Brainstorming Sessions

One speaker at the OWCC supported advisors sharing their own ideas when brainstorming with writers. Although I agree that collaboration in the development of ideas can be productive and even entertaining, I was left wondering how appropriate this sharing of ideas is in a writing center session. I know there has to be some dividing line between advising and doing what should be the writer’s work, but where exactly is that division?

In my past experiences coming to the writing center, brainstorming sessions have consisted of the thoughts of the writer (me) and thought-provoking questions from the advisor. I do not remember having an advisor share his or her own ideas with me, and I have always considered that to be a good thing—I was the one writing the paper, so the ideas should be my own. On the other hand, I have heard of other experiences in which the advisor played a more active role in the brainstorming session, offering his or her own ideas to the writer. I understand the argument in defense of this sort of approach: an idea given at such an early stage of the writing process would still become the writer’s own (I suppose) as it is formulated into words. However, I cannot help but wonder if the advisor set the writer off on an entirely different track than he or she would have taken without the session. What if the writer chooses to write about the idea because, if the advisor suggested it, it must be ‘good’? Regardless, the most significant problem to consider is the reason why most professors assign papers to begin with: to exercise students’ abilities to develop complex ideas and convey them coherently in writing. Even though brainstorming presents the illusion of coming before a student starts an assignment because it does not yet involve an actual draft of the paper, the resulting ideas highly influence the formation of the paper itself, and if the ideas did not come from the writer, the paper loses its authenticity. Consider a few definitions of plagiarize/plagiarism:

: to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one’s own : use (another’s production) without crediting the source [Merriam-Webster]

: the unauthorized use or close imitation of the language and thoughts of another author and the representation of them as one’s own original work, as by not crediting the author [Dictionary.com]

: In an instructional setting, plagiarism occurs when a writer deliberately uses someone else’s language, ideas, or other original (not common-knowledge) material without acknowledging its source. [WPA Council]

For the most part, people seem to think plagiarism is only possible if ideas were taken from a published work, but I would argue that deliberately taking someone else’s ideas from a session in the writing center is also inappropriate. Of course, brainstorming sessions present a unique problem because the advisors who share their own ideas are typically more than willing to allow a writer to take them and use them in their paper, eliminating the “theft” aspect of plagiarism, but the lack of authenticity in the final product remains. Professors typically expect to see the original work of the writer, not ideas freely taken from someone else and formed into writing.

In other cultures that are less focused on individuality, such collaborative work in the development of ideas would be easy to support. However, these same cultures are not concerned with extensive citations to avoid what our culture calls plagiarism. I believe it is important for us, as future advisors, to carefully consider our approaches to brainstorming sessions and to decide whether or not an advisor’s ideas belong in them. Perhaps we’ll reach our conclusions as we gain more experience, but I think it would be best for us to approach such sessions with caution until we are sure where we stand.

On Listening, Speaking, and the Development of Opinions

Well, I am currently in the process of writing another blog post, but I had to interrupt it as I encountered the notorious (in my own little world, at least) Little Quirk #2. Welcome to my list, odd little personality trait. Here comes your analysis.

Little Quirk #2: I am a listener first, and a speaker second. Since the beginning of this class, we’ve been encouraged to “join the conversation” about writing center theory and practice, but I am the type of person who wants to do extensive research and know what others have said before developing my own opinions or theories on a subject. I somewhat obsessively aim to consider all possible perspectives before deciding on my own, which makes it very difficult for me to speak impulsively. Throughout high school and now into college, I have been mistakenly labeled ‘shy’ because this little quirk keeps me from immediately sharing my thoughts in class. However, I love class discussions and would definitely consider myself to be an active participant; I just really try to make my contributions count. It can be frustrating for me to attempt to share my thoughts before I believe they are fully developed with all sides considered (this is where quirk one and two come together). I’m doing my best to adapt to a more spontaneous method of speaking when it becomes necessary, though. I think this desire to extensively develop my thoughts before sharing them is the result of my open-mindedness—a common idea in Chinese philosophy explains my predicament well: when a person declares that something is ‘good,’ they are therefore implying that something else is not ‘good’ (ah, the problems that arise with distinctions). In other words, as an open-minded individual, I do not want to write off any other possible perspectives that I have not yet considered by declaring my position too early. Of course, it would be easy for someone to argue that there is nothing wrong with changing your mind, and I wholeheartedly agree. Still, I would rather not be forced to make a decision without considering all the facts.

Bringing this quirk back to English 242, though, I must add that I truly appreciate being given the opportunity to examine various theories and methodologies before developing my own pedagogy and working as an advisor. On a slightly different note, I think this open-mindedness and desire to consider other perspectives will actually be useful in writing center work. I will definitely be able to understand students who come in torn between opposing sides of an issue, and it will not be difficult for me to consider beliefs or opinions that differ from my own (although my own thorough consideration of that second statement requires me to mention that there may be very, very rare exceptions).

I am undeniably an advocate of informed action, in case you all haven’t figured that out already.

Self-analyzing and Quirky Goodness

I think I may be too critical about my blog posts. I push aside many ideas simply because they are not fully formulated, and it is becoming increasingly counter-productive as I try to think of new post topics every week. I know these sites are intended to serve as a place for us to continuously develop our thoughts, so I am going to try to free myself from this inner resistance. Maybe I’ll write in support of an idea one day and against it the next, but at least I’ll be getting my thoughts down in text. 

Anyway, now I move on to a semi-related topic: the self-analyzing this course seems to stimulate. Kari, I know you’ve mentioned that you’ve grown more and more conscious of personal habits and traits, and you are definitely not alone. I am starting to see little quirks in my writing and writing process as well as other random aspects of my personality that I previously didn’t notice. Most of these ‘little quirks’ relate to working in the writing center in some way or another, so I might as well address them here.

Little Quirk #1: when I write a paper, I often spend hours perfecting the structure of each sentence. I will write one line, read it a few times, then erase it and rewrite it entirely until I reach a satisfactory result. This habit is likely a product of my extreme appreciation for the aural, artistic quality of language and the effects various word choices have on the intended meaning of a sentence. (No, ‘extreme appreciation’ is not an exaggeration. I won't even begin to describe how much I adore speeches simply because these traits play such a significant role for them.) However, while this focus on the flow of a piece from one sentence to the next has its benefits, I think it may occasionally cause me to overlook other aspects of academic writing that need equal attention. There haven’t been many repetitive occurrences of neglect of any certain aspects yet, but I do recall two papers for which I did not fully evaluate how accurately my thesis reflected my argument as a whole. Still, it's definitely something for me to keep in mind when working on future papers. Blogging about this may not be of much help to anyone other than me, but I think it is important to critically analyze personal habits, especially unconscious ones, because awareness enables improvement.

 Well, I believe that concludes the first of my little quirk analyses, but I assure you there will be more coming eventually.

By the way, quirk is quite a quirky word.

Thoughts on Directive and Nondirective Approaches to Advising

I know it has been a while now since we interviewed advisors for the Profile assignment, but I wanted to share one part of the conversation I had with Katie Chounet, a second-year advisor. During the interview, we discussed the ongoing debate about directive versus nondirective advising approaches. We agreed that both may have their place in the writing center, but Katie described their places particularly well. Although most writing center advisors seem to prefer a nondirective approach, Katie acknowledged that “at some point, you need to be a little more directive than nondirective. If the biggest problems in a paper are big ideas,” she explained, “you need to be less directive to draw out the writer’s thoughts. However, if the problems are more sentence-level, you need to be more directive in order to help them.”

To me, this application of a nondirective or directive approach according to the particular aspect of the paper being addressed made a lot of sense. Instead of using only one advising approach to conduct an entire session, each may be used as different types of problems in a paper are discussed. If a student writer seeks help with the ideas or style of a paper, a nondirective approach is best to ensure the writer’s control over the paper. On the other hand, if a student comes in seeking help with more basic, structural or sentence-level issues, the advisor may be able to safely take a more directive role. By alternating between the two advising approaches according to what is being discussed, it is quite possible that both approaches may be used in the same session. In summary, an advisor must always maintain the student’s full control over the paper while finding the best ways to help the student learn and grow as a writer, which may require both nondirective and directive approaches at different points in each session.

The necessity of such adaptability while advising is further emphasized in Sharon A. Myers’s essay, “Reassessing the ‘Proofreading Trap’: ESL Tutoring and Writing Instruction,” which provides examples of the ways nondirective advising has failed to help ESL students. These students, who may frequently struggle with technical or structural aspects of writing, would likely benefit from an advisor who is willing to adapt and be more directive when an explanation of grammatical or cultural language rules is necessary. However, an advisor who remains nondirective at all times may not be able to help these students become “better writers,” which is, according to Stephen M. North, the goal of writing center work.

On a slightly different note, I really enjoyed Myers’s essay and could continue writing about it for quite some time. Unfortunately, though, I have an incredibly long day ahead of me, so I will have to save the rest of my thoughts for my next post.