Re: wc's, faculty referral, student resposibility

[Twila.Yates.Papay@Rollins.Edu]

I think I've said more than enough about required visits to the Writing 
Center (which I prefer to abbreviate WCTR than WC--anyone else have a 
catchy alternative?).  But I do want to respond to James Bandy.  I was 
curious about your closing suggestion that faculty who require visits to 
the WCTR do so because they think peer consultations are like teaching.  
(And English faculty in particular might think they can do it better.)

I suppose this depends upon the institution and the faculty.  But at my 
institution the faculty require visits precisely because they understand 
the Bruffee concept of peer tutoring.  They know that what happens in a 
WCTR consultation is a nonhierarchial conversation that can hardly be 
approximated in a faculty/student conference, even when we try.  After 
all, students do perceive us as authorities, and they do know--ultimately 
--we will assign a grade to their work.  So even if we follow the Elbow 
model of coaching before standard-bearing, they are conscious of both our 
roles.  

At Rollins I've had the "privilege" of training the WAC faculty (about 80 
of our 110 faculty have now been through the program), as I direct both 
the Writing Center and the WAC Program.  But I know of other places where 
the 2 have worked together, even with different coordination.  So I know 
a big part of the job is getting the facts out to the faculty.  If they 
understand the writing process, they understand the need for multiple 
audiences as the drafts progress--and the need for peers as audiences.  
So many faculty will choose peer groups for one draft, conferences for 
another, the WCTR peer conversation for another.  

Informing all the faculty is a slow (and often hopeless) task, but I'd 
like to credit at least some faculty with the understanding (or fear) 
that the WCTR is radically different from classroom or office.  Maybe.

Twila Yates Papay
typapay@rollins.edu