Peer to peer
Students can also come to West Campus Library for writing help.
Behind the scenes at the UWC
When your students come to the UWC for a consultation, what should they expect?
It’s tough to say since no two sessions are exactly alike. While there is certainly an underlying philosophy that guides how UWC consultants approach student writers, the specific interplay of student, consultant, assignment, and timing makes every session unique. You may need to experience one to appreciate fully the kind of serious and thoughtful conversation peers can have about writing.
Here then is the next best thing: some observations made during four recent
UWC consultations. (Although the peer consultants are identified by name, no
student names are given in order to respect their privacy.)
Consultant Emily Richter has a nine o’clock session on Monday morning with
an international doctoral candidate. The student has worked with Richter once
before and today wants to discuss a five-page book review.
The student has two copies of her paper and hands one to Richter, who asks
her to read it aloud. The student’s voice is barely audible as she begins to
read. When she finishes the first paragraph, Richter assures her she’s off
to a good start. Then Richter looks at the paragraph again and points out that
there’s no mention of the book being reviewed until quite late in the introduction,
which might confuse readers. The student nods and looks for a place to insert
the title earlier. Richter also points out some awkward repetitions of a key
phrase. She suggests an alternative for one of the instances and asks the student
to come up with a third variant, which she does.
As the student reads more, her voice, though still soft, seems more assured.
In the next paragraph, Richter asks for clarification about another sentence.
The student’s response includes new information, which Richter suggests adding
as an example.
Later, Richter asks about a citation: “Did all of this come from page 27?”
She reminds the student to use quotation marks anytime she’s copying the
author’s wording. The student mentions that the class uses APA style, so Richter
grabs a handout on APA and briefly reviews the rules. Richter also hands the
student a highlighter, so she can mark other places where she might need a
citation.
While much of their time is spent on grammar issues such as missing articles,
Richter also asks questions whenever the student’s meaning is murky. The student,
pausing often to find the right word, offers further clarifications. After
one such exchange, Richter smiles and says, “Oh, I think wording it like that
would be better.” Richter knows from experience that shifting modes of expression,
from writing to speaking, is often all it takes to unlock words a student has
been struggling to get on paper.
After 45 minutes, they’ve worked through the five pages. Not every error
has been fixed and a few more may be created later when the student incorporates
some of the new insights she’s gained, but the student seems pleased.
Ashley Johnston begins a session with an international student pursuing a
graduate degree in agriculture. He is quiet, perhaps nervous about being observed.
He has come to the UWC several times so far this semester, his first in the
United States.
As the session begins, the student mentions that he has trouble using articles
correctly—quite common for students new to English—but the session ultimately
covers a range of topics, including maintaining a consistent verb tense and
subject/verb agreement. The student reads his paper aloud, but during their
discussions, Johnston often rereads individual sentences back to him, changing
the emphasis to illustrate areas of confusion. Johnston also “checks in” frequently,
asking, “Does that make sense?” or “Is that what you’re trying to say?”
The student remains reserved throughout, but at one point he and Johnston
both begin to smile as he reads a sentence that has clearly veered off course.
Although questions about grammar predominate, Johnston also asks about his
use of source material, reminding him of the need for quotation marks around
any language copied verbatim. She also discusses the difficulty of paraphrasing
and warns him to be wary of “patch writing”—pulling together a few words from
one source and a few words from another and “stitching” them all together as
if they’re his own creation. It’s a common problem in academic writing, but
a particular danger for those unsure of their English.
The writing center will help students at any stage of the creative process. They’re often amazed by how helpful it is to talk about their writing with someone, even if that person isn’t an expert in their field.
Later that day, Graduate Consultant Sarah Spring has a follow-up appointment
with an engineering major. He met with Spring the week before, bringing in the
assignment sheet for a W course paper and several pages of preliminary notes.
At that appointment, they sorted through his ideas so he could begin a first
draft. Now, the student wants to discuss what he hopes will be his final draft,
which is due the next day.
He shows Spring the grading rubric he received from his TA for his first
draft. He’s lost points for not using transitions.
“Did she give you any indication of how to improve that or what kind of transitions
she’s looking for?” Spring asks.
“Uh . . . no.”
They laugh in shared frustration at that, and then Spring asks him to begin
reading aloud. He hesitates, but she assures him it’s a good way for him to
begin finding his own errors.
Spring stops him after the first paragraph to ask what he means by the phrase
“using similar paradigms.” In the process of explaining it to her, the student
recognizes that he has, in fact, created two introductory paragraphs.
Spring says the two-part introduction may be one of the things the TA had
found problematic, since the two paragraphs don’t seem connected. She asks
him to explain how they’re linked. Spring listens and nods: “That makes sense
to me, but I’m not sure that’s reflected in your paper.”
The student wants to know if he should simply link the two existing paragraphs
or combine them into what he terms a “super introduction.” Spring says whichever
way he proceeds, he needs to make the connections apparent.
The student still seems confused, though, so Spring asks him to restate his
idea. The consultation room is silent while he thinks. Slowly, he composes
a sentence. Spring says he seems to be on the right track, although he may
want to fine-tune the wording.
Later, Spring suggests pulling out the first sentence of every paragraph
and pasting them in a separate Word document, so he can see the connections
between his main ideas. He listens, but it’s not clear if he’ll be willing
to take this extra step.
They jump ahead to another trouble spot, the student again asking Spring
specifically what to do and Spring gently refusing to make his choices for
him, instead saying, “What do you think?”
At one point, when the student seems to be hopelessly tangled in his own
thinking, Spring flips back a page and points out a place where he’s already
mentioned a pivotal relationship between ideas.
“Oh, yeah, that’s my most important point,” the student says with more enthusiasm.
“All I’m doing is echoing back what you’ve already told me,” explains Spring.
As the session ends, Spring offers the student a bit of reassurance: “Overall,
I think your writing is sound.” Then, knowing there is still work to be done,
she brings him back to the words of his TA: “Just be sure you’re making those
connections.”
Georgia Kate Lombardo sits down with a client who is back for her second
session, this time with a new version of a rhetorical analysis paper for English
104. Her instructor had criticized her first draft for being a simple summary,
so the student decided to start over.
Lombardo has already seen several responses to this particular 104 assignment.
In fact, 104 assignments are seen so often in the UWC that they had been the
topic of the previous week’s staff meting.
At Lombardo’s request, the student begins to read aloud. She moves quickly
over the words as if afraid to linger.
After the first paragraph, Lombardo comments on the paper’s thesis, noting
that it seems well suited to the assignment. The student continues reading,
stopping after each paragraph. Lombardo points out some basic errors, such
as writing “belief” for “believe,” and asks for clarification on a few sentences
that seem to go astray.
As they work, the student seems very engaged. She points to one sentence
and shakes her head, saying, “I don’t like how this sounds.”
“What don’t you like?” Lombardo asks.
“The ending.” So the two bend their heads over the paper and discuss alternative
wordings.
Several times Lombardo points out highly informal diction, which she says
the instructor might consider inappropriate. They also discuss the difference
between “image” meaning reputation and “images” meaning pictures.
As the session winds down, Lombardo voices concern about the conclusion,
which seems to veer away from the intent of the assignment, so they discuss
how the student might revise that. When their time is up, the student, who
has been smiling throughout, thanks Lombardo and leaves quickly.
In her post-consultation report, Lombardo describes the student as “an eager
learner.” Unfortunately, Lombardo knows their hard work will probably not be
reflected in this paper’s final grade: during the session the student has admitted
that the final draft is due within the hour.
