Blog Post #4 -- Bri

I agree with chapter four’s take on the rough draft—treating it always as a work-in-progress brimming with potential, and therefore, allowing for the paper to be discussed with regards to “what might be more effective instead of what is inadequate or wrong.”  I also appreciated this section’s suggestion to be sensitive with regards to how we deliver critique, since when we are discussing our student’s work, we are also commenting on their “authorial” choices.  Something else I plan to incorporate is asking my students at the end of our session to paraphrase what we accomplished together and what they plan to do next.  

In the Fei case study, I was especially drawn to Fei’s self-assessment and consider it to be one strength in this case study.  It seems obvious to state that our personal lives impact how we “show up” to our work, but the fact that this study takes her personal feelings about her writing into account, to me is more a holistic way of conducting research.  One of the valuable pieces of information I took away from that section, was that “she could understand Americans one-on-one but had difficulty understanding a group of them.”  This made me wonder how my international students might feel during my class discussions, as well as in group work, both dependent on students interacting outside of a one-on-one situation.  I would say a weakness in the case study was contacting the student after the fact.  Having more data is always good, and so I wondered about conducting a similar case study, but with the student and tutor in real-time.  Lastly, the case study showed me that students participating in the enrollment program may potentially have more positive benefits in the long run, compared to the appointment system, or classroom setting.  Because the enrollment program is structured around regular meetings, and working with students throughout the writing process, this offers students the opportunity to have more one-on-one focused attention.