Avoiding the Shut Down

In writing centers, tutors offer ways to help students improve their writing by instructing
the students on writing abilities. But how do we, as tutors, evaluate our attempts at teaching?
Does the conversation we between tutor and student have an effective on teaching? How can we
be more effective tutors? To answer these questions, I found it prudent to evaluate a transcription
of one of my writing sessions and examine the type of conversation taking place to examine if
any learning was happening. To help me, I turned to Laurel Blacks Between Talk and Teaching
and Magdalena Gilewicz and Terese Thonuss Close Vertical Transcription in Writing Center
Training and Research. In each piece, the authors present ways at examining specific trends in
writing center conversation to evaluate the type of work that is taking place. With that in mind, I
transcribed and analyzed a writing session which revealed much about the way I conducted my
work as a tutor.
I chose to transcribe a session with a student from an ENC-1101 course with the
assignment of a literacy narrative piece. During the beginning parts of the session, the student
described a literacy narrative piece as a piece of work examining your past literacy experience
and presenting in a narrative format to understand how you came to understand literacy.
However, the student also revealed what seemed to be his true purpose for our session the
professor offered extra points for a writing center visit. With that in mind, I began to form my
opinions of the writer immediately an ENC-1101, freshman composition, student with
minimal college level writing wanting additional points on an assignment.
Though initially, the student engaged in the session, somewhere along the way the
student stop responding thoroughly in the conversation and provided limited word responses.
Though looking back through my transcript, it is easy to see why. In what I thought were
attempts at engaging the writer in collaborative teaching work, I asserted my opinions or
interjected and undercut his input. Black describes that this type of speech that took place a
power struggle. The student viewed me as a teacher and let me control over the session. But the
problem was I looked to the student for answers, but he looked to me for the answers. His
attempts at asking me for help were in vain as I took a non-assertive approach, avoiding asking
his questions, by trying to force answers out of the student. But when the writer did engage, he
gave limited answers, which I attributed to lack of understanding. However, my conversation
analysis revealed that it was not the students fault for lack of understanding but my own.
For the rest of this analysis, I will look at approximately the middle portion of my session
at a point I consider as floundering, which is a point not much work is achieved because neither
the writer nor I had an idea of what we were trying to achieve. My conversation analysis
revealed, I floundered because of my fluctuation between a non-assertive and assertive role as a
tutor, but the real concern was I neglected to establish a rapport with the writer to figure out his
needs and failed to create an agenda for the writing session. My goal is take a similar approach to
my analysis as Black, Gilewicz and Thonus did in their pieces. Using these articles, I examined
specific points that highlighted some of their ideas to figure out what caused the writer to
essentially shut down, or provided limited responses in his answers, and examine some specific
strategies that might have turned the situation in a collaborative teaching moment instead of a
floundering one.

Controlling the Consultation
Backchanneling
Black describes backchanneling as a process of forced agreement or support often used to
acknowledge listening but not internalizing ideas (49). Backchanneling serves the purpose of
agreement in a sense that because you are the one talking I should listen. In my transcript, I
recognized that the student uses backchanneling as a way to support my opinions as the teacher.
The student agrees with his use of Ok because he has the preconceived idea that I am right
because I am the teacher, and therefore, I hold the power. The student resisted discussing his
own concerns for the paper because he it felt unnatural because the teacher usually select[ed]
which ideas will be discussed and for how long (Black 40). The student viewed me as the
teacher because the professor had allotted me that power by sending the student to the writing
center. Therefore, the student resisted the urge to discuss his own concerns with his paper
because he feared the negative evaluation from me. The students purpose was to get a positive
evaluation because he wanted the extra credit offered to him by the professor. Therefore in the
section below, you will see how the student allowed me to guide the session and his use of Ok
backchanneling shows this; you might also notice toward the end the student does engage in his
own learning, but I immediately shut down him down by implying you should just know the
certain grammar rule for introductory element commas to which he agrees I know.
77 D: Yeah Well.. uh why do you think theres one here?
78 W: Umm.. because its kind like the end of your thought? You know?
79 W: Or just like.. (2s)
80 D: Well, theres this rule its called basically after an introductory element
81 W: Ok.
82 D: Umm its actually one of the most common grammar errors
83 W: Ok.
84 D: because people think they dont need it. Is.. you know you say to this, then you say to
85 that but the real start of the sentence is there.. do you kind of see that? (2s)
86 D: Read this version part to me..
87 W: When I received my letter of acceptance from UCF.
88 D: Does that sound like a full sentence?
89 W: No.
90 D: No Theres also like basically like introducing what youre going to talk about..
91 W: Ok.
92 D: Do you see that?
93 D: So you co=
94 W: =So how could you get better at spotting those?
95 D: You can get better by I guess kind of like knowing that youre gonna put them like
96 W: I know.

Throughout this section, I dominated the speech and guide what were are talking about.
At this point in the session, the writer and I were talking about grammar rules, but I had not
established if this is what the writer even wanted to talk about. My lack of rapport with the
student left him to agree with what I said, but his use of backchanneling makes me wonder if he
internalized the concepts at all. I had not considered the writers concerns for the paper and with
a lack of agenda forced me to speculate on how to help the writer.
Notice in line 94, a missed opportunity for learning takes place because I disempowered
the students learning. I used my knowledge against the student in line 95 further gaining power
over the student. I made the writer feel inadequate because he I implied he was wrong and
instead of empowering him to answer. The students use of I know in line 96 said to me the
student gets it so it is not important I go over it, yet I wonder if the students use of
backchanneling was a way to tell me he was invested into the session but really what we were
talking about did not interest him. Yet, he went along with him because, as the teacher, he
thought I knew what was best to talk about.
I used my power, as the teacher, to guide the consultation to discuss what I wanted to talk
about, while the student and agreed with me with his use of backchanneling whether or not
interested. Black talks about this sense of interested audience discussing that this is the
preferred model of student/teacher relationship (53). A teacher talks to the student, he or she
listens, and somehow, some way learning takes place. But Black argues how can learning take
place when a student took such a passive role? I allowed the student to agree with me because I
understood the students backchanneling as a confirmation that our talk interested him, but
because the writer was not actually interested he did not fully engage in the work which I in turn
interpreted as him taking a passive role and shut down. The real reason behind his shut down was
we were not discussing the writers concerns for the paper but my own. Later in my analysis, I
will talk more on my lack of understanding the writers needs and how it impacted the writers
shut down.

Empowering the Expert

In this previous section, notice too how I use questions to further establish myself as the
dominate teacher by utilizing questions not as a tool for engagement but as a way to control how
the student responses. In the article Reevaluation of the Question as a Teaching Tool, Joann
Johnson talks about how questions can used as tool that inhibits learning (). Questions often steer
the directions of the conversation and give the questioner the power to control what and how to
answer. In line 77, I used questions to steer the conversation into a topic of my choosing because
the following section is focused on something I pointed out not the writer. I limited the writers
input by establishing myself as a dominate figure head by asking the Why question in line 77.
The problem with asking why is it impl[ies] error before an analysis had begun which then
leaves the writer questioning his reasoning for the pointed out grammar mistake in line 78.
According to Black, I did the exact opposite of the purpose of the writing center which is to
teach by empowering students (54). Students during a consultation should feel better and
confident about their writing, yet I called the writer out on one of his few grammatical mistakes.
I neglected to empower the student to learn, and instead forced him into a lack of understand.
I further encouraged the notion of my expertise over the student when I implied I knew
the rules of the comma in line 80 when the students answer lacks. However, I wonder if it was
not the students answer that lacked by my ability to share the power of the session to allow him
to explain his meanings. Black discusses how sharing power in a session with a student can aid
them in their learning because they may have a better idea about how to reach a goal than the
teacher does (57). My transcript revealed that I utilized questions to guide the session in my own
favor, but later in the transcription, I realized I did not have all the answers, but since I held the
power, the student expected me to have the answers.
Imposing upon the student that I knew more than him, I managed to empower the writing
center as a storehouse of knowledge operat[ing] as information stations or storehouse,
prescribing and handing out skills and strategies to individual learners (Lunsford 4). The writer
was not able to offer his insight on his own rules for commas because I did not allot him the
opportunity. An alternative method I might have used was instead of opening with a Why
question I could have told him to tell me his rules on commas. Taking this approach, I would
have sparked a positive assertive role because asking his rules on commas simultaneously
implied the writer has some knowledge to explore and would have gave the student opportunity
to voice his opinion. A positive assertive role would have also enabled the student to find the
answers for themselves such as the case in line 94. In this sense, I would have support Blacks
idea of shared power allowing the student to take over answering. Doing so, I might have
empowered the writers abilities to find the answers and been able to form a collaborative effort
and worked away from the storehouse model that shuts down a students chance at learning.
My Own Agenda
Interruptions and wait-time
Looking back in the session, the transcript revealed I interrupted the students thought
process several times. Gilewicsz and Thonus describe interrupting as an overlap in speech. They
surmised that interruptions often lead the speaker to give up the floor of speech in favor of the
interrupter (34). In the section below, I interrupted the student in lines 36, 39, and 48 for the sake
of pursuing my own agenda. I had my own idea on how the session should go, and I asserted that
my idea was better than the students. My assertions resulted from the preconceived thought that
the ENC-1101 could not and would not offer valid answers because he was only here for extra
credit; however when he attempted to answer, I cut him off because he did not answer my
questions initially or did not give the answer I expected. In that sense, I should have taken the
opportunity here to listen to the student and make use of wait-time. Joann Johnson describes
wait-time as giving students enough time to respond is an important part of teaching, and we
should stretch that time as much as we can in order to give our students opportunity to think
(38). But my interruptions cut off the writers thinking preventing him to fully articulate his
thoughts which inhibited the writer from learning. Below youll notice the mentioned instances
of interruptions but only in line 27 do we see any type of wait-time allotted to the student to
answer.
21 D: Like its uh.. how you could expand upon that do just enough just to get by
mentality?
22 W: Umm.. (3s) How could I.. I dont maybe like uh.. going into high school made me a
23 little like (5s) wel- maybe I dont know less achieving and I wasnt an overachiever
24 because I was.. used to just doing the bare minimum that I had to get by and wasnt
25 interested in it and Id just do it to get it done. You know?
26 D: Mhm.
27 W: So you think I (2s)
28 D: Ok. And you talked about it, you know, it didnt want you to
29 overachieve or anything.. So that kind of like changed your aspects.. on on literacy
30 W: Mhm.
31 D: You went from enjoying it, reading about superheroes to this.. Gosh it would just be
32 over kind of thing.
33 W: So you think I should expand on this part?
34 D: Yeah like.. I mean..
35 W: I mean what should I expand it to say like
36 D: Well thats up to you, its your literacy
37 W: Yeah I know
38 like.. I dont know what do you think? Like uh (3s) I dont know..
39 D: How do you think in the
40 greater scheme of things this would be bad? (3s) Like you never, you never want to read
41 just to umm learn, you just want to read just
42 W: Yeah.
43 D: --To pass basically. (2s)
44 W: So I mean (2s) pretty much like sums it up like youre saying though. (3s)
45 D: Alright Umm=
46 W: =I dont get what
47 youre saying
48 D: Ok. Umm. (4s) tst tst tst[I mutter something, reading his paper] (4s) Alright, lets
move on.

Looking over my transcript, I realized the reason for my interrupting the student; I
wanted the writer to understand the writing assignment just as I did. I neglected to give the writer
his own space to figure things out because I sought a specific answer. As you will notice below
in line 21, I drove the student to expand upon a certain topic I deemed to be important instead of
asking the student what parts he deemed important. But the lack of an agenda in line 22 is caused
the writer to response with an uncertain tone which I attributed to lack of understanding.
Therefore, it was not that the student answered incorrect but he was confused at what to answer.
I thought my efforts at asking questions were helpful, but I now realize that the student would
not be able to answer because he did not know how or what to answer. I wonder then had I not
interrupted the student but instead allotted him wait-time if that would help. Though Gilewicz
and Thonus mentioned that wait-time can be effective but thinking has to be taking place (42). If
the writer simply did not know what to answer, giving them any time of wait-time would not
have helped them.
But how do we create an environment that promotes the student thinking? Lunsford
suggests that to get the writer to think is to create an environment which questions rise in the
learner and it is then our job as tutors not to ask the questions but to present a questioning
environment then answer them (36). The environment I created for the writer reflects was one of
questioning and interrupting answers. But it seems I attempted this notion in line 36 reminding
the writer it is his paper, and that he should be the one to ask me the questions. But what happens
when the writer does not truly know the answer? Or maybe they know the answer but need help
articulating it? Black talks about how she worked with a writer trying to lead them to some
treasure chest of an answer, but the writer was left saying I dont know how to say things
(122). But this was not to say Blacks writer was unintelligent but unable to effectively
communicate her answer. In line 44, the writer states he thought it was clear what he said but his
previous statements in line 35 and 37 show he is still troubling to articulate his idea. I wonder
had I taken a step back I might have drawn out the writers understanding. My interruptions in
line 35 shut him down, and I switched from a primarily assertive role into a non-assertive role by
trying to give the writer power, but this was not the solution. The best course of action in this
instance would have been for me to take an assertive role and establish some type of rapport with
the writer drawing out his concerns. Black continues on to say that the student she worked with
had a lifetime of humiliating conferences and comments on paper which hindered her writer
from knowing how to ask for the right help. By establishing a rapport with the writer and making
use of an environment of assertive language, telling the writer what to do, but in the sense to
empower their learning. Lunsford says that in place of questioning imperative sentence
structure is the most productive strategy for a writing conference (39). Thereby, my assertive
nature could have played a role to help the student with command like sentences, tell me about
your paper, or tell me writing methods. This sentence structure promotes an environment of
discuss which could have lead to productive wait-time for thinking and the writer formulating
their own questions.

Collaboration and Passive Roles
Looking later on in my transcript, I noticed that the writer begins to form ideas about
what he should write about, and he starts to come to the conclusion of the types of things he
should expand on as mentioned in line 33 of the previous transcript section. Black talks about
how writers take on passive roles because they are used to the teachers power over them. But
Black proposes how much will [the writer] remember when [he] has played so passive a role?
(53). If the writer does not engage how do we, as tutors and teachers, expect them to learn?
Notice in the section of my transcript below how I began to recognize my own interruptions and
I allowed the student to talk in line 235-237.
233 W: So what would I do to make this paper better?
234 D: Yeah.
235 W: I mean I guess I have to expand upon superheroes and FCAT..
236 D: (Slight interjection but I stop when writer continues to talk)
237 W: Talk about how.. I guess the superheroes I guess like you said make the FCAT seem
238 like more of a villain, story, stuff like that
239 D: Alright=
240 W: I dont know.
241 D: =Alright so you have the FCAT as a villain, how could you make him or that a
villain?

However in line 241, I again questioned the writer instead of trying to take on an
imperative approach. Although, I formulated my question in the hopes to engage the writers
thinking. And even though according to Lunsford it would not be ideal, I yielded from
interrupting the writer and tried to work collaboratively instead of trying to assert myself over
him. Though it took a while in the session, the writer began to take a more active role in forming
his own ideas. Though, I should have paid close attention to the discourse marker of the writers
frequent use of I dont know, seen in line 240. Black says that discourse markers are used to
place you in relation to the other speaker such as to an earlier utterance. The writer then uses I
dont know as a way to place in an unassertive place possibly hoping I would give him the
answers. However, I became a little bit frustrated that the writer kept resorting to using the I
dont know because I was trying to get him to figure it out. In this part of the text I realized why
I had been unable to help the writer; he was not the only person lost I jumped to reading the text
and fixing grammar errors because I felt if I could not teach the student anything they would
leave at least accomplishing something; however, even in these moments my help was limited.
The session was disorganized because I had not set an agenda because of my lack of setting a
goal. This left me lost and unable to help the writer, so jumbled together questions hoping I
would ask the writer something to achieve sometime of goal. Notice below my inability to ask
proper questions in lines 155, 157, and 187. In each instance the writer is left confused, pausing
even beforehand and answered with limited statements.
154 D: So. How do you, how do you think you know you think you can one thing change to
155 another to another to another and basically how all these things got you to where you are
today?
156 W: (2s) Say that again.
157 D: Sorry, yeah its a lot to take in alright. How do you think like here I.. Ill underline this
158 you talked about how I was focused more on school, girls, and friends how do you think
159 you might have used literacy and incorporating these aspects to making you enjoy
160 literacy more. Like if somebody.. you know write a paper on your best friends
161 W: Ok.
162 D: You know what that be a lot different than preparing for the FCAT? Like correct this
163 paper that makes no sense.
167 W: Mhm. So what do you mean like.. if I was writing papers on my friends would I have
168 enjoyed it more?
169 D: Yeah.
170 W: (2s) I mean yeah.
187 D: So thinking about those two ideas um ideas how do you think you could.. use thinking
188 about those.. Well I wanna word this correctly how do you think you could use those to
189 make your writing better? Well not better but.. What do you enjoy about writing? Let me
ask you that.
190 W: (2s) I dont really like writing.
191 D: You dont really like writing. Why dont you like it?
192 W: Cause Im not really good at it.
193 D: Well what do you think makes good writing?
194 W: What makes a good writer?
195 D: Yeah.
196 W: Umm... someone that can um get all their thoughts I guess down on a paper and that
197 makes it sound good and stuff like that.
198 D: Ok=
199 W:=I dont know.

This section seems to highlight the mistakes I made as a consultant during the session.
My difficulty at articulating questions stemmed from the lack of a clear agenda set. With a clear
agenda the writers concerns were not establish which caused him to take a passive role utilizing
backchanneling and the discourse marker I dont know as tools to remain unassertive. Though
my attempts at trying to get the writer to engage seemed worthy, I established my own agenda
for the paper that did not include the writers input. However, I found through analysis that my
own agenda caused me to question and interrupt the writers thought process further reducing his
engagement. The writers lack of engagement caused me to grow frustrated because I was unsure
how to go about the session; therefore, it left me with a difficulty at articulating my questions
and dumbfounded. Toward the end of the session I seemed to be able to articulate some type of
engagement from the writer even to the point of collaboration. After the transcribed part of the
session, I found out the writer had access to the rubric for the paper via Webcourses, which I had
previously thought he did not have access too. Had I asked the writer initially if he had a rubric
the during an earlier part of the session, we might have avoided the floundered stage of my
transcription; however, it is normally my pattern as a tutor to talk to the writer first instead of
immediately turning to the rubric because it gives me the opportunity to find out what the writer
knows and the ideas they have internalized. Though from my analysis my routine for delaying
looking at the rubric might not always work. Therefore using Black and Gilewicz and Thonuss
articles as model, I was able to analyze my transcription to discover these many patterns of talk I
used and abused during my consultations. It is now up to me utilize what I have learned and put
it into practice in the writing center.


Works Cited
Black, Laurel Johnson. Between Talk and Teaching. Logan, UT: Utah State UP, 1998. Print.
Gilewicz, Magdalena and Thonus, Terese. Close Vertical Transcription in Writing Center
Training and Research. The Writing Center Journal. 24.1 (2003): p. 25-49. Web. 27 Nov.
2013.
Johnson, Joann. Reevaluation of the Question as a Teaching Tool. Dynamics of the Writing
Conference: Social and Cognitive Interaction. Eds. Thomas Flynn and Mary King.
Leahy, Richard. What the College Writing Center Isand Isnt. College Teaching. 38.2: 43-
48. Print.
Lunsford, Andrea. Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center. The Writing
Center Journal 12.1 (1991): 3-10. Print.
Urbana: NCTE, 1993. 34-39. Print.