Re: help for wiring?

[R.Rickly@TTACS.TTU.EDU (Becky Rickly)]

Nick, I love your lists for f2f tutoring and online tutoring.  Since we're
blowing horns here (HONK!)  (or, perhaps I should say aahhh OOOO gaa),
Rebecca might want to check out Barbara Monroe's chapter on the look and
feel of an OWL conference, and (blush) mine on how we trained undergrads to
tutor online at Michigan.  And (here's the best part) BOTH of these can be
found in that marvelous new work, Wiring the Writing Center.  :-)  Way to
go, Eric!

--Becky

At 5:14 PM 9/17/98, Nick Carbone wrote:

>TEN CSU WRITING CENTER PRINCIPLES FOR WRITING CONSULTANTS
>
>
>1. Our goal is to help writers become better writers through our work with
>individual pieces of  their writing.
>
>2. We cannot address every issue or problem in an essay. In each
>consultation , we must help writers set priorities based upon where they
>are in the writing process. Setting these priorities will reflect what we
>value in writing as well as what we know about the contextual demands of
>the particular writer's assignment, audience, purpose, and academic
>discipline.
>
>3. All writers work differently, follow different habits of mind and
>different ways of inventing, drafting, and revising prose. Therefore, we
>need to assess every writer and each piece of writing with an eye toward
>helping writers discover which habits and ways will work best for them.
>This assessment means looking beyond the writers' texts and asking them
>about their assignments, purposes, and current struggles with writing.
>
>4. The consultation is most successful when the writer discovers a way to
>improve the essay. The tutor's role is to question, to respond, to offer
>choices, and to encourage-not to evaluate ("If you were my student, I'd
>give you an 'A'.) or to prescribe solutions ("Get rid of the second
>paragraph and write a stronger conclusion."). We are neither their
>teachers nor their editors. We are their coaches in self-discovery and
>self-definition of themselves as writers.
>
>5. Our most dangerous occupational hazard is rewriting other people's
>papers for them. There is always a fine line between fair collaboration
>and unfair influence; when you find yourself jotting down notes for the
>writer (notes they aren't dictating), or imposing your ideas on someone
>else's paper, you've gone too far. Keep the keyboard and mouse (or pen, if
>you're going retro) in the writer's hands--not in yours.
>
>6. When working in the Writing Center, our particular positions as
>consultants prohibit negative comments about the teacher comments that
>appear on a paper or about the assignment. Do not evaluate or embarrass
>the student or second-guess their teacher.
>
>7. Our greatest opportunity to help writers, whether they come to us with
>questions about dashes in a sentence or drafts of an essay, is in
>providing another voice of response to their writing, a voice of  honest
>reaction first to their ideas and thoughts, then to their structure and
>organization, and finally to their prose style and sentences. Always read
>for meaning first.
>
>8. We teach writing as a process, while keeping the product in mind. Our
>goal, however, is not produce a perfect text by micromanaging and
>commenting; instead it is to intervene in the process with intelligence
>and compassion, and in so doing to help the writer better understand their
>own processes and the skills needed to perfect their own writing products.
>
>9. We readily admit when we do not know the answer to someone's question,
>but pride ourselves on the ability to find the answers in handbooks,
>dictionaries, and from other writers. We are glad to model this search for
>the writers we are helping.
>
>10. Any writing that represents the Writing Center-handouts,
>correspondence, e-mail to our tutorial writers, and so on-should be models
>of good prose. For example, correspondence with professors must be
>well-written, precise, complete, and legible.
>
>
>
>
>TEN CSU WRITING CENTER PRINCIPLES FOR ONLINE CONSULTING
>
>1. Individual texts are teaching opportunities for you and learning
>opportunities for the writer.  In your comments, provide the writer with
>strategies/explanations that might be extended beyond this particular
>paper.  (e.g., explaining a useful hierarchy for revision, encouraging a
>vocabulary for self-assessment, etc.).
>
>2. While we begin with a writer's concerns, we have to set priorities
>based on what we value and know about writing as well.  Do not feel
>honor-bound to only answer the questions writers pose; rather, offer
>reasons for re-focusing their attention by explaining what we know about
>successful revision practices. When applicable, show how application of
>those ideas will help address both the writer's concerns and the issue you
>have raised.
>
>3. We are not experts in all forms of writing but can help others learn to
>assess the norms of their contexts and audiences.  Whenever possible,
>respond  using the context offered on the cover sheet.  If not enough is
>available, offer strategies for assessing the context better (e.g., the
>audience-analysis module; seeking out the professor, or offering a f2f or
>"real-time" appointment).  If you make suggestions, explain the
>assumptions behind your comments and encourage the writer to re-evaluate
>the suggestions according to his/her own context. If possible, try to
>offer two or more suggestions or ways to proceed for a particular issue.
>
>4. Although we can't infer process from a text, we seek to remind writers
>that intervening into process might be the best way to deal with the text
>at hand.  Whenever appropriate, offer suggestions about successful
>processes (e.g. peer response, ways to "re-see" paper, invention
>strategies for development, etc.) rather than only text-based comments. Or
>suggest a "real time" (can be done f2f or over the Net) appointment to
>discuss process concerns that the paper seems to elicit.
>
>5. Our goal is not to proscribe solutions but to help a writer see writing
>as a process of making choices based on their rhetorical situation.  Do
>not offer a single suggestion, but offer options based on possible
>interpretations of the writer's intention (e.g. "If you are seeking to do
>X, then Y.  On the other hand, if you are seeking to do A, then B.) Or ask
>questions and pose options that reflect the reply. You can do this either
>by email, bbs, realtime chat, or that online form of old, the telephone.
>
>
>6. Our most dangerous occupational hazard is rewriting other people's
>papers for them. There is always a fine line between fair collaboration
>and unfair influence; when you catch yourself making detailed comments in
>text, or offering an explicit evaluation ("these sections are great; don't
>change them") you have gone too far. Recall, this might be easier to do
>when you only have the text before you and not the writer, so in
>responding via email, try to phrase comments as questions, and if you
>offer a suggestion, pose it as a suggestion.  It's better to suggest
>options for the writer to choose from than one idea that might be read as
>simply the thing to do.
>
>7. When working in the Writing Center, our particular positions as
>consultants prohibit negative comments about the teacher's comments on a
>paper or about the assignment; do not evaluate or embarrass the student,
>or the student's instructor.  Be especially careful with initial email
>enquiries, ones where a paper is not posted in. Many writers do email in
>one draft and will make the occasional typo or write a sentence that is
>hard to understand. When you ask for clarification, don't
>address--ever--the grammar or wording of the email message. Ask questions
>that you need answers, questions that should help you get clarification.
>
>8. Our greatest opportunity to help writers, whether they ask questions
>about dashes or drafts, is in providing another voice of response to
>writing--a voice of honest reaction to ideas, structure and style.  Phrase
>comments as "I" statements, constantly reminding the writer that this is
>one reader's reactions.
>
>9. Ownership of the text and decisions over process remain the writer's.
>Your comment is an attempt to intervene into a process, not proscribe
>solutions for a given text.  Remind the writer that your comments
>constitute "advice" that only they can judge whether to enact or not.  If
>they want "answers" to specific questions, point them to the Questions
>About Your Writing forum on our web page:
>http://www.colostate.edu/Depts/WritingCenter/forum/wcenter/forum.htm
>
>10. The reference modules and linking capabilities on the Web are some of
>our strongest resources.   Whenever relevant, suggest resources for
>further work, as support for your explanations, or options when you do not
>know the answer to a question. Use the references on our website as a
>starting place.
>
>