Tony paused, gulped, and pushed his hair back. He admitted that he did not know how to help her. "I haven't done many papers where I needed to use footnotes," he said.
Marge then handed Tony the reference guide, indicating her desire for him to figure out the dilemma. Tony responded by suggested that Marge ask someone in her class for clarification about the professor's expectations. Marge said she did not have any classmate's contact information. After several minutes of talk, Marge said that she would prevent the professor with two versions of her bibliography.
When Marge hands Tony the refernce guide, it seems as if she views him as someone who can solve her dilemma, despite Tony's admittance that he is unfamiliar with the specific requirement she needs to meet. Initially, Marge seems unwilling to accpet that Tony lack expertise in this area.
Tony responds to Marge's request by admitting a lack of expertise, stating that though he has worked on papers before, he has never been required to make a bibliography with footnotes.
I'm pretty insecure about a few aspects of the paper.
1. I need more obsrevations! If anyone has any usable notes, I'd be grateful.
2. I don't really know if I'm approaching this data analysis in a succint, understandable way.
3. Is my focus too limited? Is it meaty enough?
Monday, November 30, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Blog 18: Research Plan Revised
The Writing Session: The Set-Up of Success
Research Plan:
Purpose: Through my research, I hope to explore the links between agenda setting and student/ tutor perceptions of success.
Research Question: How are agendas set in a writing session? What is the relationship between goal setting and student/tutor perceptions of success?
Sub Questions to Consider:
What methods do students use to set the agenda for the session? Under what conditions do students set the agenda?What methods do tutors use to set the agenda? Under what conditions do tutors set the agenda?Under what conditions do students and tutors negotiate the agenda? What methods do they use?What are the indications that an agenda has been set? What does the shiftbetween "setting up" and "doing the work" look like? What are the verbal/nonverbal cues?
What are the implications of an "unspoken" agenda? How does working with an "implied agenda" impact a writing session?What are some indications of the success of a writing session? What are the verbal/nonverbal cues from both student and tutor?How are the relative levels of student/tutor satisfaction related to the clarity of the agenda and the student and/or tutor’s acceptance of the agenda?
Information needed:
To proceed, I think I will need to gather the following information:
Articles that that speak the ways in which agendas are negotiated during writing sessions.
Articles that explore various aspects of body language and how they are related to confidence, power, control, and comfort/discomfort.
Articles that speak to methods used by tutors to aid in agenda making.
Articles that explore the factors that lead to students' feelings of empowerment during the session.
Articles that seek to measure the success of a writing session.
From the observing the writing sessions, I will need to note the following information:
Whether the student or tutor initiates setting the agenda
If and how student and tutor negotiate the agenda. The cues students use to communicate to the tutor that they wish the tutor to set the agenda. The ways in which students respond. Vice versa
The times and ways in which agenda shifts occur during the session
The body language of both the student and tutor at the start of and during the “wrap-up” of the session, as this will help indicate comfort/confidence level and feelings of success.
The tone of voice used by student and tutor, as this can indicate comfort/confidence level and perception of ability to be understood.
The language used by student and tutor (directives, questions, supportive words, positive and negative politeness, the pronouns used “we, you”). This can indicate the type of approach (collaborative, directive, minimalist) being used by both student and tutor.
The silences at the start of and during “the wrap up” of the session and the apparent functions of these silences.
List of Sources:
Andre, JoAnne D. “Case Study Response: Oh What a Difference a Deadline Makes-or Does It?”Journal of College Reading and Learning 32 no2 (2002): 210-217.
Waring, Hansun Zhang. “Peer Tutoring in a Graduate Writing Centre: Identity, Expertise, and Advice Resisting.” Applied Linguistics, v26 n2 (2005):141-168
Bell, Diana Calhoun. Holly Arnold and Rebecca Haddock. “Linguistic Politeness and Peer Tutoring.” Learning Assistance Review, v14 n1 (2009): 37-54
McKay, Corene and James H. Bell. “Case Study: It’s Due Tomorrow: Tutoring under a Deadline.”Journal of College Reading and Learning 32 no2 (2002): 198-203
Nelson, Gayle L. and Sara Cushing Weigle. “Novice tutors and their ESL tutees: Three case studies of tutor roles and perceptions of tutorial success.” Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (2004) 203–225
Newkirk, Thomas. “The First Five Minutes: Setting the Agenda in a Writing Conference.” The Longman Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice. Ed. Robert W. Barnett and Jacob S. Blumner. New York: Pearson. 302-315.
Rafoth, Ben. “A Question of Procrastination or Ineptitude (An Analysis of the Case Study ” It's Due Tomorrow: Tutoring Under a Deadline)”” Journal of College Reading and Learning 32 no2 (2002): 204-209.
Thompson, Isabelle. “Scaffolding in the Writing Center: A Microanalysis of an Experienced Tutor's Verbal and Nonverbal Tutoring Strategies.” Written Communication.2009; 26: 417-453
Plan for gathering information:
To gather information, I will observe and participate (as a tutor) in one-on-one tutoring sessions that take place in the writing center at Kean University over a six-week period. These sessions will take place between tutors who are taking a tutor-training course and Kean University students from potentially any major. Tutors and students will not necessarily have had contact before the writing session.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.
So far, I have noted the contexts in which students set the agenda and have noted the
contexts in which tutors set the agenda.
I have noted the types of cues (politness strategies/ motivational scaffolding) that tutors use to indicate they are shifting the agenda.
I have noted verbal and nonverbal cues that students use to indicate their satisfaction/dissastifaction at the close of the session.
During a brief follow up session immediately after the writing session, I am asking the the tutor to identify the agenda and to explain his/her feelings about the success of the session. When I am the tutor, I am journaling immediately following the session. I am recording the agenda "set up" and detailing my feelings of success.When possible, I will ask tutees to complete a follow-up form, in which they can evaluate the success of the session. After the sessions in which I served as the tutor, I will verbally ask students to tell me the agenda and to share their feelings about the success of the session.
Research Plan:
Purpose: Through my research, I hope to explore the links between agenda setting and student/ tutor perceptions of success.
Research Question: How are agendas set in a writing session? What is the relationship between goal setting and student/tutor perceptions of success?
Sub Questions to Consider:
What methods do students use to set the agenda for the session? Under what conditions do students set the agenda?What methods do tutors use to set the agenda? Under what conditions do tutors set the agenda?Under what conditions do students and tutors negotiate the agenda? What methods do they use?What are the indications that an agenda has been set? What does the shiftbetween "setting up" and "doing the work" look like? What are the verbal/nonverbal cues?
What are the implications of an "unspoken" agenda? How does working with an "implied agenda" impact a writing session?What are some indications of the success of a writing session? What are the verbal/nonverbal cues from both student and tutor?How are the relative levels of student/tutor satisfaction related to the clarity of the agenda and the student and/or tutor’s acceptance of the agenda?
Information needed:
To proceed, I think I will need to gather the following information:
Articles that that speak the ways in which agendas are negotiated during writing sessions.
Articles that explore various aspects of body language and how they are related to confidence, power, control, and comfort/discomfort.
Articles that speak to methods used by tutors to aid in agenda making.
Articles that explore the factors that lead to students' feelings of empowerment during the session.
Articles that seek to measure the success of a writing session.
From the observing the writing sessions, I will need to note the following information:
Whether the student or tutor initiates setting the agenda
If and how student and tutor negotiate the agenda. The cues students use to communicate to the tutor that they wish the tutor to set the agenda. The ways in which students respond. Vice versa
The times and ways in which agenda shifts occur during the session
The body language of both the student and tutor at the start of and during the “wrap-up” of the session, as this will help indicate comfort/confidence level and feelings of success.
The tone of voice used by student and tutor, as this can indicate comfort/confidence level and perception of ability to be understood.
The language used by student and tutor (directives, questions, supportive words, positive and negative politeness, the pronouns used “we, you”). This can indicate the type of approach (collaborative, directive, minimalist) being used by both student and tutor.
The silences at the start of and during “the wrap up” of the session and the apparent functions of these silences.
List of Sources:
Andre, JoAnne D. “Case Study Response: Oh What a Difference a Deadline Makes-or Does It?”Journal of College Reading and Learning 32 no2 (2002): 210-217.
Waring, Hansun Zhang. “Peer Tutoring in a Graduate Writing Centre: Identity, Expertise, and Advice Resisting.” Applied Linguistics, v26 n2 (2005):141-168
Bell, Diana Calhoun. Holly Arnold and Rebecca Haddock. “Linguistic Politeness and Peer Tutoring.” Learning Assistance Review, v14 n1 (2009): 37-54
McKay, Corene and James H. Bell. “Case Study: It’s Due Tomorrow: Tutoring under a Deadline.”Journal of College Reading and Learning 32 no2 (2002): 198-203
Nelson, Gayle L. and Sara Cushing Weigle. “Novice tutors and their ESL tutees: Three case studies of tutor roles and perceptions of tutorial success.” Journal of Second Language Writing 13 (2004) 203–225
Newkirk, Thomas. “The First Five Minutes: Setting the Agenda in a Writing Conference.” The Longman Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice. Ed. Robert W. Barnett and Jacob S. Blumner. New York: Pearson. 302-315.
Rafoth, Ben. “A Question of Procrastination or Ineptitude (An Analysis of the Case Study ” It's Due Tomorrow: Tutoring Under a Deadline)”” Journal of College Reading and Learning 32 no2 (2002): 204-209.
Thompson, Isabelle. “Scaffolding in the Writing Center: A Microanalysis of an Experienced Tutor's Verbal and Nonverbal Tutoring Strategies.” Written Communication.2009; 26: 417-453
Plan for gathering information:
To gather information, I will observe and participate (as a tutor) in one-on-one tutoring sessions that take place in the writing center at Kean University over a six-week period. These sessions will take place between tutors who are taking a tutor-training course and Kean University students from potentially any major. Tutors and students will not necessarily have had contact before the writing session.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.
So far, I have noted the contexts in which students set the agenda and have noted the
contexts in which tutors set the agenda.
I have noted the types of cues (politness strategies/ motivational scaffolding) that tutors use to indicate they are shifting the agenda.
I have noted verbal and nonverbal cues that students use to indicate their satisfaction/dissastifaction at the close of the session.
During a brief follow up session immediately after the writing session, I am asking the the tutor to identify the agenda and to explain his/her feelings about the success of the session. When I am the tutor, I am journaling immediately following the session. I am recording the agenda "set up" and detailing my feelings of success.When possible, I will ask tutees to complete a follow-up form, in which they can evaluate the success of the session. After the sessions in which I served as the tutor, I will verbally ask students to tell me the agenda and to share their feelings about the success of the session.
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Blog 17: Research Plan
The Writing Session: The Set-Up of Success
Research Plan:
Purpose: Through my research, I hope to explore the links between agenda setting and student/ tutor perceptions of success.
Research Question: How are agendas set in a writing session? What is the relationship between goal setting and student/tutor perceptions of success?
Sub Questions to Consider:
What methods do students use to set the agenda for the session? Under what conditions do students set the agenda?
What methods do tutors use to set the agenda? Under what conditions do tutors set the agenda?
Under what conditions do students and tutors negotiate the agenda? What methods do they use?
What are the indications that an agenda has been set? What does the shift
between "setting up" and "doing the work" look like? What are the verbal/nonverbal cues?
Research Plan:
Purpose: Through my research, I hope to explore the links between agenda setting and student/ tutor perceptions of success.
Research Question: How are agendas set in a writing session? What is the relationship between goal setting and student/tutor perceptions of success?
Sub Questions to Consider:
What methods do students use to set the agenda for the session? Under what conditions do students set the agenda?
What methods do tutors use to set the agenda? Under what conditions do tutors set the agenda?
Under what conditions do students and tutors negotiate the agenda? What methods do they use?
What are the indications that an agenda has been set? What does the shift
between "setting up" and "doing the work" look like? What are the verbal/nonverbal cues?
What are the implications of an "unspoken" agenda? How does working with an "implied agenda" impact a writing session?
What are some indications of the success of a writing session? What are the verbal/nonverbal cues from both student and tutor?
How are the relative levels of student/tutor satisfaction related to the clarity of the agenda and the student and/or tutor’s acceptance of the agenda?
Information needed:
To proceed, I think I will need to gather the following information:
Articles that that speak the ways in which agendas are negotiated during writing sessions.
Articles that explore various aspects of body language and how they are related to confidence, power, control, and comfort/discomfort.
Articles that speak to methods used by tutors to aid in agenda making.
Articles that explore the factors that lead to students' feelings of empowerment during the session.
Articles that seek to measure the success of a writing session.
List of Sources:
Andre, JoAnne D. “Case Study Response: Oh What a Difference a Deadline Makes-or Does It?”
Journal of College Reading and Learning 32 no2 (2002): 210-217.
Waring, Hansun Zhang. “Peer Tutoring in a Graduate Writing Centre: Identity, Expertise,
and Advice Resisting.” Applied Linguistics, v26 n2 (2005):141-168
Bell, Diana Calhoun. Holly Arnold and Rebecca Haddock. “Linguistic Politeness and Peer
Tutoring.” Learning Assistance Review, v14 n1 (2009): 37-54
McKay, Corene and James H. Bell. Case Study: “It’s Due Tomorrow: Tutoring under a Deadline.”
Journal of College Reading and Learning 32 no2 (2002): 198-203
Newkirk, Thomas. “The First Five Minutes: Setting the Agenda in a Writing Conference.” The
Longman Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice. Ed. Robert W. Barnett and Jacob
S. Blumner. New York: Pearson. 302-315.
Rafoth, Ben. “A Question of Procrastination or Ineptitude (An Analysis of the Case Study ”t's Due
Tomorrow: Tutoring Under a Deadline)”” Journal of College Reading and Learning 32 no2
(2002): 204-209.
Thompson, Isabelle. “Scaffolding in the Writing Center: A Microanalysis of an Experienced Tutor's Verbal and Nonverbal Tutoring Strategies.” Written Communication.2009; 26: 417-453
Plan for gathering information:
To gather information, I will observe and participate (as a tutor) in one-on-one tutoring sessions that take place in the writing center at Kean University over a six-week period. Tutors and students will not necessarily have had contact before the writing session.
I will observe the interactions between coaches and students during both the initial phases of the writing session and the "wrap-up" phase of the session.
During a brief follow up session immediately after the writing session, I will ask the tutor to identify the agenda and to explain his/her feelings about the success of the session. When I am the tutor, I will journal about my feelings of success.
When possible, I will ask tutees to complete a follow-up form, in which they can evaluate the success of the session. After the sessions in which I served as the tutor, I will verbally ask students to tell me the agenda and to share their feelings about the success of the session.
Wednesday, November 11, 2009
Blog 16: Data Collection
Tonight's class revealed that data collection is a multi-step process. The first step is to write detailed notes of phenomena that occur during a tutoring session. As a researcher, I am to focus on aspects of the session that relate to my research topic. I am to refrain from drawing premature hypotheses but am to wait until noteworthy occurences begin to reveal themselves over several observed writing sessions.
When note-worthy phenomena begin to emerge, I am to name them. After naming them, hopefully I will begin to be able to draw connections, hypothesize about causes for, effects of, conditions around the observations. I will begin categorizing the phenomena.
S: unpacks her notebooks, pens, worksheets, explains that she needs to work on grammar and citation. Shows tutor her original essay. "This is my original."
T: Reads professor's notes on the top of the paper.
S: Student shows tutor a revised copy and suggests that they work from the revision since it's an updated version with some corrections.
T: (Pauses and stays silent for three-five seconds while she glances over the revision) Agrees to work from revision and suggests that she (the tutor) read the paper. (Leans over as she reads the paper)
After reading the first paragraph, tutor suggests that they work on revising the thesis statement also. But then suggests that student read the paper aloud.
S: Agrees. Student begins to read
T: points out grammatical errors and and asks direct question to encourage the student to verbally clarify the meaning of different lines.
S: Writes on her paper to make grammatical corrections. At tutor's suggestion, uses dictionary.com to find synonyms for words
Tutor and student work this way for two hours-one hour over the time limit. At suggestion of tutor, student writes her main idea for each paragraph on the side of the paper.
At the end, tutor asks student to write a thesis statement. This takes student about seven minutes.
When note-worthy phenomena begin to emerge, I am to name them. After naming them, hopefully I will begin to be able to draw connections, hypothesize about causes for, effects of, conditions around the observations. I will begin categorizing the phenomena.
S: unpacks her notebooks, pens, worksheets, explains that she needs to work on grammar and citation. Shows tutor her original essay. "This is my original."
T: Reads professor's notes on the top of the paper.
S: Student shows tutor a revised copy and suggests that they work from the revision since it's an updated version with some corrections.
T: (Pauses and stays silent for three-five seconds while she glances over the revision) Agrees to work from revision and suggests that she (the tutor) read the paper. (Leans over as she reads the paper)
After reading the first paragraph, tutor suggests that they work on revising the thesis statement also. But then suggests that student read the paper aloud.
S: Agrees. Student begins to read
T: points out grammatical errors and and asks direct question to encourage the student to verbally clarify the meaning of different lines.
S: Writes on her paper to make grammatical corrections. At tutor's suggestion, uses dictionary.com to find synonyms for words
Tutor and student work this way for two hours-one hour over the time limit. At suggestion of tutor, student writes her main idea for each paragraph on the side of the paper.
At the end, tutor asks student to write a thesis statement. This takes student about seven minutes.
Monday, November 9, 2009
Blog 15: Refelction on discussion and project
The class discussion from Wednesday helped me to understand other people's approaches to their research topic. Dr. Chandler asked people to reflect on their sessions and then asked us to discuss how we could relate the session to our research project. I feel the discussion helped to clarify the subtleties that I will be looking for during the session (silences, body langauge). So far, I think I have been concentrating more on verbal interaction and I have been thinking about observing sessions as a whole (and getting overwhelmed in the process) without really concentrating on only those aspects of the sessions that will help me develop questions for or gain more insights into my research project.
The class was helful also because it alleviated some of my anxiety. I realized that I am not alone in my struggle to refine my topic and in my attempt to gather suitable sources. I am a person who likes definite answers but I am realizing that this is a process and that each session that I participate in and observe will help to deepen my understanding of my research project.
The class was helful also because it alleviated some of my anxiety. I realized that I am not alone in my struggle to refine my topic and in my attempt to gather suitable sources. I am a person who likes definite answers but I am realizing that this is a process and that each session that I participate in and observe will help to deepen my understanding of my research project.
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Blog 14: Research Plan
My purpose is to investigate how the process of setting the agenda for the writing session impacts the perception of success by both the tutor and the student.
Question: How are agendas established during a writer session? Does the process by which agendas are establish affect tutor/student satisfaction with the session?
Sub Questions: What causes a student to feel confident enough to set the agenda (knowledge of subject, knowledge of the assignment, confidence in writing abilities, confort with the tutor)? What clues exist about where the student's confidence is coming from? What clues exist that the student is confident/ not confident? What cues exist that the student has set the agenda?
Question: How are agendas established during a writer session? Does the process by which agendas are establish affect tutor/student satisfaction with the session?
Sub Questions: What causes a student to feel confident enough to set the agenda (knowledge of subject, knowledge of the assignment, confidence in writing abilities, confort with the tutor)? What clues exist about where the student's confidence is coming from? What clues exist that the student is confident/ not confident? What cues exist that the student has set the agenda?
How does a tutor respond to the cues? What approaches do tutors apply? When do coaches apply direct/indirect approaches? What seems to be their motivation?
How do coaches negotiate aligning student agendas with student needs (which may be unexpressed by the student)?
What clues exist that the agenda has been set? What does the shift between "setting up" and "doing the work" look like? What are the verbal/nonverbal cues?
To begin to investigate, I think I need to note:
1. If students come in with an assignment sheet.
2. If the student is able to articulate the expectations of the assignment and if their articulation is in line with the acutal assignment
3. The student's body language ( head position, tone of voice, eye contact, body position, proximity to tutor and to his/her assignment)
4. The student's verbal cues: self-effacing comments: "I don't really understand", etc. Whether or not the student uses questions or declarative statements.
5. Tutor reactions to student confidence or lack of confidence.
6. The posture (direct/indirect) that a tutor assumes based on her reading of student's confidence level. This can be indicated by use imperative statements, leading questions, length of talking by the tutor (direct) or use of open-questions, silences (indirect).
7. Tutor comfort level when establishing the agenda.
8. At the end, I will observe student body language (smiling, open posture, head nodding, relaxed face, open eyes etc.)
Verbal-student can state what happened in the session. Student can ask news questions and can articulate strengths and areas for improvement.
I will give students a check list evaluation when appropriate.
I will note tutor body language and will speak to tutor about his satisfaction level with the session.
blog 13: Preliminary Research
My research plan is to investigate the "agenda setting". I want to research the factors that make a student confident enough to set the goals for the session and see how/if this "student empowerment leads to a successful session.
I want to see if and how tutors read their students' cues and how tutors respond to these cues.
So far, I've read three articles.
One is Diana Calhoun Bells' (et. al.) Lingustic Politeness and Peer Tutoring, which focuses on how tutors use both positive and negative politeness. This article purports that when tutors are establishing a peer relationship with students, they use positive politeness, such as using laughter, humor, exaggerating interest, sympathy, etc.
When tutors are in an authoritative role, they use negative strategies, which are meant to limit imposition on the student. These negative strategies include using hedges( I think,), being indirect, apologizing, etc.
The authors maintain that over subsequent sessions with the same students, tutors rely less on negative politeness and more on positive politeness.
I think I can use this article to help establish that the tutor's posture at the beginning of the session. If a tutor opens with positive politeness, perhaps he/she is attempting to establish a peer relationship. Would this attempt at leveling the position between tutor and student make students more confident to set the agenda themselves? Would a more authoritative posture intimidate students?
The second article " Case Study Response: Oh What a Difference a Dealine Makes-Or Does It?" by Joanne D. Andre suggests that even if a student is on a tight dealine when she comes to the writing center, a tutor should use the same five practices to guide them: remembering the student's writing context (assignment), allowing the student to identify concerns, working on student concerns as they are identified, pointing out serious problems, and offering a positive, reassuring environment.
Andre argues that these are the practices a tutor should use whether or not a student is in a time crunch.
I think this article could be especially useful when looking at who sets the agenda because tutors and students might struggle with competing agendas in these tense situations. It would be interesting to not how these struggles are resolved and to see whether sticking to the five practices result in student satisfaction at the end of the session.
The final article that I've read is "Scaffolding in the Writing Center: A Microanalysis of an Experienced Tutors Verbal and Non-Verbal Tutoring Strategies" by Isabelle Thompson.
This study looks at a couple of case studies to examine the scaffolding techniques used by tutors. It is especially useful because it speaks about the ways tutors both honor a student's agenda and attempts to serve the student beyond the needs that he/ she expressed.
I want to see if and how tutors read their students' cues and how tutors respond to these cues.
So far, I've read three articles.
One is Diana Calhoun Bells' (et. al.) Lingustic Politeness and Peer Tutoring, which focuses on how tutors use both positive and negative politeness. This article purports that when tutors are establishing a peer relationship with students, they use positive politeness, such as using laughter, humor, exaggerating interest, sympathy, etc.
When tutors are in an authoritative role, they use negative strategies, which are meant to limit imposition on the student. These negative strategies include using hedges( I think,), being indirect, apologizing, etc.
The authors maintain that over subsequent sessions with the same students, tutors rely less on negative politeness and more on positive politeness.
I think I can use this article to help establish that the tutor's posture at the beginning of the session. If a tutor opens with positive politeness, perhaps he/she is attempting to establish a peer relationship. Would this attempt at leveling the position between tutor and student make students more confident to set the agenda themselves? Would a more authoritative posture intimidate students?
The second article " Case Study Response: Oh What a Difference a Dealine Makes-Or Does It?" by Joanne D. Andre suggests that even if a student is on a tight dealine when she comes to the writing center, a tutor should use the same five practices to guide them: remembering the student's writing context (assignment), allowing the student to identify concerns, working on student concerns as they are identified, pointing out serious problems, and offering a positive, reassuring environment.
Andre argues that these are the practices a tutor should use whether or not a student is in a time crunch.
I think this article could be especially useful when looking at who sets the agenda because tutors and students might struggle with competing agendas in these tense situations. It would be interesting to not how these struggles are resolved and to see whether sticking to the five practices result in student satisfaction at the end of the session.
The final article that I've read is "Scaffolding in the Writing Center: A Microanalysis of an Experienced Tutors Verbal and Non-Verbal Tutoring Strategies" by Isabelle Thompson.
This study looks at a couple of case studies to examine the scaffolding techniques used by tutors. It is especially useful because it speaks about the ways tutors both honor a student's agenda and attempts to serve the student beyond the needs that he/ she expressed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)