David Bartholomae: Inventing the University

Inventing the University, written by David Bartholomae has a way of upsetting nearly every college student who reads it. His words make the average student feel fairly helpless in this academic world full of such high expectations and forced (faked) authority. In this article, he constantly reiterates that the university invents the voice every student must adopt in order to succeed. He states that every student who experiences a higher education must fake authority in order to flourish in their field and succeed in the university setting.

Every major and every field of expertise has a designated voice, full of authority and knowledge; which the university expects students, who are far from knowledgable in their field, to adopt. In short, the students must try to appear as though they are a highly experienced member of their field in order to succeed, and must take on the voice that is determined by the University and set as a standard for all students. In this process set by the University itself, students tend to lose a level of individualism and creativity.

In this world that is overly focused on faked intelligence and following the standard set for all students, uniqueness is frowned upon, and conformity is a must. This is why I feel that Inventing the University is highly detrimental to the educational community and banishes students backwards in their education rather than propelling them forward. Faking expertise does not contribute to the learning experience of each student; it simply forces them to learn that they must fake intelligence and confidence in their field, while still leaving them clueless to the actual facts they are required to learn.

Inventing the university is not a stepping stone on the road to success and authority in one's field, rather it is a flame thrower, destroying all individuality and pressuring the student to fake a farther knowledge that they had thusforth obtained. This standard set by the University forces students to live in a "make-believe" world in which they are all highly experienced experts, and the highest authority known in their field. It is detrimental to the educational community and forces a conformity among students that frowns upon individuality and creativity in one's work, especially writing. In my opinion, Inventing the University is something that students should ignore, overcome, and use only in extrenuating circumstances, it is the student that should master education and the university, not the other way around.

audio feedback reaction

I found the audio feedback provided by my professors in regard to my symposium was surprisingly helpful. I found their oral comments more specific than the written comments I usually recieve with my papers, and touched on specific points as they progressed through the essay. Normally the written comments I recieve on my completed papers are vague and general due to a limit of writing space as opposed to the specific comments provided by my professors. While it was a bit strange to be talked at and scolded to a degree I found it generally more helpful and enlightening than the typical comments I have recieved in the past. They, for the most part, aligned with the criticisms of my peers during the editing session held in class, and reiterated that I needed to research a bit more before completing my final draft.

Myers vs. North/Brooks

Myers acknowledges that the best form of tutoring is minimalist tutoring, but states that ESL students will have a more difficult time taking direction regarding their writing and require more attention than the average student. She also says that "sentence level" corrections may actually improve ESL students as writers, and help them better understand the phrasing and sentence structure utilized in the language they are struggling to learn. This differs from the opinions of Brooks and North because they believe that the main focus should be on the writer and that the tutor should be more focused on the structural and content problems rather than spending time on sentence structure and simple language errors. They would be angered by this abandonment of minimalist tutoring and general focus on editing rather than tutoring. However, although these two intellectuals may disagree with this take on tutoring, it is highly necessary to focus on the small, grammatical issues on the paper in order to further submerse these foreign students into the mannerisms and phrasings used in this new and scary language.

fake authority?

I have been a professional water polo player for fourteen years now. I am the main offensive attacker on the US olympic team, we are training to compete in the 2012 summer games. People often tell me, water polo is an easy sport, that I should choose something with a wider fanbase and higher set of skills required. I respond to these pessimists and judgemental wussies by simply stating that water polo requires more agility and stamina than a fast paced basketball game. Water polo players must keep afloat throughout the entire game, one foot on the floor could cost us a huge penalty and lose us the game. Hours of treading water can be trying on the inexperienced swimmer, and so I train by doing laps with my team for a minimum of three hours every day. Even more challenging than staying afloat is propelling oneself upwards towards the ball with no sturdy ground to push off of. Our team follows a strict regimen of conditioning activities and intense excercise in the water every day. We are sure to take the gold two years from now and avenge our loss in the 2008 games.

Fulwiler

In his article, Fulwiler touches on four main suggestions peer tutors can make in order to help their peer's paper improve, even when all other comments fall flat. These ideas which can be suggested are limiting, adding, switching, and transforming.



1) Limiting: focusing your writing on a specific subject. Avoid any vague phrases, and keep your writing goal oriented, focusing on the thesis and keeping sentences relevant and specific to the subject at hand.



2) Adding:

3) Switching: switching the point of view of the paper at hand to give it a more exciting twist. (ie. change from 1st to 3rd person) this can give the paper a new fresh flow and can sometimes show new activities throughout the story if shown from another person's eyes.

4) transforming:

Symposium peer tutoring session

I feel like I benefitted greatly from the peer tutoring session held with my classmates Maggie and Stephanie regarding my symposium essay. They helped me to weed out unnecessary dialouge, and pointed out when a specific line didn't sound like the writer I was assigning it to. Maggie and Stephanie helped my paper to adhere a more natural dialouge flow and corrected me when my ideas about some of the facts (particularly about Lundsford) were a bit off. I was having a more difficult time providing valid recommendations concerning their papers. Being inexperienced in symposium-like papers, I found it astoundingly difficult to find helpful suggestions to make. However, after listening to their comments I found it a bit easier to pick out problematic points in this type of writing. Hopefully, if faced with a symposium paper while working at the writing center, I will recall the same lessons I learned today.

The Cause of Crime: from the perspective of a professor

The first paragraph of this essay needs to be jam-packed with information. A good introduction to a paper provides an attention grabbing opening, a thesis,and a short summary of what will be covered in paragraphs to come. This introduction had none of the above. The thesis "The three factors that were blamed for creating criminals are the environment, genetics, and theself"is the only factual based sentence in the entire paragraph and even that should be a little more detailed. This paragraph needs more info, and as Fulwiler would say, needs limiting.

The next few paragraphs improve significantly from the lackluster introduction but still lack limitation. For example, the opening of the second paragraph "From the day someone is born until the time of their death, this individual must have interactions with the world through different methods" is extremely vague. These paragraphs also lack proper citing, the book is mentioned but no page numbers. This essay is clearly set up in the typical high-school 5 paragraph format, but as a college student, moreinformation is required, try adding a few more paragraphs by expanding on genetics or the criminals ability to feel regret for another paragraph or two. You could even try to find one more example in the reading to further back up your thesis.

The final paragraph is entirely too short. There is no way upwards of five paragraphs could be summarized in three short sentences. Compare your new, information packed intro and try to mirror the information in the conclusion paragraph.

Overall, I would give this student a C-/D+. The student clearly researched and attempted to complete the assignment, but the paper lacks a complex structure and is starved of information. A more complete introduction and conclusion, and the insertion of more facts and another key point in the body of the essay would greatly benefit the overall validity of this paper.

Essay 1: Symposium

North, Lunsford, and Cooper are all on their way to an important conference in Secaucus New Jersey to discuss the importance of proper protocol in the writing center and honor the great Bruffee for his largely respected ideas about the way a writing center should run. Much to their surprise, they find themselves boarding the same train. Throughout the train ride, they anxiously discuss their expectations for the meeting which is quickly approaching. North: I for one am endlessly excited about the stimulating conversation which we are undoubtedly about to witness. Lunsford: Agreed, and the fact that they’re honoring Bruffee is wonderful, he has many great ideas about the function of a writing center, some I agree with, and some I don't care for. Cooper (looking out the window): Guys, does any of this look familiar to you? Conductor: Next stop, Hempstead. All in unison: Hempstead?!? North: We must've gotten on the wrong train, why do I always do this? Cooper: How did we all get on the wrong train separately? Lunsford: That is strange...maybe we should get off at the next stop and try to find a train to New Jersey. All three of the scholars get off at the Hempstead train station, only to find that the trains had already stopped running for the night, seeing the many Hofstra students walking around sporting school gear, they decide to retreat to the college for the night, and try to find a way home in the morning. (Kate & Willies) Me: Holy crap! You're those writing center guys; I'm studying you in my writing consultancy class. How the hell are you? North: Really, well what are those teachers of yours telling you about us? Me: Well, you're all sort of similar in your ideas, but I guess there are some slight differences too. North: Me? The same as these two? Excuse me...my ideas about a writing center are both innovative and highly effective. Me: ...and a little extreme Lunsford: Cleary, I was your favorite out of this group. My experimentations involving the level of control required for a successful tutoring session were brilliant! Me: Well they were very clever but... Cooper: My ideas about the collaboration of the tutor and the student in fixing a paper, help the student become a better writer in the process. These ideas are the most developed out of the group...so surely you'll want my autograph.

(The three continue bickering for quite some time)

Me: Hey! Stop this! In my opinion all of your ideas are valid, but I’m kind of stuck on who thinks what. You’re all so similar in your theories.

North: Well surely you remember my ideas, I believe that the tutor and the student should work together to improve a paper. While the tutor has control of the interaction, they must evoke ideas for improvement from the student.

Lunsford: See, the idea of collaboration is a tricky one to master. Too much authority on the side of the tutor will inherit the student’s ability to learn from the meeting, but too little authority will leave the paper ridden with problems.

Cooper: I agree with North, some of the tutoring should be left in the hands of the student, but in reality, grades are important and so a common goal must be reached between the student and the tutor before the session. The tutor clearly must play a large role in helping the paper improve in order to better the student’s overall grade on the paper for which they are seeking help.
Me: True, but focusing on the letter grade which the paper will receive may sometimes be detrimental to the learning experience of the student…right?

North: Correct, the tutor must stay away from focus on grammatical errors. It is the tutor’s job to improve their peer as a writer, and focus on things like structure and content rather than spelling and punctuation.

Lunsford: It is very important to maintain a conversation with the student about what should be changed and what they are doing correctly. As Bruffee would say, internal thoughts must be externalized in conversation and put onto the paper. That is the circle we all, as writers, follow and must teach our clients to follow as well.

North: This also brings us into the discussion of normal or abnormal discourse. Normal discourse is an idea that is widely accepted and often published in textbooks, abnormal discourse being a new idea or concept.

Me: So if in a tutoring session, I were to teach the student something new that they have not previously learned from a teacher or professor, is that abnormal discourse?

Cooper: To that student, yes, the new ideas you are instilling are abnormal discourse, but to you and I, these are widely accepted ideas that have already been followed by many, so it is normal discourse to us.
Me: Okay, I think I’m beginning to understand Bruffee’s ideas, but as a tutor in training I’m still not sure which method would be the best to follow in order to truly help my peers.

North: Well, always focus on structure and improving the writer first, and grammar, if necessary, after.

Lunsford: Make sure you collaborate with the student, don’t take too much authority but don’t be so passive that the paper will remain untouched.

Cooper: I agree, share the authority, focus on the writer not the writing, but remember, the main concern of the student is the grade, so you’re job is to help them achieve a better grade and more confidence in themselves as a writer.

Me: Well, it looks to me like you three headstrong scholars have finally agreed on the best way to tutor.

All (towards each other): Wow, we have haven’t we? I thought we’d never agree, I always thought my ideas were far superior.

North (looking at his watch): Well, this has been very enlightening, but it is getting quite late.

Cooper: We need to rise bright and early if we’re going to make it to that conference tomorrow morning.

Lunsford: Well, thank you young woman, with your help and the help of the ideas of the great Bruffee, we three strong headed intellectuals have finally reached agreement.

Cooper: Here is my email, if you ever need any tutoring advice, I’m a message away.

(The other three follow suit in writing down their email addresses)North, Cooper, and Lunsford all make the train the next morning and arrive just in time for the conference they were supposed to be attending. At this meeting they present their new ideas and wow their peers with their ability to collaborate and accomplish a joint conclusion besides their well known arrogance and self centered attitude.



Works Cited
1) Bruffee, Kenneth A. “Collaborative Learning and the Conversation of Mankind.”
Bruffee has much discussion about how the conversation between a tutor and a student can help internalized ideas become very developed, and thus, this will improve the writing of the student who is seeking help. His ideas, in this symposium, help to tie together the ideas of the three other intellectuals.

2) Lunsford, Andrea. “Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center”
Lundsford focuses a great deal on collaboration in her article. She conducts experiments in order to find which type of collaboration works best in a tutoring situation and found that equal collaboration seems to be the most effective.

3)North, Stephen M. “The Idea of a Writing Center”
North has a very specific idea of a perfect writing center. Throughout his article he details that the tutor should focus on improvement of the writer rather than improvement of that specific paper that needs work. He is against focusing on grades and feels strongly that the focus should be on helping the student to improve fully as a writer and teaching them how to edit themselves.
4) Murphy, Christina, Sherwood, Steve. “The St. Martin’s Sourcebook for Writing Tutors” (Cooper. “Really Useful Knowledge” p.53)
Coopers ideas generally align with that of North and Brooks. His one main difference is that he is realistic in the notion that students are often focused more on the grade they will be receiving than improving as a writer. He says that while tutors should focus on helping tutees improve, they should not forget that the main goal of their meeting for the student is to achieve a higher grade than previously possible.

Cooper : Really useful knowledge

In Marilyn Cooper's article "Really Useful Knowledge: A Cultural Studies Agenda for Writing Centers" she critiques the role of the University on the learning environment, particularly in writing centers. She says that she believes "students should be intellectually challenged in their writing classes, that they need to be engaged in a struggle over complex ideas that matter to them". She also suggest that the tutor be an "organic intellectual" who throws away the rules and the "inventing the university" http://firstyearwriting.wikispaces.com/file/view/Inventing+the+University.pdf type atmosphere. In other words, rather than be talked at and lectured by a teacher who follows the criteria, she believes students can benefit from a change in the learning experience, and should be lead by the type of teacher who can be both quirky, up-to-date, and challenging. Students learn better when they are faced with a topic of interest or current relevancy, and become more engaged when an alternate teaching method is used. This shows that tutors who work in a writing center must be able to stand out amongst the other teacher figures who float around the university and encourage the student to be somewhat independent. As a peer tutor we must be many things, grade oriented, encouraging, passive, authoritative, passionate, and we must grab the students attention. But we must not be mundane.

Cooper is the most realistic compositionist we have studied so far. As she examines Brooks article she states "But i also think that is is this assumption that writing center sessions must focus on 9improving individual papers that leads to the trap Brooks descrips, the trap of tutors serving as editors of the student papers." She agrees that fixing the writer must be the main focus of the meeting, but observes that it is nearly impossible to avoid correcting the paper itself. She is also aware that it is nearly impossible to pretend that students are more concerned about learning than a higher grade. She admitts that there is a huge focus on grades and states that the tutor should keep that in mind during any session.

Mike Wesch

In Mike Wesch's "A Portal to Media Literacy" http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4yApagnr0s, he discusses the effect of classroom size on a student's learning experience and enthusiasm for a subject. He mentions that in larger lecture halls students often ask questions such as "what do we need to know for this test?" and admit to habits such as "I facebook during most of my classes" and "my neighbor pays to be here and never shows up". This shows that there is a "crisis of significance", students in this learning environment lack interest in the material and an unhealthy focus on grades over education. He asserts, however, that in a small classroom settings with few students, pupils will ask more daring questions and become more engaged. This is significant to peer tutors because it shows that students will often learn more in a meeting held between them and one teacher figure than in a classroom full of students. This is an even greater reason to focus on the writer rather than the paper. If the student will learn more in a secluded environment when they are the subject of critique it further proves that we, as the tutor, must make a lasting impression or fail at our duties. This video inspired me to focus more on comments that will help the student overall and practice providing constructive criticism that is not only optimistic, but useful in overall improvement.

Bruffee questions

1) Is collaborative learning between a tutor and a tutee as affective as collaborative learning beween students of the same class?

2) Do new ways of learning (collaboration), in your experience, succeed more often than they fail? And how far can we take it? One day teachers may not be needed if we keep going.

3) Knowledge is established by communities of knowledgable peers. Once we get out of college and live and work with people of other "communities", how will that effect our previously established knowledge? Does knowledge always change depending on what community you are around?

4) What limitations do thought and conversation have and how do they effect writing?

5) When has a student mastered the "normal discourse" of a field and when is she qualified to explore/express "abnormal discourse"?

6) If the ability to socialize with others dictates one's ability to write, then why is it true that hermits and mentally disturbed people have been some of the most renowned writers in the past? (ie. Edgar Allen Poe, Emily Dickinson).

7) Thought and conversation go hand in hand, which leads to knowledge. If though is narrow, thinking will be too. But what if one's knowledge is so great that they can be narrow without it leading to lack of thinking?
In Bruffee's opinion, conversation is thought, and thought is conversation. They function largely in the same way. Through this confusing thought pattern may seem enigmatic, it really all goes in one big circle. external conversation->internalized to thought -> written to be a combination of conversation and internal thought -> collaborative conversing=normal learning discourse and vice versa.


**Last paragraph on 647 summarized in to one sentence- Conversation about what we already know and is accepted is normal discourse, development of new ideas is abnormal discourse. Abnormal comes before normal because an idea must be made up in order for it to be widely established and accepted and become normal. Knowledge is a combination of both normal and abnormal discourse. Normal discourse is to maintain knowledge that is already known (ie. history). Abnormal discourse is to make new knowledge (ie. pluto isn't a planet anymore).

Abnormal discourse can, before it's accepted, make people freak out. (Plato says- if you have been living in a cave all of your life, shadows become your normal discourse and reality is abnormal, but once brought out into the real world, after freaking out, reality becomes your normal discourse. And if some one who has seen the real world comes to the cave and tells them about reality, their ideas would be abnormal discourse to the people of the cave.)

Normal discourse = common sense, widely accepted and agreed upon ideas. A set of beliefs. Abnormal discourse can easily become normal discourse, not always but if the ideas become widely accepted, it then becomes normal discourse.

Lundsford

Lundsford performs an interesting experiment to try to figure out the best formula for learning in a writing center environment. She set up several tutoring scenarios and observed in which situation the student thrived and the main goal of the tutor was achieved. The first scenario was set up with a dominating tutor, assuming all authority over the studen which they were attempting to aid. The second, was an inverted version of the first situation, the student took complete control of the meeting, and took the tutor through the problems they think they had. The final, and most successful of the situations, was done with equal collaboration. Both the tutor and the student seeking help took control of the situation, they shared equal control and authority, and worked together through the entire meeting to try to touch on problems both of them had esablished. I agree that the last situation was the least stressful and most comfortable for the student because they are not intimidated by a tutor who assumes all authority, or pressured with the leading role in a meeting which they attended in order to recieve help. To Lundsford the writer is a delicate flower, too much domination or picky grammatical comments has the same effect as an overbearing gardener, flooding the flowers with water and drowning them with good intentions. Too little criticism and over complimentary tutors are not satisfactory either, however, this situation mimmicks a gardener who leaves the care up to nature itself. Eventually, without sufficient conditions, the flower will become starved of water and eventually whither up in a failed attempt to thrive on its own, much like a student who is starved of educational enlightenment and commentary from the tutor. However, a flower, or student, who is given just the right amount of water and enough space to bloom on its own, much like a student with a collaborative tutor, will thrive and flourish in a perfect atmosphere.

mock tutoring session

I found the mock tutoring session held in class today very helpful and informative. Previous to this exercise I doubted my ability to act as an effective tutor, but once I engaged in conversation with my mock peer seeking help, the words and suggestions just started pouring out of me. Although Stephanie had a nearly perfect paper on which she recieved an A, I still managed to find some suggestions to give her on expansions of ideas and new aspects to her arguments. I somehow managed to do all of this with a positive and collaborative attitude which encouraged her to insert her own ideas and use her own opinions. On the other hand, I felt very uncomfortable being the student in the situation. While Robert brought up many good points as to what my paper was lacking, I am not one who accepts criticism too well. I, personally, refuse to even reread my paper at all prior to turning it in. However, despite my distaste for constructive criticism, Robert went about tutoring me in a very constructive, positive, and gentle way. He made suggestions, not demands, and asked me my opinion before making any suggestions. The one question which resonated throughout the meeting was "what do you feel needs to change about this paper?" I found this question very effective and successful because he handed over the authority and control to me, valuing my opinions and fixing the paper to my specific needs.

tutoring video

The tutoring video we viewed in class today was not only very imformative, but it gave me a definition and scenario in which to view what the tutor actually does in a writing center situation. Previously, the role of the tutor was a gray area, it was clear that they were supposed to aid their peer in the writing and editing of their paper, but the protocol involved in the actual interraction was defined in a much clearer way, and I reached an understanding as to my actual role as a tutor in the learning experience. The two situations shown in the video were very different, this also provided a learning experience for me, as I saw that every interaction is different depending on the student, the assignment, and the current stage of the paper at hand. The favorite of the two peer-student relationships was the one which featured the woman tutor and the male student who wrote a music paper. Both members of this pair were very passionate, the boy about his paper, and the tutor about sincerely helping her client. She asked many important questions which are necessary in order to complete the paper and achieve the desired grade. Throughout the tutorial, the girl payed an immense amount of attention to her student, and provided input as to how to develop the paper and expand on the topic which he was so passionate about. I now understand the role of a tutor, and the way in which an interaction between a tutor and a student should take place.

Bruffee

In order to keep my blog in chronological order, I inserted my blog post for bruffee in this spot, however, a rereading of the article is required before I can affectively provide commentary. To be posted at a later time...

North vs. Brooks

Upon reading Brooks article, I found that he and North often align in their ideas of the ideal writing center. Both minds focus on the benefit of the student rather than the paper, and cast grades to the curb. To these men grammar, punctuation, and word phrasing of any kind is not only a waste of both peer's time and energy, but can be detrimental to the learning experience and the improvement of the client as a writer and an editor to their own papers. Both of these men also have very specific ideas about how a writing center should be set up (ie. both peers sitting on the same side of a larger table or desk). They focus on which environment is best for stimulating the writer, and reiterate constantly that there must be a focus on sharing the role of authority between both the student and the tutor.

To both North and Brooks the student who comes for tutoring is like an infant learning to walk, struggling to achieve what seems to be an impossible task. Once the infant has fallen a few times, they frantically struggle to reach some one to help, or something to hold them up. In this situation this object which holds them up and provides support is their peer tutor. As a tutor this infant's success is in your hands, focus and criticism on placement of feet, or simple grammatical errors, will only discourage the young student and frusterate them until they are swayed to give up. However, if the teacher focuses on the basic stance of the infant, structure and ideas of the paper, with an encouraging and collaborative attitude, the infant, or student, will thrive in this encouraging atmosphere and gain confidence in themself and their ability to overcome hardships in the future. This example shows that a peer tutor needs to focus on encouragement and positive improvements in a collaborative environment rather than criticize their peer on simple grammatical errors and focus on the bad aspects of a paper. A student will thrive in a positive and collaborative environment.

North

North is clearly some one who is very passionate about tutoring and helping writers develop better writing skills and improve in literacy all around. In his article he clearly details what he believes the best scenario for a writing center is, and how tutors should go about helping the students who go to them for help. While I agree with his notions that the main focus should be placed on the writer themself rather than the text placed in front of them, I feel as though his ideas are a bit extreme. North rambles on for what seems to be an eternity about the proper way to tutor and what the focus of a tutor in a writing center should be, he even implies that while a tutor could successfully make a paper nearly flawless for the peer seeking help, the tutor can still be a failure, and let down their client. He believes that unless the student leaves the writing center with new ideas about writing and big improvements in their tendencies as a writer altogether. My opinion differs from North's, I believe that while grammatical errors should be cast aside, and the focus should be turned towards structure, form, and expansion of ideas, the student seeking aid is most likely seeking a simple grade boost. Their reason for attending the writing center at all in most cases is simply to achieve a good grade on a tricky paper. I believe a tutor should focus on the paper at hand, but focus on the forementioned aspects rather than grammar, punctuation, and other errors that are specific to only that given paper and do not apply to content.