My second peer writing fellows session went very well. My group responded with much better feedback, giving each other good advice about things to improve on in their papers.
The session started off rocky, as one of the group member did not come at all and a new person was added to the group after we had already started. The new girl left several times during the session to try to "print" her paper, and came up with every excuse in the book about not being able to print a copy. She finally just left, gathering her stuff hurriedly and claiming she was "going the writing center." This whole in and out of the new girl in our group was very distracting, and it also wasted our time as we were waiting on her to get her paper to print. We finally just started without her, which clearly was what we should have done in the beginning since she ended up leaving the group and class completely for the day.
This bad start aside, our meeting today was very successful. This time, I had the girls all exchange papers and we read them silently. Each student had their paper read and reviewed by two other students. Before exchanging papers, I gave the students some things to look for while reading each others' papers (such as a strong thesis in the introduction, evidence in the body supporting this thesis, clear organization to the paper, a conclusion that restates the paper's thesis and main ideas, etc.) and I encouraged them to mark everywhere on the papers, as well as leaving comments at the end. During this discussion, we also addressed higher order concerns as this tied into what we were looking for in each others' papers.
After everyone had read and reviewed two papers, we returned them to the writer and went around the circle verbalizing some of the comments that were written. This way, the writer could ask questions about the comments she received as well as the comments could be reiterated verbally as well as in writing.
After we got done discussing each person's paper individually, I asked the writer what she planned on revising based on the peer feedback.
This session was leaps and bounds better than my last session as far as the writers giving good, constructive feedback to each other. I was really proud of how much they wrote on each others' papers and how well they gave advice and praise on the papers they read both verbally and in writing.
Because the students gave such good feedback and advice, I was able to be less directive and disappear more in the session. The students did a lot of the talking, which I think boosted their own confidence as writers and as reviewers.
The second group session was much better than the first! I asked them to read aloud this time because when they read silently they did not have much to say about the essays. I heard from my fellow classmates that reading aloud was successful, so I decided to try that.
I was surprised that the student who volunteered to read first was the one who hardly said anything in the last session. He seemed to have made some changes in his essay, and the other two students were really engaged in his paper. He seemed to have several grammatical errors, and one of the girls was literally telling him where to put commas, where to take out words, etc. Once again I tried to tell them that we were focusing on higher order concerns, but I know it was hard for them to overlook the grammatical errors. The second student said that he didn’t change too much for the second draft. While they were listening to him, they gave suggestions and asked question, etc. I was so glad that they were being more open this time. After the third student read her paper, they didn’t have as many comments as before. I don’t know if this was because they really thought that her paper was great, or if they were simply ready to go. There were a few comments, but not as many as the first two. There was still a small issue with thesis statements and introductions, but overall I believe that the students made progress.
I am really glad that I asked them to read aloud this time. They could hear their own mistakes as they were reading. I heard them say things like, “This doesn’t sound right” or “I need to change that sentence.” I think that it also made them more comfortable with giving positive comments as well as criticism. I did not have to talk as much as I did before. Last time I had to ask lots of leading questions before they would say anything. I think that the location helped as well. This time we were sitting in a circle and we didn’t have the computers in the way. I was really pleased with this session, and I look forward to working with them again in March.
This second session was quite different than the first. I have many mixed feelings about how it went. There was definitely a sense on comfort in the group that was absent in the last session. The “fear” of having to share their works with everyone wasn’t quite so prevalent. The first concept that I tried to obtain was the thesis statement, because that was the root of many troubles in the last session. Everyone smiled because they had all worked on that during the time between sessions and they all underlined their own thesis statements fairly quickly. As promised in my last blog we tried reading the essays out loud. Bad Idea! I could see the other writers start to phase out and start focusing on something else instead of paying attention to the task at hand. Each person was supposed to write down things that were not answered correctly or did well in each essay. The most I could see wrote maybe two bullet points. I became very frustrated at the lack of respect that each writer had for one another. The most frustrating thing was that they all had the prompt right in front of them and there was still no spark of how to critique the essay. Once each student finished his essay the floor was opened to comments. It was like trying to squeeze juice out of a banana. So I would start the conversation and slowly they would warm up. The main problem that I had with my group was one older gentleman (maybe 50s). This man would not stop pestering the whole group and caused the focus to drift off topic. The issue was also that his paper was as long winded as he was. ( a six page opinion paper that was completely off topic and not structured what so ever) So, I would try to get us back on topic and he would push us right off. Then when we got to his paper he couldn’t take the criticism given by his peers. It was also apparent that he had not taken advice given to him by his peers in the last session. So, we spent a lot of time trying to convince him he needed to go back to the prompt and redo his paper. For the rest of the time he hardly spoke and rolled his eyes. How do I fix that? I cant help but be honest with him and neither could his peers. We were trying to benefit him and his paper. Maybe there are some that just wont allow themselves to be helped? There was also another question brought to my attention. If you think a student has plagiarized a paper what do you do? One of the group members brought to class a paper that was amazing! Of course there were LOC issues everywhere, but overall it was great! His language was mature and well thought out. Yet, this was a complete “180” from the last session. So what would you do? Approach the teacher? I am happy to report that after class he was talking out in the hall and I caught up with him and he had a question for me. He wanted to know if using a thesaurus was ok. I told him that he needed to talk with his teacher about the issue because I personally would have questioned the authenticity. ( you have to understand that this paper was better than a lot of English Major papers) I made it clear to him that it was not a judge against his capabilities but more of a complement because his writing seemed above an ENGL1102 class. There is a month before the next session and I wonder if we should switch up the groups, to present fresh problems/ opportunities to work on skills? What do you all think?
Today I learned how easy it is to jump to overly optimistic conclusions. This session was quite different from the last one. Sean and Charlie, the two writers who need the most help, did not come to class today, leaving our group half its original size. So, I didn't get to see what effect (if any) my help had on their writing, but the good news is that there was more time to devote to Sharyn's and John's papers.
I asked them to read their drafts aloud, an this seemed to be an effective way of building conversation. The change of rooms also helped enormously. We claimed a corner of the room and arranged the desks into a triangle. I think the reading aloud strategy was good for the students, but I am not a very auditory person, and had to ask to look at anything they were asking me about.
I was a bit shocked to hear that, though Sharyn had made some minor improvements to her essay (and added the conclusion paragraph that was missing from her first draft), she had not implemented the organize-around-ideas-not-stanzas revision strategy that we talked about last time. It turned out, she didn't know how to go about doing it because she was fuzzy on what her ideas were, or, at least,how to articulate them. I got her to look at the poem and make a list of the ideas (including metaphors, etc.) she found there as a way of trying to help her see potential paragraph topics.
John had the same structure problem. He only discussed one major idea from the poem (that Frost's “The Road Not Taken” is about the decisions we face and their consequences), but he elaborated on the concept at great length. The result was often vague and repetitive, though he did have some specific statements about specific things in the poem (like a particular word and its possible meanings). I encouraged him to do more of that, and urged both of them to incorporate more small, specific things into their essays instead of dealing only in the larger things.
Since the problem seemed ubiquitous throughout both their papers, I tried to teach them how to use specific, “the poet uses THIS to do THAT” statements. This discussion morphed into a thesis improvement workshop. I discovered how alluring is the will-o'-the'wisp of “perfection” in the hazardous Swamp of Thesis Development for a potential helper. It was hard for me to help them create good, strong, specific theses to replace their vague “this poem dramatizes x” opening sentences. I tried to approximate how they might phrase their sentence by giving an example of a strong verb to use and which pieces of their main idea might go on either side of it, but purposely used informal language to make what I said unusable if copied verbatim. I was also trying to walk the tightrope between reflecting (in clearer, more concise language) and directly providing the clear, concise words they needed. It was very hard, and I hope I didn't go too far. I accidentally said something to Sharyn while I was trying to reflect her ideas about “Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening” about the “conflict between the speaker's duty and desire.” I was trying to introduce “conflict” as a strong, nonsummarizing word she might want to use in her thesis/introduction, but my use of “duty and desire” was putting a finer point on those ideas than she had achieved. I think this concept was already in her paper, and her paper needs a strong idea to rise from the the simple explanatory, but I fear I may have overstepped my bounds, because she eagerly wrote down the key words with the apparent intention of using them in her new thesis. I can only hope this will fall into the “master class” drawer, and that she will have learned the concept, not just the sentence. I will try to do a better job filtering my thoughts next time.
John improved his thesis in a similar manner, but he was able to generate his new thesis with mostly just prompts from me after he grasped the pattern I was presenting. A nice moment of our session came when John was writing his new thesis and rewriting part of his intro paragraph to go along with it while Sharyn wrote her list of ideas from the poem and I did nothing but watch the writers write.
My blunders aside, I do think good came of this session. The best thing about it was that it truly was a conversation, with all participating in everything discussed. While the students read their papers aloud, they noted things that needed improvement. Afterwards, the other was able to give the reader constructive and honest criticism, pointing out some problems (like repetition) even if they didn't know how to fix them. I am pleased with the level of trust and cooperation in (at least this half) of our group, and wonder if it will be re-attainable when the writers of lower skill-level return. I think Sharyn and John are well-matched in ability, and this probably was a factor in their willingness to open up during this session.
I wanted to stress the concept of reader-based writing, so I had the students swap papers and read each other's drafts aloud. As a group we analyzed each draft's higher order concerns paragraph by paragraph. This worked rather well; hearing their drafts being read to them seemed to spur their revision abilities. Overall the students' drafts were very solid beginnings. Atticus' (I'm applying a literary theme to my pseudonyms) created a thesis (which he was lacking in his first draft) and wrote a new draft. It was written at a very high level, yet a little convoluted. This was brought up by the others and he responded positively, saying that he wanted to make it progress smoother.
Scout abandoned her previous poem in favor of one which she likes a lot. It was obvious in her new draft that she took the idea of higher order concerns to heart. She very keenly analyzed the poem, concentrating on its imagery and symbolism. However, in doing so her draft did not address many of the other literary devices outlined in the assignment. She could see this problem, but was unsure how to incorporate it all into her paper. I suggested that since her analysis of the imagery and symbolism were so well done that she use that as a model. But she still couldn't get it. The problem was that her thesis also centered around imagery and symbolism, thus excluding the rest. I then suggested that she could reshape her thesis to suit her needs, but she was very hesitant to do so. Scout approached the professor with this problem. The professor replied that she had heard her draft being read aloud and that she needn't worry about including analysis of the other literary aspects, as she had done so well with the imagery and symbolism.
This has been my first major obstacle thus far. I pushed Scout to address every aspect of the assignment. I assumed that this is what the professor was looking for, as she had outlined it quite clearly. But in the end, there was no need. I realize now that I had approached the assignment as if I was a student in the class, not as a consultant. My own anxieties narrowed my viewpoint. Had I taken a mental step back, I may have seen the possibility that the professor's expectations were not what I thought.
On the other hand, I was striving for a goal which I still believe Scout needs to work on. She did not scrutinize the assignment very closely, and didn't consult it while forming her draft. If the professor did indeed expect all aspects of the poem to be analyzed, then she would have had a problem. So in a way, I was following the maxim of making better writers, not better papers.
Matt's post reminded me that I had a similar issue in my group. My students thought they needed to analyze the whole poem globally, and I thought that was proving sort of detrimental to their essays. I was encouraging Sharyn to move toward a strong specific thesis, using the strongest of her points, like focusing on metaphor. I think I confused her a little; we checked the assignment, and, unsure, I backed off. I guess it wasn't clear to me whether "explication" is the same thing as "essay," and I was working from the "essay" model. I think the assignment could have been worded more clearly, but perhaps this is an issue from the Nicolas article that discussed how consultants are at a disadvantage because we are not in the class hearing what the teacher says about the assignment.
Since my first session went so well, I was excited to go back and see the progress my group had made. To my surprise the progress made was very little, if any at all. One of the first questions I asked them relating to their papers was if they had come a long way in the past week. The majority of my group members said they went through and added a couple sentences or took a few things out, but that was about it. Immediately I felt discouraged. From the way everyone was talking last week I though for sure they were all excited and had a lot of good ideas and direction for their papers. Why didn’t they work on it then? Were they just playing along? Did I even help them at all?
My next challenge came from the new group member that was absent the first time we met. When I asked everyone to get their papers out, he surprised me by stating he didn’t have one. So naturally, I asked what he had written about. Awkward silence followed. Then I asked if he had a poem. Awkward silence again. How can someone come to class, especially a class when we are peer-reviewing papers, and not have a paper or even a topic? This baffled me. The next thing running through my mind was “What do I do!!??? How do I help this person!!??” I tried to recall every brain storming activity I’d ever done. Still blank though. I told him to get his book out and pick out a poem that he liked and felt he could write a paper on. Looking back I probably came off as bossy, but what was I supposed to do? I didn’t want him walking away from the session with nothing. The least I could do was help him narrow down a poem.
I then had the rest of the group tell how their papers had changed and read aloud their revised thesis statements. That is when I found out that two of my four original group members still didn’t have a thesis for their paper. This made me feel awful because we spent so much time on that during the first session. Did they not listen at all? Was I doing them any good? To get them at least thinking about their thesis I asked the two of them to flip over their papers and write down a thesis. It didn’t have to be perfect, just a rough statement to work with. So far my session was off to a very directive start.
During the first session, the group exchanged papers and read and revised silently. This time I thought to change it up and give them a different perspective we should read them aloud. I had heard in class this worked for many of the groups and was a good way to get them all talking. This idea had the reverse effect on my group. They listened and seemed attentive, but that was it. It was like pulling teeth to get them to comment and when they did it was just “I think that sounds good.” I would ask them all kinds of questions, what did they think of this part, what needs improving, what did they like, but they would just sit there and stare back at me. How do I get them to cooperate? I can only do so much. I would then give my comments and hoped they would piggyback their comments from that. Sometimes this worked and sometimes it didn’t. For the most part, they wanted me to do all the talking. It was like I was the teacher, and I felt kind of uncomfortable for most of the time.
It wasn’t all bad though. There were instances where group members would give great advice. For the most part, however, this was a completely different group than the one I saw the first time. I don’t know what changed. I guess it just wasn’t a good day for them.
I really felt like a teacher, not even a tutor, but a teacher. The level of directness I used made me uncomfortable during this second session.
Again, Jacques did not have a draft. He came to class with nothing. Immediately, I was frustrated. I asked him to go to the lab and print out a copy since he claimed to have uploaded his draft on the Emma program. He disappeared and never returned.
Corbin only had the same paper from the week before with his notes. I asked him to start writing during the session, to be somewhat productive. He managed a paragraph, which I asked him to read to the group. I assumed it was an introduction and questioned whom he meant when he said reader and speaker. I explained he should be more specific and told the group the difference between writer based prose and reader based prose. Corbin corrected my assumption by saying it was not his introduction. He normally writes an introduction after writing the body, so his main points are easier to list. I was impressed with this tactic and complimented him, saying it was a good approach if it works for him.
Nanette and Piera had their drafts, but only made minor changes. I used Kevin’s idea of switching papers and having the reader explain the writer’s paper. This failed. All they said was, “I think the paper is good.” I had them read out loud to the group. We worked on creating introductions since Nanette did not have one. Like with Corbin, the reason for an introduction is to present the reader with the ideas the writer will discuss. Also, with a poetry analysis, it is important to at least state the title and the poet’s name. Piera had one question, “is it necessary to cite a definition?” She looked up “firebug” which meant an arsonist. I told her no, because it’s not necessary, like citing the poem for the paper. I also said to ask the professor if she wanted to be completely sure.
After the session, I felt slightly defeated, though Piera thanked me for the help I gave. The two sessions were different, and not in a good way. I am grateful for the experience, so at least I know it was not a complete waste of time.
Overall, my second session went fairly well. I will admit that my first session went a little better than this week’s. The group conversation was a little strained and the lack of revision was apparent in most of the papers which caused me to “repeat” a lot of tips and tid-bits, including reiterating tips about thesis statements. I found that most of the papers had excellent points and evidence to support the points, but a clear thesis statement was sadly missing.
With what revisions that had been made in some of the papers, however, it made it easy for me to help with the progression of the papers’ development. I was able to balance looking at high order concerns AND low order concerns. That was rewarding in a sense. Both Ms. M’s and Ms. S’s papers needed only a few tweaks for their thesis statements and conclusions.
I started off this week’s session with another short activity similar to last week’s. I had each member of the group write on the back of their paper two main goals that they would like to see accomplished by the end of the session. Last week I had them write two “concerns”. I chose goals this week because instead of just specifying their problems, it made them think about wanting to actually accomplish something.
After that was completed I had each member of the group read their paper aloud then discuss what changes she had made. Ms. M, Ms. S, and Ms. T all said about the same thing. First they had “lengthened” their paper by adding more evidence, and they had changed the organization of the evidence. (Whether it was from the direction of last week’s discussion or just because they felt it was needed, I do not know.) The discussion following the reading of each girl’s paper was not as “lively” as last week’s. I felt perhaps it was because it may have been that this week it was more difficult for them to point out the troublesome areas than it was last week. Last week’s problems were a bit more obvious. So after a few guiding questions, the suggestions went flying.
I did have to do a review of thesis statements. It seemed that each girl would skirt around the thesis statement, but not actually “state” it. That was when I became a little more directive.
I had a new member added to my group this week: Ms. J. Her arrival this week wasn’t as bad as I had initially thought it to be. I had thought that she would have been behind in the revision stage simply because she had missed such a wonderful opportunity for peer editing last week. She was the last in the group to read her paper, and after she read it aloud to the group, the group immediately erupted into conversation regarding improvements to her paper. I was very impressed with the group’s response. Before her, no one seemed willing to talk as much as last week. But, instead of my gently prompting the group discussion in the right direction, the group, it seemed, already knew what to look for in Ms. J’s paper. They analyzed the development of the paper, they commented on the thesis, they discussed the organization and evidence, and they talked about the conclusion.
This week went well, from the stand point of the group’s writing progression. Getting them to vocalize their thoughts and opinions took a little more effort than last week. I suppose that’s natural. I was only concerned for this week’s session for my level of directivity. Last week I felt like I had used an even amount of directive and non-directive skills. This week, however, I was more directive. I am assuming that is because of the type of help that was needed this week as opposed to last week’s. The concerns that arise each week in each paper varies, which in turn affects my approach as a tutor.
My second session with my 1102 students went well. I would say that it was a better session for one student, but not so much for the other. The first student, Martha, took the ideas that we previously talked about and changed her paper a good amount; she accepted the changes and her paper definitely advanced because of it. However, the second writer, Mary, did not even write another draft for our second meeting. I asked her why she didn't make any changes to her paper and she said that she did not know what she was supposed to do. This was rather disappointing considering the fact that we spent the entire hour and fifteen minutes of our previous meeting deciding how she could improve her paper. Martha was very helpful towards Mary and that was very encouraging because I could tell that she was learning something about writing as a whole. I had the girls exchange papers and then explain what each other's papers were about; they also explained to each other what points were unclear and what needed extra attentnion. Martha was able to tell Mary that she needed more example to back up her points and that she could use more analyzation of the text rather than a simple summarization. Mary was able to help Marth a little, but most of her critiques were only grammar and punctuation errors. The girls were still confused about thesis statements, so we had another mini lesson on that area. Other than that it seemed that they grasped the other concepts we had discussed; although Mary did not write another draft, I'm certain that she understood what we talked about and is fully capable of writing another draft based on revising the things that we talked about. This second experience was alot better because I felt that I was more in control of the situation and I knew what to expect (somewhat.) I also already knew the girls that I would be helping, so that eased my nerves a bit and allowed me to jump right in as soon as class started.
This is my second time in Mrs. F's class. She did not let us keep our groups from last time. Rather, we had to trade groups with another writing fellow. I inherited Mary's former group. This group was much different from my first group. I tried to follow the same plan that I used the first time. I had each student write down the thesis, or general idea, of his/her paper on the back page and then read his/her paper aloud.
The first student read his paper aloud, and it was apparent rather quickly that his paper contained at least fifteen to twenty direct quotes from the text. It was as if he was quoting and putting in one or two connecting sentences, quoting and putting in one or two connecting sentences throughout his entire paper. His paper followed his thesis, but I did not feel like he put enough of himself in the paper. After he was done reading, I asked the other writers to comment on his paper. One student commented that to accurately comment on someone else's paper, he would have to personally read it because he could not listen effectively when the paper was read aloud. However, another writer was able to comment that writer 1 needed to put more of himself in the paper and use less summary. I also tried to reiterate this gently to him. He wrote this idea down on his paper, and the group continued reading their papers aloud and commenting on them. Writer 2's paper was very good. It had a clear thesis and more analysis than summary. When I asked for comments on her paper, all the other students could say was that the paper sounded good to them. Writer 3's paper also had a good bit of summary, and it also seemed to be a little fragmented because of short, choppy paragraphs and too many main points. The students commented that his paper needed more development and examples. The last writer's paper was also very good, but it had a long introduction that seemed to have very little to do with the rest of the paper. He also put in obscure allusions that were not fully expounded upon. The writers did not have much to say on his paper, and I felt that I needed to tell him to expound upon his allusions so that others could understand them. After the writers were finished reading the papers aloud and commenting on them, I had the writers exchange papers, read them to themselves, and write personal comments on them. The writers seemed to be writing a lot of comments on the papers.
After everyone was done writing, I asked them whether they thought we had a productive session (because I did not), and they said that they thought the session was productive and that they had ideas to change in their papers. I felt like the session was not as productive as it could have been because the writers did not seem to be talking to each other all that much or making any drastic revisions. I feel like maybe I should have been more directive and made more comments about the writers’ papers. Maybe I should think of another plan for next time.
I have to say my second session went well, though it’s hard to define. Anyways as Tameka pointed out we switched groups in class and even had a few more people added to the groups that were not present before. I did not follow the same plan I used previously, but rather followed the advice of everyone I had interviewed at the writing center. One thing I have to note that did not go well is time was not on my side.
I started off with an icebreaker, only this time I added a little more to it so people actually got to know each other better. I asked for majors as well as favorite movies and found my group could talk about some of the movies they had in common thus creating a dialogue. After chit-chatting a bit and adding a few more puns to show how ancient my humor is I began. I started by asking what their chief concerns were with their papers. Oddly enough a list was not needed for it became apparent they all had one thing in common, they all wanted help with their thesis. They were writing papers based on the story, “A Raisin in the Sun”, and the professor had even given them topics to choose from, but for some reason they had no definite thesis. I asked who was brave enough to read there paper out loud first to give me ideas and a girl I will name Soul Sister volunteered.
I have to say her paper was well-organized though I had to make her laugh a bit to get her to speak a little more confidently. Anyways we came to her thesis and I decided to have everyone write it down so they could keep it in mind as we continued onward. She was trying to explain in her thesis about what the man of the house meant in the story when related with a character named Walter. Her first paragraph was somewhat a summary of who Walter was which was alright since I, as a reader, needed to know who he was and even pointed this out to let her know she did good to explain. Overall her paper was consistent with the thesis, but when we came upon a quote I asked what her reason in choosing this quote was, and right than she explained why with a passion. To keep the flame going I said “well you didn’t put that down so put it down”, and then I prompted the group to come in asking them did what she just said fit in with the thesis and overall theme of the paper. They all had her thesis before them and all agreed, though I wasn’t satisfied with that and directly prompted a particular member to say something about what they thought. I was given a better response as they explained their own idea of what the quote came off as meaning to them. As she continued to read she eventually started asking me questions about if some of her paragraphs were necessary. I felt proud in the sense that just from her reading aloud and listening to my questions she was already adopting my questions in her mind without me having to ask anymore. I immediately responded “what do you think?” in which she said the paragraph made no sense so she marked it out. At the end we reached her conclusion which was only half finished and apparently what she believed to be her biggest concern at the time. Looking back at the discussion we had I asked the group what they thought of her conclusion. In the end Soul Sister did it all by herself as she went back over all the new information she had added in discussion and finished her conclusion.
The next paper I went over with the group belonged to a person I will affectionately refer to as Late Comer. The biggest problem she obviously had was that she didn’t even have a thesis, and she only had two paragraphs with her. I thought this would give me a heart attack, but oddly enough I seemed to have the most positive experience with her paper given her reaction. I had her read what she had, and the irony is she stated her thesis in the first sentence. I stopped her when she finished her intro paragraph and began asking what she wanted to talk about in her paper. When she read her paper it became obvious she wanted to talk about money and the corruption it causes, but for some reason she didn’t see that’s what she had. Oddly enough, when she started speaking she knew exactly what she wanted to say and said it. Therefore I am pleased to say she got a thesis down. I have to say I really hope she did well because even though she thought I helped her a lot, it means little if in the end her paper received a bad grade. I emphasize this point mainly because she asked me toward the end if I would be working at the center the next day so she could specifically request me for help but I had to be in class. Anyways let me just recover from my guilt trip and continue. Overall I did what I did for the first paper, asking the group to eat her alive and have her defend and explain what she was saying. I can’t say it was easy since she had only two paragraphs, but I have to say she at least managed to add another paragraph thanks to her having to explain her reasoning behind why money is considered evil in the story.
The third paper I had the group look at belonged to someone I will call Ma. Her paper overall didn’t need much help for it had a good thesis along with consistent body paragraphs. The only problem she needed help with was shortening her thesis. I decided to just have her summarize what she thought her paper was about. She said she had no clue, and yet she obviously did for her paper talked about two points consistently throughout in which I prompted the group discuss. I asked Ma first of all what one of her paragraphs was about choosing to narrow her search, and than she started to understand as it was about the dream of the mother to have a nice life for her family. After that I let the group ask questions and give responses to what they thought it was about, and then moved the group toward another paragraph in which everyone, including Ma, responded it was about the dreams of the son being corrupt, and so her paper obviously became about the dreams of the mother versus the dreams of the son and the differences between the two.
The last paper was my greatest mistake, and yet perhaps my greatest triumph. Anyways I want to blame it for me not getting to my fifth member, but I will take responsibility for not better managing time. Her paper was all about refining the ideas she had and better explaining them, for her thesis was short and to the point. Like the previous essay this paper was divided into two conflicting ideas, one of assimilation into white society, and the other was about standing out as a woman in society. Yet again all it took was getting her to talk about what she felt her paper was about. Now we get to the interesting part for I immediately noticed a particular quote and asked her to explain it. The quote was “Queen of the Nile”. I asked what it meant to her mainly because it brought up all sorts of thoughts in my head, but more so because it was in a part of the paper that was focused on assimilation. The quote for me felt like pride in one’s heritage, and to have it in a paragraph by itself that was all about a little girl trying to become assimilated into white society seemed out of place, and so I asked why it was there rather than stating my opinion. Just those four words alone prompted a twenty minute debate that sapped the remainder of my time which is why I mentioned it stopped me from getting to my last member. Anyways all hell broke loose as everyone wanted in on this discussion, even to the point of where I felt as though the students had finally taken over my job. Of course, it seems that is what a tutor is supposed to do. People were just asking questions left and right as well as throwing out some of the most interesting ideas about it even referencing to a live play recording they had watched, and how the expression of the characters when the quote was mentioned changed exponentially. One side argued the quote was about the girl dressing up for a play because some guy she liked told her to, in other words she was almost a servant to a man’s whims, hence the assimilation while the other side, including myself argued about how when she had the Queen’s wardrobe placed upon her she became majestic referencing to, again, pride in the past. We debated heatedly for a while as mentioned and all of a sudden the professor starts mentioning announcements ending our little debate.
In the end I do not know if a good tutoring session can be described as getting your group to debate ideas, but even so it got everyone involved which I believe is a good thing. I will say I now need to find a way to more equally distribute time as well as continue to revise my methods of tutoring. I asked as everyone was leaving if I helped any and they all agreed wholeheartedly, even the one I didn’t get to said he believed if I had had more time I would have helped him a lot. Soul Sister said I was cool in which I replied “never heard of an English Major and the word cool being used together” in which gave everyone one last chuckle before we went our separate ways. Sorry for this long response, I only hope it isn’t torture to read.
I really wish I could have been there for the second writing fellows adventure, however, the day wasn't totally unproductive.
On Monday afternoon, I realized that I accidentally missed a writing fellows meeting in the morning. After emailing Ms. Flournoy a sincere apology, I decided that it was time to talk to Dr. Lape about certain class concerns I had been experiencing. At about 10:20ish on Tuesday morning, we talked mostly about the writing fellows assignment, and my rocky experience with my first time. Because I have had no experience with first-hand writing fellows participation from the writer's point of view whatsoever, I commented that I was slightly insecure about the whole thing. Dr. Lape suggested that the best way to better understand the class, the assignment, and even my own writing process was to dive in head first to get tutored and have my work critiqued. I knew right then that nothing negative could possibly come out of sitting down with a tutor, so I enthusiastically gave it a shot.
At 4:30 in the afternoon, I was able to sit down with a writing center consultant, and I learned so many new and positive ways of looking at the Writing Center in general. Not only did I take mental notes on how to be a successful writing consultant, but I learned a lot about my own personal writing process as well. The tutor was patient, but professional, and she was able to give me some ideas to throw around as far as my Communications persuasive speech is concerned. Even though I was not present at part two of the peer review project, I did get something productive done that week, and I feel that I will be able to walk into session three with confidence, and a stronger sense of personal ability.
overall, i felt that this session went well, but i think it would have been better if i had stayed with my same group. still, i understand what mrs. flournoy was going for. she probably wanted her students to get another opinion and let us get a new experience with a new group. i hope it was not because one of the students complained, and she felt it better to mix up everyone. no matter her reason, i felt that i had to start all over with this new group, and it was more difficult this time because they were on their second or third draft by this point.
so not only was i having to establish a new connection with a new group, but i was also having to figure out their dynamic and try to figure out what exercise would be best when they are this far into the writing process. i had to think fast on my feet, and i still doubt that i chose the best things to do. it was better than them just sitting there doing nothing, though.
first off, i had them tell me what their topics were. then i had them switch papers once. then we talked about their thesis statements. next, we kind of had an open discussion about questions they had and what they were having trouble with. a couple of them had similar paper topics, so when i talked to one, i usually said that this is something you can both use. also we talked about going to the writing center and talking to mrs. flournoy. a couple of them had questions about taking their papers in a certain direction, and i felt like they were good ideas that needed to be vetted through their teacher.
like i said, it was a good session. i would give myself a solid B on my performance, maybe a B+. i just felt uncomfortable, and i could not get them talking like i wanted. i had to be very directive because i did not know their knowledge or dynamic. also i felt like i was reaching for things to do. they would move through things so quickly, and i was having to think of more exercises or discussion topics every twenty or thirty minutes. i felt unprepared, and i did not enjoy that feeling.
My second peer writing fellows session went very well. My group responded with much better feedback, giving each other good advice about things to improve on in their papers.
ReplyDeleteThe session started off rocky, as one of the group member did not come at all and a new person was added to the group after we had already started. The new girl left several times during the session to try to "print" her paper, and came up with every excuse in the book about not being able to print a copy. She finally just left, gathering her stuff hurriedly and claiming she was "going the writing center." This whole in and out of the new girl in our group was very distracting, and it also wasted our time as we were waiting on her to get her paper to print. We finally just started without her, which clearly was what we should have done in the beginning since she ended up leaving the group and class completely for the day.
This bad start aside, our meeting today was very successful. This time, I had the girls all exchange papers and we read them silently. Each student had their paper read and reviewed by two other students. Before exchanging papers, I gave the students some things to look for while reading each others' papers (such as a strong thesis in the introduction, evidence in the body supporting this thesis, clear organization to the paper, a conclusion that restates the paper's thesis and main ideas, etc.) and I encouraged them to mark everywhere on the papers, as well as leaving comments at the end. During this discussion, we also addressed higher order concerns as this tied into what we were looking for in each others' papers.
After everyone had read and reviewed two papers, we returned them to the writer and went around the circle verbalizing some of the comments that were written. This way, the writer could ask questions about the comments she received as well as the comments could be reiterated verbally as well as in writing.
After we got done discussing each person's paper individually, I asked the writer what she planned on revising based on the peer feedback.
This session was leaps and bounds better than my last session as far as the writers giving good, constructive feedback to each other. I was really proud of how much they wrote on each others' papers and how well they gave advice and praise on the papers they read both verbally and in writing.
Because the students gave such good feedback and advice, I was able to be less directive and disappear more in the session. The students did a lot of the talking, which I think boosted their own confidence as writers and as reviewers.
The second group session was much better than the first! I asked them to read aloud this time because when they read silently they did not have much to say about the essays. I heard from my fellow classmates that reading aloud was successful, so I decided to try that.
ReplyDeleteI was surprised that the student who volunteered to read first was the one who hardly said anything in the last session. He seemed to have made some changes in his essay, and the other two students were really engaged in his paper. He seemed to have several grammatical errors, and one of the girls was literally telling him where to put commas, where to take out words, etc. Once again I tried to tell them that we were focusing on higher order concerns, but I know it was hard for them to overlook the grammatical errors. The second student said that he didn’t change too much for the second draft. While they were listening to him, they gave suggestions and asked question, etc. I was so glad that they were being more open this time. After the third student read her paper, they didn’t have as many comments as before. I don’t know if this was because they really thought that her paper was great, or if they were simply ready to go. There were a few comments, but not as many as the first two. There was still a small issue with thesis statements and introductions, but overall I believe that the students made progress.
I am really glad that I asked them to read aloud this time. They could hear their own mistakes as they were reading. I heard them say things like, “This doesn’t sound right” or “I need to change that sentence.” I think that it also made them more comfortable with giving positive comments as well as criticism. I did not have to talk as much as I did before. Last time I had to ask lots of leading questions before they would say anything. I think that the location helped as well. This time we were sitting in a circle and we didn’t have the computers in the way. I was really pleased with this session, and I look forward to working with them again in March.
This second session was quite different than the first. I have many mixed feelings about how it went. There was definitely a sense on comfort in the group that was absent in the last session. The “fear” of having to share their works with everyone wasn’t quite so prevalent.
ReplyDeleteThe first concept that I tried to obtain was the thesis statement, because that was the root of many troubles in the last session. Everyone smiled because they had all worked on that during the time between sessions and they all underlined their own thesis statements fairly quickly.
As promised in my last blog we tried reading the essays out loud. Bad Idea! I could see the other writers start to phase out and start focusing on something else instead of paying attention to the task at hand. Each person was supposed to write down things that were not answered correctly or did well in each essay. The most I could see wrote maybe two bullet points. I became very frustrated at the lack of respect that each writer had for one another. The most frustrating thing was that they all had the prompt right in front of them and there was still no spark of how to critique the essay.
Once each student finished his essay the floor was opened to comments. It was like trying to squeeze juice out of a banana. So I would start the conversation and slowly they would warm up.
The main problem that I had with my group was one older gentleman (maybe 50s). This man would not stop pestering the whole group and caused the focus to drift off topic. The issue was also that his paper was as long winded as he was. ( a six page opinion paper that was completely off topic and not structured what so ever) So, I would try to get us back on topic and he would push us right off. Then when we got to his paper he couldn’t take the criticism given by his peers. It was also apparent that he had not taken advice given to him by his peers in the last session. So, we spent a lot of time trying to convince him he needed to go back to the prompt and redo his paper. For the rest of the time he hardly spoke and rolled his eyes.
How do I fix that? I cant help but be honest with him and neither could his peers. We were trying to benefit him and his paper. Maybe there are some that just wont allow themselves to be helped?
There was also another question brought to my attention. If you think a student has plagiarized a paper what do you do? One of the group members brought to class a paper that was amazing! Of course there were LOC issues everywhere, but overall it was great! His language was mature and well thought out. Yet, this was a complete “180” from the last session.
So what would you do? Approach the teacher?
I am happy to report that after class he was talking out in the hall and I caught up with him and he had a question for me. He wanted to know if using a thesaurus was ok. I told him that he needed to talk with his teacher about the issue because I personally would have questioned the authenticity. ( you have to understand that this paper was better than a lot of English Major papers) I made it clear to him that it was not a judge against his capabilities but more of a complement because his writing seemed above an ENGL1102 class.
There is a month before the next session and I wonder if we should switch up the groups, to present fresh problems/ opportunities to work on skills? What do you all think?
Today I learned how easy it is to jump to overly optimistic conclusions. This session was quite different from the last one. Sean and Charlie, the two writers who need the most help, did not come to class today, leaving our group half its original size. So, I didn't get to see what effect (if any) my help had on their writing, but the good news is that there was more time to devote to Sharyn's and John's papers.
ReplyDeleteI asked them to read their drafts aloud, an this seemed to be an effective way of building conversation. The change of rooms also helped enormously. We claimed a corner of the room and arranged the desks into a triangle. I think the reading aloud strategy was good for the students, but I am not a very auditory person, and had to ask to look at anything they were asking me about.
I was a bit shocked to hear that, though Sharyn had made some minor improvements to her essay (and added the conclusion paragraph that was missing from her first draft), she had not implemented the organize-around-ideas-not-stanzas revision strategy that we talked about last time. It turned out, she didn't know how to go about doing it because she was fuzzy on what her ideas were, or, at least,how to articulate them. I got her to look at the poem and make a list of the ideas (including metaphors, etc.) she found there as a way of trying to help her see potential paragraph topics.
John had the same structure problem. He only discussed one major idea from the poem (that Frost's “The Road Not Taken” is about the decisions we face and their consequences), but he elaborated on the concept at great length. The result was often vague and repetitive, though he did have some specific statements about specific things in the poem (like a particular word and its possible meanings). I encouraged him to do more of that, and urged both of them to incorporate more small, specific things into their essays instead of dealing only in the larger things.
Since the problem seemed ubiquitous throughout both their papers, I tried to teach them how to use specific, “the poet uses THIS to do THAT” statements. This discussion morphed into a thesis improvement workshop. I discovered how alluring is the will-o'-the'wisp of “perfection” in the hazardous Swamp of Thesis Development for a potential helper. It was hard for me to help them create good, strong, specific theses to replace their vague “this poem dramatizes x” opening sentences. I tried to approximate how they might phrase their sentence by giving an example of a strong verb to use and which pieces of their main idea might go on either side of it, but purposely used informal language to make what I said unusable if copied verbatim. I was also trying to walk the tightrope between reflecting (in clearer, more concise language) and directly providing the clear, concise words they needed. It was very hard, and I hope I didn't go too far. I accidentally said something to Sharyn while I was trying to reflect her ideas about “Stopping By Woods on a Snowy Evening” about the “conflict between the speaker's duty and desire.” I was trying to introduce “conflict” as a strong, nonsummarizing word she might want to use in her thesis/introduction, but my use of “duty and desire” was putting a finer point on those ideas than she had achieved. I think this concept was already in her paper, and her paper needs a strong idea to rise from the the simple explanatory, but I fear I may have overstepped my bounds, because she eagerly wrote down the key words with the apparent intention of using them in her new thesis. I can only hope this will fall into the “master class” drawer, and that she will have learned the concept, not just the sentence. I will try to do a better job filtering my thoughts next time.
John improved his thesis in a similar manner, but he was able to generate his new thesis with mostly just prompts from me after he grasped the pattern I was presenting. A nice moment of our session came when John was writing his new thesis and rewriting part of his intro paragraph to go along with it while Sharyn wrote her list of ideas from the poem and I did nothing but watch the writers write.
My blunders aside, I do think good came of this session. The best thing about it was that it truly was a conversation, with all participating in everything discussed. While the students read their papers aloud, they noted things that needed improvement. Afterwards, the other was able to give the reader constructive and honest criticism, pointing out some problems (like repetition) even if they didn't know how to fix them. I am pleased with the level of trust and cooperation in (at least this half) of our group, and wonder if it will be re-attainable when the writers of lower skill-level return. I think Sharyn and John are well-matched in ability, and this probably was a factor in their willingness to open up during this session.
I wanted to stress the concept of reader-based writing, so I had the students swap papers and read each other's drafts aloud. As a group we analyzed each draft's higher order concerns paragraph by paragraph. This worked rather well; hearing their drafts being read to them seemed to spur their revision abilities. Overall the students' drafts were very solid beginnings. Atticus' (I'm applying a literary theme to my pseudonyms) created a thesis (which he was lacking in his first draft) and wrote a new draft. It was written at a very high level, yet a little convoluted. This was brought up by the others and he responded positively, saying that he wanted to make it progress smoother.
ReplyDeleteScout abandoned her previous poem in favor of one which she likes a lot. It was obvious in her new draft that she took the idea of higher order concerns to heart. She very keenly analyzed the poem, concentrating on its imagery and symbolism. However, in doing so her draft did not address many of the other literary devices outlined in the assignment. She could see this problem, but was unsure how to incorporate it all into her paper. I suggested that since her analysis of the imagery and symbolism were so well done that she use that as a model. But she still couldn't get it. The problem was that her thesis also centered around imagery and symbolism, thus excluding the rest. I then suggested that she could reshape her thesis to suit her needs, but she was very hesitant to do so. Scout approached the professor with this problem. The professor replied that she had heard her draft being read aloud and that she needn't worry about including analysis of the other literary aspects, as she had done so well with the imagery and symbolism.
This has been my first major obstacle thus far. I pushed Scout to address every aspect of the assignment. I assumed that this is what the professor was looking for, as she had outlined it quite clearly. But in the end, there was no need. I realize now that I had approached the assignment as if I was a student in the class, not as a consultant. My own anxieties narrowed my viewpoint. Had I taken a mental step back, I may have seen the possibility that the professor's expectations were not what I thought.
On the other hand, I was striving for a goal which I still believe Scout needs to work on. She did not scrutinize the assignment very closely, and didn't consult it while forming her draft. If the professor did indeed expect all aspects of the poem to be analyzed, then she would have had a problem. So in a way, I was following the maxim of making better writers, not better papers.
Matt's post reminded me that I had a similar issue in my group. My students thought they needed to analyze the whole poem globally, and I thought that was proving sort of detrimental to their essays. I was encouraging Sharyn to move toward a strong specific thesis, using the strongest of her points, like focusing on metaphor. I think I confused her a little; we checked the assignment, and, unsure, I backed off. I guess it wasn't clear to me whether "explication" is the same thing as "essay," and I was working from the "essay" model. I think the assignment could have been worded more clearly, but perhaps this is an issue from the Nicolas article that discussed how consultants are at a disadvantage because we are not in the class hearing what the teacher says about the assignment.
ReplyDeleteSince my first session went so well, I was excited to go back and see the progress my group had made. To my surprise the progress made was very little, if any at all. One of the first questions I asked them relating to their papers was if they had come a long way in the past week. The majority of my group members said they went through and added a couple sentences or took a few things out, but that was about it. Immediately I felt discouraged. From the way everyone was talking last week I though for sure they were all excited and had a lot of good ideas and direction for their papers. Why didn’t they work on it then? Were they just playing along? Did I even help them at all?
ReplyDeleteMy next challenge came from the new group member that was absent the first time we met. When I asked everyone to get their papers out, he surprised me by stating he didn’t have one. So naturally, I asked what he had written about. Awkward silence followed. Then I asked if he had a poem. Awkward silence again. How can someone come to class, especially a class when we are peer-reviewing papers, and not have a paper or even a topic? This baffled me. The next thing running through my mind was “What do I do!!??? How do I help this person!!??” I tried to recall every brain storming activity I’d ever done. Still blank though. I told him to get his book out and pick out a poem that he liked and felt he could write a paper on. Looking back I probably came off as bossy, but what was I supposed to do? I didn’t want him walking away from the session with nothing. The least I could do was help him narrow down a poem.
I then had the rest of the group tell how their papers had changed and read aloud their revised thesis statements. That is when I found out that two of my four original group members still didn’t have a thesis for their paper. This made me feel awful because we spent so much time on that during the first session. Did they not listen at all? Was I doing them any good? To get them at least thinking about their thesis I asked the two of them to flip over their papers and write down a thesis. It didn’t have to be perfect, just a rough statement to work with. So far my session was off to a very directive start.
During the first session, the group exchanged papers and read and revised silently. This time I thought to change it up and give them a different perspective we should read them aloud. I had heard in class this worked for many of the groups and was a good way to get them all talking. This idea had the reverse effect on my group. They listened and seemed attentive, but that was it. It was like pulling teeth to get them to comment and when they did it was just “I think that sounds good.” I would ask them all kinds of questions, what did they think of this part, what needs improving, what did they like, but they would just sit there and stare back at me. How do I get them to cooperate? I can only do so much. I would then give my comments and hoped they would piggyback their comments from that. Sometimes this worked and sometimes it didn’t. For the most part, they wanted me to do all the talking. It was like I was the teacher, and I felt kind of uncomfortable for most of the time.
It wasn’t all bad though. There were instances where group members would give great advice. For the most part, however, this was a completely different group than the one I saw the first time. I don’t know what changed. I guess it just wasn’t a good day for them.
I really felt like a teacher, not even a tutor, but a teacher. The level of directness I used made me uncomfortable during this second session.
ReplyDeleteAgain, Jacques did not have a draft. He came to class with nothing. Immediately, I was frustrated. I asked him to go to the lab and print out a copy since he claimed to have uploaded his draft on the Emma program. He disappeared and never returned.
Corbin only had the same paper from the week before with his notes. I asked him to start writing during the session, to be somewhat productive. He managed a paragraph, which I asked him to read to the group. I assumed it was an introduction and questioned whom he meant when he said reader and speaker. I explained he should be more specific and told the group the difference between writer based prose and reader based prose. Corbin corrected my assumption by saying it was not his introduction. He normally writes an introduction after writing the body, so his main points are easier to list. I was impressed with this tactic and complimented him, saying it was a good approach if it works for him.
Nanette and Piera had their drafts, but only made minor changes. I used Kevin’s idea of switching papers and having the reader explain the writer’s paper. This failed. All they said was, “I think the paper is good.” I had them read out loud to the group. We worked on creating introductions since Nanette did not have one. Like with Corbin, the reason for an introduction is to present the reader with the ideas the writer will discuss. Also, with a poetry analysis, it is important to at least state the title and the poet’s name. Piera had one question, “is it necessary to cite a definition?” She looked up “firebug” which meant an arsonist. I told her no, because it’s not necessary, like citing the poem for the paper. I also said to ask the professor if she wanted to be completely sure.
After the session, I felt slightly defeated, though Piera thanked me for the help I gave. The two sessions were different, and not in a good way. I am grateful for the experience, so at least I know it was not a complete waste of time.
Overall, my second session went fairly well. I will admit that my first session went a little better than this week’s. The group conversation was a little strained and the lack of revision was apparent in most of the papers which caused me to “repeat” a lot of tips and tid-bits, including reiterating tips about thesis statements. I found that most of the papers had excellent points and evidence to support the points, but a clear thesis statement was sadly missing.
ReplyDeleteWith what revisions that had been made in some of the papers, however, it made it easy for me to help with the progression of the papers’ development. I was able to balance looking at high order concerns AND low order concerns. That was rewarding in a sense. Both Ms. M’s and Ms. S’s papers needed only a few tweaks for their thesis statements and conclusions.
I started off this week’s session with another short activity similar to last week’s. I had each member of the group write on the back of their paper two main goals that they would like to see accomplished by the end of the session. Last week I had them write two “concerns”. I chose goals this week because instead of just specifying their problems, it made them think about wanting to actually accomplish something.
After that was completed I had each member of the group read their paper aloud then discuss what changes she had made. Ms. M, Ms. S, and Ms. T all said about the same thing. First they had “lengthened” their paper by adding more evidence, and they had changed the organization of the evidence. (Whether it was from the direction of last week’s discussion or just because they felt it was needed, I do not know.) The discussion following the reading of each girl’s paper was not as “lively” as last week’s. I felt perhaps it was because it may have been that this week it was more difficult for them to point out the troublesome areas than it was last week. Last week’s problems were a bit more obvious. So after a few guiding questions, the suggestions went flying.
I did have to do a review of thesis statements. It seemed that each girl would skirt around the thesis statement, but not actually “state” it. That was when I became a little more directive.
I had a new member added to my group this week: Ms. J. Her arrival this week wasn’t as bad as I had initially thought it to be. I had thought that she would have been behind in the revision stage simply because she had missed such a wonderful opportunity for peer editing last week. She was the last in the group to read her paper, and after she read it aloud to the group, the group immediately erupted into conversation regarding improvements to her paper. I was very impressed with the group’s response. Before her, no one seemed willing to talk as much as last week. But, instead of my gently prompting the group discussion in the right direction, the group, it seemed, already knew what to look for in Ms. J’s paper. They analyzed the development of the paper, they commented on the thesis, they discussed the organization and evidence, and they talked about the conclusion.
This week went well, from the stand point of the group’s writing progression. Getting them to vocalize their thoughts and opinions took a little more effort than last week. I suppose that’s natural. I was only concerned for this week’s session for my level of directivity. Last week I felt like I had used an even amount of directive and non-directive skills. This week, however, I was more directive. I am assuming that is because of the type of help that was needed this week as opposed to last week’s. The concerns that arise each week in each paper varies, which in turn affects my approach as a tutor.
My second session with my 1102 students went well. I would say that it was a better session for one student, but not so much for the other. The first student, Martha, took the ideas that we previously talked about and changed her paper a good amount; she accepted the changes and her paper definitely advanced because of it. However, the second writer, Mary, did not even write another draft for our second meeting. I asked her why she didn't make any changes to her paper and she said that she did not know what she was supposed to do. This was rather disappointing considering the fact that we spent the entire hour and fifteen minutes of our previous meeting deciding how she could improve her paper.
ReplyDeleteMartha was very helpful towards Mary and that was very encouraging because I could tell that she was learning something about writing as a whole. I had the girls exchange papers and then explain what each other's papers were about; they also explained to each other what points were unclear and what needed extra attentnion. Martha was able to tell Mary that she needed more example to back up her points and that she could use more analyzation of the text rather than a simple summarization. Mary was able to help Marth a little, but most of her critiques were only grammar and punctuation errors. The girls were still confused about thesis statements, so we had another mini lesson on that area. Other than that it seemed that they grasped the other concepts we had discussed; although Mary did not write another draft, I'm certain that she understood what we talked about and is fully capable of writing another draft based on revising the things that we talked about.
This second experience was alot better because I felt that I was more in control of the situation and I knew what to expect (somewhat.) I also already knew the girls that I would be helping, so that eased my nerves a bit and allowed me to jump right in as soon as class started.
This is my second time in Mrs. F's class. She did not let us keep our groups from last time. Rather, we had to trade groups with another writing fellow. I inherited Mary's former group. This group was much different from my first group. I tried to follow the same plan that I used the first time. I had each student write down the thesis, or general idea, of his/her paper on the back page and then read his/her paper aloud.
ReplyDeleteThe first student read his paper aloud, and it was apparent rather quickly that his paper contained at least fifteen to twenty direct quotes from the text. It was as if he was quoting and putting in one or two connecting sentences, quoting and putting in one or two connecting sentences throughout his entire paper. His paper followed his thesis, but I did not feel like he put enough of himself in the paper. After he was done reading, I asked the other writers to comment on his paper. One student commented that to accurately comment on someone else's paper, he would have to personally read it because he could not listen effectively when the paper was read aloud. However, another writer was able to comment that writer 1 needed to put more of himself in the paper and use less summary. I also tried to reiterate this gently to him. He wrote this idea down on his paper, and the group continued reading their papers aloud and commenting on them. Writer 2's paper was very good. It had a clear thesis and more analysis than summary. When I asked for comments on her paper, all the other students could say was that the paper sounded good to them. Writer 3's paper also had a good bit of summary, and it also seemed to be a little fragmented because of short, choppy paragraphs and too many main points. The students commented that his paper needed more development and examples. The last writer's paper was also very good, but it had a long introduction that seemed to have very little to do with the rest of the paper. He also put in obscure allusions that were not fully expounded upon. The writers did not have much to say on his paper, and I felt that I needed to tell him to expound upon his allusions so that others could understand them. After the writers were finished reading the papers aloud and commenting on them, I had the writers exchange papers, read them to themselves, and write personal comments on them. The writers seemed to be writing a lot of comments on the papers.
After everyone was done writing, I asked them whether they thought we had a productive session (because I did not), and they said that they thought the session was productive and that they had ideas to change in their papers. I felt like the session was not as productive as it could have been because the writers did not seem to be talking to each other all that much or making any drastic revisions. I feel like maybe I should have been more directive and made more comments about the writers’ papers. Maybe I should think of another plan for next time.
I have to say my second session went well, though it’s hard to define. Anyways as Tameka pointed out we switched groups in class and even had a few more people added to the groups that were not present before. I did not follow the same plan I used previously, but rather followed the advice of everyone I had interviewed at the writing center. One thing I have to note that did not go well is time was not on my side.
ReplyDeleteI started off with an icebreaker, only this time I added a little more to it so people actually got to know each other better. I asked for majors as well as favorite movies and found my group could talk about some of the movies they had in common thus creating a dialogue. After chit-chatting a bit and adding a few more puns to show how ancient my humor is I began. I started by asking what their chief concerns were with their papers. Oddly enough a list was not needed for it became apparent they all had one thing in common, they all wanted help with their thesis. They were writing papers based on the story, “A Raisin in the Sun”, and the professor had even given them topics to choose from, but for some reason they had no definite thesis. I asked who was brave enough to read there paper out loud first to give me ideas and a girl I will name Soul Sister volunteered.
I have to say her paper was well-organized though I had to make her laugh a bit to get her to speak a little more confidently. Anyways we came to her thesis and I decided to have everyone write it down so they could keep it in mind as we continued onward. She was trying to explain in her thesis about what the man of the house meant in the story when related with a character named Walter. Her first paragraph was somewhat a summary of who Walter was which was alright since I, as a reader, needed to know who he was and even pointed this out to let her know she did good to explain. Overall her paper was consistent with the thesis, but when we came upon a quote I asked what her reason in choosing this quote was, and right than she explained why with a passion. To keep the flame going I said “well you didn’t put that down so put it down”, and then I prompted the group to come in asking them did what she just said fit in with the thesis and overall theme of the paper. They all had her thesis before them and all agreed, though I wasn’t satisfied with that and directly prompted a particular member to say something about what they thought. I was given a better response as they explained their own idea of what the quote came off as meaning to them. As she continued to read she eventually started asking me questions about if some of her paragraphs were necessary. I felt proud in the sense that just from her reading aloud and listening to my questions she was already adopting my questions in her mind without me having to ask anymore. I immediately responded “what do you think?” in which she said the paragraph made no sense so she marked it out. At the end we reached her conclusion which was only half finished and apparently what she believed to be her biggest concern at the time. Looking back at the discussion we had I asked the group what they thought of her conclusion. In the end Soul Sister did it all by herself as she went back over all the new information she had added in discussion and finished her conclusion.
The next paper I went over with the group belonged to a person I will affectionately refer to as Late Comer. The biggest problem she obviously had was that she didn’t even have a thesis, and she only had two paragraphs with her. I thought this would give me a heart attack, but oddly enough I seemed to have the most positive experience with her paper given her reaction. I had her read what she had, and the irony is she stated her thesis in the first sentence. I stopped her when she finished her intro paragraph and began asking what she wanted to talk about in her paper. When she read her paper it became obvious she wanted to talk about money and the corruption it causes, but for some reason she didn’t see that’s what she had. Oddly enough, when she started speaking she knew exactly what she wanted to say and said it. Therefore I am pleased to say she got a thesis down. I have to say I really hope she did well because even though she thought I helped her a lot, it means little if in the end her paper received a bad grade. I emphasize this point mainly because she asked me toward the end if I would be working at the center the next day so she could specifically request me for help but I had to be in class. Anyways let me just recover from my guilt trip and continue. Overall I did what I did for the first paper, asking the group to eat her alive and have her defend and explain what she was saying. I can’t say it was easy since she had only two paragraphs, but I have to say she at least managed to add another paragraph thanks to her having to explain her reasoning behind why money is considered evil in the story.
The third paper I had the group look at belonged to someone I will call Ma. Her paper overall didn’t need much help for it had a good thesis along with consistent body paragraphs. The only problem she needed help with was shortening her thesis. I decided to just have her summarize what she thought her paper was about. She said she had no clue, and yet she obviously did for her paper talked about two points consistently throughout in which I prompted the group discuss. I asked Ma first of all what one of her paragraphs was about choosing to narrow her search, and than she started to understand as it was about the dream of the mother to have a nice life for her family. After that I let the group ask questions and give responses to what they thought it was about, and then moved the group toward another paragraph in which everyone, including Ma, responded it was about the dreams of the son being corrupt, and so her paper obviously became about the dreams of the mother versus the dreams of the son and the differences between the two.
The last paper was my greatest mistake, and yet perhaps my greatest triumph. Anyways I want to blame it for me not getting to my fifth member, but I will take responsibility for not better managing time. Her paper was all about refining the ideas she had and better explaining them, for her thesis was short and to the point. Like the previous essay this paper was divided into two conflicting ideas, one of assimilation into white society, and the other was about standing out as a woman in society. Yet again all it took was getting her to talk about what she felt her paper was about. Now we get to the interesting part for I immediately noticed a particular quote and asked her to explain it. The quote was “Queen of the Nile”. I asked what it meant to her mainly because it brought up all sorts of thoughts in my head, but more so because it was in a part of the paper that was focused on assimilation. The quote for me felt like pride in one’s heritage, and to have it in a paragraph by itself that was all about a little girl trying to become assimilated into white society seemed out of place, and so I asked why it was there rather than stating my opinion. Just those four words alone prompted a twenty minute debate that sapped the remainder of my time which is why I mentioned it stopped me from getting to my last member. Anyways all hell broke loose as everyone wanted in on this discussion, even to the point of where I felt as though the students had finally taken over my job. Of course, it seems that is what a tutor is supposed to do. People were just asking questions left and right as well as throwing out some of the most interesting ideas about it even referencing to a live play recording they had watched, and how the expression of the characters when the quote was mentioned changed exponentially. One side argued the quote was about the girl dressing up for a play because some guy she liked told her to, in other words she was almost a servant to a man’s whims, hence the assimilation while the other side, including myself argued about how when she had the Queen’s wardrobe placed upon her she became majestic referencing to, again, pride in the past. We debated heatedly for a while as mentioned and all of a sudden the professor starts mentioning announcements ending our little debate.
In the end I do not know if a good tutoring session can be described as getting your group to debate ideas, but even so it got everyone involved which I believe is a good thing. I will say I now need to find a way to more equally distribute time as well as continue to revise my methods of tutoring. I asked as everyone was leaving if I helped any and they all agreed wholeheartedly, even the one I didn’t get to said he believed if I had had more time I would have helped him a lot. Soul Sister said I was cool in which I replied “never heard of an English Major and the word cool being used together” in which gave everyone one last chuckle before we went our separate ways. Sorry for this long response, I only hope it isn’t torture to read.
I really wish I could have been there for the second writing fellows adventure, however, the day wasn't totally unproductive.
ReplyDeleteOn Monday afternoon, I realized that I accidentally missed a writing fellows meeting in the morning. After emailing Ms. Flournoy a sincere apology, I decided that it was time to talk to Dr. Lape about certain class concerns I had been experiencing. At about 10:20ish on Tuesday morning, we talked mostly about the writing fellows assignment, and my rocky experience with my first time. Because I have had no experience with first-hand writing fellows participation from the writer's point of view whatsoever, I commented that I was slightly insecure about the whole thing. Dr. Lape suggested that the best way to better understand the class, the assignment, and even my own writing process was to dive in head first to get tutored and have my work critiqued. I knew right then that nothing negative could possibly come out of sitting down with a tutor, so I enthusiastically gave it a shot.
At 4:30 in the afternoon, I was able to sit down with a writing center consultant, and I learned so many new and positive ways of looking at the Writing Center in general. Not only did I take mental notes on how to be a successful writing consultant, but I learned a lot about my own personal writing process as well. The tutor was patient, but professional, and she was able to give me some ideas to throw around as far as my Communications persuasive speech is concerned. Even though I was not present at part two of the peer review project, I did get something productive done that week, and I feel that I will be able to walk into session three with confidence, and a stronger sense of personal ability.
overall, i felt that this session went well, but i think it would have been better if i had stayed with my same group. still, i understand what mrs. flournoy was going for. she probably wanted her students to get another opinion and let us get a new experience with a new group. i hope it was not because one of the students complained, and she felt it better to mix up everyone. no matter her reason, i felt that i had to start all over with this new group, and it was more difficult this time because they were on their second or third draft by this point.
ReplyDeleteso not only was i having to establish a new connection with a new group, but i was also having to figure out their dynamic and try to figure out what exercise would be best when they are this far into the writing process. i had to think fast on my feet, and i still doubt that i chose the best things to do. it was better than them just sitting there doing nothing, though.
first off, i had them tell me what their topics were. then i had them switch papers once. then we talked about their thesis statements. next, we kind of had an open discussion about questions they had and what they were having trouble with. a couple of them had similar paper topics, so when i talked to one, i usually said that this is something you can both use. also we talked about going to the writing center and talking to mrs. flournoy. a couple of them had questions about taking their papers in a certain direction, and i felt like they were good ideas that needed to be vetted through their teacher.
like i said, it was a good session. i would give myself a solid B on my performance, maybe a B+. i just felt uncomfortable, and i could not get them talking like i wanted. i had to be very directive because i did not know their knowledge or dynamic. also i felt like i was reaching for things to do. they would move through things so quickly, and i was having to think of more exercises or discussion topics every twenty or thirty minutes. i felt unprepared, and i did not enjoy that feeling.