I damn near jumped out of my seat in excitement when Dornan et. al. focused the majority of chapter 3 on a subject so near and dear to my world and heart: the individual writing conference/consultation of the writing workshop. From Dornan et. al. and Flaubert I'd like to take some time to explore the idea of "textual ownership" as it relates to non-verbal communications and strategic questioning strategies within the context of my own experience as a writing consultant. With these concepts in mind, the best advice that I feel as though I can impart to anyone who takes the time to read this blog entry is that like your mother has always said, "Actions speak louder than words… Buster!"
In her article "Whose Text is it?" Katharine Sakenfeld gives us a good way to think about this idea of "textual ownership" by being rather literal as she discusses "Who" specifically claims a stake in a particular text's value and creation:
"The question "Whose text?" as I am posing it has two principal dimensions: first, who claims a particular text as important; and, second, how are competing interpretive claims to be negotiated when more than one group has a stake in the same text" (6).
Through this statement, Sakenfeld points out an unavoidable tendency for us English teachers who define ourselves not only by our perceived understanding of our discipline, but by our own proficiency with displaying our competences via writing. In other words, because we teach and highly value the knowledge regarding content AND the writing process, we feel as though our students' work is a reflection of our own work AND our very selves. As a result, the answer to Sakenfeld's question of "whose text is it?" becomes all but unanswerable. Although we are aware that students' writing is a product of their own understanding, research, work, and very identities, we still perceive a very large stake of our own in their writing. The reality is this: when it comes down to sitting face-to-face with a student for the individualized writing conference/consultation, there are indeed interpretive claims that need to be negotiated as more than one group (student AND teacher) perceive a large stake in the same text. Although we will try to tell ourselves "these are the students' ideas, they put in the work, this is their chance to prove their understanding," the urge to claim our stake in students' texts will always influence both what we DO, as well as what we SAY. Although the example of the teacher physically cutting up the student's paper and rearranging it as discussed by Dornan et. al. is an extreme example of "stake claiming," the students' ownership of their work can be equally trumped in much more subtle and institutionalized ways. As we sit eye-to-eye with our students during the writing conference/consultation, we need to be conscious of how our non-verbal actions, as well as what we say and the questions that we pose, influence students' perceived senses of ownership with their writing.
Since I have started teaching at the center for writing, I have been urged to study and give much thought to how the physical environment affords and influences students' senses of ownership with their writing. Although I feel as though Flaubert adequately problematized what the environment itself affords to writing instruction/textual ownership (e.g. layout of the room, noise levels, type of, location, and accessibility of materials), I feel as though the non-verbal, physical exchanges between teacher and student/consultant and student require similar attention. Although the following questions might sound trivial, humor me by considering how they might influence a student's sense of ownership over the written piece placed between them and the teacher:
Do you sit across from the student, or side by side? Do you keep the paper in front of the student, in front of you, or in the middle? Do you write on the paper? Do you even touch the paper? Do you read the paper silently, or read it out loud? Do you have the student read the paper out loud, or do you take turns, switching back and forth?
Again, although you might feel as though these questions seem trivial, what kind of message are you sending if you immediately grab the paper, slide it over to your end of the table, immediately start underlining, crossing out, and drawing lines, keep it out of the student's view, and so on? Do you think that the student's perceived level of ownership with this piece could be compromised? Although common sense, theory, and my experience working with countless students yield a resounding "Yes!" I still of course have no idea how non-verbal communication exactly influences the face-to-face conference/consultation. And an even larger catch, all individuals respond differently to different types of non-verbal communications! Overall, as part of the writing workshop, we must divide our attention between and teach every one of our students. Because we might only have a few minutes each day to devote to each student, our non-verbal communication is a very large variable that needs to be considered and practiced to ensure that students perceive their writing as truly theirs, not ours.
Similarly, students' perceived senses of ownership with their writing can also be influenced by the questions that we pose. In chapter three of their text, Dornan et. al. provide the reader with a long list of questions to help generate thought, consider new possibilities, and generate overall discussion with students during the face-to-face writing conference/consultation. However, asking the right questions is a much more difficult task than you can imagine. Even with the best intentions, we as teachers can be much more directive with our questions than we would otherwise like. Although there are times when it is our job to in fact be directive, the questions we ask have the power to greatly influence students' perceived senses of ownership with their writing. In my opinion, Flaubert's recommendation of having her student try her story as a poem to fix her writer's block is a questionable course of action. Would the student have come up with this idea/any semblance of it on their own? Is this "coaching" or directing? Is this the teacher's idealized vision of the composition, or is this the direction the student wants it to go in? As you can imagine, I feel that there is a fine line between relying on your expert knowledge as a teacher to coach, and manipulating a question to direct a student to do what you want them to do,
not what they want. Again, it will be our job in writing workshop to be expert question askers. Therefore, we need to learn to be as conscious as possible about how our questions have the power to influence students' senses of ownership with their writing.
Additional Articles
"The Importance of Body Language in Tutoring"
-Another general, but interesting, discussion on body language and tutoring.
"Minimalist Tutoring: Making Students Do All The Work"
-This is an article I read during my professional development class during my first year working as a writing consultant. It is a VERY interesting discussion about being what Brooks calls the "Minimalist Tutor," placing as much work and ownership as possible into the hands of the student.
