Tag: Novel ways of thinking or doing writing center work

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. 

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. 

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.”