Tutors Theorizing the Writing Center: Whose Theory Is It, Anyway?

by Marcy Trianosky
 

Central to the theorizing that is current in writing center scholarship is the concept of collaboration between tutors and students. Because of the overarching framework of social constructivism that currently drives theorizing in a multitude of disciplines—e.g., composition, literature, history, sociology, anthropology—it is not surprising that writing center scholars also use this framework to question the kind of knowledge that tutors create in tutorial sessions (see Grimm 1999, Murphy 1994, Carino 1995, Hobson 1994). Are tutors simply replicating the hierarchical paradigms of knowledge construction in which academia seems to be fully invested? Or are they capable of “thinking outside the box” because they are peers rather than teachers?

My interest in how tutors theorize their practice in the writing center and how the writing center literature theorizes itself has been central to my work as a writing center director for the past 10 years. The small liberal arts college where I teach and direct the writing center has a staff of all-female undergraduate tutors, and I am constantly surprised by their fresh take on writing center theory and practice. They are bright and they question everything. Since this is exactly what a women’s college should be teaching young women to do, I encourage that stance in our writing center, and especially in the course tutors are required to take with me before they begin tutoring. In this paper, I will examine tutors’ journal responses written during a tutor training class held in the Fall of 2003. In these responses, tutors respond directly to articles which are often considered central to understanding the concepts of collaboration, control, socially constructed knowledge, and the writing center as a site of resistance--concepts upon which writing center theory is often built. An important aspect of these journals is that they are dialogic. That is, they are entered on a Blackboard discussion forum that allows each tutor to read the other tutors’ journals and respond to them. The tutors’ responses seem to reveal a gap between what tutors understand about their own tutorial practices and what theorists believe to be true. In examining the tutors’ responses, I find that theorists sometimes recast practice to fit their theoretical constructs; as a result, tutors do not always see the same connections between theory and practice that theorists do. By listening to tutors’ voices as they critique writing center theory, I believe we can better understand how to use theory as a jumping off place for tutor training, rather than as an ending point. In addition, the tutors’ analyses can help us to formulate more effective methodology for writing center research, so that theory can be built from actual tutorial practices, rather than trying to fit practice into preconceived notions of theory.

Critiquing the Peer/Tutor Relationship

John Trimbur’s (1987) article, “ Peer Tutoring: A Contradiction in Terms?” argues that there is an inherent tension for a tutor who wishes to maintain the status of a peer in a writing center tutorial. Trimbur contends that “[t]utors’ initial standards for defining the aims and evaluating the results of tutoring are predictably conventional ones, informed by the prevailing reward structure that makes grades the central measure of success in higher education” (p. 22). In other words, Trimbur believes that because tutors have learned how to achieve success in academia, they will naturally gravitate towards replicating these practices within the tutorial. Trimbur contends that as a result tutors may not recognize students’ need for more complex responses to their papers, because tutors will simply try to help students get good grades. He argues for tutor training that emphasizes “the long-term development of a tutee’s writing ability” (Trimbur, p. 22) as a way of counteracting this tendency in tutors. Trimbur’s article is frequently cited in writing center literature as having captured a seemingly important contradiction in writing center practice: How can tutors act as true collaborators, true peers, if they have been “programmed” to reproduce writing that reflects the hierarchical standards of academia?

In their responses to Trimbur’s (1987) article, the writing center tutors contend that Trimbur and other theorists like him have over-reacted to the idea that collaboration is problematized by tutors who have learned how to succeed in academia. For the tutors, the argument is based on a false dichotomy; they see all students, including themselves, as learners, and do not acknowledge the kind of privileged status that Trimbur assigns to them. One tutor responds by saying, “while ‘peer’ and ‘tutor’ may remain a contradiction in terms, . . . everyone is learning all the time, and everyone needs to acknowledge that.” By focusing on how students and tutors are alike rather than different, this tutor identifies a key concept about how tutors see themselves that Trimbur seems to have misrepresented. The tutors’ responses reveal them to be much more egalitarian about their own position within the academy, and more humble about what they know, than what Trimbur would have us believe. Another tutor confirms this by saying, “I feel that tutoring is a learning experience for both the tutor and the tutee.” Sarcastically, another tutor suggests that Trimbur just hasn’t experienced a truly collaborative writing center: “I think John Trimbur should have visited our Writing Center once or twice. . . I think it’s natural for people to ‘tutor’ each other. No one is good at everything, so it seems like commonsense to seek out someone with natural aptitudes and ask for their help.” Unlike the tutors in Trimbur’s article, who say they expect to “save the English language from apparently inevitable decline” (Trimbur, p. 21), my tutors take a much more realistic view of their goals. As one tutor remarks, “From what I’ve observed and read, tutoring is the act of listening to a student work out her own train of thought.” This tutor continues by acknowledging that some special aptitudes may be needed by tutors, but she downplays the privileged status of that knowledge: “Sometimes [tutoring] requires an intuitive knowledge of the right question to ask. Well,  I wasn’t born this damn nosey for nothing.” This same tutor resents Trimbur’s implication that tutors cannot see beyond the good grades they receive to a more complex view of the purposes of the tutorial:  “The article would have it that I am so petted and spoiled by my teachers that I may feel threatened by improving other writers. . . I know for certain that I am not the best writer in my age group. . . .” Finally, this tutor reveals a much more practical stance towards tutoring than what Trimbur identifies for his tutors: “The difference between talking to us and talking to a friend is that we get paid to listen and think with our tutees, whereas your friend may become distracted by the next open can of Pabst.” While this comment reveals a tongue-in-cheek attitude about tutoring-for-pay, it also reminds us that these tutors see themselves as listeners and thinkers, not privileged peers. Trimbur’s analysis is simply not complex enough for these tutors.

Writing Centers as Sites of Resistance?

Another concept that tutors reject is writing centers as sites of resistance to the academic hierarchy and tutors as crusaders in the cause. This idea that writing centers should function to create new paradigms of learning and teaching because the academic structure is essentially flawed is common to many of the theorists that the tutors read during the Fall 2003 training class (Trimbur 1987, Riley 1994, Grimm 1999 ). But this seems to be a battle created by and for theorists and writing center directors. Tutors do not see the academy as evil, although they recognize its limitations.

Terence Riley (1994), in “The Unpromising Future of Writing Centers, ” is one of the theorists who articulates this stance by dichotomizing theory vs. practice in the writing center. Riley argues that theorizing has been the undoing of American literature, literary theory, and composition studies, and that theorizing will be the undoing of writing centers as well, moving us away from practice to abstractions. He predicts the demise of writing centers that attempt to “play the hierarchical game and maintain the project of countering the hierarchy,”  claiming that the inevitable result will be “a series of compromises in which the original packet of revolutionary energy is tapped off into academic business as usual” (Riley, 1994, p. 21). My tutors responded negatively to Riley’s idea that academia is flawed and writing centers will inevitably be sucked into the maelstrom. One tutor said,

Riley. . . made me nervous. It seemed like he had this vision of impending writing center doom going on. That we (the writing centers) are the good guys and the institutions of higher education and mass academia are the bad buys. . . I admit that education’s got its problems, but it’s also got a lot of good things going for it too, doesn’t it? And, if it works, why should it be such a terrible thing that we (writing centers) try somewhat to assimilate ourselves to fit in? Riley makes us sound like daredevils and rebels on the outskirts. Maybe we are, but I don’t see us as quite as “off’ as I think he portrays us.

The inflated rhetoric that Riley engages in usually does not convince the tutors, although they are sufficiently young and inexperienced that they still doubt their own opinions. The tutor who wrote the above comments ends her journal by saying, “Maybe I’m just being an uninformed, uneducated, untheorized optimist here, though.” However, other tutors added their journals later and agreed with her stance. One of them said, “I just don’t feel [our] writing center . . . is marginalized or not seen as a legitimate academic center. . . for the most part I think we are seen as an integral part of [the institution] and that we play an important role.” Another tutor wonders where the self-doubts come from about the future of  writing centers that Riley expresses:

I think that a lot of the dilemmas that writing centers have to deal with may be somewhat self imposed in that some of these essays I’ve read sound as if writing centers are searching for a resolution to collaborative/peer tutoring that will make everybody happy. . . I’ve come to the conclusion that the best way to achieve the respect and legitimacy that so many writing centers desire is to just do their jobs and let their success speak for them.

In this response, this tutor acknowledges the institutional context that may be driving theorists’ conceptions of writing center work, which I believe is a very perceptive response. The tutors probably picked up this idea from their reading of Carino (1995), who acknowledges that “the institutional and political entanglements that mark most attempts at theorizing the writing center” (p. 127) may result in unrealistic claims for writing center achievements. Carino cites Karen Spear (1984), an early writing center theorist, who linked writing centers to the moral development of the students who use them: “The writing center can benefit society, ensuring that it will be composed of morally principled, responsible members” (cited in Carino, 1995, p. 127). Tutors respond very negatively to this role being thrust upon them: “WHOA! . . . saving the world and making people morally better, more productive members of society is NOT in my job description. . . I’m not on a mission here! (Well, I guess I am. . . but it’s certainly not a mission for world peace or something.)” It’s clear from this response that the tutors do not see their job as having the same political implications that theorists do. Are the theorists responding to their own context in a tenure-driven, hierarchical world, rather than to the context of the tutorial, which is a much more collaborative and personal atmosphere?

            Nancy Grimm’s (1999) Good Intentions: Writing Center Work for Postmodern Times takes a different stance than Riley (1994), calling for more theorizing rather than less. Yet, she also seems to be issuing a call to arms that tutors have difficulty engaging with. Grimm claims most institutions of higher education are based on a modernist framework, and that as a result “writing centers will be chronically undervalued because they are expected to mask contradictions or contain differences” (p. 3). In the closing sentence of her book, Grimm describes her purpose as “an invitation to reconsider the work of writing centers in higher education, to imagine a practice where social justice replaces pale versions of fairness”( p. 120). While no one would want to argue with the idea that “social justice” is a worthy goal, tutors find it difficult to understand why they should be the ones carrying this torch. One tutor comments on Grimm’s thesis:

I think Nancy Grimm makes a valid point when she states that “literacy practices are cultural rather than natural,” and that “we need to be much more aware of how culture works, making explicit that which we take for granted and articulating that which has always seemed ‘natural.’” I think it’s a great idea and it makes sense but I also worry that it borders on asking too much of writing center tutors and that it’s asking us to be little teachers. I think that in order to help a tutee understand the cultural rhyme and reason behind American English and to help them find ways in which to meet these cultural expectations, we’d have to know about the tutee’s background in order to understand where they’re coming from. We can’t possibly be expected to be familiar with the cultural background of every student that comes into the writing center and I also don’t think that we can be expected to explain to them how culture works.

This tutor captures what other tutors also state in their responses to Grimm. While the tutors agree with Grimm’s idea that academic literacy is “a set of cultural practices that carry cultural knowledge ideology and values,” they were not ready to agree that it is part of a tutor’s job to  communicate this to students and to be responsible for changing the institution’s ingrained practices. While Grimm’s arguments are not made with the same level of vitriolic intensity as Riley’s (1994), they still suggest a level of engagement for tutors that seems more appropriate for faculty in the classroom than for students in the writing center.

The Divorcing of Theory from Practice

In analyzing tutors’ journal responses, I was struck by their belief that theorists are divorced from the experience of tutoring and life in general. Their responses indicate that tutors believe theorists have mostly forgotten that to truly learn about tutoring you have to experience it. As a result, tutors assert that theorists create theories that may be relevant to academia but don’t connect to life in the writing center or life outside academia. Tutors see tutoring as messy and contextual. They understand tutoring as something that can’t be put in a box, that goes back and forth between collaboration and control. And they see life as messy, too. Writing center theorists, according to these tutors, seem to miss the point.

Pete Carino’s (1995) article,” Theorizing the writing center: An uneasy task,” pinpoints the source of this tension in describing the connection between theory and practice in the writing center, calling the polarization of these two terms “a false dichotomy” (p. 125). Carino identifies the same conflict that Trimbur (1987) and others discuss: “because [writing center] practice differs from classroom practice, it sees itself as a separate entity, often opposed to the classroom” (p . 125).  Carino (1995) further complicates the problems confronting writing center theorists by describing how theory must “define the center’s relationship to composition studies and. . . establish the center’s disciplinary status and place within the institution” (p. 125).

One tutor captures this tension between theory and practice quite succinctly in her journal, when she says: “A lot of this wishy-washiness and anxiety about being a good tutor and learning how to simultaneously be both ‘peer’ and ‘tutor’ to the people who come into the WC is going to get smoothed over by actually delving into the process and doing it.” Another tutor gives a similar perspectives in her journal:  “The knowledge that I pull away from [these] articles [is] pale in comparison to the knowledge that I derive from observing a tutor session. Everything that is learned from theory is all of a sudden pulled together when you’re actually in the middle of tutoring.”  The irony is inescapable here. Tutors are tutoring; theorists seem not to be. The tutors are having trouble with the kinds of polarized tensions that theorists are presenting; instead, they turn for understanding to the highly contextualized atmosphere of the tutorial itself, and the lessons they learn from each student and tutor that they observe.

            Tutors also had interesting responses to Kenneth Bruffee (1984), author of “Peer Tutoring and the ‘Conversation of Mankind.’” Bruffee’s article is one that is frequently cited in writing center literature. Hobson (1995) reflects the opinion of many writing center practitioners when he refers to Bruffee as the “synthesizer” of key ideas underlying writing center research. It is Bruffee, Hobson points out, who brings credibility to writing center theorizing by applying the ideas of diverse thinkers such as Clifford Geertz, Stanly Fish, Thomas Kuhn, Richard Rorty and Lev Vygotsky to his claim that the “conversation of mankind” is the source of human knowledge, with the further claim that “peer tutoring plays an important role in education [because it] provides a social context in which students can experience and practice the kinds of conversation that academic most value. . . intellectually involved, intellectually and substantively focused, and personally disinterested” (Bruffee, p. 210). As Carino (1995) points out, Bruffee “nearly seamlessly integrates writing center practice, classroom practice, composition theory and institutional concerns regarding academic writing” (p. 131), establishing an important theoretical foundation for discussions of social constructivism as applied to writing center practice.

            But these contributions of Bruffee’s (1984), which seem obvious to those of us in the writing center community, are not what tutors respond to. One tutor was unable to take the article seriously at all because of the sexualized metaphor that Bruffee uses when he compares collaboration to the sex act: “I don’t want to be one of those people who can consummate the ‘fertile wedding’ between the ‘bull’ and the ‘cow.’” This was particularly ironic given that our tutor class was taking place in the context of a women’s institution with no “bulls” to speak of in the student body. Needless to say, there was quite a bit of hilarity in the tutor training class when we discussed this point. Another tutor believed that Bruffee had missed an essential point about collaboration when he failed to discuss the context of a community in which true collaboration takes place:

I think probably the most important idea in this article is completely glossed over; that is, the idea that in order to truly impact a community you need to understand its dynamics. That’s the real reason peer tutoring eventually comes out ahead of other competing methods of alternative education. . . I feel like what’s in the article is pretty irrelevant. It provides a scholarly rationale for something professors might have reason to mistrust, students helping other students, but their mistrust is asinine. Peer tutoring is something that evolves as a function of a community, and therefore cannot be doubted as a working alternative to classroom learning.

Once again, the tutors have identified and responded to what they see as a gap between theorizing and application to the world of tutoring and daily academic life that they occupy. At the small, all-female institution where our writing center is situated, the sense of community that students establish with each other is central to the institution’s identity and to the successful functioning of the classroom and the writing center. Bruffee, according to these tutors, has missed that concept completely. Another tutor elaborates on this idea when she says,  

I’ve been brooding a lot recently about how little traditional education prepares us for being productive human beings. Human relationships are extremely collaborative, requiring the people engaged in them to pull their own weight so far as communication and emotional support goes. . . It’s an intuitive process where, often, it’s not clear who’s in the lead, if anyone is. . . The theory Bruffee lays out makes sense to me, but unless work and school relationships become as organic as interpersonal relationships, I can’t see where the bridge is. This conversation of mankind is one that shuts up as soon as you walk into a classroom or an office.

This tutor neatly summarizes what the other tutors have also tried to articulate: Academia and life (which the tutors define as composed of complex personal relationships) do not seem to be connected in the theorists’ schema.

Conclusions and Recommendations for Future Research

            In this brief analysis of tutor responses to scholarly writing center articles, we see the ways in which tutors can inform the thinking of theorists with regard to the peer/tutor relationship, the socially constructed idea of writing centers as sites of resistance, and the danger of divorcing theory from practice. Our willingness to listen to the tutors’ critique requires the same kind of willingness that teachers must exhibit in the classroom to learn from their students. Often directors (and teachers) find it difficult not to dismiss the critiques of tutors (and students) because their responses at times seem uninformed or under-theorized. But tutor training that allows this kind of critique is crucial to the development of agency in our tutors, so that they can develop their own opinions that are not merely replications of our own. This, then, is the first recommendation I would make based on this limited sampling of tutor opinions about writing center work. We must not force a theoretical paradigm onto tutors; this is not only unethical, it is counterproductive, since it prevents them from sincere and deep reflection on their tutoring practices. Instead, as writing center directors we should encourage tutors to critique the theories within the context of their tutorials. In this way, tutors can develop thoughtful, effective tutoring practices that respond to the context of tutoring within their own writing centers, and within their own institutions. One of the tutors said it best in her journal response: “I think we as tutors should engage with the theories that have been presented in journals by reevaluating ourselves and questioning theorists.” Tutors recognize the value of this activity, and are capable of thinking deeply about their work and the work of others. As one tutor said, “I think we should at least think about our position [at our institution]. We [the tutors of the writing center] are accepted now, but we are not entirely informed. Theory helps us give a frame to our actions and. . . how we should react to stimuli such as. . . [changes by the administration to] our pay scale. . . .” The tutor goes on to recognize the connection between personal theorizing and theorizing by the larger academic community: “We can have an individual framework (personal theory) for how these things should go, but there are larger theories at work from people who have had experience and can link their ideas back into a greater history.” By encouraging this kind of thinking, writing center directors allow tutors to do their own theory-building, and un-building.

The second recommendation I want to make pertains to writing center research methods. Writing center researchers should listen carefully to the claim that tutors make regarding the separation between theoretical constructs and the practical realities of the tutorial. Theorizing often seems to take place in isolation from the tutorial itself, and especially from the tutors’ self-analysis. As Hobson (1995) suggests, writing center theory should be connected to practice through “theoretical exploration grounded in the messy experience of writing center practice. . .  [as ] a potent way to resist the empty promises of an overarching writing center metatheory” (p. 8).

Several researchers have used methods that allow theory-building based on Hobson’s (1994) suggestions. Severino (1992) investigates collaboration and suggests “there is no one kind of collaboration, but collaborations, whose structures depend on the same features of situational and interpersonal dynamics as do the various writing processes” (p. 53) investigated in composition studies. Severino’s methodology involves video-taping tutoring sessions and analyzing tutors’ written transcripts of the sessions. Severino believes this type of analysis “helped [her] inductively identify key features of situational and interpersonal dynamics that affect the nature of collaboration” (p. 54). Gillam (1994) provides another method for analyzing tutorial sessions through her reconstruction of sessions using the journals of both tutors and students in response to sessions. Her goal is to “focus on the relationship between collaborative learning theory and peer tutoring practice” (p. 41). However, Gillam does not link this analysis to transcripts of the sessions, limiting the usefulness of her conclusions. Cogie (2001) returns to the methodology used by Severino by analyzing tutorial discourse through session transcripts, to show how the dialogue between tutors and students reveals power relationships. She emphasizes “the tensions inherent in collaborative writing-center work,” claiming that “The way the tutor and student deal with. . . [the conflicting roles of a peer tutor] help determine the location of power and the nature of learning in their collaborative dance” (p. 37).

While these models of writing center research stay close to the source of knowledge production (the tutor talk that takes place in the tutorial), not enough of this kind of research is being done. The writing center field needs more researchers who conduct detailed discourse analyses of sessions, and who encourage tutors to analyze their own sessions, through journals as well as transcript analysis.  This last point is particularly important. The tutors themselves need to be encouraged to question and to theorize; writing center directors should not always be the ones drawing the conclusions. Writing center theories can then be built on actual practices as theorized by the tutors themselves, not on the imaginary ideas that directors and dis-engaged researchers have about what tutorial practices are like.

References

Bruffee, K. (1984). Peer tutoring and the ‘Conversation of Mankind.’ In G. Olson (Ed.), Writing centers: Theory and administration (pp. 3-15).  Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers.

Carino, P. (1995). Theorizing the writing center: An uneasy task. Dialogue: A Journal for Writing Specialists, 2(1), 23-27.

Cogie, J.  (2001). Peer Tutoring: Keeping the contradiction productive. In J. Nelson and K. Evertz (Eds.), The politics of writing centers (pp. 37-49). Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Boynton/Cook.

Gillam, A. (1994).  Collaborative learning theory and peer tutoring practice. In J.A. Mullin and R. Wallace (Eds.), Intersections: Theory-practice in the writing center (pp. 39-53).   Urbana, IL: National Council of Teachers of English.

Grimm, N. M. (1999). Good intentions: Writing center work for postmodern times. Portsmouth, NH: Boynton/Cook.

Hobson, E. (1994). Writing center practice often counters its theory. So what? In  J. A. Mullin and R. Wallace (Eds.), Intersections: Theory-practice in the writing center (pp. 1-10). Urbana, IL:  National Council of Teachers of English.

Murphy, C. (1994). The writing center and social constructionist theory. In J. A. Mullin and R. Wallace (Eds.), Intersections: Theory-practice in the writing center (pp. 25-38).  Urbana, IL:  National Council of Teachers of English.

Riley, T. (1994). The unpromising future of writing centers. Writing Center Journal, 15(1), 20-34. 

Severino, C. (1992).  Rhetorically analyzing collaboration(s). The Writing Center Journal, 13(1), 53-64.

Trimbur, J. (1987).  Peer tutoring: A contradiction in terms? The Writing Center Journal, 7(2), 21-28.

Home | About the Journal | Current Issue | Submission Guidelines | Contact the Editors |Back Issues