Coleman 1
Kelly Coleman
Writing Center Internship
Geeta Kothari & Jean Grace
April 20, 2005
A Tutor’s Task : Better Writing or Better Writers
When I started as a tutor, I was not exactly sure what went on in a tutoring session. In the dictionary, “tutor” is defined as “a private instructor, especially one who gives additional or remedial instruction.” According to the definition, my job at the
Writing Center would be to give extra instruction. In my opinion, this definition leaves something to be desired. First, what exactly constitutes additional instruction? Second, there is the use of the word “remedial.” Even the dictionary is pigeonholing the Writing
Center into a fix-it-shop. I would like to think that the Writing Center is for more than curing bad writers, so I turned to a different definition of what my job would be at the
Writing Center. In “The Idea of a Writing Center,” Stephen North states that a tutor’s
“job is to produce better writers not better writing” (North 438). Though North’s definition is far more useful than any dictionary’s, even his statement is rather ambiguous. How does one define a good writer and how can the Writing Center promote good writing? Some would say that a good writer is one who can write error free papers, while others would argue that a good writer is one who sees writing as a process. Taking
North’s definition one step further, I would say that a tutor’s job is to help students develop writing skills that they can apply to their own writing in the future.
There is no question that grammar is central to good writing. Handing in a paper full of mechanical problems would be similar to going to a job interview in a clown suit, how is one supposed to take the content seriously if the appearance is a mess? In
“Writing as Process,” Bariss Mills explains that students must realize “how egregious

Coleman 2 failures in grammatical appropriateness can undermine and destroy the effectiveness…how an amusing grammatical blunder can dissipate the moving effect of an otherwise persuasive argument” (Mills 25). Though good mechanics may not be the first thing that comes to mind when one thinks of writing a paper, realistically, it’s an important part of the process, a part of the process that students are made aware of quite early on in their academic careers.
Historically, composition and remedial composition courses took off in the early twentieth century. Soldiers were scoring poorly on assessment tests, and shortly after, remedial courses and grammar workbooks were developed to assist with the nation’s writing inadequacy. But these courses dealt with only mechanics; there was no concentration given to the writing process. Even today, in middle school, I recall having a workbook dealing specifically with grammatical rules. But most of these drill books can be completed with absolutely no thought involved. If the section of the book is dedicated to capitalizing proper names, it is pretty obvious that if there is anything even remotely resembling a proper name in that section, it should be capitalized. The majority of students do not know why they are capitalizing, only that the word is in the capitalization section, therefore it must be capitalized. Mills explains that “all the evidence tends to show that there is little carry-over from drill books to writing situations; it is entirely possible that all the busy work is a sheer waste of time so far as writing skills are concerned” (Mills 23). If drill books are not the answer, what is?
While I was researching for this paper, I found an article called “Taking the G-rr-r Out of Grammar.” When I began reading this article, I was hoping for some miracle grammatical advice, what I found was a good laugh. Though the article did move away

Coleman 3 from the antiquated drill book approach and explained that error free writing cannot be equated with good writing, it also suggested students “create a fairy tale with a moral” or
“grammar of human behavior” (Tchudi 46). Perhaps it is just me, but I cannot really see the connection between a semicolon and a knight in shining armor. My favorite suggestion of the article though was that teachers and tutors should show students how to check their papers using the spell check and grammar check on their computers. I will admit that it was a pretty exciting day when I first saw that computers were capable of underlining errors in the paper, but a few months later, I realized something: nothing is that easy. Though a computer will notify the student if there is a misspelled word, it will not tell the student if he or she is using the word properly. I am sure that this suggestion was made with good intentions, but realistically, the computer is not always right and students will simply click on the mouse accepting the change with no real understanding of why, kind of like completing a drill book exercise.
There is no magical solution when it comes to grammar. There is no definitive rule, miraculous drill book or computer. It is not surprising that after years of using a computer to proofread, students arrive at the Writing Center with the attitude that, as
North points out, “a writing center is to illiteracy what a cross between Lourdes and a hospice would be to serious illness: one goes there hoping for miracles, but ready to face the inevitable” (North 435). And while there are some students who enter into a session completely grateful for any kind of help, there are just as many that come in absolutely frustrated, and the Writing Center is their last resort. With so much focus on grammar, it is often a sore spot for students. I tutored one student who came in and said “I really need an A on this paper.” The very next words out of her mouth were “can you check my

Coleman 4 commas.” It is slightly unsettling that good writing sometimes is equated with error free writing.
Somewhere between doing drill book exercises and entering college, the basics of grammar are shoved onto students, except “the teaching hadn’t stuck and had mainly succeeded in making students self-conscious about their “grammar” (Tchudi 48). This self-consciousness stems from good reason: professors sometimes stop reading papers if a student makes too many errors. Many years ago, Walter Barnes said that student writers work “in an absolute monarchy, in which they are the subjects, the teachers the king (more often, the queen), and the red-ink pen the royal scepter.” (Connors 201).
Some students come to the Writing Center hoping to have a tutor’s red pen fix errors in the paper before the teacher’s pen has the chance to do it.
Though everyone who works at the Writing Center knows that proofreading is not part of the Writing Center’s work, it is an easy trap to fall into when looking for something such as comma splices. I find myself struggling to not just fix the errors for the students, but to get them involved in the correcting process. I do not want my tutoring sessions to degenerate into a live version of a workbook exercise where I lead the students by the hand so much that they are at a loss when they go to fix errors on their own. To be fair, I do not think the majority of students who come to the Writing Center with a proofreading motive do it because they are lazy and do not want to edit their own papers, but this is what they have come to expect from teachers and tutors. In “The
Banking Concept of Education,” Paulo Freire stated that too often the normal relationship between students and teachers “involves a narrating Subject (the teacher) and patient, listening objects (students)” (Freire 57). This typical method “leads students to

Coleman 5 memorize mechanically the narrated content. Worse yet, it turns them into ‘containers,’ into ‘receptacles’ to be ‘filled’ by the teacher” (Freire 58). It’s not surprising that after sitting in classrooms with over a hundred students and listening to lectures all day, students arrive at the Writing Center expecting to listen to tutors and expecting tutors to go over the paper for them not with them. As a tutor, I do not think it is my job to pick up a red pen and find and fix every comma splice in the paper, but it is my responsibility to point out that it is a reoccurring mistake and explain what constitutes a comma splice and point out a few sentences in the paper that are examples of comma splices, at the same time, however, I do not want to further promote the idea of the Writing Center being a fix-it-shop.
Somewhere early on in the history of the Writing Center, it got the reputation of being a fix-it-shop. Sadly, this label stuck. Perhaps it is because I am new to the Writing
Center world, but I always struggle with what to do in proofreading and editing situations. Statements like “I need to hand in this paper in an hour” or “I really need a good grade on this” make me feel pressured into editing the paper. But in the long run, I know that I am not helping anyone by doing this. During one of my tutoring sessions, the student came in with a piece for a Seminar in Composition class. She wanted help with using commas; but rather than expecting me to do everything, she was an active participant in the tutoring session. She wrote down some of the general rules for commas that I mentioned and where the rules were listed in the handbook. I fixed the first couple comma errors for her and explained why a comma was needed in those places, then I put check marks next to sentences that had comma errors in them and asked her to correct them. By the end of the session, the student was trying to fix the commas without me.

Coleman 6
Beyond just adding the commas, she understood why the commas were necessary. This was one of the most successful and rewarding tutoring sessions I have ever had. The paper was no where near perfect, but I think the student left with some knowledge that could be used when writing future papers. Though we were not talking about content or even organization, I still feel what we covered was important.
Without any concentration put on mechanics, there is a danger that students will fail to develop as writers. Though brainstorming and thought process are crucial to good writing, so is a solid understanding of grammar. Students are rather limited in the types of sentences they can write if they do not understand how to properly use commas, semicolons, etc. In “Remedial Writing Courses: A Critique and a Proposal,” Michael
Rose states that “there is a nagging doubt that one reason one sees, say, fewer comma splices or misspelled words…is that students have simply stopped writing complex sentences or using tricky words” (Rose 114). Imagine reading a paper that had pages full of simple sentences. It would not matter if the content of the paper was brilliant, the simple sentence redundancy would become frustrating to the reader. Having a good handle on grammar gives students so many more options in their writing.
Though I am sure students appreciate help with grammar, I sometimes feel as though I am cheating them if that’s the only thing I talk about. I think the problem with only focusing on grammar is that it produces better writing but not better writers, which as North said, is not the goal of Writing Centers. Though proper grammar can help a paper tremendously, there is only so far it can take writing. This is where being able to talk about organization, content, and one’s thought process comes in. North goes on to explain that “nearly everyone who writes likes—and needs—to talk about his or her

Coleman 7 writing, preferably to someone who will really listen, who knows how to listen, and knows how to talk about writing to” (North 440). And this is exactly the type of opportunity the Writing Center gives to students.
The last few weeks, I have noticed a trend in the students I have tutored. I have been getting a lot of students telling me that they want help “revising” their paper, but when I ask when it’s due, the answer is normally within twenty-four hours. Then I ask them what exactly they would like to revise, and they respond “oh, grammar, word choice maybe.” At this moment, I feel duped. For quite a bit of students, “revising” has become the new way of saying “proofreading” or “editing.” In “Perception and Change:
Teaching Revision,” Michael Flanigan and Diane Menendez acknowledge that “few students make extensive or substantive structural and conceptual changes: most just cosmetically rework mechanics and minor matters of form” (Flanigan 256). And though any change is better than no change, I would like to think that the Writing Center is for more that cosmetically reworking mechanics.
In “Thom Hawkins Responds,” Thom Hawkins presents a way to help turn proofreading into revising at Writing Centers. At Berkeley, students are required to set up an appointment with tutors in advance; there is no drop-in tutoring. Students are also required to meet with the same tutor for the rest of the semester on a somewhat regular basis. Hawkins says, “[i]n general, tutors refuse to give ‘last minute assistance with term papers’ because that kind of help quickly degenerates into editing rather than learning”
(Hawkins 751). He believes that following these guidelines “help our tutors avoid, for the most part, giving product-oriented assistance and to concentrate on student writing as a developmental process” (Hawkins 751). These guidelines definitely have their benefits,

Coleman 8 but to fair, there are also quite a few drawbacks. I think some students would be discouraged from attending tutoring if they had to come on a regular basis. Many students see tutoring as a last resort, a place to go when they are just stumped or when their teacher does everything but drag them to it. Not to mention the impact such habitual tutoring would have on the flow of students in writing centers. I do not think most writing centers are staffed well enough to handle that many students. But as
Hawkins points out, by setting sessions up this way, students would have more time to focus on their writing as a whole and not just surface level grammar issues. There would be more time to focus on revision.
A student came to me a few weeks ago working on revising a philosophy paper for a better grade. So I scanned the first copy with the teacher’s comments on it, then I started to read the “revised” copy. The grammar in the revision was much better, and he had added a sentence here and there, but realistically, it was almost the exact same paper.
I then started to ask questions to try to get him brainstorming. And as we sat there considering other options, something became quite clear: he was sticking to his initial topic even if better ones came up during the discussion. He believed that his initial idea must be the best because the idea came easily to him and it also came first. In Nancy
Sommer’s “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult Writers,” an experienced writer says that “‘my cardinal rule in revising is never to fall in love with what I have written in a first of second draft. An idea, sentence, or even a phrase that looks catchy, I don’t trust’” (Sommers 384). I think this is hard for a lot of student writers to do. For some students, there seems to be a “if it’s not broke, don’t fix it”

Coleman 9 approach to writing and revising. The question is as a tutor how do I explain to students that revision is more than grammar and word choice?
In “When We Dead Awaken: Writing as Revision,” Adrienne Rich takes a look at what it means to truly revise. She sees revision a second viewing but from a new angle.
Rich states that “re-vision—the act of looking back, of seeing with fresh eyes, of entering an old text from a new critical direction—is far more than a chapter in cultural history: it is an act of survival. Until we can understand the assumptions in which we are drenched we cannot know ourselves” (Rich 18). Unlike a lot of student writers, “grammar” and
“word choice” are not in her definition of revision. Instead Rich encourages a real connection with the text, a connection that is not just for a semester or a grade but for life.
I think if students viewed revision in Rich’s terms rather than as proofreading, it would make the process more personal and interesting for them. Students should be encouraged to become involved in their writing. Working with peers on revision
“encourages active participation…personal involvement yields a greater commitment to the writing and consequently a greater willingness to work on its development” (Flanigan
259). This type of participation is exactly what was missing from the banking concept described by Freire. Students are not empty vessels that need to be filled. And that approach to learning robs them of interaction with material. At some point, every student has walked out of a classroom with pages full of notes thinking that the notes might as well be in a different language. What good comes from having information that one cannot understand or use?
What point is there to edit a paper for a student if the student takes absolutely nothing away from the session except an error free paper? I am not naïve enough to

Coleman 10 believe that all students and faculty are going to see the benefits of less proofreading and more interaction, the “fix-it shop” stigma has been around for quite awhile; I do not expect it to magically disappear overnight. But I do not think it is too much to hope that a student will walk away from the tutoring session with some type of knowledge that can be used in the future. That is my new goal as a tutor: to concentrate a little more on helping the student develop as a writer and a little less on helping the student create a good paper without understanding why it is good.

Coleman 11
Works Cited
Connors, Robert J., and Andrea A. Lunsford. “Teachers’ Rhetorical Comments on
Students Papers.” College Composition and Communication 44 (1993): 200-223.
Flanigan, Michael C., and Diane S. Menendez. “Preception and Change: Teaching
Revision.” College English 42 (1980): 256-266.
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the Opressesd. New York: Herder and Herder, 1970.
Hawkins, Thom. “Thom Hawkins Responds.” College English 43 (1981): 750-542.
Mills, Barriss. “Writing as Process.” College English 15 (1953): 19-26.
North, Stephen. “The Idea of a Writing Center.” College English 46 (1984): 433-446.
Rich, Adrienne. “When We Dead Awaken: Writing as Re-Vision.” College English
34 (1972): 18-30.
Rose, Mike. “Remedial Writing Courses: A Critique and a Proposal.” College English
45 (1983): 109-128.
Sommers, Nancy. “Revision Strategies of Student Writers and Experienced Adult
Writers.” College Composition and Communication 31 (1980): 378-88.
Tchudi, Stephen and Lee Thomas. “Taking the G-r-r-r Out of Grammar.” The English
Journal 85 (1996): 46-54.