Avoiding the Shut Down

I chose to transcribe a session that student was working on a literacy narrative piece for ENC-

1101. He had already been graded on it and received several comments from the professor for

revision. The student told me he did not do too hot on it and brought it in to see what

improvements he could make. However, he soon revealed what seemed to be his true purpose for

our session; the professor offered extra points for a writing center visit. Though during the first

few minutes, the writer seemed interested in the session; he spoke a lot and had a thorough

description of the literacy narrative assignment. But somewhere along the way the writer shut

down and caused me to flounder as I struggled to get the writer to talk more. Though looking

back through my transcript, what I thought were attempts at engaging the writer were either me

asserting my opinions or interjecting and undercutting his input. The problem was the student

looked to me for the answers, but I looked to the student for answers. However, when the student

tried to engage I shut down his answers because they were not specifically the answers I was

looking for, and therefore, I took on an assertive approach. When the writer did engage he gave

limited answers, which I attributed his lack of input as misunderstanding the assignment.

However, my transcript revealed that it was not the student’s fault for lack of understanding but

my own. I struggled organizing my questions to ask the student which led me to read the students

paper and jump to grammatical rules to gain some type of ground with the student. My own

inability to help the student led me to flounder, and the student was left confused and

disheartened. My transcription focused on this floundering phase, about the middle of the

session, because I wanted to find out what caused the writer to shut down, and the alternative

routes of strategies that might keep me from making the same mistakes again.

The session began with the writer immediately proposed I read his paper and tell him

what I think. But instead, I worked in asking questions first so that I could get a better idea of his

paper. He struggled to answer some of the questions initially until I interjected then he took off

explaining what a literacy narrative was. He seemed grasped the concept well, but his execution

was poor. The writer again pushed the idea that I read the paper possibly because that is what he

thought his professor wanted. The student resisted the urge to discuss his own concerns with his

paper because he feared the “negative evaluation” Laurel Black points out in the text, Between

Talk and Teaching (41). The student resisted discussing his paper because he it felt unnatural

because the teacher usually “select[ed] which ideas will be discussed and for how long” (Black

40). The student viewed me as the teacher because the professor had allotted me that power by

sending the student to the writing center. This idea that I possessed the expertise and the answers

became apparent when I viewed my transcript. The student allowed me to guide much of the

session and used what Black calls backchanneling—a forced agreement or support or often used

to acknowledge listening but not internalizing the idea (49).

77 D: Yeah Well.. uh why do you think there’s one here? 78 W: Umm.. because it’s kind like the end of your thought? You know?79 W: Or just like.. (2s)80 D: Well, there’s this rule it’s called basically after an introductory element—81 W: Ok.82 D: Umm it’s actually one of the most common grammar errors—83 W: Ok. 84 D: because people think they don’t need it. Is.. you know you say to this, then you say to 85 that but the real start of the sentence is there.. do you kind of see that? (2s)86 D: Read this version part to me..87 W: When I received my letter of acceptance from UCF.88 D: Does that sound like a full sentence?89 W: No.90 D: No… There’s also like basically like introducing what you’re going to talk about..91 W: Ok.92 D: Do you see that?93 D: So you co=94 W: =So how could you get better at spotting those?—

95 D: You can get better by I guess kind of like knowing that you’re gonna put them like—96 W: I know.

In this section, I limited the writer’s input by establishing myself as a dominate figure

head by asking a “Why” question in line 77, which then leads the writer to believe and agree

with everything I tell him. According to Joann Johnson, “the “Why” question… seems to “imply

error before an analysis had begun” which then leaves the writer questioning himself in line 78,

and I further encourage the notion of my expertise over the student when I implied I know the

rules of commas when the student’s answer lacks (37). During this section, I used my knowledge

against the student. I made the writer feel inadequate because he I implied he was wrong and

instead of empowering him to answer. I shut down his input which left him to backchannel in

agreement with Ok. Though, I tried to encourage the writer that the comma error was common in

line 82, but I continued to shut down him down again in line 95 and miss an opportunity for

learning in line 94. The student asks a question but my answer implied that there is a knowledge

you must have in order to spot the commas which insinuated that the student does not have that

knowledge.

Imposing upon the student that I knew more than him, I managed to empower the writing

center as a storehouse of knowledge “operat[ing] as information stations or storehouse,

prescribing and handing out skills and strategies to individual learners” (Lunsford 4). The writer

was not able to offer his insight on his own rules for commas because I did not allot him the

opportunity. An alternative method I might have used was instead of opening with a “Why”

question I could have told him to tell me his rules on commas. Taking this approach, I would

have sparked a positive assertive role because asking his rules on commas simultaneously

implied the writer has some knowledge to explore and would have gave the student opportunity

to voice his opinion. A positive assertive role would have also enabled the student to find the

answers for themselves such as the case in line 94. Instead of shutting down the student, I might

have gave the writer a resource for comma usage and told him to find the answers. Doing so, I

might have empowered the writer’s abilities to find the answers and been able to form a

collaborative effort and worked away from the storehouse model that shuts down a student’s

chance at learning.

Later in the session, the writer began to tap into the knowledge of the writing center and

link it his understanding of the grammar rules with the ones I was explaining. His

backchanneling phrases changed from a simple Ok into Oh Ok or I gotcha. The writer seems to

be forming a trust that I was presenting him with correct information.

117 D: D.. Do you get that? 118 W: What there’s two verbs?119 D: Yeah like umm.. Like it’s basically saying the subject of one sentence is doing two 120 things and it’s just connected by the— ‘and’s’ 121 W: Ok. So there.. Alright I feel yah—122 D: Yeah.123 W: And then..124 D: The verb there and a verb there.. Ok. Yeah those are just some common— grammar

errors125 W: And then..126 W: So if there was like uh verb here we wouldn’t have to do that..127 D: Well it’s just you have another subject.. Like you can actually—128 W: Oh ok. 129 D: Like if you said It was one of the most rewarding days of my life and.. actually— 130 W: Oh ok131 D: this is because there’s two different subjects.132 W: Oh ok I gotcha. And then this one is just relating the working and the studying..133 D: Working hard and studying..134 W: Ok I gotcha.135 D: Ok. Yeah, yeah it’s just beca=136 W: Mhm.137 D: =use you make that mistake—138 D: a couple of times BUT since your professor different didn’t—139 W: Yeah.140 D: pick up on it probably not too critical on grammar—141 W: Yeah.142 D: so then we could go back to the looking at the—143 W: Yeah.

144 D: Basically what he wants you to talk about—145 W: Mhm.

However soon after I form this trust, I break from it to jump back into the paper and try to

establish some higher order concerns of the paper’s main focus. I reverted to the paper’s main

focus so I do not get caught just proofreading a student’s paper instead of focusing on the

purpose of the writing center, learning. However, Richard Leahy argues in What College Writing

Center Is—and Isn’t that checking for grammar can be a learning opportunity as long as the tutor

“can teach his students to proofread” (45). But my previous conceptions of the writer’s purpose

for being there, to just get his paper proofread so he can earn extra points, interfered with a

learning opportunity. After line 138, the writer’s comments turn from a “oh ok I gotcha” into a

simple “yeah” and he develops an annoyed tone. The problem here was that I ignored the

writer’s concerns to pursue my own agenda for the paper which was to focus on higher order

concerns, and I ignored the writer’s attempt at questioning. In line 126, the writer began to

engage in the text but again my assertive power drew away from his engagement leading him

further away from his concerns. The writer grew impatient or frustrated because he was actually

grasping some of the grammatical concepts and turning back to higher order concerns meant

more headaches for him.

Looking back in the session when going over higher order concerns, the transcript

revealed I interrupted the students thought process several times. In section below, I interrupted

the student in lines 36, 39, and 48. Instead however, I should have taken the opportunity here to

listen to the student and make use of wait-time. By cutting off the writer’s thinking, I prevented

them to fully articulate his thoughts and inhibited the writer from learning. Joann Johnson

describes wait-time as “giving students enough time to respond is an important part of teaching,

and we should stretch that time as much as we can in order to give our students opportunity to

think” (38). Looking over my transcript, I realized why I cut off my students answers and

thinking. Several instances my transcript show what I thought was the writer’s inability to

answer when in fact it the problem was my inability to articulate the right questions and

understand the writer’s answers.

The reason I kept interrupting the student is because I was seeking a certain answer; I

wanted the writer to understand the writing assignment just as I did. I neglected to give the writer

his own space to figure things out by imposing my own assertive demeanor over him.

21 D: Like it’s uh.. how you could expand upon that “do just enough just to get by mentality”?

22 W: Umm.. (3s) How could I.. I don’t maybe like uh.. going into high school made me a 23 little like (5s) wel- maybe I don’t know less achieving and I wasn’t an overachiever 24 because I was.. used to just doing the bare minimum that I had to get by and wasn’t 25 interested in it and I’d just do it to get it done. You know?26 D: Mhm.27 W: So you think I… (2s)28 D: Ok. And you talked about it, you know, it didn’t want you to29 overachieve or anything.. So that kind of like changed your aspects.. on on literacy—30 W: Mhm.31 D: You went from enjoying it, reading about superheroes to this.. Gosh it would just be 32 over kind of thing.33 W: So you think I should expand on this part?34 D: Yeah like.. I mean..35 W: I mean what should I expand it to say like—36 D: Well that’s up to you, it’s your literacy—37 W: Yeah I know 38 like.. I don’t know what do you think? Like uh (3s) I don’t know..39 D: How do you think in the 40 greater scheme of things this would be bad? (3s) Like you never, you never want to read 41 just to umm learn, you just want to read just—42 W: Yeah.43 D: --To pass basically. (2s)44 W: So I mean (2s) pretty much like sums it up like you’re saying though. (3s)45 D: Alright Umm=46 W: =I don’t get what 47 you’re saying—48 D: Ok. Umm. (4s) tst tst tst[I mutter something, reading his paper] (4s) Alright, let’s

move on.

In line 29, I start manipulating the writer into writing the paper for him. I told him what

aspects of his life changed his literacy without him coming to those conclusions himself.

Though, I picked up on this in line 36 reminding the writer it is his paper and that I am just there

to help; I did so with further interruption. I continued to try to get the wrier to come to my

understanding, but my attempts were futile. I attributed his lack of understanding to a lack of

knowledge but it was from his in ability to understand my revisions strategies. Black mentioned

this saying “it was clear to me she didn’t understand the revision strategies I had suggested,

didn’t understand where the point of my asking these questions, didn’t understand where I

thought I was leading her” (122). Line 46 proved that the writer did not know what I was trying

to do and in frustration, I decided to turn back to reading the paper to search for something to get

the writer to understand. However, I wonder had I taken a step back I might have drawn out the

writer’s understanding. In line 35, the writer attempted to ask what he should expand upon and

once again I shut him down with interruption. I switched from a primarily assertive role into a

non-assertive role by trying to give the writer power, yet it is clear in line 37 that writer and I

were on not in the same mindset. The problem here is up until that point the writer and I had not

formed an agenda or a rapport with each other. I had not taken the time to consider the writer’s

concerns with the paper, so the only thing we had to go on were the professor’s comments left on

the paper after grading it. Without a proper agenda set and not considering the writer’s concerns,

I had set my own agenda for the paper; essentially, I tried to get the writer to understand what I

knew instead of working collaboratively to figure it out. I assumed that I understood the

assignment more than the student did which confirmed the before mentioned storehouse model

of the Writing Center from Lunsford. The student looked to me as the expert and accepted when

I shut down his attempts at engagement; therefore, the writer was left confused in line 46-47 and

because I was setting my own agenda I had not stopped to figure out why the writer did not get

it. I figured it was the writer’s fault not my own.

Looking later on in my transcript, I noticed that the writer begins to form ideas about

what he should writer about, and he starts to come to the conclusion of the types of things he

should expand on as mentioned in line 33 of the previous transcript section.

233 W: So what would I do to make this paper better?234 D: Yeah.235 W: I mean I guess I have to expand upon superheroes and FCAT..—236 D: (Slight interjection but I stop when writer continues to talk)237 W: Talk about how.. I guess the superheroes I guess like you said make the FCAT seem 238 like more of a villain, story, stuff like that…239 D: Alright=240 W: I don’t know.241 D: =Alright so you have the FCAT as a villain, how could you make him or that a

villain?

During this section, the writer began to form his own ideas. In line 236, I tried to interject

but when the writer continued to talk I kept quiet. But the writer drew a blank in line 240. He

looked to me again for advice and instead of interjecting or interrupting with my opinion I asked

him for his. The writer and I began to work collaboratively instead of trying to assert ourselves

over each other. Though it took a while in the session, the writer began to take a more active role

in forming his own ideas and learning was going on. Black mentions “how much will [the writer]

remember when [he] has played so passive a role?” which during the session the writer played

such a passive role (53). I lost focus of the purpose of the consultation, to get the writer to learn

something. The writer’s frequent use of “I don’t know,” seen in line 240 as well as other parts of

the transcript, either showed the he lacked the knowledge or does not understand the answer I

wanted him to. The frustrations from this led me to feel defeated because I was not able to help

the student. Feeling unable to do anything, I jumped to reading the text and fixing grammar

errors because I felt if I could not teach the student anything they would leave at least

accomplishing something; however, even in these moments my help was limited. The session

was disorganized because I had not set an agenda so I jumped from one topic to another hoping

the student could keep up often jumbling together my questions leaving the writer confused.

154 D: So. How do you, how do you think you know you think you can one thing change to 155 another to another to another and basically how all these things got you to where you are

today?156 W: (2s) Say that again.157 D: Sorry, yeah it’s a lot to take in alright. How do you think like here I.. I’ll underline this 158 you talked about how I was focused more on school, girls, and friends how do you think 159 you might have used literacy and incorporating these aspects to making you enjoy 160 literacy more. Like if somebody.. you know write a paper on your best friends—161 W: Ok.162 D: You know what that be a lot different than preparing for the FCAT? Like correct this 163 paper that makes no sense.167 W: Mhm. So what do you mean like.. if I was writing papers on my friends would I have 168 enjoyed it more?169 D: Yeah.170 W: (2s) I mean yeah. 187 D: So thinking about those two ideas um ideas how do you think you could.. use thinking 188 about those.. Well I wanna word this correctly how do you think you could use those to 189 make your writing better? Well not better but.. What do you enjoy about writing? Let me

ask you that.190 W: (2s) I don’t really like writing.191 D: You don’t really like writing. Why don’t you like it?192 W: Cause I’m not really good at it.193 D: Well what do you think makes good writing?194 W: What makes a good writer?195 D: Yeah.196 W: Umm... someone that can um get all their thoughts I guess down on a paper and that 197 makes it sound good and stuff like that.198 D: Ok=199 W:=I don’t know.

In lines 154-155, my question was jumbled together and lack coherence, and in line 157,

I even blamed the writer’s understanding for not getting it but it was me that was at fault. Later

on in lines 188-189, I realized that I was not effectively communicating my questions so I

immediately drop my first question and asked, “What do you enjoy about writing?” to which the

writer responded negatively because I had asked the accusatory “Why” question. Johnson

pointed out that “why” is often associated with doing something wrong; therefore, the writer felt

like I was accusing him of being a bad writer and even worse the writer himself said in line 192

that he was not very good at writing. After analyzing my transcript, I realized the writer’s

concerns were that he felt he was unable to write a good paper himself because at the beginning

of the session he stated about his writing that “I didn’t do too hot on it” that coupled with the

professor’s suggestion for a writing center visit, my assertive behavior, and the writer’s self-

doubt impaired his confidence in his writing which allowed me to be assertive because he look to

me as the expert, someone with the answers.

Instead of tackling the writer’s underlining self-doubt, I managed to confuse and

dishearten the writer further by shutting him down at any chance at engagement because I

asserted my dominance as the expert and the student understanding I was the teacher, let me.

Without a transcript analysis, I had thought I gave the student plenty of opportunities to engage

his writings. But the accusatory “why” questions coupled with the student’s perceived

conception that I was a storehouse of knowledge limited his confidence to interject. Even when

the writer attempted, I shut him down either by interrupting him or switching topics. This lead

the writer to be lost through the session, and the feeling became mutual as I struggled to

articulate the right questions to ask the student. The writer and I became confused, frustrated, and

lost because we had not founded an agenda. Had we talked initially about what the writer wanted

out of the session, what the professor wanted, or consulted the rubric, we could have formed

some type of plan to lead the session. During the first 15 minutes, the writer and I engaged in

productive conversation figuring out the assignment; however, we did not meet the writer’s

concerns nor established exactly what his professor wanted. Later in the session, I found out the

writer had access to the rubric via Webcourses. Had I asked the writer initially if he had a rubric

the session might have been able to develop an agenda earlier on; however, it is normally my

pattern as a tutor to talk to the writer first instead of immediately turning to the rubric because it

gives me the opportunity to find out what the writer knows and the ideas they have internalized.

Though from my analysis my routine for delaying looking at the rubric might not always work.

Therefore, the transcript has taught me I must constantly reevaluate myself as a tutor because I

grew to comfortable with the entire process.

Works Cited

Black, Laurel Johnson. Between Talk and Teaching. Logan, UT: Utah State UP, 1998. Print.

Johnson, Joann. “Reevaluation of the Question as a Teaching Tool.” Dynamics of the Writing

Conference: Social and Cognitive Interaction. Eds. Thomas Flynn and Mary King.

Leahy, Richard. “What the College Writing Center Is—and Isn’t.” College Teaching. 38.2: 43-

48. Print.

Lunsford, Andrea. “Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center.” The Writing

Center Journal 12.1 (1991): 3-10. Print.

Urbana: NCTE, 1993. 34-39. Print.