blog 19 revised again

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?