Newsgroups: bit.listserv.mbu-l
Date:         Fri, 1 Jan 1993 02:05:58 CST
From:         Eric Crump <C509379@MIZZOU1.BITNET>
Subject:      Re: Standardizing

On Thu, 31 Dec 1992 16:44:35 -0500 <ENGMYLES@UBVMS> said:
>David: the kind of anxiety mentoring creates isn't even half of the anxiety
>that
>    simply teaching without knowing what you're doing creates.  And maybe the
>anxiety is necessary -- we are accountable for our results.  Let them observe
>us, too.

David,
You're right, of course, that even working together causes anxiety at
first (sounds, by the way, that you all do a good job of encouraging
that sort of thing), but I think Myles is right that this anxiety is
not in the same league as what's caused by the sense of isolation.
The anxiety that comes with collaboration might even be more acute,
but I expect it is much less persistent. Observation, for instance,
is not one-way nor vertically hierarchical when done between peers.
It is reciprocal, so those observed, as knotted as their guts might
be, soon become observers, whereupon they find a context in which
to place their own abilities by seeing the strengths and weaknesses
of their colleagues.

And as Myles adds, observation and collaboration between GTAs and
faculty might be a real good thing. The segregation of the two
groups, to whatever extent it exists at various schools, does not
seem to me to serve either very well. Collegiality, as everybody
on this list knows, is worth its weight in gold.

And as long as we're on the subject of observations, I'm starting
to think they are not such a hot idea any more. We used to do them
all the time in our writing center. Every semester we have 20-30
new writing assistants and we've always felt compelled to *formally*
observe them during a tutorial, evaluating their performance
according to criteria suggested by the tutoring approaches we
covered in training.

It was obvious, though, that people were intimidated as hell when
we sat at the margin of their work, gazing at them, taking notes,
as they tried to simultaneously help a student writer and *do
it according to the book*  Can you imagine?

Moreover, it was clear that even those who weren't reduced to
nervous wrecks were playing for the cameras, so to speak, saying
the key words and going through the oft-rehearsed motions that
would most closely approximate the ideal tutoring style we'd
held up during training.

They were just like student writers trying to get a good grade.
We couldn't grade them, but we make the hiring decisions. Same
difference.

Last spring we tried eliminating the distinction (to some degree)
between coordinators and writing assistants: everybody observed
somebody else, and the coordinators were simply added to the
pool of names, so they were observed as well as doing observing.

Of course, that still didn't erase the "gaze" effect. Who can work
when someone is watching their every move? Only people who love
center stage, people with confidence. That eliminates a LOT of
people, good people.

so this semester, we tried working *with* writing assistants instead
of sitting off to the side, watching them (collabservation?). This
seemed to me to be a much more comfortable and satisfactory process.
We were able to simultaneously learn something about the writing
assistant's approach and ability, model good strategies and approaches,
learn new things about tutoring *from* them, and help students, all in
a more relaxed and natural situation.

I think the same approach *might* have value for inexperienced
teachers, too. Instead of sitting in on each other's classes,
observing and taking notes, they might learn as much by
participating *with* each other's classes.

Not that it's a matter of either/or. Both observation and participation
might be good.

--Eric Crump
Comments: Gated by NETNEWS@AUVM.AMERICAN.EDU