Re: turf problems related issue

[Latisha LaRue <kfischer@keller.clarke.edu>]

I can't help but wonder again if all this doesn't 
just point out the shame of grading/evaluating.  Both Steve and Paula 
raise strong questions of the reliability of anyone's estimation of the 
writing of another.  I like to think of this in relation to the words of 
an editor for one of the small presses that publishes poetry.  He advises 
poets who submit work "remember, if your poems are rejected, it just 
means that one editor didn't like it;  it doesn't mean it's T.P."
			Katie Fischer
On Wed, 31 Jan 1996 gillespiep@vms.csd.mu.edu wrote:

> Steve, is our WC estimation inflated or is the professor's estimation 
> deflated?  
> 
> Paula Gillespie
> 
> On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, Stephen Newmann wrote:
> 
> > a related issue here is that sometimes in the w.c. I will see several 
> > drafts of an essay that the prof who assigned it will only see the final 
> > draft of.  In the several drafts I see there is occasionally a marked 
> > improvement.  I see that improvement and the effort that went in to it 
> > and the learning that has taken place re: writing.  I'm likely to think 
> > more highly of the final product than would the prof who will only see 
> > the final draft and thus miss much (if not all) of the effort and 
> > improvement that occured.  My w.c. estimation of the quality might be 
> > inflated as a result.   --stephen
> >  *====================================================================*
> >  |   Stephen Newmann                                                  |
> >  |   Department of Rhetoric & Writing     VOICE: (301) 447-5006       |
> >  |   Mount Saint Mary's College           E-MAIL: NEWMANN@MSMARY.EDU  |
> >  |   Emmitsburg, Maryland USA 21727-7799                              |
> >  *====================================================================*
> >  
> > 
> > On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, Neal Lerner wrote:
> > 
> > > There something bugging me about this "role conflict" that some of you 
> > > folks are describing.  I agree with Karen in that I'd like to think that 
> > > when I conference with my comp students, I pretty much take the same 
> > > approach as I would in the WC with someone else's students.  Heck, with 
> > > my own students I even have a somewhat better idea of the expectations and 
> > > criteria!  Nevertheless, I've had those conferences where a student of 
> > > mine says, "Just tell me what I have to do to this paper to get an A" (Wow, 
> > > can you hear that sound of Eric Crump slapping his forehead?).  And I 
> > > suppose I resist that request in much the same way that I resist the 
> > > request in a WC conference to "tell me if you think this is an A paper."  
> > > Am I miscontruing the original intention of this thread?
> > > 
> > > 	Neal Lerner
> > > 	nlerner@acs.bu.edu
> > > 
> > > On Wed, 31 Jan 1996, Karen L. Morris wrote:
> > > 
> > > > While I can see that teachers who tutor their own students could have a 
> > > > conflict in roles, we have sucessfully done it at Concordia:  both 
> > > > Lynnell and I have tutored our own students (as well as she tutoring mine 
> > > > and I hers).  We also have had our students tutored by the student tutors 
> > > > in the center.
> > > > 
> > > > Partially, I think it should be the student's choice.  Some students want 
> > > > the input from the instructor, and it becomes like an office-hour visit.  
> > > > 
> > > > Both Lynnell and I are experienced tutors and teachers, and I think we're 
> > > > both clear on the roles and keeping them separate.  I know that when I 
> > > > work with one of my own student's papers, I focus on the writing and 
> > > > don't evaluate.
> > > > 
> > > > I'd be interested in hearing other people's experiences on this issue.
> > > > 
> > > > Karen
> > > > 
> > > > karenm@teleport.COM  (ears up, whiskers clean, and still purring) 
> > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
>