Avoiding the Shut Down

I chose to transcribe a session that student was working on a literacy narrative piece for ENC-
1101. He had already been graded on it and received several comments from the professor for
revision. The student told me he did not do too hot on it and brought it in to see what
improvements he could make. However, he soon revealed what seemed to be his true purpose for
our session; the professor offered extra points for a writing center visit. Though during the first
few minutes, the writer seemed interested in the session; he spoke a lot and had a thorough
description of the literacy narrative assignment. But somewhere along the way the writer shut
down and caused me to flounder as I struggled to get the writer to talk more. Though looking
back through my transcript, what I thought were attempts at engaging the writer were either me
asserting my opinions or interjecting and undercutting his input. The problem was the student
looked to me for the answers, but I looked to the student for answers. However, when the student
tried to engage I shut down his answers because they were not specifically the answers I was
looking for, and therefore, I took on an assertive approach. When the writer did engage he gave
limited answers, which I attributed his lack of input as misunderstanding the assignment.
However, my transcript revealed that it was not the students fault for lack of understanding but
my own. I struggled organizing my questions to ask the student which led me to read the students
paper and jump to grammatical rules to gain some type of ground with the student. My own
inability to help the student led me to flounder, and the student was left confused and
disheartened. My transcription focused on this floundering phase, about the middle of the
session, because I wanted to find out what caused the writer to shut down, and the alternative
routes of strategies that might keep me from making the same mistakes again.
The session began with the writer immediately proposed I read his paper and tell him
what I think. But instead, I worked in asking questions first so that I could get a better idea of his
paper. He struggled to answer some of the questions initially until I interjected then he took off
explaining what a literacy narrative was. He seemed grasped the concept well, but his execution
was poor. The writer again pushed the idea that I read the paper possibly because that is what he
thought his professor wanted. The student resisted the urge to discuss his own concerns with his
paper because he feared the negative evaluation Laurel Black points out in the text, Between
Talk and Teaching (41). The student resisted discussing his paper because he it felt unnatural
because the teacher usually select[ed] which ideas will be discussed and for how long (Black
40). The student viewed me as the teacher because the professor had allotted me that power by
sending the student to the writing center. This idea that I possessed the expertise and the answers
became apparent when I viewed my transcript. The student allowed me to guide much of the
session and used what Black calls backchannelinga forced agreement or support or often used
to acknowledge listening but not internalizing the idea (49).
77 D: Yeah Well.. uh why do you think theres one here?
78 W: Umm.. because its kind like the end of your thought? You know?
79 W: Or just like.. (2s)
80 D: Well, theres this rule its called basically after an introductory element
81 W: Ok.
82 D: Umm its actually one of the most common grammar errors
83 W: Ok.
84 D: because people think they dont need it. Is.. you know you say to this, then you say to
85 that but the real start of the sentence is there.. do you kind of see that? (2s)
86 D: Read this version part to me..
87 W: When I received my letter of acceptance from UCF.
88 D: Does that sound like a full sentence?
89 W: No.
90 D: No Theres also like basically like introducing what youre going to talk about..
91 W: Ok.
92 D: Do you see that?
93 D: So you co=
94 W: =So how could you get better at spotting those?
95 D: You can get better by I guess kind of like knowing that youre gonna put them like
96 W: I know.

In this section, I limited the writers input by establishing myself as a dominate figure
head by asking a Why question in line 77, which then leads the writer to believe and agree
with everything I tell him. According to Joann Johnson, the Why question seems to imply
error before an analysis had begun which then leaves the writer questioning himself in line 78,
and I further encourage the notion of my expertise over the student when I implied I know the
rules of commas when the students answer lacks (37). During this section, I used my knowledge
against the student. I made the writer feel inadequate because he I implied he was wrong and
instead of empowering him to answer. I shut down his input which left him to backchannel in
agreement with Ok. Though, I tried to encourage the writer that the comma error was common in
line 82, but I continued to shut down him down again in line 95 and miss an opportunity for
learning in line 94. The student asks a question but my answer implied that there is a knowledge
you must have in order to spot the commas which insinuated that the student does not have that
knowledge.
Imposing upon the student that I knew more than him, I managed to empower the writing
center as a storehouse of knowledge operat[ing] as information stations or storehouse,
prescribing and handing out skills and strategies to individual learners (Lunsford 4). The writer
was not able to offer his insight on his own rules for commas because I did not allot him the
opportunity. An alternative method I might have used was instead of opening with a Why
question I could have told him to tell me his rules on commas. Taking this approach, I would
have sparked a positive assertive role because asking his rules on commas simultaneously
implied the writer has some knowledge to explore and would have gave the student opportunity
to voice his opinion. A positive assertive role would have also enabled the student to find the
answers for themselves such as the case in line 94. Instead of shutting down the student, I might
have gave the writer a resource for comma usage and told him to find the answers. Doing so, I
might have empowered the writers abilities to find the answers and been able to form a
collaborative effort and worked away from the storehouse model that shuts down a students
chance at learning.
Later in the session, the writer began to tap into the knowledge of the writing center and
link it his understanding of the grammar rules with the ones I was explaining. His
backchanneling phrases changed from a simple Ok into Oh Ok or I gotcha. The writer seems to
be forming a trust that I was presenting him with correct information.
117 D: D.. Do you get that?
118 W: What theres two verbs?
119 D: Yeah like umm.. Like its basically saying the subject of one sentence is doing two
120 things and its just connected by the ands
121 W: Ok. So there.. Alright I feel yah
122 D: Yeah.
123 W: And then..
124 D: The verb there and a verb there.. Ok. Yeah those are just some common grammar
errors
125 W: And then..
126 W: So if there was like uh verb here we wouldnt have to do that..
127 D: Well its just you have another subject.. Like you can actually
128 W: Oh ok.
129 D: Like if you said It was one of the most rewarding days of my life and.. actually
130 W: Oh ok
131 D: this is because theres two different subjects.
132 W: Oh ok I gotcha. And then this one is just relating the working and the studying..
133 D: Working hard and studying..
134 W: Ok I gotcha.
135 D: Ok. Yeah, yeah its just beca=
136 W: Mhm.
137 D: =use you make that mistake
138 D: a couple of times BUT since your professor different didnt
139 W: Yeah.
140 D: pick up on it probably not too critical on grammar
141 W: Yeah.
142 D: so then we could go back to the looking at the
143 W: Yeah.
144 D: Basically what he wants you to talk about
145 W: Mhm.

However soon after I form this trust, I break from it to jump back into the paper and try to
establish some higher order concerns of the papers main focus. I reverted to the papers main
focus so I do not get caught just proofreading a students paper instead of focusing on the
purpose of the writing center, learning. However, Richard Leahy argues in What College Writing
Center Isand Isnt that checking for grammar can be a learning opportunity as long as the tutor
can teach his students to proofread (45). But my previous conceptions of the writers purpose
for being there, to just get his paper proofread so he can earn extra points, interfered with a
learning opportunity. After line 138, the writers comments turn from a oh ok I gotcha into a
simple yeah and he develops an annoyed tone. The problem here was that I ignored the
writers concerns to pursue my own agenda for the paper which was to focus on higher order
concerns, and I ignored the writers attempt at questioning. In line 126, the writer began to
engage in the text but again my assertive power drew away from his engagement leading him
further away from his concerns. The writer grew impatient or frustrated because he was actually
grasping some of the grammatical concepts and turning back to higher order concerns meant
more headaches for him.
Looking back in the session when going over higher order concerns, the transcript
revealed I interrupted the students thought process several times. In section below, I interrupted
the student in lines 36, 39, and 48. Instead however, I should have taken the opportunity here to
listen to the student and make use of wait-time. By cutting off the writers thinking, I prevented
them to fully articulate his thoughts and inhibited the writer from learning. Joann Johnson
describes wait-time as giving students enough time to respond is an important part of teaching,
and we should stretch that time as much as we can in order to give our students opportunity to
think (38). Looking over my transcript, I realized why I cut off my students answers and
thinking. Several instances my transcript show what I thought was the writers inability to
answer when in fact it the problem was my inability to articulate the right questions and
understand the writers answers.
The reason I kept interrupting the student is because I was seeking a certain answer; I
wanted the writer to understand the writing assignment just as I did. I neglected to give the writer
his own space to figure things out by imposing my own assertive demeanor over him.
21 D: Like its uh.. how you could expand upon that do just enough just to get by
mentality?
22 W: Umm.. (3s) How could I.. I dont maybe like uh.. going into high school made me a
23 little like (5s) wel- maybe I dont know less achieving and I wasnt an overachiever
24 because I was.. used to just doing the bare minimum that I had to get by and wasnt
25 interested in it and Id just do it to get it done. You know?
26 D: Mhm.
27 W: So you think I (2s)
28 D: Ok. And you talked about it, you know, it didnt want you to
29 overachieve or anything.. So that kind of like changed your aspects.. on on literacy
30 W: Mhm.
31 D: You went from enjoying it, reading about superheroes to this.. Gosh it would just be
32 over kind of thing.
33 W: So you think I should expand on this part?
34 D: Yeah like.. I mean..
35 W: I mean what should I expand it to say like
36 D: Well thats up to you, its your literacy
37 W: Yeah I know
38 like.. I dont know what do you think? Like uh (3s) I dont know..
39 D: How do you think in the
40 greater scheme of things this would be bad? (3s) Like you never, you never want to read
41 just to umm learn, you just want to read just
42 W: Yeah.
43 D: --To pass basically. (2s)
44 W: So I mean (2s) pretty much like sums it up like youre saying though. (3s)
45 D: Alright Umm=
46 W: =I dont get what
47 youre saying
48 D: Ok. Umm. (4s) tst tst tst[I mutter something, reading his paper] (4s) Alright, lets
move on.

In line 29, I start manipulating the writer into writing the paper for him. I told him what
aspects of his life changed his literacy without him coming to those conclusions himself.
Though, I picked up on this in line 36 reminding the writer it is his paper and that I am just there
to help; I did so with further interruption. I continued to try to get the wrier to come to my
understanding, but my attempts were futile. I attributed his lack of understanding to a lack of
knowledge but it was from his in ability to understand my revisions strategies. Black mentioned
this saying it was clear to me she didnt understand the revision strategies I had suggested,
didnt understand where the point of my asking these questions, didnt understand where I
thought I was leading her (122). Line 46 proved that the writer did not know what I was trying
to do and in frustration, I decided to turn back to reading the paper to search for something to get
the writer to understand. However, I wonder had I taken a step back I might have drawn out the
writers understanding. In line 35, the writer attempted to ask what he should expand upon and
once again I shut him down with interruption. I switched from a primarily assertive role into a
non-assertive role by trying to give the writer power, yet it is clear in line 37 that writer and I
were on not in the same mindset. The problem here is up until that point the writer and I had not
formed an agenda or a rapport with each other. I had not taken the time to consider the writers
concerns with the paper, so the only thing we had to go on were the professors comments left on
the paper after grading it. Without a proper agenda set and not considering the writers concerns,
I had set my own agenda for the paper; essentially, I tried to get the writer to understand what I
knew instead of working collaboratively to figure it out. I assumed that I understood the
assignment more than the student did which confirmed the before mentioned storehouse model
of the Writing Center from Lunsford. The student looked to me as the expert and accepted when
I shut down his attempts at engagement; therefore, the writer was left confused in line 46-47 and
because I was setting my own agenda I had not stopped to figure out why the writer did not get
it. I figured it was the writers fault not my own.
Looking later on in my transcript, I noticed that the writer begins to form ideas about
what he should writer about, and he starts to come to the conclusion of the types of things he
should expand on as mentioned in line 33 of the previous transcript section.
233 W: So what would I do to make this paper better?
234 D: Yeah.
235 W: I mean I guess I have to expand upon superheroes and FCAT..
236 D: (Slight interjection but I stop when writer continues to talk)
237 W: Talk about how.. I guess the superheroes I guess like you said make the FCAT seem
238 like more of a villain, story, stuff like that
239 D: Alright=
240 W: I dont know.
241 D: =Alright so you have the FCAT as a villain, how could you make him or that a
villain?

During this section, the writer began to form his own ideas. In line 236, I tried to interject
but when the writer continued to talk I kept quiet. But the writer drew a blank in line 240. He
looked to me again for advice and instead of interjecting or interrupting with my opinion I asked
him for his. The writer and I began to work collaboratively instead of trying to assert ourselves
over each other. Though it took a while in the session, the writer began to take a more active role
in forming his own ideas and learning was going on. Black mentions how much will [the writer]
remember when [he] has played so passive a role? which during the session the writer played
such a passive role (53). I lost focus of the purpose of the consultation, to get the writer to learn
something. The writers frequent use of I dont know, seen in line 240 as well as other parts of
the transcript, either showed the he lacked the knowledge or does not understand the answer I
wanted him to. The frustrations from this led me to feel defeated because I was not able to help
the student. Feeling unable to do anything, I jumped to reading the text and fixing grammar
errors because I felt if I could not teach the student anything they would leave at least
accomplishing something; however, even in these moments my help was limited. The session
was disorganized because I had not set an agenda so I jumped from one topic to another hoping
the student could keep up often jumbling together my questions leaving the writer confused.
154 D: So. How do you, how do you think you know you think you can one thing change to
155 another to another to another and basically how all these things got you to where you are
today?
156 W: (2s) Say that again.
157 D: Sorry, yeah its a lot to take in alright. How do you think like here I.. Ill underline this
158 you talked about how I was focused more on school, girls, and friends how do you think
159 you might have used literacy and incorporating these aspects to making you enjoy
160 literacy more. Like if somebody.. you know write a paper on your best friends
161 W: Ok.
162 D: You know what that be a lot different than preparing for the FCAT? Like correct this
163 paper that makes no sense.
167 W: Mhm. So what do you mean like.. if I was writing papers on my friends would I have
168 enjoyed it more?
169 D: Yeah.
170 W: (2s) I mean yeah.
187 D: So thinking about those two ideas um ideas how do you think you could.. use thinking
188 about those.. Well I wanna word this correctly how do you think you could use those to
189 make your writing better? Well not better but.. What do you enjoy about writing? Let me
ask you that.
190 W: (2s) I dont really like writing.
191 D: You dont really like writing. Why dont you like it?
192 W: Cause Im not really good at it.
193 D: Well what do you think makes good writing?
194 W: What makes a good writer?
195 D: Yeah.
196 W: Umm... someone that can um get all their thoughts I guess down on a paper and that
197 makes it sound good and stuff like that.
198 D: Ok=
199 W:=I dont know.

In lines 154-155, my question was jumbled together and lack coherence, and in line 157,
I even blamed the writers understanding for not getting it but it was me that was at fault. Later
on in lines 188-189, I realized that I was not effectively communicating my questions so I
immediately drop my first question and asked, What do you enjoy about writing? to which the
writer responded negatively because I had asked the accusatory Why question. Johnson
pointed out that why is often associated with doing something wrong; therefore, the writer felt
like I was accusing him of being a bad writer and even worse the writer himself said in line 192
that he was not very good at writing. After analyzing my transcript, I realized the writers
concerns were that he felt he was unable to write a good paper himself because at the beginning
of the session he stated about his writing that I didnt do too hot on it that coupled with the
professors suggestion for a writing center visit, my assertive behavior, and the writers self-
doubt impaired his confidence in his writing which allowed me to be assertive because he look to
me as the expert, someone with the answers.
Instead of tackling the writers underlining self-doubt, I managed to confuse and
dishearten the writer further by shutting him down at any chance at engagement because I
asserted my dominance as the expert and the student understanding I was the teacher, let me.
Without a transcript analysis, I had thought I gave the student plenty of opportunities to engage
his writings. But the accusatory why questions coupled with the students perceived
conception that I was a storehouse of knowledge limited his confidence to interject. Even when
the writer attempted, I shut him down either by interrupting him or switching topics. This lead
the writer to be lost through the session, and the feeling became mutual as I struggled to
articulate the right questions to ask the student. The writer and I became confused, frustrated, and
lost because we had not founded an agenda. Had we talked initially about what the writer wanted
out of the session, what the professor wanted, or consulted the rubric, we could have formed
some type of plan to lead the session. During the first 15 minutes, the writer and I engaged in
productive conversation figuring out the assignment; however, we did not meet the writers
concerns nor established exactly what his professor wanted. Later in the session, I found out the
writer had access to the rubric via Webcourses. Had I asked the writer initially if he had a rubric
the session might have been able to develop an agenda earlier on; however, it is normally my
pattern as a tutor to talk to the writer first instead of immediately turning to the rubric because it
gives me the opportunity to find out what the writer knows and the ideas they have internalized.
Though from my analysis my routine for delaying looking at the rubric might not always work.
Therefore, the transcript has taught me I must constantly reevaluate myself as a tutor because I
grew to comfortable with the entire process.

Works Cited
Black, Laurel Johnson. Between Talk and Teaching. Logan, UT: Utah State UP, 1998. 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.
Leahy, Richard. What the College Writing Center Isand Isnt. College Teaching. 38.2: 43-
48. Print.
Lunsford, Andrea. Collaboration, Control, and the Idea of a Writing Center. The Writing
Center Journal 12.1 (1991): 3-10. Print.
Urbana: NCTE, 1993. 34-39. Print.