Lo final...tarde, como siempre...

I swore I was going to do this one on time, but again, no. I really, really apologize for not being able to get with the program on this, Melissa. But anyway.

I actually had some consultations with native speakers last week! It was pretty exciting. One gal wa applying to nursing school and wanted help with her personal statement. It was not necessarilly like applying to a graduate degree program in English, but it struck me as being similar to my boyfriend, Andy, and his application to medical school. Because I had worked with him on his last summer and had helped another gal with her application to veterinary school, I felt like I had some background in the weird genre presented. I think this situation loosely falls into the discussion over experts vs generalists, though, in that in this consultation as in the veterinary one, I don't think it necessarily helps me to help the writer for having seen other papers like this. In every case, I have felt that the writer needed more specific, concrete, and personal details to add to their narrative, which I think most consultants would have wanted as well, just as readers. But I wonder if that is what the committee members look for, or if they prefer a more impersonal style of writing because of the scientific nature of the work. At any rate, I think that this gal, as well as the veterinary student past, were able to integrate some meaningful, personal details into their text that allowed it to speak to who they are and what they care about and why more so than any c.v. of their would. As writers, I like to think that they place more value on specifics, and on their own experiences. But whether any of these musings are correct or not, I do have to say that it is so interesting to see the very, very different ways that people write, in terms of their formatting, structure, and the language that they use, particularly when they come from other disciplines.

I found the discussions about non-directive and directive tutoring styles to be reallly interesting this week, as well, and I'm glad that what I get from the rest of the 303-ers is not that they are die-hards in either extreme, but approach each as a possible means of helping a particular writer in a paricular situation. I think that the group that I was working with seemed to lean towards being non-directive in situations where the writer had more knowledge of the task and subject, and to being more directive in those situations where the writer was clueless about one thing or another. I think this is a natural way to approach situations, in that you aren't going to tell a quite knowledgeable person what to do and how to do it, yet you might inform a person who is lost of how to get back on the path, which may include sharing of specialized information that they don't have. Yet my group didn't come up with an end-all, be-all procedure for how to approach these very different kinds of writers, probably because they have already picked up that each writer is unique and individual, and that they as consultants must assess those writers where they are and adapt accordingly. I'm just really glad that the Shamoon piece, even if we didn't like the tone and style of it, set forth that in some instances it is more than appropriate to be directive in a consultation. I think they know, too, that one doesn't have to be consistent with that strategy throughout the session, though; they can shapeshift as needed, which I think is where we want them to be. I think it is essential to have the mindset that it is okay to try new techniques and strategies and to not be worried about "breaking the rules" set forth, because in that environment, our consultants wouldn't be able to flow with the situations that evolve in front of them, and they would be less effective at giving our writers what they need, when they need it.

scrawny thoughts are an understatement of the matter at hand...

For this week, what I got out of our readings was really just what you said in class Thursday: that while none of the ideas they set forth are new and earth-shattering, they are nonetheless indicative of good consulting practices that we should be using with all writers.

It is so important to take each writer as they are and to adapt to work with them as unique, complicated individuals for whom we reach into our tool box of writing strategies to pull out the ones that work best for them. If one doesn’t work, it’s just like reaching in for a different size or a different tool to approach the issue at hand. I agreed with your combination of the various “types” of writers, from NNES to those with learning disabilities to non-traditional students, because while these are all distinct groups with distinct sub-categories that writers may, or may not, fall into, working with these kinds of writers emphasizes that to work with them, we just have to do more of the “good stuff” we already do, and to a higher degree.

We need to read people, be sensitive to their needs; we need to try different strategies, be patient, and both phrase and present things in a variety of ways to make sure that the writer catches our drift.

I know this one is short, Melissa L I will try to add more later…