Reach

The Works of Melissa Danko

Act Like a Peer, Think Like an Expert

Most peer tutoring sessions in a writing center begin the same way: greetings are exchanged and introductions are given.  What happens after this determines the experience both tutor and writer have as well as the success that results.  The establishment of specific tutor and student writer roles is an incredibly important part of setting up a successful tutoring session, and there are many arguments about whether the tutor should be regarded as an expert in the field or simply as a peer.  However, it is not that simple of a distinction, as the roles of peer and expert are delicately intertwined into the way a peer writing tutor conducts a tutoring session.  Through evaluation of my personal observations in the Sweetland Center for Writing as well as consideration of writing and studies regarding what it means to be a peer vs. an expert, I have defined peer and expert in ways that suit common peer tutoring practice.  More importantly, I have come to the conclusion that tutors should act like peers and think like experts to best serve writers who come into the writing center.

My definition of peer in the context of peer tutoring in the writing center remains consistent with the standard expectation of what it means to be a peer.  A peer is someone who provides feedback on another student’s writing, engages in discussion with the writer, and offers guidance for improving the writing.  Expert, however, is a role that I have redefined.  I do not mean an expert of writing, but instead an expert of stimulating thought, encouraging productive collaboration, and adapting to each individual writer’s needs—basically, an expert of tutoring rather than writing.  As Gillepsie and Lerner explain, peer tutors do not have to be experts on the subject matter or even on grammar, because “knowing that something isn’t right is probably enough” (26).  Knowing what to do when something is not right is what makes an expert tutor.  While this is not something that peer tutors can immediately achieve, it is something that peer tutors should strive to reach.  Through practice and experience in the writing center, peer tutors will get a feel for how to better utilize the techniques they have learned.

Acting like a peer involves a few key characteristics that are very different from thinking like an expert.  Peers tend to be more of a friend to writers, offering support and encouragement.  Many writers feel that they lack writing skills, and it is our job to show them they are capable of making their own revisions and improving their writing.  In my observations and practice at Sweetland, I noticed that during revision of sentences and ideas, students asked tutors to re-word sections for them, telling their tutors that they would not be able to “come up with it” on their own.  Tutors were good about encouraging their writers that yes, they could do it on their own.  Writing is a difficult process for everyone, and tutors must work to instill confidence in fellow writers.  Being a peer is also important because it removes the feeling of hierarchy that occurs when working with a professor or GSI.  As peers, we are all students and therefore understand the issues and insecurities that arise during frustration with an assignment.  Sometimes it feels as if professors are too far removed from what it is like to be a student, and as peers we can support writers through the difficulty of writing.  Finally, we must be friendly.  This seems obvious and expected, but we underestimate the power of being welcoming.  According to a study done by instructors from London Metropolitan University, the most successful tutoring sessions occurred when tutors “were able to establish a rapport with their students” (O’Neill, Harrington, and Bakhshi 4).  Encompassing these attributes of being a peer allows tutors to set a tone for their tutoring session that provides many benefits to writers.

Acting like a peer really ensures that the tutorial runs smoothly by enabling a number of things to happen.  Being a peer to a fellow student writer sets up a comfortable environment that helps to stimulate collaboration.  Collaboration is widely accepted as a crucial part of peer tutoring: it enables discussion between tutor and writer and this helps both parties think more critically about the piece of writing in front of them.  It has been shown in numerous North American studies of achievement and performance that collaboration contributes to achievement much more strongly than working independently (Lunsford 73).  This is likely due to the fact that discussing an idea with someone can bring new ideas to the table—two heads are better than one.  In the world of peer tutoring, it really proves to be the case.  Collaboration like this can only occur to its fullest degree when a comfortable and open environment has been established, and it is a peer’s job to do just this.  According to Churches and Magin, being a peer provides a “climate in which students can feel less inhibited about asking questions and seeking help” (qtd. in Lea and Lowe 137).  Meeting with professors or people of “higher rank” can lead students to feel intimidated and inferior.  When writers feel comfortable opening up and asking questions, tutors are much more able to work with them to delve into their topics and reach new conclusions.

Acting like a peer also enables writers to maintain ownership of their writing.  According to Bruffee, peer tutoring creates a community of equals, and this puts writers and tutors on a similar level (211).  This helps to stimulate discussion rather than instruction, which is very different from what occurs when students meet with GSIs or professors.  Students have the tendency to ask professors questions that involve a right or wrong type of feedback centered on grades.  As peers, we are unable to give this type of feedback because we have no way of knowing how a writer’s essay will be graded, and this allows us to encourage writers to focus on the writing itself.  Because we cannot provide feedback that takes the writing out of their hands, we can only help them to develop and explore their own ideas.  O’Neill, Harrington, and Bakhshi explain that a peer tutor’s job is to “meet students wherever they [are] in their own writing process and to facilitate their development to the next step” (4).  Practicing this idea—that tutors meet writers wherever they are on their journey—can help to place emphasis on the process rather than the product.  This encourages writers to stay true to their writing by focusing on what they want to say as opposed to worrying about what they think people want to hear.  As peers, we are the perfect people to help guide, rather than instruct.  Refraining from correcting writers and instead appreciating their ideas and furthering them ensures that writers maintain ownership of their work.  By acting as peers and setting up a comfortable peer-to-peer relationship, tutoring sessions can be a safe place for unrestricted discussion and improvement.

While it is certainly important for tutors to act as peers, thinking like an expert is the other half of the role tutors must play.  It is important to understand, however, that gaining expertise in any area requires practice, and peer tutoring is no exception.  To become experts of critical thinking and tutoring writing, we must constantly think about how to best use the techniques we have learned and the training we have received.  Being able to think like an expert before gaining the necessary experience can be difficult, but even new tutors are capable of drawing on what they have learned about peer tutoring and reflecting on their tutorials to make appropriate changes in the future.

Experts possess characteristics specific to the experience they have gained and the mindset they hold.  In numerous studies, experts have been shown to be adaptive, flexible, and critically thoughtful.  Part of being adaptive as an expert involves the ability to reflect on a session: as Hart et al. explain, experts demonstrate “self-regulation of the problem-solving process through techniques such as reflection-in-action and reflecting on action” (3).  The ability to see what works and what does not and to make changes accordingly is an important part of being an expert in any field.  Another form of being adaptive involves immediate reflection and quick adjustment.  It is crucial that tutors assess how a session is going and respond appropriately depending on whether the writer truly understands what is being discussed or not.  If a writer is confused and needs more explanation, tutors must be perceptive enough to realize it.  Similar to this, experts are known to be flexible.  As Brandsford, Brown, and Cocking explain, “adaptive experts are able to approach new situations flexibly and to learn throughout their lifetimes” (48).  Beginning a tutoring session with an open mind and being able to compromise with writers about issues like agenda setting can really benefit the writer and allow a greater exploration of ideas than if the tutor was strict in their tutoring style.  Lastly, experts have the ability to think critically about problems that arise, and they are better able to find a variety of ways to solve it.  This does not necessarily mean that experts solve problems more quickly; experts often take longer due to their need to really understand a problem rather than jump to a solution (Brandsford, Brown, and Cocking 44).  Working through an issue thoroughly with a writer as opposed to providing a quick fix enables them to approach such issues on their own in the future.  Possessing these abilities and using them to really think as an expert can bring so much more to a tutoring session than acting as a peer alone.

Thinking like an expert promotes usage of different techniques, because experts know that there are often many different ways to do something, and they are always looking to find the best one.  Experts often have key ideas that direct their thinking, and peer tutoring is no different.  Brandsford, Brown, and Cocking state that for experts, “knowledge is organized around core concepts or ‘big ideas’ that guide their thinking about their domains” (36).  For peer tutors, this knowledge comes from the literature and knowledge of experts before us.  Philosophies and ideals are established throughout training to be a peer tutor, and tutors carry this information into their tutoring sessions.  Commitment to drawing from these philosophies can strengthen the guidance they give to their writers.  It is as if tutors have a vault of knowledge in their brains from which they can pick and choose techniques to best suit their tutoring style and their writers’ needs.  Examples of this include giving readerly responses, asking open-ended questions, and providing specific and helpful praise.  Sherwood explains that the switch from novice to expert—or artisan to artist, as he discusses—occurs when “a tutor relies not only on established rules and existing skills but also on the impromptu creation of an appropriate response to each rhetorical situation” (101).  Being able to improvise on existing techniques helps a tutor personalize the tutoring session to an individual writer’s needs.  The choice of when to use certain techniques gets easier with practice, which is why beginning peer tutors need to do their best to think like experts so they can strengthen their expertise and tutoring abilities.

When thinking like an expert, being adaptive is another critical part of ensuring a successful tutoring session.  Peer tutoring is not “one size fits all.”  To really cater to writers’ needs and help them as best we can, we must adapt our styles and plans to fit their concerns as well as their needs.  Having a better understanding of the situation, as experts often do, allows peer tutors to provide writers with a customized session that hones in on the strengths and weaknesses of the writer and attempts to curb some of the weaknesses.  Understanding where a writer is at in their writing process and knowing how to guide forward progress from wherever the starting point may be is something that tutors must be able to do.  Utilizing techniques and training can make these adaptations much easier and can make the tutoring sessions much more productive.

Before my first tutoring session, I scoured the “Tutoring in Three Acts” handout to ease my nerves and give me simple steps to follow for my very first peer tutoring experience.  Instead of bringing me an essay to work on, my writer brought me a list of ideas.  Everything I thought I would be doing went out the window, and I was forced to call on the techniques we had learned in class about discussing ideas and leading writers to their own conclusions instead of techniques regarding how to ask writers to read their essays aloud and how to give specific praise.  Uncomfortable at first, I quickly realized that I was capable of adapting to the unexpected.  Following my reflection on that particular session, I am much better prepared to cope with a situation of that nature in the future.  Thinking like an expert allowed me—and allows all tutors—to make appropriate adjustments that mold the tutoring session to a writer’s needs.

The combination of thinking critically and adapting and reflecting enables tutors to recognize issues that commonly arise and to then establish methods for solving these problems.  Tutors who think as experts, because they are constantly thinking critically about the session as it happens, possess a keen eye for noticing details during the tutoring session.  As tutors, we must be aware of everything from the writer’s body language to the words on their page.  Paying attention to how the writer responds during discussion allows tutors to think about how best to approach new ideas with them.  Brandsford, Brown, and Cocking state, “Expert teachers know the kinds of difficulties that students are likely to face; they know how to tap into students’ existing knowledge in order to make new information meaningful” (45).  Trying to think like an expert allows tutors to better identify recurring problems: Is the thesis unclear or is the issue organizational?  Will sentence-level corrections improve clarity or is the idea itself a little muddled?  From here, tutors can use their collection of techniques to help lead writers through the journey of finding the answer.  Keeping an expert mindset pushes tutors to focus on these details in a tutoring session, and it can both give the session a sense of accomplishment and benefit the writer in the long run.

Because peer tutoring incorporates ideas of both collaboration and guidance, it is important that tutors work hard to maintain this delicate balance.  Playing one role and not the other can limit a student’s experience in the writing center and prevent improvement from reaching its fullest potential.  Acting as a peer alone without the mindset of an expert limits the writer from receiving the thoughtful guidance they need and deserve, while thinking only as an expert can make the writer uncomfortable in truly discussing their writing and sharing their thoughts.  Incorporation of the characteristics that define both peers and experts enables tutors to conduct tutoring sessions fully beneficial to the writers they serve.  Acting like a peer sets up the entire tutoring session, establishing a comfortable peer-to-peer relationship and environment, while thinking like an expert provides the most thoughtful feedback and guidance to writers.  The idea that peer tutors should fully embody both of these things creates an identity for tutors that plays to the strengths of each individual role.  With the ultimate goal of improving writers, tutors must do what they can to act like peers and think like experts.

Works Cited

Brandsford, John, Ann Brown, and Rodney Cocking “How Experts Differ from Novices.” How People Learn: Brain, Mind, Experience & School. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 2000. 31-50. Print.

Bruffee, Kenneth A. “Peer Tutoring and the Conversation of Mankind.” The Longman Guide to Writing Center Theory and Practice. By Robert W. Barnett and Jacob S. Blumner. New York: Pearson Longman, 2008. 206-18. Print.

Gillespie, Paula, and Neal Lerner. “The Tutoring Process.” The Longman Guide to Peer Tutoring. New York: Pearson Longman, 2008. 25-45. Print.

Hart, Ann, Paul Bredeson, L. Marsh, and Jay Scribner. “Problem-Solving Errors of Educational Leaders.” 1-21. Educational Resources Information Center. Web.

Lea, Ben, and Megan Lowe. “When worlds collide: libraries & writing centers.” Academic Exchange Quarterly 8.1 (2004): 134-138. General OneFile. Web.

Lunsford, Andrea. “Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center.” In Murphy and Sherwood, 70-76. Print.

Murphy, Christina, and Steve Sherwood. The St. Martin’s Sourcebook for Writing Tutors. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. Print.

O’Neill, Peter, Kathy Harrington, and Savita Bakhshi. “Training Peer Tutors in Writing: A Pragmatic, Research-based Approach.” Zeitschrift Schreiben. London Metropolitan University. Web.

Sherwood, Steve. “Portrait of the Tutor as an Artist: Lessons No One Can Teach.” In Murphy and Sherwood, 97-111. Print.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.