|
|
|
|
Collaborative
Learning: Practices and Ideals in the Writing Center Writing Center practices have been shaped by an informal approach to teaching different from the classroom setting where teachers lecture and students take notes. Many writing tutors have adopted collaborative learning as their preferred teaching method. Collaborative learning can be defined as an educational environment where two people come together to work towards a common goal, each bringing what he or she knows of the subject and teaching it to the other, in turn learning what the other has to teach. In essence, collaborative learning forces both student and teacher to take on an active and equal role in the exchange of knowledge. In "Peer Tutoring and the Conversation of Mankind," Kenneth A. Bruffee defines collaborative learning as a process where "The tutee brings to the conversation knowledge of the subject to be written about and knowledge of the assignment. [And] The tutor brings to the conversation knowledge of the conventions of discourse and knowledge of standard written English" (213). A large component of collaborative learning is active learning, defined as a way for students to learn by using and shaping new knowledge with what they already know to better understand a concept. My focus in this essay is whether collaborative learning is affected by the age of the tutor. I've based my research on my initial perception that a student would be more willing to see a tutor closer to his or her age as an equal. Therefore the student coming into the tutorial would be more willing to act as an equal, as opposed to a subordinate where he or she sits and absorbs what a tutor has to teach. In trying to prove my point, I selected two areas of focus: student behavior in tutorial sessions with both regular consultants and peer tutors, and tutor approaches and techniques in teaching. I have observed one overarching impression about students coming into the Writing Center: all of them are there to get help with their writing. It is an obvious statement but it provides a way of looking at student mentality before they sit down for a tutorial. First of all, students generally recognize or at least have been told that they do need help. Second, they come for help because they believe the writing center is capable of providing the guidance they need, or else making the effort to show up would be considered pointless. In this case, students will see themselves as people who are looking for assistance with their writing, which puts them in a position very much like the student in the traditional classroom setting. This in turn affects the way they react towards tutors. Students I've observed have seen the tutor as a person who can help them with their problems, whether it was a peer tutor or a regular tutor. In other words, students didn't seem to be affected by the age of their tutors. I believe student mentality is influenced here by the fact that the tutor, no matter what age, is a staff member at the Writing Center and therefore must have sufficient knowledge in writing. So, if student perception is constant despite the maturity of the tutor, then the variable I must examine closer is the tutor. Collaborative learning in the Writing Center upholds Bruffee's definition as students and tutors work together to achieve the singular goal of learning and teaching the mechanics of writing. Most tutors start the consultation by asking what the students need. The students in turn provide an explanation of the problem either with written work, an assignment, a verbal explanation or a combination of the three. Once the problem has been identified, tutors begin their work. A common problem students want to address in tutorials is what to revise or add to their papers. In one tutorial with a more experienced tutor, a student came in with a paper marked by his professor. The student had to revise and add two more pages to his essay. However, the teacher comments and the amount of red ink on the paper overwhelmed and frustrated him into thinking there was no hope to meet the professor's requirements. The tutor then, looked over the paper, mainly at the teacher comments. After getting an understanding of where the professor thought the student had problems, the tutor began to talk to the student about his paper. The conversation was relaxed and the student was asked to describe his thesis and the main points in the paper. Throughout the tutorial, the tutor would ask the student to expand on an idea and periodically pointed to places in his essay where he could integrate those new ideas. A peer tutor took a similar route when a student went into the Writing Center for help on expanding generalities in his paper. After briefly looking through the paper, the peer tutor went directly to the teacher comments and the problematic areas in the essay. The student tended to summarize the meanings of quotes, instead of analyzing them. So the tutor asked the student to break down the meanings in the quote. She then asked how he could apply his explanation to his thesis. The two went throughout the whole paper in this fashion. Both the peer tutor and the regular tutor stressed the importance of the student explaining his work. The tutors acted as prompts to get the students to talk about their own papers, and get involved in understanding the problem. In observing tutorials, I have found that most tutors involve the student in the process, instead of just giving out instructions. Tutoring philosophies in the Writing Center are also fairly consistent among the staff. When asked about their approach towards tutoring, consultants, new and experienced, expressed an emphasis on getting the students to communicate. One of the regular tutors believed in working with a student's views and outlook on writing to get the student to understand and correct his/her own mistakes. Another tutor said that consultants act as facilitators and activators, helping students develop the ability to help themselves. Peer tutors see tutoring in the same way. One particular peer tutor stated that a good tutorial for him is when a student participates and takes notes during the tutorial. He said that he tended to force students to take an interest and contribute to the session. In both cases, students must participate by asking and answering questions. They must have sufficient knowledge of the writing topic and their own papers to be able to apply the new information that the tutor presented. Tutors, on the other hand, must know how to apply what they know in the context of the information the students provide. Both regular tutors and peer tutors adopt this method of teaching in their tutorials. They gather information from the students, give advice and then ask the students to use that advice to help themselves. There are instances where collaborative learning does not work. However, the cause does not seem to be the tutor's fault or any student doubt about the tutor's capabilities. In student response data, there is no difference in student ratings of consultant competency. More than 60 percent of students have rated writing knowledge for both peer tutors and regular tutors as SA. Usually failure to maintain a collaborative environment stem from students who are resistant to the tutoring session or lack the sufficient knowledge about their own papers and assignments to participate. Consequently, I conclude
that collaborative learning in the Writing Center is a product of a tutor's
teaching philosophy, not a student's view of the tutor. Collaboration
does not depend on whether a student sees the tutor as an equal or not
because the student, by going in for help already perceives himself/herself
as someone who needs advice. Therefore, it is the tutor who
initiates and maintains a collaborative environment. A tutor who
holds that as the ideal learning process will stimulate a student in ways
that he/she will respond and learn according to the principles of collaboration
and active learning. Through studying different methods and ideologies,
peer tutors come to the same conclusion as their predecessors: student
involvement in the learning process is integral. Accordingly, peer
tutors and regular tutors adjust their practices to accommodate more collaboration
so that students may fully interact in the learning process. Works Cited Bruffee, Kenneth. "Peer Tutoring and the 'Conversation of Mankind.'" Writing Centers: Theory and Administration. Urbana, IL: NCTE, 1984. 3-15. Lunsford, Andrea. "Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of the Writing Center." The St. Martin's Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. Ed. Christina Murphy and Steve Sherwood. Boston, New York: Bedford, St. Martin, 1995. 36-42. McClure, Michael F. "Collaborative Learning: Teacher's Game or Student's Game?" English Journal. February 1990: 66-68. Rubin, Lois, Catherine Hebert. "Model for Active Learning: Collaborative Peer Teaching." College Teaching. 46 (1998): 26-32. Ryan, Leigh. The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors. Boston, New York: Bedford, St. Martins, 2002. Note: I've also used anonymous observations of tutoring sessions with peer tutors and regular tutors, along with interviews for this essay.
webmaster:
writecen@pitt.edu. |
|
|
|
| Department
of English University of Pittsburgh |
Home • Links • CT • Development • WCSG • Online • Café • Peer Tutors • Outreach • Other Centers |