Hello, and welcome to:

About Me

“My confidence as a writer really depends on the day.” As one of the last to post here, I am seeing that I am not alone in this sentiment. I admit that I am adept at writing within certain genres (including the academic paper, literary criticism, and so on). Also, due to my journalism experience, as well as through many procrastinations, I have become very experienced at writing on a deadline. Creatively, however, this is the area that can cause the most anxiety and self-doubt. Bouts of confidence keep me going. I am both inspired and, frankly, intimidated attending FSU and rubbing elbows in classrooms filled with such talented writers and thinkers.

From the readings for Wednesday, list & describe 2-3 metaphors that have been used by scholars to discuss writing. How are these metaphors similar & dissimilar? How might we reconcile them?


Linda Shamoon and Deb Burns are quoted in Gillespie as comparing certain sets of rigid ideals from tutors as the “writing center bible.” These prescriptions within the writing center bible are treated as less a product of research but a way to serve as “articles of faith to validate a tutoring approach which ‘feels right.’” (152-153). Rather than adhering to a writing center bible, the Gillespie and company emphasize research and practiced theories that will benefit students’ writing from a more empirical means.


“The writing center as Storehouse” found in Fitzgerald and first described by Lunsford, on the other hand, is a metaphor that is a result of “internally consistent philosophy that integrates a specific notion of writing excellence with an understanding of how the individual learns to write” (28). The piece acknowledges the waning popularity and, even to an extent, credibility of this model but presses the need to refrain from categorizing approaches into taxonomies as well as acknowledging the impact, influence, and continued use of this approach in particular.


Both metaphors, though one more in favor of its comparison and one more derogatory, are utilized to emphasize validated and researched methods of helping students become stronger writers. They also understand the need to adapt and blend approaches when necessary.    


What is your own metaphor for writing? How does it help you, and how might it help students?


My gut instinct was to go with chasing something, but in reality it is more like carving wood. This metaphor resonates with me despite the fact that I have zero whittling skills; however, the act of chipping away, smoothing, and carving something into form fits with what I perceive as the continual act of becoming a better writer as well as the editing process involved. Many students only see writing in its final form and do not realize the labor and editing process involved. Creation myths like Jack Kerouac writing On the Road in less than a month on a drug-fueled creative binge only help to solidify this in the popular imagination. I believe there can be spontaneity in writing, but there is certainly more labor and process involved. Even if something is written in a surge of creativity, there were certainly years of bad drafts and terrible ideas behind it.  


[answer to Jessi’s post]


Also, I am impressed you were able to find such a unifying thread amongst many differing theories of tutoring. At face value, they are so disparate, yet at their core they have the same goal: to encourage confidence and advancement in writers. Because of this common goal, I agree that these theories can become "complementary parts that create a functional piece." When I was a tutor, we would start a session by asking what the student wanted to get out of it. This would help guide us to what area the focus of our discussions would be, but usually the discussion would bleed into other elements of the paper as well whether it be grammar or flow in order to add cohesion or clarity. Though I would try to stay focused, nothing is in a vacuum. I am sure this training at FSU will help us refine skills and expand on theories and pedagogies.


Based on your reading of Yancey et al., what is the relationship between seeing oneself as a novice and having a "fixed sense of writer identity?" What difference does this make for you? What difference does it make for your future students and/or tutees?


A fixed sense of writer identity can be counter-productive and even dangerous to the student's development as a writer. An example of this danger, and brought up in some of the other answers here, is the example of an AP student "less likely to see themselves as a novice writer when entering college," but who are "often not as prepared as they believe" (106). It is important to note these kinds of discrepancies  especially since there is still a culture of viewing writing workshops for the so called "remedial" and "novice" writers. Even those students who believe themselves to be expert writers may be deficient in other areas or unfamiliar with college or academic writing. I think one of the more interesting insights is the assertion that writers who see themselves more as novice writers may be more open to new ideas and change. Anecdotally, I spoke to an instructor who taught the genre course last year and seemed to have particular trouble with a student who was overly confident in their writing. I now recognize this scenario as involving a student who most likely fits within the typical AP student Yancey, having succeeded in the past but perhaps underprepared for college level writing and research.


Outline two major takeaways from your reading of the  North pieces. Account for the ways in which your reading of "Idea" was complicated (or not) by "Revisiting."


My first takeaway in reading  North is that he has many valid frustrations and the English department and the writing center are often at odds; however, North notes that this a "vital and authentic reflection of a way of thinking about writing and the teaching of writing that is alive and well and living in English departments everywhere" and in other words English departments often need to hold up a mirror to their own practices and attitudes (437). The revisitation of these assertions in North's second piece tamps down some of the idealistic with the realistic. Many of the same points still stand but are curbed with how students and tutors more realistically act and treat writing (with a very different idea of how much of a willing collaborator a typical student may be). In other words, many of the statements from the first piece by North remain both "accurate" while in a sense "laughable." And although North amends some aspects of the following quoted passage, I confess that I may have been more prone to have visited a writing center as an undergraduate if it had been advertised and presented as an opportunity to have a tutor "observe and participate" in what is "ordinarily solo ritual of writing" (439). An ultimate truth North touches upon toward the end of the piece is the idiosyncratic nature of writing centers and their missions and thus the difficulty in prescribing fixes.


What are some of the assumptions undergirding the writing center model for which Lunsford advocates--in terms of writing, learning, teaching, our institutions, etc.? What questions, problems, & opportunities do those assumptions raise?


One assumption widespread is that collaboration will save the writing, and though Lunsford describes the myriad ways in which collaboration has been proven to strengthen writing, she also cautions that "collaboration often masquerades as democracy when it in fact practices the same old authoritarian control." Also, collaboration is decidedly difficult to successfully implement. A lack of means to effectively evaluate the individual, tendency to support the status quo (and perhaps quell individual creativity), and pushback from the academic community at large are all issues that arise from collaboration in student writing. Opportunities listed include aiding in critical thinking and problem solving. These are positive factors of collaboration that cannot be ignored.


[in response to another student in DB2]

I would like to hear others' view on the "promoting excellence" line as well.  I am glad you brought it up because I was so confused by this vague notion of "excellence" and how it is tied to collaboration that I tried to find some context to the Hannah Arendt quote when first coming across it. Unfortunately, I could not find more to it in my (admittedly) limited time searching (maybe noting exists past the catchy aphorism) but from reading others comments on it, as far as I gather, it is more literal than I would have expected: "our 'words and deeds' must occur in the presence of others to have any relevance to the human world" (Restaino, found here: http://compositionforum.com/issue/30/writing-together.php). I guess she is just saying that people simply work better when they put their heads together?


[in response to another student in DB2]


Your assessment of Lunsford hit a nerve for me. Though sold on the potential in collaboration, I have 100% been the student who complained about group work (for reasons I probably do not have to list here), yet when I look back, there are a handful of these group projects in when I gained some major insights. Especially if I expand these projects to include other subjects besides English (math is one that comes to mind). And if classroom discussions are included as collaboration, there is no question as to their value.


That said, it would be no exaggeration to say that not quite all collaborative projects resulted in insights or major epiphanies. In fact, some of these group projects bordered on a complete waste of time; however, of the ones which have positive associations, I recall dissecting poems with worksheets in groups, comparing what we each gathered from the same lines and being surprised at the array of interpretations. I also remember creating a puppet show version of Oedipus Rex with classmates. A Snoop Dog (Snoop Lion? No, I just checked, he is back to Snoop Dogg) puppet translated and acted as the chorus, and the project overall helped solidified the stage aspect of the play. These are all high school examples, but there are some college memories as well that fit the bill: one group I was in during my third year at UF had to create and present a magazine prototype. We all took turns editing, designing, and writing the magazine. Most often though, collaborative work can seem like exercises in people management and little else. It makes me wonder how to best structure collaborative learning in order to maximize efficacy? I cannot always recall what made some group projects so terrible while a few other ended up being fairly painless.


Overall, I agree with Lunsford's acknowledgment to the potential of collaboration while still harboring some trepidation as to its implementation in a tutoring and classroom setting.


[in response to another student in DB2]


The way you summarized Lunsford's position on collaboration helped me tie it outside of the writing workshop and how all published work is reliant on collaboration (between the writer, publisher, editor, cited sources, etc.). It is certainly something I knew but was not connecting to this piece. In my past work at a writing center, I dealt with group papers ( I kind of forgot about this until just now). I honestly do not remember how I dealt with them specifically, and now I wonder if there are some strategies I could have been employing to further foster collaboration in the writing center?


With reference both to the two chapters on the writing process and to your own writing experiences, what values are implicated when we privilege process over product?


Privileging process over product includes a de-emphasis on an idealized and ultimately unobtainable finished result. The writing process (for better or worse) does not necessarily ever truly end in an ultimate, polished product free of defects and without room for improvement. Positive values of growth and critical thinking are "implicated" and strengthened by focusing on process. Though the creation of product is still necessary within the process of writing, I hope this shift in emphasis can encourage students to "own" their text, rather than "rent," to use an analogy from Gillespie.


Outline two major takeaways from your reading of the  North pieces. Account for the ways in which your reading of "Idea" was complicated (or not) by "Revisiting."


As alluded to in a few of the readings, breaking up the writing process into stages or episodes can understate the recursive or fluid nature of writing. As Ryan and Zimmerelli write, "the linear model of prewriting, writing, and revising is inadequate" (7). In conjunction to my previous answer regarding process versus product, the disadvantage of breaking up the writing process into such formal groupings moves the process of writing away from process in some manner and more toward an emphasis on product or products. In other words, every step in the process becomes a product with an implicitly stricter set of attributes (confused even more so when the attributes do not seem to be clearly defined--when does a rough draft become a revised draft of a final draft?); however, an advantage may be that some students work better under a model that has clearly defined steps. Rather than get lost in the process, they may want or need stepping stones to reach a satisfactory end point. As in other disciplines, breaking processes down into steps can be helpful, and for many students, the recursive and fluid nature of writing can obfuscate rather than enlighten.


What are some of the assumptions undergirding the writing center model for which Lunsford advocates--in terms of writing, learning, teaching, our institutions, etc.? What questions, problems, & opportunities do those assumptions raise?


Nondirective tutoring, though great in theory, tends to actively ignore the power dynamic that exists between a tutor and student. There seems to be a need for a balance in regards to the debate between the two schools of thought, allowing students to naturally discover their writing process while also giving some instruction or advice along the way. Corbett goes as far as to call aspects of nondirective tutoring "manipulative" in ignoring the realities of the power dynamic between tutor and student. This is not to say Corbett is entirely against nondirective approaches, but even when listing some of the merits of what Corbett interchangeably calls "minimalist tutoring,"  the piece seems skeptical overall of a dominate, nondirective tutoring stance and quotes Cooper, saying this type of approach "forecloses the act of collaboration." Bringing in my own experiences, there have certainly been stumbles in finding my writing process, but I have been lucky to have a good mix of prescriptive lessons, more minimalist guidance, and the freedom to make mistakes on my own. When tutoring at TCC, I was often confused how directive I could be within a writing center that emphasized and enforced a highly nondirective approach. Just like with the writing process, it is a balance that I am always working on.


[in response to a student in DB3]


  1. I like your emphasis on writing as a verb versus noun. I also like your assessment (as well as many of our other readings' assessments) of the writing process as idiosyncratic and individual to the student. Our answers to this question are similar, but the way you described "knowledge construction" and students taking control of their writing process really hits home. The emphasis on process can give agency back to students and ultimately create more powerful critical thinkers/writers.


  1. With all that said in your first answer, Lerner does mention a lot of the caveats to these theories of writing, which I also appreciate. It helps create, in some regards, a more realistic and practical guide than in other texts; however, I understand your frustrations in guides like this becoming bogged down by metaphor. Writing about writing is not the easiest thing to do. I am finding many of our reflection exercises much more anxiety inducing than a "simple" paper for a literature class.


[in response to a student in DB3]


  1. I certainly appreciate a straight-forward answer when appropriate. We joked in class about continuing Socratic methods of questioning in a session even when highly inappropriate or counter-productive, but I have seen this behavior before in a tutoring session. In an idealized world, and in practice when possible, a nondirective approach can lead to more growth and self-discovery, even agency and confidence, but there is a time and place for it. When to use it and when to sit back and let the writer guide, is the ultimate debate.


In 250-300 words, reflect on the session that you had as a tutee in the RWC this past week.


Due to the fact that I am usually working on a paper until deadline as well as my predisposition to undertake the writing process as a solo venture, attending a conference with only a rough draft of my literacy narrative was slightly nerve wracking. In the past, when sharing my work with others, I have always presented a more polished, "finished" paper. This is true whether my piece is for publication, a course, or a workshop. Having to make an appointment during the second week forced me out of my comfort zone in this regard.

All is well though, and my tutor, Amanda, was extremely welcoming and understanding of where I was in the process. She focused the tutoring session on possibilities for where my paper could go and how it could potentially be organized. Someone else in this thread mentioned that their tutor’s suggestions were fairly simple, and this was true for my session as well. Though, I want to echo their sentiment that this simpleness is not to be dismissive of how helpful Amanda’s was in guiding my process.


She made sure to start the session asking where I saw myself in the writing process and what I hoped to achieve during the session. My writing process tends to be recursive and I do not differentiate between outlining and drafting. Amanda recognized this soon after starting my paper. She also was familiar with the assignment having done it herself and having seen many other literacy narratives come through. She assuaged my fears and assured me me of the assignment’s openness to interpretation. We also talked about the program, discovering we had a lot in common since she had done her MFA in creative writing.

[in response to DB4]


I did not even consider a 30 minute session versus a 1 hour session until reading posts on here. As far as that changing the tutor's approach, this is something I am very curious about and will have to ask them about it next time I shadow. I wonder if it is more difficult if the student is only brain storming or brings in an outline to go for one hour? When I tutored, students were limited to 30 minute sessions with understanding that much longer and the session might not be as productive.


We had many similarities in our experience going into the tutoring session, particularly our apprehensiveness due to usually being "on the other die of the desk" as well as bringing in a piece very much in the drafting phase.


[in response to DB4]


I like the idea of framing the session with how the writer feels about their paper. I always assumed the distance created by this question could be helpful, but it was enlightening being on the receiving end. We talked in class about strategies to create distance between ourselves and the paper including coming back to the paper after a significant amount of time, reading it backward, and reading it out loud--but of course, having someone else read your paper is probably the strongest method of doing this.


  1. In fewer than 100 words, what is your one biggest fear about being a tutor in the Reading-Writing Center? If fear is too strong a word, what are you most apprehensive about? Or to dull it even further, what are you most unsure about?


  1. What strategies do you plan to employ to overcome the fear/apprehension/uncertainty described in your answer to question 1?


As probably echoed by others, one of my biggest fears is being an ineffective tutor. Though I have a couple years of tutoring experience at a community college, this only exacerbates the fear -- that I could possible have tutored for this so long and still not be up to par for the FSU environment. I wonder if the rhythm and comfort I gained at my last position will translate to a new environment.


I plan to overcome this apprehension by watching closely what makes the other tutors in the writing center effective.  I want to bring my own elements to tutoring but also follow the culture that has been created at FSU. I hope to bring the positive experiences I had tutoring in the past (honestly one of the most fulfilling jobs I ever had) and use these to fuel my time tutoring at FSU.  


[in response to DB5]


It can be especially difficult when the subject of the paper is so far removed from our own expertise (such as a chemistry paper). I agree that a session generally gives me less apprehension when the subject is part of the humanities, English, etc. I agree with you, though, that we can at the very least act like soundboards for the student and utilize non-directive approaches to the paper. Also,even if we do not understand many of the concepts in a paper, we can still look at the flow and organization of the paper as well as its clarity.

[in response to DB5]


You are correct that a disengaged student can be the most difficult type to tutor. Especially with an emphasis on non directive styles of tutoring, this issue is exacerbated. I agree with you assertion of being personable and utilizing silence (or awkward jokes). As you state, empathizing with the student is an ultimate goal, and even telling the student that "even if you do not want to be here, let's at least try to get something out of our time together" can help. Some cases may be a lost cause, but we have to at least try.


In 250-300 words, reflect on the session that you observed in the RWC this past week.


Because I misunderstood Anna’s email, I’ve had the pleasure of observing two sessions with Jenn.


I have actually not had the chance to really talk to Jenn apart from some basic pleasantries as she has had back-to-back sessions both times I have observed her. Each session goes its full time (and sometime a minute or two over) with the next appointment waiting. I kind of hope that there is at least one break next time so I can ask some questions.

Both sessions had ESL students who were outwardly nervous about their fluency and grammar. Jenn was able to show them that their paper, despite a few grammatical errors, was fairly clear but that a focus on what seemed more pressing, the organization of their argument, may be better use of their time. Grammar was subtly addressed still as Jenn has a tendency to read papers out loud, and when she stumbles over a confusing or awkward passage, the student or her will mark it for later revision. She may at times mention what the grammatical error is.

Another paper had a prompt which, if not an “assignment from hell,” may have been at least an assignment from purgatory or some other lesser ring of hell. This and another session I observed had essay prompts that were fairly convoluted yet strict or hyper prescribed in what they wanted the students to write.

My tutor was very good at getting the student to elaborate or explain their thoughts, starting her sentences with "so how…" or "so what kind of…" and leading students to respond with something like, "well, what I am trying to say is…" I was impressed with how she was able to get students to make connections and generate ideas by her reading the passages to them or asking questions about the lines.


[in response to DB6]


I have yet to see a student that "had" to be in the writing center, so it is interesting to read your experience about someone taking the 1901 (1905?) course. We have talked to a degree about what to do if the student legitimately has no compositional or reading work to do (although we also discussed how often times they do have something to work on), so it was nice to have this concrete example. Like you, I worry certain exercises can come off as condescending, and I am glad Megan's suggestion went so well. Going over words in context is honestly something we all can work on.


[in response to DB6]

It is amazing how much we can get stuck in our own heads. I did not recount it in my own post, but my tutor often had students write down their explanations of a point being made in the essay. One student even had an outline she brought that had great evidence, but she did not add it into the essay  thinking it was not valuable if she could not fit in easily.


Though, as you note, being directive in certain aspects is important, I like that a lot of your experience with Osel reinforces the importance of the tutor as a backboard or mirror for the student.


[in response to DB6]


Every time I have been in the writing center Amanda has been there to immediately greet an incoming student (even if she is in the middle of a writing session) and guides them to a seat. It is certainly a nice gesture.


[DB7 is Writing Client Report Forms handout]


In 250-300 words, reflect on the session that you observed in the RWC this past week.


One of the more notable sessions involved a paper on Chinua Achebe's Things Fall Apart. The essay prompt was fairly complex and kind of reminded me of a choose your own adventure book. Despite the seeming freedom in such a format, the result was more constrained or prescribed and did not allow the student to come up with their own thesis but instead gave several combinations of main points to prove (they were to pick two).


Though it was obvious the student had read the book and even enjoyed it, they lacked confidence due in part to the difficulty of the essay prompt. They were worried their ideas did not reflect what the prompt wanted. We took quite a bit of the time dissecting the prompt and figuring out what aspects the student meant to tackle.


We then moved onto the paper. They had both their initial outline and a rough draft with their instructor's remarks. In our other training course with Coxwell-Teague, we spoke of ways to write comments on papers that elaborate in a positive light. In some ways this paper's comments would fall under the category of what to avoid, and included very curt and vague "awk," "run-on," and "thesis?" type comments...honestly, comments I am guilty of having committed in the past. This may have contributed to the student's apprehension.


Many of her strong supporting statements in her outline did not make it to the rough draft, so we helped them figure out where to best place these in the essay. Based on these supporting statements, we tried to lead them to create a more comprehensive and specific thesis that lined up with the prompt and their support.


I think mostly what we did was try to build the student’s confidence and help them add more detail (already in their outline) into the essay to strengthen it.

[response to DB8]


This an interesting scenario. I feel as if the PhD student pushed the meeting into exactly the kind of tutoring session we espouse: student led, tutor as backboard, etc. I like the idea of utilizing the writing center for accountability. It is not how I traditionally see it being used.


[response to DB8]


I am jealous of the time you got to speak with your tutor since my tutor has always had back-to-back sessions! I am glad you got to co-tutor a student who was passionate about their topic and that you got to utilize that passion and steer them to other types of sources (mainly peer-reviewed, academic). Even after many research papers, it is nice to have someone else to give ideas for Boolean phrases. I can often get stuck on a few and can't think outside the box to find other ways to search for my topic. I think tutors are overall a great resource to help frame ideas, even if it is search terms for an essay.


  1. With reference to the readings, what are some of the unique challenges that L2 writers might be facing when they enter the RWC (or your classroom)?


  1. What is one question about teaching & tutoring L2 writers that you would like to have answered by the end of class on Wednesday?


  1. Besides the more obvious issue of having to translate thoughts into a second language and the rigidity L2 students are confronted with when forced to conform to, or participate exclusively in, an essentially mythical, codified mode of Standard Written English (alluded to by Honer and Kutz), I have seen first-hand how L2 writers often do not share the same cultural concepts of the dominant culture they are in. This issue is brought up in Phillips’ case study of Chozin as well as the CCCC’s guidelines asking for us to be “sensitive to their linguistic and cultural needs” of L2 students. Though this is not always the case, it can be a substantial hindrance to achievement for L2 students in an American (U.S.A.) college setting.  Even beyond L2 writers, there have been studies showing how people not privileged to be a part of the dominate culture do more poorly on standardized tests that feature situations and concepts not available to them or not a part of their cultural knowledge. This is only exacerbated for many L2 writers in the college setting.


  1. I would also like to know if the RWC has an official stance when it comes to tutoring L2 students. I feel like we have touched upon some issues (plagiarism versus patchwriting being one of them), but is there something more comprehensive to guide us?


[response to db9]


The idea of students from other cultures adjusting to our society's concepts of genre is something that actually came up with my mentor instructor today. This other layer interrogates and complicates the already thorny and tangled concept of genre. I would also like to know how to best determine when students are struggling with grammar and mechanics versus other cultural or language-based issues like transmuting their customs (and own idea of genres) against our very American and academic expectations.  


[response to db9]


It is unfortunate that L2 writers tend to have so much more on their plate. I am not sure if there is  way to mitigate this entirely, but I like where you go with having extra time in the RWC. As someone who has merely dabbled in other languages and lived abroad for only short periods of time, I can only empathize to an extent with an L2 student, but the important thing is to at least always be thinking about ways in which to accommodate them as well as interrogate the systems that bring us to this point.  


[response to db9]


I had multiple students when I taught middle school who were very early to English but fluent in Spanish. Depending on their level, I gave them translations of prompts and texts in Spanish, but I always had them write answers in English with a Spanish-English dictionary (their word counts were often less than other students, and I often gave them more time). I am not sure if this was the correct decision (I could only accommodate so much with over 100 other students demanding my attention), but I also had a couple teachers in my building who were fluent in Spanish and helped me create these resources. I am not sure how this would translate to college level courses, honestly. Creatively, I feel there is plenty of opportunity for writing in other languages besides English (I am thinking of hybrid fiction texts), but for academic purposes, I would have more trouble incorporating this into my personal curriculum, though in theory I am for it as there are plenty of journalistic publications even in the US outside of English.


  1. What is/are the common exigence(s) to which the authors of the three readings are responding in their essays?


  1. What are 2-3 key concepts and/or metaphors that recur across the readings, and to what end are they used?


  1. With reference to the readings, what are some of the ways in which composition & writing center pedagogies should be--or are already--shifting in response to the exigences described in your answer to question 1?



Hawk’s language like “break out of traditional notions” and reconfiguring principles “from a different paradigm” can be seen as indicative of all three readings’ desire to react to and update rhetoric and composition to the heavily technologized, digitized, and global world. Whether this is situating the subject of writing to the “network” in a theoretical structure of post-process theory within a posthuman model as Hawk argues, more specifically bringing in the concept of new-media in teaching practices as DeVoss advocates, or realizing and incorporating the global (and thus multilingual) reality of rhet/comp, they all share this exigence of reacting to a technologically networked, increasingly complex, and multi-lingual/multi-faceted world.


Though perhaps macro in view, they all refer to a network of some sort. Hawk specifically argues toward a view of the network as a subject, decentering the human within the network, while DeVoss writes of the the infrastructural network brought upon through in new-media. Fraiberg focuses more specifically on a grounded framework of multi-modal and multilingual activities within instruction across the globe.


They also all refer to global processes as our society has become more intermeshed, interconnected, and reliant on the internet. While all three writers end with varied conclusions, they all focus on the reality of our society becoming ever complex as the endless points of contact come together, recognizing the increased reliance on, and thus the need for rhet/comp to react to, the multi-lingual and multi-modal forms of communication proliferating within our societies.



From what I can see from our readings and the culture at FSU’s English Department, writing centers seem to be shifting  toward an increased recognition of both the multimodal and interconnected world. The emphasis and allowance for more collaboration (even if not evenly celebrated across curriculums), the recognition (if not total acceptance) of valid modes of communication besides “standard English,” and the shift of emphasis on genres (at least at FSU, and especially in ENC2135) all seem to be in direct response to these global shifts in theoretical thought and the realities of a connected, networked world.


[response to db10]


Great catch with the constellation metaphor! It is a great way to show the networking aspect of their arguments and the broadening scope of this network with technology and globalism. I think your list of factors is comprehensive. Perhaps, multi-modal could be added if anything was to be added at all.


Regarding your comment on certifications of tutors, I wonder if you have heard of CRLA and have any opinions on its implementation in the writing center? I had to take courses toward being CRLA certified and actually ended up watching and reading some of the same resources we are currently utilizing. We did not tend to specialize, though.


[response to db10]


Echoing what somebody else said, you encompassed all the readings very well!  


I agree that the digital studio is a great first step toward addressing some of the concerns raised in the readings. For some reason, that was not the first thing that came to my mind. Perhaps, it is because there has not been as much of a focus on this aspect of the writing studio in our summer course. While the inclusion of the digital studio with the writing center helps address the technical aspect (and thus multimodal), there is certainly still work to do toward incorporating multilingualism and the myriad of other issues brought up by DeVoss, Hawk, and Fraiberg.

supplemental information goes here or a photo?