Writing Centers & ICON

Writing Centers operate in varied institutional settings and distinct contexts. But they are united by a common tutoring philosophy of offering “individualized assistance” to all students who request help with their writing. During a consulting session, a student gets the opportunity of engaging in a one-on-one discussion about particular problems he wishes to address. The writing consultant's active listening and response opens a dialog between the writer and the reader. This interaction is a definitive moment in the trajectory of the student’s development as a writer—it offers him the rare opportunity of sharing his writing concerns. The consultant, on his part, approaches the writing from the critical viewpoint of a reader. His objective gaze scans the paper for other lurking signs of weaknesses. He brings them to the notice of the writer. The resulting combined perspective, of both the reader and the writer, on the paper paves way for effective tutoring sessions. During these tutorials, which offer opportunities for practice in a hands-on workshop environment, the consultant’s role is strictly facilitative. He analyzes the drafts, asks questions, and encourages revisions. The fact that there is nothing punitive about his comments (no grades at stake) enhances the effectiveness of the exercise. Also, because tutoring takes place over the course of many weeks, it reinforces the idea of writing as a process or continuous exercise in improvement. Rather than completing an assignment and quickly submitting it for a grade, the focus is on assisting the student’s growth as a writer; helping him understand and imbibe conventions for effective communication.

The CIs and DIs together approximate the role of Writing Center consultants in many ways. They are facilitators of knowledge. They dispense tips for quality writing, scrutinize student assignments, discuss writing concerns, and offer feedback. But not without significant differences. First, ICONs way of functioning offers limited scope of one-on-one consultations or attending to individual differences. For example, a DI, by simply reading a student paper, can hardly say whether or not the student nurtures a concern about getting started with his assignments. He can only identify and offer advice on problems that are visible on the surface level of the paper. The student may not articulate this writing concern. As a result, the writer and reader fail to come together and experience the act of negotiating meaning. Second, the anonymity of the setting does not permit monitoring of a student’s performance on a continuous basis. A student paper is not viewed as a point in the trajectory of his development as a writer. It is assessed as a product; there is no evaluation of the process. Third, interpersonal accountability (between the instructors, graders and students) may suffer. CIs instruct, counsel but do not assess the student writings. DIs grade student writings and counsel faceless papers. Students do not practice under the supervision of a single experienced writer; their writings get randomly assigned to different graders. While this implies multiple readers/perspectives on his writing, abundance of dissimilar feedbacks can make learning a confusing experience for him. Fourth and most importantly, the reader and the grader is the same person. This knowledge can mar spontaneous sharing of writing concerns between him and the students.

Finally, about responsiveness to errors. There is much truth in the observation that grading is essentially an exercise governed by “ever-shifting patterns of skills judged by ever-shifting pattern of prejudices” (Connor and Lunsford, 294). Error reading is indeed mostly context/person driven. All of us write and judge based on our personal assumptions about the measures of good writing. These preconceived notions play a key role in shaping our individual perception of correctness. They also guide our response to the writings of other people. No two graders will share exactly same assumptions or respond in a similar manner. This makes it difficult to reach a consensus about what constitutes a “serious error” in writing and what does not. But we are aware that differences (and concomitant grading discrepancies) exist. And we are eager to understand and discuss these differences. This is the first vital step towards closing gap between our perception of errors; and through it perhaps between the reader and writer.