Jo and I had a pretty neat session last week. I got to observe Jo tutor a student. It was somewhat of a unique session which Jo handled admirably.
The studnet was a music major like Jo, and brought in a rather difficult, confusing paper. Although I wasn't sure exactly what the paper was about, Jo had taken this class and was very familiar with the coursework. From what I understood, the student had to analyze a song, but she was more focused on writing a paper about the composer. This was not the assignment, and I could tell this was bothering Jo.
After reading the paper, Jo struggled for a moment asking a lot of skirting questions about the paper. Eventually, she got to the problem, at first using a minimalist approach. She started by asking questions on how the student was planing to write the paper without getting too broad or straying too far from what she was supposed to write about. The student still was sticking to her idea, but was starting to realize that what she had before her was going to make her paper more difficult than it needed to be.
Jo started addressing the subject more directly, voicing her concern that writing about the composer would draw attention away from the purpose of the paper, to focus on the song. The paper could have some information about the composer, Jo noted, but too much could make the paper too long. Around this moment, the student realized that Jo's argument had lot of merit, and changed her thesis so that it was more in-line with the statement.
The student was really great in the session. It's a difficult thing to realize that one's approach to a paper is wrong, as is the thought of having to start over, but the student listened to Jo carefully and was very engaged. At the end of the session, she asked me what I was taking notes on and I told her I was here to give feedback to Jo's performance. She laughed and said, "She's good, but she's a hard one."
Looking back at my notes, I was concerned that Jo was being too hard, but looking back now, I don't think she was. Jo saw a problem that needed fixing fast, so she did what she could to get the paper more focused. This required her to be hard - if she went at the session too softly, the student might not have realized how important this change was.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Gannon Ment--an excellent post here! Your observation of Jo's session provides a lesson to all of us that although the WC is "student-centered" sometimes the student does know what is expected of an assignment--in which case the tutor must take a different approach. From your post here it appears that Jo handled this session with great ability by discerning when minamalist tactics were not effective and then switching to more directive measures. This is an excellent example of not relying on any one practice but instead implementing at least one other method at a particular time in a session. My concern very often is that many time tutors for a variety of reasons rely too heavily on minimalist tactics even when these fail to produce better thinking or writing. Of course having a cooperative student is also an advantage--the student realized that Jo's directive approach resulted in clearly understanding the assignment and revising accordingly. Well done! I'd like to see more response on this post from other mentors.
ReplyDeleteSteve
Gannon,
ReplyDeleteYour post details a prime example of an effective use of theory and practice together. The situation Jo was in is a very common scenario we are faced with as tutors, and while we cannot always be paired with a receptive and willing writer, Jo's perseverance to get her writer to identify the problems in the paper herself is admirable. It is not always about knowing the theory backwards and forwards, but caring about the writer's improvement instead. This is refreshing to read as well, considering just a few weeks ago Jo expressed some misgivings about how much guidance she felt comforatable providing for her writer. It sounds like she found the right balance here and I hope she is aware of that.
I appreciated reading about Jo's process throughout the session as well. We discussed when to implement Minimalist and Directive methods during sessions at the Caffeinated Theory meeting and it seems like Jo was careful to choose her approach based on the writer's needs, which is how it should be. I think we need to be flexible as tutors to see when a writer needs something different and it sounds like Jo understood that during the session. The session also displays a careful use of time management. With unlimited time, Jo probably could have stuck with more Minimalist practices in order to get her point across to the writer, but within the time constraints that is not practical. This decision is not about cutting corners in order to get the job done in time, but how to effectively communicate your reaction to a piece of writing in a direct and concise fashion so that the writer can focus on improving their work before looking at the cosmetic details.
Excellent. I hope more people read and respond to this post.