Re: Short conferences

["B. Silk" <bsilk@titan.iwu.edu>]

On Wed, 17 Jan 1996, Jeanne H. Simpson wrote:
[snip]
> But a tutorial in the end should be as long as it needs to be and no
> longer and no shorter.  


What Jeanne says sums up my own approach--the writer and the situation
dictate the length of the session.  I agree with Cliff when (in his .02
cents worth) he mentions needing to see the writing in its complete
context.  I also agree with Brook that the tutor needs to understand the
writer in order to be effective.  I honestly believe this takes time. 

Grammar problems may be the result of lack of experience in the specific
discourse (as Joan Mullin points out), misconceptions about the production
of Standard American dialect (which Shaughnessy and Bartholomae describe),
as well as a result of lack of clarity in thinking through the assignment. 
Thus, what may look like inefficiency in terms of tutoring-time spent may
actually be more efficient in terms of individualized assistance given. 
As our wise friend Stephen Newmann says, when a student asks us to look at
the grammar in a paper, we can say, "Sure.  And do you want me to mention
anything else I might see as I'm looking at the grammar?"   

The length of the tutorial depends on the writer's perceived needs, the
writer's revealed needs (in the draft), the writer's learning style, and
his or her psychology (resistance/acceptance).  I believe that the tutor
must spend enough time with each writer to at least get a feel for these
things.  In training, I tell tutors to assume they'll spend at least 20
minutes with a writer.  If the session goes on to 30 minutes, they should
start evaluating its effectiveness.  They should terminate the session
after 45 minutes unless they have a tremendous momentum going with the
writer.  Of course, this isn't a rule written in stone, and the tutors know 
it.  I trust their judgment.

Unfortunately, the length of the tutorial may also depend on the
availability of staff.  But that seems like a funding problem and the 
subject of a different discussion. 

  --Bobbie