Stuck in the Middle Philosophy Statement Exploratory Draft

Jacob Fuerst WRD396 10/8/12

In an effort to feel completely prepared for a conference with a writer, I typically come to the writer with a wealth of paper-specific comments those of organization, thesis, topic sentence, textual support and conclusion consistency are some of the most common. And oftentimes, these comments fly by in a matter of minutes. How have I already covered everything? Am I appropriating the students writing? Is he learning anything more than what I think his paper should look like? Hindsight tells me that those conferences dominated by my voice and my voice alone are the ones that exemplify the UCWbLs philosophy least. So whats the problem, then? Ive read countless articles about proper writing tutoring; I avoid appropriation and a my way or the highway approach to conferencing with active determination. Perhaps it is not my intentions that need philosophical overhaul; perhaps its the way I enact those intentions that can lead me on a wild goose chase, pursuing a dangling carrot that may never gets close enough to my face to grab. Its not as if I never catch that carrot, either. The trouble is that when I do, I cannot always articulate why. The strategies, the things that went right during a conference, can be just as elusive to me as the reasons a meeting did not thrive as I wouldve hoped. After conferencing, I want a writer to feel like their paper, had they been assigned to rewrite it, would have been easier to write and would have been stronger overall. I suppose thats one way to quantize my post-appointment

Jacob Fuerst WRD396 10/8/12 wish for writers. And after reading that statement, though, Im not sure I completely agree I really want a writer to better understand their writing process, so that if they were to do the assignment over, it would go more smoothly and produce something even stronger. I have found that by understanding how someone wrote a piece, I can more clearly realize the direction the writer wanted to go with it. Linda Flower and John Hayes Problem-Solving Strategies and the Writing Process defends this practice, describing protocol practices that aid in opening the writing process up to increased self-awareness (451). The protocol analysis used in this essay documents exactly why I find value in helping writers understand their process: it shows that some writers have a limited variety of techniques they use as they write. Moreover, these limitations are often connected to an inability to change tactics when the current procedure has led to a block or dead end (451). This hits home because I find myself locked into a perpetual writers block quite frequently, especially when Ive been staring at the same sentence or paragraph for too long. The same goes for a writer and I during a conference, stuck on one particular item. Flower and Hayes agree that such a degree of perfection is erroneous especially during the drafting phase. Here, the writer should really be focusing on an idea structure. Building such a structure brainstorming, essentially may actually be one of the most beneficial activities I can use in a conference. I can circumvent my aforementioned problem (where I merely cover all my preplanned comments)

Jacob Fuerst WRD396 10/8/12 and literally help a writer practice his writing process by brainstorming and focusing on content-level issues. This introduces another extremely complex theme Ive seen present in many of my conferences: the writer gets caught up in the content already on the page, not the content that could be on the page. What makes this so difficult for me to circumvent is that the writer expects help on their specific paper, whatever it currently is. They dont always jump at my broader, idearelated comments that call their current text into question. And these content issues very often mar the meaning of a paper, desperately requiring another look. Faced with this dilemma, I utilize a few strategies to redirect the focus of the meeting. One of them covers the first question John Bean says a peer tutor should answer in his essay Writing Comments on Student Papers a test of the writers knowledge of prompt. Even though I always have a copy of it, I find that asking the writer to paraphrase the assignment guidelines from memory betters their understanding of it (and further shows if they do not understand it at all). Helping writers better understand the prompt (and, likewise, helping them form a paper that answers the prompt) is a top priority of mine during conferences. Ive encountered papers where this doesnt work, however; a writer will have a strong argument that answers the prompt, but may have a third body paragraph that seems unrelated to the argument. Reverse outlining during a conference with a writer like this has helped me show writers where their paper is inconsistent. I usually have writers rewrite their thesis, topic sentences from body paragraphs, and the conclusions

Jacob Fuerst WRD396 10/8/12 restated thesis to check for consistency. This almost always makes unrelated tangents jump out to the writer right away, and makes it easier for me to gently expose areas that dont seem connected to the overall paper. In keeping with the complex nature of peer tutoring, the strategies I use to achieve my goals for writers during conferences are not foolproof. I still need to learn and develop ways to force the writer to do all of their own work. For example, when brainstorming with a writer about ways to make their thesis more concrete, I want to be able to help them come up with ideas instead of doing it myself. I want to have a response to I dont know that doesnt assert my own answer, but encourages the writer to think for themselves. Appointments with students who are not talkative make this process even more difficult; whether a writer is shy, frustrated, confused, or indifferent to the paper as a whole, I have serious trouble maintaining my philosophies about conferencing in these situations. I find myself talking to fill the silence or doing all the work, which only serves to appropriate the paper further. Maybe its the opposite of this that has made my successful appointments so prosperous instead of helping the writer with their paper, I helped them better their own process for writing. Hey Jacob, Wow! Youve thought about your philosophy quite a bit, havent you? I can tell that youre really thinking about your work so far at the UCWbL and how its changing your outlook on peer tutoring. All of the themes you brought up are totally relatable and show that youre involved in what you do, which is awesome. Well done so far.

Jacob Fuerst WRD396 10/8/12 Theres still a little left to be said regarding your philosophy/philosophies and the examples you use to demonstrate them. As I said, they are all great examples and I enjoy reading them, but Im having a hard time connecting them back to the big picture. This may mean youll have to take a step back and think about which one of these ideas you find most evident in your work as a Fellow. This way you can really delve out some testimonies. During our conference Id like to talk about this and hopefully some other things you may be considering for this part of your portfolio. Bring any ideas to the table that youd like, because Id love to hear more about what you think. Keep on philosophizing, and Ill see you soon! -Mo