greene - the signs of open communication in a writing center conference

Open Communication, Mindfulness

Mindfulness and Signs of Open Communication in a Writing Center Conference

Christopher A. Greene

University of Massachusetts Amherst

1


Abstract

The purpose of conducting this research was to attempt to gain insight into possible signs

of open communication in a Writing Center conference. The presence of open

communication is identified via an identification and analysis of the subtle verbal and

non-verbal transmissions of both tutor and tutee. The data used in this research was

collected from one instance of a Writing Center (WC) conference observed from a close

distance as well as a brief questioning of the tutor at the conclusion of the conference.

The discussion presented here after discusses the observations and what their

implications are for current and future tutoring. The discussion is paralleled with current

research related to psychological dynamics and tutoring strategies that places importance

on the tutee’s cognition and motivation.

2


The Signs of Open Communication in a Writing Center Conference

Open communication supports a healthier tutor-tutee dynamic that involves such

complex psychological factors like power, ownership, confidence, motivation, and

willingness to learn. One sign of success (a subjective notion felt by the tutor) in a

conference can be confirmed via the demonstration of open communication between a

tutor and a tutee. The main motivation of this research was to understand further how

different mental/emotional states, attitudes, and feelings manifest in communication and

affect a Writing Center (WC) conference.

Communication in a WC conference tends to not lie in the extremes of being open

or closed, but tends to fluctuate between the two throughout. In defining communication

as open, certain attributes of conversation stand alone as important signifiers. Those

attributes, possessed by both tutor and tutee, actually engage and mingle with each other

during the conference in both verbal and non-verbal forms. Signifying the state-of-

communication as open presumes an engagement resulting in the tutor, the expert, being

described as positive or successful. A state of communication that is closed would be one

where a negative expression, that leads to an unsuccessful conclusion, is described.

Signifiers of the state of communication within a conference are most subtle in

their expression. The verbal and non-verbal habitual patterns expressed in

communication by the tutee can clue the tutor into the state of the other’s inner workings.

Some key observational items highlighted among WC literature in terms of those inner

workings are things like body language, ownership, power/confidence, and the choice-

role, whether active or passive, taken by either player. These items are most important to

a WC conference because they are proximal to the tutors “on-going

3

Travis Grandy, 05/27/15,

This would be a good place to say more about other sources in the literature that speak to these issues. So far in your paper I’ve only seen one citation and so I’m not sure how you’re trying to fit into the conversation.


diagnosis”(Puntambeker) of agenda progression during the conference. A tutor who is

able to be mindful in their awareness of subtle tells that could be significant in

understanding the point of view of the tutee is one who is most effective in achieving

success during a conference.

A seemingly fundamental aspect of a WC conference is the agenda of both tutor

and tutee. The presence of, importance placed upon, and motivation to pursue an agenda

has serious implications on tutor/tutee communication. As everyday societal human

beings, on a macrocosmic scale, we (being student or non-student) place particular

importance on seeing our agenda(s) through. Anxiousness, frustration, impatience, and

even defensives can arise in the face of a situation that threatens the validity, direction,

goal, and/or timeframe of the to-be-completed agenda. However, a reaction to adversity

is subjective upon the individual, therefore a tutor could react in a way that may be

motivating and thought provoking: progressive rather than regressive. A common result

of a regressive reaction is the proverbially “writer’s block”; a type of psychological

paralysis. No matter the context, the same patterns of response to these external stimuli

that interfere with our expectations can be observed microcosmically. In a WC

conference one can do just that: observe within an environment a microcosm where these

cognitive and emotional activities manifest themselves.

4


Participant

The participants of this study were undergraduate students at the University of

Massachusetts Amherst. The first (tutee) was a male that came into the Writing Center to

work on a research paper that was due the day after his appointment. He claimed that he

was in the revision stage of the writing process, had concerns about his grammar and

punctuation, and identified himself as a visual learner. The second (tutor) was also a male

and was on his second and final tutoring appointment of the day.

Methods

Before the session began it was my goal to remain aware of the subtle signifiers

within the conversational dynamic that would reveal information pertaining to the inner

workings of the writer. This was the primary reason as to why, say, a post-conference

interview would not do; the essence of the interest of the observation is very subtle and

often go unnoticed. The awareness of these subtleties was of upmost importance because

they can be helpful for tutors in understanding the point-of-view of the writer in mid-

conference.

The signifier that I chose to focus on primarily was body language because it is

the final and most telling byproduct of our cognitive functions. Body language can be

seen as the body’s way of communicating the biological reaction to the thoughts and

emotions that we do consciously communicate. Inversely, body language can be a useful

tool for the tutor to cue both his or her mind, but the mind of the tutee, subconsciously.

Body language of a tutee can relay information pertaining to: the confidence of the tutee,

how much power they believe they possess, to what extent they hold ownership over their

5


text, and lastly whether or not they are taking an active or passive role cognitively in their

learning.

This study was conducted using data from an in-person observation in the

University of Massachusetts Amherst Writing Center. The selection of which day of the

week the observation was to be completed was arbitrary. Upon selecting the day to

complete the observations, five tutors were contacted three days prior informing them

that they were eligible to participate in the study. The message that was delivered to these

tutors informed them of the intentions of the research and that a couple questions would

be asked of them following the session.

When the day for conducting observations arrived, one the tutor was selected

arbitrarily regardless of the tutor or tutees age, gender, or any other qualitative

information. Upon arrival of the previously booked tutor’s tutee, the tutor asked their

permission as to whether or not they minded having someone observe. The observation

was conducted at a length of four feet away from the conference in such a manner that

the observer was not in visible sight of the tutee, but was visible to the tutor.

At the beginning of the session the tutor and tutee sat down at a computer table in

one of the corners of the WC. The tutor sat down to the left of the tutee orientated toward

him, while the tutee sat to the right of the tutor with his body close to the desk, oriented

perpendicular to the tutor, facing the wall. The tutee revealed that he came to the center

to work on a research paper that was due the next day.

The session began with the tutee claiming that he needed work on his thesis and

identifying the sections of the paper that supported his thesis. The tutor then spent the

next five minutes of the session reading through the entire text. While the tutor was

6


reading the text the tutee spent those minutes using his cellphone apps and looking

around the room. After another five minutes had gone by, the tutor began discussing the

text with the tutee. During the discussion, the tutor discussed the main issue, which was

previously identified as the thesis. Here, the tutor mentioned some possible restructuring

of some ideas and his paragraphs. I then noticed that the tutee was still orientated towards

the tutee but was leaning in towards him; the tutee, still facing the wall, was leaning back

in his chair, swiveling it back and forth, while tapping his foot rapidly.

As the discussion continues, the tutor begins to reference certain parts of the text;

it is at this point that I realize the laptop was being moved frequently, being passed to and

from the tutor and tutee. The tutor then suggests and introduces a reverse outline to assist

in his efforts to which the tutee responded with a resounding, “uhm…sure”. For the next

five minutes, the tutor works through each paragraph of the text with the tutee, who was

still oriented in the same position, quite far from the text itself. At the conclusion of this

exercise, the tutor asks the tutee some questions about the rhetorical purpose his

paragraphs, which required him to think critically. The tutor then offers suggestions

towards restructuring or reorganizing the essay, which elicited a sigh, and response from

the tutee that seemed pushed back and lacked any depth.

It was at the twenty-minute mark that the tutor initiated a thesis writing exercise.

Upon presentation the tutor backed himself away from the text, the tutee, and the table

while the tutee “worked”. During the exercise the tutees eyes were again wondering and

returning, over patterns of time. The tutee sat in his original position “focusing” on the

exercise while he did several things with his writing utensil (tapping, twirling, spinning).

The playing-with the utensil could have also just expressed that his body was processing

7


thoughts, but the accumulation and reputation of habit is the key; the repeated habits,

over time, are a sign of possible psychological paralysis.

After a few minutes yielding no written material, the tutee expresses with a not so

excited tone, his confusion and struggle with his thesis – even though the two had been

working with the intent to help this confusion. With only fifteen-minutes left in the

session the tutor offers a way to make the text more readable. The tutee, as he had done

throughout the session, seemed to remain passive and went along with the tutor’s

suggestions without question. The session ended with the tutee asking permissive

questions to the tutor, for example: “Can my thesis statement be like…”, and “Is it okay

if my thesis is…”.

Results

The potential for a difficult session was apparent as the tutee walked in to the

center. When the tutor introduced himself and asked his permission to be observed, he

blindly accepted and immediately walked to the desk without any second question or

thought. The tutee did not take off his hat upon entering the center, which hinted to me

that he could possibly be bit closed off, if I couple it with what I observed as his entered;

his tone was also very low and monotonous, which hinted that his motivation and

readiness to learn may have been low.

The first flag during the observation was the choice-orientation of the tutee. A

tutor who seeks to be engaged with their tutee can signify that engagement by orientating

him or herself in the direction of the tutee. This orientating not only signifies to the tutee

that he or she is focusing on them, but it also signifies sub-consciously back to the tutors

mind with their will, as a cue, that they will be present in that moment. The tutee’s

8


orientation, however, was in no way signifying any kind of dynamic engagement with the

conference.

The second flag occurred after witnessing the continuous pattern of subtle body

language; eye wondering, foot tapping, playing with objects. What is key to remember

here is that we as humans have a limited supply of energy to work with everyday; we use

this energy for transportation, biological processes, speaking, thinking, and working.

When in a WC session, the tutee is using a considerable amount of their energy in

general; the writing process is mentally taxing! As tutors we hope that their energy is

present and being used efficiently, meaning that we hope they think critically, actively

engage in dialogue, and even do some practical textual work themselves rather than the

session being based around theory. That being said, noticing that the tutee’s body is using

some mechanical energy for playing with a pen, chair swiveling, and tapping their foot

can really help the tutor understand that there is some dissonance within the mind of the

tutee. That energy is used subconsciously after the mind is cued through the thoughts and

then feelings generated by the context of the conference.

Another subtle signifier was identified throughout the entire session during the

back-and-forth passing of the text. The text was initially placed by the tutee, in the

middle of the two, which seemed very normal at first. From an outside perspective this

may seem appropriate because both the tutor and tutee may then be involved in the text,

but what was really going on was something much more subtle.

Following the observation the tutor was asked three questions: (1) What did you

notice during the conference?, (2) What did you notice about the body language of the

tutee?, (3) How would you describe how the tutee felt during the conference?. In response

9


to the first question the tutor replied, “I felt that it was really hard for the tutee to engage

with me. It felt like I needed to..’ pry’, he really only wanted me to fix the text”. In

response to the question about body language, the tutor replied: “I noticed he was laid

back in his chair – I couldn’t tell , though if he was not really interested or just calm. I

also noticed the position of him in line with how he was facing the table”. When asked

about how the tutor thought the tutee felt during the conference, the tutor replied that he

“was not sure whether or not he was interested. When I didn’t just fix the things he

wanted, he seemed more frustrated. However, the opposite seemed to happen as well; that

when we actually did the things I wanted to work on, he seemed less frustrated. I felt like

I was being rushed, the tutee was too impatient – I felt like I had a time limit to what I

was doing (besides the normal forty-five minute time block) and attempted to slow things

down more than once.

Discussion

Looking forward, there are some very important ideas that tutors must think about

if they want to start to become more effective in their communication as tutors. A very

common and effective strategy used by tutors that parallels this discussion the WC is

called scaffolding. Scaffolding has been much discussed as a teaching strategy used in

infant language learning, as a model for developing effective instructional technology in

math, computer programming, and science, and for instruction in solving well-defined

problems. In Scaffolding in the Writing Center: A Microanalysis of an Experienced

Tutor’s Verbal and Nonverbal Tutoring Strategies, Isabelle Thompson’s results points to

the “important of the students cognitive and motivational readiness to learn and the need

for the students to control the agenda throughout the conference” (Thompson).

10


From the get-go of the observation, the tutee displays signs of

readiness to learn which were deemed as low due the analysis of the qualities present –

monotonous tone, lack of excitement, and a sluggish demeanor - during introductory

communication that sets the tone for the whole conference. A low readiness to learn can

be a sign of a presence of stubbornness, in that the individual may not want to budge in

their patterns of thinking or action, which can be difficult to a tutor with a specific

agenda. The tutor also did take the opportunity to raise an awareness within the tutee of

his current feelings by asking introductory questions such as: “How is are you doing

today?” or “How was your day so far?” A study by Schwarz and Clore on evidence –

what a person has in mind consciously or subconsciously - and standards support the idea

that awareness of one’s framing standard and evidence reduced its effect (Schwarz &

Clore).

One must also always remember that responses such as stubbornness are just

that: a response. The actual cause(s) of such a response may not lie on the surface and

may well be rooted and seeded within the individual by past writing experiences. Even

though these causes may be well seeded, there will always be potential for an overcoming

of those reactions. The wise and experienced tutor would notice this and add it to their

list of compiled data for what Thompson describes as the second feature of scaffolding,

the tutors “ongoing diagnosis of the student’s current level of understanding”

(Puntambeker). Thompson goes on to state that, “besides a thorough understanding of

how to accomplish the task, the tutor needs to assess what the student can do, and as the

student becomes more expert, the tutor needs to change strategies accordingly”

(Thompson).

11


To continually adjust their strategies, the tutor must develop ”a sensitivity to the

affective and intellectual dimensions of the student’s personality (Murphy) as Christina

Murphy states in her article Freud in the Writing Center. Murphy parallels the role of a

tutor to that of a therapist, which helps to demonstrate that “learning is not simply a

cognitive process” as many of the students who come in as tutees “suffer from writer’s

block or a high degree of inhibiting anxiety associated with the process of producing

writing that will be evaluated by another “(Murphy, 297). The edging of the text over to

the tutor by the tutee after each paragraph was discussed was a subtle signifier that the

tutee was relinquishing ownership of the text; and vice versa, the edging of the text by the

tutor over to the tutee was, in one aspect, a way for the tutor to push that ownership back

to the tutee. This issue of ownership is one that occurs commonly in the WC and is one of

the main causes to the proverbial ‘writers block’ that is heard about so much.

Ownership is also a cause that tutees have a difficult time ‘putting their finger on’

because it is so fundamental that it often goes unnoticed. Not only does it go unnoticed,

but a lack of ownership can be embarrassing even to oneself, therefore the mind keeps

that main cause in the subconscious while the conscious mind tries to rationalize the

block. This rationalization tends to sounds something like, “I don’t know what to

write…”, “I don’t know how to say…..,” or when the writer thinks they need permission

to do something.

In speaking of agendas, tutors might be more aware in their agendas than tutees

are. The subtle tells that are present in a conference help the tutor understand how to go

about their agenda and how ready to learn the tutee is. Therefore, when a tutor is able to

remain mindful and thus become aware of the direction of their agenda and the degree to

12


which their tutee is owning their paper, through such a subtle signifier like the passing

back-and-forth, that tutor can then tap into the potential healing power of conversation

and open communication to overcome that psychological paralysis.

Edgar Burroughs once said, “we are, all of us, creatures of habit”, and that

statement couldn’t be any more relevant. Through incorporating mindfulness in the WC,

the tutor utilizes energy efficiently and becomes better equipped to bring about success in

their conferences. The raising of awareness through mindfulness enhances the tool of the

on-going diagnosis that goes on during a simple and common WC conference practice

like scaffolding. That mindful on-going diagnosis opens up the possibility for the tutor to

receive live feedback in mid-conference to be used to further improve the quality of WC

experience.

13


Work Cited

Puntambekar, S., & Hubscher, R. (2005). Tools for scaffolding students in a complex learning environment: What have we gained and what have we missed? Educational Psychologist, 40, 1-12.

Schwarz, N. & Clore, G. L., Mood, Misattribution, and Judgements of Well-Being: Informative and Directive Functions of Affective States. JPSP, 1983,45,513-523

Isabelle, Thompson. "Scaffolding in the Writing Center A Microanalysis of an Experienced Tutor’s Verbal and Nonverbal Tutoring Strategies." Written Communication 26.4 (2009): 417-53. Web. 8 May 2015. <http://wcx.sagepub.com/content/26/4/417.full.pdf html>.

Murphy, Christina. "Freud in the Writing Center: The Psychoanalytics of Tutoring Well." Writing Center Journal 10.1 (1989): 13-18. Web. 1 May 2015. <http://eric.ed.gov/?id=EJ402161>.

14

greene - the signs of open communication in a writing center conference

Documents