League 1 Vicki League Dr. Guenzel ENC4275 18 April 2013 Transcription Analysis: Cross-Cultural Communication 1.

Introduction On March 14th I recorded and then transcribed a session with a writer who needed help understanding organizational methods. I was originally excited because writers dont often come to the Writing Center wanting to work on a global concern. However, once I saw his paper, I noticed that he seemed to have absolutely no paragraphs or structure and I knew that it would take all of my ability to help him. This was when I noticed that he was of Asian descent and I wrongly jumped to the conclusion that he was not a native speaker of English. Looking back, its unlikely that he wasnt; his speech sounded native and he did not have an accent. This was just the beginning of the cultural difficulties that arose in the session, because although he may not have been speaking English as a second language, my transcript indicates that he abided by different cultural ideals than me. For the most part I failed to realize what was happening due to my lack of knowledge about differences in others backgrounds, and expected directive approaches while not noticing his indirect attempts to communicate with me. By analyzing this transcription I noticed a few patterns that highlighted the cultural difficulties that we faced: affirmation and passiveness, wait time and mumbling, and word count and conversation domination. These three categories will allow me to take a deeper look into what actually happened during the session that caused miscommunications that derailed our focus. The differences between our cultural upbringings affected our ability to successfully communicate.

League 2 2. Affirmation and Passiveness Affirmative statements play a large role in active listening: they let the speaker know that the listener has heard him/her and is not ignoring the speakers ideas or main points (Ryan and Zimmerelli 23). Words like okay, alright, mhmm, and others demonstrate acknowledgement or acceptance of the teachers speech (Black 41). Passivity in a writing conference stems from the idea that the student is supposed listen to the authority, accept what theyre saying, and leave the power of speech in the hands of the teacher, who will dominate the conversation and not allow the writer to voice any ideas or direction for the session to take (Black 53). Passive behavior from the student is behavior that allows the authority figure to keep this role, and the affirmative words used in active listening aid the passive student in keeping the traditional role values in conferences and consultations. I was able to notice that the writer was not taking an active role in the discussion aspect of the consultation and this left me wondering how to assess his learning when he was contributing very few words and ideas. I thought that he was just shy or unsure of himself, and this was the only time that, during the consultation, I was able to identify that something was going wrong. Laurel Black, in her book Between Talk and Teaching, has a passage on the misconception that writers are just shy: Unless a studentgives the teacher [or consultant] some indication of confusion (and unless the teacher creates such an opportunity for the student to speak!), the teacher may think that the student is a lot of things sullen, withdrawn, quiet, shy but will probably also assume she understands what is being asked of her. (113) Even though, during the session, I thought that he was just shy and unconfident instead of looking deeper into his behavior, I do attempt to create opportunities for the writer to speak,

League 3 which shows that I was attempting to engage him in the session and draw out his ideas and feelings. However, as is evident in this example, he does not take the opportunity and instead waits for me to continue speaking. He does not give any indications of confusion like Black says are necessary to help the teacher, or consultant in this case, understand that the student needs clarification or help. In my transcript, V is me and W is the writer.1

[Sample 1]

At line 111 he pauses for 9 seconds, waiting for me to resume my speech and suggestions, instead of taking that long pause to bring up any concerns. I let the pause run for the entire 9 seconds in hopes that he would take control of the conversation and ask for clarification, but I end up breaking the silence. Black says, In order to save face, Asian students may say they understand something even if they dont; in face-to-face interaction of all kinds (Black 104, citing Fiksdale 57, citing Goffman 19). The writer may have followed this generalization by not
1: Transcription key indicates that someone is interrupting {1s} amount of time that someone pauses for a small pause in speech that is less than 1s long in which the speaker trails off or is gathering thought {text} text in brackets is a phrase for clarification of events during the transcription (text) unidentifiable words , purposeful, less than 1s pause in speech

League 4 asking for any clarification or indicating that he was confused. I gave him a few suggestions and he only replied with okay, an expression of affirmation in most cultures and an indication of active listening, instead of asking for an explanation if needed, or offering his own opinions or thoughts (Black 89). Usually I would expect a writer to interrupt me if they didnt understand what I was saying, but something different happened in this consultation. Only three interjections from the writer occur, and they are not for clarification; instead, two of these were to answer a question and one was to explain something in response to my confused reaction to a section of his paper. Compare this to the eight times he overlaps my speech solely to show active listening with a single affirmative word. He used affirmative expressions a total of 16 times in the consultation in response to my explanations, including the previously mentioned eight times during his displays of active listening. Again, this may be an adherence to Blacks statement: an avoidance of letting someone know that they dont understand and instead encouraging the teacher/consultant to continue talking through expressions of affirmation. Although he was active in his listening, which does not necessarily prove that he completely understood what I was saying, he showed passive behavior in his contributions to the conversation by not voicing any opinions or questions. Blacks statement could explain why the writer offered only affirmative responses to my suggestions and explanations instead of saying I dont understand if I wasnt making any sense. My inability to realize that he may have a cultural background influenced by Asian values affected the way I directed the session; I could not figure out how to assess his learning, where to expand further, or how to get him to express his lack of understanding. I knew that something was amiss and that I was throwing out too much information for him to understand it all perfectly, especially because he came into the

League 5 session with no knowledge on the procedures of organization, but I had no idea how to fix it. My unfamiliarity with culture was the root of problem. In addition to being passive about his understanding of my suggestions, he was also passive about expressing his knowledge of the assignment to correct my misconception about the purpose of his assignment, which was a literature review. I was not aware that this was an actual genre of assignment; I incorrectly assumed that he would be reviewing some sources and applying that knowledge to a main idea.

[Sample 2]

In lines 58-61, I ask him what his main focus is. He is unable to answer me and instead tries to explain what he was saying in his summarization of each source. He did not directly correct me and say, No, a literature review is actually just reviewing the content of sources by summarizing them. Instead he repeatedly says this source, like in line 62, and details about the, the types of information, in line 68, trying to tell me that the assignment is to review sources and go into details about the sources instead of trying to prove a point through his writing. By not noticing his subtle attempts, I was unable to respond appropriately. Black notes that Japanese and Chinese tend to me more indirect than Americans;and Korean students do not want to take strong positions in defendingdecisions (Black 102, citing Connor 207-208). These values

League 6 might explain his indirect and subtle attempts to indicate that the focus of the paper was actually to summarize sources and not to have his own main point. If I had known to look out for such behavior I might have stepped back and asked, Well, what exactly is the point of a literature review, anyway? What does your assignment define it as? This is also an error on my part to thoroughly discuss the assignment and find out the requirements. 3. Wait Time and Mumbling Scholars applaud the use of wait time in consultations because it allows the writer some time to process questions or commands and formulate a response. JoAnn Johnson, in Reevaluation of the Question as a Teaching Tool, explains why wait time is such an important part of being a successful tutor: ...with increased wait time, (1) the length of response increased; (2) unsolicited but appropriate responses increased; (3) the failure to respond decreased; (4) confidence, as reflected in response, increased; (5) speculative responses increased; (6) evidence inferences increased; (7) student questions increased; and (8) responses from students rated as slow increased. (Johnson 38) In my transcription I found many occurrences of wait time, both successful and failed. The writer and I used wait time in the session, but for different reasons. I was practicing my ability to wait for the writer to either respond or have some time to think. In Sample 3 there is a specific moment where my wait time does not invite the conversation I had wanted.

[Sample 3]

League 7 I chose this example because, in line 41, I ask Right? and expected a response from the writer. I wanted to make sure that my assumption that he was bringing in a source was correct, and gave him a full two seconds to reply. Although two seconds may not seem like a long time, asking for a response as directly as saying Right? and not receiving an instant reply is disconcerting and odd. When no reply is forthcoming, I hurriedly say Okay so and begin to read his paper to try to erase the awkwardness of those two seconds. My quickness to jump back into the conversation could be a result of the affective dimension: I felt unsure and awkward and these feelings affected the way that I reacted and behaved in the session. Sample 3 was one of the first occurrences of (unsuccessful) wait time in the transcription and might have given me my first clue that something was amiss with our communication ability. If you recall Sample 1, the writer had been using only the affirmative okay as a response to my questions and suggestions. In line 111 of Sample 1, as I have mentioned, he spent nine seconds waiting for me to continue talking after saying Okay and nothing else. This was the way that he used wait time in the consultation. While I was waiting for him to speak, he was waiting for me to continue. Usually I ended up speaking first, although there were a few instances where he did gather his thoughts and speak. I felt that my use of wait time to allow him a window to respond and express concerns was unsuccessful because he was using the same wait time to give me time to gather my thoughts and bring up new concerns. This happened often in the transcript and could be, again, related back to values of silence and not indicating confusion or a need for clarification. As is evident, the results of my use of wait time did not yield the outcome that Johnson expected. Writer response rate did not increase nor did responses become lengthier. Granted, some of my pauses were not long enough for the writer to create a wellthought out reply, but repeated 3-9 second pauses didnt even end up with a single word

League 8 response. Maybe longer pauses are needed to draw out responses and questions because they could induce a feeling of needing to break an awkward silence. While wait time could indicate an unwillingness to contribute ideas, mumbling can show that a person is unsure of the idea that they are in the process of trying to contribute. Mumbling is something that all people are guilty of: whether they are mumbling a rude remark to themselves, forgetting to raise their voice to be heard, or unsure of what theyre saying, people mumble all the time. In line 45 of Section 3, the writer mumbled words that were incomprehensible through the recording. Repeatedly throughout the transcript I was unable to decipher what he was saying as he trailed off into quiet, muttered words. In Sample 2, line 68 also contains a mumbled phrase. I find this interesting because he was soft-spoken throughout the session and, as Ive said, passive in his attempts to express himself. Although I cannot confidently say that I know enough about him to know about his background, based on the other behaviors that he showed, his incoherent mumbling could be attributed to a cultural upbringing of indirectness and passivity as exhibited by his actions. During the consultation, I thought he was expressing a lack of confidence in his ideas and a preference that I continue speaking instead of listening to what he had to say. Looking back, he may have been unwilling to interrupt me and was trying to take hold of the conversation in a quiet and subtle way. I am also led to wonder if I had noticed his mumbling tendencies during the actual session. I do not ever indicate, on the recording, that I understand what hes mumbling or ask for clarification. I may not have reacted because the room was loud (there were about four other consultations happening at the same time) and I did not want to ask him to repeat what hed said. Sometimes that can imply that a person is not good at speaking, and since I originally thought that English was his second language, I did not want to offend him. If I had thought deeper into this pattern of speech,

League 9 however, maybe I could have identified cultural differences or at least a communication issue that was inhibiting our ability to understand each other. 4. Word Count and Conversation Domination Word count measures student participation and how much of a rolestudents get in constructing knowledge and in actually shaping a conference (Black 41). This ties directly into how much each person is talking and controlling the situation. Black notes that, usually, Teachers talk more than their students, and they hold on to their speaking rightsby structuring the spoken text to create a powerful narrative (52). More often than not, the authority figure is in charge of the conversation and the student writer participates very little by contributing very few words. Black continues to say that the teacher, or in this case the consultant, control[s] not only talk about texts but the students written texts as well (53). I spent time counting how many words each of us said during the session. I did not count moments where I was reading aloud or where I could not understand the writers mumbling. However, even taking out the sections where I was reading the paper, I found that I spoke 1442 words compared to the writers 426. I was actually astounded to see such a huge difference, although I had already assumed that I had spoken at least twice as many words as the writer. This one-sided conversation problem probably began when I offered to read the writers paper out loud if he felt uncomfortable reading it himself. He instantly replied with an affirmative Alright and told me that I could read it. This placed control of his paper, and the entire session, in my hands. Like Black says, the authority figure can have control of the spoken portion of the session as well as the writers paper. I did not want to make him feel uncomfortable by forcing him to read it but I could have explained why I had asked him to read it. By doing this, the control could have been placed back in the hands of the writer and prevented much of the

League 10 imbalanced word count. Thinking back on what happened in the consultation, I dont recall the writer ever jotting down notes onto his own paper, but I do remember that I had once drawn an organizational connection on it. Again this demonstrates that I was in control and that the direction of the session was dictated (quite literally) by me. In this example it is clear that I am dominating the conversation.

[Sample 4]

In this sample I was attempting to summarize his paper and explain how to connect the different sources to each other using transitions and flow. I spend so much time trying to rephrase his ideas from the paper that I forget to ask for his initial beliefs about how to create flow. Talking about his knowledge on the subject of organization would have led to more discussion and more fruitful consulting. But this domination in conversation occurred in the entire session, not just in this one section. I wondered how the conversation could have become so one-sided. Black provides a possible answer: ask[ing] why a student chose a particular approach or a construction, not

League 11 simply rushing to point out that it doesnt follow standard English conventions or sometimes even the assignment, is far more instructive and opens up spaces for dialogue (118). I initially pointed out the need for paragraphs and separation between the various sources that he had chosen, as well as transition statements between these paragraphs. I did exactly what Black cautioned against: immediately noting that the writers paper was not formatted according to the standards I was used to. Perhaps if I had instead learned more about why he had formatted it the way he did, and why he felt it needed to be changed, I could have invited more conversation and a more productive dialogue. I found one instance where I had realized the need to change my method and attempted to change, only to be faced with a still short and uninformative reply.

[Sample 5]

In the above transcription excerpt I did ask, in lines 155-156, why he chose to do something, but all I receive is a short answer that did not explain his reasoning at all. I am unsure if continued attempts to elicit conversation would have been successful if, in this instance, he gave a very brief reply and waited for me to jump in before asking for my opinion when I instead utilized wait time, in line 159. Black thought that asking why would invite a deeper and more productive reply, but the writer appeared uncomfortable when asked to explain his thoughts. This could be due, again, to his passive attitude that contrasted with my own cultural upbringing and caused me to miss his more subtle attempts at communication. I was brought up with parents who encouraged me to be direct about my ideas and desires; if I wasnt vocal about what I wanted or how I understood something, I would never achieve anything or receive clarification. However, Johnson thinks quite the opposite of Black: questions can be bad and hinder writer

League 12 responses. As she says, the power within the structure of a question and the restrictions of its response can be inhibiting, which might help explain his reluctance to answer my questions (Johnson 36). He may have felt threatened and inadequate as I implied that he was making errors. Johnson adds that continued questioning can yield shorter and shorter replies, and that questions naturally elicit a one-word response, which is exactly what I tended to receive in this session (37). His reluctance to speak and contribute ideas may also be due to the fact that I possessed a role of authority. Its possible that in his eyes I was the equivalent of a teacher figure and that I should be the one completely in charge of the consultation. He may have felt uncomfortable interrupting me or contributing ideas because I occupied an authority role and because Asian cultural values can discourage expressions of opinion. As Black says, most people have no preparation to speak in such situations and feel that it is in their best interest not to participate an example of hegemonic controlTeachers reinterpret what students tell them, rephrase their words, select which ideas will be discussed and for how long (40, quoting Teun van Dijk). He may have been expecting me to act as a teacher and do all of the talking and make all of the decisions, which is exactly what I ended up doing. Other than the example in Sample 5, I did not ask for his reasoning; I kept returning to the idea that most essays are in paragraph form because thats how English writing works. This also led to me speaking much more because, by doing this, I did not open the floor for dialogue. However, I did try to find out his opinion on how to rearrange his information. I did this in lines 164-165 in Sample 6 below.

League 13

[Sample 6]

When I ask him for his opinion, he gives a very short reply and then does not continue, instead waiting for me to answer my own question by saying Um in line 168 and then pausing. He seemed to prefer my opinion more than his own. Black mentions information that might shed some light on this behavior: [there is] a Vietnamese cultural tradition that interferes with communication in conferences. In this tradition, children, even those who are over 18, are expected to remain silent, for only adults can express opinions (103, quoting Lisle and Mano 14). Even though I was close in age to him and he would probably not consider me an adult in any other areas except that I am legally an adult by being over 18, I still was an authority figure in a traditionally older adult role. This may have influenced his lack of expression and his preference that I speak for most of the session. Although I cannot definitely say what nationality he is, he may have been influenced by ideals similar to the Vietnamese tradition that Black discusses in the previously mentioned quote. Due to my lack of cultural awareness at the time of the consultation, I was unable to recognize this and respond to it properly. Instead, I continued to talk about my own ideas and felt encouraged by his continuous requests for my opinion. Another example below shows another request for my opinion in line 149:

League 14

[Sample 7]

Later in the session I gave a few ideas for how to transition, but failed to ask for his ideas first. This was near the end of our 45 minutes and at that point I felt it was too late to try to shift my approach, so I continued to lecture him on a way he could transition. This led to more one-sided conversation and a complete lack of discussion. 5. Conclusion and Reflections This transcription contained many examples of cultural clashes that inhibited communication, leading to my inability to help the writer understand my ideas and how to format his paper in a way that conformed to the accepted norms of English writing. I am unable to draw any conclusions about his heritage, as I did not deem it appropriate to be interrogating him on his heritage and life just because he was not the same race as me. I try to avoid stereotyping people by their race and nationality because I feel that it is intrusive and rude, as well as depersonalizing, and some people can become extremely offended by being categorized as other. However, it is a fact that he was of Asian descent and the behavior and qualities that he displayed could be related back to Asian traditions and values of silence, affirmations, and passivity along with general respect for authority figures. With his constant repetitions of okay, he may have been grasping many of the ideas I was explaining but I still felt unsure that I was effectively communicating them to him. His passive actions and unwillingness to speak led me to talk too much, completely dominate the conversation, and not inquire about his own

League 15 opinions and feelings about the paper. Analyzing these aspects of the transcript allowed me to catch a glimpse into the miscommunication that can occur between two people with different cultural values and expectations, and this has led me to be more aware of my tutoring style and how to treat every writer as a distinctive individual requiring my full attention and consideration. In the future, it would be useful to find out the background of all writers when establishing rapport, if they are willing to discuss it. Every session is unique, however, and some people would rather not be treated as different. Maybe it will just be enough to look out for cultural differences and behavior that is different from how I would act in a situation. In addition to finding out about the writer themselves, asking more about assignment requirements will help prevent miscommunications and problems with the expectations that I have for papers. Being direct about my intentions and strategies, like why we have writers read their papers aloud, might help me give writer more control over their paper and the session. Looking back on my description of my own directive cultural values reveals some irony in my approach to this session: being raised to be direct about what I want somehow did not translate into my work with the writer, because I never clearly specified what I wanted to receive in terms of conversational response. In The Tutoring Style Decision Tree: A Useful Heuristic for Tutors, it is recommended that if the writer needs to know something intersubjective that comes from knowledge the two of you create together such as how to organize a paper, it is best to take a collaborative approach to the consultation, which would force me to be clear about what I expect from the consultation and find out what the writer expects (Henning 6). In the future, this is an alternative that needs to be considered and implemented instead of one-sidedly dominating the conversation. Increasing wait time will give the writer time to respond to suggestions and questions that are raised in the session, which will decrease the un-proportional word count. And,

League 16 instead of asking multiple questions, Johnson suggests using imperative statements: the imperative sentence structure is the most productive strategy for a writing conference (39). The biggest challenge for me will be figuring out how to respond to passive individuals and engage them in the consultation. Activities that allow the writer to demonstrate learning and understanding are an option, and using all of the approaches mentioned above will help me to deal more effectively with difficult situations. In future consultations I hope to work towards these higher standards and use the knowledge that I have gained from this transcription to better my tutoring strategies.

League 17 Works Cited Black, Laurel Johnson. Between Talk and Teaching. Logan: Utah State University Press, 1998. Print. Henning, Teresa. The Tutoring Style Decision Tree: A Useful Heuristic for Tutors. The Writing Lab Newsletter 30.1 (2005). 5-7. Print. 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. Urbana: NCTE, 1993. 34-39. Print. Ryan, Leigh, and Lisa Zimmerelli. Inside the Tutoring Session. The Bedford Guide for Writing Tutors. 4th ed. Boston: Bedford/ St. Martins, 2006. 18-39. Print.