• Muriel Harris, editor

...INSIDE...

Conducting an Oral History of Your Own Writing Center

• Carey Smitherman 1

Greatly Improving Writing Center Attendance

• Leslie Durhman 6

Conference Calendar 6

Tutors’ Column: “Unconditional Positive Regard in the Writing Center”

• Laura Beth Miller 8

“Overcoming My Own Perfectionist Tendencies to Help Others Succeed”

• Kreszenze M. Kossler 9

Zen Tutoring: Unlocking the Mind

• Deborah Murray 12

The Volunteer Factor: Using Faculty from Outside the English Department to Staff a Writing Center

• Gary L. Kriewald 14

Documentation of the history of indi-vidual writing centers has been frag-mented and widely dispersed. Avail-able pieces of writing centers’ histories tend to generalize individualized expe-riences, such as personal struggles and triumphs, feelings of marginalization and hesitancy about the establishment of a national organization, to the whole writing center community. Researchers of writing center history are left to de-cipher facts from anecdotal evidence, hence the confusion over what is truth and what is writing center lore.

Oral histories can play a vital role in documenting writing center research in that they will provide writing center re-searchers with personal accounts of writing center directors. Although Valerie Raleigh Yow describes oral histories as subjective, she states that this subjectivity “is at once inescapable and crucial to an understanding of the meanings we give our past and present” (25). Oral histories have been chosen as the means to collect personal accounts in many fields because of their individuality. In this regard, they fit perfectly with the individual experi-ences of writing center directors and scholars.

The Writing Lab Newsletter, published in ten monthly issues from September to June by the Department of English, Purdue University, is a publication of the International Writing Centers Association, an NCTE Assembly, and is a member of the NCTE Information Exchange Agreement.ISSN 1040-3779. All Rights and Title reserved unless permission is granted by Purdue University. Material will not be reproduced in any form without express written permission.

Editor: Muriel Harris Managing Editor: Mary Jo Turley English Dept., Purdue University, 500 Oval Drive, West Lafayette, IN 47907-2038 (765)494-7268. e-mail: harrism@cc.purdue.edu

mjturley@purdue.edu web site:http://owl.english.purdue.edu/lab/

newsletter/index.html

Subscriptions: The newsletter has no billing procedures. Yearly payments of $15 (U.S. $20 in Canada) are requested, and checks must be received four weeks prior to the month of expiration to ensure that subscribers do not miss an issue. Please make checks payable to Purdue University and send to the Managing Editor. Prepayment is requested for all subscriptions.

Manuscripts: Recommended length for articles is approximately 2500 words, 1500 words for reviews and Tutors’ Column essays. If possible, please send as attached files or as cut-and-paste in an e-mail to mjturley@ purdue.edu. Otherwise, send a 3 and 1/2 in. disk with the file, along with the paper copy. Please enclose a self-addressed envelope with return postage not pasted to the envelope. The deadline for announcements is 45 days prior to the month of issue (e.g. August 15 for October issue).

Marilyn K. Harris states in a paper presented at CCCC in 1995 that oral history plays a key role in verifying history in composition. She says that, while it’s too late to claim much of the information from the earliest years of composition teaching and research in the United States, it is still possible to retrieve the rest. But the clock is tick-ing. Scholars must learn how to iden-tify the information around them and be able to preserve it. Oral history is a crucial practice in doing so. But to be successful at retaining this history, scholars must learn several things, in-cluding “how to construct useful ques-tions, how to conduct interviews, how to record and transcribe the materials they get, and when and how to ask for collateral materials” (3). They must also be willing to accept that history is far more complex than dates and sig-nificant events. “It is a comprehensive record of society” (1). If writing center directors will take on the challenge of learning to gather useful and accurate oral histories, their individual writing centers, as well as the field of writing centers as a whole, will surely benefit. Oral histories will give each writing center scholar a voice. These voices, when put together, will serve the writ-ing center community with a more ac-curate knowledge of its history.

An element of urgency motivates ef-forts to complete the oral histories of early and influential members of the writing center community. What re-mains of many of the histories of indi-vidual writing centers is contained in boxes in directors’ offices, filed in writing center staffers’ home files, or is being thrown away, piece by piece, in yearly “housecleaning” rituals to pre-pare more space in writing centers. Be-sides these dwindling physical evi-dences of writing center history, the directors who founded centers, the ones who are vital parts of the genre of writing center history, are disappearing as well. Many of these early, influen-tial directors are now retired or have moved on to other types of work. Therefore, I ask you to consider re-searching your own writing center’s history, including conducting inter-views with early directors, tutors, and staff of your center as available. Not only will these histories benefit writing center scholars around the world as a part of the WCRP archives, but they will also solidify the history of each lo-cal writing center as a part of its ar-chives.

∗

Contact the human subjects department at your institution to find out about any paperwork and consent forms that need to be established. This step should be done as soon as possible since the process can take a fair amount of time.

∗

Learn about the methods involved in conducting oral histories. To

facilitate oral history interviews concerning writing centers, the WCRP has compiled an instruc-tional packet containing knowl-edge about oral history interviews. We feel that this packet will give you a solid foundation for begin-ning this type of research. Visit the WCRP Web site at http://www .wcrp.louisville.edu to obtain this information.

∗

Find resource people at your institution who may provide expert advice on this type of research, such as faculty members who have been trained in doing oral inter-views or members of an oral history department. I found the director of the oral history depart-ment at our institution invaluable in leading us in the right direction.

∗

Make a list of the past directors of your writing center as well as others who helped shape your center into what it has become today. Research the writing center background of those on your list. Read any publications written by your interviewees and try to learn more about the roles they played in the development of your center. Then, contact them by letter, asking them to agree to an inter-view. This would also be a good time to ask for a vita to make sure there are no publications you have overlooked or roles the person has had that you are unaware of. By this point, you should also be constructing a list of interview questions that relate to your writing center as a whole as well as the influence this particular person had.

∗

Ask those you interview to bring in any paper trail they may have to supplement the interviews, such as budget reports, tutoring logs, evaluations, etc. This paperwork can be vital to your research.

∗

Make sure that you ask open-ended questions. We have found

that in interviews, some people may seem to get off topic, but that can be positive. Although we want all of our questions answered, some of the stories our inter-viewees tell are more valuable than what we had envisioned for the interview. Make sure you give the interviewees time to talk about all they think is relevant as well as the opportunity to revisit topics in the interview at the end that have already been covered.

∗

Remember the interviewer is the best person to transcribe the interview. We have found that the interviewer, especially when s/he transcribes the interview soon after it has been recorded, can remem-ber instances of sarcasm, humor, and irritation that may not be evident to someone transcribing the interview who was not present. You will want to note these intonations so that others who read your transcriptions will not gain an incorrect sense of the meaning of the interview.

∗

Provide your interviewees with a copy of the transcription in order to offer them the opportunity to clarify their responses as well as to check the transcription for accuracy.

Once your oral history interviews are complete, I urge you to start an archive for your writing center as well as send copies to the WCRP. Archives are a way to house information that might otherwise be lost in moves, change of administration, etc. And these archives can be an invaluable resource for writ-ing center administrators. Historical in-formation may help with budget nego-tiations, grants, and the further professionalization of writing center administrators at a particular institu-tion. On a national level, the continua-tion of the oral history project is urgent for the historical understanding of the writing center community by providing documentation of the perspectives of early and influential writing center administrators as well as the politics of important events in the writing center movement.

Carey Smitherman University of Louisville Louisville, KY

Works Cited

tional Journal of Oral History

1.1 (1980): 28-40.

Educational Research Association, 1976, Washington, DC.

Stahl, Norman A., and James R. King. Preserving the Heritage of a Profession through Oral History Projects. Conference of the United Kingdom Reading Association, 1996, Newcastle, England.

Yow, Valerie Raleigh. Recording Oral History: A Practical Guide for Social Scientists. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1994.

Introduction:

Because our Writing Center staff has an excellent working relationship with our English faculty, and because of our shared desire to improve atten-dance at our Center, we created a spe-cial orientation activity. The “Scaven-ger Hunt” is more than just a typical tour (which many students are quite weary of by the first weeks of each se-mester); it is a hands-on exercise in gaining familiarity with our services and facilities. In this way, any anxi-eties students may have about locating the Center or receiving tutoring are al-leviated right away.

The “Writing Center Scavenger Hunt” is a handout listing fourteen questions. Each question is designed to introduce the student to a particular feature of the Center (and can easily be adapted for your own Center). For in-stance, one question requires the stu-dent to search for a particular link from our home page, others ask them to find particular words or items in the thesaurus, dictionaries, handbooks, and specialty reference books, and yet another requires them to ask a tutor a question. This way, they become fa-miliar with our computer equipment, reference materials, and personnel all in one visit.

This activity can be used by all instructors in any discipline who require written work from their students. The teacher need not be present for the activity, but many do use it as a class activity within the first two weeks of the semester. If desired, teachers can access copies of the Hunt and its instructor sheet at any time, since we keep copies handy for them.

Typically, we have our tutors begin the activity by introducing the students as a group to the Center, which helps them see we are profes-sional and approachable. Then their teacher can add any comments they may have (some teachers on our campus require students to attend the Center at least once as part of their grade), and the students begin their Hunt.

This can be done individually or in teams. It can be a race, with a bonus (points or chocolate or whatnot) to the winner(s). We have found it works best to have some students begin the questions in the middle and some at the end of the page, so not everyone is trying to thumb through the same quotations book or dictio-nary at once. The Hunt takes approximately 45 minutes to com-plete, and could be shortened or lengthened depending on the teacher’s needs. Some instructors send their students to do this activity outside of class time by a given due date, which works fine also.

Calendar for Writing Centers Associations

October 4, 2003: Michigan Writing Centers Asso-October 23-25, 2003: International Writing Centers Confer-ciation in Flint, MI ence and National Conference on Peer Tutoring in Conference Web site: <www.flint.umich.edu/ Writing, in Hershey, PA Departments/writingcenter>. Contact: Ben Rafoth, brafoth@iup.edu. Conference Web

site: <www.wc.iup.edu/2003conference>.

the writing center

ties. Finding something specific to compliment them on can ease their minds and help them be more open to suggestions they may regard as criticism.

Openness is next. “Openness entails a willingness to empathize with your partner,” says DeVito. The act of em-pathy can do a lot for a stressed writer. Writing consultants should put them-selves in the position of the writer. Lis-ten to him or her. Really understanding where he or she is coming from may prevent unnecessary frustration for both parties.

Supportiveness is also very impor-tant. Among the characteristics that DeVito lists in his definition of supportiveness are the following: “en-couraging the other person to be the best he or she can be . . . by sharing the skills that you have that your partner needs to control his or her own destiny, and by offering constructive criticism rather than simple, but discouraging fault-finding” (301). This is a very good summary of what much of writ-ing center work is. We are there to work with students in the context of their own writing until they gain the skills they need to guide their own writing process, which, in turn, may lead them closer to “controlling their own destiny.” Keeping this focus on the student and the ultimate purpose of the conference may help the consultant sustain an attitude of positive regard for the student.

It is important to show interest in the student and his or her work. Showing interest in students and their writing will make them trust the consultant more. In addition, each paper presents an opportunity for the consultant to learn something from the student. Of-ten students come to the conference for assistance with a topic that the consult-ant does not know much about. Sincere interest in what the student is attempt-ing to accomplish can benefit both consultant and student. DeVito says in the interactions that result from both parties showing sincere interest in each other, “each . . . is likely to become a more interesting person, which contrib-utes further to communication en-hancement” (301).

The next vital element is value. As humans, we all want to feel valued. The writing consultant must make the writer feel that he or she is important. If the consultant isn’t paying attention or is frequently checking the clock, the writer will get the message the consultant’s attention is on something more important. It may be difficult for clients to improve their writing if they do not feel it is significant.

According to DeVito “equality en-tails the sharing of power and decision making in conflict resolution” (303). In the case of the writing center, “con-flict” can be viewed as the disparity between the quality of work that is brought to the assistant and the poten-tial quality of the paper. Ideally, the writing consultant and the writer would be able to work as equals to resolve the issues the writer must face as they are manifested in the paper. Even when to-tal equality or collaboration is not pos-sible, the writer has to retain a certain amount of control in the conference to preserve ownership of the work.

The “POSITIVE method” can be very helpful to writing consultants be-cause it is one way to diminish the am-biguity of the term “unconditional positive regard.” This method can help the consultant stay focused on what he or she is there to do: work with the stu-dent in a respectful way.

DeVito, Joseph A. Messages: Building Interpersonal Communication Skills. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1999.

Overcoming my own perfectionist
tendencies to help others succeed

Every student comes to terms with it at one point or another during his or her academic career, and I was forced to face the music early: failure. For me, failure came in my particularly strong field of writing. That fateful day sopho-more year, I handed in what I felt to be a good paper, composed diligently with every ounce of personal zeal and sophis-tication I could possibly muster. Later that week, however, I found that my pa-per, in fact, was not what my professor wanted, expected, or liked. Arrgh! This couldn’t be! I was an A student, a per-fectionist who always received good marks on my writing. But no, I was be-ing asked to redo a writing assignment, and thus rebuild my self-image as a col-lege writer. I learned with difficulty over the ensuing semesters that I would always need to adjust my writing tech-niques, no matter how experienced I be-came at composing at the college level. I would have to learn to moderate my perfectionist attitude if I was going to make it through the college experience. My personal writing preferences would never parallel the preferences of every one of my professors.

Now, as a future high school English teacher and a current Writing Consult-ant/Teacher Assistant, I find mirror im-ages of my previous self marching into appointments and tutorials, faces set, positively sure that I have nothing to of-fer them that they don’t already know. One such student sat down and stoutly said, “I don’t really need any changes to my paper. I’m only here because my teacher said I have to see a consultant.” A little shaken, I assured her vaguely that we could read her paper together and see what we could find. She ac-cepted all of my praises and none of my criticisms, and I learned that sometimes consultant sessions are relatively point-less, except for the sake of experience.

Not all students are so overwhelmingly confident in their writing. I also see students creep into appointments, scared to death to have their writing put under a microscope by someone they’ve never even seen. These students are often grateful for any attention, whether it be positive feedback or constructive criti-cism. They leave with appreciative com-ments, thus offsetting the not-so-pleasant visits from other students.

Overall, I find a wide array of writing abilities, personalities, and work ethics. Many of them do not match my own, so when I read varying papers I must men-tally revert to my past lesson and sup-press the little voice inside my head screaming, “Change everything! Make it look like yours!” However, my job is not to make others’ writing look like mine. My job is not to blatantly criticize or change essays into graduate level compo-sitions. My job is not even to impose my “pearls of wisdom” or experiences on them. My job is to help them, at whatever level they may be, to recognize their own weaknesses as well as strengths and to learn how to use their talents to improve their writing skills. When I have com-pleted a session where I have managed to stay within these personal boundaries, I feel especially productive.

One particularly rewarding session came upon completing a particularly dif-ficult session with a student who felt that once she had written something, it was in need of very little revision. “I just hate changing anything that 1 have written,” she explained with a great deal of exas-peration after I pointed out an especially blatant sentence fragment. I took a deep breath and told her I understood how she felt, as I, too, was often reluctant to re-vise writing to which I was particularly attached. She calmed down a bit, and I tightened the rein on my criticism, mak-ing a special effort to frequently point out the good qualities in her paper. I avoided my intense desire to show her how much she needed to curb her own attitude to-ward her imperfect writing, instead fo-cusing on helping her in the manner that both her attitude and the situation demanded. When she walked away from our session, she was noticeably more grateful for my help, and I was left with a unexpected sense of satis-faction over our difficult consultation. It was after this particular session that I realized the satisfaction I felt consti-tuted a new type of perfection for me.

Suffocating my unfavorable tenden-cies as a perfectionist is a very difficult goal to accomplish on a daily basis, as any admitted perfectionist will tell you. The perfectionist characteristic can be found in any tutor who cares about what he or she is doing and wishes the student to do well on the assignment. The trick for me was making sure that I was aiding the student, leading as well as directing toward what he or she would write. I had to constantly remind myself to limit my comments and sug-gestions and work only on what could be accomplished within the session, by the student. This was contrary to my initial wish for a two-hour session to help each student perfect each piece to the best of our combined ability. Though the need to help in the most thorough manner possible was genu-ine, it was most definitely not plausible and simply not acceptable. This type of help inarguably breaks the ethical laws of tutoring, as well as teaches the stu-dent absolutely nothing.

As I reflect upon what working with students, both as a consultant and a TA, has given me, I have come to the conclusion that my experiences with students and their writing has provided me with essential lessons. I can con-tinue learning about my own weak-nesses and strengths as a writer and as a person. I’ve also grown in my ability to connect with and understand other writers. Overall, there is that particular sense of satisfaction that stays with me after a session, as I watch the student walk away. I did my very best to help, and sincerely hope I somehow opened a door for that student to improve and feel successful. Through these experi-ences I realized that my previous sense also curb my desire to change, change, of what constituted perfection had al-change! _{Kreszenze M. Kossler} tered. I found that I can maintain my _{Regis University}standards as a perfectionist, but I can _{Denver, CO}

An update from the Writing Centers Research Project (WCRP) archive

Thanks to generous contributions from many of you, the Writing Centers Research Project (WCRP) archive has grown substantially during the past year. Recent acquisitions include a sizeable gift from the Purdue Writing Lab (Muriel Harris and Mary Jo Turley), which includes conference materi-als, Writing Lab training documents, and copies of writing center disserta-tions. Neal Lerner has also continued his support of the WCRP this year, donating copies of several dissertations, numerous out-of-print books, and other historical documents. Other donations include administrative reports from Marquette University’s writing center (Paula Gillespie); a large collec-tion of letters, memos, and NWCA reports (Jay Jacoby); ECWCA corre-spondence and administrative papers dating back to the early eighties (Cindy Johanek); SCWCA newsletters and NWCA conference materials (Jim McDonald); and promotional materials from a variety of writing cen-ters across the country (Denise Stephenson).

In addition, the following writing center scholars have generously pro-vided copies of their dissertations for the archive: Jim Bell, Anne Ellen Geller, Eric Hobson, Neal Lerner, Susan Wolff Murphy, Rick Sheets, and Jeanne Simpson. And just as exciting are the recent additions to the WCRP Digital Archive. As of April 2003, the writing center community may ac-cess complete issues of The Writing Center Journal, volumes 1.1 through

8.1 and 18.2-20.1 by visiting the WCRP web site (URL below).

Those who wish to contribute materials may contact the WCRP for fur-ther information (see below). Currently, the WCRP is actively seeking originals of regional and national conference proceedings from any year in addition to the standing request for writing center materials produced before 1995. This includes writing center related correspondence, administrative reports, tutoring documents, audio and video tapes, ephemera, promotional materials, and other in-house documents from local writing centers. A more comprehensive list is available at the WCRP web site.

Finally, to everyone who has helped to create this valuable resource for
research, scholarship, and historical preservation, the WCRP extends its
sincerest thanks!

New (Non-) Copyright Policy

Recently (March 2003), we your manuscript “on hold” for eighteen adopted a new policy regarding months. (If you request imminent pub-copyright of accepted manuscripts. lication, though, we will try to move At the suggestion of Purdue’s the manuscript forward in the queue.) Patent and Copyright Office, future manuscripts will be covered by a The NPA addresses fair use, online Non-exclusive Publication Agree-permission, and electronic archiving, ment (NPA). This agreement leaves as well as your right to publish the ar-the copyright with the author(s) but ticle online within six months of first gives Purdue University and the publication. It also covers subsequent Writing Lab Newsletter certain reprinting for commercial purposes, rights. (Our previous form assigned which is yours to determine. copyright to Purdue University al-though our intent was to share it Once a manuscript is accepted, you with the author.) will receive a copy of the agreement

for signature. (Some 25+ authors have

Essentially, the Writing Lab already signed the new form.) If you Newsletter requests right of first have questions or would like a copy of publication, with a six-month win-the form and cover letter, please e-mail dow before your manuscript can be me at mjturley@purdue.edu. published elsewhere. Since our Mary Jo Turley queue is frequently a year or more Writing Lab Newsletter, Managing in length, this would effectively put Editor

Computers in Writing—Intensive Classrooms

Computers in Writing—Intensive Classrooms and authoring software for composing, discuss-(CIWIC), the summer institute for teachers who want to ing, and developing compositional and rhetorical incorporate technology into their classrooms will be approaches for teaching multimedia texts; held June 16-27, 2003, at Michigan Technological Uni-versity, Houghton, MI. Coordinated by Cynthia Selfe, 3. Individual Projects (CIWIC-IP), which is for re-

Anne Wysocki, Dickie Selfe, Gail Hawisher, and turning CIWIC participants who want to take on a Johndan Johnson-Eilola, CIWIC has three workshops more focused project with individualized support. that participants can choose from:

1. Approaches to Integrating Computers into WritingAll three institutes use classrooms at Michigan Tech Classrooms (CIWIC-AIC), which provides a space and the state-of-the-art computer facility, the Center for participants to explore the thoughtful integration for Computer-Assisted Language Instruction (CCLI). of technology in composition and other classrooms All participants receive three semester-hours of gradu-by examining the value of such tools as electronic ate credit. Participants need have no previous com-conferencing, text and visual composition software, puter knowledge; individualized instruction will be print and Web design, digital video, and sound edit-provided. Participants from all educational levels are ing, as well as technology-enhanced assignment de-encouraged to attend. For more information and regis-sign and lab management strategies; tration materials, visit our Web site at http://www.hu

2. .mtu.edu/ciwic, or contact Cheryl E. Ball by email at
1. Integrating New Media into Writing Classrooms ceball@mtu.edu, by phone at 906-487-3272 (office), (CIWIC-NM), whose participants learn graphics or 906-487-2582 (lab).

Zen tutoring: Unlocking the mind

A Zen approach to tutoring can help tutors be more creative and more ful-filled. When we are silent, when we are paying attention, we can be more responsive to our students. When deal-ing with a challenging tutorial session, rather than trying to figure things out rationally, I try to follow the advice of the following koan: “To know what is happening, relax and do not try to fig-ure things out. Listen quietly, be calm, and use reflection.”

Listen Quietly

All effective tutors practice active listening, and writing center literature is full of helpful guidance in this re-spect. What does Zen offer us in terms of listening? To listen, one must be si-lent. Being silent means more than simply not talking. It also means being present in the moment, being mindful, being fully engaged. Mary Rose O’Reilley talks about this quality of active presence in her essay, “Silence and Slow Time: Pedagogies from Inner Space.” O’Reilley says, “Perfect NOTHING has a quality of PRES-ENCE, like certain rests in music. The secret is to be there and not someplace else, and if you are really present, the right action will follow. If [one is] not there, all the fixes [one] know[s] will be the wrong fixes” (142). O’Reilley’s perspective provides insight for tutors. If we are present in the way she de-scribes, a variety of approaches can be successful. If students detect that we are engaged (and believe me, they can tell), their own degree of investment increases as well.

Active presence is also crucial while we are reading a student’s text. We need to silence the chatter in our minds, silence the need to come up with a quick fix or a pithy response. In-stead, to provide a meaningful, en-gaged response, we need to read the words the students have written, ask them questions that are appropriate, then listen to their responses. Writers often know what they need to do to re-vise their texts; tutors help make them aware of their own intuitive knowl-edge.

Our degree of engagement is appar-ent to our students. Ralph Waldo Emerson, in his treatise on “Behavior” asserted “When the eyes say one thing, and the tongue another, a practiced man relies on the language of the first.” Remaining in the moment—en-gaged with this student at this time in this room on this day—helps our minds, eyes, and tongues remain con-sistent with one another. And students can tell the difference.

Be Calm

It is often difficult to be calm in a writing center. We face pressures from faculty and students, including the teacher’s urgent need for results (“my student is coming to the writing center, and her writing isn’t getting any bet-ter!”) and the student’s urgent need for immediate service (“my paper is due in one hour; I need to see a tutor now!”). Also, it can be difficult to focus on the moment when several things are hap-pening at once. Perhaps the phone is ringing, one student is waiting at the door to ask a question, you have an ap-pointment with a professor in half an hour, and you still need to finish read-ing a student’s draft and offer a mean-ingful response to it. So, how can you be calm? I find that a famous Zen story offers some insight into facing this sort of deluge of demands:

Just as daily domestic tasks such as washing dishes help one practice mind-fulness, the daily tasks of tutoring do so as well. Tutoring includes a series of repetitive activities, such as asking students to sign in, filling out paper-work, reading a writer’s draft, and pro-viding meaningful feedback. Remain-ing mindful while doing these tasks is a challenge, since any repetitive task can cause the mind to drift into autopi-lot. With the mind on autopilot, one is more likely to burn out. With the mind on autopilot, daily tasks can seem meaningless and boring. With the mind on autopilot, not only can tutors be perceived as uncaring, but sometimes, tutors burn out because they do stop caring. I find that when I remain mind-ful, I enjoy my work more: I finish chores more productively and I look forward to meeting each student.

As Bob Tremmel’s book, Zen and the Practice of Teaching English, as-serts, we have to take care of our-selves, so that we can help others (60, 61). Eat well, sleep well, exercise, breathe. . . . All tutors face multiple challenges, challenges that may in-clude papers of our own to write, as well as personal responsibilities. And as conscientious tutors, we want to do everything we can to help our students do their best work. The challenges we face are ongoing: no wonder so many of us feel stressed. This type of stress feeds on itself, too. When I walk in to a room full of colleagues, teachers and tutors who are comparing workloads, the anxiety is palpable. I have to re-mind myself that I am only human, that with 24 hours in a day, I have to leave myself time to take care of the needs of my body and soul. It is espe-cially crucial for those of us who work with people to take care of ourselves. If we do, the time we spend tutoring will be more productive, less harried, and more fulfilling. Time is richer when we are calm.

Use Reflection

Readers may wonder “What makes Zen tutoring different from what we do already?” Perhaps nothing, perhaps ev-erything. A recent article by Pat Belanoff, “Silence: Reflection, Lit-eracy, Learning, and Teaching” offers insight into the Western model of re-flection, what might also be termed “contemplative rumination” (408). I find Belanoff’s essay insightful, but it is important to realize that from a Zen perspective, reflection is something else.

Unlike the traditional western model of studying, thinking, then thinking some more, until eventually arriving at “truth,” in Zen, reflection emphasizes turning off the mind, allowing fresh in-sight to reveal itself. Most writers ex-perience those moments of insight, when all the fuzzy thoughts line them-selves up into new, fresh arrangements. As tutors, we can also benefit from turning off our rational minds, so that our reflective insight can come through.

Students who visit the writing center range from “honor students” to “novice learners.” If we listen, pay attention, see past the labels (including those like “honor student” or “novice learner”), we can help students achieve their po-tential. A Zen perspective, in its illogi-cal nature, helps us help students tran-scend the stale “logical” ways of perceiving themselves: “I’m an engi-neer, so I can’t be creative” or “I’m an ‘A’ student, so I don’t have any room for improvement” or “I can’t be a good writer because I’ve never gotten good grades.”

Consider this analogy, based on my reading of Suzuki’s Introduction to Zen. In Zen, enlightenment (satori) is often represented by the moon. Zen masters cannot deliver the moon to their students, but they can point a fin-ger, showing the way to the moon— enlightenment. In the same way, even though English teachers know how to write (we have the moon), we can’t simply give this ability to our students; all we can do is offer suggestions and try to point students in the right direc-tion. Understanding how to write, like achieving enlightenment, is something that we have to attain for ourselves (and, using beginner’s mind, continue to seek). Ultimately, we teach our-selves; Zen merely points the way.

Works Cited Belanoff, Pat. “Silence: Reflection, Literacy, Learning, and Teaching.”

Emerson, Ralph. “Behavior.” from The Conduct of Life, 1860. <www.emersoncentral.col/ behavior.htm> 5 March 2002.

Ford, Debbie. The Dark Side of the Light Chasers. New York: Riverhead, 1998.

Kabat-Zinn, Jon. Wherever You Go, There You Are: Mindfulness Meditation in Everyday Life. Hyperion, 1995.

Moffitt, Phillip. “When the Student Is Ready.” Yoga Journal April 2002: 61-69.

O’Reilley, Mary Rose. “Silence and Slow Time: Pedagogies from Inner Space.” Pre-Text: A Journal of Rhetorical Theory 11.1-2 (1990): 133-43.

The volunteer factor: Using faculty from outside the English department to

staff a writing center

When scouring the academic land-scape for qualified staff, most writing center directors look instinctively to-ward the nearest English department. The reason for this reflex action is fairly self-evident. Whether one is searching for faculty or peer writing tutors, it makes sense to mine the most potentially productive resource; and denizens of English departments are guaranteed to possess at least the mini-mal credentials. What happens, how-ever, if this resource is unavailable or, at best, inadequate to one’s needs? At the beginning of the 2001-2002 school year, as the newly appointed Coordina-tor of the Writing Center at the Univer-sity of Wisconsin-Rock County, I found myself in just such a predica-ment.

UW-Rock County (one of 13 two-year “colleges” in the University of Wisconsin System) was established in 1965 and had been without a tutorial facility for most of its existence. Though enrollment had hovered around one thousand for the past few years, only the 125 students enrolled the TRIO Program had access to tuto-rial assistance (TRIO is a federally funded learning support program that provides academic and advising ser-vices to first generation, low income, and physically or learning disabled stu-dents). U-Rock, as our campus is gen-erally known, offers the associate’s de-gree and prepares students to transfer to a four-year college, typically one of the campuses in the University of Wis-consin System.

Fall of 2000 saw the appointment of a new dean, who made the establish-ment of an all-campus tutorial facil-ity—designated the Learning Support Center—one of her top priorities. The main emphasis would be on math and writing, though tutoring in other fields—e.g., physics, biology, Span-ish—would be offered on a limited ba-sis as need arose. After revenues were secured to fund positions for a director (25% FTE) and a writing center coor-dinator (25% FTE), to renovate a class-room, and to purchase the basic fur-nishings and equipment, I was charged with the task of finding qualified staff. Since U-Rock’s students generally stay for only two years before graduating or transferring, I did not have the option of looking to the usual reservoir of tal-ent for peer tutors—upperclassmen or graduate students—and no funds had been allocated to hire professional staff.

Faced with these challenges, I decided to test the “volunteer spirit” of the U-Rock faculty. In late August, at our all-campus meeting held one week before classes began, I made a plea to my col-leagues, many of whom had voiced their strong support for the creation of the Learning Support Center, asking them to serve as volunteer tutors in the Writing Center. I reminded them (dip-lomatically) that many of them had complained to me and other members of the English Department for some time about the low quality of student writing skills and suggested that they now had the opportunity to help rectify this deplorable state of affairs. The re-sponse was enthusiastic and over-whelming. Sixteen faculty and staff volunteered to tutor at least one hour per week in the Writing Center. These individuals represented a broad spec-trum of academic disciplines: anthro-pology, biology, chemistry, communi-cation arts, French, history, psychology, philosophy, sociology, and theater. In addition, two staff members—our campus’ head librarian, who has a master’s degree in English and an employee in the University’s public relations office, who has a master’s degree in journalism—offered their services. (Before broadening my appeal to the faculty as a whole, I had recruited the four full-time members of the U-Rock English Department, whose support I hoped would encour-age their colleagues in other depart-ments to join the cause.) The schedule was completed by the 12 hours per week that I would tutor as part of my position as program coordinator. The Writing Center was now able to offer the services of a highly qualified staff at times that would accommodate the greatest number of users.

Though all the faculty volunteers held graduate degrees (nearly all held doctorates), required formal writing assignments in their classes, and were highly competent writers themselves, not everyone was familiar with the day-to-day functioning of a writing center, and several had expressed a desire for training in the “nuts and bolts” of tutoring, e.g., how to assess and prioritize problems in student papers, how to establish rapport with students, how to practice the basic “etiquette” of tutoring, etc. To address these con-cerns, I held an hour-long workshop in which we examined copies of student papers exhibiting a broad range of writing problems and engaged in several role-playing scenarios designed to illustrate ways of establishing a friendly, productive working relation-ship with students. I also conducted a brief review of the Writing Center’s procedures, such as record keeping and scheduling. Throughout the semester, as often as my schedule allowed, I observed the faculty volunteers as they conducted tutoring sessions, made myself available to answer questions and address concerns, arranged individual meetings with faculty to discuss and assess their experiences as tutors, and administered a written evaluation of the Writing Center’s services to tutors and students at the end of the semester.

Staffing U-Rock’s Writing Center with professional volunteers has proved a beneficial and enlightening experience for all involved. For many of the professional tutors, the opportunity to see students engaged in the writing process has been a revelation. Unlike composition instructors, who often shepherd students through each stage of the writing process—brainstorming, drafting, revising, and editing—most faculty who require written assign-ments see only the finished product. The assumption operating here—often implied, sometimes expressed—is that “teaching writing” is the proper domain of the composition staff. Working with students who had completed their composition requirement convinced most of the volunteers that college students need to work on developing their writing skills well beyond the one or two comp courses they take as freshmen. In his book Making the Most of College, Richard Light reports, “Of all skills students say they want to strengthen, writing is mentioned . . . more than any other” (54). It is no exaggeration to say that all the faculty volunteers from outside the English Department have come to realize that they must share the responsibility for helping students become effective writers, both in the Writing Center and in their own classrooms.

The policy of using faculty volun-teers as tutors in U-Rock’s Writing Center was born of necessity but con-tinues because it has been shown to pay dividends for students and in-structors alike. (One measure of our success is that all the faculty tutors who volunteered at the beginning of the school year returned for spring se-mester, along with two new recruits.) Perhaps the most gratifying (and un-anticipated) result of this experience is the beginning of a grassroots com-mitment to writing across the curricu-lum, whereby “faculty mutually rec-ognize and encourage each other’s efforts to develop their students’ writ-ing skills” (Kunka 5). Even writing centers that are already staffed by peer tutors and/or professional staff from the English department could benefit by expanding their traditional bound-aries to embrace the talent lying just beyond their doors.

Gary L. Kriewald University of Wisconsin-Rock County Janesville, WI

Light, Richard J. Making the Most of College: Students Speak Their Minds. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2001.

Kunka, Jennifer Liethen. “Beyond the Writing Lab: Transporting Workshops Across the Curricu-lum.” Writing Lab Newsletter 27.1 (September 2002): 5-7.

As our OWLs (Online Writing Labs) grow and add materials, you may want to let the rest of us know about some of your materials that may not be on other OWLs. For example, if you have a page on Chicago Manual style (that many of us do not have) or “audience awareness” or “forming a topic sen-tence” or “visual literacy” or “tutoring online” or a syllabus for a training course or another such topic that cov-ers areas not likely to be found on most OWLs, e-mail the URL and title or de-scription to harrism@cc.purdue.edu. We’ll list these in future issues of the newsletter.

THEW RITING LAB

NEWSLETTER

Muriel Harris, editor Department of English Purdue University 1356 Heavilon Hall West Lafayette, IN 47907-1356

Address Service Requested