I have found the readings over the past two weeks that we've had to be so amazingly invaluable! It's seriously feel like they have been written just for me. The two readings this week, as opposed to last week don't only focus on ESL students, but students in general. That being said however, I felt like some of the things that were mentioned in the Staben and Nordhaus article were repetetive of what we've read before. Talking to the student, purposefully reading their paper, and not directing correction after correction are just a few of the things that have been discussed a lot and are dully noted. This is not to say that they aren't great pointers at all, I'm just saying that some of these suggestions seem second nature by now, although I don't know if they always were or if I've learned that much since the beginning of the semester? I would like to think the latter is true, always.
The article by Linville is written as a guide, which I very much appreciate and will probably incorporate into my sessions from now on, should these problems arise (they almost always do). The writing about the tutoring session with Tang is kind of unrealistic. I would love to focus on more pressing matters in a paper than grammar all the time, but I can't because that's not what the client wants. Linville writes about Tang possibly becoming "angry, depressed, or difficult (120)", but still conceding to doing what the tutor wants. This may be true, but what are the chances Tang will come back? I think there is a fine line here, and I know that all the authors are careful to address that not all methods work on everyone all the time and that there is no wrong method as long as the session is effective, but I have a hard time picturing some of the scenarios unfolding in the articles the way they do. Sorry if I seem ultra critical today. Its been long and arduous! Also, it seems as though I've done a complete 180 in my opinion of the articles from the beginning of my post. I do think that most of the points discussed are invaluable.
I was helping a girl the other day and I felt like the only thing she needed to do was proofread better. I could tell this isn't what she wanted to hear, but otherwise I would have just been fixing silly mistakes for the next twenty minutes that I knew she was capable of fixing. Any thoughts on this? I was super nice and encouraging but she didn't seem pleased.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Students hate that when I tell them that they need to proofread or to have a friend/classmate do it! They think that I am not doing what I am supposed to. I always try to pick out the grammar mistakes I find, but if they are reoccuring things, I explain what is wrong with it and let them know they need to read through and fix it on their own. I find that clients do appreciate it when you look at grammar and typo issues, even if it's just to say, "You have several typos; you need to look through this again." They may be initially annoyed with the fact that you didn't do the work for them, but they will also recognize that you are taking the time to find the errors in the paper and that you do care.
ReplyDeleteOk, let's do a quick rewind here: There is a difference between proofreading a client's paper for them and teaching the client HOW to proofread. For instance, instead of saying, "You have several typos; you need to look through this again," you should consider that this client does not have the strategies YOU have for proofreading a paper. So a better approach would be to say, "When you finish an essay, how much time do you spend reading back over it for grammar errors, and just silly mistakes like typos? Because I notice a few of those in here." If the client says, "Oh, I never read my paper," or, "I read back over it, but I can't see my mistakes," then you ABSOLUTELY SHOULD HELP THE CLIENT PROOFREAD. Have the client read the paper out loud while you look on with her or him, and if the client is reading over errors without realizing that they are errors, then you know you are working with errors, not mistakes, and you need to explain the grammar rule. If the client sees her/his mistakes, you can point out how effective reading out loud is for catching one's mistakes and fixing them before the paper is handed in - and this is an excellent proofreading strategy the client can then use on her/his own.
ReplyDeleteWe never want to be dismissive of grammar or proofreading. We do have to resist becoming the editor of the paper; if what a client really wants is for us to go through the paper, point out all of the mistakes, and fix them, then we should always say no. We are not an editing service; we are a tutoring service, which means (here we go again) we help writers, not just their texts. But I'm concerned that you may be assuming clients have proofreading skills they don't have, and a very effective, valuable tutoring session can involve teaching clients those self-editing skills.