Consultant Practicum

1 OBSERVATION: SESSION I

This is an observation of a session handled by an experienced consultant who I will refer to as K

throughout this reflective essay. The writer was an Auburn University student applying to physical therapy

schools. Quite often, as consultants, we’re in a situation in which the essay that a writer is working on is

on a subject that we’re unfamiliar with. Fortunately, in this case, K had done something similar in that she

had prepared essays to apply to medical school, and she could draw from that experience. The whole

situation played out even better as the writer said that she had come to meet K specifically on a suggestion

made by a friend of hers. At the beginning of the session, the writer and K introduced themselves to each

other and after K informed that I’ll be sitting in to observe, they moved on to discussing the paper. The

writer then pulled up a website in which the expectation of the essay, “transforming society by optimizing

movement to improve the human experience” was listed. Over the rest of the session, K and the writer

focused on organizing the essay around these expectations.

K proceeded to take the initiative by reading the essay out loud. While doing this, she began pointing

out parts of the essay in which she felt that the purpose drawn out by the writer for it weren’t being met.

She had an interesting style of sharing what aspects of the essay needed improvement. She asked the

writer whether a couple of sentences sounded very long when she had read them out. When the writer

said that she did, K suggested ways in which they could be shortened. This was a good tactic as she

discussed a recurring pattern that she had directed the writer herself to catch while she read. As a result

of this the writer became aware of the error and conscious about not repeating it. Further, right after she

used that tactic she complimented the writer for a good job the latter had done. Immediately after that,

she told the writer that the ideas used and the way they were expressed for the “transforming society”

aspect of the expectation were awesome. This was quickly followed by her noting that there was a lack of

balance in the discussion of the “optimizing movement to improve the human experience” aspect. This

was an interesting tactic that was employed as most often consultants talk about sandwiching

constructive criticism in between compliments of jobs well done, but that wasn’t being utilized. Instead,

a compliment for a job well done was slipped in between two constructive criticisms. I believe that this is

a wise move as consultants have only a half hour to an hour to help increase the quality of an individual

as a writer. A greater percentage of that time period should be used to provide writers with information

that could help them. Of course, that doesn’t mean that only negativity should be projected onto their

work. In fact, K also discussed with the writer about the latter’s life experiences. This played the dual role

of making the writer comfortable with her and get more information out of her. K could then recommend

that she string this back into the essay by including the bits of it that are concrete and tangible before

discussing the philosophical parts.

All of the tactics that K employed seemed to work as the client started recognizing patterns in the

errors that she was making. I am of the opinion that as consultants we should aim to help the writer

become proficient at spotting and correcting errors that he or she consistently makes. I would consider

using some of the tactics that K used, with some tweaks, if the situation demanded it.

2 OBSERVATION II

This observation was carried out on a session that was handled by a consultant that I will refer to a

KK throughout this reflective essay. In this essay, I will be focusing on how KK addressed the writer, started

the session, and ended it. It is interesting to note that the consultant is a philosophy major and in my

opinion, an extrovert. She has the admirable quality of being able to initiate a conversation with anyone

and maintain it over extended periods of time. Over the period of this observation, I feel that she

employed this inherent trait of hers to develop a positive rapport with the writer.

At the very beginning of the session, KK left the table she had set up shop at to walk down to the

waiting area to introduce herself and welcome the writer. This showed that she took the initiative to make

the writer visiting the writing center feel comfortable with the idea of getting help for his or her work.

Additionally, this was a good tactic that she employed to let the writer know on a subconscious level that

she will step out of her comfort zone to help him or her with the writing assignment that he or she is

working on. This conceivably has the effect of making her and the writing center popular among the

writers that she works with. A case in point being the writer that she worked with over the session that I

observed; she was a sophomore that had visited KK twice before that session. This meant that both KK

and the writer were comfortable working with each other, so the former didn’t have to put in too much

of an effort into familiarization with the latter. After the session, I discussed with her as to how her

approach would have been different if the writer was not one who was so regular with her and she told

me that it is targeted to the person that she is working with. She said that she bases her approach on how

the writer carries himself or herself. She watches the body language and the words uttered by the writer

at the beginning of the session to gauge the level of interest that he or she has in actually being there.

Based on the indicators, she tailors her session to either a student who is quite interested in being there

and genuinely looking for help or, on the other hand, to a student who is uninterested and present at the

writing session at the behest of a teacher or due to some other compulsion. Returning to the session that

I observed, she further developed the rapport that she had built with the writer by asking her what they

were looking at on that particular day by name. After they talked about the essay for a while, KK subtly

directed her towards reading the paper out loud so that the two of them could work on it together. KK

initiated the end of the conversation by asking the writer what she felt about the work that the latter had

done over the period of the session. The writer responded by saying that she felt good about it as they

seem to have developed on the draft that she had worked on by herself. KK then began wrapping up the

session not by saying that they were out of time but by saying that she liked the attitude the writer brought

to the session and signed off by saying that she likes the latter’s writing in general. Of course, she also

posed the question of whether the writer would like to take the writing center survey which is a sure sign

that the session is done.

The session opening and closing tactics that KK utilized worked well for her because they were an

extension of her personality. While some of them can definitely be incorporated by consultants looking

to add more skills to their toolbox, I am of the opinion that every consultant should develop and use tactics

that elicit the same positive response from the writer he or she is working with, but come to them

naturally.

3 BEDFORD CHAPTER ONE

The first chapter of the book is titled the writing center as a workplace. Although the chapter begins

with stating that the reader may be tutoring writers at a writing center, a workplace or in private, I feel

that the chapter is aptly named because the rest of it is geared towards discussing professionalism while

working at a writing center. The three areas of focus are professionalism towards writers, other tutors,

and teachers of the writers.

Before delving into each area of focus, there is an overview of the unspoken code of conduct that

tutors must bind themselves to. Based on this chapter, the role of a writing center tutor is that of a peer.

So, as a tutor, it is not incumbent on the individual to teach a writer how to write as would be expected

of a teacher neither is it expected of him or her to be a friend to the latter. I have not been subject to this

dilemma throughout the period of time that I have worked for the Miller Writing Center. In the

“professionalism toward the writer” section is a breakdown of principles that we, as tutors, must keep in

mind while working with writers. While the first point in this section basically directs us to be good humans

and welcoming to all, the online aspect of it is one that I found to be thought provoking. We often forget

that in person, a writer has the leisure of looking at us and is able to experience the positive vibe that we

are attempting to generate in more dimensions. For an online appointment, it is rightfully recommended

that even though it may take a few extra moments a nice welcome message must be typed out as it sets

the tone for the rest of the appointment. This was something that was suggested to me during the practice

online appointment session, as well. Unfortunately, I haven’t had a single online appointment since, to

implement it. Other useful points that the author makes in this section deal with logic; not making flippant

remarks, not using texting shorthand in online appointments, avoiding making negative remarks about

the author’s topic and respecting confidentiality. While I am in agreement with the author on most things,

I feel that as tutors we must remain professional even when a writer uses texting shorthand in an online

session. Of course, this doesn’t mean that we have to be cold to the writer. We can use other methods to

make them feel comfortable, such as asking them about similar work that they have done earlier or other

related experiences. The section on “professionalism towards other tutors” is one that discusses concepts

that are applicable in any field. It’s a succinct guide on how to treat colleagues at any workplace. I took

more out of the section that discusses professionalism towards teachers than I did out of this section as

they are players who aren’t present in the tutor-writer sessions. Quite often, as they say, “out of sight,

out of mind” but the section on “professionalism towards teachers” makes the reader acutely aware of

having to deal with another entity. While the author lists out a set of valid “don’ts” in this section, it would

have served his cause better and been more beneficial to a reader if he had suggested tactics to handle

the awkward situations that some writers put tutors in.

4 BEDFORD CHAPTER THREE

At the beginning of this chapter the author introduced terminology that would reappear throughout

the chapter and possibly throughout the rest of the book. The terminology in question is specific to online

tutoring; synchronous tutoring referring to consulting being done in real time and asynchronous tutoring

referring to consulting being done in a delayed fashion. Following that, the author proceeded to discuss

each stage of a general tutoring session. Every stage was discussed as a subsection within the chapter and

in each subsection were listed out some tools to tackle situations that could possibly arise in that stage.

After spending a couple of months tutoring at the writing center, going through this section made

me realize so many of the tools that I have been making use of subconsciously. While reading the

suggestions being made, I realized that many of them have been derived from common sense. For

example, the subsection labeled getting started delves into how a tutor must use certain tools that have

the twofold effect of creating a good impression of the writing center and its ambassador, the tutor, and

taking a good step in the right direction in a peer tutoring relationship. In fact, each subsection consists of

skills and tools that can be incorporated by every tutor in his or her tutoring style. The hypothetical

scenarios described in the chapter are generic enough to remind me of actual situations that I handled

while specific enough to pose thought provoking questions and give good actionable advice. Due to the

skills imparted during the initial training session, I had a prior idea of these tools. These get reinforced

during the weekly staff meetings, too. This chapter did a good job in making me rerun all those concepts

within my mind’s eye while making me consciously think of tools that I was making use of intuitively. In

retrospect, the “three effective, powerful tools” that are discussed in this chapter go hand in hand with

the concepts discussed in the staff meeting session in which a professor from Auburn’s theatre or

communication department talked us through role playing. My biggest take away from this subsection

was the “silence and wait time to allow a writer time to think” tool. Often, I find myself rushing to fill

awkward silences with my understanding of the topic at hand, some knowledge or even a quip. This is

true for me not only when I’m working at the writing center but life in general. The methods to implement

this tool could greatly benefit me to handle writing center appointments, and certain life situations. Finally,

the subsection titled “the many hats tutors wear” expounds on many concepts discussed in the

aforementioned staff meeting. The author goes one step further in it by discussing roles that weren’t

touched at the meeting and giving examples for each that I’m sure will, at some point in my writing center

experience, come in handy.

I would like to conclude this essay by suggesting a response to the ostensibly flabbergasted tutor in

the last frame of the first comic strip of this chapter, “Yes, I can. Through you, I’m fixing this paper and a

whole host of others that you will be assigned to write throughout your college education. Trust me, there

isn’t a better way.”

5 BEDFORD CHAPTER FIVE

In this chapter, the author discusses two broad topics in depth; learning styles and types of writers

that request to be tutored. Visual, auditory and kinesthetic are listed out as the three learning styles and

suggestions are made on strategies that can be used by tutors to capitalize on a writer’s learning style.

Next, a few student concerns are stated to remind the reader that aside from the writing assignment or

task, there could be other factors that put a writer under duress and prevent him or her from getting the

work done. Finally, the author discusses the different types of writers, presents situations that might arise

while working with each of them and suggests a few ways to deal with them.

For me, the biggest take away from this chapter is the psychological element of writing consulting.

While the strategy suggested for each learning style is logical, some of the tactics that make up the

strategy as a whole have a psychological motivation to them. To put things in perspective, I will discuss

one such tactic from each strategy. In the visual strategies section, one of the tactics suggested is to write

notes and examples or draw diagrams which the writer can take home. Since I prefer to gently guide the

writers to take responsibility and ownership of their work, I use this tactic only as a support tool. On

implementation, it is quite easy to see that this has a psychological effect on the writer as the writer

observes that a tutor is willing to put in an extra effort to mold their methods to help. It also gives the

writer an impression that the writing center is a friendly and welcoming place that has its doors open to

all in need of writing help irrespective of learning style. In the auditory strategies section, a tactic

suggested is asking the writer to paraphrase what was discussed and to summarize what was

accomplished. The psychological element that I see in this is that the tactic keeps even uninterested

writers engaged in the process while at the same time subtly hinting that it is the writer who needs to

remain truly committed to the work. A kinesthetic tactic that has the exact same effect on writers is to

have them point out material as the tutor talks about it. Another tactic discussed by the author to help

writers deal with issues of writing anxiety is for tutors to express the concerns and anxiety that they face

when they’re tackling their own writing work. In fact, I would go so far as to say that even tutors who find

that writing comes to them easily must focus on the small issues that they encounter while attempting to

form a bond with distressed writers. This not only forms a connection between the tutor and writer over

the writing assignment but creates an aura of understanding. Another tactic that plays on psychology is

the one that is recommended in the working with basic writers subsection. The skill of giving a writer just

enough information so he or she doesn’t feel overburdened while at the same time making him or her

feel accomplished is one that I feel every tutor can benefit from developing. Similarly, every subsection

consists of tactics that would go a long way in developing the writer-tutor relationship and the stand out

trend, for me, is that they’re all steeped in an understanding of psychology. I’m not advocating for writing

center tutors to be put through an intensive psychological study training program but it would be quite

useful for them to understand a few basic principles and apply the suggested tactics meticulously.

6 BEDFORD CHAPTER EIGHT

In this chapter, the author discusses a set of writers who bring a certain type of baggage to their

appointments at a writing center. The baggage may be due to internal causes like anxiety, stress or lack

of interest. It may also be due to external causes like fast approaching deadlines or compulsion to visit a

writing center by a teacher. The writers are segregated into groups based on the baggage they bring to

the appointment and methods to tackle each situation are suggested.

There are two standout messages that I gather from this chapter. The first one is to keep in mind

that as writing center tutors, all that we discuss with a writer is a suggestion and not a compulsion. In

fact, reiterating this to the writers is something that I have done from day one as a tutor, and something

that the author lists in multiple subsections as a tactic to navigate the baggage of writers. The next one

is on handling situations of supposed plagiarism. Plagiarism is an unforgivable sin in academic writing.

The issues are that the understanding of plagiarism may vary across different cultures, plagiarism rules

might have been made lax by a teacher for a particular assignment or the skillset required for proper

referencing has not been acquired by a particular individual. While acknowledging and agreeing with the

suggestions made, I would like to add that tact is the most important skill that must be utilized to

manage a possible case of plagiarism. Panic reporting of the writer to those with authority would only

make the situation worse and possibly scare him or her away from visiting the writing center ever again.

Taking it too lightly could probably create a false impression with the writer that plagiarism is not a real

cause of concern. There’s also a delineation and subsequent differentiation between plagiarism and

inappropriate source citation. The methods suggested to identify which category the errant work falls

into and how to handle each are a good base from which tutors can develop systems that best suit their

respective styles.

7 TUTORING IN UNFAMILIAR SUBJECTS

In this essay, the author deals with a pertinent writing center issue; tutoring in unfamiliar subjects.

The writing center is a resource that is available to all the students of a university and not only to those

taking courses in the English department. Over the course of the piece, she aptly distinguishes between a

writing consultant and an academic tutor. She lays out the complications while dealing with unfamiliar

subjects that could daunt one in a consulting session, and describes a strategy that is proven to be

successful at managing them.

The author uses the definition of a writing consultant that was used at Rollins College, the institution

that she was a writing consultant at, to differentiate between a consultant and tutor. All through the new

consultant practicum, the use of the term tutor bothered me as, according to me, the role of a tutor is like

that of an auxiliary teacher. To me, it seems that a tutor has a more instructional role than a consultant.

A consultant, in my mind, is one who works side by side with writers and aids them by equipping them

with tools to improve their work or meet their writing goals. This distinction that I have always held is

articulated quite well by her. She sets the tone for the whole essay by stating that a tutor gives a certain

type of feedback that is different to that which is given by a consultant. The type of feedback that a writing

consultant should aim at giving is reader-based feedback as this helps the writer assess content, thesis,

organization, effectiveness of language, and diction. There is no dearth of people, such as teachers and

tutors, in an academic institution to provide criterion-based feedback, and a fresh outlook from one who

is working together with writers could definitely positively impact their work. So, the strategy of providing

input while reminding the writer that the consultant is not privy to the subject matter is one that would

benefit both, the writer and the consultant. It would benefit the latter by raising his or her understanding

of the subject to a level that the next time a writer approaches him or her to help with work on the same

topic, he or she would have a cursory understanding of it and can use consulting time more effectively.

8 SETTING THE AGENDA (FOR THE NEXT THIRTY MINUTES)

In this essay, the author’s area of focus is the beginning of the session, specifically setting the agenda.

The author draws from his own experience of tutoring and throughout the piece develops a very

interesting analogy between writing center tutoring and his experience of trucking. The title of the essay

is a little misleading as later in the essay, the author states that the ideas he suggested are applicable even

to appointments that are forty-five to fifty minutes long.

Throughout the essay, the author works with the concept of the tutor drawing a map with the writer

to set the agenda for the appointment. Aside from the fact that the idea is put across quite eloquently,

the benefits of using this system are definitely visible. The fact that this encourages constructive dialogue

between the tutor and the writer cannot be denied. It ascertains that the tutor knows what the writer’s

vision for the paper is and also gives the writer an idea that this is the content that the tutor is comfortable

working with in the limited time that they have. Further, the fact that a map has been drawn allows the

writer to use it to think through the writing process even if the whole material could not be covered over

the period of the appointment. The writer even makes it a point to highlight that the ultimate goal of the

writing center is to make a writer so good over time that he or she does not need to return to the writing

center. In this endeavor, this is a tangible resource that a tutor could share with a writer to refer to and a

technique that the latter could adopt. One important bit of advice that the author gave and that I am in

complete agreement with is that this map is to be used only till it serves the purpose of meeting the

writer’s goals at the appointment. It should be understood when the map has outlived its purpose, and

the tutor must then deliberately adopt a more polished agenda for the rest of the meeting.