What I need to incorporate:
Did my findings match the literature review?
I need a methods section. How many observations did I conduct??
Fix my headings, they are a little confusing. Add some more parts of text in each analysis.
Angela Castillo
December 7, 2010
Eng 5070: Peer Tutoring
Final Essay: Using Response Time and Silence in Tutoring Sessions
Many writing centers are based on theories of social constructivism which emphasize the role of conversation and language in learning (Reigstad, 1). However, it is also important to understand that silence plays a significant role a writer’s ability to reflect, revise, and construct ideas. The concept is often overlooked.
According to Reigstad, in a student- centered tutoring session, writers are “encouraged to do most of the talking and most of the work” (25). Reigstad mentions that in tutoring sessions, it is important for tutors to “listen a great deal” as well as “ask a few questions” in order for the student to strengthen his/her or writing (25). One type of tutoring technique that uses this approach was founded by Jeff Brooks. Known as Minimalist tutoring, this technique consists of the tutor asking a few open ended questions while allowing students spend the majority of the time talking about their writing (Brooks). Although minimalist tutoring may be the technique that requires tutors to consciously make an effort to implement silence the most, this research explores the different ways, tutors use silence in their sessions.
Brief Overview of Literature on Conversation
Before highlighting the significance of silence, it is vital to explore why conversation and language are central to writing center philosophies. In the book entitled “Peer Tutoring”, Wendy Bishop stresses the role of conversation and regards “talk as being central to the process of writing” (4). She also relates conversation to inner speech. According to Bishop, “writers compose through inner speech while talking, by speaking aloud at the word processer, when discussing a wok-in progress, or as they share ideas during conferences in writing centers and in classrooms” (4). According to Reigstad, during a session, conversation can take form in the following ways through, “developing ideas or sections of the draft, developing rhetorical constraints, answers to open ended questions from the tutor, praises of well crafted phrases and sentences, role-playing audiences, or simply reading the draft aloud” (4-5).
Brief Overview of Literature on Silence
In an academic setting, silence was viewed as a problem. It had negative connotations attached. Yet researchers have been trying to change the stigmas attached with silence. According to researcher Anne Rugges, “instead of seeing silence as speech's opposite, we can conceive of it as a part of speech, located on a continuum that puts one in dialogue with the other”. Researcher Cheryl Glenn regards silence as “a rhetorical art, one that can be as powerful as spoken word” (page 18). Unlike Wendy Bishop, researcher James Moffett relates silence to “inner speech”. He claims that inner speech is an act of thinking which offers a chance for a writer to “get beyond what one has already heard and said and read about something and just focus on the sub- ject non-discursively-that is, just hold centered in consciousness some idea, emblem, or phrasing of the subject, and sink deep in without trying to have thoughts about it.” ( 242). He states that writing is a form of revised inner speech (233).
The observations for this research essay were conducted at Kean University’s Writing Center. The notes focused on the dialogue between the tutors and students as well as periods of silence. In this study, silence was identified as pauses and waiting. As the tutoring sessions took place, observations were typed on a laptop.
The following session displays a directive style of tutoring in which a student is not given much of a chance to talk. In this session, the student’s answers were short while the tutor continued to elaborate on the topic. In addition, although the student was silent most of the time, it also seemed as though the tutor may not have allowed the student enough time to write in silence. During this session, the student brought in an analysis paper for her English 1030 course. In this session, the tutor only engages in conversation that is directly related to the assignment. In addition, the session begins with the student reading her paper out loud but the tutor quickly takes over and starts to read the paper aloud instead.
Scenario One: Olivia and Melissa
As Melissa holds her pen in her hands, she slightly slouches. Although they were sitting eye level of each other, Melissa does not make eye contact with her tutor Olivia. Olivia reads Melissa’s paper out loud and uses a pen to trace across each sentence.
Olivia: what else do you want to tell me?
Melissa has a very soft voice and Olivia speaks in a loud direct voice. Melissa indicates that she wants to work on grammar.
Oliva: Don’t’ worry about punctuation or grammar. We are free writing, tell me everything really quickly.
Melissa starts to speak softly to Olivia.
Olivia: Okay what else?
Melissa responds softly.
Olivia quickly asks, “What does that mean?”
Melissa then responds again. Her comments are soft spoken making it difficult for observers to understand what she said.
Olivia :“Why don’t you write that down? It is important. How big is it? It must be expensive. You want to tell me that. What is it? It is bigger than my house. Do I have room for this . Do I have to move out? How do I Do it? Okay so you want to tell me…
At this point Melissa looks like she is trying to write some ideas down.
Olivia: I’m sure you want to tell me. It has lots of wires and someone who knows how to do it as well.
Olivia and Melissa: Conversation Analysis
During the session, the tutor continued to talk and asked a series of close ended questions. The tutor asked these questions without leaving the student a chance to answer each one. She asked one after another to possibly create a point. She spoke fast. Based on this portion of the observations, it shows that that tutor asked more close ended questions that open ended questions. This allowed the student to answer briefly.
The coach asked a combination of open and closed ended questions consecutively which may not have given enough time for the student to process them. The student often answered in short sentences and the tutor spoke longer in longer more direct statements.
Based on these observations, it appeared that the tutor directed the student in what she should do for the paper. Therefore the student was listening for most of the time instead of talking. However, the student was able to get writing done. She even read out loud but did not talk as much as the tutor did.
It appeared that tutor was focusing on some high order concerns. However, she seemed to be teaching instead of actually allowing the student to negotiate her choices or explain what she wanted to do with her paper. The student needed to work on her thesis and organization of the ideas. It was clear that the tutor was trying to get the student to elaborate on those points but it seemed as though the tutor was telling the student what to do. In addition, the tutor only spoke about the assignment. It may have not allowed the student a chance to become comfortable with the tutor. According to McAndrew and Reigstad a tutor should not “overlook the power of simply engaging in natural conversation with the writer, bantering back and forth about mutual interests...” (34). The lack conversations on mutual interests may have also contributed to the student’s silence.
Olivia and Melissa: Silence Analysis
It seemed as though silence came from the student and not the tutor. Since the tutor was talking most of the time, it appeared as though the student was not given enough chances to talk. However, she may not have had a chance to completely concentrate either.
This is because it seemed as though the tutor was rushing the student. She spoke so quickly and even during times when the student was writing. Though it seemed that that tutor was talkative, the tutor may have felt that she was just encouraging the student.
Olivia and Melissa: Cause and Effect Analysis
The tutor asked many questions, both open ended and closed ended. Although she may have been attempting to clarify the focus of the paper, she may not have given enough time for the student to process the questions because they were consecutive and the tutor spoke in a faster speed as she asked the questions
In regards to periods of silence, it seemed that because the tutor was talkative throughout the entire session, the student remained quiet and listened most of the time. Also, because the tutor spoke even during times when the student was writing, it appeared as though the student was not given a chance to think in a quiet environment.
Based on my analysis, the student did not speak much because of the tutor’s tone of voice, direct statements, and rapid consecutive closed ended questions. Because the tutor spoke louder with direct statements and fast paced open and closed ended questions, the student may have been under the impression that the session was "teacher based".
The following session displays what happens when a tutor allows a student enough time to write in silence. The times are indicated in this observation in order for readers to identify how much time the tutor allowed the student to write in silence.
In this session, Molly is identified as the tutor and Dana is the student. Dana needed to work a paper for her course on information management. She had concerns about structure and grammar. Throughout the session, Dana reads her paper out loud.
Scenario Two: Molly and Dana
1:07 pm Dana points to a section on her paper and says “maybe I can take this and move it here”
Molly: What do you think? Do you think it should be the last one?
1:08 pm As Dana works on her paper, Molly is silent. She allows Dana time to reorganize some ideas.
1:10 pm Dana points to a section on her paper and Molly looks along. Dana says : Okay, what do you think about this?
Molly: I’m not sure if that is indicating ownership. Is that what you mean?
Dana: Okay, so I guess I don’t need it.
Molly then looks where Dana is pointing. Molly than says “I think you can move it over..”
Molly then remains silent.
Dana writes on her paper.
1:13 Dana then reads her paper out loud. Molly looks along.
Molly reads along.
Dana then pauses.
Molly points to the section where the student left off and says “How can we make this present tense?”
Molly and Dana: Conversation Analysis
Molly uses a series of questions in order to clarify what Dana is trying to convey in her paper. The questions that Molly uses, guides Dana in the development of her focus. Molly used questions such as ,“What do you think?” and “Do you think it should be the last one?” These questions gave ownership back to the writer, allowing Dana to find the answers within herself. According to Reigstad, researcher Atwell “emphasizes the importance of students maintaining ownership of their work”(19).
In addition, Molly allowed Dana to do most of the talking in the tutoring session. In regards to the act of talking, Reigstad claims, “The talk that’s involved in the tutoring also affects the relationship between the tutor and the writer. A writer who spends time talking to a tutor cannot help but understand that the tutor cares about her and her growth as a writer” (5).
Molly and Dana: Silence Analysis
In this tutoring session, Molly was able to give Dana time to write in silence. Her silence is identified as pauses between speech. Time stamps are indicated to show how many minutes Molly would stay silent after asking Dana a question. Based on the time stamps, Molly allowed Dana between two to three minutes in order to write some ideas down. This is much different from the observations on Olivia and Melissa.
Molly’s silence allowed Dana enough time to gather her thoughts and connect with her inner speech. According to Reigstad, “Writers should feel welcome to explore their own ideas and find their own ways to express them, without unwelcome intrusions from the tutor” (19).
Molly and Dana: Cause and Effect Analysis
Molly did not directly answer any of Dana’s questions. Instead, she would rephrase the question in order for Dana to find the answers within herself. Because of this, Dana was able to gain ownership of her paper. Molly validated Dana’s ideas and allowed Dana to do most of the talking. This act may have been empowering for Dana. According to Reigstad, “being an effective tutor means equipping writers with strategies for discovering their own answer. . .”(20).
In addition, because Molly gave Dana moments to think in silence, Dana was able to revise inner speech and develop her ideas on paper. According to leading compositionist James Moffett, writers “must talk through silence and stillness in order to find original thought” (Glenn, 156). Dana was encouraged to do this through Molly’s silence.
Scenario 3: Javier and Lily
In this writing session, the student was not a native English speaker. The student came to the writing center in order to work on a research essay. The student in this observation is known as Lily. Javier is the coach. Throughout the session, Javier uses a directive style of tutoring. In addition, Javier uses silence in the session whenever he becomes frustrated with the student. Throughout the session, Javier and Lily start discussing grammar. However, Lily’s professor specifically told her that her summarizing needed improvement. In the beginning of the session Lily mentions some of the words come from the actual article so she can appear smart. The observation notes are as follows:
Javier: Pretend the person reading your essay is an idiot.
Lily wants focus on grammar. Javier wants to discuss summarizing, but since Javier read the article and does not stray away from Lily’s questions regarding the reading.
Javier seems frustrated. He begins huffing and puffing and becomes silent. Javier compares Lily to students that he has had in the past.
Javier then refuses to visit piece of writing that Lily wants to discuss.
Javier begins to go through writing mechanics.
Javier: Do you understand this writing?
Lily laughs in response to the question.
After that remark, the student’s tone seemed to get lower when she spoke about her writing. However, she copied word for word what the coach was saying, she replied with loud “uh huh” in loud tones. For the remainder of the session, Javier began to dominate the conversation by giving clear specific directions. This is mentioned in the following:
Javier: Put performance instead of play.
Lily: ok.
As writer is going over writing, she is becoming lost and saying she does not know if it is correct.
Lily says she is not able to come up with the exact vocabulary.
Javier: You always come up with complex stuff.
Lily appeared to assume that all of what she discussed is wrong.
Lily: I hate this
Javier goes back to grammar, direct word usage. He replaces her word choice with his own and gives Lily the exact sentences to write.
Lily asks for clarification on whether her writing makes sense.
Javier: Once you get used to the English-thing, it should be okay.
Javier and Lily: Conversation Analysis
It appeared that the student was clearly uncomfortable and lacked confidence in her writing due to language barriers. The tutor approached the session by telling the student to pretend that the person she is reading to is an idiot. The term “idiot” may have been used in a playful manner, but the student may not have understood what the tutor was implying. However, the tutor may have tried to say this in order for the student to feel like she was the expert on the topic. The tutor may have been trying to achieve what was discussed by researcher Dianne Stelzer Morrow, who states that a tutor “should not feel inadequate if she can’t answer a writer’s question. Sometimes the best reader is a “dumb reader”, one who is not an authority in the subject matter. The tutor can fill that role “(Reigstad, 20). However, this may not have worked in Javier and Lily’s case.
In addition, it seemed as though the tutor took on a more authoritarian role. This may have been influenced by the tutor as well. According to Reigstad, there are different teaching patterns among various cultures (99). Reigstad states that many “ESL students have a much more authoritarian view of teachers. They don’t question teachers and don’t expect to be questioned by them, as usually happens in tutoring sessions; instead they expect to give answers as direct statements” (99)
Javier and Lily: Silence Analysis
Unlike the silence or lack of silence presented in the first two scenarios, the silence in this session was generated out of frustration and took form through a series of breaths. According to this observation, Javier huffed and puffed after he was frustrated. This type of silence did result in a positive outcome. Although the student was able to write comments on her essay, her essay was merely dictated to her, therefore she was unable to learn how to correct her own errors.
Although it may be easy to point out the faults of the tutor in this session, it could also have been due to lack of experience and inadequate training. The tutor’s silent frustration may have indicated a sign of hopelessness. In this specific case, the tutor may have only had less than a week of tutor training in regards to multilingual non native English speakers which contributed to his frustrations.
Javier and Lily: Cause and Effect Analysis
In the beginning of the session, it seemed that the tutor was trying to stay away from grammatical issues and wanted to focus on the student’s summarization. The tutor appeared aware of the differences between high order concerns and low order concerns.
However, it appeared that the student had a different agenda and insisted on working on grammar issues. This could have been prevented if the Javier told Lily to “focus on just one or a few problems at a time; and explain to the writer that miscues are a natural part of learning and using language, even for native speakers” (Reigstad 98).
It seemed as though the tutor grew frustrated and just decided a more direct approach with the student. Yet, this approach may have allowed the student to feel worse about her writing. During the instance in which she expressed confusion and a desire to change her vocabulary, Javier replied by saying “You always come up with complex stuff”. This comment may have belittled her even more. In response to his comment, she immediately said,“I hate this”. This may indicate that the student felt a sense of helplessness throughout the entire tutoring session.
Conclusions
Based on these observations and reviews of literature, silence or lack of silence on behalf of the tutor can either discourage or encourage students to write in a tutoring session. It all varies depending on the situation.
In the first case, lack of silence may have prevented the student from revising her inner dialogue and becoming fully aware of the ideas that she wanted to convey on in her writing. Although the tutor talked throughout the majority of session, the student appeared to leave the session satisfied. Although the tutor took a more direct, authoritative approach, the student was able to leave the session with writing done. However, the student may have only felt confident in her writing because she was not encouraged to speak throughout most of the session and was straight forwardly directed by the tutor in terms of what she should write.
In the second scenario, the tutor gave student a couple three minute intervals of silence in order to write her ideas down. That session seemed productive and the student was able to share her thoughts and read her work out loud to the tutor. She appeared to have left the session with a sense of satisfaction and a strong sense of confidence in her writing.
However, silence on behalf of the tutor may not always lead to positive results. Silence from a frustrated tutor can result in an ineffective tutoring session. In the last scenario, the tutor became silent when he realized that the student was only concerned with grammatical issues. His direct, authoritative style of teaching led to the student writing every word that he said. The tutor also appeared to make some insensitive comments to the students which may have contributed to the student leaving the session with a sense of confusion and lack of confidence in her writing.
Though this study reflects the different uses of silence in tutoring sessions, this topic can be further explored through a series of observations in different writing centers across the nation, satisfaction surveys from both student and tutor, and information about the types of training that each tutor had.
Because there are not many books or articles written about the effects of silence in education, this type of study may be useful to researchers. These types of situations may also help tutors handle particular “what if” scenarios and can be used in order for tutors to discern when it is appropriate to incorporate silence and how they will use it in their sessions. These scenarios may be helpful in future tutor training through workshops, online videosm and peer tutoring books.
Works Cited
Brooks, Jeff. "Minimalist Tutoring: Making the Students Do All the Work." Writing Lab Newsletter. Purdue University, Feb. 1991. Web. 1 Dec. 2010.
Barnett, Robert W., and Jacob S. Blumner. The Longman Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice. New York: Pearson Longman, 2008. Print.
Gere, Anne R. "Revealing Silence: Rethinking Personal Writing." College Composition and Communication 53 (2001): 203-23. JSTOR. Web. 20 Nov. 2010.
Glenn, Cheryl. Unspoken: a Rhetoric of Silence. Carbondale: Southern Illinois UP, 2004. Print.
McAndrew, Donald A., and Thomas J. Reigstad. Tutoring Writing: a Practical Guide for Conferences. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook, 2001. Print.
Moffett, James. "Writing, Inner Speech, and Meditation." College English 44.3 (1982): 231-46.JSTOR. National Council of Teachers of English. Web. 1 Dec. 2010.
