Some people seemed to emphasize that there was an unrealistic balance in perceived authority in the summary sessions because both participants were capable of conducting a session on their own. However, after contemplating this claim, I cannot help but think that our work as advisors isn’t really about being expert writers who advise those with less skill/experience, which would therefore place us in a position of authority as the statement implies. Instead, I see advisors as experienced readers. We all have our flaws when it comes to writing. We’re not perfect, and I think I can safely say that perfected writing ability is not a required trait for advisors. In contrast, our strongest trait—out greatest power in a session—is simply that of our own perspective as readers. When we lend this perspective to writers by reading through their work and providing honest feedback, we allow the writers to get a sense of their audience—a chance to see how others are understanding what they are writing. Our knowledge of academic writing conventions is certainly a plus when we’re helping writers revise their papers, but I think someone lacking this knowledge that provides an honest reader’s response to a writer’s piece could help improve the quality and clarity of the paper quite significantly, too.
In my opinion, these sorts of sessions are a good introduction to writing center work. When we’re comfortable around the person we’re advising, we are able to focus less on finding the right words to say to avoid sounding overly critical, and focus more on the writer and his or her paper—the heart of a session. These sessions allow us to begin advising without having to focus on all aspects of the session at once—in a way, starting here allows us to divide up our concerns in order to learn how to handle the core of sessions instead of being overwhelmed as we attempt to consciously think through all aspects of what may be deemed “real” sessions that we will soon face in the writing center.
No comments:
Post a Comment