I disagree with Brooks' theory that a tutor should be an active listener. He wants tutors to sit quietly and, when they are asked to, encourage the writer to improve their paper. This is completely pointless because students go to a writing center to get help from people who know how to write better papers. If I went in for help and the tutor just sat there, I would be pissed that I got out of bed. I don't think that the tutor should take over the entire tutoring session, but I think they need to be able to express their opinions and use their expertise to help the writer.
Sunday, January 10, 2010
Brooks Response
I agree with Brooks' idea that the writing center should not only be about receiving a grade. We should be trying to improve students' writing so that in the future their papers will be a reflection of how they have grown. However, I don't think that achieving a grade should be completely written off as a subject of importance. In the end, as sad as it is, our grades are what determine our future, and therefore are extremely important to us. I think that in the perfect situation, tutors would make changes in a students paper that would help improve their grade, and in turn make sure that the student understands why the change was made and have them decide how to fix it. This way, the writer and the writing are improved.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Good thoughts, but I think Brooks would agree with you. It is not his intention to describe the totality of the tutor/student interaction, merely making the point that the tutor must remain responsive to the student's concerns and not take over control of the agenda. Indeed, this is a part of the discussion of the grade/skills issue: I would like a tutor to direct me in improving my writing if my goal is to improve my grade; I need my tutor to permit me to analyze my own writing if my goal is to improve my skills. Editing my own writing is a critical skill; relying on others to inform me of my weaknesses inhibits my growth.
ReplyDelete