In this post we want to reflect
on the kinds of things we value in our approaches to student writing tutorials,
and how these ‘normative’ kinds of judgements might shape the way we talk to
students, and the way students tend to respond.
Often, there is, at least
initially, a kind of ‘clash’ between our goals for the writing tutorial and the
goals of the students. In some ways, this can most basically be described as a
clash between a ‘process-oriented’ approach and a ‘product-oriented approach’
to academic writing. We will try to unpack this while trying to avoid
essentialising these issues.
To start with the
product-oriented approach to writing that many students adopt (and that many
lecturers adopt too): this approach is what it sounds like, really. Many students
come to the Writing Centre tasked with producing a piece of academic writing,
in a certain form and following certain guidelines or rules, many of which they
do not fully understand at undergraduate level, and which are often tacit. Most
students at undergraduate level that we tutor are very focused on that product,
on getting it written as quickly and painlessly as possible and on getting the
best possible mark they can. They seldom (at least at the start of coming to
the Centre) see themselves as beginning a process-oriented approach to writing,
where their own personal and academic growth is a focus, and where the product
is one of a series of products that link together to create a sense of forward
motion, personal growth, knowledge building and confidence-building. This
process-oriented approach may be valued in the university in some corners and places,
like Writing Centres, academic-development-type courses and with certain
lecturers and tutors. But on the whole, the approach to writing, learning and assessment
in higher education globally is dominated by a focus on the product, and often
the person producing it is overlooked or under-considered. We in the Writing
Centre take issue with this, because this is not the approach that we value. But
we need to be aware of the kinds of concerns a focus on the product creates for
students about academic writing, so that we can understand our own approaches to
academic writing and our methods of guiding, advising and encouraging students
more reflectively and critically.
When we discussed the idea behind
this blog post – a musing about whether there is something ‘normative’ about
our approach to academic writing, and whether and how we might be imposing this
onto writing tutorials perhaps unconsciously and what effects this might have –
we started with the idea of a ‘traditional’ and a ‘non-traditional’ approach to
tutoring in the university. In the sense that we are using these terms in our
thinking, a ‘traditional’ tutorial places the authority in the tutor to direct
the tutorial and set the agenda, and it also makes the tutor the holder of
knowledge and knowing about what is under discussion. In the ‘non-’ or ‘less
traditional’ approach, the power dynamics are challenged, because the tutor
shares the agenda-setting and authority over directing the discussion with the
student, and both the tutor and student have knowledge that is included and
drawn on in the discussion – the students’ knowledge about the assignment topic
is actively sought because writing tutors do not have subject-specific
knowledge for every assignment that they need to assist students with. We find,
though, that the dominant approach according to students is the more
traditional approach, and that when students are invited to work with the peer writing
tutors differently they tend to initially find this disconcerting or
challenging. Many of them would like us to give them yes and no answers and
tell them what to write and how to write it so that they can complete their
product. Many students do eventually enjoy the different way of working when
they get used to it, but it is initially tricky to get many students to open up
and start talking and take on some of that authority and confidence in their
ideas and their writing. This leads us to wonder what we are valuing in our
approach over the alternative, and why we insist on drawing students into
discussion and conversation, rather than simply capitulating and telling them
what they want to know. Are we making value judgements here about what counts
as the ‘right’ way to assist students with their writing? Are we saying,
tacitly, that a writing tutorial ought to go a certain way or have certain
outcomes? And, if we are, how are these judgements impacting on how we manage
our time with students?
In short, we think the answer is probably
‘yes’. Yes, we are making certain value judgements about what academic writing
is and is not (and these are not just ours because they are informed by theory and
practice in our field). We are saying that writing is a process, and that there
are certain things that need to be valued in that process, like giving the
student full ownership over their own writing, and giving guidance and advice
that develops the student-writer’s capacity and confidence, rather than just
developing single assignments. We are valuing a focus on the ‘deeper’ elements
of writing, like the way the ideas are organised and the way the writer is
creating coherence for the reader, as well as the use of evidence to support
their claims and warrants, over a focus on the ‘polishing’ in terms of fixing
typos and correcting spelling and grammatical errors (unless polishing is what
is needed). We are, to an extent, making a normative kind of judgement – we ought
to go about things in a certain way because of what we value, and not
necessarily because we are trying to make the writing easier to read or nicer
to look at. There are normative criteria that shape academic writing, and what
we value taps into those as well, like how to structure an essay and how to
argue academically and why we do so in certain ways, and why we don’t use exclamation
marks or rhetorical questions, for example.
We do not always communicate
these value judgements overtly; often this is tacit, in the way we gently guide
the conversation through questions and prompts to the issues we think the
student would benefit most from working on with us. We often know what we need
to talk about based on the task before the students as well as our own
experience as writers and tutors, so we don’t often stop and think about what
might be underpinning what we are doing in those conversations. This blog post was an attempt to do a bit of
that reflection and thinking. We’d love to hear your thoughts on this issue
too? What do your value in your writing centres, and how does this shape your
encounters with students, and with other academics?
No comments:
Post a Comment