Writing center theory & tutoring pedagogy disjunction.

Abstract

Writing center theory is assumed to influence peer tutoring pedagogy. In reality, the latter appears to be influenced more by institutional and social concerns than by theory. This paper explores the theory-pedagogy disjunction and details the circumstances surrounding it.

Background

It would appear that there exists a direct connection between writing center (WC) theory and peer tutoring pedagogy. This, however, is not always the case. Although most contemporary writing centers have developed from a central philosophy about the nature of language and knowledge production, their tutoring pedagogies are often influenced by institutional and social considerations that result in a dichotomy between their philosophies and tutoring practices. To appreciate this dichotomy, one must understand the nature of writing center theories, peer tutoring pedagogies, and the institutional and social factors that divide theory and practice.

Writing Center Theory

Writing center theory is ensconced within composition theory, which reflects epistemological considerations that permeate the academic community. The two most important epistemologies that have shaped composition and writing center theories are Romanticism and Social Constructioinsm. Romanticism, which is also referred to as humanism, views knowledge as a construct that is immediately accessible and individually knowable. Although there is debate as to whether such knowledge is external or internal to the individual, there is agreement that knowledge is preexisting rather than socially constructed. As Christina Murphy notes,

   Romanticism is less concerned with consensus and more focused on the
   development and enrichment of the individual. In this philosophy,
   social and cultural contexts are de-emphasized in favor of an
   exploration of the individual's consciousness and inner-
   subjectivity. (119)

Subsumed under the romantic/humanist epistemology are two influential writing center theories: the current-traditional and the expressionist. Although these theories are connected to directive and non-directive tutoring pedagogies, respectively, they share in common the belief that knowledge is something to be identified rather than created. However, the current-traditional and expressionist theories differ as to the methods that one should use to uncover knowledge. Whereas the current-traditional theory views knowledge as a product that one learns from others, expressionism views it as a process of self-discovery.

In contrast to romanticism is social constructionism. Heavily influenced by poststructuralists such as Foucault and deconstructionists such as Derrida, social constructionism asserts that knowledge is socially created. According to George Hruby, "[Social] constructionism deals with knowledge formation [...] between participants in social relationship" (51). In essence, social constructionism is a reaction to the romantic assumption that uncovering knowledge is inherently a solitary activity.

In Lev Vygotsky's "zone of proximal development," one can see evidence of this resistance to the solitary nature of knowledge production. According to Vygotsky, "What [individuals] can do with the assistance of others might be in some sense even more indicative of their [...] development than what they can do alone" (85). Social constructionist epistemology has resulted in the social constructionist writing theories currently popular in writing centers. However, this paper argues that the non-directive tutoring practices so prevalent in tutoring manuals such as Leigh Ryan's The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors are more heavily influenced by institutional and social considerations than by writing center theories subsumed under either the romantic or social constructionist epistemologies.

The dichotomy between romantic and social constructionist philosophies has had significant influence on the theories that writing centers have espoused at various stages of their development. In particular, the conflict between these epistemologies was quite noticeable in the early 1980s with the publication of Kenneth Bruffee's social-constructionist-based article "Peer Tutoring and the Conversation of Mankind." This conflict reflects the struggle within rhetoric and composition studies "to take on the ethos and methodology of the social sciences" (Murphy 120). Surprisingly, while both composition studies and writing centers have embraced social constructionism, tutoring practices continue to reflect a romantic/humanist epistemology. In the next section, I discuss this phenomenon in greater detail and explain how non-directive tutoring practices have remained static since the mid-1980s while writing center theories have continued to evolve.

Romantic/Humanist-Based Theories and Peer Tutoring Pedagogies

Current-traditionalism and directive tutoring

Current-traditional rhetoric was espoused in the late 1960s and early 1970s as writing centers came to prominence (Clark 33). This rhetoric was grounded in the positivist belief that knowledge is located outside the writer and, thus, that it was the responsibility of individual writers to read and study so that they could become more knowledgeable. In writing centers, current-traditional rhetoric was used to create a "writing-as-product" paradigm within which tutors were encouraged to build students' grammar skills via direct tutoring practices. Andrea Lunsford refers to writing centers steeped in current-traditional rhetoric and using the writing-as-product paradigm as "storehouses" that

   Prescribe and hand out skills and strategies to individual learners.
   They often use 'modules' or other kinds of individualized learning
   materials [and they] tend to view knowledge as individually derived
   and held. They are not particularly amenable to collaboration [and]
   are sometimes actively hostile to it. (93)

Given the current-traditionalist emphasis on knowledge as something that exists apart from individuals, it is not surprising that writing centers adopted a directive tutoring methodology in which tutors used grammar worksheets to improve and supplement tutees' knowledge. However, even here the link between theory and directive tutoring is not as strong as one might think.

As Peter Carino suggests, social and institutional realities influenced directive tutoring pedagogy (126). For example, the social reality of those universities adhering to the late 1960s' open admissions initiatives resulted in institutional pressures to address the needs of students with a variety of learning abilities. Writing centers were viewed as providing supplemental classroom instruction and as using a directive tutoring approach that emphasized the teaching of grammar and product-centered writing strategies (Clark and Healy 243). Thus, although one can establish a connection between the current traditional rhetoric and the directive approach to tutoring, social and institutional considerations also had an impact upon how tutors worked with students.

Expressionism and non-directive tutoring

Expressionism grew in popularity in the 1980s, emphasizing that students were authors who needed more than drill-and-skill techniques to become good writers. Expressionist rhetoric draws heavily upon the humanist belief in agency, which "exists as inborn potential to form and pursue goals that give meaning and direction to [one's] behaviors and experiences" (Wandrei 3). This notion of agency underscores the expressionists' view of writing as a process wherein the tutor's objective is "to make sure that writers, and not necessarily their texts, are what get changed by [writing] instruction" (North 69).

To improve writers rather than texts, expressionists focused on collaborative tutoring sessions to promote students' cognitive growth. Evelyn Ashton-Jones called for tutoring sessions to resemble Socratic dialogues wherein tutors and tutees become architects and partners in improving the tutee's writing skills (31). Similarly, others emphasized the need for tutors to:

* Help students figure out what they wanted to say in response to an assignment;

* Help students shape the content of their texts;

* Focus on students as learners. (Clark and Healy 243)

Although the above suggests the development of a non-directive tutoring approach in conjunction with expressionist theory, I consider the actual form that non-directive tutoring took (i.e., minimalist tutoring) to be more a response to institutional and social factors than an outgrowth of expressionism. Thus, I argue that non-directive, minimalist tutoring practices were more closely linked to socio-institutional factors than to the then-prevailing writing center theoretical paradigm. When expressionism became the dominant paradigm in composition studies and writing centers, many English and non-English department faculty members were concerned that collaborative learning environments ran counter to the romantic paradigm of "the solitary author whose work is absolutely original" (Clark and Healy 244). In addition, some faculty members intimated that because one could not ascertain where collaborative learning ends and plagiarism begins, collaborative learning environments were unethical.

Recognizing that some faculty members were unsupportive of collaborative learning, many writing center directors advocated the use of the minimalist tutoring practices outlined in Jeff Brooks' "Minimalist Tutoring: Making the Student Do All the Work." In this article, Brooks provides a prescriptive tutoring pedagogy stipulating practices such as having the tutor sit next to the student, ensuring that the paper is closer to the student than the tutor, and encouraging the student rather than the tutor to hold the pencil. What one must recognize is that these minimalist, non-directive tutoring practices were a response to the demands of academic institutions whose faculty members viewed collaborative tutoring as bordering on plagiarism. Thus, the minimalist tutoring pedagogy is "based on self-defense" (Clark and Healy 245) and can be linked more closely not to expressionist theory but "[to the] need to assure suspicious colleagues in other departments that writing center instruction did not equal plagiarism" (Clark 34).

This is not to say that minimalist tutoring practices were unconnected to the expressionist rhetoric that guided writing center policies in the 1980s. In fact, tutoring practices were linked to the writing-as-process paradigm in which writing was viewed "as a process tied to cognitive abilities occurring in recursive stages" (Shamoon and Burns 227). Emphasis was also placed on helping tutors ensure that students remain "the only active agent in improving their paper" (Brooks 224). However, I argue that the specific minimalist tutoring practices that have become the writing center's "bible" (Clark 34) are more the result of writing centers' response to institutional ideology than to theory.

Social Constructionism and Peer Tutoring Pedagogies

Since the mid-1980s, social constructionism has served as the basis for writing center theory. Predominantly a response to the romantic notion of writing as a private activity, social constructionism views writing as being, "produced through dialogue, always open to question, and a marker of social, ideological, and textual relations" (Carino 126). Interestingly, although social constructionism has influenced writing center theory for almost twenty years, Brooks' expressionist-based "minimalist tutoring" strategies remain the predominant ones used in writing centers. Linda Shamoon and Deborah Burns address this disjunction between social constructionist theory and minimalist tutoring practices by noting that

   [Although] social constructionists challenge the private,
   a-disciplinary nature of writing, there is little in the practice of
   teaching or tutoring writing that has changed because of social
   constructionist views ... The social constructionist critique has
   broadened our understanding of the contexts of writing, but it has
   not formed an alternative set of practices [emphasis mine]. (228)

The inability of social constructionism to generate a corresponding peer tutoring pedagogy may be the result of academia's continued concerns about plagiarism and how to define it. In "Beyond 'Gotcha!'" Margaret Price suggests that definitions of plagiarism should grow out of discourse communities so that they can "be applied more flexibly [in] various contexts" (105). Unfortunately, many schools continue to adhere to a rigid definition of plagiarism and, consequently, a dichotomy has sprung up between writing centers' social-constructionist philosophies and their use of non-directive tutoring pedagogies that do not conflict with prevailing definitions of plagiarism.

More specifically, Carino points out ways in which social constructionist theory has produced only limited changes in tutoring pedagogies. Examining Lunsford's social-constructionist-based writings, he notes that she does not describe actual tutorial practices that would "illustrate social constructionism mise en scene" (133). For example, Lunsford describes her social-constructionist "writing-centers-as-Burkean-Parlors" as being based "not on positivistic principles [...] not on Platonic or absolutist ideals, but on the notion of knowledge as always contextually bound [and] socially constructed" (97). However, she does not develop specific tutoring pedagogies that writing centers can use to transform themselves into such parlors. Instead, writing centers are still relying on Brooks' expressionist-based tutoring practices, and it is unclear how, on the basis of such practices, writing centers are to become Burkean parlors. Thus, what is lacking is a clear delineation of specific pedagogies that centers can use to put their social constructionist philosophy into practice.

This is not to say, however, that literature suggesting a link between tutoring pedagogy and social constructionism does not exist. Shen's "The Classroom and the Wider Culture" examines the ways in which cultural differences affect students' writing. To address such differences, Shen recommends that teachers "point out the different cultural/ideological connotations of words [such as] 'I'--connotations that exist in both a group-centered culture and an individual-centered culture" (30). One could extrapolate Shen's suggestions from the classroom to the writing center by describing how tutors can point out cultural and ideological differences that affect ESL students' writing. However, that no one has produced such tutoring practices suggests that a direct link has yet to be made between social constructionist theory and tutoring pedagogy. Not only has an explicit link between social constructionist theory and tutoring pedagogy not been made, but the current impetus to incorporate directive tutoring within the writing center is more a response to student need than to theory. For example, Shamoon and Bums discuss the results of informal studies suggesting that students "really learned to write during one-on-one tutoring sessions that were directive and appropriative" (225). Similarly, Irene Clark and David Healy argue that for theoretical, political, and pedagogical reasons, strict adherence to non-directive, minimalist tutoring practices denies the diversity of learning needs that students bring to the writing center. Thus, such works suggest that the renewed interest in directive tutoring is more a response to students' needs than to social constructionist theory.

Conclusion

As this paper suggests, the relationship between writing center theory and peer tutoring pedagogy is tenuous. Often, tutoring pedagogy arises in response to an institutional or social concern rather than to theory. In addition, as writing centers often appropriate theories to describe what they do, it is not surprising that a direct link between theory and pedagogy is not always clear. Although one should consider the ways in which tutoring pedagogies are influenced by institutional and social realities, one must wonder whether a closer link between theory and practice could be established if "theory-building started in the specific practice of writing centers" (Carino 135). That is, rather than developing a fixed peer tutoring pedagogy to correspond to a writing center's social constructionist philosophy, it may be best to use the fundamental tenants of social constructionism to create pedagogies that cater to the needs of students in specific discourse communities. In this way, one can put theory into practice and, more importantly, practice into theory.

References

Ashton-Jones, Evelyn. "Some Wonderings about Literacy Teacher Education." Journal of Reading Education 9.1 (1988): 29-36.

Brooks, Jeff. "Minimalist Tutoring: Making the Student Do All the Work." The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice. Ed. Robert Barnett and Jacob Blumner. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1991. 219-224.

Bruffee, Kenneth. "Peer Tutoring and the 'Conversation of Mankind.'" The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice. Ed. Robert Barnett and Jacob Blumner. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1991. 206-218.

Carino, Peter. "Theorizing the Writing Center: An Uneasy Task." The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice. Ed. Robert Barnett and Jacob Blunmer. Boston: Anyn and Bacon, 1991. 124-138.

Clark, Irene. "Perspectives on the Directive/Non-Directive Continuum in the Writing Center." The Writing Center Journal 22.1 (2001): 33-58.

Clark, Irene, and Dave Healy. "Are Writing Centers Ethical?" The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice. Ed. Robert Barnett and Jacob Blumner. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1991. 242-259.

Hruby, George. "Sociological, Postmodern, and the New Realism Perspectives in Social Constuctionism: Implications for Literacy Research." Reading Research Quarterly 36.1 (2001): 48-62.

Lunsford, Andrea. "Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center." The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice. Ed. Robert Barnett and Jacob Blumner. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1991. 92-99.

Murphy, Christina. (1994). "The Writing Center and Social Constructionist Theory." The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice. Ed. Robert Barnett and Jacob Blumner. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1991. 110-123.

North, Stephen. "The Idea of a Writing Center." The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice. Ed. Robert Barnett and Jacob Blumner. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1991. 63-78.

Price, Margaret. "Beyond 'Gotcha!': Situating Plagiarism in Policy and Pedagogy." College Composition and Communication 54.1 (2002): 88-115.

Shamoon, Linda, and Deborah Bums. "A Critique of Peer Tutoring." The Allyn and Bacon Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice. Ed. Robert Barnett and Jacob Blumner. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, 1995. 225-241..

Shen, Fan. "The Classroom and the Wider Culture: Identity as a Key to Learning English Composition." Signs of Life in the USA. Ed. Sonia Maasik and Jack Solomon. Boston: Bedford Books, 1997. 531-540.

Vygotsky, Lev. Mind in Society: The Development of Higher Psychological Processes. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1978.

Wandrei, Mary. "Agency, Constuctivism, and Social Constructionism: Evolution or Revolution?" Paper presented at the Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association. San Francisco. August 2001.

Christine M. Burlaga, California State University, San Bernardino

Kimberly A. Costino, California State University, San Bernardino

Burlaga is a graduate student in the TESL program. Her research interests include comparative linguistics and ESL tutoring pedagogy. Costino is Assistant Professor of English and Composition Coordinator. Her research interests include literacy and composition studies, writing center theory and practice.