Month: January 2022

Categories
Uncategorized

Why Disabled WAs Have Skills Everyone Should Want

Why Disabled WAs Have Skills Everyone Should Want 

written by Naomi Horn and Neil Steinglass

Disability is stigmatized both on campuses and in society at large. These stigmas are so pervasive that many people don’t recognize the extent of their discomfort with disability. We talked about how many vision-impaired people who wear glasses would never associate wearing glasses with being disabled, because glasses are so unstigmatized in our society. But definitionally, vision impairment is a disability! Other types of disability, including both physical and mental disabilities, carry much more stigma and shame in our cultural vernacular. 

Although disabled people should absolutely be allowed to have whatever relationships feel appropriate for them with their disabilities, disability itself should not be framed as inherently negative. Some aspects of disability are disruptive to someone’s quality of life no matter what: For example, Naomi has had chronic migraines for many years, and does not feel the need to engage in toxic positivity and pretend to be a better person because of them. However, many other aspects of disability are very situational. Specifically, the norms of both schooling and capitalism can exacerbate the impact of many types of disabilities. 

In the Writing Center, it is useful to have WAs that are familiar with navigating these norms through the framework of disability, because it helps everyone who comes into the Center–– disability justice benefits nondisabled people, too. In general, disabled people are familiar with strategies for asking for help, coming up with different ways of approaching things, and developing coping strategies, all of which can be very useful when working with any WAee. Oftentimes, writers come in because an approach they’ve used in the past is no longer working. When WAs are familiar with that experience, they are able to both provide tangible suggestions for alternative approaches and support students in the process of pivoting. 

Although disabled WAs bring many unique strengths to the Writing Center, we do not want to erase the unique challenges that they face. We appreciated that the author of this reading talked about how his disability influenced his WAing from a nuanced perspective. He highlighted that he had to change his workflow to accommodate some of his own needs, which is an important thing for WAs to know how to do. Our goal as WAs is to help students, but we do so by communicating and building relationships, and our own needs have to be met in order to do this productively. He mentioned that sometimes he worried that there was tension between his own needs and his WAee’s needs. Writing Centers need to be aware of this and have active conversations about this issue. 

If the WA Program recognizes disability as another kind of diversity rather than something that students just need to overcome, we will be better off. So much of the research and literature surrounding disability and Writing Centers focuses on writers with learning disabilities, but we should expand this framework to include writers and WAs with many types of disabilities. 

Categories
Uncategorized

The WA Program’s Engagement with STEM Students

The WA Program’s Engagement with STEM Students

This week, our group examined past inquiry projects related to WA practices within STEM disciplines. All of the group members are, ourselves, studying within the Natural Sciences at Swarthmore. Because we are positioned as both peer tutors in the writing center and students of scientific disciplines, we hold a unique perspective of the intersection of writing practice as it pertains to the sciences. Speaking from personal experience and conversations with our peers, there seems to be a general lack of awareness of the Writing Center among students in the Natural Sciences. It is unclear whether that is because their discipline often does not lend itself to writing assignments (i.e. some Computer Science or Mathematics courses with no official writing assignments) or because the students worry their WA will not hold the necessary disciplinary knowledge to be of service to their writing (for example, a non-science WA reviewing a high-level Biology lab report).  

We kept this information in mind when deciding which inquiry projects to review, and found that all six projects we reviewed touched on one or more of these issues within the intersection of science and writing.  In this post, we will summarize the findings of the reviewed inquiry projects, discuss their implications, and present possible next steps for the WA program and its engagement with STEM students. 

Several Inquiry Projects addressed the now-defunct Intro Biology WAing practices. One, by Rachel Crane and Allison McKinnon in 2010, applied a “cognitive load” framework to biology WA-ing. This framework split the writer’s workload into “intrinsic” (disciplinary concepts), “germane” (skills needed to produce something, like writing or graphing), and “extraneous” (work done to understand what is being asked of the writer). They found that Biology conferences often served to address or mitigate the extraneous cognitive load caused by unclear lab manuals, and while this may or may not still be the case in Biology conferences, this framework can provide insight into why STEM majors sometimes claim WAs are not as helpful as feedback with a disciplinary specialist. A generalist WA can offer feedback that addresses the germane cognitive load across most social sciences and humanities disciplines – argument structure, clarity, flow, voice, etc. – and generally is not asked to address intrinsic load beyond the understanding they gain from the piece of writing itself. However, germane elements sometimes take different forms in STEM writing, as explored by the “Argumentation across Disciplines” IP. For example, Math asks for a linear progression of logic and Biology emphasizes an “hourglass” format. 

Additional work or preparation may be helpful for WAs with a particular STEM designation. Perhaps in part because many people consider writing to be the domain of the humanities, STEM courses may not spend much time talking about the aesthetic considerations of the forms of their discipline. WAs might form groups around their STEM designations to discuss their discipline-specific concerns. They could do a sort of literature review, for instance, where they would pay particular attention to the form of the piece of literature from their field. If there were a professor or two in the discipline with an interest in discipline-specific writing, they could be useful partners in this process, perhaps choosing examples of good writing, or answering any questions held by WAs.

Another possibility is for the WA program to work with the peer tutor programs which already exist in STEM departments. Professors choose students for these programs who they trust to help other students, and so professors might be more attracted to a plan for the WA program to share some of our ideas with these existing resources, rather than developing another distinct way for students to get help.

If the Writing Center wants to engage writers in STEM disciplines, we need to make it clear when WAs do or do not have disciplinary knowledge and what they can offer the writer on a case by case basis. This could take the form of additional WCOnline designations, course WAs being briefed on disciplinary conventions, or some other form – but it is critical that writers in the sciences feel that their needs are being addressed during WA conferences, and that WAs feel equipped to offer relevant feedback in the discipline. 

Categories
Uncategorized

Factors to WAing Modern Language Courses

Factors to WAing Modern Language Courses

WAs working with papers written in languages other than English have somewhat different considerations and choices for providing the best possible support. These factors may be present in any conference, but are more likely to come up for a paper written for a Modern Languages course. One such factor is balancing grammatical edits with other aspects of writing and the writing process, particularly for students writing in one of their second languages who are primarily nervous about their grammar. Another is the language in which to conduct the conference: should the WA choose the language in which the paper is written, or the language the WAee and WA are most comfortable speaking? Other questions include what support WAs should seek from Modern Languages professors in order to best address students’ concerns about writing for this discipline, and what the prewriting stage of the process looks like for Modern Language students.

Dealing with grammar

Past inquiry projects including Castaneda and Serbin (2015) complement our anecdotal experience that writers working outside of their native language(s) in language classes want direct feedback about grammar. Castaneda and Serbin found that writers especially sought grammar feedback in written form and around the expression of complex ideas. The question of when and how specifically to engage with grammar questions and expectations from writers often requires the WA to use their judgment in a conference. Creating a universal rule for grammar feedback runs into a series of challenges: professors have varied expectations of WAs, with some not wanting WAs to give grammar advice at all; WAs’ proficiency in the course’s language also varies significantly, with some native speakers and some language learners not actively practicing the language in a course. We therefore recommend that WAs refrain from focusing on grammar and limit their comments to patterns and places where the writer’s grammar significantly impedes comprehension. We also encourage WAs to gauge a writer’s expectations about grammar feedback early in the conference, working with them to find a solution that supports their agency.

Conferencing language

Unlike other WA’s who work in English, language WA’s face the question of whether to speak in English or the course language, such as French for a French literature class, during conferences. As a WAee in French classes, I always conferenced with WA’s in English, as I felt more comfortable articulating the details of ideas in my paper. This sentiment seems to be common to others. A past language WA describes the benefits of using English in the foreign language writing process, explaining that speaking in English allows for rich discussion of content and for the WA to share strategies about writing in a foreign language (Caldwell 2016). Another language WA recommends that WAees decide the language they will speak and that most WAees suggest a combination of the foreign language and English (Bowie 2009). Allowing the WAee to choose the languages spoken during conferences seems to help them most. 

Working with professors

Language departments and the professors within them often have different rhetorical expectations that can be unfamiliar, and therefore potentially difficult, for WAs and WA-ees alike to navigate, as highlighted by Sciascia (2014) in their inquiry project. Sciascia noted that while some professors want students to strictly adhere to target language rhetoric, others want them to follow “American”/Standard-English-style papers. I feel I’ve encountered this range of professor expectations in my own experience as a language WA; while some professors adhere to American/Standard English structuring, others introduce different thesis and transitional styles, and place more emphasis upon grammar and demonstration of language proficiency. Sciascia recommends that WAs should ask explicit questions surrounding rhetorical expectations when they meet with their course professors at the beginning of the semester, so that they can most effectively help their WA-ees. 

Prewriting

A challenging aspect of writing in a foreign language, particularly for beginner or intermediate language students, is fleshing out a cohesive writing product that includes the development of a unique, argumentative claim. Foreign language students may not have as strong a grasp of the texts and other documents that they are basing their analysis on, and they also may struggle with having a large enough vocabulary to successfully develop their argument. WAs may find it useful to encourage students they work with to use pre-writing strategies, potentially in their primary language, in order to develop the ideas and structure necessary to accomplish a foreign language written assignment. As Caldwell (2016) noted in her inquiry project on this topic, “I would also now suggest that WAees take more time to work through their ideas, to emphasize the prewriting process, before endeavoring to write in a foreign language.”

Categories
Uncategorized

9 – OF QUEERS, JEERS, AND FEARS: Writing Centers as (Im)Possible Safe Spaces: A Reflection Piece

9 – OF QUEERS, JEERS, AND FEARS: Writing Centers as (Im)Possible Safe Spaces: A Reflection Piece

After reading this chapter of Out in the Center, which detailed a Writing Center employees’ realization of his vulnerability and potential marginalization because of his queer identity, we had several personal reflections in response on our own experiences as WAs.  We hope that by collectively reflecting on our experiences here, we can provide others an insight into how we as queer WAs grapple with our identities in Swarthmore’s Writing Center.

1

As a queer WA, I often evaluate whether I should, like the author, “hang my queer identity at the door” when I enter a conference. I will adjust or hide when I perceive a possible higher-risk situation. For example, once I met with a student who wrote about the morally corrupting influence of “effeminate” men on the culture, so I put on the best masculine straight persona I could muster to remove myself from scrutiny.

Nevertheless, not all papers will cue us ahead of time to be careful, and aspects of identity are bound to come out in such intimate spaces as one-on-one conferences, intentionally or not. That’s why it’s important that we as LGBTQ+ WAs don’t bear the responsibility for making our own comfort all by ourselves – it takes the writing center community as a whole.

Separately, a note to self: don’t gaslight myself. Environments are formed by more than me and my perceptions, so if I perceive something that seems off, I may not be crazy. My expectations are formed by the real environments and experiences I have had, so I shouldn’t constantly second guess myself – sometimes allow for the possibility that my discomfort isn’t just me being hyper-aware.

2

Even if we work to make the Writing Center an accepting and affirming space, (e.g. putting supports in place to debrief conferences with writers), as a WA holding a marginalized identity there is still potential for a harmful encounter with a writer.  This possibility and vulnerability both makes the work that we do within the Writing Center important and also connects the Writing Center to the rest of the world.  It reminds me why it is important to participate in efforts outside of the Writing Center as well as within it.

3

Identity is not a factor to be ignored in the Writing Center. Although it may sometimes feel seamless to sweep away those parts of yourself that might render you marginalized, it might be difficult to do so responsibly in a space that relies on trust, intimacy, and reciprocity. To establish those key tenets of a conference, we need to be honest with ourselves about how our identities, and those of writers in the center, shape our interactions. We cannot incubate conferences in the center as though they are entirely separate from identity, as the latter significantly influences how we communicate with others. 

2

In the Writing Center and in life more broadly, it is very possible to be privileged and marginalized at the same time because of different identities that I hold.  Navigating how my work in the Writing Center will encounter these different dynamics-  both holding myself accountable and acknowledging potential marginalization and vulnerability-  is challenging but necessary work.  For me it has definitely been a good start, though, to have conversations among WAs that share marginalized identities.  

1

Even if conferencing can be unpredictable, I feel like I can trust the Writing Center with this aspect of my identity more than most other places. There are some “other places” in my life that compel my anonymity here, but at the Writing Center I become bolder to be my unrestrained self, regardless of the risks.

Categories
Uncategorized

“On Guard”: Religious Identity in the Writing Center

“On Guard”: Religious Identity in the Writing Center

written by Emma Klein and Tarang Saluja

In the chapter “On Guard!” from Out in the Center: Public Controversies and Private Struggles, Sami Korgan describes how religion is an aspect of identity which is less visible and also less discussed. In particular, Korgan writes about how they find themselves to be more guarded, cautious, and reticent about religion in comparison to other parts of their identity. This state of being “on guard,” as Korgan describes it, about their faith is in sharp contrast to how Korgan never felt like they had to hide their religion when it was a large part of their social relations and scaffolded many aspects of daily life. However, in the writing center, especially as a Christian at a Catholic university, Korgan describes uncomfortable experiences of students asking about faith. As Korgan describes how they felt alone in their faith, they meditate upon how some identities are welcomed in the writing center while others are negatively judged. 

Korgan’s description of how faith-based identity is regarded in a different way than something like gender identity raises questions for how we think of identities which are both less visible and also less present in discourse. While the direction of what we focus on is never fixed, other identities which may fall into a similar category are disabilities, political affiliation (as Korgan mentioned), and class. One of the fears which Korgan articulates is the concern that “we are practicing what Harry Denny (2010) in his Facing the Center calls a “clubhouse mentality,” in which only certain types of thinkers fit in, leading to exclusionary practices among tutors (148),” and Korgan worries this is associated with the “hyperliberal environment outdo[ing] itself without realizing who it’s hurting (150).”

Korgan’s analysis should encourage us as WAs to ask ourselves who we exclude when we take the predominant ways of thinking at Swarthmore for granted. And yet, as much as our program may aspire to be welcoming of all individuals, with different identities and worldviews, this becomes more challenging in practice when WAs must interact with writers or other WAs who hold beliefs that may be perceived as harmful to them. For example, Korgan describes an outspoken conservative Christian at their school who the writing consultants did not want to join their program because they were uncomfortable with his beliefs. Navigating this tension is difficult and prompts greater reflection regarding how we understand our responsibilities as WAs individually and our program more broadly. One place to start is with personal boundaries as WAs in our conferences and with each other, another dimension of Korgan’s chapter.

Korgan discusses setting boundaries about their religion by not sharing how it is important to their identity, even lying to a writer by saying they did not know much about the Bible (149). This decision was influenced by worries about how their faith would be perceived, and Korgan implies that they would rather not repress this part of their identity. However, negotiating and setting boundaries in conferences and other WA-related-interactions can also be a form of care, and each of us can make the personal decision about what we have the capacity to address in our interactions with writers and other WAs. As a program, we can continue to do more collective thinking about our purpose and how to serve all members of the Swarthmore community because we work with both writing and writers, and the two cannot easily be separated. 

Categories
Uncategorized

A Reflection on Conard-Salvo’s “Naneun hangug salam-ibnida: Writing Centers and the Mixed-Raced Experience”

A Reflection on Conard-Salvo’s “Naneun hangug salam-ibnida: Writing Centers and the Mixed-Raced Experience”

written by Immaculata Daikpor, Best Pitchaya, and Sky Park

The three of us gravitated towards this article since we are all multilingual, international student WAs. However, interestingly and expectedly, we all responded to the article in different ways. We decided to make this blog post a collection of all three of our responses, so we wouldn’t reduce any of our individual responses unnecessarily. Let’s start off with Sky’s:

Nanun Hangug Saram Ibnida. Well, to an extent. I speak Korean, I read Korean, I look Korean, I live in Korea. But also, I studied abroad, and most of my education took place in an American institution. I’ve developed as a third-culture student, caught in limbo between not being Korean and not being American. Conard-Salvo’s piece is intriguing as her internal turmoil regarding her mixed-raced identity manifests itself in a similar yet unique way in my life. When I approach Korean students in WA conferences, I hesitate in revealing my Korean identity. Whilst we may look similar and live in the same country, our upbringings and educational experiences are very different. On the flip side, Conard-Salvo’s description of the Korean cultural constant focus on education directly resonates with me and my interactions with other WAees. These cultural inclinations towards education naturally frame our approach in the writing process and capture my base attitude towards conferences. It is important for me to be cognizant of such differences and be mindful in not imposing my cultural directive onto others throughout the conferences. 

Best similarly believes that it is important to be cognizant of differences, but he also thinks that it if WAs are allowed the space, resources, and community to explore their own identities and figure out how their upbringings have shaped their approach to language and learning, they could grow to become better WAs for multicultural/lingual students:

Conard-Salvo’s essay resonated with me because of two main points. One, it had a tutor-centric approach and asserted that we have to be comfortable with our own identity before being able to run a WA session. And, secondly, it did not offer a solution but rather presented a personal and intimate experience of being a multilingual POC in the writing center. With regards to the first point, I am convinced that multilingual WA’s have a huge advantage in being able to reach out to multilingual students and offer support, understanding, and encouragement. I have experience in the past where I have been able to talk openly with students and allow them to voice out their insecurities and concerns without feeling as though they are talking to “someone who would never understand.” At the same time, there is also a constant pressure for multilingual WA’s to show as little as possible that English is not their first language with the assumption that this is the expectation and a requirement to garner respect and trust. Thus, multilingual WA’s must understand that they should not refrain from turning to their own identities and backgrounds but rather learn to grow comfortable with it and figure out how to take advantage of it in a variety of different ways. This sounds vague, but I do think that this is vague for a reason. As a person who grew up speaking Thai, my relationship with language is different than someone who grew up speaking French, Arabic, or Chinese. My transition to living and working in an English-speaking world is, therefore, different from others. However, understanding this allows me to be mindful of cultural inclinations, which I can then choose to explore or withhold from students depending on whether or not they view writing or language in the same way.  

Appropriately, Immaculata offers a variety of questions that try to dissect what a reimagined Writing Center that supports the growth of multilingual students would look like:

Conard-Salvo (2019) in her article titled ‘Naneun hangug salam-ibnida’ suggests that the infusion of a WA’s identity into a conference could have intellectual benefits for the WA-ee. She recounts an incident during her time as a writing tutor in college where she used Korean to commiserate with the multiracial student writer’s concerns. This point resonated with me because I couldn’t help drawing parallels between the University of Texas’ Writing Center and the one at Swarthmore.  What would it look like to have multilingual WAs in the Center facilitating conferences in the student’s primary language? By asking students to conform to the standards of the English language, does the Writing Center erase the backgrounds of multiracial or multilingual students? Would the benefits of tutoring writing in one’s native language outweigh the advantages of strengthening one’s proficiency in the language of instruction in their college? After all, after the writing conference, students return to classrooms where English is the language of instruction and discourse? If not this, what else? Rather than facilitating writing conferences in languages other than English, how else can Swarthmore’s Writing Center reinvent itself to become a place that is accessible to every student, regardless of their cultural or ethnic backgrounds? Although these questions don’t present easy, apparent answers, I would argue that the first step to making the Writing Program a more useful resource for students is to ask multilingual students about how the Writing Center can meet their needs better.