POST #4 - CONSUELO
Definitively, Ryan and Zimmererelli’s suggestions and approaches in tutoring all writers are useful. From the basic concept of “universal design” understood as focusing on “assisting a writer with her writing” (52) to seeing a draft as “work in progress, one that it is full of promise and potential” (53) the chapter provides a simple explanation to what in my own experience works well for me. Working with writers in the WC has provided the opportunity for applying what until now has been a personal experience. Feedback that provides affirmation and praise through highlighting what is effective or appealing motivates to do even better job. Practices as not focusing on grammatical errors and asking writers to share a little bit about their writing and concerns so far have been useful in helping writers. Though in my teaching when providing feedback, I have tried to be supportive, I have been more focused on helping the student be more effective in their academic writing and identifying few areas to work on. Being a tutor facilitates both the process of helping through relevant questions and effectively providing praise and affirmation.
Fei Case Study
I ended the reading of the Fei case study, with a central question, how representative is this case? To what extent a lack of commitment to effective improvement in their own writing process is prevalent among online Frequent Flyers? Though it seems to be clear that most of Fei’s writing was motivated “by efficiency, expediency and a race against time” (short term goals), the genuine concerns of tutors apparently do not make any difference in increasing awareness towards what is necessary for developing effective writing process (long term goals). Perhaps to reduce the level of disappointment, setting realistic goals and operationalizing them seem to be the path to follow.
Comments
Post a Comment