Re: e-mail tutoring

[bobbie silk <bsilk@keller.clarke.edu>]

I've done some cut-and-paste of your cut-and-paste, David.  I hope this
is a fair representation and not too hard to read.

On Thu, 27 Feb 1997, David J. Coogan wrote:

> --> Well...yes and no. It does contradict the single-authored ethos in the
> sense that online interaction is only valuable insofar as it helps the
> writer come to closure.  But maybe this is a bit harsh.  Can't we value
> the back-and-forth writing AND the final paper?  (Is this what you're
> saying?)  

No, I'm not saying that one should be valued over the other.  Rather, I
meant that the final product will appear single-authored because that is
what a system that values single authoring will expect.

> > But what if this very absence of social constructs is intimidating to some
> > people? What if, for some of us, going online is like walking out onto a
> > brightly lit stage in a darkened auditorium? We know the audience is out
> > there--five hundred pairs of lungs drawing breath, five hundred pairs of
> > eyes watching us.  And then we have to tap dance our selves into being. 
> > 
> --> Again, I would only note that we have this fear of "public speaking"
> just like we have a sense of drudgery with writing. Interestingly enough,
> you didn't point to the drudergy (which is often associated with writing
> papers) and instead pointed to the problems with speech.  

I don't think I would see a strong correlation between the issues of fear
of exposure (rather than just a fear of speaking) and dislike for
drudgery. However, I can see that someone uncomfortable with the physical
and mental effort of writing might not want to go online where that is the
only option for communication.

> --->I, too, feel like the opportunities to create identity are
exaggerated.
> The problem has to do with our expectations. It is widely believed--by
> teachers, students, writers, scholars, and so on--that writing = true self.  
> If some experience an online forum in a fearful way, they may be
> associating their task as the production of a true self, when in fact,
> that true self doesn't really exist, but is only made through interaction
> with others.  

This raises an interesting point that I would like to ruminate on over the
weekend.  Language and the self.  Wittgenstein said, "To imagine a
language is to imagine a world."  Do we inhabit--rather than
use--language?  Hmmmm.

> > or seeming disinterest.  In a sense, my ignorance is out of the closet in
> > front of an audience or individual I cannot see. 
> > 
> --> well, yeah, if that's what you believe.  I tend to think that we do
> this face to face, as well.  i've been a part of some very wierd f2f
> conversations where what you describe has occured.  and i know i've had
> students who sit and nod and smile and don't really understand what i've
> said. vice versa: i've sat with students who i feel have not heard me and
> i find out the next day how much the enjoyed the session.

I don't think f2f is *better* than online consultation, only that one may
be better than the other under certain circumstances and for certain
individuals.  So long as we don't think one should supplant the other, why
not try to understand and make the best of both?

> > In the "discursive space" of the online tutorial, I have to ask
questions,
> > seek help openly.  I cannot shift responsibility for exposing my
> > weaknesses to the tutor, who is "supposed" to find what is wrong.  Perhaps
> > in the f2f tutorial we are subtly playing a game of hide and seek in which
> > I--the flawed writer--hide in the text and the tutor must seek me.  Being
> > the one who hides seems much safer than being the one who seeks. 
> > 
> -->  yes, i can see what you're saying.  and this is a different role for
> the tutor.  but i also think that this creative tension of "exposing or
> not exposing" is a valuable heuristic in the writing process. yes, it may
> be uncomfortable but dont we often learn the most from those kinds of
> situations?

What we learn from any situation depends on whether or not we're open to
learning.  Fear closes more minds than anything else I can think of. 
Certainly the people who most object to any form of technology seem to be
those who know the least about it and therefore fear it the most.

> > In the online tutorial the dynamic shifts.  While the tutor and I may seem
> > more equal and unknown to each other, thus opening possiblities of genuine
> > collaboration and dialogue, perhaps in reality we are *less* equal.  I no
> > longer have my golfer's handicap, my extra points for effort and humility. 
> > I no longer have the socially-granted controls of engaging the tutor's
> > empathy or expressing (through tone and body language) that I'm still one
> > tough/smart/worthwhile son-of-a-gun even though I'm letting the tutor help
> > me. 
> > 
> -->  Interesting, Bobbie.  Is this comment informed by Erving Goffman's
> idea of saving face?  Because it seems quite similar.  If the dynamic
> changes, then, I suppose we need to ask ourselves why we keep comparing
> online tutoring with face to face tutoring, as if we were comparing the
> same thing. To me, they are different for many of the reasons you give.
> That difference should be expolited on its own terms, not funnelled back
> into the familiar.

I didn't think of Goffman, but you're right about some similarity in the
direction of my thoughts at this point.  As to comparing online and f2f
tutoring--I am doing so only to understand each better, not to identify a
superiority.  I believe that each clearly has its place.

But I'm going to think about that self and language thing.  Interesting.

  --Bobbie
    (bsilk@keller.clarke.edu)