Natzke 1 Maddie Natzke Instructor Matthew Pearson/Fellow Cynthia M.

WRD 396 13 October 2013 This is how we do it: A Take on Tutoring When I first accepted the job as writing fellow and tutor, I really didnt know what to expect. I had a general idea of what these positions entailed, but didnt know a clear definition of what it meant to be a peer writing tutor. I pictured myself sitting in a cubicle bathed in muted colors, clenching my laptop and making corrections on writers work - line editing in a sense. However, in just a short span of time, my views have become colored and I have not only begun to understand what it means to be a peer writing tutor, but have experienced the methodologies pertaining to this position first hand. Through my interactions with my own peers, instructor, and materials in WRD 396, and within the Writing Center, I have developed an arrangement of writing commandments and have fostered a creed in response to the tutoring process. Through the synergy of course components and Writing Center observations and experience, I have come to feel that powerful and effective tutoring resides in understanding style. Just as the purpose of every paper is different, so is each writers approach to organization and tone. Recognizing this, one should tailor their voice, either through comments or face to face interaction, in order to help orient a writer toward achieving the intended goal of a prompt. I feel that indexing should also be practiced, avoiding the use of generalizations when working with a writer. It is important to acknowledge that each individual is unique, and the purpose of a tutor is to form a malleable approach to guidance, making sure each writers needs are met.

Natzke 2 I have observed and then implemented practices in order to set the agenda of an appointment, while determining which stage of the writing process that an individual inhabits. During my second face to face observation, I watched Alex C. use leading questions in order to determine the writers end goal, as well as where the writer was in relation to achieving this goal. First of all, Alex brought up a chair in order to sit next to the writer, breaking down the barrier of hierarchy. This helped to foster the beginnings of collaborative work, producing a climate of equality, rather than implementing a polarized teacher-student atmosphere. She asked what the writer wanted to accomplish when forming her paper, a resume, verifying her last state of revision. Alex was not bogged down in determining what path the appointment should follow, but instead asked questions to help the face to face meeting progress positively, helping to tailor the writers current experiences to the needs of her piece. She formed an agenda to fit the writers needs while letting their relationship as collaborators form in accordance to this. In order to establish the way the appointment should flow, it is sometimes necessary to be directive when coordinating with a writer. Before reading the Shamoon and Burns piece A Critique of Pure Tutoring, I was unaware of the true effectiveness of a directive approach. Over the course of WRD 396, I felt that it was considered a tutoring crime to come anywhere near appropriating a writers piece. I thought that one should consistently ask questions in order to help the writer find their own purpose. However, this reading opened my eyes to the implicit and innate needs of all writers. A tutor should determine where a writer is within their own process and directly guide them in order to understand their process, when appropriate. When fellowing my first group of students, one of my writers did not understand what the prompt had asked. She was lost in her own interpretation, and rather than leading her in a negative spiral of questions, I broke down the prompt for her. After explaining what exactly the purpose of her assignment

Natzke 3 was, we were able to form a succinct and clear thesis. I found power in this method of tutoring, learning that I didnt need to disguise my intended meanings in questions or flowery language in order to help my writers feel comfortable; rather, I was able to establish a sense of collaboration and help my writer achieve their goal after recognizing their stage of writing through the use of directive tutoring. In accordance to using directive methods of tutoring, I want to keep in the mind the overt power of praise when meeting with writers and when commenting on drafts. The idea of process praise, as brought to attention by the course reading by Hyland and Hyland, explains how a tutor should be very clear when giving praise, and shouldnt just bring it up as a way to cloud directive comments. Praise should be meaningful and should address what and why something is valued within a piece. When praising a writer, I have found it be effective to point out genuine aspects of their paper that really resonate with me as a reader. I have found that randomly placed positive statements to be unhelpful within a draft, making these comments to come off as fake. After receiving a great job comment marked in red pen on top of one of my papers, I was left confused. I wanted to know exactly what was great and what should be incorporated in my later works. There is worth and importance in every text, and through this I will instill a sense of hope in a writer who may feel that their work isnt up to par, or cant be transformed into anything significant. I feel that this allows shy or anxious writers to open up and see that there is meaning within drafts and that all texts have significance, which can be used as starting points to help build stronger works. Through the balance of leading and directive comments, as well as process praise, I want to help my writers grow and come to understand the importance of revision. When formulating comments, I will effectively and directivity describe, not evaluate. I want to implement leading

Natzke 4 questions, but also want to directly point out aspects that do not follow a prompt, providing the writer with tools to develop their own methods for tackling a paper. I want to make it clear that I am there to help my writers through their ideas, genuinely valuing what they have to say within my appointments. Within my appointments, I have tried to establish myself as one who is not a superior figure, but rather one to help guide the writer through their clouded thoughts, helping them to understand that they will not be left alone in their thought process. I will establish myself as someone my writers can turn to someone that establishes a warm and nonjudgmental atmosphere. Through this, I want to add significance to those writing drafts, helping them to understand that they are not just good writers, but valuable writers with meaningful ideas regardless of the stage of writing they may inhabit. It is through writing that purpose is formed and language is shaped, and by sharing this with my writers I will help them to create their own fluid notion of writing. In congruence to this, I want to continue to approach writing and working with students in an empathetic manner. I feel that it will be effective to look at a piece from multiple vantage points, trying to move judgments aside. Shamoon and Burns helped me to consider writers at all stages, and how developing directive comments can allow one to progress and grow in order to reach a new level in the writing hierarchy. Putting personal conclusions aside, I will continue to modify my tutoring methods, helping to instill certitude within my writer, while establishing an effective agenda. Finally, I want to keep in mind that I cannot and will not be able to get through to every writer. Not every individual will be receptive and willing to open up to my provided comments. However, I dont want this to affect my means of tutoring. I still have so much room to grow as a writer and tutor, but shouldnt let this set back my process of development. Rather, I want to

Natzke 5 keep in mind that others will value what I have to say, and will want to collaboratively work with me, allowing me to strengthen my voice, as well as help someone define theirs.