6.03_Emi

I found fascinating the detailed analysis the researchers develop (inter-analysis and intra-analysis), the multiple perspectives they take to analyze the discourse (e.g. topic episodes, chain of topic episodes and sequences within topic episodes), as well as the different points of views in terms of the topic episodes as being initiated by student writers versus the tutors. Overall, I think it’s a very complete and well thought out analysis. I would have liked more information on how exactly they found all those categories. But other than that, I thought it was very well presented.  

The most shocking results I found are the amount of strategies that tutors use (an average of 3 strategies per minute!), and how up to a 44% of these strategies are based on instruction. I think these results are relevant because they give evidence of the active role of the Writing Center in guiding and orienting the students’ work, while maintaining the role of the center as experts.

As for the strategies, I think lately I have been trying to use more consciously the motivational strategy. Introducing some praise right before presenting your criticism it’s a really safe procedure to follow. In fact, I feel that the role of praise and positive comments [especially when they are specific] are often underestimated.  

In relation to the book The Bedford guide for writing tutors, I felt very identified with the sentence that the authors point out: “As soon as I start writing even just a few words, I start revising” (p.29). I consider these constant revisions to be a strength because by the end of my work, I already know I am pretty satisfied with the results obtained. However, I admit that making constant corrections involves a lot of time and effort throughout the process of writing,

As for my biggest weakness, I normally don’t create any outlines(e.g. conceptual maps) to guide the process of guiding. However, I believe that using this resource in the future could help improve my own writing skills.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Emi 03/27

These two case studies consider two different research methods that will inevitably lead to very different discussions and presentation of the ideas.  T he non-fiction case study (Lorraine) is purely qualitative, while the academic case study (Fei) is a mixed methods study in which qualitative data is quantitized and the rest of the collected qualitative data (e.g. interview) mainly serves to enhance legitimation. These two different focus, qualitative (Lorraine) and Mixed methods with a focus on quantitative (Fei) are well accepted in research. However, the way that readers approach them may be very different. The qualitative (non-fiction) case study is more engaging, more relatable, and easier to read. As promoted in Qualitative research, the authors present the data as if it were a story and include very detailed anecdotes (called vignettes) that represent the main point to be conveyed. The study is not replicable, but the authors do provide additional information to ensure...
Read more

post 2/27

I found strategies like Show that All Texts Reflect the Author's Frame of Reference and Thus are Subject to Interrogation and Analysis  and Writing 'Translations' particularly helpful for my students who struggle to delineate form from content in their assigned readings. They carry this confusion into their writing by either making clear arguments without providing adequate context, or mimicking the convoluted syntax of academic writing instead of articulating in terms clearest to them what they mean. One question I have is, what are some resources we can point students to help them parse through academic jargon (especially when their instructors have not provided them this resource/ training in class)? Are there existing "Reading guides" online like those described on p.141?
Read more

Writing to Learn, Learning to Write

I'm familiar with different approaches in different contexts. As an instructor, I'm most familiar with learning to write, because even my content-based assignments receive extensive writing attention. As a student, though, I was and am more familiar with writing to learn. But I'm still displeased that as a student in English at the undergraduate, MA, and PhD levels, there was/is not more attention placed on learning to write. At this stage, this seems to be something professors take for granted. (I was recently told: "That's not how you title a dissertation chapter." And I responded: "Can you please tell me how you title a book chapter? I have never done this.") I think also in liberal arts required courses, writing to learn is prioritized in many (most?) disciplines. I'm not particularly persuaded by one form over another, though I have never succeeded in writing to learn language models. But I am partial to the idea that learning to write sho...
Read more