Observation

While searching the library for students to observe, I happened to find a table filled with three of my friends, all writing diverse papers. Thus, I decided to quickly observe each of their strategies and how they differed based on the subject matter. First, Diane was beginning to write a first draft. She told me that she typically writes her thesis first and then gathers evidence from the book. She refrains from brainstorming and leaves her editing for later. What I found most interesting was that she was writing this first draft for a professor who had suggested that students in the class pass in this rough draft early for feedback. This brought about many questions that were raised in the St. Martin’s Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. Is the professor going to edit for content or for mechanical mistakes? What is his/her purpose for doing this? Should they leave this editing to the writing center? If the professor is editing for content, then how effective will the feedback be considering that she will just be writing down basic concepts in her first draft?

Next, Lesley was editing a paper she had already written. What I found most interesting was that she was only editing this paper for word count. She loved her paper and felt she did not need to edit it further for content or grammar, but she had fell short of the minimum word count. This leads to a crucial question, is a short, less that minimum word count paper better than a paper that meets the word count, but consists of more rambling?

Lastly, Jenny was working on a report for her Organic Chemistry class. She was much more focused on the layout and accuracy of the information. For example, instead of asking, “Does this sentence transition well,” she took a poll of who thought water was extremely polar. Additionally, she used diagrams to add another dimension to her paper; an addition that would not be used in a typically English paper.

Thus, we come back to the same question; how important is it to know the subject matter of the paper you are editing?

Does Subject Knowledge Matter?

When students assist others in writing, when is it crucial that the writing consultant knows the subject matter behind the essay assignment? For example, if a writing consultant is reading a paper for a chemistry class, but they themselves do not partake in any science classes, will they be of any help? They will not be able to help the student/ know if the student is misrepresenting information. However, if the writing consultant knows the subject; for example a core essay and they had previously had the class or read the book, and can provide good insight, is this fair? I think a balance here is crucial. A writing consultant probably should try to edit papers similar with his/her major, however, they should refrain from giving their personal opinions. They should help the student get to their own thesis as mentions in Helping Students Write Literary Analyses. An interesting point in Hjorshoj’s book is that often students attempt to “manufacture” writing rather than initiate thought. Writers as a whole need to move away from this idea of a standard format where they merely replace words/thoughts from previous essay formats, to creating a thoughtful unique paper.

Promoting Change Through Writing Centers: Response

Casey brings up an interesting point as to the diverse styles of writing and which types off writing are crucial. On the extreme side, if there were only one standardized style of writing, would this be valuable? Personally, a variety of writing techniques creates an incentive for students to read. For example, not all students enjoy reading analytical essays or scientific research papers. So in this sense, these diverse writing styles benefit us. They assist in getting information across in different mediums that are appropriate for that subject matter. In reference to Professor Dolson’s comment, I believe that the line between writing-to-learn and learning-to-write is gray, and not clear cut. The reason being that often students will be engaging in both ways simultaneously without realizing it. They are related because each forces the student to analyze writing. When writing to learn the student must focus on sentence level to achieve a great paper. When learning to write, students learn how to create good sentence level variation.

Promoting Change Through Writing Centers

I found the notion that writing centers are capable of promoting and accomplishing campus wide change very interesting. Wingate, in her article, claims that students who tutor or visit this center achieve better grades as well as have a higher graduation rate. A word she consistently used was “serious” which I found particularly odd. She claims that students present at the writing center must be “serious” students. However, if this journal article is compared to the WAC program article, students might have ulterior motives for going to this center. If the professor has made it clear to consultants what he or she is looking for, student may have the incentive to sign up for a slot in order to achieve the highest grade. Although this method may be effective, it is writing-to-get-done work contrary to learning to write or the write-to-learn methods. After reading these selections of writing, I am interested to see how the writing center at the University of Richmond would compare. Do students know what particular professors desire in the perfect A paper? More importantly, can the writing center affect the academic life at Richmond?