In an article entitled "Talking to the Boss," which appeared in the Fall/Winter 1988 Writing Center Journal , Diana George makes a valiant attempt to "mend the damaged path between the English department and the writing center." George rightly sees this damaged path as the result of poor communication between writing centers and English departments -of misunderstandings held by English departments as to what goes on in writing centers, how it goes on, and why. Her method of mending the damaged path is to talk: to tell our colleagues in English departments (and perhaps in colleges and universities at large) what we do. She talks well, isolating two basic inequities that she feels are the cause of the damaged path: inequities of purpose and inequities of staff. To mend the broken path, George implies, is to mend those inequities: first, it is essential that the "writing center's philosophy of composition . . . should reflect [the department's] philosophy of composition" -in other words, the philosophies of teaching writing held by the department should mirror or equal those of the writing center; second, it is essential that the staff of the writing center be perceived by the department and by the college or university at large as equal partners in the teaching of composition.

came into the Writing Center "clueless." The comment on his paper read: "A fine idea in response to the assignment. Can you be more specific? Add details!" As we talked, it was clear that John wanted to revise his paper but was unsure of how to proceed. He did not understand how his teacher could like his idea but still expect more of the writing itself; "style"' and "texture" were foreign concepts. Details, to him, were the facts one needed to support or prove one's opinion

I keep noticing, and being bothered by, the rigidity with which students interact and respond to other's writing. Let me offer three examples:

When those of us who run high school writing centers got started, we learned quickly to make it up as we went along. We used scotch tape and handmaids until something better appeared. Few rules existed. The references available to people establishing writing centers contained some good concepts, but none presented the whole picture. In The High School Writing Center Pamela Farrell gives us a guide book that shows ways to put together places where "a community of writers" might gather (ix).

Published on 01/01/90

observes that "although writing centers have always been diverse in their pedagogies, philosophies and physical makeups, the writing center's period of chaotic adolescence is nearly over. Center directors are slowly articulating common goals, objectives, and methodologies; and writing centers are beginning to take on a common form to evolve into a recognizable species" (vii). Olson views writing centers' emergence from "chaotic adolescence" in a positive light, since he interprets it as an important step toward adulthood, that is, as a sign that writing centers are finally becoming part of the academic mainstream. Now, although I share Olson's interest in the enhanced status of writing centers, I am nevertheless a bit wary of the possibility that writing centers will soon take on a "common form" in the profession, a common form verging on dogma, and it is in response to this idea of a "common form" that I advocate the maintenance of chaos. When I think of the terms "common form" and "recognizable species" in the context of writing centers, I recall the preface to Sherwood Anderson's Winesburg , Ohio , which tells of a time when the world was young and all about were truths and they were all beautiful -And then the people came along. Each as he appeared snatched up one of the truths and some who were quite strong snatched up a dozen of them

Published on 01/01/90

Published on 01/01/90

Published on 01/01/90

Collaboration between student writers appears in various guises: small groups discuss each writer's paper in turn; a pair of classmates exchange papers to read and critique; a whole class evaluates a few students* papers based on an established set of criteria; a student shares her paper with a peer tutor at a writing center. All of these situations attempt to capture and build on the energy and shared learning that occur when students work together. And yet, while both the writing center and the classroom aim for collaborative learning, each context places the students in a different relationship. In the classroom, the students work together as peers under the teacher's guidance; in the writing center, students must work to overcome the disparity of authority inherent in their given roles of tutor and tutee. The difficulty for writing tutors lies in balancing their more powerful position as tutor with the goals of peer collaboration. Thus, collaboration in writing takes different forms and requires different skills in the contexts of classroom and writing center. This paper will use a study of a high school writing center program to illustrate and explain these differences. We hope that this discussion will provide insight into how writing tutors perceive and cope with their roles in a writing center and how the collaboration that occurs in a writing center affects students as writers and as people. Kenneth Bruffee's definition of collaborative learning provides a framework for understanding the difference between classroom and writing center collaboration. In his article, "Collaborative Learning and the Conversation of Mankind,1 " Kenneth Bruffee explains that " Collaborative learning provides a social context in which normal discourse occurs: a community of knowledgeable peers" (644). Adapting Thomas Kuhn' s theories about the scientific community, Bruffee emphasizes that a group of people together determine the accepted knowledge, the "normal discourse"

Published on 01/01/89

The empowering of writers touches close to interests common to writing centers -no one associated with one-to-one conversation can ignore the benefits of collaboration, the reality and effects of interpretive communities, and the intellectual respect and consideration owed to students by teachers. Yet empowering writers should mean more than simply acknowledging social backgrounds and encouraging self-disclosing discussion and listening (though both activities are of course vital). It should also create opportunities and methods for students to speak powerfully in discourse appropriate to the academy.

Published on 01/01/89

Conversation is the essence of peer tutoring. We mean this statement in a radical sense. Conversation -the form of communication we use for tutoring sessions -should structure all aspects of a peer tutoring program, from tutor training to administration. Our insistence upon dialogue as the underlying structure of a peer tutoring program comes from an even more fundamental conviction that true education consists of dialogue. [ 1 ] Where dialogue is lacking, information may be transferred, but little is learned.

Published on 01/01/88